So we all got a good look at Art Robinson this week, Republican candidate for the House from Oregon. Robinson lives in a world of wacky ideas, from believing that low-level radiation is good for you to some seriously racist takes on humanity. Don't let his evident kookiness make you miss what's really at stake here, Rachel Maddow said on the show last night:
There was a guy like Art Robinson, I'm guessing, in your town somewhere, maybe on the outskirts of town. I mean, Americans are like this. There are a lot of unusual people in this country and a lot of them who hold very extreme beliefs and who propound interesting theories. It is not even that weird for people like this to run for political office. It's one of the things that folks like this like to do, in my experience, actually. What is really important about Art Robinson is not just how unusual he is as an American or as a candidate.
What is important about Art Robinson is that he is potentially viable this year as a congressional candidate, because an outside group called Concerned Taxpayers of America is running $150,000 worth of advertising to attack his opponent in this rural district in southern Oregon, to make Art Robinson seem totally mainstream, totally electable. Concerned Taxpayers of America doesn't have to tell anybody where the money is from. In their brief filing with the Federal Elections Commission, the Concerned Taxpayers of America helpfully notes nothing about their donors, nothing about where they intend to raise money from. They only note that they intend to "raise funds in unlimited
amounts" -- which they can, of course, spend in unlimited amounts.Is Art Robinson likely to win this race? No. What if it were $500,000? What if it were $1 million? What if it were $150 million?
There's probably a direct relationship between the kookiness of any given candidate and the amount of money you need to make that candidate seem viable in a congressional election. As the kookiness of the candidate goes up, the amount of money you need to keep that candidate viable goes up, too.
The idea that a candidate is too kooky to be elected is only true in an environment in which there is not unlimited money to be spent to make that person seem less than kooky. But when the money is quite literally unlimited either by actual dollar ceilings or by the shame associated with being seen to donate that money, there is no ceiling on how kooky a candidate can be and still seem electable. As long as the money can go to infinity, so can the kook factor. The chart goes on to infinity and beyond.
This is the new reality of American politics.
Yes, a good point. Graph the amount of money spent on the campaigns vs kookiness.
True and sickening. I shall retire in France....Good food, good wine, good weather. If they're kookie the wine will keep me from noticing!
Nice thought, but the Muslim extremists are alive and well in France.....
It's not Muslim extremists that worry me. It's the whack job wingnuts like this guy. Oh yeah, and Repubs in general.
Not much different than the Christian extremists here
Ah yes, the "muslim" extremists are alive and well. I am sure that is because all the "other" extremists have voluntarily walked away from their insane views. Anyway, that's all the more reason to have good food, good wine and good weather. Why live in fear when you can enjoy life, and why deal with insanity if you don't have to?
this guy was off the charts the other night when i was watching the show. it was so stressful watching you trying to get a word in edge wise. i believe what you say though, the kooks are out there and most of them don't hide, they are in plain view. i had to meditate after the show, my stress level was up so high. Hahah.
My mom always said there were more crazies out on the streets than locked up in the asylums..Art Robinson proves her right. I admire you Rachel for keeping your professional demeanor with him...let him wallow in his own insanity.
I had to turn it off after a while. He illustrated perfectly what I find so difficult about the right wing kookies. You can't debate someone who is yelling fire at the top of his lungs.
Another thing that I find difficult is this whole notion that no experience is a good thing. I wouldn't go into a job interview saying"hey, I've never done this before, so I think you should hire me." Why do we assume that not having any politcial experience is just dandy?
Rachel is quite right about the money. How can we voters make informed decisions if we don't know what special interests are supporting a candidate.
Rachel is definately a pro, but she should have been able to shut the idiot up (mute button), so she could state her case and then Arty boy could have attempted to reply to his outrageous scientific beliefs.
Outstanding commentary. It's the "bigger picture" context that sets Maddow apart from other pundits. That and the never-know-what's-going-to-happen-next vibe of her show are what keep me coming back for more.
Thank you, Rachael, for exposing all the "Kooks" like Art Robinson on your show. I have watched your show for a very long time and I appreciate what you are doing. The voting electorate needs to be made aware of these people who could, depending on the amount of 'money' at their disposal, have a chance of winning an election.
If you really pay attention to how Libertarians, Conservatives and Republicans on the right speak to Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats, you will see how important FILIBUSTERING is to them. They say the most hurtful, outrageous, erroneous LIES and don't give their interlocutor a chance to get a word in edgewise. You see this tactic in action everytime you watch Fox News, or any right-wing opponent in your show, or Chris Matthews, or Ed Schultz. You seem to be the only one, though, who doesn't go ballistic and crazy when trying to deal with these lunatics. Keep your calm; it's part of your charm, Rachel.
