Madame Speaker, Your Private Jet Awaits

According to Judicial Watch, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her “extended family” are enjoying the benefits of travel via Gulfstream jet on the taxpayer’s dime. Here’s a little preview:
The documents also detail correspondence from intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi issuing demands for certain aircraft and expressing outrage when requested military planes were not available. “It is my understanding there are no G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable…The speaker will want to know where the planes are…” wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King writes, “This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker.”…. During another email exchange DOD staff advised Kay King that one Pelosi military aircraft request could not be met because of “crew rest requirements” and offered to help secure commercial travel. Kay King responded: “We appreciate the efforts to help the codel [sic] fly commercially but you know the problem that creates with spouses. If we can find another way to assist with military assets, we would like to do that.”
So, the terrifying horror and impending destruction of man-made global warming aside, why is Speaker Pelosi, a woman at the helm of an organization so riddled with mismanagement, waste and poor decision making that it had to get over a trillion dollar bailout, flying around in private jets? National security? Because the last guy did it?

18 thoughts on “Madame Speaker, Your Private Jet Awaits”

  1. Maria, you said the same thing about Al Gore.

    You could say the very same thing about most corporate executives.

    I don’t condone any of their excessive use of corporate/private jets, for environmental reasons already stated.

    But why do you single out only your political enemies?

  2. I single out the hypocrites. You know, Perry, the people who say CO2 is killing the earth while they tool around endlessly on private jets.

    But Pelosi is kind of a hypocrisy two-fer since House members took such pride in publicly berating the auto execs for their excesses.

  3. I single out the hypocrites. You know, Perry, the people who say CO2 is killing the earth while they tool around endlessly on private jets.

    That should have been obvious, of course. To everyone but [similar] hypocrites like Perry, that is. (As if Perry doesn’t “single out only [his] political enemies.” Please.)

  4. And the winner for most ironic statement I’ve read all week is…………………………………………………………………

    “But why do you single out only your political enemies?”

  5. Another laugh at this crowd. 🙂 I love the irony. You are right to point out the silliness. Jets aren’t evil whether they are corporate or government.

    For the record, I support Speaker Pelosi being flown in jet as long as we fly the President and Vice President as well as members of the cabinet. The Congress is not any less important of an institution than the Presidency. The Speaker is far more important to the operation of American government than the VP. If the President, the head of the Senate get security precautions, why not the Speaker of the house who is third in line for the Presidency. Taking out the Speaker would be an amazing coup for a terrorist organization. Before 9/11 the speaker was a soft target.

    I fully support legislative supremacy therefore I have to support protecting our Speaker even if she is a hypocrite. National Security trumps personal feelings.

  6. Yes, we wouldn’t want anything to interfere with our government’s rush to a $3 trillion deficit; it’s a matter of ‘National Security.’

    “Let them take coach”- Nancy-Marie Pelosi

  7. Consider that the Speaker has national security secrets that no more than what two dozen people know in this country. We wouldn’t put the Sec Def or Sec of state in coach. Why would we do the same with the Speaker of the House who is more important both in fact and position? Imagine the damage if Pelosi were captured. It could take a decade to recover if she talked. Would you want your children’s security be dependent on Nancy Pelosi not breaking?

  8. No, Hube, you are missing David’s point about security for our leaders. I think it is a valid point!

  9. No, I agreed with her point whole heartedly. I said,
    “Another laugh at this crowd. I love the irony. You are right to point out the silliness. Jets aren’t evil whether they are corporate or government.”

    Then I just expanded it to say that the jet is legitimate for national security even though she is a hypocrite. She insisted that other house members stop flying on evil corporate jets which didn’t cost us anything and uses a jet funded by taxpayers which does. I agree with Maria. I just wanted to be sure that we didn’t get the wrong point. There is nothing wrong with the jet or a GM Jet for that matter.

    I just think that in the rush to populism we sometimes miss the point. I don’t want the Speaker to travel and be like everyone else because she isn’t. Her position gives her special responsibilities and needs. We need to recognize that. The day we have the President drive his own car and fly commercially, is the day I will believe it is safe for the Speaker to do the same.
    The Speaker gets intelligence briefings very similar to that of the President and is one of only 8 people outside of the military who by law must know about military actions before they take place. I don’t want the Speaker to be the weak link in our national security.

    That is a different point than Maria’s and is not meant to disagree with or disparage her point.

