A Democratic loss convinces Sanford to run a positive campaign
Sanford continues to emphasize positive campaigning in an excerpt that reveals his unity-oriented political philosophy. He thinks that James B. Hunt's appearance in televised attack ads against Jesse Helms hurt Hunt's image, and Sanford refused to take the same risk.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Terry Sanford, December 16 and 18, 1986. Interview C-0038. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- BRENT GLASS:
-
Had you been running against a more free swinging candidate,
let's say that Funderburk defeated Broyhill, I
don't know, how would you handle that?
- TERRY SANFORD:
-
Well, I think that our campaign would have looked even better against
him. We would have let him run that stuff. We didn't answer
the last month's campaigns that attempted to say that I was
the kind of big spending liberal and ended up with a picture, a
distorted picture, of three people—one of whom
was me; one of whom, as I recall, was a caricature
of Mondale, and the other a caricature of Kennedy. In fact, it was so
badly distorted that it became ridiculous and therefore funny and
therefore, I'm sure, ineffective. In any event we
didn't attempt to answer that, and we certainly
didn't attempt to go back and hit him with people that he
wouldn't want his name associated with. We certainly could
have come up with a number of things of that kind if we had wanted to.
But it would have been a mistake. It would have been a mistake in
strategy. We weren't not doing it just because it was not the
thing to do. It would have been a bad piece of strategy. There were a
lot of reasons that I wanted to run a positive campaign that you could
look at after it was over and say, that was a clean campaign. It was
also a good strategy to do it that way, and it would have been a good
strategy for Hunt. In fact, the only quarrel I had
with—the biggest quarrel I had, that is, with my
people—was that they didn't emphasize
my positive record enough. I felt that we ought to hit hard on the
things I had done for the state, to really get the emphasis on the
community college contribution which was substantial. It's
the best answer in the world to the sales tax. Now, granted most of the
sales tax, the new sales tax money, really didn't go for
community colleges. It went for teachers' salaries, it went
for libraries. But finding the tangible evidence of that for a
thirty-seven second spot on even for a theme is much more difficult.
- BRENT GLASS:
-
You were saying that one major difference was the type of people, the
type of team, that you assembled as opposed as to let's say,
how the Hunt campaign was run.
- TERRY SANFORD:
-
No, it was virtually the same type of people. It wasn't the
in-state people and the campaign manager and the people that got up
money and the people organized to get out the vote. It was the outside
consultants, really the television people, because, see, the campaign
other than television was a superb campaign. The television campaign,
ultimately, did him in, both the Helmes side and, in my opinion, to a
considerable extent his own side because it took away from
him—the bright, young, clean-cut Governor. It
made him in the eyes of too many voters just another person like Helms,
slapping out at the opposing candidate. He shouldn't have
been on any of those spots when they felt it necessary to take on Helms.
It should have been somebody else, not him.
- BRENT GLASS:
-
That taunt, "Where do you stand, Jim?" just
kept coming back and back.
- TERRY SANFORD:
-
Yeah. Well, you know he just kept on the attack of Helms, and
that's what they were advising him to do. When I would tell
him, he would say, you know, with complete perplexity, but
"This is what they're telling me I have to
do," and they'd point out that back in the spring
when he didn't do that he got behind. Well, I think that
probably was not the reason he was getting behind. He was getting behind
because of the big push Helms was putting on. In my opinion we could
have left that alone as we did during the summer for Broyhill. They made
that thrust, and then they had shot a good deal of
their ammunition. When we came back, that had dwindled in influence.
Anyhow, it's awfully easy to hold a post-mortem, and had I
lost, people would be saying everything I did was wrong. It may be that
he simply got beat because Reagan was on the ticket. Nonetheless, I
thought that the campaign could have been improved, and consequently I
was making certain that I didn't do the same thing.