Strafing the Speaker

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 9, 2007 7:34 AM

This Air Pelosi story is gaining altitude.

Conservative blogs and radio talkers are having a grand time painting her as a pampered princess.

The Washington Times broke what seemed a legitimate story: The Pentagon has limited the size of the military planes that the House speaker can use to fly home to California.

Did you know she was entitled to a military plane? Neither did I. But under legislation passed after 9/11, it's legally mandated for security reasons. Dennis Hastert had such special transport for five years.

Nancy Pelosi asked for a bigger (and far more expensive) plane because the one she was using couldn't make it to the West Coast without a refueling stop. Hastert didn't have that problem getting to Illinois.

Pelosi may be right on the substance, but the symbolism is awful. She insists she didn't ask for the plane, but if a military flight is needed, she wants a nonstop to San Francisco. The average voter will be left wth an image of her flying around on a jumbo jet in the lap of luxury.

The Times also reported that the Defense Department rejected a request for Pelosi to fly on military aircraft to last weekend's Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, a two-hour drive from D.C.

Pelosi has gone on the offensive, saying that Pentagon officials leaked the dispute for partisan reasons and that the negotiating was done not by her but by the House sergeant-at-arms. The flap made the network newscasts last night, although Tony Snow pointedly declined to pile on, calling the story "silly."

The L.A. Times frames it this way: "The Pelosi plane commotion continued Thursday with the nation's capital in a partisan fizz.

"On a day when the federal deficit and the Iraq war were the official business, Washington found itself caught up again in the question of whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should fly home to San Francisco in a big plane or a little one."

Pelosi "suggested the Defense Department had deliberately mischaracterized her request for clarification of the rules on the use of military jets as a request for a big plane. 'Why are they feeding the flames?' she asked. She offered an answer: payback for her vocal criticism that former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld mishandled the Iraq war.

"On the House floor, Republicans managed to take a bill about alternative fuel and turn it into a debate on Pelosi's transportation arrangements, by introducing an amendment that included the word 'aircraft.' That was enough to provide conservative members an opportunity to characterize her as the Leona Helmsley of Capitol Hill."

Here's some typical blog reaction. Radiant Times:

"With all the fuss about global warming nowadays, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is complaining that she cannot have a huge jet to traipse across the country with her immediate family and political supporters. Does she realize what a huge government jet would cost the taxpayers? Maybe not, and maybe she does not care - who knows?"

Political Retch:

"What has happened to the democrats, now they want Pelosi to be treated like a queen? She and her band of freaks are starting to sound less and less like the peoples' choice to lead the country. If the plane isn't big enough then don't go to California, or better yet pay your own damn fare on a commercial jet. Silly [rhymes with witch]!"

But National Review's David Frum exercises caution:

"I have an uneasy feeling that the conservative press may have overhyped this story about Nancy Pelosi's airplane request. If she really and truly did ask for her own personal Boeing 757, as many stories and much radio commentary have implied , well yes obviously that would be a huge scandal. But I keep being struck by the exact phrase in these articles: that she asked for 'access' to a a transcontinental plane. If she asked only that she get similar transport to that which was provided to Speaker Hastert, but with larger fuel capacity that could take her nonstop across the continent (ie, the military equivalent of a Gulfstream G-IV ), then that's a very different matter . . .

"My own personal view, for what it's worth, is that the security protections for most US leaders - including the president - have by now vastly come to exceed what can be justified by any plausible cost-benefit analysis. Americans keep buying tiny additional increments of security for their leaders at ever more exorbitant marginal cost.

"And I do suspect that politicians - Republicans as well as Democrats - exploit this security-mindedness for their own comfort and convenience. Does the Speaker of the House really and truly need to be in secure contact with the Capitol at all times? I wonder. And if the Speaker truly does need to be in constant contact, still - why does that require a plane that can fly cross-country without refueling? Does the communications equipment not work when the plane is on the ground?

But those are very different questions - and that's a very different topic - from the Marie Antoinette angle being played up."

I've got the latest on the brouhaha over the Edwards bloggers:

Former senator John Edwards said yesterday that while he is offended by some inflammatory remarks written by two bloggers before he hired them for his presidential campaign, he is keeping them on anyway.

As The Washington Post reported Monday, Amanda Marcotte wrote of the Duke rape case: "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

The New York Times reported Wednesday that a second newly hired blogger, Melissa McEwan had among other things written about President Bush's "wingnut Christofascist base."

After days of criticism by conservative bloggers, Edwards said in a statement: "The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. . . . That kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign."

But Edwards said he wanted to give the bloggers a "fair shake" and that he accepted their word that they never intended to malign anyone's faith. In an obvious allusion to denunciations of the two women by conservative bloggers, Edwards said he would not allow his effort to debate the issues to be "hijacked."

Marcotte said in an online posting that her comments on religion were "generally satirical in nature. . . . My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics."

McEwan said: "It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way."

