You might want to close that html code.

The current Republican attempts to rally around DeLay remind me of the equally short-sighted partisan rallying around Clinton. You'd be better off strategically playing the "I'm shocked, shocked that such sleaze is occuring in the GOP" line and demoting DeLay than you will be fighting this out so that you can count coup on the Dems and your MSM demons.

My oft stated opinion is that if the Dems had forced Slick to resign in '98/'99 we would have had at least one Gore administration. You've got a problematic mid-second term election coming up and this fight could lose Congress for you.

VonKreedon said "You've got a problematic mid-second term election coming up and this fight could lose Congress for you"

Not knowing you I'm not sure if thats hyteria or wishful thinking, but either way its wrong. Mainly because your premise that somehow the democrats hurt themselves by defending Bill seems off-base given his popularity and the fact that Gore did capture the poplular vote in 2000.

Brew - Yep, Gore won the popular even with the weight of running as second bannana to a liar and cheat, and standard bearer for a party too partisan blinkered to call for the resignation of the liar and cheat. Imagine if Gore had run as the incumbent, overseeing a booming economy and head of a party so ethical (at least in appearance) as to force the resignation of its popular President over his perjury and sexual harrassment history. It would have, IMO, pushed Gore over the top in the Electoral College.

Regarding the second-mid term congressional elections, they have historically been significantly difficult for the party in the WH. Given the historically low public approval for both Bush and the current Congress I would expect that you are going to have buckets of trouble in this election and really don't need to borrow more by sticking with DeLay as one of your party leaders.

Not sure how hard I wanna fight for Delay either. Just something off-putting in his appearance, reminds me of that encephalitic Venture Bros. scientist, the one with the albino partner. If he did something wrong, he's gotta go. That said, I wonder how much of the guy's trouble arises from the fact he refuses to ignore/apolgoze for the fact the Republican party is the majority party. Seems the MSM finds this fact impolite somehow - that the R's are some declasse houseguest throwing wild parties while the owner (the Dem's) are on temporary vacation. That he doesn't have the decency to act like some timid civil war general afraid to pursue a retreating enemy.

Also, on that Lott thing. Think that whole episode reflects poorly on the right side of the blogo'. Certainly was an execise in raw blogpower, cause they generated that whole thing. First big one I saw. But the fury seemed to me misplaced, seemed a bunch of R' leaning bloggers threw Lott to the wolves to bend over backwards proving some sort of 'impartiality,' and their 'super-nobleness' of spirit regarding race. I wonder how much of their drive was because they didn't like/want the face of R. Congressinal power to have a mouth with a big Southern accent. That they knew, at some level, that was a mistake for the party. That 'scandal' only makes sense to me as an excuse to get rid of the guy, or at least not nearly the outrage the Right/libert. blogo insisted.

vK,

Well sure you'd be right if the districts for the House weren't so gerrymandered as to virtually guarantee the outcomes.

And as for the Senate, FL(Nelson) and WV(Byrd) are likely Republican pick ups that should more than offset potential losses.

Dig into the 2004 election data and you'll see that the Reps' majority is pretty darned safe.

Repubs will be set up very well for the 2006 mid-terms. Iraq will be peaceful, with half the current US troop count. Oil prices will be lower, due to Iraq's increased production and the passage of the long-stalled energy bill. The economy will be in its fourth year of expansion, with low unemployment.

Peace and prosperity. What's not to like?

He annoys liberals b/c he gets things done. He was my Congressman for years, and the approval for him here is still strong.

Good op-ed:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050412-093358-1051r.htm

ahh that articles already been linked, nm

Ray,

he did something wrong, he's gotta go. That said, I wonder how much of the guy's trouble arises from the fact he refuses to ignore/apolgoze for the fact the Republican party is the majority party.

This is why I can't get behind the "Dump DeLay" mini-movement. Exactly this.

And exactly because of how I myself behaved wrt Trent Lott.

This culture -- at least the dominant media culture -- is Democratic and liberal. Republicans and conservatives pretend sometimes that we wouldn't like to have, say, glittering celebrities saying nice things about us, but we all actually do. Or most of us do.

