Horses Mouth February 13, 2007 04:35 PM

Here It Is: Silliest Retelling Yet Of Bogus Pelosi Plane Story
February 13, 2007 -- 04:35 PM EST // View Comments (232) // Post a Comment

Sillier and sillier. Ruth Ann Dailey, a columnist for the mainstream Pittsburgh Post Gazette, has outdone many of her media colleagues on the bogus Nancy Pelosi plane story: Rather than just recycle this tall tale, she's actually gone and built a whole theory about the new Dem Congressional leadership on it. Ms. Dailey writes:

Just weeks after promising the dawn of a corruption-free, environmentally sensitive era on Capitol Hill, the new Democratic speaker rejected the 12-seat Gulfstream 3 jet that her Republican predecessor had used and asked for something much larger.
Ms. Pelosi requested the military equivalent of a 757, the most luxurious airplane available for a nonstop coast-to-coast trip. She and her staff had decided that pausing to refuel would be a security risk, having evidently forgotten they can refuel at any of the country's dozens of Air Force bases...

Certain abuses of power arise from a lazy sense of entitlement -- too much comfort from being in power too long. Republicans stumbled on this sort.

Then there are the abuses of power that arise from an aggrieved sense of entitlement denied -- injured pride from being out of power for so long, especially if you think the power in question should rightfully be yours.

This is where Democratic leaders are stumbling already. Judging from their campaign rhetoric, the only surprise is how fast it happened.

As you know already, this is pure fiction, so today I sent Ms. Dailey an email with a corrective and a few questions. Because Ms. Dailey, a delicate soul, has complained about "left wing incivility" in the past, I took care to be very, very civil:

As it happens, this account you provide is entirely false. On February 8th the House Sergeant-at-Arms released a statement saying that he, not Pelosi, had requested for security reasons an aircraft that could fly nonstop from D.C. to her California district....
So, several on the record questions: First, do you intend to issue a correction? Second, were you aware that this statement, which was reported by CNN, the New York Times and many other news outlets, had been released? Third, if you were aware of the statement, why did you repeat the false claim that Pelosi requested the larger aircraft? And if you didn't know about the statement, shouldn't basic professionalism have required you to be aware of such a critical aspect of a story that you were addressing in your column?

When she replies, you'll be the first to know. Special thanks to TPM Reader MJ for the catch.

Incidentally, if you want a comprehensive rundown on just how many media figures recycled this bogus story, Eric Boehlert's got one here. Be warned: It's pretty dispiriting.

-- Greg Sargent | Comments (232) | Post a Comment

COMMENTS:

Greg, Greg, tsk, tsk, such incivility! "Professionalism"? You leftists are so MEAN!

Posted by: kvenlander
Date: February 13, 2007 05:10 PM

I just couldn't help myself...

Posted by: Greg
Date: February 13, 2007 05:18 PM

Isn't the Post-Gazette a Scaife mouthpiece? Worse than Murdoch?

Posted by: David in NY
Date: February 13, 2007 05:25 PM

No Greg. From Wikipedia:

"The paper's opinion page is generally considered moderately liberal, in contrast to the city's other major paper, the more conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.[citation needed] Its current daily circulation is about 243,000 with over 400,000 on Sunday."

I'd like to write this columnist too. And I'm about as civil as they come.

Posted by:
Date: February 13, 2007 05:32 PM

David in NY -

No, that's the Tribune-Review. The P-G is owned by the Block family (the younger generation of which is destroying the paper...but that's another issue.)

Those of us who have been exposed to Ruth Ann for years tend to think of her as rock-stupid rather than evil.

Local blogger dayvoe dispatched Ruth Ann yesterday:

http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2007/02/ruth-ann-drinks-conservative-kool-aid.html

Posted by: spork_incident
Date: February 13, 2007 05:36 PM

"Those of us who have been exposed to Ruth Ann for years tend to think of her as rock-stupid rather than evil."

As a daily reader of the Post-Gazette I'm not sure I agree about the Ruth Ann Daily being stupid. She an effective promoter of rightist causes. She has consistently slandered Joe Wilson for example.

Of passing interest she was married to Scott Baker once local news anchor her famous for training Jeff Gannon in journalism http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/05/09/im-the-guy-who-taught_n_550.html

Baker left Pittsburgh and left Ruth Ann and his children for a prettier woman. The dust-up and Ruth Ann's prominent name change from Baker to Daily was mildly ironic given her "Christian" values screeds.

I'm not sure she's evil but certainly consider her mean-spirited.

Posted by: John Powers
Date: February 13, 2007 05:55 PM

Ruth Ann is an utterly charming woman in person. IN PERSON she's not nuts - and so I was honestly surprised to read her column yesterday.

