TDR Interview: Sen. Bob Dole

By Alston Ramsay | Wednesday, February 5, 2003

Senator Bob Dole is one of the most enduring political figures of the Twentieth century. He served in the House of Representatives from 1960-68 and in the Senate from 1968 until 1996, when he ran for President. In 1984 he was elected Senate leader of the Republican Party, a position he maintained for twelve years, longer than any Republican in the history of the party. Since his presidential campaign, Sen. Dole has maintained a high profile with product endorsements, charitable interests, and tireless political campaigning for Republican candidates. Senator Dole is currently special council to the Washington, D.C. law firm, Piper Rudnick.

The Dartmouth Review: With the recent election there's been some debate whether this is an overwhelming victory for Republicans, or if the Democrats simply dropped the ball. What's your take?

Bob Dole: I think it was a pretty good victory for the Republicans, and I think it was particularly a powerful victory for President Bush. I mean, he made the difference. I was hoping we could cap it off in Louisiana with a victory; that would have made it 'big-time,' as Dick Cheney likes to say. But, it was a victory, it was an off-year, we picked up seats in the House, we picked up seats in the Senate, and we knocked off incumbents. We lost some big states, but we still have a plurality of governors, we picked up three or four hundred legislative seats across the country. It goes down into Sheriffs, county officials—a good year.

TDR: Some of the most powerful Democrats—Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Tom Daschle—have recently attacked what they called a 'conservative' press. Is there any validity to that at all?

BD: It's almost ludicrous. Somebody ought to ask them to name the conservative press, I mean start naming them—are there one, two, three, four, five? Who are they? I mean, start naming; who are they? Of course, they always name Rush Limbaugh, as if everyone were always listening to Rush Limbaugh. They're not. I mean, he's got a big audience. Bill O'Reilly—he's all over the lot. I don't watch him, he's too arrogant for me. I like Sean Hannity, but there's not a conservative press. You go back to Elizabeth's race in North Carolina, almost every single paper of any size was on the other side. Where is this conservative press? And of course, the liberal press picks it up and writes about the conservative press. They're doing it now the Trent Lott matter. I'm hopeful we'll have a conservative press one day, but we don't have it now.

TDR: Speaking of Trent Lott, given his recent fiasco, do you think there's anything the Republican Party can do to reach out to minority voters?

BD: Well, we have to keep trying. We can't let the Lott episode stand in the way, because if we don't reach out, we're not going to be a major party. Whether it's Hispanics, Asians, blacks—I think right now we have more success with the Hispanic and Asian voters because the black leadership tends to be all liberal Democrats. Hopefully new black leaders will emerge who see the benefits of two-party participation. Ninety percent of blacks vote for Democrats, and have for years, and the plight of black people in America is not much better than it was when they started this block voting for the Democratic party. So my view is, you just keep on working at it—there are lot of people out there who are receptive. We have an obligation as a party to reach out; we can't be a party of white people or working people or farmers, we've got to be a diverse party. We've got to not only talk about racial equality but demonstrate we believe it.

TDR: Would you attribute the stranglehold on the black vote to the black leaders?

BD: I've been fussing with Kwesi Mfume of the NAACP. I just wrote him a note after the election saying how I saw him on TV one day saying they were bipartisan, and it was more than I could take. So I wrote him a memo saying 'you're an arm of the Democratic party.' And they are. But he writes back, and all this stuff. We're having the exchange; that's how you do it. I'm going to meet with him one of these days and talk to him about it. But I don't know how we break the stranglehold with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Kwesi Mfume—all the so-called 'black leaders' tend to be liberal Democrats. We had one lone black Republican in the House, J.C. Watts, and he's gone. We just have to keep chipping away, and I think we do it by, if you take my wife's case in North Carolina, we met with NAACP leaders. We didn't get their endorsements, but now that she's in the Senate, she's in a position to go back and start a dialogue, and next time around, I think there'll be a substantial difference in results.

