Nancy Pelosi and her jet flights home: Let's set the record straight

oh, small plane uses less fuel..

Yep, big difference.

I'd also prefer to fly in one of the three brand new gulfstream jets that are luxury, top of the line aircraft. She purchased three a couple of years ago remember!!!!

I am glad she no longer has the private jet. She has more money that most Americans and could buy her own jet. Why didn' she donate the fuel as a courtesy to the American Public or stay in Washington and fly home only once a week!!!!

Carla, Gohmert Pyle, like most of the Republicans and TP in Congress can't be bothered by facts.

Right...don't cloud this issue with facts. Their motto for sure.

Do you believe everything you hear, John? I wouldn't, if I were you--especially if it is on Fox.

I do believe that John was using satire, and I thought it was a good one. LOL

Oh. Never mind. :-)

But its so much more interesting to believe the BS.

For some it is. They like the drama.

Carla, both sides make up so much BS about each other...neither are worth a crap. You cant trust any "elected official" nowdays.
~M

There are some that I trust--but many seem to have sold out to corporate interests.

corporate which includes the green group, UN is everything group, and others "global equality" types.

Its as if America isnt doing anything that benefits America anymore. I dont get it.
~M

"green group"? Hardly. We're not getting much done in that area--sadly. We're behind a lot of other countries in terms of bio-fuels and renewable energy.

You unsurprisingly forget the facts that
1) Your flimsy rebuttal ignores the last two year of "Pelosi Air", and
2) She does in fact abuse the privilege:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/pelosi-children-and-grandchildren-get.html

But don't fret about it any at all, as SHE WON"T BE SPEAKER SOON.

Oh goodie Ken posted another blog ie someone OPINION as a fact again.

Yeah, that is really reliable. LOL

Ladies,
I did not post a blog but rather a link which in turn points to a substantial amount of information which supports Pelosi's misuse of government airplanes.

see the words BLOGSPOT in your link Ken? that means it is a BLOG.

Seems pretty clear to me.....Ken?

Carla/Lori,
The actual documents and statistics contained therein (including FOIA results gathered by Judicial Watch) are the indication of problems and corruption within Pelosi-Air, not that the information has been accumulated on a blog posting. It is the information (the message) that must be refuted not where the information appears (the messenger).

Your once again arrogant and illogical thinking would be sufficient reason to dismiss without review any and all postings made by the either of you (simply because they are made on a gather BLOG site), which come to think of it, is maybe not such bad reasoning after all. Merry Christmas!

All anyone had to do was go to the links posted in the blog.

Here's one: Judicial Watch - Pelosi

On the Judicial Watch pages there are comparisons between Peolsi and Hastert, but I'm not sure why that should matter. Wrong is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember?

Marilyn do you read anything other than far right wing sites?

Or for that matter anything that isnt owned by some billionaire that made their money in oil and has an agenda?

Lori,
Do you mean to speak of Soros, or is he "ok" in your book because you believe in his un-American agenda? or do you deny that he has such an agenda?

Lori, if you bothered to look at the site, it has FOIA requests with copies of what they sent and what they received back.

I hear all the BS you and others throw out about Soros and Alinsky and ya know what Ken I rarily if ever read, see or seek out anything either one of them say or do.

Marilyn I looked at your site and did 5 minutes worth of research...I find it highly questionable.

Well Lori,
I appreciate that. And just to help you out, Alinsky (who dedicated one of his books to Lucifer) is on the recommended reading list for the NEA teachers union and Soros is very involved in animating all sorts of progressive organizations very close to the President. I would think that your zeal to be informed would cause you to look into their views and influence. But then again, that's hard and requires effort so maybe you'll just pass on it.

Well Ken I read and listen to many sources and then make up my own mind and think for myself.

A concept I know you have never tried but really you should.

Perhaps you do, but you seem myopic (either by intention or by choice of sources) to any perspective that throws cold water on your progressive agenda. Such biased inputs invariably lead to biased outputs (and opinions).

No I am not myopic at all. YOU might feel that way because our opinions differ but there is a whole world out there beyond Fox News Ken I would suggest you turn the channel and learn to form an opinion on your own not what Beck or Palin say but one that is your own.

Lori, Perhaps if you went outside the progressive sources you could have more specific referrals than general slurs of FOX. There really are reasons to believe the stuff. Even if you don't trust the source, look for yourself before deciding. That's what Ken is trying to say. There is smoke, very heavy smoke there. Flames are in the trenches, both ahead and behind, but you have to breathe in through your nose!

It's politics. When did the truth matter?

Nancy Pelosi shouldn't even be handed a tricycle. She is the poster person for all around bad gov't. Remember the best line ever " We need to pass the bill to find out what is in it". All time brainless comment. But who is more stupid, we the people for putting up with her and the gov't. Big changes are coming

We'll see, George. We had the Republicans in control almost the whole last decade and see what a mess they brought us. Why do you think that things will be different now?

