'POP' Goes Art Robinson (Maddow 10/07)

[El_Kabong]

I will confess to knowing next to nothing about the race for an Oregon Congressional seat between multi-term Democrat Peter DeFazio and Republican, Tea-partiesque challenger Art Robinson (http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/07/art-robinson-brings-the-crazy/), but based on Mr. Robinson's utter train wreck of an appearance on Rachel Maddow's show tonight, DeFazio looks to be a lock for another term. Video's not up yet, but it's can't miss, riveting stuff.

The interview began with Maddow vainly attempting to ask questions about source of funds for a campaign ad for Robinson, partially funded by an anonymous $150,000 contribution, while Robinson filbustered about supposed special-interest funding of his opponent. The discussion, such as it was, then segued to Robinson's peculiar ideas concerning government-led inflation of AIDS statistics, the non-existence of anthropogenic global warming and the health benefits of exposure to low-level radiation. Of greatest hilarity were his repeated accusations that Maddow was 'lying' and conducting a smear job, as she read excerpts from newsletter articles that he himself had written and attempted (without notable success) to ask whether he stood by any of his own statements. The rest of the discussion alternated between Mr. Robinson making supercilious demands to "discuss the issues", accusing Maddow of being excessively sarcastic and (after referring to himself as "a scientist, and a very good one") seeming completely confused as to why there might be a built-in transmission delay in a interview conducted by satellite link.

Anyway, just wanted to alert y'all to a bit of cheap entertainment, once the video hits the net, as I'm sure it shortly will.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Wow! I think Sharron Angle has found her VP pick for 2012!

That linked article has some, uh, interesting quotes.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Train wreck is an understatement for that display. He is a total loon.

And here (http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/10/video-rachel-maddowart-robinson-showdown/) is a link to the video.

[Kolga]

I sat there for the entire interview with my mouth hanging open in disbelief, then looked at my friend watching with me, and we both collapsed into howls of laughter.

That guy is more than a loon, he seriously needs medication or something.

It was awesome to watch Rachel bang her head on the desk :D

[DigitalC]

How do Tea partiers expect anyone to take them seriously when they keep nominating people like this?

[Wesley Clark]

I usually only get to listen to Maddow on podcast, which sucks since you miss all the video nuances of interviews like this.

[elucidator]

How do Tea partiers expect anyone to take them seriously when they keep nominating people like this?

In the interview they saw, he kicked her ass. He not only won't be hiding it, he'll be flaunting it, because anyone who agrees with him will see it that way, too.

[Robot Arm]

I think that Robinson may have had a point or two to make*, but that he didn't even try to make them. He looked like someone who came into it spoiling for a fight. He had plenty of opportunities to answer questions (in a simplified fashion, at least), but chose instead to attack her for having asked them.


* She asked him is he was concerned about the anonymous spending on his campaign. Should he be? The whole issue with campaign financing is the potential for a candidate to grant favors to those who give him money. If he truly doesn't know who the money came from, it can't be infuencing his decisions. He didn't give that answer, though.

If he does know who the money comes from, and is just failing to disclose it, that's another thing entirely.

[Nicest of the Damned]

The discussion, such as it was, then segued to Robinson's peculiar ideas concerning...<snip>...the health benefits of exposure to low-level radiation.

Was anyone else thinking of Repo Man?

Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.

[Cisco]

Maddow didn't exactly do a bang-up job herself. She was being condescending and interrupted him almost as much as he interrupted her. She also should've disclosed right up front that the AIDS document was 15 years old. The fact that he knew right away how old it was suggests to me that he probably doesn't believe it anymore (if he did he probably would've said it again more recently.) She should've let him finish his answer about hormesis (not saying I agree with that idea but I don't think it is nearly as fringe as Rachel was making it out to be), and the question about "do you wanna nuke America because radiation is good for people" was absolutely ridiculous and below a dignified journalist.

I'm taking it as obvious here that he's an asshat, and just pointing out that Ms. Maddow didn't look much better.

[Paul in Qatar]

538 gives him a 0.0% chance of winning. He is not worth even discussing.

[El_Kabong]

Maddow didn't exactly do a bang-up job herself. She was being condescending and interrupted him almost as much as he interrupted her. She also should've disclosed right up front that the AIDS document was 15 years old. The fact that he knew right away how old it was suggests to me that he probably doesn't believe it anymore (if he did he probably would've said it again more recently.)

The interruptions, in my view, were perfectly justified as Robinson repeatedly tried to ignore the questions and/or talk over them. As for the AIDS question, if he doesn't happen to believe that the government was overstating the number of AIDS cases anymore, he could have simply said so; instead he tried to claim simultaneously that he couldn't remember whether he had ever said anything like that and that Maddow was lying to claim that he had.

I'm taking it as obvious here that he's an asshat, and just pointing out that Ms. Maddow didn't look much better.

Nothing particularly unfair on Maddow's part that I could see, and frankly she came off as more patient with him than I might have been. Mr. Robinson clearly came in expecting to make a few negative talking points about his opponent, while maybe working in a spot of media bashing, and by pretty much any measure had his ass handed to him.

[asterion]

I usually only get to listen to Maddow on podcast, which sucks since you miss all the video nuances of interviews like this.

MSNBC does release a video podcast of both Countdown and Maddow, and they generally are available fairly soon after the initial broadcasts. Just a heads-up in case you have the bandwidth to download 250 megs or so for each podcast.

[Homo litoralis]

Maddow: You said this thing.
Robinson: I never!
Maddow: Sir, I'm quoting you.
Robinson: That was fifteen years ago!
Maddow: Do you still believe this thing?
Robinson: I don't trust your quote!
Maddow: I'm reading from your newsletter.
Robinson: My opponent is evil!
Maddow: I'd like to know where you stand.
Robinson: You're smearing me!
Maddow: No, I'm asking you questions about you.
Robinson: You're a sarcastic bitch!
Maddow: For asking you questions?
Robinson: You interrupted me!
Maddow: Sorry. It's the satellite link delay.
Robinson: Bullshit!
Maddow: No, really.
Robinson: I'm a scientist dammit! Speed of light!
Maddow: Can I get even one answer from you?
Robinson: Lies! Lies I tell you!
Maddow: No, I'm asking if you still believe this thing you said.
Robinson: You suck, madam!
Maddow: Thank you for your time.

I gotta say, that was the finest half-hour of Maddow I've ever seen, watching her chest get all flush like that, waiting, wondering if she could possibly maintain her composure in the face of this spectacularly stupid man who willingly appeared on her show ostensibly to promote his suitability for I don't even know what office right now like it really matters but holy cow it was breathtaking!

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

Link the the interview, and the newsletters Maddow was quoting from.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/07/5254452-if-it-were-possible-to-smear-a-person-by-quoting-to-him-things-that-he-has-published-in-his-own-newsletter

I'm watching it now.

5 minutes in, Art's using a standard technique of talkingtalkingtalking, going over the material he wants to, getting the message out that he wants, while making the host look bad by needing to interrupt him to ask questions or get him back on subject. Interviewers need to be aware of this and be ready to combat it. Maddow's seen it before.

He's spending minutes claiming that Maddow is misrepresenting what he has said, while ignoring the opportunity to EXPLAIN what he believes.

Maddow quotes from his newsletter about statements he made about AIDS in 1995. I do not believe there was much debate over the cause of AIDS in 1995. If there were a debate, what he wrote would still sound half-assed and unscientific, if we can believe Maddow's reading of his newsletter. I expect she's fully able to prove her source(after watching the video, I checked. She is (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/07/5254452-if-it-were-possible-to-smear-a-person-by-quoting-to-him-things-that-he-has-published-in-his-own-newsletter).)

11 minutes in. Now he's rattling off attacks on his opponent, rather than respond to anything Maddow's asked. He's repeating, "Your viewers know what you are." to Maddow. Now he's saying, "You could not understand it" if he explained 'hormesis'.

He's complaining that she's sarcastic, apparently having never been asked a question before. Now she's explaining how satellite interviews work, and he says there is no delay, that it's speed-of-light. _I_ know there's a delay, how does the 'scientist' not know it?

Now he is once again calling her a liar as she quotes from his newsletter.

Anyone saying Maddow comes off 'not much better' is not watching what I watched. She was confronted with a belligerent man with a chip on his shoulder who wanted to use her show as a soapbox, rather than engage in a give-and-take discussion, and who would rather bitch and moan FOR MINUTES than use that time to refute whatever the hell he thought she was saying. Now I see why some interviewers will cut off their guests.

