This guy took the Maddow hit piece pretty well

[RonPaulwillWin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/39566412#39566412

[Bman]

Everyone needs to take a page from this guys book on dealing with Maddow.

[low preference guy]

great guy!

[Ekrub]

wow... he reduced Maddow to a bumbling idiot and called her out for what she is doing the entire time.

[hugolp]

wow... Madow is out of control. She is loosing it.

[TheDriver]

YouTube - Rachel Maddow Skewers Jack Conway! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj0YS9RS3Lk)
:D

[Sola_Fide]

Whoa.


THat guy made her look really bad:)

[tpreitzel]

Yeah, Art at least exposed Maddow for her shenanigans. Maddow was reduced to the mantra, "I want to get to know you" which really means that she wants Art to verify her misrepresentation of his remarks.

Crazy interview

[RonPaulwillWin]

YouTube - Rachel Maddow Skewers Jack Conway! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj0YS9RS3Lk)
:D

Haha, nice. She really has nothing to grab at anymore. Seems like everybody is waking up. Even our buddy Jack (sort of).

EDIT: Ahh, got trolled. Nice :)

[HOLLYWOOD]

wow... Madow is out of control. She is loosing it.


Nah, Her Strings are tied to the marionette masters than pull the other lunatics (Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Chris Mathews, Rachel Madcow, etc)

Amazing these Pravda Propaganda Hacks can't hold it together when they're receiving a big can of Whoop-Ass every day... same goes for their producers. Lot's of stress when your losing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bStCcEiOUEw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bStCcEiOUEw)

[TheDriver]

Haha, nice. She really has nothing to grab at anymore. Seems like everybody is waking up. Even our buddy Jack (sort of).

The real version: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39566345

[TheDriver]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/39566412#39566412

I thought the guy held his own and won most of the fight, but faded in the late rounds.

Good stuff!

[RonPaulwillWin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

[emazur]

He endorsed Ron Paul in '08

Ron Paul and the Constitutional principles upon which his presidential campaign is based are, by far, the best opportunity that is being offered to the people of the United States. He is reawakening the economic, political, social, and ethical traditions that have made America great. As Ron Paul says, it is his message not himself that is responsible for the rapid rise and strength of his campaign. Ron Paul is, however, an ideal mes
and he's also the creator of the Robinson Curriculum for home schoolers:
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p659.htm#Message6007

I've listened to some of his pre-campaign interviews and he sounded pretty good other than taking shots at *****, but I don't recall him ever actually calling for anti gay legislation

[RonPaulwillWin]

Wow, watching this again....this guy is having a fucking field day...I bet he'd love to party with her for another hour.

At least we know who the real man is in this interview (couldn't help it.) Sorry ladies, had a bunch to drink and tried to make a funny.

[tpreitzel]

and he's also the creator of the Robinson Curriculum for home schoolers:
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p659.htm#Message6007 (http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p659.htm#Message6007)



Oh, yeah. Stanley Monteith of Radio Liberty (www.radioliberty.com) has been promoting Art's Home School curriculum for years. Art's a smart man. ;)

[BenIsForRon]

For the record, Rand said later that his last Maddow interview was fair.

And while Maddow does have it out for this guy, she is somewhat justified. The dude thought homosexuality could lead to premature death. Not aids, the homosexuality itself. Rachel, as a lesbian, is understandably offended.

[RonPaulwillWin]

The real version: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39566345

Figures....she's trying to be a shock jock.

She spins it her own way.

Jack C flip flopped when he wanted to extend the tax cuts (but barley mentioned that it was 2 out of 3...no rich people included.

Rand Paul flopped when he said he wanted a 2000 deductible, but then didn't. ( but barley mentioned that he didn't want 2000 deduct for seniors.)

I'm catching on here, but that's only from the gut, I did no other research , so correct me if i'm wrong.

[tpreitzel]

Personally, I'd love to see Robinson eat DeFazio alive in the election from the 4th District of Oregon.

www.artrobinsonforcongress.com

[Kregisen]

Maddow is such a bitch. She's lying straight out of her mouth and Art did that interview very well. Sounds like a great college professor too.



