In the Line of Fire: How to Handle Tough Questions... When It Counts

by Jerry Weissman

  The strategy worked. The Gallup Poll taken immediately after the second debate showed Bush did better in the match…but Kerry did better still with 47% to Bush's 45%. [9.17] Four days later, Gallup reported that Kerry still maintained a slight edge in the preference polls with 49% to Bush's 48%. [9.18]

  In their third and final debate, the two candidates returned to stand up…straight this time…behind their lecterns, at a precise distance (10 feet) from each other. The separation was stipulated in the prearranged Memorandum of Understanding so that there would be no more "in-your-face" moves on each other. (Apparently, Charles Gibson was exempted as fair game.)

  To further reduce the potential for conflict, the agreement also stipulated that the candidates could not question each other directly, but that did not inhibit them in the least. With this one last chance to win in the rubber match, the two men debated toe-to-toe, sharply attacking each other's policies, past performances, and even personalities. They bounced their attacks and counterattacks at each other via the moderator, Bob Schieffer, via the studio audience at Washington University, via the television audience of 51.2 million viewers, and even out into the ether.

  Throughout the debate, they hurled bitter names, labels, and charges at each other with fierce intensity. Bush accused Kerry of "exaggeration," being "dangerous," making "outrageous claims," and of being "a liberal senator from Massachusetts." Kerry accused Bush of "failure," being "wrong," "misleading," a "problem," and of being "the first president in 72 years to preside over an economy in America that has lost jobs."

  However, all the hostility was in their words alone. John Kerry, ever the polished debater, maintained the same calm, cool, poise and sturdy confidence he had exhibited in the first two debates. George W. Bush repeated his controlled demeanor of the second debate by being animated physically without being antagonistic. In fact, on several occasions, he added smiles to his repertory. One of them, while he was attacking his opponent's health care plan:

  I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints, and a plan is not to lay out programs that you can't pay for.

  He just said he wants everybody to be able to buy in to the same plan that senators and congressmen get. That costs the government $7,700 per family. If every family in America signed up, like the senator suggested, if would cost us $5 trillion over 10 years. It's an empty promise. It's called bait and switch.

  He smiled when he said "bait and switch," and then broke into a big grin when, in response to a time prompt from moderator, he added:

  Thank you.[9.19]

  The impression that George W. Bush had made in the first debate lingered all the way through the third. A Gallup poll taken immediately after the end of the rubber match gave John Kerry another victory by 52% to Bush's 39%. [9.20]

  In the next morning's edition of The New York Times, an analysis of all the televised debates succinctly captured and reinforced the impressions each debater made.

  In a crucible where voters measure the self-confidence, authority, and steadiness of the candidates, Mr. Kerry delivered a consistent set of assertive, collected performances. Mr. Bush appeared in three guises: impatient, even rattled at times during the first debate, angry and aggressive in the second, [and] sunny and optimistic last night. [9.21]

  The audience perception of their widely different behaviors is clearly visible in the public opinion polls. From the very earliest moments of the 2004 campaign, armies of research organizations took the temperature of the electorate almost every day in every imaginable way. Despite slight differences in the results from the diverse organizations in one direction or another, the consensus was a dead heat. For most of that summer, each man's percentage hovered around the high 40s, unable to break into a clear majority lead. The standard polling error of plus or minus three points was rarely exceeded, in effect, confirming that the race was too close to call. Most telling were the results in Figure 9.8, redrawn from the final Gallup poll before Election Day. (Note: The results for Ralph Nader, the third-party candidate, were insignificant and therefore omitted for clarity.)

  Figure 9.8. Gallup Poll [9.22]

  From early May 2004, all the way through the summer, and right up to Labor Day, Bush and Kerry ran neck and neck in nearly parallel trend lines that crisscrossed like a tight pigtail. The Democratic National Convention (DNC), which took place from July 26 to the 29, in John Kerry's hometown, Boston, finally nudged Kerry just above 50%, but it was one of the smallest "bounces" any candidate ever got from so much media exposure. One political cartoonist lampooned Kerry's poor performance with a sketch showing a man looking at Kerry's poll results with a magnifying glass.

  On the other hand, the media exposure of the Republican National Convention (RNC) in New York from August 30 to September 2 gave George W. Bush a big bounce. He surged to 54% over Kerry's 40%, a lead he held until that eventful first debate on October 3. His poor performance in that contest dropped him right back into a virtual tie with Kerry. The trend lines converged again…and then stayed very close throughout the next two debates, right up to Election Day, November 2.

