‘One Could Find Nothing Wrong with the Election in Kentucky from a Republican Point of View’
One of Capitol Hill’s most influential senators, Mitch McConnell evaluates the election and new administration

Senator Mitch McConnell Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky's senior senator, is the only Republican in Kentucky history to be elected to three full terms in the U.S. Senate. After earning a bachelor's degree at the University of Louisville and a law degree at the University of Kentucky, the South Louisville native served as Jefferson County Judge-Executive from 1978-1984. He serves as chairman of both the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Rules Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal election law and the administration of the Senate. He also serves as chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee and is a senior member of the Agriculture and Appropriations Committee. A native of Louisville, McConnell attended the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky's College of Law, where he was elected president of the Student Bar Association. Sen. McConnell is married to Elaine L. Chao, former president of the United Way of America and director of the Peace Corps. He is the father of three daughters: Elly, Claire and Porter.

Ed Lane: With the election of George W. Bush, the Republican party will control the White House and Congress for the first time since 1953. How effectively will Republicans be able to manage this responsibility?

Sen. Mitch McConnell: That remains to be seen. It was a very close election. President Bush’s personality and operating style, which is to reach across the aisle and bring people together, will serve him well because the margins are quite close in both the Senate and the House. There are a number of areas upon which there is already substantial bipartisan agreement; for example, the death tax and marriage penalty repeals. There are a number of Democrats, including Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who are sympathetic to President Bush’s vision for education reforms. And there are Democrats, the most prominent among them being Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), who share Bush’s views about how to reform Medicare. Issues, such as these, that were discussed during the election will be debated in Congress and in all likelihood, progress made on them during the first 100 days of the new administration.

EL: Is there an air of enthusiasm in Washington as Republicans prepare to take control of the executive branch of government?

MM: Enthusiasm, and of course, relief given the agonizing ordeal through which we’ve all been put in the five weeks subsequent to the election. There is a lot of excitement. I, frankly, did not think I’d live to see an entirely Republican government, and it is an exhilarating thought. We’d like to have had bigger margins, but to have the Republicans control at all is quite unique. The last time before 1953 was in the 1920’s. We do feel exhilarated about it and are looking forward to getting down to work.

EL: Do you think the 36-day delay in finally determining that George W. Bush was the president will have a significant impact on the new administration?

MM: Yes, it is a problem. The new administration is going to be significantly behind on filling personnel spots. Roughly one-half of the transition period was lost due to the ongoing litigation in Florida, and they are going to have to work double overtime in order to try to make up for that. Frankly, it will be hard for them to make it up.

EL: What are some of your personal aspirations for the party during the coming year?

MM: The Republican Party’s fate will be determined by the view of the new president and his success on Capitol Hill. I’ve already mentioned the issues on which we need to make progress. There will be substantial bipartisan support for most of President Bush’s initiatives all of which were hashed out and discussed during the election. We’ll see education reform, Medicare reform. I think we’ll see tax cuts and the beginning of rebuilding the military – all of which were four marquee issues in Bush’s campaign.

EL: So you feel there will be pretty broad bipartisan support for all of those?

MM: Yes, on most of them. There will be some Democrats who won’t like “our version” of Medicare reform or education reform, but there are other Democrats who do, and ironically, one of the people who could end up being the most helpful in the education area is Joe Lieberman. And the key in the Medicare area is going to be John Breaux.

EL: Senator Breaux has been mentioned as a potential candidate for a cabinet post. Any comment on this?

MM: I’d be surprised if any Democrat who has a Republican governor in his or her state would resign from the Senate; each senator is critical in retaining or gaining control of the Senate.

EL: With 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, the vote of vice president Dick Cheney will be the tie-breaker. How will a razor-thin margin affect the Senate? Since the rules are set by the Senate members, would you actually vote on rule changes?

MM: Yes, the rules are adopted by the members at the beginning of every Congress. Republicans believe that we will prevail 51 to 50 and retain all the chairmanships and, hopefully, a one-vote margin on each committee. It’s important that somebody be in charge, and you can’t blame the Democrats for wanting to negotiate all of that. If the roles were reversed, they would also feel they should be in charge.

EL: If a Republican Senator should die, resign or become incapacitated and a member from another party is appointed to replace him or her, how would this affect the organization of the Senate? At the time that happened, would there be a vote to reorganize the Senate?

MM: That could cause control of the Senate to change. There can be a vote to reorganize at any time. It strictly depends upon who has the majority.

EL: As manager of the Republican Party’s Senate election campaigns, to what do you attribute the net loss of four Republican Senate seats?

MM: It’s often been said that it’s better to be lucky than good, and the Democrats certainly had some luck in this election cycle. The retirement of Sen. Connie Mack (R-FL), who would have been under no threat of defeat in Florida, and the deaths of Sen. Paul Coverdale (R-GA) and Gov. Mel Carnahan (D-MO) effectively changed the dynamics. Having said that, the Republican goal was to continue to control the Senate for four Congresses in a row for the first time since the 1920s, and we did achieve that goal – maybe narrowly – but we achieved it. It’s important to remember that Republicans have rarely controlled either the House or Senate over the last hundred years.

EL: With regard to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) campaign – now that it’s history, did you feel that she had a winning hand dealt to her in New York?

MM: It was pretty clear over the three weeks prior to the election that she was likely to win. She picked a very liberal state, worked hard and ran a smart campaign. Add all that together and it adds up to victory.

EL: How did the withdrawal of New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) affect the race? Do you feel that he could have beaten Hillary Clinton or were the numbers trending in her favor during her entire campaign?

MM: Rudy Giuliani having to drop out was certainly not helpful. The numbers were about even when he dropped out; and who’s to say who would have been the better candidate. We’ll never know, really.

