Mar
17
17
Is Somebody Going To Post Something, Or Do I Have To Do A…
Shorter Nancy Morgan
- How I became a conservative: After I became an outspoken, liberal-baiting talk-radio conservative, my crooked liberal husband Steve for some reason bid me adieu on our third wedding anniversary. For the following eight years I was the most bitter of women. I resembled nothing so much as the disgusting angry liberals, filled with vile hate…
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
Thursday said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:26
When I was ten I shot a puppy.
Just like the Liberals!
lobbey said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:31
I was 8, and I put a banger up a cats arse,
typical liberal, hmmmmmffff
Jennifer, home with the flu said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:32
I’m not sure whether I should laugh or cry over such a pitiful lack of self-awareness….
Me said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:33
Even though I swore I would never be a divorced woman, today I am glad Steve left me. Otherwise, I would still be his wife, an adjunct, a pretty face on a man’s arm.
Shorter: Even though, as a conservative, I condemn divorce and broken families in everyone else, and regard it as proof of their lack of character, I’m damn glad those options were available to me, which just proves that I’m morally superior to those damn liberals.
That wasn’t really much “shorter”, was it?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:34
After 33 years of living in Los Angeles, Nancy decided to move to a climate
more tolerant of conservativesfull of small minded bigots like herself, settling in 2002 in beautiful Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, where she lives today.obsoleziphelicopter said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:38
That’s quite a lot of wrong doing she outlines in that article. Hmmmm, in fact, what she describes is quite illegal. What’s the story with her ex? Are we sure he’s a liberal judge? Shouldn’t she turn him in?
Caitlin Sith said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:40
South Carolina: Where a tree branch and a rope won’t give you Super Bowl tickets.
Nightjar said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:42
“Then life happened. Enron, pedophile priests, corrupt politicians, and the general politicizing of government and affiliated organizations.”
Well, thank Gawd George Bush and the GOP congress came by to straighten all this unpleasantness out.
teh l4m3 said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:47
Nancy? Or….AN-PAN MAN!!!!
Some Guy said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:48
Fuckers, politicizing government. Is nothing sacred?
I bet ya she’s got an odd number of animals numbering no fewer then three.
Unrelated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhSc8qVMjKM
I’m pissed. Kid Rock blatantly ripped this song off for his shit-ass fuck song of crap love ballad. Talentless hack.
Jennifer, home with the flu said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:51
The most amusing aspect of the article is how open she is about staying with the guy while continuing to watch him commit crimes…and how she’d still be with him if he hadn’t dumped her. She’s pretty freely copping to having no moral qualms about personally profiting from ill-gotten gain.
Then again, she does freely admit to being a conservative.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:52
The more I read National Review, Human Events, etc, the angrier I got. I felt duped.
Funny, the more we read National Review, the more we point and laugh.
Susan of Texas said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:54
I think her conservatism is an excuse for Morgan to have a permanent pity party. Here’s wy she she and her mother don’t talk either. I suppose next we’ll see an article on how Obama ruined her relationship with her children.
J— said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:56
She’s a graduate of the National Journalism Center. Impressive.
In her essay “White Racism” (3/15/08) Morgan analyzes the power dynamic in U.S. society and boldly proclaims what other whites fear to say: Black people are in charge.
Marsupial said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:58
You have to like how she dismisses Erin Brockovich as a fraud based on the fact that her ex, obviously a pillar of morals and someone who could never lie, told her that a single person was worth $50,000. I guess she still believes that part.
Jason said,
March 17, 2008 at 5:59
“I am not bitter about Steve. Indeed in a way I am grateful to him: his outright corruption, faithlessness, and his incomprehensible decision to divorce me brought me to a rich appreciation of conservative viewpoints on the family, and the value of Christian forgiveness.”
Is that about it? I don’t think I can precis it in a way that makes it any more coherent.
Jeff Fecke said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:00
The more I read National Review, Human Events, etc, the angrier I got. I felt duped.
I get angry and feel duped when I read National Review too!
Oh, wait — she’s not angry at National Review, evidently. That’s weird.
Nightjar said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:01
‘The most amusing aspect of the article is how open she is about staying with the guy while continuing to watch him commit crimes…and how she’d still be with him if he hadn’t dumped her. She’s pretty freely copping to having no moral qualms about personally profiting from ill-gotten gain.’
——-
But, But
“He also had a sense of humor and a very nice physique.”
