Pelosi of the People!
“Let them eat cake! Well, back there in coach-seating of course.
I mean, I don’t want the people’s slobber on my velvet first-class seats, you know.” – Empress Nancy Pelosi
“The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history,” Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi.
Yeah, right.
Remember… she’s Not-My-House-Speaker! And she shouldn’t be flying a 757 In-My-Name or With-My-Tax-Money.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
96 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Wow…you’re writing about this…now? There are many things to attack with Nancy Pelosi, but not a junk story that has been debunked already by the White House. Wake up Bruce and get back on your game!
=)
Sorry, I am feeling punchy this morning.
Comment by Jack — February 10, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - February 10, 2007
More to the point, since the War on Terror is just fear-mongering by BushHitlerHalliberton, there is no need for a private plane, which was provided to Mr. Hasert for security reasons.
Comment by mrsizer — February 10, 2007 @ 3:00 pm - February 10, 2007
Here is my opinion of anyone who refers to any American president as Hitler…Go to the nearest library and read about Hitler and if after doing so you still believe that any American president is capable of Hitler’s actions, call an ambulance and go to the closest mental hospital ASAP. Your condition may be terminal.
Comment by benj — February 10, 2007 @ 7:31 pm - February 10, 2007
“This is a silly story and I think it’s been unfair to the speaker.”
(Those aren’t my words, but those of Tony Snow. You can Google it if you don’t believe me!)
Comment by vaara — February 10, 2007 @ 7:44 pm - February 10, 2007
I agree with Vaara – you reduce your credibility when posting stuff like this. Go after the real problems with the dems, not this sort of thing.
Comment by Eva Young — February 10, 2007 @ 8:12 pm - February 10, 2007
Yes. It’s a silly story.
But one has to wonder about tone deaf pols from both parties who view themselves as royalty.
The Speaker doesn’t need to fly commercial (who’d want to be on that flight what with the entourage and additional security hassles) but a G3 is plenty of airplane. A 757 is a bit overboard (just think of the greenhouse gases!)
Comment by Robert — February 10, 2007 @ 8:17 pm - February 10, 2007
Gee, is having a Gulfstream available …on the public dime…unbearable if you have to make a refueling stop? How does having to make a stop compromise “security” if it’s a USAF aircraft, and there’s plenty of secure USAF and USAF Reserve fields with jetfuel available? Or for that matter, the hundreds of large and mid-sized commercial fields?
What, she’s afraid that her aircraft will be overrun by screaming horde of Midwestern “red state” citizens while being serviced? Or, is it the really small toilet compartments on the Gulfstream vs. the “comfy” toilets aboard a VIP 757?
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 10, 2007 @ 9:09 pm - February 10, 2007
And what’s entertaining is that the Air Force has available planes like the C-37 (a civilian version of the Gulfstream V business jet) that are capable of flying intercontinental routes nonstop; Washington to San Francisco is a mere trifle in comparison.
But unfortunately, C-37s have less than 20 seats and, more importantly…..no beds.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2007 @ 9:40 pm - February 10, 2007
I’m a die hard Libertarian and think every penny spent by the Government is one penny to much. However, Nancy actually is third in line for the Presidency and her security is very important to the country.
She shouldn’t get her own private plane like the President does but even the Presidents press secretary agrees, she should get the larger plane when she’s on official business and when traveling to and from her district.
Curtis
ps. Love this blog, I read regularly. Thanks.
Comment by Curtis — February 11, 2007 @ 12:20 am - February 11, 2007
She wants a plane with the ability to serve Tuna Surprise!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 11, 2007 @ 7:55 am - February 11, 2007
Multi millionaires / real estate tycoons do not fly in small commuter jets that some hick midwest repub used.
They demand a 757 with seating for 47 , media room, staff of 16 ,and bedroom suite that costs 300,000 per flight paid by the little people’s money.
The little people (suckers ) who bought those phoney campaign promises will pick the bill .
Comment by burt — February 11, 2007 @ 8:27 am - February 11, 2007
This is stupid. Don’t you have real stuff to write about or is this the best dirt you can find with which to smear the Democrats?
Comment by Bloggernista — February 11, 2007 @ 9:47 am - February 11, 2007
How many Dems are going to whine about this post? After the weeks-long parade of Cheney’s hunting accident commentary I would think almost anything is worth talking in depth about. Especially an issue involving excessive spending of tax dollars and greenhouse gases.
Comment by VinceTN — February 11, 2007 @ 10:58 am - February 11, 2007
Don’t you have real stuff to write about or is this the best dirt you can find with which to smear the Democrats?
It’s ALL good. However, it should be noted that the liberals smear themselves.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 11, 2007 @ 10:59 am - February 11, 2007
I’m sort of hesitant to say this, but yeah it’s a silly story. Rep. Pelosi will give us all kinds of reasons to make sport of her; this isn’t it. The White House concurs with her reasoning & she DOES have a point. We will have bigger fish to fry than this non-story. Let it go.
Comment by Jimbo — February 11, 2007 @ 1:55 pm - February 11, 2007
It’s not a silly story. As many have pointed out, it’s very expensive to the taxpayers. And Pelosi would be carrying extra lobbyists, if she got all those extra seats (with the larger plane); i.e., engaging in a form of corruption. I do not pay taxes so she can carry on that way.
Having said that: you’re right that Pelosi is sure to do many other grating, harmful, politically tone deaf and/or corrupt things. From that perspective, this plane business will seem minor in the end.
Comment by Calarato — February 11, 2007 @ 2:13 pm - February 11, 2007
Funny how the court lefties are now treating the ‘White House’ as the voice of authority all of the sudden.
Of course President Uniter-Not-A-Divider isn’t going to press the issue. Just like his Justice Department let Sandy Burglar get off with a slap on the wrist for a crime I, and any other clearance holder, would be going to prison for.
