Why DeLay Quit

National Review Online ^ | April 04, 2006 | Byron York

[TAdams8591]

Thanks for the ping. I love Tom Delay and admire him more after some of the very positive and gracious comments he made in this article and wouldn't have wanted to miss them. : )

Sadly congress lost their most valuable and influential member. He will be greatly missed!

[jammer]

We complain when Republican politicians don't fight hard enough to enlarge our majority ...

You might. I complain when they don't fight hard enough for conservatism--I couldn't care less about the Republican majority if they spend money like drunken sailors (with apologies to drunken sailors) and, basically, become whores. That's when I complain.

Your point is valid under the old Democrat=liberal (still true), Republican=conservative (rarely true) dichotomy. Under today's reality, the parties are two wings of the bifactional ruling party [Socialist--Statist], with ideas being secondary to whose supporters get to divide the spoils.

[Carolinamom]

I suggested no such thing. I agree w/you that he is a brilliant bare-knuckles politician, but we part ways in your attributing me 'suggesting' otherwise. Don't put words into my mouth.

[Rodney King]

Yup.

[RightWhale]

he made the decision now because he knew the McKinney fiasco

McKinney is far too small an event to enter into DeLay's decision.

[thinkthenpost]

I believe Tom Delay has been more steadfast on conservative issues than any other Congressmen that easily come to mind. You may have heartburn with him trying to garner more influence for Republicans inside the beltway, but even after a decade of Repub majorities, mainstream conservative ideas are routinely dismissed as crackpot ravings by those enlightened Washingtonians.
You both seem to want to hamstring Republicans money wise and voter wise by limiting those who can be involved to true believers, whereas we all know the Deomcrats will do whatever they have to do to gain an upper hand.

[Rodney King]

You both seem to want to hamstring Republicans money wise and voter wise by limiting those who can be involved to true believers, whereas we all know the Deomcrats will do whatever they have to do to gain an upper hand.

Not at all... I just don't expect them to oversee vast increases in federal entitlements and pork. You'd think they could at least hold the line.

[thinkthenpost]

I am not very happy with the spending trends during this administration, but I lay the vast majority of the blame at the feet of the President, speaker of the house, Senate majority leaders, and Reps/Sens with their hands out than I do Tom Delay.

[Frank T]

Good thing you were not around to draft the Constitution.

[TChad]

Rush interviewed DeLay. Here's the link. Includes audio.

[vbmoneyspender]

The people who drafted the Constitution were hardly perfectionists. For example, they put in the 3/5's clause for slaves because they knew the issue of slavery would have to be dealt with at another time if they were to keep the 13 colonies together. In fact, reading the history of that era demonstrates that the creation of the Constitution and its ultimate ratification involved one compromise after another, which is something that George Washington in particular was quite proud of. In contrast, where a perfectionist approach has been taken, disaster has always ensued.