"The Other Side"

Recently I read yet another column, written by a con apologist, lamenting that President is attempting to divide "the other side". And, the writer also accused the President of not giving credit to the "other side" for having a valid "another side" to the argument.

In short, the writer was evening the blame for the political gridlock that affects the Congress today.

I read this constantly, even in progressive writings. Somehow, there is a tie, a balance to the blame for the "excessive partisanship" that is "paralyzing" our Congress.

Balderdash! Sheer Bull!

Look at the record. The leaders of the Republican Party have declared all out war on the President a long time ago. The Minority Senate leader famously said his sole goal was to make the President a one term President.

Countless Presidential appointments have been stopped by the Senate. The filibuster has been used more than ever in our history. Judicial appointments have been slowed to a trickle.

The leader of ATF has been held up for years, reducing that bureau to a facade of what it once was. Meanwhile, school children are slaughtered by assault weapons.

And, in a little known development, the Congress dramatically cut funds to the State Department for embassy security, directly leading to the tragedy in Libya. But, "the other side" needs validity? The "other side" declares they would fire the Secretary of State for her "mistakes" and "poor leadership" when THEY CUT FUNDING FOR SECURITY? The cons even are reacting in mock horror because the Secretary said what difference does it make who killed the American, what matters is finding out how to stop such things in the future...Cons conveniently leave the last part out, once again lifting words out of context in their rabid radicalism.

All of this, all of it, is a strategy to so discredit and hamstring the President that his leadership is questioned, and he will lose re-election.

And guess what? After all the obstructions, after all the money spent, Obama won. He won going away! It wasn't really close at all. And the GOP went no where in the Senate. And the GOP was outvoted by over a million in the House, only holding a majority because of state gerrymandering and flat out cheating. And the GOP Presidential candidate got buried. In California, the anti-Hispanic Republic Party has been reduced to an afterthought! The voters keep punishing them, and the cons keep demanding more radicalism. And loss after loss continues!

The "other side" was advertised with billions. The "other side" got a full and complete hearing with the American People and was told NO!

No to blaming illegal immigrants, no to supply side economics, no to social darwinism, no to conservatism, no to radicalism, no to male only, no to anti-gay, no to practically every tenant of the conservative agenda.

And now what do we hear, the President needs to give credibility to the "other side"?

Imagine if the cons had won? Would they be giving credibility to the "other side", especially if most of the principles of the "other side" were radical?

You can bet, that if Romney had won, the Affordable Care Act would be dismantled, Social Security and Medicare radically reduced, tax breaks for the rich, huge spending cuts. And all these would have happened with the barest of majorities; even with a minority in the popular vote.

Look at George W. Bush, even though he lost the popular vote in 2000, the GOP swept into power, started two wars, passed huge tax cuts, all without a popular mandate. The "other side", what other side? Progressives were banned to the wilderness. Executive orders were the name of the game, as cons gleefully dismantled the Clinton government with a relish.

The President made it very clear, crystal clear, in his Inaugural Address, that "We the People" were how he intends to get things done in his second term. And from the "other side"? "He is a socialist", a "radical", not a healer, a "divider". The GOP gleaned that from a speech that used "We the People" at least a dozen times!

But, in a late development, there appears to be some bi-partisanship for immigration reform...Finally!

Finally, some cons have put their hatred aside, and might, I repeat might, work for valid and humane immigration reform...

Now remember, a small minority can block virtually anything the Congress tries to do. And, there are dozens of Tea Party members in Congress, who will follow that wing nut Sheriff in Arizona, who would incarcerate Central America if he could.

So, the "other side" still has a nut base, that believes in birtherism, in cutting government and drown it in a bathtub, that poverty is a self-selected condition.

Conservatives see compromise as weakness, even have blamed Romney for losing because he "was not radical enough"

What viable, valid "other side" is there in this madness? What "other side" do we talk to, the libertarians, the birthers, the deficit hawks? How many defeats will it take to dismantle the con talking machine?

So don't get caught in "the other side" is equal or somehow as credible to what is left of moderate political America.

It isn't! The only thing that will shape the "other side" is defeat after defeat, until the jerks that form it core crawl back under the rocks they came from!