…but in light of both recent and ancient history, should anyone be surprised by this?
Since Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker in 2006, she’s rung up millions in military travel expenses to commute between San Francisco and Washington.
Worse still, she also appears to have requisitioned entire flights for the personal use of her children and grandchildren. That is, unaccompanied by any member of Congress, her kids, in-laws and grandchildren are utilizing entire military passenger jets for their routine travel needs.
Going through airport security and sitting in cattlecars is for the little people. Besides, she was doing it for the children. And the grandchildren.
I don’t want her to resign over this, though. I want her to remain the leader of the Democrats for years and years.
Wrong. Factcheck looked at this a while ago. Key points from their findings:
1) Pelosi flies military for security reasons – she is 3rd in line to the Presidency. This started after 9/11.
2) Flights are not authorized for unaccompanied guests. As noted by a commenter on the post you site, the “unaccompanied” flights were actually with Pelosi and her guests.
3) Her office also handles flight requests for the entire House – so you have to actually read the entire order, not just the header, to see who’s travelling and why.
Oh, and the mainstream media did look at this, back when the allegations were first made in 2007. There being nothing to report, they dropped it.
Chris, if you look at the linked article, they have scanned images of requests for travel like this one where Pelosi’s daughter, son-in-law, and grandson are traveling with no mention of Pelosi herself being on board. They have several examples that show requests for travel for members of her family that don’t mention her being onboard.
Like it or not, the government travel for Pelosi herself comes with the job. However, that doesn’t mean she should be allowed to abuse the priviledge or run up huge expenses at taxpayer expense like the over $100K in food and alcohol expenses reported last week.
Larry J – wrong. If you go to Judicial Watch, and download the “Air Force Weekly Travel Reports” you will see that the full manifest for the April 15 flight include Speaker Pelosi and Rep. George Miller, as well as the Vos family and Alex Pelosi.
What was presented on the linked report was a partial order. Apparently the blog author didn’t do his research.
I looked at the Air Force Weekly Travel Reports. For some of the dates mentioned in the link Rand provided, she is listed as flying. For other dates from 2008, there isn’t a weekly report so it isn’t possible to verify whether she was on board the plane or not.
The request orders keep mentioning that the requested people are authorized to travel on government aircraft “in connection with official business”. Sorry, but that seems insufficient. When I was in the military and had to travel within the US, I traveled by commercial airliner with the rest of the riff-raff. What is the official business of her grandchildren?
Even the space available (Space A) rules seen to have been bent here. When I was overseas, I traveled Space A several times. However, when I came to CONUS, I had to fly commercial. Maybe the rules have changed since then but the idea was that government shouldn’t be competing with commercial airlines within the US.
Pelosi flies military for security reasons
And you say this with a straight face? Amazing.
Pelosi flies military for her personal convenience. Indeed, to suggest she flies military because she worries about her personal safety is obscene. It suggests that she does not trust the TSA to keep airplanes safe — and rather than see that it does, which is her job as the chief legislator of the House — she has chosen to punt and secure her ass while the rest of us take our chances.
Fortunately, I don’t believe that bad about the Speaker. I think she just loves the convenience and plush. I don’t even actually mind, up to a point. There ought to be cushy perks that come with a high-stakes, high-responsibility job. The part that grates on me is where, if you’ll notice on the sight to which you point, even the military complains about Pelosi’s casualness about last-minute cancellations and other bullshit that waste a pile of the taxpayer’s money. Hey, that’s my money, you stupid yet arrogant bimbo.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp
Larry J – so now we move the goalposts from “requisitioning an aircraft for her grandchildren” to “maybe her grandchildren shouldn’t fly with her while reimbursing the government at commerical coach rates? What’s next – Sasha and Malia don’t get to ride on Air Force One?
Carl Pham – From the February 7, 2007 White House press briefing:
Q Does the President think it’s a good idea that Speaker Pelosi have a large government military jet available to her to back and forth to California?
