The Retiring Sort?
Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, TheMountain Goat Report rips into Dan Popkey for his long-delayed “investigation” and Sunday’s uninsightful piece:
What hard-hitting journalistic revelation has the crack investigative reporter uncovered? Larry Craig may or may not seek re-election in 2008 and your guess is as good as any.
Yep, Popkey’s got a whole column devoted to: “will he or won’t he,” and if he learned anything while on special assignment, he’s not telling.
Of course, it’s possible Popkey didn’t uncover anything and may not want to talk about wasting months or tactics that when published on the blogs have already generated negative reaction that included talk radio.
Popkey’s piece talked to a lot of people including Senator Craig, who to his credit said he really wasn’t interested in commanding $600,000 a year as a lobbyist. Also, I think Popkey’s not quite fair when he suggests that the controversy over Craig’s support for amnesty would have anything to do with a decision (note: Popkey calls Craig gutsy, a label reserved for Republicans when they support liberal ideas,) as Craig’s been in politics long enough to understand that he’ll receive a few attacks here and there. Popkey also pointed out the existence of the Draft Craig movement to encourage Craig to seek re-election. Popkey states that no one knows for sure whether Craig will seek re-election (something that the informed reader already knew before picking up the piece), but Popkey speculates anyway:
I watched Craig at two events last week. To me, he sounds like a man more tempted by a rematch with LaRocco than by idling in the garden. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is he’ll have his Wine Tour guests toasting the prospects of another campaign, not crying in their cups about lost clout for Idaho.
Idling in the garden? Popkey’s guess here seems to be based in part on the premise that retirement is far less fulfilling than the high life of Washington. The life of an ordinary citizen far too mundate Craig. Randy Stapilus concurs that a re-election campaign is more likely than not. In one way, it’s probably best to listen to these long-time observers of Idaho politics, but my gut still says that Craig retires based on the following reason:
- The existence of the Draft Craig campaign made me even more sure that Craig will retire. The effort would seem to be based on Craig’s detectable ambivalence about a fourth term. Given that people who’ve talked to Craig formed the committee that tells you something.
- Lackluster fundraising efforts for the Craig Senate campaign. Sure, Craig can make up for low numbers in a heartbeat, but the amount raised to date is more indicative of ambivalence towards running.
- Comments made at the State Central Commitee Meeting by Governor Risch thanking Craig for his years of service are more indicative of Craig as someone who people see as on his way out than in.
The ambivalence of Craig and the actions of those in the State Political Leadership who know him best indicates to me that he doesn’t have the fire in the belly for another run. If there’s one argument that might convince him to run, it might be the loss of clout for Idaho. Should Senator Craig retire, Idaho would not only feature a Freshman Senator, but one who was unlikely to serve more than 2 terms. Craig’s most likely replacement (Jim Risch) is two years older than him and more than 2 terms for Jim Risch would be unlikely. The lack of someone in their mid-40s who can serve in the Senate 3-4 terms is probably the only factor that could get Craig in.
UPDATE
Julie Fanselow asks:
Dan Popkey wrote yesterday about the fact that Larry Craig still can’t decide whether he wants another term in the U.S. Senate. From my perspective on the LaRocco campaign, the most interesting fact was slow ticket sales for a Craig fundraiser Sept. 22 in Canyon County. Is the reason, as Popkey suggests, uncertainty over Craig’s plans? Or are Idahoans simply tired of Larry Craig, especially given his unwavering support for the quagmire in Iraq, his lack of attention to veterans’ needs, and his unpopular stands on immigration reform?
Immigration is certainly part of the problem, but the rest of it, I doubt. That’s campaign talking points. I know this is Julie’s job, but Craig is winning re-election if he runs.
On an unrelated noted, Julie referred to Karl Rove as “Turd Blossom” ditto MGR. Will Alan be by to tell them that name calling is beneath them?
Comment by MountainGoat
President Bush nicknamed Karl Rove “Turd Blossom” as a term of endearment…look it up. Here’s just one of many links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301463.html
I wouldn’t have used the term otherwise.
Comment by Adam Graham
I doubt you meant it as a “term of endearment.” Besides, my issue is with Alan, not you.
