Episode 446 BOB DOLE The Life That Brought Him There (Part 27) Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole

Episode 446 — Bob Dole: The Life That Brought Him There (Part 27)

Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole

In Episode 446 of our continuing series on the life and career of Bob Dole, we take a closer look at one of the defining relationships of the 1980s — Dole’s partnership with Ronald Reagan.

Moving beyond policy and legislation, this episode explores the personal and professional dynamic between two very different leaders who nevertheless worked together to shape an era. Dole, the disciplined Senate tactician, and Reagan, the communicator-in-chief, formed a relationship grounded in mutual respect, political necessity, and a shared sense of purpose.

Through firsthand reflections and recollections, we also hear from fellow senators who worked alongside Reagan — offering a portrait of a president who inspired not just loyalty, but genuine affection.

In this episode, they reflect on:

• What it was like to work directly with Ronald Reagan
 • How Reagan built relationships across the Senate
 • The balance between leadership, delegation, and persuasion
 • The personal side of Reagan — including his well-known love of humor and storytelling

The tone is unmistakable: admiration, respect, and, in many cases, fondness.

These are not just political recollections — they are personal memories. Stories of conversations, moments of levity, and the kind of human connection that often goes unseen in the historical record.

At a time when leadership required both vision and relationships, Reagan left a lasting impression on those who served with him.

And through Bob Dole’s experience — and the voices of his colleagues — we see why.

A president remembered not just for policy…
 but for presence, personality…
 and the ability to bring people together.

Questions or comments at  , Randalrgw1@aol.com ,  https://twitter.com/randal_wallace   , and http://www.randalwallace.com/
Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcasts
Thanks for listening!!

Transcript

SPEAKER_11 0:25

What did you sense his relationship was with Dole?

SPEAKER_15 0:27

I think it was pretty good. But I sense it was pretty good with Reagan. But it was hard to have a bad relation with Reagan.

SPEAKER_11 0:51

Of course, there is that school that says it would be hard to have a relationship with Reagan.

SPEAKER_15 1:01

Yes, but I think this is all I don't I think you know people I love this joke. Well, the trouble is you go into the grocery store, you got these food stamps, and you get money back and you buy a fifth of gin, and you know he tells stories like that. Yeah. Or he said, as George Murphy said when he and I were in Hollywood, you know, he'll do things like that. But I think this is deliberate. I don't this this was not a this was not a dumb guy.

SPEAKER_24 1:58

For the indispensable role that he has played in all of this. His leadership in the Senate is strong hand and his responsible voice have made a difference. He's forged a tough working alliance between the Senate and the executive branch. Bob from the heart. I thank you. A tested man, a proven leader for President Bob Dole.

SPEAKER_20 2:21

Welcome everybody to this episode. This is a uh going to be kind of a little bit of an overall look at President Ronald Reagan and Senate uh leader Bob Dole, who was the majority leader and then served as the minority leader uh and the Republican leader for those four years, the final four years of the Reagan uh term. And uh just how kind of give you some insights on how Reagan and his team worked. And of course they worked with Bob Dole, who led his legislative agenda through the Senate. Uh but it was interesting to hear uh some of these insiders talk about uh the way things worked, starting with Alan Simpson, who's gonna tell you about it. Just Reagan's personality, something you probably don't pick up in the public uh realm, because Reagan uh you know had this kind of grandfatherly image. But in private he could be uh a little bit different, though uh most people say what you saw is what she got. But Reagan liked it like funny jokes, sometimes dirty jokes. And uh and and we're gonna learn a little bit about him and and how he worked, and then we're gonna hear some of these senators and Sheila Burke, who was Bob Dole's uh chief of staff, talk about the different way the different staff people worked, some of the issues they faced, and we're gonna hear from Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole themselves during a couple of issues uh where Bob Dole was uh either working with Reagan or honoring Reagan uh when they were together on stage. And we'll even see Strom Thurman make an appearance in this episode of Randall Wallace presents. This is Reagan and Dole.

SPEAKER_10 3:59

Reagan himself. We all loved Reagan. He told good jokes. Jokes that never got out into the public, you know. And Dole would laugh at those, you know. There were some bad ones like the Lone Ranger and Tondo and bad things, the guy selling firewood, oh geez, and uh and Dole would chuckle. And of course, Reagan loved he loved jok jokes, and uh and uh he would occasionally call us over to the White House when she was down visiting her father in Scottsdale and say, just gonna have a little stag here tonight and just tell stories, not gonna talk by the Howl Hefflin and me and bumpers, you know, it didn't matter, just guys who loved stories. Uh but I think he he he he chuckled at Reagan. It was a gentle chuckling like, how does this guy get away with that that stuff? Because he he did, and nobody ever went up in the street and said, Why, the president just told the most offensive joke that I've ever heard. And we all just laughed with a kindly chuckle. Bird and uh never forget bird, he said, Alan, what did that story mean? What did he mean by that? I said, Well, let me run through. And Bird said, I don't I don't tell dirty stories. It was a dirty story, wasn't it? And I said, Yeah, where were we?

SPEAKER_11 5:30

Um but the the the the party was moving again, it's the politicside economics was not the old religion. I mean it was not the ballot budget. I mean he was sent to a dole, I mean, grounded in maybe his childhood, literally, uh bred into him was a conviction that's it's almost a it's almost a religious conviction that you don't spend more than you take in.

SPEAKER_10 6:00

Yeah, but don't forget Bob Dole is a legislator uh on a grand scale. Uh and I always felt that I was a bit like that on a scale because when it came down to section 204D of the bill, I mean they could give that to somebody else. And Dole uh he could pick up a theme of anything. If you sat with him for five minutes or three on a bill, he would know what that bill did. And probably ramifications of it and and good and bad. But you weren't ever going to draw him down into uh, you know, the difference between the word uh substantial versus uh um excessive. Uh and we send Danforth off to negotiate those. Okay, but Dole would say, hey Jack, I got a real deal for you. Jack would say, God, what is it? Well, it's the remember the tuna case up in Alaska where they were abusing the the foreign workers, and it was a big and and Dole Dole knew how to delegate, he knew he knew who he knew every one of us what skills we had, and then he would pull the lever and and send us forward to battle. I said he's my captain, I'm his first lieutenant, I'd been in the army, I'd go over the hill into any kind of flag for this guy. And under any circumstances, if he said, Al, I want you to go do this, I I never hesitated. I'd go, Jesus, I gotta visit with this guy. He's crapped all over you and me, and he doesn't do anything for the last he said, I know Al, but you're gonna you're gonna go give him the business. And I would go off into the into the war. But uh he knew he knew how to get McClure, he knew he he he knew how to get Democrat votes. Uh he he was he was he was this skillful. The president of the United States.

