Thanks, Kent

I’ve been involved in North Dakota politics a long time. I’ve said many times politics is the greatest spectator sport ever. My involvement has always been as a coach or cheerleader, not a player. I’ve never sought, or even thought of seeking, public office. I’ve jokingly said that will have to wait until all my college roommates are dead. I’ve been involved in winning campaigns and in losing campaigns. I’ve never fretted much about either, because politics is cyclical, and winners and losers change into each other frequently.

Still, I have fretted some about the November 2, 2010 election, because it was such a sea change from two years earlier, and I’ve been trying to sort it out. Yesterday, I decided it was time to try to put some thoughts on paper (online, actually, since that is my communications vehicle these days). So I pulled a book off my shelf that has been sitting there for a dozen years or more now. It’s called “When Incumbency Fails: The Senate Career of Mark Andrews.” Its author, political scientist Richard Fenno, Jr., wrote books in the late 1980s and early 1990s about the political careers of five U.S. Senators: Andrews, Dan Quayle, Arlen Specter, Pete Domenici and John Glenn. His work on Andrews came as a result of befriending the North Dakota senator and making numerous trips with Andrews to North Dakota between 1980 and 1986—the six years Andrews served as our state’s junior senator.

“When Incumbency Fails” is Andrews’ story, mostly told from Andrews’ perspective. Fenno gives Kent Conrad little credit for defeating Andrews in 1986, laying the Andrews loss generally at the incumbent’s own feet, generally for “losing touch” with the folks back home. Conrad, Fenno says, just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and ran a credible campaign. Based on Fenno’s analysis of the election, he could have called the book “The Accidental Senator: Kent Conrad’s Unlikely Senate Victory in 1986.”

I was something of a coach and cheerleader in that campaign, and I know better. Kent, and his then-campaign manager, Lucy Calautti, ran a brilliant campaign, took advantage of some Andrews missteps, took some big gambles, and won by just a couple thousand votes, stunning everyone in the country except themselves.

I read through the book yesterday looking for some thoughts that might help me understand the 2010 election. Answers to the questions “Why did Byron Dorgan decide not to run?” and “Why did Earl Pomeroy lose?” Into the evening, I pondered those questions, started developing some answers, and then put it aside to watch Prairie Public Television’s hour-long documentary on a couple days in Byron Dorgan’s last months in office (good show, by the way—kudos to Bob Dambach and Dave Thompson). When it was over, I reached for Fenno’s book and a notebook, and started to make some notes so I could write today. I also grabbed my Blackberry, which I had silenced during the show, and saw an e-mail from Sara Garland, Kent Conrad’s chief of staff, with a short note: “Kent would like to speak with you. Best #??? Thanks.”

I hit “reply” and typed in my cell phone number. Two minutes later, at 9:55 p.m. EST, my cell phone rang. It was Kent.

“Jim, I want you to know that tomorrow morning I am going to tell my staff, and put out a statement, that I am not going to seek re-election.”

There followed a brief conversation, about 5 minutes, in which Kent said all the right things, things you are reading and listening to in the media this morning. “Jim, I deeply believe the country is in serious financial trouble. I don’t want to spend my time the next two years campaigning. I want to get this deficit under control. I want to spend my time doing that. I hope that my legacy will be that I helped get this debt under control. I really deeply believe that this country is headed for the financial cliff, and I can’t allow myself to be distracted by raising money around the country.”

I said I respected his decision and hoped to see him in the Obama cabinet sometime in the future.

The Washington Post broke the story on its blog at 8:30 this morning. I, along with thousands of others who have signed up to receive periodic e-mails from Kent over the years, got an e-mail from him at 9:00.

When I was reading the Fenno book yesterday, I flagged a page which included one of the few direct quotes from Kent in the book. According to Fenno, in 1990, when he was preparing to write this book, he asked Conrad how and why he decided to run. Conrad’s reply, according to Fenno:

“You would have to start when I was fourteen years old. I came to Washington when Kennedy was president, and I visited the Senate. When I got home, I said that I wanted to be a senator some day; and I figured out the best time for me to run would be in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Everything I did afterward pointed toward that goal. I decided to start with a statewide office to build up my name recognition and then to run for the Senate. Which is what I did. I know that sounds crazy, that no one could have that kind of confidence. But I always had the confidence. I believe it was my destiny . . . I lost some races. But I always believed I would win, whenever I ran. I think you have to have that kind of confidence, especially when you were like I was (in the Senate race). I had absolutely no money, and no one thought I could win.”

I don’t know if Kent really said exactly that to Fenno. Neither does Kent remember clearly exactly what he said. What I DO know, because I’ve known Kent so well for so many years, is that he almost never does anything without a plan. What I also know is that in the final days of that 1986 campaign, Kent and Lucy both told me that the race was very, very close, and that there was a chance he could win. And he did, pulling off the biggest political upset in North Dakota history.