MR. SNOW: After September 11th, the Department of Defense — with the consent of the White House — agreed that the Speaker of the House should have military transport. And so what is going on is that the Department of Defense is going through its rules and regulations and having conversations with the Speaker about it. So Speaker Hastert had access to military aircraft and Speaker Pelosi will, too.
Not only is this bullshit, it’s old bullshit, and fully spread, picked through and aired out by the MSM.
Since the documentation doesn’t cover several of the weeks mentioned in the original post, it’s not possible to verify whether or not she was on those planes.
Your absurd assertion about Obama’s kids is in no way comparable to Pelosi’s. Every child of any president gets Secret Service protection until that president leaves office. That doesn’t apply to the children or grandchildren of the Speaker of the House. Comparing Pelosi’s grandchildren to Obama’s children is simply foolish.
You didn’t answer my question, though. What is the official business of Pelosi’s children, in-laws, and grandchildren that justifies them traveling at heavy taxpayer subsidizy? I’ve read frequent complaints about Pelosi demanding larger aircraft for her travels. Could this be a reason why?
Like Chris Gerrib said: You’re looking for a scandal where there isn’t one. This is about the 2,732nd time this has popped up on a right-wing news blog. Every time it does it’s got some minor details changed, but it is essentially the same false story.
Larry J – you don’t get it. Pelosi is not “demanding a large aircraft.” She is using the same military aircraft that all Speakers of the House have used since 9/11. They are using said military aircraft so that, should there be another terrorist attack and the government needs to find and/or relocate the person 3rd in line to the Presidency they can.
The official justification of her children using military aircraft is the same as President Obama’s, or Bush’s, or any other government official – they are travelling with the government official.
She is using the same military aircraft that all Speakers of the House have used since 9/11.
No, she’s not.
Rand – you’re making a fool of yourself. If you click to the links I’ve provided, you will see that Pelosi never requested a larger jet. Her staff asked for a jet that could get to California without refueling and was told the next available was larger but still marginal. She wrote in it once. The rest of the time she used the same jet as Hassert used.
Pelosi never requested a larger jet.
I didn’t say she did. I was simply pointing out that you were mistaken. I think that people who attack straw men are the ones making fools of themselves.
$100,000 bar bill.
Yep, Chris: that’s for security reasons too.
Right?
Rand – when you said “no she’s not” what was your point? I ask because, per the article I cited, she’s using the exact same type of jet as Hassert did.
My point is that your article is mistaken. Hastert used a much smaller aircraft.
DaveP. – I note you don’t provide a link regarding her alleged bar bill. Until you do, I will consider it unproven.
Rand – then your point is mistaken. Hastert used a C-20B (Gulfstream III) and, except for one flight, Pelosi used a C-20B. They are the same size aircraft, and since they are operated by the same Air Force unit, they probably both rode in the exact same aircraft.
Letting her family fly at coach rates when the cost is higher is robbing the taxpayer. NONE of them should get to do it save the President’s family flying on AF 1. There is no excuse for her actions and trying to defend them makes you look like a partisan ideologue or a member of the MSM.
“Speaker Pelosi came under fire in 2007 for requesting a 42-seat Air Force carrier to ferry the Speaker and her staff back and forth between San Francisco, CA and Washington, DC. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was allowed access to a 12-seat commuter jet for security reasons after the events of 9/11.”
I smell smoke.
“In March 2009, Judicial Watch received documents from the Department of Defense detailing Nancy Pelosi’s abuse of a system which provided military aircraft for the transportation of the Speaker of the House. The documents, which were acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), detail the attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s last minute cancellations and changes”
I smell more smoke. Too bad the MSM has their nose up Democrat butt or they might also.
LOL
Not minor details. New facts (like a 100k food bill). There’re only minor to you because you just want the whole thing to go away.
