Plosi One

[Dallas]

CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an hour.

Geez, I used to think $125 an hours was expensive.

--
Dallas

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:00:20 GMT, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an hour.

How many seats in a B757?

[gatt]

>>CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an hour.
>
> How many seats in a B757?

It's Pelosi, and what B757? Can somebody identify "Nancy's B757" or
demonstrate that she has ever used or even requested such at thing

Here's one of the reasons I'm no longer a Republican. They lie like
Democrats and then believe their own lies, and try to convince millions of
otherwise-thinking people to believe them too.

Even Tony Snow, on behalf of the White House, is telling them to STFU about
it. "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the
peaker." - Tony Snow.

"It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance. We want an
aircraft that can reach California." - Pelosi. "...I have said that I am
happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn't go coast to coast."

Dick Cheney flies to Jackson Hole in a C-17, doesn't he?

-c

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 9, 1:37 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> >>CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an hour.
>
> > How many seats in a B757?
>
> It's Pelosi, and what B757? Can somebody identify "Nancy's B757" or
> demonstrate that she has ever used or even requested such at thing

She did request it. She believed that the GulfStream Hastered had used
was too small. If you have a newspaper you'll find the story inside.
Congresspersons often get a large amount of their contributions by
wooing businesses during their trips back and forth to DC.

-Robert

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
>> CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an hour.
>
> How many seats in a B757?

In this case, 42.

From Google:
"The C-32 she requested is about the size of a Boeing 757-200 and has
seating for 42 on it." "In its commercial configuration the 757-200 usually
seats 175-190 passengers."

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Jim B]

I'm not a Pelosi supporter, but I'll say that the politicians with help from
the news media have turned this story on it's side. I've got several news
programs running here most of the time, including one on tv. It hasn't been
reported much in recent hours, but I've heard it several times that what was
requested was not an airplane, it was a LIST requested by a Pelosi staffer
of airplanes that the government could make available to her and her staff
which would be capable of making DC-CA non-stop. As Hastered's aircraft
wasn't capable of a non stop flight, they requested a list of aircraft that
could. On that LIST was a B757, as was a G5, and several other aircraft. I
suppose they could have listed a C5.

I'll be the first to admit how amazing it is that this fact has gotten lost
in the media coverage and the sniping. It was clearly reported several days
ago, but has not been lately. Again, I"m not supporting any of it, if it
were up to me, they could all drive home on a pogo stick or a seatless
unicycle.

Jim

[Michelle P]

gatt wrote:
>>>CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an hour.
>>
>>How many seats in a B757?
>
>
> It's Pelosi, and what B757? Can somebody identify "Nancy's B757" or
> demonstrate that she has ever used or even requested such at thing
>
> Here's one of the reasons I'm no longer a Republican. They lie like
> Democrats and then believe their own lies, and try to convince millions of
> otherwise-thinking people to believe them too.
>
> Even Tony Snow, on behalf of the White House, is telling them to STFU about
> it. "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the
> peaker." - Tony Snow.
>
> "It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance. We want an
> aircraft that can reach California." - Pelosi. "...I have said that I am
> happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn't go coast to coast."
>
> Dick Cheney flies to Jackson Hole in a C-17, doesn't he?
>
> -c
>
>
It is not Nancy's. It is the speaker of the house. Condie has one, as
does Dick. There are smaller airplanes, like learjets and Gulfstreams.
much cheaper to run than the 757.

CNN is going for the biggest bang for the buck and story.

Michelle

[Matt Whiting]

Dallas wrote:

> CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an hour.
>
> Geez, I used to think $125 an hours was expensive.
>

It's a lot cheaper when it is paid for with somebody else's money.

Matt

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


And here I was thinking a new SID was released! :P

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFzQY6yBkZmuMZ8L8RAkHwAJ9klJapyD3p3X/GYUYJLvr96O3jqACeMJo9
wVe08KO/D9Hnz6yQKTmzGw0=
=Au6s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:24:36 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"In its commercial configuration the 757-200 usually
>seats 175-190 passengers."

Lets call it 180 seats.

Given the OP's assertion:

CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an
hour.