EL: What is the outlook for the Republican candidates for Senate in 2002? You’re up for re-election?

MM: Yes. Republicans have a lot of exposure. There are 20 Republican and only 14 Democrat seats up. The Democrats may well be considered the favorites to get the Senate back in 2002, but Republicans have a good chance to retain the majority. At this time, Republicans obviously don’t have much of a majority, and we need to increase it.

EL: Would you say a great deal is going to hinge on the success of the Bush administration during the next 24 months?

MM: Yes, the feeling about the Bush administration will certainly be a factor, but it probably won’t be the only factor.

EL: How optimistic are you about President Bush’s ability to break the gridlock in Washington?

MM: Both parties are going to feel that President Bush is entitled to a period of four to six months to try to advance his agenda. I also think that his personality – the same charm that he used on the Democrats in the legislature in Texas – is going to serve him well in Washington.

EL: Are there any controversial issues President Bush should steer away from during the first six months of his administration?

MM: He doesn’t get to control when things come up, particularly in the Senate. Things can come up anytime somebody wants them to come up. President Bush’s strategy will be to try to encourage the Congress to work on the things he talked about during the campaign.

EL: You and Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) are proposing bipartisan legislation to reform the election process. What, specifically, would your bill authorize?

MM: What this proposed legislation would do is take away from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) its election administration division, leaving the FEC with its primary responsibility, which is campaign finance. The legislation would take away overseas ballots from the Defense Department, consolidate those duties into a new Federal Election Administration Commission (FEAC) led by four appointees – two from each party – appointed by the President. Congress would fund FEAC $100 million per year for matching grants for localities, and it would have the sole purpose of becoming the nation’s repository of expertise on how to have elections. Systems, ballot integrity, everything related to putting on an honest and efficient election would reside in that agency. Hopefully, we will see across the country, in the aftermath of this election, greater attention to having election systems that can recount votes effectively, and in the first instance, get votes counted in a more up-to-date way.

EL: Would some of the money in the FEAC bill help underwrite the cost of new voting equipment?

MM: It might in some areas. The FEAC is not going to take over the administration of elections. That’s still going to be largely a state and local responsibility. But after the experience in Florida – nobody wants to replicate that.

EL: How would you rate the performance of the Supreme Court in resolving the presidential election?

MM: It was important to resolve it. If it was going to be resolved in court, it was better for the U.S. Supreme Court, the most respected institution in America, rather than the Florida Supreme Court to resolve it.

EL: You were recently named chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and will be responsible for planning the event. What does this involve?

MM: The planning has been underway for a year and a half. As you can imagine, the committee doesn’t try to reinvent the wheel. Tradition is very important. We’ve had an orderly transfer of power every four years since the beginning of our country, and the goal is not to change much. In fact, the last significant change was made in January 1981 when the ceremony switched from the east to the west front of the Capitol. Beyond that, we try to keep it largely as it has been. That is a good thing given that the election contest went on for so long. We didn’t know who was going to be sworn-in for a while. Fortunately, invitations to the inauguration traditionally had not carried the name of the new president and vice president so we were able to go ahead with the program and invitations to the luncheon. By the way, the Inaugural Committee is responsible for is what happens at the Capitol. Once it leaves the Capitol, the parade, inaugural balls, all of that, are done by either the incoming president, the Republican National Committee, or some combination of those two.

EL: I noticed that the other members of the committee are majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, but you were selected to be the Chairman. Did they actually vote on that?

MM: I’m chairman of the Rules Committee, and for a hundred years the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee has been the chairman of the Inaugural Ceremony Committee. In fact, retired Sen. Wendell Ford (D-KY) did it two times when he was chairman of the Rules Committee in 1988 and 1992.

EL: What is the outlook for the U.S. economy in 2001?

MM: Things seem to be slowing down some. Who’s to say? The economy has been so fascinating for the last few years. Every time you think it’s going to slow down, it gets a new life and goes on. I’m sure we haven’t repealed the business cycle in this country, and sooner or later, there will be a slow down. Whether a downturn is coming sometime soon or not, I don’t know. I’m not an economist, but business activity has been rather sluggish during the last few months.

EL: With all the concentration on the election, foreign affairs have been pushed out of the news. Are there any issues on the international front to which we need to pay attention?

MM: We need to press forward with missile defense. One of the unfortunate threats of the modern era in which we find ourselves is the possibility of missile launches against our country not just by rogue countries, but by gangs. One of the things President Bush emphasized during the campaign was the need to move forward with missile defense and to rebuild the military, which is not at the strength that it ought to be. Both of those issues will be very much on the agenda in the next six months.

EL: Would you like to comment on the 2000 election results in Kentucky?

MM: Astounding. It was a wonderful election for the Republicans. Not only did our three U.S. congressmen, who had tough races, win by landslides, but Republicans also held the state Senate. President Bush carried the state by a whopping margin, including carrying some counties in western Kentucky that maybe John Sherman Cooper carried back there at some point, but that had been rocks of Gibraltar forever. And there was one local issue. I normally never get involved in local issues, but I did take a position and participate in the government merger campaign in Louisville. I was pleased that it worked out. One could find nothing wrong with the election in Kentucky from a Republican point of view.

EL: Were you surprised that the Kentucky state Senate retained a Republican majority?

MM: That was very important. Even with all my national responsibilities, I spent most of the last week campaigning for Republican state Senate candidates in Kentucky. That’s how important I thought it was to retain a two-party legislature in Kentucky.

Ed G. Lane is chief executive of Lane Consultants Inc. and publisher of The Lane Report.
edlane@lanereport.com

Back to One on One Index