I watched last night but not the entire interview. I can believe that the person above had to meditate after the show. It's the unreasonableness that is stressful. But here is this white guy, in plain view, feeling victimized and wanting to bully Maddow. Why? What in the world are these kooky, old, probably fairly wealthy guys afraid of? If things are so firmly set in their minds, then they should be unshakable. Not incendiary. Not afraid. I think it's interesting that someone who puts themselves out in the public can't take the heat of a question or two. But y'know, Rachel is on fire. She's right where she belongs.
What are they afraid of? Losing their privilege, which is what I suspect they're really on about when they're talking about 'freedom', 'liberty' or 'taking [their] country back'. To their minds, so it seems to me from their rhetoric, this country is (allegedly) the sole and rightful possession of white, straight, male, 'Christian' (in quotes because they don't act Christian any more than 'Muslim' extremists behave like real Muslims) and preferably fundamentalist Protestant if you please, conservatives and secondarily to their submissive women with crazy eyes. Everyone who doesn't fit that mold is seen as a threat. Everyone who doesn't fit that mold and who has the temerity to demand the same rights as the country-club set is seen as taking away rights from their proper owners. But that's all crap. If that's their idea of 'their country' then I don't want to live in it. The reality is, if there is just one person who is denied the same rights and privileges as everyone else, then the rights and privileges of everyone is diminished. And there's far more than just one unjustly oppressed person in this country. The fears of people like Robinson have it all backwards. If they want to keep their privilege, they should fight to ensure that everyone is included equally in 'their' country.
Sorry. I know I'm preaching to the choir.
You should have mentioned that we already live with a small amount of background radiation from natural sources within the earth & from space. He is advocating increasing that exposure & that it would be good for us. Does he have any scientific literature to back that up? No true scientist would claim to be a "very good" one, twice! His implication that the speed of light negates any satellite delay is absurd..."very good" scientist indeed (actual sarcasm)!
Yes we all live with a 'certain amount" of background radiation, but how can anyone in their right mind, encourage more exposure? It's been awhile since I've taken a written test on Radiation and exposure, but strongly seem to remember that with increased exposure to radiation so goes an increased chances of Cancer! and hence the reason for the test was to make everyone aware of how we could be exposed to more Radiations (ie. knowing the sources of Radiation) to safe guard us. (thanks for letting me vent).
Of course, sometimes a small dose of something can do you some good while a larger dose will not. Like aspirin. Taking one or two aspirin can alleviate a headache or a fever. Eating a whole jumbo bottle of the stuff might kill you or make you wish that it had. How anyone can make the leap from something like that to radiation is beyond me. It makes about as much sense as claiming that small amounts of asbestos, lead or mercury are good for you.
According to your deciphering, Barbara Boxer in California must top the charts on kookiness.
Spent more than anyone, EVER, for bid for a senate seat.
where did you get your figures or accounting of funds?
You may have set your decoder ring one click too far to the right. The point was: unlimited cash enables ever-kookier candidates. Not: unlimited cash proves a candidate is kooky.
Another classic case of people confusing correlation with causation. Nice work for keeping them honest adamblast.
You may be thinking of Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor of California, who has spent more of her own money on her campaign than ANYONE, even presidential candidates.
Boxer has been working hard for years to improve California's environment and to prevent disasters like offshore drilling and deforestation. Try checking out her voting record. She is one of the most sane members of the Senate, along with our other Senator, Nancy Pelosi.
I was out of town when the interview occurred and missed it. When I returned home on Friday my husband told me about it and he said he was so upset that he had to turn the program off until Mr. Robinson was no longer on the show he bacame so enraged by his condescending behavior toward Rachel.
I have just finished watching the interview and complement Rachel on maintaining her composure and professional manner in the face of a true biggot.
While I believe the people of America have the right to elect the representative or Senator that will do the best job for the citizens of their home state, we have now become a global society and need Representatives and Senators with global vision in Washington. I believe if Oregon elects Art Robinson as their representative Oregon gets what they deserve, it is the rest of us living in America as well as our sister countries around the world that will be punished by their stupidity.!
The sad thing is that the far right will see the interview as a victory because they 'stuck it to you' and the left will see it as a confirmation that the right is clearly not part of the real world, hence forcing the partisan divide that is getting even wider. He will get more far right votes as a result, but will likely lose some independents. If he gets elected it'll be nothing more than apathy on the left and with independents deciding they have nothing to lose either way, which in itself will be a sad day for America. If the nuts start to run the asylum then it'll be the start of the rot for a free America where reasonable minded people stop voicing their concerns and voting numbers will drop like a stone to the point where loudest harshest voices will define what America will become.