But *we* can still raise the issue. There is nothing silly about a Speaker demanding access to a taxpayer-funded jet for canoodling with donors and lobbyists, nor is there anything silly about her pet goon, John Murtha, threatening troop funding if Her Highness doesn’t get the plane she wants.
There are a lot of things the Bush administration thinks are “silly” — the notion that we ought to have secure borders, for example — that not all of us think are silly.
Comment by V the K — February 11, 2007 @ 3:29 pm - February 11, 2007
I wonder if I’ll live long enough to see one of the leftie shills criticize a Democrat for anything other than wanting to win the war against Islamo-Fascism.
Comment by V the K — February 11, 2007 @ 5:21 pm - February 11, 2007
Well, the simple fact is she never asked for a 757 – it’s another lie propagated by the right wing noise machine. However, I think this will backfire on the Republick Party as it has apparently triggered hearings into the use of military planes by the Executive and Congressional branches over the last two years. That should have some in the republick Party sweating. Perhaps that’s why the White House took Pelosi’s side in this teacup tempest. As Atrios says in his inimitable style: “eat it, punks.”
Comment by Ian — February 11, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - February 11, 2007
Why does SanFranNan need a plane, anyway? Doesn’t her broom work?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 11, 2007 @ 6:41 pm - February 11, 2007
I thought all liberals afraid of global warming we going to start walking and biking places to save the planet? What the hell is going on? Trains burn far fewer fossil fuels. Come on. Practice what you preach.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 11, 2007 @ 8:11 pm - February 11, 2007
If there were a 600-mph train between Washington and San Francisco, then I’d be the first to insist that Pelosi use it instead of flying.
Comment by vaara — February 11, 2007 @ 11:52 pm - February 11, 2007
#17
V, if you find the secret to living that long, hook me up!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 12, 2007 @ 12:59 am - February 12, 2007
#18
Quoting Atrios? I didn’t know you were that pathetic. Thanks for letting us know.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 12, 2007 @ 1:10 am - February 12, 2007
Queen Nan got where she is by screeching “Scandal” and “Culture of Corruption” at every opportunity. Since taking power, she’s tried to install oozing sleazebag John Murtha as her number two, sneak through a minimum wage exemption for a corporate client in her own district, and now this plane thing. You reap what you sow, Nanny.
Comment by V the K — February 12, 2007 @ 5:15 am - February 12, 2007
#25
But you’re not supposed to be smart enough to notice the liberal’s shenanigans. You’re only supposed to look in the direction they point. As I’ve always said, when they start complaining about things and pointing fingers, it’s best to look in the direction of the pointer.
Pay no attention to the Pelosi behind the curtain!!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 12, 2007 @ 6:05 am - February 12, 2007
Bruce, unlike the GayLeft types here clucking and pecking in the barnyard, I think NancyP’s and CrookMurtha’s “Imperial Jetliner Scandal” is fair game.
It is NOT a silly story… no more than Foley’s predatory sexual misconduct was a silly story or MikeRogers’ role in the outing of Congressional GOPers in the wake of that scandal was a silly story.
Pelosi made hay in the sunshine about ethics, corruption, abuse of power.
Now, her true aspect is laid bare… she’s just doing business the old way. Only now it’s in the Democrat’s 100 Hours Agenda timeframe of 5 days a week instead of 3!
God Save this Republic.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 12, 2007 @ 9:42 am - February 12, 2007
Yawn. Lame. Again.
Comment by rightiswrong — February 12, 2007 @ 10:19 am - February 12, 2007
#25 & 26
From breitbart:
Amid the hubbub, House Sergeant-at-Arms Bill Livingood, who is charged with the speaker’s security, issued a statement saying it actually was he, not Pelosi, who had requested that the military provide the larger plane so Pelosi could fly nonstop to San Francisco.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide the House speaker, who is second in the line of presidential succession behind the vice president, with a military plane for added security during trips home. Hastert flew in a commuter-size Air Force jet.
“The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making nonstop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable,” Livingood said in a statement. “I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.”
The Pentagon informed Pelosi’s staff this week that she would get a plane, based on availability, and that nonstop service could not be guaranteed.
Pelosi said Thursday that she’d be happy to fly commercial.
“We never asked for a larger plane. This is a myth that (the Republicans) are talking about on the floor,” she said. “They have nothing to say to the American people about the war, the economy, global warming and the rest. So they have this game they’re playing.”
Back on the House floor, 83-year-old Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, offered that it probably would be cheaper if he rode the bus home to Dallas every weekend, but that that issue could be debated some other time.
“The only airplane I’m thinking about,” he said, “is the one I wanted to be on at 12:30, heading for Texas.”
Comment by keogh — February 12, 2007 @ 10:38 am - February 12, 2007
The lies…..the 5 day work week, the $90,000 cash in Dem freezers, the private jets, the Harry Reid real estate deals, on and on. Where will the corruption of the Democrat Congress end?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 12, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - February 12, 2007
Where will the corruption of the Democrat Congress end?
Since the media will always cover for the Democrats, and their blogosphere shills will make excuses for it no matter what the Dems do, it doesn’t have to end.
Comment by V the K — February 12, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - February 12, 2007
#29 – And as usual, the cutting-and-pasting progresses.
Poor 401k. If he ever had an independent thought, it would be lonely as hell in his head.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 12, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - February 12, 2007
Hey, remember when the shills were denying that any Democrats support Hugo Chavez?.
Comment by V the K — February 12, 2007 @ 2:08 pm - February 12, 2007
It interesting to note that the context of the “Taxpayer Funded Imperial Jetliner” has been set aside by the GayLeftBorg commenters here… remember, this story broke as NancyP was making a rare appearance before the House Science Committee to bleed her true colors for the eco-fanatic global warming advocates.
