After reading Leonard Pitts' column applauding Rep. Maxine Waters for telling the tea party to go to hell, I could only shake my head in wonder at how he ever got a job with a newspaper ("Sometimes, you just have to stand up to a bully," Aug. 28).

I assume from his manner of writing that Mr. Pitts has a college education, but what he either doesn't possess or wishes not to present is a strong grasp of logic.

Here's an example: Mr. Pitts says "Republicans have been shamefully complaisant toward this behavior, unable to produce a stateswoman — or man — willing to stand up for the simple idea that one should put national welfare above ideological purity."

First, the so-called members of the Republican tea party were not putting ideological purity above anything. They held up this budget because it was fiscally insane and would add greatly to our national debt. They stand for putting a lid on out of control congressional spending to stop the fiscal train wreck that is going to happen if we don't take our debt more seriously.

Second, how does adding mounds more debt onto the existing debt demonstrate a willingness to preserve the national welfare? Finally, there have been countless statesmen and stateswomen in the Republican Party who have stood up for our country's welfare.

The reason Mr. Pitts and Representative Waters dislike the tea party is because it threatens what they stand for. Both of them seem terrified that the common sense approach to dealing with our fiscal problems will catch on with a majority of Americans. What other incentive could they have for trying so hard to demonize this movement?

Donald Frost, Essex