Bill Maron – you may smell smoke. But if you look, you won’t find a fire. And as I keep reminding everybody, this was a big enough deal that it was discussed at a White House press briefing in 2007. It’s old. Everybody looked, didn’t find anything, and moved on.
Hey, I’m 150 millionth in line for the presidency. When do I get my ride?
You might want to start here, Chris.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Air Force detailing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s use of United States Air Force aircraft for Congressional Delegations (CODELs). According to the documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.
Well if the MSM decided there is nothing to see here you can rest assured that there is nothing to see here.
Right?
Q Does the President think it’s a good idea that Speaker Pelosi have a large government military jet available to her to back and forth to California?
I’m sorry, Chris, where in my calling card to you imagine it states that my opinions are influenced by what the President — any President — thinks? Unlike you on the left, I’m a free man. My opinions are not for sale, nor are they influenced by any person less in stature than God Himself. No President qualifies.
Not only is this bullshit, it’s old bullshit, and fully spread, picked through and aired out by the MSM.
Oh yeah, sure. Poor Nancy Pelosi would fly cattle-car commercial, like the rest of us, to show her populist street cred, but — alas! — the President (the hated President Bush, at that) — requires her to suffer and fly military for security’s sake.
Ha ha ha ha. Listen, Chris, I don’t give a damn what she says, nor what the President, or any other clown says. She’s flying military because she loves it. Duh. And, what’s also clear is that she’s pushing that perk as hard as she can right up to the limit of propriety, if not (and here’s the question) a wee smidge over it.
You are making, at best, a very precise and legalistic defense. That stuff may fly OK in Court, but it does very poorly in the court o’ public opinion which, as y’all found out in Massachusetts, is the one that really counts.
If I were the Speaker, I’d immediately cut back that military travel to the bare minimum, maybe even start flying coach, to try to preserve my majority from some independents standing in yet another 3-hour TSA line for a 90 minute flight, who are just not going to hear this stuff and not see red — as in, that’s how they’ll be voting this fall.
But, as Rand says, I wouldn’t give this advice to Nancy herself. Never interfere when your enemies are committing suicide, ha ha. You go Nancy! Order up the caviar from the in-flight menu while you’re at it!
Larry J – the Speaker also books travel for members of Congress. So, all those fact-finding missions to Iraq and Afghanistan run through her office as well, and are included in the Judicial Watch tally. In fact, the first 100-page download is entirely for one such trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. You can argue whether or not Congressmen should take these trips.
But that’s a country mile from where the original post started. The original post claimed that Pelosi was booking unaccompanied flights for her children. That has been debunked – in fact, the original blog poster is starting to back-pedal on his claims.
Carl Pham – you may want the person 3rd in line to the Presidency stuck on a commercial jet somewhere during a crisis. I don’t. If that logic escapes you, so be it.
Chris, it’s not logic, it’s nonsense. There’s no serious reason to go to expensive lengths to protect the life of the Speaker because she’s “3rd in line for the Presidency.” You’re speaking as if she’s some kind of princess heir to the throne, irreplaceable because no otther human being carries her special DNA.
That’s garbage. This is a republic. The people who occupy these offices are totally replaceable. The only reason we have a Presidential line of succession, something we did without for the first 170 years of the Republic, is because of the thought during the Cold War that large numbers at the top might be simultaneously wiped out by a nuclear attack, and it might save a little valuable time during a nuclear exchange to have a clear statement of who takes over the Big Red Button. But there’s no reason to be attached to anyone higher or lower on the chain. The idea that Nancy Pelosi (3rd) is far more valuable to the Republic as emergency Commander in Chief than, say, Hillary Clinton (4th) or SecDef Gates (6th) is a priori silly. None of them were selected by the people for that role; they just occupy it because someone’s got to.
Put it another way. What happens to the Presidency if Nancy Pelosi is killed? Exactly nothing, unless of course the President and Vice President are simultaneously killed, which is, at best, an argument for all three not traveling together, and in any event, just means we move on to Bob Byrd (ugh) or if he’s actually dead and being preserved by the Democrats to avoid a special election, Hillary Clinton. Big deal.
