OpEdNews » Bad Debate Questions at Dartmouth

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Other; Torture; Torture; Torture
Add to My Group

September 28, 2007 at 19:37:58

View Ratings | Rate It

Bad Debate Questions at Dartmouth

by Carol V. Hamilton Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

At the Dartmouth debate the other night, Tim Russert asked at least two absurd and pernicious questions. One is "would you torture Al Quaida's #3 man to save American lives?" The second objectionable question was whether Israel would have the right to make a preemptive strike if it "felt in danger"?

First, the torture question. It pertains to a group that has produced people willing to act to act as suicide bombers. What kind of threat is "a beating" or even worse, compared to flying a jet full of screaming passengers into a skyscraper?

In 1528 an aristocratic cleric named Patrick Hamilton was burned at the stake in Edinburgh for hours. He could have avoided this terrible fate had he renounced his Lutheran beliefs. Other Christian martyrs were burned at the stake; one famously put his hand deliberately in the fire to show his lack of fear. There's no reason to think that Muslim zealots would be any less willing to endure whatever modern counterparts they would be subjected to.

The other arguments against torture are more well-known. John McCain says it doesn't work; people will say anything, lies included, to stop being tortured. Furthermore, if Americans use torture on enemy combatants, torture will be used on Americans; that's why we signed the Geneva Convention.

So why does Russert ask this absurd question over and over again? And why do candidates let him get away with it?

The other ridiculous question had to do with Israel, and its very phrasing was absurd. What does "Israel" mean in that question--the prime minister, the Knesset, 51% of the Israeli population? Secondly, how can a country "feel"? Does any person or country get to act on the basis of a "feeling"? I live in an apartment building; if my neighbor creeps me out, is it okay for me to shoot him, just in case? Of course not.

There was another "gotcha, bleeding heart!" question posed by one of the local TV people. She claimed to have a question from a mother who complained that her second-grader had been read a story about a prince marrying another prince. The Democratic candidates all declared themselves to be in favor of tolerance, and apparently Mitt Romney immediately got an attack ad underway using this material. I'm gay-friendly, but even I might have said, incredulously, "second grade?" And more cleverly, a candidate might have objected to a story about princes. "Hey, we're Americans, why are our children being taught about monarchy?"

Russert did ask Gravel a good question, and Gravel gave an excellent answer. He asked Gravel how the Democrats could end the war, and Gravel answered that they could hunker down in Congress, and every morning send the president a bill to end the war, wait for the veto, send it again, wait for the veto, send it again, etc., meanwhile urging their constituents to call & email in support. In 40 days, he said, it could be done, but all the candidates would have to suspend campaigning.

Gravel also praised Biden and Dodd for voting against the latest war-on-IraN bill. He scolded HIllary for supporting it and Obama for being absent. Good for Gravel. He's a blast of cold Alaskan air.

I wrote Russert an email objecting to his hot-button questions. I hope others will do the same.

Carol V. Hamilton has a Ph.D. in English from Berkeley and teaches at the University of Pittsburgh. She also writes for History News Network (hnn.us) and CommonDreams.org.

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

6 comments

Kevin Gosztola goes to Columbia College in Chicago where he is studying film. He hopes to become a documentary filmmaker. He is currently working as a production assistant on a documentary called "Seriously Green" which traces the development of the Green Party throughout the 2008 election. He has a passion for journalism and writes articles or press releases in his spare time. Kevin Gosztola is also a student activist who believes in questioning the way America's systems work(its electoral sys...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Kevin GosztolaKevin Gosztola goes to Columbia College in Chicago where he is studying film. He hopes to become a documentary filmmaker. He is currently working as a production assistant on a documentary called "Seriously Green" which traces the development of the Green Party throughout the 2008 election. He has a passion for journalism and writes articles or press releases in his spare time. Kevin Gosztola is also a student activist who believes in questioning the way America's systems work(its electoral sys...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Russert

At least he gave Hillary supporters a reason to be angry at how debates are run. Those questions were designed to go after Hillary in many cases because she was intended to be the focus since she is in the lead. For supporters upset by that, they shoud stand up for debates that don't favor any certain candidate during the debate.

