[Peace-discuss] Pelosi's (and vanden Heuvel's) acquiescence

[C. G. Estabrook]

This doesn't even make sense.

Pelosi won't use the constitutional mechanism of impeachment because to do so 
would mean that "the wealthiest 1% would suck the money out of the middle class 
and create a caste system" (presumably because the Republican party would regain 
control of the House)?!

And vanden Heuvel thinks that "now we understand Pelosi's long term vision"?!

How can either of these people be taken seriously?  And BTW, the wealthiest 1% 
are doing very nicely now, thank you: they received 22% of the national income 
in 2006, the highest percentage since 1929 (and that led to some 
unpleasantness).  --CGE


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>      ...
> --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Democrats.com /<activist at democrats.com>/* wrote:
>      ...
>     Dear Activist,
>     When I interviewed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about her new book,
>     /Know Your Power /, I asked her the question all of us have been
>     asking for two years: how could she take impeachment "off the table"? 
>     Her answer: she wants Democrats to control the House for many years
>     to come, in order to stop the wealthiest 1% from "sucking the money
>     out of the middle class" and creating a "caste system."
>     Many progressives disagree with Speaker Pelosi because they believe
>     holding this administration accountable for its staggering abuse of
>     power is essential for preserving our Constitution. They also
>     believe the American people would reward those who defend the
>     Constitution through a fact-based, serious impeachment effort. But
>     at least now we understand Pelosi's long-term vision, and we can
>     argue with her more effectively as a result...
>     Katrina vanden Heuvel
>     Editor & Publisher, *The Nation