TYT: The Difference Between Tough and Inappropriate Questions

[ihavenobias]

The Difference Between Tough and Inappropriate Questions
By Cenk Uygur

ABC has been hiding behind the shell of "we were just asking tough questions" in response to their questionable performance in the Pennsylvania debate. But to see how transparently false http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=121479&mesg_id=121479 that claim is you only have to think about this "tough" question: When did you stop beating your wife?

Now, that's a tough question, partly because it is grossly unfair, partly because it's an ugly insinuation and partly because it's structured in a way where there is no good answer. That doesn't make it a good question.

Nobody is asking ABC or anyone else to play patty-cakes with these nominees. In fact, I don't think they ask nearly tough enough questions of the Republicans, or the Democrats.

Here's a tough but fair question for John McCain:

ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256&page=1 recently broke the story that Condoleezza Rice was part of a meeting where senior level members of the Bush administration personally authorized interrogation tactics long recognized by international law as torture - and tactics you have personally come out against as abhorrent, including waterboarding - do you think she should resign her position given the damage this has done to America's reputation and given the questionable legality of her orders http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/torture-and-the-law?

Follow-up question:

And if you are against torture, as you have claimed on many occasions, why did you just vote for a bill that would allow the CIA to use tactics that you have called torture before http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503318.html?nav=rss_politics/congress ?

Now, here's a tough question for Senator Clinton:

You have in the past claimed that President Bush is the worst president in history and currently his approval rating is in the low thirties to low twenties in most polls. If you're ready on day one as you have repeatedly claimed in your campaign ads, why were you not ready to defeat George Bush in almost any legislative battle in the Senate in the past seven years? Why were you not able to effectively challenge one of the most unpopular presidents of all time on an important issue like Iraq? How can you claim to be an effective leader if you haven't led your party to any legislative victories?

Tough but fair questions for Senator Obama:

You claim you are going to bring a sea-change to Washington, but you've already been in Washington for three years and you have not brought about any substantive change to the policies of this government. Was it too hard? Do you think it will get simpler when you're president? Did you have trouble leading your fellow Democrats because of your lack of seniority? If that's true, doesn't that prove that your lack of experience will hurt you in rallying these senior leaders behind you? And how can you claim to be their leader when you haven't ever led them?

None of these have anything to do with defending people these candidates have met at any point in their lives, however tangentially, or what they're wearing (Obama's lapel pin or Hillary's supposedly cleavage bearing top), or their laugh or their tears or some side comment they made that supposedly shows their inner soul.

Tim Russert once asked Obama to defend comments made by Harry Belafonte http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/why-did-russert-ask-obama_b_14258.html . There is no evidence that the two have ever even met. As far as I can tell, the only thing that they have in common is that they're both black. Imagine asking McCain to defend the comments of some random white person. They won't even ask him to defend the comments of his own pastors http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/3/3/11449/28836/Diary/The-Real-Problem-With-Reverend-Hagee or political allies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/rick-renzi-indicted-mcca_n_87974.html , let alone all white people.

Would Stephanopoulos have dared ask Senator McCain, "Do you think Jerry Falwell loves this country as much as you do?" Remember, Falwell said America deserved 9/11 because of our support for liberals, feminists and gays http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/ . Senator McCain proudly spoke at the commencement of Falwell's Liberty University.

I'm not asking the press to ask McCain equally absurd questions about his ties to reprehensible people (though if they continue to ask Obama, then the gross hypocrisy of only doing it to one candidate and not the other is going to become unbearable soon, if it isn't already) http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/4/17/111418/684/Diary/The-quot-What-He-Said-quot-Game . But they have to stop subjecting Democrats to these loaded, facile and irrelevant questions.

If the press concentrated on what the Republicans have done in the past seven years and what John McCain has signed on to in that time, he would stand absolutely no chance of winning. The job of the press is not to somehow smooth out this disadvantage for McCain. It is to provide an accurate account of the record of all of the candidates and then let the voters decide.

This isn't a game. We don't need a buzzer beater to make it exciting. We need to pick the best person for the most important job in the world. Let's get serious about that task.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-difference-between-to_b_97595.html

www.theyoungturks.com

[CherylK]

1. The Mccain torture question is the best!

They never ask him that and yet they have time to ask Obama and Hillary these dumb questions about flag pins and cleavage and everything else.

[DAGDA56]

3. If McCain were being treated like Senators Obama and Clinton, the torture question would be

a two-parter; "Do you think torture gains any valuable information, and if so, what did you tell the VC?"

[writes3000]

2. This is EXACTLY what my issue is. Tough questions are great. But don't waste time on bullshit

and then claim that it's the best you can do.

[ihavenobias]

4. Amen n/t

[stillcool]

5. what a sorry, sorry state..

television news is. We should put this cow out to pasture.

[OhioChick]

6. K&R

:kick:

[Window]

7. Wow! Thanks for sharing ihavenobias, and the links are great! K/R.

Cenk really has his stuff together. "Sen. Obama complained all day about how tough the questions were." She certainly knows how to put a lie together. She also needs to stop acting like she's been president before. Ready to go on day one my ass.

I really like the "tough" questions posed above, and he's right -- those questions posed at the debate were very "inappropriate."


Peace:thumbsup:


:kick:

[ihavenobias]

8. I'm glad you enjoyed them :) n/t

[Berry Cool]

9. Best lines in the whole piece:

The job of the press is not to somehow smooth out this disadvantage for McCain. It is to provide an accurate account of the record of all of the candidates and then let the voters decide.

Hear, hear! I'm worried that the media are going to get this notion in their heads that in order to prove their "impartiality," they have to create an "even playing field" for all candidates in the eyes of the public. No. What they have to do is present each candidate in entirety, whatever that shows us, and let us figure things out from there. They are under no requirement to make all the candidates look "viable" or "equal."

[ihavenobias]

10. Amen n/t