For a primer on this story, Bryan at Hot Air writes about the Speaker Pelosi/military plane flapola here.
I think a lot of this is being overblown, and one of the things that irritates me the most about the story the most is Pelosi’s accusation that this brouhaha had to do with the fact that she was a woman, which makes no sense, because Bill Clinton faced similar scrutiny when he was criticized for renting out the Lincoln bedroom, and obviously that had nothing to do with his gender (and before the usual suspects jump me on that, I know that the situations weren’t entirely the same). If Nancy Pelosi wants to run with the big boys, she needs to get a thicker skin. That doesn’t mean she can’t take issue with how she gets treated, but I hope she doesn’t use the “it’s because I’m a woman” line everytime she faces significant heat from Republicans about something.
Although I know playing the victim card is the standard MO for the Democratic party, Pelosi needs to toughen up and understand fully that the position she’s in puts her under intense scrutiny, and to remember House (and Senate) Speakers from the past - all men - who were heavily scrutinized (sometimes fairly, sometimes not so fair) by the opposition and some of those Speakers paid the price for it. They were scrutinized not because they were men, but because they were in positions of power and prime targets for the opposition. Pelosi needs to toughen up and realize that she’d be a target for Republicans even if she were a man.
So file that victim card back in the deck, Speaker Pelosi, and start demonstrating some of that strength you want us to believe you have, because Republicans are more than eager to fight back strength for strength. I’m sure there will be other issues you’ll feel you need to use the card on, but this one shouldn’t be one of ‘em.
PM Update: Check out Pelosi’s ‘plane’ - LOL 
| Email This Post | Print This |
Nonstop range of C-20 (Hastert’s old plane): 4,335 miles
Nonstop range of C-32 (the plane she “needs” for nonstop flights): 4,517 miles
Distance from San Francisco to Washington D.C.: 2,300 miles.
Comment by vatar @ 2/9/2007 - 12:30 pm
Interesting.
What are your thoughts on Pelosi playing the victim card?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/9/2007 - 12:36 pm
Well this one is definitely a loser for Pelosi. I’d be ticked off that it was leaked to the press however. See that’s what part of the problem with our current government/electoral process. It’s easier to just smear the competiton than actually having to hammer out solutions. For this unpleasant truth you can blame both sides of the aisle
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/9/2007 - 12:56 pm
Gee, seems to me Madam Pelosi had no problem with leaks when they hurt the administration rather than making her look foolish.
Comment by Severian @ 2/9/2007 - 1:21 pm
…Republicans are more than eager to fight back strength for strength.
I wish!! The unofficial slogan of the GOP these days seems to be, “Born To Be Mild.”
However, Pelosi may do to herself what Republicans are too timid to do. Arrogance and stupidity is part of the DNA of Democrats, and she is no exception. The race & gender cards are symptoms of this. Give her enough rope, and she will hang herself - while blaming the Radical Right.
And there is an element of justice to see her impaled on her own wacky rhetoric about the environment.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 2/9/2007 - 1:32 pm
LOL - Fair point, MD. I guess a better way for me to have put it would have been to say “some Republicans are more than eager to …”
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/9/2007 - 1:49 pm
Or “real Republicans”…
There are enough RINOs in Congress to stock a game preserve in Africa…
Comment by Severian @ 2/9/2007 - 1:53 pm
Vatar, the issue for her isn’t the amount of miles but how many people and amenities are in the plane that Hastert used. She is requesting vastly larger.
Non-issue really. Pentagon refused the request. What is at issue is Murtha and Pelosi’s now temper tantrum to the request denia.. Subpoenaing records on all of the flights Bush used since 2001 hoping to find misuse or whatever. You think Bush would flagrantly misuse government property??? I don’t. For as much as I disagree with Bush I don’t ascribe bad motives to him.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 3:04 pm
See a tongue-in-cheek visual of “Nancy’s Flight Of Fancy”…here:
LINK
Comment by Daniel DiRito @ 2/9/2007 - 3:36 pm
See a tongue-in-cheek visual of “Nancy’s Flight Of Fancy”…here:
Thanks for the laugh, been a long hard day today and it is appreciated!
Comment by Severian @ 2/9/2007 - 3:40 pm
Nonstop range of C-20 (Hastert’s old plane): 4,335 miles
Nonstop range of C-32 (the plane she “needs” for nonstop flights): 4,517 miles
Distance from San Francisco to Washington D.C.: 2,300 miles.
