What a friggin hypocrite Maddow is, on her “money laundering” crusade –

About a week ago, she had a Democrat congressman from Oregon on her show, to talk about an organization called Concerned Taxpayers of America spending money on television ads criticizing him. Maddow said “(GOP lobbyists) are running Concerned Taxpayers of America. Concerned Taxpayers of America is basically just a piece of paper, and now $160,000 from Lord knows where is being spent to get rid of Pete DeFazio. This year, in 2010, in these elections for the first time, nobody is pretending that these ‘organizations’, these groups, are doing anything but laundering money. You can just launder your money through a fake organization that you have some Republican lobbyist set up in five minutes at GoDaddy.com. Money laundering on a grand scale, money laundering, that’s what it is, to take over the Congress of the United States of America.”

Then, THE NEXT NIGHT, she has a guy on who is president of Patriot Majority PAC, a political action committee that created an ad criticizing Sharron Angle. She asked, “Craig, tell me a little bit about Patriot Majority. What is your group? How long have you been around? Who funds you?”

Craig’s answer – “Patriot Majority’s been around since 2005. We were here before the Tea Party, we’ll be here after it, and we’ll be here after this election. Uh, we’re funded by, you know, I mean, individuals all across the country, uh, you know, our website, you know, we seek individual contributions. Uh, you know, and we’re funded by people who think that, you know, we need to, you know, draw a line in the sand and fight these radicals, you know, who are actually, you know, you know, trying to, uh, you know, undo the progress that we’ve made as a country.”

Turns out that Patriot Majority is about 80% funded by……unions! And, almost half of that funding is from AFSCME which is funded by……..taxpayer dollars! I guess, in Rachel’s world, money laundering is only OK if Democrats are doing it.

She would have done much better if she had actually asked him about his policies.

Liberals are so desperate to smear they have to go after a candidate on non issues.
They do teh same with O’Donnell and teh stupid witch story line.

Why can’t I spell “the” today???

Dave Richards said:
She would have done much better if she had actually asked him about his policies.

Liberals are so desperate to smear they have to go after a candidate on non issues.
They do teh same with O’Donnell and teh stupid witch story line.

She beat up a non TV savvy guy.
Why didn’t she let him answer a question??

Yes, this is a great interview. She plays the campaign ad and starts laughing at it when the ad ends. Then she brings Art Robinson in and immediately implies that he knowingly is receiving illegal campaign contributions, WITH HER FIRST QUESTION. Is it ANY WONDER that Art Robinson gets defensive right off the bat? After he smacks her down, she moves on to global warming. One of Rachel’s….and MSNBC’s….and General Electric’s (who owns MSNBC) favorite topics. (Interesting that GE stands to make billions of dollars on alternate energy projects like windmills if the cap and trade bill passes.) Then, Rachel moves onto AIDS.

Unproven illegal campaign contributions, AIDS, hormesis (“so, are you saying radiation is good for you?”), and global warming. Yes, very substantive issues, Rachel. What an idiot.

Does anyone at MSNBC (or the MSM for that matter), ever get in to “epic battles” with Democrats? I ask, because I never see it happen. When Republicans are in power, the microscope is on them. When Democrats are in power, the microscope apparently stays on Republicans.

Hey Rachel, here’s a great interview–Krystal Ball, Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia.

http://gawker.com/5657431/9-pictures-of-a-politician-sucking-a-dildo-attached-to-her-husbands-nose-+-gallery/

It’s no surprise, folks, Rachel Maddow is a liberal. So obviously she’s going to have a liberal point of view about things.

But she definitely does not deserve to get lumped in with the shouters like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann.

I have never seen her shout at a guest or say any other rude comment.

Apparently conservatives think it’s “rude” when you ask uncomfortable questions and ask you somebody about things they actually said.

Azarkhan said:
Hey Rachel, here’s a great interview–Krystal Ball, Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia. http://gawker.com/5657431/9-pictures-of-a-politician-sucking-a-dildo-attached-to-her-husbands-nose-+-gallery/

Good lord……..

Let’s get over this canard out there that liberals shouldn’t interview conservatives (or vice versa).

Part of the whole reason we have a free press is so that people can ask tough questions of their leaders.

A conservative commentator ought to be able to grill a liberal politician. And a liberal politician ought to be able to do the same.

An interview doesn’t have to be friendly to be fair….and just because it’s friendly doesn’t mean it’s fair either.

Dronetek Bulk Vanderhuge says:
October 8, 2010 at 8:23 am (Quote)
0 0
Does anyone at MSNBC (or the MSM for that matter), ever get in to “epic battles” with Democrats? I ask, because I never see it happen. When Republicans are in power, the microscope is on them. When Democrats are in power, the microscope apparently stays on Republicans.

———–

Dronetek—

Remember, you’re watching an openly liberal show….so of COURSE the microscope will stay on Republicans. If you watch Fox, the microscope stays on Democrats (regardless of who’s in power).

Why do so many people tune in to opinion shows on Fox or MSNBC expecting “fair and balanced” coverage?? That’s not what they’re there for!!

Andy Lamb said:
Good lord……..

On the plus side, I’m betting Ms. Ball doesn’t have a problem with masturbation.

mibwilso said:
Apparently conservatives think it’s “rude” when you ask uncomfortable questions and ask you somebody about things they actually said.

Not at all. Bill O’Reilly had Carl Paladino (the GOP candidate for NY governor) on his show a couple nights ago. Paladino told him he had a meeting with the NY Post after the incident where he accused the reporter of harrassing his daughter. O’Reilly asked “a meeting with whom?” When Paladino said the woman’s name was Angela and couldn’t give O’Reilly her last name, O’Reilly said “with all due respect, sir, if I’m having a meeting with someone from the paper, I get her last name.” O’Reilly made Paladino look bad, a GOP candidate on a FOX show. Something Maddow would never, ever do on her show to a Dem candidate – ever.

This was a hack interview – 1) play the guy’s campaign ad and laugh at it 2) bring him on and immediately imply that he accepts illegal campaign contributions 3) discuss his AIDS research notes from 15 years ago 4) global warming (to help GE sell windmills) 5) ask about hormesis, implying that the guy thinks radiation is good for you.

This was a hack interview – 1) play the guy’s campaign ad and laugh at it 2) bring him on and immediately imply that he accepts illegal campaign contributions 3) discuss his AIDS research notes from 15 years ago 4) global warming (to help GE sell windmills) 5) ask about hormesis, implying that the guy thinks radiation is good for you.

Why is it unfair to ask someone about a position they took 15 years ago? Once people get out of college, their views don’t tend to change that much….especially views that extreme. What should be the statute of limitations on things politicians say while they’re ELECTED OFFICIALS??

Again, if she’s getting this from his own campaign newsletter…something put out by HIS people, why is it off limits??

Andy Lamb said:
What a friggin hypocrite Maddow is, on her “money laundering” crusade –

About a week ago, she had a Democrat congressman from Oregon on her show, to talk about an organization called Concerned Taxpayers of America spending money on television ads criticizing him. Maddow said “(GOP lobbyists) are running Concerned Taxpayers of America. Concerned Taxpayers of America is basically just a piece of paper, and now $160,000 from Lord knows where is being spent to get rid of Pete DeFazio. This year, in 2010, in these elections for the first time, nobody is pretending that these ‘organizations’, these groups, are doing anything but laundering money. You can just launder your money through a fake organization that you have some Republican lobbyist set up in five minutes at GoDaddy.com. Money laundering on a grand scale, money laundering, that’s what it is, to take over the Congress of the United States of America.”

Then, THE NEXT NIGHT, she has a guy on who is president of Patriot Majority PAC, a political action committee that created an ad criticizing Sharron Angle. She asked, “Craig, tell me a little bit about Patriot Majority. What is your group? How long have you been around? Who funds you?”

Craig’s answer – “Patriot Majority’s been around since 2005. We were here before the Tea Party, we’ll be here after it, and we’ll be here after this election. Uh, we’re funded by, you know, I mean, individuals all across the country, uh, you know, our website, you know, we seek individual contributions. Uh, you know, and we’re funded by people who think that, you know, we need to, you know, draw a line in the sand and fight these radicals, you know, who are actually, you know, you know, trying to, uh, you know, undo the progress that we’ve made as a country.”

Turns out that Patriot Majority is about 80% funded by……unions! And, almost half of that funding is from AFSCME which is funded by……..taxpayer dollars! I guess, in Rachel’s world, money laundering is only OK if Democrats are doing it.

I’m glad you posted this again. You posted it in another thread but missed my response. which was;

CosmosDan said:
I appreciate you posting this. I kinda like Rachel because she seems to do more research than some of the other pundits but this certainly demonstrates her bias. I tried to find the interview on her site but I guess it’s not posted yet.
I did find an article on this group and the other on NPR. that talked about it’s funding
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94392710
and an article on NPR a few days ago about Concerned Taxpayers of America still doesn’t tell us about where the funding comes from. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130291350&ps=cprs
This summer, Democrats in the House passed the Disclose Act, which would require that all PACs reveal where their money is coming from. In the Senate, the bill stalled on a Republican filibuster.

Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, one of the bill’s biggest supporters, worries that for now, anonymous money in politics will become the norm. She tells Guy Raz that she feels strongly that “the voters have a right to know who is paying for things … especially when it comes to political advertising.”

