I say "interviews," because Art Robinson--who is trying to unseat Peter DeFazio for Congress--barely let Rachel get a word in edgewise. According to Robinson, Rachel is sarcastic, and a liar. Particularly when she reads his own words back to him. He's also apparently not responsible for outrageous statements he made in 1995. Things like AIDS is a government conspiracy, and that gay men without AIDS have an average lifespan of 42! And he claims to be a scientist. . .and a good one!!!
I know that Rachel laments that she can't get many Republicans to come on her show, despite asking over and over. It isn't surprising, considering how she laid waste to Rand Paul. But I'm glad they don't happen by very often. The clip below is interesting, no doubt about it. It's just that the "shouting over each other" brand of cable news/commentary shows is not Rachel's brand. One thing has been revealed though. We have yet another kooky conservative to watch out for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah, I'll say something. Robinson ate Rachael Maddow for lunch. Good for him. When are these pinheads on MSNBC goind to learn the politics of personal destruction doesn't fly???
ReplyDeleteRachael Maddow is trying to get Mr. Robinson to admit to something that he wrote 15 years earlier which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues facing this nation and his state of Oregon.
ReplyDeleteIs there any wonder why intelligent thinking people will not go on MSNBC and face these pinheads like Maddow, Shultz, Matthews and Olberman who want nothing more than to try to destroy them?
I thought Maddow was going to experience an orgasm when she was talking about Lou Dobbs going on the Lawrence O'Donnall show after her show. I guess she is hoping to destroy another right thinking American
Anonymous: Robinson came off as a raging bully and a bit of a kook. He insisted Rachel was lying, mudslinging, sarcastic, and "interrupting him" when he would rarely let her finish half a sentence himself, wouldn't answer the questions, and called his own words lies. He came off as thoroughly unpleasant.
ReplyDeleteDavid: Welcome to the world of politics. What did William Ayers or Rev. Wright have to do with the issues facing the nation? How about Monica Lewinsky? This Robinson dude has reams of written words, edited and published by himself. He's said outrageous things, and promoted outrageous positions. That's all water under the bridge? Off topic? PLEASE.
In reply to Greenlee. I am proud of Robinson for not allowing Maddow to get him off topic. If she was a true journalist, she would have discussed his position on the issues facing Oregon and the United States.
ReplyDeleteHis opinons written 15 years ago have nothing do do with what is going on today.
Um, I don't think Rachel has ever said she was a journalist. She's a news commentator (though I'll grant, she's a lot closer to a journalist than most of her category). Do you condemn Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others for doing the very same thing--nearly all the time--that you accuse Rachel of?
ReplyDeleteNo, an interviewer (journalist or not) is under no requirement to "stick to" the points the candidate WANTS to talk about. That's what people like Sharron Angle want, I know. But that's not how political interviews work. Never has been, unless it's Hannity interviewing George W. Bush, or Dick Cheney or something.
Never saw her before. But this clip shows her to be the "mad cow" that people spoke of. No wonder no one watches that network. They have, what, 7 viewers? sad.
ReplyDeleteCable news isn't a high-ratings racket. FOX's shows for example are routinely in the 2-3 million viewers range, sometimes a little more, sometimes less. Rachel's show does a little better than a million most nights in its first run. ALL cable news is eclipsed by most other shows. And quality isn't defined by ratings anyway.
ReplyDeleteStill, I'm amazed anyone could come away from this particular interview and find MADDOW to be the side that was somehow wrong or bad. Are you kidding? How else could the interview have gone with a guy THAT combative? She wasn't impolite to him, she DIDN'T sling any mud at him, and she wasn't being nasty. The only thing she seemed to be was frustrated.
If you've never watched her before, this was certainly not the usual. Usually--even with conservatives--she's amiable, affable and fun. I don't know what anyone could do with Robinson.
In reply to everyone. Robinson was right. He asked her to discuss issues and she would not do that. I'm glad he would not yield to her bullying.
ReplyDeleteDavid: Sorry, but NO. The interviewee doesn't set the agenda, or get to self-select which questions he gets to answer. Most career politicians become quite skilled at steering their answers around to what they want to say--regardless of the question asked. I hate that, but that's how it works.