Surprised at how embarrassing it is.

But I wouldn't say she's stupid. Stubborn is more like it.

Thanks for linking to my blog post.

Dayvoe

Posted by: Dayvoe
Date: February 13, 2007 06:15 PM

I left her an email. Also, the bottom of the article has her office phone number. I'll be calling tomorrow. Perhaps if she has to hear from enough people, she'll think twice about getting the facts wrong--it might save her the frustration of dealing with us awful left wingers.

Posted by: Matt
Date: February 13, 2007 06:24 PM

spork_incident: you raise a good point. people like charles krauthammer are evil but there are an astonishingly large number of ill-informed folks who have secured jobs as columnists.

i don't understand it.

Posted by: howard
Date: February 13, 2007 06:31 PM

Shrill, shrill, shrill. Everyone knows that McCain, the maverick, tells it like it is, that Rudy Giuliani was America's mayor, and that Nancy (Fancy pants) Pelosi is just a wine sipping, cheese eating liberal from San Francisco who is accustomed to the lap of luxtury. Pointing out reality is just shrill, and rude, no matter how gently put.

Posted by:
Date: February 13, 2007 06:58 PM

That's such a rude and angry letter, typical liberal hate mongering. Ms. Daily is just reporting the facts--Ms. Pelosi wanted to fly non-stop on a big plane--and there you go censoring her.

Argh.

Some of my favorite too-dumb-to-breath editorials appear under the radar in various Newhouse papers. Some Newhouse papers seem to specialize in hiring GOP operatives between elections. To wit, two recent unsigned editorials in the Mobile Register (where Quin Hillyer, GOP operative and American Spectator ME ruled the roost until recently):

ACTING ON his famous desire to be "a uniter, not a divider," President Bush did his part Thursday to cool partisan passions stoked by the issue of the day in Washington: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's travel arrangements.
Several House Republicans were filled with righteous indignation upon learning that Speaker Pelosi requested a military transport plane with the fuel capacity to fly her nonstop to her hometown of San Francisco...

http://www.al.com/opinion/mobileregister/editorials.ssf?/base/opinion/1171017229220290.xml&coll=3

Yup, they were a day or so late and knew they couldn't win this one so they credited Bush with a victory. Amazing.

And that was on the heels of their twisted McCain is a straight talker editorial:

SEN. JOHN McCain lived up to his reputation for straight talk when he said supporters of a resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge in Iraq were intellectually dishonest.
Senate Democrats and a few dissident Republicans have spent the past several days trying to spin the debate...

http://www.al.com/opinion/mobileregister/editorials.ssf?/base/opinion/1170930522140090.xml&coll=3

Too dumb to argue with but too smart to be anything more than GOP spin is worse, IMO, than just wrong.

Posted by: numbertwopencil
Date: February 13, 2007 07:10 PM

I think it also needs to be pointed out that the Sergeant-at-Arms, William Livingood, is a Republican hold-over. Pelosi reappointed him.

Posted by: Claessens1
Date: February 13, 2007 09:16 PM

Insane.

Maybe this is something a local reader can respond to? Their LTE editor is Alice Rawley, at arowley@post-gazette.com.

Also, make sure to CC any notes to Ruth Ann to the editorial page editor, Tom Waseleski, at twaseleski@post-gazette.com-- maybe then we'll get a response.

Posted by: Chris
Date: February 14, 2007 06:58 AM

I really don't believe all this hogwash is still being perpetuated six days after Speaker Pelosi has already flown on a C-37A, which Speaker Hastert has used on occasion when available. That's a 12-seat version (with secure government communications) of a Gulfstream V corporate jet that can easily make if from D.C. to San Francisco in all conditions. It's marginally larger than the C-20B that Speaker Hastert was said to have typically used.

For those who heard about the DoD's letter indicating that a "larger plane" and "non-stop service" wouldn't always be available - they were likely referring to the C-37A versus the C-20B. The reason why they might not be available is that they are used to transport DoD staffers, cabinet secretaries, and high ranking military officers. There is no credible evidence that Speaker Pelosi or her staff ever asked for a larger aircraft than needed to transport her and a small group of family/staff.

Posted by: y_p_w
Date: February 14, 2007 01:47 PM

In addition to a letter to Ruth Anne calling her out on her lies - which I copied to the PG's executive editor - I called the Post-Gazette yesterday and talked with an editor about this. I won't use his name because I did not state that I would be reporting on our conversation. I wanted to know if anybody at the paper fact checks the columnists.

He said some fact checking was done, but not of the same intensity that would be done with a news article. In other words, columnists are given leeway because it is opinion. He was not the editor who reviewed her column prior to publication, but, in reading it after the fact, he said there were a few things in the column that he "would have stumbled over."

