The Difference Between Tough and Inappropriate Questions

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 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 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?

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?

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. 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 or political allies, 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. 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). 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.

Watch TYT Here

Comments

[GoodwithWood]

Don"t count on it. The Corporate media is controlled by, well corporations. The same entity that controls the Neo-Con-artists.

GWW

[BNAUGHTY]

cheers, well reasoned and argued... keep up the great work.

[Robin08]

What Stephanopoulos asked isn't fair, because there are very few people who have expressed their love for America as clearly as Reverend Wright, especially when America -- then and now -- rarely seems to appreciate their dedication.

How about you, Stephanopolus? Does Jeremiah Wright love America more than you? How about you, Charlie Gibson? It happens that you started college at the same time as Wright, and graduated while Wright was attending President Johnson. From what I can see, the two of you love your country so much, that you're willing to go to any lengths to demean both the candidates and your own profession.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89598542

[thatvisionthing]

And then thank God there's the other hand, Bill Moyers. Rev. Wright is going to be on his PBS show this Friday. At last, the man will speak for himself.

[Robin08]

Gibson and Stephanopolous exemplify the problem with American mainstream media IMO " misunderstanding their role in a democracy. Too many reporters function more like political operatives advocating for one candidate or the other rather than journalists advocating for an informed public.

It"s not the role of the press to determine which candidate is "more electable." Nor is it their role to test a candidate"s ability to withstand the "Republican attack machine." It"s not their role to toughen-up the candidate nor to figure out which candidate can actually win. The role of the press is to inform the public. An informed public will then decide who"s tough enough, who"s electable and who ultimately wins the race.

The situation today in mainstream media turns the process on it"s head. We gloss over informing the public in favor of political gamesmanship. Educating the public about the issues of the day, where the candidates stand on those issues, requiring candidates to explain contradictions in their positions, asking candidates why they support one policy position over another, probing their philosophy on the role of government and what they would do to make it more responsive to the needs of the people " all that takes a back seat to wearing flag lapel pins, sitting on a board with so-in-so, whether your former pastor really loves America and other such nonsense.

Stephanopolous' defending the debate reinforces my contention that they do not understand the role of the press in a democracy.

[nellie]

Cenk, this is a great article, but you're making the assumption that the press actually wants to inform the American public. I have to take issue with that assumption. The more the corporate media keeps us distracted with nonsense like jewelry or what a candidate's neighbor did 40 years ago or what absurd remark some random person who happens to be the same ethnicity or gender as one of the candidates may have made, we will remain ignorant of the great Trickle Up redistribution of wealth that continues to take place in this country, thanks to legislation written by lobbyists and ignored by the press. If Stephanopoulos has half a brain—and I believe he does—he knows those questions were garbage. Maybe Gibson really did think he had a winner with that capital gains nonsense, but regardless, they were both doing their thing for ABC/Disney.

[MadamBlu]

I thoroughly enjoyed this article.

I can't help but wonder something where the Democrats are concerned. HRC continues to claim that she has been vetted and can take on the Republican attack machine, AND continues to bring up Wright, Farrakhan and Ayers under the excuse that the Republicans will do it. But I've noticed that any time she or a surrogate of hers is asked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal, they avoid the question.

Why is it OK to bring up Obama's past associations, but NOT OK to bring up the Clinton's most famous past associate?

[fariqabdulaziz]

I want questions about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, separation of powers, the role of and limitations of the Presidency, signing statements, impeachment, personal/civil liberties, being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, who would promise to pursue investigations of Bush Admin. crimes and expose the facts behind the many incompetent/malicious scandals, I want to hear those questions until my ears bleed, I want these questions hammered at Clinton, Obama, and McCain over and over and over, until WE the people can get a measure of their core beliefs in what our system of government currently is and what it should be, and until the candidates get the message that without the right answers to those basic and crucial questions, they will not be allowed to take the car keys.

