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

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

[veronica]

With apologies to the Democratic candidates, The New York Times editorial page, Don Imus, and -- of all people -- Peggy Noonan, I beg to differ. I think President Bush acquitted himself smartly this weekend in his head-to-head battle with the dreaded Tim Russert on Meet the Press.

He didn't appear "tired, unsure, and often bumbling," as Ms. Noonan asserts. Rather, he appeared calm, confident, firm and self-assured. Moreover, he refused to let himself get drawn in by the famous Russert baited barbs that so easily trap lesser interviewees.

Ms. Noonan, who wrote a book about how, as a White House speechwriter, she invented some of the greatest phrases that President Reagan and Bush I ever uttered, is particularly distressed that the President "did not seem prepared" for the Russert interview.

Nonsense.

In terms of preparation -- what communications consultants like me call "media training" -- here are several positive performance techniques that the President displayed on Sunday, all of which helped make his case.

Find your sea legs.

The toughest part of any TV interview is the first question. The interviewer holds all the marbles. He knows what he will ask. You don't. So an interviewee must "fight off" that first question -- get acclimated, get comfortable, "find his sea legs," before trying to make his points.

"On Friday," Russert began, "You announced a commission to look into our intelligence failures in Iraq. You have been reluctant to do that for some time. Why?"

Bush parried, "First, let me step back and talk about intelligence in general if I might."

He then elaborated on the role of intelligence in fighting terrorism, on what terrorists are all about, and what the commission's mission will be. Bush critics decried that he never answered the question. True. But to his credit, he had kabuki danced enough to find his sea legs, relax, and enter a "comfort zone" that would carry him through the remainder of the interview.

Stay on message.

The cardinal rule of media training. No matter what they ask, you give your answers.

Ms. Noonan says Mr. Bush "fumbled" his talking points. Not true. Here, in essence, was the President's primary message.

"This is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't. I'm a war President. I make decisions here in the Oval Office with war on my mind. The American people deserve someone who sees the world for what it is and acts decisively."

Bush hammered at those same broad themes -- war on terrorism, experience in command, willingness to make tough decisions -- throughout the interview. In so doing, he not only set the tone for the Russert interview, but previewed the primary Republican messages separating the incumbent from his challenger in the campaign to come.

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

The real reason that smart executives consider media training mandatory before entering the ring of media combat is to drill home the three or four points that must be repeated.

Prior to launching into the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein for the umpteenth time in the hour-long interview, Bush apologized in advance, "I don't want to sound like a broken record."

Sure he did.

A well-trained interviewee wants to lay on those "must air points" as many times as possible, so all those latte-guzzling channel surfers at home get the message loud and clear.

The Bush message -- that "Saddam was a threat who needed to be taken out, with or without WMDs" -- may have been too repetitive for Ms. Noonan and not precise enough for The New York Times. But that doesn't mean a lot of voters don't agree with him.

Preempt the follow up.

Tim Russert is a master at cornering a guest with a seemingly straightforward set up question and then lowering the boom with a follow up dagger.

The only way to fend off such a one-two knockout is by preempting the question to come, thereby deflating the potential impact.

TR: "Will you testify before the intelligence commission?"

GWB: "I'd be glad to visit with them. I want to make sure the intelligence gathering system works well. And by the way, I believe the CIA is ably led by George Tenet. "

TR: "His job is not in jeopardy?"

GWB: "No not at all."

By raising the issue of his embattled CIA director before Russert could exhibit his trademark negative quotes and graphics, the President defused the issue and escaped unscathed.

Drop back.

The quickest way to get unhinged by a nasty question is to denounce it, deny it, or otherwise attack it frontally. Ordinarily much better is to verbally "take a step back" and transition to your rehearsed answer.

All it requires is a simple phrase: "Let me put your question in context"…"Let's examine that issue you raise"…or when Russert raised the specter of an economy run amuck…

TR: "The unemployment rate has gone up 33%. There's been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We've gone from an $81 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt is up 23%. Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?"