Aside from Rachel’s bias {she should have been more upfront about funding} what do you think about corporations being able to dump funds into political campaigns and citizens not being able to find out where the funding is coming from?
IMO , and candidate taking significant funds from a group that does not reveal it’s source funding loses some credibility.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/20/rove-gillespie-groups-raise-32-million/

That was from a few days ago. I actually think Mr Robinson made several very good points that got ignored by Rachel and Mediaite. I am very bothered by anonymous large donors in campaign ads, but I agree with Robinson that in the big picture it’s only 15% and it’s certainly fair to point out where DeFazio is getting his funds. And Communists or criminals Rachel? Please!
I’d say both republicans and democrats ought to push to stop either side from getting these kind of anonymous donations.
I also agree with Robinson that pulling out 15 year old quotes is of questionable relevancy , but I couldn’t help but think that using select quotes to make someone look bad is a technique that Fox has been using for some time now. Wouldn’t you say? It’s a less than honest practice that I reject from either side.

“I’m going to take that as a no” – I busted out laughing.

“If you think is sarcasm you misunderstand the term, sir. I can show you sarcasm”. LOL x 2.

Wow this guy is so typical of a Republican candidate these days. Aggressive, angry, ignorant, accepting of anonymous donations (lobbyists, we all know), talks over people and answers for them, believes in fabulous and unproven things (he’s a global warming denier, appears to think that homosexuality caused AIDS (?) I guess, he’s a quack scientist), disowns his own quotes, incapable of carrying on rational and adult discourse, twisting in his chair like a juvenile, et cetera. Listening to his angry tirade took me back to the tea bagger outbursts at town hall meetings.

He’s a tea bagger, I take it? Has to be.

Azarkhan said:
Hey Rachel, here’s a great interview–Krystal Ball, Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia.

http://gawker.com/5657431/9-pictures-of-a-politician-sucking-a-dildo-attached-to-her-husbands-nose-+-gallery/

So she acted silly at a party. That’s horrible and completely disqualifies her.

Some_Dude said:
Wow this guy is so typical of a Democrat candidate these days. Aggressive, angry, ignorant, accepting of anonymous donations (lobbyists, we all know), talks over people and answers for them, believes in fabulous and unproven things (like gloabal warming ), disowns his own quotes, incapable of carrying on rational and adult discourse, twisting in his chair like a juvenile, et cetera.

Now there’s some truth there.

Dave Richards said:
She would have done much better if she had actually asked him about his policies.

Liberals are so desperate to smear they have to go after a candidate on non issues.
They do teh same with O’Donnell and teh stupid witch story line.

It was clear through his temperament and what he said during his tirade what he thought of Ms Maddow prior to the engagement. That interview couldn’t have gone any other way.

And he never gave her a chance to ask questions. Watch it again. He begins angrily responding midway through all of her attempts to speak to him. I’m surprised she remained civil for as long as she did (about 90% into it is where she finally abandons trying to be an adult with him and rightfully chastises him like the child he is).

And a good candidate? That’s the kind of person you want representing you in Congress? Legislating? Put aside your political affiliation and appraise him at his words (past and present) and actions.

With corporate millions and now foreign nationals bankrolling these fly by night groups, I think it was fair of her to ask him about his opinion of them and how he feels about benefiting from attack ads created by them.

I would want the same kind of grilling from anyone who is the beneficiary of anonymous money regardless of party because when big companies or industries finance your campaign, you are beholden to them.

Andy Lamb said:
Yes, this is a great interview. She plays the campaign ad and starts laughing at it when the ad ends. Then she brings Art Robinson in and immediately implies that he knowingly is receiving illegal campaign contributions, WITH HER FIRST QUESTION. Is it ANY WONDER that Art Robinson gets defensive right off the bat? After he smacks her down, she moves on to global warming. One of Rachel’s….and MSNBC’s….and General Electric’s (who owns MSNBC) favorite topics. (Interesting that GE stands to make billions of dollars on alternate energy projects like windmills if the cap and trade bill passes.) Then, Rachel moves onto AIDS.

Unproven illegal campaign contributions, AIDS, hormesis (“so, are you saying radiation is good for you?”), and global warming. Yes, very substantive issues, Rachel. What an idiot.

I didn’t like the interview either but look at the ad again. It starts off by saying Pelosi and Defazio have ruined the economy. I suppose that’s to be expected in a campaign ad but hardly an honest statement. Then it goes on to try and capitalize on anti incumbent sentiment by describing him as a research scientist and not a politician. Okay, if that’s going to be part of your election pitch then it seems fair to at least look at your research.

If what we want is a little honesty and accuracy from politicians and the media that’s great. I’m all for it, but let’s apply the same standard to both sides.
I’d agree that anonymous campaign contributions are not the only issue but IMO it’s a pretty serious one.

CosmosDan said:
That was from a few days ago. I actually think Mr Robinson made several very good points that got ignored by Rachel and Mediaite. I am very bothered by anonymous large donors in campaign ads, but I agree with Robinson that in the big picture it’s only 15% and it’s certainly fair to point out where DeFazio is getting his funds. And Communists or criminals Rachel? Please!
I’d say both republicans and democrats ought to push to stop either side from getting these kind of anonymous donations.
I also agree with Robinson that pulling out 15 year old quotes is of questionable relevancy , but I couldn’t help but think that using select quotes to make someone look bad is a technique that Fox has been using for some time now. Wouldn’t you say? It’s a less than honest practice that I reject from either side.

Dan, your response must have been at or near the end of that other thread, I didn’t see it. You’re probably as close to the middle as anyone I see on here, quick to criticize either side when it is warranted.

Agreed that all networks do this, but this Maddow interview takes it to another level. She played the campaign and and snickered at it, then brings Robinson on and, after laughing at his campaign ad, accuses him of accepting illegal money right out of the gate. And the inane questions – 15 year old AIDS research, global warming, and…..hormesis? Seriously, hormesis? I understand and agree with your point, Dan. That said, this was the worst interview I’ve ever seen on any prime time news show.

mibwilso said:
It’s no surprise, folks, Rachel Maddow is a liberal. So obviously she’s going to have a liberal point of view about things.

But she definitely does not deserve to get lumped in with the shouters like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann.

I have never seen her shout at a guest or say any other rude comment.

Apparently conservatives think it’s “rude” when you ask uncomfortable questions and ask you somebody about things they actually said.

Oh please this was not Rachel’s finest hour.
Why even have the guy on is you don’t let him talk?
I learned nothing!!
And then Larry does a hit piece on Dobbs.
Was Krazy Keith the voice of reason last night???

Some_Dude said:
It was clear through Maddow’s temperament and previous accusations of Robinson accepting illegal campaign contributions, laughing at his campaign ad just before he came on, implying he is a criminal with her very first question, and then talking about 15 year old AIDS research, global warming, and hormesis (LOL) instead of anything substantive, what Maddow thought of Robinson prior to the engagement. That interview couldn’t have gone any other way.

I agree with you.

Azarkhan said:
On the plus side, I’m betting Ms. Ball doesn’t have a problem with masturbation.

I think her response should have been,
“Yeah, I work hard and occasionally party hard as well. So? I promise you’ll never catch me looking for sex in a public bathroom or getting caught with prostitutes. Can we move on?

CosmosDan said:
Can we move on?

But…that would make her sound like Christine O’Donnell.

mibwilso said:
Why is it unfair to ask someone about a position they took 15 years ago? Once people get out of college, their views don’t tend to change that much….especially views that extreme. What should be the statute of limitations on things politicians say while they’re ELECTED OFFICIALS??

Again, if she’s getting this from his own campaign newsletter…something put out by HIS people, why is it off limits??

He actually gave her a sensible answer. I suppose he could have added, no I don’t believe that anymore, but he’s right in asserting that you can’t cover complex work in 30 seconds. I like Rachel but that was about as partisan an interview as they get. That’s not my definition of journalism. I would say it’s similar to tactics we’ve seen on Fox repeatedly so it’s funny to see people suddenly condemning the tactics.

This interview was funny as hell. This Art Robinson guy is a clown. He was so combative and angry throughout the interview. These guest need to know, if you do not have your facts together or can not be honest, then don’t bother coming on Rachel Maddow’s show. This guy could not answer any of her questions, but instead, kept trying to change the subject. His face was beet red throughout the so called interview. He kept twisting in his chair like a child would do when he or she is lying. If I was voting for this person, I would definitely like to know where he stand on certain issues, especially, environmental and even AIDS. This guy wrote these previous articles that Rachel inquired about and he claim that he could not recall what was in the article? Then he flat out called her a “liar.” Art Robinson is an idiot plain and simple.

Following Maddow’s show was Lawrence O’Donnell’s show. He had Lou Dobbs on to discuss whether or not he had illegals working on his property. It was such an amazing difference in demeanor from Art Robinson. He used a calm voice, argued his points, and answered questions. So it is possible to go on a liberal opinion show and not act like a total butt. There was nothing Rachel Maddow did to provoke the kind of crazy rage that was put on display. It was fun to watch but kind of sad because the right wingers will once again assume that it is her fault for asking “unfair” questions and avoid her show. I mean, Obama had to answer ridiculous questions about “palling around with Bill Ayers” yet this guy can’t be expected to state his opinion about radiation being helpful for people.

Azarkhan said:
But…that would make her sound like Christine O’Donnell.

That’s true of Christine’s older comments. She does have more recent stuff to answer for and the tactics seem to be similar to Palin’s. Let’s attack the media and focus on the outrageous parts so we can also avoid the serious relevant parts. It’s completely relevant to ask about statements she made while campaigning in 2006. It’s relevant to ask someone campaigning on fiscal responsibility about campaign funding and their personal fiscal responsibility in the last few years.

mibwilso said:
Why is it unfair to ask someone about a position they took 15 years ago? Once people get out of college, their views don’t tend to change that much….especially views that extreme. What should be the statute of limitations on things politicians say while they’re ELECTED OFFICIALS??
Again, if she’s getting this from his own campaign newsletter…something put out by HIS people, why is it off limits??

