Democratic games

Previous: Who still believes in Democratic "fiscal responsibility"?

Via our friend McQ at QandO, I was a bit amused to read that, a couple of days ago, the House Sergeant at Arms became the patsy for Nancy Pelosi's hypocrisy.

"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security," House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood said in a statement. "I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker." ...

"I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue," Livingood added.

Livingood's statement does not make sense, once you remember that it's already been policy for the Speaker to travel via military aircraft, and Pelosi's C-20 (inherited from Dennis Hastert) is a military plane. Also, the excuse of "communications" is moot, as Pelosi can still be in touch whether she's in the air or refueling on the ground. Then, as McQ suggested, the "security" issue of refueling can be eliminated by the use of an Air Force base. What it comes down to, then, is Pelosi's desire to travel in a nice big military version of the 757, rather than a "mere" converted Gulf Stream 3 jet.

At best, it's a very poorly worded statement, or inexcusable incompetence on Livingood's part. At worst, I can see him being chosen as the fall guy: a little bit of a lie, a red herring or two, the American people will forget, and nobody gets hurt...right?

Update: why does Pelosi really want the plane? Well, here is a telling quote I found. After claiming she'd be happy flying coach, and all but blaming the Sergeant at Arms for requiring her to fly in a military craft, she said:

"I don't even like having the security," Mrs. Pelosi said. "I would rather travel on the plane with my friends to get some work done."

Note that she didn't say "with my staff." The two aren't mutually exclusive, but it's an interesting choice of words, particularly when we consider how much larger the C-32 is than Pelosi's currently issued C-20. Would she really be as happy to fly in the C-37A that, McQ declared, "will call the security bluff"?

And Pelosi's non-denial denial of requesting the plane? Republicans "have nothing to say to the American people about the war or about the economy or about global warming.... They have this game they are playing."

Yeah, it's that terrible American economy again. You know, the one which grew "only" 3.4% last year (after adjusting for inflation, remember), with 4.6% unemployment. Maybe Pelosi should stop jet-setting and come down to Earth for a while.

Oh, absolutely there are millions of Americans who are being "left behind" in what's in fact a great economic situation -- and as I said the other night, it's about time they started producing like the rest of us. Not working, but producing things of economic value. One can sweat all day digging a hole that no one needs, but at the end of the day, it's just a hole. The physical exertion is irrelevant, because most anyone can dig a hole: there's no reason for the pay to approach that of the less-common person who's smart and talented enough to get and allocate money so the hole can be dug.

And the more I look at what both parties do, the more I lament how they're doing nothing more effective than digging useless holes, courtesy of our money.