Redstate

Chris Shays is no friend of bloggers - either in the BCRA context or in general.  We have him to thank as a significant reason why we have to defend ourselves from the FEC.

The spotlight which Tom DeLay experiences creates an imposition of his imperfections unto the Republican Party. Rather than being perceived as a separate individual, he is taken as the leading factor in many Republican ventures, as his position within Congress requires.

However you may personally perceive it, DeLay has been portrayed negatively in many media outlets within recent months. He has been termed as acting against the majority of Americans (as in Terri Schiavo's case), or under inspection for breaking ethics rules of Congress. Neither of these allegations are of use within a political campaign, especially when being highlighted by Democratic opponents.

I agree that a political party and affiliated politicians should support each other as much as possible. The question is whether the publicity generated by the media can be overcome, or narrowed down to the specific individual in question. I do not believe that the former is possible in DeLay's current situation. Chris Shay's actions are a natural extension of the latter, especially given that his district lies in the Northeast.

What do you think of the comments of Senator Rick Santorum today...

Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said Sunday that DeLay needs to explain his conduct to the public.

"I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves," Santorum told ABC's "This Week." "But from everything I've heard, again, from the comments and responding to those, is everything he's done was according to the law.

"Now you may not like some of the things he's done," said Santorum, who is up for re-election next year in Pennsylvania. "That's for the people of his district to decide, whether they want to approve that kind of behavior or not."

Was today "Dump on DeLay Day" and I missed the memo?

But I think Santorum's comments are perfect for his situation.  He has a tough re-election campaign in a left-leaning state.  Guilt by association has become powerful (see Dem Senate candidates in the South and Daschle).  But Santorum did not assume his guilt.  He also passed on opposing Delay in any way.  He wants it left up to Delay's constituents, which is how it should be.

I would probably vote against Delay given the chance in a primary.  But I don't live in his district so that isn't my concern.

I'm not sure these New England-type GOPers understand that no one in the party but them still believes the hoo-hah that blows out of Old Media.

Shays might believe that Republicans from sea to shining sea are concerned about DeLay's "ethics problems." But what we're really concerned about is another media slime-fest, and how long the GOP is going to put up with this one before shooting back.

A Congressman who goes on junkets? You don't say. His wife works on his campaigns? Oh my goodness gracious; imagine that. Off with his head fer sure!

Shays needs to watch Fox News, listen to Rush, and stop worrying that everyone believes the New York Times.

Very nice to have you here, Nick.

You forgot the indictment of three associates for money laundering and taking illegal campaign contributions.

You also neglected to mention initiating changes to House Republican caucus rules allowing indicted reps to retain leadership positions.

Yes, it is obviously all about the media.

Cheers -

For the record - I actually agree with the rule change, I just wish they did it a few years ago.

our party.  I don't care if everything DeLay did was within the law, his actions speak louder.  If he has avoided breaking the law, it is with a Clintonesque parsing of the regulations that has kept him on-side.

If we as a party tolerate this ethical brinksmanship, we are sabotaging our own principles.

and I didn't think it worth reporting.  It was a throwaway line.  Paraphrase: "It doesn't look like he's done anything wrong, but he ought to clarify it for political reasons.  As to whether or not he should serve, that's up to the people in his district."  Santorum did not mention that it is up to the House GOP Caucus if he continues as majority leader, indicating that he doesn't think it is even a question.  (If he thought it were, he'd have mentioned it.)

Like Doverspa pointed out, the last thing Rick needs is Bob Casey running "Rick Santorum = Tom DeLay" commercials next year.

The press is jumping on Tom DeLay; Santorum's bland remark was painted as something it was not by the press.  They are circling, but the blood they sense is the fake stuff.

But Shays represents Connecticut's 4th CD, which is Bridgeport, Geenwich,Norwalk, etc.

For aught I know, FNC and Limbaugh have been banned in that State.

Connecticut's 4th CD is, Bridgeport notwithstanding, one of the few reasonably reliable GOP districts left in New England.  The problem for us is that it is overrun with Rockefeller, Greenwich-based country-club type Republicans - of which Shays is a proud member.

That said, I wouldn't get too worked-up about Shays' comments - they are the sort of things a republican needs to say in New England from time to time.  As an aside, what do republicans outside New England have to say about the likes of Shays, Cheffee, Snowe, et al?  The difference being of course that none of these RINOs are in leadership positions.

Regarding DeLay: it seems that a simple CBA is due.  If the costs of keeping DeLay as Majority Leader outweigh the benefits of keeping him by a noticeable margin, then it may be time to start looking for a new leader.  Otherwise, we have to dance with the gal with brung - and that, for better or all, is The Hammer.

Personally, only the status-quo is unacceptable to me - we're dying from a thousand cuts right now.  Our side needs to 1) come to a unified position (be it DeLay stays or goes), and 2) vigorously pursue that position (either fight back - hard, or can DeLay - now).

