first i would like to thank burdett for organizing this. it is a great honor to be here and i thank the dole institute. is a great up tendency to talk about the senate vote today and from a historical perspective and there is no more appropriate place than the home of top doles archives. i think one theme that will likely emerge from this conference is the idea that senate is something of a mess. i think that is probably a widespread, not universal view but widespread view among political observers, a combination of individualism, obstructionism and intense nasty partisan warfare that together, put them together, make it a different institution to govern and make policy. in thinking about what is wrong with today's senate, a lot of a lot of times especially journalists and political scientist looked at to mid century senate as a better time. the synod of the 1940s and 50s is an institution that in some ways worked well. to be sure there are plenty of them is wrong with the mid century senate so for example people senate democrats were filib

burdette lewis. >> thanks very much, bill. billy's story is exactly right, and he could not have been more welcoming when i came to him and the associate director with this idea. i basically said -- they basically said go-ahead and run with it, and we have. they basically said go ahead, run with it and we have. and i would like to acknowledge the support of the kansas management council. i approach them, and they also were highly enthusiastic about the conference, and so they too provided significant support. as bill noted, the 50 year career of bob dole and the anniversary of his initial house run triggered this, but i have had talked about doing this for quite a while and this was just a great opportunity. because i think that, after all the dust has cleared, bob dole entered the congress as a house member, it exited as a presidential candidate and has had a fascinating post senate career, but in the end, his great legacy will be as a senator, as a committee chair and particularly as a leader. and so, it is worth considering

last fall, professor burdett loomis who is not only a distinguished professor of political science, good friend of the dole institute, but, and this is required, to be involved sometimes at the go is if you, a certifiable political junkie. approached us about a very interesting idea that he said, you know, next year is going to be the 50th anniversary of bob dole's election to the diocese congress. are you guys planning anything? and i said as a matter of fact, we are. we're planning our presidential lecture series which is one of our signature series on that topic. and he proposed the idea of doing a conference that focuses on the senate. and it just fit perfectly, a perfect way to conclude the series. and so we were very excited about that and very excited about what bird put together. was the things we've heard over the course of the series consistently is that the united states senate needs more people like bob dole, like his career exemplifying bipartisanship, civility, and willingness while having strong philosophical beliefs to reach across the aisle and try to work with others wi

first i would like to thank burdett for organizing this.it is a great honor to be here and i thank the dole institute. is a great up tendency to talk about the senate vote today and from a historical perspective and there is no more appropriate place than the home of top doles archives. i think one theme that will likely emerge from this conference is the idea that senate is something of a mess. i think that is probably a widespread, not universal view but widespread view among political observers, a combination of individualism, obstructionism and intense nasty partisan warfare that together, put them together, make it a different institution to govern and make policy. in thinking about what is wrong with today's senate, a lot of a lot of times especially journalists and political scientist looked at to mid century senate as a better time. the synod of the 1940s and 50s is an institution that in some ways worked well. to be sure there are plenty of them is wrong with the mid century senate so for example people senate democrats were filibu

>> in building on burdett's point about lindsey graham you could argue today that would be one form of maverick behavior is to be disloyal to your party or not stick with the message consistently, whereas in the 1940's and 50's if you looked at the voting behavior and positions on key issues on the core issues for the party they were in the line with of the party's majority position so in the partisan polarized senate one way to be a maverick is to work with the other side. that exposes you to a much different problem than the maverick in 1950's which is to have to go and get elected in a primary and the primary especially is where the folks alan is talking about are going to be the most active, and if you are a maverick today you better inoculate yourself as john mccain is seriously trying to do today by adopting the basis of you on august the central issues now and not being too much of an african so i think that is one change. within the parties to be a maverick you also need a different things in the minority and majority party today. whereas if you use to think of being a maveri

so, for burdett, current senators know how well dole has done after his career. as a current senator, how does my view of norms and behaviors in the chamber change when i am looking at a future? what do i do differently? do i still specialize? do i over specialize? is this part of the puzzle of why we see members working less together? is there a thought of the future that changes their behaviors? and similarly, eric spoke a lot about mavericks, thinking of what it means to be a maverick in today's legislature and senate. how does the electorate play into this? the norms alone certainly aren't stopping the behaviors from changing over time, so how does the electorate and what they would like to see and what they demand from their constituents change? and then alan, the flip side of that question, how do changing you changing norms affect the electorate? do you see the present fight over health care or is there going to be a backlash from the public over the procedure they view as being unfair or overly acrimonious or will anyone remember? that is a broad question

. >> and some sense billing on burdett's point on lindsey graham is, you could argue that today that one form of maverick behavior is to be disloyal to your party or nonstick with a message consistently whereas in the 1940s and 50s, these mavericks if you look at their voting behavior and positions on key issues, on the core issues for their party they were lying with their party's majority position. so in this partisan and polarized senate, one way to be a maverick is to try to work with the other side. now that exposes you to a much different problem than a maverick in the 1950s face which is you have to go and get in the primary and the primary especially is where the folks alan is talking about are the most active. so then if you are maverick today you had better inoculate yourself like john mccain is seriously trying to do today by adopting a least the essential issues now and not being too much of a maverick. so, i think that is one change. i think within the parties, to be a maverick you also need different things in the minority and majority party today whereas if they used t

and, finally, i will reintroduce burdett loomis, a professor here at the university of kansas. is the author or editor of 14 books on american politics, expert on congress and the senate, including an edited volume called esteemed colleagues, severely and a liberation in the united states senate. this was written a while ago. [laughter] >> and then his curly working on a book about looking at the culture wars and the role of the senate and elections. so with that introduction i turn it over to eric and remind you that we have 15 to 20 minutes more or less per speaker. was no good way for me to stop you. >> first i'd like to thank burd for organizing this. it's a great honor to be here, and thank the dole institute. it's a great opportunity to talk about the senate, both today and from a historical perspective. and no more appropriate place than the kind of home of bob dole. i think one thing that would likely emerge from this two-day conference is the idea that today's senate is something of a mess. and i think that's a widespread probably not universal view but a widespread vi

first i would like to thank burdett for organizing this. it is a great honor to be here and i thank the dole institute. is a great up tendency to talk about the senate vote today and from a historical perspective and there is no more appropriate place than the home of top doles archives. i think one theme that will likely emerge from this conference is the idea that senate is something of a mess. i think that is probably a widespread, not universal view but widespread view among political observers, a combination of individualism, obstructionism and intense nasty partisan warfare that together, put them together, make it a different institution to govern and make policy. in thinking about what is wrong with today's senate, a lot of a lot of times especially journalists and political scientist looked at to mid century senate as a better time. the synod of the 1940s and 50s is an institution that in some ways worked well. to be sure there are plenty of them is wrong with the mid century senate so for example people senate democrats were filib