Heroes and Villains
I have returned from Florida, where I had a vision of the future: a 2005 division championship flag flying over Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia...

But that's for later. A win that might be even sweeter than a Phillies NL East title would be to politically exterminate Tom DeLay, the former pest control man from Texas who leads the Republican majority in Congress and is the embodiment of the unfettered corporatism and cultural jihadism that characterizes today's so-called conservatives. For DeLay, corruption is SOP and compromise, let alone utilitarian policymaking, has no place in politics. His three rebukes by the House Ethics Committee last year probably represents a record; his caucus has responded by effectively neutering that committee, at least for now, and tried to pass the now-infamous "DeLay Rule" that would have changed Republican practice to allow an indicted party leader to keep his leadership position.

As DeLay's troubles mount and his profile rises, he becomes more and more the caricature Democrats might need to attack if they're to make big gains in next year's elections, a worthy symbolic successor to former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich (whom DeLay himself tried to overthrow in an abortive coup back in 1997). Chris Bowers at MyDD.com suggests that Democrats next year attempt to "nationalize" the congressional midterms by running against DeLay:

DeLay and his litany of ethics problems is the key here. Despite the growing list of charges against DeLay, the stink of corruption has not hurt the Republican caucus or party in general because only around half of the country has even heard of him, much less heard of the charges against him. However, if we can succeed in introducing DeLay to the majority of the country through the frame of corruption, we will instantly be able to nationalize the campaign and turn it into a referendum on reform. If we can raise Tom DeLay's national name recognition to over 90%, then the majority of the country will know his name better than they know the name of their own congressman. If we do so by running ads describing how corrupt he is, then the entire Republican delegation will start to seem corrupt.

So here is what I recommend. Starting around May 1st, 2006 and lasting until the end of September 2006, we should spend somewhere between $100M and $150M nationwide on an ad campaign attacking DeLay's ethics charges. This would be combined with a $10M run against DeLay in his won district, to ensure that there is the highest chance possible DeLay will lose in 2006. This is an obscene amount of money, but it would be required to raise his name ID to around 90%. Also, I believe that if the DCCC, blogs, MoveOn, DFA, DNC and 527's were to all chip in, we could both come up with the money and receive a tremendous amount of free media for our efforts. Then, starting in early September and running until the election, we run a series of ads promoting a number of good government reforms that would ensure that such corruption never takes place again and that would be enacted on the first day of a Democratic Congress. Viola, nearly every district in the country will become a referendum on DeLay.

I like this a lot. Among a handful of shockingly insightful thoughts on politics my mom has offered over the years is that "Americans respond to enemies": whether it's the threat of the USSR or the partisan demonization of a Gingrich or either Clinton, nothing seems to motivate people like fear and loathing. (Just ask Karl Rove.) DeLay is both scary and despicable; the question is whether Democratic activists, who get this already, can effectively communicate their view to a larger public, to an extent that other candidates can run attack ads against Republican incumbents charging that "Representative X voted with DeLay on every measure for the last three years, and voted against censoring him for his ethics violations." A story in today's New York Times notes some early signs that Republicans in Congress aren't relishing the prospect of "explaining DeLay" on the stump next year.

Sweetening the deal is that DeLay came closer to losing in 2004 than in any of his previous campaigns. Richard Morrison, a Texas doctor, won something like 45 percent of the vote and forced DeLay to spend more time campaigning at home than he had since first running for Congress. The infamous Texas redistricting--which DeLay commandeered--had something to do with this, as it shifted more Democrats into DeLay's suburban Houston district. But Morrison's aggressive campaigning and internet fundraising had a big impact as well. (On my credit card statement, as well as on the race.) He's basically just kept going since November, looking for a rematch next year. Morrison's campaign website is worth a look.

Unlike his fellow Texan in the White House, DeLay has no reserve of personal charm to draw upon, and his power is transparently drawn more from fear than affection. His legislative record is almost as out of touch with the mainstream as his evident sense of ethics. And he's a hothead; it's a pretty good bet he won't respond well to coming under sustained attack. I'm not yet convinced that Democrats should quite go to the lengths Bowers suggests--investing a quarter of the election budget on one race is a pretty big bet, and to lose it would be both embarrassing and demoralizing--but I have no doubt he's on the right track.