Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019

In the immediate hangover of the Bush/Cheney administration, I used to ask people, “What was one thing Bush got right?”

Some argued that the war in Afghanistan — up until bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora — made sense. Others said a Medicare prescription drug benefit was necessary — it just should have been funded and designed to negotiate for the best prices. A few said that Bush accidentally made it possible for President Obama and huge Democratic majorities to end the Iraq War, pass health care reform, end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…

The best answer I heard praised the work Bush led to fight poverty and AIDS in Africa as the one “right” thing he did. Last year, President Clinton mentioned this work fondly, becoming the only primetime speaker at either of last year’s national conventions to openly praise W.

The question of what Republicans have gotten right since Bush left office is an even bigger brainteaser. It’s even harder than trying to figure out where the periods go in one of Sarah Palin’s sentences.

The GOP was dead wrong in its opposition to the stimulus, which anyone with even a trace of honesty in their being has to admit stopped our layoff crisis and placed a bottom from which our slow economy began. Dead wrong in asserting that the actions the president and the Fed took to save jobs would lead to hyperinflation. Dead wrong in pushing the cuts on the state and local level that killed good jobs when we needed them most.

And they created their own reality where a president who slowed the growth of government spending to its lowest point in nearly 50 years and cut the deficit at the fastest pace since World World II was charged with being a big spender.

The only thing Republicans did get right was strategic. In the 2010 midterm elections, they successfully used dark money to blame President Obama for the trillion-dollar deficit and economy he inherited. They then took the opportunity that landslide in the House and state houses gave them to redraw the congressional map in a way that created a majority that lasts even as they received a million fewer votes than Democrats.

It wasn’t until after the 2012 election that most people recognized how the GOP had gamed the system. But Republicans were well aware of what Karl Rove and their other practitioners of the dark arts had done. It gave them the confidence to vote to privatize Social Security and Medicare while gutting Medicaid and education, extremely unpopular stands.

In 2011, Republicans in Michigan – a blue state that elected huge Republican majorities in 2010 – explored using their redistricted map to ensure Mitt Romney would get a majority of the state’s 14 electoral votes.

Why didn’t they do it? Michigan state rep Pete Lund said, “There were people convinced Romney was going to win and this might take [electoral] votes from him.”

They thought Romney was going to win Michigan, which he lost by 9.5 percent – or they would have cheated.


  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit265
  • Print this page
  • 1032

79 responses to “LOL Of The Week: The GOP Admits They Have To Cheat To Win”

  1. nobsartist says:

    And the dumb fucking ball less Dems will let them get away with it because they are all in the same club.

    Better change those gun laws soon or it may wind up biting both parties in the ass.

  2. old_blu says:

    I say one person one vote.

    • montanabill says:

      And that’s why we are a republic, not a democracy. When a square mile of inner city can control what happens for the other 44,000 square miles of a state, maybe that’s not a bad way.

      • I like the way you think bil-a-bob, one mile equals 44,000 square miles. Only problem is the Constitution states one person one vote regardless of how many miles each person occupies. In your vision we would have to change the Constitution, but then, I do not see you having a problem with that as long as it favors Republicans right? What a troll you are.

        • montanabill says:

          So you are ok with a few large cities deciding how the country should work for those who don’t live in those cities?

      • diakonon says:

        Maybe we should give the vote to cows, blades of grass and clumps of dirt.

      • awakenaustin says:

        If the square mile of the city has a 100,000 people and the 44,000 square miles of a state has 50,000, then that is the way it should be. Our Representatives are supposed to represent people and not areas. Senators represent States which gives square miles all the representation they need. Maybe you could instruct us in the political issues confronting underrepresented square miles as opposed to underrepresented people. The city I live in has more people in it than the entire State of Montana. My city which has historically voted Democratic has been Gerrymanded at least two times in the single minded Republican effort to defeat Lloyd Doggett. Rep Doggett still goes to Congress but now represents almost only a small part of Austin. Parts of Austin are now represented by five Congressmen, four Republicans and Lloyd Doggett. No one of the Republicans cover a large enough part of Austin to care what Austin thinks about squat. We share, to our disadvantage, our votes with large swaths of rural and not very highly populated Republican parts of Texas. No one needs Austin to win an election. Austin is unrepresented nationally except in Lloyd Doggett’s heart. I’m sure in your world the disenfranchisement of a million voters is a positive since they tend to vote Democratic and they are people and not square miles. So all of Montana’s less than a million people have three elected representatives in Congress. While the more than a million people in Austin have effectively none. Doesn’t sound even very “republic-like” down here. It certainly isn’t very “democratic”. Quit whining about how your square miles don’t get enough representation.
        Here we have another classic example of saying it is a “republic” when it suits one purpose and then saying it is a “democracy” when it suits another purpose.