ReplyDeleteRachel's questions were no more "gotcha" than any Sunday morning political talk show host would ask. It is common--very, very common--for controversial opinions of office-seekers to be brought up during a campaign, whether 15 years ago, 30 years ago. . .an eon ago for longtime office holders like the late Strom Thurmund or Robert Byrd.
Those of you expressing the opinion that Rachel should have stuck to "the issues" (whatever that means) have either not been paying attention to any other political interview in the last decade, or you applying a different standard to Rachel Maddow.
I dunno about people leaving where Art Robinson is looking to get elected BUT if someone where I live were running for office and had views like his, I'd be concerned and would want to know what the deal is. I watch all those cable shows and to be straight Rachel is by far the fairest when she interviews. The reason why many right wingers don't go on her show is because she will expose them with facts on their own words (See Rand Paul interview). Art was well aware and clearly had no intention to answer the questions; in retrospect, I think he just was on a mission to ridicule her. I would have wished that Rachel switched the subject and asked him on his views about current topics to expose him but by that time Art clearly has succeeded in frustrated her with his behavior. Not her best interview, unfortunately. Well played, Art.
ReplyDeleteQuick spelling correction to my earlier post. "I dunno about people LIVING where Art Robinson is looking..." and "...that time Art clearly has succeeded in FRUSTRATING her with his..."
ReplyDeleteNote: I stumbled upon this blog, James, and I'm subscribing. Thank you. :)
Thanks for stopping by, Anonymous. I appreciate any comments, but especially those that sound well reasoned. Come back soon!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I can't imagine there was a single question Rachel could have asked him that he'd have answered. He clearly was there with the intent to shout her down. My only hope is that since conservatives unbelieveably seem to think that Art "won" the exchange with Rachel, maybe it will embolden a few more to stop by. As long as they don't all become shout-fests.
My favorite moment is when Rachel tells Art it may seem to him that she is interrupting because there is a lag in satellite interviews. That lag is obvious to anyone who has done or watched one. Art contemptuously tells her she is lying about even that unassailable fact "It's the speed of light, madam". Art came across as quite literally mentally ill.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, a LOT of the candidates this season seem mentally ill. But you'll find no shortage of people supporting them anyway. The right is going for a "win" at any cost. It doesn't matter if they're voting for people who have no business in government (after all, they HATE government!). They want a majority of (R)s in the House and Senate. That's all.
ReplyDeleteYou know what it reminds me of? A "bridezilla" who is maniacally focused on her "perfect day." She's focused tons of time, effort and money on that ONE DAY. And I always wonder, "what about the next day?" These people are going to have to legislate, and that involves comprimise. Can you imagine any of these tea baggers comprimising?
James,
ReplyDeleteYou are focused on the "right". You can ignore them. The marxist left-right or elite-workers paradigms are no longer relevant (just used by folks who are stuck in the past). There is so little difference between GOP RINOs and DEMS, which is how we got where we are.
The 20th Century was the century of Big Government socialism, and it crashed. It is untennable and has failed, and now edges into open communism and facism.
George Orwell said "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." The 20th Century went down that path.
But now, after a century of experimenting with collectivism, facism, tyranny, and kleptocracy; we Americans look forward to the restoration of Liberty and Capitalism.
Now we are at a cusp: Liberty, Enslavement, or Death?
A or B or C ?
We get to decide. We live in Orwellian times.
One thing that Rep & Dem politicians have in common is the overwhelming desire to remain in office. As such, they pander, they make deals, they lie, etc. In that way, they can be very alike. But I don't buy the argument that there is no difference between the parties. The best of the Democrats are trying to help people, and help the little guy. The worst of Republicans are trying to help rich people, and have no interest in helping ordinary people. There are plenty of "blue dog" Democrats who lean to the middle or right, but as far a I can see, NO Republicans who do the reverse.
ReplyDeletePolitics is ugly, and politicians uglier. But I will cast my lot with those who at least WANT to do good, and not vote against my best interests.
Sharron Angle and the rest of the wave of current Republicans want NO social safety net, NO regulations on business, NO public anything. We've already seen how bad things get when business is unencumbered by regulation, and seeks only more and more profit. Capitalism with no regulation is madness. It will lead to a class of rich corporate people who are unable to sell to America, because the rest of us are too poor (or sick) to buy anything. And then they'll be forced to offshore their products as well as the jobs.