Tom DeLay hasn't even been indicted and yet the House Republicans have changed the rules to protect their corrupt leader from the clutches of the "partisan" attacks of DA Ronnie Earle who's investigating Delay's role in illegal fund raising for Texas legislative candidates. This is the sort of thing American's can expect from the "values" coalition that now runs all three branches of government.

Fortunately, not all Republicans are like minded. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, part of the 1994 Republican Revolution leads a handful of like-minded conservatives who voted against the rule change.

We took a strong stand in 1994 to make clear the Republican conference would live by a higher standard than our Democratic colleagues. This was instrumental in winning a Republican Congress for the first time in 40 years and the driving force behind passing the Congressional Accountability Act in the historic 104th Congress. Today, I spoke out against the amendment and voted against it because I believe it is a step in the wrong direction.

Not that it did any good, but at least he's out there on record standing up for ethics over corruption.

What I want to know is about the possibility of conviction. Several of DeLay's associates have already been indicted so that seems a likely possibility for DeLay as well. However, it's one thing for political leaders to fight through an indictment, but another entirely if they are convicted of a felony. What happens if DeLay is convicted on felony charges? Certainly the Republicans are not arrogant enough to change the rules to allow a convicted felon to remain in the leadership, are they?

Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo is doing yeoman's work in uncovering which Repubs voted for the rule change in their secret meeting.