The difference between "Tough" and "Stupid"

I caught a little Tim Russert today, and heard this gem from one of the guests David Gregory. His theory was that ABC, before the Worst Debate Evah, decided that the Super Delegates would want to hear the kind of crap that the Republicans would dish out, so they thought it was a good idea to ask about Wright and Ayers and flag pins and stuff like that.

Then he tells Mr. Russert that hey, they were just asking tough questions, and every politician should expect that. What's the problem?

I don't mind tough questions - I mind dumb ones. "Hey, this guy in your neighborhood and works on a charity board by you who gave you $200 for your campaign - did you know he was tied to a terrorist group 40 years ago?" That's - a dumb question. May as well say "Hey, we noticed that there's a pedophile warning list about these two guys in your neighborhood. Why haven't you shown up to drive them out of town?"

Flag pin? Seriously? When McCain, Clinton, both of the moderators, and 99.9% of the country doesn't wear a flag pin - you're going to ask why don't you wear a flag pin? Or if your paster - a Vietnam war *volunteer* soldier - in a time when black men couldn't fucking eat at certain restaurants or use the same toilet as a white man - loves his country?

These are not tough questions. Tough questions are "Explain exactly what your beef is with NAFTA and how you're going to fix it." "What will you do to get the Isreal/Palestinian on track, and how will you deal with Jewish voters who think you may be too critical of Isreal?"

So on and so forth. But "Why don't you wear a flag pin made in China to show that you really, really, really love our country - instead of working in the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago instead of getting rich?" - that's a stupid question. And Gregory is stupid for suggesting it's anything but.