Texas Monthly Talks

James Baker

Interview by Evan Smith

October 2006

(Page 2 of 2)

You mentioned that you get asked about 41 and 43 all the time. Did you read the Vanity Fair story about their relationship?
I knew that [the magazine was] doing one. They called me, but I didn’t talk to them. I ought to get it, shouldn’t I?

It’s worth reading because it addresses the question of the tension, real or imagined, between the people around 41 and 43. Insight, the conservative newsmagazine, had previously reported that a rift had developed between the 41 camp and the 43 camp. There was a comment attributed to [41’s national security adviser] Brent Scowcroft that he no longer knew this Dick Cheney.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. He said that.

Do you put stock in any of this, or are the media just bored?
I don’t put a lot of stock in that. I think the differences on policy are actually quite healthy. We had plenty of that in the Reagan administration and Bush I.

Does it surprise you that the press and others want to look at 41’s administration and 43’s administration and find similarities and differences? It’s natural, isn’t it, to compare the two?
I’ve always found that the press is sometimes a lot more interested in differences and divisiveness than in comity and agreement. One sells and the other doesn’t.

You think there are similarities?
Sure I do. And make no mistake about it: The two men are extraordinarily close. There’s a lot of love.

How close were you with 43 before he became 43?
When the Bushes moved back from Midland and we became friends, we used to play a Thanksgiving football game. But I was not particularly close to 43.

Do you remember the time he worked on his dad’s behalf, in the ’88 campaign and in the White House?
I remember him at the campaign. He was sort of a right-hand guy for [41’s political strategist] Lee Atwater. He did not attend my morning staff meeting. I don’t remember him at the White House. Of course, I was over at the State Department. I wouldn’t have seen him if he was at the White House.

Do you remember looking at him at any point and thinking, “This guy could be president”?
No, I don’t remember. We all thought it was going to be Jeb.

I imagine you didn’t have much contact with him while he was governor, because you’ve pretty much stayed out of Texas politics.
I’ve really done zero. I was so involved on the national scene, and I never had much interest in state politics. The Republican Party of Texas had asked me to be a state finance chair at a time when there weren’t any Republicans and at a time when [John] Tower and [Richard] Nixon were running for reelection. Boy, raising money then was difficult.

You ran unsuccessfully for attorney general of Texas in 1978, but your profile is much higher today. Do you consider running for something else statewide?
I don’t get asked. I really don’t. I think people know that if I were going to do anything, I probably would have done it at the federal level. I did, in fact, consider running for president, because I had the numbers; I had name ID way up in the high 80’s and good job approval/disapproval [ratings]. And did I know the job? You bet I knew the job. I’d worked at the right hand of three presidents. But I was flat worn out. I’d been there thirteen years. I’d done those campaigns and stints at Treasury, the White House, and State. I didn’t have the fire in the belly.

Was there ever any move on 43’s part to involve you in his administration in a more formal way?
We don’t talk about those things.

Well, let’s talk about what happened in 2000, since that’s a little more public. I loved the Florida chapter in your book, because it was the first time I could remember getting your point of view on what happened there. I was interested in one quote in particular: “George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had more votes. They had more votes on Election Day, more votes when the dispute ended thirty-six days later, and more votes every day in between.” You know, of course, that there are people out there who believe that that’s not true. You are absolutely certain, without a shadow of a doubt, that there were more votes in Florida for Bush-Cheney than Gore-Lieberman?
Without a shadow of a doubt, and it’s confirmed by all of the post-Florida media surveys. All of the subsequent recounts done by the media proved it. And these were not partisan organizations; in fact, if they were partisan, they were partisan the other way. They counted all of those hanging chads and used various formulas, and under all of them, Bush-Cheney won. I’m sure there are some who see it the other way, but the point is, we were not contesting the election. We were preserving the results that had been announced by the election authorities in Florida.

So there can be no doubt.
There can be no doubt. People have come to me saying, “What’s wrong with your country? You can’t even run an election.” And I say, “Look, if this were happening in your country, you’d probably have tanks in the streets.” The message of Florida, the lesson of Florida, is that our system works. The rule of law prevails.

Anything about the conduct of your side during the now famous 36-day period of uncertainty that you regret?
I wish we’d been better prepared. The other side was much better prepared than we were. Yes, there were protests. Yes, it was not just a legal exercise; it was a political exercise. But I think both sides conducted themselves with dignity and credibility.

A moment ago you alluded to the media’s partisanship. Do you really believe that old chestnut?
If you go back and look at the post-election seminars following, let’s say, the past ten elections or so, you will see that most of the media self-identify with the other party. That’s just a fact.

You’ve enjoyed better relations with that so-called partisan press than anyone in government outside, and in some cases inside, the Oval Office. How did you do it?
The reason I’ve been successful goes back to a rule I’ve followed throughout my public service and political career. If I can’t say something, I’ll say I can’t say it, but I don’t lie. I got good marks from the press for that reason. I also understand that with the press, less is more. The Gore people made a big mistake in Florida, in my opinion, by going out with too many different, disparate voices. Every time a camera was stuck in the face of one of their lawyers, there was an interview. And the message was garbled.

Let’s talk about Houston. How much time do you spend there?
I spend most of my time in Houston. We moved there for good in 1995, after [Baker’s daughter] Mary Bonner graduated from National Cathedral School. I go up to Washington periodically, but not a lot. My office is in Houston, at Baker Botts, and my home is in Houston.

How much legal work are you doing now?
A fair amount. I’m still an active senior partner, but I don’t practice the way I used to. I’m more involved in business development.

Tell me about your involvement with the Baker public policy institute, at Rice University.
It’s been an extraordinarily successful undertaking, much more successful than we really had any reason to anticipate at the time, because there is a real hunger in the fourth-largest city in the nation for a substantive public policy debate. And we offer that. We have been fortunate to raise more than twice what our original fund-raising goal was, and we now support about fifteen fellows who we bring in for a two-year period to work on various public policy issues and topics and to work collaboratively with the social sciences faculty at Rice.

Are you involved with anything else at Rice, or are your interests limited to the institute?
I really just do the institute, although for nine years, until I was 72, I was on the board of trustees.

How do you feel about the idea of their getting rid of football, which has been discussed? Come on, don’t be a diplomat!
I used to go to games with my grandfather, who was the chairman of the Rice board for fifty years, and with my dad. Every Saturday we’d watch Rice lose and lose and lose. Who knows? Maybe they ought to be concentrating on baseball.

Pages: 1 2