Studio, I agree that Pelosi is not the first Speaker to get their own jet, but there is still debate over the justification and sanity of upgrading to a 757 class aircraft, all because the existing Lear class aircraft can’t make CA without stopping for refueling. The issues I have with this are;
- Is the justification of ‘security’ valid, and is it the *real* reason for the upgrade. My inherent distrust of politicians leads me to think Pelosi simply didn’t want to have to deal with landing and refueling, and so drove this thru, getting the House sergeant at arms to request this using the security argument as justification so she would not be taken directly to task. That this was approved by Bush is moot since, as you have pointed out, Bush never saw an expense he didn’t approve. - As a side note, it would have been nice if someone had managed to explain how having to land and refuel is considered a security risk. Maybe that’s part of the reason I distrust the motive. - There are plenty of other smaller aircraft that have more than enough range. I understand there is an argument that only certain types of aircraft can be outfitted with the necessary electronics to meet the Speaker’s needs, but I refuse to believe the only way to do this was with a 757. This is an awful lot of additional costs in fuel, maintenance, etc., just to eliminate a fuel stop. Besides, I think the whole issue of electronic needs is also bogus. Prior to 2001, the Speaker did not travel via government jet, and there was never an issue of not having these electronics available to them. While I don’t care much for Pelosi, this is not intended to be a knock on her or Democrats, but really, a comment about government in general. I find it amazing how government continues to rape the public and get away with it by distracting a generally ‘not to attentive’ public by feeding into a bogus partisan political fight. The right and the left are so busy beating each other up that no one is minding the store. It is unlikely that anyone will ever convince me that the Speaker needed a 757 class aircraft, or that she needs to travel home on a weekly basis, all on public expense. And no one should be dismissing this by pointing out AF1 or how minimal the expense is compared to bigger ticket items – it’s precisely this line of reasoning that gets people in trouble. As you noted; “An over abundance of minor details seems to be creating one huge problem.” On Jan 27, 11:56 pm, studio <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 27, 8:38 pm, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > pelosi has her own jet paid for by the American people. she is the > > only speaker who has ever had a jet. where is the liberal outrage > > over this, eh? > > oh brother... > > #1. Pelosi is not the first Congress person to have use of a > government jet. > #2. You could just as well ask where the liberal outrage stands on > Air Force 1 and 2. > #3. Your confusing public and private entities where the public is > being asked to pay for the private. > > > On Jan 27, 8:13 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The jet is a minor detail. > > Wow, $50 million is a minor detail... > An over abundance of minor details seems to be creating one huge > problem. > > Don't worry too much about their failure to acquire a new jet... > they already own a few older ones that are just as efficient at > getting > them where they need to be. > > Oh the horror of flying in superbly maintained older jets. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
