<p>I disagree. It doesn’t matter whether you like Donahue or not, this issue is not going to go away. Donahue’s involvement doesn’t change what was said. It was not pretty.</p>
<p>It’s quiet time now. The only ones paying any attention now are the political junkies. That will change soon.</p>
<p>If you’re running against Edwards in the Democratic primary, or God forbid, in the general election, then it will be very public what these two foolish bloggers said. </p>
<p>It’s one thing to argue about whether what they said was right or not on a college counseling blog. It’s something else when it’s broadcast on network TV for millions to see.</p>
<p>Over 25% of Americans are Catholic. I know they don’t all agree with everything that comes out of Rome, but even those that don’t are not going to look kindly on the viciousness that was posted about the Catholic faith by Mr. Edward’s new advisors.</p>
<p>They weren’t in his employment when they said those things. If the right is going to take that tactic, they are going to find it very uncomfortable themselves. McCain himself has hired people that he denounced as “dishonorable” in previous campaigns. </p>
<p>But of course Fox News isn’t going to tell you about that. It’s like the jet: let a male, Republican Speaker use one, and it’s vital to national security…but if the person in charge of security decides a female, Democratic Speaker should also have a military jet for protection, and all Gehenna breaks loose.</p>
<p>What the bloggers said was indeed offensive, but I fail to see how sending a bigot to attack a bigot is going to elevate the discussion. And I don’t think I’m going to be the only one who thinks bigotry is unacceptable from both sides. It’s a risky strategy, making Donahue the frontman on this. Someone like Philip Hannan would have been a much better choice.</p>
<p>If McCain has hired some who are “dishonorable” like these two, then he’ll be called out on it as he should be.</p>
<p>Conyat, this isn’t just Fox News, althought it may be right now because NPR is too busy interviewing Republicans who are more interested in other matters. </p>
<p>Edwards is going to have a bulls eye on his back from everyone who is running against him. You can fill in the blank be it Hillary, Obama, Gore, or Guiliani, McCain, or Romney on the other side of the aisle. Can’t wait to see Hillary with various Bishops and Cardinals once the serious campaigning begins.</p>
<p>And what an incredibly stupid mistake to make to suggest that this brouhaha is the result of someone not wanting her to travel a certain way because she’s female. Who in the world is advising her?</p>
<p>Oh please. Why else would the right wing think Hastert needed to fly in a military jet, and Pelosi not, if it isn’t about party and gender? Especially when both the White House and the person in charge of security for the US House said that a military jet was appropriate for both of them. </p>
<p>There simply is no rational reason for one to have that need for security and not the other. Pelosi arguably has greater security needs than Hastert, given all the extremists who insist that it’s inappropriate for women to be in positions of leadership over men. </p>
<p>I suppose you could claim that the irrationality of the right is due to something besides gender, but there have been too many gender-influenced slurs already for that to be credible.</p>
<p>Ooh “whiny”, a gender-based insult. How clever. </p>
<p>And yes, I have read lots of posts here and there on the internet by right wingers saying she should fly commercial. There is tremendous hostility toward a female speaker in these circles. Coincidence? Doubtful.</p>
<p>No one on this thread has said that she should fly commercial. If I’m mistaken I stand corrected. However, Id ask that you please point those posts out to me.</p>
<p>Since I have no idea if you are male or female, how can you assume that my view of your comments being “whiny” are gender based?</p>
<p>They are “whiny” though. Whether you’re male or female…whiny.</p>
<p>“Whiny” is one of those things almost exclusively used to try to dismiss women or issues of importance to women without addressing the issues, like “catty” and “b***y.” I doubt you would have said I was “whiny” if I was asking for more money for prostate cancer research.</p>
<p>Before you posted, I had already edited mine to make it clear that I didn’t mean CC. But go to the free republic site or anywhere that right wingers hang out. You’ll see the posts. You’ll also see the photochops of her dressed up as a dominatrix, and suggestions like “she can just use Hillary’s broom.”</p>
<p>Even the White House has said that the attacks on Pelosi are “silly” and “unfair.” And yet the right wing is still making them.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t know if you’re male or female so if I view your comments as “whiny” it has nothing to do with gender. </p>
<p>For the record I don’t think you’re catty or *****y. At least not yet.</p>
<p>Of course you’re going to see the photoshops of “Nancy” dressed up as “whatever” when you go to the opposition’s websites. After all they’re the opposition. They have fun with their opponents just like those at Kos, DU, and others do. Want to see a picture of W looking like Alfred E. Neuman?</p>
<p>I saw a photoshopped picture today of Air Force One that had “Broomstick One” on it. It was funny.</p>
<p>I think you guys have been out of power too long and have been used to throwing around all the smears that you don’t know what it’s like to be on the receiving end.</p>
<p>It’s actually kind of fun being out of power in Congress right now. Nothing’s going to get done and now we get to make fun of the blowhards.</p>
<p>I thought the whole issue was just that she wanted a plane that would fly nonstop. The cost difference being something like $5K/hr for the smaller one like was used by previous speaker versus $20K/hr. for the larger one. I never read or heard anything about it having to do with her being a female or for that matter a dem.—was more on why the larger (45 passenger) plane. If she says she’s willing to fly commercial, I’m sure she wouldn’t have a problem with a quick stop to refuel.</p>
