Message to Nancy Pelosi: when NBC's Matt Lauer and David Gregory agree that your quest for a big plane is turning into a PR mess, and ABC's Chris Cuomo calls it a case of "jet envy," it's time to fold your wings.Lauer raised the matter with David Gregory on this morning's "Today": "Let's talk about the size of the plane that Nancy Pelosi has requested from the Pentagon. Depending on the spin you want to believe here, either the Speaker says it's to travel efficiently back to her home district; Republicans are saying it's an abuse of power. Either way, does it just look bad from a PR standpoint?"
View video here.
Gregory agreed: "I think that's the problem. This is a Democratic leader who's promising to clean up Washington. It's worth remembering, post-9/11, the House Speaker gets private air travel by the Air Force to get back to his or her home district. Dennis Hastert went back to Chicago [in the much smaller plane shown here], Nancy Pelosi is going back to San Francisco. She wants the ability to go direct and not have to refuel on the way and have some family members go with her, and none of that is untoward, but the Air Force is saying, the military is saying 'look, we can't guarantee you a 757' which is essentially what she wants, it depends on availability. Republicans are saying 'look, this is more than just efficiency, this is extravagance.'"Gregory: "Right, and it's something she's going to have to grapple with in the days to come."
Aside: The flap over Pelosi's plane pales in comparison to the news displayed in the screencap of the 757: due to the heavy lake-effect snows in upstate NY, tonight's bingo at the VFW hall in Fulton has been cancelled :-(
ABC Update: Good Morning America also covered the plane flap, if you will, this morning. Host Chris Cuomo, surprisingly, said: "is this about security, or ego? Sounds like a case of 'jet envy.'" In the course of the report by senior national correspondent Jake Tapper, it emerged that Pelosi is seeking to shift the blame for the request for the larger plane to her security team. Referring to one craft Pelosi might be seeking as "a large, lavish C-32, with a bedroom, conference room and entertainment center," Tapper ran footage of the much more modest plane, pictured in the second screencap, that Denny Hastert used while he was Speaker.
If Pelosi doesn't realize that this kind of coverage on the broadcast networks is hurting her and her party, she is not the ace politician she has been made out to be. Will Hillary's folks be calling to say "Nancy, knock it off"?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why doesn't she just ride her
February 8, 2007 - 08:54 ET by Right Wing Attack DogWhy doesn't she just ride her broom?
Size does matter to Ms. Nancy
February 8, 2007 - 09:11 ET by Mica the MagnificentSize does matter to Ms. Nancy.
I want a jet that does not require me to land in the midwest to refuel on the way to San Francisco. Why do you think they call it 'flyover country?' - - Sounds like Nancy
Funny dude. Wish I'd though
February 8, 2007 - 09:17 ET by Jack BauerFunny dude. Wish I'd thought of that crack first. Might have to steal it.
Broomstick One
now what?
February 8, 2007 - 14:09 ET by tumbler_2007Now what? All of a sudden the b--tch is Marie Anoinette?
Bet ya W's in the oval office crackin up ! Lol!
There are much smaller plan
February 8, 2007 - 09:15 ET by Right2thePointThere are much smaller planes in the inventory that have the legs to reach the distance.
Perhaps she's into inflight bowling, who would know?
I know very little about the
February 8, 2007 - 09:37 ET by rimskyI know very little about the ranges of various airplanes, but I DO know that I've flown non-stop from Newark to Seattle on a commercial jet the size of a 757, in fact it may have BEEN a 757. There is, no doubt, more to this than her wanting to avoid a re-fueling stop. She is just wanting to be treated as Royalty and wants to show off to her friends and family. If she gets the plane she wants, then this biz about wanting to ferry a few family members will balloon into a party size entourage, MSM included. I think we should shove this back in her face until she agrees to take whatever plane is available to her with a smile.
757s have a range of between
February 8, 2007 - 13:22 ET by Del Dolemonte757s have a range of between 5800 miles and 7200 miles, depending on the model. That's a long enough range to go nonstop from the East Coast to Hawaii.
Continental Airlines flies the 767 daily non-stop between Newark and Honolulu, an 11 hour trip, but could theoretically use the 757, as the total distance is just under 5,000 miles. And Delta has four nonstops daily from Atlanta to Honolulu, also using the 767.
