Noonan Alert--Bip Bip Bip

A very special question-and-answer session with America's Peggy Noonan. All quotations are real and in context.

Peggy, why the special Sunday edition of your column?

President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I am one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.

Well, that Russert is a pretty tough character.

He has heroic concentration and a face like a fist.

Okay.... Did Bush have any advantages in his face-to-face with Russert?

Normally it's mano a mano at Mr. Russert's interview table in the big, cold studio. But this interview was in the Oval Office, on the president's home ground, in front of the big desk. Normally it's live, which would be unnerving for a normal person and is challenging for politicians. Live always raises the stakes. But Mr. Bush's interview was taped. Saturday. Taped is easier. You can actually say, "Can we stop for a second? Something in my eye."

How did the president look to you?

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.

Damn.

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.

Why is that?

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.

And Bush?

George W. Bush is not good at talking points.

Who is?

John Kerry does good talking points. In interviews he's asked for his views on tax cuts and he has it all there in his head in blocks of language that cohere and build. It gets boring the 14th time you hear it, but he looks capable.

Anybody else?

Hillary Clinton is great at talking points--she's the best, as her husband was the best in his time.

And--oh, I think I'm repeating myself here--why are Kerry and the Clintons better at talking points?

There are those who absorb and repeat their arguments and evidence--their talking points--with vigor, engagement and certainty.

Right. Absorbing arguments, and repeating them with vigor, engagement and ....

Certainty.

Thanks. I'll make a point of remembering that. I note that you've mentioned three Democrats.

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.

I'm sorry. Are you saying Republicans aren't good at memorizing talking points because they're bored?

They are bored.

Wow. Didn't see that one coming! But why don't Republicans talk of their philosophy then?

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.

Forget the question?

You can look a little gaga.

Peggy, did you say gaga?

Policy is a machine gun--bip bip bip.

What?

Education policy, bip bip bip.

Peggy? Peggy? Are you still there?

Next. Bip bip bip.