It isn’t, of course. My point is, is it relevant? Again, old notes on AIDS research from 1995, global warming (an issue, of course, but in a campaign for a seat in congress?), and hormesis??? Yes, his notes, but hormesis is very complicated science. She cherry picks out a couple notes, and says “so you think radiation exposure is good for you?” Asinine. And, seriously, are these topics that anyone looking at congressional candidates care at all about? This interview was about one thing and one thing only, trying to make this guy look as bad as possible. You realize this, right? Even at that, if she did this while asking the guy one relevant question about something, anything issue related, it would have been a better interview. Instead, we got hormesis.

Andy Lamb said:
hormesis? Seriously, hormesis?

She was just attempting to ask him about things he had written, his views on hormesis being one of them. I don’t see why that would be surprising, he’s a scientist after all. What was surprising is that he apparently believes nuclear testing would somehow raise the background radiation in some beneficial way.

I found it telling that he didn’t appear to really grasp what hormesis is, and did Maddow: in the context they were discussing it, it should have been pointed out as radiation hormesis – the distinction is important.

Mediaite is in the tank for MSNBC period. All day long, Maddow is great, Beck is evil. This site is getting really boring. Maddow will soon be left talking to Bathtub boy and Ed, because this gang just likes to be reinforced. No wonder again why MSNBC.com wants to get the hell away from this Lean Over gang.

Also, AIDS research wasn’t really being all that debated 15 years ago. 25 years ago maybe. But in 1995 we were way past “maybe these people are just dying because they are gay”.

Penguin60 said:
Now there’s some truth there.

If you’re going to make a point perhaps you should do it without editing somebody’s words and still putting their name on it.

steelysusan said:
Also, AIDS research wasn’t really being all that debated 15 years ago. 25 years ago maybe. But in 1995 we were way past “maybe these people are just dying because they are gay”.

Yep, and it’s also hard for to dismiss things he wrote a mere 15 years ago given his age and profession (a quirky 20 year old he was not). If memory serves, the first antiretrovirals were being worked on as early as 1995, so serious medicine and science was already well aware of the causes.

I mean, seriously, homosexuality causes an illness? It was 1995, not 1895.

CosmosDan said:
If you’re going to make a point perhaps you should do it without editing somebody’s words and still putting their name on it.

He’s probably new to discussion forums and/or the Internet.

Some_Dude said:
“I’m going to take that as a no” – I busted out laughing.

“If you think is sarcasm you misunderstand the term, sir. I can show you sarcasm”. LOL x 2.

Wow this guy is so typical of a Republican candidate these days. Aggressive, angry, ignorant, accepting of anonymous donations (lobbyists, we all know), talks over people and answers for them, believes in fabulous and unproven things (he’s a global warming denier, appears to think that homosexuality caused AIDS (?) I guess, he’s a quack scientist), disowns his own quotes, incapable of carrying on rational and adult discourse, twisting in his chair like a juvenile, et cetera. Listening to his angry tirade took me back to the tea bagger outbursts at town hall meetings.

He’s a tea bagger, I take it? Has to be.

I think you’re trying to hard to find fault. Let’s acknowledge that he had the courage to go on the show when he could have easily avoided it. He went on determined to use limited time to make his point and that’s what he did.
Check out this classic with Bill Clinton; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYm1TH23e9E
Clinton was and is a fighter with an policy of hitting back when political opponents take a shot at him. More Democrats ought to have that kind of courage. IMO Robinson is doing the same thing and he makes some valid points.
The anonymous donor thing is a very legitimate issue but the criminals and communist remark was ridiculous. He’s correct in pointing out it’s not the only relevant issue in the campaign.

mibwilso said:
This was a hack interview – 1) play the guy’s campaign ad and laugh at it 2) bring him on and immediately imply that he accepts illegal campaign contributions 3) discuss his AIDS research notes from 15 years ago 4) global warming (to help GE sell windmills) 5) ask about hormesis, implying that the guy thinks radiation is good for you.

Why is it unfair to ask someone about a position they took 15 years ago? Once people get out of college, their views don’t tend to change that much….especially views that extreme. What should be the statute of limitations on things politicians say while they’re ELECTED OFFICIALS??

Again, if she’s getting this from his own campaign newsletter…something put out by HIS people, why is it off limits??

Yeah, Maddow will be asking Chris Coons about his Marxism any time now. Not.

CosmosDan said:
It starts off by saying Pelosi and Defazio have ruined the economy. I suppose that’s to be expected in a campaign ad but hardly an honest statement.

Oh, yeah. BUSH DID IT!!!11!!! Congress has the cleanest of hands.

Oy.

Andy Lamb said:
Dan, your response must have been at or near the end of that other thread, I didn’t see it. You’re probably as close to the middle as anyone I see on here, quick to criticize either side when it is warranted.

Agreed that all networks do this, but this Maddow interview takes it to another level. She played the campaign and and snickered at it, then brings Robinson on and, after laughing at his campaign ad, accuses him of accepting illegal money right out of the gate. And the inane questions – 15 year old AIDS research, global warming, and…..hormesis? Seriously, hormesis? I understand and agree with your point, Dan. That said, this was the worst interview I’ve ever seen on any prime time news show.

Yeah, I’m a little confused and annoyed but how much she just laughs. Maybe that’s how she deals with tension or something and if so she needs another technique. It really comes of in a “I’m so smart and pointing out that you’re not” kinda way.
I agree with her in principle that having an anonymous donor run ads for you is just a work around of existing campaign laws, which is why it bothers me so much, but I wouldn’t go so far as to think Dems are above using that same work around.
I also agree with his point that those funds are only a small % of the big picture and if she’s going to cover the campaign then spend a little time discussing DeFazio’s funding.
I won’t take a guess at how bad this is in comparison to others. I try not to be to idealistic in actually expecting some degree of honesty from politicians and the media. I accept that politics is a dirty business, but I’d like to see the average voters try a little harder to apply the same standards to both sides.
I don’t see this as a shining moment for Maddow. Unless our pundits and interviewers can be a little less one sided I can’t blame candidates for avoiding the national media.

Pablo said:
Oh, yeah. BUSH DID IT!!!11!!! Congress has the cleanest of hands.

Oy.

I didn’t say anything like that. Either extreme is just freaking ridiculous and his campaign ad started that way.

CosmosDan said:
I think you’re trying to hard to find fault.

At your comments, I just watched it again – trying to be less cynical. And I still think I was fair. He entered into the interview angry and challenging – evidence by how he misinterpreted Maddows theoretical about the source of the funding (she was just conjuring up terms that generally considered negative, she obviously wasn’t trying to suggest it) – and began leaning into her every time she began to speak. Then there’s the actual words he was saying and how he said them, and how he presented himself.

Though I can see how, not being able to see Maddow and hear her without delay, he could find her sarcastic.

bonnie2 said:
This interview was funny as hell. This Art Robinson guy is a clown. He was so combative and angry throughout the interview. These guest need to know, if you do not have your facts together or can not be honest, then don’t bother coming on Rachel Maddow’s show. This guy could not answer any of her questions, but instead, kept trying to change the subject. His face was beet red throughout the so called interview. He kept twisting in his chair like a child would do when he or she is lying. If I was voting for this person, I would definitely like to know where he stand on certain issues, especially, environmental and even AIDS. This guy wrote these previous articles that Rachel inquired about and he claim that he could not recall what was in the article? Then he flat out called her a “liar.” Art Robinson is an idiot plain and simple.

Really? Maybe you should check out the Clinton clip I posted. Yes, he was pissed and aggressive but he wasn’t spouting nonsense. He said that you couldn’t explain complex scientific work in 30 seconds. That seems reasonable to me. I think it’s reasonable to ask him direct questions about his positions but you have to allow some time for him to explain. A few minutes of interview time doesn’t cut it.
If they wanted to be fair then they could tell the guest before time what subjects they wanted to cover so he could prepare , and he could also be clear about points he wanted to make. That might be a more informative format for the viewer , but not quite as confrontational for ratings.
I’m no politician but if I was going on a show I’d want to know what points they wanted to cover so I could prepare my answer and bring the right information and I’d probably let them know what points I insisted on making. No politician owes the media a dam thing.

Some_Dude said:
Yep, and it’s also hard for to dismiss things he wrote a mere 15 years ago given his age and profession (a quirky 20 year old he was not). If memory serves, the first antiretrovirals were being worked on as early as 1995, so serious medicine and science was already well aware of the causes.

I mean, seriously, homosexuality causes an illness? It was 1995, not 1895.

A pretty valid point. A few minutes of interview time isn’t really enough to cover several issues. I mean , he could have said “I no longer support that position” or something.
Like I said, when your campaign ad promotes you as a research scientist then your research is a legitimate target for examination

Some_Dude said:
At your comments, I just watched it again – trying to be less cynical. And I still think I was fair. He entered into the interview angry and challenging – evidence by how he misinterpreted Maddows theoretical about the source of the funding (she was just conjuring up terms that generally considered negative, she obviously wasn’t trying to suggest it) – and began leaning into her every time she began to speak. Then there’s the actual words he was saying and how he said them, and how he presented himself.

Though I can see how, not being able to see Maddow and hear her without delay, he could find her sarcastic.

Thanks for taking another look. It seems reasonable that he expected a partisan interview and came in wanting to push his points into a few minutes without letting a liberal interviewer dominate the conversation. That’s just politics and I don’t fault him for that. I think Maddow could have asked a less colored and more direct question.
“Do you think anonymous donations are good for our democracy?” I think she could have acknowledged his valid point that it’s not the only issue and she ought to talk about DeFazio’s funding as well.
IMO, the format itself does not promote an informative exchange. Either give him more time or do a longer interview and air it in segments. How do you cover campaign finance and his research in just a few minutes?

