The tension within the Republican Party between the would be theocrats and the oligarchs makes it much, much harder for Karl Rove to get rid of Tom DeLay than, say, Paul O'Neill, or even Trent Lott.
I can't imagine that it's only people like Bull Moose who are asking why, if "values voters" are the base of the party, the Republicans have poured so much more time and effort into destroying Social Security than banning gay marriage, censoring everything on TV and radio, and pushing the anti-abortion crusade to its presumptive climax. Already we've seen the Dobson and Lou Sheldon types throwing occasional snit fits over what they perceive as the administration's insufficient enthusiasm for their pet issues.
Thus far, the occasional symbolic or rhetorical gesture has kept them more or less in line;
blast a children's cartoon for gay-friendly views here,
appoint a "hawk on indecency" as FCC head there, renominate filibustered theocrat judges throughout, and keep promising that when it's time to make Supreme Court appointments, the real goodies will flow.
But now the stakes are higher. Tom DeLay, of course, has long been the perfect theoligarch Republican, pursuing the goals of the money wing and the "Christian" jihadists with more or less equal zeal. But now, as so much of his work on the former agenda has come under scrutiny from folks as diverse as Ronnie Earle and David Brooks, he's made a clear choice to affiliate himself with the agenda of the latter group. As religious conservatives grapple with the probably inevitable disappointment they feel in Bush after proving so crucial to his victory, DeLay has arguably supplanted him as "the leader of the Religious Right in America."
I have trouble believing this is coincidence or accident. DeLay is the most despicable public figure of my lifetime, but he's no idiot. At the same time, his statement to the effect that God sent Terri Schiavo to save him shows the extent of his megalomania. The only thing he seems to believe in more fervently than pay-to-play lawmaking, is the politics of the base. By aligning himself with the most extreme elements of the party (and, remember, showing less than full enthusiasm for the Social Security privatization push earlier this year), he can tell a larger story to the religious conservatives: I am with you in service to a Higher Morality, so it follows that the accusations of my enemies are groundless.
Rove's dilemma, which is also Bush's dilemma and, to some extent, the dilemma of every Republican set to face the voters in 2006, is this:
Stand by DeLay, and hope that the polarization of the country is so advanced that Republicans and enough moderates buy the story that "it's all political," despite the huge accumulation of evidence to the contrary, to keep power even though this risks alienating moderates; or,
Ditch his criminal ass, and hope through other means (judicial appointments, etc) to retain the enthusiastic allegience of DeLay's new national constituency.
All Democrats should do here is, one, keep beating the DeLay drum, as this is not a guy who will ever come off well to a majority of the electorate; two, develop the argument that DeLay isn't just outside the political mainstream in terms of his "values" or economic agendas, but is extreme and anti-majoritarian in all his positions; and three, remind the world that this man is no aberration, but the repeatedly chosen leader of the Congressional Republicans.
It's also important to keep in mind that in off-year elections, intensity and turnout are even more important than in presidential years. If Rove believes that the Christian base will come out and reward the Republicans for saving DeLay, while moderates will be mostly apathetic, he'll stand by his Bug Man.