Friday, October 8, 2010

Art Robinson Clashes Against MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow

Art Robinson clashes with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow. Robinson is a House of Representatives hopeful from Oregon , and is a Republican candidate. Maddow FINALLY got a republican to come on her show, but to her chagrin Robinson wasn’t exactly agreeable.

This was a painful interview to watch, and if you missed it you can see it in the video below. Art Robinson answered the basic questions posed about his race, but grew irritated when pressed about issues such as his campaign funding.

The incumbent is a Democratic Representative named Peter DeFazio. In 2008, he won his seat with 82% of the votes.


Strangely enough, when Rachel Maddow asked Art Robinson about the source of some campaign funding, he went on a 2 minute tirade about DeFazio while Maddow tried to stop him.


Do you think Art Robinson has any chance at becoming a representative after clashing with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow?


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

155 comments:

  1. Mr. Robinson had a chance to gain positive exposure. Instead, he chose to never let the interview begin and acted like the south end of a north bound horse. Too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Finally Maddow gets her hat handed to her by someone she intended to KO. Her desperate attempt to salvage the DeFazio campaign shows just how scared the left is of the complete anti-incumbent, anti-socialist backlash they are going to suffer in November. The bill is coming due for their over-reaching radical policies and "ouch", they don't want to pay.

    Keep preaching to the choir, Rachel, keep drinking that Kool-aid and lets see what happens in just a few short weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would vote for this man in a heartbeat !! He was awesome !!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Art blew his dreams and goals by being a mean bully punk. Anyone who still wants this guy is just as bad as he is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, Arnold must've seen a completely different interview then the one the rest of us saw.

    Good job Arnold!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Art Robinson is a lunatic. He wants a theocracy. he is a global warming denier. He blasts public education yet has several of his brood in a public university. He is a hypocrite. He has nothing to offer except criticism of the status quo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I watched this "interview" last night and I have to say I was appalled. Rachel Maddow handled the situation with grace and professionalism. Instead of lowering herself to his level she repeatedly tried to move the "interview" forward. Meanwhile old Art yelled and name called and belittled Rachel. He claimed to be a brilliant scientist yet he obviously lacked the mental capacity to hold even the most basic of social exchanges. Art and individuals like Art who actually believe that this type of social discourse is what the country needs right now are sadly mistaken. This notion that "we're coming to take our country back" is a scary prospect. Right now the country does not need to move "back", it needs to move forward. Art, you are the bigotry and scary ignorance of America's past. You and people like you do not belong in positions of decision making power. Please crawl back under your rock.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What a phlegm Mr. robinson is. I have never seen such disrespect for an interview. He wanted a talking point based ad/speech. He got questions...go figure. I am an Oregonian, and an independent. This guy is toast, hopefully. I couldn't picture Mr Robinson making a decent public servant, especially in the areas of compromise and respect, after the interview. It was almost too painful to finish it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. He was arrogant and disrespectful. He agreed to be interviewed, however, he would not let her get one ques. completed. Sorry excuse for someone trying to be a representative of th people. I know less about his politics now, but after this spectacle, I never want to see or hear about him again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Art Robinson answered the basic questions posed about his race, but grew irritated when pressed about issues such as his campaign funding."

    Are you kidding?! Maddow wouldn't ask ANY questions about "his race" - that's what he found irritating! Instead she tries to imply that any large anonymous donation could only have come from some unlawful source, so he's unethical for not refusing it! How ridiculous! Then she took bits of writings out of context in an attempt to distort his beliefs. As a scientist, he's written volumes of work over the decades! The man's been president and professor at the Linus Pauling Institute! He's currently a research scientist at the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine, as well as it's president! It's obvious that her only intention was to smear him with the "crazy" label- now THAT'S rude! Will she never tire of that shameful ploy?! Robinson did great in calling her out as the underhanded hack she's become!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I had to laugh when he criticized rachel for interupting him when she could finally get a work in edgewise. He came in defensive and loaded for bear - he was not intending to have a reasonable interview. He could have answered her questions without a tirade, without accusing her of sabatoging him etc, etc, etc. It made him look secretive and unconfident of his positions - why else soooooo angry and defensive? How did this guy ever get through a doctoral thesis defense???
    On the other hand,since she was getting nowhere with the irate and irrational "scientist" I felt Rachel could have moved the interview forward and discussed some other campaign issues - give the guy enough rope to tangle himself up in.
    LOL - she had no sarcasm that he accused her of until she had the last word- then handled it nicely!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I find the difference in opinion about this interview intriguing. With that said, I ‘side’ with Art Robinson. To call Art a bully or that he didn’t answer the questions is just plain wrong. Rachel had the power of the media on her side along with prepared questions that were scientific research in nature. It was an old trick of taking things out of context. Art defended himself well, and the problem was that the trade off went on so long. In my opinion, if a journalist doesn’t stick to the issues, then the interview should stop. Art did what he could only do, and although how he was forced to defend himself wasn’t all too pretty, Rachel wasn’t all that of a good political analyst in any case.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Consider this:
    Her entire premise based on her own words was:
    “I’m saying that someone wrote a newsletter saying that you said” Are you kidding me? This is journalism? And when he tried to answer the question, she repeatedly talked over him and tried to answer for him by throwing in another series of questions.

    It is the same approach most liberals use. They don’t want answers. They want to smear you. A high school newspaper editor couldn’t get away with this.
    The few human twitches and broken sentences by Dr. Robinson only increased my understanding of him as a regular guy with a heck of a degree.

    Rachael Maddow got her clock cleaned by this man and that's saying a lot considering she had several preprinted pages of notes in front of her and the agenda of the Obama's administration and Democratic Party’s well established agenda behind her.

    She looked like paid mindless bull dog she is, almost screaming at her guest; AND did I detect a shaky voice just before the end of the interview?

    Well done Dr. Robinson. You proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that Republicans have been correct to steer clear of this phony journalist with an agenda and it will most likely be a cold day in hell before any conservative ever walks onto her show again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I watched with horror at the "interview" of someone who wants to represent the people of his state. He had a chance to make the electorate see him in the best light. Instead, he acted like a spoiled child who couldn't get dessert because he didn't finish his dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  15. All I can say, Art did not his supporters proud.
    I'd hate to see him in a debate with his opponent when all he can say that someone is trying to smear him.
    I guess what he wrote 15 years ago is going to haunt him now and he doesn't want to admit it.
    All he had to say was that this was his belief 15 years ago and that this is no longer his belief. But no, he just talked garbage.

    I don't think he'll be elected.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rachel 'got her clock cleaned'? Rachel 'lost' the interview? Which interview were you watching? The one I watched showed an inept and disingenuous scientist pushing tired talking points and refusing to address any legitimate issues.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wow - did you see the same interview? The texts she used were from his own writings and the newsletter that he was editor of -

    I agree that one can't remember all details from 15 years ago - but it is within bounds for a interviewer to try to uncover what a person believes and makes him tick. She wasn't misquoting him -
    BTW - this is a standard tactic by both sides of the aisle - why did he find out so much about Clinton's trial of pot in college? Why was ACORN such an issue with Obama? Why did GW get a soft soap on his alcoholism? The past matters when it comes to people who are making decisions outside of their own living rooms - decisions that affect us all.

    He could have given a succint answer to the question and moved forward.

    I work with many doctors - having a degree does not inherently make you a good physician, scientist and certainly not necessarily a good politician.

    If Dr. Robinson flies off the handle this easily with a cable interview with someone that much of his base doesn't even take seriously, how are we to believe that he will have reasoned discussion and debate if elected to the house of reps? Perhaps his contribution to society should continue to come from the lab.

    We have our own problems here in NY with Carl "mad as hell" paladino running for governor. Just being mad and yelling doesn't fix a thing - but that is his thing so far.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am happy Rachael let the interview go on so long. She gave him enough rope to hang himself- and Art was too stupid to notice.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was horrified at the interview. Rachel was "set up" by this Republican and his friends, all planned in advance. Don't let her say a word, accuse her of every bad name in the book, ridicule, etc. I wish Rachel had come to her senses and terminated what was a hopeless intent to finally interview a Republican. What an ugly, nasty man he was and there was no hope for a civilized conversation. I didn't last the program. Was embarrassed for her, and detested him!!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. This guy is a complete nut case just like most right wing freaks in the present race.

    Rachel only kept him on so long to show everyone what a cretin he really is and worked beautifully!

    They just keep getting crazier and crazier! O'Donnell, Rand Paul, Sharron Angle...Mental cases (like most right wingers!). Spread radioactive waste across the US-brilliant!

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rachel asked him direct questions. He *never* answered them. He *refused* to answer. His responses were always either accusatory or belittling. And he would not take responsibility for his own words. I feel for the people of Oregon if this "scientist" becomes Congressman.

