PDA

View Full Version : An Inconvenient Truth; 2008 Candidates Rely on Private Jets


BoogyMan
04-27-2007, 03:01 AM
Having sat through many discussions about how morally and ecologically superior the democrats are, I find this to be a less than tenable situation for their defenders who I am sure will join me in excoriating the excess of having each candidate take private, non-pooled jets to tonights debate.


Source: Link (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-campaign-planes,0,4666247,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines)

WASHINGTON -- A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.

For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.

No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.

All but Biden, who flew on a private jet, chartered their flights -- a campaign expense of between $7,500 and $9,000.

Federal Election Commission rules allow candidates to pay only the equivalent of first-class fare to fly on private jets owned by corporations or other special interests. But a Senate ethics bill approved earlier this year would require senators flying on corporate jets to pay full charter rates. The legislation must still be reconciled with a House bill and has yet to become law.

Several senators running for president are abiding by it anyway, either paying charter cost or avoiding corporate jets altogether, as Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain have done. Dodd pays full charter rates when he flies on private planes. The Clinton and Biden campaigns did not immediately explain their policies.

Candidates who follow the more lenient FEC rules have a financial advantage.

Democrat John Edwards, for example, regularly uses a jet owned by Dallas trial lawyer Fred Baron, who is also the finance chairman of his presidential campaign. His campaign pays first-class rate for those flights. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also flies on corporate jets and pays first-class rates.

Under FEC reimbursement regulations, a candidate flying in a corporate or union jet must pay the first-class rate unless the flight's destination does not have scheduled commercial service. In that case, the candidate must pay the cost of chartering the plane.

For candidates who are now eschewing corporate jets, the cost difference can be significant.

For example, a one-way first class ticket on United Airlines with four days advance notice is $694 per person. A typical one-way charter flight on a small Lear jet seating six people would cost about $9,000.

Critics of corporate jet flights for politicians say the difference in cost makes a private jet an extraordinary special benefit and can give corporate executives or union leaders unusual access to a candidate.

Thursday's debate, set on the campus of South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, S.C., made for some whirlwind scheduling. Clinton, for instance, was scheduled to return to Washington Friday morning for an 8 a.m. address to the New York State United Teachers 35th Annual Representative Assembly, then fly back to South Carolina for an 11 a.m. event in Greenville.

BoogyMan
04-27-2007, 01:05 PM
Listens.....hears crickets.

Mayberry
04-27-2007, 01:55 PM
Listens.....hears crickets. It's pretty hard to argue against the obvious.

Waffletush
04-27-2007, 02:14 PM
You should retitle this thread's name to "An Inconvenient Truth"

Mayberry
04-27-2007, 02:22 PM
You should retitle this thread's name to "An Inconvenient Truth" Good one 'Tush. Pssstt! Wanna buy some carbon credits? :P

bobbylien
04-27-2007, 02:23 PM
I agree 100% Boogy. Its incredibly hypocritical of them.

BoogyMan
04-27-2007, 08:39 PM
You should retitle this thread's name to "An Inconvenient Truth"


A most excellent suggestion Waffle! :D Done.

Elrathin
04-27-2007, 09:56 PM
Tell me which Republican Senators do what you ask on a regular basis Boogy.

Your title is dishonest at best by insinuating that only Democrats do this. I have already spoken about how I feel about senators and congressmen spending tax payers money and the waste, so to say anything else on it would just be repeating myself.

But to act like only the Dems do this is a flat out lie.

Drocket
04-27-2007, 10:28 PM
Quite frankly, I don't care. They're high-ranking people (generally. Even for those who really aren't, the fact that they're all presidential candidates makes them one, for the purposes of this event) who do important work in the public domain. In order to make the appearances they need to make, they need to be able to travel quickly, and that means private planes. Yeah, it would be nice if they'd 'plane pool', but that's just life.

Something that's annoying me more and more is how eager the Republican side is to claim hypocrisy for EVERYTHING Democrats do (often phrased as 'being authentic.') They say they want to help the poor, but they're actually rich. They say they care about the environment, but they haven't retired to a monk-life existance. They say they care about (X) but (Y). The problem with this train of thought is obvious: the only people who don't fail the 'hypocrisy test' are Republican assholes who don't give a shit about anyone or anything.

Here's the thing: there NOTHING inconsistent about being rich and caring about the poor, and there NOTHING inconsistent about caring about the environment and still using modern luxuries when necessary to do you job. Claiming that there is is a bullshit charge designed to disguise the fact that you can't criticize the candidate for anything that actually matters, so you'll simply make up a "scandal."

Watching Fox News discuss the Democratic debates today was pretty amusing. They spent about 90% of the time on this non-scandal and the rest talking about whether Hillary is 'electable'. Total time spent on covering what the Democratic candidates actually said: 0.0 seconds.

bobbylien
04-27-2007, 10:57 PM
Wait a second... this was talked about after the debates? Honestly, I'm not really surprised.. it is fox. They want their conservative base to think they're right.

BoogyMan
04-27-2007, 10:59 PM
Who claimed this to be a scandal Drocket? I am merely pointing out that the bevy of supposedly ecologically minded liberals who attended that debate are no different from any other politician, and certainly no better. If you cannot take the medicine that you have been dispensing I would recommend you steel yourself up a bit because the left has been tossing rocks in their glass house and are starting to find out that glass actually breaks. Do as I say and not as I do is as hypocritical as it gets.

The fact that all of these leftward leaning candidates squawk about energy savings and green this or that, and then when presented with a great opportunity to show their dedication to their 'principles' they abandon them showing themselves to be no different than those whom they roundly disparage as being ecologically rapacious speaks volumes.

piratemonkey
04-27-2007, 11:12 PM
The fact that all of these leftward leaning candidates squawk about energy savings and green this or that, and then when presented with a great opportunity to show their dedication to their 'principles' they abandon them showing themselves to be no different than those whom they roundly disparage as being ecologically rapacious speaks volumes.


We've been through this before.

Presidential Candidates have a bit different obligations and needs than your average citizen, wouldn't you say?

Could they be more careful in their energy use? Sure.

Could you continue to criticize them, unless they all lived in the forest, wiped with leaves and ate sustainable grubs? Sure.

Nobody's perfect and there are certain unavoidable realities when dealing with the world as it exists today.

BoogyMan
04-27-2007, 11:44 PM
We've been through this before.

Presidential Candidates have a bit different obligations and needs than your average citizen, wouldn't you say?

Could they be more careful in their energy use? Sure.

Could you continue to criticize them, unless they all lived in the forest, wiped with leaves and ate sustainable grubs? Sure.

Pirate, that is just hillarious! :D

I am not criticizing them because they don't live in the forest and as you so humorously put it "wiped with leaves." I am pointing out, and rightly so, the FACT that these eco-warriors are not so ecologically conscious as they claim to be and are quite frankly behaving in a hypocritical manner.

Nobody's perfect and there are certain unavoidable realities when dealing with the world as it exists today.


You will be getting this one back in the very near future when you feel the need to criticize the current administration. :D

Had the Bush administration been claiming a hold on the ecological high ground you know as well as I do that you would be posting this same commentary.

sbannon
04-28-2007, 05:59 PM
I agree with Boogy whole-heartedly here. I mean all 8 of them (and their dozen or so staffers and campaign workers each) could have taken a single plane to the debate. And when it was over and the 8 little armies were each headed to 8 separate destinations they could have.... uhmm... er.... gee, I guess maybe there was a valid need for each to have their own transportation available?

Mayberry
04-28-2007, 06:05 PM
Now, Scott. Just do as I say, not as I do. I know what's best for you.