Pelosi Jet Request Sparks Debate

(CBS News) WASHINGTON Ever since 9/11, a small military jet has been made available to transport the Speaker of the House for security reasons, CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports. The Speaker is second in the line of succession to the presidency.

Before the 2006 elections, the speaker was Republican Dennis Hastert of Illinois. Now it's California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, and she may be getting some more leg room. Pelosi reportedly is asking for a much bigger jet â?? a government version of the Boeing 757 that can make the trip between Washington and her San Francisco home without stopping to refuel.

The speaker's critics have dubbed it "Pelosi One." Military officials are said to be grumbling about it, and she finds herself on the defensive. Today, she insisted that size doesn't really matter.
cbs4denver.com - Pelosi Jet Request Sparks Debate

:S2: I don't really put much faith into the word of politicians.....especially democrat politicians.....BUT when a WOMAN, DEMOCRAT POLITICIAN is saying "Size don't matter". GET REAL!!!

Have a good one!:s4:

it's not size it's GIRTH!

I herd she got shot down.......

that didnt sound right....

i herd they said no to her request....

It makes her look bad. If you're a public servant, act like a public servant.

This one makes me laugh a bit. The right is saying she wants a palatial jet and making this an issue of Pelosi's power-hunger. But if you read the various stories and facts about this issue, she and her staff have explained that she simply wants transport that can fly her home to her district in California without having to restop for refueling. Hastert's home district was Illinois, which was reachable non-stop from D.C. in a smaller plane. Bush has stressed security to the top leaders in Congress and the Senate, considering where they fall in the line of succession if anything happens to him and that they're key targets of the crazies, too. He has even agreed that the non-stop issue is an important one for the speaker.

Read the real facts on this. Not just the anti-Pelosi propaganda. If you know anything about cross-country aviation, you know that it takes a fairly big plane to make that trip nonstop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

This one makes me laugh a bit. The right is saying she wants a palatial jet and making this an issue of Pelosi's power-hunger. But if you read the various stories and facts about this issue, she and her staff have explained that she simply wants transport that can fly her home to her district in California without having to restop for refueling. Hastert's home district was Illinois, which was reachable non-stop from D.C. in a smaller plane. Bush has stressed security to the top leaders in Congress and the Senate, considering where they fall in the line of succession if anything happens to him and that they're key targets of the crazies, too. He has even agreed that the non-stop issue is an important one for the speaker.

Read the real facts on this. Not just the anti-Pelosi propaganda. If you know anything about cross-country aviation, you know that it takes a fairly big plane to make that trip nonstop.

---

That said, she can afford to have a quick refueling or save the tax payers some money and work from Washington, DC. I wonder how much each trip costs with a private pilot, jet fuel, and administrative costs. Government officials should be a bastion of frugality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

Read the real facts on this. Not just the anti-Pelosi propaganda. If you know anything about cross-country aviation, you know that it takes a fairly big plane to make that trip nonstop.

---

I don't buy this hazardous situation because she has to make a fuel stop. Her new plane would have a permanent 16 member staff, 43 luxury seats and a sleeping area. She's the Speaker, not the President.......

Tax and spend........when they raise up our taxes, thank the fine people putting YOUR tax dollars towards their own luxuries.

The woman who five months ago said, â??Democrats are committed to a new direction in the way our government does business so taxpayersâ?? money is handled responsibly,â?�:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatrickHenry

That said, she can afford to have a quick refueling or save the tax payers some money and work from Washington, DC. I wonder how much each trip costs with a private pilot, jet fuel, and administrative costs. Government officials should be a bastion of frugality.

---

I heard that this lil' plane would cost US taxpayers an additional $300,000 per year just to make it so ol' girl doesn't have to make a refuel stop.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

I heard that this lil' plane would cost US taxpayers an additional $300,000 per year just to make it so ol' girl doesn't have to make a refuel stop.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

That bald eagle and the American flag cracks me up. :D Don't get me wrong I'm not a conservative looking to trash the lady, I just don't think we should be paying that much for a politician's domestic airplane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

....The woman who five months ago said, â??Democrats are committed to a new direction in the way our government does business so taxpayersâ?? money is handled responsibly,â?�:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

---

that new direction is straight into democrat pockets instead of republican pockets, so technically it wasn't a lie:S2:

love the bela pelosi bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

that new direction is straight into democrat pockets instead of republican pockets, so technically it wasn't a lie:S2:

love the bela pelosi bit

---

But the Republican Speaker of the House didn't need that big of a plane. In the end, their all politicians.......that should pretty much say it all.