Can nancy do math?
February 8, 2007 - 10:10 ET by vrwc13copied from my other post at related article...
Why isn't anyone calling her on this? What ever happened to investigative reporting?
C20 range 4220nm, per Del Dolemonte's link (pasted below), and a quick booking look-up on AA, the distance from NYC to San Fran is less than 2600nm and shorter from DC. Do the math!
BTW, with the C20 she can at least say her plane is powered by Rolls Royce!
Official DesignationC-20H Gulfstream IVPrimary RoleStaff transportNational OriginUSAOriginal ContractorGulfstream AmericanWingspan77 feet, 10 inches (23.6m)Length88 feet, 4 inches (26.9m)Height at Tail24 feet, 6 inches (7.4m)ArmamentNoneEnginesTwo Rolls-Royce Tay Mark 611-8 turbofansThrust13,850 pounds (61.61kN) per engineCruise Speed522 mph (840km/h; Mach 0.70)Max Speed576 mph (929 km/h; Mach 0.85)Range4,220 nm (7,815km)Service Ceiling45,000 feet (13,715m)Operating Weight32,300 pounds (14,651kg)Max Payload12 passengers
face piles of trials with smiles
face piles of trials with smiles
Thanks, vrwc. re-fuelin
February 8, 2007 - 11:08 ET by rimskyThanks, vrwc. re-fueling my arse! She wants a Royal Carriage, plane and simple.
If we take Pilosi at her word
February 8, 2007 - 12:50 ET by BruzillaIf we take Pilosi at her word, and use range and capacity as the determining factors, let her use a C-130 Hercules. There are plenty of them in inventory, they can carry all her pals, and they've got the legs to get from DC to San Fran without a refueling stop.
On the other hand the interior noise is deafening, the exhaust fumes make you gag, it's not as fast as a jet, and since it's a turboprop it looks almost as old as Pilosi... but it would meet her needs to get from point A to B with her pals.
My biggest problem with thi
February 8, 2007 - 09:29 ET by motherbeltMy biggest problem with this is her desire to ferry "supporters" with her. I'm still waiting for someone in the MSM to ask her why her supporters should be carted around on the taxpayers' dime.
This "and supporters" thing smacks of, if not "quid pro quo", (which the MSM won't address), at least an unbecoming desire of Queen Nancy to have an adoring "entourage" travelling with her.
Could one of her supporters b
February 8, 2007 - 09:41 ET by hs29fanCould one of her supporters be Charlie The Tuna????
Poor Liberal, he's educated beyond his Intelligence
BINGO cancelled! Mark you a
February 8, 2007 - 09:57 ET by Dee BunkBINGO cancelled! Mark you are the best. How you get this stuff is amazing. Your columns are always great for lifting the mood.
I still think it's sad that this is the best we can get for them so we have to be happy with it. If this were a Republican it wouldn't be "depending on how you spin it" I wish they could have used those words when Hastert came into controversy. I didn't hear - depending on how you spin it the Democrats also knew about the Foley scandal and kept quiet or .... is there an or?
Pentagon replies to Nancy 'the jet' Pelosi
February 8, 2007 - 10:22 ET by acaiguanaPentagon replies to Nancy 'the jet' Pelosi.
She can't have her Air Force 3.
Further, she can't take her kiddies (or grand kiddies) without paying for it.
Further she can't take her 'supporters'.
Further she is an idiot (I just made that up)
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Hate to have to do this, but
February 8, 2007 - 10:29 ET by Ruths husband BenHate to have to do this, but I disagree with all of ya'll. I think we should do whatever it takes for her to fly directly from DC to San Francisco. Non-stop. If that means buying her a 767 widebody, it is a drop in the bucket.
I just don't want her landing in Missouri. Protecting the homeland, you know.
Wow the libs in the MSM are r
February 8, 2007 - 10:31 ET by TheTruthWow the libs in the MSM are really going out on a limb on this one. . . Just imagine what the MSM would be saying if Newt Gingrich the “Nazi” “Dangerous Creature” was requesting a personal 757 at tax payers expense with all the ‘global warming’ hysteria.