Imagine that: here comes the Speaker with staff in tow, testifying before a Congressional Committee on global warming and some of the members of the committee have the audacity to question Her Royal Highness about the carbon footprint her new Imperial Jetliner will leave on the face of America.
“What an unspeakable outrage”, cry the Democrats. NancyP at first blamed the White House for the leak. Then she backtracked. Then Murtha threatened the Dept of Defense –good ol’ Jack, good ol’ boy. Then the Speaker had to disavow his actions. Then the real White House –not the conspiracy-spawned ramblings of the far Left’s mind– says the plane is warranted.
Oh my, oh my. The Queen is left with 3-eggs on her face again.
I predict we’ll have a corruption of the week story out of the House Democrats… as soon as someone checks Murtha’s refrigerator.
That’s called context, keogh. Like the context of JimmineyCricketCarter’s anti-Semitic remarks over the last 30 years…
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 12, 2007 @ 2:12 pm - February 12, 2007
And M-Matt, let’s not forget those wonderful stalwarts of honesty and ethics in government: Alcee Hastings (D-FL), William Jefferson (D-LA), Joe Kennedy (D-FL) – just to name a few.
Funny how “ethics” is how one defines them, no?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 12, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - February 12, 2007
Peter, as you know… the Democrats can be in Congress or out of Congress and still have the ethics of a rug trader in a Middle Eastern bazaar.
Here’s Joe Kennedy (thanks VdaK) , ripping off over $400k/year in salary as the Pres of a nonprofit (God only knows what else in perqs or benefits) and lecturing Americans about the moral propriety of aiding in the PR stunt of an American enemy like Hugo Chavez. He’s doing it for the poor! Right. Fat chance.
Geez, why hasn’t the MSM covered this? “Paging those great journalistic investigators Messrs Blitzer and Cooper at CNN”. I guess they aren’t covering the story because to find another Kennedy in bed with an enemy of the US is nothing new in that family, our generation, or the last three generations. What a boatload of traitors –from UncleTeddie to JoeyIII the pimp for Chavez.
And before keogh or lester or Ian can defend this Democrat by counter claiming Chavez isn’t the enemy… let’s keep in focus that there is good evidence of Chavez allowing an al Qaeda training facility to operate off the island of Margarita and Chavez personally authorized over $1.1m in funds to Osama bin Laden after 9-11… and we’ll skip Chavez’s recent lovefests with Castro and Ahmadinejad.
Reminds me of the days in history class where we learned in detail about his grandfather’s passionate support of Hitler –whose u-boats were then sinking American merchant ships across the Atlantic.
Kennedys have a function… I guess next to the Clintons, the Kennedys –other Democrat Dynasty– looks even more evil.
Shame on Joe. Say it ain’t so, Joe.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 12, 2007 @ 5:28 pm - February 12, 2007
#35:
Man, you just make this crap up!
Comment by Ian — February 12, 2007 @ 7:23 pm - February 12, 2007
Um Joe Kennedy was going to run for higher office until his family told him his ethics and personal life would ruin him. So he joined the private sector where he hoped to duplicate his grandfathers corruption and ethics. Re: Murtha threatening the Pentagon with budget cuts for sunlighting AIR PELOSI, imagine a Republican threatening to cut PBS funding for being so socialist. The horror and the half hour investigative cable programs that would follow. The Democrats are rotten, it’s in their DNA.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 12, 2007 @ 9:13 pm - February 12, 2007
Joe Kennedy was a six-term congressman from Massachusetts (natch) and a total sleazebag who got an annulment from his first wife after knocking her up and burned his kid with a firework, probably while drunk. He was considered a shoo-in for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, but Ted decided to run again. For Massachusetts Democrats, sleaziness and moral turpitude are resume enhancers. They loved Gerry Studds.
Comment by V the K — February 12, 2007 @ 10:07 pm - February 12, 2007
#’s 38,39: Since when is FL the abbreviation for Massachusetts? And I love this:
especially when you guys have orgasms over the likes of serial adulterers like Rudy and Newtie.
Now, you’ve claimed Joe Kennedy has ethics problems. What specifically? Or is this more Republick Party crap?
Comment by Ian — February 12, 2007 @ 11:51 pm - February 12, 2007
#36:
Oh yeah, “good evidence” provided by Pat Robertson! LOL. Or did you rely on your Freeper Friends? Of course, it’s an undisputed fact that Bushco supported the attempted coup against the democratically-elected Chavez. No wonder he opposes Bush and his cronies.
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2007 @ 12:18 am - February 13, 2007
#42
Of course, it’s an undisputed fact that Bushco supported the attempted coup against the democratically-elected Chavez.
Only to the mad minds of Socialist America hating douchebags.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 13, 2007 @ 12:53 am - February 13, 2007
One wonders why in the world these rich-bitch liberals have to cozy up to a dictator? Why don’t they put up the cash for the oil?
Answer: Image & PR. One Socialist helps another.
Yeah Chavez cares for the poor what with record high unemployment, inflation and a GDP which has only increased 1% since he was “democratically-elected”. Just the sort of thing the liberals want here.
Here’s an idea: Chavez was “democratically-elected” by electronic voting machine. So why do they work down there, but not here? One would naturally conclude that libs would embrace what works for their Socialist brethren.
Of course they’d have to do away with the Constitution to have their version of the Chavistas count the ballots, but since when do liberals give a damn about that anyway?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 13, 2007 @ 1:06 am - February 13, 2007
#43:
They work down there because the machines print out the voter’s filled out ballot on paper which is verified by the voter who deposits it into a locked box for use in subsequent recounts.
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2007 @ 1:31 am - February 13, 2007
And then whisked away to Chavista headquarters, where any ballots marked incorrectly are replaced with correctly-marked ones.
