In preparing for today, I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy.
Last I checked, the "divisive partisan rancor" present in Congress actually does "weaken our democracy" because it shifts the focus on issues from ones of importance to ones of high visibility. Case in point: in the middle of a war, an energy and economic crisis, and a massive loss of faith in the practices of the Federal government, legislators found the issue of whether gays could marry sufficiently important to halt all other matters and consider writing discrimination into the constitution. Aren't those other issues more important? I sure as Hell think so, and I am a gay man who wishes to marry soon.

Well, I cant do that because partisanship, Mr. Speaker, properly understood, is not a symptom of democracys weakness, but of its health and its strength, especially from the perspective of a political conservative.
Talk about a complete lack of understanding for the nature of partisanship. Properly understood, partisanship reflects a growing divisiveness in government over superficial issues such as who proposed what and for what reason, rather than what the proposal actually means and how, if ever, it should be implemented. It also encourages moral legislation rather than rational legislation, or legislation which makes sense outside the context of the personal values of one or more people. Do you still think moral legislation is valid? Consider for a moment that your morals come largely by inheritance, and their popularity comes by simple dissemination rather than their intrinsic value. Now imagine that history had occurred differently and your moral compass places you in the minority. Are you still comfortable with having someone legislate your rights away without being able to give you a good reason for it? I thought not.

Liberalism, after all, whatever you may think of its merits, is a political philosophy and a proud one with a great tradition in this country, with a voracious appetite for growth. In any place or any time on any issue, what does liberalism ever seek, Mr. Speaker? More. More government, more taxation, more control over peoples lives and decisions and wallets.
Really? Last I checked, liberals weren't trying to legislate my rights away by banning marriage between two men. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones voting for the DMCA. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones trying to support telecom companies in surcharging Internet access. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones trying to pass censorship laws. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones passing the USA PATRIOTS Act. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones creating the largest budget deficit since the founding of our country. True, Republicans haven't increased taxation to meet the demands of government spending, but holding to a party platform is no excuse for bad government. Mr DeLay's backhanded compliments and specious assertations do more to make him look like an idiot than twenty-two years in office being suddenly ended by a corruption scandal ever did.

If conservatives dont stand up to liberalism, no one will.
Libertarians will, and so will Greens and quite a few Independents, such as Ross Perot. But presenting liberalism as some amorphous enemy is just as rational as a "War on Terrorism" anyway, so we needn't counter that since liberalism needn't be stood up to, then perhaps conservatives should also not be in office. I wonder if Mr. DeLay actually thought about his statement before using it. If he did, then he is in serious denial about the current problems both liberals and conservatives face in government.