    My favorite was when he said he's been a professor for X number of years, and never had a student talk to him the way she talked to him. Does he think she is his student? Is this how he interacts with all the adults he encounters - treat them like his students?

    My favorite was when he suggested that satellite transmissions happen at the speed of light. Shocking lack of knowledge for a "scientist".

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Robinson interview was certainly painful to watch. Usually Rachel is about the fairest interviewer on the air and lets people make their point. Robinson didn't help his own case, but it would have been more useful to challenge him on current positions such as whether he accepts that the constitutional mandate to provide a common defense includes not allowing people to die because they can't afford medical care.

    It's hardly useful asking any candidates about funding. clearly they will take all they can get from any source regardless of what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Maddow has a PhD, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This guy is a buffoon. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. As far as the satellite delay causing Rachel Maddow to interrupt the guest, not sure I follow that. If she interrupted him in the middle of his sentence, wouldn't that mean that the broadcast professional didn't allow for the delay?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Art wins. Don't know if I'd vote for him, but he showed her in an unflattering light. And I usually like Maddow's interview style.

    ReplyDelete
  27. DeFazio has consistently voted against ever taking a pay raise for himself. Even when he's out voted on this issue - he takes his entire pay raise and donates it to educational charities. While I may disagree with many of his positions, his character and ethics are in my opinion impeccable. That Robinson is insane. I can see why he would be defensive about admitting that exposure to low levels of radiation is a good thing??? That is lunacy! This is not a good political cycle. Extremism trumping moderation is a disservice to this country. The parties should temper each other in order to produce the most prudent and relevant legislation. The gridlock needs to stop and calmer minds need to prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I really thought that Rachel handled things relatively well. She tried to explain that anyone can tell you what their platform is and attack their opponent, but those of us who don't know him, she wanted to get deeper into his background as those beliefs are what will drive him as an elected official. But he refused to be civil. I agree with those that speculate that Mr. Robinson came loaded for bear! My goodness, he was really coming unglued at the end. Can anyone say Ted Kaczynski???

    ReplyDelete
  29. Art-fool interruptous objectively shoots self in foot. loo-hood-dik-crust scientist.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If Rachel wanted to "get to know" Robinson she might've asked questions about his background, what type of work he's done and moved on to issues such as "Should we have troops in Iraq? "How would you say the stimulus has or has not worked? "What would you do differently?"

    She chose not to ask questions, but to "ask" accusations. "I have some preposterous notions about you. Prove to me and my audience that they aren't true." To demand that a scientist reduce a research paper (involving theories, hypothesis etc.,) down to a 7-second soundbyte is dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Why don't you interview the other candidate in the race, Mike Beilstein from the Pacific Green Party? He actually makes sense!

    ReplyDelete
  32. To call art a buffoon is an insult to buffoons everywhere!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rachel's attempt at "gotcha" journalism didn't work. This man has written thousands of pages of newsletters and articles, and she picks out two quotes from two newsletters from 15 years ago. You heard Maddow herself admit she read a lot of what this man wrote, yet, she's only able to pull these two quotes? Luckily with the age of the internet, you can simply google search what he has wrote and inform yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  34. She just picked two of the more extreme examples of his lunacy. There is certainly no shortage of insane ideas that this man has written and published.

    ReplyDelete
  35. It's pathetically laughable to read the comments of the radically pathological right-wing nutjobs who are just as, if not more, illogical and irrational as Art Robinson. This pitiful excuse for a scientist made the biggest spectacle of himself on national television (then again, so do all right-wing nutjobs when they open their mouth). Only the logic of these lunatics would even consider arguing that Maddow didn't bring relevant political points to this debate. Of course, Republicans, AIDS, Global Warming, extreme government conspiracy theories and illegitimate campaign funding have never been relevant topics in politics. Of course.. keep spending your hours writing 1q0231840180 paragraphs on comment boards consisting of the most pitifully weak arguments imaginable defending the thought process of lunatics. Then again, it's not like you have a respectable job. No human being with a genuinely high self-esteem who is truly happy with his life will ever be a Republican - it's always the interminably angry, bitter, irrational and illogical people who are subconsciously infuriated with the fact that they aren't as good looking, intelligent, and happy as normal people. Keep spreading your hate, and the rest of us will keep laughing at you.

    BTW, do you really think that your argument that you're going to "WIN IN NOVEMBER!@#!$ (YAH YAH!@!)" has any merit? Even if you do, it will prove nothing more than the (already well known and well researched) stupidity of Americans, something that we are unfortunately known for globally due to you unhappy, bitter, ugly wackjobs. Your viewpoints are on their last generation; 89% of Yale's student population, 91% of Harvard's, and 88% of Columbia's do *NOT* consider themselves right-wing or associated with the "Tea Party" (then again, the students at those schools normally have a high self-esteem, which automatically disqualifies them from being Republican). The proportion is even higher at other universities. Thirty years from now, there will be (thank god) very few of these wackjobs left. Enjoy being laughed at and ridiculed for your irrational viewpoints while they last!

    ReplyDelete
  36. If anyone on this board did any basic research they could see that Art Robinson has demonstrated intellectual and scientific courage throughout his life and is probably one of the most remarkable men ever to run for Congress.

    Rachel Maddow would do well never to get in the arena again with him. She's way out of her league.

    ReplyDelete
  37. wow - after hearing the podcast, that hurts my ears. Was her interview simply 'punked', a la O'Keefe?

    ReplyDelete
  38. You would think someone with that much academic credential..., would be able to hold a decent journalistic interview. I mean what did he expect...?
    Rachel to just hold his "dick" while he pissed all over... Shame on him... Shame on whom ever agrees with his propaganda... His rhetoric sucks... sucky sucks... One more thing I put up the money for his campaign ad...

    ReplyDelete
  39. Agreed with the commenter that said Art came in defensive and loaded for bear. Art never intended this to be a serious interview but a chance to belittle Maddow, spout some talking points and act like an arse. Maybe the tea baggers like that in their candidates - yell and just be angry. But listen, he's said some nutty things in the past and yes, maybe Maddow should have moved on to more relevant material from today instead of 15 years ago but if this 'scientist' still adheres to his yesteryear nuttiness, isn't that important to know before you elect the guy?

    ReplyDelete
  40. He didn't admit to his belief that Global warning was a hoax. He didn't admit to his belief that AIDs was a HOAX. He wouldn't admit to his beliefs that radiation was goof for us. He wouldn't talk about any of his beliefs, except...

    He did talk about his belief that the 1.5 second lag in the satellite feed doesn't exist based on the speed of light. When a self described "good scientist" doesn't realize that distance/speed = time lag when even when both are big numbers, it does explain why he believes all of the other stuff that he won't admit to. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  41. I am absolutely amazed that there are people on this thread saying Art Robinson was anything but a rude, officious jerk during this interview. After calling Rachel sarcastic at least two dozen times she goes to ask him a question and he mutters "here we go again."

    I wouldn't vote for ANYONE in any party who conducted themselves in this manner in an interview. The video of this interview will completely tank his campaign and well it should. This man does not work well with others and that would be his job if he got elected. He's not qualified to represent anyone and he gives scientists a bad name.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Robinson will never come right out and say straightforward that any of his written statements made at any time in his life don't hold water. The reason for that is Robinson still strongly believes every single word he has ever written.

    ReplyDelete
  43. One of the comments indicated he works at Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey. No wonder!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Rachel Maddow is an embarrassment to the profession (I assume she's a journalist). Her behavior was everything BUT professional. Robinson's opponent, Peter DeFazio, is a career politician. Robinson is clearly NOT a politician, and for that reason alone he gets my vote. I may not agree with all of Robinson's ideas, but at least I won't get more of the same (lies and screwings in the ass from special interests) from DeFazio.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I sent the following email to Mr. Robinson after I watched his appearance on the Rachel Maddow show last night.


    Dear sir,

    I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am with your appearance on the Maddow show tonight. I am absolutely astounded that you would not answer Ms. Maddow's questions. Why did you not just answer her? Why all of the ranting rudeness, endless interruptions and evasions? I am simply stunned. That was the last thng I expected from you. You have lived long enough to have known that you weren't dealing with a 19 year-old you could intimidate in Science 101 . She has an doctorate from Oxford University, England, not Ohio. She was a Rhodes scholar. What were you thinking with the patronizing posture you took with her?. I watched tonight expecting an educated, worldly, brilliant scientific thinker. What I saw was a frightened, querulous, argumentative and extremely rude old man, very unwisely challenging a much more media-savvy , extremely well-prepared young woman. And, not to pour salt in the wounds, she was never sarcastic. Just very, very, bright and articulate. Your repeated accusations of sarcasm showed verbal ineptitude and lack of ease I never expected from you. You embarrassed yourself and did your run for office no favors tonight. The 3,000+ supporters who have contributed to your campaign will probably still be voting for you, I think.

