VIDEO: Rachel Maddow/Art Robinson showdown


Wow. What an infuriating loon Art Robinson is.

Filibuster much?

Oh, and by the way:

sar·casm noun \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\

Definition of SARCASM

: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
  • Excellent information.. which I believe will be very useful for me.

  • great article.

  • If his temperament along should disqualify him from being in Congress,
    Maddow's attitude night after night against conservatives should
    disqualify her from television. I praise the man for knowing what was in
    store for him going into this interview and not allowing her to do a
    job on him.

  • Rall

    Yeah, speaking of dense... You know you really shouldn't.

  • A "C" for that nut bag, you have to be kidding, oh voted for him
    didn't you? The man is a loon, and fits with all the conspiracy nuts that
    try to involve others in their mental ramblings. Feel sorry for you.....

  • George

    Fabulous interview. Far left interviewer, far right candidate, both ignoring important issues and talking over each other. RM had a really intriguing intro, starting off with a campaign ad instead of a question about issues in the campaign. She could have followed it up with a clear line of questioning about both candidates and their sources of funding, but didn't. That would have told us something. Somehow, in the big scheme of things I can't get upset by 150K of anonymous contributions to when the incumbent is obviously spending much more money. Robinson made a very good point that the course of the interview was simply to divert attention from the campaign issues, such as DiFazio going back on a promise to vote no on healthcare reform.

    Then she goes off on hormesis, aids, and other issues from years ago. Robinson quite properly points out that this is old stuff, the scientific discussion is complicated and can't be handled in a short interview, and the only reason to bring it up is as a smear.

    Overall Maddow gets an F as an interviewer. Robinson gets a C as the guest. He obviously isn't an experienced politician, but he didn't do her the favor of losing his temper. At least he tried to talk about campaign issues.

  • No, the surprise is that she was open enough to have this jerk on.

    Oh and speaking of dense....

  • Sj338888flsj

    Wow, Rachel Maddow is really dense. I'm surprised she has her own show.

  • JB

    I think it's funny that you and other people write such ignorant sounding comments. Only peole who do not posses a large vocabulary resort to calling people names. Kind of rings of the playground days, don't you think? By the way, exactly how educated are you. If your degree is indeed higher than this man's, then by all means continue, but if not, perhaps you should try closing your mouth for a change.

  • JB

    Maybe you shoud do some research. Scientist? Yes. Even his six kids-who he raised on his own following the death of his wife in 1988-educated themselves, finishing calculus as 14 year olds. Perhaps you should do some research of your own before typing.

  • JB

    Rachel Maddow did not ask one question about where this man stands on the issues at hand. Every question out of her mouth was meant to cast doubt on this man's abilities. Perhaps she and others should do a little more research as I did. All six of this man's children are highly intelligent and they accomplished their level of education completely independent of teachers (each completing Calculus as 14 year olds). Any of you able to make that claim? I don't think any one of us making comments here, including Rachel Maddow, who is only a journalist, has as much intellectual ability as any of the Robinson's do in their pinky. I always think it is so interesting that dumb people like to sit aroung posing as though they are highly intelligent people in order to cover up their true stupidity.

  • angry turd

    I live in the District, and have read a lot of Robinson's writings. I won't vote for him based on his writings. Maddow tried to ask some of the questions that I would like to ask him. There is a debate between he and DeFazio tonight in Coos Bay, and I hope DeFazio or the crowd asks some of these questions. One of the many additional areas of concern raised by Robinson's writings are that he believes that "children should be removed from the world"- which is a reference to homeschooling he sets forth in the literature to sell his homeschooling program. "Schools are prisons", etc. etc. etc. Go look up his stuff- it's all out there- and so is he.

  • Well, you're half way there. HE's full of IT.

  • Well, you're half way there. HE's full of IT.

  • scipio

    I love this guy. I wish Washington were full of 'em.

  • Asdf

    PhD = Permanent Head Damage (and I'm working on one - my brain will never recover)

  • Garysharon2

    I listened and this nut job needs to get help, but the scary thing is alot of proplr follow him .. some of the same ones that hate President Obama , and now this nut job hates Peter Defazio . why ? Peter DeFazio has done a great job and when re elected will continue to do a great job again this guy needs help .. maybe the $150,000.00 needs to help with some kind of medication he needs

  • Bizango!

  • The guy is off his rocker. Not only lacking manners, but ability to concentrate. Scientist? Nope.