SPEAKER_14 8:13

Is that the three?

SPEAKER_24 8:19

It's been a great pleasure for me today today to meet with Senator Dole and to discuss his support for the treaty signed here during last week's summit. The INF treaty was the end result of a process that took over six years to arrive at the moment of signing. I, in fact, proposed the zero option in the first year of our administration. As a matter of fact, I did so at the National Press Club. Many of the points contained in the agreement were hammered out through tough negotiations on both sides. I welcome the support of the Senate Republican leader and count on his efforts to help ensure Senate ratification. I understand there's a certain degree of apprehension about reaching any agreement with the Soviet Union, but I believe that once the details have been closely examined, the consensus will be that the INF Treaty is a solid step forward, a recognizably positive note uh move for America. The treaty is consistent with the goals set out by the administration from its first days. Building up our defensive strength was designed to convince the Soviet leadership that they couldn't win an arms race. The second half of the formula is reaching agreements to reduce weapons on both sides to an equal and verifiable level. Such reductions are in our interest and the interest of world peace. This treaty accomplishes exactly what we set out to do. First and foremost, it is the first agreement in history to reduce, not simply limit the buildup of nuclear weapons. The Soviets are, in fact, giving up more weapons in order to reach equality at a lower level. This is a breakthrough precedent that can serve as the basis for progress in other areas. Furthermore, this treaty is not based on some notion that the Soviets can now be implicitly trusted. Given their record, I would never have signed a treaty that did not contain the most stringent verification regimen. There's been an impressive exchange of data, and there will be continuing exchanges after the treaty goes into effect. There will also be the right of on-site inspections to confirm what we've been told. During the entire process of destroying the INF missiles, each side has the right to observe in order to ensure compliance with the treaty. We will even be monitoring the facility where their SS-20 missiles were assembled and have the right to visit other INF missile facilities on short notice. It's not a matter of trust. We will watch, inspect, and be present for the destruction of these missiles. And for 13 years, after the treaty enters into force, American personnel will be on site in the Soviet Union to make sure there are no more SS-20s being produced. Succinctly put, this treaty contains verification provisions and other safeguards that should impress even hardened skeptics. However, but I believe some of our opposition is not just a result of a perceived defect in the treaty, but also flows from a concern that our country will continue to deal with the Soviets from a position of realism and candor. This treaty is reason for hope. It is a good first step, but we're not letting our guard down, and we don't want anyone to have expectations that cannot be met or verified. As Jefferson and other presidents before me have stated and restated, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That's never been more true than today. And we'll remain vigilant and realistic in dealing with the Soviet Union. This treaty is consistent with that commitment, a verifiable trust. I'm confident that over these next several weeks, as more senators have the opportunity to review the terms and provisions of this agreement, that they'll come to the conclusion that it deserves ratification. Now I'm going to turn this, no, I'm turning this over to Senator Dole.

SPEAKER_03 12:11

Mr. President, people are very upset about this, sir. They feel that you're helping uh Mr. Dole off the football INL.

SPEAKER_06 12:24

You're gonna leave while I finish the statement.

SPEAKER_24 12:26

Well, we've got the Republicans in the Senate and gone.

SPEAKER_16 12:30

Are you being dragged into the campaign, Mr. President?

unknown 12:32

No.

SPEAKER_06 12:33

What if I might just give my statement and as I told the President a couple of weeks ago when uh we were asked, you know, about the treaty, I said give us some time to look at it and some time to read it and some time to analyze it. And I've done precisely what I told the president uh I would do. I've not only read the treaty, I've had the opportunity to have it analyzed by experts in and out of government and I've spoken directly with our key NATO allies, and I've had a series of meetings with the President and members of the administration to address my concerns. In all of this, I've been concerned not only about the treaty itself, but also about its strategic and political implications. Now that the treaty has been negotiated and signed, the focus will shift to the Senate. The Senate will decide whether this treaty goes into effect or not, and as a Republican the Republican leader, I will lead the fight for its approval in the Senate. I have been the point man in the Senate for the President's national security programs, and over the years we've won big critical fights, and I hope that we can uh win this one too. What we want, what I told the president just a few moments ago, is there's a big bipartisan majority. I think it's also fair to say, and we've discussed this with the president, with uh Colin Powell and others, that there are areas of concern that have been identified, uh special concern to me and my colleagues, whether it's verification or compliance and the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe. And I think by addressing these areas, working with the President, working with the administration, the Senate uh can strengthen the treaty even further while not requiring renegotiation with the Soviets. And I think we've been assured that we can uh work together on these areas, and that's the only intent and the only purpose of it. So I guess I would say, as I said a couple of weeks ago, that as soon as I have been satisfied that we could verify and that there was compliance and there was strong support from the Allies, pretty much what the President said in his next to last paragraph. As soon as other senators go through this process, you're gonna see support building for the treaty. And finally, I think we're all very grateful to the President, talking now about my colleagues in the Congress and both parties uh for his outstanding work and for his efforts that led to uh the signing of this very uh significant agreement uh a little over a week ago. Thank you, Mr. President.

SPEAKER_08 14:56

You get written up at presidential politics, sir. What about national politics?

SPEAKER_24 15:01

No, there's nothing of that kind here. I mean I wish you've always been neutral with regard to the political race. I'll dance with that one to get that in the clear. He's here to lead it for our side in the Senate, and I was here to bring your own.

SPEAKER_17 15:18

Are you were you afraid to stand on the platform with him when he spoke?

