Does the Right Know Jack?

"Finally, today before noon, fire Bob Ney as chairman of the House Administration Committee. For God's sake, Republicans, show a little moral revulsion.

"Back in the dim recesses of my mind, I remember a party that thought of itself as a reform, or even a revolutionary movement. That party used to be known as the Republican Party. I wonder if it still exists."

National Review takes on Abramoff's closest political pal:

"Since 1994 Tom DeLay has led the Republican House majority ably and loyally. Now he needs to perform yet another act of service by not seeking to return as majority leader.

"We have been among DeLay's staunchest defenders in his battle with Ronnie Earle. The Texas prosecutor has brought a flimsy, political case against DeLay. DeLay appears to have done nothing more sinful than end a Democratic gerrymander of his Republican state. Letting Earle end DeLay's career in the House leadership would have rewarded a Democratic political power play.

"The equities in the Abramoff case are different. First, assuming that DeLay is cleared in Texas, it would be a substantial political risk for Republicans to bring DeLay back to the leadership while the Abramoff cloud is hanging over him, as it appears it will for some time to come. Why would they want to carry on under a formerly former majority leader, only to face the possibility of having to remove him from leadership yet again should he be further implicated in the Abramoff mess?

"The Abramoff case is not the figment of a fevered partisan prosecutor's imagination. People have pled guilty to crimes -- not just Abramoff, but former DeLay aide and fellow Abramoff rip-off-artist Michael Scanlon. The allegations touch on other former DeLay staffers, Ed Buckham and Tony Rudy. It might be that DeLay was unaware of all the greedy, and perhaps criminal, practices swirling around him, but his colleagues can be forgiven for wanting to take a 'wait and see' attitude."

That's right -- the plea deal removes any argument that this is a trumped-up case.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has a long history -- when it comes to Democrats, at least -- of asking, "Who Is Bill Clinton?", "Who Is Webb Hubbell?", "Who Is Vince Foster?" and so on. But on Abramoff, observes Slate's Jack Shafer x, not so much:

"You'd think, as the Jack Abramoff scandal burned its way through the Republican establishment faster than the space monster's blood dissolved the Nostromo's bulkheads in Alien, that the Journal editorialists would be exercising their own fangs.

"All the traditional themes that populate an outraged Journal editorial can be counted. An out-of-control majority party; dishonest lobbyists; a president who looks the other way; kickbacks and bribes; 'shells' laundering political money; influence peddling; corrupt members of Congress; self-dealing; campaign flimflammery; questionable junkets; colorful scoundrels; principals in the scam copping pleas (Abramoff and Michael Scanlon); well-known politicians and political operators being implicated; and tendrils reaching into the White House.

"Alas, no scathing 'Who Is Jack Abramoff?' editorial has appeared on the Journal page. In fact, none of the four editorials retrieved in a Factiva search keyed to the words 'Abramoff' and 'editorial' indulge in the page's old shoot-the-wounded style. They examine the issue with tweezers. They are considered . They are thoughtful . They tut-tut . They assure readers that it's not a Republican scandal, but the inevitable product of Washington power. 'Alleged crimes aside, even their legal influence peddling shows how Washington power can corrupt absolutely,' said the page about Scanlon and Abramoff on Nov. 25."