  • NoRobinson

    Read this this will give you a little insight to a lunatic. The kid has a .45 strapped to his hip while he played the piano?....rotflmao...... and I believe Mr. Robinsons BS and PHD. stand for BULL SHIT ..... PILED HIGHER and DEEPER.....

    A couple questions I have:

    What does he plan on doing for our Veterans......specify

    His views on Medical marijuana......certainly the "research" he is doing would have included "cannabinoid research"......or is he to challenged by that. Certainly some of his "cancer research" would have contained the same. Surely ,after what, 5000 yrs of using this plant for healing qualities, one would think he would have some kind of research on it.
    His vote on measure 74

    Take a few minutes and read some of his dribble at's a hoot.....I mean anyone still supporting this guy after his debacle on Rachels show.......well, you should seek help.. He is an embarrassment to Oregon .. altho great for a chuckle......Peter DeFazio sure has my vote.

  • NoRobinson

    Read this this will give you a little insight to a lunatic. The kid has a .45 strapped to his hip while he played the piano?....rotflmao...... and I believe Mr. Robinsons BS and PHD. stand for BULL SHIT ..... PILED HIGHER and DEEPER.....

    A couple questions I have:

    What does he plan on doing for our Veterans......specify

    His views on Medical marijuana......certainly the "research" he is doing would have included "cannabinoid research"......or is he to challenged by that. Certainly some of his "cancer research" would have contained the same. Surely ,after what, 5000 yrs of using this plant for healing qualities, one would think he would have some kind of research on it.
    His vote on measure 74

    Take a few minutes and read some of his dribble at's a hoot.....I mean anyone still supporting this guy after his debacle on Rachels show.......well, you should seek help.. He is an embarrassment to Oregon .. altho great for a chuckle......Peter DeFazio sure has my vote.

  • This guy is extremely crazy.

  • Growingboy_or

    You don't have to listen to him too long to figure out he is an idot and an arrogant asshole. Why would we want him to represent us anyplace.

  • If you agree with this nut, well i guess you one two? The man wants to spray

    us with nuclear material, and you think he would be good for the country? Do

    us all a favor and move in with Art.....

  • Smedleyb

    I'm sorry pal but I live in the 4th district and he is a crackpot!

  • Wearefandl

    Wow! I wish that I could vote for this man. A refreshing response to what has become "journalism" and "honest debate." He exposes how these interviewers take information out of context. These are NOT subjects that can be condensed into "Science and Politics for Dummies."

  • Moongal6

    You know, it is only a 'smear', if it is a lie. Ms. Maddow was reading from Mr. R's own newsletter. So, we know it wasn't a lie. So, what she read was a truth, revealed. You can't shoot Ms. Maddow for being the messenger.

  • dbr

    What you've just witnessed is a culture clash of professional television infotainment with scientific academia.

    Few things could convince me more than this interview has, that we need more free-thinking scientists to enter politics.

  • Asdf

    Positions on anonymous political funding, nuclear energy and AIDS not relevant to a campaign for national office? For a national office, these are some of many issues that are relevant. Maybe not what you or him wanted to be asked about, but these are relevant issues. . Political Funding is an issue that effects every politician, every voter, everywhere in the country, no matter which side you are on. There are gay (anti-gay) voters in the district he is running for. Nuclear radiation is relevant, as Oregon still have nuclear waste stored there. These are questions of substance, even if they are not what you would like to have discussed.

  • Asdf

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert

  • Asdf

    Satire? Watch the Colbert Report and see satire in action. This was not satire. You can call it a setup or biased (her views are not hidden at all), but to call it satire is completely wrong.

  • Asdf

    15 years ago, I can't remember exactly what I wrote, so I can cut him some slack on that. He started to take this approach so a sentence or so, but forged ahead aggressively hoping to plow through over the questions.

  • Asdf

    The part of the interview after the anonymous donors was straight out of dealing with academic rigor. An academic / scientist is supposed to be able to discuss their positions without forewarning. The one academic thing he said was to say that he didn't have the materials in front of him, and it was 15 years ago. He wiped that out completely by refusing any chance at reviewing the materials himself, as she did offer to "send him his archives" (academically his response should have then been to request the reference citation / URL so they both could read it and still not appear to need her to get his materials). This would be him requesting an opportunity to formulate a response, recall context, etc. from a 15 year old publication (cut to commercial, send a statement to the show after review, etc.). He failed to do that. As an academic, he failed in this regard miserably. (I have yet to defend my PhD, but am writing my dissertation, so I've had to do this before. It's expected among academics.) Politically, he could have used the academic response to side step the academic questions more gracefully, or just let them be left behind as he obviously wanted to do. No response after this would be left in the same area as "corrections" and probably forgotten by many.

