Former Rep. [tag]Tom DeLay[/tag] (R-Eighth Ring) left the House this week, delivering a speech from the House floor in which the former exterminator did what he’s always done: he lashed out at his critics, blasted liberalism, insisted that he’s as pure as the driven snow, and encouraged Republicans to resist compromising on any part of the right-wing agenda.
Indeed, for a guy who has resigned in disgrace and under criminal indictment, DeLay practically preened like a peacock. He mentioned how “proud” he is of the infamous [tag]K Street Project[/tag], and in a Gecko-greed-is-good sentiment, DeLay criticized the “self-styled statesman who elevates [tag]compromise[/tag]” and praised bitter [tag]partisanship[/tag] as a guard against “[tag]tyranny[/tag].”
My friend Shaun called the speech “a study in arrogance, petulance and the very worst side of the partisanship whose virtues he proclaims. It’s inspired by the same kind of ‘whistling past the graveyard’ hubris that inspired the fecal-fed grin he slapped on for his mug shot when he was booked for the criminal indictment that forced his retirement.” That’s well said and an accurate description of DeLay’s remarks. I’m just not entirely sure if [tag]DeLay[/tag] was wrong.
Salon’s Tim Grieve argued, rather persuasively, that if you “take out the policy particulars” and overlook his history of [tag]criminal[/tag] [tag]corruption[/tag], DeLay’s broader message may have even been helpful to congressional Dems.
So how do Democrats pull off the same trick? How do they go from “docile minority” to empowered majority? DeLay knows — like the people gathered here know — that you don’t do it by caving in to the opposition or trying to be more like it. What you do is, you make the case that your way is a better way, and then you stand up and fight for yourself when anybody dares to say different.
“Now, politics demands compromise … and even the most partisan among us have to understand that, ” DeLay said Thursday. “But we must never forget that compromise and bipartisanship are means, not ends, and are properly employed only in the service of higher principles.
“It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle. For the true statesmen … are not defined by what they compromise, but by what they don’t.”
DeLay is a loathsome lawbreaker who saw no limits to his corrupt enterprise. But does he have a point about fighting for principles? If Howard Dean had delivered a similar address in 2004, would Democratic activists have nodded their heads in agreement?