April 3, 2006


Rep. DeLay Won't Seek Reelection (Jonathan Weisman and Chris Cillizza, 4/03/06, Washington Post)

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), a primary architect of the House Republican majority who became one of the most powerful and feared leaders in Washington, told House allies tonight that he will resign from the House rather than face a reelection fight that appears increasingly unwinnable.

'Busy Blair' stakes claim for two more years at No 10 (George Jones and Sarah Womack, 04/04/2006, Daily Telegraph)
Tony Blair defiantly outlined an agenda to keep him in Downing Street until 2008 as he fought back yesterday against attempts by supporters of Gordon Brown to force him to quit by next year.

He sought to show that he was back in control with a string of announcements on domestic issues, including crime and the health service, after an overseas trip dominated by speculation about his future. [...]

Staying on until the end of 2008 would be in line with Mr Blair's pledge to serve a full third term. But it would infuriate the Chancellor, who wants to take over next year. He is deeply frustrated at being kept waiting, believing that Mr Blair has gone back on earlier promises to make way for him and is staying on to provide time for alternative leadership candidates to become established. [...]

Tomorrow Mr Blair and Mr Brown will jointly launch Labour's manifesto for the May 4 local elections after the Chancellor was told that he was not needed to address the United Nations in New York.

Mr Blair told a congregation of about 200 Christians at an evangelical church in Brixton, south London, that politics was about making decisions "and usually, in my experience, you offend someone".

There was no pain-free way of doing things, he said, nor of "pleasing all the people all the time". Then, in a moment of candour, he admitted that he was struggling to secure any approval at all.

"Pleasing some of the people some of the time would be an advantage and I am working on that," he said with a weak smile.

"Politicians are human beings like any others; we've got our frailties, weaknesses and our problems. Most of the time. . . we are trying to do our best, not always succeeding but striving to succeed."

In what could have been seen as a pointed reference to his Chancellor, Mr Blair added: "Politics works by partnership or it doesn't work at all."

Most wanted terrorist 'kicked out as leader' for bloody tactics (Richard Beeston, 4/04/06, Times of London)
ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI, the most feared commander in the Iraqi insurgency, may have been forced to surrender his leadership by rival groups, angered by his bloody tactics and the interference of foreign fighters in the Iraqi conflict.

According to Huthayfah Azzam, the son of Abdullah Azzam, al-Zarqawi’s former mentor, the notorious commander of al-Qaeda in Iraq was stripped of his political duties at a meeting two weeks ago.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 3, 2006 11:55 PM

I wonder if he (Zarqawi) gets to keep his pension.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at April 4, 2006 12:31 AM


Yes. Though it may not be worth much, actuarially speaking. Comrades who want you out of power will usually not hesitate to leak your whereabouts to those who place a bounty on you. Tying up loose ends and all.

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at April 4, 2006 2:33 AM

I'm surprised they didn't use the same lead on the Zarqawi story for the first paragraph on DeLay's decision not to seek re-election, and just substitute the word "Republican" for "Iraq".

Posted by: John` at April 4, 2006 9:38 AM

Delay's running in the primary demonstrates his lack of class. Instead of letting the voter decide, he puts in the back room.

Spare me the "that's politics" canard. The guy's a pig. If he wasn't a pig, he wouldn't be gone.

Posted by: Bruno at April 4, 2006 10:28 AM

Sure, but he's also at least partially responsible for pretty much every important achievement of the Clinton and Bush presidencies. He's in many ways the greatest House member in conservative history.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 10:35 AM


I'll take your word for it, but does it have to be this way?

Let's assume no outright corruption, but only the doling out of goodies, positions, and punishing those that don't go along with the same tactics.

Is this the way things MUST work? To the extent that the answer is yes, I think there has to be a process for cleansing.

If 1994 was that process, then one could make a strong case for another one (only the alternative is worse).

I suppose governing an empire is impossible for a cadre of boyscouts (RSGroup?), but does that mean it has to be governed by pigs?

Posted by: Bruno at April 4, 2006 11:50 AM


The Founders assumed it did--I've seen no reason to doubt them.

Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 11:54 AM

"My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings, Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" And I made it all in Texas ... from Shake and Bake.

Posted by: Genecis at April 4, 2006 12:01 PM

where's the "outlasted another one" heading :)

Posted by: toe at April 4, 2006 2:52 PM

So Ronnie Earle got what he wanted all along. Expect him to drop all charges any day now, since none of them have a snowball's chance in Austin of sticking...

Posted by: b at April 4, 2006 3:39 PM

delay should run for AG against earle.

Posted by: toe at April 4, 2006 5:16 PM

Earle's not AG, he's Travis County District Attorney. The state created a law some years ago that gave the Travis DA and the state district judges in Travis County wide lattitude over cases involving the state government, a law passed when Democrats ran both house of the legilslature. The current GOP-controlled legilsature would be smart to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot next year undoing that rule, given the over-representation of Democrats within Travis County, as compared with the rest of Texas.

Posted by: John at April 5, 2006 12:39 AM
« CAUTION: NOT TO BE VIEWED ON A FULL STOMACH (via Rick Turley): | Main | THEN WHERE'S #20? (via Pepys): »