The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.

No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations and flat-out lies.

Just look at the Other Side’s latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.

The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

Naturally, the media won’t report any of this. Major newspapers and cable networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side Look bad. Yet they completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that would be devastating to The Other Side if it could ever be verified.

I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable. Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring its own candidates’ incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks — remarks that reveal the Other Side’s true nature, which is genuinely frightening.

My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving, put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community. What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven, discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.

Don’t take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.

Let’s face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side’s policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.

To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don’t even know it.

These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers. It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus, many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed and generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about everything.

Besides, it’s clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless anger — unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.

That is why I believe 2012 is, without a doubt, the defining election of our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be greater. That is why it absolutely must win on November 6.





The wrong side absolutely must not win
By: A. Barton Hinkle | Times-Dispatch
August 19, 2012

Category: Politics, Psychology

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

31 Responses to “The Wrong Side Absolutely Must Not Win”

  1. dasoldenburg says:

    Write in A. Barton Hinkle for president. This is so on point it’s scary. Both sides are so divided, when in fact they are one in the same. Sad commentary for America.

  2. Mr.Tuxedo says:

    We all have confirmation bias, the trick is to realise it and seek out opinions contrary to what we believe to try to disprove them; at least once in a while. :)

  3. philipat says:

    Applicable only to the two main parties, the others having been totally ignored by the MSM. In fact, it took a Russian Network to provide any coverage whatsoever of the other parties and their policies.

    This approach to the politics for the sheeple by TPTB is called “Divide and conquer” and it was perfected by the British in its days of Empire.

  4. Tim says:

    Sad day in American Presidential politics when we have a dumb democrat and a dishonest republican as candidates.

  5. illyia says:


  6. theexpertisin says:

    After the mind exploding number of robo-calls telling me to vote (I already have), nasty cards and brochures pounding my mailbox from four states where I own property (but am not registered to vote) reporting the evils an opposing candidate in every race from President to Dog-Catcher and a barrage of radio, social media and television hit pieces that look as they were produced in someone’s basement, I APPLAUD this article.

    Thank God it ends on Tuesday…..or does it?

  7. lentils says:

    Perfectly describes The Wrong Side. Could have been a bit stronger for My Side. Could use a bit more clarity as to The Other Side. Nevertheless, the author of this essay is on target — The Right Side must win!

  8. jeffj900 says:

    So clever. This false equivalence BS is so boring. This is a cop out, an intellectual abdication of responsibility to do the hard work of noting the differences, analyzing the facts, constructing arguments, and committing yourself to the ideas you think are better and should win. I’d rather see a bad partisan take a shot at arguing their case than this eyes-firmly-shut pretense that both sides are equivalently partisan, and equivalently (mis)informed, and represent equivalent positions on hard questions. This is too easy and too lazy.

  9. cbatchelor says:

    I agree that there is too much emotion and not enough thought in this process. But, it seems to me that in 2012, we have something very close to a national referendum. As Paul Krugman outlined last week:
    If President Obama is re-elected,
    1. health care coverage will expand dramatically,
    2. taxes on the wealthy will go up and
    3. Wall Street will face tougher regulation.

    If Mitt Romney wins,
    1. health coverage will shrink substantially,
    2. taxes on the wealthy will fall to levels not seen in 80 years and
    3. financial regulation will be rolled back.

    This cute column (which has been floating around for several months now, I have friends in Richmond, Va., who sent it to me where this first appeared) helps those who like us to believe “it doesn’t matter.”

    It matters. Most everyone who reads Barry’s posts here know the logic of Mr. Mitt Romney’s world. I respect it, but it is not appropriate in managing foreign policy and national government. And the party Mr. Romney represents has not done well in recruiting good thinking. (Witness the sad GOP primary process or the Republican’s embrace of the Tea Party.) Can we do worse than Mr. Obama? Alas, the answer is, yes, we can do a lot worse. And, this column’s cute but snide argument that it the election doesn’t matter is disapproved simply by recalling George W. Bush. You liked W? You’ll love Mitt Romney.

