As somebody who may have been slightly premature in posting a sarcastic comment about Speaker Pelosi, I will say that I was really impressed by the way she handled herself in responding to the questions surrounding the larger Air Force jet.

She even went so far as to say that she wouldn’t have a problem with flying commercial if she could not be furnished a plane capable of making non-stop flights to her district. I’m just glad to know the whole truth of the matter.

Speaker Pelosi once again proved that she’s a class act, and I proved that you shouldn’t be so hasty to judge a scenario such as this without waiting for a statement from the The House Sergeant at Arms.

Posted by Johnny Camacho on 9 February 02007 @ 2am

This whole story is being promoted by the Washington Times, fresh off their attempt to smear Barack Obama (Didn’t you know he went to terrorist school? He didn’t, but that doesn’t stop the Washington Times reporting it.). This paper is owned by the Moonies, whose leader was crowned “King” and “True Father” of America by Republican congressmen in the basement of a congressional building. Their Managing Editor is an avowed White Supremacist. The fact that other media outlets continue to treat stories foisted upon the public by this snot rag as anything but propaganda undermines the viability of the 4th estate. Disgusting.

Posted by Josh on 9 February 02007 @ 7am

Give her a freakin’ plane that can fly non-stop. It’s not a big deal. But to assert that “security concerns that come from making a refueling landing” is the driving force here is ludicrous. Exactly what security concerns are there at Whiteman AFB in Missouri where we keep the bulk of the B-2s?

Posted by Judge Smails on 9 February 02007 @ 8am

The House Sergeant at Arms works under the authority of Speaker Pelosi.

I don’t have a problem with giving her a plane. I don’t have a problem with giving her a plane that can fly non-stop. I do have a problem with giving her a plane that can fly non-stop and seat over 50 people. If the only plan in the inventory that flys non-stop is that 757, I have a problem with that.

Give her the same plane that Hastert had. And, let her refuel at Whitman A.F.B.

Posted by Rowhey on 9 February 02007 @ 12pm

Gosh guys, I am surprised that you all are so flippant about this. Don’t you know where she is in the line for succession of the Presidency?

Do you think keeping her safe is important in case the P. and V.P. get taken out?

I would say it should be if we want to insure stable continuation of the operations of the Federal Government in the case of disaster.

What if Whitman get’s nuked?

Far fetched but so was the idea of the twin towers being knocked down.

And anyway, how come Cheney gets to fly around in the huge planes to go fly fishing and hunting? And he demands, DEMANDS, absolute secrecy concerning his movements.

We can’t even find out who works in his office.

Talk about getting bilked out of our hard earned tax payer dollars.

Posted by Jon Sheridan on 9 February 02007 @ 1pm

I’m not being flip at all about her security. Like the WH, I’m on her side. Give her a plane that can make the trip in one hop, I say. If Hastert had lived on the west coast, he woulda had a bigger plane. But, please, spare me the nonsense about “security concerns” at an AFB that doubles as a nuclear weapons storage depot.

Posted by Judge Smails on 9 February 02007 @ 1pm

Frankly, the whole notion that you can’t have a secure fueling stop is b.s. Even Air Force One has to have a fueling stop from time to time.

Get over it. No Speaker of the House needs a friggin’ 757.

Next thing you know, she’ll one to stop all air traffic so that she can get a haircut at LAX by Kristoff — a la Bill Clinton in 1993.

Posted by Rowhey on 9 February 02007 @ 1pm

Clearly, mere planes are not sufficient to ensure the honorable Speaker’s safety. From now on, the Speaker must travel in tubes.

Get the scientists working on the tube technology immediately!

Posted by Jon on 9 February 02007 @ 1pm

Jon,

If Madam Speaker has another facelift, she might actually be able to fit into a tube.

Posted by Rowhey on 9 February 02007 @ 2pm

I am sorry but you guys are engaging in naked partisan pettiness. I especially like the schoolyard facelift stuff. Nice

Also, The 757 rumor has been shoot down, again and again. Nobody requested a 757, suppose that doesn’t stop you from saying it though.

“But, please, spare me the nonsense about “security concerns”

The security concerns are the concerns of the office that is charged with protecting her, argue with them not Madam Speaker.

Attention:

“The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.”

“I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker.”

This I like the most:

“I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.”

Also while you are at the second guessing, if there are any other excesses that bother you, or concern you about her security precautions; or the Presidents or the V.Ps for that matter: please take them up with the Secret Service, because they are also charged with protecting the Madam Speaker.

The Speaker is the ONLY member of Congress to have such protection.

Also:

“Even Air Force One has to have a fueling stop from time to time.”

What is your point? This would be salient only if they were requesting a plane that would be capable of never landing or permanently orbiting the Capital Building.

Also, any airplane the President is traveling on is referred to as “Air Force One”.

Posted by Jon Sheridan on 9 February 02007 @ 3pm

I am sorry but you guys are engaging in naked partisan pettiness.

The developement of the tubes must not be politicized; that is certain.

Posted by Jon on 9 February 02007 @ 4pm

Next thing you know, she’ll one to stop all air traffic so that she can get a haircut at LAX by Kristoff — a la Bill Clinton in 1993.

No, wait, I know…

Next thing you know, she’ll be having sex on the plane with an intern, like Bill Clinton.

No, this is better…

Maybe if Ted Kennedy had a 757 to get across that bridge, that woman wouldn’t have drowned.

Or, how about…

Next thing you know, she’ll want a private jet to take her windsurfing, just like John Kerry.

Oh, we’re just filled to the brim with witty ripostes. Take that, you Democrat Partyers.

Posted by Harry Landers on 9 February 02007 @ 6pm

Surely her aggrandizement will not stop at getting a more luxurious plane, one with enough room for her dozens of courtiers and yes-men. This woman has co-president fever, not unlike the last most powerful woman in Washington a decade ago.

But still, give her the damn plane anyway.

Posted by jon on 15 February 02007 @ 8am