Posted on 02/09/2004 7:57:11 AM PST by SquirrelKing
Philosophy, Not Policy Why Bush isn't good at interviews.
Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:30 p.m. EST
President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I am one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.
It was an important interview. The president has been taking a beating for two months now--two months of the nonstop commercial for the Democratic Party that is the Democratic primaries, and then the Kay report. And so people watched when he decided to come forward in a high stakes interview with Tim Russert, the tough interviewer who's an equal-opportunity griller of Democrats. He has heroic concentration and a face like a fist. His interviews are Beltway events.
But certain facts of the interview were favorable to the president. Normally it's mano a mano at Mr. Russert's interview table in the big, cold studio. But this interview was in the Oval Office, on the president's home ground, in front of the big desk. Normally it's live, which would be unnerving for a normal person and is challenging for politicians. Live always raises the stakes. But Mr. Bush's interview was taped. Saturday. Taped is easier. You can actually say, "Can we stop for a second? Something in my eye."
You can find the transcript of the Bush-Russert interview all over the Web. It reads better than it played. But six million people saw it, and many millions more will see pieces of it, and they will not be the pieces in which Mr. Bush looks good. The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse. He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event. When he was thrown the semisoftball question on his National Guard experience--he's been thrown this question for 10 years now--he spoke in a way that seemed detached. "It's politics." Well yes, we know that. Tell us more.
I never expect Mr. Bush, in interviews, to be Tony Blair: eloquent, in the moment, marshaling facts and arguments with seeming ease and reeling them out with conviction and passion. Mr. Bush is less facile with language, as we all know, less able to march out his facts to fight for him.
I don't think Mr. Bush's supporters expect that of him, or are disappointed when he doesn't give it to them. So I'm not sure he disturbed his base. I think he just failed to inspire his base. Which is serious enough--the base was looking for inspiration, and needed it--but not exactly fatal.
Mr. Bush's supporters expect him to do well in speeches, and to inspire them in speeches. And he has in the past. The recent State of the Union was a good speech but not a great one, and because of that some Bush supporters were disappointed. They put the bar high for Mr. Bush in speeches, and he clears the bar. But his supporters don't really expect to be inspired by his interviews.
The Big Russ interview will not be a big political story in terms of Bush supporters suddenly turning away from their man. But it will be a big political story in terms of the punditocracy and of news producers, who in general don't like Mr. Bush anyway. Pundits will characterize this interview, and press their characterization on history. They will compare it to Teddy Kennedy floundering around with Roger Mudd in 1980 in the interview that helped do in his presidential campaign. News producers will pick Mr. Bush's sleepiest moments to repeat, and will feed their anchors questions for tomorrow morning: "Why did Bush do badly, do you think?" So Mr. Bush will have a few bad days of bad reviews ahead of him.
But I am thinking there are two kinds of minds in politics. There are those who absorb and repeat their arguments and evidence--their talking points--with vigor, engagement and certainty. And there are those who cannot remember their talking points.
Those who cannot remember their talking points can still succeed as leaders if they give good speeches. Speeches are more important in politics than talking points, as a rule, and are better remembered.
Which gets me to Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan had a ready wit and lovely humor, but he didn't as a rule give good interviews when he was president. He couldn't remember his talking points. He was a non-talking-point guy. His people would sit him down and rehearse all the fine points of Mideast policy or Iran-contra and he'd say, "I know that, fine." And then he'd have a news conference and the press would challenge him, or approach a question from an unexpected angle, and he'd forget his talking points. And fumble. And the press would smack him around: "He's losing it, he's old."
Dwight Eisenhower wasn't good at talking points either.
George W. Bush is not good at talking points. You can see when he's pressed on a question. Mr. Russert asks, why don't you remove George Tenet? And Mr. Bush blinks, and I think I know what is happening in his mind. He's thinking: Go through history of intelligence failures. No, start with endorsement of George so I don't forget it and cause a big story. No, point out intelligence didn't work under Clinton. Mention that part of the Kay report that I keep waiting for people to mention.
He knows he has to hit every point smoothly, but self-consciousness keeps him from smoothness. In real life, in the office, Mr. Bush is not self-conscious. Nor was Mr. Reagan.
What we are looking at here is not quality of mind--Mr. Bush is as bright as John Kerry, just as Mr. Reagan was as bright as Walter Mondale, who was very good at talking points. They all are and were intelligent. Yet neither Mr. Bush's interviews and press conferences nor Mr. Reagan's suggested anything about what they were like in the office during a crisis: engaged, and tough. It's something else. John Kerry does good talking points. In interviews he's asked for his views on tax cuts and he has it all there in his head in blocks of language that cohere and build. It gets boring the 14th time you hear it, but he looks capable. Hillary Clinton is great at talking points--she's the best, as her husband was the best in his time.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Yeah, a breast-beating, stilted, fact-citing, algore-type performance or a smarmy, over-jovial, question dodging performance reminiscent of a Clintinoid (take your pick - him or her) ...
I take it you didn't watch or review this interview a second time - did you?
That is not the issue.
[he] controlled the interview....
Quick! Email me the brand of Kool-Aid your drinking, I want to send it to the DNC....
Hmmm ... would a trained animal act help out next time?
How about - a cameo appearance by Bill Clinton!???
I guess there is JUST going to be no statifying some people, we have become too jaded as a people, too demanding in our expectations, expecting - no demanding entertainment level banter and MTV-level performances from anybody's mug who appears on TV.
Is that last explanation close to the mark?
Exhibit A in my opinion that Noonan completely misses the mark in her appraisal of this interview.
Number one, it was not phrased in a softball way.
Number 2, the president had MUCH more to say than "It's politics". Much more.
Number 3, guess which topic from the interview Russert has declared alive and well and a problem for the president? Why, his "softball" about National Guard service. Russert is ignoring the factual state of the record, and misrepresenting what the president said in this interview.
Read that again and everybody realize Tim Russert has decided that this election is when he will cross the line and embrace pure partisan politics and propagate DNC (Kerry) talking points in order to defeat a sitting president. Russert has said the president offered to "release" his records about his service, when what was said is the president pointed out those records have been available for years and reviewed during all of his election campaigns, He said much more, but the key is Russert reporting that records will be "released". Then on Imus this morning he stated what will be needed are tax records.
BTW, Peggy's prediction of how mainstream media would receive this interview was also wrong. It's all over the map, but the Daily News, for one example of a not pro-Bush publication, had a very favorable commentary on it.
I'm gonna take a wild stab and assume that you are being a bit critical of Noonan. But the law of unintended consequences is making you a wise poster indeed. I'd rather have one Peggy Noonan on staff right now than that room full of "yes men" he has now who put him on Meet the Press unprepared. This is a truly conservative person who knows what she's talking about.
We have two options between now and November. Listen to wise voices like hers. Or go the old Joe Stalin route and shoot anyone who has the temerity to say the Boss could do a lot better. Besides, the issue here is about putting the President in venues where he is admittedly weak. As incongruous as it may seem, strength truly is the ability to recognize your weaknesses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.