Why Bush Held His Own with Russert (Noonan is wrong)

TechCentralStation.com ^ | 02-09-04 | Fraser Seitel

[rushmom]

I agree Bush did a very good job on MTP.

[Maria S]

"The interviewer holds all the marbles. He knows what he will ask. You don't."


Not necessarily! For example...let's take any interview with Hillary Clinton.

[Sangria]

You are right. I don't pay much attention to Peggy Noonan. She is so boring and she can take a one page essay and drag it out to four pages.

[shhrubbery!]

I agree, I don't think it was so bad. The last half of the interview, in fact, was very good (esp. the 'I won't lose,' and 'I wouldn't denigrate the National Guard' quotes).

Must take issue with the writer on this, however: "McAuliffe, of course, wasn't "denigrating the National Guard"; he was denigrating Bush."

McAullife WAS denigrating the Guard when he stated that Bush "had never done military service." McAuliffe's implication was that serving in the Guard was chopped liver.

[Judith Anne]

Nice article (it agrees with MY assessment, IOW) thanks for posting. ;-D

[bayourod]

Tim blew it big time. He had a chance to ask the President of the United States what information we have gotten out of Saddam and he didn't even think to ask the question.

[mystery-ak]

Peggy has been hanging around Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman too long....

[DeFault User]

Today Rush seems to be saying that Bush should have wielded a club in the interview. I think Seitel correctly points out that Bush deftly used a scalpel.

[kevkrom]

Tim blew it big time. He had a chance to ask the President of the United States what information we have gotten out of Saddam and he didn't even think to ask the question.

There were probably "ground rules" for the interview -- something like (not that I necessarilty believe that this was specifically it): don't ask me to reveal classified/sensitive information and stay away from my family.

[Sabertooth]

What I saw of the interview wasn't especially terrible, but wasn't especially great. I don't think he put to rest the "Bush lied" nonsense, which appeared to be the purpose.

However, I thought Russert's performance was similarly mediocre.

It all seems like a wash to me. Very forgettable.

[meandog]

Sorry agree w/Peggy... I thought it was a bad idea in the first place. Bush is much better in large group settings (i.e. in debates and press conferences) than one-on-one because he is too much of a gentleman to go on the offensive. Also, he is given to too much colloquial hesitation in his speech patterns, due probably to his regional (Southwest) upbringing, but it comes off as rambling with "ers" and "uhs" as he carefully constructs a sentence.

The Eastern establishment press, naturally, is going to seize upon every flap he makes while playing up Kerry's dry monotone delivery. Still, there's a lot of hope left...remember Mondale scored with "Where's the Beef?" in his one-on-one with Reagan--that was until Nancy stepped in with her demand to let "Reagan be Reagan!" Same needs to be done with "W". Get him away for the GOPO handlers trying for the perfect response...let George do it his way; otherwise, we will all be saying President Kerry this time next year...

[Neets]

Now this is quite an interesting analysis.

I tend to agree on this guys points.

[international american]

I think Bush could have done better, but he did fine, considering the way Russert interviewed him.He kept Russert off balance, which is no small feat in itself! Russert's tactics were tantamount to an interrogation of a criminal suspect!

[shrinkermd]

I agree with Fraser. In addition, note that the President was direct, made good contact and seemed genuine. Seemingly, Noonan and Rush seem to believe that psychopathic fluency and talking points insincerity are the sine qua non of an effective leader.

[Digger]

I thought GW came off quite well. He's got the compassionate down. But along with it he reminds me of the British solders marching in a row & the rebels (dems, media)picking them off. He will get NO traction if he doesn't come out STRONG & hit the oppostion hard with their lameness.

[Freemyland]

I agree. They seems to be an underlying "Bush needs to be a smooth talker" in some of their criticism.

[alwaysconservative]

Thank you for posting this! I agree with this article, and it confirms what my own speech and drama background have taught me about controlling the interview, and the tactics that must be employed. President Bush struck very good notes, there are some valuable sound-bites that the Dems won't be able to ignore, and while EVERYBODY on the far left and right was waiting for him to stumble, he didn't. In settings such as these (if you compare his other interviews as well), looking TOO rehearsed would have been grounds for a whole other raft of complaints. So, he stuck with being himself. He stayed presidential and above the fray except when the people in the guards were attacked. Perfect for the purpose, IMHO. Let the party politicos give a more aggressive response. We don't need our President breathing fire on issues that haven't played out yet.

[WI Conservative 4 Bush]

I thought the President did just fine. Actually, watching the interview a second time really makes him come off better than the initial viewing.

The left (and Noonan, apparently) paint Bush as a bumbler. I've seen the President enought on TV now to know that this man measures his words very carefully. He does this all the time.

As has been said earlier, for the start of his re-election campaign, this interview came off just fine.

There may also be a strategery playing here. Think about it. The dems are practically foaming at the mouth these days. Who can blame them? They're in the middle of a contentous primary campaign. All I'm saying here is that with all these people running around ramping up the rhetoric, it seems comforting that the President comes across as cool and confident. In effect, he's not going to let the others dictate his demeanor. my $.02