The conventional wisdom surrounding the Craig resignation is that, in the end, it's likely to do little to change the make-up of the senate, either in the short term or long term. Indeed, the reason the GOP moved so swiftly to pressure Craig to resign is that Idaho has a Republican governor who will presumably appoint a Republican to the seat, thus keeping it red through the remainder of Craig's term and allowing a putative incumbent to run in 2008. But this conventional wisdom all depends on the actions of two men: Sen. Larry Craig himself and the governor of Idaho, C.L. "Butch" Otter and it's not altogether clear that they intend to do things according to plan.

First, on Fox News Sunday today, Sen. Arlen Specter raised what The Politico calls "the most interesting question of the day about Sen. Larry Craig." From TPM:

"I'd like to see Larry Craig go back to court, seek to withdraw his guilty plea and fight the case," Senator Arlen Specter said on 'Fox News Sunday'. [...]

Specter also said it was not too late for Craig to change the status of his resignation.

"He said he intends to resign. When you have a statement of intent to resign that intent could change," he said.

Presumably, Craig chose his words carefully in his press conference yesterday and so it does beg the question why he didn't say "will resign" or "hereby resign, effective..." Ultimately though, if Craig does choose to seek vindication and reverse his intent to resign (an unlikely scenario to be sure,) it would merely extend his political life just to the end of his current term whereupon he'd retire. This would give Democrat Larry La Rocco his best case scenario (next to running against a compromised Craig, that is,) as surely La Rocco would prefer to go up against a Republican who a. does not have the benefit of incumbency (albeit brief and unelected) and b. who's emerged after a bloody primary fight. And while Craig isn't likely to deliver LaRocco that scenario, it's possible that Governor Otter just may.

There were many reports that called Otter's appointment of Lt. Governor Jim Risch a foregone conclusion, and no wonder. Last year Risch ascended from Lt. Governor to Governor of Idaho when then-Gov. Dirk Kempthorne resigned to become U.S. Secretary of the Interior. But despite being the sitting governor, Risch decided not to run against Otter for the position (Otter had announced his intention as early as 2004 to try to replace Kempthorne) and instead ran to get his old job back -- that of Lt. Governor -- and in fact ended up beating Larry LaRocco to win it. So, there might be the sense that Otter owes Risch. Not to mention that Risch had already been passed over for an appointment to Lt. Governor in 2001 (a position he later was elected to, alas...) So, Otter's apparent indecision in announcing his replacement raises several questions. Does Otter know something we don't vis a vis Craig's "intent to resign?" Is Risch a prohibitively problematic candidate? (He just may be, as Mark Schmitt at TPM Cafe reminds us.) Or does Otter intend to choose someone beyond the conventionally held frontrunners for the job? The New York Times explores the question:

Would Mr. Otter appoint the lieutenant governor, James E. Risch, a pragmatic conservative who deferred to Mr. Otter in the governor's race last year but is not a confidant? How about his friend and former colleague Representative Mike Simpson, perhaps a bit more aligned with Mr. Otter? Maybe it could be a place holder -- like Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, a former Idaho governor and senator -- who would allow someone else to run next year. Mr. Craig's term expires in January 2009.

The Idaho Democratic Party wasted no time in expressing its preference.

John Foster, executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party, urged Mr. Otter to name a place holder. "That would allow the people of Idaho to choose their own representation next year, rather than some Republican operative from Washington, D.C., doing it," Mr. Foster said.

Is this more than wishful thinking in the form of an excellent talking point? Possibly. Otter reportedly has libertarian leanings and is known for being unpredictable.

Though there seems no doubt the choice would be a Republican, many people say that contrary to what occurs in other states, where political succession can be choreographed, it is far from sure that Mr. Otter will keep to whatever game plan state Republican Party leaders may propose.

"Sometimes, my read is that whatever he does, I'll probably be surprised," said Robert L. Geddes, a Republican who is president of the State Senate.

While the two scenarios that would deliver La Rocco his best chances for victory are admittedly somewhat far-fetched, as we learned again last year, reality sometimes gets in the way of conventional wisdom. Not only will whomever Otter appoints likely get a fierce primary challenge in 2008 anyway, as The New York Times reports, while LaRocco won't actually be running against Craig in 2008, Craig will be on the ballot in spirit:

Larry LaRocco, a Democrat who has already declared his intention to run for Mr. Craig's seat next year, said in an interview that "the mood has changed" in the state amid the fallout over Mr. Craig. He also noted that the number of Democrats in Idaho was growing.

But The Washington Post sums up the reality of even La Rocco's worst case scenario, a loss (h/t Sven at My Silver State in the diaries):

"If Republicans are investing significant money in Idaho, that means they are losing at least five seats in 2008," said Nathan L. Gonzales, political editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "If Idaho ends up the fire wall, they are in deep trouble."

Let's make sure having to invest in Idaho is the least of the GOP's worries. Larry LaRocco for Senate.