CosmosDan said:
Really? Maybe you should check out the Clinton clip I posted. Yes, he was pissed and aggressive but he wasn’t spouting nonsense. He said that you couldn’t explain complex scientific work in 30 seconds. That seems reasonable to me.

He can summarize – most scientists are capable of that. I mean, they’re not all as eloquent as Carl Sagan, but they can cogently explain a complex subject or view on a complex subject without an entire dissertation. Someone like Brian Greene routinely summarizes complex things like string theory in several sentences, and the neurosurgeon Steven Novella provides concise yet brief explanations and examinations of scientific topics every week on the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. His problem was that he was combative and flustered.

RM, you should have stopped when you were behind, which was from the beginning.

Dave Richards said:
She would have done much better if she had actually asked him about his policies. Liberals are so desperate to smear they have to go after a candidate on non issues.They do teh same with O’Donnell and teh stupid witch story line.

Have you ever heard of Rush Limbaugh. He smears all Democrats, calls all liberals liars, and is altogether hateful. And he goes after non issues all the time.

mibwilso said:
Let’s get over this canard out there that liberals shouldn’t interview conservatives (or vice versa). Part of the whole reason we have a free press is so that people can ask tough questions of their leaders. A conservative commentator ought to be able to grill a liberal politician. And a liberal politician ought to be able to do the same. An interview doesn’t have to be friendly to be fair….and just because it’s friendly doesn’t mean it’s fair either.

Apparently, folks like Palin, Angle and O’Donnell disagree. They don’t think it is important to be interviewed by anyone not affiliated with Fox News. Yes, O’Donnell did go on a non-Fox show recently, but how often does that occur?

Andy Lamb said:
Not at all. Bill O’Reilly had Carl Paladino (the GOP candidate for NY governor) on his show a couple nights ago. Paladino told him he had a meeting with the NY Post after the incident where he accused the reporter of harrassing his daughter. O’Reilly asked “a meeting with whom?” When Paladino said the woman’s name was Angela and couldn’t give O’Reilly her last name, O’Reilly said “with all due respect, sir, if I’m having a meeting with someone from the paper, I get her last name.” O’Reilly made Paladino look bad, a GOP candidate on a FOX show. Something Maddow would never, ever do on her show to a Dem candidate – ever. This was a hack interview – 1) play the guy’s campaign ad and laugh at it 2) bring him on and immediately imply that he accepts illegal campaign contributions 3) discuss his AIDS research notes from 15 years ago 4) global warming (to help GE sell windmills) 5) ask about hormesis, implying that the guy thinks radiation is good for you.

You gave one example. How often does that occur?

Dave Richards said:
She would have done much better if she had actually asked him about his policies.

Liberals are so desperate to smear they have to go after a candidate on non issues.
They do teh same with O’Donnell and teh stupid witch story line.

Have you considered that personal character is an important to some voters? Or is the public rhetoric all that matters to “people” like you?

Maddow clearly took advantage of someone who clearly and substantially less intelligent than she is. All he had was bluster to fend off her intellect. It was an unfair and unequal confrontation.

Watching msnbc primetime is pure political sophistry and misrepresentation!

I don’t know why any self-respecting Republican appears on any of these shows; they’re not likely to get a fair hearing, or a single vote!!!

Some_Dude said:
At your comments, I just watched it again – trying to be less cynical. And I still think I was fair. He entered into the interview angry and challenging

It’s hard to argue with you when you say you watched again while trying to be less cynical. Just a couple more notes – the implication that Robinson knowingly or at least complicitly accepted laundered money didn’t come up for the first time last night. Maddow’s interview last week I referenced above was about the Robinson race, so he came in knowing that she had already implied he was accepting dirty money. Then, she plays his campaign ad and snickers at it just before he comes on. Then, out of the gate, she starts with a laundered money question. I’d be pissed too. Now, would it have been to his benefit if he had stayed calmer? Definitely. He came in knowing he was not getting a friendly interview, and knew beforehand what he wanted to talk about – “the other guy is getting a lot more money than I am, his is coming from unions (some taxpayer funded) so that money is as dirty as anything I’ve gotten, much of mine is from online contributions, why not pick on him? Why can’t we talk about issues important to people in my district rather than hormesis?” The two were not on the same page, or even in the same book, from the get go. I know Maddow hates this guy and badly wants him to lose, but she could have handled this interview much better. Robinson could have too, but he’s never been interviewed like this before, so I’m willing to cut him a lot more slack.

Pablo said:
Oh, yeah. BUSH DID IT!!!11!!! Congress has the cleanest of hands. Oy.

As usual, what the hell are you talking about?? This has nothing to do with the poster’s comments.

NORBIT said:
Watching msnbc primetime is pure political sophistry and misrepresentation! I don’t know why any self-respecting Republican appears on any of these shows; they’re not likely to get a fair hearing, or a single vote!!!

Oh come on. Do you think Democrats get a fair hearing on Beck or Limbaugh. Give me a break.

Rachel Maddow is accused of slinging mud and engaging in character attacks. This is a news story? You could run that headline every night of the week, and always back it up with something Rachel did in her most recent show.

Andy Lamb said:
It’s hard to argue with you when you say you watched again while trying to be less cynical. Just a couple more notes – the implication that Robinson knowingly or at least complicitly accepted laundered money didn’t come up for the first time last night. Maddow’s interview last week I referenced above was about the Robinson race, so he came in knowing that she had already implied he was accepting dirty money. Then, she plays his campaign ad and snickers at it just before he comes on. Then, out of the gate, she starts with a laundered money question. I’d be pissed too. Now, would it have been to his benefit if he had stayed calmer? Definitely. He came in knowing he was not getting a friendly interview, and knew beforehand what he wanted to talk about – “the other guy is getting a lot more money than I am, his is coming from unions (some taxpayer funded) so that money is as dirty as anything I’ve gotten, much of mine is from online contributions, why not pick on him? Why can’t we talk about issues important to people in my district rather than hormesis?” The two were not on the same page, or even in the same book, from the get go. I know Maddow hates this guy and badly wants him to lose, but she could have handled this interview much better. Robinson could have too, but he’s never been interviewed like this before, so I’m willing to cut him a lot more slack.

Good points – thumbs up! I forgot to mention that during my re-watch I noticed how her snickering (visually and audibly) wasn’t a good idea if you wanted to foster a good natured interview. Even so, I still think he let his annoyance and anger get the better of him – even if this was a reoccurring topic on her show.

alamo2 said:
Oh come on. Do you think Democrats get a fair hearing on Beck or Limbaugh. Give me a break.

I’ll make a bet you haven’t watched or listened to 1/2 dozen complete programs of either Rush or Glenn all year!

Rachel was not in great form. Instead of being so aggressive, she might have might have more gently given Robinson his own rope back to him and and allowed him to hang himself on his own statements. But such a self-hanging nearly occurred anyway: Robinson’s repeated mantra “I am a research scientist–a good one” became his weakest moments rhetorically. If he is a research scientist, then he should have had no anxiety, anger, or defensive annoyance (three reactions he had in abundance) in explaining either a) why he made the claims about global warming, nuclear waste, and AIDS that he apparently made in his own newsletters or
b) why subsequent research has changed his scientific mind. I was taught in science labs to never erase any information in a lab report, but to draw a single strike-out line through any information I was changing.
He either wants to pretend his earlier claims don’t exist, or he doesn’t want to explain the empirical processes informing his changed mind. His saying “I have written vast amounts of” matter and that he can’t be expected to respond to his own strong views on a few ultra-significant issues made him sound childishly defensive (i.e., “I am a prince in my own mind, leave me be!”) and deluded, not scientific. He also didn’t sound politically savvy, let alone fit to lead–he seemed (and looked–I think the hunting jacket was a bad idea) like a cranky guy one would give a wide berth to at a bar.

alamo2 said:
You gave one example. How often does that occur?

Only one, but his handling of Paladino is a good one. He invited Andrew Cuomo on too, but Cuomo refused. Here’s another one – O’Reilly commented a few weeks ago that Christine O’Donnell was invited on his show, but “I don’t think she’ll come on.” Then, one night last week, he said “I don’t see how she can expect people to vote for her. I couldn’t. She won’t talk to anyone, so how can anyone know where she stands on anything?” His interview of Sharron Angle was hardly a laydown either. He is clearly the biggest (and maybe only) exception to the always partisan rule. Hannity is a GOP shill, but his show is more partisan talking points and softball interviews, I don’t ever see him handle people like Maddow did in this interview. This was like watching two high school freshmen in a debate class gone bad.

Andy Lamb said:
Yes, this is a great interview. She plays the campaign ad and starts laughing at it when the ad ends. Then she brings Art Robinson in and immediately implies that he knowingly is receiving illegal campaign contributions, WITH HER FIRST QUESTION. Is it ANY WONDER that Art Robinson gets defensive right off the bat? After he smacks her down, she moves on to global warming. One of Rachel’s….and MSNBC’s….and General Electric’s (who owns MSNBC) favorite topics. (Interesting that GE stands to make billions of dollars on alternate energy projects like windmills if the cap and trade bill passes.) Then, Rachel moves onto AIDS. Unproven illegal campaign contributions, AIDS, hormesis (“so, are you saying radiation is good for you?”), and global warming. Yes, very substantive issues, Rachel. What an idiot.

You have to remember Colby views these things through left-wing eyes. They are not viewing the same show normal people see. Maddow was going to be right no matter how she distorted or lied about the EVIL republican.

