Roger L. Simon: Nancita

Is it just because I disagree with some (not all) of her political views that I find Nancy Pelosi distasteful? As I watched her tonight on the Greta Van Susteren show, backing and shuffling on the why-it's-okay-for-me-to-have my-own-military-jet-issue, all I could think of was I was watching a half-bright, elitist rich lady from a tony San Francisco suburb with no real convictions, only a lust for power. Having lived most of my life in Hollywood, I admit to having a low tolerance for privileged hypocrites mouthing liberal pieties. But you would think that someone with a professed devotion to the environment would have more sense of how she appears. Whatever happened to the concept of leading by example? Frankly, the environmental area is where I would normally be most sympathetic to Pelosi's views. But being lectured by such a person is a complete turnoff. She makes me want to guzzle gas, pollute and run around in an humongous vehicle just like hers.

UPDATE: I have to admit that some of this car/plane stuff appears to have been overblown. In the car/SUV area, it's pretty clear Pelosi was just driving in an assigned vehicle. A lot (not all) of what I have written above is inconsequential and I apologize for it.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I saw it, too. what stunned me was her blasé incantation of the pacifist/globaloney "the debate is over" tactic in regards to the success of the war. She struck me, too, as not bright.

Speaking of Fox-exposed hypocrisy, I hope you caught the ambush interview of William Arkin (the mercenary-spotter). He, enviro-loon & ex-officio Greenpeace, was loading his ski paraphernalia into a 40' long Suburban.

I have not watched any TV news lately, it was getting to me so I decided to take a break.

It seems I am not missing much. Pelosi always struck me as a snob. Plain and simple. There is something in her manner that is about as warm and inviting and human as an early spring day in Antartica.

As for the war, her eagerness to embrace defeat is very telling. Can you imagine her in the WH? she would be falling all over herself trying to decide where and when to surrender first. After all, her real enemy sits across the political aisle.

It's nice to know La Nancita is carrying through with her promise to restore a sense of ethics to Washington. Just what set of ethics she's talking about, however, is open to question.

The gross national product in this country is around 10 trillion dollars. The airforce fleet rivals that of any commercial airline in the world. All she is asking is to have some leg room.

There are two kinds of liberals---ignorant and hypocritical. Wait--three kinds--I forgot hypocritical ignoramuses.

The road to Serfdom is paved by uber rich socialists who call themselves Liberal speaking as if they were working on behalf of the people.

They are collective Statist totalitarians hijacking our Republic, our Constitution and the rights of Individualism.

I have to ask, as a former Liberal who has since seen the light, why are not those who consider themselves Liberal at all disturbed by the fact that we live in a society which institutionally imposes speech codes, mandatory sensitivity training for speech code offenders, mandatory gender neutral workplaces, mandatory eco-regulation etc, etc, etc. What happened to the Classical Liberal cause for Individualism?

What is worse is that artists, of all people, are the ones who are actively imposing such collectivist ideology. I remember before 9/11 sitting in rehearsal rooms hearing all about the Christian hate, the mocking, the ridiculing and I even engaged in it myself but I never understood the reasons why until I pulled my head of the sand seeing that it was all do to politically correct speech which rendered Christians as the object du jour for attacks because the PC police would never allow ridicule of women, blacks, hispanics, or gays unless of course a woman or a black or a hispanic or a gay was affiliated with anyone associating with Republicans who associate with Christians.

That said I have to ask why are Liberals surprised by Pelosi's actions when her actions have been going on for decades?

Oh, please. Nancy Pelosi is not a "statist totalitarian." Nor is she any kind of socialist. I was one - I should know. I doubt she's even read much, if any, marxist theory. She's a rich woman with a mega-capitalist husband who wants to hold on to the perks of her class while having others think she's "good to the lower classes." This is all about what the shrinks call "splitting." It is very little about Das Kapital.

with very little alteration "... all I could think of was I was watching a half-bright, elitist rich man from a tony New Haven suburb with no real convictions, only a lust for power" the same (and more) could be said of our president and vice-president....

The real story -- as opposed to the RNC press release that the Washington Times rewrote and Roger saw fit to link to -- is that Pelosi wants the same thing Hastert had: a plane that doesn't have to stop to refuel between DC and her home district. Admittedly, the end of the RNC/WashTimes/Instapundit/Pajamas "news report" mentions the refueling issue, in passing, after many paragraphs of Republican Congressmen talking about "flying Lincoln Bedrooms", uncorroborated and completely denied allegations that Murtha played the "sexism" card, and, for good measure, details on "Tunagate".