Dems like paper ballots because they’re the easiest to fake. That’s the simple reason. You can’t teach an illiterate illegal immigrant to hack a voting machine, but it’s very easy to pay them $100 to sit down and mark the correct ovals, squares, or check boxes on paper ballots — which are then inserted into boxes, and — how convenient – cannot be differentiated from regularly-cast ballots.
I have a better idea. If a voting machine prints out a paper ballot, the voter should be required to sign it, and a copy of the voter’s photo ID should be imprinted on it. That way, there’s no question of who cast what vote and where.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2007 @ 2:19 am - February 13, 2007
#45
I always wondered how, if libs are too stupid to figure out a butterfly ballot, were they going to figure out the electronic machines THEY demanded.
Hell, I could figure out the butterfly ballot and I’m not as smart as they claim to be. I even had sense enough to double check to make sure.
Am I the only one who saw the story on the news back in 2000 where they showed a group of TN 6th graders were able to use the ballot? How is it that they could figure it out but erudite, blue-blood Palm Beach liberals couldn’t?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 13, 2007 @ 5:13 am - February 13, 2007
Oh well. Ian’s Venezuelan trick is ruling by decree. We’ve seen the last of elections down there.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 13, 2007 @ 5:16 am - February 13, 2007
Wow! Ian not only mindlessly shills for democrats. He shills for communist dictators.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 5:21 am - February 13, 2007
I bet Ian just wishes Hillary, or Barack, or Silky Pony had the absolute power to rule by decree. Then, the socialist agenda of tax hikes on “the rich,” increased corporate taxes, minimum wage increases, vastly expanded education spending, and government-imposed caps on executive wages could proceed without opposition.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 5:30 am - February 13, 2007
I gotta say though, every once in a while, a shill makes me just a little happier about being me. Since I despise politicians in general, I can freely criticize either side for being sleazy, vile, or hypocritical. And, I like that my political beliefs are based on principle, and not on just brain-dead cheerleading for whatever politician has the right letter after his name. Being able to criticize your own team is a mark of maturity and intellectual honesty.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 7:58 am - February 13, 2007
My sources are the progressive Economist (please read the Jan 2007 briefing on Venezuela) and the left-of-center Foreign Affairs mag (please read Tony Blair’s 01/07 piece on “A Battle for Global Values”). Neither are “conservative”, “Christian” or “rightwing”… except maybe to someone on the extreme GayLeft.
Three SA areas that have been targeted by multiple intelligence agencies observing the growing al Qaeda presence in SA are 1) Margarita Island because of its FTZ and large population of expat and radical muslims, 2) Trinidad & Tobago and 3) the tri-border area (which appears to have less operational utility and more use as a financial, logistics and sanctuary purpose(s)). You can read about the threat in any of a dozen current books written by former intelligence and security experts –from the US, Britain, France, Italy, or Canada even.
Now, you may not know enough about terrorism on a global scale to be able to discuss the threat of Venezuela’s Chavez to the West. That’s apparent.
You may not know enough about Hugo Chavez to carry on an informed discussion about his leadership and exportation of terror and support of terrorists. That’s even more apparent.
I grant you, Ian, you may be even so blindly partisan and so deeply part of the BushHaters corps that you’d rather NOT see the inherent wrong of Joe-4-Oil Kennedy shacking up in bed with Chavez… you’d choose to defend Kennedy’s seditious act and Chavez’s legitimacy of rule over his country or his international intrigues with terrorists and then use all that as an opportunity to make a baseless, wild-assed claim that the Bush Admin tried to have Chavez overthrown.
For the record, Ian, the coup occurred outside of US or WH involvement. The US recognized the govt of Carmona after the coup and Chavez’s purported RESIGNATION and encouraged the OAS to do likewise, which it did not. The US didn’t land troops on the President’s Palace, Ian. No American tried to plant the flag of BigOil in Caracas’ town square.
You have to get your facts right.
Kennedy helps Chavez… calling him “our friend in Venezuela”. Even the silliness of this PR stunt by Chavez back in the fall was decried by most sane people. That a Kennedy is trying to run with the ball (and take a sizable chuck of change for administering the program for Chavez) speaks volumes.
30 pieces of gold will STILL bring out the traitor in most liberals.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 13, 2007 @ 9:16 am - February 13, 2007
BTW, #51 is for Ian (at #41). Sorry for any confusion.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 13, 2007 @ 9:18 am - February 13, 2007
Let’s try this again…
#51 should have read as a response to Ian’s #41… like this:
Ian, to answer your question about sources re: Chavez allowing a group of radical muslim communities on Margarita Island (Venezula) to engage in al Qaeda activities… you write my source is Pat Roberson? (get serious) or Free Rep or WorldNet?? Where did that come from?
Why Ian, do you persist in a path where you try to smear those with an informed opinion rather than address the merit/demerits of their point?
My sources are the progressive Economist (please read the Jan 2007 briefing on Venezuela) and the left-of-center Foreign Affairs mag (please read Tony Blair’s 01/07 piece on “A Battle for Global Values”). Neither are “conservative”, “Christian” or “rightwing”… except maybe to someone on the extreme GayLeft.
Three SA areas that have been targeted by multiple intelligence agencies observing the growing al Qaeda presence in SA are 1) Margarita Island because of its FTZ and large population of expat and radical muslims, 2) Trinidad & Tobago and 3) the tri-border area (which appears to have less operational utility and more use as a financial, logistics and sanctuary purpose(s)). You can read about the threat in any of a dozen current books written by former intelligence and security experts –from the US, Britain, France, Italy, or Canada even.
Now, Ian, you may not know enough about terrorism on a global scale to be able to discuss the threat of Venezuela’s Chavez to the West. That’s apparent.
You may not know enough about Hugo Chavez to carry on an informed discussion about his leadership and exportation of terror and support of terrorists. That’s even more apparent.