He’s an old crank and she exposed him for what he is…good riddance.

He didn’t have to come on her show, he had an agenda which was obviously to use the slot to bash his opponent. He didn’t want to talk about issues, he even stated that he’s never run for politics before and that he’s just a scientist.

Rachael owes him nothing. He was rude to her from the get-go. I’m glad she laughed and snickered in his face and let everyone watching know what his ridiculous positions are on issues that are important to all voters.

He made it very clear that he didn’t care where the money was coming from.

This guy even sells Christian home schooling books that state things such as this, “the intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old… Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery.”

Come on people, how can anyone…conservative or liberal get behind this wingnut…he needs to be sent to the looney-bin, not congress.

gordonbloyershow said:
You have to remember Colby views these things through left-wing eyes. They are not viewing the same show normal people see. Maddow was going to be right no matter how she distorted or lied about the EVIL republican.

She didn’t lie about him at all, just do some research and you can find the same quotes…and much, much, much worse.

She actually went easy on the guy.

this is an excellent example of how to smoke out and destroy the liberal media; ya gotta do it live, else it will never see the light of day….do not accept the premise of their question! Liberals attack Conservatives before they finish asking a question, the Conservative must attack the bias of the interviewer at the outset then ignore their response and keep talking…

Christine’s CNN interview posted today is also excellent…keep it up Tea Party People!

I tried watching Madcow’s show but, I started puking so much I had to switch channels after 2 minutes. I thought Rachael was a female’s name but, ??? Seriously that is a guy. The sarcasm on that show is enough to turn anyone off. messyNBC really needs to get its act together. They could start by getting ‘ADULT’ talking heads and getting rid of those juveniles they now have from Dylan to Lawrence, as well as Joe in the morning. They have become the new CNN. I’m sticking with FOX News, the ADULT News Network…!!!!!!!!!

SpineCrusher said:
She didn’t lie about him at all, just do some research and you can find the same quotes…and much, much, much worse.

She actually went easy on the guy.

Yea, she was literally quoting him. That said, she could have been more cordial herself at the start, though she displayed remarkable restraint afterward.

SpineCrusher said:
He didn’t have to come on her show, he had an agenda which was obviously to use the slot to bash his opponent.

No, it was to point out her hypocrisy – his opponent has accepted even more “laundered” money than he did, which was Maddow’s pet issue from the beginning. She only wants laundered money going to Democratic candidates.

SpineCrusher said:
He didn’t want to talk about issues, he even stated that he’s never run for politics before and that he’s just a scientist.

Actually, it seemed that he did want to talk about issues – actual issues – rather than hormesis.

SpineCrusher said:
Rachael owes him nothing. He was rude to her from the get-go.

As was she, so it made for good tit for tat. I’d expect a little more from the professional host over the inexperienced guest, but we’ll let that go.

SpineCrusher said:
He made it very clear that he didn’t care where the money was coming from.

He made it clear that he didn’t know the original source. The other guy in the race has accepted much more “laundered money” than he has, that’s what he wanted to point out.

SpineCrusher said:
This guy even sells Christian home schooling books that state things such as this, “the intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old… Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery.”

I have no idea if this is true or not. If it is, and he sells these books knowing that they contain passages like this, then he is a friggin idiot. And that leaves voters with two lousy candidates to choose from as their representative in Washington. Something voters in this country are extremely accustomed to these days.

He was rude to her from the get-go. I’m glad she laughed and snickered in his face and let everyone watching know what his ridiculous positions are on issues that are important to all voters.

And you say he was rude to her?

Andy Lamb said:
This was a hack interview – 1) play the guy’s campaign ad and laugh at it. 2) bring him on and immediately imply that he accepts illegal campaign contributions 3) discuss his AIDS research notes from 15 years ago 4) global warming (to help GE sell windmills) 5) ask about hormesis, implying that the guy thinks radiation is good for you.

I have to absolutely agree with you.

1) play the guy’s campaign ad and laugh at it.

And continue to laugh and snicker. She does this constantly which is one reason I cannot stand to watch her show.

2) bring him on and immediately imply that he accepts illegal campaign contributions.

Certainly not surprising he would go on the defensive, right off the bat.

3) discuss his AIDS research notes from 15 years ago 4) global warming (to help GE sell windmills) 5) ask about hormesis, implying that the guy thinks radiation is good for you.

Whether or not I agree with him on any of these issues. I do agree with him when he says they cannot be discussed in 30 seconds. Without seeing the actual newsletter, its hard for me to know whether or not things he wrote were taking out of context, by her. For some reason, since he was so defensive about it, I sway towards that they were. (at the same time I cannot be sure of that without seeing the actual complete newsletter)

I don’t really watch her show, but from this clip, to me, she clearly is trying to do an O’Reiley, Megan Kelly type of interview, only she failed as she wasn’t as loud as they are. So she resorted to her chuckling and face making.

I don’t know anything about this man prior to this thread. But do to this thread and interview, I went to his website and there were some things I could agree with him on. Such as the below quote…..

“As a result of governmental oppression, Americans are no longer able to compete in the world, regardless of their hard work and innovation. American workers have seen their jobs shipped abroad, their industries de-capitalized, and their country de-industrialized.”

Art Robinson

I shall do some further research. Clearly here, to me, this is at least one candidate that has some intelligence to speak and debate and she did not want to allow him that.

Understand this. I do not agree with most of the things she quoted him saying from his newsletter, but I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt that they were *possibly* taken out of context for this interview. And look into him further and then make a more informative decision.

Again, I cannot tolerate her or her show, as I cannot tolerate most of the Fox pundits because of the way they interview. Even when she interviews people that agree with her. She snickers and makes faces about the person they are discussing. Very unprofessional, IMO and does not add to credibility.

flagringo: “this is an excellent example of how to smoke out and destroy the liberal media; ya gotta do it live, else it will never see the light of day….do not accept the premise of their question! Liberals attack Conservatives before they finish asking a question, the Conservative must attack the bias of the interviewer at the outset then ignore their response and keep talking…”

It was clear that is exactly what his game plan was. The man did his homework, knew how Maddow would come at him and no matter what wouldn’t get a fair shake so went on the offensive from the start. Totally threw her off her game. And she couldn’t let it go. Came back from the commercial break still rolling her eyes and trying to convince the kids on the playground to choose her side. Well played, Mr. Robinson, well played.

CosmosDan said:
If you’re going to make a point perhaps you should do it without editing somebody’s words and still putting their name on it.

Lighten up cosmo, it was a joke, as was the original quote.

Since Robinson was a professor of chemistry at Cal UC San Diego, I don’t see how you can possibly, with integrity, think that Maddow’s attacks were anything other than biased and rude. He was right so often, yet the tone gets the attention. Maddow has real potential, but she’s really lost her way lately. It’s kind of sad, I thought she might be a biased but fair interviewer.

He’s a global warming skeptic, and for some reason, the media has convinced itself that anyone who questions global warming must be crazy. Guess the media said the same thing about those who questioned that WMD’s were in Iraq. The problem is that we should embrace skeptics, especially ones with the expertise to back it up. Skeptics help us to question our assumptions, to try to find the truth.

Far right fraction continues to revel in victimhood and the refusal of responsibility…

lane said:
The problem is that we should embrace skeptics, especially ones with the expertise to back it up. Skeptics help us to question our assumptions, to try to find the truth.

Agreed. Most times the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The extremes on both ends are the ones that bring out the issue, the loudest, to allow those of us interested to begin a personal research of said topic.

lane said:
Since Robinson was a professor of chemistry at Cal UC San Diego, I don’t see how you can possibly, with integrity, think that Maddow’s attacks were anything other than biased and rude.

Logical fallacy: argument from authority. His once holding of a prestigious scientific position does not excuse his actions or statements.

Both sides my ass! Rachel was terrific in never losing her cool while this wingnut dolt did all he could to avoid the actual questions. This is why these people only show up on fox. They can’t handle it when they’re not allowed to sit and spew their bile talking points. As I watched this last night the thing that stood out the most was how red this loon’s face became as the “interview” progressed. Beet red! This man is a crackpot and anyone who votes for him is likely a good candidate for a labotomy! Nice job Rachel!

HILARIOUS

He can’t handle HIS OWN QUOTES

This was NOT GOOD for him

He just tried to Railroad through the interview and not let her ask questions

Doesnt understand what SARCASM is

ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS

CLASSIC MADDOW

Rude? That “professor” couldn’t even bring himself to discuss his own Newsletter. I assume he no longer stands by his work but, since he refused to answer that simple question I can’t be sure. Instead, he did what all Republicans, teabaggers and wingnuts to when confronted with their own words. He played the victim and changed the subject. The latter no doubt familiar to many of you on this site.

Sorry, I meant do!

Why is that man, Rachel, always so angry?

What an idiot!! The guy was just asked who the greatest living American’s are and he said Ted Kennedy and Robert Bryd!

Wait, that was Harry Reid. My bad!

lane said:
He’s a global warming skeptic, and for some reason, the media has convinced itself that anyone who questions global warming must be crazy.

Perhaps it’s because they embrace the global warming theory. Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps it’s about Obama’s cap and trade legislation, which would tax oil and carbon into submission and greatly increase energy costs for everyone – rich, poor, and everywhere in between.

