Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Conservatives, please don't embrace Eric Massa

Was he a "no" vote on Obamacare the first time it hit Congress? Yes he was. Is he supposedly a committed "no" vote against it now? He claims to be so, but as he's resigned, that is now a moot point. But some people, ourselves included, have begun to raise an eyebrow towards him and his reasons for stepping down right now. John McCormack explains: (Emphasis mine)

Reliable sources on Capitol Hill say the House ethics report on Eric Massa will be damning. Obamacare opponents, like Glenn Beck, might want to think twice before indulging Massa and letting this Democratic creep become the posterboy of Obamacare opposition.

It was already self-evident that Eric Massa's story didn't add up. As
Jonah Goldberg notes, it doesn't pass the smell test: If Massa admits he "tousled" the hair of a male staffer and told the staffer he ought to be "fracking" him, the whole story is probably much, much worse. And as Michelle Malkin says, "Don’t trust Democrat Rep. Eric Massa any further than you can throw him."

The Atlantic's Chris Good points out that Massa's timeline doesn't make any sense, either. When the story broke about Massa's ethics violations, it would neither have helped nor hurt Democrats to have him in office as a committed "no" vote:

When news broke last Wednesday that Massa would finish out his term without seeking reelection, that he faced these allegations, and that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer knew about them, the number of votes needed to pass health care reform was 216.

The next day, that number changed: Thursday afternoon, Republican Rep. Nathan Deal (GA) announced he would postpone his own retirement and stay in Congress long enough to vote "no" on health care. At that point, with another sitting lawmaker available for a vote, the magic number increased to 217.

Only after that point did it become beneficial, in theory, for Democratic leaders to force Massa out. The next day, Friday, Massa said he would resign effective the following Monday (today), and the number went back down to 216, helping Democratic leaders.

So Massa's staffer brought the issue to the attention of Steny Hoyer weeks ago, and the story leaked at a time when it didn't help the Democrats' health care vote one way or the other to have him in office. And Massa has changed his story--at first he said he was retiring because of health reasons, and then he resigned because he said Rahm Emanuel was out to get him. If the ethics charges are trumped up, why didn't Massa stay in the House another month to vote against health care?

Perhaps the answer is that Massa thought he might scuttle the House ethics investigation if he resigned. Traditionally, when a member resigns, the House Ethics Committee loses jurisdiction over that member. But Massa's case involves another congressional staffer, so the ethics committee will likely produce a report anyway, just as it did in Mark Foley's scandal with congressional pages.

The full story should come out eventually. And when it does, some conservatives may regret embracing Eric Massa.

I'm asking readers to forgive me for the following statement: I don't trust one, single, bloody Democrat as far as I can throw them. these are no longer your mom and dad's, grandma and grandpa's Democrats. The party has morphed into an extreme, Left-wing, borderline-Socialist party. Their agenda and ideas regarding the nation are anathema to the Founding principles of America. I don't give a rat's @$$ if Eric Massa was against Obamacare or not. He's gone. He not only serves zero purpose now, but for conservatives to embrace his is foolhardy. He is playing conservative thinkers and pundits like a harp from Hell to garner sympathy for something he deserves no sympathy for. (I'd remind readers that Senator Robert Byrd has been an outspoken critic of Barry since he was inaugurated. He's opposed him on his czars, on cap and trade, and on reconciliation for Obamacare, but he's caved every time he's called to account for his opposition. For Byrd, party matters more than what's right for America.)

As a registered Republican and proud conservative, I was one that was calling for Mark Foley to resign. I was calling my representatives in DC, urging them to force him out of his seat, and it was due only to the scandal that was exploding around him. Actually, it wasn't so much the scandal as it was his actions. That same goes for Massa. His behaviour, regardless of where it was, was reprehensible. And this is hardly the first time he has acted in a manner that was inappropriate. As Bob Lonsberry reports, there was an incident when Massa was in the Navy where he acted improperly in a sexual manner. But Massa is content to accept some commiseration from the media. From John Brenahan at Politico to Emily Rauhala at Newser.com citing "luminaries" such as Glenn Beck and others, they're trying to paint a picture that simply doesn't exist.

No serious conservative is embracing Massa as a hero or a victim in this fiasco. At least, no conservative that has done the research to see that something simply doesn't smell right in this unfolding drama. He cited health reasons as the reason for his resignation, and then just a couple days later he changes up his story to be one of political retribution.

Which is it, Representative Massa? Is it your health reasons, or is it strong-arming by the White House, with the threat of an ethics investigation? As Mr. McCormack points out above:

"Perhaps the answer is that Massa thought he might scuttle the House ethics investigation if he resigned. Traditionally, when a member resigns, the House Ethics Committee loses jurisdiction over that member. But Massa's case involves another congressional staffer, so the ethics committee will likely produce a report anyway, just as it did in Mark Foley's scandal with congressional pages."

He's still facing this investigation. If it turns out that the Ethics Committee drops the investigation, then to a point Massa is vindicated. But if they don't then he's not. It wouldn't appear as though he was forced out because of his political stance. Remember folks, that's what his excuse is right now for resigning. He now says he's being "forced out" because he refuses to waver on Obamacare, and this drama is supposed to appear like some sort of internal witch-hunt. In that scenario, he is the ultimate victim in this mess; a mess that he, himself, created by his behavior thereby making him vulnerable to those with the long knives.

This is a distraction to what's going on in Congress. The media is making hay out of Massa to force the nation's attention off of a disastrous piece of legislation that the majority party -- Democrats -- are ramming down the nation's throat, despite our aversion and hostility towards it. If Republicans, lead by President Bush, tried a stunt like this over immigration reform, we'd be saddled with an amnesty-lite that would've perpetuated the economic crisis to record proportions. (It's my opinion that had that bill passed, the GOP would've taken a worse beating at the ballot box in 2006 and 2008 because the economic bubble just wouldn't have burst. It would've exploded, and the last two years of the Bush administration would've faced a recession worse than what we're dealing with now.)

Conservatives need to think twice about embracing Massa. He is no hero who fell on his sword for the greater cause. His story has changed too much, and that story simply doesn't add up to make him a hero.

Publius II


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home