Is it time for Tom DeLay to move on? Should a potentially spurious indictment trigger the end of a political career? The problem isn’t so much whether DeLay is guilty or not, the issue is that the indictment comes on top of a number of other affairs that have put the House majority leader in a negative light. There’s a whiff of corruption around DeLay and it is hard to dissolve it.

It reminds me of Clinton’s second term. Although the campaign to unseat him in the end did not have the substance it should have had, there was ample reason for Clinton to step down because: (a) it was a major distraction for the executive branch of the US government and (b) it imperiled the chances of a Democratic candidate during the 2000 election. Had Clinton stepped down it would have left Al Gore with some time to clean up and establish credentials which in turn would have put him in a far stronger position to defeat George Bush.

The DeLay situation is not exactly comparable. The 2006 election will, even with Tom Delay at the helm, be an uphill struggle for the Democrats. The party is devoid of ideas and has the unenviable task to try and unseat a number of strong incumbents. But that doesn’t mean that the GOP can cruise comfortably to a strong ballot-box showing next year. The conservative camp is increasingly divided and the endless spending bills that have come out in the wake of the hurricanes have made it clear that some fresh leadership may be required otherwise the real electoral dangers will present themselves in 2008. With that in mind it may be best for the good of the party to apply some long-term thinking and that means that Tom DeLay should step aside, permanently.