According to a known climatologist named Dr. S. Fred Singer, cap and trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any real scientific justification.” But GE, the world’s largest wind turbine generator manufacturer, stands to make billions off of it. GE also happens to own MSNBC, Rachel’s employer. Coincidence? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Robinson’s argument to authority needs some context…

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/comment-page-1/

The more research I do on this man the more I see that he is a SHINING EXAMPLE of New Republican values!!!11 Someone we can TRUST to represent the Values of Real Americans!!!!111 I HIGHLY recommend that my fellow Right Thinking Americans search the Interwebs and research just what makes this man such a TRUE PATRIOT!!!111 And to see Mr. Rachel MANdow treat him like this is INEXCUSABLE!!!!111

can you imagine this guy in politics? He is rude, nasty, and defensive, with not a clue as to how to conduct a dialogue. Her first issue was who was paying for these campaign ads and did he know or care? that started the firestorm with this guy, who was so afraid of ‘gotcha.’ Second, he refused to talk about his published opinions (on global warming, AIDS, low level radiation, and much more) by claiming that he didn’t have the requisite quotes before him and he writes so much anyway, how could he be expected to answer such insulting questions. Plus, his mantra, ‘I’m a scientist,’ is supposed to cover all sins and intimidate the interviewer. People of Oregon, you got to be kidding. Running for office must require some social skills, to start with, let alone intellectual honesty, which this guy certainly lacks.

Maddow is not very genuine. She is just about “gotcha” attacks and she seems to have little interest in dealing with issues.

Penguin60 said:
Lighten up cosmo, it was a joke, as was the original quote.

okay, ….. just a pet peeve of mine.

Some_Dude said:
He can summarize – most scientists are capable of that. I mean, they’re not all as eloquent as Carl Sagan, but they can cogently explain a complex subject or view on a complex subject without an entire dissertation. Someone like Brian Greene routinely summarizes complex things like string theory in several sentences, and the neurosurgeon Steven Novella provides concise yet brief explanations and examinations of scientific topics every week on the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. His problem was that he was combative and flustered.

Okay. It would be interesting to see where his research and conclusions were in relation to other research of the same era. The Aids stuff seemed pretty outrageous.

The guy is a tooL with a capitaL L.
What biLLionaire is funding this tooL

Greg said:
Robinson’s argument to authority needs some context… http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/comment-page-1/

Thanks, Greg, for the link to the opinion blog. The blogger clearly has a bias toward the man made global warming theory being fact, and the obvious playing with numbers and statistics to present a false premise was bothersome, but it was still interesting reading. Other blogs do the same thing in reverse, trying to “prove” that the man made global warming theory is a complete hoax. As it stands, absolutely no one knows for certain one way or the other.

Andy Lamb said:
It’s hard to argue with you when you say you watched again while trying to be less cynical. Just a couple more notes – the implication that Robinson knowingly or at least complicitly accepted laundered money didn’t come up for the first time last night. Maddow’s interview last week I referenced above was about the Robinson race, so he came in knowing that she had already implied he was accepting dirty money. Then, she plays his campaign ad and snickers at it just before he comes on. Then, out of the gate, she starts with a laundered money question. I’d be pissed too. Now, would it have been to his benefit if he had stayed calmer? Definitely. He came in knowing he was not getting a friendly interview, and knew beforehand what he wanted to talk about – “the other guy is getting a lot more money than I am, his is coming from unions (some taxpayer funded) so that money is as dirty as anything I’ve gotten, much of mine is from online contributions, why not pick on him? Why can’t we talk about issues important to people in my district rather than hormesis?” The two were not on the same page, or even in the same book, from the get go. I know Maddow hates this guy and badly wants him to lose, but she could have handled this interview much better. Robinson could have too, but he’s never been interviewed like this before, so I’m willing to cut him a lot more slack.

Yep. That’s why I think it’s smarter to have an understanding going in. Here’s what I’d like to cover etc. Maybe that’s unrealistic. I guess she can do a follow up on the research stories if she wants to and address him calling her a liar, but I think his points about campaign funding is pretty valid.

What I don’t understand is Robinson’s lack of preparedness. He knew he was going into the lions den. That’s not necessarily a bad move because if you can come out alive, it does your campaign a great deal of good. BUT if you are going to decide to go into a lions den, any 12 year old would tell you that you better prepare. At minimum, he should have had several mock interviews with staff before hand. Yet his demeanor and response was that of shock, anger and then aggression. He was totally surprised! This says to me that he did not have the slightest idea what he was doing, and had made no preparations. Worse yet, his staff must have been just as incompetent.

And specifically Andy what’s your feeling on the anonymous campaign donations. Do you think groups ought to reveal their funding sources to protect the democracy? Personally I think there needs to be drastic campaign finance reform and some serious changing to lobbying in DC to try and get us back to a government of the people rather than of the wallet.

Marla Louise said:
What I don’t understand is Robinson’s lack of preparedness. He knew he was going into the lions den. That’s not necessarily a bad move because if you can come out alive, it does your campaign a great deal of good. BUT if you are going to decide to go into a lions den, any 12 year old would tell you that you better prepare. At minimum, he should have had several mock interviews with staff before hand. Yet his demeanor and response was that of shock, anger and then aggression. He was totally surprised! This says to me that he did not have the slightest idea what he was doing, and had made no preparations. Worse yet, his staff must have been just as incompetent.

He didn’t look surprised to me. I got the impression he went on specifically to fight back and be seen as fighting back. He was loud and combative but it’s not as if he screamed and walked away. He managed to get a lot of points in which I think was his goal.
as in; I won’t be bullied by the liberal media, or by liberal DC.

Andy Lamb said:
Thanks, Greg, for the link to the opinion blog. The blogger clearly has a bias toward the man made global warming theory being fact, and the obvious playing with numbers and statistics to present a false premise was bothersome, but it was still interesting reading. Other blogs do the same thing in reverse, trying to “prove” that the man made global warming theory is a complete hoax. As it stands, absolutely no one knows for certain one way or the other.

I haven’t studied the issue but I think it’s the real deal. I also am not so naive to think it won’t be used to reward political backers and channel big money in the desired direction. We should have been insisting on changes in emission standards before now not only for global warming but to cut down on fossil fuel use.

Marla Louise said:
What I don’t understand is Robinson’s lack of preparedness. He knew he was going into the lions den. That’s not necessarily a bad move because if you can come out alive, it does your campaign a great deal of good. BUT if you are going to decide to go into a lions den, any 12 year old would tell you that you better prepare. At minimum, he should have had several mock interviews with staff before hand. Yet his demeanor and response was that of shock, anger and then aggression. He was totally surprised! This says to me that he did not have the slightest idea what he was doing, and had made no preparations. Worse yet, his staff must have been just as incompetent.

I respectfully disagree Maria. I think he DID plan on how he was going to handle his being interviewed on MSNBC and went in very much prepared to conduct himself in a way that would expose Maddow’s political bias and agenda. Though she’s always condescending and patronizing to people on her show that she politically disagrees with, the number of times Robinson had her snickering and rolling her eyes made her attitude of condescension VERY evident to anyone tuning in. Her body language speaks loudly. I’m guessing he wisely didn’t believe for an instant Maddow’s goal was to “get to know him better” or learn where he stood on the issues — he had her number from the get go and refused to let her get away with her fake protestations and acting all innocent and honest about her ‘real’ intent for having him. (And if she was sincere, then that makes her one terrible interviewer due to the immediate attack approach she took.)

Andy Lamb said:
Thanks, Greg, for the link to the opinion blog. The blogger clearly has a bias toward the man made global warming theory being fact, and the obvious playing with numbers and statistics to present a false premise was bothersome, but it was still interesting reading. Other blogs do the same thing in reverse, trying to “prove” that the man made global warming theory is a complete hoax. As it stands, absolutely no one knows for certain one way or the other.

but

Of his own admission Robinson acknowledges “he has done no direct research into global warming.” And an ISI database search of publications confirms that Robinson has never published any research in the area of human-induced climate change.

fanofamerica said:
I respectfully disagree Maria. I think he DID plan on how he was going to handle his being interviewed on MSNBC and went in very much prepared to conduct himself in a way that would expose Maddow’s political bias and agenda.

Ah, so his purpose was to expose Maddow? The question is, who was he exposing her to? I doubt it was you, you already knew she had a left political bias. I doubt it was me, I already knew she had a left political bias. So exactly who did not know this and therefore needed to have this secret revealed?

I would point out that Maddow is not running for public office, Robinson is, therefore he is the person that the voter should be judging. Watching him, I came to a number of conclusions. First, I noted that the 4 simple questions (they were not complex as Robinson claimed) were never answered by Robinson. Certainly, there were pejoratives in her questions, but that really didn’t change the questions, nor did it change the desire for this viewer to hear Robinson’s answers.

I also learned that while Maddow may be condescending, Robinson is much more so. Consider his comment to her (a Rhodes scholar) that she wouldn’t understand. This is direct and real condescension. And also by implication it is condescension to all of us, implying we would not understand either.

And then consider his silly comment about satellite delay and the speed of light. He was flat wrong. He claims to be a scientist (actually, he has not been one for 29 years). Any scientist worth their grain of salt would either 1) know about satellite communication and acknowledge she was essentially correct (there are other factors than the speed of light, but it’s the major factor) or 2) not know about satellite communications and therefore not make false assertions. By the way, real scientist typically avoid moral certitude and allow for the fact they may be wrong.

Oh, the four questions he failed to answer…

1. Is he disturbed by a 150,000 dollar attack ad buy on his behalf by an organization funded through anonymous donors?

2. Does he believe global warning is made up?

3. Does he believe exposure to low levels of nuclear radiation is beneficial to human health?

4. Does he still believe AIDS is a myth created for political reasons by the government, a position he held in 1995?

Marla

MSNBC should bring on two impartial pundits to discuss Maddows interview……hmmmm,who could they bring on……I know,how about Howard Fineman and Eugene Robinson.