The jet that Pelosi ordered would have cost the TAX payers an extra $320,000 per trip between San Francisco and Washington or an extra 1.2 million per month. How much you bet that her hynus will be preaching to the peasants that we should be running smaller cars while she wants to run around 757 burning tanker trucks of fuel so that she doesn’t have to make a stop between Washington and San Francisco.
Do as I say, not as I do!
I think that $320,000 extra s
February 8, 2007 - 13:07 ET by BruzillaI think that $320,000 extra should be put into some perspective. The airplane has been bought, and the crew is going to be paid whether they're flying Pilosi, a gang of Pentagon VIPs, or sitting on the ground. So using total costs that include aircraft and crew costs isn't really a factor. As for flight hours, which include the costs of fuel, maintenance, wear & tear, etc, squadrons and crews are allocated an amount of hours each quarter, and they must use them up or risk having the next quarter's hours reduced, so if the plane isn't being used to fly Pilosi the squadron has to come up with other "missions" to fly that probably aren't any more useful than flying Pilosi around.
So in the grand scheme of things, that money for the smaller jet, plus the extra $320,000 is going to be spent, and not flying Pilosi isn't going to save a dime.
I think that $320,000 extra s
February 8, 2007 - 13:09 ET by BruzillaI think that $320,000 extra should be put into some perspective. The airplane has been bought, and the crew is going to be paid whether they're flying Pilosi, a gang of Pentagon VIPs, or sitting on the ground. So using total costs that include aircraft and crew costs isn't really a factor. As for flight hours, which include the costs of fuel, maintenance, wear & tear, etc, squadrons and crews are allocated an amount of hours each quarter, and they must use them up or risk having the next quarter's hours reduced, so if the plane isn't being used to fly Pilosi the squadron has to come up with other "missions" to fly that probably aren't any more useful than flying Pilosi around.
So in the grand scheme of things, that money for the smaller jet, plus the extra $320,000 is going to be spent, and not flying Pilosi isn't going to save a dime.
Well, Bruzilla, $320K ain't that much, but we are in a war?
February 8, 2007 - 13:14 ET by acaiguanaWell, Bruzilla, $320K ain't that much, but we are in a war?
Hate to burst your bubble here but maybe Pelosi ought to let the military have their planes and let her use one as they see fit and the rest of their planes to support our troops.
Oh, yeah, supporting our troops isn't on her list of things to do. Neither is flying her Liberal Butt around unless she can take along friends and family to show everyone how important she has become.
Her 49 square miles surrounded by reality seems to follow her brain around.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
My point is that war or not,
February 8, 2007 - 13:50 ET by BruzillaMy point is that war or not, that $320,000 for flying that 757 is budgeted and is going to get spent, whether the plane is flying Pilosi back and forth to CA or flying some BS flight from DC to Anchorage and back to burn up the flight hours at the end of the quarter. As I wrote on another post, when I flew for the Navy we would fly numerous flights from Jacksonville, FL to the west coast, or sometimes to various bases on the east coast, just to burn up flight hours. We would fly from Jax to Puerto Rico, to Brunswick, ME, to Glenview, IL and back to Jax... not because there was any military need but because we needed to burn up 12 flight hours. Had we not used those hours, we would have saved the defense budget thousands of dollars, but the flight hour allotment for the next quarter would have been reduced, and if we needed those extra hours for real missions we wouldn't have them. So we burned up many hundreds of thousands of dollars on "navigation training" flights that we're not about training but about protecting our flight hour allotment.
That all being said, are there better uses for that $320,000 than flying Pilosi around? I think yes... like flying the guys coming home on leave from DC to their hometowns, or flying family members of wounded guys to DC, etc., but that's a much different issue from saying it's going to cost the taxpayers an extra $320,000 to fly Pilosi on that 757. That money is going to get spent regardless of who's on the plane, so the real point to debate is who's using the plane, not how much it costs.
Bruzilla, the $320K spent on Pelosi is a resource allocation.
February 8, 2007 - 14:00 ET by acaiguanaBruzilla, the $320K spent on Pelosi is a resource allocation.
