Edwin Buckham paid Christine DeLay

I'm going to slow down on writing about the House leadership. My intent is to spend time on underreported stories. The fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party can no longer be considered underreported. But I want to point out this editorial from the Wall Street Journal:

As they lick their wounds, Republicans are no doubt wondering what went wrong and what to do now. The answers aren't all that complicated: Revive the reform convictions that earned them power in the 1990s, and start that process in the House of Representatives by electing a new slate of leaders.

Twelve years ago, the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans swept into power as reformers who ran against corruption and pledged to make government "smaller and smarter." Somehow, across the years, that conviction was replaced by Tom DeLay and the quest for permanent incumbency, Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis and the "earmark" brigade, and a retinue of Beltway retainers symbolized by Jack Abramoff. The current leadership let it all happen, and if Republicans want a shot at regaining control in 2008 they'll turn to a new generation to lead them.

. . .

The good news is that a younger generation does seem to be stepping forward. Mike Pence, of Indiana, has already declared for minority leader, and John Shadegg of Arizona is seeking the number two job as whip. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona (see his essay nearby) are among the other Members who have tried to put ideas above mere incumbency. Republican Members will make up their own minds, but their willingness to consider new leadership will say a lot about the lessons they've learned from this week's drubbing.

Too many Republicans were corrupted and seduced by power and forgot why voters sent them to Washington. Winning back the majority requires new faces of leadership far removed from this year's debacle.

This made me recall something I wrote back in June:

My readers know that one of the narratives I tell is that the Republican Revolution of 1994 was one of pure conservative ideals.

. . .

I never anticipated the consequences of Gingrich's departure. Without Gingrich to restrain the greed of my own Congressman, Tom DeLay, the principles of 1994 died on the vine.

It's good that the WSJ points out that Tom DeLay wears no conservative clothes. I've hinted around the edges at that. I've complained about abuse of earmarks. But for some reason, the convential wisdom was that DeLay was a conservative. Of course he wasn't. I feared that pointing out the obvious would just devolve into a flame war. That I didn't want.

Also note that the WSJ wants Pence, Shadegg and Flake. All Integrity Republicans, you know.

The Washington Post came out with an article a week ago on Ed Buckham's unlawful use of non-profit organizations. To be honest, this article is largely a re-hash of what the Washington Post reported back in March. In fact, the most interesting items in the article are the references to Julie Doolittle and Christine DeLay as members of the "Wives Club", but we already knew that.

The FBI has questioned witnesses in recent months about Alexander Strategy's use of nonprofits and its hiring of congressional spouses, including Julie Doolittle and Christine DeLay, wife of the former House majority leader.

Alexander Strategy paid Julie Doolittle about $30,000 to do bookkeeping for the Korea nonprofit. Other contracting work by Julie Doolittle, for one of Abramoff's charities, has led investigators in the Abramoff probe to scrutinize John Doolittle's activities, sources have told The Post.

Recall that Tony Rudy said in this plea bargain that he had would testify that "employment for the relatives of officials" was one of the modes of corruption. That was three days before then Rep. DeLay announced he would resign.

Am I missing anything of importance in this article?

So says Rich Lowry of NRO. Read the whole thing. I mean it. I could always tell that National Review's heart was with the Integrity Republicans. Lowry provides a concise manual for those who want to understand what went wrong in 2006.

The “culture of corruption” was real. That phrase was a much-contested talking point during the past two years, with Democrats touting it as an accurate description of the degraded ethical state of the congressional GOP and Republicans dismissing it as a smear.

Democrats were much closer to the truth. Voters took a good whiff of the odor emanating from Washington and some of their Republican representatives, and recoiled. One-third of Republican losses in the House came in congressional districts where the party had been tainted, to varying degrees, by scandal.

. . .

As the scandal around Jack Abramoff developed, Republicans should have forced those members most directly implicated — Reps. Tom DeLay and Bob Ney, along with just-defeated Sen. Conrad Burns — to step aside expeditiously. They didn’t, partly for understandable reasons — delivering bad news to friends and colleagues is always hard.

That’s why reformers must be zealous. It takes zeal to break through the natural barriers to staying clean. Unfortunately, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was the opposite of zealous, refusing to force his members to purge themselves and adopt a wide-ranging, meaningful reform agenda.

