This has been going around a while, but I haven't seen the most reasonable explanation clearly stated at the various sites talking about it, so I'm going to provide it. After the tsunami, Tom DeLay got up in front of the House of Representatives and read Jesus' parable of the wise man who built his house on the rock and the foolish man who built his house on the sand. When the floods came, the house on the rock stood, and the house on the sand came down. Eugene Volokh thought this sounded too much like blaming the victims, presumably because he thinks DeLay was pointing out the consequences of building near the shore.
Then he updated with a letter from someone giving an alternate interpretation of DeLay's point. DeLay wasn't blaming the victims but encouraging people to live according to Jesus' teachings, because that's what building on the rock symbolizes. Volokh responds that it still looks like blaming the victim, because the people who died, largely, were not followers of Jesus, and thus DeLay is saying that they died as a result of not following Jesus' teachings. I think Volokh is still missing the point.
I think the interpretation offered by this letter-writer is that DeLay's point was very straightforward. The tsunami is a the same sort of image Jesus used. Jesus used it to illustrate a point. According to this interpretation, DeLay wanted to make the same point because this image was fresh in everyone's minds. I don't think it had anything to do with explaining why the victims died. It was an analogy with why people will spiritually die. The only blaming of victims going on here is the same kind of blaming of victims that Jesus does throughout the gospels when he declares that no one will undeservedly go to hell. Some will of course hate that, because they hate the doctrine of hell, which was taught by Jesus more than by anyone else in the entire Bible, and in the most strikingly horrific terms, but I don't think DeLay is going to complain if people accuse him of saying something Jesus said repeatedly.
Now I don't know if this is what DeLay meant, but it's an interpretation that makes perfect sense, so it's a little premature to assume that DeLay was blaming the victims given a perfectly reasonable alternative interpretation.