The point of Dowd's article is that Delay is becoming a liability to Republicans. It's a legitimate concern for those of us on the right, and Dowd would be foolish not to raise it. There is nothing about Delay's problems that is remotely related to religion, however, yet the title of the editorial is 'The Passion of the Tom'. (Get it? Doesn't make sense? But...but...it's Maureen Dowd, she's smart and funny...you get it now?)
Then there's this incomprehensibe, pathetic cry for attention (look at me! Aren't I cute?):
...there's some skittishness in the party leadership about the Passion of the Tom, the fiery battle of the born-again Texan to show that he's being persecuted on ethics by a vast left-wing conspiracy. Some Republicans are wondering whether they need to pull a Trent Lott on Tom DeLay before he turns into Newt Gingrich, who led his party to the promised land but then had to be discarded when he became the petulant "definer" and "arouser" of civilization. Do they want Mr. DeLay careering around in Queeg style as they go into 2006?Why the born-again reference? Why refer to the hated Mel Gibson movie with such a clunky analogy? Why can't Maureen write a comprehensible sentence? Why...why...why?
The Times has become obsessed with religion...there's an excellent, thought-provoking editorial waiting to be written about Tom Delay and his increasingly troublesome ethical lapses, or the perception thereof...this ain't it. Dowd...Rich...Krugman...throw a dart, you can't miss - no matter what the issue, with the Times, it all comes down to that old-time religion. The last time the Times got this obsessed about something it was Martha Burke and the Masters...serendipitous timing...but I better watch it. That sounds vaguely religious, and I wouldn't want to upset the delicate sensibilities of the Times Editorial Board...