I grant you, Ian, you may be even so blindly partisan and so deeply part of the BushHaters corps that you’d rather NOT see the inherent wrong of Joe-4-Oil Kennedy shacking up in bed with Chavez… you’d choose to defend Kennedy’s seditious act and Chavez’s legitimacy of rule over his country or his international intrigues with terrorists and then use all that as an opportunity to make a baseless, wild-assed claim that the Bush Admin tried to have Chavez overthrown.
For the record, Ian, the coup occurred outside of US or WH involvement. The US recognized the govt of Carmona after the coup and Chavez’s purported RESIGNATION and encouraged the OAS to do likewise, which it did not. The US didn’t land troops on the President’s Palace, Ian. No American tried to plant the flag of BigOil in Caracas’ town square.
You have to get your facts right.
Kennedy helps Chavez… calling him “our friend in Venezuela”. Even the silliness of this PR stunt by Chavez back in the fall was decried by most sane people. That a Kennedy is trying to run with the ball (and take a sizable chuck of change for administering the program for Chavez) speaks volumes.
30 pieces of gold will bring out the traitor in most liberals.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 13, 2007 @ 9:20 am - February 13, 2007
46, I remember the story, except it might have been Louisiana. The sixth graders got it all correct, and almost all of the second graders got it correct.
I don’t think the issue is that the voters for Gore were any more stupid than the voters for Bush. I am fairly convinced that if Bush’s name on the ballot where Gore’s were, there would have been enough mistakes (you only need about 1% here) that Gore would have been President. In fact, if there was another type of ballot, then I believe Gore would have won. I also recall Pat Buchanan said that the thousands of votes that went to him were most likely intended for Gore. Whatever, the ballot was approved by both parties, and mistakes are unfortunately made with elections, and I’m sure there have been other times that one candidate won due to honest mistakes, in addition to corruption.
As for Joe Kennedy, my recollection was that he ended up not getting an annulment, because of backlash that he was getting in the press for attempting the same type of sleazy thing that his uncle did (who received an annulment from his wife of over 25 years). My understanding, from talking to a priest about this issue is that a (Catholic) annulment can be granted if one or both parties can show that something in the pre-Cana(?) process was done improperly. So an annulment can be granted only on the basis of what happens before the marriage, and has nothing to do with the marriage itself.
Now that I got all these off-topic issues out of the way, I guess I should respond to the topic of the post. I do think that this was overblown, and I still have to sift through the BS on both sides regarding this issue. Nancy Pelosi should have made it clear from the beginning that she was not seeking any more than what her predecessor have, and will agree to whatever plane she is granted. I also think it would have been okay if she said that she didn’t want any perks in addition to what other Congressman get.
Comment by Pat — February 13, 2007 @ 10:48 am - February 13, 2007
Wikipedia (not a completely reliable source, but hardly a right-wing hit machine) on Joe Kennedy’s annulment:
“Kennedy again considered running for the governorship in 2002, but opted out citing family difficulties: After his ex-wife, Shiela Rauch, published a book (“Shattered Faith”) criticizing the Catholic Church for granting their annulment, it was revealed the annulment was on the grounds of mental deficiency. Further, there were allegations made that on a family camping trip with him, his brother raped the babysitter.”
“His efforts to have the marriage to Rauch annulled led to a controversy: Rauch, who was not Catholic, published a book (Shattered Faith) asserting that she was opposed to the concept of annulment, because it meant in theory that the marriage had never actually existed. Kennedy has twin sons from his marriage to Sheila Rauch.”
I would find that behavior unethical in any politician, regardless of party. Unlike some, I don’t have one standard for those on the right, and a different standard for those on the left. Similarly, any politician who gets cozy with a left-wing dictator and sworn enemy of my country is not going to be defended by me, regardless of party affiliation.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 11:20 am - February 13, 2007
Ian, you certainly deserve the term “Ignorant and Nauseating.” I made a typo, because I was following-up with Alcee Hastings and got sidetracked.
That being said, I have an excuse for my lapses. Do you?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 13, 2007 @ 12:00 pm - February 13, 2007
And while I’m at it, don’t you DARE call me a liar. I’ve documented everything I have ever written on this blog. Can you say the same?
Here’s more proof of me “making this crap up:”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251484,00.html
Go rot.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 13, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - February 13, 2007
#57: You claimed ethical violations by Joe Kennedy; your fauxnews article provides no evidence for such. Put up or retract your accusation. The article does however suggest that the Republick Party would rather the poor froze to death than get assistance from Chavez. Big surprise there.
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2007 @ 12:21 pm - February 13, 2007
Aw, let the baby have his bottle, Pete. After all, since everything he has ever posted here has been ripped to shreds by facts and logic, catching one of his intellectual betters in a typo is as good as it gets for a robotic democratic shill.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - February 13, 2007
Well I guess my post with links was censored. here it is without:
#53: Matt, Tony Blair’s article that you claim is one of your sources doesn’t even mention Hugo Chavez let alone your claim that Margarita Island features an al Qaeda training facility. I would have to go to a library to check your claim on your other source and having been already burned by your Blair article, I’m not inclined towards another wild goose chase. The choice of Margarita Island for terrorist training would seem an odd one unless the training included blowing up sand castles or invading golf courses. Yopu see, it’s a vacation resort.
Now if you google: chavez al qaeda margarita , the first article that pops up is a freeper one. Enough said.
As for the coup, the US did support it and even tripped over itself to quickly endorse the shortlived new government as you yourself admitted. The US even knew about the coup prior to it occurring as they had deployed a ship in the area for the purpose of evacuating US citizens from the country. Even if the US did not provide the arms, it definitely encouraged the plotters to go ahead and overthrow the democratically-elected government. There’s a lot to criticize in Chavez but he has been strengthened by the foolish people in charge of the Bush Administration.