Well, I do.

And I think there's a temptation for conservatives to try to appease the liberals, to make nice-nice, to show we're "really good guys at heart," by occasionally throwing one of own to the wolves to demonstrate that we're "not one of those crazy conservatives."

I think that was part of the dextrosphere's impulse to can Lott. I'm pretty sure it was part of mine. So I find myself sort of compromised on this. I don't really want to go to the mat for the guy, but on the other hand, I don't want to put up a big screed saying "DeLay MUST GO!" just so I can get mentioned on MSNBC again and, say, get a nice link from Instapundit for being "nonpartisan."

vonK:

. Imagine if Gore had run as the incumbent, overseeing a booming economy and head of a party so ethical (at least in appearance) as to force the resignation of its popular President over his perjury and sexual harrassment history.

That imaginary Gore would have been endowed with a drive and fortitude only imagined by the real Gorebot.

In other words, while you're right in theory, in theory, communism works.

The Algore of which you speak would have won b/c he would have been a good leader. There IS no such Al Gore.

That said, if he's caught dirty, he has to go.

But I just need more than Chris Shays saying so. Chris Shays is an okay guy, and I think he means well, but he's pretty much a liberal (except on some issues, where he's a good conservative, or at least an adequate one), and as Ann Coulter has remarked, the Siren Song of NYT Editorial Page Approval sings out loud and strong to him and makes his heart go all a-quiver.

communism doesn't work in theory

dream worlds are not equivalent to theory

We agree on Delay then. But still, if something bad does actually turn up, he's totally gotta go. But just watching the MSM's, (NYT) frantic, sweaty effort try to generate something, anything(, makes me root for the guy.

W/r/t Lott, not calling you out on that (not that you seem touchy) cause I was there too. But I think I recognized in myself that I just didn't want that guy as 'the face.' Cause that 'scandal' was awful thin soup.

B/t/w/ - that Blakley writes a nice column. If he usually writes that clearly, gonna read him more often.

Birk - Good points, I'm only talking from historical precedent which can obviously be irrelevant to any specific context. I'm not real hopeful that the Dems will be able to take back either house, but I also remember being surprised when the Repubs won the Senate in 1980, so I'm prepared to be surprised in 2006.

I agree that if Delay actually broke the law, out he goes. But so far it looks like the objections are based more on tone and appearance, not on substance. I think Ace is on to something when he says that the real problem is that he won't make some sort of empty, pro forma aopology.

It's funny how much this resembles the Democratic stance on foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. You know: if only we would acknowledge that it's at least partly our fault that these people hate us, and if we respected their feelings more, then we'd all get along... Wrong. A lot of them are going to hate us no matter what, and the only question is whether they're going to hate and respect us, or hate and despise us. Bush favors the "hate with respect" option, and so do I.

Sadly, the same applies with a lot of the Democrats. Dumping Delay for appearance's sake won't promote bipartisan good will; for a lot of the people on the other side of the aisle, it would just be chum in the water. It's no use trying to appease these people, so unless a clear violation of ethics emerges, Delay should stay where he is.

What's frustrating to me is the fact that whether their guy was guilty or not, all of the dems would circle the wagons around him. They treat everything as being political, even if its criminal.
The Republicans need to grow a political spine. They know the attacks are politically motivated, and they still won't circle the wagons. Because if they exercise their power as the majority they're afraid of the negative press.

vK,
Currently the Senate is 55-44-1.
I can't conceive of an election that had the Reps lose a net of five seats.

And the House is locked up by gerrymandering.

And 1980 was also a great election for Reps, as I recall it. There was a one-sided election for President. No such luck for the Dems in 2006.

Has anyone noted Bernie Sanders?

Birkel, watch the Simpsons more often.

Bart Gets an Elephant

The elephant makes grunting noises and a ferocious face.

