Art Robinson is the Republican nominee challenging 12-term Democratic Congressman Pete DeFazio for his seat in Oregon's 4th district. Mr. Robinson has the endorsement of Rep. Ron Paul (R-OR) and a secretive PAC has already spent more than $150,000 running an ad in the district against Mr. DeFazio and promoting Mr. Robinson's campaign. In other words, Art Robinson is not an inconsequential figure.
But he is an unknown figure in American politics. And so tonight, in an effort to get to know the man who would like to be the next member of Congress from Oregon's 4th district, Rachel asked him to explain statements he wrote and published in his very own newsletter, "Access to Energy." Mr. Robinson accused Rachel of taking his words out of context and of being sarcastic. (For the record, this is the dictionary definition of sarcasm.)
We do not think we took the candidate's words out of context nor do we think we were unfair in our line of questioning. We stand by tonight's show. Below are those statements written and edited by Art Robinson. You be the judge.
1. AIDS is a myth: "[T]he arguments presented against the HIV hypothesis are sound... "LINK
2. Just being gay causes AIDS: " ...median age at death for homosexual men dying of AIDS is 39 years and... for homosexual men who do not die of AIDS is 42. By comparison, the value for heterosexual married men is 75. This is evidence in support of the hypothesis that AIDS may be little more than a general classification of deaths resulting from exposure to homosexual behavior." LINK
3. AIDS is a government conspiracy: "Only government reclassification of more and more disease types as AIDS cases has kept the numbers of victims at politically necessary levels." LINK
4. Low-level radiation is good for us: "All we need do with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean - or even over America after hor-mesis is better understood and verified with respect to more diseases." LINK
Comb the "Access to Energy" archives and let us know what you find!
Great interview Rachel! The guy is a bully; he was more interested in yelling at you at answering any questions. I thought it was interesting that he decided to "name-drop" the school he got his undergraduate degree from.
??? Let the man talk??? He had an hour to talk and all he did was not own up to his own published beliefs and avoided answering the questions. Its obvious that his reason for going on the show was to put Rachel in her place so that he could brag about it to his friends. Sadly it backfired in his (mad) face :)
No, he never even tried to answer a single question. All he did was talk over her. She was waaay too patient with the jerk.
He did the exact same thing to her, watch it again.
Great interview with Robinson Rachel!
I loved how he denied his own quotes.
Switch that around. Every time Maddow tried to talk, he raised his voice and talked over her. Either to ignore the question and push his own talking points or to find ways to duck the question and tell her she was being "sarcastic."
But I do have to admit he had some points. "That's a complex issue, and I can't explain the full context within the time I have" is not a great answer, but it does sometimes have merit. (On the other hand, "that's a complex issue and you couldn't possibly understand it" is just rude, condescending, and quite possibly misogynistic.)
Similarly, "That's an old quote, I don't have the full context on hand, and I'd rather talk about something directly relevant to the campaign" does have some validity. Yes, I'd like to see him answer for the more extremist positions he's taken over the years, and I do think those are valid questions. But I'd have liked to see some of the interview spent on campaign issues rather than his personal background. I can see how, viewed from the other side, that would look an awful lot like a gotcha interview.
That aside... You don't start shouting over the interviewer, interrupting her whenever she tries to ask a question and keep the interview on track, just to try to turn the whole thing into a campaign ad. If you are going to be that much of a bully, you certainly don't then turn around and accuse the interviewer (who backed down repeatedly to let him finish his own diatribes) of interrupting you.
You also don't tell her she's too stupid to understand your area of expertise and then tell her she's obviously lying about something that's in her area of expertise. Yes, radio waves travel at the speed of light. Relays and processors do not. Any kind of reputable scientist should be able to grasp that simple concept. And anyone at all familiar with TV interviews (even as a viewer) should know about the existence of satellite delay.
Very "fair and balanced" comment :-). Seriously, good job.
Look, Rachel is great and this guy is a clown--but in this interview, she was in fact a bit Chris Mat--I mean, aggressive, almost prosecutorial. If I had a show, and had on some truther, birther, creationist, etc. it really makes no sense to jump on them; let em talk for a few sentences, THEN jump on em. (Think of it this way; when Rachel was 22, would she interrupt a conservative political theorist/Thatcherite at Oxford every two sentences? The same rules of etiquette should apply.
