For those of you interested in the ongoing competition for House leader, Rich Lowry notes this interesing observation from FOXNews’ Major Garrett (who, incidentally, was one of the few FOX Reporters whose work on covering Katrina was rigorous and, in the traditional sense, “journalistic”):

It didn’t start this way, but the race to replace DeLay has become a barometer of Republican confidence in an election year. Those who believe the GOP’s in big trouble are with Shadegg. Those who believe the party’s problems are manageable are with Blunt. Those who believe the problems and the troubles are somewhere in between are with Boehner.

Not sure this is true—I think at least some of the Shadegg appeal is a libertarian-driven / outsider bandwagon effect, which speaks to a desire for change to the status quo rather than to a latent or even pointed unease about the GOP’s 2006 election fortunes.  But for what it’s worth, Rick Brookhiser seems to be on the same page as Garrett:

Washington smarties will tell you that only 15 House seats are ever truly in play every two years, thanks to gerrymandering. This is the world, comfortable and eternal, that all politicians want (even politicians in the minority, though they would like to be in the majority, prefer stasis to uncertainty). But an old friend, who is smarter than all the smarties, told me not to believe in the Nirvana of gerrymandering. “When the American people want to move, they will just go,” my old friend said.

John Shadegg (R.-Ariz.) agreed with Old Friend when he entered the contest for House Majority Leader. When Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) stepped down, pending investigation into his staff’s connections with crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the instant front-runner to replace him was House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R.-Mo.), with John Boehner (R.-Ohio) running second. Mr. Shadegg thought, however, that both men were too much a part of the Republican old guard to represent a clean break. They were a new dab of styling gel, when what the G.O.P. needed was a makeover—or, better, decapitations and fresh heads. But Mr. Blunt continues to lead, as he has from the beginning, which suggests that House Republicans think the conventional wisdom on gerrymandering is correct. For their sakes, they better be right.

Of course, for many in the blogosphere, this campaign has move beyond the pragmatics of political alignments and party considerations and manifested itself, slowly but surely, as a burst of idealism—with the reformer Shadegg taking on almost a Ross Perot vibe among some pork buster / anti-expansive government zealots.

So depending on the power of the bandwagon—and the power of the underdog appeal—Shadegg’s support may continue to grow rapidly, much to the chagrin of the comfortable network of GOP party players.

I’m not certain what, if anything, this says about the GOP “big tent,” other than that many of the libertarians whose party allegiances were thrown into to conflict after 911 haven’t drifted inexorably back to the comfortable demi-elitist philosophy of inveterate anti-establishmentism represented by some of my friends at Reason.

But who knows.  Discuss among yourselves.  I just found a jar of herring in the fridge that’s nearing its sell-by date, which means I have some work to do…