Joe Scarborough Goes Off On Michele Bachmann: 'She Is A Joke!' (VIDEO)

Joe Scarborough let loose on Friday, going on a wild tear about his loathing of Michele Bachmann and the fringe politics he thinks she represents.

Scarborough was speaking on "Morning Joe" about Thursday night's GOP debate in Iowa, where Bachmann--along with her memorable brawling with Tim Pawlenty--was a star attraction. Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and the show's panelists debated pleasantly about who had won and lost the debate for a few minutes. But Scarborough clearly had some things to get off his chest, because he unleashed an angry monologue for the ages.

Bachmann, he said, was symbolic of a kind of "conspiracy" that always happens in the early stages of presidential elections, where the base of the party pushes "somebody that is never going to win." This, he said, allows the media to "run articles on these people on the far right and point for a year about 'look how whacked out the Republican party is.'"

Scarborough said that the same thing happens every four years in Iowa, and pointed to Mike Huckabee's surge in 2007 as evidence of this.

"Michele Bachmann's first answer was, I wish the federal government had defaulted. Had defaulted! A week after Americans lost--some of them perhaps lost half of their pensions. Lost half of their 401ks. When trillions of dollars went down the drain with Americans suffering, she said that and got applause, and if anybody thinks that guys like my dad are going to be voting that way...they are out of their mind and they are too stupid not only to prognosticate, they are too stupid to run Slurpee machines in Des Moines...Michele Bachmann is a joke. She is a joke. Her answer is a joke. Her candidacy is a joke...Iowa, if you let her win, you prove your irrelevance once again."

"Tell us how you really feel," panelist Michael Steele joked.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story mistakenly attributed Michael Steele's comment to Jonathan Capeheart.

Comments

[Jahnsart]

02:20 PM on 09/08/2011

I usually have an open mind when choosing a candidate for president, I look at their stance, their past accomplishments and their ability to communicate their ideals. From what I have seen and heard, of the Republicans, I couldn't vote for anyone of them on a bet. Their solutions are detrimental to this country, none of them has been honest of their party's culpabiltiy in this economic mess, and their demonization of the working people in America is treasonable...I don't like Obama and his lack of leadership and decisiveness, I think Obama's reliance on the corrupt Bernanke and Holder and the holdovers from the Bush administration shows his true colors. We won't change anything in this country by electing a New President...It has to be the congress and senators who go...They are the ones responisble for the mess we are in, and still they point the fingers at the workers in the country...I have to vote for Obama again, because there has to be a counter to the wacko conservatives who are running...

[Seth Gordon]

12:13 PM on 08/16/2011

What he doesn't realize is that while allowing the media to "run articles on these people on the far right and point for a year about 'look how whacked out the Republican party is.'" it also allows the media to point to a Rick Perry and say "look how moderate this guy is in comparison." - that's the real function of any outlier in a primary, be it a Bachmann or a Kucinich.

[jsmit]

11:09 AM on 08/16/2011

Joe Scarborough: a supposedly conservative guy at a far left network who has to keep us his left leaning bona fides to keep his job and meager MSNBC audience.

[TBrennan]

10:02 AM on 08/16/2011

Once again Michael Steele is extraordinarily stupid. Hindsight of a couple of days proves his opinions are worthless. How do you get a job to flap your jaws?

[Dominick Roffo]

10:34 PM on 08/15/2011

All of those candidates are jokes and none of them will be able to beat Obama.

[CHARLESTHETENTH]

04:33 PM on 08/15/2011

Why do the Networks let the likes of Joe get away with this type of slander. These people no longer report the News Objectively but seem to have an agenda of their own. We do not need more Jokers like Joe but serious and concerned people to broadcast the News straight as it is...the viewing public can draw their own conclusions we do not need the Joe's of Broadcast News to rant and rave with their own opinions...fire this Joker !!

[rosey7]

07:58 PM on 08/15/2011

CHARLESTHETENTH,

Fox and MSNBC are OPINION channels. People tune in to both networks to hear opinion. Joe is a republican, he wants a candidate he believes is electable . In order to become president, one has to appeal to moderates and independents. Bachmann does not have cross over appeal. Romney and Hunstman do. It remains to be seen if Perry does. Perry didn't announce earlier because he had formerly stated that anyone who announces for president 180 days or less into their elected position should not be allowed to run and should automatically lose the job they campaigned for. So, Perry missed his own deadline, which is why he was not in the Iowa straw poll. So, if you don't want to hear opinion, watch your local news program or tune in to the major three. if you watch Fox or MSNBC, all you will get is opinions.

[BKearney]

08:07 PM on 08/15/2011

Doesn't a statement need to be false to be considered slander?

[AnnfromCA]

02:12 PM on 08/15/2011

He goes off on conservative women, period.  She's just the latest.

[rosey7]

08:00 PM on 08/15/2011

AnnfromCA,

He's gone off on Nancy Pelosi, big time. I don't think that means he hates women only that he doesn't like Palin, Pelosi and Bachmann

[JoeBlough]

01:48 PM on 08/15/2011

More media time on Bachmann means less media time on Palin. I like that.

[goldiekins]

12:18 PM on 08/15/2011

He ought know a joke when he sees one.

[cceras]

01:46 PM on 08/15/2011

Man! You stold my comment!

[djmarch]

08:49 AM on 08/15/2011

Spot on Joe !!!!

[Barbara Randlett]

12:48 AM on 08/15/2011

ROFL

joke, YEAH!!

[Assumed Name]

12:09 AM on 08/15/2011

Boy, is Michael steele's analysis off.

[Ghostberry]

02:51 PM on 08/15/2011

Well look at his "career" lol i wouldnt ask his opinion on the weather.

[Chucktheman]

11:34 PM on 08/14/2011

I love it that Steel points out that Gingrich does well if you have really , really low expectations coming out of the box. I guess it is a way to lower the bar to fit the candidates. Newt is good at math, look how he divided the nation.

[123dee]

10:53 PM on 08/14/2011

Interesting Joe did not mention that all of the candidates would not have taken
the 10 to 1 deal, question. GOP is less interested in debt reduction and more
interested in party principles and pledges.

[Karl Gartner]

09:55 PM on 08/14/2011

I'm encouraged by the infighting in the Republican Party. A sign that the "silent majority" of the GOP, is starting to stand against the social-cons & neo-cons. Many GOP'ers are taking a hard look at GOP dogma and don't like what they see. Face it, blind obedience to a party isn't helping anybody. Look at the different factions of the GOP, who's many views that FOX and MSNBC almost never cover...Pro-gay rights orgs like the Log Cabin Republicans and GOPride, that believe that government NEVER belongs in anybodys bedroom. Enviro-cons, echoes of Teddy Roosevelt (Republican & enviromental-champion) with the "Republicans for Enviromental Protection" - the R.E.P. The neo-isolationists who dislike the hap-hazard, myoptic way that our military is used and prefer to engage foreign countries with trade and open dialog, not though use of force (sound familar). And many others (a longer list than this) are challenging the tired "last century" GOP philsophy. I will not say that the Democratic Party has been always wrong (in fact, quite the opposite). But I will say that any party that never challenges it's own thoughts are rather stayed and will grow stale. What's with the hateful rhetoric being used against Tavis Smiley and Cornel West - in the Democractic Party. Do they not have a right to state their dissatisfaction with the leadership of the Democratic Party? Why the intorrence Democrats? A party that demands loyality to the "party-line," shouldn't deserve anybody's loyality.