Pushback

Tony Snow actually criticized the story, saying it's much ado about nothing. So, no, the Bush people didn't do anything.

But it is ironic to see a Dem believe that refueling at an Air Force Base is, somehow, a risk to her security.
-=Mike

Love the blog but must disagree here. Being closest to the people should be the reason Madam Speaker takes commercial. A member of congress holds great responsibility, however private aircraft is a luxury not a need. If it is represented as need for security, one must ask is Prince Charles not a target who recently flew commercial to accept a reward on global warming? Which by coincidence Madam Speaker testified today.

This issue is definitely not a dollar and cents issue but merely principle. We elect our official to represent the populace, but when was the last time the 3rd shift line manager at the local factory flew charter? I would guess the better question would be when was the last time he flew.

Good post Terry.

I would be curious to see you also address how the traditional media worked to enable yet another ridiculous right-wing smear.

It's a good start, Terry. But how long til your brother shows up and makes trouble?

You'll lose your job over posts about the Edwards blogger. It's just a matter of time.

Pelosi says:

"I'm happy to go commercial. But they want me to go on this plane, so the issue was distance, not size. And again, it's not about having a plane. It's about having transportation... But there are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard. But it has nothing to do, as I say, with the president of the United States. He has encouraged my having the security I need."

Is it a good thing for the DoD to make a pseudo-scandal out of secure transportation for the third-in-line? I would say not.

Is it a good thing for ABC "journalists" to do breathless stories on pseudo-scandals ginned up by their brother's right-wing blog, and not bother to contact the smearee for a response, nor print one? I would say not.

Have you noticed, Terry, that you are only reporting on Democratic "scandals" lately? What's that all about?

Terry,once again this is an issue of integrity and ethics. Mrs. Pelosi is the speaker and deserves protection and security. She is an important and high level official in our government. However, she talked about fraud, waste, and abuse. She also talked about change. She should have refused such an extravegant aircraft and taken the smaller cheaper aircraft, that by the way, will be refueled on a military installation. She made a mistake because people will be looking at her through a microscope. Mrs. Pelosi needs to be accountable, take the smaller jet, and keep things right and in good order.
Secondly Terry, sometimes you make me so sick. Just because the war is expensive, and money is missing, and the capitol visitor's center is over budget, does not mean that this is a free for all. Mrs. Pelosi is accountable for her actions as are all other members of Congress, the Senate, the Military, or the Government. They must all be good stewrads of the tax payer dollar. Mrs. Pelosi must use prudent judgement and act with the highest integrity. In other words, get a smaller plane, pay for your friends rides, and let your co-workers get their own ride.

"Being closest to the people should be the reason Madam Speaker takes commercial."

Good point. Maybe if Republicans would fly commercial instead of taking private jets around all the time, they'd be more in tune with the American people.

And wouldn't get their hinies handed to them on election day.

Come to think of it, flying coach would probably do a world of good to President Bush. Maybe he could get a earful about how people really feel about his lame duck policies.

Shorter Adrian Reyes: "It's OK if you are a Republican"

Yes, Speaker Pelosi is guilty of wanting to fly non-stop to and from her district, just like Speaker Hastert did... so toss her in the water and see if she floats. Sheesh.

Hello the Other Steve, yes I am a Republican and consider myself a Reagan Conservative. I say all of them should fly commercial and pay for anyone that want's to come along. Notice, I said everyone. This is not an issue of Republican or Democract but of doing the right thing. I'm glad the Republicans got their tails handed to them. They were not doing their jobs. So, don't confuse the point, I believe that Mrs. Pelosi should not have taken that jet.

P.S. the President flies on Air Force One for his security. He is no lame duck. Again, stay on track and realize that this whole airplane flap is over Mrs. Pelosi making the right descision and being accountable like she talked about.

Hello Biff, Speaker Hastert was given permission by the government to take a much smaller, and much cheaper plane. He did so because of security concerns. This is not a whitch hunt but a leadership challenge. It is Mrs. Pelosi's platform to stop fraud, waste, and abuse. She talked about this before she was speaker of the house. Her behavior in this matter is incongruent with her words. As a leader in our government, and second in line to the Presidency, she must have the highest ethical standards and must have the upmost integrity. These are values that she spoke of before she became the Speaker of the house. Once again, if she would have gone with a smaller aircraft, this would be a non-issue. However, she chose the larger, more expensive aircraft. As a leader, she must be true to her word and she will gain and earn much more respect from all sides.