SPEAKER_24 15:23

I used to be in, I thought it was the courteous thing to do.

SPEAKER_04 15:26

Well now, Senator, you thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

SPEAKER_08 15:29

Thank you, Mr. President. It's a matter of expedience because you're slipping in the polls in Iowa.

SPEAKER_06 15:37

Well, that's not accurate, but uh, you know, I I don't want to get into with a Bob Dole George Bush thing, but we just have different roles. Mine is an active role, mine is the leader of the Senate. He doesn't even vote on the treaty.

SPEAKER_03 15:51

It's true.

SPEAKER_06 15:51

I mean it's a fact. I mean, it's he does not vote on the treaty.

SPEAKER_03 15:54

You were being hurt on the INF issue. You lost the mayor of Ames, Iowa, you lost three people, three top supporters in Rhode Island today. Weren't you being hurt by your failure to back the president on the left?

SPEAKER_06 16:05

No, I I don't think there's been any change. In fact, we had to plan a question in Iowa last week to bring up the INF treaty. So, you know, I don't want to spend the Bush people putting on it. But my point is this the president's done an outstanding job. It's gonna come to the Senate. I said from the start it's a two-phase operation. The first phase is negotiating, signing the treaty, the second phase is the ratification process, and I'm gonna be a vital part of that. I'm the only Republican candidate who's gonna even vote for the treaty, one way or the other. And uh I'm here to keep my promise to the president. He wanted my support, he has my support, and I'm gonna be very active as I have in the past to try to get the treaty ratified.

SPEAKER_17 16:46

You weren't stamped by the the political scene.

SPEAKER_06 16:50

Oh no, I said ten days ago. I can read the polls. I could have read the polls uh two months ago, but we had to you know we we we as soon as a treaty was available up in S 407 where it's secure, and then it was made public, we started to work on it. I talked yesterday with Margaret Thatcher, with Helmut Cole, with the Prime Minister of Italy. I've spent some time this morning uh with Secretary Schultz and with Admiral Kroll. You know, I think overall I've visited about sixteen different sources that I have some confidence in, obviously including the president a couple of times. And uh if I'm gonna provide the votes, I had to be objective. I had to make my own judgment. And uh it's just I I don't think it's criticism, but I uh the vice president was for it when the president was for it. That's the way it works, that's the way the system works. None.

SPEAKER_12 17:50

Senator Dole, how unequivocal is your support? You came out here and said you supported, but then you seem to want some reservations. This has been the perception that people have been talking about. Do you support the treaty? What are your reservations? What reservations will you support in the Senate?

SPEAKER_06 18:04

I do support the treaty. I told the President I supported the treaty treaty. My job now will be to try to get as many Republican votes as I can, and I want a lot of Republican votes. I don't want all the Democrats or nearly all the Democrats and a handful of Republicans. That doesn't mean that we cannot work with the administration, as I can believe we can to strengthen the treaty in certain areas. We'll be well, whether it's you know, we're a lot of concern about conventional weapons imbalance. And it seems to me that's an area that's a bipartisan concern. It's a concern, obviously, to the president. We discussed this uh with Colin Powell when he met met with us uh the other day. And I think we can work with the administration on that. If there's any question about verification, we can work with that.

SPEAKER_16 18:48

What can be done uh through reservations?

SPEAKER_06 18:51

Well, they're all can. You've got declarations, understanding reservations, and amendments, uh they have different impact. Uh we can make it clear that uh at least a statement uh that uh you know there'd be no other treaty considered unless there's some redress. You know, there are a lot of things you can do.

SPEAKER_16 19:10

Well, you can do anything you want.

SPEAKER_06 19:11

We have we don't have any language. I'm just saying these are areas of concern. Nobody, as far as I know, has any amendments drafted. But you know, we are alert to what's happening up there.

SPEAKER_08 19:20

Are you suggesting this won't be ratified without amendments? What?

SPEAKER_06 19:23

Are you suggesting this won't be ratified without some amendments and someone I don't want to get into uh there are amendments, declarations, understandings, and reservations. Well, I d no but you can have these things without uh they're not killer amendments. In other words, if this no no re renegotiation. It depends precisely on what it is. You can amend the implementing legislation and you avoid all that work with the treaty.

SPEAKER_09 19:53

Well, it's not uh you vote for it right now, the way it is.

SPEAKER_06 20:01

I'm not certain I'd answer that, but I'd you know I've support the treaty. If if the vote were to dead after, I'd vote for it. But it seemed to me we have the right and we have the obligation in the Senate to do something else. That's to go through processes. No, Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent. We've had about 1,500 treaties before the Senate uh in the last couple of hundred years, and some haven't been uh accepted. A lot of them have been modified, but not many of them have been modified of the killer amendment.

SPEAKER_01 20:33

What are your concerns about verification? You the the president says it's it's about as good to a perfect verification system as one is a very important thing.

SPEAKER_06 20:39

It's a very good verification.

SPEAKER_01 20:41

What are you saying?

SPEAKER_06 20:41

No, what I said, I expressed the concerns of some of my colleagues on verification. And that we had ten of my colleagues down to see the president a couple of days ago. One expressed concern about verification. Senator Wallop expressed concern about compliance. I'm the Republican leader. I'm not expressing just my concerns, I'm expressing concerns of the Republicans who I hope in the long run will vote for this uh treaty.

SPEAKER_01 21:05

You have any concerns about verified?

SPEAKER_06 21:06

Do you do well if we're looking at verification, but I don't have any present concerns. No, I don't want to comment on that.

SPEAKER_03 21:20

Uh willing to pledge to us today you won't put commercials on TV showing you with the president here.

SPEAKER_06 21:26

Yeah, I didn't discuss that with the president, but uh no, I don't know. I I don't have any with Gorbachev. Yes.

SPEAKER_23 21:35

Senator, you said I do support the treaty. I told the president I do support the treaty, and then you said you wouldn't answer whether you would vote for it if you're I don't think that's a fair question.

