Banana Republican Newt Gingrich Announces Move To La-La Land

Newt Gingrich, Georgia’s original nutty buddy, all-around hypocrite, liar, and one of the original Banana Republicans, recently used his quill to conjure up an OpEd to the right-wing newspaper Washington Times in which he falsely claimed in part that, “The entire elite liberal media lied about the timeline of the COVID-19 vaccine. They blamed President Trump for the global pandemic even as he did literally everything top scientists instructed. In multiple debates, the moderators outright stated that he was lying about the U.S. having a vaccine before the end of the year (note Vice President Mike Pence received it this week). If Americans had known the pandemic was almost over, that too was likely the difference in the election.”

FACT: Regarding “the timeline of the COVID-19 vaccine,” Moderna had a coronavirus vaccine designed January 13, 2020, TWO DAYS after the genome was published internationally online.

Moderna developed their vaccine only two days after the genetic sequence had been publicized internationally by Chinese researcher Professor Dr. Yong-Zhen Zhangm Ph.D. His humanitarian act of scientific generosity resulted in him being temporarily forced out of his lab.

Moderna’s vaccine design only took one weekend to develop at their Massachusetts facilities.

In fact, Moderna had completed development of their COVID-19 vaccine mRNA-1273 before the Chinese government had acknowledged the disease was transmitted by human-to-human means, and more than a week before the first confirmed coronavirus case in the United States – January 21.

And by the time the first American coronavirus death was reported a month later, on February 29, Moderna’s mRNA-1273 coronavirus vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health to begin its Phase I clinical trial.

All of that was long before the President had made any announcement about his “Operation Warp Speed,” the public-private partnership to develop a coronavirus vaccine, and yet even 2 months before Bloomberg News reported on April 29 that such a plan was in the works.

Gingrich then falsely claims that,

Size Matters: The Beginning Of America’s End Can Be Stopped

When in the history of our nation have you EVER heard of ANY President denigrating the FBI and other agencies of the United States government – for ANY reason whatsoever?

So, what’s the endgame for the far right?

Total anarchy & chaos, or are they actually going for an authoritarian state?

What’s the difference between “Big Government” and autocracy?

The derisive term “big government” is one used by anti-government anarchists, even though they’d NEVER call themselves that. But then again, White Supremacists don’t call themselves anti-Constitutional terrorists, either.

Frankly, I have long maintained that, contrary to the numerous assertions we’ve heard spouted, our government is NOT “too big,” but rather is TOO SMALL to be either effective, or efficient.

Think of it in restaurant terms.

Go to a 5-star Michelin restaurant, and you’d expect to find only one cook, and one wait staff… right?

OF COURSE NOT!

For such a fine dining experience, with a patronage seating of 100 or so (minus bar space), it would be REASONABLE to have AT LEAST 25, or likely even more, staff of all kinds – ranging from maître d’hôtel, to sous chef, to chef de cuisine, to line cooks, kitchen porters, to wait staff, to sommelier, to bus staff, dishwashers, and others – including bartenders, runners, housekeepers, and more.

The beginning of America’s decline began in earnest with Ronald Reagan, who, in his grandfatherly-like tones, and “aw, shucks” disarming humor, won American’s hearts, and their minds followed. That included Democrats who voted for him in almost unprecedented numbers over incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter who introduced America to Energy Independence, Energy Conservation, Renewable Energy, and placed solar collectors/solar hot water heater panels atop the White House… which were promptly removed by the Reagan administration.

In his first Inaugural Address, “the Great Communicator,” as he was monikered, stated bluntly that “government is the problem.” It never occurred to anyone that if government was the problem, the obvious solution that problem is the elimination of it. And that’s precisely what he and the GOP set out to do. But it wouldn’t be called treason.

Of course, as a VERY skilled orator, having traveled across America on GE’s dime years earlier, he frequently gave talks that were very much sympathetic to BIG BUSINESS interests, all couched in patriotic language.