Exactly that is what the likes of Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are hoping for, also include the Koch brothers and the Rupert Murdock's of the world. Since we are now getting world wide contributions accepted by the many groups on the right who commingle their monies i.e. the National Chamber of Commerce, the C Street house/ the Family and thanks to the Supreme Court 5 do not need to account for where these monies came from.
That is what disturbs me most. In fact, Rachael is likely to get more extremists, (read conservative/republicans) who will be encouraged to go on her Show now and use the same tactics as Robinson.
To them, the Robinson interview was a victory - to us, it showcased again how radical, obnoxious and crazy they are.
Thank you, Rachael, for exposing all the 'Kooks' like Art Robinson. It is so important that the voting electorate has this information, and knows that the more money spent equals the very real possiblity that these people may win. I have been watching your program for a very long time and I appreciate all the work you do.
x axis = kook
y axis = money
dirty. dirty. rich. rich. kookiful.
Hahaha, very true! I went to school with Debra Medina.
That 'interview' was truly painful. Worse than Sharron Angle's performance in the debate several weeks ago and she was silent for 27 seconds....
Yes, sir, you wrote this 15 years ago and Rachel did not try to hide that fact. Her question was: Do you still believe it or not? And you couldn't respond.
Interviewers ask questions. Yes, they may be pointed. Yes, they will make you defend your positions and ideas. Yes, if you say something which does not fit with something *else* you've said or written previously, you will be asked to explain, comment, or otherwise elaborate.
You spent a good portion of the interview being belligerent, answering questions before they were asked, interrupting Rachel and simply repeating your stump speech points and talking about your opponent.
If you start to answer a question and you use a word or phrase which is not something the layperson would understand, or at the very least, something that the interviewer hirself doesn't understand, yes, they will interject and ask for clarification. Millions of interviews have been done before yours last night, and the system works pretty well.
Rachel did have some sarcastic comments, but she held it together until about 1-2 minutes before the end. She let you make your statements about your opponent, let you interrupt her, let you ignore her questions as much as you wanted to, let you basically act like an immature teenager.
As an American overseas who all too often has to talk about the strange goings-on 'back home', I sincerely hope that you do not get elected. I don't want to have to explain to a friend or acquaintance about how a "really good scientist" (and one who feels compelled to keep stating that fact, as if only by stating it will it be true) believes or believed such crazy things about AIDS, homosexuals, global warming, and more.
I have more important things to do with my time than defend such people or such positions.
Good day.
Excellent job Rachel in keeping your cool ... shows these nut cases for what they are, empty. Seems like the calmer you got the more Art went off at the other end. So want more 'right wing' folks on your show. Probably won't get any more though, when it becomes so obvious that they are running on empty, just trying to look full!
That is what is so nice about 'running with the truth' ... you don't need to be able to yell louder or interupt faster, the truth is what it is, and it's going to stay that way, giving you plenty of time to make a clear case.
Well done Rachel!
The kooks are running this season.
I've noticed a lot of trolls on other sites. Are you getting a lot here?
Yeah, they're running around, just don't feed 'em.
Dutchie6:
LOL! :-)
Great followup. The interview was extremely enlightening -- Robinson behaved in the standard GOP fashion: when asked to clarify/defend his views or quotes, he diverted the conversation away from the question and towards whining about how badly he was being abused. He wanted not only his fair share of airtime but Rachel's too...like a talking doll with a really long string. Out of curiosity, I googled Art Robinson and noted that on some conservative blogs, Robinson is being applauded for not letting Rachel get in a word edgewise. It is unnerving that conservatives value this aspect of his TRMS interview more highly than anything he actually said or believes.
Who would have guessed from his "normal" TV ads that Robinson could be such a belligerent crackpot? This is marketing at its scariest. We need to reexamine the "new reality" of this political funding ASAP. President Obama is right -- this sort of anonymous, unlimited corporate funding is a threat to democracy and should be stopped. As Rachel said, the people need to know who is trying to sway their elections.
Bless you, TRMS, for keeping us informed about this campaign funding insanity and the kooky candidates out there. Keep up the good work!
I googled Art Robinson and noted that on some conservative blogs, Robinson is being applauded for not letting Rachel get in a word edgewise. It is unnerving that conservatives value this aspect of his TRMS interview more highly than anything he actually said or believes.
You have to keep in mind that in their world, women and gays are unpeople, and Rachel, being both, and having a platform from which to speak her mind, is very threatening to them.
I live in rural Oregon where this nutcase is very popular. There are large magnetic signs stuck to about one out of four vehicles in town, the usual large signs by the side of every road and street and now a billboard at one freeway entrance. Haven't looked for more. No little bumper stickers for this guy. It's scary for those of us who look at both sides and actually think.