    Synapses do fail as we age. I'm sure you would have been a worthy match for her in your younger days. But, unfortunately, judgment doesn't necessarily come with age. I'm sorry I was there to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Rachel Maddow is an embarrassment to the profession (I assume she's a journalist). Her behavior was everything BUT professional." - explain. Why is she "an embarrassment to the profession" and how was she not professional last night? Given the train wreck she had to work with I found her to be more than patient and respectful.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Maddow should have stuck to the current issues . I didnt hear her ask a singe one.
    She went in thinking she was going to slam all over this guy but he turned the tables on her.
    Maddow didnt care what and who obama hung out with years ago yet she finds it extremely important to talk about a supposed news letter this guy wrote fifteen years ago? Maddow has now challenged conservitves to go on her show (she needs the ratings badly) I hope they do and she can get her a## handed to her nightly.
    She sure didnt like being told she wasnt smart enough to understand his work. (Priceless:)

    ReplyDelete
  48. I am always surprised when Americans are in sympathy with politicians who display irrational and boorish behavior in public. Yeah you, Art Robinson.
    No matter if you agree with A. Robinson or not, all he had to do was answer the question. Instead he made himself look like a joke. Yes, A JOKE!
    With his wacky "scientific" opinions no wonder he is one defensive bore, he is used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Maddow did her best with smear tactics, Robinson simply reacted. Yes, he reacted badly but put yourself in his position and ask how YOU would react to someone refusing to talk about the issues and instead dragging up old and out of context snippets?

    That's not an interview, it's a smear job.

    "The dose makes the poison" - there IS evidence that humans benefit from the natural low level radiation of this planet, and yes, on a separate subject, dilution is a viable method of disposal. Instead Maddow tried to posit that he advocated dumping nuclear waste on Americans! That's an insane warping of his position.

    While his opponent is a typical special-interest funded hack, she waxed on about an anon' buyer of an advert for a guy who's contributions come from individuals. Again that's warping the issue.

    Maddow is a great speaker, smart, entertaining and often funny - but this guy refused to play the game and exposed what she was doing.

    Good for him.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Art Robinson: Because everything wrong with America deserves a name.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm amazed by Robinson's support of the racist rhetoric of GA Henty's writing as curriculum for home schooling your children.

    Don't believe me? read "By Sheer Pluck" by GA Henty. Available for free from the Gutenburg Project instead of paying Henty for a copy.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Art made Rachel look silly. since the liberals cannot discuss the actual issues they want to attack the conservative candidates on a personal level. All he wanted to do was dicuss the actual issues and she wouldn't let him. She was rude as always and would not let the man finish an answer without interrupting. It is so typical.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Excuse me all you "truth telling" republicans

    I find this so typical of republicans and so called independents.

    With any democrat, you think it is just great to dissect their past.

    But you get all bent out of shape and start ranting and raving when Rachel Maddow asks Art Robinson, from his bunker in the middle of no where in Oregon, at the "Institute" he "founded", about supposed scientific "facts" he has "proven" and PRINTED IN A NEWSLETTER HE HIMSELF TYPES AND DISTRIBUTES and SURPRISE you think that is unfair.

    Why am I supposed to be impressed?

    Because he is just another bully and faux intellectual running on the republican ticket?

    Because he is a wacko who has holed himself up with his 6 kids in the middle of no where in Oregon and invented his own game (his institute) & put himself in charge?

    Let him go back to his useless "scientific" research -- we don't need him.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Art Robinson is a scary little mad scientist. His theories are right out of a 1940's science fiction movie. He is backed by hate. His closest "adviser" is David Jaques. Jaques is the President of One Nation United. A hate and racist group out of Washington state. All candidates that this Jaques guy has helped/ backed have lost. After seeing this interview, any reason to think this one will turn out any different.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "I drink radioactive water all the time". No you cannot.

    If you believe anything this loser Robinson says then you deserve what you will get.

    ReplyDelete
  56. For Alan, and Anonymous 8:38 & 9:20: It is a valid interview strategy to ask an interviewee to affirm or deny statements they made personally - to assert that such a strategy is a smear tactic is just plain silly. Art Robinson had an opportunity and he failed on so many levels. I stand by my prior comment: Art Robinson-Because everything wrong with America deserves a name.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Art Robinson says: “Radioactive water from California should be used to “enhance” drinking water in Oregon”.
    (source - his own newsletter)

    He is unfit to serve us.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Art Robinson said: "People calling for financial reform are making a mistake”.

    Art Robinson said: "I do not like plans to reform Wall Street".

    Odd statements since a large portion of his money comes from wall street insiders, Oops!!

    (source - various interviews)

    ReplyDelete
  59. This man is fails to listen. Who wants someone representing their interests who is only able to listen to himself?

    ReplyDelete
  60. What an outrage, i cant believe someone like Art Robinson is even running for office. He is obviously not answering any question that makes him explain his core beliefs because they are outrageous, this is a classic example of how Republicans can only talk about what the other side is doing wrong but when questioned about real solutions they attack and cant answer the question, Robinson was extremely rude i cant believe Maddow kept her decorum. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Rachel Maddow is a no-talent hack -- a hired shill puppet for the left-wing media machine. She's nothing but a pathetic fraud and has as much journalist credibility and integrity as Keith Olbermann has intellect, class and balls. MSNBC, in its standard divisive race baiting methodology, fraudulently portrays blacks carrying semi-automatic rifles 16 blocks away from where an Obama rally is to held in Arizona as a white racists who are waiting just outside the event center to assassinate him. It was FOX that exposed this heinous fraud. Anyone looking to MSNBC for accurate reporting is either too stoned or too stupid to know that they're being duped. Clearly Maddow's intention was to discredit and defame Art Robinson -- a man who may or may not be a viable candidate. But we'll never know so long as puppets like Maddow continue to conduct interviews for the benefit their left-wing masters and their political agendas.

    No wonder no one watches her show -- or her network for that matter.

    Shameful.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Art Robinson speaks about radiation:

    Nuclear waste best stored in foundation of homes

    Sprinkle nuclear waste over America

    Dissolve radioactive waste and sprinkle it over the ocean

    Radioactive water should be used to “enhance” our drinking water

    So if he is right, why are we burying radioactive waste deep underground in special bunkers? Because he is w-r-o-n-g and a crazy as a loony tune birdie.

    ReplyDelete
  63. No wonder no one watches her show -- or her network for that matter. Have you checked her rating chester??? You just don't like it because they are killing you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  64. MSNBC should lose its broadcasting license.

    Below is a link whereby MSNBC reported that white racists were toting guns at an Obama rally and that Obama was is in danger of being assassinated because he's black:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&feature=related

    Below is a link of MSNBC's so-called white racist:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfolr4fLGmg&feature=related

    And MSNBC claims that FOX isn't a real news network..?

    Hitler and Goebbels would be proud of MSNBC and its propaganda spinsters Maddow, Olbermann, Shultz and Matthews.

    Wake up, folks. Your country is at stake.

    ReplyDelete
  65. It scares me that there are people who support this dangerous nutcase!

    ReplyDelete
  66. MSNBC is killing Fox?

    You're one of the "too stupid."

    Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for October 7, 2010

    P2+ Total Day
    FNC – 1,288,000 viewers
    CNN – 364,000 viewers
    MSNBC – 428,000 viewers
    CNBC – 168,000 viewers
    HLN – 255,000 viewers

    ReplyDelete
  67. You view someone a "nut case" because Rachel Maddow tried to portray him as such?

    The man may very well be a nut case, as you say, but I would bet a dollar to a bottle cap that you haven't taken 20 seconds to research the facts, nor will you.

    What's really scary is that so many mindless dolts in this country place their trust in the reporting of liberal lap dogs like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, who wouldn't know the truth if it stuck in their eye.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Dude, it's even worse. Maddow can't even beat Greta, who whups her by 1,000,000 viewers.

    You're right, these MSNBC zombie viewers are stupid.

    8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
    The O’Reilly Factor– 3,042,000 viewers

    Countdown w/ K. Olbermann – 1,057,000 viewers (227,000) (449,000)

    Rachel Maddow Show —1,181,000 viewers (277,000) (512,000)

    10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
    On the Record w/ Greta—2,113,000 viewers (437,000) (886,000)

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hey Anonymous, this is about Art Robinson.
    It annoying reading posts like yours when you can't stay on topic.
    It makes your rants less persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  70. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 8, 2010 at 10:49 PM

    Anonymous poster at 8:10 pm October 8 -

    The reason you didn't hear Ms. Maddow ask a "current" question is because she never got a complete question out there without being interrupted. Giving Mr. Robinson the benefit of the doubt that he just doesn't understand satellite interview techniques, as I'm sure most of us don't, that still doesn't mean he should continually berate her for her "sarcasm". And by the way, as a scientist he should know that telecommunications don't travel at the speed of light. Come on.