With his blessing, and encouragement, and the insidiousness of Newt Gingrich of Georgia as Speaker of the House, and their misguided fallacious “Contract With America” the GOP began to

Republicans Started The Idea Of Government Shutdowns

The “Blame Game” is a popular political football not only in our nation’s capitol, but across the nation in statehouses. The “polarization” oft described by news outlets and “fake news” is a direct result of practices used by Republicans, which began in large part with Newt Gingrich.

You know, the Newt Gingrich who was the Georgia Republican having an extra-marital affair while trying to impeach then-President Clinton for a sexual tryst with White House Intern, Monica Lewinsky. Yes, the same Newt Gingrich who divorced his first wife (Jacqueline “Jackie” May Battley, who was his high school geometry teacher) while she lay in hospital recovering from cancer surgery while he was campaigning in hopes of becoming the GOP’s presidential nominee.

That’d be the same Newt Gingrich who next married a Congressional aide (28-year old Marianne Ginther) with whom he was philandering while married to his first wife Jackie, and asked her to marry him before having divorced his first wife, and then married Marianne a mere six months after divorcing Jackie, who also asked her (Marianne) if she would be interested in having an “open marriage” in which he could have a mistress and a wife.

And yes, it’s the same Newt Gingrich who in the exact same pattern, did the exact same thing when he married his third wife (Callista Bisek) by carrying on a six-year adulterous relationship with her, whom was also a Congressional aide, and then later moved to divorce his second wife Marianne after learning she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, and the third wife whom Trump later named as Ambassador to the Holy See, as an ultimate insult, and slap in the face to the Pope, the Vatican, and all that the Church believes in, and stands for. It’d be like naming neo-Nazi/White Supremacist/Holocaust denier to be Ambassador to Israel, or an industrialist to be Secretary of the Interior, or a climate change denier to be administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Wait…

That Newt Gingrich.

The same Newt Gingrich who wrote the so-called “Contract with America” which was broken the first day Republicans took the oath of office following their win of the House and Senate – the first time since 1953 – even though they all signed vows that stated “If we break this Contract, throw us out.”

Yeah.

THAT Newt Gingrich.

Now, the Bully in Chief is blaming Democrats because he can’t get his way – which is BILLIONS MORE for a “concrete, rebar-reinforced wall,” which has since devolved into “steel slats,” or even less, a simple “barrier.” Notice how things are changing already? Next thing you know, it’ll be a row of concertina wire spooled across the 1954 miles of U.S./Mexico border.

Frankly, it’d probably be much cheaper, not only in the immediate term, but in the long term, as well. You see, one of the things that NO ONE – not even the Congressional Budget Office, nor the Government Accountability Office – has studied is “how much the upkeep of ‘the wall’ will cost American taxpayers.

But here’s an even more disconcerting thing: The ever-shifting comments of the Current White House Occupant on the matter, which have ranged from this comment from a campaign speech given Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at his Trump Tower office building in Manhattan:

“I would build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border, and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall.”

To one of his highnesses more recent Twitter rants which was:

“Mexico is paying for the Wall through the new USMCA Trade Deal. Much of the Wall has already been fully renovated or built. We have done a lot of work. $5.6 Billion Dollars that House has approved is very little in comparison to the benefits of National Security. Quick payback!” January 2, 2019

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Promises.

Lies.

Broken promises.

More lies.

Say anything to get elected, or if you prefer, to get into Lady Liberty’s & America’s pants. The net effect is the same.

Look, I’m no fan of either Gingrich or Trump as human beings, and I think that Trump is vastly out of his league in any government, much less at the Federal level, and as President. He’s told more brazen lies than almost anyone can remember, and has sown confusion in our nation, which is not only demoralizing domestically, but makes us look like buffoons in the eyes of our international allies, and enemies. But, to give credit where credit is due, I think

“Newt Gingrich Says ‘You’re Welcome'” Reveals GOP Strategy

I find significant ignorance, irony, even hypocrisy in Newt Gingrich’s political theories.

