Peggy Noonan has a Wall Street Journal column out where she argues that Democrats do well with talking points (i.e. with extemporaneous talking, discussing issues), while Republicans do well with speeches.
That’s probably true. But all that proves is that Republicans have better speechwriters. Noonan herself wrote for famously bad-with-talking-points Ronald Reagan.
As for me, I don’t think it’s too high a bar for the President of the United States to be able to think on his feet. Or think. People can be taught speechcraft. Thinking is harder.
UPDATE: In related news, I’m fully intending to write a post about Bush’s performance on “Meet the Press” over the weekend, as soon as I can bring myself to watch it again, more critically.
Preview: This guy is the President?
Speaking of problems with thinkin’, did you catch Bush on Meet the Press yesterday? Ouch. The long pauses, the squinty looks… It was painfully clear that Bush had a well-rehearsed set of stock phrases that he needed to use over and over. He couldn’t–or dared not–deviate from these stock answers. He reminded me of a parrot that only knows about 10 phrases, or a job candidate who’s rehearsed the same interview questions too much. Spontaneity and nuance are NOT his strong suits.
Exactly, on both counts. Thinking on one’s feet is vitally important. I will cherish the day that Bush has to go up against ANY of the Dems. Any one of them has more of a capacity for thinking on their feet than he does.
I totally agree with Jen, as well. I had to supress myself yelling at the screen about every two minutes of his “answers” for the oh-so-obvius holes.
“Let me finish. (long pause) I have to get this right so the parents of the fallen will understand.” That sounded to me like, “I have to get this right so Cheney doesn’t kick my ass. He said I have to say this so the parents will understand. Never use the word “died” or “dead” or “killed”, either.”
RRRggghhh.
Yeah, that Al Gore is a speaking slouch. There is no way anyone would vote for Bush.
Honestly, the group think is even surprising for me.
Chasmyn: I look forward to a Bush/Dem debate too. But I worry if it’s Kerry, his wooden manner will make Al Gore look like a hipster; plus, Kerry has voted for pretty much every bad Bush program, so he doesn’t have a lot of solid debating ground there either.
But even more importantly, expectations for Bush in any debate are so low that as long as he doesn’t wet himself and start speaking in tongues, he’ll be declared the winner. That’s exactly what happened with Gore, after all.
George W. Bush – President of Lowered Expectations.
Mosey: Huh?
The problem Al Gore and Ann Richards faced is that they seemed like bullies. I swear, people were like, “Aww, this guy’s clearly not qualified to be president/governor, why are you picking on the sweet dummy?” And then they went out and voted for him!
I disagree with you about Kerry, though — he has his flaws certainly, but he’s a much better politician than Al Gore. He would never let out long sighs while W. was talking, for one thing.
“Running for President for Dummies,” by George W. Bush.
I don’t think he’s smart enough to have written that book.
By the way, even Andrew Sullivan is reaming Bush for his MTP performance. (Aside: Does anyone else wonder how Andrew can exist in Bizarro World, constantly applauding and propping up a party that wants nothing to do with his kind?)
Thank you for watching it (“it” being the President) for me, Adam, so I don’t have to!
On the one hand, conservatives would dismiss people who say that George Bush presents as stupid, clumsy and borderline dyslexic, while on the other hand, conservatives would dismiss Dean as a looney for yelling “AARGH!” during a motivational speech. Funny how the benefit of the doubt gets spread thick on one half of the cake, thin on the other.
Mosey: Is our Presidentery abilifying after the electorations?
Adam:
Re: “I will cherish the day that Bush has to go up against ANY of the Dems.”
He *DID* and one who was quite capable of speaking.
It’s like you look for any reason, any at all for prop yourself up. Frankly, Bush is actually getting some pretty good reviews for his Meet the Press interview (Broder for example says he did well, mainly because Russert was following up and putting him on the defensive and Bush didn’t get too defensive; several others o both sides have said the same thing. Please don’t use the “one conservative said… therefore, I am justified” crap.).
I mean really, it’s easy to comment from the outside about “thinking on your feet” but I know you (Adam) aren’t a good public speaker (nor is anyone asking you to be), even if you were better, remember every word you speak is going to be held up to the light, and most likely some dofus with a blog will twist it around.
Honestly, this is your “voting criteria” you are focusing on? He says “um?” when asked tough questions about reversing his policy dealing with War, death and international allies?
