The Republican reaction to Sen. Larry Craig’s (R-Idaho) possible change of heart is predictable — if I were in the GOP leadership’s shoes, I wouldn’t be pleased either — but I think the party is confused about the motivating factors here.
Top Republican strategists were neither delighted nor amused by the senator’s decision to rethink retirement after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct following his arrest in a Minnesota airport men’s bathroom.
GOP Senate sources said Tuesday night that Craig’s staff was trying to tamp down the story because Craig still intends to resign but wants to retain the option of fighting the charges with a newly assembled, high-powered legal team.
On Saturday, Craig said he would resign at the end of this month.
A senior GOP Senate strategist said Republican leaders want him gone now and will press for him to keep his promise to resign. The strategist warned Craig is “losing any goodwill built up among his colleagues.”
“Goodwill“? Craig should disappear in order to maintain the warm feelings between himself and his Republican colleagues? I seem to recall a time — I think it was last week — in which the GOP labeled Craig a “disgrace,” said his conduct was “unforgivable,” stripped him of his committee assignments, and demanded that he resign.
But now Craig ought to be careful, because if he considers fighting for his political life, then he might lose the “goodwill” of his colleagues.
From what I hear, Republicans are beside themselves this morning. “It simply defies reality,” said a Senate GOP aide. “You can’t make this up even if you are heavily medicated. The American people heard from Larry Craig that he would resign, and using the word ‘intent’ as a back door doesn’t work with them.”
I think what we’re hearing is an inconvenient realization — Craig wants to fight, and there’s nothing the Republicans can do about it.
That’s really the bottom line here. The matter is out of their hands, and it’s driving them batty. The Senate isn’t in a position to expel a member over a dubious misdemeanor charge, there is no recall mechanism to undo an election, and there are limited punishments available from the Senate Ethics Committee.
To be sure, the Senate GOP leadership can make Craig’s service unpleasant. He’ll have trouble getting earmarks, he won’t be welcome at the Cool Kids’ table in the dining hall, and Republicans won’t return his phone calls. Should Craig stick around and (gasp!) run for re-election, you can pretty much count on the national party withholding any and all resources.
But they can’t literally force Craig to resign. He was elected, and he “intended” to resign, but if he wants to stay, he can stay.
Publius had a fine post describing the limits of a national party’s leverage over individual members.
It’s clear that Craig’s de-resignation would be very bad news for the national party. The question I’m struggling with is why Craig should give a damn. Watching decades-long friends turn on you in a day has a way of clarifying things. (See also Joe Lieberman). The national leadership acted fast to strip him of power and push him out. But . . . there’s one power they can’t strip – they can’t force him out of the Senate. Only the people of Idaho can do that. And only in 2008. If he resigns now, it would basically be for the good of the GOP. But again, if they’ve written him off and turned on him and denounced him, why should he care?
He shouldn’t. The Republicans’ message to Craig is effectively, “Do us a favor; fall on your sword.”
For some reason, Craig doesn’t seem inclined to do his colleagues any favors right now. I can’t imagine why not.