There’s no denying that he has significantly influenced American politics, and by some standards, coarsened it, even made it highly unpalatable. It is undeniably unpleasant – even for numerous long-time observers, participants, and others.

But moreover, I find Gingrich’s model deeply, and inherently flawed.

But first, to set the background, here’s the transcript of a brief interview NPR’s Rachel Martin had with The Atlantic’s McKay Coppins as heard on NPR’s Morning Edition on Monday, October 15, 2018, about his recent interview with Newt Gingrich.

NOTE: ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY FOLLOWS THE TRANSCRIPT.

Rachel Martin: “Newt Gingrich will tell you he saw something in Donald Trump early on, that made him believe Trump could win the presidency. And that ‘something’ Gingrich saw, has a lot to do with how he sees himself. The former Speaker of the House made a name for himself by breaking a lot of political mores, and refusing to compromise with the other side – much like President Trump.

“The Atlantic magazine’s McKay Coppins spent some time with Newt Gingrich recently, for a profile he did. It’s called ‘Newt Gingrich Says ‘You’re Welcome.'”

In the opening of the brief interview, Rachel Martin begins by saying, “So… you went to spend some time with Newt Gingrich, and he suggested that you do so at the Philadelphia Zoo.”

McKay Coppins: [chuckles] “That’s right!”
Rachel Martin: “How come?”

Coppins: “Well, he is a famous animal lover. He, ah… you know, donated to zoos around the world. He… he loves animals. But I think also, what became clear to me as I got there, is that, he ah… he sees animals as

Secret Swiss Bank accounts, Cayman Island Bank accounts, Bermuda Tax Haven Bank accounts… what does Mitt Romney have to hide?

What does Mitt Romney have to hide?

Why won’t he live up to his late father’s example, and voluntarily and openly reveal all his tax records?

—

Where the Money Lives

August 2012, 2012-08-08 T11:00:24.000-04:00

By Nicholas Shaxson

For all Mitt Romney’s touting of his business record, when it comes to his own money the Republican nominee is remarkably shy about disclosing numbers and investments. Nicholas Shaxson delves into the murky world of offshore finance, revealing loopholes that allow the very wealthy to skirt tax laws, and investigating just how much of Romney’s fortune (with $30 million in Bain Capital funds in the Cayman Islands alone?) looks pretty strange for a presidential candidate.

BURIED TREASURE Grand Cayman, where Bain Capital maintains at least 138 funds. Inset, Mitt Romney tries to spot his La Jolla home from the campaign plane. ©Ruth Tomlinson/Robert Harding World Imagery/Corbis (beach); by Justin Sullivan/Getty images (inset).

A person who worked for Mitt Romney at the consulting firm Bain and Co. in 1977 remembers him with mixed feelings. “Mitt was … a really wonderful boss,” the former employee says. “He was nice, he was fair, he was logical, he said what he wanted … he was really encouraging.” But Bain and Co., the person recalls, pushed employees to find out secret revenue and sales data on its clients’ competitors. Romney, the person says, suggested “falsifying” who they were to get such information, by pretending to be a graduate student working on a proj­ect at Harvard. (The person, in fact, was a Harvard student, at Bain for the summer, but not working on any such proj­ects.) “Mitt said to me something like ‘We won’t ask you to lie. I am not going to tell you to do this, but [it is] a really good way to get the information.’ … I would not have had anything in my analysis if I had not pretended.

“It was a strange atmosphere. It did leave a bad taste in your mouth,” the former employee recalls.

This unsettling account suggests the young Romney—at that point only two years out of Harvard Business School—was willing to push into gray areas when it came to business. More than three dec­ades later, as he tried to

It’s true. The GOP is radical to the point of sickness.

In conversation with local entrepreneurs yesterday, they mentioned to me someone known by, and close to them. His political sensibilities – if they could be described as such – have almost destroyed his personal life.