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2007 @ 12:26 pm - February 13, 2007
If lefties are so concerned about getting oil to the poor, why don’t the open up ANWR and the Gulf Coast to oil exploration. I also wonder how many homes could be heated and lighted by the windmill farm Kennedy blocked from being built off Cape Cod. I guess democrats want the poor to freeze to death in the name of Gaia.
See how easy it is to demolish a silly left-wing talking point?
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 12:26 pm - February 13, 2007
Still no proof for the accusation of ethics violations by Joe Kennedy. Big surprise there.
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - February 13, 2007
The article does however suggest that the Republick Party would rather the poor froze to death than get assistance from Chavez.
Hmmm….the alleged program “savings” from buying cheap oil from Communist Venezuela was supposedly $4 million dollars.
To put that into perspective, that works out to about 0.53% of John Kerry’s publicly-stated worth of $750 million.
For some reason, no one in the United States, be it government or private industry, wants to give money to the corrupt Joe Kennedy.
What is telling is that the good Democrat option was to then take it away from the people of Venezuela, who in theory own that oil — or, put differently, take a bribe from Chavez paid for by thousands of poor and starving Venezuelans — so that Democrats could buy votes in the United States.
If Democrats are worried about the poor freezing to death, you’d think they’d rather dip into their own pockets than to take money away from starving and oppressed Venezuelans. But it just goes to show how rapacious and evil leftist Democrats are; if you prevent them from using the power of the government to exploit people in the United States, they simply go somewhere else and do it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - February 13, 2007
Here you go, Ignorant And Nauseating:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251463,00.html
This is the transcript of Rep. Connie Mack’s (R-FL) letter to former Rep. Kennedy (D-MA) discussing the commercial that Kennedy’s own company, Citizens Energy Corp., created with Kennedy’s own tacit support.
And since you can’t Google worth diddly-squat, I have provided the link to the commercial in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNE0os3f3VY
Note that former Rep. Kennedy is doing business with a true dictator – one who has a rubber-stamp parliament to “allow” him free rein to nationalize oil corporations, shut down opposition in media and communications, and put his nation on “the path to socialism” per Chavez’s OWN remarks.
Hello, Germany 1938? Sounds like redux to me.
It also sounds like Kennedy putting his financial interests above those of either the USA or the common good. THAT is an ethics violation, if you ask me.
And just for the hell of it, chew on this piece:
“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.” — President Abraham Lincoln
Match, set, game. You LOSE. Goodbye.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 13, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - February 13, 2007
Note that former Rep. Kennedy is doing business with a true dictator – one who has a rubber-stamp parliament to “allow” him free rein to nationalize oil corporations, shut down opposition in media and communications, and put his nation on “the path to socialism” per Chavez’s OWN remarks.
Also, the shill’s favorite fascist took power to triumphant shouts of “Fatherland, socialism or death!” Gee, nothing nazi-like there. Not that it matters. You’ll never hear a peep of criticism of any Democrat or Socialist from the kind of guy who asserts that Republicans want to freeze poor people. I wonder what the “proof” of that statement is.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 1:10 pm - February 13, 2007
Ian at #60 writes his augustly referenced comments have been blocked and censored by the EvilBruce at GayPatriot. Must be; no other explanation comes to mind for poor ol Ian.
Put down the koolaid and stop feeding at the GayLeft conspiracy trough, Ian. That’s about as silly as it gets. At least you didn’t blame that nonsense on religion… so you’re possibly gettting a tad more rational.
Ian, frankly, I could care less what you HAVE YET to learn about Chavez’s support of global terrorist groups nor your insistence on displaying petulant behavior. The US had a ship in the area ready to “rescue” the embassy staff and Westerners in case the coup turned sour? Really, Ian? And this is your proof the US was complicit?
I repeat, Ian, you are such a tool of the GayLeft. Maybe it’s the Bush Administration that’s censoring your comments and blocking them… that’s right, it’s all about the Natl Surveilance operation… quick, Ian, get the tinfoil hats ready that PatrickGryphon left behind for the lower-case-clan.
Moreover, your attempt at debate is sophomoric — as in “I googled “x” and got 2,000,000 hits so it can’t be true.” The village idiots have taught you well. Prize student, eh? Here’s a trick: I just typed in “Ian” and “Idiot” and got 1,270,000 hits on Google. Must be true, eh Ian? Sophomoric.
Spend a little less time in the Arizona sunshine… it’s affecting your brain stem, pal. Or put down the kool aid and walk off the Democrat Plantation.
And remember the next time Her Highness NancyP is flying over AZ in her Imperial Jetliner that the issue was raised by GOP Congressman while she was lecturing the House Science Committee on global warming, climate change and carbon footprints. Ironic, eh?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 13, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - February 13, 2007
The only question that I think remains of the Joe-4-Oil Democrat scandal is whether or not a Kennedy can still commit sedition in the 21st Century?
Joe Kennedy –like his namesake Grampa– comes real close with the “pimping for Chavez” PR stunts.
Now maybe if NancyP’s Imperial Jetliner could only fly on Citgo jetfuel… ahhhh, there’s a way out for even the ethics-challenged Democrats.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 13, 2007 @ 1:20 pm - February 13, 2007
In Matt’s tradition, I just typed “Ian eats underwear” into Google and got 433,000 hits. “Ian sucks wet farts out of dead pigeons” gets 23,100 hits.
And the first hit is from when Ian was smacked down for playing the same stupid Google game over six months ago. Does he suffer from some kind of learning disability? (Note, the factuality of Ian sucking wet farts out of dead pigeons has increased almost 30% since the first time.)