Jennifer, home with the flu said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:03
Oh my god, that article about her mother is pathetically sad. What a sad twisted soul. And she touted “family values” in it too…you know, the kind that keep you with a criminal husband as long as you get to ride the gravy train, too.
Jennifer, home with the flu said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:05
You have to like how she dismisses Erin Brockovich as a fraud based on the fact that her ex, obviously a pillar of morals and someone who could never lie, told her that a single person was worth $50,000. I guess she still believes that part.
I think he must’ve been referring to her value, and I think he was being way overly generous.
Jrod said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:06
Typical liberal man, just up and leaving his wife for no reason! Why can’t more men be loyal, like conservative stalwarts John McCai- er, no, I mean Newt Gingri- er, I’m gonna need a minute here…
joeyess said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:09
Shorter Nancy Morgan:
“My liberal husband Steve, left me for a woman with less stretch marks and I naturally became a conservative woman with stretch marks just to spite him. Oh, and to trash him on the internets.”
mikey said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:11
I don’t read any of that crap and I’m always angry and I always feel duped.
Maybe it’s just me, but more likely?
The bush/cheney administration just stopped trying to hide it.
They are just criminals, and they’ve lost interest in trying to hide it…
mikey
Jennifer, home with the flu said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:11
Someone should alert young conservatives who aspire to be writers that JanusNode is much cheaper than the National Journalism Center. And also, creates articles that make more sense.
J— said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:11
Hey, teh teh’s here! If all that waiting all weekend for a post had anything to do with his return, then it was worth it. Methinks.
Heretic said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:15
She’s a graduate of the National Journalism Center. Impressive.
In her essay “White Racism” (3/15/08) Morgan analyzes the power dynamic in U.S. society and boldly proclaims what other whites fear to say: Black people are in charge.
J- You have got to be kidding. Please tell me this is a joke.
Wait, I read the article. She also said this:
I’d like to go on and extoll the virtues of many blacks that have not embraced the party line, but that would be patronizing. I will not be coerced into proving I am not a racist and I will not be forced into playing by rules I never voted on or agreed to
Well, Nancy, logically it’s pretty hard to make you prove a negative, but really, ignoring 400 years of slavery and saying blacks are not to be held accountable for their own actions [sic] when blacks are only 12 percent of the population but make up 46 percent of US prisoners……….. I could go on about this racist turdherder, but why bother? She’s already convinced that black people are a privileged, not oppressed, class of US citizens. Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ on a crutch.
Gary Ruppert said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:15
The fact is that is the most beautiful story I have ever read. If only more people in this country could be like Nancy Morgan, and not like the godless hippies on this site.
Susan of Texas said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:18
And yet, here you are.
BMACCNM said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:20
Okay. I’m a graduate of the Evelyn Woodhead Sped-redding School, and maybe I missed it. Or maybe I can’t be bothered to look for it. But why did our Miz Nancy become a liberal baiting conservative talk radio star? What in her background or her personal existence allowed her to decide “I’ve got mine, so fuck the rest of you”? Is it just the style with kids these days?
Jrod said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:22
Gary Ruppert admits to being a godless hippie!
***
g said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:22
“Then life happened. Enron, pedophile priests, corrupt politicians, and the general politicizing of government and affiliated organizations.”
Chronologically, all these things happened after George Bush became Preznit. And all these things are more conservative than liberal. So shouldn’t she be disillusioned by conservatism?
Caveat said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:28
Phew! I was afraid you guys might have gotten into some KoolAid or something.
I can rest easy now…except for what you posted….
Jrod said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:28
Haven’t you heard? Bush is a liberal now. Excepting that he hasn’t divorced his wife… yet.
julia said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:29
Who knew there were no conservative publications available in Los Angeles (famous worldwide for the political correctness of their police department). I guess they stop the LA Times at the border.
Why, if it weren’t for the Free Republic, Matt Drudge and Ronald Reagan, that whole stretch of California would be completely unrepresented in national conservative thought.
Perhaps the judge kept her from figuring out how a subscription works?
joeyess said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:30
“Chronologically, all these things happened after George Bush became Preznit. And all these things are more conservative than liberal. So shouldn’t she be disillusioned by conservatism?”
I think the word you are looking for is “deluded”.