I, for one, am always uncomfortable with the, "you really believe this cause you're getting $$" line of argument; it can just as easily be used against us. And it does not really contribute to understanding of the actual issue. (Btw, this Robinson is also an intelligent-design clown, according to Wikipedia).
I agree. I tuned out. It was unnerving to see the core problem of our political dysfunction: extreme polarization disabling rational dialogue. At the very least, I expected to hear Art Robinson express his views before he was attacked. Noblesse must oblige: AR was the Guest and Rachel was the Host.
If we want to 'fix Washington' we'd best start by fixing ourselves. Our messy democracy requires basic civility - allowing your "opponent' a fair chance to express his/her views so that real dialogue can ensue. I still don't know what Art Robinson stands for, or what shaped his views. It wasn't helpful: as a voter it’s my responsibility to inform myself, and my right to make my own choice.
Our system has become dysfunctional because voters have been trained into an intolerant ignorance, unable to hear an opposing view and consider it rationally. Washington’s descent into extreme partisanship is driven by voters influenced by a popular media polarizing the voters. If you’re conservative, you listen to Fox; if you're progressive, you listen to MSNBC.
Last night, we ‘progressives’ had a chance to hear ‘the other side’, but Rachel’s ‘aggressive, almost prosecutorial’ stance denied us the opportunity, reinforcing the polarization so destructive to ‘Washington’
I love you Rachel, but last night you blew it big time. I doubt we'll hear from any other Republicans on the Rachel Maddow show.
I don't understand why people are saying she smeared him. She could have just dedicated a whole segment saying "This is what he said," but instead she had him on there as a guest so he could have a chance to explain himself. And instead of explaining himself when she gave him the chance, he smeared his opponent and/or patronized and smeared Maddow. I don't understand how people are taking this trainwreck's side.
She is a liberal. It's not like she's gonna have him on there to praise his ideas about health reform or anything. She's going to focus on the negative parts of his political life, and he had more than enough time to defend himself. Instead, he smeared everyone in the room, including the viewers, and used the pathetic "It's too complicated for you to understand" tactic. That's an automatic loss on the respectability scale. Yet people are still criticizing Maddow? I don't get it. These people will side against her on anything.
I'm sorry Rachel, but this interview was horrible. Not from your side, but from his. You consistently tried to ask him about his own statements, and all he did was talk over you which I found extremely rude. This is a man who claims to be a research scientist, yet he refuses, absolutely refuses to talk about his own work. I've never met that kind of scientist. I wish you would have cut his mic or something, or tazed him. An interview is supposed to be, ask a question, and get an answer. This guy is a fraud. I could care less about the anonymous donation, when the guy refuses to discuss his own work. These kinds of interviews are not what I would hope to see from any candidate, left or right. This stuff needs to be shown, but I don't have to like it. Keep up the good fight Rachel.
He started talking BEFORE she finished any sentence. Part of it was because he didn't UNDERSTAND how the technology work. Part of it was because he thought wrongly I might ad that he was going to run over and intimidate Dr. Rachel Maddow.
He wouldn't own up the the words he wrote because he didn't want his TeaParty base to KNOW he DOESN'T believe that stuff any more it was as simple as that.
Frankly I am glad Rachel stood up to him she has had a couple of this blow hards on and they have tried their best to over run her and some of them came pretty close.
I don't believe in playing fair when the other side is CLEARLY cheating. That is what the Republican have been doing since Lee Atwaters time. Karl Rove has taken it to a whole new level.
Billionaires are buying America and when your Civil Rights are all but gone should they succeed don't complain because YOU voted the REPUBLICANS in.
I don't think Robertxx watched the video or he wouldn't be saying such nonsense. That was the rudest dude I've ever watched during an interview. His plan was to just shout her down, he had no interest in an actual interview. How the hell do you smear someone by using their own quotes?! Yeah, she got fed up with it by the end, but I was fed up 30 seconds into it. Rachel is the best!
