Skip to comments.
Boortz: The Amazing Air Pelosi Mess
Neal Boortz ^
| 2/9/07
| Neal Boortz
Posted on 02/09/2007 9:17:55 AM PST by Jean S
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
1
posted on
02/09/2007 9:17:57 AM PST
by
Jean S
To: JeanS
But evidently that is what Pelosi wants! Is this what she said? If so, how could she have such a tin political ear? Newt with the book deal is a political genius in comparison.
To: JeanS
Better ramp up production of 757's. Looks like we're gonna need a bigger boat!
3
posted on
02/09/2007 9:23:01 AM PST
by
showme_the_Glory
(No more rhyming, and I mean it! ..Anybody want a peanut.....)
To: JeanS
"Dennis Hastert had access to a Pentagon Gulfstream III"
I don't see why a couple of extra fuel tanks couldn't be mounted to extend the range of Hasterts old plane. The military does this all the time on just about any aircraft they use.
Pelosi is just full of herself.....I suppose that if she gets a big plane she'll want to call it Air Force III, and have it painted to resemble AF-I and AF-II, the Prez and Veeps planes.
To: JeanS
The story is really a bit pathetic, and it just won't go away! Nancy Pelosi wants the Pentagon to fly her back and forth between Washington and San Francisco. Fine, that' s fair. Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert had access to a Pentagon Gulfstream III to fly him back and forth to Illinois. Good enough for him, good enough for her.
Sorry, this isn't an issue of fairness between Democrat and Republican. There is no good reason for taxpayers to foot the bill for private, catered flights for any members of Congress. These people should fly on the same commercial flights the rest of us use at their own expense - never mind the lame rationales about the House Speaker's position in the line of succession if anything happens to the president. Members of Congress are elected representatives of the people, not US aristocracy.
And if I'd known Hastert was flying home on private jets on my dime, I'd have raised the same objection then.
To: JeanS
I hope Nancy keeps defending herself. She is doing a terrible job.
6
posted on
02/09/2007 9:34:39 AM PST
by
bmwcyle
(If no one buys illegal drugs, we win the war on drugs)
To: JeanS
A short list for taxpayer funded 757 recipients:
Nancy Pelosi, Ted Stevens, Condi Rice, Henry Paulson, Robert Gates, Alberto Gonzales, Dirk Kempthorne, Mike Johanns, Carlos Gutierrez, Elaine Chao, Mike Leavitt, Alphonso Jackson, Mary Peters, Samuel Bodman, Margaret Spellings, Jim Nicholson, and Michael Chertoff.
Did I miss anyone?
7
posted on
02/09/2007 9:35:32 AM PST
by
flada
(Posting in a manner reminiscent of Jen-gis Kahn.)
To: The_Media_never_lie
"...how could she have such a tin political ear?"
I think she is not as adept as she is made out to be. When in the minority she did not have the "power post" she has now. I believe she is just another hack of a politician.
8
posted on
02/09/2007 9:36:23 AM PST
by
hophead
( "Enjoy Every Sandwich")
To: JeanS
9
posted on
02/09/2007 9:37:19 AM PST
by
Dallas59
(HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007!)
To: JeanS
It only costs about 22,000 dollars an hour.
They can run the printing press a very short time to cover this bill!
10
posted on
02/09/2007 9:37:32 AM PST
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
To: JeanS
I have taken flights from Dulles to San Fran many times. It's a cakewalk.
Pelosi Galore could get to Dulles in a wink because of her security detail.
11
posted on
02/09/2007 9:39:42 AM PST
by
RexBeach
To: JeanS
Something, I think, about being able to fly non-stop to San Francisco. Well, the G-III is fully capable of that mission ... if, that is, the airplane isn't loaded down with an entourage. From http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=237
"G-III - Max cruising speed 928km/h (500kt), economical cruising speed 818km/h (442kt). Initial rate of climb 3800ft/min. Max operating ceiling 45,000ft. Range with eight passengers and reserves 7600km (4100nm)."
Sounds good enough. 4,100 nautical miles = 4,718.19574 miles.
12
posted on
02/09/2007 9:40:41 AM PST
by
6SJ7
To: JeanS
What I was really hoping for was for her to do the politically espedient thing and "accept" the GIII with refueling stops. And then when the jet lands to refuel it suddenly develop "mechanical" problems-requiring some service and attention-about 6 hours worth-every freakin' trip. I'm sure that the speaker wouldn't mind rubbing elbows with our military 10 or 12 hours every weekend-while the "muffler bearings" or "disgronafactor" got repaired.
To: Vn_survivor_67-68
I don't see why a couple of extra fuel tanks couldn't be mounted to extend the range of Hasterts old plane. Unless that would cause the plane to exceed its maximum takeoff weight.
To: JeanS; COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; ...
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
To: AnotherUnixGeek
There is no good reason for taxpayers to foot the bill for private, catered flights for any members of Congress. These people should fly on the same commercial flights the rest of us use at their own expense - never mind the lame rationales about the House Speaker's position in the line of succession if anything happens to the president. Members of Congress are elected representatives of the people, not US aristocracy.
Amen. If they don't like the commute, they shouldn't apply for the job. There are plenty wwho would take the position without the perks.
And the Speaker is as replaceable as any citizen (which would be minimally disruptive of our goverment, compared to an emergency change of power in the White House.)
16
posted on
02/09/2007 9:46:13 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: JeanS
The sad part is that people who are elected to Live in Washington DC do not understand why We The People should question their request or demand. They're clueless.
To: Paleo Conservative
Pelosi Galore and her Flying Circus..
18
posted on
02/09/2007 9:47:16 AM PST
by
sheik yerbouty
( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
To: JeanS
Let it be clear that there is no evidence that when Nancy talks about "commercial", she does NOT mean COACH!
19
posted on
02/09/2007 9:47:37 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: The_Media_never_lie
Isn't Nancypants worried about her carbon footprint?
20
posted on
02/09/2007 9:48:16 AM PST
by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson