Liberal Left Coast Morons

Just a sample of the idiocy on the West Coast ... from San Francisco (remember this is one of the most liberal spots in the US of A outside of the People's Republic of Cambridge):

From SF Gate.com website -- the italics are mine....

Chris Finnie, Boulder Creek

Constitutionally, Nancy Pelosi is now second in line for the presidency. That fact sticks in the craw of conservatives everywhere. So they'd much rather paint this as an issue of the speaker's entourage than of the longer distance she flies compared to her predecessor, and of the legitimate security concern of refueling stops. As for arrogance, who should know better than the Republicans? -- Chris, I could not care less about the distance she flies and Republican arrogance. This is about ignorance -- yours: (1) Mistress Nancy is THIRD in line; (2) it IS about size and entourage; and (3) there are PLENTY of smaller jets that can make the trip without refueling.

Marietta Crane, San Francisco

If the only plane that can get her to California non-stop is a bigger plane, then by all means, she should have a bigger plane. She should not be penalized simply because she lives on the left coast. Bella Pelosi is NOT being penalized for living on the left coast. She is granted use of a plane by the military -- as has her predecessor since 9/11. It is not about bigger -- it is about greed and hypocrisy.

Gabrielle Wilson, Berkeley

In a post 9/11 world, Speaker Pelosi should have the added security measure. However, who gets a free ride on the plane should be a public matter, and that should be balanced against security. No doubt the patriarchial right-wing conservatives are simply having a hard time digesting the thought of a female speaker of the House. Gabrielle, take your head out of your ass -- it is not that the speaker is female, it is because she is a liberal democrat hypocrite. For security, you fly a smaller, faster more manoeuvrable plane, not a passenger bus.

Jon Stewart, San Francisco

For security reasons, Pelosi should be allowed to have a jet that is big enough to get herself and whatever staff to her destinations without refueling. She could very well be a target for some kind of terrorist act someday. The good ones always have bullseyes on their backs. Astounding lack of comprehension ... a bullseye? The "good ones"? We are talking about squandering huge sums of money and fuel to satisfy imperial ambitions!!

Mary Canavan, Berkeley

Pelosi should have a plane that gets her from here to there without having to land for refueling. I see that the Republicans are once again pulling the holier-than-thou card as they strut around mewling about cost and propriety -- as if they knew something about either topic. Berkeley ... I could have guessed. Mary, it is about claiming to be an environmentalist and then turning around to act like an Arab Sheik. About claiming to represent a movement to rid Washington of this type of excess ... even Dennis "Greedy Bastard" Hastert didn't reach for this sort of entitlement. Holier-than-thou? I should frikkin well hope so!!

Blair Calhoun, Half Moon Bay

Talk about sore losers. The speaker should get the use of any plane she damn well wants. Any passengers outside of her immediate staff should pay a nominal fare in accordance with similar military flights. Almost Blair, but not ANY plane ... only what is reasonable and if she wants to take 50 members of "staff" then she needs to reconsider her importance.

Some smarter Left Coasters say:

Tim Davis, Walnut Creek

Speaker Pelosi opened her session preaching how every decision we make should benefit our children. Please tell me, Madam Speaker, how much more money it will cost for your larger jet? How many school supplies would these dollars purchase?

Oscar Lopez-Guerra, San Mateo

Not a surprise here -- I was kind of expecting it. Washington environs and position usually go to their heads. Perhaps G.W. could vacate the White House so Nancy can move in and redecorate it pastel blue.

D.C. Anderson, Moraga

As an energy conservation engineer, I think the issue of fuel consumption should be paramount. If Speaker Pelosi truly believes in an aggressive energy conservation program, the Gulfstream C-37 is the only logical choice. The range of 5,600 miles is adequate for non-stop from Washington to San Francisco, and the 16-person capacity even allows room for Pelosi's private plastic surgeon. Thank you D.C.

Posted by LRJ: None of these lawmakers should have a plane at all.

Statistically commercial air is much safer than any of these private jets or small military jets and the cost to taxpayers is absolutely astronomically... as in $18,000 an hour. That's right eighteen thousand dollars an hour.

And the difference in fuel savings between a large military 737 size aircraft and a public airfare would supply a fleet of 100 Toyota Priuses driving 10,000 miles a year for the next 72 years. (that's right, I looked it up!).

Its distasteful, its wasteful, and its bad government.

Posted by Brookeking: I think her request for a 757-200 with bedrooms, and cost 22,000/hr to fly is a bit much. If she wants to reward her backers by these flights, it will be a problem. Didn't we learn the last lesson from the Lincoln bedroom scandal?? Now we can have a mile-high bedroom for these backers and staff?

If she wants her staff to fly ; let them fly commercially, and not use the military jet. Her staff can meet her at her CA office.

By me: it is not about being a "sore loser." No, you liberals have had that market cornered since the day you started claiming that the election in 2000 was "stolen." It is about walking the walk as well as talking the talk. So far, Pelosi has been the poster child of corruption, lying, influence peddling and hypocrisy. If a Republican had done ANY of this, we would have been reading about the "Continuing Credibility Crisis in Congress" in every issue of the NY Times, SF Chronicle, LA Times and Boston Globe. But Nancy of the Dark represents the classic liberal ethos: "do as I say, don't do as I do."