Lightning Rounds

I didn't realize it until I saw this post, but I hate lightning rounds at candidate debates. There are very few questions in politics that can be answered with either a yes or a no. Instead, this sort of thing fuels unfair negative attack adds by trapping politicians. And you'll see that most of the questions are not even relevant or meaningful.

I've selected the worst questions from the lightning round at the Gillibrand / DioGuardi debate.

- Has the Tea Party movement been good for America?

This is a really stupid question when only allowing a yes or no answer. A candidate should be able to say that almost any public movement addressing government is a good one. And a movement that acts as a counter to government expansion is a helpful check. The candidate should then be able to say that they disagree with most of the tea party stands for - that they are selfish and uncaring and we need energetic government to help those facing difficulties.

- Should Andrew Cuomo debate Carl Paladino one-on-one?

Why would / should either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have an opinion about that?

- Should the Guantanamo prisoners be tried in military tribunals instead of US criminal court?

This is a question that could have a yes or no, but because it is a complicated issue, it deserves a much more nuanced answer.

- Should Alan Hevesi go to prison?

Again, why would either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have a position on this?

- Would David Paterson make a better US Senator than Governor?

This is the worst of the worst. Of course Paterson would be a better Senator - he has less responsibility. He was a good state senator. He hasn't been a good governor. Unfortunately, just acknowledging that, especially by Gillibrand, suggests maybe Paterson should have nominated himself. The real question is whether Paterson would have been a good Senator and why.

- Would you attend the groundbreaking for the Islamic cultural center and mosque near the WTC site?

Ugh. The ground braking is not happening anytime soon. This is such an absurd hypothetical question and so much can change between now and the actual groundbreaking - if it even happens. All this does is gives candidates the chance to get into trouble by saying something now and then circumstances changing.

- Would Hillary Clinton make a good VP candidate in 2012?

Again, poorly worded so much as to render it meaningless. The question should be whether Hillary should be the VP nominee. Lots of people might make good VP candidates, but the real question is who the candidate should be.

- Did Anita Hill tell the truth?

Give me a break. No one knows whether she told the truth. The best we can say is that she raised troubling allegations. Unfortunately, in our world questions like this break down by political affiliation, and that is actually the expectation. Gillibrand knew she had to say yes and DioGuardi had to say no. It is appalling that the questioner would put them on the spot like this and force them to take this position in a way that doesn't allow any nuance.