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 ...
Noonan:
- droll delivery
- no fireworks
- uses obscure references to history
- dull, drab looks.
Make up your mind Mr. Contrarian :)
Peggy over Ann?
Have your wrists always been a little limp.. or did it just sneak up on you?
Peggy had sex once... She thinks it was in 1978 or it could have been in 1980... she can't really remember for certain. She can't even remember her dates name.. but she thinks she wore Este Lauder perfume.
Wow! There are TWO of us on this site who want Bush to win, but don't drink Kool-Aid. I have been trying to make this point as well, and I hope to be out of the hospital next week.
You realize this IS Free Republic where you are making this point? Tell ya what -- I'll volunteer to start YOUR car in the morning, if you'll start MINE....Oh, forget it Fenris, we both have families to think about. So lets just give up and get in line. Do you want grape or orange flavored?
Agreed. Apparently the DNC trolls are alrady at work here :)
And damn straight Wizard.
Peggy and Rush and others got this one wrong. They wanted vitriol, they wanted revenge, themselves, but they got (we got) instead, a man who spoke from the heart, STATED his dedication to his POLICIES (geeez Peggy----were to set to criticize and therefore MISSED his tremendous declaration of standing by his policy REGARDLESS of opponent's wailing and ranting or poll numbers? Did you MISS that one?)
President Bush simply tramples his critics and opponents with his unique ability be himself at all times. Just by being himself, in his direct, straight 'speak' and steadfastness, he makes his opponents seem smallish and rather petty.
Regarding President Bush's interview from my perspective-
This man, this good man, made his points clearly and without that creepy clintonian wordplay that the democrats seem to need to resort to because they are unconvicted and vascillate with the wind.
What I remember clearly from the interview was our President taking a moment to speak directly to the parents of our precious troops who have sacrificed with their very lives in Iraq.
And when he spoke in defense of the National Guard and let it be known that trashing himself was ok, but trashing the importance of our National Guard was pathetic...just WOW!
And lastly, he spoke so directly to all of us with his decisive declaration that he is NOT poll driven, never will be, will NOT be changing his policies in terms of what he believes will keep our nation secure and exactly how he percieves America's role in this world and how he intends to pursue this vision, regardless.
I love him.
He elevates this nation with his refusal to bend to the whims of opponents, be it press corp or their bosses at the DNC, or foreign nations wanting to hold back America for nefarious reasons. This President will NEVER sacrifice our national wellfare for a piece of gold, a fake coalition or a false shadow of security in exchange for a slice of popularity.
Very unclintonian of this good statesman.
Rock solid, 'bring it on' type talk. No fear, no vascillation, what it is - is what it is. Is that refreshing or what? (No wonder this man drives democrats crazy by simply being himself! LOL)
What you see is what you get and what you hear you can depend upon type talk.
Embrace it or vote for someone else type of stance because this man is NOT going to vascillate with popularity polls. He takes defending this nation SERIOUSLY.
I understand this, and it gives me great hope.
And horsepatuddy to Peggy if she cannot understand CLARITY when it is right there in front of her....President Bush has LESS SMOOZE and fancy rhetoric that Ronny, LESS DRAMA and UNCONVICTED, DOUBLE EDGED, WISHYWASHY rhetoric than Billy, and, frankly, it is this quality, after his deeply held relationship with our Father, that I LOVE about this good man.
I'm still 'fishing' for why you weren't satisfied with my president's 'performance?
I guess he has to 'move' into a sphere, an 'act' that isn't his own, IOW, become someone who he is not in order to satisfy some ...
I *still* have to point out that I think he was working to defuse 'ol Timmy boy and his barbed, semi-caustic, projected to be 'hard-hitting' style.
I guess you're not familiar with the GWB 'style' that calls for significant underplay of one's position UNTIL it is necessary to nail the opposition tot he wall.
Well if he gets Osama before the elections I will stay home. If Osama is still out there I may vote for Bush. So Bush probably should keep Osama out there for a while yet.
However, as to the assertion made by a fellow poster, that she's only done 'it' a couple of times, I'd like to counter and deflate that assertion with a reminder that she is the 'surly bonds' girl, after all.
AND these are words +24 hrs AFTER the fact - and without benefit of review - so I give them little credence!
YOUR big error is IN FORGETTING those very lucid and poignant remarks he made in support of his position during his interview.
In short, without benefit of review your points, your observations, your impressions, as unbased and as ungrounded as they are, are becoming meaningless ...
I appreciated President Bush's careful and deliberate explanations.
And I REALLY appreciated hearing this man declare that he will NOT be changing his policy (his belief in freedom being the primary right of all citizens of the world, his belief that America has a responsibility to lead in this effort towards peace, and his convicted and unbending dedication to routing out terrorists wherever they run in order to protect his nation and others, the part of his job he takes as the single most important responsibility of a President).
Peggy lost her marbles, momentarily, I hope.
Hey, do me a favor, okay?
If you are stupid enough to even contemplate not voting in the next election, save it for someone who gives a damn.
I really have no need to hear from idiots who would put this country at risk because they not like one particular thing or another that this President does. You people are sickening, and I would rather not enter into a dialog where I have to provide the brains for both sides of the discussion.
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.