First there was the Starkist stock deal. Then there was "Obama in a madrassa."
Now the latest non-scandal dreamed up by Republicans is "Pelosi One."
Following 9/11, the government decided that the Speaker of the House — third in line to the presidency — should travel on military aircraft for security reasons. For Dennis Hastert — the only speaker affected up until now — getting home meant flying to Illinois from Washington, something well within the nonstop range of the military version of executive jets.
But Pelosi lives in California, and the kind of plane Hastert used can't get there without stopping to refuel. The main aircraft that can make the trip nonstop is a modified Boeing 757 that is much larger than the plane Hastert flew in. Hence the attempts to paint Pelosi as "demanding" a plane fit for a king.
Putting aside the fact that Vice President Cheney gets around in a similar plane, let's agree that a 757 is a bit much for one person to have, even if that person is third in line for the presidency. Surely there are smaller planes that can fly cross-country without having to refuel.
Still, there's no "there" there. The negotiations didn't involve Pelosi or her office; they were conducted entirely by the House sergeant-at-arms. Pelosi merely said that she would like to be able to make the trip without refueling, and if there was no plane available with that capability she preferred to fly commercial instead.
Now, one can certainly speculate that she was free to say all that, knowing that only one plane was big enough for the job and that her security people wouldn't let her fly commercial. But there's simply no evidence to suggest that that's what happened.
Other Republican attempts to make hay out of this were simply stupid. They claim Pelosi wants the bigger plane so she can fly family and supporters around. This ignores the fact that Pelosi recently led the House in passing new ethics rule that forbid most such practices, and that in addition the military planes come with rather strict restrictions of their own, including severe limits on family travel — which must then be reimbursed.
Pelosi did herself no favors by publicly speculating that the White House or the Pentagon were behind the brouhaha. It made her look small, shrill and paranoid. She'll have to be better and tougher than that, or else she'll find herself being mocked for her own version of Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" speech. But that's an aside. Interestingly, while speculating that the White House might be involved, she said quite firmly that she knew President Bush wasn't, because he had impressed upon her the need for security.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I have to say they're not doing a terribly good job hyping this scandal. I haven't heard a word about it in the mainstream media or even on talk radio.
There are indeed smaller planes that can fly cross-country in one shot, but the military may not have any. It might be cheaper to use a 757 for the occasional trip than to buy a new plane just for Pelosi.
But to be fair, remember that the Democrats and their media accomplices have promoted a fair number of bogus scandals. Let's not forget the incredibly overblown Foley scandal.
Dave
2 - MCH
"I have to say they're not doing a terribly good job hyping this scandal. I haven't heard a word about it in the mainstream media or even on talk radio."
True, the Dave Nalle-Vox Populi scandal is getting much more attention.
3 - JustOneMan
C'mon guys Blowosi needs her private jumbo jet to
1. Fight global warming - she needs to support "Chicken Little" Al Gore
2. To check up on her non-union illegal immigrant employees, and
3. Get her weekly botox injections
JustOneMan
4 - Zedd
Sean:
When I heard this yesterday I thought about you, at least your articles. I hoped that you would write on this.
Dave:
It is quite clear that you haven't heard of this "scandal". Again, try NPR.
The reason for the large air craft is that Pelosi had received a lot of personal threats because of being the first female Speaker. Its actually been GWB who has been harping on her to get a larger security staff. The smaller air crafts will not house the number of people that she has to transport.
Again, you know full well that the Foley issue was something remarkable. If not for the issue of sexual harassment in the work place, for the yuck factor, especially when Republicans had defined THEMSELVES as the moral ones among the two parties.
The underlying theme behind all of the posts that Aqui has submitted is that at the core of the Reps strategy is misinformation. From reading many of your contributions, it is clear that you have taken on that format, perhaps unknowingly from years of listening to talk radio. You comfortably skim the line which places you in the realm of simply lying.
5 - Sean Aqui
Dave: The Foley scandal was overblown, but at least there was a real issue at the root of it. The three conservative efforts thus far have been built on air.
Zedd: Glad I didn't disappoint you. :)
6 - Maurice
Well written, Sean. Unlike Dave I have heard a lot about this "scandal". There are always those that want to make a lot out of nothing.
7 - Dave Nalle
I guess I need to keep my scandal monitor on low filter. I didn't even hear about Anna Nicole until pretty late in the day.
I was listening to Air America off and on, though. I'm surprised they didn't at least say something about it.
Zedd, you might want to take a look at some of Sean's former posts if you want to read stuff that sounds like it comes out of talk radio - just with the politics flipped.
As for my talk radio influence, i only listen to local programming, Air America and Neal Boortz and that only when I have a chance, which is rarely.
I'm fully capable of coming up with plenty of questions to raise about Democrats and their policies without having talk radio give me a hand. There's plenty of material readily available just by looking at their daily antics, and there's not a bit of a need to lie about any of it, because the things they do which outrage so many of us are often things they are proud of.
Dave
8 - Dave Nalle
Hey, wait a sec. Someone said the Republicans have hyped 3 scandals. What were the other two?
