(I’d recommend downing a couple of vodka and tonics before subjecting yourself to the video….)
I’m a big fan of Rachel Maddow (a big shock, I know….), mostly because she’s one of the most reasonable and level-headed political pundits on TV today. In an era when ratings are often predicated on controversy, vitriol, and (lots and lots of angry) shouting, Maddow triumphs with research, insight, facts, and an inscrutably calm demeanor. You may not agree with her, but you can’t credibly accuse her of not being prepared…or polite. Just ask Art Robinson…but more on that in a moment.
Maddow generally goes to great lengths (and certainly farther than I ever would) to get both sides of the story. The problem, of course, is that seldom does anyone on the Right side of the ideological divide see fit to speak to her, much less come on her show as a guest. She has standing invitations to any number of Republicans, most of whom are smart enough to know that nothing good can come from talking to a prepared Progressive talk show host who can take down their dishonesty and dissembling in a heartbeat.
Enter Art Robinson (who’s receieved $150k in advertising from benefactors he can’t (or won’t) identify)…and let the unhinged Right-wing obfuscation, propagandizing, and misdirection commence….
Memo to Mr. Robinson: in case you were wondering, here’s the definition of “Sarcasm”. Trust me, sir; I know sarcasm…and what you were “subjected” to was nowhere near meeting the definition. Not that the truth will stop you, of course, because you’ve long since convinced yourself of your own brilliance and moral superiority.
Robinson is not a politician. He’s a scientist. Ask him; he’ll happily tell you that he’s a damn good one- except that what he’s not so good at is addressing questions directed at parsing some of his more controversial views…of which there apparently are no lack.
I’m not certain what Robinson may have been expecting, but clearly it wasn’t the direct (and polite) line of questioning he got from Maddow. What the viewer was treated to was 18+ minutes of Robinson aggressively and combatively talking over Maddow, going off on tangents, and lamenting what he perceived as Maddow’s desire to smear him and his beliefs. Rachel Maddow may be many things, but one thing I’ve never seen her do is deliberately smear a candidate during an interview. Normally, she bends over backward to allow her guests to speak, no matter how loony that person may be (see her interview with Rand Paul from 5.19.10). And loony would be a serious upgrade for Robinson.
This is a case where I wish Maddow had been able to find it within herself to be a bit less polite, because Robinson hardly warranted her normal courtesy and consideration. I’ve never seen or heard Robinson previously…but Jeebus, is the man an asshole OR WHAT? I mean, really…you’ve been invited to be a guest on a nationally-televised show. You’re getting some free time to state your case…and you spend 18+ minutes being a rude, combative asshole?
Smooth move, Ace…now you’ve managed to convince those of us willing to give you a fair hearing that you’re a self-righteous, self-absorbed loon who shouldn’t be allowed out of Oregon…much less sent to Washington, DC.
Robinson’s expectation seemed to be that Maddow would lob him softballs so that he could rail against his opponent, Rep. Peter DeFazio. When that turned out not the be the case, Robinson morphed into an angry, unbalanced parody of a candidate looking to persuade voters that he’s a viable and reasonable alternative to DeFazio. Instead, he came off as a completely unbalanced, self-righteous zealot badly in need of having his medication adjusted.
(DAMN THAT RACHEL MADDOW FOR DOING HER HOMEWORK AND ASKING ME ABOUT THE TRULY CRAZY THINGS FROM MY PAST!!!)
Personally, I’d like to sue Robinson for wasting 18:46 minutes of my life, but the man’s an idiot, so why waste time, energy, and effort on someone so clearly enthralled by his own self-professed brilliance, righteousness, and moral/intellectual superiority?
Some of the things that Maddow wanted to discuss, but couldn’t get Robinson to shut up long enough to ask about, include:
AIDS is a myth: “[T]he arguments presented against the HIV hypothesis are sound… “LINK
Just being gay causes AIDS: ” …median age at death for homosexual men dying of AIDS is 39 years and… for homosexual men who do not die of AIDS is 42. By comparison, the value for heterosexual married men is 75. This is evidence in support of the hypothesis that AIDS may be little more than a general classification of deaths resulting from exposure to homosexual behavior.” *LINK *
AIDS is a government conspiracy: “Only government reclassification of more and more disease types as AIDS cases has kept the numbers of victims at politically necessary levels.” LINK
Low-level radiation is good for us: “All we need do with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean - or even over America after hor-mesis is better understood and verified with respect to more diseases.” LINK
And there’s more…but you can do the heavy lifting yourself if you need to wade deeper into Robinson’s twisted world….
Of course, Robinson did accomplish one thing. He convinced me (and thankfully for him I don’t live in his district) he is completely and thoroughly unworthy of the support of any reasonable, lucid human being. Good Lord…what a blithering idiot….
Where do I go to get those 18:46 back??