TDR: Al Gore has announced he will not run for president in 2004. Who do you think will get the Democrat nomination?

BD: I think it's too early to say. They've got a number of pretty good candidates, and they've got some who live close to Iowa. They've got Gephardt and Daschle who border Iowa, and you've got John Kerry who borders New Hampshire. And these are the first two states. I think Gore understood he'd have a very tough primary, and if he won that, he'd have a very tough race against an incumbent President. I think he decided that he's a young guy, he can sit it our six years. But having said that, I assume that Joe Lieberman has a slight edge, but Dick Gephardt is well known in Democratic circles. I don't know. And there may be somebody there that we haven't even thought of yet, some Governor, another Democrat. But I'd say right now Lieberman has a slight edge over Kerry and Gephardt, but that doesn't mean a thing at this point. Polls don't mean a thing at this point. It's all sort of name recognition— 'I've heard about Lieberman, yeah I'll vote for him; I've heard about Kerry.'

TDR: How do you feel about the way the United Nations has handled Iraq, and do you consider the organization useful, or is it a burden to United States' policies?

BD: Well, I'm not a big booster of Kofi Annan, I think maybe he's doing the best he can with all the different pressures he has, but I don't think the UN has been particularly helpful. I don't want to go to war with Iraq; nobody wants war, but we also have an obligation to protect American interests and American citizens, and if we believe that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to our safety or our interests, the President has an obligation to do something. And we can't wait for the United Nations to figure out what they want to do, because there's France who has oil interests in Iraq, Russia with oil interests there, and they've all got reasons that they don't feel the same way we do. Plus the fact that they didn't lose 3,000 people on September 11th. But I think President Bush did the right thing. He went to Congress, he went to the United Nations, he got a fifteen to zero vote at the Security Council, but, I think that's enough. If he has to move now, I don't think he has to go back to the United Nations.

TDR: Let's talk about your 1996 campaign for a minute. Do you regret retiring from the Senate to focus solely on the campaign?

BD: Not really, I think people are pretty cynical about politicians—always wanting more and more and never giving up anything. Whatever happened, I wanted to make a statement: I want to run for President, period. I've thought about it since, I think it was the right choice. I could have stayed in the Senate and had Trent Lott be the temporary Leader, and had I lost, come back, but I think that once you run for President, if you win, that's great. If you fail, that's too bad. But I didn't think it was appropriate to go back to the Senate.

TDR: From a strategic standpoint, is there anything you would do differently?

BD: Well, as I look back on it, I think were probably some things we could have done. I don't think we reached out enough to Hispanics and black voters, and as you look back, you always look back and find things you could have done. But we were pretty well tarred by the Clinton people. I think they felt I'd get the nomination, so they started beating me up long before the election, long before I even got the nomination. But the economy was good, there wasn't any war going on anywhere, he was an incumbent President, he had this gift of gab and rhetoric. I'm not certain there's anything that we could have done that would have kept Ross Perot out of the race. That would have helped in two or three states, but that wouldn't have been enough of a difference.

TDR: After the election, you did commercials for products like Viagra, Pepsi, and Visa. Many people regretted not seeing this light-hearted, humorous side during the campaign. Was there a conscious decision to reign in this part of your personality?

BD: I don't think so, I think everyone in Washington, in the press corps, knew. We had a lot of friends in the press corps, even though nine out of ten were liberal Democrats. But you get on an airplane with these new people and they don't know you, you don't have the time to get acquainted—it's a very quick campaign, and you are kind of guarded. You don't want a comedian in the White House, but I think we probably could have done some other things. Some people want you to be serious, but they also want to know you can laugh at yourself. Maybe not somebody else, but laugh at yourself, which I've always been able to do, but a lot of people didn't get the message until after the election.

TDR: Did you hesitate with any of your endorsements?