Unfortunately the fact that the media refuses to ask any of them any of these kinds of questions means the media is not to be trusted. They have been coopted by central power and no longer represent the people or our interests any more. If Stephanopolis, for example, in this latest "debate", thinks it's more important to ask questions about a GD flag pin than spending 30 minutes on theoretical and facutal criteria for impeachment, then he is either dumber than a box of rocks, or he knows about the proverbial man behind the curtain and doesn't want to ever show us.

[DallasMike]

In other words you want the Gov't to spend more of your and mine tax dollars of ways to get Bush.
Lets stop the petty crap and get someone in the Whitehouse that has some experience and can be trusted and that is not the 3 peoplewho are running right now.
I would rather know if a canidate who won't wear a "GD flag pin" is looking out for my best intrest and Americas than how are we going to "get Bush"

[ResidentChimp]

Spin, spin, spin. Obama apologists are trying every tack to make Obama look better than he is. Now we have the appropriate questions that would only make him look worse if they weren't spoon fed him in advance. That's really what Obama supporters want. a totally contrive debate where everything is handed to Obama already chewed and digested for him. It all boils down to the fact that Obama doesn't know what he's doing other than appealling to those who want to hear what they want to hear. And that is: Obama is the one we have been waiting for. Nothing more.

[nerakami]

I am most outraged that these two six + figure salaried media personnel have the gall to think that they can or were speaking on behalf of the average American. How in God's name can either George or Charlie speak on behalf of a single mother of 2 kids with no Health Insurance? How could they possibly know the difficulties I face every single day ? These media "pundits" better take a reality check and realize that we are not being fooled and know fully well that they all have their own personal agendas.... the scoop is the order of their day and should stop hiding behind the facade of ... on behalf of the public... what absolute garbage...

[ResidentChimp]

They were certainly speaking to me. And I think plenty of people were convinced that Obama doesn't know what he is doing. He's just an empty suit.

[Kirk59]

Thanks for setting us all straight chimpy. 15 months, 40+ primaries, and over 25,000,000 votes later, your insight finally clears all the clutter.
Fact is this. Obama is about to become the first true Democrat nominated since 1972. All of the centrist Republican/Democrat posers have gotten us exactly nowhere in the last 40 years. Obama may well lose, but he will win the debate, and change the political tone in this country.
If Hillary had been able to keep her boundless ambition in check, and not run, Obama would not be the nominee. Anti-Hillary Democrats have rallied around Obama in an effort to finally snuff the Clintons out. Edwards would not have won either. If Hillary had stood down, many other high ranking Democrats would have thrown their hats in the ring. With her involved they all had to step back.
We in Illinois know Barack's qualities and we are very proud of our Senator. He may get skewered by the right, but he will accomplish 3 important goals. 1. Change the debate 2. End the Clinton dynasty. 3. Assume a leadership position in the party for the next 25 years.

[gsuescum]

I'm a single white man w/ health insurance (but terrified that I may lose my job with the coming meltdown and be unable to pay the $600/mo to maintain coverage) who does fairly well - OBAMA speaks for me. He's smart and seems to be the candidate that sucks the least on the corporate tit.

Clinton (my senator who I follow closely) has voted over and over to side with the corporations and the neo-cons. She DOES NOT SPEAK for me. Clinton is an empty pant-suit.

[DallasMike]

Who do you think Obama and Hillary are? they make 6+ figures who are they to think they can speak for the average American?
If they really wanted to fix health care they would the same with SS
You see the problem is they have health care and they won't have to live on SS when they retire
So how do you know the canidates will do what they say?
You know the old saying "the proof is in the pudding" and so far for 30+ years I have yet to see any pudding from the Dems.

