wow - finally stumbled across a blog site worthy of starting a blog link - I've just started reading Guns, Germs and Steel. 

To quote Arnie, I'll be back.

Fred - As he said, and most conservatives agree, he stepped down because of the knowledge that any campaign featuring him was going to have zero to do with issues.  Many liberals and Democrats continue to mount campaigns devoid of ideas.  While Harry Reid likes to throw around phrases like "culture of corruption," conservatives continue to show that corruption (when identified) is unacceptable.  I contend that the same cannot be said of the majority of liberals.  They tend to have "shades of gray" mentality.

 

Leb - You can make the "it was overreaching" justification all you want.  President Clinton lied under oath.  There is no protection in law for lies made about issues the witness feels are irrelevant.  Lawyers can certainly recommend invoking fifth amendment rights, but lying as he did is illegal.  And stating that President Clinton's actions were harmless begs the question.  I disagree with your assessment.

 

And most conservatives agree with the assertion that DeLay is no longer the best man for the job.  Remember, Republicans held the reins.  Early in the process, they contemplated changing House rules (which isn't a scandal, the rules are set by the House and can be changed by the House).  As the issues face by DeLay became more entangling, they made it clear that his tenure as Majority Leader was ending.  That he is resigning is certainly an indication that DeLay also understands the difficult position his presence creates for his party.

 

And for both party's sake, I hope that reprimands by the Ethics Committee do not become the standard for resignation.  If that were the case, we can probably both start planning our campaigns, because we're going to need a lot of new Congressional representatives, especially if those committees start doing the jobs they were meant to do.  Keep in mind how many members of Congress found many and significant violations of rules when they started examining their own actions (only after they started throwing stones).

 

Senator Graham is in no way being hypocritical.  President Clinton wasn't accused by some of breaking a law, while the laws authors contended he hadn't done so.  He was caught, with no question, in the act of perjury.  His violation of the law was clear and absolute.  The NSA wiretapping issue is open for debate.  Congress was fully aware of his actions.  The person who wrote the law contends that it wasn't violated by President Bush's actions.  Congress is debating the issue.  And three people, two who are admittedly liberal and one who I personally know (well, believe) is a crackpot (and, regrettably, my own senator) support censuring the president.  Perhaps that is because the charges being made are quite different from those against President Clinton.  And perhaps it is because the idea of impeaching President Bush just smacks too much of political payback as opposed to a matter of actual substance (mind you, I understand that liberals would tend to disagree, as they still refuse to accept that he is president, anyway).

I'd say he had some integraty after all, but he's said that he will be vindicated and is innocent anyways..if he's on such strong legal ground, why give up?

Ponderings vis. "just wondering.

 

The most poignant, and perhaps appropriate, example that springs to mind - contrasting DeLay's - was Jim Wright's resignation after being found in violation of house conflict of interest news, vis. DeLay's multiple reprimands by the Ethics committee and later his indictments.

 

Then there was Newt Gringrinch's rise and fall - again, after ethics complaints.  His experience seems to parallel DeLay's somewhat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

 

But a few others come to mind that I think demonstrate that nobody is being a hypocrite in watching DeLay's dust.

Richard M. Nixon's resignation rather than face impeachment. Gerald R. Ford's pardon of Nixon.

 

Reagan, his aides, his administration vis Iran-Contra. George H. W. Bush's pardons of the key Iran-Contra players.

 

Clinton's lying under oath, Newt Gringrich's charge to see him impeached.

 

Tom DeLay's reprimands by the Senate Ethics Committee, then his stepping down as Speaker only after he was indicted... and the sneaky attempt by Republican leadership to have house ethics rules changed to prevent this if it occured (which failed, after it became a public boondoggle).

 

And, today, we have the move to censure George W. Bush for warrantless wiretapping (note: Sen Lindsay Graham supported impeaching Clinton for lying, but is arguing against censuring Bush for illegal wiretapping).

 

So, quite frankly, I'm not real sure I get your point.  While I support the concept of innocent until proven guilty, especially if I'm going to sit on someone's jury, when I'm not a jurist, I allow myself a little analytical freedom to speculatively connect the dots and try to create a bigger picture.  So far, by my own account, I've not been far off.  I try to stay intellectually honest.  But I seem to be able to sketch the broad details pretty accurately.  At leat, for myself.

 

And in this case, it seems quite evident that DeLay does NOT represent the best America has to offer - in terms of leadership, respectability, vision for America - or, purely and simply, ethics.  So I'm not sad to see him go.  Not sad at all.  I think some of his efforts, particularly the K-Street efforts, have done more damage and perversion to our political landscape - legal or not - than anything else in modern memory.

 

As for giving him credit, whatever his reasons, it's quite clear it's the right thing to do - for the party, for the country, and, in the end, for himself.  I'll certianly give him credit for that.

 

As for the allusion to Clinton stepping down... well, I think my opinion was demonstrably shared somewhat where it became evident that many of us belived that the Republicans had far-overreached in their pursuit of Clinton through Whitewater and subsequently through Impeachment over what can arguably be cast as reaction to the personally devastating public disclosure of an embarrasing but harmless lapse in judgement, that had nothing to do with his performance of his office, and then later, in the subsequent presidential election, were we all found that we'd lost our taste for Democrats somewhat after Clinton more or less tarnished the presidency and to some degree our perception of our institutions and our leaders over such a mindlessly stupid issue.  Its a grey issue.  It's not black or white.

 

We found ourselves looking for a man of character, and I think George W. Bush seemed like that, on the surface.  I think without the Clinton Monicagate escapade, Gore would have won handily.

 

Did GWB  turn out to be a man of character?  It's an interesting question to ponder.  He's a mixed bag, too.

 

As for looking for men of character perfection, if we're not careful, in the end I think we'll all end up like Diogenes.

Here's a good article that speaks to what you wrote.  http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12153360/

Of course, it will be interesting to see how many give credit to DeLay for stepping down.  He stepped down from his position as Majority Leader.  He has stated he intends to resign his position in the House.

Whether as a political move because he knows his days may be numbered, or a moral move as an admission of wrong-doing, or as a financial move designed to free up dollars for mounting a vigorous defense of "unwarranted" charges (not a judgment on the charges, just a statement of his belief), he has taken the higher road.  He has once again shown what people of substance do when faced with the hint of impropriety.  Remember, DeLay has been convicted (except in the minds of some) of nothing.  Even the charges he faces are admittedly weak.

 

It leads one to think about the actions of other leaders when facing the hint of impropriety.  Or when facing the facts they have violated trust, their oaths, and the law.  It raises the specter of a double standard.  And if it was the conservative base pushing hard, it REALLY raises the question of double standards.  People of principal stand by those principals.  Pushing for DeLay to step down and resign is difficult.  But it's right.  Where were those principals when a President was caught in the act of perjury?

 

Just wondering.