Not meaning to dump on an AP reporter, but what inspired this diary was a line in yesterday's AP account of the TX-22 ballot appeal that went something like this:
The Dems want Delay to have to stay on the ballot, even though he resigned his seat in June.
June, on July 31 sounds like it is in the past. However, June on April 4, was in fact two months in the future. The key here is Tom's delays, and the cynicism they reflect. Moving backward:
Delay One, the Resignation: DeLay announced in early April he would resign at some point in the future, which turned out to be after June 1. Why the wait? To do all he could to create a prerogative to name his sucessor. Had he resigned when he first announced he would resign, TX Gov Rick Perry would have been pressured to call a special election to fill the remainder of DeLay's term. It is possible that Nick Lampson would be chosen in such an election, but the worse possibility for DeLay would have been that a Republican would have been elected that he had no sway over.
Delay Two, the announcement: DeLay waited until the end of the first quarter to announce he would abandone his run for reelection. Why didn't he announce this before March 31? To continue to raise money not just as an incumbant, but as an embattled incumbant. It is certainly possible that every donor would have been willing to contribute to his legal defense fund, but more likely that the ones he is in trouble over - the ones who buy influence by funding his campaigns and his PAC - would have seen that the influence is quite possibly coming to an end. Some of them might even have wisely chosen to contribute to their own legal defense funds.
Delay Three, the decision: Much of the substance of DeLay's legal problems were clear at the beginning of 2006. Why, then, did DeLay run in and win the Republican primary for his seat? I'll describe the legal problems in a minute, but the answer is mingled between the previous two answers. A primary in March, without DeLay on the ticket, might well have yielded anti-DeLay Republican Tom Campbell as the nominee. In addition, DeLay's power would have immediately been reduced, as would have his fund-raising capability.
What were the legal problems? Well, in addition to being indicted for using corporate money in Texas legislature campaigns, and in addition to the recent announcement by the FEC that DeLay's ARMPAC violated all sorts of reporting laws during the 2002 election cycle that gave us Texas Redistricting, Colorado Redistricting and a net gain of GOP House seats despite already clear signs that the DeLay/Hastert house was already way out of control,
Two key former members of DeLay's staff accepted guilty pleas for official corruption.
One of those has so far skated on the likeliehood that he was doing insider stock trading out of the congressman's office.
DeLay's biggest K Street buddy, Jack Abramoff, also did a plea and was singing to prosecutors. DeLay is implicated, but so are several House members who owe the opportunity to be corrupt to the Poison Merchant from Sugar Land.
The possibility raised from the previous item is that DeLay could still be indicted relative to the Abramoff mess at some point before election day.
DeLay's delays reflect his cynicism, a cynicism he has expressed again and again since coming to power in the House GOP.
This is a man who held up the Homeland Security Act for months because he wanted it to include some anti-union language, and then had the gall to participate in political advertising charging his opponents with playing fast and loose with the terror threat.
This is a man who berated (a la Conrad Burns and the firefighter) a wages-and-tips waitress for enforcing the No-Smoking rule in our National Museum by proclaiming to her, "I am the federal government."
This is a man who stood up in church one Sunday and told his fellow congregants that they ought to send their daughters to somewhere other than Baylor A&M because the girls on those campuses are too likely to become sexually active.
This is a man who played a key role in impeaching a president for lying about a private matter to a grand jury - which is important solely because it is such a disrespect for the rule of law - and whose role included keeping some key testimony secret from all but the members of his own party with the intent of then introducing it in a Senate trial. Chief Justice Rehnquist rightly ruled that this was, in fact, a flagrant disregard for the rule of law.
I can continue on this for another two or three thousand words, but the important thing is understanding the timing of DeLay's Voluntary Fall.