The most dangerous man in America?

I sure hope that poor Piers Morgan will be around to enjoy Christmas in America. Unfortunately for Piers, his days might be numbered here in the land of the (only some are) free. Believe it or not,there is a movement to have Piers deported to jolly old England because he questioned the logic of the Second Amendment and has engaged in what they call "hostile attacks" against it. (Lawrence O'Donnell is lucky he is an American.) 

This, of course, seems to be a classic example of dueling Amendments. Doesn't Piers have certain rights protected by the First Amendment? I think being able to speak freely in a public forum about a nationally debated issue is protected. I mean it's not like Piers is shouting fire in a crowded theater. 

But as the wingnuts march closer to forming their version of the CEDA  , there will be more Piers Morgans along the way to suffer the consequences of their strict totalitarianism. 

They need 25,000.00 signatures for the White House to review the petition and there is no doubt in my mind that they will get enough.Heck there are millions of people paying $35 per year to be members of the NRA, and their numbers actually went up after the Newtown massacre. There is nothing like having an NRA card in your pocket to protect you from a mass murderer. Not.

Still, if I were Piers I wouldn't worry too much. I suspect that as long as his ratings don't go in the tank he will be around with us for awhile.

Finally, this has to come as a huge disappointment to all the winguts who supported Flipper this past election. Now his son is saying that he didn't really want to be president in the first place.

 "A new story in the Boston Globe dissects possible causes for Mitt Romney‘s loss in the presidential election and attributes his “private” nature as a big one. Tagg Romney says of his father, “He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire to . . . run.”
Tagg says he and his mother Ann Romney were really the ones to convince dad Mitt to run. He goes on:

“If he could have found someone else to take his place . . . he would have been ecstatic to step aside. He is a very private person who loves his family deeply and wants to be with them, but he has deep faith in God and he loves his country, but he doesn’t love the attention.”

According to the piece, “Romney’s inner circle of family and friends understood the candidate’s weakness all too well.” He was “deeply private,” and had “an aversion to reveal­ing too much of himself to the public.” The campaign was concerned that if Romney didn’t reveal more of his personality, he would “too easily be reduced to caricature.” The description? “A calculating man of astounding wealth, a man unable to relate to average folks, a man whose Mormon faith put him outside the mainstream.” 

Mitt spent a lot of time and money to finally realize that he wasn't cut out to run for president. I am sure that there are a lot of folks out there who wish that he had found out sooner.





  

Binders full of blunders.

*

Just like my man Mitt Romney, I had a "binder full of women" back in the day. Now, fortunately, my binder only has one woman. Unlike Mitt, however, I am telling the truth about my binder. Mitt seemed to have been exaggerating- just a little- about his.

We joke about it, but Mitt's "binder full of women" is troubling on a lot of levels. Consider the following from a Yahoo News contributor:

"..Instead, Romney gave an answer that could hardly have been worse had he let me write it for him. First, he told a story about assembling his cabinet as Massachusetts Governor that underscored his complete ignorance of the subject. In 2002, at the age of 55, Mitt Romney just got around to noticing that women were underrepresented in positions of power. “…I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men,” he noted, quizzically."

I am not surprised; this is the same Mitt Romney who didn't realize that blacks were his equal until 1978.

This all fits a troubling pattern: An obvious disdain for the feminine gender. (Mitt's line about women getting home in time to cook dinner was downright scary.)The racist food stamp dog whistles, the knuckle dragging sycophants around the campaign, and the obvious cluelessness when it comes to connecting to real people. (Washing already clean dishes at a soup kitchen? Are you serious?)

Finally, I know that we are all having fun with Mitt's "binder full of women" moment, but a couple of things came out of that debate that troubled me even more:

1. Mitt's linking gun violence to single mothers.

"It was a strange answer Romney gave, in a portion of the debate during which I must have tuned out while writing something for the site. In response to a question about limiting the availability of assault weapons, Romney veered off into strange ground. “We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the — the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea.” 

Ok, the poverty and crime connection; I get it. But single mothers and assault weapons? Mitt, that's one hell of of a stretch

2. And then there is Tagg Romney wanting to jump out of his seat and "take a swing" at his Oness. My man said he didn't like the president calling out his father. (So you resort to violence, Tagg?)

Can you imagine if the president had a son and he made a comment like that? The polls would be heading south for O twice as fast as they are now.

Nobody in America wants to hear a black man talk about doing violence, even in jest.     

*Pic courtesy of rumproast.com