Very simple..when someone makes statements that reveal his unsolicited thoughts and those thoughts are obscure and/or have proven to be false, he should either say he stands by them or he has changed his mind. And you don't like sarcasm? I really didn't see any in the interview but gee, since you are just visiting here, did you stumble in? Thanks for the opposing views by the way (no sarcasm meant right here).
Yes, but they also have to answer questions about their studies or studies they quote to the scientific public. Not answering so isn't scientific that's ignorant.
What's the work of an interviewer? What's the right of the public to know about the believes of their "politicians"? Hey, this man and his believes could slide in laws ... and people could suffer by this. I think it's the right of the public to know what kind of people will write these laws.
Indeed she is. (no sarcasm)
What would you ask him?
Was the interview perfect? No. There were times when Rachel was clearly frustrated and she let is show a bit more than usual.
But how the he11 can anyone blame her? This guy was ridiculously rude, completely condescending, and maddeningly misogynistic. He may be shocked to learn this, but people who may not have worked in a particular field can still understand how it works, its results, etc.
It's simple: To accuse someone of being unable to grasp something is a cop out by those who either can't explain their beliefs/thoughts/ideas, doesn't want to because it'll expose them as insane, or is just plain lying and thinks obfuscation will hide that fact.
As far as his claims that his comments were taken out of context: This is the exact same ploy the right uses with Media Matters and others who dare to simply repeat with conservatives actually say. It's almost as if they don't understand that this thing called "The Internet" and how it works--namely, that everything they say and do will wind up there for all the world to see. The context is there, and doesn't change anything. These people say clinically insane stuff, and then think either it shouldn't matter, or that it's rude to quote their actual words.
The truly sad part is that they think they, and they alone, have a right to govern our nation, even after their worldview and policies were rejected by American voters. Twice.
**sigh**
Our nation is too full of Teh Stoopid. It really is.
Robertxx, as posted above, these are stances he's had that she tried to get him talk about:
1. AIDS is a myth 2. Just being gay causes AIDS: " 3. AIDS is a government conspiracy: 4. Low-level radiation is good for us.
All she did was ask a question and he got all, "You're being sarcastic" on her. Rachel's right, he doesn't know what sarcasm is. He was rude to her from the second she welcomed him to her show. The guys a nasty jerk. He was only there to yell in her face. Just because you're a conservative, you belittle yourself by defending this moron.
LOL at "I've never met that kind of scientist. I wish you would have cut his mic or something, or tazed him." Thanks for the chuckle, Mark R421 :)
I wonder if he watched last night. She replayed it and made her points on him again.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#39585397
Now she really reveals his background.
Rachel is the most patient interviewer in the history of televised interviews...
I waz thunking that meself.
I am surprised Rachel had the patience to put up with the ridiculous behavior of such a bellicose individual. I have great respect for the work and ethics Rachel has consistently demonstrated. She's the best!
The idea that background radiation is helpful and even crucial to the existing evolutionary changes we infer have occurred through the ages has credibility. This man could have calmed down and explained this (not easily accepted by the general public) idea without all the shouting and abuse.
Nuclear waste is waste today, but it is conceivable that someday these active isotopes could be valuable for processes we have yet to discover. Moreover, there is not a great deal of this waste (as industrial wastes go) likely to be in existence over the course of just several centuries.
He could have explained this, but did not have the maturity to do so. I'm sure he will regret behaving so badly given time, but meanwhile we have seen what a jerk he can be.
This is a valuable lesson in itself.
Thats a lie. He tried to drown her out with his screeching squeaking voice and wouldnt let her get a word in. By the way the guy looks like a pedophile.
Also that guy looked like he could use a good bath.
Rachel tried to keep him on the question at hand - but he projected instead of injected...rudely if I must say. As for if he wasn't going to answer any question at hand, then he should have said no comment and allowed her to move on to another question, giving him room to give a good interview of his ideal.
He clearly wanted to use this chance to do his own smearing. He lost his own credibility by his own fear.