SPEAKER_06 21:45

You know, it's not gonna it's not gonna happen that way. But if there's not if let's say we had the debate and there weren't anything offered, and it's in the present form, yes, I'll vote for it. But I that's not that's speculative. That's not a good question.

SPEAKER_05 21:56

You're turning you turning your endorsement today, uh turning the incense role into more or less of a rubber stamp. You tried to distinguish yourself from George Bush by saying it's your job as a senator to live up to Article 2, Section Two of the Constitution with advice and consent. You're implying that the hearings that are going to be held before the various committees are irr irrelevant, and uh that you're just gonna push ahead and try to uh get the support for this treaty. So any of him.

SPEAKER_06 22:21

You must have been listening when I talked about the concerns about verification. Verification, compliance, and the imbalance of conventional weapons.

SPEAKER_05 22:28

That's what we're undermining the role of the Senate.

SPEAKER_06 22:31

No, no, I see my role uh supporting the role of the Senate. That's precisely the role we have. I see my role uh pretty much as Senator Byrd described it the day before yesterday on the floor when he said that the Republican leader wanted to fulfill his responsibilities on the Constitution. And he doubted there would be a two-thirds support for the treaty without the Republican leader's support. So what I'm doing is precisely what I told the president I would do. I have a different role than the vice president. I'm not here to quarrel about the vice. We just have different roles. I'm the leader. He's the vice president. Yes.

SPEAKER_09 23:10

And what would you personally like to suggest?

SPEAKER_06 23:14

I I think at this point I we don't have any language. I mean, we're looking at uh conventional weapons. I know Sam Nunn is, I know Senator Byrd is, but nobody's running around and say, here's an amendment. You know, we've only had the thing about eight days. Yes.

SPEAKER_02 23:27

Senator, were you trying to say earlier that you do not think your delay an endorsement of the three weeks hurt you politically at all?

SPEAKER_06 23:34

No. I I think when people understand as they will, because suddenly the uh uh all the actions moving to the Capitol will when the treaty is sent up, I don't think it's been sent up yet. Uh hearings will start the nineteenth or the twenty-sixth, depending on when we come back. And I'll be testifying uh before the Foreign Relations Committee. We'll have a lot more information at that time. Uh I assume Senator Byrd may be testifying too. But I think there was so much uh hype uh and a lot of misunderstanding in the media about uh what the role of the Senate was, but I I don't think there's been any change.

SPEAKER_17 24:11

You said you had reservations.

SPEAKER_06 24:14

That's what I said. I wanted to have some chance to look at it, so I've done that.

SPEAKER_02 24:17

You mean you think those people who defective would have anyway?

SPEAKER_06 24:21

Who were they?

SPEAKER_03 24:22

Well, the mayor of Ames.

SPEAKER_06 24:27

She got a she got a job from the governor who's for Bush.

SPEAKER_19 24:29

You know, that's oh, so it's just a payoff and if the treaty is not effective standing in Iowa.

SPEAKER_06 24:37

We don't have any erosion of our league. We think it's a tight race. It's been a tight race from the start. We've always said it was a tight race. You know, this but uh that's another matter.

SPEAKER_13 24:47

Senator presidents you're not losing points, some folks show you dropping.

SPEAKER_06 24:55

There aren't any.

SPEAKER_19 24:58

Do you think that your presence here with President Reagan gives a boost to your campaign? And on the other hand, uh hurts Vice President Bush.

SPEAKER_06 25:13

He was staying neutral. And I think uh I think it's just a matter of fact that I am the Republican leader and I'm gonna be active in this process. And I told the president to give me a little time, let me take a look at it. It took seven years to negotiate it, give me a week to look at it, and I'd let him know.

SPEAKER_09 25:35

Whose idea was it?

SPEAKER_06 25:36

It wasn't mine.

SPEAKER_13 25:41

Senator, the vice president's people say that uh who are they?

SPEAKER_06 25:45

I mean, I don't talk about you gotta identify people. We'll leave it at that for the time being. Okay, we are. Trust me when I tell you that the vice president's verify verified. That the vice president is I don't know that in Russian, but yes, people are saying it's fine.

SPEAKER_13 25:59

If if Bob Dole wants to support this treaty, we welcome him on board. Johnny come lately as he is, vice president's been for this thing for six years, and basically saying that the vice president will continue to benefit by taking the high ground on this thing. How do you think that's going to play politically? Isn't it just a little too late for you to get any political?

SPEAKER_06 26:16

No, no, I think you just maybe I haven't made it clear there is a difference in our roles. I vote on the treaty, and he doesn't. So you're going to be a tie with a two-thirds majority? You figure that one out, yeah.

SPEAKER_14 26:33

Senator, are you saying that you're you saying it was not your DuPont said, so I was ready for that one, yeah.

SPEAKER_06 26:45

No, I don't think I had anything to do.

SPEAKER_17 26:46

Somebody suggested, and I thought it sounded like a pretty good idea to the idea for you to come out in the press room here and make this announcement? Oh, I mean, if it was either yours, yours or theirs. Whose was it?

SPEAKER_08 26:58

Does Senator Baker have to twist your arm to get your agree to come willingly?

SPEAKER_06 27:03

You know, that's like it wasn't. Yeah, who'sn't mine? I mean, I don't know. I mean, I don't this thing just happened. We're just passing through that.

SPEAKER_20 27:13

We're getting a little bit out of our timeline there, as you can probably tell. This was in 1987, and of course, the Bush Dole Republican primary is going on. Um, and Ronald Reagan comes in and uh brings Bob Dole out to the podium to talk about the idea of freedom. He's trying to get it passed, and of course, Bob Dole is going to be his man uh in the Senate to get it done. And of course, this is when Dole was struggling in Iowa and in New Ham and in New Hampshire, and George Bush is saying, Hey, what are you doing, Ronald Reagan? You're you're you're bailing Dole out. Uh and you hear them answer those questions. But it what it does show you is how important Bob Dole is to the process for President Reagan. And Reagan always had, like I said, a kind of an interesting relationship with uh Bob Dole.

SPEAKER_11 28:03

But your sense is he had a very good relationship with Dole.