BMACCNM said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:31
Okay. I went back and read it word by tedious word. I learned that Steve was not necessarily on the straight path, but the benefits were good. I learned that Miz Nancy couldn’t find a copy of The National Review in Los Angeles??? And, because I do my homework and I clicked on all the links I learned that Miz Nancy is an ignorant racist and her mother was a woman who ought to be a national hero. But Nancy? Is she just rebelling at a not-so young age? Is that what it is with the Miz Nancys and the mAnn Coulters? This is central to my understanding of the world I find myself in
Caveat said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:33
Right. Good column. Great site. Love the lurid colours and tacky layout.
What a waste of time, reading that tripe.
teh l4m3 said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:34
J–, you’re the only one who noticed…
g said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:35
Uh, re-reading her - she IS chronologically challenged. She says she “trusted institutions” but “then came Enron, pedophile priests, etc.” And “then came Steve” - they married in 1992.
She has got herself a little bit of a time warp, doesn’t she?
and here:
Undoubtedly, my emerging conservatism contributed to the reason Steve left me. After all, trial lawyers are the most liberal of animals, and even though Steve was a judge, he started getting uncomfortable when I began mouthing off.
there are volumes of untold stories here, and I think they have nothing to do with politics!
Steve bid me adieu on our third wedding anniversary. For the following eight years I was the most bitter of women. I resembled nothing so much as an angry leftist, filled with hate.
Uh…..actually, honey, what you WERE was an angry Conservative, filled withhate. I mean, let’s face it, dear. You say you were dumped by your guy because of your conservative views (I actually, doubt that, I think you were probably dumped because you were a bitch who wouldnt’ shut up at dinner parties). So when you have anger and misbehave, why blame it on liberals? why not take some personal responsibility for your own conservative nature?
Until 2001, Nancy was a producer in Los Angeles. Her company, Morgan Productions, was one of the very few conservative production companies on the west coast.
If I had more interest, which I don’t, I would be very curious to look up Morgan Productions’ output of shows. Do you think she made the Liberty Film Festival?
Dan Someone said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:39
Um, wait a minute…
…
…
Either she has some truth problems, some time-telling problems or some coherent writing problems. Or was she shacking up with Steve for three years before they got married?
Then there’s this:
The course of their marriage would have been from April 2002 to April 2005, right? Third wedding anniversary? So sometime in that three-year period is when she discovered the conservative POV?
Then how to explain this:
Amazing — she had a conservative production company for years before she was ever even exposed the conservative POV!
Dan Someone said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:39
Er, that’s 1992 to 1995. Never mind.
D. Sidhe said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:46
I dunno, I’d probably dump a spouse who viewed me the way Nancy seems to view liberals. I’d also wonder why she was still staying with me if she thought I was so evil.
And I don’t get people who “swear they will never be divorced”. ‘Cause, it’s kind of, at least in theory, not entirely up to you. So even leaving aside that this means you’re willing to be absolutely miserable and make someone else absolutely miserable if something happens and you grow apart or circumstances change or whatever, it also seems to indicate that you are perfectly willing to be a manipulative control freak to keep the other person from getting the hell out if things go to shit.
Ah, love.
Kaye "Theyyyy're Grogan!" said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:46
If Peggy’s a lush, an’ I sniff glue, then Nancy’s a crackhead.
lobbey said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:48
That’s quite a lot of wrong doing she outlines in that article. Hmmmm, in fact, what she describes is quite illegal. What’s the story with her ex? Are we sure he’s a liberal judge? Shouldn’t she turn him in?
She leaves a caveat out that Steve is not a real name, however, her ex should be easily identifiable, and should sue her arse off, as she seems to have a problem understanding the word, libel….
mikeinportc said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:48
“Though the particulars of some of the above events eventually came to light in an expose by Kelly Ann O’Meara of Insight Magazine……”
Investigation of Crooked/Librul/Lawyer/Judge/Husband : Good
Investigation of Good Conservative Poisoner of the Public : A lib-rul fraud
“…Undoubtedly, my emerging conservatism contributed to the reason Steve left me…”. … or I’m as dumb as a stump , and about as pleasant as the fungus growing on it .? :) (a little slow on the uptake, SNM)
” After all, trial lawyers are the most liberal of animals,….”. which is why so many work so hard, for so many rich b@&(@%&%#s and big companies , screwing everybody else. :)
g said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:51
After all, trial lawyers are the most liberal of animals,….”. which is why so many work so hard, for so many rich b@&(@%&%#s and big companies , screwing everybody else. :)
Right. Because, IIRC, the plaintiffs in the Erin Brokovitch case were a bunch of rich people…..
g said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:55
And let me remind you all — although you don’t need reminding because as liberals you are compassionate people - but let me remind Nancy - that $50,000 compensation for a death by cancer due to willful contamination of the water supply is NOTHING.
