Matt's post on the political desirability of Shadegg winning the race for majority leader rather than Blunt is interesting stuff. As he writes, Blunt's ascension is better for the corruption attack, while Shadegg's triumph lead to a more conservative, and thus substantively unpopular, Republican Majority. The question is whether you believe 2006 to have revolutionary potential. If we're staring down a one-time opportunity to make sweeping, even transformative gains by pushing the corruption issue, the last thing you want is Shadegg's media-friendly purity roiling the narrative. If he wins, expect the Sunday shows to mount an immediate campaign for his canonization and the newsweeklies to all tout the "New" Republican Party. Since folks like fresh and shiny, that'll certainly disrupt Democratic efforts to regain seats, even if it'll lead to future, sustained Republican losses when Shadegg decides it's time to cut your grandmother's health care.
On the other hand, if you think corruption will burn out over the next few months and 2006's gains will be modest, hoping for Shadegg's triumph is an investment in the future of an explicitly demonic Republican Party. Say what you will about the righteousness of small government conservatism, but it's wildly unpopular, and every time any attempts it, they get electorally caned (1982, 1998). But hey, public punishment is fun to watch, and as a progressive tired of seeing the Republican ideology dressed in lipstick and a skirt, there's definitely an appeal to what's behind Door #2.