SPEAKER_07 28:06

Oh, yeah, he had a great relationship with Dole. But I do remember the first time that uh uh uh Dole came to a leadership meeting that before it started, I went down the early, which he invited me to do. He asked about Dole. He did. I don't remember what I said, except it was favorable, but uh he was curious about Dole. And as I recall, he's the only one he asked about.

SPEAKER_11 28:30

Really? That's that's doubly interesting because of course the story in '76 was that one of the reasons Dole wound up being on the ticket was, you know, the the people around Ford at least had been led to believe that he had Reagan's imprimoter.

SPEAKER_07 28:48

Yeah.

SPEAKER_11 28:48

Whether that was in fact true or not.

SPEAKER_07 28:51

But uh I have an old friend in Tennessee who has a philosophical statement that I've come to admire. He called me the other day and said, Howard, we've reached the age where most of the things we remember never happen. It is more often true than not.

SPEAKER_21 29:12

That would be fascinating to know.

SPEAKER_22 29:14

Um the sort of the the most interesting style of Baker Hall was uh Paul Axel. Really? Oh sure. Paul Axel was the most powerful senator uh in 1981. He was Ronald Reagan's confidant, Ronald Reagan's friend. He was uh almost a uh a mentor, and people might uh uh disagree with that. And Paul Axel never, never used that great relationship that he had with Ronald Reagan in any way to diminish uh uh Howard Baker or Bob Dull. Never was the most incredible thing, and I witnessed it and watched it firsthand. Um really having a great I always enjoyed the politics of government as much as uh the governance and he he never looked to project himself. Very, very uh unusual guy. So he had his three a very uh accomplished, powerful men in the Senate at the same time, with uh Baker being solidly as the majority leader, Bob Dole and Mayor Craftsman and technician as as the uh uh chairman of finance, very important, and and uh and then Paul Axel as the chairman of uh I think it was a national committee and certainly of Reagan's committee and uh inextricably linked to to Reagan, uh a close friend and confidant. And the way the three of them worked together helped make uh Ronald Reagan's first term as successful as it was, with Reagan the great uh persona that that that he had, um, and being able to project it, you know. Well Doly needed a little bit of the Reagan uh uh team around him to give him the ability to project that the real the real Bob. That that the American people never got, you know, the American people got to see him running for vice president and beating the hell out of I forgot who, but you know, I mean, you know.

SPEAKER_21 31:56

Yeah. Two quick things. I know you gotta I know you're gonna go, but yeah. Um the um you in many ways personify the transformation of the Republican Party that was going on in the 80s. I mean, you obvious you replace Jake Gabbats, um, you come in with Ronald Reagan. Um, if you look at Dole's career, it it sort of spans yeah, the old Gerald Ford Midwest conservatism to Ronald Reagan to the you know how comfortable was he with this injection of new new people who maybe didn't come from his kind of uh tradition, uh his his notion of conservatism. Certainly the class of 1980 was uh different from the class of nineteen sixty.

SPEAKER_22 32:51

Yeah, it was. Sure it was, but um um he was not a slouch when it came to to moving with the times. He really wasn't and uh I never found him uncomfortable with the class of eighty. Um I think the class of eighty um was unique and that uh maybe we believed ourselves too much and we forgot the axiom that when the big ship comes into port, it pulls all of the crap along with it. Um now maybe we should clean that up and say it pulls in the driftwood and so were it not for that big ship running in eighty, I certainly wouldn't have gotten elected. And um and a lot of them took themselves very seriously and really went around like they were they had done it themselves, you know, and and they didn't need anybody. Well, there may have been one or two, but most of us it was because of the big ship. So I think that in his the fact that he got a chance to watch all these Humpty Dumptys, including myself, come in. Um he must have been laughing to himself, but he never really lauded it over people. Um and I've I I think he was he's a very comfortable man with himself. He is n not uncomfortable. You you'll never find that about him. Of course, I would tease him after he made his Viagra commercials. I told him I liked the Pepsi one a hell of a lot better, you know, where you thought he was gonna advertise Viagra when it came out to the Pepsi. I thought that was terrific.

SPEAKER_11 34:38

I want to get back into the the the the the first Reagan term, um, and which was a in many ways a revolutionary period in this country. I mean, uh almost a U-turn in a lot of ways in policy, uh and the whole relationship of government to the economy and the individual. Um Dole was a good soldier, uh and apparently a very effective soldier, but he but he he couldn't have agreed with everything that he was being asked to uh to implement, did he? I mean balanced budgets are almost spiritual thing. And I assume that's the the result of where he came from and what he lived through.

SPEAKER_07 35:21

We're all bodies of work. That's right. Oh, I'm sure that's true, but uh um the first thing you said that Doe was a good soldier is the most important part of this con part of the conversation because he was. I cannot tell you of a specific where he acted against his own native instincts, but I'm sure there were. I can tell you that uh I never went to when I was leader, I never went to Bob Doe to ask him to do something that I felt that he didn't want to do. And he didn't respond in the affirmative. He had a heavy understanding of the importance of his role as a senator, had a clear understanding of the relationship between the Senate and the president. He did not confuse the two. He knew of the separation of powers and the special responsibilities that each have. It's as if he had studied at length, and perhaps he had, how these relationships had existed in the past, imperfect as they were, and that he was determined to create a new relationship that would best serve the country. And I think he did that in large measure. And I think he served as a model for all of us. I know he served as a model to me, in uh establish in establishing a willingness to talk to the White House, but without feeling that you were in a subordinate role. Dole was never in a subordinate role. Dole was dole, and nobody doubted that.

SPEAKER_11 36:56

Uh but the implication is that by the Dole who's operating in 81, 82, 83 is is is different from the Frenchman senator of 68, 69, 70.

SPEAKER_07 37:11

He was different, absolutely different. But that difference is uh something that happens to all, I think, conscientious members of the Senate. You're different after a month or a year or your first term as you begin to understand the relationships and responsibilities, and when you're no longer overwhelmed by your own importance. I remember Norris Scott doing Senator from New Hampshire. It may have been my first day in the Senate, but I was going into the Senate, I did go into the Senate chamber, and he was there to greet me, as were others. And he said, Howard, can you spell the marble? I said, Senator, I don't think so. I don't believe marble has a spell. He said, Oh yes, it does. And once you spell it, you'll be ruined for life. And I thought about that a lot. I don't think I ever spelled marble, and certainly Bob Dole never spelled marble.