    Asking a candidate for political office about his ideas and beliefs is different than asking someone who they spent time with, whether it's the President or anyone else. I've never seen Ms. Maddow focus on who people hang out with, but rather she discusses their ideas, what they've written and said, and their voting records once in office. Are you suggesting that because Ms. Maddow didn't ask Mr. Obama "who he hung out with" she shouldn't question the writings or ideas of candidates for office? Your comparison makes no sense.

    Mr. Robinson was completely disrespectful telling Ms. Maddow she wasn't smart enough to understand his work. Interesting that you enjoyed that. As he doesn’t know her personally, any idea that she’s not smart enough is an assumption. Does he assume that she’s not smart enough because she's a woman? As someone who received her initial degree from Stanford, then became a Rhodes Scholar and got her Ph.D. from Oxford, England, I don't think she's a complete dunce, and any assumption by Mr. Robinson that she is must be prejudice, as he didn't query her on her knowledge of science. I wonder if he would have said the same to a man. Or was it because he's not smart enough to explain his work to anyone? By the way, his claim that AIDS is a government conspiracy is probably outweighed by Ms. Maddow's Ph.D., which was on the subject of AIDS. But she didn't say he wasn't smart enough to understand that, did she? He was just defensive and insulting.

    Oh, and your comment that Ms. Maddow "needs the ratings badly" - where does that come from? She regularly gets over 1 million viewers. While that’s not as much as FOX, they are really talking to a different audience. I don't think she's worried. I think she'd like to present the Republican side of the story, if anyone other than an idiot had the guts to go on her show.

    ReplyDelete
  71. America crumbles as Americans twitter.

    What a waste...

    ReplyDelete
  72. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 8, 2010 at 10:51 PM

    Anonymous poster at 8:10 pm October 8 -

    The reason you didn't hear Ms. Maddow ask a "current" question is because she never got a complete question out there without being interrupted. Giving Mr. Robinson the benefit of the doubt that he just doesn't understand satellite interview techniques, as I'm sure most of us don't, that still doesn't mean he should continually berate her for her "sarcasm". And by the way, as a scientist he should know that telecommunications don't travel at the speed of light. Come on.

    Asking a candidate for political office about his ideas and beliefs is different than asking someone who they spent time with, whether it's the President or anyone else. I've never seen Ms. Maddow focus on who people hang out with, but rather she discusses their ideas, what they've written and said, and their voting records once in office. Are you suggesting that because Ms. Maddow didn't ask Mr. Obama "who he hung out with" she shouldn't question the writings or ideas of candidates for office? Your comparison makes no sense.

    Mr. Robinson was completely disrespectful telling Ms. Maddow she wasn't smart enough to understand his work. Interesting that you enjoyed that. As he doesn’t know her personally, any idea that she’s not smart enough is an assumption. Does he assume that she’s not smart enough because she's a woman? As someone who received her initial degree from Stanford, then became a Rhodes Scholar and got her Ph.D. from Oxford, England, I don't think she's a complete dunce, and any assumption by Mr. Robinson that she is must be prejudice, as he didn't query her on her knowledge of science. I wonder if he would have said the same to a man. Or was it because he's not smart enough to explain his work to anyone? By the way, his claim that AIDS is a government conspiracy is probably outweighed by Ms. Maddow's Ph.D., which was on the subject of AIDS. But she didn't say he wasn't smart enough to understand that, did she? He was just defensive and insulting.

    Oh, and your comment that Ms. Maddow "needs the ratings badly" - where does that come from? She regularly gets over 1 million viewers. While that’s not as much as FOX, they are really talking to a different audience. I don't think she's worried. I think she'd like to present the Republican side of the story, if anyone other than an idiot had the guts to go on her show.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous said...
    MSNBC should lose its broadcasting license.

    Below is a link whereby MSNBC reported that white racists were toting guns at an Obama rally and that Obama was is in danger of being assassinated because he's black:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&feature=related

    Below is a link of MSNBC's so-called white racist:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfolr4fLGmg&feature=related

    And MSNBC claims that FOX isn't a real news network..?

    Hitler and Goebbels would be proud of MSNBC and its propaganda spinsters Maddow, Olbermann, Shultz and Matthews.
    *****************

    Spinsters are women who have never married. I think you meant spin doctors or, possibly, spinmeisters.

    Vocabulary doctor aka Mary Alice

    ReplyDelete
  74. I don't know what interview you viewed, loveliving, but the one I viewed showed Maddow forcibly dictate the discourse throughout the entire interview while never giving her guest a single moment with which to complete a sentence, let alone finish an answer to a question.

    I wonder why Maddow never questioned any Democrats about all the foreign money they received? Didn't Clinton's fund raiser end up in jail? And George Soros is from where -- Vegas? Such double standards and hypocrisy is only visible to those not blind.

    You're actually Rachel Maddow, huh?

    And thank God there are only 1 million people foolish enough to watch her show. Any more and I would have lost all faith in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Leave it to a liberal to assume that someone actually cares enough to try to persuade them, or even cares what they think or believe.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Maddow is coming un glued she stalked ODonnell and then did this joke of an interview.
    An earlier poster said they set her up! Well maybe she should stop challanging the right to be on her show. She obviously cant handle the pressure that comes with it.
    Maddow has always had guests on her show that totally agree with her views and laugh at her sarcasim even when one can tell they dont find her funny at all but hey they get paid to be there so they laugh. Conservitives dont bother with her show as most dont watch it but if she insists on daring them to appear then she needs to buck up and take what they have to say to her.
    Whats with all the posts of oh he was mean to Rachel ,he sad bad things to poor Rachel ,He was rude to her yada yada. Is she a commentator or a 2 yr old?

    ReplyDelete
  77. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 8, 2010 at 11:10 PM

    Anonymous at 10:59 pm -

    Interviewers always dictate the course of the conversation. That's how TV works. If you want an even exchange of information and a free-flowing thread of topics, talk to your friends. This is television, with a fixed idea of what will be discussed and how long they have to do it. FOX works the same way - especially when interviewing someone from the other side of the aisle. They don't just allow them to discuss whatever they feel like at the time.

    So the two minutes of time where Ms. Maddow didn't say a word isn't enough time to complete a sentence? Maybe not for Mr. Robinson, but the rest of us can manage that just fine. Ms. Maddow was the one who didn't get to finish her questions, as most of the people who viewed the interview understand. The man dominated the conversation - he used at least 75% of the talk time, if not more.

    I think foreign money coming into candidates of ALL parties should be stopped, I agree with you completely. Oh wait, it's the Republicans who want to allow never-ending streams of anonymous money, via the Chamber of Commerce and others.

    No, I'm not Rachel Maddow, I really don't think she lives in the country if she televises from the Capitol. Use your common sense ... if you have any left after watching FOX, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  78. This ended up making Robinson more popular. Quick! Round up the victimization-specialists to fabricate some race-based accusations!

    ReplyDelete
  79. It's interesting that Maddow is more concerned with discrediting and defaming a candidate, with no chance of winning, from Oregon over $150k ad that ran on his behalf than she is about reporting on the fact that Obama gave $2 bil of our tax money to his pal George Soros so he can drill (not in deep water) for oil off the coast of Brasil?

    Or that Obama lied to America about the oil spill in the Gulf?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill

    Her priorities would seem a bit odd, to say the least, were her motives not so painfully obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Spinsters", "Conservitives", "George Soros is from Vegas".
    Is it too much to ask to get grammar, spelling and facts right? The conversation would be so much better, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  81. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 8, 2010 at 11:25 PM

    Alan -

    If there is evidence that humans benefit from low level radiation, why couldn't Mr. Robinson discuss that? Why keep shouting at Ms. Maddow about her sarcasm? She asked the question as directly as she could - I can't see any other way to ask it. She basically said "here's what you wrote, do you still believe that?"

    Bringing up Mr. Robinson's ideas about hormesis was not sarcastic. He could have easily defended that position, as most scientific bodies say the jury is still out - there is some evidence to support it, but not enough studies yet to confirm it, or the appropriate and safe levels of radiation. Why couldn't he talk about that? As a scientist, he should be ready to defend his ideas - I know that was a requirement when I defended my Ph.D. thesis.

    If Art considers someone asking him about his previous statements is "smear tactics", then he shouldn't run for office. That's part of the job - anything you've ever said on video or in writing is fair game, regardless of what party you represent. It's not pretty, and I don't always agree with digging up the past, but that's been part of the system for decades. No surprise there - he should have expected it.

    Just to confirm that Ms. Maddow didn't overstate his writings, see the quotes below. You can see Art's website for the entire newsletter (www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a5074.htm).

