• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu ROBERT J. DOLE ORAL HISTORY PROJECT Interview with Sen. BOB PACKWOOD July 20, 2007 Interviewer Richard Norton Smith Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics 2350 Petefish Drive Lawrence, KS 66045 Phone: (785) 864-4900 Fax: (785) 864-1414 This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Packwood–07-20–07–p. 2 [Sen. Packwood reviewed this transcript for accuracy of names and dates. Because no changes of substance were made, it is an accurate rendition of the original recording.] Smith: But at his insistence, it’s about more than Senator Dole, and, when we’re done, we hope we’ll have a mosaic that will really amount almost to a history of the modern Senate, and, in a still larger sense, of the political process as it has evolved since Bob Dole came to this town in 1961, for better or worse; and that’s a debatable point. Let me begin by something Senator [John W.] Warner said in yesterday’s [Washington] Post. It was interesting; I think he came to the Senate in ’78. Packwood: Yes. Smith: What year did you Packwood: I was elected in ’68; came in ’69. Smith: Okay. He talked aboutit’s interesting. He talked about, in effect, the good old days as he remembered them, when freshmen were seen but not heard, when you waited until your second year to give your maiden speech, and when you had a handler to sort of guide you through the initiation. Does that ring a bell with you? Packwood: Somewhat true. I think John may have overemphasized it, but there was a maiden speech concept in which other senators came to hear your maiden speech, so you worked on it and worked on it and worked on it, and it probably was a terrible speech, but certainly your fellow senator from your state came. But you’d always have at least seven or eight that would show up, and you were giving it in the afternoon when there’s no business of any kind. You’re not really commenting on the hottest issue of the day that’s going on. But what I do remember, the first day I got there, in the parking lot, I’d parked in the Senate courtyard, and pulling up next to me to park is Gene [Eugene] McCarthy, and he said, “Morning, Senator.” And I thought, “Wow! He called me senator.” This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Packwood–07-20–07–p. 3 And he said, “I’m glad you’re with us. You know, he abandoned me.” It took me just a minute to understand I beat Senator Wayne [L.] Morse, and Morse had promised to support McCarthy in ’68 and had endorsed Bobby [Robert F.] Kennedy. McCarthy had not forgotten that, and he says, “You know, he abandoned me.” And, you know, I’m on the floor, and John [C.] Stennis said, “Senator Packwood, good to have you with us,” and whatnot. Took me about eight months before I realized, when they call you senator, you’d earned it; you got there. But only when they call you by your first name, have you arrived. Smith: How long did that take? Packwood: Oh, it took eight or nine months before the seniorI mean, the younger ones called you by your first—so your contemporaries, but the Russell [B.] Longs, the John Stennises, the Allen [J. ] Ellenders of that era, “He seems to be a nice young man. We’ll see how he does.” Smith: Was it a much more hierarchical place? Packwood: Oh, yes. Hierarchical in the sense, firststill, when I got there, an era when Southerners controlled almost all the committees Smith: And they were still southern Democrats. Packwood: Oh yes. Well, when I say Southerners, John Tower had been elected in about ’61 or ’62, and he was the first Republican from the South in the longest period of time. I think we elected Ed [Edward J.] Gurney from Florida in ’68, but Florida was already trending away from what I’d call a Southern state in the normal sense. But when you looked at the chairman of Appropriations, as I recall, was Allen Ellender, I think, and he died. I can’t remember the sequence, but Jim Eastland was Judiciary, John Stennis was Armed Services, Bill [J. William] Fulbright was Foreign Relations, you can just go right down the list. They were all Southerners, and, as opposed to now, Russell Long was chairman of the Finance Committee. You didn’t have the leadership, the strength that This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Packwood–07-20–07–p. 4 you had. If you were a leader, you didn’t overrule a committee chairman; you didn’t take a bill out of committee; you didn’t cross a committee chairman. And I sense gradually the power is shifting both in the House and the Senate, to the leaders and the leaders’ coterie. You know, a good example, Nancy Pelosi is trying to do an energy bill in an ad hoc committee to go around John [D.] Dingell. That would not have happened; it may not happen this time. [laughs] I’m not sure. But no one would have thought of doing something like that. The minimum wage bill had passed, but basically taken away the finance parts of it and taken away from Max [S.] Baucus because Harry Reid and Max don’t get along. So that has been a change. Smith: And it’s interesting, you mentioned Senator Stennis. Senator Dole has told us that Frank Carlson’s advice to him, almost his only real advice, was, “When you get to Washington, be sure to look up Senator Stennis.” And in effect, one had the sense that you almost should attach yourself to John Stennis; that he’s a kind of model senator. Why do you think that was? Packwood: Well, John Stennis was so revered, liked by everybody, modest. But I’m surprised that that would have been Senator Carlson’s advice to Bob. Bob came in ’68, so that would be fair enough. Richard Russell was still alive, and, of course, he was the patriarch, but he was then sick, and he died seven or eight months after that. But you’re right, coming in ’68, in ’69, I think probably the advice to see Stennis was correct because it was clear Richard Russell wasn’t going to last much longer. Smith: And that was notwithstanding his attitude on racial matters? Packwood: Oh, no. No. Smith: I mean, that didn’t enter into the respect with which he was regarded? Packwood: No. First, race was never John’s big issue. I mean, did he vote with the South? You bet. As opposed to [James O.] Eastland, did he make an issue out of it? No. He was a man who justyou could not help but respect. On critical issues, on Armed This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Packwood–07-20–07–p. 5 Services issues, he was bipartisanly good for seven or eight votes apart from what you get from committee and what you get anyway. He could influence seven or eight votes like Dick [Richard] Lugar can on Foreign Relations. And seven or eight on a close vote is a lot of influence. Smith: And what are the sources of that influence? Packwood: One is you know your subject very well, you don’t spread yourself thin. Sam Nunn was another one. You don’t spread yourself thin; you don’t shoot your mouth off on a lot of other subjects that you don’t know too much about; you’re not a publicity hound, and people will listen to you. Smith: And presumably, part of that is you’re what would in London be called a House of Commons man. I mean, you’re someone who has a real identification with and loyalty to the Senate as an institution. Is that a factor? Packwood: Yes. Very obviously, inyou know, it’s the old show horses and go horses. I think it’s probably not much different, though, in the board of directors of the YMCA or the PTA. The one that’s forever seeking publicity or who comes out of a meeting and immediately goes to the press is not as powerful on the inside as the publicity on the outside would give you the impression. Smith: When you factor inI mean, we’re jumping ahead here, and I’ll go back to Senator Dole, but when you factor in all of the elements over the last thirty or forty years, particularly the media, and the Internet, and the 24/7 news cycle, and cable, and all of this, is it harder for people not to be publicity hounds? I mean, it seems as if there are more folks in Congress today who are playing as much to the cameras as they are interested in legislating. Packwood: They are, and, on occasion it can work in terms of influence on a limited issue at a limited time, but that’s if you’re able, by going to the press, to stir up enough public opinion around the nation on your side that the pressure on the other senators to This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas.

Load more

  61

Copy Link