Be nice. The poor woman is obviously the victim of Republican fear-mongering.

I think Speaker Pelosi, as much as I disagree with her, is entitled to military protection.

/my .02

snowball:

For Pelosi, military flight prvileges are not about military protection. It's about having the military kow tow to her. Hastert was an a** to abuse the privilege the way he did, no doubt. But to expand upon your predecessor's largesse? Sorry, that's about forcing the men and women who will shuttle cross country from Andrews AFB to SFO (don't kid yourself that she will be content todrive from Travis AFB 90 mins outside Oakland in Fairfield or McClellan AFB near Sacramento) to suck up to her while she offers her unbridled opinion about how the Itaq War is a "quagmire" and their mission is bulls**t.

And I won't hold my breath for the Greens and Environmentalists to condemn her coopting military aircraft for use as private aircraft, and how she should use more efficient coomercial flights . I don't expect them to voice their displeasure over how these flight contribute to greenhouse gases, etc etc. No, they'll be loving it because their girl is screwing the military!

For Pelosi, military flight prvileges are not about military protection.

But for me, it is.

She's the 3rd in line for our leadership whether we like it or not.

I bet she'll get all the HC-130 flights she wants. Just better hope the Loadmaster doesn't web her to a pallet and kick her out the back whether its a low level or 10,000 feet...

'Course I know a few Cowboys who might enjoy finding a turbulent ride in their C-21 for their VIP.

Kim, Where did everybody go??? You had a rockin'comment section going, then I close it, go elsewhere, and return to find (2), no, (5) in the comments count! And don't tell me they were all sock puppets, PLEASE. (There were at least two Publicus-level newbies in the thread,at least) Of course, they were dissenters, but this isn't a circle jerk is it? Or is it? I mean, the comments above are BORING! 2 epadors in 2 minutes?

Yes, Pelosi is 2nd in line for the Presidency, but she is removed from the executive so that is she no more uniquely qualified than the 434 other members of Congress that can easily be voted in to replace her if necessary.

And she is asking for "not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation".

Obviously bryanD's got nothing.

No shit bryanD, what would anyone do without you?

Good to know you're keeping 'score' with Kim's posts, or anyone's for that matter.

jpm100 at February 4, 2007 01:04 AM,

I hear ya, but I tend to lean toward the paranoid side with our elected leaders. They are all important.

I'll admit, I've been reading comments from various jackasses in other blogs that our house members should fly around on Jet Blue in coach, or drive their own vehicles from Virginia to D.C. for example.

Bullshit - they are important and it'd be a horrible event should any one of them have something happen to them or their family that could have been prevented if not for the anti-establishment mentality telling them to take turf across the street.

jpm, "got nothing"? About the post? What post? Fatback did it, Pelosi's doing it. So? Boo-hoo. We had the (almost) last stand of Najaf portrayed as a victory and Kim gets catty with Pelosi. (Notice no Najaf victory posts? Too painful. Too topical.) I'm no big Pelosi fan, but I'd take her China policy over Ling Ting Bush's anyday. (And yeah, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what I'm talking about. That's why you're BORING!) And ESPECIALLY not funny. (Jpm, I'm looking at you.)

I mean, the comments above are BORING!

Hey dude, if they are so booring...

...there's a scrollbar ------over there---->

But she isn't doing what Hastert did. She's expanding it. Not only in when and where, but who.

And my original post was a clever backhand against the '06 election meme that the Republicans were fear-mongering everything from terrorism to bird flu. In fact, 'terrorism is no big deal' is still a Leftie meme. Yet, the leader of the Democrats in Congress feels the need to expand protections for herself (above what even Hastert had in place).

And my original post was a clever backhand against the '06 election meme that the Republicans were fear-mongering everything from terrorism to bird flu.

I thought about that too, and although the Dems say what they say, it's the people's responsibility to protect our leaders..

In fact, 'terrorism is no big deal' is still a Leftie meme

That's very, very true as well, but I'd say let them step on their own dicks - I'll vote to protect my leadership, thank you.

One thing about Nan and Hellary. They have skipped Socialim and went streight for a Dictatorship and Communism to the max.

I think i'll just sit back secure in my retirement and watch you young folks get the shock of your lives when you work your a** off and end up with nothing. Ask several million people that the team of Slick and Hellary allowed Worldcom and the other criminals to rip of for their life savings and retirement accounts. The dhimmi's did it once and they'll do it again. They're entire lives are driven by money and power and the he** with everyone and everything else.

Speaker Pelosi is drunk with power?

Knock-off the power in that statement and you have it about right Kim.

If she wants/desires what was available previously to Speakers of the House, fine go for it.

But if she wants to cram a plane full of relatives and members of the California delegation she's abusing the system and can pack sand up her butt.

Let her walk to Cali, it'll do the environment some good. Surely she couldn't complain about that.