I sometimes wonder if the real reason we don’t get any smart, intellectual honest lefties here is because the two are mutually exclusive.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 1:36 pm - February 13, 2007
You know ian may have a point about about young Joe K. No one has ever accused him of driving off a bridge and leaving a girl friend to drown in the back seat. What’s the problem with him serving as a Democrat in the Senate?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 13, 2007 @ 1:48 pm - February 13, 2007
Gene in Pa: Maybe he’s not sleazy enough to be a Massachusetts senator, unless pictures of an anniversary party at Enumclaw show up. Then, he’ll be a shoo-in.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - February 13, 2007
And no one has ever accused JoeyP of raping a woman, either. God knows it’s in the Kennedy gene pool. Well that must mean he’s gay, following the logic of Ian and the lower-case-clanners here.
VdaK, I’d welcome even a moderately intelligent GayLeftie… all we get here is MyDD and DailyKos talking points… and a randomly bad “cut & paste” job by keogh, of course.
It’s why I continue to argue that GayLefties, by their very nature and demonstrations, tend to be guys swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 13, 2007 @ 1:55 pm - February 13, 2007
VdaK, there’s a good picture of JoeyP and his office staff dragging a fuel oil hose toward the back end of a Boston-looking 3 stacker apartment bldg. No snow on the ground, all the staff in Citizen Energy Corp “robin’s egg blue” jackets and JoeyP’s calling our encouragement to them to pull harder, faster, harder, that’s it… you should see the looks on some of the staff roped into this PR stunt –the PR guy didn’t even drop his files while he hawked for the camera. JoeyP is soooo out of place and it shows… would you trust this man with your babysitter?
JoeyP: “Wait, wait. Put the black guy up front. Let’s make this a diversity thing too. Damn, we ARE good liberals.” Caption This material?
A Kennedy and a camera. Goes together like Kennedy and sedition.
http://www.citizensenergy.com/
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 13, 2007 @ 2:04 pm - February 13, 2007
#68 – V da K, you are responsible for me spewing soda out of my mouth and all over my computer monitor after I read your Google hits. Priceless!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 13, 2007 @ 2:17 pm - February 13, 2007
I just love this Site. I just discovered this about a week ago. I almost believed that my Partner and I were the only Gay Conservatives around. I even listen to “Rush Limbaugh” sometimes. That will probably send all the leftwingers up the wall! lol Thanks guys!
Comment by gary — February 13, 2007 @ 3:41 pm - February 13, 2007
I see that Joe Kennedy’s first marriage, was in fact, annulled.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=4697
It took about 4 years for the annulment to go through. I do remember that he changed his mind. If that’s the case, he apparently changed his mind again. I don’t have proof of that, but it might explain why it took 4 years since the original annulment application. According to his ex-wife, or the wife that never was, it was granted for “due discretion” at the time of marriage. So you could be married for 60 years and have 20 children, but if there is some evidence that you had some doubts about getting married at the time of marriage, you may be granted an annulment. Talk about cheapening marriage.
As for the Joe Kennedy/Citgo/Venezuela thing, I haven’t sifted through the links. And as commented above, just because something has a gazillion links doesn’t mean there is any substance to it. Many times the links are someone’s opinion about what the purported fact is, and not proof of the “fact.” But I have seen the commercials, and they are disturbing at best.
Comment by Pat — February 13, 2007 @ 3:48 pm - February 13, 2007
Pete, Thank you. Matt, yes, I am going to use that. Yeah, you can tell how terminally thrilled the proles are to be part of the master’s publicity stunt in that picture. It’s like something out of ‘Office Space.’
And finally, when reading lefties stick up for Chavez, remember, they are just part of a long tradition of lefty adoration for brutal totalitarians going back to Walter Duranty.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 4:20 pm - February 13, 2007
#76 – Well, V, looks like the libtards may be minus some campaign contributions after Zawahiri condemns the Democrats for failing to challenge the President’s policies as they said they would in November.
No word yet on whether Zawahiri actually quotes any Dhimmicrats like SanFranNan, or if any libtards earn the sort of hate he directs at Bush.
As I’ve always said, if it’s bad for America, it’s good for the Dhimmicrats, and vice versa. The proof is right here.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 13, 2007 @ 4:56 pm - February 13, 2007
Oh, great, Pete. Now, the shills are going to say, “See, the Democrats aren’t really surrendering to the will of al Qaeda… fast enough.”
Meanwhile, is there any way we could get keogh to start copy-pasting from Pandagon? Reading rants about his snatch and cooter would at least be entertaining.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 5:12 pm - February 13, 2007
Ditto on #74′s comment
Comment by Cisco — February 13, 2007 @ 5:23 pm - February 13, 2007
#77 – V, it gets funnier:
“The people chose you due to your opposition to Bush’s policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss,” al- Zawahri said of the Democrats according to the transcript.
Full link below for the lower-case-libtrolls who can’t Google:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/13/D8N92TF01.html
Sounds like he gets his talking points from Howie Dean, right?
You can’t make this stuff up.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 13, 2007 @ 5:24 pm - February 13, 2007
#64: Just because you don’t like the idea of poor people getting helped by Chavez says absolutely nothing about Joe Kennedy’s ethics. After all, your Republick Party heroes including those in the current Administration are quite happy to cozy up to REAL dictators when its suits them to do so. So quit stamping your feet and produce the evidence of Joe Kennedy’s ethical problems or have the honesty to admit you were just blowing smoke.
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2007 @ 5:35 pm - February 13, 2007
Did someone just break wind? I smell something rotten here.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 13, 2007 @ 5:40 pm - February 13, 2007
And so, after being thrashed, he just repeats the talking point that’s already been destroyed.
Learning disability, thy name is Ian.
I’ll give that conservatives have at times tolerated dictators when it was in the national strategic interest or a case of the lesser of two evils. But embracing dictators that hate and want to destroy America is a trait distinctive to left-wingers.