  In the end, however, George W. Bush won by more than 3.5 million votes. The major factor in his victory goes back to Chapter 7: his loud, clear and consistent Topspin all throughout the campaign. The president was relentless in his focus on several key messages to his key constituents, while the senator all too often shifted focus and sometimes even contradicted himself. The evidence of their differential is best seen in the election results on the national map: the blue states that went for Kerry were at the periphery of the country on the coasts and along the top, but the solid block of red states in the center…the majority…went for Bush. It was the mainstream in the heartland, responding to George W. Bush's repeated appeal to and promise of moral responsibility that awarded him his second term.

  The Critical Impact of Debates

  George W. Bush also succeeded in duplicating a feat that only his father, George H. Bush had accomplished…winning the election despite losing the debates. In the entire history of presidential campaigns, all the candidates (except the Bushes) who succeeded in their televised debates won their elections:

  1960: John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon in the election after he bested him in the seminal debate that set the pattern for all other debates to follow.

  1976: Jimmy Carter defeated President Gerald Ford after the incumbent self-destructed in the second of their three debates during the Cold War when he said, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration."

  1980: Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter after their single debate when he notably responded to Carter's position on Medicare by remarking, "There you go again!" Then, even more notably when, in his closing statement, Reagan looked into the camera and asked the nation, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?," one of the most subtle and yet powerful, and subsequently often-copied political Topspins.

  1984: Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in a landslide after essentially breaking even in their two debates, but skewering Mondale in the second debate with his classic Topspin, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience."

  1988: George H. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in the election after losing to him in their two debates.

  1992: Bill Clinton defeated George H. Bush and Ross Perot with his famous charisma and George H. Bush's infamous wristwatch blunder in the second of their three debates.

  1996: Bill Clinton defeated Bob Dole with uncontested charisma not only in their two debates, but throughout the campaign.

  2000: George W. Bush defeated Al Gore after their three debates in which he surpassed lower expectations while Gore overshot and undershot his higher expectations.

  2004: Echoing his father's accomplishment 16 years earlier, George W. Bush defeated John F. Kerry in the election despite losing in all three of their de
bates. [9.23][9.24]

  Lessons Learned

  The lesson here is that George W. Bush's poor performance in the first debate made a tight race out of what might have been a clear coast to victory. But the incumbent had other factors in his favor: an opponent whose frequent lapses into obscurity stood in sharp contrast to his own diligent trumpeting of his clarion call to arms, his Topspin.

  The lesson for you: When you step into the line of fire, rely less on your competitor's or challenger's weakness and more on your own strengths. Take charge. Use Topspin and the many other techniques you've learned in this book to control your own destiny. In the next chapter, we'll culminate all the techniques with a positive role model from a most unlikely source, but an expert in the art of war, a military general.

  Rely on your own strengths: Take charge. Use Topspin.

  [*] You can see our version of this montage on the companion DVD, available at www.powerltd.com.

  [*] You can see our version of this sequence on the companion DVD, available at www.powerltd.com.

  Chapter 10

  The Role Model

  During the 43 days of the 1991 Gulf War, General Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander-in-chief of Desert Storm, held only about half a dozen press conferences in the press room in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and each of those sessions was very, very brief. Despite such minimal exposure, "Stormin' Norman," as he was known, became an instant global celebrity. The reason he attracted such attention is that, in each of those sessions, broadcast live throughout the world, the general exhibited complete command and control in answering the journalists' questions. In doing so, he served as a role model for every technique you've learned…and which you would do well to emulate.

  A particular case in point is the press conference of February 24, 1991. After nearly a month of air bombardments, the coalition forces launched a massive ground offensive, and General Schwarzkopf appeared to describe the first day's actions to the pool of reporters.

  The general began the session by reading a brief opening statement that he concluded with the following words:

  So far, the offensive is progressing with dramatic success. The troops are doing a great job. But I would not be honest with you if I didn't remind you that this is in the very early stages, we are a little more than twelve hours into this offensive and the war is not over yet.

  Then the general removed his eyeglasses and looked out at the sea of reporters and said,

  That concludes my prepared comments and I am now ready to take a very few questions.

  "A very few questions." In fact, the entire Q&A session ran just two minutes and 48 seconds in real time, during which the general fielded 10 questions. The role model did what you must do in your sessions: Manage the time. Schwarzkopf started by setting the audience's expectations, and so must you. When you open the floor to questions, you can say that you have no time for questions or that you have all the time in the world, but set the time expectations. General Schwarzkopf did, and then he proceeded to fulfill them. He continued his time management by counting down the last few questions toward the end.

  Manage the time.

  But let's start with first things first…when the general opened the floor, the first reporter asked:

  Can you give us an idea of how long, based on what you know now, if things go according to plan, how long do you anticipate this thing is going to last and how do you account for the fact that the opposition has been so light so far?

  A double question, "How long and why so light?" Two related questions. If you get multiple unrelated questions, pick only one, Buffer it, answer it, and then say, "You had another question." Because the reporter's questions were clearly related, the General fielded them both…in reverse order. The "why so light?" was first.

  First of all I want to say that the opposition has probably been so light so far because of the excellent job that all of the forces have to date done in preparing the battlefield. With regard to your second question, it's impossible to say how long it's going to take…

  "It's impossible to say how long it's going to take," meaning that General Schwarzkopf had no intention of answering the other question about forecasting the length of the war. Instead, he said,

  Let me put it this way. It's going to take as long as it takes for the Iraqis to get out of Kuwait and the United Nations resolutions to be enforced.

  "…the Iraqis to get out of Kuwait and United Nations resolutions to be enforced," was General Schwarzkopf's Point B, his Topspin.

  If, after your business presentation, you are asked, "How long is it going to take until you release the next version of your product?" you should say, "It's impossible to say how long it's going to take." That is the Buffer using the Roman Column, time, as well as the candid answer. When you've done that, you can roll into your Topspin. "…but I can tell you that when the next version is released, it will have the same high quality as all the other products in our powerful pipeline and produce the same rich benefits to our customers." State your Point B and your audience's WIIFY. Seize the opportunity.

  Even if you can't answer for confidential reasons, seize the opportunity to state your Point B and your audience's WIIFY.

  General Schwarzkopf then recognized the next reporter, who asked:

  There have been some reports that there has been an ongoing situation, but can you at least tell us whether we have any forces in Kuwait City? There have been reports of some paratroopers seen over Kuwait City, these reports by Kuwaiti residents.

  The Roman Column in this question was about confidential strategic information the general could not possibly broadcast to a worldwide television audience that was sure to include informants for the opposition. In business, Q&A sessions often occur at conferences where competitors are very likely to be in the audience. No businessperson or solider has any obligation to reveal strategic information and should never do so. General Schwarzkopf asserted his position. He just said, "No."

  No businessperson has any obligation to reveal strategic information. Just say, "No!"

  I'm not going to in any way discuss the location of any of the forces involved in the battle to date.

  Without missing a beat, the general then turned to another reporter who asked:

  General have any U.S. or allied troops encountered chemical or biological weapons?

  "Chemical or biological weapons" are the key words in the question. The general rolled those key words into his answer as a Buffer.

  We had some initial reports of chemical weapons, but those reports to date, as far as we're concerned, have been bogus. There have been no reported chemical weapons used thus far.

  Just like Colin Powell in Chapter 5, "Retake the Floor," General Schwarzkopf used the key word technique as his Buffer. And just like Colin Powell, not once during the entire Q&A session did he use a Double Buffer such as, "You'd like to know if our troops encountered any chemical or biological weapons," or a paraphrase such as, "Did our troops encounter any chemical or biological weapons?." In each of the 10 questions he fielded, General Schwarzkopf Buffered only with the key words and rolled them into each of his answers. Remember that the key word Buffer allows no thinking time but, when you get it right, the rapidity of your response makes you appear sharp and in control.

  When you get the Key Word Buffer right, you appear sharp and in control.

  The next reporter asked the General:

  Would you say that things are going better than you expected at this stage or about on par or slightly worse?

  Better, on par, or slightly worse? A multiple choice question with three options. Which do you think the general chose? Please note that, as in earlier chapters, the rest of this page is left blank for you to think about your answer.

  General Schwarzkopf chose:

  So far we are delighted with the progress of the campaign.

  He took the opportunity to Topspin to his Point B. He took the high ground.

  This next question came from a professional reporter who�
�as someone in your audience is very likely to do…asked a convoluted question, made more so by a halting delivery.

  With one exception…uh… the…uh… contact with the enemy was described… you say… as light. Can you provide any details at all…

  General Schwarzkopf started to answer before the reporter even finished.

  …about the exception?

  Before you see the general's answer, think. Specifically, what does she want to know? Please note that, as before, the rest of this page is left blank for you to think about your answer.

  The reporter wanted the general to provide details of the heavy engagement. Here is his answer.

  This afternoon about two hours ago, one of the Marine task forces was counterattacked with enemy armor. The Marines immediately brought their own artillery to bear, they also brought their anti-tank weapons to bear. We also brought our Air Forces to bear and the counterattack was very quickly repulsed and they retreated. I can't tell you the exact number or loss of tanks…

  "I can't tell you the exact number or loss of tanks." In other words, he did not give the reporter any of the details she wanted. His reply was entirely Topspin. "The Marines immediately brought their own artillery to bear; they also brought their anti-tank weapons to bear. We also brought our Air Forces to bear…" In essence, "we kicked their butts!"

  …but there were several tanks that were lost in that particular battle.

  About two more questions.

  "About two more questions." Now he started to count down and, as he did, his answers became shorter and shorter. He also refused to take follow-on questions, which is a privilege you do not have. The next reporter asked: