Joe Scarborough reconsidered his aggressive elocutionary approach to a discussion he had on the show yesterday with New Yorker Editor-in-Chief David Remnick.
Scarborough and Remnick debated the magazine's endorsement of President Obama for a second term, and things got heated fairly quickly. Scarobrough in particualr took umbrage at a section of the endorsement editorial that referred to the "national shame" of the Bush years.
“Who got paid the bonus for being able to squeeze in the shame of the Bush years?” Scarborough asked. “I was very critical of George W. Bush. What was the shame? Let’s talk about the shame of the Bush years, and then let’s talk about the shame of the Obama years. Go ahead.”
On Wednesday evening, Scarborough first took to Twitter to share his impressions:
@aperfsr David and I had a good debate but I came on too strong. Regardless of my objections, I think I should have been more patient.— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) October 24, 2012
Talking on the show this morning with Mika Brzezinski, New York Magazine's John Heilemann, Willie Geist, and Random House's Jon Meacham, Scarborough said he believed it was great conversation but that he was also a little tough on Remnick.
"I think it’s great when conversations get heated," Brzezinski added.
Heilemann thought the discussion made for "compelling TV."
"I like David [Remnick] a lot," Scarborough finished. "I’ve got great respect for him. [I] read his magazine all the time, and so I felt a little more comfortable doing that than [with] say somebody I didn’t know as well. That said…"