Well no really, Older americans have much to offer. They have wisdom that comes with age, and Im white. That guy is a disgraceful bigot!!!! Rude, Disgraceful, Disrespectful BIGOT That doesnt even have the balls to own up to his own biggoted statements. Another thing is that if he is a scientist I really want to know where he recieved his education. Glen Beck College no doubt.
No we judged him when she thanked him for appearing and he almost instantly started yelling that she was being sarcastic. He's a bigot based on his positions on AIDS and gay men. I don't know if he looks like a pedophile, but he sure acts like a schizophrenic.
Watching this guy was like watching a really uncomfortable episode of The Office...except he's real which makes it terrifying...He made me want to stop watching but I just couldn't. Did Rachel ever get an answer about anything? I have no idea but this guy is a quite strange and seems to be fixated on "sarcasm" and mud.
I felt the same way I wanted to change the channel, but I just couldn't. This just proves my point that people need to really understand the ideas of the those running for office. He's nuts.
Nope. The guy took everything that was asked and made it into a 'sarcastic mud slinging lie'. Period. He never answered anything, and then the one topic he was willing to talk about after railing for 15 minutes that it was a misquoted lie and whatnot was the low-level radiation thing.
The guy was literally one of the rudest jerks I've seen in a LONG time. And I've been watching MSNBC's coverage of the NeoCon insanities for years now. No matter what she asked, he was right there, yelling about lies, mudslinging and taking out of context; the three Big Ones that Retardicans LOVE to fall back on. Just remember, as Bush canonized, they're not accountable to what they said, but what they meant. And since that was never actually said, it means they're not accountable at all. Period. They lie freely and easily because they traded their souls in at the door, and no longer look back with any sense of remorse for having lost it.
Robinson reminded me of the James Gregory character from the original "Manchurian Candidate." The senator who keeps yelling that he has a list of the names of communists in Congress... except he never produces the list. That was a movie which shows the horrors of manipulating the system by playing to people's fears.
ROBERT Go back to sleep.
Okay, I'll admit I didn't last the whole interview, so I don't know if you got to it, but were I interviewing, I would have brought up the second thing at the top of his website, "American Exceptionalism." I would ask what the heck that even means.
And it's part of what he now declares what his campaign "is all about," so he's gotta have a bunch of stuff all prepared to say on it. His spiel could then lead to the question about foreign donors.
The highlight had to be Rachel banging her head on the desk. And who could blame her?
He used the usual tactic that other Republicans use, he says something, gets it quoted back to him, and either 1) denies he ever said it or 2) avoids the issue by being aggressive back or changes the subject. When you examine his current policies and quotes, as DeFazio has done (http://whoisartrobinson.defazioforcongress.org), they are kind of...a bit far fetched.
And not just the ones running for office. They all do the same thing.. You go on their blogs to get some persective.. and it's all rubbish and hatred.. Nothing about an issue.. Everything is inflammatory..
I refer to it as Deny, Deflect, Distract. It's a typical strategy I've seen in a couple of ex'es. It's annoying as )&(&*#@ in personal life, doubly so when a 'responsible candidate/official' uses it. I get sooooooo angry when I watch NeoCons/TeaBaggers doing it on everything but Fox News where they can air their lies and games freely without any editorial challenge.
He used the usual tactic that other Republicans use, he says something, gets it quoted back to him, and either 1) denies he ever said it or 2) avoids the issue by being aggressive back or changes the subject.
And, lets not forget "I talked to God and -----------------------(Insert Sin (s) Here)
And He has completely forgiven me."
I wish I could say that this was a great interview, but it wasn't. Rachel, if you want them to come you have to respect them. Even if this guy does not deserve respect. Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Lou Dobbs was a perfect example of how to handle these people. Respect them, kind of, and put them right where you want them to be. But you know that already, don't you.
How is Rachel supposed to 'respect' him when he was deliberately talking over her and ignoring her before she even finished asking her first question, and she practically had to strangle a response to any issue out of him?
I agree, not one of Rachel's finer broadcasting moments. I like her stage theatrics when she is doing her political analysis but the hand wringing. head dropping and eyeball turning during an interview just doesn't seem right.
BTW, in order to engage the interviewee she has to repect the person or no real interview is going to take place.