If I read this right, Vatar’s point is that Hastert’s old plane would be more than adequate for Pelosi. The C-20 could easily make it to San Francisco without refueling. So Pelosi doesn’t “need” the C-32.
What she’s doing is simply trying to treat herself like royalty at the taxpayer’s expense. I know, I know - for most of you it’ll come as a complete shock that a liberal would be looking to raid the treasury.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 2/9/2007 - 3:41 pm
Please don’t take what I am about to say as a defense of Pelosi because I would never defend her and think she should only get what the previous Speaker had, but, eventhough the max range may be 35 miles over the distance to SF, it would still require a fueling stop along the way. The reason is no pilot, especially an AF pilot, would make that trip without refueling because if something were to happen at SFO (SF Airport) (i.e. bad weather) and the plane could not land, there would not be enough fuel to divert. There is a thing called “bingo fuel”, it is the point at which you reach a certain fuel capacity that would allow you options should a alternate landing destination be required.
In my opinion, even the C-32 is pushing it. But having said all of that, she should get the C-20 that Hastert had and suck it up on the fueling stop!!!
Comment by American Vet @ 2/9/2007 - 3:56 pm
Sorry for my last comment, I misread the distances. That is what I get for trying to do several things at one time.
Vatar is correct, well within the range. Again sorry for my mistake!!!
Comment by American Vet @ 2/9/2007 - 4:04 pm
The C-20 is basically a Gulfstream. The C-20D is the Gulfstream III and the C-20G is the Gulfstream IV link.
The Gulfstream 2 is also a C-20.
All 3 models have a range of well over 4,000 miles.
Comment by vatar @ 2/9/2007 - 4:54 pm
vatar, the mileage isn’t the issue.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 5:44 pm
Pelosi claimed it was the mileage. “It’s not a question of size. It’s a question of distance,” Mrs. Pelosi told reporters yesterday. “We want an aircraft that can reach California.” Which I guess was the original topic of this thread.
Comment by vatar @ 2/9/2007 - 6:58 pm
Is she doing a little hand puppet act in that picture ST posted?
“Wouldn’t you like a big plane, too, Lambchop?”
“Yes, Mimi, I would like a big plane, too!”
Comment by Marshall Art @ 2/9/2007 - 8:18 pm
Senor Wences wants a plan too!
Comment by Severian @ 2/9/2007 - 8:40 pm
35 mile difference Vatar got you thinking you were lied to yet? Let this be a lesson to question everything she says from now on. She lies…
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 10:57 pm
Is a military plane even allowed to LAND in San Francisco, or do they have orders to shoot on sight????
Comment by NC Cop @ 2/9/2007 - 11:44 pm
Vatar was lied to and doesn’t realize it I guess.
The range of the C-20/Gulfstream 2/3/4 is mentioned nearly a million times on the internet, ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_III , and all versions have a range of well over 4,000 miles. Or do you think Karl Rove planted all that on google?
Comment by Michael @ 2/10/2007 - 2:25 am
Pelosi flew home Thursday on a C-37 Gulfstream V. Oddly enough, it did not run out of fuel and crash 30 miles short of the runway. Yes, someone has been lied to.
Comment by Michael @ 2/10/2007 - 11:36 am
Pelosi flew home Thursday on a C-37 Gulfstream V. Oddly enough, it did not run out of fuel and crash 30 miles short of the runway. Yes, someone has been lied to.
Comment by Michael
Yes sir, you have been lied to for almost 6 yrs. Leave the Speaker alone. Would it not be better to try and fix the debacle started by your president? Why pick on the Speaker when you all have much more important work to do. I guess distraction is the only tool the republic party has to lean on now, huh? Your president is going to leave a hellacious mess for the next administration to clean up and all you have to bitch about is an airplane. Grow up folks, your country needs you now more than ever.
Comment by Tom @ 2/10/2007 - 2:12 pm
Liberal debating technique #17: change the subject.
Comment by Michael @ 2/10/2007 - 7:04 pm
Hmmm I wonder, can the democrats and liberals use the same point as Tom just did with everything?
or
Wow that can be used in so many ways…a little cut and paste you can post that over and over again for faux outrage.
Comment by sanity @ 2/10/2007 - 10:09 pm