$50,000? Has she priced cancer treatment lately? Has she put a value on the cost of losing a family member?
I bet she chiseled a fuck of a lot more than $50,000 from her husband, using lawyers that she probably excluded from her general contempt of lawyers.
El Cid said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:56
You can almost imagine the Bizarro-world Prairie Home Companion reading of this:
Jennifer, home with the flu said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:02
gbear - if you are still around, that album I mentioned to you on the Thread. That. Would. Not. Die.? You can download it here if you are so inclined, though note it’s not just one album but 12 and they’ve tagged a lot of songs “Jesus H Christ” that were never on that album. But the ones that were are sampling masterpieces.
A town where being conservative is forbidden, where conservatives are forced to stay in the closet the gays so recently vacated.
hey, that sounds a lot like Footloose. We could totally do a re-make, only this one will be called Brainless and feature really shitty music by Lee Greenwood and Toby Keith.
Jennifer, home with the flu said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:03
I bet she chiseled a fuck of a lot more than $50,000 from her husband, using lawyers that she probably excluded from her general contempt of lawyers.
I’m sure she hates them too, since she had to pay their fees.
Smut Clyde said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:07
Then life happened. Enron, pedophile priests, corrupt politicians, and the general politicizing of government and affiliated organizations.
Oh noes! I am missing the boat! Slow the conservative bandwagon, I want to jump aboard!
g said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:10
I’m sure she hates them too, since she had to pay their fees.
she probably made Steve pay them
Lesley said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:12
As a child of the sixties, I was brought up in a time when there was still respect for America’s institutions. Be they banks, government, doctors, businesses, charities or churches. I accepted without question their authority, and assigned to them the respect due to the pillars and foundations of American society.
That makes you somewhat of a dumbass doesn’t it?
Lesley said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:18
Then, along came Steve*. As a judge, he had society’s imprint as ‘Honorable’. He also had a sense of humor and a very nice physique. Best of all, he wanted me. Finally, a man with the two attributes I considered essential for marriage, trust and respect. We got married in April of 1992.
She marries him because he makes her laugh, has a great body, and “wants” her. She equates these superficialities with trust and respect. Okee.
cowalker said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:19
Nancy Morgan, happy and fulfilled . . . I’m sitting out on my deck, surrounded by forest and wildlife . . . .
But I can’t say enough bad things about “enviros” who are endangering the economy by trying to get Americans to stop trashing natural resources. I’m sure that a crazy obsession with protecting the environment has nothing to do with the beauty around me on Murrell’s Inlet.
Fun with numbers.
Nancy says she was a child of the sixties. By the time she was 39, and a cynic about everything but the judiciary, along came “Steve” to disabuse her. She hung out with elite trial lawyers for six years, with perhaps three of those previous to her marriage? and for the three years of marriage. After Steve left her, she lived in bitterness for eight years. In 2002, after living in LA for 33 years, she moved to South Carolina.
OK.
36 years before Steve comes along
3 years dating Steve
3 years married to Steve
8 years stewing in LA as a producer (wonder who bankrolled that? alimony earned by the judge’s corrupt decisions?)
6 years happy in Murrell’s Inlet “fishing village” where she’s urrounded by good, decent, moral, God-fearing tourists
So she’s now about 56. If she had lived in LA for 33 years when she was 50, she must have moved there when she was 17, in about 1968. I’d say she was more a teenager of the sixties than a child. Then she claims the ENRON fraud and pedophile scandals were what made her distrustful of institutions. I seem to remember some social changes and questioning of authority before that time, especially in those big cities where being conservative is forbidden. So forbidden that there’s not one copy of the National Review at any newstand in LA. Or in the public libraries! Not even in the eighties!
Of course nothing conservative came out of California in the eighties that would make the newspapers or get on the TV, and expose Nancy to a conservative point of view. It wasn’t until she was married around 1990 that she stumbled across the fact that there were conservatives out there. Maybe she had to stop in Modesto for a fill-up and saw a National Review behind the counter. It must have been embarrassing to have to ask for it, but the owner knew his legal peril. If he were caught selling the National Review, at least it would help his case if he could show that minors were never exposed to it.
g said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:27
Of course nothing conservative came out of California in the eighties
Hmmm, yes, I wonder what it would have been like for her if we had had some kind of national leader coming out of California in the 80s who embodied Conservatisim……but, no, I suppose that would have been fleeting, only a few years, not an extended period time, maybe eight years…..