        • montanabill says:

          I don’t use the word ‘democracy’ too much, especially when it simply refers to two wolves and sheep discussing dinner.

          Perhaps you haven’t noticed that two of Montana’s elected representatives are Democrats. One, who is a full fledged Democrat at home and in Washington. One who is full Democrat when he is in Washington, but the best sounding Republican you have ever seen when he’s in Montana. We also have one Republican elected to the House. We have a Democrat governor and a Republican controlled state government. The state has voted Republican in the last two Presidential elections.

          Your city stated voting Democrat when liberalism got a big hold on UT. When I lived in Texas, we had ‘yur United States Senator, Ralph Yarborough’ and John Tower. Those two were pretty much on the ends of the spectrum.

          Gerrymandering is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. Each party, when it has the change will do it. In fact, a lot representatives, like Corrine Brown of Florida, probably wouldn’t be in Congress without it.

          There is one thing that Texas has that a lot of Montana doesn’t have: fences.

          P.S. Montana has over a million people now. It is getting crowded.

          • awakenaustin says:

            Whatever your first line means, I am sure it means something to you without meaning anything to the rest of us. It is no particular relevance to “democracy or what a democracy is. Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by launching an argument founded on what a pure democracy is. Since it has never appeared in any nation since the word or the concept was created. The words democracy, representative democracy, democratic republic, representative government, and modern republic are all used pretty much interchangeably. Only conservatives draw these big irrelevant distinctions between democracy and republic. It always rears its head when you make an effort to justify or try to justify some Republican rep/sen/gov/Pres/ screwing the majority voice. When you think you are being put upon by some minority you scream “we are a democracy for chrissakes.” If you haven’t noticed this tendency you haven’t been paying attention.
            Yes I know Montana has two Democratic Senators, etc.. But we were talking about representation weren’t we, and not who represents you. Since Montana gets more than it gives the Feds., about 1 ½ times, I guess those Democrats get votes for bringing the bacon home.
            Sure Gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder sometimes. But let us see. 2 decades ago Austin proper, had a representative, now it has none. I am sure that the Republican dominated Legislature just accidently drew those boundaries the way they did. Not once but twice. They failed to dislodge Doggett the first time (left him too much of Austin). Second time they gave him a substantial, south of Austin, Hispanic population and hoped he would be dislodged by Hispanic opponents in the primary and then a “nominal” Hispanic in the general. Lost that one too. Gerrymandering is an art form. It has to get by the Feds. You give up a few safe seats to the other guys to gain a lot of safe seats.
            Ralph Yarborough was a gentleman and scholar. Sen. Tower, I never much liked his policy positions, but he wasn’t an idiot and he actually understood the value of a compromise. He couldn’t get elected today in the Texas Republican party. He would be seen as too moderate or “God forbid” too liberal.
            Surely, you have something better than Corrine Brown to throw sideways into the discussion?

          • montanabill says:

            Look at the latest ‘wolves and sheep’ issue. Taxing the rich. The wolves decided to have the sheep for dinner. Since there are far more wolves than sheep, guess who became dinner. It is the very reason this country’s founders formed a republic. It is supposed to help alleviate the tyranny of the masses. Liberal sites decry Romney getting 59% of the ‘white’ vote. Racial, they called it. But, of course, no concern over Obama’s non-white vote.

            You are another one who believes that Red/Blue state baloney. That has to be one of the best misdirection talking points the DNC has put out. The real key is to see exactly why the money was sent and where the money was spent, not how much they got relative to some other state. For example, Mississippi has a 37% black population compared to NJ’s 14%. Montana has no black population but a 6.5% native American population mostly living on large, mostly unproductive, reservations. 30% of Montana is owned and maintained by the Federal government. Montana doesn’t have many federal highways, but the ones they do have are very long compared to most Blue states.

            I knew Ralph Yarborough. He was neither. Tower wasn’t too likeable either.

            I threw in Corrine Brown because I have seen a map of her district.

          • awakenaustin says:

            Sheep are always the wolf’s dinner and there are always more sheep than wolves. The other fundamental flaw is that liberals have no desire to soak the rich. They have no desire to end wealth or level the economy. This may be the way the GOP argues this issue, but it doesn’t make it the liberal position. Liberals are now and have historically been as committed to private enterprise as any conservative. They differ first and foremost about how much government ought to be used to smooth out rough spots and level playing fields. Liberals think government is a viable instrument in this area. Conservatives think otherwise and frequently reject the use of government power in this area in any fashion. The taxes in this nation are not an onerous burden on the rich. They are not an onerous rate on me and I make enough money most of the time to put me in the top 5%. Poverty, ill-health, and poor education cost this nation a great deal more than we spend to remedy those situations. In the long run they are deleterious to the continued existence of our nation. The squabble between Democrats and Republicans isn’t primarily how to spend money most effectively to combat these problems, it is whether to spend any money on them at all.
            I think decry is wrong. “Point out gleefully” is more accurate. Keep garnering only the votes of those guys and eventually you will be a permanent minority everywhere, except maybe Montana, Idaho, North and South Dakota. If you can’t interest minorities in voting for the GOP because they view it as hostile to them and their interests (an accurate view), that seems to be a GOP problem. A problem not solved by recasting your message but not your policies or by taking on a few minority front men. If the GOP can’t find a way to suppress the Hispanic/Mexican-American vote in Texas and Democrats figure out how to motivate them to turn out, Texas is going to shift strongly in the Democratic direction in the next couple of decades. I don’t think you can stimulate enough white flight into Texas to counteract the trend. Don’t be misled by Ted Cruz. He may have the right sounding last name but he is no more Hispanic/Mexican – American than I am. He has nothing in common with the vast majority of Mexican-Americans in this state. He polled only slightly better among Latinos than Romney.
            Your discussion of red/blue, somehow ginned out of a side note of mine, I never mentioned it, is apropos of nothing. So the DNC dreamed that up? Apparently, Tim Russert gets credit by most. Who knows maybe he was a DNC plant?
            Probably the real key is how poor states are and how miserably they support services for various things. Hell without looking I bet Austin’s gross domestic product is greater than the State of Montana’s. ( It is, about twice, I peeked.) Now Austin has a taxation without representation argument. (Smile)
            I knew Ralph Yarborough and yes he was. Her district was drawn by a Republican led State Legislature. It is called isolating, concentrating and marginalizing.

          • montanabill says:

            I have to disagree with your assessments on several counts. It was the majority that wanted taxes raised on the rich, but not on themselves. That was a central issue of Obama’s campaign and it was certainly pushed hard by liberals. The liberal voice today says that private enterprise is bad. It is shipping all the jobs to China, cheating people to pay high salaries to executives and forcing those that still have jobs to work for minimum wage. If you must have a business, it needs to be tightly regulated by government to make sure you operate correctly. That is exactly the demagoguery that the Democrats have and are using. It might be true of a few companies, but all business is tarred equally as no distinctions are ever made.

            Maybe your taxes are not onerous, but mine are. Not in Michelson’s 63% range, but very close. Well over 50%.

            Conservatives do not object to government smoothing out rough spots, but we certainly do object to a government that has become a nanny state, disincentivising work for welfare and simply adding every single sole they can to government largess for the purpose of dependency.

            Tim Russert may have coined Red/Blue, but unless he’s come back from the dead, he didn’t create the Red’s get most of the money fallacies.

            You bet Austin’s productivity is higher than Montana’s. More business friendly state and a little less winter.

            Apparently, you didn’t know the same clown I did. Mine was a very liberal and offensive Senator.

            Corrine’s district was created some years ago especially so a black to get elected, not to get more whites elected. The demographics has changed considerably since her district was first created.

          • awakenaustin says:

            All Florida districts were re-drawn in 2012. They concentrated her district (100% Democratic advantage) as they did with 5 other mainly democratic districts (some having as much as a 500% advantage)while they eliminated 4 Democratic majority districts. I am sure it was all a mistake.
            Point- Russert coined the Red State/Blue State classification (2000 election) not the DNC, whether Russert is dead or not. Life is not so simple as you suggest or assume, nor is reality. Is your complaint about the Red/Blue dichotomy or your so-called money fallacy? You dislike this simplification because it runs directly and very effectively against the GOP’s crap about we are the party of producers and the Dems are the takers. Hurts to have that crap you have been handing out shoved back in your face doesn’t it?
            If you pay a 50% effective rate let me do your taxes, I can improve on that without being an accountant. The highest federal marginal tax rate is currently 35 %. I have no idea what you are claiming as taxes. Now if somehow you are really telling me you pay an effective tax rate of 50% you really do need an accountant.
            Go live on welfare, food stamps, etc., and then talk to me about the disincentivising (sic-this isn’t a word)of work. The biggest fairy tale in the GOP library is that you can make money and live well on welfare. The old welfare queen myth and the guy who picks up his welfare check in his caddy. Everyone knows somebody who knows somebody who knows this really happened, but no one has ever documented it. (Aside from the fact there is no federal welfare money for men and never has been. Unemployment compensation is not welfare. Nor is Social Security. Food stamps require you to be poor and qualified for and receiving unemployment compensation or assistance.) I know thousands and thousands of people and I am sure you do to, who love eating little or no food, living in dumps, not getting adequate health care and being in poverty. Tons of people think it preferable to working for a livable wage. It certainly is preferable to have a good job and a good salary. Hell, I’d pick poverty myself if I had the chance. It’s a great life. Solve your 50% tax rate. The GOP fosters these myths because it allows them to be callous and still claim the high ground. The problem isn’t that you don’t care, the problem is the result of character flaws in poor people.
            I don’t have any answer for why people aren’t taking all those jobs you have been creating for them with the tax cut George gave you and you had for almost a decade. Unfortunately the Government statisticians (and no one else for that matter) has been able to find all those jobs you have been creating.
            Your only objection to Ralph Yarborough was that he was a liberal Democrat.
            Sure Texas is business friendly. We have historically shit on unions. Fund our government with regressive taxes. Depend heavily on the cheap immigrant labor (despite our tongue in cheek crap about how we don’t like those illegals.)
            We have some of the lowest levels of social services for the poor and historically one of the poorest funded primary and secondary education systems in the nation (43rd or 44th or 49th today depending on who is saying so). Side by side in Texas, there is a lot of wealth (3rd in the nation)and poverty (6thin the nation). We have a warm climate which allows a lot of people to work a lot of the year. All of which goes to prove there is more to being successful and rich than character and desire. Come on down. Wealthy people here damn sure don’t pay 50% of their income in taxes. They rely on poor people to fund the government, such as it is.

          • montanabill says:

            Yes, they were re-drawn. But Corrine’s snake like district was first created in 1993. They also created a district for Alan Grayson, a well-known intellectual.

            I never said ‘Blue/Red’ was created by DNC. I did say that they are responsible for the ‘Blues pay/Reds receive’ junk.

            Apparently Austin does not have the same demographics as a lot of cities. Welfare queens and the guy picking up his welfare check in a Caddy (it will be an old one) are pretty common in my area (which most of time is not Montana). You are also wrong about men not on welfare. Look up the requirements.

            Once anyone whose receipts exceeds the amount of money extracted from them or their employer for unemployment comp, Social Security or Medicare is on welfare at that point.

            Since I was born and raised very poor, started working at age 10, have worked in fields, for minimum wage, been unemployed several times and overcome a potentially debilitating illness (polio), all without one dime of government help, I don’t have a lot a compassion for perfectly fit people who remain on the dole for more than a few weeks. A quick look at almost every newspaper nationwide will show you a help wanted section with lots of jobs available. Some require skill. Many are minimum wage. Many, because of Obamacare, are now under 30 hr/wk jobs. But there are jobs and those were the kinds of jobs I took when I couldn’t find the real job I wanted or needed money for school and family. Sometimes it took working two jobs. Yes, I’m wealthy now and I do pay 50% in taxes. Until you get here, don’t presume to know anything about having a very high income.

            The top 1% earn 19% of the income and pay 37.5% of Federal Income Tax
            The top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 70.6% of FIT.
            The top 25% earn 67.6% of the income and pay 87.% of FIT.
            The bottom 50% earn 11.7% of the income and pay 2.4% of FIT.
            That’s sure looks like poor people are funding government alright.

          • awakenaustin says:

            There is no federal welfare program for poor able bodied men. The closest thing to it is the food stamp program and unemployment insurance. Both of these programs are head of household and/or unemployment compensation related and they come with conditions which essentially require you to prove you are seeking work. Federal welfare assistance has been directed at women with dependent children. There was AFDC and now there is TANF. Some States have welfare for men. They are State programs and they get no federal aid.
            Everyone has personal knowledge of the “myth,” but oddly no one documents it. The fact that some people may defraud welfare is not an argument against it anymore than the fact that people rob banks, and embezzle from banks, and some banks screw people over an argument against banks.
            I will say again, it sucks to have that taker, producer bull crap spun around and shoved in your face. Paybacks are a b!tch.
            Yeah, it is great place to work, despite all the crazy ass, lazy, good for nothing but taking liberals who live in this town, we manage to have an unemployment rate about ½ the national average.
            You have an incredibly convenient definition of “welfare.”

            You know I worked all my life, so what? I am sure not as hard as you, and my father’s enlisted pay wasn’t all that good, but he did okay for a man with a 6th grade education.
            But working hard and having some pride in my accomplishments, modest as they may be, didn’t blind me to the inequities of life, the unfairness of outcomes and the notion that maybe except for the grace of god (if there were a god) there go I. The disagreement here is, that despite all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in believing that every individual is completely responsible for the outcomes in his or her life. It permits you, because of your success, to overvalue your personal contribution to your own triumphs and undervalue the systemic factors contributing to other’s lack of success. Your life is not a blueprint for everyone else’s life.
            No two people have the exact same anything.

            I said they were funding the government in Texas, which gathers most of its income through regressive taxes. Those ones that fall hardest on the poorest. There is a reason for why we do it that way. (Hint: fairness isn’t the reason.) You managed not to read what I wrote and answered it with an irrelevant example.
            Wow, I am in the top 10%, I guess that means I should quit working and join the 50% who pay almost no federal income tax. I bet they have lots more fun than I do.
            Wealth is such a horrible burden! I don’t know why more people just don’t give it up and move out on to the street.
            Serious as a heart attack – fire your CPA or get one, invest in TurboTax, do something. No one pays 50% of their income in Federal Income Tax.

          • montanabill says:

            TANF does not distinguish between sexes.

            My comments are limited to perfectly healthy people who have do not have a war injury or have had a debilitating accident or illness. Everyone has choices. Every single one of us is where we are because of the choices we have made. If you look at society and see unfairness or inequities and want to try to do something about it, good for you. The difference between us is that I will help people personally and you want government, i.e. someone else, to jump in.

            I didn’t limit my taxes to Federal Income Tax. I also pay income taxes to seven states, including California. In addition to moving out the top tax rate, we also got a big boost in Medicare, restoration of the 2% SS tax deduction and a phase out of what few deductions we were allowed.

          • awakenaustin says:

            If you don’t limit yourself to Fed income taxes then you shouldn’t use that misleading table which deals only with Federal Income taxes.
            TANF – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families – You have to have dependent children and they have to live with and be dependent on you, it is temporary, and it has work requirements. Texas – maximum monthly payment, family of four with both parents, $334.00. Can you say party time? There is no federal welfare for men!
            Yes, we all have choices, and we all have better and worse opportunities to have good choices as opposed to poor choices. I can’t help everyone personally. If you limit help to only personal help, then once again you introduce the vagaries of chance, luck, location and not merit as an explanation for outcomes. If poverty, poor education, and inadequate healthcare are a national problem then they must be dealt with on a national scale if they are to be dealt with adequately. I know quite a few folks around here who help give out thanksgiving meals and feel really good about it. Personally, I eat 365 days a year.
            The dark side of federalism, 51 different taxing authorities.

            So you pay 50% of your after business expenses, personal income in taxes not to the feds, but to them and seven states? We aren’t talking corporate income or business related taxes, but your personal income from your sole proprietor business and your personal tax obligations? See, I am thinking we have business incomes and taxes and obligations which don’t really fit so neatly into the argument you are putting out here?

          • montanabill says:

            TANF requirements use the word, ‘parent’. It does not denote female only parent.

            It has been my experience that people aren’t much difference from animals. If you feed animals, they quickly become dependent and lose their ability to forage for themselves. If you were suddenly unemployed, what would be the first thing you would do? Would you immediately apply for unemployment comp or would you find a job? If you were using up your own money, you would probably take the first reasonable paying job you could find. Working until you find what you really want. If you are using unemployment comp, then you’ll try to hold out until you find something equal or better than your previous job, even if such a job isn’t readily available. Case in point, my previous son-in-law. Lost a surveying job. Got on unemployment. Wouldn’t take just any job. It had to be surveying. Thanks to continual extensions, he was able to stay on comp for nearly three years. Then, finally had to take a job. Six months later, he finally found his surveying job.
            If you didn’t have the smarts to stay in school or liked the drug culture, then welfare and food stamps provide a better life than the jobs you are apt to find.

            My companies are S-corp and LLC’s. So my taxes are their taxes, which always put me at the highest rate. At that point, until this year, the only deduction applicable was the standard deduction. So much for big tax deductions for the rich.

          • dtgraham says:

            I had different numbers when referencing U.S. gov’t stats in response to another poster some time ago. It was coming at it in a little different way though.

            % of total income earned % of total taxes paid
            Top 1% of earners 21.0 21.6
            next 4% of earners 14.3 15.5
            next 5% 10.1 11.0
            next 10% 14.2 15.0
            next 20% 18.7 19.0

            Where total taxes are defined as federal and state taxes, payroll taxes, state and local sales taxes, federal and state excise taxes, and local property taxes.

            Where it starts to get skewed is when you get into the uber ultra wealthy, due to the cuts in the dividend and capital gains rates (from 39.6 to 15%) and the carried interest provision allowing them to transfer and declare their income as capital gains. About 75% of the income of the top .1% shows as capital gains and dividends, explaining their tax rate of 20% or less in 2007. That’s far lower than the top marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners supposedly pay. You’ll notice in the chart above that the top 1% pay less taxes on a dollar for dollar, income earned, basis than the next 3 groups.

          • dtgraham says:

            @ montanabill.

            This website screwed up my chart. Hope you can still understand it.

          • montanabill says:

            Probably because they don’t play the lottery. I’m in the top 0.1% and my money comes from earned income. Maybe I’m just an anomaly.

          • Ed says:

            “The tyranny of the masses.”Yes, you are correct. The fpounders did not believe in democracy.Having been raised as englishmen they believed that only the “better class ofpersons” should have the vote.Those who were “english gentlemen”. Unfortunately, “the masses” didn’t see it that way. Why is it tyranny when the majority want it but not when the “better class of people” want it?

          • montanabill says:

            The founders believed in democracy, to a point. They recognized that one state, with a greater population than another and with different priorities, could force their way onto the smaller state. In order to limit tyranny by the masses, they wisely created a republic form of government. Do you believe the masses in New York City, who out number the citizens of Montana by 8 to 1, should decide what is best for them and make their rules and laws for them? Do you think the masses in a few highly populated inner cities should decide what is best for farm communities and small towns across the nation?

        • montanabill says:

          Sorry for the misspellings, I was in a hurry.

        • BDD1951 says:

          And our republican legislature is filled with jerks as big as our governor.

  3. Gambler2 says:

    Time for a Constitutional Amendment that eliminates the Electoral College and elects our presidents by popular vote.

  4. billbear1961 says:

    They are cheats, liars, and frauds.

    Of COURSE, the only way they can win is by theft.

    Whenever their true policies are made clear to the voters, they’re overwhelmingly unpopular.

    The GOP care about POWER and the wishes of their RICH MASTERS—and that is ALL that they care about.

    This is NEWS??

    Where the hell have you BEEN for most of the past THIRTY YEARS??

  5. charleo1 says:

    There have been thousands of editorials, and opinion pieces written by, and for the Republican Party since losing the latest election. Some pointing out how the Party got off the subject of the
    economy, where they had a better than even chance to win. And let hard core, ultra conservative
    Social Warriors, with their beliefs about abortion, and contraception, label the Party as dogmatic,
    rigid, and out of touch with the larger part of Americans, who just wanted to get back to work.
    But the best advise I have read, Republicans really ought to consider is, “Just try and not piss so many people off next time.” Or. if you act like you don’t like your fellow Americans, what makes
    you think they are going to vote for you? But their problems go deeper than just unpopular policies.
    They know many parts of their platform are not in agreement with the majority of Americans.
    But, they find because of the way they cobbled the various parts of their base, they are politically
    unable to make policy changes. So, they are left with the risky task of mucking around with the
    electoral process. To win, not by the plurality of votes, but by declaring the fewer votes they know
    they will get, more powerful than all the votes they know they will not. Now the minority is
    lifted to power over the majority, by edict. By proclamation, they declare by the Rights awarded
    to the States by the Constitution, the 300 votes in rural White district number one, shall have
    the same electoral votes as the 3 million in suburban district number two. There! Now they
    don’t need to change unpopular policy. They are now insulated from the accountability that
    comes with the possibility of loss. And democracy as we know, and understand it, is no more.

    • jebediah123 says:

      After years of discussion, by many knowledgeable people, it is time for a serious look at disposing of the electoral college and go to popular vote.

      • charleo1 says:

        Well yes. It seems like disposing of the electoral college, for a popular method is a
        conversation we should have. It would most likely take a Constitutional Amendment,
        I’m thinking. And it’s hard to see the Right agreeing with such a change. As they are
        losing the popular vote as it is. Another thing that would make elections more fair,
        is to have an election board made up of an equal number from each Party. Instead of
        a partisan board, set up by the majority Party in the State, to oversee the entire process.
        See Kathleen Harris, Secretary of State in Florida. Chosen by Governor Jeb Bush.
        Bush v Gore, 2000.

    • Hillbilly says:

      And we have a President elected by the rich and we become a country with a dicatorship(spell check not working) which has been the Republican plan along.The Republicans have been trying to sell us that President Obama is a Communist and or Socialist to keep us from realizing what they are up to. Republicans are the ones that want to turn this Country into a dicatorship not President Obama and their plans to cheat show who is power hungry.

  6. HeraSentMe says:

    If Republicans had done this in the battleground states they controlled in 2012, Romney would have gotten 270 Electoral votes. A tie, that would then have been decided by the Republican controlled House. Romney would be president, even after losing the popular vote by five million.

    IF Republicans think they can make something like that happen in 2016, and not provoke massive civil unrest of the kind that makes the 1960’s look like a time of hearts and flowers, then they will have misjudged the American people yet again.

    Just as millions of Americans who realized the Republicans were trying to keep them from voting responded by showing up in masses and waiting in line for eight hours if needed, so will Americans across the country do what is necessary to make their votes matter.

    • dtgraham says:

      The thing is, I don’t see this civil unrest in states that (in terms of the popular vote) voted overwhelmingly Democratic for Congress in 2012 but saw more Repubs than Dems go to Washington due to fraudulent gerrymandering. I know what you’re saying, but if the United States actually had a functioning democracy the Democrats should be controlling Congress right now. The fact that they’re not doesn’t seem to be producing any mass protests or marches in the streets, although it should.

      • july860 says:

        I think there will be if they try to push this agenda. I believe that people will become fed up with the GOP telling us how we can vote.

        • dtgraham says:

          I hope your right. On second thought, the Presidency is considered such a special office that a Dem winning 5 million more votes than his counterpart in a Presidential election yet losing in the electoral college, due to the new Congressional district apportionment of votes, may finally get even civics challenged people to notice.

  7. billbear1961 says:

    Nice photo, of a dirty little Wall Street prick.

    Our rights aren’t for sale or suppression, Priebus, you grubby little prostitute!

    Although what your rich masters may do to YOU, one day, if you continue to fail them, is no concern of mine.

    For all I care, they can snap you in half, towel boy.

  8. Tom_P says:

    Just stage your damn coup and take your chances, boys.

  9. I say give them more rope and the Republicans will hang themselves.

  10. The future of the GOP does not depend on their sudden overtures to minorities, and it does not depend on their alleged willingness to work with Democrats on some issues, such as immigration law reform. They concluded that the only way to win future elections is to redistrict, and if they are allowed to get away with it they are likely to succeed.
    Consider this hypothetical scenario: state X has 20 districts, 90% of residents live in 3 districts. If the GOP manages to change the existing rules and replace them with their new goal, state X would allocate 17 districts to the Republican candidate and 3 districts to the Democratic candidate. In this example 10% of residents would impose their views and preferences on 90% of residents. That is what Republicans decided they need to win in the future. It is Democracy Republican style.

    • Jim Myers says:

      Replying to Dominick Vila –

      Gerrymandering has always been done by both Parties, on a smaller scale, in the past. However, it has evolved into an art form under the GOP leadership.

      So, we should fight fire with fire?

      I’m not saying that I agree with this, however, without some strong action from the Democratic leadership, we are doomed if we allow this to continue.

      • I agree. Unfortunately, there is little the Federal government can do to prevent what is going on. The only recourse would be for Democrats to vote in large numbers and replace every single Republican in blue states. The next step would be for the newly elected Democrats to reverse the state electoral college vote distribution back to the way it has been the last several decades.
        Like you said, both parties are guilty of gerrymandering, but what is going on this time goes well beyond what happened in the past. This time they are giving equal weight to sparsely populated districts, and they are changing the way electoral college votes are allocated. The consequences of the latter can be devastating for Democrats.

  11. Robert M says:

    This story should send chills down the spine of anyone who thinks that we should all be free to live our lives as we see fit. The GOP is unashamed and freely admit to trying to gerrymander and con the nation into letting them have their own and their supporters way in destroying the rights of the individual in order to maintain power and control in a government where they have been rejected.

    Isn’t this treason? Or at least sedition?

  12. AlfredSonny says:

    It proves that Republicans rely on Americans’ ignorance while Democrats rely on their intelligence.

  13. AlfredSonny says:

    When will the Republican voters wake up and realize that they are being conned?

  14. gahoof says:

    It is up to the people in the states where the gerrymandering took place to protest against it (and as loud and hard as they can). If they don’t then they deserve what they get; government that is not responsive to the needs of the majority of their state.

    • Countrybumpkin says:

      Sorry, but you are very wrong here. It is up to every citizen to protest un-democratic behaviour, because it affects every citizen – no matter where we live. Democracies are hard fought and need to be protected at the slightest threat. This contemplated republican theft of our votes is equal to a nuclear move. It will K I L L what is left of our Democracy after our Supreme Court let MONEY BUY ELECTIONS.

    • Hillbilly says:

      Protesting does not always work especially if your Governor is Republican and Republicans control your state legisture.

  15. gahoof says:

    When things get bad enough, the people let their government know. After all that’s what happened in France in the 1700s and in Russa in the early 1900s.

    We learn History in school so we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. Let’s hope our learning worked.

  16. lana ward says:

    If you want to call that cheating, so be it. Dems have been cheating for years, I hope Republicans start!!!

    • roguerunners says:

      START???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? There is just NO HOPE for brainwashed people like you!

    • Lovefacts says:

      Democrats have NEVER overturned or even attempted to overturn the importance of one person one vote. I beg you Lana, stop responding in a knee-jerk fashion and actually look at what this would mean. Suddenly a minority–be it religious or monied or political–would control this country.

      Our constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority. Should these laws stand, they rewrite the basis upon which our constitution was written and upheld because suddenly it would the be majority that would need protection from the tyrany of the minority.

    • Stella53 says:

      Dems didn’t cheat by denying others the right to vote the way the GOP did. Care to give an example or two where the Dems had to cheat to win the Presidency? The GOP will have to cheat to win a general election. They know it and they admit it. The poster who said there would be riots and civil unrest if this happens is right.