Let's not forget, Nancy Pelosi did not make the airplane request herself, the House Sergeant at Arms did so for her (he has been in that position for 11 years, serving both Democrats and Republicans).

And Biff – do you understand the meaning of the political term "Lame Duck"?

This is a story about a non-event that's hyped up everywhere. Don't congressmen have more important issues to work on than this? Are news people so easily manipulated?

Pelosi had choices of smaller, less expensive, less polluting aircraft.

She didn't want them.

Again, don't campaign on a promise to return discipline to Washington and fail to deliver. Don't promise to clean up corruption and utterly fail to deliver (nice of Murtha to subtly threaten Pentagon funding over this).

The Dems are expects to honor their promises. I'd like to believe their supporters would be first in line to demand it.

I'd be wrong, apparently.

Apparently, everything the GOP did was wrong and needed to change --- but that the Dems do the same thing is just peachy.
-=Mike

Yo Mike and Adrian. Wrong.

Pelosi originally requested to fly commercial, the sergeant-at-arms wanted her to fly military, but the military wanted to continue to use the short-hop plane that Hastert had used to go from DC-Ill. Pelosi said she'd choose commercial non-stop over making extra stops on a military plane, the sergeant-at-arms then requested a plane capable of the DC-SF flight.

Exactly where did Pelosi do something wrong? Should she fly commercial? Absolutely, drop the whole damn thing. But if we're going to bring security into this, get her an airplane that won't inconvenience her more than commercial flights would. Hell, get her a gulfstream IV, if we can subcontract those out to take suspected terrorists to Syria, we can get one for the damn speaker of the house to get to her home district.

You know, I just realized. If Pelosi was a Republican, there'd be a solution for this.

Duke Cunningham would just have her flown on his buddies personal jet. If he was really creative with the earmarks, we'd probably buying a 747 for the guy with our tax dollars.

Hello Crusty Dem, Mike and Adrian Right.

Once again, the issue is not that she is authorized a jet or authorized to fly commercial. The issue is that she is on a platform of truth, and justice. It was unethical of her to choose the 46 seat, 16 crew, 100,000 dollar an hour aircraft over the smaller aircraft. It doesn't bother me so much that she chose that particular aircraft, what bothers me is that she comes off saying one thing and does another. In other words...hypocracy.

Isn't the issue really the war? You can stop the war without the congress America.

Just stop shopping.

"Isn't the issue really the war?"

Throw a jumbo perk in front of her, and Pelosi all-of-a-sudden discovers the threat of radical Islam.

Not that Al Queda would ever target Pelosi directly. They need her around to sign off on the surrender.

That being said, I think its a good idea to give #3 an "Air Force Three". Its just too bad the first passenger is a hypocritical appeasement weasel. And that she'll treat it as Pac Air.

Adrian Reyes,

First, Pelosi didn't 'choose' anything here--I'd encourage you to learn the facts before you spew your talking points. As I said originally, all she wanted was a plane that was capable of making a non-stop flight to and from her district, just as Hastert had--however, she's in California, hence the need for a different plane.

Second, there are legitimate security concerns here, the same ones that were raised for Speaker Hastert post-9/11. Now you may not know about the Presidential line of seccession, but suffice it to say that Pelosi is in it--in fact, she's #2 on the list, right after Dick Cheney--hence the need for the military aircraft.

There's simply no story here, past the fake spin that you've been parroting--so own up to it, or keep digging.

Doesn't all this bickering just make us look weak? I can only imagine what our enemies think of all of this.

I just discovered your blog today and only wanted to comment on the overall quality: excellent. Great writing and good information. What a pleasing discovery!

"As I said originally, all she wanted was a plane that was capable of making a non-stop flight to and from her district, just as Hastert had--however, she's in California, hence the need for a different plane."

Cute. minimize and distort. She "needs" a plane large enough to ferry her to CA without stopping to refuel - thats why the aircraft Hastert has wasn't good enough for her. She also "needs" a plane with all the bells & whistles, creature comforts to entertain lobbyists with.

I agree that the Speaker should have an "Air Force 3" for security reasons. But Pelosi is demanding a Lexus, when a Ford will do.

what security concerns was she talking about? she is more than welcome to fly commercial, and there are plenty of direct flights between DC and SF. Re-fuling poses a security threat???? come on, speaker... you just want to reach home a little faster, by spending more tax money...

Terry, where do you get your information that the White House "leaked" this story. Either a) give us a name b) tell us your source was on Deep Background, which will make us wonder if he really exits or c) admit your liberal media bias got the best of you.