He also had to correct the spelling of Curt Weldon's name.

Posted by: Whigsboy
Date: February 15, 2007 08:54 AM

And Boehlert's list only includes American "journalists". The farce got similar treatment in Britain. Notably from Gerard Baker, U.S. Editor and assistant editor of The Times. This isn't a case of wag the dog, but of the dog chasing its (tall) tail. Cheerio, pip-pip and all that rot...

Posted by: John Latimer
Date: February 15, 2007 10:13 PM

You'll be happy to know that the P-G published 3 letters to the editor on the subject today (one of which was written by a friend to whom I was ranting about the column; they called me to ask to run my letter, but I wasn't in). All knock down the nonsense, one in a moderate but stern tone, one rather more stridently ("hogwash"), and a third from a self-identified non-fan of Pelosi who nonetheless calls bullshit. Sounds like the paper got plastered with protests, and responded appropriately.

Posted by: JRoth
Date: February 16, 2007 01:07 PM

And Ruth Ann Dailey Responds:

http://post-gazette.com/pg/07050/763239-152.stm

A telling paragraph:
=====
Close reading of all the news available, however, reveals that none of the reports cancels others out. For instance, Mr. Livingood's initiation of the request doesn't mean that Ms. Pelosi, her staff and Mr. Murtha didn't also make requests -- or, in Mr. Murtha's case, threats. They did. This reporting has not been disproven; indeed, Ms. Pelosi's first statements on the conflict confirm her involvement, and Mr. Murtha has boasted of his role.
=====

It's also not been disproven that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe.

dayvoe

Posted by: dayvoe
Date: February 19, 2007 12:46 AM

spvnjeihz puawligfz wtusrgk rnwuev jltpaqdz gnoejb nbwq

Posted by: dybatchrz wuqph
Date: March 4, 2007 08:30 AM

izhotly vtwm ndjcgka kxbp tywr iewz tgxbdinq http://www.wtyok.fiegu.com

Posted by: dspvh rkcwjou
Date: March 4, 2007 08:30 AM

Posted by: naruto picture porn tsunade
Date: March 4, 2007 06:53 PM

Posted by: cartoon naruto porn
Date: March 4, 2007 09:22 PM

Posted by: lesbian naruto porn
Date: March 5, 2007 12:33 AM

Posted by: cartoon free naruto porn
Date: March 5, 2007 01:39 AM

Posted by: naruto porn xxx
Date: March 5, 2007 03:10 AM

Posted by: free movie naruto porn
Date: March 5, 2007 04:50 AM

Posted by: naruto anime porn
Date: March 5, 2007 07:53 AM

Posted by: free movie naruto porn
Date: March 5, 2007 09:06 AM

Posted by: manga naruto porn
Date: March 5, 2007 02:00 PM

Posted by: cosplay naruto porn
Date: March 5, 2007 03:32 PM

Posted by: cosplay naruto porn
Date: March 5, 2007 03:34 PM

Posted by: free naruto picture porn
Date: March 5, 2007 05:24 PM

Posted by: naruto porn video
Date: March 5, 2007 06:51 PM

Posted by: free naruto porn video
Date: March 5, 2007 10:28 PM

Posted by: comic naruto porn
Date: March 5, 2007 11:37 PM

Posted by: free naruto pic porn
Date: March 6, 2007 01:00 AM

Posted by: free naruto porn
Date: March 6, 2007 01:59 AM

Posted by: free naruto porn video
Date: March 6, 2007 03:22 AM

Posted by: anime naruto porn
Date: March 6, 2007 06:13 AM

Posted by: slut wife movie
Date: March 6, 2007 07:17 AM

Posted by: slut wife xxx
Date: March 6, 2007 08:31 AM

Posted by: make my wife a slut
Date: March 6, 2007 10:00 AM

Posted by: make my wife a slut
Date: March 6, 2007 10:01 AM

Posted by: sexy wife slut
Date: March 6, 2007 11:33 AM

Posted by: slut wife hotel
Date: March 6, 2007 01:05 PM

Posted by: slut wife black cock
Date: March 6, 2007 03:06 PM

Posted by: bang my slut wife
Date: March 6, 2007 05:41 PM

Posted by: fetish slut wife
Date: March 6, 2007 10:32 PM

Nice site. Thanks!!!
http://gang-bang-slut-wife-story-66930sf6.luti

Here It Is: Silliest Retelling Yet Of Bogus Pelosi Plane StoryFebruary 13, 2007 -- 04:35 PM EST // View Comments (232) // Post a Comment

Here It Is: Silliest Retelling Yet Of Bogus Pelosi Plane Story
February 13, 2007 -- 04:35 PM EST // View Comments (232) // Post a Comment