Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Maddow gets called out

Don't know anything about this guy (not my district), but it sure is fun watching her stutter and stammer.

http://www.breitbart.tv/rachel-maddow-loses-control-of-her-own-show-in-wild-contentious-interview/

I can't stand interviews where one decides to talk over another, it spikes my blood pressure.

I like watching O' Reilly, but I can't tell you how many times I have yelled at the tube "would you STFU and let them answer your question".

Of course, Madcow is a psychotic dyke.
Even if Art Robinson cared where the $150 large came from, there isn't anything he could do about it. It is therefore a non-issue. As Art pointed out, a Red Herring.

and the lefties eschew that sort of conduct? Why did you choose Bill as your example, and not, say, Alan Colmes?

Easy tiger, I just picked the one that I watch every night.

She was just flabbergasted that he wasn't going to play her game and that he called her on being an outright shill for the Dems and left.

Again, I don't know anything about this guy, but this crap of taking out of context partial statements and loaded questions needs to be shoved back in questioners faces. He stayed on her ass and she didn't know how to take it.

BTW, I think that Hannity and the like need to shape up as well.

I don't understand why conservatives agree to do interviews with Maddow, Chris Mathews, Today Show, etc. The deck is already stacked against them. The folks that watch those programs are nutjobs. The shows are rigged to make conservatives look bad and they will NEVER get a "fair" interview.

Why bother to do them? This is a no win situation.

Its not like a regular Maddow viewer is going to going to be converted into voting conservative.

Hannity is the worse offfender in failing to control his guests. Many times there will be four people all taking at once. He also lets them avoid staying on point when they don't want to answer a question.

I don't care for it either but interviewers like O'Reilly and to a lesser extent Cavuto, can't allow the person being interviewed to ramble on. Rambling on is a tactic that they will use to waste time w/o answering the question. There is a limited time to these interviews and if you don't cut them off to get them back on track or to ask another question, these guys will just spout off their talking points without stopping. They really have no interest in answering tough questions.

I'd say you're pretty close to hitting the nail on the head. When that beeotch comes on the screen my hearing goes into auto shut down.

Well the problem is when they ask a question that where they already anticipate the answer, then cut them off and challenge them before they can answer. Most of the time I can anticipate it also, but you have to let them go on record before you challenge their opinion.

I watched that interview. I thought Maddow asked him some very straight forward questions about his published stance on global warming and HIV. Agreed she was going after him for things that were 10+ years old but he did publish the papers and they were extreme views.


Mr. Robinson became crazed when she asked questions. He NEVER answered any of her questions and called her a liar over and over again. He simply appeared as a nut job and yelled that Maddow was trying to smear him.

I looked up some of his views and it appears that she was asking valid questions. When you publish views the Internet follows you. I don't think she was pretending that she was asking left wing questions.


This guy appeared to be so far out off the edge the word crazy would not be out of the question when talking about this interview.

You watch Maddow a lot do ya? I'd heard of that leninist bitch before but never had the "pleasure" of watching her before. It's good she's a dyke, saved some poor SOB from having to live with her.

There's a reason TV didn't make it into my last 2 homes (though gave in this year, football withdrawal).

Damm that was hard to watch - if ever there was a doubt madcow is an arrogant leftist douche. But seeing that hard-nosed old labcoat dunk on her again and again made it worth enduring Somebody appeared not as smart as she thinks she is. Well cry me a phuggin' rainbow.

The Lab Coat holds a crazy Nut job who is hurting the conservative cause.

Sure. Whatever your talking points memo says. Thanks for the "concern".

I've never heard of this guy before. After watching the clip of her interview, I have no idea of his platform. I'm no journalist but that would seem like the important thing to cover during an interview three weeks before an election.

It is clear that she had a hostile agenda and only wanted to talk about a few specific topics of no relevence whatsoever to this election.

I have no idea of his position on global warming, but as a potential House member that really isn't that important. The guy is a scientist, he has a right to an opinion on the subject...even if it conflicts with Maddow's world view. Whatever his position might be, Maddow had no intention of having a serious balanced discussion about it.

I have no idea what she was talking about regarding his position on HIV/AIDS. It was clear that she was taking a quote of some sort, completely out of context and in the end, I couldn't give a rats azz about it.

Like you would have a damn clue about "the conservative cause". You likely have lots of nut job expertise, I'm sure.

O�Reilly, Hannity, Beck and most of the rest are worth watching-but they don�t do interviews-they do debates with their guests. They all make sure that their own point of view gets fully vented along with that of their guest.

A good interviewer tries as much as possible to remain neutral and nonpartisan. Sometimes they fail but if at the end, you are not sure where the interviewer stands they have done their job. Sometimes-often debates are more interesting-more lively than straight interviews.

Tonight I saw Greta do it 4 times. With Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski and Christine O'Donnell she came at them from the Left. And with Scott McAdams she switched sides and came at him from the Right. They say Greta is a Democrat-don�t know if Scott McAdams thinks so.
This was the first time I have even seen Scott McAdams on Fox. Did not agree with what he was saying, but glad he finally got to give his side on the �Fair and Balanced� Fox News.

That's funny. I just watched her interviews of both candidates, and DeFazio's goes over in a slightly different manner (smell that?... that's sarcasm even as defined by Maddow).

I can honestly say I'm biased, but completely objective on this as I've never heard of Maddow nor her show, (actually I thought you guys were referring to Bernie Madoff, until I read the text!) nor the candidates in this election because I'm from Michigan. I read your "crazy" assessment, and watched the interview with that term in mind. So, if anything, I was tainted against Robinson by you. I saw no "crazy" behavior. No screaming or ranting. Only a guy begging her to talk of ANY of the issues that she obviously knew would eviscerate her chosen candidate.

Her very first "question" to him called his integrity and character into question for the anonymous donations he has no idea about. I don't know where every penny of my paycheck originated, our company does business with many corporations. If she gets a raise, does it bother her that some of the ads sold were to "conservative" companies, or does she just go ahead and buy her girlfriend a Porsche? (Yes, my very first exposure to her, and I fully agree with the dyke-theory). Her condescending "I'm only trying to get to know who you are" bs was nauseating to say the least.

This whole thing reminds me of Dan Rather's interview with then President George H.W. Bush. Rather pointed out every little blemish on Bush, then Bush brought up several of Rather's blemishes... HYSTERICAL!!! Rather about went into cardiac arrest and left the interview in a huff! Mr. Bush was smiling.

Her insistence that she already interviewed the other candidate on his finances was an abject, bold-faced LIE. I just watched the interview and it was in its entirety about the finances of Robinson; with a caption reading: "Its called 'MONEY LAUNDERING'" displayed prominently throughout the entire interview. But in fairness, she didn't ask current issues of DeFazio, either. HAHAHA!

This guy just knew all too well EXACTLY where her questioning was leading, and refused the execution squad, thank you very much. She obviously didn't know how to handle being out-flanked by her guest of immensely higher intellect. Kudos to Mr. Robinson and I hope Oregon pays him with a landslide victory.