In today’s NYT David Brooks wrote a column about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. In it he makes the following assertion:
“It’s always important to remember that most of the mythology that surrounds the Hammer is total nonsense. He is not the behind-the-scenes power who controls the House. Speaker Dennis Hastert controls the House and feels free to overrule DeLay.”
IMHO…He’s the power behind the throne.
I had thought the same. Now I’m wondering if it is true.
I put this here because I figured DeLay was controvertial enough to stir the pot. Looks like I was wrong. If this drops to oblivion I’ll just try again over in GQ.
Delay inhabits a space of large but unofficial influence. His job is to make sure his party stays in line and votes the way the Republican leadership (of which he is a part) wants them to. He gets to be the ‘bad guy’ so Hastert and some others can be statesmenlike and such.
That may be true but has Hastert ever overruled DeLay on anything?
In addition to DeLay’s formidable power in the house, he is seen as a leader of conservatives in general. I have never heard of conservatives rallying around Hestert.
DeLay and Hastert have a quid pro quo relationship. Hastert helped DeLay become whip after the 1994 GOP takeover, over Newt Gingrich’s objections. In turn, DeLay helped Hastert become speaker after Gingrich’s fall and Bob Livingston’s resignation. After that, DeLay was largely seen as the more powerful of the two, but that perception has changed in recent times - they now have a “good cop/bad cop” thing going on.
The reason Hastert never has to disagree with DeLay is that they agree on nearly every issue. And even when they don’t, they’re friendly enough to hash out differences behind the scenes. The reason people rally around DeLay is that DeLay loves attention. Hastert is more of a back-room dealing/press the flesh kinda guy.