[kathyhussien]

If you're going to ask questions about associations or past history how about: John Warmonger McCain explain these: Your first crippled wife you cheated on her with Cindy. Cindy's drug use and theft not prosecuted, what did you tell the Vietcong to get medical treatment, you made anti-American broadcasts for the Vietcong, Your involvement with Keating 5; on Forestal Fire, did you do a wet start that ignited those bombs killing 132 men, you and father are hiding info about USS Liberty and the attack from Israel. Your connection to the mob, we know Cindy's father served time in prison and had connection with the mob, and he financed your run for office. What is the real connection to you and the Lobbyist the New York Time printed? Everyone think you have some military experience in leading, the FACT IS YOU NEVER COMMANDED ANY THING LARGE THAN A SMALL GROUP OF FIGHTER AND EVEN THAN YOU ONLY CARRIED OUT ORDERS YOU WERE GIVEN, WHAT YOU DID IN THE MILITARY WAS DROP BOMBS FROM HIGH IN THE AIR FROM ORDERS THAT WERE GIVEN YOU AND THE ONLY REASON YOU ROSE TO THE RANK OF CAPTON IS BECAUSE YOU WENT TO ANNAPOLIS, (WHICH YOUR FAMILY POSITION GOT YOU IN) AND YOU WERE 5TH FROM THE BOTTOM OF YOUR CLASS, YOU NEVER WOULD BE ABLE TO RISE ANY HIGHER AS YOUR DAD DID, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T AND STILL DON'T HAVE WHAT IT MAKES TO LEAD PEOPLE.

[MizLiz]

You go, Kathy!! Tell 'em!!

For once I want the whole truth to come out about a Republican candidate. Not like Bush, who got a free ride on being AWOL, among other things.

[lvogt]

Timing is everything. Even scandal can peak too soon. Often it is better to have the toughest issues raised closer to the election. Obama's problems will be repetitive old news come October. McCain's may just be surfacing with the public at large.

[syzito1]

When you examine the record and past history of all three candidates not a one of them is actually qualified to be president of this country.

[nyboomer]

No one in the MSM will ask Republicans questions designed to make the Republicans squirm or sidestep so violently as to make it obvious they lack a credible answer they would willingly articulate in public.

The last time this happened Dan Rather was exiled for a few years before he could regain his position.

The Democrats are not noted for being vindictive nor are they as vicious as the Republicans,. They should reconsider.

Bullies uncofronted come to believe their actions are not inappropriate.

[MizLiz]

I want to see McCain goaded enough at a debate to come unglued and show the American public just who he really is.

[DallasMike]

To bad Dan had to make up his scanalis lies.

[Seral]

About the questions, let me repeat again. I don't consider them inappropriate, as any question will definitely be evaluated subjectively regardless of how you look at it, and there is a very large set of questions like that to ask and expect an answer. Just because ABC didn't ask those other questions does not mean they were wrong. They weigh on one side, and that is their choice. A politician ready to be President should be happy to answer any kind of question that comes his/her way. If not, then, defending the person fail to respond as a leader he/she claims to be would be exactly what I consider as inappropriate.

To those who are complaining about the questions. I had watched the other debates. And, in all of them, most of the really good questions were answered "politically". In other words, in a way you would call superficial. Just to satisfy the demand of saying something on the subject. Other than that, it is all about fillers. Sorry to say that, but, if you are okay with that, and have a problem with ABC's debate, then to me you are the one who has a problem. The other debates were baiting debates, trying to make Clinton and Obama fight each other, ABC's is an invitation to fight own self.

[LinusBern]

You seem to be saying that because candidates answered superficially to substantive questions in past debates there is no reason to ask substantive questions. An interesting perspective which I have not seen expressed before.

[Seral]

In a political arena, there is no inappropriate question. If you make the voters decide on the right person, then that person should be evaluated in all aspects. I wished the Republicans would have done the same, but they cannot. They are too deep in that kind of worse of the worse kind of connections or affairs, that they have to hold their hand together to not enter the subject.

But, for Democrats, it is different. At least, they claim to be different. So, here is your chance to show your difference. If you cannot, then it is not a matter of question type you are exposed, but it is a matter of how ready you are and how good you are according to what you say.

And, let me say this. Neither Obama nor Clinton is clean, it should be obvious by now, that both have connections that you would not want them to have. For Clinton it is more like political, for Obama, it is more like personal. I don't know what is your weigh on each, but, as long as there is a connection, then you cannot just see one and ignore the other.