Carla, Why do you want to blame them for the mess the lenders and brokers (specifically the underwriters) caused. Both parties are also complicit in NAFTA and many other policies that sent jobs elsewhere. Way back to Ross Perot, we were warned of the "sucking sound". Trying to place simplistic blame on any one party is ignorant, I wish you would just stop!

I am so tired of Republican lies and hypocracy. Wonder how Boehner's going to go golfing and tend to Congress at the same time. His tan will fade right out, unless he gets to the salon evenings.

Lies? See the link above to Judicial Watch.

Elsie, maybe its a spray tan.

John, did you realize that the 20th amendment was supposed to be so that there would be no lame duck sessions?

On the Judicial Watch link above, it mentions that Pelosi used C40C, C37, C20, and C17.

From what I've been able to discover:

c40c is like a 737 - big aircraft
c37 like a business jet
c20 like a business jet
c17 large military transport - C-17 is used for rapid strategic airlift of troops and cargo to main operating bases or forward operating bases throughout the world; it can also perform tactical airlift, medical evacuation and airdrop missions.

Each of these are supposed to be used by the Department of Defense.

Why should ANY speaker be using them????

Boehner said he'll be using commercial flights. That will certainly save us all tax money.

Bet he'll go first class and we'll get the bill.

I would highly question the site Marilyn is refering too...follow da money. They have an agenda.

This is what snopes has to say: http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

Here is what factcheck says:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_nancy_pelosi_order_up_a_200-seat.html

It has to do with security, since the Speaker is next in line for the presidency after the VP. This change in flight arrangements happened under Bush after 9/11.

Lori, what do you question? We already know that Pelosi used both big and small jets, just like it says. We also know that those planes were not intended for Pelosi, but for the Defense Dept. So what, exactly, are you questioning?

Thanks, Carla, but since factcheck is totally liberal/progressive (with Obama connections) and snopes is a couple sitting at their kitchen table, I find them to be far from the best resources.

Interestingly, the snopes page doesn't address the part about how much Pelosi cost taxpayers by using military planes.

but since factcheck is totally liberal/progressive (with Obama connections) and snopes is a couple sitting at their kitchen table, I find them to be far from the best resources.

Thats funny marilyn because much of mainstream media verifies their info with fact check.

But I do agree with you that they have a tendency to side with Democrats and Liberals since they report facts and not fear/hatemongering and conspiracy theories.

Lamestream does use factcheck, Lori. That's the point exactly. Liberal/progressives.

The media is ALL owned by corporations - ALL of it. Boy do they easily fool so many Americans to think there's liberal bias in it. Sad.

And Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a conservative. Their bias is blatant. But the Republicans and tea partiers still quote them as being "fair and balanced."

That's funny, Carla. One of your own Gather lib/progs claims that Murdoch is a liberal. :-)

Fox is definitely more balanced than the "tingle up the leg folks" that lib/progs listen to. Time and again, they tell people to do their own research. I've never heard a liberal say that. Probably never will. They love pouring information - wrong information - into the heads of their sheeple.

tingle up the leg folks?

What tingles up whose leg? Tingles?!!!

FOX lies again and again and it's been proven year after year. They repeat stuff from right wing think tanks. That's not news. Insisting such baked partisan opinion is fair and balanced NEWS is BEYOND LUDICROUS!!!

Peter, for some reason, Marilyn likes that expression and uses it often. I wonder why.....

You wonder why? Seriously? I guess you weren't watching lamestream media at all during the presidential elections and since?

John, I'm not on SSDI. Interesting that you lib/progs think you know so much about my life. Obsession maybe?

Now, what would Sarah be using to go all the way to Alaska if she actually got the VP job she knew nothing about?

Marilyn, I'm aware of the comment, however, you seem to like repeating it to the point where I have to wonder. Does it give you a tingle?

A dogsled maybe, Elsie? LOL

I've only heard the tingle comment from Marilyn. I guess PBS doesn't talk tingle enough (that's what I watch most).

Yep, Peter, she latched onto that one like a dog with a bone. LOL And you're right, Peter, you don't hear much about "tingle" on PBS.

The last time this came up a few months back there were some specific reasons why she used government air and why her use and Hastert's use were slightly differrent. Excuse me if I mistate anything here, but I'm doing some of it from memory and some personal expertise in executive military aircraft operations.

Marylin,
To your point, you are correct that all of those aircraft are military aricraft as are all the aircraft used by Congress and the President including the 747 variants collectively called Air Force 1 and the helicopters known as Marine 1. They are budgeted for and maintained for use for a variety of reasons including security, safety in war zones (Hence, the C-17 which was used on trips to the war zones as required), and in cases where time is of the essence, speed.

This service is a normal military support mission required by Congress since the Roosevelt administration and has at one time or another been used by almost every high ranking person in the executive and legislative branches (both parties included).