Cheers.

How big are the Republican House and Senate majorities?  How many "not conservative enough for Fox News" Republicans are you willing to dismiss?

I don't really have a dog in this fight.  If you don't mind an observation from an outsider, however, it will probably be worth your while to take the questions about DeLay's behavior seriously and not just blame it on the media.

I don't see an intensive, Rush and FNC based reeducation program for Shays as being what's needed here.

Your party, your rules.  Good luck.

Cheers -

Republican.  They are fiscally conservative & social liberals.  I know that is out of favor w/ many here, but what Shay's said shouldn't be a surprise considering how one in his district has to present themselves as representing their constituents.

These attempts to demonize Tom DeLay are getting old. In the months leading up to the 2000 election, the Democrats filed a bogus racketeering lawsuit against DeLay, which was dismissed with prejudice by a federal judge. Last summer, Democrats once again attacked Tom DeLay with bogus attacks that the Ethics Committee disposed of.

"It's not about guilt or innocence, it's the seriousness of the charges."

Last summer, Democrats once again attacked Tom DeLay with bogus attacks that the Ethics Committee disposed of.

If the attacks were bogus then the Ethics Committee did its job as advertised so why dispose of the Ethics Committe when faced with renewed attacks?

and the CBA should be ongoing if things substantively worsen.  Like if he actually broke the law or House rules or some such.  But forcing him out because of the media-generated perception would be a dangerous move, as it would give the left and the MSM an ultimate veto over Republican leadership posts.

. . . the cost/benefit of the likely replacement and the effect that a change would have on the GOP.  The part I'm not hearing is who would be or should be Tom Delay's replacement as it is possible that the next guy might not be as effective as Delay.  On the other hand, we might get someone just as effective or more so but who is not as easy of a target for the opposition.

Something else to consider is the effect that removing a leader has on the party as a whole.  With Gingrich and Livingston it was easier because they both stepped down voluntarily and spared the party any protracted intra-party squabbling.  Delay might do the same but there is a perception in some quarters that the reason he's under fire is because he's doing the job he has been asked him to and it could look like he's being hung out to dry for suffering the inevitable slings and arrows that come with the job.  Cutting him loose for that reason (even if it's not the official one but people think it's the underlying one) may make his replacement and other GOP leaders a little gun shy.

I'd also sadd if the Ethics Committee was doing its job well for a time, what changed in its structure that required DeLay to gut it?

I'm more-or-less agnostic on the "should he stay or should he go" fight at this point - my comment was largely on the political aspects.  The status-quo is what is unacceptable.  If DeLay has done something wrong - and I'm talking Jim Wright level wrong - then he needs to go, today, sooner if possible.  If not, then we need to launch an aggressive, vocal and ruthless counter-offensive.

My sense is that DeLay, while no Eagle Scout, has probably not done anything that rises to the Wright level of stench, and that a counter-offense is required.

The "who's next" is an open question (an open sore, I would argue) that has no good answers.  A Hastert-type is very effective as Speaker, but I would argue would be far less-so as Majority Leader.  You need someone skilled, ruthless, harsh, and partisan - DeLay, in other words.  That sort of personality usually comes with some baggage, so it's entirely likely that we would toss-out the DeLay we know and end up with a Devil we do not - just in time for the '06 election season to kick in.  Joy!

In a couple of years (terms?) someone like Bobby Jindhal would be perfect.  Young, skilled, articulate, a great story, but not afraid to mix it up (he's a Louisiana politician, for Heaven's sake).  He'll have to climb up the ladder first, though - and we don't have the luxury of OJT at this time.

Cheers.

Thank God that the Republican Party has (some) outspoken members speaking independently. Delay represents the gangster wing of the party. Unconditional "loyalty" to the right wing or you are the enemy. Very simple minded and dangerous.

Affiliations are natural in the course of governing such wide spectrums of populace; it is unfortunate for both the constituents and their elected official when those affiliations take precedence over the well-being or (to a lesser extent, a times) wishes of those residents.

I agree with you about the necessity of Shay's actions, and would encourage other politicians to act more along these lines rather than is often displayed. Were he to dismiss his supporters' concerns over those who he affiliates himself with - especially given the large number of people he can choose for such - then that support would most likely be withdrawn in the next election.

It may dismay some that he acts this way, but not doing so might only provide an opposing group (such as the Democrats) the ability to garner those votes instead, which would harm the Republican party's influence even more than his current opinions do.

in the media because of a thinly veiled threat to federal judges that disagree with him. Then he "apologized" by saying he said it inartfully which implies that he meant the threat just didn't express himself well.

I don't think this is proper behavior for a leader of the GOP.

If Delay becomes a liability you say?  Tom Delay is a liability and not just to the party, he's a liability to our entire government.  Mr.  Delay should have had his butt kicked out of The Peoples House long ago.