<p>mkm56, it wasn’t about what Pelosi “wanted” at all. That’s the point. She didn’t request the plane. The Sargeant at Arms of the House, who has held his position for 11 years, made the request as a matter of security. But that hasn’t stopped the right wing smear machine from working overtime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You actually managed to type this with a straight face? You didn’t have to hold your nose or anything?</p>
<p>Maybe you didn’t hear all the smears about how if we agreed with the generals instead of the President on military strategy, we were unpatriotic and wanted the terrorists to win. </p>
<p>The right wing smears in power and out; they even smear each other:</p>
<p>“Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America.” – Jerry Falwell.</p>
<p>Maybe you forgot about Ashley Stevens. Two women are dead because the right wing smeared the 17 year old rape victim and demanded that her attacker, Wayne Dumond, be freed from the life sentence with no possibility of parole that a jury imposed on him. They insisted she was lying about the attack and her ID of Dumond as the attacker. Why did they hate Ashley so much? Because she was a second cousin once removed of Bill Clinton. Dumond used his freedom to kill two women in Missouri before the law caught up with him.</p>
<p>What’s sad is that the right seems to have learned nothing from this and taken no responsibility for their behavior. Recent events have shown that there are even still some on the right wing who think it’s a fine idea to smear teenaged and adolescent victims of sexual predators.</p>
<p>Remember when some Republicans wrote a memo about how they could make political capital out of the Shiavo situation, and when they got caught with it, they claimed it was a forgery planted on them by the Democrats?</p>
<p>Remember the staffer who got his security clearance revoked because he was accused of leaking the NIE? Even got death threats at his home? And later the Republicans admitted it was just a political ploy to get even with the guy’s boss for talking to the press about a Republican who was convicted on criminal charges?</p>
<p>Doing something wrong and then claiming to be a victim of a smear job is stock and trade for the Republicans. You gave a fine example in that bit of your post I quoted. The party must be very proud.</p>
<p>How did we get from “Nancy” to “Wayne’s World”?</p>
<p>The Republicans don’t hold a candle to the Dems when it comes to smearing. </p>
<p>The Dems are pros. The Repubs are learning from the masters. It’s going to be fun to watch Hillary take out John and Obama as they try to take her out. Fireworks and lots of them.</p>
<p>You can say things like that perfectly deadpan. It’s a rare gift. </p>
<p>Remember that movie Jerry Falwell made, where he took over the camera and had his producer pretend to be an investigative journalist in fear of his life because the Clintons were killing people? Even Falwell later admitted that he had no idea if his bogus claims were true–he just wanted them out there.</p>
<p>And how about this one, from an actual Republican fund-raising letter: “Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”</p>
<p>It’s interesting that you can just shrug off the way your party cynically puts people’s lives in danger for its own ends…and then baselessly accuses others of murder.</p>
<p>The Air Force has a fleet of planes for government use at Andrews Air Force Base. They have military designations, but are essentially the same as the following civilian planes:</p>
<p>Boeing 747s. They have two of these that are used by the President.</p>
<p>Boeing 757. They have two of these (I think). They are equipped like the 747s and are used for large travelling parties or for long-distance overseas flight. These are typically used for the VP, but could be used for a large congressional delegation plus press core – for example flying to a state funeral. </p>
<p>Gulfstream V – They have several of these high end corporate jets that are capable of transatlantic or coast to coast flight.</p>
<p>Gulfstream IV – They have several of these. Older version of a corporate jet. These are the ones that can easily fly Washington to Chicago, but are a little dicey for non-stop 3000 mile flight from Washington to DC. The have the max range, but that decreases with load, headwinds, the amount of fuel reserve you would need – for example to divert to Seattle if the third in command had to fly elsewhere following a terrorist attack.</p>
<p>I’m sure what happened here is the Sargeant at Arms detailed the range needed and listed the available planes (the Gulfstream V or the Boeing 757) capable of that range. Normally Pelosi would use a Gulfstream V, just like any other goverment official travelling with a small party.</p>
<p>Somebody at the Pentagon jumped at the listing of the 757 (for its range) and started feeding talking points to the media that Pelosi was “demanding” the 757.</p>
<p>I’m equally sure that the White House jumped to Pelosi’s defense because THEY KNOW which administration officials and Republican legislators have been flying the 757s and where they have been flying them.</p>
I’m about as far right as you can get, but I think you have gone WAY over the line in attributing this case to the “right wing” which would include any number of wonderful people I know. Comments like this have really hardened my attitude against the liberal Democrats who post on forums like this or who are in the media – Amanda Marcotte seems to epitomize the thinking on the left.</p>
<p>SJMom, the people smearing Ashley and pressing for Dumond’s release were right wingers. There is absolutely no doubt about this. Why not read up on the case and see who the players were?</p>
<p>Right wingers lied. Two women in Missouri died.</p>
<p>I guess it’s too much to expect the right wing to take responsibility for their actions in this case, but please don’t try to revise history.</p>