The controversy has sparked a backlash among liberal bloggers, who say that conservatives orchestrated an attack on Marcotte and McEwan despite the incendiary rhetoric sometimes used by right-wing commentators online.

Lefty bloggers are thrilled. "It took a little while," says Kos, "but Edwards set the right precedent for how this type of smear should be handled. As a Democrat, I'm proud of him and his campaign. And I'm happy that Edwards is ready to move beyond BS 'hijackings' like this to talk about real issues."

Protein Wisdom has a different perspective: "Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences' eyes by posting vicious 'arguments' they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism--he publicly castrated them--and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot."

The cross-examination of Tim Russert concluded yesterday, with Ted Wells, Scooter Libby's lawyer, even playing some clips from "Imus in the Morning." The New York Times captures the intensity:

"Mr. Wells, using the technique that Mr. Russert is known for as moderator of 'Meet the Press,' then put up on video screens throughout the courtroom Mr. Russert's words in an affidavit he filed later. In an effort to avoid complying with a subpoena to testify about the same subject before a grand jury, Mr. Russert swore that he could not discuss the conversation because to do so would violate his deeply held journalistic principles.

" 'Did you disclose in the affidavit to the court that you had already disclosed the contents of your conversation with Mr. Libby' to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Wells asked.

" 'As I've said, sir . . . ,' Mr. Russert began.

" 'It's a yes or no question,' Mr. Wells interrupted.

" 'I'd like to answer it to the best of my ability,' Mr. Russert replied.

" 'This is a very simple question. Either it's in the affidavit or it's not,' Mr. Wells said. 'Did you disclose to the court that you had already communicated to the F.B.I. the fact that you had communicated with Mr. Libby?'

" 'No,' Mr. Russert said."

Russert says he resisted a subpoena in the case, after talking to the FBI, because he feared a fishing expedition that would force him to reveal other sources and methods. NBC lost that legal battle.

I confess I didn't see this becoming a presidential issue, but Jason Zengerle digs it out:

"Say what you will about Bill Richardson's White House chances, but at least his presidential campaign is making New Mexico safer for roosters. From the AP:

" Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat running for president, has come out strongly in favor of a ban on cockfighting. Legislation to outlaw the bloodsport has come up from time to time in New Mexico, but until recently, Richardson refused to take sides. Some suspect he does not want to look as if he comes from a backward state. . .

"With Obama giving up cigarettes and New Mexico now giving up cock-fighting, this presidential campaign is turning into a remarkably effective vice squad."

Whatever happened to the days when presidential contenders had genuine local roots? The Politico's Jonathan Martin examines the new carpetbaggery:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain are the prototype examples. In both cases, they represent states where they had scant personal history until they settled there to run for office.

"Barack Obama and Mitt Romney also reflect the trend. The Illinois senator, vying with Clinton for the Democratic nomination, was born in Hawaii and raised there and in Indonesia before settling in Chicago after an Ivy League education in New York and Boston. Republican Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, grew up in Michigan, and established his national profile by running the Winter Olympic Games in Utah.

"Not one of these major politicians represents the state where they grew up or have family history -- a new chapter in modern political history."

Is there a campaign on to soften Giuliani's image? Betsy Newmark seems on the verge of gagging:

"Maybe she's a very nice woman, but does she have any sense of how this sounds?

"' I've always liked strong, macho men, and Rudy - I'm not saying this because he's my husband - is one of the smartest people on the planet,' gushed the former Judith Nathan to Harper's Bazaar in editions due out Feb. 20. 'What people don't know is that Rudy's a very, very romantic guy. We love watching "Sleepless in Seattle." Can you imagine my big testosterone-factor husband doing that?'"

"I just have no wish to hear a candidate's wife talking about her husband's testosterone. I hope they can get her to do her gushing in private."

The GOP's discontent is now official:

"Many conservatives say they pick 'none of the above' when faced with a choice of Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee," the Washington Times reports.

Another Bush in trouble? I wasn't familiar with Uncle Bucky:

"President Bush's uncle William H.T. 'Bucky' Bush was among directors of a defense contractor who together reaped $6 million from what federal regulators say was an illegal five-year scheme by two company executives to manipulate the timing of stock option grants, court documents show. "The youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush, he is the second Bush family member whose name has surfaced in stock options scandals this month."

Whenever there's a controversy, someone, somewhere has studied it. Check out this Popular Mechanics report, via Instapundit:

"A report issued last year that critiqued NASA's plan for long-duration space missions for failing to deal with 'issues of human sexuality' now looks strikingly prophetic in the wake of Nowak's apparent love-triangle meltdown. But trying to predict whether an astronaut will be vulnerable to psychiatric or psychosocial problems remains an inexact science, one of the report's authors says -- though that may change as research into genomic screening, brain scans and biometric monitoring continues."

When further study was recommended, NASA may have been scared off by such headlines as "No sex please -- we're astronauts" and "Astro-naughtiness could cause problems in space."