Her interview with Rand Paul was constructive in contrast to this one. When someone comes in and makes fallacy of appealing to authority (of his undergraduate institution no less) eg. "I'm a scientist therefore what I say is Gospel" is crap if you try to assert it as a fact. Thats not a valid reason and therefore is a waste of words. I think Art had the desire to vent because he disapproved of the coverage he had. However, venting for the sake of venting and creating fanfare for no reason is counter-productive to an end if your end goal is to increase your chance to get elected.
Just saying.
That was the rudest person I ever seen on the Rachel show. A BULLY!!!!
Fox news must have rehearsed this performance with this crazy
I guess youre trying to spell reSpect. Dont tell me your interview with this guy would have gone different. She presented respect during the introduction of that (mad) guy. Sadly he played the "Im a smart scientist card" which to him means he deserves respect yet hes above returning it.
I thought that Rachel did an excellent job of keeping her cool and not pulling the plug on the guy. I have hardly ever seen a guy as rude as he was. The only other time was a similiar interview and the same kind of thing happened. Why are these guys so afraid that they can't even answer her questions. She was not one bit rude in either case.
A real worthless interview. I forced myself to watch the whole thing. Today I don't need to know about AID's circa 1995. I guess we just need to assume this guy follows the Tea Party boiler specs but you couldn't confirm this from the show as we couldn't get past his archived newsletter.
I think it comes down to the fact that you cant expect a rational response to work with the irrational. Anyway you could have approached him, it would have not gone well. He was irrational. Didnt take the Alzheimer's medication he has been researching I guess. He was agitated, delusional...poor fella!
Rachel I am so sorry about that freak show. He makes us normal Oregonians look insane when we're only sort of crazy.
got that right - chuckle - my daughter lives in Portland...
I live in WA state, (Vancouver) and think this is definitely something DiFazio (sp?) should run as well, to demonstrate that THIS is the type of 'legislator' this guy would be. He has no interest in truth, only yelling. Which makes him a terrific Retardican, but a horrible person to fight for anything of substance or value.
I dont know if the real Rachael Maddow actually reads her blob because I love her to death! plz reply to our responses if you DO.
The guy used the strategy of talking over you so he would not have to debate you on his positions which would seem outside of the mainstream. This is actually rather popular amongst Republicans because there ideas seem ridiculous to those that are intellectuals, Dr. Maddow.
$150,000 PAC on his behalf and he doesnt know other than that money fell from the heavens seems highly suspicious THANK YOU SAMUEL ALITO. Money may not buy votes, but its the next best thing.
I couldnt finish the interview, the guy was too obnoxious for me to handle, I got as far as to his disbeleif in 6.7 billion people 150 years past the industrial age not possibly causing in anyway whatsoever, Global Warming and had to turn the anti-intellectual man off.
We got the intellectuals to vote democratic, but the stupid people who vote and run Republican do so much damage when they get in power, its simply not enough.
It is a trait common amongst drunks as well, and they make as much sense too.
And liars.
My favorite part was where he followed up his claims of being an accomplished scientist by denying the reality of satellite delay.
So true, Peter!
:) Agreed. That comment just summed up his special flavor of insanity.
I admit, it took me a minute to catch that but, umm...this is a supposed scientist who doesn't know that the speed of light is way faster than the speed of sound? Gosh, I learned that in like, 4th grade science.
Its not the delay, its Rachels assertion that the delay was more that a second. I think he said 1/2 second, implying Rachel was not unware he was speaking when she spoke. The comm satellites are about 22000 miles in space. The delay before the end of your own sentence and the beginning of the reply is the time of two round trips to the satellite, about 90000 miles, which light travels in a half second.
It's actually not sound either. But it's also not light. We're talking about radio waves. The liberally slanted wikipedia has a brief explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_satellite#Application
And how, pray tell, is Wikipedia "liberally slanted"? Because it's not run by Phyllis Schlafly's spawn?
Light and radio waves are both forms of electromagnetic radiation. The only difference is the frequency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Theory
Satellite delay (ground to satellite to ground) is about .75 seconds ONE WAY. The return trip is the same. That's a 1.5 second delay between the time you start to speak and you see that the other person is also talking.
