Dreier Didn't Get It (and this wasn't Martha talking)
Abram quotes from the Washington Post and adds his own comments:
"What [DeLay] and Hastert wanted was a timeserver, someone to hold the job but with no ambitions to stay in it. And they had someone in mind. This week, an aide to the speaker approached Rep. David Dreier about his role in a post-DeLay caucus. Dreier, a congenial Californian who has loyally served the GOP leadership as Rules Committee chairman, expressed interest in helping Hastert.
"There was one big problem: When DeLay's indictment was unsealed yesterday, conservatives in the GOP caucus immediately erupted in anger over rumors that the selection of Dreier, whom they regard as too moderate, was being presented as a fait accompli."
"Too moderate"? Could be. Or that could be the polite way of saying "too gay". Or perhaps "too ethical". Or "too weak".
"As the conservatives met to vent frustrations and plot options, Hastert was changing course in a separate meeting on the second floor of the Capitol. Rep. Roy Blunt (Mo.), the majority whip, was making a personal appeal for the promotion. Hastert agreed, forestalling a possible revolt by conservatives, who regard Blunt as one of their own."
In other words, Hastert turned his back on DeLay. Do you think Tom DeLay would forget something like that? Do you think Hastert would have done it if Tom DeLay were coming back?...
This, ladies and gentleman, is the politics of power....Speaker Hastert is rumored to want to retire in 2008. His logical successor would have been DeLay, but now will be Blunt. And it won't be Dreier.
It will be interesting to see how many lined up against Dreier because of his support of Bush's legalization moves, or because of other reasons. Hard to tell.
Comments