Lesley said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:37
So she’s now about 56.
Yeah, I figured as much since it’s pretty hard to be aware of - never mind filled with respect for - banks, churches and courts when you’re an infant.
mikeinportc said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:46
gsaid , I said “so many” not “all”. Point is, lawyers are all over the place politically , contrary to how SNM & the rest of the RWNM. portray it . (’course their lawyers aren’t “trial” lawyers, eh?) I’d bet there’s more working for the purveyors of the CPOV than against them .
Roket said,
March 17, 2008 at 7:51
You guys are missing a very important point here. Let’s use Hillary as an example, shall we. Hillary was married to a President; therefore she knows everything there is to know about being a President. Nancy was married to a “liberal” judge; therefore she knows everything there is to know about court settlements and stuff, and everything like that. Mkay.
mikeinportc said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:01
So …..the whole conservative thing might be a midlife teenage rebellion?
Smut Clyde said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:04
When I’m fighting the temptation to call someone an opportunistic late-comer convert to movement conservatism, I listen to the March Violets instead.
Smut Clyde said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:11
his wife, an adjunct, a pretty face on a man’s arm.
The idea of a pretty face on my arm sounds quite tempting, but the daughter informs me that tattoos are hopelessly passé.
noen said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:24
As a child of the sixties, I was brought up in a time when there was still respect for America’s institutions. Be they banks, government, doctors, businesses, charities or churches. I accepted without question their authority, and assigned to them the respect due to the pillars and foundations of American society.
These are the values she wants us all to emulate and yet they are the very same values that led to her downfall. My oh my what a conundrum.
I did a google search and this seems to be a likely candidate for her production company.
Morgan Productions
BTW, I hope no one had anything invested in Bear Sterns ’cause that shit is gone. Lots of shit hitting lots of fans Monday morning. Buckle up.
Jennifer, home with the flu said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:34
noen - actually, that’s Morgan PRODS.
Are “prods” family-values-friendly? Sounds almost like “tampons, Satan’s little cotton fingers” to me.
owlbear1 said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:36
For no reason at all..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrBLqp-s__o
Jennifer, home with the flu said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:46
One of my old favorites.
RandomObserver said,
March 17, 2008 at 10:06
That made no fucking sense whatsoever.
Not every essay needs to be in the form of a thesis statement and three supporting points but after reading that I have no idea what it was about or how it has anything to do with liberals at all.
owlbear1 said,
March 17, 2008 at 10:19
I am finally able to voice my opinions without being considered judgmental. I’m free to engage in debate without being considered being argumentative. Today, I am free to be myself.
Stupid and deluded…
Rugged in Montana said,
March 17, 2008 at 10:36
What an utterly charming woman! I wonder if she likes dried brambles and pemmican for breakfast?
(Hmmmm…..) BEGONE SATAN!! YOU WILL NOT HAVE MY ESSENCE!!!
K. Ron Silkwood said,
March 17, 2008 at 11:48
Gavin M is doing very well with his tests of the “do it yourselves” post. He provides an intriguing link to a hag and sends us off for a recce. Those returning with observations, quotes, and snark fill up the comments section, and presto! another successful post. Excellent work Gavin! It is not often I find someone who scorns the Protestant Work Ethic as much as I do.
lobbey said,
March 17, 2008 at 12:13
Oh yes, she also has that lovely wingnut trait of deleting critical comments. Which was ironic, as my comment dealt with how we left types enjoy critical debate better than right wing toss pots like her.
Typical Wingnut™³²®© said,
March 17, 2008 at 13:31
It’s Adam and Eve, not Randy and Steve!
OTB said,
March 17, 2008 at 13:49
The story about her mom is amazing:
Unfortunately, the mindset of most feminists today do not allow conflicting points of views to upset their hard-won worldview.
Can anybody help me out with that one? I think Sadly, No! has struck a rich new vein of nearly boundless comedic gold here.
OTB said,
March 17, 2008 at 13:54
Because, I guess, any “hard-won worldview” SHOULD be “upset” by “conflicting points of view.”
Eureka! I just figured it out. She’s saying, “But MOMMY, Why don’t you just LISTEN TO ME!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!111!!!”
bklyn said,
March 17, 2008 at 13:56
The bush/cheney administration just stopped trying to hide it.