I have no way of knowing how smart she is, although sometimes I wish she was more articulate and combative in defending herself. I'd rather have a Chuck Schumer or Barney Frank on the Sunday morning talk shows -- liberals who agree with Pelosi on most issues, but scare the bejeezus out of conservatives because they don't shrink from Republican rhetoric and can actually win debates.

All politicians lust for power. And as for convictions, how can one judge? Are McCain's visit to Liberty University to kiss Falwell's ring, or Mitt Romney aboutface on abortion, examples of a lack of conviction? Or just smart politics? Is McCain's aboutface on taxes -- going from a guy who talked about economic inequality and said that tax cuts during wartime were crazy, to an economic royalist who has promised never to raise taxes, show that he has no convictions? Or has he just seen the light and embraced the "truth"?

No Nancy Pelosi is a not statist totalitarian but the system which keeps her in power is; the very same system which will elect a socialist such as Hillary 'when elected I'll take all of Exxon's profit to redistribute to my cause' Clinton. Like I said uber wealthy Socialist are paving the road to Serfdom but the politically correct-minded Liberals cannot accept this because you have lost any ability to understand what freedom of speech means. Even in your very own entertainment community is it never more obvious than when you send artists off to sensitivity training seminars for using 'offensive' words; definately an example of "hypocrites mouthing Liberal pieties"

In any case you still haven't answered why it is that women have the right to choose to abort but people do not have the right to choose what they consume nor have you answered the question as to why Classical Liberalism has abandoned Individualism for collective Statist restrictions.

Har--a paragraph decrying 'republican rhetoric' followed by a paragraph on 'kissing Falwell's ring'. No wonder you can't see thru the Pelosi-types, Markus.

As far as 'winning debates", Schumer & Frank are admittedly accomplished purveyors of devisive class-warfare demagoguery. You can 'win" a debate with litanies of bitter accusation? How about a pistol--that's even *more* persuasive.

"Economic royalist" indeed. That's from Schumer's new book, which if an economy would be the super bowl, would be all about the Bears opening kickoff, and pretend that it was the whole game. Yes, let's fuss about 'rhetoric', why don't we.

And, Markus, look, I hate to call you an idiot, but your 'cutting taxes during wartime' charge can't really stand alone, can it, without an examination of the results of the cuts? On the putative victim of the transgression? That is, "federal tax receipts"?

In one breath we complain about the low caliber of our politicians and in the other look what they have to stoop to; fly a dangerous prop unfit for fumigation. ;)
Look, she is not asking for anything new – a bigger plane can make the non-stop trip to California and probably save money.

On the one hand we don't want her to even give the appearance of misusing her position as speaker. No book deals (Newt), no private trips (the hammer); but then when they ask for something we say NO. I suspect what's going on here is the WH wants to punish her for being such a royal pain (she was) when she was in the minority.

I red on Drudge some weeks back that Judge Judy makes more than all of the Supremes combined. Don't get me wrong – good for Judge Judy. But if we want to be represented by charities then we should say so.

The airplane issue doesn't much bother me, but "tunagate" really kinda sucks. I mean, after all the "oh, the humanity" rhetoric, when it came to where her own people would have to pay up, the issue morphed to "oh, the humanity, except the Samoans".

Looking at the various news stories, it's unclear to me what exactly Pelosi wants for transport use. Apparently, Hastert was using the Air Force equivalent of a Gulfstream III. This is a VERY comfortable airplane with a nice bathroom, and lots of cargo room, too, at least in the civilian version. It's certainly nothing to turn your nose up at. But with a headwind this model has to refuel on cross country flights, which supposedly is a security risk.

The Air Force also has a version of the Gulfstream V, which is basically a slightly larger jet with a much longer range. This should be suitable for Madame Speaker, but maybe the G-Vs are in short supply. I wouldn't begrudge her the use of a Gulfstream, but a 757? No way. If I were her, I'd probably be happy to have the use of the G-III. It would still beat the hell out of flying commercially in every way (security, convenience, privacy), even if it had to make a quick stop to refuel.

Yes, Buddy, the economy (and the stock market in particular) has began to pick up steam several years after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, although most of the benefits of the economic growth have gone to the already wealthy. So there was a correlation there. Just like there was a correlation between the Bush 41 and Clinton tax INCREASES and the economic growth of the nineties. And a correlation between the economic growth of the eighties and largest tax increase we have ever had: the one that Reagan approved in 1983, increasing the payroll tax to create the Social Security Trust Fund.

