Dems already puting a halt to government waste!

NeBlis · #1 02-07-2007, 11:40 PM

LMAO.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...s/16633029.htm

Clif Notes : Nancy Pelosi needs an
even bigger more expensive plane than her predecessor.

"this is about security, not about convenience." sooooooooo domestic flights aren't safe? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] What are you trying to say?

Some sources report that each leg of this flight costs around $300,000. I did a quick search at travelocity that's the price of around 468 round trip tickets on American Airlines. I think we could save a bit of money here by simply buying every freakin seat on the plane everytime she flys.

NeBlis

4 High · #2 02-07-2007, 11:48 PM

At least dig a little before posting this garbage.

1)The House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft. House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, who has served in his position since 1995, released a statement today clarifying the facts. He writes, In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001. Additionally, Livingood writes, I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines (which governed Speaker Hastert's use of a plane.)

2) A larger plane was requested because Hastert's plane required refueling to travel cross-country. The Washington Times says a larger plane was requested to accomodate Pelosi, her staff, other Members and supporters. That's not true. In fact, the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. The Air Force determined that [Pelosi's] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast, a Pelosi spokesperson said.

http://www.hoffmania.com/blog/2007/0...n_stop_ru.html

Not to mention the plane is barley larger then the one Hastert had.

peritonlogon · #3 02-07-2007, 11:51 PM

I don't believe I wasted 2 minutes of my life reading that article.

It was neither interesting nor was the event in question any type of waste, scandal or stupidity. It seems like the only event was someone from Pelosi's office inquiring into the rules for who can fly. As in "we don't want to break any rules, what are they?"

Exactly what you'd expect from a responsible person who has just got to power.

bisonbison · #4 02-08-2007, 12:21 AM

This story is a giant right-wing circlejerk. 4 high already explained all the perfectly reasonable reasons why Pelosi would need a bigger plane to maintain the same perk Hastert had.

But as long as it distracts from Iraq, go talk radio go!

NeBlis · #5 02-08-2007, 12:26 AM

COME ON !!! Hastert's plane was a ridiculos waste also.

and last time I checked this plane

flys non stop to CA just fine.

NeBlis

iron81 · #6 02-08-2007, 01:00 AM

I wanted to double check BB's "right wing circle jerk" allegation, so I went to FoxNews.com. Sure enough, this story is their #2 story. Carry on.

JackWhite · #7 02-08-2007, 01:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to double check BB's "right wing circle jerk" allegation, so I went to FoxNews.com. Sure enough, this story is their #2 story. Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you failed to mention is that the story carried by Fox gives Pelosi's arguments very fairly. Except for an attack by a partisan Republican, the whole story is her side. It includes the info about the House Sargeant at Arms mentioned previously.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250781,00.html

peritonlogon · #8 02-08-2007, 01:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to double check BB's "right wing circle jerk" allegation, so I went to FoxNews.com. Sure enough, this story is their #2 story. Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you failed to mention is that the story carried by Fox gives Pelosi's arguments very fairly. Except for an attack by a partisan Republican, the whole story is her side. It includes the info about the House Sargeant at Arms mentioned previously.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250781,00.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude "story is her side"? This is another instance of there really being no story at all and not controversy either, just stupid allegations that don't really make sense, so the fact that the other "side" was given any air time is probably more than "it" deserves.

RR · #9 02-08-2007, 01:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Dude "story is her side"? This is another instance of there really being no story at all and not controversy either, just stupid allegations that don't really make sense, so the fact that the other "side" was given any air time is probably more than "it" deserves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there should be a side that says "The Speaker of the House doesn't need her own plane to fly around in." The guy before her didn't need one either, but that doesn't change that she is wasting tax payers' money by not declining to use the plane.

JackWhite · #10 02-08-2007, 02:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Dude "story is her side"? This is another instance of there really being no story at all and not controversy either, just stupid allegations that don't really make sense, so the fact that the other "side" was given any air time is probably more than "it" deserves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iron said that Fox news featured this as the #2 story on their web page to confirm the previous poster's claim that this is nothing but a right-wing anti-Pelosi circle jerk.

I think it was worth pointing out that the story was not an anti-Pelosi attack. As I said, it presented the facts and allowed Pelosi to set the record straight. If Pelosi read that article, I am guessing she would be happy with it. Just because it is on Fox, it doesn't mean that it is a conservative hatchet job.

If you think Pelosi is getting bad coverage, go back and read what they printed and said about Gingrich in 1994-95. He would be lucky if this type of story was the worst thing about him in the media.