    "Wastes dumped into the deep ocean will soon reach the bottom, where they are less hazardous than nearly any other place on Earth ... Nuclear wastes, which are not singled out in Osterberg's article, are obviosly [sic] subject to the same principles, even though their disposal is (except in the programmed reflexes of the scaremongers) a less acute problem than chemical wastes; their far smaller amount, shorter lifespan and easier dectectability makes it easier to prevent ground water contamination."

    What? Shorter lifespan? Nuclear waste has a shorter lifespan than chemical waste? Maybe he doesn't understand the concept of half-life? Or perhaps the problem here is that he's a chemist, and not a nuclear engineer. I'm an engineer who happens to work with nuclear engineers, and I can vouch for the fact that it DOES NOT have a short lifespan.

    This is the kind of thing that's embarrassing for Mr. Robinson. He's supposed to be scientist, right? If he's going to publish supposedly scientific articles, he should have a fact-checker look them over, because he's been way off base more than once. And, both as a scientist and as someone running for office, he should be willing to discuss his ideas rather than run away from the discussion and try to badger, talk over, and belittle the interviewer.

    Anyone who thinks Ms. Maddow was attacking this poor fellow, as some of you are insinuating, should ask yourselves whether we have a right to question the ideas of our representatives, or people who wish to be our representatives. We want to know how they'll vote on key issues, to make sure they actually represent our views as well. If he can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. I know I, for one, would never choose to run for office because it does make your life very public, which can be a strain even on those of us with nothing to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous 10:53, 11:03, 11:05: Your posts are about as persuasive as Art Robinson's performance last night.

    ReplyDelete
  83. After watching the interview I'm ready to vote for the guy.

    Anyone who calls that self-aggrandizing elitist lying snob Maddow out for what she truly is can't be all bad.

    I'm shocked to learn that she only has a million viewers. Surely there must be more idiots in American than this?

    ReplyDelete
  84. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 8, 2010 at 11:31 PM

    Alan -

    If there is evidence that humans benefit from low level radiation, why couldn't Mr. Robinson discuss that? Why keep shouting at Ms. Maddow about her sarcasm? She asked the question as directly as she could - I can't see any other way to ask it. She basically said "here's what you wrote, do you still believe that?"

    Bringing up Mr. Robinson's ideas about hormesis was not sarcastic. He could have easily defended that position, as most scientific bodies say the jury is still out - there is some evidence to support it, but not enough studies yet to confirm it, or the appropriate and safe levels of radiation. Why couldn't he talk about that? As a scientist, he should be ready to defend his ideas - I know that was a requirement when I defended my Ph.D. thesis.

    If Art considers someone asking him about his previous statements is "smear tactics", then he shouldn't run for office. That's part of the job - anything you've ever said on video or in writing is fair game, regardless of what party you represent. It's not pretty, and I don't always agree with digging up the past, but that's been part of the system for decades. No surprise there - he should have expected it.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous 11:26: Are you sure you're not Art Robinson? You sound just like him!

    ReplyDelete
  86. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 8, 2010 at 11:33 PM

    Just to confirm that Ms. Maddow didn't overstate his writings, see the quotes below. You can see Art's website for the entire newsletter (http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a5074.htm).

    "Wastes dumped into the deep ocean will soon reach the bottom, where they are less hazardous than nearly any other place on Earth ... Nuclear wastes, which are not singled out in Osterberg's article, are obviosly [sic] subject to the same principles, even though their disposal is (except in the programmed reflexes of the scaremongers) a less acute problem than chemical wastes; their far smaller amount, shorter lifespan and easier dectectability makes it easier to prevent ground water contamination."

    What? Shorter lifespan? Nuclear waste has a shorter lifespan than chemical waste? Maybe he doesn't understand the concept of half-life? Or perhaps the problem here is that he's a chemist, and not a nuclear engineer. I'm an engineer who happens to work with nuclear engineers, and I can vouch for the fact that it DOES NOT have a short lifespan.

    This is the kind of thing that's embarrassing for Mr. Robinson. He's supposed to be scientist, right? If he's going to publish supposedly scientific articles, he should have a fact-checker look them over, because he's been way off base more than once. And, both as a scientist and as someone running for office, he should be willing to discuss his ideas rather than run away from the discussion and try to badger, talk over, and belittle the interviewer. And no, it's not because we feel sorry for her. It's because he's unwilling to admit or explain what he believes in.

    Anyone who thinks Ms. Maddow was attacking this poor fellow, as some of you are insinuating, should ask yourselves whether we have a right to question the ideas of our representatives, or people who wish to be our representatives. We want to know how they'll vote on key issues, to make sure they actually represent our views as well. If he can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. I know I, for one, would never choose to run for office because it does make your life very public, which can be a strain even on those of us with nothing to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  87. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 8, 2010 at 11:35 PM

    Just to confirm that Ms. Maddow didn't overstate his writings, see the quotes below. You can see Art's website for the entire newsletter (http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a5074.htm).

    "Wastes dumped into the deep ocean will soon reach the bottom, where they are less hazardous than nearly any other place on Earth ... Nuclear wastes, which are not singled out in Osterberg's article, are obviosly [sic] subject to the same principles, even though their disposal is (except in the programmed reflexes of the scaremongers) a less acute problem than chemical wastes; their far smaller amount, shorter lifespan and easier dectectability makes it easier to prevent ground water contamination."

    What? Shorter lifespan? Nuclear waste has a shorter lifespan than chemical waste? Maybe he doesn't understand the concept of half-life? Or perhaps the problem here is that he's a chemist, and not a nuclear engineer. I'm an engineer who happens to work with nuclear engineers, and I can vouch for the fact that it DOES NOT have a short lifespan.

    This is the kind of thing that's embarrassing for Mr. Robinson. He's supposed to be scientist, right? If he's going to publish supposedly scientific articles, he should have a fact-checker look them over, because he's been way off base more than once. And, both as a scientist and as someone running for office, he should be willing to discuss his ideas rather than run away from the discussion and try to badger, talk over, and belittle the interviewer. And no, it's not because we feel sorry for her. It's because he's unwilling to admit or explain what he believes in.

    ReplyDelete
  88. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 8, 2010 at 11:37 PM

    Sorry for the multiple postings - the system keeps saying it's too long and the post failed, but then it posts anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  89. It's funny that these same liberals didn't think it impolite to accuse Bush of orchestrating 9/11 and killing 3000 innocent people, or of comparing him to Hitler in TV ads, or of accusing him of waging an illegal war in Iraq that he dreamed up in Texas (while still governor) for the benefit of his rich, fat cat oil buddies, but they do find it impolite when a political candidate defends himself against an agenda-driven interviewer whose questions are intended solely to embarrass, shame and make a fool out of him?

    Strange birds these liberals...

    ReplyDelete
  90. LoveLivingInTheCountry: Well said!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Carmine: Art Robinson did not need Rachel Maddow's help to "embarrass, shame and make a fool out of him" as he was quite capable and willing to do that himself.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Any rational person should be wondering why Maddow would even bother to dedicate a segment of her show to Art Robinson, particularly when she knows perfectly well he hasn't an ice cube's chance in Hell of winning.

    Surely if Maddow had any well intention at all she would have begun the interview with a question that didn't involve going for the man's throat right out of the gate.

    A true journalist would have been far more clever and crafty in painting Robinson the fool rather than herself.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Paul: If you didn't see Maddow making every effort to embarrass the man perhaps you should make an appointment with any optometrist.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I regularly watch and like Rachel Maddow and I lean to the left. And while I think Art Robinson came across horribly in this interview by his own doing, I also think Maddow is indeed guilty of extreme hackery here.

    I can't imagine WHY in the world Republicans or Tea Party candidates would want to come on her show. And I suspect that this will be her new reality. (Yes, I'm aware that GOProud will be on, and perhaps the common ground here is the LGBT common ground.)

    It is patently untrue for Maddow to invite Republicans claiming she will be nice, etc. Every time of late I've seen her interview a Republican she doesn't even try for a normal interview... she heads straight to ambush with the most arcane, in-the-past wild hair and she obsesses on it. I'm not suggesting she throw softballs. I'm suggesting that Bill O'Reilly knows how to show respect for different points of view. I'm not a Fox Fan, and I totally mean that.

    I learned nothing of Robinson's issues that he's running on... anything relevant to what should have been relevant to this decade.

    Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head -- similarly as the left media was going on and freakin' on about Christine O'Donnell "dabbling" in witchcraft in high-school... "Who Cares?"

    ReplyDelete
  95. Art Robinson and his lame supporters think I was born at night. True, but it wasn’t last night!

    I am voting for Peter DeFazio

    ReplyDelete
  96. Robinson is in bed with big oil.