GWB: "Because I have been the President during a period of tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions necessary to enhance recovery. I want to review the bidding here."

Then, having "stepped back" from the question, the President proceeded to methodically depict the various elements -- from pre-Bush stock market declines to war to corporate scandals, etc. -- that led to economic decline and what he has prescribed to engender recovery.

Whether his prescription makes sense is for voters to decide. But his TV explanation was clear and committed and, because of his media training, framed in context.

Interrupt.

An interviewee can't come across as a bully. That was among Bush's TV failings in his campaign four years ago. A guest should be gracious and deferential.

But, he can't be a patsy either. Once a python like Russert senses hesitancy, indecision or unease -- in other words, "smells blood" -- he springs straight for the jugular. So you must interrupt. To wit:

GWB: "We're fighting a war so the Iraqis can build a nation."

TR: "But the United Nations………."

GWB: "The war is against terrorists and disgruntled Baathists who want to stop the spread of freedom."

TR: "I, I…"

GWB: "If I might, people say to me………………."

By refusing to cede the floor, Bush interrupted Russert's momentum, dominated the dialogue, and successfully kept his eager interlocutor off balance.

Shift the blame.

One time-honored interview technique, which Russert practices religiously, is to quote nasty adversaries and goad a guest into teeing off on an absent party.

A good media training student will never attack someone not there to defend himself. An exceptional student will go one step further, subtly shifting the blame to his accuser. Here, Bush excelled.

TR: "The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terrence McAuliffe, said, 'George Bush is a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard.' How do you respond?"

GWB: "Political season is here. I served in the National Guard and got an honorable discharge. I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after me. But I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard. There are really a lot of fine people who serve in the National Guard and today are serving in Iraq."

McAuliffe, of course, wasn't "denigrating the National Guard"; he was denigrating Bush. No matter. The President skillfully turned the tables on his rabid dog accuser by shifting the blame and the focus away from himself.

Peggy Noonan compares the significance of the Bush-Russert interview to Teddy Kennedy's horrifying, post-Chappaquiddick kamikaze performance with Roger Mudd in 1980. This characterization, a full 10 months before the election with many TV interviews and speeches and unexpected revelations to come, may be just a tad overwrought.

The fact is to answer his accusers; Bush chose to enter the ring with the best interviewer on television. And the President held his own. He appeared conversational, controlled, candid and committed. As the initial media salvo in his reelection campaign, President Bush did fine.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Peggy Noonan in general is good, but she's rather GRAND....and full of herself.

And...she reports to Chris Matthews.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Unfortunatley, Bush needed a home run on this.

Why would you say this? Have you bought the media's spin hook, line and sinker?

A "home run"...by whatever definition you use...may have been nice. ~~ But, need it? That's a bit dramatic, don't ya think?

May I suggest you pace yourself, FRiend?

This is a marathon, not a sprint.

[joesbucks]

This is a marathon, not a sprint.

Thanks for the advice. But I believe that we are in the early innings of the game and it's slipping away inning by inning. We needed a home run to lift the spirits of the team and to assure that we go into the next innings pumped and ready to go. We didn't get that. We didn't even get a single. We got a walk. Sure we're on base, but not by skill, but by default.

As Rush said and as is printed on his web site, he'd likely agree with much of the dismay in the performance yesterday. Definately, this was not a hall of fame appearance for the President. But you['re right, the game ain't over yet.

Let's watch together and see where this goes.

[Right_in_Virginia]

We didn't even get a single.

Then how do you explain the bump in the President's numbers?

Could it be most Americans watch, listen, absorb, decide...and then turn off the pundits?

