Bushwhacked!

In the curious, often unruly marriage between politics and television, there are certain charged moments that flicker in the national memory. Richard Nixon tense and sweaty debating an unruffled John Kennedy. Ed Muskie's frozen tears in the snows of New Hampshire. Ted Kennedy groping for meaning and a verb in an interview with Roger Mudd. Ronald Reagan squaring his jaw and asserting, "I'm paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!" Who cares that the man's name was actually Breen? It was great television.

Such moments supposedly provide insight into a hidden reality. In a flash they divulge the inner self, the man behind the mask. They are video epiphanies, what media wizards call a "defining moment." The viewer does not so much receive information as he does an impression. From that impression an opinion may be formed, and based on that opinion, a vote may be cast.

One such moment occurred last week. Like most of the others, it came upon the viewer unawares. Unlike others, it was staged, self-generated, almost ceremonial: a media event. Dan Rather was interviewing George Bush on the CBS Evening News -- live. Unusual, but not unprecedented. But what could have been just another conversation between two familiar talking heads turned into a collision with a resonance far out of proportion to the intense nine minutes of airtime. Their contretemps was not just a conflict between men but between two institutions, two symbols: the Vice President and the anchorman, the loyal emissary of the Reagan establishment taking on the embodiment of the East Coast liberal press.

At first, what happened seemed blindingly clear. A powerful TV journalist hectored the Vice President, who had been lured into the interview expecting that it would focus on his presidential campaign. Eager to combat his wimpy image, Bush came to shove, denouncing Rather's tactics and counterattacking by recalling the evening last September when Rather stalked away from his anchor duties and left the network blank for more than six minutes. The tightly coiled anchorman, a combustible character in the coolest of mediums, seemed almost to spring out of his chair, unsettling his audience with high-voltage intensity. It was video High Noon: Bush had shot down the legendary media gunslinger from Black Rock. It was the new George Bush. Not Bush the perpetual stand-in, but Bush the stand-up guy. Bush Unbound. Bush Unwimped.

The timing was almost perfect. His dustup came only two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, where he is trailing Bob Dole in the polls. For a candidate seeking to generate support from conservatives, getting mugged by Dan Rather and then beating him off was the political equivalent of winning a Purple Heart. "I can't really explain it, but a chord was hit," Bush said during a swing through South Dakota two days later. "I suppose people saw a guy up there by himself, standing up for what he believes."

Yet as the heat began to fade, people wondered about the light. Yes, Dan Rather had been brusque, even downright rude, but just what had George Bush stood up for anyway? That he has the right not to be dogged by questions he claims already to have answered? That he should be judged by more than just his murky behavior during the Iran-contra fiasco? Yes, but what had he been doing all that time? In rebutting Rather, Bush was not delivering a message, but beating up the messenger.