I did my part in attempting to force Rep. Tom DeLay to step aside by voting against him in the primary. For reasons still unknown to me, the organized Republican Party circled the wagons around Rep. DeLay even after the facts became known and were the dominant issue in the primary.

This situation makes me recall what Peter Parker's uncle to says to him in the movie Spiderman: "With great power, there must also come great responsibility." Those in positions of power in the Republican Party, all the way down to the precinct chairs here in CD22, did not display any responsibility at all. Best I can tell, there still is no acceptance of what they did wrong. The local party should have done whatever was necessary to deny DeLay the nomination. The local party failed us.

===

I also want to point this out from the article:

Exit polls show that more voters cited corruption as their top concern than even the Iraq War. Pundits are dismissing this number, but Republicans do so at their own peril.

This seems right to me. As Lowry implies, pundits are wrong to dismiss it and Republicans shouldn't.

===

One more thing:

All elected Republicans in any way associated with scandal are now gone, courtesy of the American voter.

DeLay, Ney, Burns, Pombo, Hayworth, Ryun, Foley, Sweeney etc. Yes, a lot of those associated with scandal are gone. But Rep. John Doolittle married to "Wives Club" member Julie won reelection.

As expected, the Establishment Republicans have lost the GOP majority in the House. NRO sports a collection of quotes from the GOP side. On a positive note, it looks like the Republicans understand what happened, unlike the media which tries to portray the election results as a referendum on Bush. Most of the Republicans quoted by NRO hit many of my themes over the past several months:

First up: Mike Pence:

Election day 2006 will be remembered as a turning point in American political history. Twenty-five years after the Reagan Administration came to Washington with a conservative agenda of limited government, the American people chose a different course.

It is the duty of the losing party in a free election to humbly accept defeat and to acknowledge that the people are sovereign in the People's House.

As we examine the results of this election, it is imperative that we listen to the American people and learn the right lessons.

Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.

After 1994, we were a majority committed to balanced federal budgets, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of limited government. In recent years, our majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education, entitlements and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.

This was not in the Contract with America and Republican voters said, "enough is enough." Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people didn't quit on the Contract with America, we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform.

Scandal and the abandonment of the principles of 1994. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Notice the reference to Ronald Reagan. Back in May, I noticed that Integrity Republicans liked to invoke Ronald Reagan’s name.

==

I started with the good; here’s the ugly:

House Republican Conference Secretary John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) today announced his intention to run for House Republican Conference Secretary for the 110th Congress. Doolittle pledged to be a vocal proponent of conservative principles within the leadership team and work tirelessly to win back the Republican majority.

Regular readers to this site know that Rep. Doolittle is part of the big-spending government-by-lobbyist establishment leadership. Let’s hope Doolittle gets nowhere.

==

Ken Mehlman gets it right:

""I see three things out of it. First of all, we need to recommit ourselves to our conservative reform principles, that's very important. We need to try to work where we can on bipartisan basis with democrats. We need to bend over backwards to try to do that while maintaining those conservative reform principles. And I think another thing, the number one issue that was listed is corruption. We need to remember, people that serve whether it's in the congress or in the government or any level, are people that ought to be about public policy and public service. That ought to be their basis. It ought not to be continuing your power in office but what you are trying to accomplish and what you are trying to reform. If we can focus on those three things then while last night was very difficult for many of us, ultimately we will be stronger and be able to serve the public better because we'll have learned and grown from it."

Not much needs to be added.

==

From a “pro-Pence” Hill leader:

I'm not a Boehner hater, but his time has passed and the time for the old guard has passed. Boehner may have indeed run his CAMPAIGN on a platform of change, and then what happened after? Nothing. Nothing at all. No one addressed the scandals. Earmark reform was so minor and it was the RSC under the true bloods that forced his hand.

What was accomplished under Majority Leader Boehner over 10 months? Nothing.

Nothing at all. As the majority whittled away, Mr. Boehner was more concerned with K Street than his colleagues in Cannon. Nero fiddled as Rome burned.

The bottom line is that after yesterday, the GOP is at a fork in the road. You can have a fresh renewed commitment to our core principles, or you can have the guy who was handing out checks to members from Tobacco lobbyists on the House floor. I think the choice is clear.

Fork in the road. How true. I’ve described it as a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. I’m not a Boehner hater, either. Boehner had his chance; he didn’t do anything. Time for real reformers and time to get rid of the Establishment Republican leadership.