The order of answering questions was unfortunately the worst part of the debate. It always went Hillary, Barack, John, Bill, Joe, Chris, Dennis, and Mike. And if the question didn't make it around or if the answers became redundant (because the two who would answer differently were placed at the end of the order conveniently), Tim would call for a hand raise to show who had something different to say. And maybe he would or maybe he wouldn't care about what they had to say. It all depended on if he was ready to move on to another question designed to attack top Democrats or not.

by Kevin Gosztola (235 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 907 comments) on Friday, September 28, 2007 at 11:34:31 PM

Carol V. Hamilton has a Ph.D. in English from Berkeley and teaches at the University of Pittsburgh. She also writes for History News Network (hnn.us) and CommonDreams.org.
Carol V. HamiltonCarol V. Hamilton has a Ph.D. in English from Berkeley and teaches at the University of Pittsburgh. She also writes for History News Network (hnn.us) and CommonDreams.org.

Really interesting

Hey, those are interesting observations! I was pretty tired when I watched the debate, so my focus could have been better. I wrote about what I noticed most, and that torture question has been disturbing me for a while.

by Carol V. Hamilton (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, September 29, 2007 at 1:34:20 AM

Really interesting

by Carol V. Hamilton (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, September 29, 2007 at 1:34:31 AM

Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

Carol V. Hamilion

Tim Russert focused on Senator Hillary Clinton because he despises and fears her as do the rest of his right wing compatriots.

Russert knows if any on that stage wins the next election, he will be a very unwelcomed guest around the White House for the way he has behaved the last sixteen years.

Some on the left are about as narrow between the ears as Russert when it comes to Senator Hilliary Clinton by refusing to discuss her seven year voting record in the Senate nor the issues she has supported the last thrity years. What a shame?

Thanks for the insight on Russert.

Phil Ratliff

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments) on Saturday, September 29, 2007 at 12:12:45 PM

57Yo m I'm a "been there, done that! Bought the tee shirt,to hide the scars!" type of person Ive workedï¿½many jobs fromï¿½a chicken slaughterer to managing a branch of a multinational and many jobs in between.Raised in colonial PNG Left School 16,Grad Hi school 22 Night School, University 36ï¿½ BBus (majored in Psyche and Marketing), Dip Comp prog and project Mmnt.at 50 I've been in 48 different community org ,23 on board with 18 prez or deputy prez.First social campaign at 17 for the aborigine...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Andris57Yo m I'm a "been there, done that! Bought the tee shirt,to hide the scars!" type of person Ive workedï¿½many jobs fromï¿½a chicken slaughterer to managing a branch of a multinational and many jobs in between.Raised in colonial PNG Left School 16,Grad Hi school 22 Night School, University 36ï¿½ BBus (majored in Psyche and Marketing), Dip Comp prog and project Mmnt.at 50 I've been in 48 different community org ,23 on board with 18 prez or deputy prez.First social campaign at 17 for the aborigine...

to see more of bio, click on member name

The format is wrong?

I’ve just seen the debate from a contact in the States. A lack lustre event if there was ever one. Just a thought, could it have more to do with the ‘good television’ format rather than the Candidates.The format seems to be set to establish who:-

Is the best debater (from a set piece rules etc.) .Australia has had some champion debaters but lousy politicians. The skill sets are different.
Is the best at selling washing powders (makes best copy). TV has no interest in the public, all programs are simply support for the ads. They don’t care who in that sense wins. Apart from their owners Republican bias this is self serving anyway.

Not Who has the best vision for the country and how to achieve it.

Who will be the best candidate for President. Most of the President's decisions thinking won't be in this artificial situation.

Least of all does it give the people the best opportunity to make the assessment for themselves.

One wonders who writes given the connections the questions perhaps a neutral needs to be the master of ceremonies. There is a brilliant English Barrister Geoffrey Robertson who works for UN war crimes and has made a career in the past for Hypertheticals in books and TV. His knowlege and skill would make a revised format zing and he would bring out the character thoughts of the candidates....inform the Public with what they need to know. His international rep would add that extra dimention.

The article in this edition of OpedNews from “ Candidate Gravel” (I think a flunkey wrote it ) was disappointingly poor and was simply ordinary politicking rather than addressing his own proposition. His performance in the debate better.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 3:16:15 AM

The earth is a good place and we should take care of it.
PleruThe earth is a good place and we should take care of it.

Hillary was on it.

She said in the debate that "hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path." Apparently this went over Russert's head.

by Pleru (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 8:34:57 AM