Robinson is the epitome of the typical GOPster mindset. Ignorant. Repulsive. Belligerant. Angry. Sarcastic. Unable to speak on any substantive matter. An indelible stamp of his own lowly, uneducated origins. He gave a grand display. And the average Repug didn’t even realize it. Their vision is strictly limited by the curb height.

Maddow a Rhodes Scholar !?!? Just proves that one can be educated and still not be very smart.

.

Marla Louise said:
Ah, so his purpose was to expose Maddow? The question is, who was he exposing her to? I doubt it was you, you already knew she had a left political bias. I doubt it was me, I already knew she had a left political bias. So exactly who did not know this and therefore needed to have this secret revealed.

Marla

He exposed her to any new viewers and any others who may have missed her condescension and left leaning bias when it’s been more subtle due to her never having been challenged in this way before. My point is she has this need to state and re-state that she’d like conservatives on her show and that she has no agenda and would fairly debate them and tries to convey that because of her (perceived) superior intelligence she’s above all that — and it’s all very smarmy and disingenuous to anyone who is paying attention. She’s a pretender. Robinson obviously is one who saw through the facade and he handled the interview accordingly. She set the tone from the start. Again, if she really wants answers then she desperately needs a refresher course in Interviewing 101.

“Maddow has been lauded for her sanity here on Mediate”. My only problem is with which definition of ‘sanity’ is being used. She kisses Leftist behinds and kicks the behinds of anyone right of Pelosi and Obama. What’s new?

fanofamerica said:
He exposed her to any new viewers and any others who may have missed her condescension and left leaning bias when it’s been more subtle due to her never having been challenged in this way before.

Question time… :-)

Fan, I would like to ask you similar questions Maddow asked Robinson. And then add one final question. I’ll also answer the questions myself so you can see my answers…

1. Are you disturbed by a 150,000 dollar attack ad buy on Robinson’s behalf by an organization funded through anonymous donors?

2. Do you believe global warning is made up?

3. Do you believe exposure to low levels of nuclear radiation is beneficial to human health?

4. Do you believe AIDS is a myth created for political reasons by the government?

5. Given that it is a month to the election, doesn’t Robinson have anything better to do than show people who apparently live under rocks that Maddow has a progressive bias?

OK, not my answers…

1. I am deeply concerned about anonymous donors, both on the left and the right. I am even more concerned about the foreign money that is being fed into this election, both on the left and the right.

2. No, it is a real threat that threatens our county and the world enormously more than a few dozen religious idiots in Afghanistan and Pakistan!

3. No, I’ve heard arguments that it is advantages for our genes to evolve us past being human, but I’m human so I would rather not accelerate evolution.

4. No, not in 1995 nor now.

5. Actually, contrary to your claim, I do not believe Robinson’s purpose was to educate people who did not know Maddow was a progressive pundit. That number must be very small, and that really does not buy him votes. I can’t know for sure, but I think he thought he thought he was intellectually superior to Maddow and could therefore easily denigrate her while coming out smelling like a rose, thus gaining votes. I think his interview did reinforced his support with people who were already planning on voting for him, but overall I think he lost votes because he is being judged for office while Maddow is not. I think overall, it was a bad political move.

Marla

First off, LET’S GET REAL! You think, Democrats don’t get anonymous campaign donations? Cause if you
don’t your in denial, BIG TIME. Secondly, the whole delay BS from Rachel was to make him look like an idiot.
She OPENLY admits that she spent HOURS, AND HOURS, AND HOURS, going through paperwork 15 years ago.
What? Not looking for dirt???? But, lets not forget, she NEVER, NEVER, would do that to a DEMOCRAT.

She doesn’t care about this country, ALL SHE CARES ABOUT IS BEING A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. If we don’t
take off our party hats, AND GET RID OF THE JERKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE WHO HAVE DESTROYED OUR COUNTRY………I Feel really sorry, for the Rachel Maddows, in this world. How incredibly
naive they are.

Aaargh, I hate it when I have typos..

Marla Louise said:
OK, not my answers…

That should have been “now my answers”. I hope my typo wasn’t Freudian :-)

Marla

Joy Nairn said:
First off, LET’S GET REAL! You think, Democrats don’t get anonymous campaign donations? Cause if you
don’t your in denial, BIG TIME. Secondly, the whole delay BS from Rachel was to make him look like an idiot.
She OPENLY admits that she spent HOURS, AND HOURS, AND HOURS, going through paperwork 15 years ago.
What? Not looking for dirt???? But, lets not forget, she NEVER, NEVER, would do that to a DEMOCRAT.

She doesn’t care about this country, ALL SHE CARES ABOUT IS BEING A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. If we don’t
take off our party hats, AND GET RID OF THE JERKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE WHO HAVE DESTROYED OUR COUNTRY………I Feel really sorry, for the Rachel Maddows, in this world. How incredibly
naive they are.

Joy, why do you find it necessary to yell? Does that somehow make your arguments better?

But to answer your questions, I am just as concerned about anonymous and foreign money being spent across the board, be it democrat, libertarian (my leanings), republican or tea party. It is a huge threat to our democratic process and I wish the republicans had not filibustered the bill that tried to rectify the problem.

The satellite delay is very real and most of it is due to the speed of light, look it up.

Yes, she spent hours and hours reading Robinson’s published writings. It’s called research, a basic component to good journalism.

Yes, she was looking for dirt. That’s her job as a progressive pundit. Why are you so shocked at this?

Yes, she would probably be more concerned about conservative dirt than progressive dirt. That’s why there are multiple pundits out there with various political biases. It balances out.

I find it interesting that you claim she doesn’t care about the country. Is your evidence to this claim the fact that she doesn’t agree with you? If you don’t believe honest people can have different viewpoints, then I must question how you can believe in democracy. Democracy depends utterly on diverse viewpoints.

Finally, I might use a number of negative labels about Maddow, but ‘naive’ is not one of them. And I certainly don’t feel sorry for her.

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, ugly, 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. Of the thousands of right-wing nutjobs I’ve met, heard of, seen, or read about, I have *NEVER* knew one to be genuinely happy (which means, and read this very carefully, that they do not rant and rave endlessly and angrily about irrational, illogical topics, which is exactly what you are going to do when you get done reading my comment) and possess a high self-esteem. The very few relatively bright ones that I know are all – and this is very apparent to everyone who knows them – upset, angry and bitter with other people because they do not have what they have, whether it be looks, wealth, happiness, friends, family, etc.

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. In one sense, however, I cannot blame you; it’s not your fault that you were born the way you were and consequently developed the radical ideologies you possess as a result. 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!

Un-be-lievable. Only a right-wing lunatic would ever consider arguing that Maddow “attacked” him. If Maddow (or Obama, or any democrat) said the sky was blue, they would insist it’s purple, regardless of how incredibly dumb and pitifully horrendous they sound. They don’t care. Their anger and bitterness will overcome any logical viewpoint, as this forum displays over and over. Assuming you have any, I genuinely feel sorry for your children. God only knows the types of brainwashed lunatics you have spawned. You’ll always be inferior in every noteworthy aspect of life; intellect, looks, friends, family, and most importantly, happiness – thus, your thought process.

NORBIT said:
Watching msnbc primetime is pure political sophistry and misrepresentation!

I don’t know why any self-respecting Republican appears on any of these shows; they’re not likely to get a fair hearing, or a single vote!!!

I have yet to see a “self-respecting Republican” appear on her show. If you’re not willing to stand by your position on an issue when asked about it, I would hardly consider that person “self-respecting. Rand Paul included.

I’m sorry, but that guy just came off horribly, and it was ALL his fault. You can blame Rachel Maddow all you want, but this guy seemed to go out of his way to make himself out to be a total jackass.

Actually, I’m stunned at the level of patience Maddow showed here, as Robinson desperately tried to drown her out with rambling.

mibwilso said:
It’s no surprise, folks, Rachel Maddow is a liberal. So obviously she’s going to have a liberal point of view about things.

But she definitely does not deserve to get lumped in with the shouters like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann.

I have never seen her shout at a guest or say any other rude comment.

Apparently conservatives think it’s “rude” when you ask uncomfortable questions and ask you somebody about things they actually said.

She is a shameless ambush hack. Her 15 minutes are about up.

Joy, why do you find it necessary to yell? Does that somehow make your arguments better?

But to answer your questions, I am just as concerned about anonymous and foreign money being spent across the board, be it democrat, libertarian (my leanings), republican or tea party. It is a huge threat to our democratic process and I wish the republicans had not filibustered the bill that tried to rectify the problem.

The satellite delay is very real and most of it is due to the speed of light, look it up.

Yes, she spent hours and hours reading Robinson’s published writings. It’s called research, a basic component to good journalism.

Yes, she was looking for dirt. That’s her job as a progressive pundit. Why are you so shocked at this?

Yes, she would probably be more concerned about conservative dirt than progressive dirt. That’s why there are multiple pundits out there with various political biases. It balances out.

I find it interesting that you claim she doesn’t care about the country. Is your evidence to this claim the fact that she doesn’t agree with you? If you don’t believe honest people can have different viewpoints, then I must question how you can believe in democracy. Democracy depends utterly on diverse viewpoints.

Finally, I might use a number of negative labels about Maddow, but ‘naive’ is not one of them. And I certainly don’t feel sorry for her.

Sorry if you think I was yelling, I was simply emphasizing a point. I feel that “researching” statements made 15 years ago by someone running for office in 2010 in a one hour show is a waste of time. A better use of time would be how the candidate would solve the exisitng problems this country faces today. Yes, anonymous campaign donations is
troubling, but certainly Acorn, and Union supported donations are troubling, too. The entire amount of money
spent during election season by both parties is sickening.