Dave
9 - Dave Nalle
Oh wait, they were mentioned in the article. They were so stupid I forgot all about them right after hearing they happened. Plus from what I recall about both of them they didn't originate with the GOP, but almost entirely in the fevered minds of desperate media hacks looking for some sort of scandal to run with.
Dave
10 - Nancy
Some of this comes from not fully understanding the issues, either: I was inclined to outrage (despite my general Dem inclinations) because I loathe politicians - & especially congressmaggots - claiming yet more privileges & perks for themselves than they have already. And there was the global warming twist, too. BUT...if even BushCo thinks it's warranted...well....She is #3, after all.
Still - what's wrong with a short stopover in, say, Kansas City or Chicago? Is the 20 minutes delay going to be THAT big a deal? Or do they seriously think Al Qaeda is going to have some way to know which place she's going to stop & refuel, so they can have a ground to plane missle ready? Let's get real, here. Somebody seriously give me GOOD reasons why she shouldn't/can't refuel. Thank you.
11 - Dave Nalle
I don't understand why Cheney needs a 757 either. He has a smaller security detail and very little press accompanying him. I think my earlier theory is the right one in both their cases. It's probably just cheaper to use an existing military plane that's too large than it is to buy something new and more appropriate.
Dave
12 - Joe
Zedd - The smaller air crafts will not house the number of people that she has to transport.
Does she really need 200 people with her at any given time? She can use the same plane Hastert used. Refueling? Plenty of airports in the midwest, even military ones if she feels nervous stopping in a red state during her journey to the left coast.
13 - Dave Nalle
Joe touches on an interesting point. Maybe Pelosi figures that her policies will eventually lead to armed insurection in the heartland so she'd better be able to flyover 'flyover country' without stopping.
Dave
14 - Nancy
As I said, it makes no sense why she couldn't make a stop somewhere. Cheney, too.
15 - Deano
Somehow I always pictured Cheney as being whisked about by winged demons while the Imperial March theme from Star Wars played malevolently in the background....no 757 needed.
16 - Nancy
I always picture him as travelling in a black carriage drawn by black horses, & when it stops, a crowd of black-clad men crowd around him to keep him from being seen & they all hustle/slither together inside hurriedly & furtively. But whatever he does, it's furtive.
17 - Arch Conservative
"Dave: The Foley scandal was overblown, but at least there was a real issue at the root of it. The three conservative efforts thus far have been built on air."
As opposed to the William Jefferson, Cynthia Mcckiney and Peter Paul/Hillary fundraising scandals which were underblown.
As long as we're sharing our most hated politician death fantasies I'll throw in my two cents.
Hillary loses in 2008 by a lanslide to Mitt Romney and then loses re-election to the NY Senate and lives a long, extremely miserable life where not a day goes by that she doesn't think about what could have been in 2008 and it eats away at her soul....until she dies and no one gives a shit but the moonbats that supported her in 2008.
18 - Deano
"our most hated politician death fantasies "
Arch, do you even bother to read the comments before you respond to them?? There are no "death fantasies" in any of the post or the comments....
19 - Nancy
Arch, we weren't fantasizing about anybody's death; we were being funny about how we *imagined* our bete-noir pols travelling. Big difference.
20 - Sean Aqui
Arch: I've written about Jefferson before -- though I'm not sure if I did so here on Blogcritics. I think he's likely guilty as heck and deserves to go down. And will, once the FBI is finished putting it's case together.
McKinney did nothing illegal -- she was just boorishly stupid. Which helped get her unelected.
Peter Paul? You're kidding, right? There are plenty of real things to tar the Clintons with; why use uncorroborated charges and failed lawsuits by a convicted felon and known con man?
21 - D'oh
Note that the source of this one was a Murdoch production. Very interesting to note after his slip in Switzerland last week concerning Fox news doing all it could to influence it's viewers in the run up to Iraq.
Here's a link with more on the subject.
Then take a look at the other non-scandals and track them to their first cause.
Just sharing.
22 - nds
How is it that REPUBLICANS are hyping this again? It seems that democrats are the only ones who are dull enough to continue putting their collective feet in their mouths and trying to stir up a republican-led scandal where there nothing exists. You are really making all liberals look silly. Drop it and move on.
23 - Aku
The scandal is mearly a product of the 24 hour news cycle. The organism needs food, and this "scandal" was a target of opportunity. As a scaldal, it is really pathetic.
24 - Dave Nalle
I think Aku has hit the nubbin of truth. It's all about the media feeding on this stuff. They try every story out for scandal potential and then if it has any at all they run it into the ground.
I can remember when the Democrats had REAL scandals that got hardly any coverage at all. Remember James Trafficant and his bad toupe?
Dave
25 - Sean Aqui
How is it that REPUBLICANS are hyping this again?
Did you read the piece or any of the links? Do the names Roy Blunt and Patrick McHenry ring a bell, for example?
Aku: It took a week of flogging for the mainstream media to take notice.
Dave: Trafficant's hairpiece was indeed a travesty. But he's sitting in prison now, so we're safe.