<p>…an even better alternative: Music!</p>
<p>if a tree falls in the forest and you have your head phones plugged into your Ipop (in this analogy a falling tree represents the left/right geniuses above)…etc.</p>
<p>On this airplane thing:</p>
<p>The White House stepping in, out of the blue, to publicly side with Pelosi just as the Rovian swiftboating effort was picking up steam. I have to believe that the White House did not act out of a sense of fairness. Instead, I rather suspect that Jack Murtha’s promise to hold hearings on administration use of government planes caused them to stop in their tracks with an “oh, s***” moment.</p>
<p>In politics, ask not what people are saying, but why they are saying it.</p>
<p>PS: If I were the House Sargent of Arms, I’d be polishing up my resume after sticking a knife in the Speaker’s back.</p>
<p>I’ve got the perfect solution to the airplane thing. Pelosi’s requirements as I see them are a jet to fly her non-stop to California. Seems reasonable. Here’s the solution: She is issued a flight suit just like GWB had (although she could choose mauve if she wanted). She would also have an airforce fighter at her disposal - she can climb into the back seat and fly at mach speed to California thus maximizing her use of time. The non-stop issue can be easily resolved with a mid-air refueling. That way she not only gets her stated needs met but she gets there faster and gets to trump Bush with each flight. Sounds like a win-win to me.</p>
<p>Pointing out someone’s hypocrisy is hardly swiftboating. </p>
<p>The Democratic Party bills itself as being more concerned about Mother Earth and conservation than the Republican Party is so talking about one of its leaders flying around the country in a big ol’ gas guzzler is going to be interesting stuff to some. Denny Haster’s plane wasn’t big enough for her, and, yes, it could have made it all the way to SF without stopping to refuel.</p>
<p>Same thing with Edwards and his 28,000 square foot house - lots of fossil fuels went in to building the thing and lots of fossil fuels are going to be needed to keep it warm, to generate electricty for the flat panel TV’s, etc. </p>
<p>Hypocrisy on display. </p>
<p>Big time.</p>
<p>For Immediate Release</p>
<p>February 8, 2007</p>
<p>As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.</p>
<p>In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.</p>
<p>There’s an astronaut joke in there somewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I understand it, the military has two versions of the corporate Gulfstream in its government fleet. One version is capable of flying non-stop from Washington to San Francisco. The other version may not be, depending on load, wind conditions, weather, and fuel reserves. The sargent at arms, in working out the logistics of the Speaker’s travel, detailed the need for one of the versions capable of flying non-stop.</p>
<p>This whole thing was a swiftboating. Whether it was started by the sargent at arms, the House Republicans, or the Defense Department is unresolved. I suspect the Defense Department followed by Rove’s boys distributing the talking points to the media and the House Republicans.</p>
<p>I suspect that the White House jumped in because they realized that scrutiny of administration officials use of government planes would not be to their PR advantage, i.e. they could end up swiftboating themselves.</p>
<p>This is an interesting study from FAIR which debunks your claim Dorothy </p>
<p><a href=“FAIR - FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.”>FAIR - FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.;
Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.</p>
<p>Liz,</p>
<p>Sean Hannity, for instance, has about equal numbers of lib/conservative guests, as does the rest of their crew, does that make Fox news fair and balanced in your eyes?</p>
<p>I have yet to meet the person that feels diffently about this–I mean excluding you.</p>
<p>I do admire your devotion, though.</p>
<p>I don’t particularly like the concept of fair and balanced - it’s misleading and was probably started to pacify those that complain the media has a liberal bias. The interesting thing about this study is that there were actually more Republicans on NPR even during the Clinton administration. </p>
<p>I like NPR best when they bring in experts and people that are as objective as possible. News programming with integrity delineates between news and opinion. Fox has blurred the line between the two and the rest of the network news has followed, not in the pursuit of truth but in the quest for profit. That’s all I’ll say on the subject of Fox - it doesn’t even qualify as news in my book - more like the White House In House News service - it’s viewers occupy the same bubble as our fearless pres.</p>
<p>Ripley, I really think these political discussions would fly if people would read a post with facts rather than continue the farce that this was Pelosi’s doing. Try reading post #967 one more time - it’s from the person who is in charge of deciding which jet Nancy will fly on.</p>
<p>Liz,</p>
<p>You seem to be on a first name basis with Madame Speaker.</p>
<p>Way to Go!</p>
<p>I’m a Mrs. not a Mr. - Usually pretty clear with a name like Liz.</p>
<p>Second, Pelosi doesn’t have a choice and said she would prefer to fly commercial.</p>
<p>Why is it not OK to refer to the speaker as “Nancy?” It seems just a wee bit sarcastic to keep mentioning her name with quotation marks. Do you do the same with “Hillary” or “Newt?”</p>
<p>
Yes, I have family there.</p>
<p>Nice try on the origins of my husband’s last name Rippy but that’s an abbreviation and we don’t even know the true origin. I think they changed it when they came over to the U.S. </p>
<p>Regarding Nancy, I don’t think she has a choice between flying commercial or airforce.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have evidence that she requested this? That the Sargeant of Arms is lying when it said that he requested it for compelling security reasons? Otherwise you’re attacking a strawman.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, where is your evidence that the Speaker requested such a thing? I haven’t seen any facts to indicate this. </p>
<p>And yes, I’m familiar with Roberts Rules of Order and what a sergeant at arms does, even if I did type “of” instead of “at.”</p>
<p>What exactly do you mean by calling the Speaker a strawwoman? I’m sorry it went right over my head.</p>
<p>I’m still pondering the “pimpmojet.” Don’t know what that is, but I’d love to be able to work the word into a conversation.</p>
<p>I think letting Bill Donahue be the public face of the criticism of the bloggers was a huge tactical error. Too many people are going to bring up the hateful things Donahue has said about gay people, the “secular Jews” who are running Hollywood (and who “love anal sex”), and how he made it a point to defend Mel Gibson after his anti-semetic meltdown. It would have been more credible if they could have found someone with fewer motes in his own eye to do it.</p>