In miltary terms, assets. My point to you is that the assets are the military's, not Pelosi's and yes, as a taxpayer, I'm a little pissed that $320K is diverted to something that doesn't directly affect out troop support.
Nothing personal.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
I'm in full agreement with yo
February 8, 2007 - 14:19 ET by BruzillaI'm in full agreement with you. I used to hate going on flights to ferry some VIP to their summer home in NY State when we could have used those hours to fly some fellow sailors to and from their homes on leave. But to TheTruth's point, there is no "extra" money being paid by the taxpayers as that money has already been billed, paid, collected, and applied.
I just wish folks would focus on the resource allocation perspective, as you refer to, and not on the costs.
Bruzilla “But to TheTruth's
February 8, 2007 - 15:43 ET by TheTruthBruzilla “But to TheTruth's point, there is no "extra" money being paid by the taxpayers as that money has already been billed, paid, collected, and applied.”
Let's focus on resource allocation. . .
If a 757 for military use is diverted by Pelosi so she can show everyone how important she is that does not make the militaries need for a 757 simply disappear. Pelosi’s use of 757 simply means that another 757 must be put in service to replace the one being used Pelosi, so yes Pelosi flying around in 757 will cost the tax payers an additional $320,000 per week or $1,280,000 PER MONTH!!!
Let’s look at it from another perspective and say the jet is not in use and is sitting on the ground. If Pelosi takes a 757 to fly between Washington and San Francisco the fuel used and the support and maintenance crews are all paid for by the tax payers. So yes Pelosi flying around in 757 will ultimately cost the tax payers an additional $320,000 per week or $1,280,000 PER MONTH!!!
Simply put you can’t get something for nothing.
With Pelosi’s desire to personally fly around in a 757 burning tanker trucks of fuel on a weekly basis she obviously cares not one wit about the future of the Earth, 'global warming', or the future of our children. Just think of all that extra fuel she would burn paid for by the tax payers that could be helping the poor to heat their homes so their ‘children’ can stay warm – absolutely disgraceful!
How long do you think it be before Pelosi will be preaching to the peasants that we all must drive smaller cars and use less fuel for the future of the planet and our children?
her dearest wish
February 8, 2007 - 15:50 ET by tumbler_2007Plastic Nan's wishes don't all come true.
Her chances of being perked a 757 are not even as good as me winning a MegaMillion Lotto over the weekend. Another humiliating failure for Nan from Fran.
How many are they now?
Good points, and let's addres
February 8, 2007 - 18:03 ET by BruzillaGood points, and let's address them. First, we're talking about a 757 executive transport aircraft. Not a bomber, fighter, tanker, etc. The mission of this aircraft is to move VIPs around, not deliver bombs on a target. So what Pilosi is asking for is well within the mission of the squadron and the aircraft, so there would be no plane being pulled from other duties to cover for the use of this one. And once again, it makes no difference whether the plane is flying around with Pilosi aboard or flying to California on a "navigation training" flight... the money for the crew, gas, parts, etc., is still going to get spent. Telling Pilosi that she can't use the plane is not going to save we the taxpayers one single penny.
To your second point, you're missing the fact that the plane does not sit around on the ground waiting for someone to use it. The plane is going to get flown whether Pilosi is aboard or not. Every military squadron gets operational funding, in the form of flight hours, every quarter to cover the costs of fuel, parts, repairs, etc. If that money doesn't get spent, it goes back to the service's general budget of cash to be used elsewhere... which is good. But... those flight hours that are not used get calculated against the next quarter's allotment, which is bad. So if your squadron is allocated 1,500 flight hours for the quarter, and things are slow and you only use 1,000, the next quarter you're going to get 1,000 hours. Then, if things get busy during the next quarter and you need those 1,500 hours, you're screwed and have to go jumping though hoop after hoop to get those extra $$$$. So you do whatever you have to do to make sure your squadron flies the maximum number of hours every quarter.
Also, the figure you're using ($320,000/week) is a total cost figure that's applied to the flight, and which incorporates a percentage of the plane cost (based on expected service life), the cost of the crew, the cost of maintenance support, and the flight hour costs. The crew and mechs are still going to generate a cost whether they're flying or home on leave, and the plane has already been paid for. So the actual cost of flying, i.e., the true per/hour of flight costs, are where the real difference between the Gulfstream and the 757 are, and they are considerably less than $320,000 a week.... I would guess more like $25,000 a week, which is pretty cheap when you take into account you're having to fly cross-country with a security detail.