We got more than a single. We've got George W. Bush.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Bush did a good job in my opinion. Tim Russert gave Bush some really hardball questions, and Bush handled each one with finesse. The Liberals who dissected the interview for what basically said the standard critiques such as that "bumbler" type of critique. They never once said that this was a Karl Rove strategery set up piece because Time Russert knows how to throw the curveballs and he threw plenty. Bush handled each one perfectly.

[BigSkyFreeper]

We'll have to reassess what Rush said. From his website...."Now, you can sit there and you can complain to me all day if you want about the president on Meet the Press and I'll listen to you, and you can sit there and say I'll probably agree with a lot of what you say."

Again, hardly a ringing endorsement.

If you had heard Rush, he was referring to the listeners. He knows there are people who will disagree with the President on different levels. I know I do. FWIW, Bush did a good, not great, but good job. There are obvious loose ends Bush will have to straighten out if he doesn't want to be dogged with the same ole same ole for the next 9 months. Rush said he's a Conservative first and foremost, who stands by his own personal ideologies rather than the partisan Republican ideology.

As for me, I personally disagree with all the petty spending; Mars and the Moon, and increased NEA funding are just a few glaring examples. The Mars and Moon missions are ambitious endeavours indeed, but we neither have the time or the money to be investing large sums of money toward one or two departments that neither have the connection to the WOT when we've got radical Islamists trying get into this country to kill each and every one of us. I'm starting to have second thoughts about the illegal immigration issue, the border issue is another aspect we as a nation should be concentrating money that will be p***ed away towards the NEA, the Moon, and Mars.

While I'm on a roll, I'd like to see some backbone within the Republican party to get behind Bush in a more than strident manner when it comes to putting Conservative judges on the bench, as well as setting down with Bush to reevaluate the unneccessary budget allocations. Bush afterall is looking for input from within his own party, and the Republicans in Congress just aren't man enough to exercise fiscal restraint then walk into the White House, set down with Bush and give Bush a hard lesson in fiscal responsibility.

Beyond that, Bush is doing a great job.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The Meet The Press interview isn't going to register in the minds of many voters 9 months from now. We got a feel for where Bush is at, at this juncture. There are obvious attack points for the left to take advantage of, unless Bush takes care of them sooner, rather than later, then yeah, it'll be an uphill battle if one week before the election, he hasn't put to rest all the red meat issues the Democrats seem to be gobbling up as of late.

[BigSkyFreeper]

In a race, particularly a marathon, you don't want to expend all your energy right at the starting line, or you'll never make it across the finish line. Agreed, Bush needs to pace himself, we need to pace ourselves, or risk running dead tired out of the race so early on.

[maica]

I am watching a replay on CNBC right now. President Bush is great in the body language when I have it on mute. He is great with the sound up when I am not looking at him. He is in charge of this interview.

The complainers wanted some kind of smackdown that Bush does not do.

[185JHP]

Russert's fidelity to fairness is constrained by his desire for Evil Party control of the WH. "Beware yon Tim. He has a sly and reptillian look."

[Reactionary]

"The complainers wanted some kind of smackdown that Bush does not do."

Conservatives don't seem to understand that pictures, body language, and repetitive statements convince people more effectively than the wonders of debate.

Bush did an excellent job.

[McGavin999]

Glad I'm not alone. I thought he did great too.

[McGavin999]

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.

Anyone here remember the beginning of Afghanistan? Everyone was frothing at the mouth, demanding boots on the ground, screaming that nothing was happening and suddenly....WHAM, it was over. And we won.

Remember, Dubya is a patient man.

[Yaelle]

I just would have liked him once to lean forward toward Timmy after another Q on WMD not being in Iraq and our soldiers falling in vain and say, "Tim, do you think that all our men who died in Europe fighting Hitler died in vain? Germany was not a direct threat to the U.S."

"Are Iraqis not as important as the lives of the Jews and other Europeans we stepped in to save?"

Anyway, he proved his point about the Wolfowitz Doctrine: Qaddafi fell like a domino and this will not be the end of it. There is no other way to pave the way for peace in the Middle East. Following through with the world's [U.N.'s] threats took courage, but not following through would have given us a few more decades of international terror.

