On second thought. . .

. . .I might have been a little hasty in coming to my conclusions regarding the Tom DeLay situation. I think this has turned out to be a case where the bias in the media has determined the initial packaging of the matter, making no effort to highlight the fact that the change itself was a reasonable one to make.

As I stated on a thread over at Ldot, people are able to understand that there's a difference between caucus rules and "capping the bat handle" in deciding who bats first in a baseball game. It seems a justifiable rule change that doesn't guarantee any particular outcome.

A thirty day review doesn't seem too much to ask. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt for DeLay to take leave of his leadership duties for the thirty-day period, though. Then again, that might send the wrong signal.

This really doesn't appear to be as big a matter as I thought it would be, though. I'm actually kind of surprised that it's gotten as little attention as it has.

Whatever the case, I'm fully prepared to admit I was wrong in my initial take.