The Economist is no liberal rag, to say the least. So when American columnist Lexington calls for the ousting of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, it means something (subscription reqd.):

The longer you study the DeLay affair, the more clearly it has passed the point where conservatives have more to lose than gain by rallying around him. If they continue to support Mr DeLay, they risk tarring the entire movement with his ethical problems. If they replace him with a clean new face (say, Roy Blunt, the majority whip), they save themselves months of distraction and begin to rein in their increasingly dangerous affair with K Street, the lobbyists' home in the capital.

[...]

For the American right, K-Street conservatism is the political version of steroids: it confers short-term strength at the expense of long-term health problems. The Republicans took over Congress in 1994 in part because they skilfully used attacks on individual politicians to suggest that the Democrats were soft on corruption. The Republicans are vulnerable to exactly this treatment. From that perspective, getting rid of Mr DeLay is only a first step. But it is a good place to start.

Strong words. I agree completely with Lexington's assessment that the longer DeLay sticks around -- the more the situation festers -- the worse the end outcome will be for the Republicans. Perhaps the Democrats should hope DeLay lasts until the 2006 midterm elections. He might just be the biggest electoral boon for them in 20 years.