|
Be concise. Your question will have the most impact if you make your point briefly. This also decreases the likelihood that you will get cut off before you are able to ask for a very specific answer.
Start your question with a fact for context. Not only is this an opportunity to ask a question, but it can be an educational moment for the rest of the audience and the media. Frame your question with a fact that backs up your position and the position you want the politician to take. It can be particularly effective to use information from what we call "validators" -- people with generally accepted credibility on the issues (members of Congress, military experts) or people who don't generally agree with us but are supportive of our position in this case (Republicans, military).
Know your audience. This is important for both the candidate and the other people attending the event. Make sure your question is relevant to the positions or votes the politician has taken. Also, think about which arguments for your position are most likely to appeal to the candidate and the audience. That way you will get the most relevant information from the question and it will increase your credibility with the audience, the media, and the candidate.
Make your question as specific as possible. You need to make it difficult to avoid giving a straight answer, as many politicians will make a concerted effort to do so. Avoid saying things like "what do you think," "how do you feel," etc. Instead ask for specific commitments such as, "do you support reducing the US nuclear arsenal and if so, to what level?"
Sample Nuclear Weapons Bird-dogging Questions
For all members of Congress and candidates:
- Former Cold Warriors Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Sam Nunn, and George Shultz point out that the world is at risk of terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons or accidental nuclear launches. They outline concrete steps the US can take to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, such as ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles, and taking nuclear weapons off of hair trigger alert. On the other hand, the Bush administration attempted to take US nuclear weapons policy in an aggressive direction, requesting funding for new nuclear weapons such as the nuclear bunker-buster and raising the possibility of first nuclear strikes against non-nuclear countries. Do you support the Kissinger, Perry, Nunn, and Shultz position for a nuclear weapons free world or former president Bush's vision for nuclear weapons?
- Polls show that 73 percent of Americans favor global elimination of nuclear weapons and 79 percent of Americans want their government to do more to achieve this goal. With key committees in Congress in 2008 deciding not to support the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a new nuclear weapon, we have an opportunity to build on that and make Americans and the global community safer by reducing the number of nuclear weapons around the world. Would you support reducing our nuclear weapons stockpile, and if so, to what number and in what timeframe?
- When it comes to the danger of nuclear proliferation, expediting the clean-up of loose nuclear materials abroad is our best protection against a nuclear terrorist attack at home. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has successfully cooperated with Russia to destroy thousands of loose weapons in the former Soviet Union. Despite these efforts, numerous nuclear sites still exist, many of which are poorly secured. The impending threat of a nuclear terrorist attack demands that we intensify efforts to address the most dangerous sites quickly, not only in Russia, but around the world. Would you support an increase in funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program?
- The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) would cap the production of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium, setting a real-world limit on potential nuclear development around the globe. Would you support a verifiable ban on production of nuclear materials?
For representatives that voted in favor of new nuclear weapons (see vote here):
- A study by independent scientists has determined that the current plutonium pits – the "triggers" of our nuclear weapons -- have a lifetime of 85 to 100 years. This finding undermines the Bush administration's argument that our current warheads may not be reliable and need to be replaced by the so-called "Reliable Replacement Warhead," a new nuclear weapon. Building new nuclear weapons like the Reliable Replacement Warhead will undermine US credibility in the international community and send the wrong message to countries like Iran and North Korea. I'd like to hear an explanation of why you voted to fund a new generation of nuclear weapons, the Reliable Replacement Warhead.
|