[Bush] is not, like Jimmy Carter, a man who seeks to gain a sense of control by focusing on details.She's dead right in that assessment. No danger of Bush considering the details. And although this use of "details" probably had a different connotation for Noonan than how I'm reading it, later in the same column Noonan seems to acknowledge that some details deserve a president's focus. She writes:
[Bush] seeks a sense of control by making and sticking to the decision. When he won't budge, the White House won't budge. When it clings to an idea beyond evidence and history, it is Mr. Bush who is doing the clinging.She couldn't quite bring herself to tap the letters S-T-U-B-B-O-R-N on her computer keyboard. But at least Noonan seems to agree that "evidence and history" are pretty important details -- details that a president shouldn't have to be coaxed or reminded to pay attention to.