Peggy Noonan: Philosophy, Not Policy - Why Bush isn't good at interviews(Bush and Russert on MTP)

WSJ via Drudge ^ | 2/9/04 | Peggy Noonan

[jstolarczyk]

DITTO. How do they, the liberal press think conservatives will behave if Kerry wins? After the attacks on Bush!Because of free agency in football it's hard for a team to repeat the Superbowl. Well if Kerry wins, conservatives will be out for his head (not literally, figurative) because of the negative attacks on Bush. Clinton may be the last President to be reelected in the foreseeable future.

[KellyAdmirer]

Notice the complete absence of clips on the news shows today of President Bush flubbing. This is the case of the dog that didn't bark - whenever a President goes on a show like this, the risk is that there will be a gaffe. Much as we all love Reagan, that was something we all learned to expect from him. It isn't a question of worrying about President Bush in particular, but of any sitting President, who is expected to know everything about everything and disappoints when, obviously, he can't. He passed that test.

Bush accomplished his mission - defuse any notion that he is aloof or isolated. He also helped himself a little bit by taking the focus off of the Democrats. Overall, a plus for him and Republicans, and a great performance for someone not yet in full campaign mode.

[SquirrelKing]

The president seemed to be as he is normally.

Which is, I think, Noonan's point. Bush spoke opely and honestly (I believe) and made his points well. I half expected him to come out pearly-toothed and swinging with both fists but that's not Bush.

[Williams]

Peggy has always impressed me as Miss Self Impressed of the highest order. In this case she was too busy whipping her hair back and sounding effected to remember that the substance of the president's remarks are more meaningful than "how he did" as if he were just playing president.

[Fenris6]

I think she wanted to gin up something for the cable news to talk about and to elevate her profile with a little controversy Disagree. Noonan is dead on. Bush needed a stronger msg for his national audience. Imagine if Cheney had done the interview instead - quick & concise responses that nail the point down & back the detractors into a corner. 45% of America thinks Saddam NEVER had any WMDs, despite evidence to the contrary - because Bush is not getting his msg out. As for the personal attacks, Noonan's character has always been above reproach. She's never been a bomb-thrower or character assassin. As a former Reagan speech writer (remember him?) she knows her stuff. If she says Bush came off weak, she's trying to help - not hinder. So listen. Bottom line: if the Bush peeps can't fix their communcation problems, the Republicans will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Nov. Apparently its what we do best.

[The Wizard]

read the "American Gladiator" post

[SquirrelKing]

...not yet in full campaign mode.

This thing's just begun. In his place I would want to do the same rather than let it fester and boil all through 2K4 and become debate fodder. It's over, he's said his peace, stated his case (again) and now it's back to bid-ness.

[SquirrelKing]

Didn't see it. My bad.

[Pest]

Where is the "philosophy" in that other than grubbing for votes and money?

It seems like GW has his own "philosophy" and that is the philosophy of "compassionate conservatism". He is more liberal or centrist on some domestic issues (such as education, health care, etc.), but rather right-wing on foreign policy issues.

Unfortunately, I don't think a hard-core conservative could get elected in today's climate. In fact, I don't think the majority of the people in the U.S. want a hard-core conservative as president. This may come off as socialist, but I really think that with the prosperity of the U.S. right now, most people don't mind the additional government programs. (I'm not one of them.)

[alnick]

So, WHEN we find the weapons (as soon as we finish counting and cataloging them all) and we drag Osama from his own private hole in the ground, the election will be over.

I like the way you think.

Twice in the past few days, I've seen Pat Roberts say that there are going to be a lot of people wiping WMD egg off of their faces. I think he's right.

[roses of sharon]

The President once said he abhored "psycho-babble", in which Peggy's punditry class makes their living.

It should make no difference how the President interviews with a NY-liberal-elite-media whore like Russert.

The right-wing media refuses to take on Russert, and instead takes on Bush.

They have never known how to win.

[lelio]

Note to Noonan: If you don't like the way the President's speeches are prepared and delivered, then apply for Mrs. James Carville's job, and write them yourself.

Read the article again. The main thrust is: Democrats good at memorizing talking points and blathering about them in interviews, while Republicans are good at giving speeches that outline their philosophy.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Well, we disgaree. I don't think there is any "there, there," compassionate or otherwise. What does a pork-barrel, farm, transportation, and tariff bill have to do with compassion (even in a philosophical sense) anyway?

[Austin Willard Wright]

As to getting elected, the jury is out on that, but I were a betting man, I would bet on a Kerry win in November. Dubya's "compassionate conservatism" is no guarantee of success. He almost lost, after all, the 2000 election running under that banner.

[_Jim]

think this interview has been analyzed to death. I taped it and watched it twice and didn't find it as dismal as it has been portrayed.

I agree with you 100%

I, too, taped it and watched it - several times - as I did other things (some people, like me have worked hard to develop ADD and do several things at the same time!) ...

[kellynla]

Mr. Potato Head Russert was rude with his constant interruptions of W while he was trying to answer the "gotcha" questions. W did not bring his "A-Game". "B" for substance. "C-" for presentation. Whoever was responsible for preparing W needs to be fired!!!

[SquirrelKing]

read the "American Gladiator" post

Cool post!

[_Jim]

Bush needed a stronger msg for his national audience.

Correcting chubby-faced potato-boy wasn't enough? Constantly covering the same subjects as asked by Russert repeatedly wasn't strong enough?

In case you didn't notice, this was a grilling under the guise of an interview and I think the president did an EXCELLANT job of defusing a contentious and irritating Russert.

Tell us, have you had a chance to see and review 'the interview' again after your original viewing?

[thinktwice]

My sorry in return. Both threads are great -- and I wouldn't want either one wiped out.

[alloysteel]

Most of the analysis that was done on this interview is to spot the least weakness, open up on that weakness, emphasis it, and overshadow everything else in the interview with it. The defense on the "AWOL" controversy while with the Alabama ANG was not even addressed. The fact is, that many of the pilots in the ANG get in their qualifying hours not on weekends, but at staggered days during the week, arranged for the availability of the planes and the schedule of the pilot involved. I suspect that George W. Bush had few command duties outside the actual piloting duties, it is not like he had to be there on the typical Air Guard duty weekends (Saturday and Sunday morning and afternoon sessions). All the training logs should be there SOMEWHERE, even if they are buried on a microfilm stored away in a cave in Colorado. Absence of these logs, however, cannot by itself be taken to be a declaration of "AWOL status". A distinction that is lost on those who have never had experience with the military, or even the truth.