    If I ever come across as bad as he did in dealing with academic rigor, I hope I'm not given my PhD - I don't deserve it.

    The other mistake was in saying that he could not teach her, saying that she interrupts him the first "sentence the instructor gets out of his mouth". She wasn't a student, and student can (and I believe should) interrupt professors for questions and clarity. Her restraint in not replying with "I would not take your class" was more than I would have if any academic would have told me that. I know I would never take a class from him by his professional manner alone, degree or not. (Both appear to have full Doctorates in their fields: Maddow in politics, and Robinson in Chemistry)

    p.s. His biggest mistake (read: fail) to me seemed to be that someone claiming to be a scientist (his degree is in chemistry, but this is high school science) didn't get that the satellite delay was due to the speed of light: "it's much faster than that". Delay is due to the distance of the receivers and satellites, not the speed of light. Fast does not equate to no delay, and the delay is both real and widely discussed. Her apology of this being a possible source of his feeling like he was being interrupted seemed to be sincere, yet were blown off. This guy writes home school curriculum materials? I hope it's not in physics, or electronics, or conduction (all 3 can be related to his degree in chemistry). Home schooling families would be wise to question his materials based on this interview (or is not understanding the earth is curved, and satellites are high up considered political issues these days?)

  • Marnie

    I agree something had him would so tight his cogs kept jumping the gaps.
    The smart thing to do is to answer awkward questions ASAP and try to move on. He never got past the first question so all the rest of the interview was about him not answering the first question. It was a yes or no question. "Do you still agree with that statement?"

    Maddow was amazingly tolerant and gave him as many opportunities to address the issue so they could move on as he would allow her.

  • Marnie

    Rude, insulting, condescending and overbearing are about all you can say for him.
    If he is a physicists he should have been able to debate Maddow to a stand still just using his brain.
    He didn't presumably because he knew he couldn't.

  • Marnie

    What was the deal he slipped in there about "physical threats?" What the H was that about?

  • Marnie

    Among other social problems this guy has; I can't remember when I have seen any body squirm the way he did.
    There is something major wrong with his wiring, or he was on uppers or something.
    He made an interesting contrast with the Cranik father and son who have spoken quite coherently about their house fire all the while sitting still and looking at the camera.

  • Artless Angerson

    Women deserve smack downs for asking questions, 'Celeste,' or for expecting answers? Stockholm syndrome anyone?

  • Artless Angerson

    "I refrain from using the name that actually suits him."

    Mad Scientist?

  • Mikerz

    So many of you are falling for nothing but sensationalism. Look for substance, not politeness and charm. In reality, there were no issues present which were relevant to a political campaign.

  • Gscanlan

    What? Umm - the interviewer is supposed to ask the questions...she did! The interviewee is supposed to answer! She was never rude or "sarcastic" - someone give the bloke a dictionary!

  • marya

    I think we can put "paid" to Mr. Robinson's political aspirations. Death by suicide.

  • marya

    Thanks for reinforcing my view of this "interview". I sent the following letter to Mr.Robinson last night after the Maddow show.

    Dear sir,

    I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am with your appearance on the Maddow show tonight. I am absolutely astounded that you would not answer Ms. Maddow's questions. Why did you not just answer her? Why all of the ranting rudeness, endless interruptions and evasion? I am simply stunned. That was the last thng I expected from you. You have lived long enough to have known that you weren't dealing with a 19 year-old you could intimidate in Science 101 class. She has an doctorate from Oxford University, England, not Ohio. She was a Rhodes scholar. What were you thinking with the patronizing posture you took with her?. I watched tonight expecting an educated, worldly, brilliant scientific thinker. What i saw was a frightened, querulous, argumentative and extremely rude old man, very unwisely challenging a much more media-savvy , extremely well-prepared young woman. And, not to pour salt in the wounds, she was never sarcastic. Just very, very, bright and articulate. Your repeated accusations of sarcasm showed verbal ineptitude and lack of ease I never expected from you. You embarrassed yourself and did your run for office no favors tonight. The 3,000+ supporters who have contributed to your campaign will still be vote for you, I think.

    Synapses do fail as we age. I'm sure you would have been a worthy match for her in your younger days. Unfortunately, judgment doesn't necessarily come with age. I'm sorry I was there to see it.
    Let me add that I am 81 and know whereof I speak.