If he gets elected, the state deserves him. I actually think Alvin Greene from S. Carolina is a better Senate candidate, and Greene is probably mentally handicapped.

I gotta stop following politics. I'm losing what little faith in ppl I ever had.

[Chronos]

Why is Maddow even bothering with this idiot? Arguing with him his beneath her.

[Cisco]

Why is Maddow even bothering with this idiot? Arguing with him his beneath her.

I agree, and yet she kept stooping to his level. I don't know much about her, but my opinion of her always been very high. It's a little bit lower now.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Link the the interview, and the newsletters Maddow was quoting from.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/07/5254452-if-it-were-possible-to-smear-a-person-by-quoting-to-him-things-that-he-has-published-in-his-own-newsletter

I'm watching it now.

5 minutes in, Art's using a standard technique of talkingtalkingtalking, going over the material he wants to, getting the message out that he wants, while making the host look bad by needing to interrupt him to ask questions or get him back on subject. Interviewers need to be aware of this and be ready to combat it. Maddow's seen it before.

He's spending minutes claiming that Maddow is misrepresenting what he has said, while ignoring the opportunity to EXPLAIN what he believes.

Maddow quotes from his newsletter about statements he made about AIDS in 1995. I do not believe there was much debate over the cause of AIDS in 1995. If there were a debate, what he wrote would still sound half-assed and unscientific, if we can believe Maddow's reading of his newsletter. I expect she's fully able to prove her source(after watching the video, I checked. She is (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/07/5254452-if-it-were-possible-to-smear-a-person-by-quoting-to-him-things-that-he-has-published-in-his-own-newsletter).)

11 minutes in. Now he's rattling off attacks on his opponent, rather than respond to anything Maddow's asked. He's repeating, "Your viewers know what you are." to Maddow. Now he's saying, "You could not understand it" if he explained 'hormesis'.

He's complaining that she's sarcastic, apparently having never been asked a question before. Now she's explaining how satellite interviews work, and he says there is no delay, that it's speed-of-light. _I_ know there's a delay, how does the 'scientist' not know it?

Now he is once again calling her a liar as she quotes from his newsletter.

Anyone saying Maddow comes off 'not much better' is not watching what I watched. She was confronted with a belligerent man with a chip on his shoulder who wanted to use her show as a soapbox, rather than engage in a give-and-take discussion, and who would rather bitch and moan FOR MINUTES than use that time to refute whatever the hell he thought she was saying. Now I see why some interviewers will cut off their guests.

If he gets elected, the state deserves him. I actually think Alvin Greene from S. Carolina is a better Senate candidate, and Greene is probably mentally handicapped.

I gotta stop following politics. I'm losing what little faith in ppl I ever had.

You're aware that this man has pretty much a 0% chance of winning, right?

[Steve MB]

Why is Maddow even bothering with this idiot?

Apparently he was the only Republican candidate willing to go on her show.

[gonzomax]

The Tea Baggers keep pushing loons for office and expect America and the world to take them seriously. They are the party of Palin, Angle, Paul, O'Donnell and now Robinson. Their selection of pols will make the party stillborn.

[Kolga]

She did say later that since her Rand Paul interview, Republican candidates have pretty much refused to go on her show at all, and that this nutbar is the only one, out of all that have been asked, to agree to be interviewed. I'm not sure when, exactly, the Republicans turned into such a bunch of pussies.

Yea, Cisco definitely saw a different interview than I did. I suppose she could have just sat there and let him talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk without answering any of her questions at all, but by definition, an interview involves one person asking questions and one person answering them. If she'd waited for him to shut the hell up to before she asked him questions, he would have just monologued all night long.

He clearly had no intentions from the get-go of answering any questions about himself or his positions, just rail against his opponent (fair enough, but that only gets you so far) and call her names.

[Digital Stimulus]

Maddow didn't exactly do a bang-up job herself...
Yeah, I agree. Let me say that I think Rachel is awesome; if all political pundits showed the same level of honesty, willingness to debate substantive issues, and general knowledge about and insight into the workings of the world, the entire country would be much better off.

However. From the very beginning, this interview, such as it was, was just awful. Sure, after something like 5 minutes in, Maddow recovered her wits and came off much better than Robinson (who came off as a loon and/or douchebag for the entire thing). The thing is that after that glaringly bad start, there's no way it was gonna recover.

And I don't really see the digging up articles from 15 years ago as valid interview fodder. At least, generally speaking, not unless they reinforce a candidate's currently held and pertinent view.

All things considered, it came off like a "gotcha ya" attempt and it's no wonder more Republicans don't go on the show. I think that Rachel's better than that, and she usually proves that nightly. I'll consider this incident an anomaly.

[Kolga]

And I don't really see the digging up articles from 15 years ago as valid interview fodder. At least, generally speaking, not unless they reinforce a candidate's currently held and pertinent view.



Given that some of those articles weren't from 15 years ago, and the ones that were (and the ones that weren't) contained some pretty loopy, off-the-wall, intellectually-indefensible statements, and that she continuously attempted to ask him whether or not his currently held and pertinent view was consistent with those original statements, I believe it's valid interview fodder.

Since he refused to say whether or not he still help those views (some from 15 years ago, some from more recent newsletters that he himself writes and publishes), there was no way for her or the audience to know whether or not they reinforced his currently held and pertinent views. She kept trying to ask him about his current views, he kept talking over her and accusing her of lying and smearing and mudslinging.

[Digital Stimulus]

Given that some of those articles weren't from 15 years ago, and the ones that were (and the ones that weren't) contained some pretty loopy, off-the-wall, intellectually-indefensible statements, and that she continuously attempted to ask him whether or not his currently held and pertinent view was consistent with those original statements, I believe it's valid interview fodder.
Perhaps, but I got the sense that his criticism (paraphrased) of "digging up an obscure sentence or two from thousands" was generally accurate. I'd have felt better about it if she started with a current issue -- y'know, set some context first -- and then tied that back to prior writings.
Since he refused to say whether or not he still help those views (some from 15 years ago, some from more recent newsletters that he himself writes and publishes), there was no way for her or the audience to know whether or not they reinforced his currently held and pertinent views. She kept trying to ask him about his current views, he kept talking over her and accusing her of lying and smearing and mudslinging.
An epic fail on his part. He kept saying that it was just one of many things he discussed; he could've easily dismissed it as not what he (currently) believes. However, as I said above, at that point I think there was no possible recovery from an abortion of an interview. And no matter what his actions were, the way Rachel went about it still reflects badly on her. IMHO, of course.

[Jenaroph]

Perhaps, but I got the sense that his criticism (paraphrased) of "digging up an obscure sentence or two from thousands" was generally accurate. I'd have felt better about it if she started with a current issue -- y'know, set some context first -- and then tied that back to prior writings.


I dunno; when the sentence is "All we have to do to with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean or even over America" I'm having trouble imagining a context where that doesn't mean exactly what it sounds like, and I'd like to know if a candidate for federal government still thinks that's a good idea.

[Kolga]

I don't think asking him about hormesis (which he never bothered to define, instead telling Maddow that he didn't think she could understand it because it was too complex), or the idea that diluting radiation to sprinkle it over America, or his belief that the number of AIDS cases in the 90s was a government-supported conspiracy for political purposes, is "digging up an obscure sentence." He's written more than one sentence about those beliefs, and they're wacko and out there enough for him to remember them, rather than being just throw-away ramblings.

She also did try to start out with a current issue - global warming, and his belief that it was a liberal lie. He didn't answer any of those questions any better.

[Merijeek]

I dunno; when the sentence is "All we have to do to with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean or even over America" I'm having trouble imagining a context where that doesn't mean exactly what it sounds like, and I'd like to know if a candidate for federal government still thinks that's a good idea.

He just wants to get himself some Tommacco.

-Joe

[elucidator]

Where homeopathic medicine meets nuclear physics. What could possibly go wrong?

Whats the matter, Lassie? Timmy fell down the well? That's all right, girl, he's got gills....

[Digital Stimulus]

I dunno; when the sentence is "All we have to do to with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean or even over America" I'm having trouble imagining a context where that doesn't mean exactly what it sounds like, and I'd like to know if a candidate for federal government still thinks that's a good idea.
It's not clear to me that's what he was saying. And if that's really what he was saying, it's not clear to me that he was actually advocating for it. What is clear to me is that the interview should never have gotten to that state.