If the satellite was directly overhead both sender and receiver, the delay would be close to .5 seconds one way, but it isn't and the slant range is more than 22,000 miles. Remember, those satellites are all over the equator, so at minimum you have to go that far out and back.
To not understand that doesn't inspire much trust in his abilities as a scientist.
Time to go from ground to satellite back to ground is about .75 seconds (depends on exactly where the satellite is, but since they're all over the equator, and we're not, the slant range is more than 22,000 miles - if it was 22,000 miles it would be about .5 seconds up and back).
However, that's ONE WAY. When you start talking, you don't find out until 1.5 seconds later that the other person has already started talking.
Apparently Mr. Science doesn't understand that. Doesn't inspire trust in the other things he's sure he knows.
This guy's strategy was to fillibuster the interview with drivel to run out the clock on the interview in order to dodge her questions and declare victory, this is what happens when a gop candidate comes on MSNBC and this is the real reason Keith does not want them on his show, it is nothing but juvenile noise and the crosstalk just takes away the quality of the show. Very few GOP politicians are not very savvy in hardball interviews, even if the host is very cordial like Rachel, she tried I watched and enjoyed her composure, her right wing collegues should take notice.
This was painful experience-a rude and dreadful mouthy person -I thought he had a recording inside that kept echoing his impolite comments --any person worthy of an office in this country's government should respect a serious journalists questions and not talk over anyone. Had I been the victim of his abusive garbage I would have turned off his mike and given him a piece of my mind--kudos to Rachel for showing Mr R for by letting him roll along showing just what he is -disrespectful of the shows host and a females-and I hope Mr Defazio will use a piece of this show's tape to all the voters of Oregon-Rachel is the #1 interviewer on the air.
Sorry, but IMO, Rachel, epic fail on your part, while the guy was a total jerk, you not only let him control the interview but I think he got the upper hand. Yeah, Yeah he was denying stuff he had written but his point about it being 15 years old and taken out of context was never really addressed by you. And yes, you did interrupt him when he was about to explain hor mes sis(?). Rightly or wrongly you should have apologized and then let him continue.
This was the type of interview that needed to be guided not interrogated. With his fringe ideas he would have surely tripped up. (See R. Paul). Robinsion should have been exposed, instead he came across as a bully with a chip on his shoulder ARGUING with a biased media hack with a one track mind.
Pardon but did you not notice that he interrupted Rachel about 37 times BEFORE that topic?
I'll have to disgree. Rachel has nothing to apologize for. Robinsons tactic is like every other neocon or teabagger that goes on a show thats not 'friendly' to them like fox news. The minute he or the rest of them has to explain a comment or a position they go instantly into defense mode, deny..deny..deny, overtalk the interviewer, anything to keep the audience from learning what they stand for. IMHO Rachel, with intent or not, made this moron look like a blithering idiot. Good job once again Rachel. Keep exposing these fools for what they are even if they do it to themselves.
Maddow never got a chance to link what he said 15 years ago to his current beliefs and political positions. Robinson wouldn't shut up long enough to let her get a word in edgewise--nevermind a question-- and THAT was his "strategy." Robinson is clearly a homophobic, misogynistic, controlling bully whose primary purpose was to control not only the interview but Maddow. I disagree that he got the better of her - all he did was launch an obviously unjustified ad hominem attack on Maddow which he spouted over and over. Robinson clearly believes that if you say something often enough and loudly enough it magically becomes true. He's an idiot.
