Redstate

....that mere indictment on frivolous charges is the criterion for resignation.  Your point 3 is simply an inaccurate reading of my post.  

It is the fact that DeLay is a political albatross, coupled with his lack of meaningful commitment to conservatism (in my book, anyway), coupled with his corrosive effect on the conservative movement that leads me to believe he should have been gone some time ago.

Maybe there's a case to be made that Tom DeLay as Majority Leader till this very day was a net benefit for the GOP and conservatism.  I've not seen it.  But guess what?  Had he stepped down months back, it would have been a few weeks of crowing from the left, and then -- nothing.  They would have been deprived of the issue.

Now, we've got the Republican House Majority Leader indicted.  That's not the preferable outcome in all possible worlds.

been deprived of the issue?

Sure he may have stepped down, but an indictment would have been crowed about all over the place, and Delay's scalp would have been hung on every liberals belt from Maine to California.

I don't think the issue would have gone away.

Although one thing that bothers me, is that the success of this prosecution likely will result in similar prosecutions, since all it apparantly takes is one unscrupulous prosecutor willing to file some charges.

Of what value is DeLay's downfall to the national Democrats in the absence of his House leadership position?

Little to none?

Right.

Is why indictment ought to matter to us.  Either it matters or it doesn't.  If it does matter, then why are we letting a corrupt Democrat political hack dictate Republican leadership? If it doesn't matter, then why should he resign now, and not six months ago?

If, as you say, Tom DeLay is not a net benefit for the GOP or conservatism, then we ought to have been fighting for his removal for a long time, and bollocks to Ronnie Earle.  But it is hard to make that case.  

Tom DeLay has been a benefit for the GOP for a long time in the House by holding the line on Republican legislation - Medicare included. Conservatism is another matter entirely, and I would not argue that he's done anything significant for conservatives in policy terms since prior to 2000... which happens to coincide with another Texan's arrival in Washington.

As for not being the preferable outcome: of course not, but in this case, it was almost certainly unavoidable. The question becomes - if DeLay is an albatross chiefly because of this indictment, does not the same standard apply to any other leader who is indicted?

It certainly didn't stop them from going after Newt after he had left office, in much the same way.

Whether it profits them anything, we'll see - but this isn't exactly Newt and Jim Wright.

Let's say he's an albatross chiefly because of the indictment.  I'm not sure that's completely true -- I think this is the culmination of a long process resultant mostly from his own over-comfort in power -- but for the sake of argument: does it follow from this that he must be defended to the bitter end?  As conservatives, do we want to fall on our swords for him simply because we don't want to hand Ronnie Earle a petty victory -- or do we want to see our agenda advanced as best it can be?

Oh, point conceded on him having been good for the GOP in the House.  A pity so much of that has been bad for the nation, and the conservative principles that party purportedly serves.  But I don't think we disagree on that.

....Newt was not a meaningful hindrance to the party once gone.

Yes, you're right.  

But unlike Newt, Tom DeLay is not leaving the House... and since both you and I believe DeLay will beat this charge in court and be exonerated of wrongdoing... doesn't that make this evaluation far more important?

Let's put it this way: if and when DeLay is proven innocent, is it right to let him have his job back?  If not, why not?  Hasn't he done his part for the Republican Party?  Doesn't he deserve it?

Arguing that he's bad for conservatives (while we both believe that to be true) ain't gonna wash.

Perhaps in terms of prior record of legislation pushed through; certainly not in terms of enduring this, wherein the party has done its part for him.

I'm not sure what you mean that arguing that he's bad for conservatives won't wash.  If that doesn't carry water with the House GOP, we have bigger problems than Tom DeLay.

Perhaps you've hit on the divide here: the definition of the bitter end/falling on our swords.  If DeLay was convicted of wrongdoing in this affair (something neither of us believes will happen), keeping him on after that would be falling on our swords, by my definition.  But short of that, any Republican (or, I daresay, Democrat) Congressman who's attacked with trumped up charges deserves the opportunity to prove themselves innocent.

If DeLay is gone, I'd much rather have it by our hand then because of a crass political hack who blackmails companies with his lawsuits and raises money by politicizing his cases.

Here's the thing: I see a victory by Ronnie Earle as far more than a petty victory.  I see it as sending the message to unhinged Democrats across the country that Republican ranks are weak and easily shattered by legal mudslinging.  I see sending that message as, ultimately, political suicide.

And no, we don't disagree on that.  All the more reason why DeLay should be pushed out from within, on the basis of policy disagreements, not because Ronnie Earle gets his way.

DeLay has expanded the margin in the House; passed the legislation his President asked him to pass; and held the line on difficult legislation while the likes of Lott and Frist in the Senate quaked.

Oh, I'm sorry: the reason that conservative principle as a defining issue won't wash is not because of the House GOP, but because of the Texan at the other end of the avenue.

....to prove himself innocent.  But the House rules forbidding persons under indictment from holding leadership positions were, to my mind, instituted for very good reasons in an era of Democratic corruption.  That DeLay must step down because of them now is not evidence that those rules are wrong.