Ugh. I feel gross (sort of) defending this guy. Please don't make me do it again.
I don't think asking him about hormesis (which he never bothered to define, instead telling Maddow that he didn't think she could understand it because it was too complex), or the idea that diluting radiation to sprinkle it over America, or his belief that the number of AIDS cases in the 90s was a government-supported conspiracy for political purposes, is "digging up an obscure sentence." He's written more than one sentence about those beliefs, and they're wacko and out there enough for him to remember them, rather than being just throw-away ramblings.
Again, it's not that he "never bothered to define it" (although he never did), and it may very well be a topic that one cannot adequately define in a short segment. The problem is: by the time it came up, the interview was already an utter train-wreck. Similarly, it's not clear to me that he actually believes the thing about AIDS. I'm not saying he doesn't, I have no idea. Rachel did such a piss-poor job at the beginning of the interview that it was a lost cause almost from the get-go.

She's crazy smart and I love watching her show, but she cocked this one up but good. IMHO, she needs to work on conducting an adversarial interview...although I'm not sure it's even possible to do so while maintaining the substance.
She also did try to start out with a current issue - global warming, and his belief that it was a liberal lie. He didn't answer any of those questions any better.
I don't recall exactly how it all went down, and I'm not about to subject myself to it again. If I felt that type of masochist urge, I'd go dig up an old episode of Crossfire -- which is on just about the same level, but I'd get to snicker at Tucker's bowtie. Perhaps you're right, but that's not what I recall. And leaving it there is OK by me.

[Prelude to Fascination]

I saw the interview on the show, and then this morning online. It gave me the best laugh of the day because Robinson showed himself to be a complete idiot as well as a hypocrite who couldn't recognize the irony of his statement when he accused Maddow of not letting him finish a sentence before she interrupted him.

I also looked up his qualifications as a scientist as well as his Oregon Institute of Phantasy, and I must say I'm rather unimpressed.

He doesn't even talk a good game, but I'll say again the interview was most entertaining.

[newcomer]

Aside from the theatrics three points that Rachel made were absolutely bogus. I mean, with all due respect but...

First, he is right that 150K of “anonymous” support is diverting the issue. Who gives a f**? We all know who. What’s to discuss? And Rachel making this wild claim that it could be criminals for all we know was just a cheap shot to which he responded slightly irritated. It was irritating. Maybe it comes from terrorists.

Second, the issue of global warming. The guy just pointed out that the issue is not settled and aside from him there are plenty of scientists thinking the same. Plus, he’s got something to back up his claims. Unlike, I dunno, Rachel?

Third issue, the quote, the guy tried to explain that it’s a complicated issue, it was long time ago, and in his view it misrepresents the article. To me sounds like a reasonable request. Yet, Rachel insists for him to take the ownership of the quote. Ridiculous. What makes him a loon... maybe when he says that she is giving him 30 seconds to answer a complicated scientific issue and he say he wont do it. Come on?! And on top of that Rachel responds that she is asking questions to understand the issue. What’s loony is giving her credit for that “honesty”.

When I read the OP I expected a loon who’s spouting Bible quotes and has saliva dripping down his chin but all I got is the guy who has a different political opinion than the talk show host and will not allow media type to handle him the way she is used to. I don’t find her attitude inspiring. It looked like a hit job that went not exactly as planned.

I’m sure I’m missing something.

[Lamar Mundane]

Second, the issue of global warming. The guy just pointed out that the issue is not settled and aside from him there are plenty of scientists thinking the same. Plus, he’s got something to back up his claims. Unlike, I dunno, Rachel?



He did nothing of the sort. He claimed multiple times that he had proven scientifically that global warming was false. Not a word about being "not settled". He has personally settled it.

[Robot Arm]

...all I got is the guy who has a different political opinion than the talk show host...What is his political opinion? I heard him attack his opponent, and Ms. Maddow, but in the entire interview I don't recall him taking a single stand or defending any position of his own. He even tried to distance himself from his past statements.

So really, what does this guy believe?

[elucidator]

Watched her again tonight, and she emphasized the point that is the crux of the shit. This guy is the candidate you would not otherwise hear about, because he's from rural Oregon, a smallish House district, their elections do not rate state news, much less national.

But somebody gave this guy $150,000. Which is chickenfeed in a big hairy important election, but is huge shit out in the sticks. (No offense meant to the stick dwelling community).

Who would do such a thing, you might well ask? Well you might, and ask as long as you like, nobody is going to tell you, they no longer have to tell you. Anything. IIRC, a recent article on this weirdo says he claims not even to know! who donated the money.

As a loony tune, he had as much chance as any othter loony tune with a shoestring budget. But he's got bucks for slick advertising (a sample was included) and money to buy ad time, and thus the impossible becomes the barely plausible.

I pray the American people are too smart for this. It should be duly noted I haven't had a lotta luck, prayer-wise. Maybe it's my attitude.

[elucidator]

Nitpick! IIRC, he didn't actually make any attempt to distance himself or recant those opinions, Lord knows, he had opportunity enough. He simply attacked Maddow for bringing up something fifteen years old, as if that in itself was proof of malice.

[El_Kabong]

When I read the OP I expected a loon who’s spouting Bible quotes and has saliva dripping down his chin but all I got is the guy who has a different political opinion than the talk show host and will not allow media type to handle him the way she is used to.

Why? I didn't say, or even suggest, anything like that in the OP. In any event, while your statement may seem reasonable to someone who has not actually seen the 'interview', what the rest of us saw was someone who steadfastly refused to reveal his political opinions about much of anything.

Let me ask you, do you feel, upon viewing the interview, that Mr. Robinson is both qualified and desirable for a Congressional seat? If so, why?

[Digital Stimulus]

Watched her again tonight, and she emphasized the point that is the crux of the shit....But somebody gave this guy $150,000...
Yeah, I watched it also and vaguely recalled that this was how she started the interview. And, as much as she's right to bring attention to the current practice of anonymous and untraceable $$$ in elections, IIRC she started the whole thing with a "gotcha ya". And off the rails it went, never to recover.
...IIRC, a recent article on this weirdo says he claims not even to know! who donated the money...
I find that pretty plausible, actually, in this election cycle. And it just furthers the case for disclosure laws, IMHO.

[magellan01]

Why is Maddow even bothering with this idiot? Arguing with him his beneath her.

I agree, and yet she kept stooping to his level. I don't know much about her, but my opinion of her always been very high. It's a little bit lower now.

It plummeted more for me. When she finally got him to start explaining hormesis she interrupted him, and then claimed it was due to the satellite delay, which is wasn't. She was attempting the same "gotcha" that Hannity often tries with guests. It makes me cringe and shake my head when he does (though I don't care for him anyway), and I have the same response to her doing so. Clearly, she went through his writings and just looked for "what can I throw at him to make him look crazy". I don't know anything about him or Fazio, or Oregon politics, but he was throwing out some issues that I found myself wanting to know more about.

[elucidator]

Well, OK. What issues did you see him throw out that you found intriguing?

[Lobohan]

Well, OK. What issues did you see him throw out that you found intriguing?He was attacking a Democrat. I'm pretty sure Magellan didn't hear anything but that.

[Cisco]

It would have been ridiculously easy for her to give him enough rope to hang himself. Instead, she ham-handedly attacked him and tried to act smug and innocent about it, and so she just further screwed herself and her viewers out of opportunities for dialogue across the aisle. You guys are saying Art Robison doesn't matter, which is probably true, but someone who does matter could have been watching and decided never to talk to this woman.

It's probably a pretty good rule of thumb in life to avoid dealing with people who have nothing to lose.

[descamisado]

Yeah, I watched it also and vaguely recalled that this was how she started the interview. And, as much as she's right to bring attention to the current practice of anonymous and untraceable $$$ in elections, IIRC she started the whole thing with a "gotcha ya". And off the rails it went, never to recover.That interview would have gone off the rails in exactly the same way if she'd started with, "Can you state your name for the record," with Robinson's smear accusations, calling into question his opponent's stand on the question, and claims she's bringing up 68-year-old on-the-record facts and all.

[Cisco]

That interview would have gone off the rails in exactly the same way if she'd started with, "Can you state your name for the record,"
You're probably right, because that's a shithead question, just like a lot of other questions she asked.

I've yet to hear anybody defend "hormesis is your idea that low-level radiation is good for us . . . you're also an advocate for expanded nuclear weapons testing in the United States. Is that because you think it would be beneficial to up the background radiation levels in the United States, because that radiation would be good for us?" I'd like to see Sean Hannity mine everything Barack Obama ever wrote, find two quotes like that, draw a similarly outrageous conclusion, and watch the gnashing of teeth and 12 page BBQ Pit threads ensue around here.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how obvious is was that Maddow was trying to smear this guy, and watching you guys stick your fingers in your ears while screaming LALALALALALALA and pretending she wasn't. I'm all about calling bullshit on Tea Partiers and conservatives and Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins and Bill O'Reillys, but if you don't also call it when your guy (or girl, in this case) does it, then you lose credibility and you're just a partisan lapdog as far as I'm concerned.

