John Murtha knows how to defend the Speaker

[Rose Siding]

-By practicing good governance. Wearing some very thick gloves, he takes the Republican bullshit by the horns-

Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Thursday that he's planning hearings this spring on executive and congressional travel on military aircraft.

Murtha said he's requested from the Defense Department records on travel and logistics from the past two years. He asked the Defense Department to hand those over within a month.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/pelosi.plane/

Bear in mind that Murtha, with his close military ties, probably already has a pretty good idea of which House members have been afforded what kind of accommodations by the Pentagon.

It's good to be in the majority. *gloat* Maybe he'll expose some genuine excesses in time for the election season.

[Little Wing]

1. Outstanding!

I love that guy

[LanternWaste]

2. I'd bet $5.00...

If he gets the records in a timely manner, I'd bet $5.00 that the Republics drop the issue faster than (insert favorite honmly here). I don't think it's too much of a stretch in assuming the Republis won't have very clean hands.

I realize that many on this board beleive the Democratic leadership is weak and vacillating, but I honestly think the Democrats have been applying more and more pressure each day, and Murtha that is but one in the phalanx of strength an initiative

For the first time sice 1994, I'm watching the GOP splinter and engage in internecine squabbling, while also losing the single, unified agenda of power they had posessed for so long.

[jkshaw]

3. I'll bet there are quite a few Republics ...

... in the House that are now cussing the loudmouths that even brought up the subject of Speaker Pelosi's plane! I can't wait to hear the revelations.

[Robson]

4. Haven't bought into the plane yet.

I still haven't bought into the I need a big plane to go non-stop to the west coast every weekend thing. Sorry to the I love anything Nancy Pelosi does regardless, folks. I think it is good if Murtha can show what bennies that the Repubs got, but the I think it much better to show we are better than that and will look out for the taxpayer even if it is more inconvenient for us. Perception becomes reality.

It's far better if Democratic elected leaders show sacrifice instead of more of the "we're in power now and we want the perks". We were off to a real good start. You can argue all you want that she deserves it, but the reality is that she could get along without it for a while for perception's sake, and illustrate that things are now different...if for nothing else.

[A Simple Game]

5. Pelosi did not ask for military transport and does not want it.

She said she would travel commercial.

I think they all should fly commercial except for overseas flights, yes even the president and vice president.

[Rose Siding]

6. I disagree, but I see your point

One of my favorite reports about Howard Dean was how as DNC chair he frequently uses public transportaion (rather than the limos favored by Terry Mac)

However, it isn't a matter of what she "deserves". It's a matter of security -and to my mind at least, one of time. Is it the best use of the top Democratic official's time to make stopovers? How can ripping a chunk out of her day (for what amounts to, more or less, appearance's sake) better serve the public? I hope she can seamlessly deal with 7 or 8 other things instead. And the security issue is valid. Should there be any event that creates a nat'l crisis, communication with, and protection of the Speaker will be vital.

[havocmom]

7. Her position makes it essential that she be afforded good communication

She is a heartbeat and a pacemaker from the Oval Office. The military needs to be able to get her on secure lines at a moment's notice.

"I'm sorry, Madam Speaker, but you have to turn off your cell phone until we finish landing..." just won't cut it in an emergency.

The GOP just can't deal with the fact that a female is in that position of authority and importance.

[beaconess]

13. Exactly!

[Infomaniac]

9. The security issue is definitely valid

The Speaker of the House is 2 heartbeats away from the presidency. A plane is most vulnerable to attack on takeoffs and landings. The security reason alone is enough to justify a plane capable of flying non-stop. Dayum, Air Force One and Two don't even stop to refuel when the President is on board.

How Air Force One Works

Another special addition is the in-flight refueling connection. As with the B-2 and other combat craft, in-flight refueling gives Air Force One the ability to stay up in the air indefinitely, which could be crucial in an emergency situation.

Some of the most interesting parts of the plane -- it's advanced avionics and defenses -- are classified. But the Air Force asserts the two planes are definitely military aircraft, designed to withstand an air attack. Among other things, the plane is outfitted with electronic counter measures (ECM) to jam enemy radar. The plane can also eject flares to throw heat-seeking missiles off course

http://people.howstuffworks.com/air-force-one4.htm

I know Murtha will dig up some information on republic use of military aircraft.

[Robson]

11. Security is a point

OK, I tend to agree somewhat that security is an important thing. That said why can't she and her staff take over first class on a commercial, coast-to-coast flight twice a week and take needed briefcase communications on board. It would certainly be much more energy and cost efficient than a dedicated AF 757 along with crew of 16. BTW most of us don't waste our personal money to even fly first class. BTW Tony Blair flies commercial sometimes.

Also why would a smaller AF plane that requires refueling not provide adequate security? It's not as though she and her staff can't be productive while waiting for the plane to be refueled. That's what celllphones and laptops provide.