  • gabbi

    The only genuine answer Art Robinson gave was when Rachel asked if he'd ever done a satellilte interview. He clearly came on the show to live up to the Teabagger credo of speaking over anyone who disagrees with his ideas. He had some interesting physical reactions as Rachel read his own words...but instead of addressing the issues, he chose to admonish Rachel for behaviors he exhibited himself. It took cojones to go on the show, but it solidified my decision to not vote for him, that's for sure.

  • Wheelbarrow

    I would not let this idiot manage the duties of my wheelbarrow!

  • harriska2

    That was very painful to watch but the end was sort of funny.

  • Jeannemarie Simon

    It's not true that Rachel just wants to smear people in opposition to her ideology. First of all, she admits her bias. Secondly, I've seen her interview others in opposition to her (wish I could remember who!) and both interviewer and interviewee were respectful of each other. Oppostion but no smears...

  • If by interrupting, over talking and never addressing one question, yes, he

    sure gave her what for!

    He came off as a huge ass, a loon, and very impolite. There's your guy!

  • what to go? WTF what grade of school did you strive to achieve?

  • Celeste

    I loved it. Rachel got a well deserved smack down. Oregon you got your man. Go Art !!!

  • TooManyJens

    "There is no doubt that RM was out to smear him." reading his own words.

    If a person has reasonable positions, they won't mind having those words read back to them, even if they might feel a need to clarify a bit. If they used to believe something wrong and have changed their mind, they say they changed their mind.

    Robinson reacted like someone who believes all that stuff but hates that it's actually being exposed because he knows his views are wildly unpopular.

  • Gary in Texas

    I found a link to an interview RM had with Peter DeFazio here

    After watching 20 minutes of RM interviewing the two men running for Oregon 4th I heard a grand total of ZERO questions concerning the Oregon 4th. Maybe the local paper can shed some light on the real issues.

  • Gary in Texas

    That was a tough interview to get through. There is no doubt that RM was out to smear him. She may have used her nice voice but it doesn't change what she wanted to do. Every question she asked was designed to make him appear crazy or out of touch (which he may be, I don't know). If she would have sprinkled in a question or two about an important Oregon issue she would at least have some cover from the “smear” charge. Anyone who watches her knows how much room she gives those on the left to answer. The answer is almost always followed by a courteous smile or laugh. Those not on the left get a drilling every time. All she is is the L version of Hannity. Both of them feed red meat to the drones while making money the whole time.

  • Gary in Texas

    "Then" is used when speaking about items in sequence or order. "Than" is used when speaking about comparisons.

  • Boogly97

    Maddow got spanked in this interview. Her bias is telling.

  • Kcarrier2000

    Holy crap!!! Where do these nuts come from??? "A scientist, and a good one." OMG!!! How could anyone go to the polls and vote for this guy???

  • Ajay

    It has to be conspiracy for a teabagger. Entire life is a liberal conspiracy.

  • Topchiefdude2000

    I did not think it could get any worse then Christine O'Donnel and Sharon Angle but I was WRONG...Art Robinson just took the cake and prize as most "nutty" candidate out there...OMG what a nut!!!!

  • Blessed1441

    This guy is extremely crazy. He needs help.

  • Tom Factor

    You're right, it probably was a setup. Rachel probably expected a reasonable person, and Art Robinson went in with the express purpose of calling her a 'liar' and further smearing her.

    Mr. Robinson had no intention of answering any questions.

  • Kmichaels718

    I disagree with you and find your voting criteria very superficial. One interview you view to be "biased" and that's all it takes to get your vote?

  • Kmichaels718

    I'm not trying to be cynical or propose a conspiracy theory, but he was so tightly wound, I kept thinking this guy could be a "Uni-bomber" type. He kept reiterating that he was a good scientist and she was trying to discredit him.

    I don't know, he just didn't seem balanced.

  • Kmichaels718

    I completely disagree with your assessment of Rachel. All politians come out and say what they want people to hear, so there is nothing to differentiate them from each other. But as she tried to explain to Mr. Robinson, she was trying to get to know him. His beliefs will have a great impact on how he votes.

    So in other words, she knew that talk is cheap. Defend your actions, Mr. Robinson.

  • Jto410

    This link describes computer models about two months before the election which indicate that with about 35% of the electorate supporting Robinson, he has a "0.0%" chance of defeating the incumbent.