What's Art's chances of beating the dem?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

At least we know who the real man is in this interview (couldn't help it.)

lol (couldn't help it.) :D

[tpreitzel]

Maddow is such a bitch. She's lying straight out of her mouth and Art did that interview very well. Sounds like a great college professor too.



What's Art's chances of beating the dem?

I don't know at this point, but I'm going to financially support his campaign within the next week.

[Kregisen]

I don't know at this point, but I'm going to financially support his campaign within the next week.

I'm actually considering it too.....endorsed by Ron Paul, doesn't like our foreign policy......everything else looks amazing on. I don't see his stances on drugs or marriage though.

[emazur]

recent interview by a Ron Pauler
YouTube - Art Robinson Questioned (Ron Paul, Peter DeFazio, Federal Reserve, Afghanistan War, Unions) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8bRDpI--ww)

[Eroberer]

This guy sounds awesome. What are his chances?

[Kludge]

Did terrible after he kept repeating it was a smear and it became even more obnoxious than Maddow. He refused to talk about hormesis or what to do with nuclear waste. He consistently refused to talk about the issues. Instead, he kept taking the conversation lower and lower, which I guess is an achievement. It was an interesting tactic to see in action, but I ended up sympathizing with Maddow, who I dislike.

[Bman]

Did terrible after he kept repeating it was a smear and it became even more obnoxious than Maddow. He refused to talk about hormesis or what to do with nuclear waste. He consistently refused to talk about the issues. Instead, he kept taking the conversation lower and lower, which I guess is an achievement. It was an interesting tactic to see in action, but I ended up sympathizing with Maddow, who I dislike.

Really? It was clearly an attempt at a smear and he called her on it.

[Kludge]

Really? It was clearly an attempt at a smear and he called her on it.

It was a smear, but half the time he'd call whatever she was about to say a lie before she could even transmit what she was going to say. He didn't seem at all interested in doing anything but giving rehearsed talking points. Trying to change topics at the end when Maddow brought up a snippet of his writing suggesting AIDS was exaggerated (or perhaps made up altogether) by gov't for political purposes looked particularly bad ("Didn't you want to talk about hormesis?").

Maddow was asking for information and refutations. Her questions were meant to pin him in a corner, but instead of saying what he actually meant in his quotes, he'd just say "you're lying, this is a smear campaign." His constant accusations of sarcasm were ridiculous (though applicable when she called him charming after he said Maddow wouldn't understand his theories) and he made an ass out of himself by insisting there is no delay in transmission during satellite broadcasts.

[fj45lvr]

This guy sounds awesome. What are his chances?

slim and none.

His district has major populous in leftist strogholds. His opponent is running ads that this guy is on the "take" from bankers while he, on the other hand, voted against the bank bailouts.


Maddow is sure slime with the hit-pieces....what is surprising to me is that people out there actually watch that and enjoy it like a "football game".

[libertarian4321]

recent interview by a Ron Pauler
YouTube - Art Robinson Questioned (Ron Paul, Peter DeFazio, Federal Reserve, Afghanistan War, Unions) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8bRDpI--ww)

Sounds pretty reasonable here.

His web site doesn't say much about social issues, but I like his fiscally conservative stance.

http://www.artrobinsonforcongress.com/

I noted that, even though he is a Republican, he was endorsed by the Oregon Libertarian Party.

[hugolp]

It was a smear, but half the time he'd call whatever she was about to say a lie before she could even transmit what she was going to say. He didn't seem at all interested in doing anything but giving rehearsed talking points. Trying to change topics at the end when Maddow brought up a snippet of his writing suggesting AIDS was exaggerated (or perhaps made up altogether) by gov't for political purposes looked particularly bad ("Didn't you want to talk about hormesis?").

Maddow was asking for information and refutations. Her questions were meant to pin him in a corner, but instead of saying what he actually meant in his quotes, he'd just say "you're lying, this is a smear campaign." His constant accusations of sarcasm were ridiculous (though applicable when she called him charming after he said Maddow wouldn't understand his theories) and he made an ass out of himself by insisting there is no delay in transmission during satellite broadcasts.