I adore Rachel. I was ecstatic that a Republican had agreed to come on board for an interview. I watched the Rand Paul interview and while I disagreed with every single solitary belief he had regarding the Civil Rights Act, it felt like Rachel brought him on for one reason only. She wanted to make a point about his views on Civil Rights and his prior statements. She had his own words to pummel him with and she did just that. It was discussed on every conservative blog as an ambush. I don't need her to give any Republican a platform to promote themselves or to throw softball questions, but last night and the Rand Paul interview bothered me. I'm an attorney. In court, during arbitrations and in depositions, we examine and cross-examine individuals (favorable and unfavorable to our position). Sometimes we need to be a bit harsh but we are not entitled to badger. Robinson came on with a huge chip on his shoulder. He was determined to put Rachel in her place if she tried to "smear" him as defined by him. He was prepared, cantankerous and ornery. After his 20th response...the same response...she needed to move on and above the fray. Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it only wastes your time and irritates the pig. I don't want Rachel to back down, but there's a finesse to a good cross-examination ...and that finesse was missing. Even when the jackass is talking over you and is rude, you must not appear to be flustered, overly concerned or badgering. Sorry Rachel...I hope I get to watch you try again with another Republican...soon.
I'm an Oregonian, unfortunately not in Pete Defazio's district, but I just had to fast forward through the last of your interview. Thank you for allowing Art Robinson to demonstrate what an arrogant, close minded, hypocritical and rude person he is. If only it could be used, his outrageous performance would do more for Pete's campaign than any ad could possibly hope to accomplish. Bless you for all you put up with.
so much for dialogue...Robinson gave the answers HE wanted the audience to hear, no matter what questions were being asked...it's an old PR ploy, nothing more or less.
He's a good ol' fashioned bully.
I loved the part where he built himself up to be such an outstanding scientist, and then he made the comment about how satellite communication is at the speed of light. The common man knows that it simply is not true. How can we trust this man's scientific knowledge in these supposedly intricate subjects to which he kept referring but not explaining? This man is dangerous. I don't even care if The Rachel Maddow Show is biased or not - the constituency needs to see this side. This is the man who they have the power to elect to a high office.
He wasn't even a human being for parts of the interview. He was a political robot, mudslinging with his opponent instead of addressing anything Maddow asked him. He sounded like an attack ad. He's too far gone. No matter what side of the spectrum you subscribe to, you have to agree that this man is not a fit candidate.
Why is it simply not true? As a commenter above notes, you could say because of the processing of the signals that is needed etc., but the radio waves travel with the speed of light.
But with the rest of it, you're right. I wonder if there's some substance abuse in his history.
Although radio waves do travel at the speed of light, there are other delays in the communications system. Any interview Rachel has done with someone on satellite shows the delays. Sometimes they are more pronounced than others, perhaps there are signal relaying delays or some other network delays depending on the physical location of the interviewee, but the delays are always there and they are at least a second if not more.
When he was going on about his degree from CalTech, I wish she would have whipped out the "well, I have PhD from Oxford" card.
Probably not professional; but it would have been amusing.
Wow, I am a scientist and he embarrassed the living daylights out of me. Any person who says "I am a Scientist. And I am a really good one" is a a charlatan and narcissist. Not sure how Rachel was able to hold her composure. This guy has a clear/clean conscience - he never used it.
Totally agree!
Those who stoop to the "I'm a scientist, you're a rube" canard are arrogant hacks who no longer understand science. In my observation of these types over the years (they are rare among actual scientists, btw), they usually have some actual research background or experience, sometimes considerable but usually brief, maybe even did some good work once upon a time ago, but inevitably devolve into the sputtering bully ignoramus you all saw in the interview and are, at best, an embarrassment.
he didn't come onto be interviewed. he had no intention of participating in a conversation which requires that both parties respect each other, or at least agree to follow the rules of civil discourse. He announced repeatedly that he knew her, knew her agenda, knew her standard operating procedure.
She was respectful up until the point he became absolutely abusive, and even then she refrained from responding with the same type of nasty characterizations he resorted to. She started with current topics, when he wouldn't discuss that she switched to views he had written about. If she had muttered, "please continue" after each one of his long winded discourses and said nothing else I bet he still would have complained she was biased. He called her stupid, un-teachable, sarcastic, untrustworthy and a liar (among other things). How exactly do you "discuss" anything with a person like that?
I was astounded at how many times he called her a liar. Won't even respond to his own written words, regardless of how many papers he's written. Own up! What a tool.
