From The Hotline, this is the best summary I’ve found so far about how DeLay and the establishment are in no way fiscally conservative and how Shadegg could be the real deal.

Leader Shadegg?

Do House Republicans really want Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) to be their Leader?

((Update: Shadegg acquired the endorsement tonight of Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the powerful chairman of the Judiciary Committee.))

We ask because even before he threw his hat in the ring last Friday, the ex-RSC chairman has received largely glowing press coverage. Well, besides that “Jack In The Box” story about how he received some Abramoff-connected money and used the black-hatted lobbyist’s MCI Center skybox for a few events.

But besides that little hiccup, Shadegg’s candidacy has been covered in an overwhelmingly positive light. And not just in the sympathetic conservative media and blogosphere. The Shadegg narrative in nearly all media accounts is: principled conservative and ‘94 Revolutionary who has not yielded to the temptations of the Beltway.

We don’t suggest that this portrayal is inaccurate. In the context of the job he seeks, though, it is incomplete. Shadegg is a principled fiscal conservative — and that has ramifications.

As conservative-sounding as he was, Tom DeLay was no fiscal True Believer. As jarring as that may sound to the conservatives who love(d) him and the Dems who loathe(d) him, it is borne out in the facts. DeLay did not come to town in ‘94, he came in ‘84. And in his second term, he won a seat on the Appropriations Cmte. Yeah, that Appropriations Cmte. The one that doles out the earmarks. The third party in American politics.

By the time he became Whip after the ‘94 elections, DeLay had enjoyed four terms on the spending cmte, getting his fair share for suburban Houston and, after gaining a position on the subcmte overseeing NASA funding, more than his fair share for one of his district’s top employers — the Johnson Space Center. In short, DeLay was no prude when it comes to spending.

Nor was he anything but a pragmatist when, after ascending to the leadership, his members would seek out his help in securing their own earmarks. After all, he had been elected to the Texas legislature in the ’70s and the House in the ’80s; decades when Texas Republicans did not coast to office, but had to challenge a Democratic establishment to win and deliver the goods to stay. He knew what those oversized checks and ribbon cuttings meant politically back home.

Shadegg has lived a more chaste political life. He has also enjoyed easy re-election campaigns in his wealthy suburban Phoenix district. The two may not be unrelated.

Having won a GOP seat in a GOP year, Shadegg has never had to hustle for earmarks. So when he carped about excessive spending on the Republican watch, he did so as one untainted by the fiscal profligacy he denounced. And when he voted against the Republican-authored prescription drug bill in ‘03, he did so knowing that his Sunbelt (read senior citizen-heavy) constituents would still send him back with 80% of the vote — as they did the next year.

Has running in a safe district made Shadegg’s fiscal purity easier? Yes. Are we implying that he would not hold fast to these principles were he in a more competitive district? Not at all.

The point, however, is this: should House Republicans elect Shadegg as their leader they will have somebody who may do more than make noises about curbing earmarks and cutting spending.

Fiscal austerity sounds great on paper in the winter and perhaps never more so than now, after the past few months’ unpleasantness. But when the approps checks are being written this fall, do Republicans really want to endanger their earmarking prerogatives?

Moreover, do they want as their second-ranking leader a committed fiscal conservative who may sound pre-George W. Bush tones about the existence of entities such as, say, the Dept of Education?

How Shadegg fairs in the days and weeks ahead will be a good indication of just how much the Conference wants to change its ways.