Much Ado About ... Planes
Official Washington -- at least on the House side -- spent much of Thursday focused on the size plane that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) should be allowed to use when she flies home when Congress isn't in session.
This "controversy du jour" reflects why the average person finds national "politics" irrelevant, uninteresting or just plain idiotic. It's also a story that reflects much of what is wrong with what passes for inside-the-Beltway journalism: it's more like a whispering campaign from high school writ large in the capitol's daily paper(s) than the sourced and verified reporting that I learned in J-school.
Here we go with some facts and data, and occasional aside, in somewhat chronological order:
Since 9-11, the Speaker of the House -- who is second in line in Presidential succession (following the VP) -- has used a military jet for travel because of security issues. To whit: "Former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert used a military 12-seat jet to carry him mainly from Washington's Andrews Air Force Base to airports near his home district in Chicago's suburbs."
The distance from Chicago to DC? About 700 miles by auto.
The distance from San Francisco (Speaker Pelosi's home territory) to DC? About 3,000 miles by auto. Both somewhat less than that, one assumes, in the air.
Whisper Campaign Begins
On 1 February, The Washington Times kicked off the whisper campaign with a story asserting that Speaker Pelosi was demanding "carte blanche for an aircraft any time" and that she wanted to carry family members as well as staff. [This eventually grew to accusations of parties at 30,000 feet.]
Rowan Scarborough, the reporter, continues: "Sources said Mrs. Pelosi's request goes beyond what Mr. Hastert received." The source(s)? All accusers are unnamed, of course ... their affiliation is masked as well. The one "defender" is IDed as being an aide from the Speaker's office who "asked not to be named." Does this mean that the other unnamed sources didn't ask not to be named?
And the headline writer (Speaker Persues Military Flights) makes it sound like Pelosi is asking for something special, something out of the ordinary.
Flash forward a week.
On Thursday, House Republicans spent two hours "[criticizing] the request for a larger plane than Hastert used for travel."
What were they supposed to be doing? Debating an alternative energy bill, one where the Speaker was present to support climate change initiatives. Part of Republican criticism was that Pelosi would be wasting gas and polluting the environment more in the larger plane.
All the more reason to have additional people -- family and staff -- fly with her. Kinda like the difference in car pools and single-occupancy vehicles.
About The Request
Why was there a request for a larger plane? First, as I've shown, the distance travelled by the new speaker is about three times greater than the old one. If the Speaker is to travel non-stop -- which would seem prudent for security reasons -- then the plane is gonna have to be bigger. Unless Hastert was flying in an over-sized jet, relative to his needs.
And just who made the request? Not Pelosi.
AP has the text of a statement made by Bill Livingood, the House sergeant-at-arms appointed to his job in 1995 by former Speaker Hastert:
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."
Did anyone in the press corps ask Livingood about his role before now? Did those "unnamed sources" not know that Livingood made the request? You know the answer to that.
As someone who lives on the left coast, I can assure you that there is a signficant difference in flying coast-to-coast non-stop and flying with a layover somewhere in the middle (Denver, Salt Lake, Chicago, Nashville -- I've done them all). It's significant in time, in wear-and-tear on body and mind. The older I get, the more significant it feels.
I don't normally reach for this analogy, but here goes: would the number three officer of a major US corporation not fly non-stop when going coast-to-coast? I think you know the answer to that, too.
There are three US Air Force planes at Andrews Air Force Base (outskirts of DC) that could fly coast-to-coast non-stop, 365 days a year: the C-32 (Boeing 757 built for the military, 45 passengers), C-40B (Boeing 737 built for the military, 26 to 32 passengers) and C-37 (Gulfstream business jet, 12 passengers).
Who's Saying What?
On the Republican side, the critics being named are Republican Conference Chairman Rep. Adam Putnam (R-F-12), Minority Whip Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO-7), Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC-10 and the youngest House member),
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-46) and
Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ-3).
Will Livingood's statement silence the whisperers? Here are some more -- tell me what you think:
An unnamed defense source claims that the planes capable of flying non-stop are in high demand by Congress. "Congress looks at that Andrews fleet as their Hertz rent-a-car."
An unnamed congressional source claims Pelosi asked for military transport to a Democratic event in Williamsburg but that the Pentagon did not honor the request. If, indeed, she asked for this -- I agree it seems inappropriate. Of course, I think it's inappropriate when the President and Vice President use Air Force One for such things, but that doesn't stop them.
Finally, belatedly, White House spokesman Tony Snow: "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker."
Silly, yes. Sadly, typical, too.
Technorati Profile