They are just criminals, and they’ve lost interest in trying to hide it…
mikey
They have given up trying to hide it because they really don’t suffer any consequence so why bother.
Typical Wingnut™³²®© said,
March 17, 2008 at 13:58
Global warming?
Hmmpf!
Anne Laurie said,
March 17, 2008 at 14:17
Nancy Morgan is the, uh, ‘less colorful’ version of Rachel Marsden: “Every single person in my life has been a GRAVE disappointment; I blame the Liberals!” Simple, satisfying, and compensatable. Very few people will voluntarily listen to some random woman bitch about her goddamned insensitive mother and her rotten criminal ex-husband just for the novelty factor — but once Morgan “establishes”* that her bad luck is all the fault of Modern Anti-American Liberalism, she’s given both a platform and presumably some kind of financial compensation for her grievances.
*Via the impeccable Wingnut Welfare Wanker logic of “A equals B, B equals C, therefore bananas are a tool of the Lie-brul Establishment, and if you disagree, it proves that you are an America-hating tool of the powerful banana lobby.”
Robert M. said,
March 17, 2008 at 14:49
I think I’m going to start calling pieces like this Swank-Morgan fractals: they display the same quality of incoherence on every level: from basic sentence structure and word choice to thesis, theme, and tone. Every word makes anti-sense, as does every sentence, every paragraph, and so on.
As an example, take her blurb: “Her goal and her passion is making available the conservative point of view.” Not only does the sentence have a glaring grammatical error and an utterly inexplicable change in word order–but apparently, FOX News, the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, and the God damned White House aren’t high-profile enough, so Nancy Morgan is just going to have to pitch in.
lc said,
March 17, 2008 at 15:11
Ugh. The thought of writing about my mother in the disgraceful way Nancy Morgan wrote of hers makes me cringe. What a creep Morgan is.
But, hey, I’m just an angry middle-aged feminist and liberal.
g said,
March 17, 2008 at 15:26
Her essay about her mom was disgusting, but in addition to that, it was a perfect example of what she was talking about when she wrote:
Politics have become personal. To challenge the worldview of a conservative, a gay person, a feminist or any other “group” is considered a direct attack on not only the validity of the particular view, but an attack on the person holding them. Invalidate their views and you invalidate them. You invalidate their struggle, their sacrifices, their self esteem. You invalidate them.
And then she proceeds to invalidate their views.
Jim said,
March 17, 2008 at 15:32
Just pointing this out, but her husband was also not really a judge.
So that would make him either a mediator, an arbitrator, or an administrative law judge - maybe possibly a magistrate. Those offices are not, and never have been, the same as judgeships.
LIBERALS MAKE HER LIE WITH CONFUSING LABELS.
Also, her gripe and bitch and moan about the PG&E case, and how Steve’s buddy Lee “made him” award a certain amount of money, is a little factually challenged. These are pre-trial settlements. They are voluntary, and are essentially the cost of not going to trial and paying trial lawyers OMG bukkets of moneh!
So, to recap, her husband the judge was not a judge; he awarded unfair amounts of money to plaintiffs in pre-trial cases in which the parties agreed to the payouts; and all of that happened between 1989 and 1995, prior to which Nancy was disillusioned by Enron, which did not go bankrupt until 2001.
Legalize said,
March 17, 2008 at 15:32
Aside from empowering my mother to get out of a unhappy marriage, earn her GED, undergraduate degree, and PhD, what in the world did feminism do for her?!
Susan of Texas said,
March 17, 2008 at 15:34
Morgan’s mom sounds amazing. A high school drop-out with 5 kids and an abusive husband waitress, goes back to school. and gets a PdD, counseling people with gender issues. And all Morgan has to say is that her mom ended up with “resentment of men,” and that feminism is bad because while some women needed it in the past, it’s a mistake because it makes women think they don’t need men.
Putting on my Fake Psychiatrist Hat, I’d say that little Nancy bitterly resented Mom for sending Daddy away when he loved little Nancy best, and Nancy spent the rest of her life telling her hard-working, determined mother that everything was HER FAULT.
Conservatives really are perpetual teenagers, raiding the refrigerator, using up all the gas in the car, taking money from your wallet, and constantl whining about how overworked and mistreated they are.
Blue Buddha said,
March 17, 2008 at 16:13
Yeah, that part got me as well. And it’s not like a terminally ill person will go gangbusters with $50k… they’d be lucky to spend a week in the hospital with that much money.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 17, 2008 at 16:29
Clearly, eHarmony has not been kind to this woman.
fardels bear said,
March 17, 2008 at 16:51
Susan of Texas, I totally need one of those Fake Psychiatrist Hats! I got a big ol’ melon-head, do you know if they come in 7 3/4?
MrWonderful said,
March 17, 2008 at 16:52
Has anyone pointed out this? The very first line reads:
“As a child of the sixties, I was brought up in a time when there was still respect for America’s institutions.”
That’s like saying, “As a vegetarian, the one thing I am able to appreciate is a good porterhouse.”
No, see, Nan, the sixties consisted almost entirely of the discrediting of America’s institutions. I realize the truism is “if you remember the Sixties you weren’t there,” but Jeez. “Big-time stoopid” doesn’t begin to describe this woman.
g said,
March 17, 2008 at 17:01
I clicked on her Morgan Productions website, which seems not to function. Her business seems to be filming family footage to send to soliders.
MrWonderful said,
March 17, 2008 at 17:07
“Conservatives really are perpetual teenagers, raiding the refrigerator, using up all the gas in the car, taking money from your wallet, and constantl whining about how overworked and mistreated they are.”
Love this. I may steal it. Oh, come on. Let’s all steal it.
aimai said,
March 17, 2008 at 17:35
Everyone needs to read that linked essay about her mother to see how bizarre it would be to assert “as a child of the sixties” I thought everything was hunky dory. Her mother was *forced to drop out of school* by an unwanted teenage pregnancy, married an abusive military guy and had *four more children* in quick sucession. Finally dumped the wife batterer and by working shitty jobs took care of the five children and put herself through school and got a Ph.D. There’s simply no way, none, that dissapointment with the way things were going wasn’t a huge part of little nancy’s growing up years. The spitefullness with which she regards her mother’s achievements is stunning. Of course “some guy on the internet” up above said it better and faster when they said that “nancy’s mother forced nancy’s father to leave her when he so lvoed nancy the best”. That’s pretty much it. Its the feminists who made the daddies leave! Wahhhhh! And left Nancy with no good conservative daddy who would simply sell his public office as a judge to the highest bidder and keep his mouth shut about it!
aimai
Dr.BDH said,
March 17, 2008 at 18:05
Putting on my Fake Psychiatrist’s Hat, I’d say she’s a Borderline Personality Disorder candidate. Can’t form a lasting relationship with anyone, even her own mother. Seeks approval, then turns on anyone who doesn’t agree with everything she says, wants, demands. Are there any wingnut commentators who aren’t profiled in the DSM IV?
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 17, 2008 at 18:11
I can’t take the DSM-IV seriously. “Douchebaggery” isn’t a recognized condition.
Anne Laurie said,
March 17, 2008 at 18:57
… a Borderline Personality Disorder candidate. Can’t form a lasting relationship with anyone, even her own mother. Seeks approval, then turns on anyone who doesn’t agree with everything she says, wants, demands. Are there any wingnut commentators who aren’t profiled in the DSM IV?
… And here we thought they’d need an actual personality in order to have a personality disorder. Ha!
Forget the ‘wingnut commentators’, though — the *really* scary part is how well Borderline Personality Disorder describes so many of the current Oval Office occupants.
tontocal said,
March 17, 2008 at 19:04
Yeah, she lived in Los Angeles, that ‘bastion of Stalinism’ where, as everyone knows, one can never listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radios or watch Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer on the teevees or read William Saffire in that fascist rag, the NYTimes. They are sadly all verbotten here my friends and dear comrades.
And is she mayhap, any relation to ‘Melamine’ Morgan?
SomeNYGuy said,
March 17, 2008 at 19:07
So it’s not so much a “conservative” production company as it is a scam to exploit our armed forces and profit off their families?
Duros Hussein 62 said,
March 17, 2008 at 19:13
The 1860’s, maybe?
tontocal said,
March 17, 2008 at 19:15
mmmmmmm……Pemmican…….
tigrismus said,
March 17, 2008 at 19:51
Otherwise, I would still be … a pretty face on a man’s arm
That seems unlikely.
AJ said,
March 17, 2008 at 20:24
“As a child of the sixties, I was brought up in a time when there was still respect for America’s institutions…”
Wait a minute. She’s 39. 2008-39=1969. Doesn’t that make her a child of the 70’s - the era of Richard Flippin’ Nixon and his conservative thugs?