And yes, agreed that it would have been better had he gone because we forced him out.  But we, as a group, chose differently.  And today is the result.

Yes, it was wrong for them to try to change them.  All the more reason why, when this is over, I predict DeLay will be unanimously returned to his seat.  That's the irony here - where conservatives before might have noticed his faults, he'll come back to Washington as a martyr, a conquering hero, one who can do no wrong because he took the arrows of the enemy.

I don't think we made that choice, as a group or otherwise.  DeLay is in power because he's effective at getting the President's policies passed into law.  That's why.  No organized effort to remove him would have been able to avoid confronting the fact that, on issues like Medicare, DeLay was only fighting for the President.

even if Earl is the political hack you describe, usually when there is smoke, there is fire.  In your heart of hearts, do you feel you are giving differential treatment to Delay based on anything other than partisan sympathy?  Would you defend a Democrat against a Republican if the Republican had a similar reputation?  I dislike political prosecutions, and am capable of being sympathetic, even to someone like Delay whom I have ample reason to be gleeful at his misfortune, but obviously you guys have had your shares of such things and I don't recall the outrage then.  Redstate has been glorying in the Daley debacle, among other things, for weeks.

Where there is ham, there is a ham sammich. I don't like DeLay much at all (that whole 3 hour vote thingy was the last straw for me), and I still don't think there is much there.

being a "political albatross" or lacking a "meaningful commitment to conservatism" are not crimes. They are not even "ethics violations," to use House terminology.

What is beyond question is that this man will stand on trial for his career and his reputation. If he deserved one bit of this, if he was actually guilty of something, anything at all, that would warrant a day in court, then we should be justified in letting him shift in the wind.  But he hasn't, and we know it.  You know it, and that makes your argument cowardly and querulous.

My opinion of these charges cannot be stated here without violating the profanity rule that I have so long advocated; but this is not why the fellow from Sugar Land should not be the Majority Leader.

There are very good reasons for that, not one of which is this. But that's a long, wandering divergence.

Would you defend a Democrat against a Republican if the Republican had a similar reputation?

Honestly? Probably (but not definitely) not. But then again, that's because I have access to information about some of these things (I'm from Texas, I'm plugged into the VRWC, etc.) that I wouldn't have in the converse case.

Delay wore a target on his back not because he was a bad man. There's no question that he was/is a bad man. Rather, he was targeted because he has been effective. Our politics is like war, you don't stand on principle.

The great danger for both Republicans and Conservatives is that the whole story will get framed to the Democrats' liking. That would bode extremely ill for November 2006.

In this regard, I'm greatly heartened by the whole Katrina debacle. The MSM collectively replayed Rathergate, and strong voices in the alternative media successfully called them out. I hope it happens again here.

Newt certainly didn't step down because of his book deal, it was because he had become a liability.  Newt was smart enough to recognize that he didn't have the strong support he used to have and that he was a liability for the party.

Sometimes you take one for the team.

Newt resigned because he had lost an election ('98) which is as good a reason as any. But Newt wasn't on trial for some trumped up charge at the time. That's the difference.

Here's a curious analysis, and compare and contrast, from NRO:

http://media.nationalreview.com/077804.asp

It seems prosecutor Earle has a ready made "non-partisan" stick he can pick up if he cares to indict some democrats on the same grounds he's just used for Rep. Delay.

Of course, it would require deliberative legal work, trial preparation, disciplined and reasoned courtroom presentation, and minimal press relations, all of which don't seem to be emphasized in much of the reporting about the prosecutor.

One can hope.

I happen to agree with Trevino that it's misguided to make the defense of DeLay a Republican cause, which is what I hear some to propose (although not necessarily Augustine).  His problems are his problems, and even if DeLay's tormentor is a "Democratic hack," it doesn't make the charges false.  The fact that people are out to get you does not make their charges invalid (see, e.g., Clinton, Bill).  

The thing to remember is that DeLay's personal troubles are just that:  personal.  He will either be found guilty or not guilty.  To tie the reputation of a party to the guilt or innocence of one of its leader in a court proceeding is a huge and fundamental mistake. Because, fundamentally, you don't know the evidence yet; none of us do.

DeLay did the right thing by stepping down; the party should now do the right thing by stating that it respects and honors its prior leader, who is presumed innocent, and looks forward to Delay having the opportunity to confront the charges against him in Court.

von

p.s.  I'm a self-admitted DeLay despiser:  I don't like his style and I don't see eye-to-eye with him on several issues.  

Take than that one.  He's being charged with a criminal felony, not a civil offense:

This was an obvious end run around the corporate contribution rule. The more difficult question is whether it was an illegal end run -- or, to be more precise, one so blatantly illegal that it amounts to a criminal felony rather than a civil violation. For Mr. DeLay to be convicted, prosecutors will have to show not only that he took part in the dodge but also that he knew it amounted to a violation of state law -- rather than the kind of clever money-trade that election lawyers engineer all the time.