[Lobohan]

That interview would have gone off the rails in exactly the same way if she'd started with, "Can you state your name for the record,"
You're probably right, because that's a shithead question, just like a lot of other questions she asked.

I've yet to hear anybody defend "hormesis is your idea that low-level radiation is good for us . . . you're also an advocate for expanded nuclear weapons testing in the United States. Is that because you think it would be beneficial to up the background radiation levels in the United States, because that radiation would be good for us?" I'd like to see Sean Hannity mine everything Barack Obama ever wrote, find two quotes like that, draw a similarly outrageous conclusion, and watch the gnashing of teeth and 12 page BBQ Pit threads ensue around here.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how obvious is was that Maddow was trying to smear this guy, and watching you guys stick your fingers in your ears while screaming LALALALALALALA and pretending she wasn't. I'm all about calling bullshit on Tea Partiers and conservatives and Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins and Bill O'Reillys, but if you don't also call it when your guy (or girl, in this case) does it, then you lose credibility and you're just a partisan lapdog as far as I'm concerned.I'm pretty sure Obama never stated that he wanted to dump raw nuclear waste into the ocean.

By the way, this dude is the guy with the 31k anti-global warming list. He's a complete liar and kook. Wanting to make sure that the guy who wants to have a hand in running the US government doesn't want to dump nuclear waste into the ocean isn't a bad thing.

She went easy on him. The 31k list alone shows that he's a dishonest moron.

It's not her job to let this guy have a platform to run his campaign. It's her job to get at news. Like a major congressional candidate thinks AIDS is a myth, nuclear waste is good for you and that unverified internet sign-up lists equal a scientific consensus against AGW.

[Cisco]

I'm pretty sure Obama never stated that he wanted to dump raw nuclear waste into the ocean.I'm sure he has said things that could be twisted into equally outrageous conclusions by a right-wing talking head. In fact, without knowing for sure, I would bet that Glenn Beck has done it.

The 31k list alone shows that he's a dishonest moron.Are you under the impression that I'm claiming he's not?
By the way, this dude is the guy with the 31k anti-global warming list. He's a complete liar and kook. Wanting to make sure that the guy who wants to have a hand in running the US government doesn't want to dump nuclear waste into the ocean isn't a bad thing.She utterly failed at getting him to take stands on those issues. Failed so badly, in fact, that I have a hard time even believing that her motivation was to "make sure that the guy who wants to have a hand in running the US government doesn't want to dump nuclear waste into the ocean."
It's her job to get at news.
I do not think that is her job. If it is, she did an even worse job than I thought.
a major congressional candidate thinks AIDS is a myth, nuclear waste is good for you and that unverified internet sign-up lists equal a scientific consensus against AGW.
Refer back to post #41.

[Miller]

I've yet to hear anybody defend "hormesis is your idea that low-level radiation is good for us . . . you're also an advocate for expanded nuclear weapons testing in the United States. Is that because you think it would be beneficial to up the background radiation levels in the United States, because that radiation would be good for us?" I'd like to see Sean Hannity mine everything Barack Obama ever wrote, find two quotes like that, draw a similarly outrageous conclusion, and watch the gnashing of teeth and 12 page BBQ Pit threads ensue around here.

That seems like a pretty reasonable connection, to me. As I understand it, concerns about the long-term health effects of radiation is one of the major reasons we don't do above-ground nuclear testing in this country anymore. If it could be demonstrated that low-level radiation has health benefits, that would be a good argument in favor of resuming nuclear testing. I really don't see the smear, there. His positions on both issues may be unrelated, but if there is a connection between them, I don't see how that would reflect badly on him.

Overall, I don't really see how much of the blame for how the interview turned out can be put at Maddow's feet. A $150,000 anonymous donation is pretty unusual, and campaign finance reform is a perennial issue in US politics. As someone else pointed out, accepting the money is hardly indefensible. Hell, if I were running, I'd sure as hell accept it, and would be happy to explain myself by pointing out that the concern over campaign finance is the idea that the donors would have undue influence on government because of the money they've spent. But if I don't know who gave me the money, they can hardly influence me, can they? But this guy didn't do that. Instead of answering the question, he immediately went on a rant about his opponent, and when Maddow tried to get the conversation back on track, like a good interviewer ought to do, he instantly went hostile on her. From there on out, the interview just spiraled out of control. Maddow did a yeoman's job trying to get it back to sanity, but Robinson fought her every step of the way.

I'm surprised that you think Maddow came out so badly, here. I thought she did very well. Had I been in her chair, I'd have ended up screaming, "What the fuck is wrong with you?!" at him over and over. That she maintained so much of her composure in the face of such outright hostility and lack of integrity on Robinson's part was very impressive.

[Robot Arm]

I'd like to see Sean Hannity mine everything Barack Obama ever wrote, find two quotes like that, draw a similarly outrageous conclusion, and watch the gnashing of teeth and 12 page BBQ Pit threads ensue around here.Conservatives have investigated the school that Obama attended in Indonesia when he was 9. If there was anyting in his more recent writings, I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it by now.

[Paul in Qatar]

I saw this interview on the internet at work yesterday. What an unpleasant, argumentative fellow! But again I note 538 gives him a 0.0% chance of winning.

[Cisco]

Conservatives have investigated the school that Obama attended in Indonesia when he was 9.
And been pitted for it, no doubt.

[samclem]

Conservatives have investigated the school that Obama attended in Indonesia when he was 9.
And been pitted for it, no doubt. And rightfully so.
[Actually, I have no idea if any conservatives have been pitted for this, but, if they have, then I support their pittings).

[Cisco]

So you're in agreement with me here, samclem?

[elucidator]

Yes, it is her job to get at the news, and here's the news: there is so much right wing money flooding over the electoral plain that there is one hundred and fifty thousand dollars available to squander on a batshit pizza like this guy. This is not targeted, sophisticated strategy type spending, this is throwing money in every direction because, what the fuck, you got buckets of bucks. Its like Mickey Mouse a the Sorcerers Apprentice in Fantasia, but not water, benjamins. Gosh, wonder where all that money is coming from.

Welcome to Citizens United States, citizen. You have the right to remain silent. For now.

[Cisco]

Yes, it is her job to get at the news, and here's the news: there is so much right wing money flooding over the electoral plain that there is one hundred and fifty thousand dollars available to squander on a batshit pizza like this guy. This is not targeted, sophisticated strategy type spending, this is throwing money in every direction because, what the fuck, you got buckets of bucks. Its like Mickey Mouse a the Sorcerers Apprentice in Fantasia, but not water, benjamins. Gosh, wonder where all that money is coming from.

Welcome to Citizens United States, citizen. You have the right to remain silent. For now.

You're not suggesting that she succeeded in "getting at" that, are you?

[elucidator]

Well, hell, I got it. 'Course, I may be conflating, saw the second segment she ran the next night, and that was very heavily focused on that particular issue. Plus, I have a very suspicious frame of mind when it comes to the Forces of Darkness. The idea that some nutbar is running for elective office isn't all that interesting. That somebody gave him a shitload of money is intriguing, like that dark door at the top of the stairs.

[magellan01]

Well, OK. What issues did you see him throw out that you found intriguing?

How Oregonians might be being cut off from there forests and fisheries. How Oregonians might be subject to increased regulations. How DiFazio urged Oregonians to buy American while he shipped his investments overseas. I'd even like to hear more about hormesis, which I've never heard of before. But she felt the need to interrupt him when he was in mid-sentence.

I don't follow Oregon politics, but that stuff would have been more interesting to me. As well as the actual positions Robinson has o those issues and others that are actually part of the campaign. All she is trying to do is smear him. He's absolutely right about her. She's just as bad as Hannity and Olberman.

[Miller]

I'd even like to hear more about hormesis, which I've never heard of before. But she felt the need to interrupt him when he was in mid-sentence.

I just re-watched that part of the interview again to make sure of this, and she does not, in fact, interrupt him in the middle of a sentence. Check it out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ZIJzobFT0) starting at 5:05. Maddow asks the question, pauses for a moment, then ads a short elaboration. Because of the satellite delay, her second comment overlaps Robinson's, but note that she's started to elaborate before Robinson starts to answer. It happens again at 5:20. Robinson says, "Hormesis is the study of the effect of radiation on human health," full stop. Maddow immediately asks for clarification, but Robinson has already continued his explanation, and, again because of the satellite delay, they end up talking over each other again. But, like the previous examples, Maddow has actually started talking before Robinson.

