I don't think anyone is born like that. Politicians are trained for it. I remember a podcast where they talked about Al Franken and how it was difficult to get him to stop answering questions. The goal: one, maybe two or three talking points at any given time and no matter what question anyone asks, it is your job as a politician to give a non answer and pivot to the point of the day.
Yes, I realize how easily language can be manipulated.
For example, when some people in high positions enjoy privileges, politicians will defend them by talking about their contributions, and the topic shifts from privileges to contributions. Similarly, when a few bad people emerge from a certain ethnic group, politicians will constantly emphasize these few bad people to negate the entire ethnic group and call for action against the group. The most crucial factors should be whether contributions and privileges are commensurate, and the degree of correlation between the ethnic group and individual events. But nobody discusses this.
It's especially frustrating watching congressional hearings. Since both "sides" are aware that the cameras are rolling and that they are there to score points/create soundbites (rather than actually learn from each other--god forbid) it's just both sides talking past each other and not doing the analytical work of a good conversation.
Even when I'm on one side of the argument, it's just as frustrating to hear my own side just move on to their next pre-written question/response instead of engaging with the underlying issues. I want substantive debate and discussion and possibly consensus, but that's sadly not the reality in most cases of import.
There is no "our side" and that's the problem. There are issues with a clear majority 80% plus voters agree on and steadily over decades and yet veto points (filibuster, committee chairs, holds) plus donor capture means a motivated minority with money can block majority-supported policy indefinitely.
You can always have arguments with philosophy or case law or whatever that for example carried interest loophole is good for America but overwhelming majority of US Americans support scraping it. Why haven't been able to do that? How many people benefit from this loophole? (Estimates are just a few thousands of people who benefit, not millions in a country of over three hundred million). Similarly, the IRS Direct File system was a modest improvement over the status quo. Why was it scrapped? How many people benefit from this?
Remember SVB? Remember how everyone who opposed TARP suddenly supported bailing out SVB depositors just because now these were companies in which they had invested?
The point is there can't be a real debate when the outcome of the debate determines your paycheck.
Often they will just talk around a question too. They will be asked if they will give everyone free ice cream if elected, and they will just talk about how great ice cream is, how important ice cream is, etc, but never actually answer the question.
This is a basic survival skill in politics, and not just for scandals.
Let's take Bernie Sanders, because he's well-known in Vermont for being happy to go off-script and actually talk to people. During my only personal conversation with him, he was delighted to discover that a small, local event actually served excellent chicken. (Apparently politicians eat a lot of rubbery chicken.)
But at that same event, Bernie was approached by a woman asking some conspiracy-tinged question. And he very gracefully deflected and changed the topic. I think that just about anyone who interacts with the public is likely to pick up some version of this skill eventually.