Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

Sidney Blumenthal thinks President Bush and the GOP erred in letting the religious right move front and center in their party, as:

Bush isn't using the religious right; it is using him.

The culture war has imploded inside the Republican Party. The religious fanatics and political freebooters who have flocked to the Schiavo deathwatch can never lose, no matter how extreme their pronouncements. Schiavo has given the religious right an invaluable lever with which to pressure Bush and the Republicans, who can never fully satisfy its demands if they are to sustain a national majority. The inviolability of marriage, states' rights, limited government, respect for the law -- these conservative principles must be cast aside in the struggle for power.

Much as we'd like to agree with him, 201k can't help wondering why Mr. Blumenthal thinks the GOP would hesitate to choose "power" over "conservative principles". What recent precedent is there for that?

We have only to listen to Mr. Tom DeLay to understand that today's Republican party will happily choose power over anything. Power--and money--are their true god. There is no greater cause or good for them. Not even the rule of law:

DeLay, speaking to reporters at a Houston hotel, declined to specify what action he wants to take.

"This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change," DeLay said. "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Does this sound like someone who intends to put "conservative principles" ahead of power?

If respecting the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision isn't a "conservative principle", what is?

Mob rule?

Sen. Kennedy apparently has studied American history and agrees:

As I said two weeks ago, I believed that the courts are the fairest forum to do what is right in this case. I intend to do all I can to see that any action Congress takes is constructive and free from partisan politics, and does not make a tragic situation worse by exploiting this terrible tragedy.

Mr. DeLay's comments today were irresponsible and reprehensible. I'm not sure what Mr. DeLay meant when he said "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." But at a time when emotions are running high, Mr. DeLay needs to make clear that he is not advocating violence against anyone. People in this case have already had their lives threatened. In just the past few weeks, judges and their families in this country have been brutally murdered. This case has been heartbreaking and tragic enough. It is time for mourning and healing not for more inflammatory rhetoric, and responsible national leaders should understand that and stop this exploitation.

Meanwhile, New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg reminded Mr. DeLay that:

"Threats against specific federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a member of Congress. In my view, the true measure of democracy is how it dispenses justice. Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well."

Somehow we don't agree with Sidney Blumenthal that this would matter much to Tom DeLay--or to much of the current GOP.

What's "our fundamental democracy" compared to the "privileges of office"?