That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?

[gatt]

By way of comparison, since everybody's swingin' on "Plosi" for the very
thing:

http://www.mtexpress.com/2003/03-08-06/03-08-06murphy.htm

For this last stop before going to his vacation home in Jackson, Wyo.,
Cheney required:

a.. The Air Force's largest transport, the four-jet C-17 Globemaster, to
cart two armored Cadillac limousines and three Secret Service SUVs.


b.. Two military Blackhawk helicopters for over-flight security and
surveillance.


c.. Two Air Force-operated twin-jet luxury Gulfstream jets.


d.. An estimated two dozen Secret Service agents, plus vice presidential
aides.


e.. Added security from the Idaho State Police, Blaine County Sheriff's
Office, and Bellevue, Hailey and Ketchum police departments stationed along
state Highway 75.
Counting a fund-raising stop in Salt Lake City that raised $300,000 and the
Bellevue reception that harvested another $175,000, the irony is that
government costs of this outing undoubtedly far exceeded contributions

[gatt]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
news:0M6zh.20372

> CNN is going for the biggest bang for the buck and story.

It ain't the media who made the stink, it was the Republicans.

A USAF Major and another person told me that Cheney has a C-17 with him when
he flies home to Jackson Hole. I was a little doubtful. But then
I found this: http://www.mtexpress.com/2003/03-08-06/03-08-06murphy.htm
For this last stop before going to his vacation home in Jackson, Wyo.,
Cheney required:

a.. The Air Force's largest transport, the four-jet C-17 Globemaster, to
cart two armored Cadillac limousines and three Secret Service SUVs.


b.. Two military Blackhawk helicopters for over-flight security and
surveillance.


c.. Two Air Force-operated twin-jet luxury Gulfstream jets.


d.. An estimated two dozen Secret Service agents, plus vice presidential
aides.


e.. Added security from the Idaho State Police, Blaine County Sheriff's
Office, and Bellevue, Hailey and Ketchum police departments stationed along
state Highway 75.
Counting a fund-raising stop in Salt Lake City that raised $300,000 and the
Bellevue reception that harvested another $175,000, the irony is that
government costs of this outing undoubtedly far exceeded contributions...



> Michelle

[gatt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dallas wrote:
>
>> CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an hour.
>>
>> Geez, I used to think $125 an hours was expensive.
>>
>
> It's a lot cheaper when it is paid for with somebody else's money.

Cheney's entourage includes a C-17 Globemaster

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79883 [includes photo]
As Vice President Dick Cheney passed through Shannon Airport this morning on
his way to a meeting with King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud of Saudi
Arabia. Cheney is due through Shannon again later tonight. According toUS
news channel CNN "the brevity of Cheney's visit underlies the growing sense
of urgency after a series of events highlighting an increasingly unstable
Middle East". It is also rumored that George W Bush will fly through Shannon
Airport this Tuesday on his way to Jordan.

Earlier this week it was reported by a source at Shannon Airport that a US
Air Force C17 Globemaster was on the runway. This massive cargo plane is one
of 53 C17's that operate from Charlestown Air, South Carolina, home to the
437th and 315th Airlift Wing. This is the second C17 to confirmed visit to
Ireland this year. An Gardai Siochana and the Irish Defence Forces are
guarding the plane in the centre security zone in the middle of the
aerodrome. It is suspected that this plane carrying part of the security
detail and an armored limousine should the Vice President need to leave the
airport.

[Dallas]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:43:20 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?

Cheaper than a Cessna 172 ....


--
Dallas

[gatt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...

>> It's Pelosi, and what B757? Can somebody identify "Nancy's B757" or
>> demonstrate that she has ever used or even requested such at thing
>
> She did request it. She believed that the GulfStream Hastered had used
> was too small. If you have a newspaper you'll find the story inside.

I've found the story and it includes Tony Snow from the White House blowing
the whistle on the whole issue and defending Pelosi.

Maybe it's 'cause they don't want too much attention drawn to Cheney's C-17,
(anybody here in Jackson Hole to confirm this? A woman at the FBO said
whenever he comes home, a C-17 shows up with security and all and
monkeywrenches all of the GA operations there.)

Or, maybe Tony Snow is telling it straight. But the White House is
defending Pelosi in the articles I've read today.

-c

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "gatt" > said:
>Maybe it's 'cause they don't want too much attention drawn to Cheney's C-17,
>(anybody here in Jackson Hole to confirm this? A woman at the FBO said
>whenever he comes home, a C-17 shows up with security and all and
>monkeywrenches all of the GA operations there.)

Apropos of nothing, several years ago a C-130 crashed departing Jackson
Hole with some sort of security detail because they didn't follow the
published departure. I can't remember if it was Cheney or Clinton's. I
wonder if they went to the C-17 for the higher capacity, or because it
climbs better.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"The aircraft limits are only there in case there is another flight by
that particular aircraft. If subsequent flights do not appear likely,
there are no limits."

[Blanche]

Neither the White House nor Pelosi nor her staff requested the
C-32 (USAF version of the 757). The House Sgt at Arms requested
an aircraft that can travel non-stop for security reasons. This
has become standard practice in the past 6 years.

www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/pelosi.plane/index.html

[Morgans]

"gatt" > wrote

> a.. The Air Force's largest transport, the four-jet C-17 Globemaster, to
> cart two armored Cadillac limousines and three Secret Service SUVs.

When did they make the C-17 bigger than the C-5A? I didn't know that it was
due for and up-sizing.
--
Jim in NC

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
>> "In its commercial configuration the 757-200 usually
>> seats 175-190 passengers."
>
> Lets call it 180 seats.

No, let's call it 42 since that's the number of business class seats on the
plane she (or whomever) was talking about. The plane in question is not the
commercial 757, but a customized version with far fewer seats.

> Given the OP's assertion:
>
> CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are $22,000.00 an
> hour.
>
> That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?

$523.81/hour/seat each way.

Regardless, it seems this story has been made to be larger than it really
is. The Speaker is second in line to succeed the President and is entitled
to more security than most other public servants. While the use of the C-32
was apparently an option, it appears she didn't specifically request it, but
rather a plane with transcontinental range.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 5:53 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> >> It's Pelosi, and what B757? Can somebody identify "Nancy's B757" or
> >> demonstrate that she has ever used or even requested such at thing
>
> > She did request it. She believed that the GulfStream Hastered had used
> > was too small. If you have a newspaper you'll find the story inside.
>
> I've found the story and it includes Tony Snow from the White House blowing
> the whistle on the whole issue and defending Pelosi.
>
> Maybe it's 'cause they don't want too much attention drawn to Cheney's C-17,
> (anybody here in Jackson Hole to confirm this? A woman at the FBO said
> whenever he comes home, a C-17 shows up with security and all and
> monkeywrenches all of the GA operations there.)
>
> Or, maybe Tony Snow is telling it straight. But the White House is
> defending Pelosi in the articles I've read today.
>
> -c

I live here in the "Hole" and my plane is based at JAC. Unless you sat
here and watched the carnival everytime Dick comes home to roost you
would never believe how much money is spent. It will make you shake
your head in disbelief. The last time he was here they used 2 C-17's,
a 757 and god knows what other support stuff, The C-130 into terrain
was a Clinton support plane carrying secret service stuff they use to
listen to all the cell phones and read emails. Ya think they don't
monitor stuff?? This posting will really **** them off,. <G>

[John T]

"gatt" > wrote in message

>
> Cheney's entourage includes a C-17 Globemaster

More to the point, the Vice President's entourage includes a plane to
transport his bulletproof limousine. Does anybody here really think the
Democrats would cease this practice if they win the White House in '08?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[John T]

"gatt" > wrote in message

>
> I was a little doubtful. But then I found this: <snip>

....and felt compelled to post it twice. How thoughtful. :)

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[gatt]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> "gatt" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> I was a little doubtful. But then I found this: <snip>
>
> ...and felt compelled to post it twice. How thoughtful. :)

I'll post it a third time if you want.

-c

[gatt]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> "gatt" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Cheney's entourage includes a C-17 Globemaster
>
> More to the point, the Vice President's entourage includes a plane to
> transport his bulletproof limousine. Does anybody here really think the
> Democrats would cease this practice if they win the White House in '08?

Nope.

But, I believe the point here is that it's hard for the Republicans to bash
on Pelosi for how much GREENHOUSE GASSES her friggin' alleged airplane,
which she doesn't have and hasn't used and according to the WHITE HOUSE
didn't request, when they're doing the same thing.

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. ALL I EXPECT from those *******s is
that they start putting truth, integrity and the american people ahead of
their own party interest. Until then, they're all equally worthless.

-c

[John T]

"gatt" > wrote in message

>
> But, I believe the point here is that it's hard for the Republicans
> to bash on Pelosi for how much GREENHOUSE GASSES her friggin' alleged
> airplane, which she doesn't have and hasn't used and according to the
> WHITE HOUSE didn't request, when they're doing the same thing.

Fair 'nuff, but you must admit the irony of Pelosi (a supporter of the
theory that human activity is the root of global warming) arriving at a
global warming conference in a gas-guzzling Suburban SUV (taxpayer-funded,
of course) and wanting regular cross-country trips in jet aircraft. Forget
party affiliation.

If you think human activity is causing global warming and you're the Number
3 leader of the country, put action to your rhetoric and lead by example.
(For the record, I believe I read recently she owns a hybrid SUV as a
personal vehicle.)

> ALL I EXPECT from those *******s
> is that they start putting truth, integrity and the american people
> ahead of their own party interest. Until then, they're all equally
> worthless.

Point.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Matt Whiting]

gatt wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
>>>It's Pelosi, and what B757? Can somebody identify "Nancy's B757" or
>>>demonstrate that she has ever used or even requested such at thing
>>
>>She did request it. She believed that the GulfStream Hastered had used
>>was too small. If you have a newspaper you'll find the story inside.
>
>
> I've found the story and it includes Tony Snow from the White House blowing
> the whistle on the whole issue and defending Pelosi.
>
> Maybe it's 'cause they don't want too much attention drawn to Cheney's C-17,
> (anybody here in Jackson Hole to confirm this? A woman at the FBO said
> whenever he comes home, a C-17 shows up with security and all and
> monkeywrenches all of the GA operations there.)
>
> Or, maybe Tony Snow is telling it straight. But the White House is
> defending Pelosi in the articles I've read today.

Well, since Cheney has a super special C-17 that is larger than the
C-5A, I can see why they want to keep that top secret. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Blanche wrote:

> Neither the White House nor Pelosi nor her staff requested the
> C-32 (USAF version of the 757). The House Sgt at Arms requested
> an aircraft that can travel non-stop for security reasons. This
> has become standard practice in the past 6 years.
>
> www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/pelosi.plane/index.html
>
>

There are a bunch of biz-jets that will fly coast-to-coast non-stop.
This doesn't require a 757 unless you want to carry a LOT of friends ...
oh, never mind!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

John T wrote:

> "gatt" > wrote in message
>
>
>>I was a little doubtful. But then I found this: <snip>
>
>
> ...and felt compelled to post it twice. How thoughtful. :)
>

He can't count so expect to see it again.

Matt

[Owen]

John T wrote:

> Regardless, it seems this story has been made to be larger than it really
> is. The Speaker is second in line to succeed the President and is entitled
> to more security than most other public servants. While the use of the C-32
> was apparently an option, it appears she didn't specifically request it, but
> rather a plane with transcontinental range.

Let's get real here for a moment. Speaker Hastert utilized a C-20B,
which was wasteful enough to give to a Congressman. Why isn't that good
enough for Pelosi? If she uses the "transcontinental range" excuse
because she doesn't feel like stopping, it's pure baloney. The C-20 is
a Gulfstream III, which has more than enough range to get from
Washington DC to San Fransisco. Unless Washington has floated out to
sea on all of this hot air.

Good grief, the government types need to cut this crap out with our
money! A first class ticket and security detail would be cheap.

[Owen]

John T wrote:

> "gatt" > wrote in message
>
>
>>But, I believe the point here is that it's hard for the Republicans
>>to bash on Pelosi for how much GREENHOUSE GASSES her friggin' alleged
>>airplane, which she doesn't have and hasn't used and according to the
>>WHITE HOUSE didn't request, when they're doing the same thing.
>
>
> Fair 'nuff, but you must admit the irony of Pelosi (a supporter of the
> theory that human activity is the root of global warming) arriving at a
> global warming conference in a gas-guzzling Suburban SUV (taxpayer-funded,
> of course) and wanting regular cross-country trips in jet aircraft. Forget
> party affiliation.
>
> If you think human activity is causing global warming and you're the Number
> 3 leader of the country, put action to your rhetoric and lead by example.
> (For the record, I believe I read recently she owns a hybrid SUV as a
> personal vehicle.)

Hey, stop pointing out that hyper hypocrisy! No fair. Hybrid SUV, and
she wants a personal airliner jet to haul her butt from one end of the
country on demand, at everyone else's expense of course. Sort of
reminds you of Al Gore taking a Boeing 707 (yes that's seven ought
seven) with a few cronies to attend a meeting in Japan about the horrors
of global warming a few years back! What better way to preach about the
environment than take the least efficient, noisiest, dirtiest plane you
can find?

Congress recently declared a crackdown on riding for free on corporate
jets. Now we see the outcome of that, fly even bigger jets and send the
bill to the poor taxpayer.

[Owen]

Blanche wrote:

> Neither the White House nor Pelosi nor her staff requested the
> C-32 (USAF version of the 757). The House Sgt at Arms requested
> an aircraft that can travel non-stop for security reasons. This
> has become standard practice in the past 6 years.
>
> www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/pelosi.plane/index.html

If that's the case, than the C-20 would have fit the bill just fine.
Apparently though a Gulfstream is just too damned small.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

> By way of comparison, since everybody's swingin' on "Plosi" for the very
> thing:
>
> http://www.mtexpress.com/2003/03-08-06/03-08-06murphy.htm
>
> For this last stop before going to his vacation home in Jackson, Wyo.,
> Cheney required:

the VP has secret service protection. Some stupid congresscritter from
la-la land doesn't rate the same protection.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Blanche wrote:
>
> > Neither the White House nor Pelosi nor her staff requested the
> > C-32 (USAF version of the 757). The House Sgt at Arms requested
> > an aircraft that can travel non-stop for security reasons. This
> > has become standard practice in the past 6 years.
> >
> > www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/pelosi.plane/index.html
> >
> >
>
> There are a bunch of biz-jets that will fly coast-to-coast non-stop.
> This doesn't require a 757 unless you want to carry a LOT of friends ...
> oh, never mind!

not to mention a former first lady that wanted the VC-32 even for
short trips...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:50:47 GMT, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:43:20 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?
>
>Cheaper than a Cessna 172 ....

If you look at from the cost per seat mile perspective, yes.

[Jim Macklin]

In the one she wants to use, 42.



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:00:20 GMT, Dallas
| > wrote in
| >:
|
| >CNN reports that Nancy's B757 operating costs are
$22,000.00 an hour.
|
| How many seats in a B757?
|

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:50:47 GMT, Dallas
> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:43:20 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> That works out to $122.22 per hour at what, 500 knots?
>
>Cheaper than a Cessna 172 ....


It it's always full.

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
:
: "gatt" > wrote
:
: > a.. The Air Force's largest transport, the four-jet C-17 Globemaster, to
: > cart two armored Cadillac limousines and three Secret Service SUVs.
:
: When did they make the C-17 bigger than the C-5A? I didn't know that it was
: due for and up-sizing.
: --
: Jim in NC
:

Just another example of the crap that is written up as 'facts' in the media...

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Here's one of the reasons I'm no longer a Republican. They lie like
> Democrats and then believe their own lies, and try to convince millions of
> otherwise-thinking people to believe them too.

One sign of the decline of a democracy is that people become attached to
political parties, rather than interest themselves in individual candidates
and politicians. They systematically reject all parties other than their own,
and unconditionally support their own party, which leads to all sorts of
manipulation and abuse. I guess it's easier to blindly accept and reject
based on a single group criterion (party affiliation) than it is to actually
evaluate individuals on their own merits. Unfortunately, it's also a path to
totalitarianism.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> the VP has secret service protection. Some stupid congresscritter from
> la-la land doesn't rate the same protection.

Neither does the Vice President. Most public personalities are overprotected
today, for reasons of prestige and power rather than any legitimate concerns
for security.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John T writes:

> The Speaker is second in line to succeed the President and is entitled
> to more security than most other public servants.

Why?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John T writes:

> More to the point, the Vice President's entourage includes a plane to
> transport his bulletproof limousine. Does anybody here really think the
> Democrats would cease this practice if they win the White House in '08?

Governments never diminish spending. It doesn't matter which political party
is nominally in power. All politicians want more money and power, always.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John T writes:
>
>> The Speaker is second in line to succeed the President and is entitled
>> to more security than most other public servants.
>
> Why?
>
Because

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Because

Because why?

One of the advantages of a democracy is that nobody is indispensable, and if
someone high in the government is lost, the government continues to operate
normally. If this ceases to be true, you no longer have a democracy.

High-ranking officials often have heavy security because (1) they are cowards;
(2) it makes them seem more important; or (3) they like the special treatment
(essentially just a power play). Security teams often cannot prevent bad
things, anyway, and at the same time, the world will continue to turn if a
politician in a democracy is lost, no matter how nominally important he may
be.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>the VP has secret service protection. Some stupid congresscritter from
>la-la land doesn't rate the same protection.

The Speaker of the House is next in the line of succession after the VP.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Man in the tower, this is the man in the bird, I'm ready to go, so give me
the word." "Man in the bird, this is the man in the tower, you sound funny,
delay's an hour." - Rod Machado

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> The Speaker of the House is next in the line of succession after the VP.

Almost everyone in Washington is in the line of succession at some point.
That doesn't mean that extraordinarily lengths are justified to protect them.
Nobody even knows what the Speaker of the House does; the chances of anything
happening to her are nil.

In the United States, the security risks to a public figure are in direct
proportion to the media coverage that would result if anything happened to
them. Would-be assassins choose their targets based on the media attention
they're likely to receive if they succeed in killing them, not based on the
actual function or real-world importance of the target. This is why Paris
Hilton would probably be a more tempting target than the governors of most
States. This is also why the Vice President is pretty much a non-target (to
say nothing of the Speaker of the House).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> >the VP has secret service protection. Some stupid congresscritter from
> >la-la land doesn't rate the same protection.
>
> The Speaker of the House is next in the line of succession after the VP.

and doesn't rate the same protection as the VP. Perhaps it would be
clearer if I said "doesn't rate the same amount of protection"

Note I didn't say the Speaker of the House doesn't rate ANY protection.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Blanche]

John T > wrote:
>"gatt" > wrote in message
>>
>> Cheney's entourage includes a C-17 Globemaster
>
>More to the point, the Vice President's entourage includes a plane to
>transport his bulletproof limousine. Does anybody here really think the
>Democrats would cease this practice if they win the White House in '08?

One more time....the party/elected official/whatever does NOT make
these decisions. They are made by the Secret Service, and for something
this relatively minor, no Pres or VP is going to argue with the Service.
Yes, it's relatively minor in the overall scheme of things.

You want Government waste? How about the fact that even ONE of the
cabinet-level organizations (let's take Agriculture) does NOT have
a single accounting/reporting method or system. You want a real
disaster? Go look at the DoD. Every service has its own financial
reporting system -- no wait -- every service has lots of different
financial reporting systems. There have been a few futile attempts
to standardize with no success and almost no cooperation.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>In article >,
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>> >the VP has secret service protection. Some stupid congresscritter from
>> >la-la land doesn't rate the same protection.
>>
>> The Speaker of the House is next in the line of succession after the VP.
>
>and doesn't rate the same protection as the VP. Perhaps it would be
>clearer if I said "doesn't rate the same amount of protection"

And doesn't get the same amount of protection, either. So what's your
problem?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Must admit, I'd like to know what is the homeopathic treatment for
gunshot wounds.
-- Tanuki

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> >and doesn't rate the same protection as the VP. Perhaps it would be
> >clearer if I said "doesn't rate the same amount of protection"
>
> And doesn't get the same amount of protection, either. So what's your
> problem?

The point was in response to someone whining about the VP's protection

What's your problem?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>
>> There are a bunch of biz-jets that will fly coast-to-coast non-stop.
>> This doesn't require a 757 unless you want to carry a LOT of friends ...
>> oh, never mind!
>
> not to mention a former first lady that wanted the VC-32 even for
> short trips...

But imagine the gas they'll save, and that will reduce CO2.

[gatt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> I live here in the "Hole" and my plane is based at JAC. Unless you sat
> here and watched the carnival everytime Dick comes home to roost you
> would never believe how much money is spent. It will make you shake
> your head in disbelief.

If I had my d'ruthers between a C-17 and the C-130, I think I'd ride in the
latter and have them leave room for me in the cockpit. (He's the VP, he can
do whatever he wants.)

If I'm ever the Speaker or VP, I'd want something modest and not tied to the
current fleet. Specifically, I want a B-17. And passengers? They don't
get to sit unless it's on the floor during takeoff and landing. They'll
stand for twelve hours like Grandpa did, and if they have to pee, that's
what the waist window is for. The nose would provide as suitable office.

For shorter trips I'd settle for a more economical B-25.

-c

[C Booth]

I have been watching this news group for sometime and finally need to
respond to this. Since when does the Idaho police from Hailey get
involved with security in Jackson, Wy.? Hello! This is about half of
the security and support staff, planes, etc. that accompany the
President. You should have witnessed the Clintons vist to Jackson.

C Booth
SEL/MEL Instrument

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:47:37 -0800, "gatt"
> wrote:

>By way of comparison, since everybody's swingin' on "Plosi" for the very
>thing:
>
>http://www.mtexpress.com/2003/03-08-06/03-08-06murphy.htm
>
>For this last stop before going to his vacation home in Jackson, Wyo.,
>Cheney required:
>
> a.. The Air Force's largest transport, the four-jet C-17 Globemaster, to
>cart two armored Cadillac limousines and three Secret Service SUVs.
>
>
> b.. Two military Blackhawk helicopters for over-flight security and
>surveillance.
>
>
> c.. Two Air Force-operated twin-jet luxury Gulfstream jets.
>
>
> d.. An estimated two dozen Secret Service agents, plus vice presidential
>aides.
>
>
> e.. Added security from the Idaho State Police, Blaine County Sheriff's
>Office, and Bellevue, Hailey and Ketchum police departments stationed along
>state Highway 75.
>Counting a fund-raising stop in Salt Lake City that raised $300,000 and the
>Bellevue reception that harvested another $175,000, the irony is that
>government costs of this outing undoubtedly far exceeded contributions
>

[JGalban[_18_]]

C Booth wrote :
>You should have witnessed the Clintons vist to Jackson.

I did. Several times. One of the more ridiculous sights was a
Marine CH-46 helicopter parked at West Yellowstone airport (I was
camped there). I thought it was Marine 1, the presidential transport,
since it had a spotless presidential paint job. It wasn't. After
hanging around with the crew for awhile, they showed me what they had
inside. A 42 ft. luxury RV.

The whole purpose of this venture was to provide a presidential photo
op. The president wanted to look like an average citizen, driving his
family through Yellowstone Park in an RV. Here's how it really
worked. The actual Marine 1 helo would fly the President and his
family from Jackson, to an undisclosed landing site in Yellowstone.
The Marine copter carrying the RV would fly to the same location to
meet them. Both helos unloaded their cargo and the President and his
family drove a couple of miles in the RV to where the press was
waiting. Big speech about the wonders of taking your family to a
National Park, then they drove a few miles back to the landing site and
loaded everything up. Marine 1 flew back to JAC and "RV 1" flew back to
WYS to await its next "mission".

I was disgusted, to say the least, that my tax dollars were being
spent on a sham like that. Fortunately, I'm a cynic and my
disappointment didn't last long. It's par for the course for
politicians of any stripe these days.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


--
JGalban
Posted at www.flight.org