The right winger happens to be running in my district and, every day, there are more and more of his very large magnetic signs (vote for Art Robinson) attached to vehicles in Curry County. Wonder where those $$$ are coming from? His ideas are scary! Curry County becomes scary around any election period. I am a senior citizen and 64% of the county are also seniors - but with all Robinson's whackiness, these folks are mightily supporting him. PS....Love your show, Rachael.
Why are any donations able to be anonymous?
my understanding is that these groups organize as non-profits under section 504 - they are exempted from having to disclose their donors, and then they in turn make the huge donations to a campaign - so the originating donors are not directly linked to the campaign donation. call it legal money laundering, courtesy of our esteemed supreme court :-(
sorry I meant 501(c)4 non-profit.
Sorry, laura, I meant why is any organization exempt in the first place? Why are any non-profits exempt? What does that do (or was intended to do before Citizens United).
It's 501 (c) in general. There are I believe 9 classifications under 501 (c); but you are otherwise correct Laura.
501 (c) allows you to classify yourself as tax-exempt and non-profit. Now the reason why a 501 (c) is tax exempt is because it's non-profit (sorry that sounded so circular...lol). What I mean is the organizations who classify themselves as 501 (c)'s do not make any net gain in income, therefore charging them taxes would put them out of business. The 501 (c) clause was established by LBJ (not during his presidency, but during his time in the senate). It was part of the incorporation of churches into tax exempt status. This was done back in the 1950's and the intention was to get churches out of the political realm. Essentially the deal was "we'll give you tax exempt status if you agree to stay out of politics." That deal, obviously, needs to be re-examined. Unfortunately many, many other organizations now exist as 501 (c)'s who legitimately need that status. For instance, the Humane Society and the Red Cross. I think we can all agree that the HS and Red Cross should not have to pay taxes because of the services they provide back to us within our communities. I think we can also agree that these organizations don't make enough money to be subject to the same rules that big businesses like, say, WalMart are subject to. The problem is when you make a law that is broad enough to give so many varying interests tax exempt status, that law has to be so vague as to not make any specifics. For instance if the law said you could only be a church to be tax exempt then the Red Cross would not be able to operate. And I think we all can agree that would be a bad thing. The reverse is true too (many churches who do good works but don't make a lot of income would be unable to operate, which would also be bad). As far as the 501 (c)'s who have decided to become political groups, they have abused this vagueness of law in order to influence elections. Political groups, like Freedomworks and Citizens United (both of which are 501 (c)'s), looooove the tax-exempt status because they do not have to list donor information. Again, going back to the example of the Red Cross, the Red Cross asks that it not be required to list donor info in order to maintain it's donor's anonymity. Some people may not donate to organizations like the Red Cross if they think their donation will be subject to public scrutiny. Again, people like Citizens United abuse this privilege as a front for corporations who want to influence elections. Now as far as why political 501 (c)'s started- that was in response to campaign finance regulations. With the Supreme Court ruling (re: Citizens United) no one is quite sure how this will influence 501 (c)'s. I predicted that 501 (c)'s would return to being just for the SPCA's of the world. I predicted this because one of the major reasons behind 501 (c)'s (aside from the anonymity factor) had to do with donation limitations. You are allowed to donate more to a 501 (c) than you are to a political campaign (or at least you were prior to Citizens United). I figured with the ruling corporations would be like "yay now we can dump whatever we want into a campaign!" It turns out that anonymity factor is a huge motivator. Now what you're seeing is a plague of 501 (c)'s popping up that also have unprecedented donation capability. How this will look in the future, after they've had time to perfect this new art, has yet to be seen.
Hope that helps @ Drew
I live in the 4th District in rural Oregon. This guy is scary and the support he is getting is more frightening. About one in four cars have large Art Robinson magnets on their doors. There are signs on every road and street as well as one billboard that I have seen. He definitely has the money to get his face out there. Those of us who can think and look at both sides of an issue had better vote.
I didn't like watching the segment either night and actually tuned out half way through. Watching someone yell over the interviewer is really unpleasant.... I don't watch Rush Limbaugh either - same reason filled with screaming hate and stupidity.
I didn't tune out, but my mute button got a workout!
My wish is for Rachel for the next weeks to move on from kooks O'Donnell and Angle to others who are seriously challenging the reelection of solid Progressives like Russ Feingold, Barney Frank, and the crook Rick Scott running for governor in Florida against a solid candidate Alex Sink.
Please Rachel, spread the wealth.
I do like the good advice Rachel is giving to candidates to do what Bennett is doing in Colorado--challenging the fringe policies of his opponent.