Also, unlike Learning Disability, I’m more than willing to critcize a Republican for being too cozy to nasties, e.g. Bush and the Sauds. But you’ll never hear a peep of criticism from Learning Disability about *anyone* with a D after their name. (Unless, like Lieberman, they support winning the war.)
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 5:57 pm - February 13, 2007
The one thing that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Administration are doing right is giving no credence and looking into any meaning (direct, opposite, or whatever) to the terrorist clowns. Using what any of these lowlife scum say as justification for or against the current strategy seems foolish. Besides, it might complicate that silly spreadsheet in one of the previous posts.
Comment by Pat — February 13, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - February 13, 2007
Question about Joe Kennedy getting Chavez aid for his people. Did jumpin Joe ever think to give these poor in his area cash from his trust fund? The trust fund that was the result of his grandfaghers boot legging business. The Kennedys never seem to help others from their own riches. But are quick to advise others how they should contribute.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 13, 2007 @ 6:37 pm - February 13, 2007
The latest from Queen Nancy. Apparently now she is fighting with her number two, Steny Hoyer. Remember she wanted Rep Murtha (D) of ABSCAM fame to be her number 2. It’s a month since these people conquered the House, what a clown act. Wait til their job cutting minimum wage hike goes into effect. NM did it January one and hundreds of teenagers are already being let go. Duhh. The Duh Duh Democrats couldn’t wait to duplicate it. Again what a clown act.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 13, 2007 @ 6:42 pm - February 13, 2007
#83
Well, you obviously can’t be talking about Chavez since he’s neither a dictator nor does he want to destroy America. Does he care for the Bush Administration that sought to topple his democratically-elected government in a coup that could have cost Chavez his life? Of course not. But that’s a far cry from wanting to destroy America. Besides, Bushco seems to be doing a pretty good job of that themselves.
I would also remind you of the dictators, that Bushco currently hob-nobs with such as the brutal Equatorial Guinean President and Uzbekistan’s dictator. Then there are our Saudi allies and Musharraf of Pakistan. We even send billions in aid to Egypt’s strongman who makes Chavez look libertarian in comparison.
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2007 @ 8:26 pm - February 13, 2007
I guess if you’re a mindless shill or a complete loony, one man with absolute power to rule by decree over an entire country isn’t a dictator. And I suppose when this guy-who-isn’t-a-dictator but-just-has-absolute power-and-has-shut-down-all-voices-of-dissent embraces the leader of a terror state that has vowed to destroy America while declaring ‘Death to US Imperialism’ isn’t a sworn enemy of the United States.
But, of course, no matter how much evidence is shown, the shill will cling desperately to his denial, his ignorance, and his unsupported talking points. That must be one hell of a learning disability.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 8:54 pm - February 13, 2007
#88:
So you support US imperialism. Big surprise there.
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2007 @ 9:53 pm - February 13, 2007
Ian, you’re a common tool of the Democrats often found on the GayLeft… your defense of Democrat royalty like Kennedy or Clinton, no matter what they do, is proof positive you have a serious disconnect with reality.
For anyone other than Joe and Rose Kennedy’s spirit to write “Still no proof for the accusation of ethics violations by Joe Kennedy” while the JOE-4-OIL (which I think will replace the UN Food-4-OIL scandal as an indictment of liberals) Democrat scandal continues unabated… just wait til we learn how much money Joey makes on the Traitor-4-Hire scheme… maybe 3.25-5.75 basis points? At today’s $2.11/gal pricing for fuel oil, he’s going to be making a lot of Chump’sChimp’sChange… and since you’re ethics challenged as well, Chump here means your Democrat elected Chavez… Chimp means Joey the stooge and Change is his cut of the deal when bonus time roles around this fall.
Chump’sChimp’sChange… it’ll be the second wave of bad PR on this Democrat scandal.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2007 @ 8:37 am - February 14, 2007
The Amazing Fairy-Tale World of Learning Disability:
Hugo Chavez has absolute totalitarian control of his country … but he’s not a dictator.
Hugo Chavez denounces the American Way of Life at every opportunity and allies himself with sworn enemies of America … but he’s not an enemy of America.
Joe Kennedy gladly takes money from Chavez, skimming a nice profit for himself and publically praising the dictatorial thug … but he’s not corrupt or traitorous at all.
All Republicans are filthy and corrupt, but all Democrats are pure and white as the driven snow and can never, ever be critcized (unless they want to win the war.)
Did Matt say “disconnected from reality?” (Google search “Ian has a learning disability” 1,100,000 hits.)
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 8:54 am - February 14, 2007
Ignorant And Nauseating probably also thinks that Saddam, Castro and Kim Il-Jong were “democratically elected” and that Bush is a “tyrant.”
Give it up, IgnoAndNaus. You’ve been thoroughly discredited.
SNAP – you are dismissed.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 14, 2007 @ 12:28 pm - February 14, 2007
Wait Peter, don’t we do three snaps and the sisters’ Z to dismiss someone?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2007 @ 12:59 pm - February 14, 2007
#93 – Right, M-Matt. My bad.
(SNAP-SNAP-SNAP in Z formation)
Hat tip to Blaine & Antoine in “In Living Color” circa 1990.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 14, 2007 @ 1:19 pm - February 14, 2007
HRClintons campaign has agreed to do $200K if business with a SC State Reps (D) media business at the same time he has come out and endorsed HRClinton for Prez. They all say there is no connection. The rotten stench of corruption is the perfume of the Democrat party. Where is the MSM outrage?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 15, 2007 @ 9:34 pm - February 15, 2007
I think the Democratic Congress is going to raise health care costs in the nation after reading the comments on here. You are all going to give yourselves high blood pressure with all the meaningless huffing and puffing and attempts at blowing down the Democratic Congressional leadership you are doing. The worst part is that so much of it lacks substance. Still, it is riotously funny.
Comment by sean — February 17, 2007 @ 4:07 am - February 17, 2007