I don’t mind that he called her thoughts ‘vile, contemptible nonsense,’ or that he wondered aloud what planet she was from. 

However, what I didn’t love was that he said, “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.”

Basically, he said he wouldn’t engage the woman because she was too stupid to be worth talking to. (Or, too wooden or inflexible.)

While this may potentially be the case, what is the point in coming to a ‘debate’ if you won’t engage in any discussion? I get that he’s fed up. She would appear to be as well. But it’s just unethical and lousy to let that aggravation make you lose your temper in that fashion. Worse still is to insult your constituents without even trying to intellectually engage them. He prejudged her, and in doing so, did all of us a disservice.

Barney, I may agree with your politics, but I don’t agree with your style. Not today, anyhow.