DOES THE SPEAKER NEED A SPECIAL PLANE? {Another ABC Rigged Poll Question}

abcnews.com ^ | 02/08/07 | abc

[drpix]

Pelosi One? Spkr. Nancy Pelosi has requested a plane that is able to fly direct to her home district in San Francisco without having to stop and refuel. Since 9/11, her predecessor had been flying privately for security reasons but at a shorter distance. (cont'd)

[drpix]

Of cause ABC doesn't tell those being polled that her predecessor had been flying a small 10-passenger plane - and she thought this was too small for her. The Queen wanted a large 42-passsenger plane. She wasn't told to fly commercial but to settle for the small private plane. But that didn't stop ABC from framing the following misleading poll question"

"Does security still dictate a special plane for the speaker?"

"No. If its safe enough for all of us fly commercial, so should she."

"Yes. She is No. 2 in presidential succession and needs a private plane that can reach her district."

[Tallguy]

I agree that the question is rigged in classic "push-poll" fashion, but despite that 'No' is leading 2:1.

[American Quilter]

I FReeped it. Running approximately 7600 voting no, 3300 voting yes.

[BenLurkin]

Whay doesn't she hop on her broom?

Just kidding!

[saganite]

No need to get excited. The no answer is leading hands down.

[drpix]

Amazing change since I started to put together the post - the poll results have shifted.

EVEN the rigged question hasn't worked to get ABC a pro Pelosi result.

[HEY4QDEMS]

As speaker, she should be protected, flying in a private plane does provide a logistical advantage for those charged with her security.

However, she doesn't have to have a bigger plane because she is from CA, that's pretty much a lame excuse.

[Howlin]

LOL!

[Keyga8tor]

Don't you just love the way they phrased #2;
"Yes. She is No. 2 in presidential succession and needs a private plane that can reach her district."
Hello! Any plane can reach her district! Even one that has to refuel.

[gc4nra]

Beat me my one minute.

...but I'm not kidding!

[EagleUSA]

The poll speaks volumes. Pelosi is recognized for the feather-bedding socialist witch that she is. It is all about POWER AND CONTROL Nancy, and we have your number.

[gov_bean_ counter]

My first thought was the fact she is #2 in line is the very reason she should not have, better stop now.

[marron]

her predecessor had been flying a small 10-passenger plane

If her predecessor needed to fly private for security reasons, I don't see what has happened since the election to change that. Whats good for the goose is good for Pelosi. But then again, if a 10-seater was good enough for the goose, she would have to have a pretty good argument to explain why a 10-seater isn't good enough for her.

[hophead]

"Why doesn't she hop on her broom? "

Her family won't fit, duh!

[Brilliant]

Looks like no one likes Nancy. Too bad they did not offer a third choice: "She should walk."

[N. Theknow]

EVEN the rigged question hasn't worked to get ABC a pro Pelosi result.

No matter how hard you push, some things just don't turn out the way you want them to.

Kinda like Katie Couric doing the Nightly News and having more promos for it during the Super Bowl than any other product that actually produces revenue.

[ZULU]

No.

She needs a special broomstick.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Real reason she doesn't want to refuel in Kansas...

Afraid of falling houses.

[Political Junkie Too]

Speaker or not, Pelosi only received 148,435 votes to win here seat. Compare that to Feinstein (who ran a statewide campaign), who won 5,076,289 votes; or Boxer, who won 6,995,728 votes.

President Bush won over 50,000,000 votes.

Should a person who won less than 150,000 votes really command such extravagances? If she wants better accomodatons, let her run a wider campaign and win the support of more Americans.

-PJ

[Osage Orange]

Best answer I've seen...........

LOL!