==

And lastly, this last piece of bad news:

Blunt Will Seek To Keep Whip Post, With An Assist From Cantor

A source close to Maj Whip Roy Blunt tells The Hotline that the current #3 leader in the House leadership ranks will seek to retain his position in the minority — and that Chief Dep Min Whip Eric Cantor "will run Mr. Blunt's race for" the job. Per our source, "Cantor has already begun making calls on Blunt's behalf."

Many Hill-watchers had assumed that Blunt would not vye against his "boss" for the Min Whip position, but Blunt is still unlikely to hang onto his post without a fight, whether it is on the right from Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) or another member in the rank-and-file.

On another House leadership front, Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) appears to be intent on mounting a challenge to Maj Leader John Boehner (R) and RSC Chair Mike Pence (R) for the Min Leader position in the new Congress. A House source shares that Barton held a conf call this a.m. with fellow members of his committee and made clear he'd be ready and willing to give up his gavel for an office in the Capitol if the support is there.

Blunt is part of the problem. But I am very optimistic about the chances for the Integrity Republicans. Out of the destruction to the GOP majority, we will see re-birth and commitment to the ideals of 1994. I never understood how the Establishment Republicans could accept corruption in their midst. I hope they and their enablers, all the way down to precinct chairs and local party here in TX22, evaluate their own contributions to this debacle.

The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party begins soon. If, as I anticipate, the Integrity Republicans win, the GOP will reacquire its majority status in 2008. Hopefully, there will be a renewed emphasis on ethics and character in the Republican Party. And hopefully in the future, representatives like Mr. DeLay who abandon conservative principles will be held accountable within our own party.

This is likely to turn into an old fashioned link dump:

Tom DeLay on the election:

"The Republicans are not so energized. They are very disappointed in the leadership of their party."

Gee, really? And just who was the leader in the House until the Integrity Republicans kicked him out? Is this an admission by Tom DeLay that Republicans were disappointed in his leadership (and the leadership of DeLay cronies Hastert and Blunt)? At least he doesn't call those of us upset with his leadership gadflies and traitors again.

==

The Hill has a good article on the potential for a run on the leadership by the Integrity Republicans. Read the whole thing because I'm only going to highlight the disappointments. Key to reading: Representatives identified as conservative (Pence, Shadegg) are Integrity Republicans; those without the conservative modifier are Establishment Republicans.

“The outcome of the election, whether we’re in the majority or the minority, will cast a shadow on leadership elections,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), an outspoken conservative. “We’re a lagging indicator of the population at large. If the population at large votes to change how Republicans do business, we’ll reflect that change.”

Integrity Republicans need to be leaders not laggards. And the Integrity Republicans in the House like Rep. Jeff Flake did not depose then Majority Leader DeLay for a return to business as usual. Integrity Republicans in TX22 didn't get rid of Tom DeLay for a return to business as usual.

Also, look at this quote from an unnamed aide:

“It’s unfortunate timing that a member of this majority [Pence] would engage in positioning that is dependent on us suffering tremendous losses [today],” one GOP aide said.

The positioning is a result of the current leadership's abandonment of conservative principles. More of the same is not an option for conservatives. If anything, the potential of a conservative House leadership is a motivation to go vote.

==

Lastly, supply sider (and Integrity Republican) Larry Kudlow peers into his crystal ball:

Another post-election surprise just might come from the House Republicans: Mike Pence and his allies in the conservative Republican Study Group — John Shadegg, Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Marsha Blackburn, and others — could stage a leadership revolt that will get House Republicans back on the messages of limited domestic spending, earmark reform, broad-based tax reform, expanded investor tax-free savings accounts, and Social Security reform.

Put simply, while the Democrats may get a Pyrrhic victory in a six-year-itch close House win, in effect they will have suffered another substantial defeat. A lost opportunity with a losing message.

Of course I agree. Conservative principles is what leads to Republican electoral victories. If we get rid of the big-spending, corrupt government-by-lobbyist regime, Republicans will be stronger. As I've said before, 2006 will be a hiccup in decades of Republican dominance. If 2006 results in the Integrity Republicans wresting control of the party from the Establishment Republicans, 2006 will indeed be a Pyrrhic victory for Democrats.

Where were the conservative voices in the TX22 Republican Party in 2005-2006? Why did primary voter Tom Campbell have to emerge to give a voice to the conservatives?