I think one could argue that Maddow's partly to blame for the overlap, because she's not allowing enough time for the satellite transmission, and keeps trying to cover the dead air while she waits for a response. I don't watch enough cable news to know if this is common for satellite interviews, or if Maddow is just bad at this part of her job. Maddow's comment about satellite interviews seems to indicate that this sort of overlap is par for the course. But there's no question that she's interrupting him in this segment of the interview, because in each instance where Robinson complains about being interrupted, she's actually started talking before he does.

I grant that she does plainly interrupt him in other parts of the interview, but that seems to only be when he's completely dodging her questions. And, of course, he's never shy about interrupting her when she's asking something he doesn't want to have to own up to, such as his previously expressed views that AIDS is a government conspiracy.

I don't follow Oregon politics, but that stuff would have been more interesting to me. As well as the actual positions Robinson has o those issues and others that are actually part of the campaign. All she is trying to do is smear him. He's absolutely right about her. She's just as bad as Hannity and Olberman.

What exactly is the smear, though? All the negative stuff she brings up is directly quoted from the guy's own newsletter. Can you smear someone by pointing out the batshit crazy stuff they've freely professed to?

[magellan01]

I'd even like to hear more about hormesis, which I've never heard of before. But she felt the need to interrupt him when he was in mid-sentence.

I just re-watched that part of the interview again to make sure of this, and she does not, in fact, interrupt him in the middle of a sentence. Check it out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ZIJzobFT0) starting at 5:05. Maddow asks the question, pauses for a moment, then ads a short elaboration. Because of the satellite delay, her second comment overlaps Robinson's, but note that she's started to elaborate before Robinson starts to answer. It happens again at 5:20. Robinson says, "Hormesis is the study of the effect of radiation on human health," full stop. Maddow immediately asks for clarification, but Robinson has already continued his explanation, and, again because of the satellite delay, they end up talking over each other again. But, like the previous examples, Maddow has actually started talking before Robinson.

I buy your explanation for the first time you cite. But the second is different. And if you buy the whole delay thing, then you have to accept that there is a delay also when Robinson stops talking. This is crucial. (Again, I'm referring to the 5:20 instance.) But the way she jumps right in indicates that she was not just trying to fill dead air. There was none from what she was hearing. She simply interrupted him. In fact, any delay makes the interruption seem less egregious, not more. No, she wanted no explanations. She was playing to the Olberman crowd. Looking to be the hero of the water cooler of the left echo chamber the next day, "Ohhh, did you see what Maddow did to Robinson last night!!! She pwned him!!!."

Truth is, I think Maddow is her own worst enemy. I think she's pretty smart and I think probably could make a good journalist, but she's interested in the sarcasm, the "gotcha", the oh-we're-so-smart-and-they're-so-stupid nonsense that Olberman and Hannity trade in. I've seen her when she's impressive. But this was a bad showing. Both for what she did. And the fact that it backfired. She was the host, a rude one, and Robinson called a spade a spade and pointed out the truth, that she was just trying to smear him.

What exactly is the smear, though? All the negative stuff she brings up is directly quoted from the guy's own newsletter. Can you smear someone by pointing out the batshit crazy stuff they've freely professed to?

She does herself a disservice by interviewing a candidate and not covering any of the issues that each candidate has a different take on. Like the things I mentioned. He said the quote about HIV was him commenting on one theory, when their was less certainty about HiV. He claimed that he wrote about other theories, too, and seemed to indicate that the one theory she shared was not something he believes. As far as hormesis, I could be wrong about this because I haven't bothered to look it up, but evidently it some theory that acknowledges that we live in a world filled with low-level radiation, so it may not be deadly or harmful to us. But conflating that with making it okay to explode nuclear bombs—because that would emit the same low-level radiation he was talking about is either just bad logic or an intentional intent to deceive people on her part. She just wanted to hang the crazy sign around his neck. He may be. But he certainly didn't come off that way to me in that interview. I saw a man refusing to play her childish game and calling her on it. I never saw him before or even heard of him, but I liked the way he handled her shit.

[MsRobyn]

I just re-watched that part of the interview again to make sure of this, and she does not, in fact, interrupt him in the middle of a sentence. Check it out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ZIJzobFT0) starting at 5:05. Maddow asks the question, pauses for a moment, then ads a short elaboration. Because of the satellite delay, her second comment overlaps Robinson's, but note that she's started to elaborate before Robinson starts to answer. It happens again at 5:20. Robinson says, "Hormesis is the study of the effect of radiation on human health," full stop. Maddow immediately asks for clarification, but Robinson has already continued his explanation, and, again because of the satellite delay, they end up talking over each other again. But, like the previous examples, Maddow has actually started talking before Robinson.

I buy your explanation for the first time you cite. But the second is different. And if you buy the whole delay thing, then you have to accept that there is a delay also when Robinson stops talking. This is crucial. (Again, I'm referring to the 5:20 instance.) But the way she jumps right in indicates that she was not just trying to fill dead air. There was none from what she was hearing. She simply interrupted him. In fact, any delay makes the interruption seem less egregious, not more. No, she wanted no explanations. She was playing to the Olberman crowd. Looking to be the hero of the water cooler of the left echo chamber the next day, "Ohhh, did you see what Maddow did to Robinson last night!!! She pwned him!!!."

Truth is, I think Maddow is her own worst enemy. I think she's pretty smart and I think probably could make a good journalist, but she's interested in the sarcasm, the "gotcha", the oh-we're-so-smart-and-they're-so-stupid nonsense that Olberman and Hannity trade in. I've seen her when she's impressive. But this was a bad showing. Both for what she did. And the fact that it backfired. She was the host, a rude one, and Robinson called a spade a spade and pointed out the truth, that she was just trying to smear him.

What exactly is the smear, though? All the negative stuff she brings up is directly quoted from the guy's own newsletter. Can you smear someone by pointing out the batshit crazy stuff they've freely professed to?

She does herself a disservice by interviewing a candidate and not covering any of the issues that each candidate has a different take on. Like the things I mentioned. He said the quote about HIV was him commenting on one theory, when their was less certainty about HiV. He claimed that he wrote about other theories, too, and seemed to indicate that the one theory she shared was not something he believes. As far as hormesis, I could be wrong about this because I haven't bothered to look it up, but evidently it some theory that acknowledges that we live in a world filled with low-level radiation, so it may not be deadly or harmful to us. But conflating that with making it okay to explode nuclear bombs—because that would emit the same low-level radiation he was talking about is either just bad logic or an intentional intent to deceive people on her part. She just wanted to hang the crazy sign around his neck. He may be. But he certainly didn't come off that way to me in that interview. I saw a man refusing to play her childish game and calling her on it. I never saw him before or even heard of him, but I liked the way he handled her shit.

Maddow didn't give him shit. I heard clips from the interviews from Friday's podcast and she doesn't come off badly at all. Robinson didn't give her an opportunity to ask for clarification on his points and apparently thought he could ignore her questions, just hit his talking points, and got pissy when she tried to bring the interview back under her control. I also have to wonder if this debacle is going to be used as another example of the evil left-wing media who treated poor right-wing candidates badly.

And, frankly, some interviewees are just lousy. Robinson obviously hadn't been prepared for this interview and probably isn't used to being interviewed at all. I have to think about Terry Gross's interviews with Bill O'Reilly and Gene Simmons. O'Reilly tried to be his usual combative how-dare-you-question-me self (although Gross screwed up with the empty-chair stuff at the end, after he walked off the set), and Simmons was just an asshole. You can anticipate a certain amount of bullshit from some people, and celebrities like O'Reilly and Simmons are known for the crap they pull. On the other hand, a guy like Robinson is an unknown quantity. Maddow had no reason to anticipate that he would behave the way he did toward her because most people don't behave that way. She did her best to try to rein in an out-of-control interview, but Robinson wouldn't cooperate. Now, predictably, the right thinks poor widdle Robinson was mistreated and the rest of us can see and understand what really happened.

[Digital Stimulus]

She's just as bad as Hannity and Olberman.
That has to be one of the stupidest judgments I've seen in recent memory. In fact, if you were a Republican of any prominence, it deserves to be in the "Stupid Republican idea of the day" thread.

Personally, I thought she blew this interview. While she recovered her composure a few minutes in, at the beginning both of them were terrible, and she never brought him back to sanity (heh -- as if that were possible). But this is only the second time (in over 2 years) I've thought she did a poor interview job, and I've never heard her present a blatant untruth. Unlike Hannity, where the spin is the show.