His attitudes, which guide his behavior, have alienated family members, his spouse, and other loved ones in his life. He was described as a very negative and vitriolic individual, whom is almost paranoid delusional in his political beliefs. Not only has his thoughts and behaviors almost destroyed his personal life, but it has taken a significant toll on his professional life, as well – that is, the way he makes his money, which is as an entrepreneur.

You see, when one becomes almost nothing but a venomous, fuming, boiling pot of vitriolic negativity, which neither has anything good to say about anyone or anything… well, no one wants to be around people like that.

Not surprisingly, he was described as a Republican Tea Party type, who religiously listened to ilk like Rush Limbaugh, and the like.

Bear in mind, that does not accurately describe all Republicans.

There’s a saying which is apropos in this instance, and in the story below: “You can catch more flies with honey, than you can with vinegar.”

—

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Friday, April 27, 10:46 AM

Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose

Mitt Romney’s American Business Plan

The campaign for this year’s November general election is promising to be fairly nasty, particularly given that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that UNLIMITED MONEY can go to the candidates.

Further complicating matters is that the GOP‘s default candidate du jour – Mitt Romney – has flip-flopped so many times on so many issues that, were he to move into the White House, he’d turn it into the Waffle House.

Beware the man who can look you straight in the eye and tell you a lie, and continue telling it, and then, lie about telling a lie.

—

Mitt Romney’s business plan

by Richard Cohen, Aspen Daily News Columnist
Tuesday, April 16, 2012

Among the attributes I most envy in a public man (or woman) is the ability to lie. If that ability is coupled with no sense of humor, you have the sort of man who can be a successful football coach, a CEO or, when you come right down to it, a presidential candidate. Such a man is Mitt Romney.

Time and time again, Romney has been called a liar during this campaign. (The various fact-checking organizations have had to work overtime on him alone.) A significant moment, sure to surface in the general election campaign, came during a debate held in New Hampshire in January. David Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” turned to Newt Gingrich and said, “You have agreed with the characterization that Governor Romney is a liar. Look at him now. Do you stand by that claim?”

Gingrich did not flinch. “Sure, governor,” he started off, and then accused Romney of running ads that were not true and, moreover, pretending he knew nothing about them. “It is your millionaire friends giving to the PAC. And you know some of the ads aren’t true. Just say that straightforward.”

Me, I would have confessed and begged for forgiveness. Not Romney, though — and

Republicans first championed Individual Mandate health insurance, aka “Obamacare.” Now, they don’t. Why?

Perhaps someone can assist me with the proper spelling of “hypocrisy.”

Conservatives Sowed Idea of Health Care Mandate, Only to Spurn It Later

By MICHAEL COOPER

Published: February 14, 2012

It can be difficult to remember now, given the ferocity with which many Republicans assail it as an attack on freedom, but the provision in President Obama’s health care law requiring all Americans to buy health insurance has its roots in conservative thinking.

Gary Stewart/Associated Press

Waiting for Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1994, a crowd in Seattle gathered to protest a Clinton administration health care plan.

The concept that people should be required to buy health coverage was fleshed out more than two decades ago by a number of conservative economists, embraced by scholars at conservative research groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate.

The individual mandate, as it is known, was seen then as a conservative alternative to some of the health care approaches favored by liberals — like creating a national health service or requiring employers to provide health coverage.

“In 1993, in fighting ‘Hillarycare,’ virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do,” Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said at a debate in December, casting his past support of a mandate as an antidote to the health care overhaul proposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton during her husband’s administration.

Since then the politics of health care have grown more twisted and tangled

Newt Gingrich supported Obamacare before he didn’t support Obamacare

Colloquially, of course, such behavior could be described as either ‘schizophrenic,’ ‘conflicted,’ ‘incompatible,’ or ‘contradictory’.