The self importance that politicians readily put on themselves and above everything else (including our taxes) drives me nuts anymore. If it costs taxpayers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid inconvenience they believe it to be acceptable. I don't. I agree that Howard Dean made a big points by forgoing the limos.

Her security and needs could be met with little additional sacrifice and much less cost to taxpayers and the environment. I don't buy the dedicated 757 thing for weekly trips for her and her staff..

[Rose Siding]

14. You're making the same argument that her staff made-

From the LAT:

The House sergeant at arms originally advised Pelosi that Hastert had used a military plane and recommended that she use one that didn't need to refuel. That prompted her office to request clarification of the rules, Daly said, noting that she never actually requested a specific plane.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pelosi8feb08,0,1296162.story?track=tothtml

And in the AP article-

A Fourth Option?

There are four types of planes available at the 89th Airlift wing, at nearby Andrews Air Force Base  the C-20 Hastert once used, C-21s which are even smaller than the C-20 and thus not able to fly nonstop to San Francisco, and the fabled C-32.

There is also the C-37A -- a military version of the Gulf Stream 5, which is about the same size as the C-20, but is able to fly nonstop to California. One military source who asked not to be identified says that it may be that Pelosi and her aides were shown a C-37A and didn't understand that it was different and more potent than a C-20, since they look so similar.

Would Pelosi be willing to use a smaller plane than the lavish C-32 as long as it could fly coast to coast?

"Yes," said a Pelosi aide.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2857672

So she was never tied to any super luxed out plane -that point was promoted by Republicans.

[beaconess]

10. This isn't about "perks" - it's about security - and not often said - communication

Nancy Pelosi is second in the line of succession to the presidency. If something were to happen to one or both of the men ahead of her, she needs not only to be safe, she needs to have fully secure and failsafe lines of communication that are integrated into the White House Communications and other military systems. "Briefcase" communications would not come even close to sufficing.

Imagine if, God forbid, another 9/11 occurred and Speaker Pelosi were on a non-stop USAir flight somewhere over Nebraska. Certainly, the plane would land as soon as possible, but in the meantime, she'd have no way to communicate securely with the ground, to be briefed on the situation or to be involved in any decisions. She'd be stuck in a sealed capsule until the plane could make an emergency landing. And, because she'd be on a commercial flight, it would not be hard for anyone aiming to cause more trouble to track exactly where she - and several hundred other innocent people - is, where she's going and when she's going to get there. Not a good situation.

The main reasons for providing military transport is nothing to do with convenience or perks. This is about ensuring that the people who are in charge of this nation can move about and communicate on a dime whenever absolutely necessary.

[Robson]

12. Tony Blair PM of Great Britain flies commercial

Politicians and CEOs have a way of justifying spending huge sums of other people's money so they can have "security or minimal" wasted time. Sorry I don't buy it.

[beaconess]

15. So, what if he does?

Great Britain has a monarchy, too. What do they have to do with how we handle things in this country?

[Rose Siding]

16. How long does it take to fly across the UK?

[havocmom]

17. He also lives in a very tiny country

California to D.C. is a bigger trip. And Blair does not have the huge military of the US to be the commander of. If anything happens to an idiot who gets rendered unconscious BY A PRETZEL and a thug with a really bad ticker, Pelosi is the boss. She needs state of the art communication... or rather, the US Military NEEDS her to have state of the art communication.

She is not off on shopping junkets like Rice during a hurricane which SANK A US CITY! She is SECOND in line to head the most powerful military institutions in the world!

The guys who do the responding in case of emergency need to be able to speak to her.

Blair? BLAIR?!?!!!? Not exactly a good comparison.

Google earth US and then England, for god's sake! Not quite comparable.

[Robson]

22. The way it is

We can argue this point forever. Some have undying loyalty to party and candidate. I'm loyal to my own pocketbook, family, common sense and my beliefs and Democratic principals first. My loyalty is not to DU or NP first. You don't like it.... I have some words....SORRY ABOUT THAT and TS.

My point was that politicians like NP should first understand and empathize how those of us that use commercial flights regularly feel. We don't appreciate paying our hard earned taxes to make things more convenient for them, while they make things more inconvenient for us.

BTW Blair flew from UK to Miami with his family on commercial flights. Why can't NP and her staff fly 1st class? I wish I could.

This issue has been in the media every day for a week including Meet the Press. Each time it is there it hurts the Democratic agenda. When it comes down to a trade off of criticizing NP or Democratic Principles, I support DP.

[Bitwit1234]

8. Isn't it wonderful!!!!!

Everytime the republics start something they stick their foot in their own mouth....Maybe next time they'll check out the FACTS before they start spewing their crap.

[havocmom]

18. Somewhere, in heaven, Ann Richards and Miss Molly are laughing

It's like the 'Poor George...' speech in 92 ;)

[Rose Siding]

19. That's a lovely thought

I miss 'em.

[frogcycle]

20. lets all just agree to disagree

with robson

[havocmom]

21. YOMANK!

:rofl: