Reince Priebus: Win 2016 by Rigging the System?

Swing that hammer, Reince!
Image from source, Think Progress

There's a plan afoot in "blue" states headed by Republican governance, to change the way Electoral votes are awarded. The plan would essentially gerrymander each of the targeted states so that a Republican candidate is almost assured to win the state even if the statewide vote totals go to the Democrat. Barring that, it would at least apportion close to half of the electoral votes to the Republican even if he still somehow manages to lose. It's one of those situations where it's legal, but it ain't right. And it's very telling of the Republican philosophy, so on display in the 2012 election: rig the system wherever possible.

Some key Republicans were busted actually admitting that Voter ID laws were more about disenfranchising Democratic voters than it was about "protecting" the vote. And that was just one of the schemes they had going. It dates as far back as 1980, when modern conservative forefather Paul Weyrich said it best:

They don't want everybody to vote. It is fairly well known that if everybody comes out to vote--and is allowed to vote--Democrats tend to win. What kind of party has to scheme and plot to try and squelch the other side's votes? And what kind of party is totally cool with winning at any cost, even if it means cheating?

[Excerpt]

RNC Chair: Rig The Next Presidential Election For Republicans

In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus did not simply endorse this election-rigging scheme, he indicated that it should be targeted towards consistently Democratic states where it is most likely to skew the presidential election to the GOP’s benefit. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Ridiculously Long Voting Lines in Ohio and Florida Engineered?

Answer me this, my Republican friends. When you see images of and hear stories about 3, 4, 5, up to 8-hour waits to vote in Florida and Ohio, what is your reaction? Is it just liberal whining that we find this ridiculous, embarrassing, just shy of criminal? How about the fact that much of it is taking place in heavily Democratic counties? How about the concerted efforts of some Republicans--like Florida Governor Rick Scott and Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted--to make voting as difficult as possible, challenging the courts, in some cases. I'm serious, Republicans, does rigging the game seem American to you? Is winning by any means acceptable, as long as your guy wins?

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

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

Investigative Report: The Incredible Shrinking Groceries, Part 1 (Coffee)

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but our groceries are shrinking. You could be forgiven for missing it, though. Because the manufacturers are tricking us. Well, duh, they've been tricking us for years with advertising. But now what they're doing is selling us smaller and smaller amounts of product, but making it look like we're buying the same thing. This is just part one of (I hope) a multi-part series, should I be able to gather more evidence (and keep interest!). This is the only example that I'm aware of that I have in my house, and since this is the first thing I've noticed myself, I thought I'd start with it.

I've seen newspaper articles about--in particular--Tropicana orange juice. They make a slightly smaller than half-gallon of juice in a container that looks pretty much the same. So they can sell you 59 ounces or so for the price of 64 ounces (or shoot, the price might even have gone up!). A half gallon of ice cream became 1.75 quarts, and is now usually 1.5 quarts (but the packages got more creatively shaped). They do it with bars of soap, by molding them into a more hour-glassy shape. They do it with lotions and makeup with fancy, curvy bottles. But what do you do when the package is really common?

With coffee, the manufacturers long ago discovered we could be unobservant about what we're buying. The three pound can of coffee is long gone, having dropped in ounces drastically over the years. But the can size--roughly--is still with us.  I just had no idea how far down that 48 ounces has dropped. I decided to take out the last three cans of coffee I've bought: a half-caf one, the one that I just emptied, and the new one I bought this week. The Maxwell House half-caf one could--as a specialty blend--be forgiven for being a little less than usual. It was 34.5 ounces. That's quite a bit less than three pounds. But maybe it is the standard, since the can I just finished, a Kroger brand was just the same.

But, ho! Look here! The new "Great Value" (Walmart) can I bought just a couple of days ago turns out to not be a great value at all. 27.8 ounces. Twenty-seven point eight friggin' ounces! Can you believe that? It's dropped below two pounds (32 ounces), and it's still in a three-pound can! That takes chutzpah! I can tell you this: I've been letting it slide before, but I'm going to be watching my coffee purchases from now on. If there's an ounce-to-dollars comparison available, I'm definitely going to make it. I hate being ripped off, and I hate being swindled. That's what this is. By packaging these things like they're the same, but dropping the content, they're deliberately tricking all of us. And that sucks.

I'm going to try to continue this as a series. And I'm going to have to think up examples to check out. The one thing I've thought of that would be extremely difficult to change without people noticing is liquid beverages. Sodas, sure. We're used to their sizes, but they're so cheap to make, it isn't probably necessary to rip us off there. But what about alcohol?  There's no way you're going to change the size of a bottle of hooch, and not have us boozers crying foul! But guess what I noticed? My new bottle of Smirnoff has a different aerator in it, one that lets the vodka slosh out faster than it used to. I'm positive it isn't my (hic) imagination. . .

Did John McCain Cheat in Saddleback Church Interview?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question, or if it can be answered by anyone but John McCain. McCain's answers dis seem to come unusually fast, and included answers to questions not yet asked. It may be that McCain prepped very well, since this forum was after all more conducive to conservative viewpoints than liberal ones. But we've seen McCain without a script, and he is not usually this fast.

There have been legitimate questions about exactly where McCain was, and it has been proven that he was not in the euphemistic "cone of silence" alleged by host, Rev. Rick Warren. It's all very interesting to follow, but I wonder if it matters in the scheme of things. After all, the public seemed rather disinterested when George W. Bush seemed to be wired in one of his debates against John Kerry in 2004. How are we going to get them to care about this, even if McCain is proven to have cheated?

[Excerpt]

McCain cheated? proof he knew the questions ahead of time. UPDATED with video link.



Did they have the questions ahead of time? All I could find was that they would be provided the topics to be covered. But whether or not they were both given a list of the exact questions, I simply cannot find anything on that one way or the other. . .

Read more at: DailyKos

Conservative Book Scam: Win by Cheating!

Image from source, FightTheSmears.com

Do you ever get irritated hearing Ann Coulter introduced as "New York Times #1 Bestselling Author. . ."? Especially if she's introduced by someone like Sean Hannity, who hates everything about the New York Times except their bestseller list? And Ann is not alone. It seems like just about everybody on FOX "News" has some sort of conservative screed to sell, from guests to hosts.

I've often wondered how it is possible that Ann Coulter keeps writing the same book over and over again (always pictured in the little black cocktail dress), and every time it hits #1. And every book by Bill O'Reilly or Hannity seems to hit #1 too. Have you ever tried to slog through one of those books? It can't be done. . .well, at least not by me. You'd think an answer this obvious would have hit me right off the bat. . .they cheated.

Horrors! Arch conservatives cheat to get what they want? Of course they do! In this case, a conservative writes a book dripping with froth about how liberals eat babies or something. Then conservative groups (sometimes arms of the conservative book publisher) buy up huge quantities of the books, and sell them at drastic discounts to conservative book clubs, and other conservative outlets. Hell, I might even buy Obama Nation for $1.

Obama Nation, by swift-boater Jerome Corsi, is the most recent #1 best seller in this scheme. The book has been ripped to shreds by fact checkers (not all of whom are liberals), but will continue to be hawked on FOX "News" as a #1 book, and that alone gives it its credibility. Just like the equally ridiculous Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg just a couple of months ago. It's one big cheaty, conservative scam circle, ain't it?

Some links for you:

• From the New York Times, a piece on conservative authors (Corsi included!) who sued a conservative publishing house for the practice of bulk selling, and cutting the authors out of profits. It's sort of a "biting the hand that feeds you" story. Conservative Authors Sue Publisher
• The Conservative Book Club, where you too can get scads of books at a reduced price! Um, suggestion: I was just kidding before about buying any of these books at any price. Just do like I do, and get them from the library.
• And finally, if you want a centralized site to get out your conservative message, here is a (to me, very creepy) site that gives you the links to everybody. Eagle List Company

Links found at Newshounds.us comments, posted by "Escape Goat - Olympic Athlete"

Mitt Romney Wired During Debates?

Do you remember back in 2004, when President Bush seemed to be wearing a wire to the debates with John Kerry? It made quite a splash for a few days, then mysteriously simmered down. I believe if it had happened now, with the internet/blogosphere a bit more more tenacious, it may have been more difficult to swat away.

Or maybe not. It would seem that Mitt Romney may have been wired in the debates too. There was even some sort of snafu, where a whisper about not raising taxes was heard right before Romney said "I won't raise taxes." MSNBC said somebody's mic was opened, and that the similarity of the two voices was a coincidence. But now we have this, from an arch-conservative website, no less.

[Excerpt]

Who Is Whispering in Romney's Ear?

. . .During Gov. Romney’s speech, one of his handlers mentioned to one of our staff people that any time Gov. Romney needed to wrap things up, he would be happy to let Gov. Romney know through the ear-piece that he wore.

Being unfamiliar with whether or not presidential candidates wear Jack Bauer-like ear pieces, I simply assumed this was common practice.

All that changed during the most recent debate. . .

Read more at: Red State