Lynn Sweet discusses his current problems and how they are unlikely to result in him ever making Speaker. I think this was highly unlikely even before for the simple reason he is the kind of guy who is unlikely to get a unanimous vote in his own caucus. Unless the Republicans had a fairly large majority, there is a faction of Republicans who would have never voted for him including those who defected from reelection of Newt Gingrich in his last election as Speaker. Jim Leach and Chris Shays stick out as two examples who never would have tolerated the guy as Speaker.
The more interesting question to me is what happens to Hastert if and when DeLay gets taken down. Hastert won’t directly be challenged within the Republican caucus, but without a strong partisan in support of him as DeLay has been his effectiveness would be decreased. Unless DeLay’s replacement was as effective positioning for Hastert’s position would become the Caucus sport.
Whether Hastert wants to put up with that is an open question to me because part of the reason the Republican Caucus has been so effective in the House is that there was one power structure that essentially restrained any effort to come up with competing solutions from competing factions. Everything is cleared through leadership and there is no gain from going outside because you lose leverage within the Caucus. Without enforcement of that, the process breaks wide open. A breach causes even more problems for governance because the way a majority traditionally overcomes such factious politics is by spreading pork around. While the drunken sailors are having fun now, there’s going to be less and less money to throw around as pork as the budget stands now. No one would want to end their reign under such annoying conditions. It’s entirely possible that if DeLay is removed, but Majority Whip Blunt moves up one, the apparatus could stay in place and that would lessen the problems inherent in the job, though in the long run, ambition will win out.
Even more fun, is Gingrich pointing out that the stalling and combative strategy DeLay has developed is a bad way to handle the situation. The reason I’m convinced DeLay is toast has to do with two factors. First, the drip, drip, drip just attracts the press to further scrutinize the guy and he’s played fast and loose enough over the years that eventually something is going to stick. Second, his tactics have been to be more boisterous and to raise his profile.
The second is the fatal mistake–he’s fine as long as he’s out of the limelight, but his style and his politics is well out of the mainstream and he creates a great target to hit every Republican in a moderately competitive district. By publicly leading on the Schiavo fiasco and now publicly defending himself, he becomes the target and the debate which is exactly what the Democrats want.
The only thing I think Sweet gets wrong is that DeLay is a realist–a realist wouldn’t be heightening his profile. DeLay thinks he’s on a crusade and he believes he is an essential part of it. He’s not going willingly. He may resign, but it will because his whip organization comes back with a number that says he loses a vote as Majority Leader. .