The problem with this is that if you start refuting the accusation most probably you are going to end up looking like you are on the defensive and trying to hide something or justify yourself. Maddow knows this, and that is why its a win-win situation for her.

The only way out is to ignore the questions when they are too far out. Maybe he could have done it better, but Maddow left him no choice.

[pacelli]

The way he responds to the newsletters is EXACTLY how Ron Paul needs to respond to the newsletters issue for 2012.

[sluggo]

Wow, Maddow looks like he's about to come unglued.

[TomtheTinker]

+1 for this guy doing a damn good job. Maddow is a disgrace but I wouldn't expect anything less.

[Bruno]

Wow, Maddow looks like he's about to come unglued.

lol, don't know if that was intentional, but it was funny. :D

That guy rocked her world.

"I'm trying to get to know you..." Yeah, right!! She wouldn't even take him up on the challenge to talk about a single issue.

[jmdrake]

Everyone needs to take a page from this guys book on dealing with Maddow.

Not just Maddow. With Glenn Beck, Keith Olberman or any other talking head. Rand Paul could have used this tactic against Maddow and Debra Medina should have used it against Beck. Just stay on your message and talk over the talking heads.

[jmdrake]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that Maddow's interview clips are sponsored by Charmain toilet paper? Not only is that apropos, but Charmain also is one of the worst toilet papers when it comes to the environment because it takes a long time to break down.

[Fredom101]

I think he should have addressed the issues, then went off on DeFazio. I don't think he looked great by doing what he did. Just lots of interrupting. Maddow's fans will definitely think she looked better here.

[Bruno]

I think he should have addressed the issues, then went off on DeFazio. I don't think he looked great by doing what he did. Just lots of interrupting. Maddow's fans will definitely think she looked better here.

Who cares? Maddow's fans wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

She wasn't "trying to get to know him". She took a few things that were controversial and decided to focus on them. She didn't ask him his position on anything, despite his pleas to do so, except what she could use against him, even if it was an irrelavant topic he wrote on 15 years ago.

[paulitics]

That was fun. haha

[Jeremy]

I don't think this went well at all ROFL. Problems were mostly caused by satellite delay.

[Valli6]

Donated!:) Hadn't heard of this guy. Hope to see a lot more of him!

[TheTyke]

I really like Robinson after seeing all this!!! Man, this is awesome... Ron Paulers springing up all over the country to run for office! If a bunch get elected, we could seriously change the political discussion.

[CUnknown]

For the record, Rand said later that his last Maddow interview was fair.

And while Maddow does have it out for this guy, she is somewhat justified. The dude thought homosexuality could lead to premature death. Not aids, the homosexuality itself. Rachel, as a lesbian, is understandably offended.

Yeah ... I'm going to have to disagree with most people here. This guy looked like a total jerk in this interview. And an idiot to boot. Maddow is definitely justified in asking these questions.

[silverhandorder]

I don't get it what is with all the haters? Do you not see what she is trying to do? Do you really think that even her leftist viewers are so dumb that they do not know what she is trying to do? They are not going to vote for him not because of her accusations but because he is against more government. This was meant to get him to talk off message and waste his time.

Yeah you are lying sounds bad but what sounds worse is saying what i really meant is ...

edit: I mean the whole aids thing is so fucking far out you can tell that she is leaving a ton out. I know my self in many arguments where I would say things that if taken like that out of context will show me as a concpiracy theorist. For example guns and when I argue how European governments hide the real statistics by using different classification then US. That would sound like a conspiracy theory on its own.

[CUnknown]

I don't get it what is with all the haters? Do you not see what she is trying to do? Do you really think that even her leftist viewers are so dumb that they do not know what she is trying to do? They are not going to vote for him not because of her accusations but because he is against more government. This was meant to get him to talk off message and waste his time.

Yeah you are lying sounds bad but what sounds worse is saying what i really meant is ...

