Posted on 10/08/2010 6:15:59 AM PDT by Wilum
The segment started promising. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow began her interview with Oregon Congressional candidate Art Robinson (R) by telling the audience she was “delighted” to have him on the show. But delighted was soon replaced by words such as “criminals,“ ”communists,“ and ”concerned.”
Maddow was trying to to accuse Robinson of receiving a de facto $150,000 campaign contribution because a third party group produced an independent ad apparently costing that much. The ad targeted Robinson’s challenger: 12-term Democrat Rep. Pete DeFazio.
wabbit season.
Bump.
I can understand they guy’s desire to reach out to Madcow’s viewers but I doubt if either one of them was going to vote for him anyways.
The Liberal Elitist media hack shows her true bias and her agenda. Awesome response by the candidate. All Conservatives must throw MSM bias back at them and discredit them for their non-reporting propaganda.
This is the right way to deal with a bogus journalist- Dem propagandist like Maddow, he kicked her ass and would not let the nonsense fly. People should learn a lesson from him. He knew what was coming, he watched the tapes, and then he blitzed. Art Robinson gets my vote.
Describing Madcow as Juvenile is being way too kind. She’s an Elitist MSM hack who spews propaganda on behalf of the enemies of freedom.
LLS
A lot of liberals became conservatives after listening to Rush Limbaugh. Liberals need to hear the truth, and many of them won't listen to Rush.
This particular liberal I'm talking about is a relative through marriage. I'm going to continue giving her the facts, if she bring it up.
Otherwise it's not worth starting family feuds.
I saw the whole 18 minutes too. For a novice in politics he did good. Mad-Cow knows how to work the pejoratives, especially the satellite delay; this is why it sounded like he did not answer her questions, but talked over her in what sounded like an evasive fashion.
Sure he could have done better in stating that what Mad-Cow was doing was taking things out of context, and that his writings 15+ years ago where hypothesis, but he did a good job in emphasizing that it is about the issues of his opponent's' votes in congress.
Homerun! She's a whinger.
Homerun! She's a whinger.
Baseball season!
(Would you rather shoot him now, or shoot him later?)
(Shoot me now! Shoot me now!)
(BLAM)
You didn't mention that she was a relative...in that case; you're stuck. I am more fortunate...not one damn liberal/progressive/marxist/communist in my family or circle of friends...not even a RINO. Liberals need to hear the truth? Won't argue with that...
He's paraphrasing someone he could simply have quoted directly: Peter Venkman.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
You're absolutely correct, from a debating point of view. But she wasn't there to debate fairly - she brought her usual snarky condescending leading questions to score media points, so he responded with humor and scorn.
It wasn't an intellectual excercise, but it was good theater.
We will get them wame wabbits too.
LLS
That won't work.
The liberal mind has a stunning capacity to hold clearly contradictory facts in their head simultaneously.
If one hero believes one thing and the other hero believes the exact opposite, both heros are correct and really smart and cool and honest.
Just leave KD Lang aloooooooone......
I don’t know the guy, but he sure made her look like an ass. But then again she is an ass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.