SPEAKER_11 38:14

Conservatives don't like to hear the word grow. He grew in office. That means he moved left. Can you explain uh what what real growth is and why it does tend to terrify the right?

SPEAKER_07 38:31

I cannot. It it varies from time to time. It's that old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But uh I don't think you necessarily grow to the right. Um in my own case, uh forgive me for bringing up my own experience, but in my own case, I think I grew to the left. Uh not by design, uh, but by force of circumstance. You know, the Padamo Canal was a good example in my life career. I I started out uh uh in the mainstream of Republican opposition to the Padamo Canal Treaty. The more I thought about it, the more I was advised on it and studied it, the more I was convinced I was wrong. And that I should support it. And I did. And for those who care to see, I'll show them the scars and bruises about my head and shoulders. But uh I uh there's some who say I there's some in Tennessee who still think I'm a Bolshevik. I they think I grew to Well that's that's what I mean.

SPEAKER_11 39:36

It it that growth is all that's assumed to be kind of a co-op thing by the left.

SPEAKER_07 39:42

That's right.

SPEAKER_11 39:43

And uh Dole was certainly regarded as a Bolshevik by by some you know in the party. And what does that say by where the party's gone in the last 25 years?

SPEAKER_07 39:52

Yeah. Well, uh I don't know. But I think the party is permanent. I think it is not about to collapse. I think its center of gravity will shift and change. I think it's an essential part of our governing mechanism, and I think it's a sen it's it it busted and do her.

SPEAKER_11 40:11

Well, for example, you both came into this position. Dole strikes me, like Gerald Ford, as a kind of Midwest conservative whose conservatism in many ways is grounded in economics. Right. And who had a kind of healthy, to me, healthy, you know, healthy skepticism about what government could do, particularly overnight, to bring about the millennium. Um and at the same time, a kind of healthy, leave me alone, not not a libertarian, but but basically, government should probably stay out of the classroom, out of the boardroom, out of the bedroom. You know, I I don't want to that's not for the public discourse. And yet clearly in your political career, that line has been crossed and and conservatism was redefined. How uncomfortable, if at all, was that was that process of having the social issues increasingly come to define conservatism?

SPEAKER_07 41:13

Well, it's certainly important to me, and I'm sure it was to Bob is to Bob Doe. Uh, but the party has moved, the country has moved, and uh, you know, we owe us responsibility to understand that and to respond to it, not necessarily to agree to it, but to understand it. You bet you how it has moved. My dad was in the house for many years, and he was adamantly opposed to any sort of federal aid education, either directly or by implication. Yeah, it's an article of faith that, you know, if you're in the House or Senate, you better get our share. And it's a big share anymore. So it's changed. But uh change, once again, is one of the hallmarks of a vibrant economy and a vibrant democracy. And it will continue to change. I don't know how it's going to change. It may go forward or backward or sideways, but change is not a bad word, in my view, at least. And it's inevitable, in my view, at least. But uh, you know, and and in terms of parties themselves, I hear, especially young people, say, well, the Republicans are conservative, Democrats are liberal. The truth of the matter is they're neither, in my view. Their center of gravity will vary from time to time, numerically, if nothing else. There'll be more liberals or conservatives or moderates in one party or the other. And those things will change. But the great center still runs America. And I don't think it's a mathematical center. I think, and I think Bob Dole understood this more than most anybody. It's not a mathematical center, but rather it's uh uh a consensus view that certain things are at the center of our political system. And that's what should drive our determination of other more complex issues.

SPEAKER_11 43:11

And where was the White House in all of this? I mean, I assume they were obviously looking over his shoulder, but uh who was uh was Jim Baker his contact there or No, I mean it really kind of depended on the issues.

SPEAKER_18 43:22

Don Regan. Um uh was Regan to work with. Um interesting. Um he was a guy from uh the street, I mean from Wall Street. I mean, uh street smart, but uh uh not terribly skilled politically. Um kind of a tin ear.

SPEAKER_11 43:45

It's often the case, isn't it?

SPEAKER_18 43:46

It is. What do you think that is? I think they're different. Uh you know, they're used to being in charge. They're used to just, you know, ordering and getting it done. Um they're not necessarily used to the patience required to sit down and deal with, you know, somebody who comes in and I don't want to vote at two o'clock on Tuesday, I can't vote till three o'clock on Friday. Um, you know, that kind of minutiae, you know, uh the sort of local politics that translates itself into how you cut a deal is just beyond some of these. Guys. You know, the sort of sweet talking that has to take place of people who were, you know, Regan was very bright and I think used to being in charge, and I don't think terribly tolerant of people who perhaps weren't as gifted. And, you know, Dole could deal with people who really were complaining about voting on Tuesday and uh and people that had much bigger issues. So but but you know, it was a whole cast of characters, you know, Darman, you know, the whole crowd.

SPEAKER_11 45:03

What was his relationship with David Stockman?

SPEAKER_18 45:08

Oh, um uh you know, Stockman was um extraordinarily bright, extraordinarily fast, uh extraordinarily detailed oriented. Um you know, I think he viewed him as a peer, I mean, in a sense of um, you know, a cabinet officer. But I don't it wasn't particularly warm or engaging. I mean, you know, the guy was the staff guy at the end of the day.

SPEAKER_11 45:34

Yeah. Um how bad was Tiffra? I mean, how difficult was was uh was it?

SPEAKER_18 45:44

Oh it was no question it was difficult. I mean there were so many moving parts.

SPEAKER_11 45:48

Um basically it was justified as as the inevitable follow-up to a process that had gotten out of control in terms of giving away goodies the year before.