I disagree. The radiation thing might have been too complicated to talk about in 30 seconds, but as far as the AIDS thing, he really needed to say that, "Yes I thought those things 15 years ago, but now further research has clarified that HIV does indeed cause AIDS. I was wrong then and have changed my position." That is an easy 30 second answer that is far better than the one he gave (or refused to give) which left me with the impression that he still believes that HIV does not cause AIDS.

I think he totally failed at this interview. If he believes these crazy sorts of things, it's really not off-message to talk about them. I think the way Rand handled the interview was actually better. At least he came off as honest and principled after the interview, this guy just came off as a stonewalling douche.

[silverhandorder]

It left me with an impression that he did not want him self set up for a following question where he gives credit to her reading off a page without seeing it himself. Maybe she should have provided the transcript ahead of time? Seriously all this interview did is piss of partisans on the left and left others wondering wtf just happened.

[BamaFanNKy]

He looks familiar:
YouTube - Get off my lawn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7X2_V60YK8)


That said. Good for him. Maddow smart. She knows people and scientific views evolve. Trying to debate science in soundbites during a political campaign is a douchebag move.

None of what she talked about was relevant to the campaign. If she wanted him on to discuss scientific theory get him in studio and present evidence.

[Fox McCloud]

For the record, Rand said later that his last Maddow interview was fair.

And while Maddow does have it out for this guy, she is somewhat justified. The dude thought homosexuality could lead to premature death. Not aids, the homosexuality itself. Rachel, as a lesbian, is understandably offended.

the gentleman claimed that it was one of the theories he wrote about 15 years ago; I don't have the articles in front of me, but that seems relatively reasonable and in line with how your average scientist would write.

[freshjiva]

Yeah ... I'm going to have to disagree with most people here. This guy looked like a total jerk in this interview. And an idiot to boot. Maddow is definitely justified in asking these questions.

+1. I felt the same way after seeing that interview.

Folks, I know people have issues with Maddow, but I respect her because she's a much more responsible journalist than many others out there. She has nothing but respect for Ron Paul and always treats him well on her show, even though we all know she disagrees with him on free markets and taxation.

Maddow asks nothing but honest questions about quotes taken from various publications of Art, and he does nothing but retort that she's trying to defame him.

Ridiculous. You should be able to explain yourself, not attack her for the questions she asks. Being aggressive and asserting your views is good, but you should be able to do it intelligently.

[Ekrub]

+1. I felt the same way after seeing that interview.

Folks, I know people have issues with Maddow, but I respect her because she's a much more responsible journalist than many others out there. She has nothing but respect for Ron Paul and always treats him well on her show, even though we all know she disagrees with him on free markets and taxation.

Maddow asks nothing but honest questions about quotes taken from various publications of Art, and he does nothing but retort that she's trying to defame him.

Ridiculous. You should be able to explain yourself, not attack her for the questions she asks. Being aggressive and asserting your views is good, but you should be able to do it intelligently.

She agrees with the Ron Paul when he the dissenting voice in the Republican party. If he got the Republican nomination for president, you would be a fool to think that she would treat him as fairly.

These are not honest questions. These are just a few theories/hypothesis' a scientist has that he wrote about. Doesn't mean that he necessarily believes them. And to pull up something that he wrote 15 years ago is silly. Can you remember everything you wrote 15 years ago? It wasn't in context, and Maddow knows that. She knows that he can't explain his entire paper within the time given to him to respond. I don't understand how you can consider those honest questions.

Look at what she did to Rand. She took a philisophical debate and used it to paint him as a racist who opposes the civil rights act. She knew that he couldn't fully explain himself in the given time, and it came off as him looking bad.

[puppetmaster]

she is savvy and evil

[tnvoter]

& Maddow looked crazy.

[tjeffersonsghost]

That link is not the right link... you have another link? That is Odonnel and not Maddow??

[TheTyke]

Maddow is a partisan hack. She only supported Ron & Rand where she felt it could divide the Republican party, then turned on Rand once he became the nominee. It is pure partisan politics for her, and she will twist people's words, smear them, and deceive the television audience to achieve her goals. Kudos to this guy for fighting back and pointing out how she operates.

