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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I find that pretty plausible, actually, in this election cycle. And it just furthers the case for disclosure laws, IMHO.
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.