As to your last point I agree 100%, and feel that Pilosi could be served just as well on a C-130 turboprop, which is loud and uncomfortable, but uses a lot less JP-5 than a 757.
To make sure she is well prot
February 8, 2007 - 19:26 ET by Dan The Man 2To make sure she is well protected we could use a Dragonship or convert one to a Dragon, now that is protection. As an added bonus she could blast a couple of political enemies with it.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
This is really just a move/re
February 8, 2007 - 10:48 ET by ucThis is really just a move/request from Hillary camp to grease the cookie tray towards turning all the furnishings on board Air Force One PINK AND FLUFFY. Good thing I don't think america has lost its common sense completely and will actually give Hillary a majority, though if Pelosi kept a puddle jumper she may have time to get the feel of the people more accurately from more spots across America, especially if she never refueled during her two year reign in one place twice. I guess such reach out to the people politicing isn't in her request or plans??? Pink or maybe yellow.
One of the reasons Communism
February 8, 2007 - 11:16 ET by iveseenitallOne of the reasons Communism doesn't work is that those at the top never live with their own lies. Raise the minimum wage for the peons; give Nancy a jumbo jet. Sickening hypocrites.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
She ought to spend some time
February 8, 2007 - 13:59 ET by BruzillaShe ought to spend some time flying around on USAF E-3 Sentry aircraft. When Braniff Airlines... the ones with the really gawdy-looking interiors and exteriors, went under, the USAF bought up a lot of interior components like seats, tables, etc., and installed them in the E-3s. The first time I went on a Sentry in Sicily I thought I was walking onto Hugh Hefner's Bunny One.
Gee, it's only been 3 month
February 8, 2007 - 11:24 ET by motherbeltGee, it's only been 3 months since Ms. Pelosi was coronated...oops.... installed, and already we've had the Murtha thing, the Hastings mess, the StarKist affair, and now this.
Just keep giving her Imperial "I'm second in line to the Presidency" Highness rope. Actually she is weaving her own rope. Eventually she will hang herself with it.
I did not hear about those on
February 8, 2007 - 11:37 ET by Dan The Man 2I did not hear about those on the nightly news so they don't exist.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Tammy Bruce, filling in for L
February 8, 2007 - 11:51 ET by mattmTammy Bruce, filling in for Laura Ingraham, made the observation that, to Pelosi, a bigger airplane for her is in our national interests, but victory in Iraq is not.
Doesn't take long for the swamp to fill back up again, does it?
KSFO Talk Radio SF running Pelosi plane story
February 8, 2007 - 11:59 ET by Jack BauerThanks to the great technical info on the C-20 Gulfstream III: mentioned on this thread by Del and vrwc13
I've emailed Lee Rodgers/Melanie Morgan on KSFO/ San Fransisco with the range of the plane: code-named BROOMSTICK ONE.
That is: 4715 MILES -- and not the 700 MILES erroneously being used in the Democrat Wing of the Media Party aka ABC, CBS, NYT, WP, NBC.
Mel and Lee have been running this story all morning, even though their ABC News feed is still mistakenly claiming that the plane needs to be refueled to reach California from Washington.
Which even if true, offers no SECURITY risks as this would be at a MILITARY BASE en route.
Ms. Morgan is also writing a piece for WorldNet Daily on the subject and on Queen Nancy, which she hopes will appear today, or tomorrow.
Sounds like a cat fight in th
February 8, 2007 - 14:04 ET by vrwc13Sounds like a cat fight in the making...
Nancy wanted Hillary's (and currently Cheney's) old plane as First Lady!
per ABC: Pelosi has requested a C-32 plane for her travels — a luxurious and specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The plane seats 45 passengers with business-class accommodations and a crew of up to 16, depending on the mission. It features a communications center, a fully enclosed stateroom for the primary passenger, a changing area, a conference facility, an entertainment system, and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed. The C-32 can cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate. It's normally used by the first lady, the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request.