BD: Well, we wouldn't endorse the product. Viagra is never mentioned in the Pfizer ad, it's about health care, seeing your doctor. Pepsi, we didn't endorse the product. We turned some down: a beer commercial, another one was for some finance company where you loan people money, and I said—I can just see them foreclosing on some little old lady somewhere who says 'I bought it because Bob Dole told me it was a bargain.' So it either had to be health-related, or it had to be funny, like the Visa commercial, right after the election, or the Pepsi commercial on the beach, doing the somersault. Those are kind of funny.

TDR: Did you have an opportunity to work with Britney Spears?

BD: No, never met Britney. If I'd gone out a day early, I could have met Britney, but she's sort of faded here lately, I guess, having trouble keeping her numbers up. But nope, never had that chance. Although I've had a lot of young men as I've campaigned across North Carolina ask me if I got her autograph, and I say, 'Nope, never got that close.'

TDR: Let's talk about some of your more recent endeavors. You're the spokesman for Retire on Your Terms. Could you tell us a little about the campaign.

BD: Again, we're not endorsing any product, we're not saying buy XYZ, or go down to this place, but it seemed like a lot of sense to me, that people ought to do this. People ought to save more. And it's difficult in this time, when people are out of work, but this is a message that's not just for the moment—I'm going to continue this through next year. But if people have a pretty good job, and maybe both spouses are working, they ought to have a plan. And it doesn't have to be big big big money: retirement is for everybody, and we say 'retire on your terms.' So again, we're not pushing a product, we're just saying that it's important for you to enjoy your lifestyle. You're going to live longer now that we have better health care, and we want you to be prepared to enjoy life when you retire, that's the basis of it.

TDR: You're the chairman of the National World War II Memorial Campaign. Why do you think it's taken so long for this memorial to become reality?

BD: I don't think there's any particular reason; I think we probably could have done it earlier. My view is that the WWII veterans, they were all busy raising families and working, and a memorial was the last thing in their mind, since they wouldn't see it anyway. So here it is, in sort of the twilight, when two-thirds of the WWII veterans have already passed away, but we've raised over $180 million, and it will be completed in May 2004, and be dedicated on Memorial Day, May 30, 2004. It's going to be a very powerful symbol of peace and strength.

TDR: Tell us a bit about the fund for the victims of September 11th that you co-chair with Bill Clinton.

BD: We wrote letters, we did a public service announcement, I did a lot of photo-ops, people came in to get their photo taken and give us a check. And that, with a lot of help, raised over $100 million, and there's still some money coming in. So hopefully, every child of a victim—whether that victim was an American citizen or from any other country—will have enough to get a college education. It's based on need, so of course, if somebody lost a parent who was a millionaire and doesn't need it as badly as somebody else. But we hope we can serve those who need it the most.

TDR: You recently had a chance to campaign for your wife in North Carolina. What was it like returning to small towns like you did in some of your earlier elections?

BD: Well, I had the easy part, because I wasn't asked about issues. And people generally knew who I was, so it was pretty easy to go into a town and get some free press. One purpose was to go out and see people and let them know I was involved in the campaign. And we didn't do it early so people wouldn't say 'who's running? Bob Dole or Elizabeth Dole?' We waited till it was her campaign. I think I hit seventy-three counties, had a great time, met a lot of nice people, and hopefully made some little difference. You never know with a campaign. Not many folks didn't recognize me. I think only one lady refused to shake hands. We later learned that she didn't like the lady I was with, who was taking me around town. They were competitors, but, most people said 'Oh yeah, you Bob Dole? What you doing down here? Campaigning for Elizabeth?' But they were all very nice; we had a lot of good barbecues. And a lot of Democrats and Independents, of course. Not that many Republicans in North Carolina, only 34%, I think, so you can't win just with the Republican vote. But there's a lot of conservative Democrats there. It's a beautiful state, as you know.

TDR: Have you seen major changes in the way campaigns are run during since you entered Congress in 1960?