[squarepusher]

it was definitely an attempt to discredit him, but IThink he should have at least answered

[anaconda]

We need to send this video to the Rand Paul campaign. Rand would benefit from watching it.

I think I might send that dude a little money!

[Bruno]

+1. I felt the same way after seeing that interview.

Folks, I know people have issues with Maddow, but I respect her because she's a much more responsible journalist than many others out there. She has nothing but respect for Ron Paul and always treats him well on her show, even though we all know she disagrees with him on free markets and taxation.

Maddow asks nothing but honest questions about quotes taken from various publications of Art, some he wrote over 15 years ago and did not have with him to reference, which have nothing to do with the campaign, and ignores his pleas to talk about the issues that are important to his constituents, and he does nothing but retort that she's trying to defame him.

Ridiculous. You should be able to explain yourself, not attack her for the questions she asks. Being aggressive and asserting your views is good, but you should be able to do it intelligently.

mine in bold

[tjeffersonsghost]

That is exactly how you handle pundits like her. Excellent and I actually learned alot.

[teacherone]

he should not have answered her retarded questions. in fact he spoke too much.

what he should have done is refused to answer any questions not pertaining to the issues that the people of his state are concerned with. staring silently into the camera when asked one of these retarded questions would've done the trick.

this is exactly what they pulled on ron paul during that meet the press-- ignore the issues and ask questions about the civil war to make him look like a nut.

every liberty candidate should learn from this interview and improve upon it.

[tjeffersonsghost]

every liberty candidate should learn from this interview and improve upon it.

Agreed THIS interview below should be part of a how to book on dealing with these people. This is my favorite interview of all time and yes hes a Paul supporter.

YouTube - Chris Matthews Unloads On Protester Who Carried Gun To Obama Event (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4)

[Bruno]

^ yes, great interview to repost!

[tjeffersonsghost]

Agreed THIS interview below should be part of a how to book on dealing with these people. This is my favorite interview of all time and yes hes a Paul supporter.

YouTube - Chris Matthews Unloads On Protester Who Carried Gun To Obama Event (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4)


Therfore, hmm Fucking priceless. I had to watch it again... Part of the how to book on handling idiots.

[Valli6]

I disagree with those of you that feel Maddow deserves a modicum of respect. Did anyone pick up on her response at about 12:42? (after he says she wants to smear him)

"If it were possible to smear a person by quoting to him things that he has published in his own newsletter, that he edits, then I don't know how you define a smear campaign for normal, human interaction. (etc.)"
I have no doubt that she will smear Ron Paul most viscously once she sees him as a real threat to the "agenda"! She will be shouting from the rooftops that Ron Paul is a racist because of the newsletter he'd already explained 15(?) years ago.

[Bruno]

I disagree with those of you that feel Maddow deserves a modicum of respect. Did anyone pick up on her response at about 12:42? (after he says she wants to smear him)

I have no doubt that she will smear Ron Paul most viscously once she sees him as a real threat to the "agenda"! She will be shouting from the rooftops that Ron Paul is a racist because of the newsletter he'd already explained 15(?) years ago.

You bring up a very good point!

[tpreitzel]

After reviewing the interview, Art's performance looks even better to me as he clearly demonstrates that Maddow is selectively taking his remarks out of context and imposing her assumptions on his older communications which may not even be his personal opinion, just a scientific conclusion based on the evidence at that time.

Good job, Art.

[tpreitzel]

After reviewing the interview, Art's performance looks even better to me as he clearly demonstrates that Maddow is selectively taking his remarks out of context and imposing her assumptions on his older communications which may not even be his personal opinion, just a scientific conclusion based on the evidence at that time.

Good job, Art.

Donation complete. Go get DeFazio, Art! :)

[AGRP]

Everyone needs to take a page from this guys book on dealing with Maddow.

THIS X200

He came WELL prepared. Kudos to him and his handlers.

Art needs his own show!!!! LOL!

[tpreitzel]

I absolutely love how Art moves close to the camera when he's emphasizing a point.... just brilliant! ;)

[anaconda]

I thought that his guy was great but I think the Oregon candidate handled Maddow very well indeed.