The Bug Man just keeps whining--and another oh so liberal newspaper is critical.

Well, at least he's consistent...

Last week The Bug Man sent out a written letter and an email to his supporters and constituents. The Washington Post described some of the contents of those messages.

DeLay blamed the reports on Democrats, liberal groups and the "legion of Democrat-friendly press" who were trying to undermine Republican control of Congress. "It is abundantly clear that their fundamental strategy revolves around attacking me and working to tear down Republican leadership," he said.

A report from the AP disclosed other statements.

"Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction, and the criminalization of politics," the Texan's campaign added in a defiant rebuttal.

"They hate Ronald Reagan conservatives like DeLay and they hate that he is an effective leader who succeeds in passing the Republican agenda."

*******

"It should come as no surprise that following the 2004 election-year attacks on the president that the Democrats, their syndicate of third-party organizations ... and the legion of Democrat-friendly press would turn their attention to trying to retake Congress," he wrote.

Oh, Bug Man...still blaming the Democrats and the liberal media--even after the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, David Brooks, Newt Gingrinch, and Bill O'Reilly say otherwise.

Before describing yet more voices from the right wing criticizing DeLay, I have some observations about the above statements. First of all, the only way that the attacks on DeLay could be attacks against Republicans in general is for Republicans in general to condone The Bug Man's conduct. Tom DeLay is an arrogant ogre who thinks he does not have to answer to any legal or moral authority, and his main concern is to hold on to his power at any and all costs. If Republicans in general find such conduct and "values" admirable, then the attacks against DeLay are against them as well. You Republicans out there might want to at least contemplate that issue.

Second, as I pointed out in The Bug Man is now displaying the language skill of Bush, The Bug Man said the Democrats have no agenda. Oh wait--that's not really accurate. What he said was "This is the Democrats' agenda. They don't have an agenda."

And third--and this one seems significant--DeLay referred to himself as a "Ronald Reagan conservative." Why did he not say "a George W. Bush conservative" or "George W. Bush Republican"? Regardless of how much actual power The Bug Man has, George W. Bush is the President. George W. Bush--not Tom DeLay--is the leader of the Republican Party. Reagan is dead. Bush is alive and has become the icon of the Republican Party. If I were DeLay, I would want to get the strongest supporters I could find, and they don't come any bigger, badder, and stronger than the President his own self. So why did The Bug Man invoke Reagan and not Bush? Did he not want to mention Bush--or did Bush not want to be mentioned? Perhaps my tin foil hat is fitting a bit too snugly, but I think this issue deserves some attention...

Another Bush backer speaks out about DeLay

On October 17, 2004, the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune wrote "the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States." That same editorial board published an editorial about The Bug Man on April 18, 2004.

The problem for Republicans is that DeLay's troubles only seem to mount, and the notion that he's the victim of a Democratic Party/liberal media witch hunt just doesn't hold water. DeLay was admonished by the House Ethics Committee three times last year. That would be the Republican-controlled House Ethics Committee.

For the good of his party, DeLay needs to answer the questions that dog him about campaign contributions and lobbyist-paid trips and nepotism hires--and step aside as majority leader.

But Republican leaders have to go beyond that. They can't continue to aid the efforts by DeLay to dodge responsibility. The worst example is this: After the Ethics Committee rebuked DeLay for the third time, the GOP leadership neutered the Ethics Committee. The Republican chairman of the committee, Rep. Joel Hefley, was removed from his post over his objections, and the committee rules were changed so either party could block an investigation of a House member.

Republicans can argue that the committee chairmanship was due to rotate. But the rules change to block investigations was an incredibly blind and arrogant tactic. Don't blame DeLay for that one. Blame House Speaker Dennis Hastert for letting it happen.

Hastert may be calculating that his friend DeLay can survive this ethics mess without doing too much damage to his party before the 2006 midterm elections. But the decision to stop the Ethics Committee from effectively doing its business stains the entire GOP leadership.

*******

Republicans have enjoyed a good, decade-long run in control of the House. Maybe so good they've forgotten that they took power in large part because voters were fed up with the arrogant, ethically questionable practices of Washington. It would be ironic if the GOP lost power for the same reason.

Like I said before, irony can be so ironic.