SPEAKER_18 46:02

Um yes. Um but it i i I mean the complexity because it was not only on the tax side but also on the spending side and sort of all of the sort of Medicare issues and all the other things we were dealing with. I mean, it was an enormously complex package. So I mean, it was probably one of the most remarkable sort of um, you know, you don't really want to watch sausage being made. This was one that you really didn't want to watch being made.

SPEAKER_11 46:29

And there were clearly there were a lot of components in the Republican coalition who were very unhappy.

SPEAKER_18 46:35

Very and presumably unhappy with him. Yes, no question. No question. The bankers. Oh yeah. Oh my god, yeah. I mean, the stories that he would tell about the, you know, asking for the toaster back. Um it, you know, this was um this was a classic, you know, lines out the door markup sort of every possible constituency. Um Is that where the Gucci Gooch find me? Yes, yes. I mean, it was just that it was the classic K Street, then they were all in K Street. Um and it was at the height of um, you know, the role of advocates, the role of lobbyists, and um, you know, wandering the halls and every possible constituency. Um and again, I think it in part it's an extraordinary credit to Dole and his colleagues, but also to the staff, particularly on the tax side, um, of keeping track of all these people and keeping track of sort of all those deals that were getting cut and the sort of nuances. I mean, it's you know, it's the potential for disaster in terms of the details when you're drafting like that, that you know, things get screwed up, you know, somebody's phone number becomes the you know, some tax law. Um so it was an enormously complicated process.

SPEAKER_11 47:48

How did how did he generate how did he deal with lobbyists?

SPEAKER_18 47:52

Kind of dependent. Uh dependent on the day, uh, dependent on his mood, uh dependent on whether it was somebody that he'd known or knew him and was prepared to take, you know, whatever grief he was prepared to hand out. Um you know, if it was somebody he was comfortable with, I mean, you know, they were you know pleasant conversations, but he didn't have a lot of patience for sitting and you know droning on about minutiae. I mean, that was really something he wanted the staff to deal with. Um you know, he certainly understood the concepts. But he was always unfailingly good. Um, folks that came from Kansas, um you know, folks that he had known. Um but again, it would depend on whether in part he had a sense of whether the the argument was a credible one. Um you know, you would hear him talk about some of the veterans' groups, um, and whether he viewed them as really being for veterans or really being more about the advocacy and sort of promoting themselves. And so he had a pretty keen eye for um who was sincere and who wasn't. Um you know, and some of them he had great relationship with Tom Carlogas is a wonderful example of somebody with whom he had a wonderful personal relationship. And you know, it would be kind of a joke. I mean, you know, whoever Tom was kind of coming by to uh to to sort of lobby for. But um, you know, some of them he had good relationship with others, you know, he was, you know, if he felt that they weren't being honest or direct.

SPEAKER_11 49:29

He would be honest and direct.

SPEAKER_18 49:30

Yeah. Sometimes uh, you know, we were sort of the middle, you know, I'm not seeing him. You know, somebody would have set up something and set up an appointment, and uh, you know, it was a big deal and you know without naming me, were there occasions when people went out of his office visibly angry? Yes, no question. Uh I mean he didn't uh he wasn't subtle um at times, and there were people that you know felt that he treated them badly. Um you know, they had a different expectation. Um and he could be abrupt. He could be very abrupt. And um, you know, sometimes that was difficult. I mean, you know, people had you know legitimate credible issues, and um it just you know it was not a good day.

SPEAKER_11 50:14

One sense that he uh developed kind of a head esteem about the bikers and um something in the restaurant industry who either double crossed it. Yes, yes. What was the background of that?

SPEAKER_18 50:28

Well, you know, again, I think probably Bob and Rod because it was on the tax side will have a better sense of it, but uh you know, he kept a pretty straight list in his own mind in terms of people that with whom he had negotiated or we'd negotiated uh an end result, and if they then turned and lobbied against it, uh wanted more, uh went to somebody else, um you know, he knew. He knew he kept track. What could he do about that? Well, you know, when you're chairman of the finance committee or you're the majority leader, um, you know, at the finance committee, you know, maybe you don't take that amendment. You know, maybe you push back on trying to, or you make it difficult. Um uh or you alter, you know, uh what it is that uh was intended. You know, you change the degree of, you know, uh the change that they're seeking.

SPEAKER_11 51:20

And at the same time, you've got the White House was clearly very, I assume, uncomfortable with those deals.

SPEAKER_18 51:31

With all of this. But at the end of the day, I mean, Dole's view is I'm the one that has to get it off the floor. I'm the one that has to get it out of committee. And um But you at least need to know that the White House is. I mean, Will Ball was there at one point, um Pam Turner uh, you know, was there during the Reagan days. Are they good? They were good. They were good. Um and to his credit, um uh one of the things that Dole recognized and was sensitive to was staff. And he treated people well. And so when, you know, whether the White House liaisons were up or whomever it happened to be, um, I mean Larry Harlow was on was in the White House, Congressional Affairs, I mean, there are a host of them between Reagan and Bush and the others. Um Dole would hear them out. Um Dennis Thomas, I mean, you know, a host of those kinds of folks, the Callio. Um and um uh Dole would hear them out. Kenny Duberstein was down there at uh at one point in time. And um more mileage out of being apart. Yes, a few months for a few months. True. Um but Dole was always very decent to them.

SPEAKER_11 53:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_18 53:13

And he was.

SPEAKER_11 53:14

How did the Martin Luther King birthday uh Dole come about?

SPEAKER_18 53:18

Jeez, I don't remember. Yeah. Because he he took the lead, he was former manager. He did, he did, he did, and I don't remember. Yeah, it was Sheila Bear. Did Sheila manage that? I don't know. Well we'll ask we'll ask if we're gonna see her again. I don't remember. Yeah. Don't remember. I don't remember. I mean does civil rights really matter to him? Yes. Um in the broadest definition. Civil rights certainly for any disadvantaged group, um, whether it was people of color, whether it was the disabled, physically disabled. Um you know, I think because he had in his own life challenges, I think um he is uh uniquely sensitive to people being treated unfairly. Um now in the same vein he also um is uniquely sensitive to people being overcompensation. I mean that, you know, people taking advantage of um those circumstances. But at the end of the day, he is somebody who believes everybody ought to be given a fair chance. Uh and they ought to be given positioned to take advantage of those things. Uh and so in that vein, I think civil rights is, you know, I think it really does um mean a great deal to him for, you know, all the right reasons.