BTW, the 700 miles being quoted is the distance from DC to Illinois, the distance the previous speaker traveled, not the planes specs. Talk about lousy/misleading reporting.
face piles of trials with smiles
For less money I can buy up
February 8, 2007 - 14:59 ET by Right2thePointFor less money I can buy up every ticket on a westbound 747 and have the plane to myself and still fly commercial.
This is crap of the first degree and nothing else.
We're finally getting to see
February 8, 2007 - 12:41 ET by RunningBeerWe're finally getting to see what she meant by "new direction."
How often is Nancy flying bac
February 8, 2007 - 12:49 ET by Al CzervikHow often is Nancy flying back home? With the new "5 day work week" I'm surprised she has time to get back to Oz at all. I'm also shocked that she would be using air travel at all. Afterall, with all of those emissions released into the upper atmosphere I'm sure that the impact of global warming is far greater than if she drove or took a bus. But then I guess actually doing something about reducing emissions only applies to us peons.
Just curious-did Jake Tapper
February 8, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Del DolemonteJust curious-did Jake Tapper dishonestly report the range of the smaller C-20 plane this morning, as he did yesterday?
The stated range of the aircr
February 8, 2007 - 14:10 ET by BruzillaThe stated range of the aircraft is around 4,700 statute miles, but that's an absolute figure... meaning you can go about 4,700 miles before you start hearing nothing from the engines as you run out of gas... then you can add about 4.5 miles in vertical drop to the max range to take into account the decent into the ground. ;)
No pilot is going to fly a plane to a maximum range before gassing up. We started getting nervous when we hit the aircraft equivalent of half a tank, and we were just flying ourselves around. My guess is the skipper of that plane would fly from DC and probably tank up at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma.
I could gag a maggot on tha
February 8, 2007 - 14:43 ET by Right2thePointI could gag a maggot on that statement.
I am a private pilot and I have a plane that has been modified in so many ways it can make it from the west coast to Hawaii.
I have done the trip about 20 times.
Pelosi's specific request of aircraft type is the issue , not the general question of being provided an aircraft.
Even though the "security reasons" for the request betray her position that 9/11 was a fluke and we have no fears from the bad guys who don't exist.
If Yasser Arrafat was still alive maybe she could have bummed his Gulfstream, or who ever manufactured his model airplane to get around Gaza.
Aloha Airlines has been flyin
February 8, 2007 - 15:22 ET by Del DolemonteAloha Airlines has been flying 737s from the Left Coast to Hawaii for years now. And those aren't that big.
If Tinker is your thinker,
February 8, 2007 - 14:51 ET by Right2thePointIf Tinker is your thinker, If I had a pilot that wanted to gas up when he had only used a little over a quarter of a tank I would fire that soul.
Get over it and get real.
Yes, but that stated range of
February 8, 2007 - 15:19 ET by Del DolemonteYes, but that stated range of 4700 miles for the C-20 is still twice as far as flying nonstop from Andrews AFB to SFO. As the crow flies, it's just over 2100 miles, and if you add in extra for having to follow designated airways, it's about 2300 or 2400 miles. So the C-20 can still fly nonstop coast to coast with gas to spare.
The latest twist (or spin?) t
February 8, 2007 - 22:44 ET by Del DolemonteThe latest twist (or spin?) to this story about the C-20's range is that the jet stream headwinds, especially in the winter, can reduce the plane's range when flying from east to west. However, could such a headwind reduce the plane's range by 50 percent? As the jet stream is a "river of air" occuring at a certain altitude, it could be avoided by flying above it or below it.
FYI, Jake Tapper found this mouthpiece from the Air Force to back him up:
"Capt. Herb McConnell, the spokesman for the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, said the C-20 is sometimes "able to make a coast-to-coast flight at times during the year, but not when there are strong headwinds such as during the winter."
What she doesn't want to stop
February 8, 2007 - 15:43 ET by I am conservativeWhat she doesn't want to stop for fuel somewhere in America's Heartland? Oh, she really should, she might see how the real "Middle Class" live. Oh that's right, she doesn't give a $hit about middle America.
Liberals are the elite party in this country and the sooner America realizes this the better.
I HATE LIBERALS....