    I wonder if his chances can go below 0.0%

  • Moongal6

    I didn't get the impression that Ms. Maddow swiftboated him. She seemed respectful and he was non responsive to that. So, she tried a different approach and that didn't seem to work. He wouldn't answer one question. Especially the one about HIV being a government plot and if he still believed that. Even if that was 15 years ago, Mr. Robinson would know today, if he still believes that. But, he wouldn't answer. I live in Oregon, have gone to a debate between DeFazio and Robinson, and the contempt Mr. Robinson shows to Mr. DeFazio is troubling. Mr. R cannot even pretend to tolerate anyone who does not agree with him. And yes, it is just that simple.

  • Thanks for the info! I'm sure all rational people will not presume that everyone in Oregon is an ass like Mr. Robinson. Just like us in Kentucky, we're not all like Rand Paul. 🙂

  • Moongal6

    Your guess would be spot on. I live in Oregon and Mr. Robinson gets most of his money by selling his home schooling kits for hundreds of dollars. He also gets 'endowments' from big tobacco, and big oil.
    He has been publicly admonished by the National Academy of Sciences for trying to put the NAS on a petition letterhead to get '17,000' scientists to refute the Kyoto Protocol as bunk. When of course, his petition was deemed misleading and fraudulent. The so called 17,000 scientists were not scientist in the field of climate change, only 2 or 3 were actual climate change scientists, and they said they were mislead by this petition. But, day after day on the campaign trail he says he has 17,000 scientists who say man made global warming is a hoax. So, yes he has been ridiculed by his peers and colleagues. After Mr. Robinson's behavior tonight, I hope people do not think that Oregonians are that disrespectful. Mr. Robinson did not do himself any favors tonight. I sure do hope the good people of Oregon can separate substance, Pete DeFazio, from style, or lack thereof.

  • Not impressed

    So you're defending this bozo? He didn't answer a single question. All he did was talk over Rachel. He's just another party BULLY. He may have a very high IQ, may be brilliant in his field, but he made himself out to be a foolish idiot on Rachel's Show. I refrain from using the name that actually suits him.

  • What a loon! Rachel was much more polite than I could have been. His talking over her was extremely rude. I would have told him to STFU and listen to the question 45 seconds into the interview. He is a pompous ass and none to bright for a college professor if he really thinks radiation is good for us. My guess (based on his defensive attitude) is he has been ridiculed by his peers and colleagues. This merits further investigation . . . .

  • Prytani

    I don't think he was blindsided ... he wrote the words...and now says he can't was pretty powerful stuff...I do believe I would remember if I had been the one who wrote guard...not likely, he is an arrogant ass and had his whole agenda pre planned to take control and not give Rachel a chance..hopefully Oregon was watching..another insane politician ... oh wait scientist...that thinks he can be a politician without eve answering a is this happening??? where did the Republicans find this many whack oooooooooooosssssssss...really ?????????????/

  • But the big question wasn't answered. Who is funding him? Anonymous donors and 150k is the big question of the day and i have to give him credit for avoiding this one. That he did study up on, maybe it's the Coch brothers or maybe is Bush's Brain that gave him the money. All i have to think about is what is going to happen in two years?

  • MysteryLady

    Wow. All he wanted was to "smear" (to use his phrase) his opponent. When Rachel asked a question, he would re-hash the DeFazio "voted to raise taxes..." blah blah blah. When he took a break from DeFazio bashing, he bashed HER "I know what you are..." He comes across as a bigot. He came out fighting-spewing negative data on his opponent. He had no intention to promote his party or to deliver a viable solution to the negative points he drew against DeFazio. He would have the appeareance of being a valid candidate if he backed up a negative statement with a positive solution. He offered nothing to the people who would vote for him except to exemplify that he has shown that he is no more than the crotchety old man on the porch muttering to his dog who suddenly attends the town hall meeting to Bitch to a bigger audience and ultimately offers those who were on the fence with their vote finally make their decision-DeFazio in 2010.

  • I have to say this man wasn't ever going to answer any question she had to say or ask. His agenda was to disrupt ever question with denial, after denial about his own words.. She didn't put words in his mouth, for that matter she was trying to ask him about his own work. How hard was it to answer about what he wrote? if you want to home school your kids is fine, but making them drones for your bidding is another story.
    This man is as crazy, or more crazy than Christine O'Donnell. And the scariest thing is you believe his words and haven't heard his vision on using nuclear fuel(though diluted) on us? God save us from the nut-burgers.....