I wasn’t shocked, I know what her job is to do, but she also complained about not being able to get any Republicans to come on the show to debate her. Why, should they? Is there a delay on rolling your eyes?
Or on body langauage? Even with the delay, did she even once let him finish a sentence?

Everyone has opinions, I gave mine, I feel sorry for the Rachel Maddows in this country, I said she was naive. That’s my opinion. Do I think she’s honest? No, I don’t, she has not been truthful about teaparty events. As I said, we need to get rid of career politicians. They have put this country in a precarious state, and that is a reality check that pundits need to face and start holding their own parties accountable.

Ed, Chris, Keith, Rachel, and Lawrence, 5 straight hours of tea party bashing, 5 nights a week for the next month or so it will be a non-stop mudslinging, character assasinating, smear campaigning orgy. Anything to keep the voters minds off the issues. Unless its a hot button issue like witchcraft or hormesis.

Joy Nairn said:
Sorry if you think I was yelling, I was simply emphasizing a point. I feel that “researching” statements made 15 years ago by someone running for office in 2010 in a one hour show is a waste of time. A better use of time would be how the candidate would solve the exisitng problems this country faces today.

I can’t quite agree with you here. When we elect a politician, I personally find their beliefs, values and history to be much more important than what they claim they will do once in office. The former is critical to their character, the latter is IMHO meaningless noise.

In the case of 15 year old writings, that is not that long ago. Certainly my published writings of 15 years ago generally reflect many of my values of today. Yes, some of my values have changed, but then I have no trouble describing why and how they have changed. It’s not that hard and actually doing so publicly would be a positive reflection on myself.

Speaking of which, why do you bring up a defunct organization (Acorn) when reflecting on contributions to Democratic politicians? Acorn has contributed zero dollars to this years election because they don’t exist. But more to the point, while I agree that they tended to lean to the left because of the type of people they were trying to reach (inner city poor), they never contributed money to political advertising. As for union contributions, I’m not sure what your concern is. We know exactly where the money is coming from and where it is going. This is public information. I would also remind you that Unions by their very definition are formed to create political expression. Are there funding concerns on the Democratic side, definitely yes! But Acorn certainly is not a concern, and I find unions to be minor compared to other bigger issues.

As to why a politician might want to go on a show for an adversarial pundit like Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly, I think for certain politicians, it would be an excellent idea. Let me try to expand on this. I think a politician that understands their positions and values, can reflect and communicate those values, and are willing to do so publicly can go into an adversarial situation, and come out quite well. And doing so would boost their political capital. Yes, it’s dangerous, but there is a big payoff. I think Ron Paul would do well on Rachel Maddow. Al Gore would do well on Bill O’Reilly. These are the types of politicians I like.

But there are a lot of politicians that do not understand the values they are trying to profess. An example here is Rand Paul, he is copying his dad, but he really doesn’t understand libertarian ideas and values. So he couldn’t defend them very well. That doesn’t make a bad politician, but it does make it dangerous for them to go into adversarial interviews. That’s why Rand Paul did so poorly on Rachel Maddow.

Finally, there is the politician who wants to hide their values and beliefs because they know it would hurt them politically. For that person, going on Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly would be a disaster. I think Art Robinson is a perfect example of this. He did not want his supporters to know his own values and beliefs, like those about radiation, AIDS or anonymous donors. This is why he never even tried to answer Maddow’s questions and his general behavior and demeanor. The result was the train wreck we saw. These are the types of politicians that should never never never go into an adversarial situation. They are also the type of politician I cannot support, no matter how much they say their values are like mine.

Finally, I would question whether getting rid of career politicians is a good idea. I admit, it does resonate with me some. But governance in a democracy really requires skills at compromise and finding solutions that can be implemented effectively. Can amatures master the skills necessary to govern? I’m not sure they can. Personally, I would be selecting those politicians that can play well with others, and thus produce good governance. Robinson has shown is is totally incapable of playing well with others.

Marla

Rachel Maddow is a study in snottyness. She’s like a female Rick Sanchez.

She’s the kind of person that thrives on the cruel laughter that follows bitchy put-downs among the gay culture. That’s a disorder of “victimized” people who need to feel superior to others.

We should pray that she uses her powers and gifts for Good and not Evil.

“4. Do you believe AIDS is a myth created for political reasons by the government?”

Why don’t you ask to that to Spike Lee, who created the new slogan for MSNBC?

He believes that the U.S. Government created AIDS.

How about asking that question TO BARACK OBAMA?

His minister and church believes that the U.S. government created AIDS.

How about asking a large segment of staunch Obama backers who believe that AIDS was created by the U.S. Government?

Maxine Waters said the government created AIDS and crack to kill blacks, and she’s still in office.

Latin2 said:
“4. Do you believe AIDS is a myth created for political reasons by the government?”

Why don’t you ask to that to Spike Lee, who created the new slogan for MSNBC?

He believes that the U.S. Government created AIDS.

How about asking that question TO BARACK OBAMA?

His minister and church believes that the U.S. government created AIDS.

How about asking a large segment of staunch Obama backers who believe that AIDS was created by the U.S. Government?

Let me understand you here. Are you saying that because you believe Spike Lee (???), Barack Obama and Democratic voters are kooks, the Tea Party should also elect kooks? Do you think there is some type of kook gap that the Tea Party needs to remedy?

Like wow man, the Democrats have all these kooks in office, we need to elect even more kooks or they will win the kook race, man!

Personally, I want the Tea Party to elect smart, competent politicians that can effectively govern. Individuals who can solve our countries problems, reduce the deficit , increase individual freedoms and make government more efficient. This is not an easy task and kooks are not going to be able to do this.

Dear Rachel has Dick Army and all of the shadow supporters of the GOP along with Fox (my mind is in a small box) got their narrow minded drones sitting at computers to hackle you?

coly hl’s undesguised bias is an embarrassment to this site.

dan brms – s thi the best you cn do?

This guy has a degree from Caltech, and a phd from UCSD. i would rather believe his view on scientific topics like global warming than Rachel Maddow’s. It is really funny reading illiterate liberal imbeciles here saying that aman of such qualifications is ignorant.

Mind you, what degree does Al Gore have. Such stupidity.

Chudi said:
This guy has a degree from Caltech, and a phd from UCSD. i would rather believe his view on scientific topics like global warming than Rachel Maddow’s. It is really funny reading illiterate liberal imbeciles here saying that aman of such qualifications is ignorant.

Mind you, what degree does Al Gore have. Such stupidity.

Yes, he does have those degrees, but he also left academia and being a scientist in 1973. He has not had a peer reviewed article since then (a basic characteristic in today’s scientific world). But you don’t have to be a scientist with a doctorate to review the ‘scientific’ writings of an individual. Any reasonably educated individual can read scientific writings and be able to make basic evaluations. Read his papers yourself, they are available on the internet. And then tell me he is not a kook :-)

But also, if you are going to bow to academic authority instead of actually doing the research on your own, I would point out that Maddow also has a PhD from Oxford and was a Rhodes scholar. As such, her own academic credentials are just as impressive if not even more so.

Personally, I am not a big fan to bowing to academic credentials. Credentials are not worthless indicators but having credentials certainly do not prove an individual’s arguments are correct. Give credentials respect but then check out the facts and arguments yourself. But always raise a red flag when someone uses ‘arguments of authority’ and keep throwing their credentials in your face (or says something condescending like “Madame, you couldn’t possibly understand.”).

Marla

Marla Louise said:
I can’t quite agree with you here. When we elect a politician, I personally find their beliefs, values and history to be much more important than what they claim they will do once in office. The former is critical to their character, the latter is IMHO meaningless noise.

Exactly right! When the ad mentions him being a research scientist as a selling point it certainly fair to examine his credentials.

Maddow,you’re wasting your time with this loony tune and the AWOL O’Donnell. Try to interview Lott who reanacts the Nazi SS with the complete uniform. Witches and insanely bitter republicans are getting to be old news. Cue the Nazi SS wanna be. That should be entertaining.

Cancon2 said:
Mediaite is in the tank for MSNBC period. All day long, Maddow is great, Beck is evil. This site is getting really boring. Maddow will soon be left talking to Bathtub boy and Ed, because this gang just likes to be reinforced. No wonder again why MSNBC.com wants to get the hell away from this Lean Over gang.

Well… if that’s true, the comments more than balance it out. What the hell is going on in America? I used to think it was just the media that was nuts, but there’s a runaway river of insanity streaming through the heartland… with the compounding tragedy being that most are too friggin’ nuts to even see it. It frightens me to imagine the extent to which this will go.

About the point of pulling out small quotes, there’s some fairness to the idea that issues can be complex and require further explanation. A lawyer trying to sway a court might do the same thing, pressing a yes or no answer on a complex question.

HOWEVER, Maddow was doing her job by digging into the story. A public person’s views are relevant. That he published them 15 years ago is not, until he addresses any change in those views. Lots of people who were fools 15 years ago remain so today. She’s trying to find out whether or not he’s still one of them.

What’s more, she gave him every opportunity to conduct himself in a manner we’d want from someone who is applying for the job of legislator. Question: Do you no longer believe what you wrote in this research? Answer (that could have been): No, I no longer believe that. There have been considerable advances in the research since and I am a scientist by training. That means allowing for alteration of a thesis based on the facts at they become available. We’re for the greater truth, not devotion to a flawed idea. etc. etc. And any rhetorician with a modicum of skill could have used that for a leaping point to bring the conversation back around to politics.

Instead, he keeps trying to make it about her pulling a quote (HIS quote) from 15 years ago. I didn’t see this guy take a stand on anything during the interview, except about how much he hates Maddow, the media, and his opponent. Great. And you want to get into office because you’re going to do what for everybody? Complain all day?