Have a good one!:s4:

I say make them all fly on commercial airliners. I think most of the British Parliament does. Save some tax money from not having all the maintenance and fuel costs. Maybe give them there own personal air marshal for protection if its needed.

Or maybe instead of handing over free money to Amtrak we can buy our politicians some train tickets and boost the economy at the same time :D

Yeah Zim fly them first class...

sounds reasonable to me....give them some protection and stick them on the red eye......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong30

Yeah Zim fly them first class...

sounds reasonable to me....give them some protection and stick them on the red eye......

---

make the suckers fly coach with the rest of the rabble.

Come on she is the speaker of the house.....

business class....LOL

uhh this is all because...she wants to...not stop once?
if they took that c-33 or whatever you can guarantee they gotta pimp it out with a bed and a bar and etc etc etc...pimped out seats just so one bitch can fly and not stop once..this kinda angers me

sounds retarded..no care...smear campaigns

I'm willing to compromise; BUSINESS CLASS! That's it, my final offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatrickHenry

I'm willing to compromise; BUSINESS CLASS! That's it, my final offer.

---

JUST for her.......her family pays their own way!

DAMN Patrick.......we agree???? :S2:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatrickHenry

I'm willing to compromise; BUSINESS CLASS! That's it, my final offer.

---

if you're going to throw down the gauntlet like that, we'll just make the damn bitch walk.

Well, it looks like she's not getting her plane after all. And I definitely agree that politicians and government should be a bastion of frugality. That's one of my concerns with this war spending--and with pork-barrel politics (which, I hasten to add, Hastert was one of the kings of). Hastert was allowed to fly nonstop for security reasons, but he had a closer district that a smaller plane could accommodate. I also know the non-stop request is based on legitimate security concerns. Bush and Cheney and even the Senate majority leader fly non-stop to their destinations, and Pelosi's now second in the chain of succession after Cheney. Seems fair that she should, too. The first lady has the same non-stop fully outfitted large planes, too, and she's not an elected government official. Secretary Rice has the same, and in the succession order, she's not as high as Pelosi, although she does require international transport.

That addition $300K cost is largely in fuel. The 757s are way expensive to fuel for those huge cross-country or international trips. And as far as it being loaded and staffed, that's actually no different from how the planes are for the other government officials (and the first lady) at Pelosi's level and the levels above and below. They have state rooms, staffs, security setups, conference rooms, etc. That's looked at as part of the cost of doing business, a lof of which those folks do in the air.

It's all moot anyway. They're turned her down at the Pentagon. But she's right that part of this is about her objection to the war and, too, probably is being made a bigger issue because she's a women. She has a lot of enemies in D.C. and at the Pentagon. I daresay no one would have made as big an issue of this if she were a guy--or if, say, Dennis Hastert were still there and relocated to California and needed secure transport there. Just a hunch.

For the record, I'm a Democrat but not a Pelosi fan at all. I don't find her to be particularly insightful or, from what I've read, likeable. And I think they all ought to fly commercial, frankly. They serve the people? They oughta travel like us, too.

Wish y'all could have been with me during my speechwriting years when I traveled all over the world with the execs I wrote for. Lavish spending in big-bidness travel would have made your jaws drop. It always did mine. But man, they traveled in style. (I was pretty much like a nice-looking, articulate servant tagging along for the ride, so I always felt like I was on the outside looking in at that lifestyle, but they were some fine-feathered jet planes).

Aw, Bird, that wasn't anti-woman stuff. That was about bottom line business, if you ask me. Dollars and sense, baby. (Don't cut me off.)

Cut you off? is her heart ready to "cut you on"? .....LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

Aw, Bird, that wasn't anti-woman stuff. That was about bottom line business, if you ask me. Dollars and sense, baby.

---

Comes a time when a man just has to put his foot down!!!:S2:

Hey, we're all behind ya here Dave.........maybe WAY behind ya but we're there.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

I heard that this lil' plane would cost US taxpayers an additional $300,000 per year just to make it so ol' girl doesn't have to make a refuel stop.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

And already on top of that $177 million a day in Iraq, we wouldn't want to have to spend anymore unnecessary taxpayers dollars for something that's not going to help us with anything besides getting rid of more valuable monies.

Dont forget about that 2.9billion missing from the pentagon right b4 9-11 and the 8billion missing from iraq...but oooh no let talk about democraps plane, hope they dont go flying pages around like the repubes

My 2 cents. Bush and Cheney can fly all over doing PR work for the republicans, fund raisers and campaigning on 747s and no-one bitches, let one fucking Democrat ask for a coast to coast plane and everyone goes Haywire. I think that is a little skewed. She already said she'd just as soon fly commercial, it was the sargeant of arms of the house that insisted she have her own plane, this is just political bullshit!