"The DeLay Effect"

That's what Republicans are calling it:

After enlarging their majority in the past two elections, House Republicans have begun to fear that public attention to members' travel and relations with lobbyists will make ethics a potent issue that could cost the party seats in next year's midterm races.

In what Republican strategists call "the DeLay effect," questions plaguing House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) are starting to hurt his fellow party members, who are facing news coverage of their own trips and use of relatives on their campaign payrolls. Liberal interest groups have begun running advertising in districts where Republicans may be in trouble, trying to tie the incumbents to their leaders' troubles.

The article names specific Republicans in danger -- Bob Ney of Ohio, Richard Pombo of California, Tom Feeney of Florida, and Charles Taylor of North Carolina and quotes GOP officials as saying they will likely lose seats in the House in the midterm elections.

Pair that with this news about Bush's latest polling (also from the WaPo via the Chronic):

A clear majority of Americans say President Bush is ignoring the public's concerns and instead has become distracted by issues that most people say they care little about, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 58 percent of those interviewed said Bush is mainly concentrating in his second term on problems and partisan squabbles that these respondents said were unimportant to them ...

Ominously for Bush and the Republicans, a strong majority of self-described political independents — 68 percent — say they disagreed with the president's priorities.

That suggests Bush's mixed record in the second term on issues the public views as critical, particularly on Iraq and the economy, may be as much a liability for GOP candidates in next year's midterm election as his performance in his first term was an asset to Republican congressional hopefuls last year and in 2002.

Currently, 52 percent of the public disapproves of the job Bush is doing as president.

This is the first time in his presidency that more than half of the public has expressed negative views of the president's performance.

It appears the tide may be turning. Trend or mirage?

Today's scuttlebutt is:

that John Sharp will run for governor, and that John Cornyn is on the list -- the long one, not necessarily the short one -- to be the next Supreme Court nominee.

Both developments are, if they turn out to be accurate, rather hideous.

John Sharp running for anything would simply be a mistake for both Sharp and Texas Democrats (I mentioned this just the other day). Sharp is a fine fellow, was a capable state comptroller, and has both won and lost on statewide ballots, most recently to Lite Gov. Dewhurst in 2002.

But his time has passed.

I wasn't aware that sparks have already been flying between Sharp and presumptive gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell for awhile now. So what that tells me is that he's gearing up to take a run at the top of the ticket.

There could be a few worse things, though, and one would be a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land for Senator "Box Turtle", who just a few weeks ago created a firestorm as a result of his ill-considered remarks on judicial activism.

Let me borrow from the Republicans for my advice on these two:

Flush the Johns.

Update: Pink Dome says the same thing, only a lot wittier; reveals heretofore-unknown-to-me information about Sharp's voting record in the Texas House being more conservative than Rick Perry's (of course, he was a Democrat then) and her comments posters keep the sarcasm amped.

Regarding that call yesterday no one picked up

Billmon's probably right; it may not be all the liberal media's fault:

But it's still hard to escape the conclusion that the American people have had, generally speaking, plenty of opportunities to learn the filthy truth about this administration and this war -- that is, if they were actually interested in the truth, which many of them (up to 51%, judging from the last election) apparently are not.

What the health of the Republic requires, in other words, may not be a new crop of leakers and whistleblowers, or a fresh young generation of Woodwards and Bernsteins -- or even a more independent, aggressive media. What it may need is a new population (or half of a population, anyway), one that hasn't been stupified or brainwashed into blind submission, that won't look upon sadistic corruption and call it patriotism, and that will refuse to trade the Bill of Rights for a plastic Jesus and a wholly false sense of security.

That's a much taller order than asking the Gods to send us another Deep Throat -- or even a Luke Skywalker. It's also not an easy thing for liberals, with their old-fashioned faith in democracy, to face: That the Evil Emperor might have a majority (a narrow one, but still a majority) on his side. But a truth isn't any less true for being politically unpalatable.

Which is why right now it's easy for me to imagine Richard Nixon, looking up from the inner circle of hell and lamenting his immense bad luck in being elected to the presidency 30 years too soon.

God damn it.

I have another rant going over here about the people on our side who keep surrendering. I suppose I'm just a bit pissed this morning, so I better go hit the gym (before I hit someone).

"SCLM, call holding, line 2"

"If there's another Deep Throat out there, give us a call, won't you. We're waiting for your call."

-- Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw, at the end of their discussion of "Deep Throat", aka W. Mark Felt, earlier this week.

Well fellas, (s)he got tired of waiting for you to pick up the phone, and hung up.

I think it was Richard Clarke, but it may have been Sibel Edmonds. It could have been Karen Kwiatkowski, or Coleen Rowley. Or Paul O'Neill or even Joe Wilson. It might have been Gen. Eric Shinseki; I guess it could have even been John DiIulio, but if it was him, he sounded like he was already changing his mind even as I was putting him on hold.

Pick up your pages a little quicker in the future, guys.

DeLay is gearing up for 2006

but it's how he's doing it that's creating the interesting questions -- even from his supporters.

Charles, via Jesse, has the skinny. "Inside baseball" warning: it'll take a while to read and click through all of the links and comments, but I encourage you do so if you're interested in getting to the mindset not only of DeLay and his campaign staff but Republicans nationally (the RCCC) and locally (two local conservative bloggers, one of whom claims to be close to the ground in Sugar Land).

Especially revealing are the on-the-scene viewpoints of perennial DeLay opponent Michael Fjetland at his blog. No sour grapes on his part; just intriguing observations.

It's just too early to tell what this all means. But I'm certainly enjoying watching it.

Howard Dean wins the Moneyshot Quote of the Week

for this:

Dean's comment came as he recalled conditions at crowded Ohio polling stations last fall. He wondered who could expect voters to work all day and then stand in line for eight hours to vote. "Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives," he said, drawing some surprised "oohs" from his audience.

I only have one thing to add:

YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH !

Update: The People's Republic of Seabrook nails it, again.