But this is all about today’s news. I started out re-reading Fennos’ book yesterday so I could comment on yesterday’s news—the 2010 election. Why did Earl Pomeroy lose to Rick Berg? If Fenno were writing a book today about the 2010 Pomeroy-Berg race, he might sense that Earl committed the same sins as Mark Andrews—he didn’t pay enough attention to his supporters and the general public back home. Let me give you an example—something that’s been troubling me for a couple of years.

Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad and Earl Pomeroy are all personal friends of mine. All have been for many, many years. I’ve volunteered on all their campaigns, and I’ve been on the paid staff of their party when they have run for election or re-election. Over all those years, I had never really asked them for anything except good government—until 2009. In the spring of 2009, I went to Washington on a short, two-day trip to lobby the three of them on something that was pretty much inconsequential in the big picture, but important to me at the time. I called each of their offices and talked to their scheduler and got an appointment to meet with each of them briefly over a two-day period. My first appointment was with Kent Conrad, at 1 p.m. the first day I was there. That morning, I got a call from Kent’s scheduler who said Kent might be a few minutes late, but to come into the office anyway and visit with a bunch of my friends who worked there. I did. Kent arrived about 15 minutes late, apologizing by saying that, at the last minute, he had to have lunch with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He said he had a meeting shortly with the budget conferees—they were negotiating the budget for the United States that afternoon—but that he had 20 minutes or so to visit with me. We did. He said he would see what he could do.

My meetings with Byron and Earl were the next day. When I got to Byron’s office, his chief of staff, Elizabeth Gore, ushered me into the conference room and said Byron would be in shortly. She and I visited a few minutes, and then Byron came in, apologizing that he had another meeting going on in his office, but they could wait a few minutes. We talked. He said he would see what he could do. He went back into his other meeting.

As I was leaving to grab some lunch before heading for my meeting with Earl, my cell phone rang. It was Earl’s scheduler, calling to say Earl needed to reschedule our meeting for later in the day. Ended up, the only time he could see me was about 15 minutes before I had to get in a cab to get over to the Baltimore airport. I said I could make that work, because I only needed to talk with Earl for about 15 minutes. I arrived at Earl’s office a little early—just in time to see him walk down the hall toward his conference room with a small group of lobbyists. His receptionist asked me to have a seat. I sat. After a few minutes, Earl’s chief of staff, Bob Siggins, came into the reception area and sat down beside me. He said Earl was going to be tied up, and what did I need? He did not even invite me into his office to visit. Just sat there in the reception area. So I told him what I had intended to tell Earl, and he said that he thought the Senators were better equipped to handle that, and I jumped up and left to grab a cab to the airport.

All the way home, and for the next two years, I remembered that trip, how Kent had squeezed me in between Ben Bernanke and the Budget Conferees, and how Byron had left one group sitting in his office and come to hear me out, and then how Earl had been too busy with other things to see me. To be fair, it might have just been "one of those days" in Earl's office, but it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. And I wondered, all the way up to Election Day 2010, how many other of Earl’s North Dakota friends besides me had gotten a phone call from Earl’s campaign staff last summer or fall seeking help, and had said they were just a little too busy this year to volunteer to knock on doors or make phone calls or stuff envelopes for Earl.

Footnote: I told Kent Monday night that I was pretty disappointed that Earl had just moved his office a few blocks, down to K Street, to become a lobbyist, and that there had been a small story in the papers here about Byron being hired by a Washington law firm as well. And that one of the problems with Washington was this “revolving door” setup where Senators and Congressmen just hang around and get paid way more than they were making in office, to talk the same people, only now on behalf of special interest clients. Kent assured me that Byron wouldn’t be doing much lobbying, if any, and he assured me that HE was not going to be a lobbyist. Period. I believe him. He has, or is making, other plans. I’ve known Kent for almost 40 years. He has never done anything without a plan. I am eager to see what it is.

Since the first day Kent took office in 1987, he has focused on the budget deficit. I know one thing: There is no one better equipped to lead the process of solving our country's budget problems than Kent Conrad. Now, with re-election pushed aside, I think he will be one of the leaders to get this country straightened out. He's still a young man. He could serve many more years. He's put the country's interests ahead of his own. I'm proud of him for making this decision. But I am a little fearful of what all this means for North Dakota. The loss of all this seniority is a sobering thought.

On the other hand, it may be that Kent is saying we're entering an era when seniority--the ability to deliver for your home state--isn't so important any more. Kent is saying the country is in deep financial trouble. And if the system has to change to solve our country's problems, he's going to lead that change by example. Good for him.

Meanwhile, thanks, Kent, from the bottom of my heart, for everything you’ve done for our state and our country. I know you, like Byron, have enjoyed it. And also like Byron, you have decided not to do it any more when the enjoyment is gone. God bless you and Lucy.

It’s almost time for Spring Training. Play Ball!