None of those terms are positive or encouraging. And certainly, none are like the sound of

A: Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry Q: Who’ll be crowned religious king, or queen of Iowa?

“We have determined that Michele Bachmann is Biblically qualified to be the president, to be a leader. She is capable. She is trustworthy. She fears God and she hates dishonest gain.”
– Danny Carroll, former Iowa State Representative, former board member, now lobbyist for The Family Leader at the Iowa statehouse

There you have it folks.

First, we have Constitutional qualification,

Is that clear enough?

The GOP is comprised almost exclusively of

GOP Iowa debate: Bring in the clowns

Donald Trump “moderated” the GOP‘s Iowa “debate” this evening, and as usual, it was an open exhibition of the lunacy that pervades the party.

Newt Gingrich had a choice zinger when he said that the GOP should “…actually be positive about people who create jobs.”

Michelle Bachmann was reminiscent of the now-late Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale – whom was Ross Perot’s VP nominee in 1992 – when she said, “Who are you really? What is your center? What’s your core? What’s your worldview, what drives you?”

This year’s candidates are like nothing more than a howling chimpanzees tea party.

The only difference between them and the feces flinging variety is the other ones are in cages, behind bars.

Gingrich fights off rivals in Iowa debate

By John Whitesides and Andrew Stern

DES MOINES, Iowa | Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:05am EST

(Reuters) – Surging frontrunner Newt Gingrich fought off heavy attacks in a presidential debate in Iowa on Saturday from Republican rivals who portrayed him as a Washington insider and questioned his judgment.

Gingrich, described by some critics as

Newt Gingrich: A New Liberal

For some odd reason, some folks think Newt Gingrich a conservative.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

Seriously!

His track record speaks for itself.

Read on to learn how and why.

Gingrich’s record belies his conservative image

Though many GOP voters prefer him as a more conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich has often supported policies that have strayed from the conservative position.

By Paul West, Washington BureauDecember 8, 2011, 4:26 p.m.

Reporting from Washington—

For months, many Republicans have cast about for an alternative to Mitt Romney, decrying him as insufficiently conservative. Now they appear to have settled on a new front-runner — Newt Gingrich— who is no more conservative than Romney.Both men have parted company with the party’s most active voters on many of the same issues. Both backed requiring individuals to purchase healthcare insurance. Both supported the Wall Street bailoutknown as TARP and government subsidies for ethanol production.Both agreed that human activity is contributing to climate change (though each has backtracked in recent months). In the past, both supported trading systems designed to cap carbon emissions. Gingrich has favored research using

Donald Trump-hosted Republican “debate” now has TWO candidates

Face it Don.

You’re an idiot, and the American public knows it.

The very fact that the NewsMax “news” organization hosted it and made their whacko choice should speak volumes.

And even if the TrumpDump weren’t such a blithering idiotic, grandstanding nincompoop, the very fact that

Newt Gingrich: One good idea

Here is one idea I think Newt Gingrich has spot-on.

Silliness abounds in the GOP, even at local level

Regular readers of this blog recognize that critique of the GOP is neither absent, nor on vacation upon these pages.

This year’s cast of GOP presidential nominee wannabes are genuinely hilarious, but simultaneously saddening precisely because they are so cartoonish. There is little, if any, of what they say that can be taken seriously. Take, for example,

Newt Gingrich says he Opposes Child Labor Laws

I continue to write about how the GOP (that’d be the Republican Party) has been hijacked by radicals, most notably and recently the “TEA Party” movement, which I call “TEApublicans.”

Here, we have not mere prima facie evidence, but irrefutable proof positive – Newt Gingrich in his own words – say,

“You’re going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America.”

What many – if not most – do not know, is that Newt Gingrich has never been considered “conservative” by conservatives.

In fact,

Extremists and Radicals in the GOP

Official White House photograph of Vice President Rockefeller, 1975

Tonight was another one for the history books.

It was either that, or one for the nearest comic book store.