She’s either a liar, stupid, or both.
OTB said,
March 17, 2008 at 20:31
Yeah, uh, well, you see, lady, that’s yer hole prollem, right there…
Smut Clyde said,
March 17, 2008 at 21:15
The World Association of Psychobabbling Pop Analysts is pleased to offer honorary membership to Susan of Texas.
mmmmmmm… battered, deep-fried Pemmican…
Susan of Texas said,
March 17, 2008 at 22:08
I’m flattered to accept this award, even though you are giving it to me out of a sense of white male guilt.
(hee!)
tontocal said,
March 17, 2008 at 22:27
All Hail to Susan!!! (Nancy would say ‘Seig Heil!!)
Smut Clyde said,
March 17, 2008 at 22:34
My sense of white male guilt motivates me to donate anything except money. Or time.
Sniper said,
March 18, 2008 at 1:26
What an utterly charming woman! I wonder if she likes dried brambles and pemmican for breakfast?
Easy there, Rugged. This one’s beyond child-bearing years. If you want to raise enough righteous youngsters to form an army, you’d be better off wooing Marie J’on. Get in line behind the Sadly No boys.
Besides, she’s pushing 60 and still have mama issues. You don’t want to get on the wrong side of a woman like that.
James Killus said,
March 18, 2008 at 3:52
Anne Laurie, the inhabitants of the White House don’t fit the Borderline assessment. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, however, fits like a glove.
kc said,
March 18, 2008 at 4:53
Oh, my God, she’s my neighbor.
Barf.
Tehanu said,
March 18, 2008 at 5:15
The essay on her mother isn’t just sad, it’s horrifying. What exactly did she want her mother to do? Stay in the marriage and end up as a battered corpse? I guess she thinks it would have been “better” than discovering some pride in herself through that awful, awful feminism….
I hope Nancy doesn’t have any kids.
Crissa said,
March 18, 2008 at 12:39
This person really confuses me. Not only are her dates very confused, but her posts make no sense. She says one thing, and then another, with no logical following, and worse, she doesn’t ever explain.
She says in a sentence, “I’m a Christian” and “That means you do the right thing even when no one is looking.” And then she goes on and describes secular progressive as the opposite - not by quoting anyone, not by sharing the same definition of secular or progressive as anyone else does, or even by defining the term at all: She just declares that it means one only needs good intentions. (Not, you know, that secular has nothing to do with anything in her following paragraphs, or is about society doing good because it is good for society, and not because some magical sky fairy said so.)
Also, I’m not entirely sure this person is real. She reads like one of my conservative friends, who has no problem faking an identity online to gain attention and interaction.
http://www.divinecaroline.com/public/user/profile?user_id=17297
This page makes little sense. Who would retain such an identity? There is more invested in today’s story than anything else. As if this person were literally, born yesterday. She only has one year of hits on the web.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Nancy+Morgan%22+-%22John+ritter%22+-%22nancy+morgan+hart%22
Literally. She has fifteen articles written over the past year, and they barely rate Google. I know not everyone is rated on Google, but I’m not sure how you can be some famous writer and only have a year’s worth of career on the internet.
http://www.morgans-linedance-mania.org/
http://www1.georgetown.edu/gumc/update/38063.html
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/915/603
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Hart
Crazily, there are four other Nancy Morgans that rate higher in Google than she does. And they all have red hair, too. And one is a famous actress, who apparently really was a child of the sixties (born 1949), you know, when the baby boomers were teens.
Anyhow, this woman, if she is real, needs counseling, not christianity. She attributes all wrong to liberals, without ever saying why it’s wrong. Why does she have problems with her mother? She says it’s her mother’s fault for calling her nutty and not accepting her… And yet in no way does she ever examine any of the assumptions she has made.
Conservatives really need to do something about being represented by people with little attachment to reality.
cargocult said,
March 18, 2008 at 22:31
I’m imaging her on her porch, nattering on while a woodchuck, a few bluebirds and a squirrel shoot each other snide knowing glances between eye rolls.
Sadly, No! » Nancy Graceless (Pt. I) said,
April 9, 2008 at 16:16
[...] This is easier when the messenger is in fact cartoonishly mean-spirited. [...]
pedestrian said,
April 9, 2008 at 17:55
Whatever happened to wingnut look-alikes?
This site has really gone downhill in the lookism department.