Interesting roundup of reactions to Delay's resignation, both explanations as to why, particularly the timing, and punditry stuff on the consequences. From Josh Marshall's blog.
All the articles are linked from the original post. Just click on the url to go to this post on Marshall's site. The links are then hot links.
---------------
The Daily Muck
By Paul Kiel and Justin Rood - April 5, 2006, 12:41 AM
DeLay: The Reckoning
The Washington Post's front page piece on DeLay's departure is the best follow-up to DeLay's decision. The Post reports that DeLay had been thinking of dropping out for the last four months, but that he wanted to win the primary in order to ensure that none of his Republican challengers there made it through, since "he considered his three Republican challengers gadflies and traitors."
The decision to drop out was made last Wednesday, following on a poll taken two weeks ago that showed voters in his district were entrenched and it would be expensive to change their minds.
But above all, according to a former aide of DeLay's, "He needed to raise money for the defense fund. That was the bottom line." So he stuck it out long enough to make sure he could pay his lawyers.
Associates of DeLay "acknowledge" that the looming Justice Department investigation had something to do with it, but the Post seems to agree with them that it was merely one factor among many. In other words, if DeLay wasn't polling so badly, he would have stayed in. (WaPo)
Knight Ridder is almost alone in its frank coverage of DeLay's decision to step down. Why'd he do it? Because he's clearly the target of the Justice Department's bribery investigation. (KR)
Knight Ridder also reports that this probably won't effect the midterm elections very much either way. (KR)
The LA Times looks at his future prospects as a conservative leader, and it looks dim:
Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, a grass-roots conservative organization, scoffed at the notion that DeLay would become a leader of social conservatives. "As an elected official, when he called conservatives together, he was in a position to do so," Weyrich said. "On what basis does he operate from the outside?"
(LA Times)
Roll Call comes at the DeLay story with both barrels blazing: His departure is a relief for the GOP; They believe it improves their odds of winning the TX-22 race; DeLay's gonna run up a mountain of legal bills; Other lawmakers are drooling at the prospect of taking DeLay's old seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Also, the Dems say even with DeLay gone, the culture of corruption in Washington hasn't changed ( a point with which the NYObserver's Joe Conason cheerily agrees).
The AP's Tom Raum reports that DeLay leaves a "troubling legacy" of corruption without falling into the "DeLay's resignation is bad for Democrats because he's the corrupt one" talking point. (AP)
DeLay's departure deprives the GOP of one of their most effective leaders, chatters the Christian Science Monitor and the Houston Chronicle. And that doesn't bode well for dealing with their current crises, the LA Times chimes in. (CSM, Houston Chronicle, LA Times)
The WaPo reports that DeLay's is the latest of history's defiant exits. (WaPo)
The Post's Chris Cilizza gave his own rundown on how the two parties spun DeLay's decision. (The Fix)
Steve Clemons wants the soon-to-be-retired Tom DeLay to teach us all how Washington really works: "there would be no one better than Tom DeLay to give this insider's view of America's structurally corrupt political order today." (TWN)
And with DeLay out of the way, Roll Call asks, let's take a look at this fellow, Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH). (Roll Call)
tpmmuckraker.com |