There was another Republican “debate” among the GOP presidential nominee wannabes. It’s hilarious – not just in a comédie noir sense, but in a genuinely hilarious manner – because those folks actually believe what they say, and hope to foist it upon the American general public.

But from there, it gets dangerous, precisely because they genuinely believe what they say. And that makes it sad.

The crazy “debate” was held this evening with 8 GOP wannabes.

Starring were:

Why Herman Cain and the GOP can’t be taken seriously

First, forget the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to oust Hermie. Everyone wants to shoot the messenger.

Sometimes, it’s easier to let the “other side” do the talking – whatever side that is!

It’s not as if we can’t see it, it’s not as if we can’t identify it, and it’s not as if we have no name for it. For we can see, identify and name it – whatever it is.

Let’s just ask one reasonable question – and then, you can get to the heart of this matter. If you were in a position to hire an expert – at least someone with even limited ability or experience – would you hire someone whom has no experience? Again, if you were a restauranteur, would you hire someone whom has not even been to any cooking school to be executive chef? Would you expect Herman Cain – while CEO of Godfather’s Pizza – to have hired regional managers, who hired store managers, who hired folks with utterly no experience in the food service industry to manage a local Godfather’s Pizza store? If your answer is an obvious “no,” then why would you – or any rationale person – support, or take Herman Cain’s run for the GOP presidential nomination seriously? Why, he’s never even run for Dog Catcher… much less the county line!

Is it not sad, that one watches Fox News for humor, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on the Comedy Channel for news?

From: TheAmericanConservative.com

by Rod Dreher

Cain campaign as a sign of decadence

Rod Dreher     November 2nd, 2011

When Herman Cain sang at the National Press Club the other day, I thought it was absurd. There he goes again, the clown. Looking at the performance in greater context, I found it easier to smile at, and not in a hostile way. Still, if you think about it, it says something bad about America that here we are, facing the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, and looking at a future of crippling indebtedness unless our leaders take drastic action … and the top candidate for the Republican nomination a year from election day is a charming businessman with no political experience, who knows nothing about the world (and makes jokes about his own ignorance), and who is given over to camping it up on the campaign trail. If times were great, there would be serious reason to doubt whether America could afford a man like Herman Cain in the Oval Office. But times are terrible, and could easily get far worse. It’s really quite an indictment on the unseriousness of our country, or at least the conservative electorate, that Cain is at the top of the polls now. The media play their own role in perpetuating this circus. Conservative James Poulos writes in the Daily Caller:

Free Market Government Deconstruction -or- What’s happening here?

Ed Note: What you’re about to read is a letter which I had sent to a long-time and very close friend after having read the article supplied via link at the close. 

This is as clear a picture as any.

The driving & motivating philosophical ideology of those Radical Republicans – among whom Newt Gingrich is chief – is wholesale de-regulation in every area, even to the extent that government is disbanded – thus resulting in anarchy.

They believe in a “Free Willy, Free Market” that is utopian & idealistic in nature, meaning it is a fantasy, rather than a solution based upon reality.

They are – as I have proclaimed for years –

The Impact of the Flat Tax Reform on Inequality

Some assert that everyone should pay the same rate of taxes, claiming that one “flat rate” would solve many problems.

I beg to differ.

The inequality of the so-called “flat tax” is quite simply, self-evident, because given that the cost of living is indexed similarly, the one whom has more income and wealth does not use as much to live, whereas the less fortunate and less wealthy use a greater percentage of their income to make ends meet.

Put another way, if it costs $500 annually to live, and you make $1000, that’s 50% of your income.

If it costs $500 annually to live and you make $10,000 that’s 5% of your income.

Who, then, does a flat tax benefit?

Is Speaker of the House John Boehner an alcoholic?

On the June 30, 2010 edition of the MSNBC television show “Morning Joe,” featuring former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough, one of the guests was Jim VandeHei of the website Politico.com.

Here’s an excerpted exchange, in context.