Was the House Republican Conference wrong to change its rules so that even if DeLay is indicted, he can remain as majority leader? Probably. The rule forbidding members of the leadership to remain in their posts if indicted was passed by the Republican Congress in 1995 to set them apart from the Democrats. To change the rule now does look bad, and the MSM (mainstream media) lost no time in clucking about "arrogance of power" and so forth.
But on the other hand, the prosecutor in the case, Ronnie Earle, an ally of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards (defeated by George W. Bush), does seem a teensy bit partisan. In June 1993, he indicted newly elected Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on charges of official misconduct. Former Sen. Phil Gramm said, "This investigation smelled of raw politics from the beginning." The charges would have carried penalties up to 60 years in prison and $40,000 in fines. But a judge granted a directed verdict of not guilty after the prosecution failed to present a case.
Now Earle has indicted several DeLay associates in Texas and is apparently gunning for DeLay. Even if Earle could not make the charges stick (as he could not in Hutchison's case), under the old House rules he could have knocked DeLay out of the leadership. This understandably sticks in Republican throats, since Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has actually been found guilty violating federal campaign finance laws. She paid a fine of $21,000 and was forced to return $100,000.
So maybe Republicans look guilty for changing their own rule. But it looks like politics were very much in play on the other side, as well. I just wish Mary McGrory were alive to say so.