Here's the facts. . . . . .. Hastert's plane cost $5000/hour to operate .
. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ..Pelosi's 'desired' plane cost $22,000/hour .
Hastert's plane, which was supposed to go to Pelosi, 'can' make a cross-country trip without refueling, depending on head winds .
What's the big deal about stopping to refuel once in a while ?
If 'time' was of the essence and oh so important, then she should make sure that she makes herself 'more available', maybe by moving closer to D.C., . .. . . . ... . Afterall, she IS the Speaker of the House !!
Would you agree with the President if he does authorize this boondoggle ?
2007-02-09 00:17:29 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
OH..well that's not all of it there buddy. She wants her family and relatives to have a plan to ride on too so they can follow her around. This woman is PSYCHO!! She needs to be canned and kicked out of the country. This woman feels like she deserves 1st class treatment. And she's labeled herself as the "MOTHER of the Country" More like "MoFo of the Country" She can catch a trip on scheduled Air Force flights. National guardsman have to do it that way when traveling. They deserve it more than she does. But I do agree. She should move closer to DC. What bothers me is that these are the same people that complain about the deficit and how much in debt the country is...and how they want ALL AMERICANS to do there part....but they won't. That's a pot call if I've ever heard one.
2007-02-09 00:26:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
What a list of rubbish. The Sargent -at -arms of the House of Representatives requested the larger planes be used because they carry larger loads of fuel so there is no refueling, which means no extra landings. She is entitled under law to this, due to the fact that she is second in line to the office of the Presidency
Hastert lived in Illinois, Pelosi represents San Francisco California, a huge difference in miles, but your last statement just blows me away, don't you understand that 'making herself more available' isn't an option? Have your ever read the Constitution?
The big deal is that just like the President and Vice President, after 9/11 some steps had to be taken to assure the continuation of our government in case of attack. This is one of the things they and I'm talking Rep congress and president, agreed on.
So they were the ones that authorize it in the first place.
2007-02-09 09:42:22 · answer #2 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
She is an elected official one of many. The president is the only one I believe should have personal security and transportation. The speaker of the house should not be given any security or transportation. Buy her a bus pass.If she wants to fly let her pay for it herself. I didn't like the Idea of it for Hastert either none should get this.
2007-02-09 09:15:56 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It won't be President Bush, it will be the Department of Defense at the Pentagon although granted; there will be a lot of political pressure one way or another. Murtha (the big Liberal wind bag) is all ready alluding to cutting the budget for the Dept of Defense if she doesn't get the C32. Manpower, maintenance, fuel and expendables (engine oil, hydraulic fluid etc) run over $22,000.00 PER HOUR to run a Air Force C-32 airlifter. It is a Boeing 757/200. Thats basically $300,000.00 every trip Pelosi, family and friends would make in an aircraft that size. Hummm 3 or 4 million a month (not counting al the long overseas "fact finding" trips) at U.S. taxpayers expense. Sounds like Waste to me..........................................
2007-02-09 08:28:18 · answer #4 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Earnest T writes,"If 'time' was of the essence and oh so important, then she should make sure that she makes herself 'more available', maybe by moving closer to D.C . . ." and nobody picked up on it. I have to assume he was joking, or perhaps doesn't understand how Congressional districts actually work.
Judging from the "sound and fury" generated by this incident, it seems that many do not understand how they work.
2007-02-09 08:50:52 · answer #5 · answered by jcboyle 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just like any other American, she needs to move to be closer to her job. Isn't she suppose to be trying to save the planet? I agree with Bush on most issues, but if he caves and gives her this plane I will be disappointed.
2007-02-09 11:49:38 · answer #6 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And as Speaker, she's third in line for succession. This is the best plane available for her to be able to return to California nonstop. There is her security to consider.
The White House sees no problem, nor should you.
2007-02-09 08:42:39 · answer #7 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all she isn't the one who requested this.
Secondly she stated publicly that she is willing to fly commercial if she could but for security reasons she needs to fly in a government plane.
Thirdly I think this is all political foolishness and is being perpetrated by some in the Republican party to make her look bad.
The woman needs to have a plane that can get her from Cal. to DC in one flight. She is the Speaker of the House after all. Second in line to the Presidency.
Nitpicking! And Ridiculous!
If you want to address waste there's always the BILLIONS being wasted and questionably squandered in Iraq!
2007-02-09 08:36:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
It does seem odd that he is siding with her. The only thing I can think is that he is trying to get on her good side through granting favors for her. It seems like he is reaching out to attempt to work with the Democrats.
2007-02-09 08:21:36 · answer #9 · answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Are you done? Seriously, because a plane should be at the bottom of the list of concerns, for you or them.
2007-02-09 08:25:46 · answer #10 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