I don't have more time to debate. I'm in a new job, and a higher tax bracket these days, and I'm too busy. (It feels good, BTW, to be able to help Medicare more these days, especially since I saw what a wonderful job it did saving our family finances last year during my mom's illness.) But seriously, do you think Paul Krugman, C. Schumer, or B. Frank are the slightest bit afraid to debate ANYBODY from the Cato Institute on economic issues? Wouldn't they be, if in fact they are as blatantly and obviously wrong on the facts as you claim them to be?

"... the economy (and the stock market in particular) has began to pick up steam several years after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, although most of the benefits of the economic growth have gone to the already wealthy."

The economy picked up steam almost immediately after the tax cuts, the same way it did after every tax cut made in the modern era, including JFK's. It did this *despite* the massive bubble burst of the false growth of the Clinton late '90s and the huge transportation and security hit of 9-11. But I wouldn't expect you to know that markus, since the NYT didn't report it until the elections last November.

Define "wealthy". Then look up how much of the taxes of this country your definition pays. Then explain how anything that cuts taxes can not make them richer. You can't. All you can do is pull a Krugman and not get pinned down on a definition, so that you can move the target around. I'll make it real simple for you: People who pay taxes always benefit from a tax cut. The trick is, if you want to stimulate the economy by encouraging people to invest, that is one of the more tried and true ways to do it.

Even Bill Clinton knows this when he isn't in full pander mode. The difference between Bill and a lot of the idiots of the world is that he doesn't brainwash himself into believing his own propaganda.

PS. You are projecting, again, on the "will to power" stuff. Some politicians are political and principled (depending on the issue). Others simply want to do things their way, which really has no "principle" other than will to power. For example, I'm fairly certain that Hillary really does believe in some form of universal health care. It's a "principle" I find wrongheaded in the extreme, but I really believe she means it. Pelosi only cares about universal health care to the extent that it gives her power, because she wouldn't know the real issues if they bit her in the Botox.

Yep. markus, but causations *do* correalate, don't trip over ipse dixit. Actions have consequences, your dictum just says to be careful about your assigns. Your tax vs economy tidbits are good decontexted soundbites, but not good arguments.

For 'boom clues' look into RR's *marginal* tax cuts, not his SS-saving payroll tax increase (remember, your own dictum). Dollars are different, growth-wise, depending on whence they come.

Virtually all economists (as opposed to political-partisan agenda-mongers), worldwide, credit large parts of the current global growth boom to the recent round of USA tax cuts.

Your objections rest on comparisons of the rates of growth, and if the class-warfare project needs to assert that unless every sector is rising at exactly the same rate all the time, then the economy is ipso-facto "unfair", then go ahead, assert it, follow your three examples. They aren't at all wrong on what's good for the liberal plantation.

But you said you're too busy to debate, so I'll leave it there--if you want to minimize the admin's eco performance, why am I not surprised.

The Air Force offered her the same plane that Hastert used, but she asked for something much larger.

I don't begrudge her having access to military travel. It's about her demanding space for dozens of people.
But anyway, now she has issued only slightly veiled threats to the Defense Department, noting that she pulls the strings on its budget. And you know what? Bloggers will raise a stink, the MSM will ignore the story, and she will get away with the wartime threats to allow her ego to determine their funding.
God bless bloggers, seriously, but it seems a heroic effort is too often its only reward.

Great post, SM--you might add Katrina and the war, to the list of costs which this "unfair" economy is absorbing.

When you smear like that, do you shower immediately or do you like to wallow in the stench? I'm guessing you're a wallower.

“This is a silly story, and I think it’s been unfair to the speaker,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Why wasn't this an issue worthy of full media attention and discussion when Hasert was given a plane?

The extreme and petty partisanship on display over this matter makes you all look childish.

But it is nice how sweet-spirited and attentive you folks are toward Tony Snow & Dennis Hastert. Maybe...maybe...it's a NEW WORLD, where we can all join hands and work together, and and and

Glenn "Too Tall" Reynolds notes that Pelosi has said that she now has an "open mind" on nuclear energy. That's very good news. Aside from Pelosi reconsidering her position, I'm glad to see that there are a few environmentalists - the responsible ones - who are now embracing nuclear, for example: James Lovelock is heavily involved with Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy.

"Look, she is not asking for anything new – a bigger plane can make the non-stop trip to California and probably save money"...there are plenty of airplanes smaller than a 757 that can make it to California non-stop, even with headwinds. Some enterprising blogger should put up a list of them and their respective fuel consumptions.

Also, why on earth would a refueling & leg-streching stop be a "security risk"? Why is landing at Peoria any more of a risk than the original takeoff from DCA and the ultimate landing at SFO or wherever?

Fat Denny Hastert had his own military plane - and you Publicans didn't think that was a bad thing. In fact, it was a part of the so-called Patriot Act to give the Speaker of the House, whoever she may be, access to gummint planes for trips home.