If you want to argue Speaker Pelosi’s life should be carefully preserved — more so than any ordinary citizen — because replacing her as majority leader would be very expensive and time-consuming, or because al-Qaeda thinks (or you think) she’s somehow essential to the smooth running of the Republic, be my guest. It will be hard to restrain my laughter, however.
I’m OK with taking care to preserve the President’s life, and his family, because they are the targets of spotlight-hunting crazies. But until a Speaker is the target of assassination, my republican impulses say she ought to ride the bus like the rest of us. To hell with aristocracies. If she can castigate the CEO of GM for taking a private jet to D.C. to testify, than I can tell her to shrink her ego and fly United to get to the same place.
Oh wait you said:
you may want the person 3rd in line to the Presidency stuck on a commercial jet somewhere during a crisis.
Ah ha ha ha. Like what kind of “crisis,” Chris? An urgent need to shove ObamaCare down the nation’s throat on Christmas Eve, before the rubes catch on?
You can’t be serious. Just go ahead and name me a “crisis” in which what’s urgenly needed is the quick passing of a law. Have you forgotten that Nancy Pelosi is head of one of the houses of the Legislative Branch? Dude, if the Executive Branch doesn’t have every single bit of statutory authority they need to act in a crisis, then someone or other — starting with James Madison — has really screwed up.
The fact that Chris actually worries about Nancy Pelosi being stuck in a commercial flight in a “crisis,” (assuming that he really believes it, and isn’t just pathetically attempting to defend this policy), and preventing it is worth millions per year, says a lot about his intelligence/mindset. Not much of it complimentary.
“Everybody looked, didn’t find anything, and moved on.”
Who? An ethics committee that has a hard time censuring convicted felons or an MSM that can’t describe convicted Democrat politicians as Democrats?
Carl, you ignorant slut — what if the British sail up the Potomac and destroy the executive branch with a cannon shot? What then?!
I thought the Dems were supposed to be some sort of strategic geniuses, like losing the Obamacare battle so they can win even bigger later. So why do they keep getting caught up in these petty scandals? Why didn’t the Wile E. Coyotes advising her suggest she carry a few sailors, soldiers or marines on every transcontinental flight, especially the nepotistic ones, and make a point of letting them share in the luxuries? (All of us, including apologists like Chris, know why.)
Even if she is booking congressional flights as her appointed duty the stuff she comes up with is just bonkers. The trip to Copenhagen for the climate summit cost over 1 million dollars. And they got so much accomplished over there =/
So why do they keep getting caught up in these petty scandals?
Because the scandals (at least this one) are invented?
It wasn’t the Pelosi’s idea to have the speaker take a military jet — that happened when Hastert was speaker. It wasn’t the Dems’ idea to let the speaker bring relatives on a space-available basis — and it’d be churlish to instead have the seats go empty.
By contrast, Sarah Palin actually billed the State of Alaska for travel expenses incurred by her relatives.
Carl Pham – if we need to fix Pelosi in a crisis, it’s because she is the President now. And the reason Pelosi is in the position is because, unlike Hilary Clinton, she’s actually elected. Pelosi is replaceable – the Speaker of the House is not.
Rand and Carl – it’s not like nobody’s ever tried to decapitate a government before. The Lincoln assassination was supposed to do just that, as was the Gunpowder Plot back in Merrie Olde England. In both cases, sheer incompetence prevented it.
But my point remains the same – Pelosi is not booking flights for her family unless they are traveling with her, in a plane that would otherwise be empty. The decision to grant her a plane was made years before she was Speaker, and it was made as a direct result of 9/11.
Nor is it costing the US “millions of dollars per year.” All Congressional travel goes through her office, and Judicial Watch is telling me the total bill for all travel is around $1 million / year. Her travel is a fraction of that. It’s not like we created the 89th Airlift Wing just for her.
I’m sorry y’all don’t like Nancy Pelosi. Just because you don’t like her doesn’t mean everything she does is wrong.
I’m sorry y’all don’t like Nancy Pelosi. Just because you don’t like her doesn’t mean everything she does is wrong.
I think you might have forgotten what this thread is about. Pelosi personally consumed $2.1 million dollars on air travel in what frankly is an irresponsible use of taxpayer funds. Maybe she does something right, but this isn’t it.
if we need to fix Pelosi in a crisis, it’s because she is the President now.
Uh…say what? Is this English?
Rand and Carl – it’s not like nobody’s ever tried to decapitate a government before
Sure, Chris. But you’re talking about amputation of a hand, at best, not decapitation — removal of the head. The head of your government, you’ll find, is the President. The Executive Branch. Those are the guys who do stuff — execute the laws of the country, command the Army and Coast Guard, decide to shoot down airliners carrying mad bombers, fire off the nukes when the Russkies come calling, or call out the Minuteman when the redcoats come up the hill. Someone could indeed hope to achieve a momentary military advantage by blowing up the President — or indeed any general officer in the military chain of command from the President on down.
But removing the Speaker of the House is like attempting to “decapitate” an Army by blowing up the typing pool, or shooting the colonel in charge of latrines.
Sure, it’s annoying. But hardly decapitation. I can think of no function of the Speaker that couldn’t be delayed for the half an hour or so it would take the House (if in session) to elect a new one.
Just because you don’t like her doesn’t mean everything she does is wrong.
Quite correct. And, in fact, I don’t think she’s doing anything wrong — just politically stupid (and because I love my enemies to be politically stupid, I’m all for her continuing.)
But now maybe you consider the converse truth: just because you like Nancy Pelosi (or the Democratic agenda) doesn’t mean everything she does is right. You are making a ridiculous splitting of hairs defense, which you would never do for your traditional enemies. You look like a partisan hack. You’d gain more mileage with those not already in the tank if you said: Yeah, well, a case could be made that Pelosi is being careful to stay just this side of the legality line — and I could make it — but, heck, in times like this — 10% unemployment! — that kind of aristocractic behaviour just stinks, whether a careful legalistic analysis shows it to be this side of the law or not, and in the hopes of retaining the majority I sure wish she’d knock it the hell off.
Try it. Think of it as political judo. You gracefully concede the small stuff, in the hopes of winning on the big stuff. Er…no, wait, what am I saying? Forget I said that! Never concede anything! It’s all big stuff! You must fight to the death over every single detail! Death before dishonor! Banzai!
“It wasn’t the Dems’ idea to let the speaker bring relatives on a space-available basis — and it’d be churlish to instead have the seats go empty.”
This is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin. Let me put it this way. Why should her FAMILY get privileges not available to the rest of the electorate? Because they can doesn’t mean they should. She’s an elected official, not royalty even though she acts like it. You should be mad as hell, not defending a churlish abuse of taxpayer dollars.
Karl Hollowell – Pelosi personally consumed $2.1 million dollars on air travel No, she did not. Her office, which includes every member of the House of Representatives, did.
Carl Pham – if somebody kills or incapacitates the President and the VP, then Pelosi is President. All this screaming about “royalty” and “bad image” will not change that fact.
Karl Hollowell – Pelosi personally consumed $2.1 million dollars on air travel No, she did not. Her office, which includes every member of the House of Representatives, did.
That’s not what the quote says.
Maybe you should read this first before you continue. It’s worth noting here that the $2.1 million is what Pelosi cost the US Air Force, not the total cost of the junkets and other travel.
Carl Pham – if somebody kills or incapacitates the President and the VP, then Pelosi is President. All this screaming about “royalty” and “bad image” will not change that fact.
So what? I don’t see the need for fancy transportation. It’s not going to make a difference if they have to spend a few extra minutes tracking her down. Consider too that she has to be flying when this surprise double assassination occurs. Even a high flier like Pelosi doesn’t spend that much time in the air.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002010038
It isn’t that I “want the whole thing to go away.” I could care less about Pelosi’s political future. As far as political scandals go, even if this one had a grain of truth to it (in actual fact, it has about a gluon of truth to it), it would be beyond minor. Well into irrelevant. I just can’t stand it when people stick their fingers in their ears and go “LALALALA” when they’re determined to believe falsehoods.
Geez, that’s a pretty juvenile defense to which you point, Ethan. I guess I shouldn’t expect better from those loser hacks, MediaMatters, but their counter “argument” boils down to:
(1) You haven’t proved other people weren’t on those flights! It wasn’t necessarily all spent on Pelosi and her family!
(2) Republicans did it first!
Wow, that’ll really convince some wavering independent gritting her teeth over her 1040 this weekend, finding something to like about her local Tea Party, picking up a nasty smell of unrepublican aristocratic privilege from Queen Nancy and her LBJ-wannabe tactics.
It’s that kind of political deft touch that earned you fools Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
I’m with Hitler. How can someone blow control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency and a supermajority in the Senate? You have to be some entirely new species of doofus, really.
I just can’t stand it when people stick their fingers in their ears and go “LALALALA” when they’re determined to believe falsehoods.
Then don’t lead by example. The only contrary evidence I’ve seen so far is the Factcheck link and they have an ideological ax to grind.
The DOD just issued a new set of regulations regarding congressional travel on military aircraft, the first update since the 1960s.
Some highlights:
a. Spouse and/or Family Travel. Due to limited resources and the expense involved with the use of military airlift for travel, spouses and family members of members and employees of Congress will not accompany official delegation travel. In unique cases, when there is an unquestionably official function in which the family member is actually to participate in an official capacity or such travel is deemed in the national interest because of a diplomatic or public relations benefit to the United States, ASD(LA) may approve an exception and authorize the travel of one family member of the legislative branch to accompany the member on a CODEL. This travel will be at no expense to the USG. Such approval of non-reimbursable travel is limited to spouses, member designates, or an adult child (18 years of age and older) of the member of Congress for those members who do not have spouses or those whose spouse is unavailable (as stipulated in the committee and/or leadership letter). Children under 18 years of age are not authorized travel on CODELs.
No more hauling Pelosi’s grandkids at taxpayer expense.
I’m in New Jersey, and if you read up on Chris Christie, he’d be the sort of Republican I’d vote for, if it weren’t for his stances on social issues.
he’d be the sort of Republican I’d vote for, if it weren’t for his stances on social issues.
RIght. Because God knows it’s far more important to not have to listen to the Governor lecturing you on your sex life than it is to, say, have a job or be able to afford to buy a house in which to raise your kids.
The idea that any “social issue” rises to a serious level of importance in the governance of the modern Republic has got to be one of the most appallingly stupid cut off your nose to spite your face myths to get stuck in the head of a younger generation of voters since hothead Southern gentry took the nation into civil war — and destroyed themselves forever — over the abstract concept of whether Congress could, theoretically, prohibit slavery de jure where it was already impossible de facto, e.g. Arizona and California, maybe Atlantis and Shangri-La, too.
Can you name me a “social issue” in which your personal happiness or welfare is seriously at stake, and over which the Governor has actual serious power? And yet, you’ll happily jump into 1970s stagflation squared just to have the Governor mouth the correct phrases about abortion, gay marriage, “torturing” Guantanomo inmates, teaching contraception or evolution in the schools — over none of which he has the slightest actual power. Good grief.
Gee, Carl, you mean maybe all those chowderheads who wouldn’t vote for Tom McClintock, a genuine fiscal conservative, in CA’s special gubernatorial (heh) election because he might (wait for it…wait for it…) ban abortion in California were possibly…mistaken? You mean we ended-up with Governor Winershitzel for nothing?
Say it isn’t so! /facepalm