When George W. Bush first ran for the White House as a “compassionate conservative,” Tom DeLay made it quite clear that he had little interest in such talk. But now the sidelined House majority leader is looking for the president to show him some compassion.

Bush obliged his fellow Texas Republican last week, soon after the news broke of DeLay’s indictment for allegedly participating in a campaign cash money-laundering scheme. The White House quickly voiced its support, using words that pointedly contrasted with the language administration officials used three years ago, when their equivocation undermined Trent Lott’s survival as Senate majority leader after he made his famous racially insensitive remarks.

While the lack of White House support, and Bush’s own forceful criticism, forced Lott to relinquish his leadership post for good, DeLay hopes to maintain Bush’s favor and reclaim the majority leader’s office if he’s acquitted. But any student of the often finely parsed sentences emanating from the White House could take note last week of how Bush’s press secretary slightly changed his description of the president’s relationship with DeLay. Scott McClellan said the congressman continues to be Bush’s “good ally” — not a close colleague or “friend,” words McClellan used in the past.

Even if unintentional, McClellan’s post-indictment description is probably more accurate. The two are allies — but not friends. Indeed, if the president were not so dependent on DeLay’s legislative skills, the White House probably would not come to his aid much at all. And given the overwhelming set of problems that Bush is dealing with these days, he still might not go the distance.

DeLay stands alone as a Republican congressional leader who regularly stood up to the president and got away with it. He is probably as responsible as anyone for the demise of Bush’s compassionate conservative agenda. He began undermining it even before Bush’s 2000 election. During that campaign, Bush took a shot at DeLay and other House conservatives for moving legislation to cut spending in a program for the working poor.

“I don’t think they ought to balance their budget on the backs of the poor,” Bush said of that proposal during a campaign news conference. DeLay’s retort gave no ground. “It’s obvious Mr. Bush needs a little education on how Congress works,” he fired back. “I don’t think he knew what he was talking about.”

After Bush’s election, DeLay irritated the Bush team in a news conference in which he boldly set forth plans for conservative change in starker terms than the president-elect preferred. Eager to promote conservative ideals after eight years of fighting a Democratic White House under Bill Clinton, DeLay flatly rejected the Bush team’s talk of bipartisan cooperation, saying the GOP could finally move ahead “unfettered” on its agenda.

Even after Bush assumed the presidency, DeLay gave no quarter in their relations. When they tangled, it was usually Bush who backed down. But good allies that they are, their differences are almost always kept behind closed doors. Still, a 2003 dispute over child tax credits for low-income families made news when DeLay openly complained that poor families don’t pay enough in taxes to justify the credit that Bush wanted. He refused to advance the White House version, crippling a proposal that the president wanted to tout in his re-election campaign.

Bush is not the first in his family to fuss with DeLay. His father forever provoked the congressman’s anger by making a deal with Democrats and backing down on his “read my lips” 1988 campaign vow not to raise taxes.

DeLay has always been suspicious of the Bush family’s occasional nods to the political center. He pounces at any sign of bipartisan compromise — especially with Democrats in the Senate, where the GOP has less command over the agenda than he enjoyed in the House.

While Bush and DeLay come from the same party and share an ideology, they are different kinds of politicians. Bush is a campaign conservative; DeLay, a governing conservative. The president is more inclined to support conservative causes as a device for winning elections. DeLay is more devoted to actually converting those promises into law.

Their respective roles as master campaigner and master legislator underscore why they need each other. They are like two sides of the same coin. Bush needs DeLay to pass just enough conservative measures to keep the base happy. And DeLay has needed Bush, whether or not he acknowledges it, to put a pleasant enough face on Republican conservatism to avoid frightening centrist voters.

But with a criminal trial looming, DeLay might find that Bush finally has the greater leverage in their relations. One less-than-supportive phrase from the president and DeLay might be done politically. This could be the ultimate test of Bush’s compassionate conservatism.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS. He is the author of “Attack The Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media.”