Nancy Pelosi is seeking to be provided with this aircraft service for PERSONAL AND PRIVATE USE (she wants the service to include her "friends and family members") in addition to "official use," which is why this request from Pelosi (as is her behavior in this regard) is self-indulgent and, well, entirely non professional. It's as if she's assumed that Majority Whip equates with Queen of the Nation.

There's another article about this with a bit more details...HERE.

Nancy Pelosi is seeking to be provided with this aircraft service for PERSONAL AND PRIVATE USE

I am, for some reason, ok with that Suzy. When she slides down the back of a brontosaurus when the whistle blows, she's still the Speaker of the House.

Kim:

One more example of your inanity and shallow writing which, of course, is loudly applauded by the usual cast of fringe characters with absolutely nothing to say about anything. The far right has reached the point of intellectual bankruptcy, been deserted by true conservatives, and laughed at by most of the country. What's left is the far far fringe like Kim who have nothing to offer except an obsession about Nancy Pelosi and failed attempts at using nasty adjectives. You folks are beyond pathetic.

Wow, look Hugh chose to launch a personal attack against the writer of the piece (and everyone else who doesn't believe exactly as he believes) rather than discuss the issue.

Apparently dissent, against his opinion, of any kind bothers him deeply.

As to the subject we are discussing .... The Democrats came into the last election claiming a razor thin majority in the Senate was a mandate to make sweeping changes. They promised, among other things, to bring ethics back to the government.

It's just into February and we've already seen Reid and now Pelosi abandon any pretense at improving ethical behavior in government.

In other words, government as usual.

Oh I don't know Hugh, it seems to me someone who takes the opportunity to use terms such as "pathetic," "intellectual bankruptcy", "fringe characters" to describe people that are merely pointing out how someone in such a high position is attempting to defraud the U.S. taxpayers via co-opting gov property for personal use is pretty G-damn devoid of ANY mental capacity whatsoever.

I almost forgot, based on the "promise" made in your Christmas time post here you're G-damn liar as well.

Marc:

Afraid not marc. Legitimate criticism of tripe and obsessive fantasies about Pelosi. Try being just a tad honest and go read the comments and posts about Pelosi....most of which are mocking or factually inaccurate. As to intellectual bankruptcy of the far right and the abandonment by true conservatives there is no doubt.

All you have to do is put Priestep's piece in context with her previous posts about Pelosi in which Priestep takes snippets out of context or gives meaning to statements that are just plain false. This is what I criticize and it is legitimate. As to the "fringe characters," their comments speak for them....just spend some time reading their descriptions of her.

Finally, Priestep writes a piece with no source to anything to back it up except "sources said". Wow, that's impressive. What is it with the far right and your fear of women in places of power???? Hmmm.

Wow, that's impressive. What is it with the far right and your fear of women in places of power???? Hmmm.

Hugh, what is it with you and your personal dismissiveness of women who dare to not tow the liberal party line? Why are you so fearful of a differing opinion?

Kim linked to a Washington Times article. You certainly have the right to question the veracity of article to your heart's content, but characterizing Kim's post as "piece with no source" is blatantly false.

Ironically, I would even agree with you that the piece is not well sourced. I have made the same argument when members of the left here have dragged out such unattributed, unsourced articles as their sole source of their claims as well.

So if Pelosi got this perk, what would they call her plane? My money is on "Air Farce One"

Hugh,
Marc caught you dead to rights. You had nothing to say about the content of Kim's post or the article that prompted it. Just the usual insults and attacks. Didn't you have some kind of resolution where you promised to behave and foster debate, or something to that effect? Anyway ...
It is an author at the Washington Times, not Kim, that is using an un-named source. If you want to say that such a source should not be used in reporting, fine. But be prepared to see a huge chunk of the NY Times, Washington Post and most other newspapers turn into blank pages as a result.

I had a boss the mirror of Pelosi. She was a bit more honest though. At least she admitted that what she liked the best about her position was the power over others. The people working for her allowed her very little credibility or respect.

Come on now, Hugh -- play fair. If you get Kim upset she might burn the next batch of cookies.

It's obvious Kim hates women in power who assert themselves and take what is rightfully theirs. The Washington Times couldn't cite proof that Pelosi is doing anything against the rules, and therefore could only imply that might be the case according to an unnamed source -- but that's enough for Kim.

Kim probably googles "Pelosi scandal" every 15 minutes hoping for new material to feed her hatred of women in power, In a day or two this story will be shown to be yet another overblown lie from the right, like Lorie's Pelosi/Somalia Minimum Wage story last month.

In the conservative right, any woman who isn't wearing an apron is fair game for snarks from the right-thinking women folk -- and it's okay -- really -- their men gave them permission to do it.