No, your equivalence only exists in bizarro Fox News viewer world.

[magellan01]

I buy your explanation for the first time you cite. But the second is different. And if you buy the whole delay thing, then you have to accept that there is a delay also when Robinson stops talking. This is crucial. (Again, I'm referring to the 5:20 instance.) But the way she jumps right in indicates that she was not just trying to fill dead air. There was none from what she was hearing. She simply interrupted him. In fact, any delay makes the interruption seem less egregious, not more. No, she wanted no explanations. She was playing to the Olberman crowd. Looking to be the hero of the water cooler of the left echo chamber the next day, "Ohhh, did you see what Maddow did to Robinson last night!!! She pwned him!!!."

Truth is, I think Maddow is her own worst enemy. I think she's pretty smart and I think probably could make a good journalist, but she's interested in the sarcasm, the "gotcha", the oh-we're-so-smart-and-they're-so-stupid nonsense that Olberman and Hannity trade in. I've seen her when she's impressive. But this was a bad showing. Both for what she did. And the fact that it backfired. She was the host, a rude one, and Robinson called a spade a spade and pointed out the truth, that she was just trying to smear him.



She does herself a disservice by interviewing a candidate and not covering any of the issues that each candidate has a different take on. Like the things I mentioned. He said the quote about HIV was him commenting on one theory, when their was less certainty about HiV. He claimed that he wrote about other theories, too, and seemed to indicate that the one theory she shared was not something he believes. As far as hormesis, I could be wrong about this because I haven't bothered to look it up, but evidently it some theory that acknowledges that we live in a world filled with low-level radiation, so it may not be deadly or harmful to us. But conflating that with making it okay to explode nuclear bombs—because that would emit the same low-level radiation he was talking about is either just bad logic or an intentional intent to deceive people on her part. She just wanted to hang the crazy sign around his neck. He may be. But he certainly didn't come off that way to me in that interview. I saw a man refusing to play her childish game and calling her on it. I never saw him before or even heard of him, but I liked the way he handled her shit.

Maddow didn't give him shit. I heard clips from the interviews from Friday's podcast and she doesn't come off badly at all. Robinson didn't give her an opportunity to ask for clarification on his points and apparently thought he could ignore her questions, just hit his talking points, and got pissy when she tried to bring the interview back under her control. I also have to wonder if this debacle is going to be used as another example of the evil left-wing media who treated poor right-wing candidates badly.

And, frankly, some interviewees are just lousy. Robinson obviously hadn't been prepared for this interview and probably isn't used to being interviewed at all. I have to think about Terry Gross's interviews with Bill O'Reilly and Gene Simmons. O'Reilly tried to be his usual combative how-dare-you-question-me self (although Gross screwed up with the empty-chair stuff at the end, after he walked off the set), and Simmons was just an asshole. You can anticipate a certain amount of bullshit from some people, and celebrities like O'Reilly and Simmons are known for the crap they pull. On the other hand, a guy like Robinson is an unknown quantity. Maddow had no reason to anticipate that he would behave the way he did toward her because most people don't behave that way. She did her best to try to rein in an out-of-control interview, but Robinson wouldn't cooperate. Now, predictably, the right thinks poor widdle Robinson was mistreated and the rest of us can see and understand what really happened.

The election is three weeks away. One of the candidates is interviewed for 18 minutes. During that entire time he is not asked one question about any of the actual campaign issues, even after he threw some out to her. That's not just a shitty interview, and a shitty interviewer, it's and interview in which the interviewer has an agenda other than helping the voters make an informed decision. And her agenda—which could not be more obvious—was to try to paint him as crazy. Like I said, I never heard of this guy before, but he came off better in the interview. She came off as nothing but snide and sarcastic. She was oh-so-sure her little trap was going to work, but then it started to backfire and she kept doubling down. It's text-book Hannity, when he tries his little game of "gothca" with a quote from a decade or two ago. But whereas I've seen him have the sense to retreat when it doesn't go well, she puts her nose to the grindstone. And that might be admirable if she was grilling him on an actual campaign issue, but she didn't go anywhere near one.

[magellan01]

Maddow didn't give him shit. I heard clips from the interviews from Friday's podcast and she doesn't come off badly at all.

Didn't you watch the whole interview in the link provided on Page 1?

[elucidator]

Who says it has to be about a "campaign issue", and howcum you or he gets to decide what that is? From the very beginning, before the interview even began, she's talking about the anonymous money flowing into this campaign. She asks if it might trouble him that he doesn't know who is donating the money, or why. He instantly shifts into subject change mode..."Why doesn't anyone want to talk about my opponents money...blah blah"

So far as I'm concerned, that is the issue: anonymous money from God knows where. The issue of Oregonians access to camping trips is a distant second.

But note: the first person to try to warp the interview is him: he is asked an entirely legitimate question, and answers an entirely different question. Rather than answer the question, he tries to change the subject. Actually, he does change the subject, by the simple expedient of refusing to answer the question. Within....what? fifteen seconds?...he's already pissing and moaning about a "smear" tactic, when asked about a fact, a fact that he himself has already admitted is true!

How is that a "smear"?

[magellan01]

Who says it has to be about a "campaign issue", and howcum you or he gets to decide what that is? From the very beginning, before the interview even began, she's talking about the anonymous money flowing into this campaign. She asks if it might trouble him that he doesn't know who is donating the money, or why. He instantly shifts into subject change mode..."Why doesn't anyone want to talk about my opponents money...blah blah"

So far as I'm concerned, that is the issue: anonymous money from God knows where. The issue of Oregonians access to camping trips is a distant second.

But note: the first person to try to warp the interview is him: he is asked an entirely legitimate question, and answers an entirely different question. Rather than answer the question, he tries to change the subject. Actually, he does change the subject, by the simple expedient of refusing to answer the question. Within....what? fifteen seconds?...he's already pissing and moaning about a "smear" tactic, when asked about a fact, a fact that he himself has already admitted is true!

How is that a "smear"?

I agree that the money question is 100% legitimate. But he dodged that like a smart politician should. Because you can't win. That election is not the only one this year to have that raised. Rove got asked about it on one of the Sunday talk shows. The fact is that it is legal, unfortunate as that may be.

But all that other stuff was Smear City.

[Miller]

I buy your explanation for the first time you cite. But the second is different. And if you buy the whole delay thing, then you have to accept that there is a delay also when Robinson stops talking.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. What's significant about the delay when he stops talking?

This is crucial. (Again, I'm referring to the 5:20 instance.) But the way she jumps right in indicates that she was not just trying to fill dead air. There was none from what she was hearing. She simply interrupted him.

She doesn't interrupt him at all. Here's a transcript from the YouTube link:

5:08 - 5:14 Robinson: Hormesis is the study of the effects of low level radiation on human health.

5:14 - 5:17 Maddows: And is the idea that this radiation is good for you?

5:15 - 5:18 Robsinson: We live in a sea of... I can't even get out a sentence!

She clearly begins talking before he does, by about a second. The problem here isn't that she's interrupting, it's that she's reacting to him as if he were in the room. In a face to face conversation, that would be a normal place to interject a clarifying question. But because of the delay, Robinson doesn't hear her say it until he's somewhere around the word "sea" in his own sentence. From his perspective, she interrupted him, but it's an artifact of the medium.

It seems like she ought to wait longer before interjecting, or something, but like I said, I don't watch a lot of cable news. Maybe that's just how satellite interviews work? I'll have to look out for that in the future.

That said, on the rest of the interview... well, I was wondering about that newsletter Maddow read from, the one about AIDS not being a real disease. I found it here. (http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a2045.htm) It's a cited article, referencing several different publications (all presumably read by Robinson) on the topic, and it's tone is very favorable towards the findings. On the other hand, it's a very short article, and if he never wrote anything else about it, I can see him thinking of it as just some minor idea he ran across and wrote about on his blog fifteen years ago, and now he has to defend it on national TV? What the fuck?

On the other hand, if I read a persuasive argument that the government had invented a massive health scare for the purposes of extorting billions of dollars from an unsuspecting public, I think I'd remember that. (I certainly haven't forgotten about the War on Drugs, for example.) So, the idea that he read what he thought was convincing evidence of a fraud on that scale, thought, "Yeah, that seems likely," and then forgot all about kind of suggests to me that he frequently comes across ideas like this and finds them convincing. Which is getting into looney territory. And a superficial glance at the rest of the website seems to indicate that Robinson is pretty familiar with the borders of that nation, at the very least.