He reminded me of a professor who bullied the class with his windbaggery, and then took offense when someone raised their hand to ask a question. Mr KnowItAll who taught "thousands" and wrote "thousands" couldn't even address one question directly because of his inflexible defensiveness. To Rachel's credit, though, it is difficult for any tv host to stop a windbag motormouth. Obviously fascinated with his own "scientific" knowledge, he showed himself as a thoroughly obnoxious person, regardless of his belief in his own press releases.
Rachel, you tried to get the guy to answer your questions. I agree with Smitch, his strategy was clear from the start: talk over you and use the time to beat up on DeFazio. Instead of having an actual exchange and making some attempt to acknowledge your questions, he was bullying, condescending, and obnoxious. Thanks so much for exposing this jerk. I will be making a contribution to DeFazio's campaign now.
Sorry if this dupes...
My synopsis of Robinson's side of the interview
Me no politician, me scientist.
Defazio bad, me good.
Rachel Maddow lie, smear, sarcasm.
I not say that. You quote out context. How I know my words really my words?
Defazio bad, me good.
Me no wanna talk that, me wanna say Defazio bad more.
I say that 15 year ago. You quote out context.
You not smart like me. I teacher, I smart.
Rachel Maddow lie, smear, sarcasm.
Defazio bad, me good.
I rubber, Rachel glue.
I no answer that question... you not say Defazio bad.
I love your summary BPollen.
Rachel thanks for exposing this bully. He was not interested in engaging in any dialogue, he only wanted to rant. I would have actually like to hear him answer your questions, but he had no intention of allowing you to have any control at all. Like another poster, I wonder what might have been different had the interview been in person instead of satellite, but we'll never know. I'm going to go and make a modest donation to DeFazio's campaign now!.
Wonder if Robinson would have been so rude, if he'd actually been in the studio rather than across the continent on satellite... Of course, Rachel might have needed to wear body armor if he was...
I have to disagree with ShauliT, I thought Rachel showed an appropriate amount of respect and more than an appropriate amount of patience during this interview. Lou Dobbs is too seasoned a TV personality to go off the way Robinson did. If anyone entered this interview with an agenda it was Robinson. He certainly didn't show any of that trained objectivity he should have learned at Caltech. It was a difficult interview to watch and an embarassment to rational people in Oregon. This fellow has found enemies everywhere in his life, from Linus Pauling who ejected him from his research institute to the public school system of Oregon to the scientific establishment at large. Now Rachel is added to his long list.
Robinson was such a jerk--just interested in trashing you, never mind answering even one of your questions! Next time, cut the volume! I could relate when you banged your head on the desk....felt like doing the same thing!!
Sorry, but IMO, Rachel, epic fail on your part, while the guy was a total jerk, you not only let him control the interview but I think he got the upper hand. Yeah, Yeah he was denying stuff he had written but his point about it being 15 years old and taken out of context was never really addressed by you. And yes, you did interrupt him when he was about to explain hor mes sis(?). Rightly or wrongly you should have apologized and then let him continue.
This was the type of interview that needed to be guided not interrogated. With his fringe ideas he would have surely tripped up. (See R. Paul). Robinsion should have been exposed, instead he came across as a bully with a chip on his shoulder ARGUING with a biased media hack.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. A ranting broken record bully is not someone who has the upper hand.
When asked about the $150,000 from anonymous donors, he could have said he was happy to get support from anywhere. Instead he chose to attack the interviewer and his opponent. Only after refusing to answer the simplest of questions on the topic did she switch to asking about quotes from his written newsletters.
Taken out of context? Explain the context, don't attack the interviewer, if this is the case.
Hormesis? Sounded to me like Rachel had a good paraphrase of the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hormesis
15 year old quotes? A simple acknowledgement or "I've changed my thinking on that since then" would allow the interviewee to get "the upper hand" over the interviewer.
The difference between the Rand Paul interview and this once was that Rand Paul did not come in with a hostile attitude attacking his interviewer. Mr. Robinson was a train wreck in progress from the moment he opened his mouth.
Rachel Maddow "a biased media hack"? Sorry, David, you just exposed your own bias.
David, plz stop reposting. Really, once is more than enough from you.
He got defensive immediately upon Rachel asking him who the money was from. In my experience, when someone gets irrationally defensive, they are trying to hide something.