[maica]

Conservatives don't seem to understand that pictures, body language, and repetitive statements convince people more effectively than the wonders of debate.
++++
So true.
I am reminded of TV shows that stay on the air for years with inane dialogue, while other shows, which actually require listening to the characters, just appeal to niche audiences. The pundits, (and many posters here), are like that niche audience - actually listening to every word and expecting nuance and perfection.

President Bush makes appearances every day. He stays on message. The major media refuse to cover his appearances. It is up to each of us, as supporters to stay on message, too. The future of our way of like depends on having the right man in the Oval Office.

[wtc911]

If you want to know whom I support read my posts. I've been here for 2 1/2 years. You've suggested that I'm in the tank for Kerry and that I'm a disruptor. I'll ask you again to point to anything I have ever written that supports your fantasy in any way.

Bush is not God and he's not perfect. His performance on Sunday could have and should have been stronger. But to say that out loud invites attack from the bushbots...the thing about any kind of robot is that no matter how clever the design, they can't think for themselves.

I don't need your approval..."If you are a Bush supporter then fine"...and I don't give a whit about what your opinion of me is. This is a forum for discussion, not lock-step robotics. I don't expect to spend any more time engaged with you, or anyone else who would rather attack based on things that were never said than discuss thing honestly.

[olliemb]

No one said Bush was God. He believes in God and is a godly man but no, you are right he is not God. I just met you a few days ago--and as I said before it is the unspoken word or the words written that hinted that you were not a Bush supporter.

And, what caused me to think you were a democrat disruptor was that you did and are still doing what the democrats are famous for--you get down right personal with your attacks. And even go as far to insult my intelligence!! Democrats are very good at that, so therefore, I can only assume that you are anti Bush and anti anyone who defends him

For someone who does not give a whit about my opinion, I find it interesting that you are still fuming from yesterdays thread.

I listened to President Bush two more times on MTP. He sounded real good and was very forceful in his comments. Call me a robot call me any name you want since it appears it comes easy to you (groupie, can't think for myself, robot)but I will defend the president against people like you who claim to be on his side but then go off and bash him. I consider the president as my friend, my leader, my representative and I try very hard to view what he does from his perspective--not mine.

Mr. Bush needs all our support, he has done an excellent job re; his war against terrorism and he has kept his promises to us. And yes, you are allowed to have your opinions, but why go on and on about the performance to the point that someone like me who does not keep up with your posts, gets the idea that you are antiBush. Perhaps you overdid in your criticism.

[wtc911]

I asked you twice to point to exactly where I supported Kerry or said I was anti-bush. You can't do that so you are now referring to my "unspoken words" as proof...Yeah, I'll respect that...have a nice life.

[olliemb]

I was accused once of being a democrat b/c of something I said was taken the wrong way. I merely said to you that your constant Bush bashing does not put you in the Bush bandwagon--support our leader come hell or high water, support him b/c he is the best in representing us in this country. So it is what you did not say that caused me to wonder why you would be so energetic and insulting to people unless you were here to be a disruptor. The fact that you have been here over 2 1/2 years means nothing to me b/c you can still be a disruptor (old one vs. a newbie).

Do you really seriously think that negativism against Bush helps those who are on the fence? Do you really seriously think that Bush does not need your support? Needs for us to speak up when others are doubting. LOYALTY is what I would call it. You, unfortunately, would call it being a robot. No, as I said before, it is not that you said that you supported Kerry, but you sure left a lot of hints where your political support was headed.

If truly you are not a disruptor nor even a Kerry or other non Bush candidate supporter then so be it. Join the Bush supporters and defend your president. If you have taken the talking points of the democrats by getting personal and insulting, then learn from them as well--they will stick with their leader no matter what b/c it is the big picture that matters not the little details.