SPEAKER_00 54:38

United States and Mrs. Reagan, accompanied by Senator and Mrs. Robert Dole.

SPEAKER_06 54:50

Thank you very much. We thank you for that fine music. We may run a little over 9 30 central time. It's gonna be 9 30 somewhere when we finish, but in any event, uh it's a great honor to be here and a great honor to see many of our former colleagues. But this is a night we honor the president. Mr. President, we're gathered together tonight. One of those moments we're gonna remember forever. We also look back on a great friend. We gather ourselves fortunate to have served with you. As long as they care about their country. And many of us in this room had served in Congress before you came to Washington. And we all sensed the change immediately. We all knew this was a different kind of president. The president knew that there was a difference between leadership and mere office holding. A president who came to power in a dark time, but knew that it was really morning in America. A president who with his charming, courageous, and insightful wife, a wonderful first lady, would give this town a touch of class. We knew immediately that this was not an ordinary man. It was not an easy course you chose, Mr. President. But you forged ahead. And we were fortunate to be on your side. You can script us in your army. You gave the order. We rebuild the defense and get this gun. We're probably scared. We're playing within the rough riders and the Reagan Revolution. It is a special relationship. It has always existed between us and you it is the way we've shared yours ahead. It is the way you be on us to your own destiny. We few, we happy view. We manage the brothers. And soon you will leave, and we will remain behind. We stay on to do the nation's work and also to protect your legacy and extend it to the future. In the days ahead, we will always be ready to beat back those who would destroy the great landmarks we built together. We will always be ready to win one more for the Gipper. And we know too that you're as you go, you take our appreciation. Our admiration above all our prayers.

SPEAKER_24 1:00:25

And thank you all very much. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed dinner tonight. At the White House, we're still eating leftover turkey. But really, tonight means a lot to Nancy and me. To be here with all of you, to think that all we've done. What a team we've been and what a time this has been. My friends, we need have no regrets. We deserve to be proud. Day in and day out, you faced the opposition and fought the tough battles. In fact, when I told Bob Hope I was coming here tonight, he thought I was to do a USO show. And I want to also salute the Senate spouses. Between the considerable work that you do, your campaign efforts, and the terrible work hours those senators keep, I think you, the spouses, have been nothing less than valiant. Now I must say I wish we could have regained control of this body. I think you all know the difference between a Republican Senate and a Democratic Senate. It's the difference between a supermajority and a simple majority. I'd better just let you think about that one. But I believe that it won't be too long before the Republicans win control of the Congress the same way we keep winning the White House. And sooner or later the other party is going to have to take the hint and put themselves out of their misery. But no, it's it's kind of like the story they tell about the great French writer Alexander Dumas. They say that he and another fellow had a terrible dispute that they could only be settled by a duel. The two men were both such good marksmen that they agreed to draw straws and the loser would shoot himself. Well, Dumas drew the short straw. So he took his gun, fell off, closed the door, and then a single shot rang. And the people rushed to look into the room. And there was Dumas standing there holding the gun in his hand. Gentlemen, he said, a remarkable thing has just happened. I missed. Well, to those just elected to the Senate, and I worked with most of you in the past, it was great to see you along the campaign trail. We're so glad you made it, and I know that great things lie in store for you. To those of you who are leaving office, let me say again thank you. Life is a book with many chapters. You have written great things in that book which no one can erase. And your greatest chapters still lie ahead. And to all of you who will continue to serve in this great body, the foundation of our great republic, I know that you will continue to do honor to America and that you will give George Bush the same friendship, support, and solidarity that you gave me. And really, what you've done has been much more than that. Eight years ago, you and I formed a partnership. A partnership dedicated to restoring America to its full greatness. No one of us could have done it alone. And had we been divided, we would have failed. But together, with the leadership, courage, and unity of the Senate Republicans, we have succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. And for what each of you have done, you have my personal gratitude and that of a grateful nation. And I want to say a special thank you to a good friend, Bob Doe, a man who I've come to know so well. He's a man so widely respected and admired that even senators on the other side of the aisle routinely steal his jokes. But his title of leader is not just a job title, it's a description of the man, and no one has served his country with more loyalty and dedication than he has. I've relied on Bob Dole's help and counsel since I took office, and he's never let me down. Let me just say again, Bob, thank you. We're counting on you to help secure for our children the brightest future the world has ever known, to help keep a promise that is as old as this land we love and as big as the sky. It's the American vision of creating a new nation of free people, a country that would be a light unto the nations and a shining city upon a hill. It is that vision that brought each one of us here to Washington. And I know that you each will keep faith with that great American dream that burns within our souls and within the soul of every American. Nancy and I will never forget you and what you have meant to us. You've been good friends, you've served America with honor, you've made me proud of our party, and if you ever find yourself driving down the Pacific Coast Highway, I hope you'll Come on by because up at Rancho del Cielo, where the mountains meet the sky, you have a friend. All I can say and mean with all my heart is thank you all, and God bless you all.

SPEAKER_06 1:07:23

Order of business is to present a gift to the president. We wanted to give you something to remember us when you're back in California on the ranch. So on behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to present you with this industrial strength weed whacker. It's a high-tech. Now he doesn't he doesn't go with the uh that's David Taylor. He stays, but the weed whacker goes. And but let me tell you about this device. It's a high-tech top secret device that can be used to clear out weeds, brush trees, rattlesnakes, desperados, and democrats.

unknown 1:08:13

Mr.

SPEAKER_06 1:08:14

Brad, you may know it by its code name, SDI. Sagebrush Destruction Inducer. And I might say the inscription on the back reads, and we can't see the back, eight grade years, Republican centers salute Ronald Reagan, November twenty-nint, nineteen eighty-eight. And having said that, I would now propose the toast to the President of the United States. Thank you very much. That concludes the evening. Thank you.