In Pelosi's case, as Speaker of the House, she is required by law to use government aircraft because of security and logistical concerns. She normally uses one of the smaller aircraft, which are military variants of Gulfstreams and Lear Jets. They are almost identical to biz jets used by almost all commerical executives in the country. In other words, they aren't out of the ordinary for a person of the Speaker's responsibilites.

Boehner may say he will take commerical aircraft when he becomes speaker, but I believe he is misstating that since the Speaker is required by law to take the military aircraft for the same reaons as Pelosi.

The speaker is allowed to take certain family and staff who aren't required by law with them, however the extra expense and logistical problems involved usually make it cheaper to take the military aircraft instead of the speaker going on one aircraft and the rest of the people going on separate and possibly several separate aircraft.

As for the few uses of the C-32 (Boeing 757) and C-40 (Boeing 737)...the Secret Service recommended their use only on certain missions because Pelosi was going back to California and without using the larger, longer range aircraft would have had to stop enroute to refuel. They deemed this an unacceptable security risk. Hastert typically used the smaller aircraft because going back to Wisconsin was well within range of the smaller biz jets and he didn't need the space.

It was my understanding that Pelosi used the larger aircraft only when there were logistical problems in using the smaller jets. Aircraft availability in the smallish government executive fleet is sometimes an issue as is aircraft size because of mission requirements. The military makes the aircraft choice (not the speaker) based on the best aircraft available for the mission.

Pelosi's normal ride is one of the longer range Biz jets like the C-37 so she doesn't have to stop. Hastert's normal flights were within the capabilites of the smaller C-20s.

In short, there isn't anything particularly unusual about Pelosi's travel arrangements. They are well within the same lines as previous speakers from both parties. I'm sure the Republicans will use them in much the same ways when they take power, because most of the use is governed by law, not by the speaker. Despite people's impression, the Speaker can't just call up Andrews AFB and rustle up a plane anytime they want one.

Now you can argue whether the speaker needs the protection (IMO they do because they are in the line of succession), but that would require a change in the law. You can argue whether it is a waste of money (IMO it is probaly less than what your typical company lays out for a far less important CEO, so it's worth it). You can argue it sends the wrong message (it probably does, but mostly because people don't normally understand how the service works).

Soo, just sayin'. Everyone can go back to yelling at each other now.

What law? Do you have a link to that law? Just wondering.

From what I've read, Gingrich didn't use military planes. So when did this law start?

What I've read said Bush "afforded" the Speaker the ability to use military planes after 9/11. I cannot find a LAW saying that she has to use it, nor that she should use it just getting back and forth from her home to Washington.

Thanks for all the factual information, Omnipotent. Nice to see people actually do research instead of just making things up, like fake death panels that never existed.

Poobah, thanks for the research. Some people want to make Pelosi into such an evil witch. But hey, if she was she could jump on her broomstick and fly--like Sarah Palin--(grin).

Some people will just pick and choose the "facts" they want to go along with their deep prejudiced hate hate hate against the Dems. If they love living with hate so much, for such silly reasons, whatever ...

Did she get to keep her office in San Francisco? Just asking.

Marilyn,
I'm afraid I don't have the particular section and code at hand and quite frankly don't have the expertise to find it within the thousands of pages in the US Code. My guess is that it's somewhere within the directives on security for those in the line of succession. I believe the law has been on the books for quite some time, but as I explain below, I may hae been mistaken.

I can't speak specifcally to Gingrich's statements, however I assume that since he left the Speaker's chair in 1999 (thereby no longer being in the line of succession) and Bush wasn't elected until 2000 and 9/11 happened in 2001, Bush offered it as a privlege to Gingrich because he was no longer Speaker. Presidents are allowed to do this and so far as I know every President since Roosevelt (who was the first to fly on a regular basis) has done it.

I used to fly support missions for the Executive Squadron from which these aircraft come. I derived my information in a very similar conversation I had with a Secret Service agent who accompanied us on several missions. As I remember it, he reffered to it as "law" though he could've been talking about a policy. I talked with the man around 1980, so it is possible I misremembered details of the conversation from 30 years ago.

However, I was able to find an article about Pelosi's use of government aircraft that says the Seargent at Arms of the House "ordered" the plane as a matter of security (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/ns/politics/) and neither Pelosi nor her office were involved with the decision. I should also point out that Bush defended Pelosi's use of the plane at the time, with Tony Snow remarking, "“This is a silly story, and I think it’s been unfair to the speaker.”

My apologies for creating confusion if I was mistaken about the details. I relied on the recollection of the information the Secret Service agent passed to me, which is always a bad practice.

Mea culpa. I hope this straightens things out. I didn't intend to lead anyone astray.

Just don't get a tingle down your leg, Poobah. Marilyn goes crazy over that expression.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Makes me wonder how many times she has used the 757 in the last 2 years.