'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, 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 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

[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]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

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?

Originally Posted by J. Frank Parnell

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]

Originally Posted by 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.)

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/_new...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.)

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]

Originally Posted by Chronos

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]

Originally Posted by Face Intentionally Left Blank

Link the the interview, and the newsletters Maddow was quoting from.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...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.)

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]

Originally Posted by Chronos

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]

Originally Posted by Cisco

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]

Originally Posted by Digital Stimulus

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]

Originally Posted by Kolga

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]

Originally Posted by Digital Stimulus

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]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

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]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by newcomer

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]

Originally Posted by newcomer

...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]

Originally Posted by newcomer

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]

Originally Posted by elucidator

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]

Originally Posted by Cisco

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]

Originally Posted by elucidator

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]

Originally Posted by Digital Stimulus

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]

Originally Posted by descamisado

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]

Originally Posted by Cisco

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]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

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.

Originally Posted by Lobohan

The 31k list alone shows that he's a dishonest moron.

Are you under the impression that I'm claiming he's not?

Originally Posted by Lobohan

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."

Originally Posted by Lobohan

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.

Originally Posted by Lobohan

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]

Originally Posted by Cisco

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]

Originally Posted by Cisco

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]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

Conservatives have investigated the school that Obama attended in Indonesia when he was 9.

And been pitted for it, no doubt.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Cisco

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).