  17. Lovefacts says:

    Should this comes to pass, you will see massive civil unrest and riots if the one value of one vote is thwarted. But then, “W” said there was nothing wrong with a dictatorships as long as he was the dictator. In this case, just subsitute the Republican Party. And as the unrest escalates, watch the Republicans scramble for gun control.

  18. latebloomingrandma says:

    What I find particularly sad is that we send our soldiers all over the world to fight and die to spread democracy, while simultaneouly trashing our own.

  19. tobyspeeks says:

    Fight tooth and nail to keep all guns and ammo and high capacity magazines legal, then go ahead and do this.

  20. Jim Lou says:

    The GOP of today sound like the GOP of 1929. If I remember correctly our country was going to be in a Great Depression.

  21. jstsyn says:

    So, cheat better.

  22. adriancrutch says:

    The state legislature of AZ is a model for republican righteous dimwittedness=A freshman & some colleagues dropped a bill for pledges of allegiance to graduate from HIGH SCHOOL! Which didn’t take constitutional lawyers seconds to scream 1st Amendment violation! Now their laughing stocks for NOT checking with the Constitution if that was okay? I simply cannot fathom why (vote for),where(unqualified people) come from? It has been proven republican brains function differently than liberal thinking people. And I’ve actually been exposed to these narrow wits who worship GOD and money. And MONEY GODS that perpetrate ideas that just are functions designed to ruin life for the wage earners in society. When they see their money gods never were there for them they resign to their spot in time with jesus’s help. That’s where their brains sent them. Out to pasture!

  23. Joe says:

    Their participation would crucial.

  24. Lamont says:

    Go to sleep with that BS. Where have you been, repukes have been cheating. Turn fake news off and educate yourself

  25. Dangerous waters. Democracy itself is at stake.

  26. Trodie says:

    Anything done in the dark shall come to light, for those who cheat their way up are most often exposed at the end. Republicans are still experiencing the aftermath of the broad daylight cheating they did to Americans in the 2000 general elections. As a newly admitted immigrant, it made me to sympathize with the Democratic Party more. No one has to mislead, cheat, or do other bad things just to win an election. Republicans nearly dubbed the American people again in the 2012 general elections through misleading acts, but Mitt Romney was just very difficult to sell to the public. He was disconnected from reality in every way. Hence, Barrack Obama emerged as the winner. Republicans need to catch up with changing realities in the world. It is basically the utterances from most members of this party that turn off most voters…..the anti-everything. The lack of humility and the hypocrisy we see in most Republicans do not win hearts. A true christian is humble, because Christ was indeed humble. So professing to be the party of Christian values and showing arrogance and disrespect to majority of the American people at the same time is a contradiction. We all know Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. He was the master, but he served his followers. I hope the party can learn these basic things.

  27. Cheating is the only way that Republicans can win. They certainly cannot win by their policies. One would think that the Republican party would have learned a few things from their dramatic national election losses last November. Apparently not!!! Their focus today is not to change policies but rather to change the ways in which they convey their message. While Democrats continue to savor their victories, Republicans have already begun enacting their strategy to steal the 2014 midterm elections. They believe that their future national election successes will be largely based on what they do on the state level. Since a majority of state governorships and state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, that is how they expect to manipulate change in their favor. Republicans have already started more redistricting in their states. They are also attempting to rig changes in the electoral college system and how electoral votes are allocated in their states. Republicans will never change their policies that favor the rich. Instead, they will continue to lie, cheat, steal, disenfranchise voters, and rig the system to accomplish their ends. Democrats need to be ever-vigilant and not simply sit on their duffs until the 2016 election. They need to start engaging in grassroot efforts now to counteract, fight back, and defeat the attempts by Republicans to win national elections by any “underhanded” means possible. Republicans think that by simply offering a “carrot” to the latina community regarding immigration reform that they will win over that voter demographic. McCain had the audacity to get on television and proclaim that the latina community should belong to their party anyway as though they were some kind of property the Republican party owned. Latina should be insulted by that remark and further insulted by the meager scraps that the Republican party is reservedly tossing to them in the name of immigration reform. Republicans believe that if they win over the latina community than that will be the only other demographic that they will need to win over national elections. They don’t care about the black or Asians communities as well as unmarried women and young people. Their only strategy is to obtain absolute and total power so that they can enact their extremist agenda despite what a majority of Americans might want.

  28. Considering that one reason Romney lost was that so many voters had become aware of the election fraud element inherent in all of the GOP voter ID laws, one can only hope that sufficient numbers of US citizens will become aware of Republican gerrymandering and election manipulation and come come out to vote in order to negate this thuggish behavior.

  29. billbear1961 says:

    Isn’t that like giraffes admitting they have long necks?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.