  • Royjj

    I love Maddow too but he right about being invited on the show for the express purpose of being skewered and I doubt there are ANY candidates that would turn down a hundred grand donation to their campaign, anonymous or not.

    Yes we have to fight fire with fire but if we've got to sink to swiftboating to win then we sunk to their level and we're no better than them.

  • heytherebuddyboy

    He just snapped! Wow! Art Robinson is nuts. Looks like a combo of cocaine and booze. Twitchy and mean.

  • heytherebuddyboy

    He had to talk fast to ink away from the question, like a squid.

  • Redshoesrock

    This guy is I-N-S-A-N-E. He makes the Joker look like Einstein. The only thing more insane are the few people below who think he's a great representative of Oregon. If this is what the Tea Party is, I'm switching to coffee.

  • LT

    You mean asking a "scientist" who is running for office questions about his own scientific research and publications is bush-league? Really?

  • Scott

    The whole interview was a waste of airtime.

    I like Rachel, watch her every night, but when she interviews people with whom she disagrees, she loses her cool, interrupts when she should just let them talk. I'm often embarrassed for her.

    On his side, Robinson is a serious scientist, non-conformist but not a crackpot. If he had done his homework, he would have expected the questions Rachel asked. He could have done a 3 sentence "Science Guy" explanation of each, looked intelligent and tolerant, and retained control of the interview. Instead, he looked like an arrogant jerk.

    He is in no way suited for politics, and he's being used by the Republicans and their well-funded allies.

  • Beth

    I love these "real people" candidates that don't realize or care that eventually they have to awnser questions.

  • RodB

    "What to go"? WTF?

    How is it a set up when she reads the guy's own words back to him and simply asks him to clarify them or to even say he no longer believes the.

    Robinson obviously doesn't know the meaning of the word "sarcasm." You obviously don't know the meaning of satire.

  • TMB

    LMAO @ Pholbro. typical! man, what color is the sky in his world? seriously. it must be so easy to get up each day, pat oneself on the back for doing nothing except sitting on a self-appointed throne and then ignore everything around while complaining the smell of burning directly below

  • TomS

    A classic "SET_UP" by a biased TV political satire show. What to go Art Robinson. I would vote for you just because.....

  • Bonsai_babe01

    Uhm, so by "do a job" do you mean point out blatant inconsistencies, fallacies, and provide the knowledge and fact to back up what actually comes out of her mouth? Yeah, gee, if that's the case I can see where Rachel Maddow would "do a job" on all delusional republicans.

  • Millsbetette

    Art Robinson has lost the campaign. I saw the entire interview -- or I should say attempted interview -- and he came off as an out-of -touch, rude, pig-headed,biligerent ass, who obviously agreed to the interview only to put Maddow in her place. He is NOT a nice man, and the people of Oregon realized this tonight. Send him back to his science lab -- he is an idiot.

  • Ab

    I don't know, I usually love Maddow but this seems bush-league of her. I don't you can catch a guy off-gaurd regarding scientific claims without forewarning. No matter how loony he is.

  • Pholbro

    If his temperament along should disqualify him from being in Congress, Maddow's attitude night after night against conservatives should disqualify her from television. I praise the man for knowing what was in store for him going into this interview and not allowing her to do a job on him. She got what she deserves.

  • LindaZ

    I live in Oregon. Too bad Rachel was never able to get this man to state where he stands on his policy issues. Not only does he believe that it's OK to use radioactive material in our house foundations, he also believes that public schools are a form of child abuse. Talk about coming on a program with a HUGE CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER. His temperment alone should disqualify him from being in Congress. One JohnMcCain is enough don't ya thing. What a nasty, combative candidate. There's enough BatShitCrazy candidates this year. I will continue to support Peter DeFazio who has shown that he truly cares about Oregonians. He definitely has my vote.

  • Mog

    Smug would have sufficed

  • Andy Marquis

    LMAO, what an ASS!

  • I knew it!

    "He’s the son of Ted Robinson, who designed the Union Carbide chemical plant in Texas as well as in Puerto Rico, Brazil, Scotland, England, Belgium, India and Japan. Union Carbide is best known as the chemical giant whose pesticide plant in India leaked in 1984 and killed thousands of people, with an estimated half million injuries."

    "Robinson went on to found his own institute: the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, or as his detractors have labeled it, the Oregon Institute for Science and Malarky. Of the eight faculty members listed, two are Robinson’s sons and two are dead."

    And all it took to draw all the loons out of the woodwork was to elect a person of color as President of the USA.