From Frontline: The Choice 2004
Interview with: A lawyer and former State Department official, Jonathan Winer was a counselor to Kerry from 1983 to 1997. In this interview, he talks about what Kerry is like as a manager and politician, and offers details on some of his high-profile Senate investigations, including his inquiries into the Contra movement in Nicaragua, drug smuggling and the corrupt international bank BCCI.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/interviews/winer.htmlCan you talk about his management style, in terms of how he dealt with his team?Light. John's a light manager. What I mean by that is: You meet with him at the front end of any assignment of whatever it is you're doing, and talking through what the issues are, talk through what the initiative might be, what the agenda might be. He says, "Yes, try it out, see what's there." Then you're basically free to do your own work on it, and then to come back to him when he needs to pay attention.
He is not a micro-manager. He won't do it. Not important to him. Whole point is, if he hired you, he has to trust you enough to believe you're going to be able to do it when he's not paying attention. Micro-managers are basically saying they don't trust their staff. He's not a micro-manager.
He gets engaged at the front end, when there has to be a particular strategic decision, and then at the very end, when he has to himself engage. He'll get involved in every detail so he knows the inside out, like a trial lawyer preparing for trial, which is what he did before he was lieutenant governor. That's the style. That's consistent over the entire 20 years that I've worked with him and known him.
Socratic method?Well, Socratic method is part of what you have to do at the front end, and particularly if you want him to go into action himself, which is he'll hit you with every single argument that he could possibly hit you with, that the other side, whoever it might be, might hit him with. So he is thoroughly prepared in the position he's going to take.
Part of that is, he'll let you believe for a period of time that he's not sure where he's going to wind up. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. But part of the process is a suspension of the intention to go a particular direction, because you've already intended, the arguments are going to get corrupted. If he's already said, "Well, that's the place I want to go, just give me arguments, I need to go there," he's not going to get the benefit of the authentic, toughest back-and-forth you could get.
So he goes to the other side, the opposite position that you want. "Why should I do this?" He's got the following problems with it. "I might be justifiably attacked for this. Why shouldn't we do that instead? Those kinds of arguments -- it's
environmental issue or energy issue or a foreign policy issue or a tax issue, and you have to battle him. He won't just do it with one staffer. You could sort of deal with that one on one. He does it with a whole group, and encourages everybody else to participate in whichever angle of the discussion they want to be.
Then when it's done -- which may be because he's ready to go get some physical exercise; he's a guy who needs physical exercise -- he won't necessarily say, "Now I know where I'm going. I'm going to do this." At that point, it's his. It's not yours; it's his. He owns it. You don't own it. He's the senator. He's lieutenant governor. He's the president. It's his action. He's going to decide and take it from there, and he'll tell you when he thinks it's the right time to tell you. Maybe, as when he's the senator, he'll tell you when he's on the floor, and just does it.
Sometimes it's an unnerving process. But he comes out the right place.
Does this process take too long? I mean, Americans need clear answers clearly.
Well, any process like that is defined by the amount of time you've got. I mean, very often that took place late at night or late in the afternoon. And he'd go exercise, and then he'd go into action. How long was this 'issues guy' with Kerry and how comfortable was he with this process. It is somewhat closed and might take some getting used to. This interview suggests that once a staff person submits all their arguments, they might not know what Kerry is thinking until they see him in a debate, a speech or on the floor of the Seante. Perhaps he either didn't 'get' it or was just not right for this process.
As to being from Boston, yeah, I believe it. I have my guyz from MIT working on the 'REveal all assholes' potion, but it isn't quite there yet. So, we still have to put up with turncoat assholes around here. Sorry one of them escaped and infected Maricopa County Dems meeting. I will get the guys at MIT to work harder.