I also noted this follow up (http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a2070.htm) to the article about AIDS. Here's the thing that caught my eye: the article is written by Paul Cameron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron). I don't know if you're familiar with Paul Cameron, but the man is a first rate scumbag. He's a Fred Phelps-level homophobe, except instead of torturing the Bible to justify himself, he fabricates psychological studies to get the results he wants. He was kicked out of the APA because of that, and is no longer a licensed psychologist. This happened in 1983, twelve years before Robinson writes approvingly of his study. So, my question is, does Robinson know who Paul Cameron is? If he read a study and was duped by it, that's one thing (although it does call into question his claim that he's a "very good" scientist). If he's familiar with Cameron's history, and is still parroting his hateful rhetoric, that's very, very different.

I really would like to know where Maddows was going with these questions, including the hormesis thing. You suggested that Maddows wanted to "get" Robinson, and I think you may very well be correct. However, I don't think the interview turned out how she wanted. She appears genuinely frustrated by his reactions. I think she had some point she wanted to build to, but was unable to do so because Robinson wouldn't stop complaining about her "sarcasm."

[Steve MB]

He simply attacked Maddow for bringing up something fifteen years old, as if that in itself was proof of malice.

You'd think the Eichmann trial would have shown that this defense doesn't work.

[Steve MB]

One of the candidates is interviewed for 18 minutes. During that entire time he is not asked one question about any of the actual campaign issues

Sorry -- "Are you a crackpot?" goes to the top of the actual campaign issues list as soon as there is any indication that the answer might be in the affirmative.

[Steve MB]

he was throwing out some issues that I found myself wanting to know more about

he dodged that like a smart politician should.

When you two hash this out and reach a consensus, get back to us.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I'm a little surprised at the degree to which people seem to agree that crazy statements from 15 years ago should get a pass. Certainly people should be able to change their minds, and they should be able to explain how and why they've done so.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but 15 years really isn't that long a time, is it? 15 years ago I was getting my Ph.D. Should all the things I believed then be thrown out the window just because they are 15 years old?

If the guy is 30 now, and he was just an adolescent 15 years ago, that's a bit different. Otherwise, crazy beliefs that you had as an adult should be fair game as to how they do or do not reflect your actual beliefs.

[DJ Motorbike]

Watching this interview I realized that Maddow is the leftist equivalent of Hannity, as some others here have concluded. I can't stand either of them.

ETA: They even sort of look alike.

[Darwin's Finch]

Robinson says, "Hormesis is the study of the effect of radiation on human health," full stop.

If that's what he said, he's wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis).

[Digital Stimulus]

Watching this interview I realized that Maddow is the leftist equivalent of Hannity, as some others here have concluded. I can't stand either of them.

ETA: They even sort of look alike.
There is no equivalence there. Not even close.

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

Watching this interview I realized that Maddow is the leftist equivalent of Hannity, as some others here have concluded. I can't stand either of them.

ETA: They even sort of look alike.
There is no equivalence there. Not even close.

It's amazing how folks are walking away from the video having seen two different things. Or not, as this goes on every day all over the US. I guess I hold Dopers to higher standards. I gotta work on that.

[magellan01]

I buy your explanation for the first time you cite. But the second is different. And if you buy the whole delay thing, then you have to accept that there is a delay also when Robinson stops talking.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. What's significant about the delay when he stops talking?

This is crucial. (Again, I'm referring to the 5:20 instance.) But the way she jumps right in indicates that she was not just trying to fill dead air. There was none from what she was hearing. She simply interrupted him.

She doesn't interrupt him at all. Here's a transcript from the YouTube link:

5:08 - 5:14 Robinson: Hormesis is the study of the effects of low level radiation on human health.

5:14 - 5:17 Maddows: And is the idea that this radiation is good for you?

5:15 - 5:18 Robsinson: We live in a sea of... I can't even get out a sentence!

She clearly begins talking before he does, by about a second. The problem here isn't that she's interrupting, it's that she's reacting to him as if he were in the room. In a face to face conversation, that would be a normal place to interject a clarifying question. But because of the delay, Robinson doesn't hear her say it until he's somewhere around the word "sea" in his own sentence. From his perspective, she interrupted him, but it's an artifact of the medium.

If we accept there is this second-and-a-half delay (which I do) then that would explain why there would be uncomfortable silences and instances of people talking over one another as the both begin to speak simultaneously. Right? But, the delay would also delay when a sentence is actually finished. If you were on tape delay and ended a sentence at 3:14 in reality, with the delay I wouldn't hear it end until 3:15.5. Here why that is important.

He is right in claiming that she interrupted him when he began explaining hormesis. She almost steps on his last word, "health". She doesn't quite. But if there is, in fact, this delay that is evident throughout the interview, then she would have heard the word "health" after she began speaking. She would have had to begin speaking a 6 or so words before. So, she actually did interrupt him, but the delay makes it seem not as egregious as it was.

But even if they were in the same room and there was zero delay, I'd still consider what she did a clear case of interrupting. He was starting off to explain this complicated topic. He just got out the very first basic sentence, of what was clearly going to be at least a few, and she cut him off trying to define precisely what she asked him to define. Never letting him get to the next sentence. She had a trajectory she wanted to follow. She wanted to be able to define things in her way, so she could then cobble together a string of crazy. I think she looked like an ass. First, for her low tactics and fullofshitism. Next, because he didn't allow her to play her little game. Not that I think he came of glowing in any way. But he was clearly being unfairly attacked and deflected it as well as one could.

[magellan01]

he was throwing out some issues that I found myself wanting to know more about

he dodged that like a smart politician should.

When you two hash this out and reach a consensus, get back to us.

Wow, I actually listed the campaign I said I would have like to hear about and you just choose to ignore it, as if the words were never written.

Imagine that.

Wait, you're not Rachel Maddow, are you?

[magellan01]

Watching this interview I realized that Maddow is the leftist equivalent of Hannity, as some others here have concluded. I can't stand either of them.

ETA: They even sort of look alike.
There is no equivalence there. Not even close.

Is to. For all practical purposes, identical.

So, there!

[magellan01]

One of the candidates is interviewed for 18 minutes. During that entire time he is not asked one question about any of the actual campaign issues

Sorry -- "Are you a crackpot?" goes to the top of the actual campaign issues list as soon as there is any indication that the answer might be in the affirmative.

Sorry -- ignoring actual campaign issues and reaching back over a decade into the scientific field and trying desperately to paint someone as crazy—and not letting him explain what you claim you want him to explain—is not journalism. It's jerkism. It's jerkism when Hannity does something similar and it's jerkism when she does it.

[emacknight]

I'd like to see Sean Hannity mine everything Barack Obama ever wrote, find two quotes like that, draw a similarly outrageous conclusion, and watch the gnashing of teeth and 12 page BBQ Pit threads ensue around here.

Hannity doesn't have the integrity to do research like that, nor does he need to. It's much easier to just selectively edit more recent quotes to give the impression Obama is saying exactly the opposite of his message.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/user/johnny5k) is proof should you doubt me.

Here (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/stewart-how-msnbc-can-selectively-edit-clips) is the longer segment from the Daily Show, start from 5:28.[/QUOTE]

[Miller]

If we accept there is this second-and-a-half delay (which I do) then that would explain why there would be uncomfortable silences and instances of people talking over one another as the both begin to speak simultaneously. Right? But, the delay would also delay when a sentence is actually finished. If you were on tape delay and ended a sentence at 3:14 in reality, with the delay I wouldn't hear it end until 3:15.5. Here why that is important.

He is right in claiming that she interrupted him when he began explaining hormesis. She almost steps on his last word, "health". She doesn't quite. But if there is, in fact, this delay that is evident throughout the interview, then she would have heard the word "health" after she began speaking. She would have had to begin speaking a 6 or so words before. So, she actually did interrupt him, but the delay makes it seem not as egregious as it was.

No, that's not right. We know exactly when Maddow heard the word "health." It's right there in the video. The camera is in the same room as Maddow, so we're seeing the conversation entirely from her frame of reference. When we see Robinson start and stop talking is exactly when she hears Robinson start and stop talking. While there is a delay on Maddow's end, we don't see that, because we are effectively in the room with her during the interview.

But even if they were in the same room and there was zero delay, I'd still consider what she did a clear case of interrupting. He was starting off to explain this complicated topic. He just got out the very first basic sentence, of what was clearly going to be at least a few, and she cut him off trying to define precisely what she asked him to define. Never letting him get to the next sentence.

I disagree with that. This isn't a lecture hall, it's an interview, and Robinson has already demonstrated a propensity to ignore the actual question asked and go off on unrelated tangents, as he did on the very first question she asked. What you see as interrupting, I see as an attempt by Maddow to keep Robinson on the topic, and prevent him from dodging or obfuscating again.