  10. Thanks Perry, you got my point. National Security trumps politics for me every time. Though I have no objection getting a political jab along the way.

  11. David I guess you didn’t click on the words “National security” in my post because if you did, you would have gotten an article about Tony Blair flying commercial when he was the British PM.

  12. See Maria’s #12, Perry. You too, David.

    You guys seriously think there’s no GREEN[ER] alternative to what Madame Pelosi and her fellow limousine liberal crowd are currently doing?

  13. Oh, I saw it. It was a poor stunt. Blair took nearly 700 private flights and used a commercial flight as a PR gimmick. Due to security concerns, his selfish PR stunt delayed the flight took up the front of the plane and generally made a mess of things so he could say, I care.

    I think it proves my point. You can’t ignore the security concerns. I would rather have the Speaker on a private flight than fly on my plane unless I get to sit by her and bend her ear for a couple of hours. You either make that flight a potential target or disrupt everyone else (not just that flight, but a delay like that messes up the entire schedule connected in any way with that flight). Those disruptions cost us more than a private flight where costs are already fixed.

    Tell me would you like us to pay for a first class flight for a contengent of capitol police and staff? Delay everyone else? How much does that cost? I think our national security is worth a few bucks. I stand by that.

    As for that green stuff, save it for someone who cares.

  14. I will be awaiting the media to criticize the imperial executive branch for their flights. I think some Americans are secret monarchists. I am not. I am a beliver in the supremacy of the legilstative branch. My argument is an institutional one, my friend. It is hard when you have defend someone you don’t regard as worthy of defense, but I look at the long run. I look at what is best for the nation.

    Others may disagree. No Speaker has ever been murdered or kidnapped. I would say that before Gingrich most people couldn’t even name the speaker let alone recognize him/her. We have had assination plots, we know that Bin Laden put the Capitol in his sights (due to some information not made public we decided that the Speaker had a particular threat after 9/11), and we know that the Senate majority leader was targeted with the Anthrax letters. It is a different world. I don’t want to wait until it is too late.

    The damage done by capturing the Speaker would be exceeded only by capturing the President, Vice President, or Sec Def and except for the President, not by much. The Speaker is the most valuable soft target in the world. I don’t understand for the life of me why we don’t do more to protect her 24/7.

  15. First, I linked to one instance of PM Blair flying commercial, there are numerous others. Amazing how being called out by the voters can change a politicians ways.

    And I’m enjoying people making up excuses for Pelosi to fly around on a DOD Gulfstream jet, but unfortunately the actual reason why Pelosi can’t fly commercial was given by the Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs in the Judicial Watch article I cited:

    “We appreciate the efforts to help the codel [sic] fly commercially but you know the problem that creates with spouses. If we can find another way to assist with military assets, we would like to do that.”

    It’s not a “national security” problem, it’s a “spouse” problem.

  16. Flying the Speaker keeps up someone’s flight hours. They would do it anyway. Are you trying to tell me that the nation is better off flying empty planes?

    The spouse issue may be a secondary concern for the current speaker (I doubt it–sounded like a joke from the Pentagon spokesman), but no it was purely national security issue when it was established and the danger has not decreased. In past few years a lot has happened to secure my support. We have had a gunman shoot up the Capitol. We have had terrorists target it. We had chatter which identified a soft spot. We don’t take this issue seriously enough.

    I think this was a great exercise. I congratulate you on bringing it up. It shows the double standard of the Democrats. With that said, I don’t have a problem with Donald Trump flying his jet and I don’t have a problem with the Speaker flying one. I actually think it is important that the U. S. take better care of its key assets.

    Let’s be honest taking private jets didn’t hurt Blair with the public. After he cut back a little, he lost popularity. Why? Issues mattered not his flying around. Blair came from a socialist party which made hey out of envy. I can understand why he felt a little embarrassed. This is the United States of America. We are proud of our achievements. If some other country wants to endanger their key assets, that is their stupidity. I choose to lead not follow.

  17. Why would the DOD planes be flying “empty” and if the DOD is flying their fleet of private jets around empty, why hasn’t our green Congress put an end to it?

    The “spouse” issue was cited as the reason the Speaker couldn’t fly commercial. Not “security” Our Congresspeople should fly commercial, all of them, unless it’s an urgent state matter. If they can’t trust the security at our airports why should we?

Comments are closed.