    ReplyDelete
  97. To anonymous from October 9, 2010 12:05 AM. It was Art Robinson's place to tell about himself. I never once heard him say anything positive. No matter the network or interviewer, Robinson tanked all on his own. Remember a picture is worth a thousand words. We saw the real Art Robinson and that is why he will lose.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Robinson/ Kittelman are just after your money. They live off of your stupidity and so far your are proving them right.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Chronic radiation is defined as the radiation received slowly or in a low-dose-rate from various sources. It is completely different in nature to the acute gamma or neutron radiation generated from the atomic bomb explosions that occurred in Japan at the end of World War II. Tantalizing insights from people living in higher-than-normal background radiation areas in the world and from nuclear energy workers receiving excess radiation over long years have suggested that chronic radiation might paradoxically be beneficial to humans. However, in the absence of an epidemiological study, it has been impossible to conclude whether chronic radiation is harmless or indeed beneficial to human beings. Fortuitously, an incredible Co-60 contamination incident occurred in Taiwan 21 years ago, which provided the data necessary to demonstrate that chronic radiation is beneficial to human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Chronic Radiation Is Beneficial to Human Beings
    by Yuan-Chi Luan

    Below is a summary of an original article, “Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?” that was published in the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons.

    http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.122.html

    ReplyDelete
  101. I am a lifetime democrat. I would have liked to hear the candidate's positions on the issues. I did not appreciate Maddow coming out swinging and jabbing right from the get go. When the candidate called her out on it and asked to stick to issues she should have asked him a few questions about his positions. I would have liked to hear about that. I felt like I was watching Fox news. I don't like this type of "journalism" from either side of the aisle. If we don't rationally discuss today's important issues and we continue on with divisive partisan politics regular Americans, the poor, and the middle class lose while the elite make off with all the power and money snickering all the way to the bank. I really don't blame this candidate for being on the defensive. I saw another Maddow interview not long ago where she used the same Gotcha technique, the candidate answered and then she and the rest of the media went on a feeding frenzy about nothing. These techniques look manufactured.

    Though I am certain that I do not agree with this candidate on his political positions, I do agree that Maddow was out to get him, was unfair, and was setting him up. People, these Gotcha journalists - Olbermann, Maddow, Hannity, O'Reilly...they are all cut from the same crappy cloth. We people are all getting screwed over and they want to divide us? I want to hear about substantive issues. I want to form my own opinions and if there is information to uncover, lets read it on the internet in full not be guided by some pre-planned ambush of questionable veracity.

    And really, I usually think Maddow is charming, but I must admit she was snarky and sarcastic...yes, sarcastic this time around.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Carmine: I don't Think this was Maddow's best interview but I don't think she was unfair. She repeatedly asked Robinson to affirm/confirm positions that he had written about previously and all Robinson would do is accuse her of ambush, smear tactics, and sarcasm. I don't need glasses and neither do the posters in this and dozens of other forums who overwhelmingly agree that Robinson made a fool of himself.

    ReplyDelete
  103. All of you "lifelong Democrats" that took offense with Rachel Maddow - SHUT IT. You are not Democrats, lifelong or for the last five minutes. Give it a rest, you're as transparent as cellophane.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I think anyone being interviewed by Maddow in such a way would have taken offense.

    The man is a scientist and is now running for political office. He's not trying to outdo Einstein's theories, he's trying to win an election based on the issues.

    And while there are many theories on radiation and its affects on human beings -- hundreds of studies have been done; and while X-rays are, in fact, radiation -- something we all welcome when needed; and while disposal of radioactive waste is a major problem the world is facing -- with hundreds of theories and proposals on how best to dispose of it, the ocean bottom being one of them, these are not radical subjects or concepts, far from it.

    But Maddow, like a broken record, made these subjects the themes of the interview.

    I don't have a dog in the race. I don't like or dislike Maddow. I don't know Art Robinson, nor do I care about his political ambitions. I'm not from Oregon, nor have I ever visited.

    But I am intelligent and objective enough to see what Maddow was trying to accomplish.

    And I can say without blushing that I was not only disappointed by her, but never intend to watch her show again.

    To call her manipulative, self-serving and petty would be an insult to manipulative self-serving petty people.

    She should apologize to her viewers while giving some serious thought to acting like a professional journalist when conducting future interviews.

    ReplyDelete
  105. anonymous at 4:56pm: What I saw was that she began to follow up when he reached the end of his first sentence, and immediately cut herself off when she saw he was still talking.

    The polite thing to do, when you're on the other end of a time lag like that, is to finish the thing you're in the middle of saying and then ask your interviewer to repeat the question. Mr. Robinson, apparently thinking they were talking in real time, kept getting frustrated because from his point of view she was talking over or interrupting his second sentence. I LOL when he said "at the speed of light", apparently completely unaware of the distances traveled or the electronic lag converting the signal.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anonymous 12:30 & 12:38: Talk about transparent!

    ReplyDelete
  107. Whether or not he's a good scientist, he's terrible at diplomacy and maturity.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I will say this: I was going to look at both candidates more closely. I had no firm opinion on either of them. If anything, Robinson was a little more in the lead because I knew nothing about him while I knew that Defazio lied about things that annoyed me. At this point, however, I will be going with Defazio. Robinson was a bully, he was rude, and he accomplished nothing in gaining my respect, my trust, or even my liking him.

    If he disagreed with the question, he could have handled it far differently. Instead, he turned to smear his opponent (which I never like and that goes for both sides) instead of explaining it. How about something as simple as "You're right that I don't know where the money is coming from, but I'd like to believe that it is coming from people who care about where this nation is going and I'm sure that I can live up to their hopes. Now, I'd like to talk about (insert subject here) for a moment, please."

    You want to beat someone? You act respectful and like an adult. You don't yell over someone like a temper tantrum five year old. Scratch that. The five year old I know has better manners than that and the grace to look embarrassed when he forgets. When you act like this, you definitely push away the people you were trying to attract and make the other person look like they were in the right whether they were or not.

    ReplyDelete
  109. The truth is every one got what they came for. Art got to broaden his national exposure and win points with the lib haters so he can get more money and votes. Rach got to reinforce her ongoing case that the right is dangerously unhinged. The rest of us got the painfully tantalizing train wreck that is our national discourse. Joker! Joker! Joker!

    ReplyDelete
  110. The truth is that politicians care only about winning elections and maintaining their power while they use our money to buy votes and to repay the special interests who put them in office as our country continues to spiral down the proverbial drain.

    The Mafia would have better served this country than the lying, corrupt self-dealing imbeciles we have and have to choose from. At least the Mafia made money and made its members work for their keep while functioning under a code.

    If the federal government were a major corporation its doors and windows would have been barred, its assets seized and its board members jailed long ago.

    Yet it keeps on digging the hole it created and that is now burying us while it continues to print money out of thin air in order to pay for its failures as if this were a game of Monopoly rather than a government for and by the people.

    And it doesn't matter who wins the helmsman jobs, they will still be piloting the Titanic the federal government has become.

    ReplyDelete
  111. So true. It seems no matter who we elect, and no matter what promises they make to gain our vote, we still get the same bill of goods when all is said and done. More government. More regulations. More debt. More poverty. More welfare. Less educated children. More war. Higher taxes.

    I'm old enough to remember how shocking it was to hear the word "billions" of dollars being thrown around 30 years ago.

    And now the federal government loses some $2 trillion each and every day and has over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities coming due?

    God help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Those who support the left and like Maddow will side with her, while those who don't will side with Robinson, if only for his standing up to her while calling a spade a spade.

    It's a shame that people aren't grasping the fact that we all sink or swim as one in this country.

    And from where I'm sitting we are sinking exponentially now.

    I've always fancied myself an optimist, even in the worst of times, and I've seen some pretty bad times in my 74 years, but for the first time in my adult life I see no way out of this mess for this once great nation of ours.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I think you meant to write that it loses $2 billion everyday, not $2 trillion.

    And yes, it's a horrifying reality we're soon going to have to face.

    ReplyDelete
  114. The only difference between the federal government and AIG is that AIG's balance sheet is in far better shape and that the federal government gets to print money by the trillions while AIG, and other corps don't.

    The federal government bailing out America is synonymous with ERON bailing out AIG.

    It's all a game and we're the pawns, folks.

    And these posts prove it. All this mindless poppycock over Maddow and some eccentric scientist while America is falling faster than Bill Clinton's zipper goes down.

    It's like arguing over who has the most matches while standing waist deep in gasoline.

    What a world...

    ReplyDelete
  115. Maddow is pathetic. Within the first 20 seconds of the interview she all but found Robinson guilty of campaign contribution fraud while implicating him of being supported by criminal organizations, foreign interests and communists.

    And without a single shred of evidence?

    How incredibly offensive the woman is. No wonder Robinson got defensive and attempted to point out Maddow's hypocrisy while trying to stay on subject. How many times did he have to say that he didn't know where the money came from?