She had a trajectory she wanted to follow. She wanted to be able to define things in her way, so she could then cobble together a string of crazy.

I don't necessarily think you're incorrect, here, I just don't see that as a failing on Maddow's part. From looking at the guy's newsletter, I think there's a pretty credible charge of crazy to be made here. Exposing the crazy in potential members of Congress is an important part of any journalist's job.

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

I'd like to see Sean Hannity mine everything Barack Obama ever wrote, find two quotes like that, draw a similarly outrageous conclusion, and watch the gnashing of teeth and 12 page BBQ Pit threads ensue around here.

Hannity doesn't have the integrity to do research like that, nor does he need to. It's much easier to just selectively edit more recent quotes to give the impression Obama is saying exactly the opposite of his message.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/user/johnny5k) is proof should you doubt me.

Here (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/stewart-how-msnbc-can-selectively-edit-clips) is the longer segment from the Daily Show, start from 5:28.


I challenge anyone to find a single instance of Maddow doing this. And if you cannot, or will not, then your equivalency of Maddow=Hannity is false. Of course, no one will, and the folks that have already made the equivalency will still claim victory, but the rest of us will know the truth of the matter.

[Measure for Measure]

Yes, it is her job to get at the news, and here's the news: there is so much right wing money flooding over the electoral plain that there is one hundred and fifty thousand dollars available to squander on a batshit pizza like this guy. This is not targeted, sophisticated strategy type spending, this is throwing money in every direction because, what the fuck, you got buckets of bucks. Its like Mickey Mouse a the Sorcerers Apprentice in Fantasia, but not water, benjamins. Gosh, wonder where all that money is coming from.

Welcome to Citizens United States, citizen. You have the right to remain silent. For now. We don't know the monetary advantage that Republicans have over Democrats, because this sort of thing isn't counted anymore. Say it's 2:1. Under those circumstances, dropping $150,000 to promote some batshit loon makes sense, if it makes Fazio spend funds to support his campaign and more to the point, get sufficiently nervous so as not to transfer funds to Dems in vulnerable districts.

Then again, I suspect the explanation is simpler. Just as Big Tobacco subsidized researchers who maintained that smoking didn't cause cancer, so Big Oil props up the C02-is-good-for-the-planet nutjobs. This is probably another aspect of their backscratching. Even if he doesn't win, they still admire his work. Robinson sure isn't getting support from Big Pharma. But again I note 538 gives him a 0.0% chance of winning. Somebody thinks that Robinson's cranky views are worth supporting in a big way.

[boytyperanma]

We don't know the monetary advantage that Republicans have over Democrats, because this sort of thing isn't counted anymore. Say it's 2:1.[/QUOTE]

There are some pretty good guesses about what the monetary advantage is and they are putting somewhere between 7:1 and 9:1. The description of Mickey simply throwing money at any candidate that can catch it is pretty accurate

[Merijeek]

Somebody thinks that Robinson's cranky views are worth supporting in a big way.

Do they? Or is it someone for whom $150K is found-in-the-couch kind of money?

-Joe

[Digital Stimulus]

There is no equivalence there. Not even close.Is to. For all practical purposes, identical.

So, there!
Only if, by "all practical purposes", you mean "my fevered delusions". As I've said repeatedly, I think Rachel botched this particular interview. Of course, you being a political shill and wanker for anything non-liberal, you'll take one incident to excuse all others on 'your side'. As the saying goes, both 2 and 100 are greater than 1, but they're not equivalent. As any sensible person realizes.

For instance, see post #79 (thanks Face Intentionally Left Blank).

[Steve MB]

I actually listed the campaign I said I would have like to hear about

You said that you wanted politicians to address questions, and that smart politicians dodge them. So, presumably you want ding-a-lings to run for office.

Well, your wish is granted in this particular case.

[Cisco]

I challenge anyone to find a single instance of Maddow doing this. And if you cannot, or will not, then your equivalency of Maddow=Hannity is false. Of course, no one will, and the folks that have already made the equivalency will still claim victory, but the rest of us will know the truth of the matter.
Wtf are you babbling about? Have you RTFT?

[Digital Stimulus]

Wtf are you babbling about? Have you RTFT?
The issue referred to is "selectively edit [i]more recent quotes to give the impression Obama is saying exactly the opposite of his message." She did not do that in this interview, nor has she ever done that at any time (of which I'm aware). In fact, from what I've seen, she will use airtime to make corrections for borderline trivialities that were, nonetheless, inaccurate.

Y'know, exactly the opposite of liars like Hannity.

[Cisco]

The issue referred to is "selectively edit [i]more recent quotes to give the impression Obama is saying exactly the opposite of his message."
Then why did he quote me? I didn't accuse her of doing that.

[GIGObuster]

Second, the issue of global warming. The guy just pointed out that the issue is not settled and aside from him there are plenty of scientists thinking the same. Plus, he’s got something to back up his claims. Unlike, I dunno, Rachel?



He did nothing of the sort. He claimed multiple times that he had proven scientifically that global warming was false. Not a word about being "not settled". He has personally settled it.

Aha! no wonder he sounded familiar:

He is the same bastard of the bogus Oregon petition that many climate change deniers misuse to say there is no consensus on AGW:

http://climatecrocks.com/2010/10/13/astounding-interview-with-oregon-petition-nutjob-art-robinson/

My video, “32000 Scientists”, is one of my most popular, because it addresses the widely circulated meme about a petition of ”scientists” who purportedly deny the reality of climate change.

The originator of the bogus petition is Art Robinson, an entrepreneur serving the needs of the paranoid, right wing, conspiracy theorist and survivalist subculture from his lair in rural Oregon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

The issue referred to is "selectively edit [i]more recent quotes to give the impression Obama is saying exactly the opposite of his message."
Then why did he quote me? I didn't accuse her of doing that.

Your quote was nested within emacnight's post, which was who I was replying to. He replied to you, I replied to him. It's a pretty straightforward and easy-to-follow system.

[Cisco]

Then why did he quote me? I didn't accuse her of doing that.

Your quote was nested within emacnight's post, which was who I was replying to. He replied to you, I replied to him. It's a pretty straightforward and easy-to-follow system.

So just exactly who were you accusing of "equivalency of Maddow=Hannity" and "claiming victory" anyway, or were you tilting at windmills as blatantly as you appear to have been? Because I wasn't claiming that, and I really don't think emacknight was, and we are the only two people you quoted using the straightforward and easy-to-follow system.

[Measure for Measure]

Somebody thinks that Robinson's cranky views are worth supporting in a big way.

Do they? Or is it someone for whom $150K is found-in-the-couch kind of money? Could be. I imagine that if you're a Saudi oil sheik accustomed to writing ten million dollar checks to Bin Laden, tossing $150,000 at a global warming crank might not be that big a deal. At least the latter would be good for business. Of course there are other wealthy oil mavens as well.

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

Your quote was nested within emacnight's post, which was who I was replying to. He replied to you, I replied to him. It's a pretty straightforward and easy-to-follow system.

So just exactly who were you accusing of "equivalency of Maddow=Hannity" and "claiming victory" anyway, or were you tilting at windmills as blatantly as you appear to have been? Because I wasn't claiming that, and I really don't think emacknight was, and we are the only two people you quoted using the straightforward and easy-to-follow system.

There's been some Maddow & Hannity comparisons in this thread. DJ Motorbike in particular did this, while also observing others having made the comparison in this thread:

Watching this interview I realized that Maddow is the leftist equivalent of Hannity, as some others here have concluded. I can't stand either of them.

ETA: They even sort of look alike.

I have now shown that ppl HAVE made the equivalence, and thus was not "tilting at windmills." I still hold that such comparisons are invalid, for the reasons given by emacknight. As for the reason why I quoted emacknight's message, I was building upon his statements and the links he provided.

[maladroit]

Since he refused to say whether or not he still help those views (some from 15 years ago, some from more recent newsletters that he himself writes and publishes), there was no way for her or the audience to know whether or not they reinforced his currently held and pertinent views. She kept trying to ask him about his current views, he kept talking over her and accusing her of lying and smearing and mudslinging.[/QUOTE]

That's what I saw too

[gonzomax]

Unlike MAGELLAN, I think proving you are a nut, is a campaign issue. If I had a politician I was backing that said that kind of nutty crap, I would be running to the voting exit. I doubt I would care much about who asked the questions.
He like O'Donnell, Paladino and Angle, should have driven any and all voters away by being certifiably nuts.