Comment by Alan
As noted by MG, the T D moniker was coined by Pres. Bush, so its use is legit. It’s not name callng when the people you’re aiming your comments at use the very words you use, in fact originated them.
Still, I think “turd” is an ugly word, and I won’t use it re: Karl Rove, or anybody else.
If Nancy Pelosi referred to her Congress as the “Democrat Congress” I couldn’t complain. However, “Democrat Congress” is pretty much a Bill O’Reily/Rush Limbaugh/George Bush cheap shot, so I do object to it. Parroting it shows a lack of original/critical thinking. Squawk the party line, reason be d****d.
Again, I wish you’d rise above that kind of cheesy labeling. It’s fun to zing the opposition, but that doesn’t contribute to reasoned discourse.
So, no, I’m not going to tell Julie that using George Bush’s term for Karl Rove is beneath her. It’s Bush’s nickname for Karl Rove, not Julie’s. Julie using it is not an insult, or if it is, then so is Goerge Bush’s use of it.
Comment by Adam Graham
So what about Julie calling our local College Republicans, “College Repugnicans?” Or myself a Theocon. On neither of those threads did you show up and demand that Julie take back the words before you’d consider her post.
Comment by W. Lane Startin
Still, it is telling that Larry LaRocco – who will turn 61 in a couple weeks – is likely the youngest candidate in next year’s senate race, Craig or no Craig (unless Craig retires and Lawrence Wasden wins the GOP nomination; how serious is Wasden about higher office, anyway?).
If Craig runs again and wins, he’ll be 71 the next time the seat is up in 2016. Jim Risch would be 73, Larry LaRocco 70. We’ll almost certainly be having this retirement discussion again in six years.
Butch Otter will be 65 in 2010. I have no reason to believe he’ll retire then, but at the same time I can’t see him running after that. Governor will probably be an open seat in ’14 (that is, assuming I’m not the incumbent then).
Mike Crapo will be a relatively young 59 when his seat comes up in 2010, but he’s had a couple cancer scares, so even a retirement for him wouldn’t be horribly far-fetched.
In short, we’re quite likely to see significant turnover in the major offices in the next 10 years.
Comment by W. Lane Startin
Oops, my math is off, the seat would be up next in 2014. Larry Craig would be 69, Jim Risch 71 and Larry LaRocco 69. I think the main point still stands though.
Comment by Adam Graham
I’d like Ron Crane (who’d be 59), but be that as it may, I think 2014 will be a watershed year for new leadership in our state, particularly if Craig doesn’t retire this time. Actuallly Otter will be 68 in 2010, 72 in 2014. It’s safe to say, he won’t be a 3-termer.
Comment by Cameron
Adam, I tried having this name-calling conversation with someone over at Julie’s a while back, but it didn’t seem to take (http://redstaterebels.typepad.com/red_state_rebels/2007/03/what_does_al_go.html#comments).
Civility is a nice slogan, but is rarely true in practice. I think that’s tragic.
Comment by Alan
Okay, I agree that Julie calling college republicans “repugnicans” varies from reasoned discourse.
Calling you a theocon is not an insult, IMHO. It’s descriptive. After all, do you disagree with it? Clearly you want a government inspired by your Christian ideals and values. And if you admit that, please consider the theocracy in Iran.
And yeah, I guess I could pop up and take Julie to task for writing “repugnicans.” I’ll hunch my shoulders and take that hit for inconsistency. I’ll consider calling her, and others, on such language. You’re zinging Larry Craig and Mike Simpson, so I guess I can consider similar heresy.
If you start pointing out Cramer’s extremism, I’ll reciprocate.
Comment by Adam Graham
I do disagree with Theocon and take offense at it. Theocon suggests at it’s root, the establishment of a Theocracy, which is not only impossible, but I oppose. It’s a label for folks that doesn’t really match their beliefs or caricatures them. I explained why Theocracy can’t happen in our country.
But I do appreciate you agreeing to call Julie and other bloggers on your side
Comment by W. Lane Startin
Oop. You’re right RE Otter. He’s 65 now.