    And what the hell does 20 year old Global Warming and radiation disposal and HIV theory and research have to do with a political election in Oregon?

    Rachel Maddow -- shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Thanks Rachel & Keith.Your show and msnbc is doing a lot to help the GOP and Tea Party.I watch Fox and msnbc.It's like watching Saturday Night Live every night.Keep up the good work!
    I must say the hatchet job you tried to on Mr Robinson really backfired.
    If you want to get real and informative information about candidates go to Fox News and Greta Van Sustern.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I find it simply amazing that politically right-leaning folk find the "When did you stop beating your wife?" interview style completely acceptable when practiced against liberal subjects by pundits such as Hannity, O'Reilly, Malkin, D'Souza, et al but decry it as unfair when one of their own is on the receiving end. Questions about statements made in the past are always fair game as an interviewer attempts to present/clarify a subject's beliefs. A viewer can hope to receive the kind of answers that will aid in understanding what shapes the subject's current beliefs. Robinson had an opportunity to do exactly that. However, it appears that he was more interested in "crying foul" at every point in the interview rather than in helping to clarify issues that many people might find important. If his sole purpose was simply to "stand up" to the liberal media, then he probably succeeded. However, I really think that voters on both sides of the political spectrum are less interested in a candidate's ability to bash the media than they are in where the candidate stands on the issues of the day. Thanks to Robinson, viewers who might have learned more about his views on issues and his fitness as a candidate will have to look elsewhere to find the real truth.

    ReplyDelete
  118. It has always been thus. The more youthful (and youthful-minded) of any society look forward, full of optimism and hope, whereas the more aged (and aged-minded) tend to look back, fearful, believing everything is in the last throes of irretrievable ruination. That's why FOX can brag such higher ratings than MSNBC: lots and lots of tired retired folks glued 24-7 to Glenn and the gang (I know ... my family's full of them) while happy, youthful, dolt lefties are out living a life. In good AND bad economies. Funny how the US federal government is so godawful terrible and untrustworthy to many of us (as it has been viewed consistently since its founding) but few of us (right, left, or center) would argue against it being the most successful political system on the globe. I like the system. I like people trying to make it better. I like this back and forth. I even like politicians and TV hosts mixing it up in a rather ridiculous way on occasion. But right now, I'm off to enjoy a beautiful October day, optimistic and hopeful that my college football team will play better this week than last.

    ReplyDelete
  119. A nation facing $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities coming due, its federal government losing $2 billion a day while carrying a $14 trillion debt load, with a 20% actual unemployment rate, and with 48 of its 50 states in or teetering on bankruptcy, with 11 million new home foreclosures expected within the next 12 months, and 1 out of 5 homes presently in foreclosure, with 6 out of 9 mortgages seriously delinquent, and 1 out of 7 of its citizens living in poverty while there is 1 person on welfare for every 2.4 people working is a simply just another a "bad economy?"

    Lololol.

    Kids...

    ReplyDelete
  120. Talk about a successful political system!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  121. This is any easy one for any Obamanomics 101 student.

    Obama gets Haiti to print a few hundred trillion dollars and lend it to us.

    If we don't pay it back, so what!

    That's the ticket.

    ReplyDelete
  122. If Art Robinson were a farmer Maddow's interview as follows:

    MADDOW: Sir, thanks for your time.

    ROBINSON: Thanks for yours.

    MADDOW: Let me ask: I understand that you had sheep on your farm 20 years ago. Did you have sex with your sheep?

    ROBINSON: did I what?! What kind of--

    MADDOW: If you didn't have sex with sheep on your farm, would you be disturbed to learn that your children were having sex with them?

    ROBINSON: What do my children have to do--

    MADDOW: You are aware that sheep have vagina similar to a woman's?

    ROBINSON: You're trying to make something out of--

    MADDOW: If you did, in fact, have sex with the sheep, not to say that you did have sex with them, but if you had, would you want your wife to know?

    ROBINSON: I'm not going to answer such outrage--

    MADDOW: Sir, I think it's fair that your wife be made aware of your sex with sheep, don't you?

    ROBINSON: I never had sex with sheep, you piece of--

    MADDOW: You did own a farm with sheep, did you not?

    ROBINSON: I had sheep on my farm, yes, but these questions are--

    MADDOW: Sir, I'm just trying to get to know you.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Anonymous 2:20 - I believe your analogy says a good deal more about you than Maddow or Robinson

    ReplyDelete
  124. To Anonymous Oct 9:26 -- I am a Democrat and do not side with Maddow on this one. I am very dissappointed in her steering of this piece.

    To Anonymous Oct 9 2:20... perfect analogy

    ReplyDelete
  125. Lololol.

    I couldn't disagree more with your "Farmer" scenario, but must admit that I couldn't help but laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I think the analogy pretty much nailed it.

    Good job.

    ReplyDelete
  127. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 9, 2010 at 4:00 PM

    Paul - I agree, the whole analogy is offensive, and nothing similar to what happened. Why does talk about politics always end up reverting to sexual innuendos that take the discussion into the gutter?

    To the various Anonymous posters: While I agree Ms. Maddow did tend to focus on items in the past rather than Mr. Robinson's current position on items important to his constituents, she did NOT make things up. The man really did suggest spreading radiation across America. And while, as I stated earlier, there does seem to be some evidence that low levels of radiation are helpful, none of the scientific journals have suggested spreading it around. And also as I stated earlier, if he was a true scientist, he would know that nuclear waste does NOT have a shorter lifecycle than chemical waste, and that communication signals transmitted by satellite do, in fact, have a time delay.

    Time on the air is like currency - you want to get the most value out of the expense, and in this case, I'd say Mr. Robinson failed. I'm sure he has some valid points, it would just have been nice if he took the time to share them, instead of spending all of his talk time berating and insulting Ms. Maddow. I would have enjoyed it if he told me I wasn't smart enough to understand his ideas, as I have a background in nuclear engineering. You know the old saying about "assume" - it never works to make assumptions about people.

    I also agree that comparing ANYONE ANYWHERE to Hitler is just wrong, very very wrong. Whether it's President Obama or President Bush, it's not only ignorant and in poor taste, but insulting to those who suffered or had family members who suffered under Hitler's rule.

    While we're at it, perhaps we could all to better to avoid the name-calling. We're all caring people who want the best for our country, and just because we don't agree with each other doesn't mean we need to insult each other, either. Keep it civil - it usually works better. I'm speaking to people on both sides of the fence here, by the way, not pointing fingers at one or the other. Just a suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Okay, so Maddow's agenda was painfully obvious -- but what did Art Robinson expect?

    The very fact that he was foolish and naive enough to believe for nanosecond that he was in for a fair and balanced interview that would revolve around substantive issues relevant to the campaign is proof-positive that he's unfit to hold public office.

    Anyone who willingly goes into a skunk's den only to complain about the foul stench to the skunk the entire time there shouldn't be representing the people of Oregon in the US Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Talk about blind bias.

    As if the Farmer analogy is any less accusatory hypothetical than Maddow attempting to connect Robinson to a TV ad and the "mysterious" money behind it while suggesting that the ad money might have come from criminals or communists. Then she asks, If you were to win and found out the money did come from criminals or communists would that disturb you?

    And this style of interviewing is somehow not synomomous with the Farmer and the sheep analogy?

    So blinded by bias that you can't even see.

    ReplyDelete
  130. A cognitive bias is the human tendency to make systematic errors in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. Such biases can result from information-processing shortcuts called heuristics. They include errors in judgment, social attribution, and memory. Cognitive biases are a common outcome of human thought, and often drastically skew the reliability of anecdotal and legal evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  131. There is no excuse for Maddow's shameless interview.

    I've seen her stoop pretty low on several occasions, but with this interview she reached the bottom of the barrel.

    Her style was borderline tabloid at best, her methods and techniques rivaling those of Maury Povich and Jerry Springer.

    It's a shame to see her makes such poor choices. Maddow had real potential, and with a little self-respect and a droplet of dignity could have risen to a respected mainstream figure rather than the talking head puppet she's become for a tiny left-wing lunatic fringe audience.

    But it beats working at the library...

    ReplyDelete
  132. LoveLivingInTheCountryOctober 9, 2010 at 10:47 PM

    Yes, I agree the IDEA of the sheep analogy was similar. The problem I had with it was the content, being intentionally crude and offensive. The example could just as easily used the "do you still beat your wife" example, as someone previously mentioned, and wouldn't have required the detailed description of a sheep's vagina.

    My comments here have been very balanced in seeing the good and bad of both people involved in the interview. And no, I'm not a Democrat, so don't go making assumptions about me.

    If you think my comment about the sheep analogy is "blinded by bias" perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with common decency on a blog site. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Did someone say blinded or just plain blind?

    LoveLivingInTheCountry said...

    Paul - I agree, the whole analogy is offensive, and nothing similar to what happened.