Marge: Homer...it looks like it could gore.
Homer: Heh heh...it _does_ look like Al Gore.
Bart: [admiring] Ew, he smells worse than anything. Hey you, elephant!
Lift me up on your back, man.
[elephant stuffs him in its mouth]
Marge: Bart!
[Bart gets out with a plop]
Bart: [nervous laughter] He tried to kill me.
-- Examining the elephant, "Bart Gets an Elephant"

Marge: I really think this is a bad idea.
Homer: Marge, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism
works. In theory.

utron and iblis,

I agree that Reps should get out there and swing back. But the Dems have the largest megaphones (NYT, LAT, WaPo, NPR, PBS) so it's hard to go on the offense.

I don't like DeLay on a visceral level. But I've yet to hear anything illegal alleged.

As for paying your family, puh-lease.

If I get elected to anything I'm going to have friends and family (in jobs they are qualified to do) around me.

And I'll definitely have Ace as my official blogger so some of that crazy blog money will start rolling his way. But not if he goes all corporate. He's gonna have to keep it real, naturally.

Re: the reasons for R's politcal 'pussiness,' I agree with Birkel. I've heard a lot of analogies: the R's hav been out of power so long, they're like battered/divorcess wives, can't recognize they can act w/o worrying if it pleases the Dems, or just want to please so much cause they're, I dunno, a party comprised of easy-goin worrywarts.

The real reason is that the MSM still matters, and they don't play straight. If the Dem's propose legislation, for every article noting 'concern,' there'd be 3 if it were R legislation- an emotional one - a collection of 'affected voices', one on how the leg. pleases (and is perhaps designed solely to please) some group in the 'Rep. base,' and at least one about how some moderates in the R party think it's a bit 'extreme.'

Whatever the R. party is, it's a collection of politicians who like to exercise power, who've won elections and understand what they have to do to keep on winning. They will use power, but they play a game where the refs works extra hard to 'contextualize' their actions with comments from concerned 'experts.' Thankfully, the old media is mattering less and less.

It'd be a lot easier if the leadership fucked shitholers like Shays up the ass, not in a gay way but, ...wait for it...
LIKE A GODDAMN VIKING!

I mean if we ever needed Bob Dole's Cock, its now!

But I think I recognized in myself that I just didn't want that guy as 'the face.'

Yeahp, me too. He had always struck me as the most godawful advocate the R's could have chosen, and I'm sorry, but when he stepped into the noose I was more than happy to tighten it for him.

But this is a completely cynical, and hack-partisan, reason to eject a guy from a leadership position he'd, um, "earned."

I didn't like what he said, but as we now know, Dems are allowed to praise Robert Byrd's past without consequence. Chris Dodd, anyone?

As if we didn't suspect that previously.

Iblis,
I agree RE: Bob Dole's cock.

But trying to get rid of RINO's is a very bad policy. One of the reasons Dems do so poorly in the South and Mountain West is they force all their aspiring national candidates to toe the party line. They win state offices but it doesn't translate to national offices.

Republicans can't demand Connecticut Reps be as conservative as the ones in Oklahoma. Or else Republicans can write off 20 states and the political battlefield will shift in the Democrats' favor.

ACE - Though I'm really not in a mood to agree with you, you really are 100% right about Delay. I never liked the guy either, being inarticulate and looking like a tatooed-felon who just stepped off of the Bluebird-Special Prison Bus doesn't help. But caving in to Libs pressure weakens conservtives and strengthens Liberals. Kind of like caving in to PC Nazis.

Don't take my comments as some big enthusiastic endorsement of Delay; I'm not that crazy about the guy. But he's been reasonably competent in the position, and tossing him overboard will win no points at all from the MSM mouthpieces Birkel mentioned.

The Dems adopted scorched-earth tactics back around the time Bork was nominated for SCOTUS, and IMHO at that point they ceased to be a responsible opposition. If they want to return to a more civilized arrangement, terrific. But the overture needs to come from their side--something like a serious dialogue about reforming Social Security, for example. Until then, screw 'em.

DeLay's gotta stay cuz he's the f'n hammer.

Lott had to go cuz he obviously lacked a visceral revulsion for Jim Crow, when southern democrats derived political advantage by exploiting white privelidge. Now they get away with blaming Repubs for their own past while they exploit race using entitlements and AA.

Let's not forget that Tom DeLay hosted the Taliban there in Sugarland, Texas!

Defend that!

Listen up, the dems are going after DeLay because he is more than happy to grab them by the balls and kick them in the ass, and because they think that the GOP establishment doesn't have the balls to defend him. Simple as that. If we don't defend DeLay and counterattack we deserve to lose. We need some more "rabid, right-wing conservatives" in Washington, not less, regardless of what the RINOS think. Damnit, this is not a game. Our side is, largely, afraid to fight. DeLay isn't, and that's the best reason to stick by him.

Cool, please do stand by your man lest the Dems count coup on you. Definitely your best option. Particularly be sure that you write off those in your party who fail to stand by your man as RINOs, perhaps suggest that they would be more comfortable in the Democratic Party.

Let me know how that works out for you.

The problem the dems have is that they have no agenda that can fly. Hmmm: 'Weak on Defense', No; 'Gay Marriage', No; 'Raise Taxes', No. No. No. So, the best they can do is "count coup" on DeLay? Haaaaaaaa! Shit, run with it, run with it, run with it. Hell, even so called republicans don't go dem, they just go "independent" when they finally lose it. The DeLay nonsense is nothing but dem talking points picked up by the MSN, nothing more. The only thing the dems are picking up is permanent loser status.

A big difference between DeLay and Lott is the way they behaved while the "scandal" was percolating. Lott pre-emptively surrendered to the Left -- promising to support affirmative action and other leftist shibboleths on racial issues in order to "atone" for his comments at Thurmond's birthday party. That is what proved the final straw for conservatives who were on the fence regarding his leadership position.

I'm not sure....Birkel made the good point that the Republicans must never make the mistake the Democrats did with the South.

And, write off whole sections of the country - NE, MidWest, Colorado, West Coast - simply because they aren't in lockstep with the views of the Religious Right.

The Republicans had major distasters in Illinois, once controlled by the Republicans, lost the CT Gov - due to corruption.

The country seems to be more and more convinced that Republican leadership is taking the country in the wrong direction.

And maybe unfair, but DeLay, symboled with his connections to K Street lobby sleaze, his arrogance of power, pushing of reckless spending, widespread use of nepotism, and hard core ideology - is beginning to make some people think the Republicans have become infected with the same problems as the 1994 Democrats.

And he just finished running the Republicans into the Terri Schiavo trainwreck.

It isn't that DeLay should be dumped because he is in jeopardy of losing his own race - as a symbol of what the Party has become in the eyes of others --his unlikability---he could cost the Republicans House AND Senate and State seats if his reputation remains low or gets lower.

15 years ago, remember, hard-core Democrats scorned the DINO's and demanded all Dems support Rostenkowski, Dem's reckless spending, Jim Wright, and Hillarycare at all costs. 1994 was indeed an "at all costs" drubbing.

Damnit cedarford, stop making sense.

It's throwing off the equilibrium of the universe.

*A party that would voluntarily cut off its own testicles and FedEx them to their opponent as a trophy is not likely to manifest any regenerative powers. That's the thing about losing those organs.*

Tony Blankley is the one who' making sense

I have two things preventing me from taking a reasonable stand on Tom DeLay. 1) The guy is an asshole who is full of shit, and 2) I'm not actually a Republican. I am someone who was most closely aligned with the Democratic party up until late 2002, and drifted away since then, up until the Democratic National Convention, when I became a refugee from the Democrats.

This is relevant because I have am tired of tolerating all the Republican far-right BS and hope that the allegations are true and he loses his leadership position. To be perfectly frank, I want to see congress return to a left of center position on social issues, which will not happen with a Republican-controlled congress.

I said I didn't have a reasonable position on whatever is happening with DeLay.

hobgoblin,

Cedarford just cribbed what I was saying. So the universe is okay...
but I feel dirty. Extremely dirty.

But he's wrong about most people thinking the country in the going in the wrong direction because of Republicans.

And I have no idea whether DeLay's actually guilty of anything--a fact Cedartroll ignores.