Andrew Bartlett points out:

I remain to be convinced that being the best performer at ‘throwing the switch to vaudeville’ does much on its own to attract public support.

Kevin Rudd didn’t defeat John Howard because he had a lot of witty putdowns in parliament. Nor did John Howard win against Paul Keating in 1996 for this reason. Indeed, one could argue that this fixation with Keating’s apparently unchallenged ability to dominate the arena during Question Time was a key reason why so many commentators argued he still had a chance of winning in 1996, well after the electorate had already decided they’d had enough.

Exactly.

Paul Keating knew himself that his aggression in Parliament was a negative with the public, even if it caught the limited attention spans of the press gallery. Hence the move to a more “dignified” Prime Ministerial persona, and the restriction of his appearances in Questions. The opposition, of course, did all they could to bait Keating at every opportunity, knowing full well that mastery of put downs and witty insults translated into a perception of unlikeability and overweening arrogance. And they want to promote Costello because he’d project a similar image? No wonder people talk about a media disconnect.