Oh, and by the way, even Tony Snow-job says that y'all should shut up about this one.

Thanks for noting the error, Roger. The MSM rarely corrects itself visibly and Eris knows that your posters seem rarely able to even grasp the concept that they may be wrong (maybe even me ;-) ). However, its these lucid moments that keeps me from giving up on blogs completely (well that and Totten).

Buddy--thanks. The C-37A sounds like basically a Gulfstream V with some added features. Range at normal cruise is quoted as 6500 miles.

Hastert's home district is in Illinois, which is a lot closer to DC than Pelosi's. The complaint about having to make a fuel stop is simply whinning.
The C-20 is a Gulfstream III capable of a range of over 4200 miles, far more than enough to fly from DC to San Francisco even with strong headwinds. According to this, it's only 2449 miles direct from Washington, DC to San Francisco.

However, like any plane, there is a tradeoff between fuel load and passenger load. According to this source, with a full fuel load, the Gulfstream III can carry up to 2610 pounds of passengers and baggage. It's possible that number could be less on the C-20 depending on the equipment (e.g. extra communications) that it may carry. If you fill up the cabin with a large entourage (as she seems to believe is her right), then yes, a fuel stop might be required.

A C-32/757 would be gross overkill for flying her to San Francisco. It's a very large plane that costs $22,000 an hour to operate and that's probably not counting the cost of the crew of up to 16 people. The C-20 has a crew of 5 and costs less than $5000 an hour to operate.

What's hypocritical is that Pelosi, fresh from attending a global warming conference, isn't satisfied with riding on a plane that spews some 10,000 pounds of CO2 per hour of operation and would burn approximately 4,000 gallons of fuel each way on that coast-to-coast trip. No, she's demaning a plane that consumes several times as much fuel and spews several times as much CO2 just so she can carry a large entourage at taxpayer expense without the hardship of having to make a stop along the way. Boo freaking hoo.

I could forgive Madame Speaker a lot if she'd only stop smiling so strenuously at the camera. But even that's understandable: she's an aging broad who was once a pretty hot number. That alone can unhinge the female of the species. Keep flashing that high wattage smile at us and keep glomming onto as many perks as you can. Everything helps when you've lost your allure and the end of the trail's in sight.

Last line should have been: Whatever helps when you've lost your allure and the end of the trail's in sight.

Yeah, author, big deal. you apologized that it was overblown, while retaining the right to later point out what you were spot-on about.

This happens all the time in the right-wing blog dystopia...you knee-jerk on something because that something supposedly happens to or because of a Democrat (the new it-word, since you ran "liberal" into the ground), then, instead of a new post retracting or apologizing without rancor, you "update" the very same entry so that it pings all over the echo-space YET again.

If you are REALLY sorry for having misplaced your knee-jerking, then try LEARNING from it this time, and THINK before you post next time.

And until that happens, post again, now, about how overblown the rightwingers are making this whole Pelosi thing.

Well I don't like Ms.Pelosi and I think she is quite probably as Roger has described her, to wit-- "... a rich woman with a mega-capitalist husband who wants to hold on to the perks of her class while having others think she's good to the lower classes."

But this issue is STUPID, and will not do the Republicans any real good. Frankly a mention of it would have sufficed, and it has already gone on far too long. All she has to do is say that she will happily fly 'commercial' and she will come across as not only 'reasonable' but 'environmental' as well. Unlike Denny, by the way. Denny really just didn't have that 'environmental' look, if you know what I mean.

This is why Congress has an approval rating around 30%. Namely it appears to consist of equal parts poltroons, panderers, and retards. Ooops, I guess that should be 'intellectually-challenged'. But I have had it with PC as well, so retards it is. What a collection. Meaningless resolutions and backbones of jello.

If Pelosi can actually propose something 'useful' on Energy Independence and a couple of other issues, she will I fear complete the 2006 rout in 2008. The Republicans need something other than this plane controversy drivel to save their collective butt from the lawnmower. I honestly don't think they have anything except the silly 'political' stuff.

Based upon the action thusfar, I don't think the Republicans actually have anything to say or offer at all. Which come to think of it is perhaps why they LOST in 2006. You'd better hope the Democrats conduct themselves as cluelessly as usual, but I have a feeling they just might not.

It's cheaper for her to fly first class even with the entourage and security. And they need a little grounding in reality. Nancita please don't do me any favors with my money.

As for "liberal elites": Pshaw.
The elites in this country are the rich. Are the rich more liberal or conservative?

February 7, 2007: Nancita

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post