The Washington Times cites "unnamed sources". Wow that's a hell of citation to support ones post. There is nothing to say about the content, that's the point. There is no content. Context...Priestep and the far right are obsessed about her and look for any opportunity to write this kind of tripe. Look at the silly statement by Buckeye above. He/she knows nothing about in what context
she said those words.

I'm not fearful of different opinions that have some basis other than "unnamed sources" in the Washington Times. As for dissuasiveness of women, that's pretty funny since it is the far right who dismiss Hillary and Pelosi and frequently mock some of their feminine characteristics. So don't give me that. I don 't know if Kim is a man or a woman. What i do know is he/she is obsessed with Pelosi.

Her piece has as much credibilty as if I said "unamed soiurces" said Bush still drinks and ocassionally uses cocaine."

Come on now, Hugh -- play fair. If you get Kim upset she might burn the next batch of cookies.

In the conservative right, any woman who isn't wearing an apron is fair game for snarks from the right-thinking women folk -- and it's okay -- really -- their men gave them permission to do it.

Lee, thank you for making my point for me. It wasn't really necessary for you to admit your bias - it was pretty obvious to anyone who had read your responses to either Kim or Lorie.

However, now that you have snarked on Kim and baking cookies - not a particularly funny sexist remark, but a pretty telling one - and made the assumption that any woman who disagrees with your viewpoint must not be thinking for herself, you have removed all doubt about your actual views on women.

You're right, OhioVoter -- one needs only look at the strong, persuasive argument put forth by Kim to see that she really is concerned about the Speaker's possible abuse of power.

So, does her demanding a military transport whenever she wants it support my original statement that Speaker Pelosi is drunk with power? Yep.

There -- that pretty much sums it all up -- in one three-letter word no less.

I'm not fearful of different opinions that have some basis other than "unnamed sources" in the Washington Times.

Quick backpedal there, Hugh.

Get a little nervous when we pointed out how many times the NYT, Washington Post, etc, etc, use "unnamed sources" as well? So, it's only when it is the Washington Times that you mistrust "unnamed sources" then?

As for dissuasiveness of women, that's pretty funny since it is the far right who dismiss Hillary and Pelosi and frequently mock some of their feminine characteristics. So don't give me that. I don 't know if Kim is a man or a woman. What i do know is he/she is obsessed with Pelosi.

Now that's funny!

You claim that you "know" that Kim is obsessed with Nancy Pelosi, but you also claim you have never have seen a single reference from that would indicate Kim's gender? Since you apparently have been pretty selective about which posts of Kim's you read, why should we believe you when you claim Kim is "obsessed" with Pelosi?

There -- that pretty much sums it all up -- in one three-letter word no less.

You aren't a very quick study are you, Lee? :-D

Believe it or not, women are allowed to speak in 3, 4, 5, etc letter words if they like. They don't need your approval to do so.

"Believe it or not, women are allowed to speak in 3, 4, 5, etc letter words if they like. They don't need your approval to do so."

You're absolutely right, OhioVoter, they do -- and I agree that they don't need my approval. I'm sure these right-thinking, southern conservative Christian women have already received permission from their male "head of households" or they wouldn't be here blogging.

Here's another of Kim's stinging pushbacks against women in power. Marvel at the way in which Kim puts Hillary in her place.

And just how will having a dialogue with Iran and Syria accomplish the goals of reining in terrorism, preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, and quelling the influence of Hezbollah and Hamas? In a couple of words: it won't.

"It won't." She's up to four letters now.

Uhm, wow. Persuasive. Do I smell chocolate chip?

In all fairness to Kim she did add a few more sentences to the quoted stinging rebuttal to Hillary's (note trend) suggestion that it's time for diplomacy, but she added nothing in the way of argument that diplomacy wouldn't work.

What's behind it? Jealousy? Envy? Liberals have the honor of having first woman in the position of Speaker of the House and the first woman running for the office of President. The conservatives have snarky bloggers who can't stand to see women in those positions, and who react with baseless, argument-less attacks and lies like those cited.

Perhaps someone else can explain the reason behind this trend in conservative blogging?

So lee and hugh imply that the story is baloney because it appears in the WashTimes. The story quotes unnamed sources in Pelosi's office itself: "An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who asked not to be named, confirmed yesterday that discussions are ongoing with the administration....

The aide asserted that the administration was using a Washington Times reporter, in effect, to negotiate with the speaker's office by leaking information about Mrs. Pelosi's request. Asked if the speaker was seeking increased access to military planes, the aide took the question, but did not call back....

So you boneheads really think the story is false? You think the comments from the aide are fictitious?

By the way, on the subject of "ethics," it is a bedrock rule that one does not use one's position in order to secure "unwarranted privileges." I might be able to buy the need for her to travel, and even to invite her Californians along, since the plane is going that way anyway -- but family members and friends??

Do you support such a privilege, lee and hugh? Would you for a Republican leader? Answer the questions directly.