  10. DrungoHazewood says:

    Took me three paragraphs. Slowing down.

  11. DrungoHazewood says:

    The wrong side already won.

  12. muirgeo says:

    One side has creationist, religious fundamentalist , anti-choice, climate change deniers, birthers and voter suppressionist…. they are NOT the same.

  13. capitalistic says:

    People are clearly gullible and fall for unsubstantiated data and ideology…”He who builds on people builds on mud”

  14. Event_horizon says:

    That second-to-the last paragraph is SO spot on. Can’t wait to see how many self-righteous, asshat partisans this post brings out of the woodwork…

  15. Frilton Miedman says:

    I wonder, the people stuck in line for five hours after early voting hours were restricted by the “other” side, are they deluded by confirmation bias?

    Belonging to “no side”. it’s hard not to be angered by the actions of one of the sides for the past 4 years.

  16. GetReal1 says:

    Sometimes I wish I was a school boy again, things were simple then and I believed that the president was the coolest and smartest guy in town. It’s sucks to grow up and find out that every four years our 2 main choices for president are tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dee.

  17. gusgus says:

    This post is terribly misguided — the two sides in American politics are not the same. As muirgeo pointed out, one side is anti-choice, anti-science, anti-realism, birthers and vote suppressionists. That same side’s candidate has run a dishonest, mendacious campaign where he has taken every position under the sun from the most extreme within his party to more moderate than his opponent. That same side has run on proposals that are not mathematically possible and when challenged has claimed that they’ll provide the details only after they are elected. That same side’s candidate has refused the reach the disclosure standards set a generation before about tax returns and bundlers.

    The two sides are not the same. Equating the two sides only provides cover for the one side’s continued slide into denial, dishonesty and corruption.

  18. eliz says:

    I think @gusgus has pretty clearly outlined that there is quite a difference between the candidates. However, I can’t say I feel strongly that the original post was misguided. There are fanatics on both sides, though it seems the reds (funny isn’t it) win on that score. Yes, I prefer Obama to Romney – though I am not enamored with either. If the other side wins, we will go on – and things will change again, sooner or later.

  19. zenospinoza says:

    False equivalence, i.e. “fair and balanced.”

  20. zenospinoza says:

    Somebody learned a new word this week, aptly applied by our host to describe an incompetent former official in the Bush administration, less well invoked here . . .

  21. budhak0n says:

    You do notice that BR didn’t write this, correct? My educated “opinion” and it is only that but sitting here at 5AM the night before the day, I’d be ok with either side.

    And it won’t hurt me in any way to voice a true opinion unlike some who have a much bigger stake in the game, but it looks to me as much as I can read the tea leaves that YOUR SIDE is out.

    Btw, denial dishonesty and corruption are par for the course, it’s just a choice of whose players get to play that game.

    Are you really going to try and tell us that there’s not a whole lot of beeeautiful new homes that popped up in the Chicago burbs and DC area in the last few years? Get real.

  22. denim says:

    It is not My Side versus the Other Side. The right side is not on the ballot, nor do I believe that He supports My Side or the Other Side. I believe that He condemns mendacity. I believe that He supports Truth, Integrity, and Love only in whom it is found. It is written in the book of the prophet Jeremiah for me to hear with my ears:

    “Blessed is the man that trusts in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
    For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreads out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat comes, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”

  23. TLH says:

    Money has corrupted politics. We need a constitutional amendment making public financing of campaigns. If we continue Social Security, it must be expanded to all public employees including our elected officials.

  24. dougc says:

    For those of us that don’t have a preferred candidate and are thankful it will be over tomorrow, 2016 starts wednesday and be prepared for hill and bill and the FauX news rants about “Vince Foster, Arkansas land deal and Tyson foods” . Will it never end?

  25. Low Budget Dave says:

    Whenever someone gets caught doing something unethical, they immediately claim that everyone does it. This is intellectually dishonest. Everyone does not do it, and even if they did, it still is unethical.

    Let’s at least be honest about one thing. The two sides may be running equally bad campaigns, but they are not identical. There are differences in their economics, and differences that matter.

