Why Bush Didn't Do Well with Russert
What a riot. Peggy Noon attempts to explain why Bush did so poorly with that "tough interviewer, " Tim Russert:
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.
What a riot! W is the kind of mind which is only good when reading speeches.
Democrats have minds that do it through talking points, and
Republicans have minds that do speeches. (Mr. Bush has given a dozen
memorable speeches already; only one of his Democratic challengers has,
and that was "I Have a Scream.") And the reason--perhaps--is that
Democratic candidates tend to love the game of politics, and Republican
candidates often don't. Democrats, because they admire government and
seek to be part of it, are inclined to think the truth of life is in
policy. How could they not then be engaged by policy talk, and its
talking points?
Republicans think politics is something you have to do and that
policy is something you have to have to move things forward in line
with a philosophy. They like philosophy. But they are bored by policy
and hate having to memorize talking points.
Speeches are the vehicle for
philosophy. Interviews are the vehicle of policy. Mr. Kerry does
talking points and can't give an interesting speech. Mr. Bush can't do
talking points and gives speeches full of thought and assertion.
Philosophy takes time. If you connect your answers in an
interview to philosophy, or go to philosophy first, you can look as if
you're dodging the question. You can forget the question. You can look
a little gaga. But policy doesn't take time. Policy is a machine
gun--bip bip bip. Education policy, bip bip bip. Next.
If I worked for President Bush I'd say spend the next nine months
giving speeches, and limit interviews. If I worked for Mr. Kerry I'd
say give a lot of interviews, be out there all the time, and don't try
to wrap your points up in a coherent philosophy, which is something a
good speech demands. Anyway, that's how I see it. Am I wrong? By the
way, I've never been able to stick to a talking point in a TV interview
in my life.
5:14:14 PM Permalink
|
|
