Reader Comments: Massa, Tea Partiers, And Marx

Jillian Bandes
|
Posted: Mar 08, 2010 1:53 PM
SJA writes in response to "Massive Switch From Massa" --
I do not think that Massa is trying to defend what he did. He clearly knows that he acted inappropriately. On the other hand I think he sees that he is certainly not being treated equal when it comes to others who are under investigations when it comes to ethics. I believe Massa thought by agreeing to not run again and using his health as an excuse the Dems would leave him and his family alone. What Massa found was that the dems wanted rid of him quickly so that his no vote on health care would not put them at a disadvantage as they cram through health care.I certainly understand why he would not tell the real story. No sense trying to be loyal to a party that has thrown you to the wolves.
Stoic Patriot writes in response to "Massa: Dems Forcing Me Out Over Health Care" --
The guy smells of corruption, but his leaving makes healthcare easier to pass. It's probably best to let him serve out the remainder of his term, and then replace him with a Republican come November -- which was Massa's own plan (minus the GOP replacement) originally.

As for what the GOP should do, my advice is to do nothing and let the chips fall where they may.
K.G. writes in response to "Tea Partiers Are Not Hippies" --
Madison not Mao or Marx. Thomas Paine not Saul Alinsky. Washington not Obama. Jefferson not Reid. Franklin not Pelosi. Adams not Che.
I think that's interesting given this line of criticism from David Brooks, the point of reference for the original blog post:
Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left.