    Both sides have said things that are true and things that are false. This web site, more than most, bears the responsibility to separate the sheep from the goats.

    You have no need to agree with anyone 100% of the time; they are not running for Pope. But if they say something wrong, you need to call them on it, not just shrug it off with an amiable allegory about how everyone talks the same.

  26. Christopher says:

    “If President Obama is re-elected……
    3. Wall Street will face tougher regulation.”

    Right…..because the O administration has shown they are willing to crack down on the Wall Street Fraudsters over the past 4 years…..

    Good luck with that.

  27. riverrat says:

    gusgus hit the nail on the head.

    The two parties are certainly more similar than they should be, but anyone who says there is no difference is either willfully ignoring or is incapable of understanding a mountain of facts and evidence.

  28. Livermore Shimervore says:

    Where does the Other Side go for DIP financing when the U.S. auto industry is on the brink of shutting down, laying off thousands of workers and blowing up already blown up state budgets from even more people on public assistance/foreclosures? The Other Side Bank USA? The Other Side Capital Partners?
    When cops, firefighters and teachers are then affected because state sales taxes have tanked nearly overnight do they go to the The Other Side Emergency Assistance Fund LLC? Meanwhile didn’t the Other Side Bank Association and the Other Side Chamber of Commerce start the whole lend-to-securitize-everything and the kitchen sink time bomb in the first place?

    Most of the differences between the Wrong Side and Our Side are over-blown. But once in a blue moon there comes a critical time for a critical decision by a President that affects the lives of ordinary citizens in drastic and sudden ways.

  29. Frilton Miedman says:

    TLH Says:
    November 5th, 2012 at 6:47 am
    ” Money has corrupted politics. We need a constitutional amendment making public financing of campaigns. If we continue Social Security, it must be expanded to all public employees including our elected officials. ”


    It’s already there –
    U.S. Constitution
    Article II
    Section 4 – Disqualification

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    For clarity, this is Merriam-Websters definition of bribery

    bribery noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
    Crime of giving a benefit (e.g., money) in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust (e.g., an official or witness). Accepting a bribe also constitutes a crime. Bribery is typically punishable as a felony

  30. whskyjack says:

    That is a step one solution, define contributions over XXXXXX dollars as a bribe.

    Now on to Citizen United and fake charities

  31. Frwip says:

    Here’s one nice load of tripe.

    Under the guise of jib-jab humor (was this the intent?), all this is is a vapid and lazy argument wrapped in a he-said-she-said fallacy.

    No matter how comfortable the idea may be to some, the two sides of American politics are not equivalent. It is not a simple matter of ‘if only people could be nicer to each other’.

    One side, namely the Republicans, decided about some 20 years ago that they would divorce themselves from facts and would rather ‘create their own reality’ to reprise the expression a senior White House official allegedly used while talking with Ron Suskind, back in 2002. But it certainly started earlier, probably with the Gipper. In any case, a clear and loud shot was probably 7 years earlier than the famous quote with the disbanding of the Office of Technology Assessment by the 104th Congress, after the Office issued too many embarrassing assessments for the tastes of some interests traditionally aligned with the Republican Party.

    This is nothing intrinsic to a conservative worldview. Important components of the Democratic Party flirted with the same kind of ‘shout louder, make your own reality’ politics in the past decades, whether it was around the SDS and SDS-WSA in the late 60s and early 70s, many forms of minority identity politics throughout the 70s or even, one could argue, the hopefully receding plague of ‘political correctness’ and post-modern ‘thinking’ (or rather, utter lack thereof) in left-wing academic circles from the 70s onward.

    But the situations on both sides are not equivalent by any measure. It is impossible to find on the Democratic side anything nowadays that would equate the complete divorce from basic facts that animates the modern Republican Party.

    A political movement based on the willful ignorance of reality, the systematic shooting of its messengers and a general policy of ‘solving’ problems by shouting louder cannot make a useful contribution to democratic institutions. You can shout all you want at a storm surge, the storm surge will still cover you with 12 ft of water.