    LoveLivingInTheCountry said...

    Yes, I agree the IDEA of the sheep analogy was similar.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Forget all the psychobabble and contradictions, where's the doggone detailed description of a sheep's vagina?

    I can't find it anywhere!!!

    ReplyDelete
  135. Art Robinson makes up wild stories and claims to do all sorts of studies, where are they? He says things being said about him are a lie; they come from his own writings. So who are we to believe Art Robinson? You or what you have written. So no lies unless you are the one doing it.

    We heard all about a global warming study. Come to find out it is just a theory of his and no research was done at all. He claimed it was backed by a long list of people. After closer review, the people were almost all fake. TV characters for the most part or dead people. This institute he claims to run. Several small out buildings on his isolated property in Cave Junction. His boards of directors are relatives and the top two names are dead.

    Therefore, what do you get with Art Robinson. The same old thing. Lies, tall tails, innuendo, supposition, mud slinging and in the end each time, the election loser.

    ReplyDelete
  136. So Art Robinson is to science what Rachel Maddow is to journalism.

    And there you go...

    ReplyDelete
  137. Anonymous said..."So Art Robinson is to science what Rachel Maddow is to journalism. And there you go..."

    Not sure about that but Robinson does not belong in the US Congress for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  138. It's pathetically laughable to read the comments of the radically pathological right-wing nutjobs who are just as, if not more, illogical and irrational as Art Robinson. This pitiful excuse for a scientist made the biggest spectacle of himself on national television (then again, so do all right-wing nutjobs when they open their mouth). Only the logic of these lunatics would even consider arguing that Maddow didn't bring relevant political points to this debate. Of course, Republicans, AIDS, Global Warming, extreme government conspiracy theories and illegitimate campaign funding have never been relevant topics in politics. Of course.. keep spending your hours writing 1q0231840180 paragraphs on comment boards consisting of the most pitifully weak arguments imaginable defending the thought process of lunatics. Then again, it's not like you have a respectable job. No human being with a genuinely high self-esteem who is truly happy with his life will ever be a Republican - it's always the interminably angry, bitter, irrational and illogical people who are subconsciously infuriated with the fact that they aren't as good looking, intelligent, and happy as normal people. Keep spreading your hate, and the rest of us will keep laughing at you.

    BTW, do you really think that your argument that you're going to "WIN IN NOVEMBER!@#!$ (YAH YAH!@!)" has any merit? Even if you do, it will prove nothing more than the (already well known and well researched) stupidity of Americans, something that we are unfortunately known for globally due to you unhappy, bitter, ugly wackjobs. Your viewpoints are on their last generation; 89% of Yale's student population, 91% of Harvard's, and 88% of Columbia's do *NOT* consider themselves right-wing or associated with the "Tea Party" (then again, the students at those schools normally have a high self-esteem, which automatically disqualifies them from being Republican). The proportion is even higher at other universities. Thirty years from now, there will be (thank god) very few of these wackjobs left. Enjoy being laughed at and ridiculed for your irrational viewpoints while they last!

    ReplyDelete
  139. Why lie Robinson sheep. You keep claiming he never said it, he never said it. It is clear to the majority of us he is not only a loser, but that you have never read his newsletters. Try reading them and then you too will see HE SAID IT!

    Radiation - he said it

    Close schools - he said it

    End Social Security - he said it

    ReplyDelete
  140. I live in Oregon's 4th congressional district. I have voted for Peter DeFazio 12 times in the past and will do so again in November. Why? Because he does a remarkable job of representing the wishes of his constituants. He's not afraid to cross party lines and disagree with his fellow Democrats. That takes real backbone and integrity. Seems funny to hear him labeled a "politician" when he's really exactly the kind of representative we want; someone who will listen to what we have to say.
    Art Robinson, while probably well meaning, but obviously running scared during this interview, came off as slightly off balance. He certainly does not ingender the respect and confidence that Peter DeFazio has earned over the years. P.S. I'm a Republican

    ReplyDelete
  141. I also live in the district and have a little more insight to pass on. Mr. Robinson is part of a radical group we have here in sw Oregon. They follow the direction of David Jaques of Roseburg. He and his close confidant Marilyn Kittelman are well known in these parts. She is also running for a seat in the Oregon Senate. She claims you can drink mercury! All belong to a radical racist group out of Washington State named One Nation United.
    Mr. Jaques runs the campaigns of his people and has one set pattern. Attack, lie, mug sling, claim your opponent stole some of your signs and claim to be targets of some hidden smear group. Every time they run here we see this same thing. Mr. Robinson is one of their top people and has done such bizarre things as teach them how to survive a nuclear war. Members have been picked up for no driver’s license, no insurance and so on. When Kittelman was a county commissioner here, she bought expensive plane tickects on county money and then would fly to ONU events. One time it was to Texas to re-new some sort of horse handling certificate.
    Oh, we are very familiar with these people and would not vote for any of them period. The Robinson you saw on the MSNBC show is the real Art Robinson. In fact, he was just a little less nuts than usual.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Anonymous said... "Art Robinson was just a little less nuts than usual". OMG!!

    He didn't have my vote before anyway. Because these people are all radical anti-Americans. They will ruin our country.

    ReplyDelete
  143. The thing about Robinson is he's the wrong kind of scientist - one whose intent is to leverage the evidence in any way possible to reinforce his foregone conclusion. It's no better when the emails at Oxford are leaked by people doing the very same thing. But this guy needs to recuse himself. The entire medical community would disagree with him on the merits of low-level radiation, accelerated any higher than the ambient levels we live in. This isn't the sun's light we're talking about, it's isotopes in decay over thousands of years.

    You don't see Stephen Chew or Neil Degrasse Tyson evading the question that qualifies their work and study. Had this guy actually taken an opportunity to explain his positions instead of using the typical "stop smearing me" diversion we might have had some understanding. To me he just looks like another of those nuts analogous to the eugenics crowd, incapable of explaining his current or past viewpoints. Any good scientist, if given contrary evidence, can admit their mistake and discuss what enlightened them otherwise. To try and run from your past assertions is just trying to rewrite history, and it makes everyone wonder if you're actually principled at all.

    ReplyDelete
  144. This did not strike me as a professional journalistic interview, but more of a forum for the interviewer to argue and debate her own positions with cherry-picked tidbits. Her thinly disguised "I just want to get to know you!" approach avoided bringing out a discussion of the candidate's actual positions on relevant issues. This so-called interview served voters poorly and added nothing to voters' understanding of this candidate's position on issues.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Anonymous from October 12, 2010 1:13 PM
    said...
    "This did not strike me as a professional journalistic interview". So what. It was Robinson’s time to shine and prove himself. He failed horribly and showed everyone he is in fact a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Robinson is done now. His signs are already coming down in shame.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Art Robinson says: "Remove all regulations and oversight for energy companies, no taxes for energy companies and their employees".

    How much did this statement get him.

    ReplyDelete
  148. What was so shocking about this interview is two fold: Mr. Robinson as a raving lunatic, and Ms. Maddow as a raving lunatic. Nothing more was learned. Almost as distasteful as Mr. Robinson's political views, is Ms. Maddow's sense that all of this is somehow funny and not disgusting. I had to agree with one notion that Mr. Robinson had: this is entertainment and not journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  149. David Jaques is the kiss of death.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Art Robinson said: "People calling for financial reform are making a mistake”.

    Art Robinson said: "I do not like plans to reform Wall Street".

    Odd things to say when being backed by Bob Mercer of New york. The largest hedge fund guy in the country. Mercer is behind that Concerned Taxpayers of America.

    ReplyDelete
  151. The son of Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling — whom congressional candidate Art Robinson worked with for 15 years — offered his endorsement Thursday of U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio.

    Robinson, the Republican nominee for the 4th Congressional District seat held by DeFazio, has touted his close relationship with Pauling in campaign materials and in speeches. Robinson was president and a research professor at the Linus Pauling Institute.

    Linus Pauling Jr., 85, a retired psychiatrist who lives in Honolulu, said Robinson had strayed outside the realm of peer-reviewed science in his claim that climate change is a “hoax by the government to enslave Americans.” He criticized Robinson for advocating that the government place radioactive waste in home foundations and in drinking water to improve human health.

    Pauling Jr. said Robinson lacks the judgment and integrity to effectively represent the diverse interests of the 4th District. He said he thought his father, who died in 1994 at age 93, would agree.

    “He must be rolling in his grave at the very idea of Art Robinson representing Oregon in Washington DC,” Pauling Jr. said.

    (source - The News Review, Roseburg, OR)

    ReplyDelete
  152. I just got home and caught his new commercial. His children are Fugly! We might want to find out if he married a cousin.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Robinson lost big time!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  154. Wow! I just watched the video, he really came off looking like a fool and someone we don’t need in congress.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails