This article is a classic example of the "PoMo" that runs our Politics. It doesn't make any difference how Bush did on Russert's show, almost none of the Public watched it. The "perception" of how he did is what is important. And that perception is controlled by about 500 Media people who report on it.
No Rave Reviews
Monday, Feb 09, 2004; 12:31 PM
Howard Kurtz - Washington Post
Not even the conservative commentators are defending Bush's performance on Russert.
The consensus seems to be that it was a weak, halting performance, that the White House gamble in having the president submit to a Sunday morning interrogation didn't pay off.
Bush is getting bashed from both sides of the spectrum, but liberals are more likely to skewer Russert as well, saying he wasn't aggressive enough in the Oval Office setting. Although I wonder whether they would have been satisfied with any interview that didn't end with Bush admitting error and begging forgiveness.
The average viewer -- or at least the average viewer who watches "Meet the Press" -- may not agree that Bush did as poorly as his critics believe. But given the polarization among the punditocracy, it's telling that some of those on the right feel Bush let them down.
OpinionJournal's Peggy Noonan minces no words:
"I am one of those who feel his performance was not impressive. . . .
"The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse. He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event. When he was thrown the semisoftball question on his National Guard experience -- he's been thrown this question for 10 years now -- he spoke in a way that seemed detached. 'It's politics.' Well yes, we know that. Tell us more.
"I never expect Mr. Bush, in interviews, to be Tony Blair: eloquent, in the moment, marshaling facts and arguments with seeming ease and reeling them out with conviction and passion. Mr. Bush is less facile with language, as we all know, less able to march out his facts to fight for him.
"I don't think Mr. Bush's supporters expect that of him, or are disappointed when he doesn't give it to them. So I'm not sure he disturbed his base. I think he just failed to inspire his base. Which is serious enough -- the base was looking for inspiration, and needed it -- but not exactly fatal. . . .
"The Big Russ interview will not be a big political story in terms of Bush supporters suddenly turning away from their man. But it will be a big political story in terms of the punditocracy and of news producers, who in general don't like Mr. Bush anyway."
Josh Marshall gives it two thumbs down:
"What I saw was a president who was either unwilling or unable to address the essential points of his domestic and foreign policy record.
"Most of his responses were disjointed collections of slogans and administration talking points, with a number of disingenuous or outright dishonest points tossed in. . . .
"The issue, I think, is that right now the president doesn't have a particularly good story to tell or a particularly good explanation for why almost nothing he's said would happen (budget, Iraq, etc.) has happened. That's a problem.
"So when he goes on an hour-long interview he doesn't sound very good. And since he's not willing to confront the debacle of the weapons search, the fiscal mess, or what's happening on the ground in Iraq he comes off sounding evasive, incoherent and out of touch with what's happening on his watch."
The New Republic's Spencer Ackerman takes aim at Russert:
"There are only so many follow-up questions a journalist can ask in a one-hour interview. Aware of his time restrictions, Tim Russert decided to ask President Bush as few of them as possible. Viewers who tuned in to yesterday's Oval Office edition of NBC's 'Meet the Press' watched Russert erratically vary the heat on his grilling of the president, cranking the flame up highest when querying Bush about the characterological controversy of the moment -- Bush's apparent absence from a year of his Air National Guard duty -- but switching to a low sizzle when discussing the foreign country we're occupying, Iraq. . . .
"Russert challenged not a single one of Bush's ridiculous contentions about the future of democracy in Iraq. He also allowed Bush to preview the line the administration will surely take as the results of its misguided policies begin to become clear: 'The road to democracy is bumpy.' With this blithe and craven argument, Bush can portray any deterioration in the Iraqi political situation, no matter how ominous for a democratic future, as ultimately consistent with the eventual march of liberalism on the Tigris."
The Nation's David Corn is folding his chapter of the Russert fan club:
"I take it back. In my last column I referred to Meet the Press host Tim Russert as the Grand Inquisitor of the Sunday morning talk shows. Not this Sunday. Not when George W. Bush was in his clutches.
"Russert is a master of the legitimate gotcha question. I admire his hard-nosed interviewing techniques. But he must have checked them before passing through the metal detectors at the White House. In his Oval Office, hour-long session with Bush, he repeatedly let Bush slide or elide. The few tough queries produced the predictable replies from Bush. And then Russert did not come back with the obvious follow-ups. He was not his usual self: a polite but aggressive quizzer who sticks to specifics, wielding quotes and source material to force his subjects to address previous statements and past actions.
"Instead, Russert allowed Bush to dish out the all-too familiar, White House-approved rhetoric. It pains me to say, he was more enabler than interrogator."
- By Howard Kurtz |