BD: Oh, much more negative advertising, I think it's sort of the last candidate standing who gets the office, you go out and destroy everybody who's there, and if you're still there, you win. I don't know how you're going to change it. People say, 'don't run those negative ads,' but they do make a difference. They drive up your unfavorables and push down your favorables. So I think that's the biggest difference—more negative ads, more money spent in campaigns. It's almost gotten to the point where you don't do any work—just have enough money to fire off radio and TV advertisements, sit at home, and wait for the returns. Unlike Erskine Bowles, I think Elizabeth went out there, and went to every county at least once, and really had a grassroots organization, and she was accessible. I don't know whose strategy was the best. I mean, that's a lot of work. Erskine Bowles, I believe his strategy was to write checks. He spent $7 million of his own money and ran the TV ads and make a few appearances. As far as countering that sort of smear campaign, you've got to respond very quickly. And that's almost how it is, almost an instant response. You have this stuff in the can, and they hit me with this, we hit them with this. It's not the way it ought to be, but it's the way it is. And you've got to play the game, you got to deal with reality. You can't say, I'm not going to run any negative ads. When I say negative, I shouldn't use that word. Because sometimes, when somebody has a record and they change their mind, like with trade promotion authority, as he did, that's not a negative ad to point out that he had a different view. It's factual. But a negative ad, that's when it gets more personal, and leaves the impression that you're somehow dishonest, or you didn't tell the truth. Those are marginal, in my view.

TDR: Do you think that campaign finance reform that went into effect is going to have a profound difference?

BD: I don't think so. It's going to give more power to the liberal media. Take it away from the parties and give it to special interest groups. There's going to be just as much money spent in campaigns. People are going to be shocked—I'm not sure how many people really focus on campaigns finance reform. There ought to be some way to reform, but I'm not sure they got it right yet. You do have the First Amendment, and you are entitled to speak and get your message out. And if we cut if back like some would do it, then the only message that gets out is the New York Times or some other media outlet that wants to destroy the Republican party. That's my view of the New York Times—to destroy anyone with a conservative view. So we'll see what happens. I think that the authors of McCain-Feingold were sincere in what they want to do, but candidates are pretty creative. They'll figure out a way to get around it.

TDR: Having served in Congress for over thirty-five years, what do you think your greatest contribution was?

BD: I think probably being in the leadership, we made a contribution. But on specific issues, on Social Security Act of 1983, where we rescued Social Security from bankruptcy. I worked with Sen. Monyihan on that bill. There were others involved, but we were the key players. The Americans with Disabilities Act, about thirteen years ago. A lot of the civil rights legislation, a lot of things happen that aren't partisan. A lot of things you do because they're the right thing to do. And you need a two-party system, you need competition of ideas. Partisanship isn't a bad word—somebody has to carry the flag for the Democratic or Republican party. Sometimes you just have different views on how to achieve the same result.

TDR: Do you plan to run for President of the Senate spouses club?

BD: (laughs) No, I don't think so, I'll let Clinton take that one. Actually, I'm not sure if he'll ever show up. I attended one meeting of the freshman spouses. I was the only man there. There were eight of us, they were all very nice ladies, and we had a nice visit. But it's a good conversation piece.

TDR: If you had to run against Clinton, would you win?

BD: Well, I should have the votes, we have a majority. It's party-line. I might even get Jim Jefford's spouse to vote for me.

TDR: Finally, have you and your wife decided who will get to keep the title 'Senator Dole?'

BD: Yeah, we're getting a lot of Christmas cards that say 'Senators Dole'—they don't even put our first names. And this morning, a lady called Elizabeth 'Her Grace,' as if she were royalty, so I think people are little puzzled. But we just respond to whatever. If you just put 'Bob and Elizabeth,' it'll be all right with us. Titles aren't that important. But I know Elizabeth is very excited, I've told her it's the greatest job in the world. She doesn't know what's ahead of her: it's a lot of work, but it's a great experience, but when it's all said and done she'll say, 'Well, I made a difference in education, or agriculture, or Social Security,' or whatever it may be. She'll have done what she was selected to do.

TDR Interview: Sen. Bob Dole

Article Tools

Related Articles