This wasn’t about what he had for breakfast and it wasn’t Babra Walters asking about his sex life. Not that Bush is some sort of eloquent speaker, but this was probably the toughest interview for a President since Ford on pardoning Nixon. (mind you Clinton didn’t exactly jump to open the oval office to Russert) Frankly, most people would shit themselves on the spot. Or not do one at all, or entirely avoid subjects (which to Russert’s credit he is good at avoiding).
It could have been done better, but it was still well off the bell curve considering the topics.
PS what is Andrew Sullivan’s “Own kind?” Conservative? Or would you like another pigon hole? And Gosh, to think someone might occasinally disagree with the party they support instead of mindlessly backing and arguing every agenda item that is trotted out.
Mosey:
Where to start? First, I already dealt with the Bush/Gore debate, even further up in the comments on this very thread. The bar was so low, Bush couldn’t help but clear it.
Secondly, I think the President should be asked tough questions – constantly and consistently. He’s the *President*! Anything less is insulting.
Thirdly, I never said I was a good public speaker, or a good interview subject, or anything of the kind. I never said I could rise to the occasion of a Tim Russert interview. But, and I thought this was self-evident, *I am not the President of the United States.* (Thank god, I know.) And forgive me for wanting a leader of the free world who can cogently describe why he took us to war, and not just avoid “shitting himself.”
Lastly, I think Bush’s problems run a little deeper than some “dofus” like me writing about him on my weblog. Bush did the Russert interview to try to staunch the flow of blood from WMD, Plame, Halliburton, deficits, “drunken sailor” spending, military service records, etc., and few voices said it did him any good. If his “talking point” skills were the worst problem he had, he’d be in clover.
May you live in interesting times, as the curse says.
As for Sully, I applaud his willingness to criticize Bush these days. It’s too bad it took him so long. I’m also amazed that while he seems willing to criticize the President on economic and style grounds, he’s unwilling to be as harsh about the President’s backing of a constitutional amendment that would permanently enshrine gay people as second-class citizens.
“The bar was so low, Bush couldn’t help but clear it.”
That’s just stupid. Frankly, the only people who actually put any weight into the whole “Bush is dumb” thing were people who weren’t voting for him anyway. “Being President” never has a low bar.
“Secondly, I think the President should be asked tough questions – constantly and consistently. He’s the *President*! Anything less is insulting.”
I agree, how come the last 5 or 6 never did? That entirely skips the point that he *was* asked tough (probably tougher) questions than most Presidents and at worst said, “um” a lot (with the exception of his funding fib). There is nothing to even compare him to becasue no President in recent memory had to defend himself like that. You can’t say, “he was worse than X” because X never granted an interview like that.
Of course he *DID* say why he took us to war, he just did it in a way you can go, “oh, there is an um” and “aha, he thought about something. HA! I knew he was bad.”
That is really what your argument is, you didn’t like *how* he answered things. Which is always your issue with him. (much like things like “few” but then that is not knowing objective again). Apparently so “few” did his numbers went up. It must have done something. More than anything it shows that anti-Bush people think this is some sort of Fall of Bush sign and a “look at that guy, how is he President” when “normal” people apparently didn’t care much (if any, and in fact, seem impressed with it).
It’s looking for a reason to justify your hatred, not looking at the situation and actually seeing what happened. Kind of reminds me of a football fan blaming the refs even if they got it right because the call went against their team. The team can’t be at fault, must be someone else. After all, they are a fan of the team.
Not that I am shocked by it.
By the way, cousins can’t marry either, is anyone who is a cousin a second class citizen? How sad is it that “citizenship” honges on something that most people in the “class” don’t want to do anyway. Marriage (or like) is the least of the signs of second class citizenship for gays in America.
Actually, Mosey, some cousins *can* marry — and the criteria for disallowing incestuous marriages has some basis in objective reality, as opposed to the “ick” factor that fuels opposition to gay marriage. And while gay and lesbian people do have a lower social status in many parts of America, when we’re talking about *citizenship*, we’re talking about legal status, not social status. In terms of the law, gay and lesbian people are barred from doing many things that straight people take for granted: marrying, serving in the military (don’t insult my intelligence with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, because it is a proven failure), donating blood, adopting children, working as teachers or having contact with one’s own children (in some states). These legal issues are what gay and lesbian people are unhappy about. Social pressures are one thing: We have plenty of practice dealing with the Fred Phelps crowd. Fielding pressures from governments we help fund with our own tax dollars is quite another.
And I’m sure you expected this, but comparing gay marriage to incest is like comparing Christianity to ritual cannibalism: while the comparison might have some merit, the inescapable result is inflammatory.
Mosey: re: Sullivan. Um, gay.
Sorry to pigeonhole. I forgot you were the party of inclusion.