CAMPOS: Unhinged on the right

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

October 15, 2008

12:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

My poor ignorant Campos; the deep & documented evidence of Obama's involvement with Ayers/Rezko/ACORN/Nadhmi Auchi/Public Allies are... well... let's see, quite documented:
http://www.zimbio.com/Political+Opini...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/0...
http://www.investors.com/editorial/ed...
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdog...
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/tags/Ayers/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12221...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=...
http://www.judicialwatch.org/jwnews/2...
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/more...
http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/?...
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdog...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?i...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitts...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-S...
http://mediamatters.org/items/2007061...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/arti...
http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/20...

Oh and how Percy Sutton, having no clue who Obama was, being requested by Khalid al-Mansour to get Obama into Harvard, where Sutton had contacts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npeYf...

Or that his claim he also graduated 'magna cvm laude' is fully unsubstantiated.
Or that his Public Allies organization was blatantly anti-capitalist and pro-socialist.
(Public Allies/ACORN being his 'community organizing' history, BTW)
Or that he cannot offer records to prove US Citizenship and is under lawsuit:
http://news.justia.com/cases/featured...

Even the Hawai'ian certificate provides is unsubstatiated:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles...
Untraceable Cert. Number, no Notary, non-folded. Forged all the way.

Good job Campos on your terrible reporting.
Stick to your 'opinion journalism'.
October 15, 2008

5:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike846 writes:

Prof. Campos is one of those liberals who Lenin called "useful idiots". Absent some sort of miracle, Obama will be President, we'll have a Democrat-controlled White House and Congress. I'm going to keep this column and see what the Good Professor has to say in about June, 2010. By then, using both economic and foreign policy "exigencies" as excuses, we will have had our position in the world in both political and economic power weakened beyond repair, our 1st Amendment rights curtailed even further in the interest of "fairness", and our tax burden raised to crushing levels, all to support the "equality of outcome" that the Left has so passionately pursued for the last 50 years. The Balkanization of America will be in full swing, with more and more "rights" for vocal and radical minorities while American citizens are marginalized and shunted to the side. November 5, 2008, will be a sad day for our Country. Please, God, make me wrong on this one. Mike
October 15, 2008

6:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

GMataisz writes:

A good column. The previous comment with its links to the right-wing sources merely highlights the right-wing nuttery and only serves as illustration of the facts and observations made in this column. This is not a logical argument, but a circular one, which is not a valid argument.
October 15, 2008

6:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

1964. Goldwater. McCarthy? Paul Campos is a prime example of a weak mind trying to sound intellectual. College Professor? LOL.
We will see what happens on Nov. 4 but you can see the frontrunners trying to discourage voters with their dreams of a blowout election.
October 15, 2008

6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

So there is no need to worry that Obama has associated with a terrorist, no need to worry about his militant pastor, no need to worry that he is promising huge changes with no real understanding of the financial disaster he could create, no need to worry that he buys into the lunatic rants of Al Gore (who stands to make hundreds of millions once Obama approves the rediculous task of 100% renewables in 10 years). After all if you worry about those things it's obvious you are just a racist lunatic.

McCain is actually one of the first chances in a long time for the country to drive the Republican party closer to the middle. If anything is a rediculous claim, it's that McCain will be the same as Georgie Pordgie. We can either elect a very radical liberal as a knee jerk, and rather uneducated, response to the ire with the current administration, or for once we can set our emotions to the side and truly vote based on which cantidate would be the most moderate and cooperative with both cantidates.

Since while typing that I laughed so hard that my breakfast cereal came out of my nose with the milk, I'll just save it for the "I told you so" in two years after President Obama has successfully driven us into the first great depression since 1941. I just hope it doesn't take a world war to pull us out of it.
October 15, 2008

8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

I am forced to agree with your logic Mr. VVVV

"McCain is actually one of the first chances in a long time for the country to drive the Republican party closer to the middle. If anything is a rediculous claim, it's that McCain will be the same as Georgie Pordgie. We can either elect a very radical liberal as a knee jerk, and rather uneducated, response to the ire with the current administration, or for once we can set our emotions to the side and truly vote based on which cantidate would be the most moderate and cooperative with both cantidates."

However grudgingly based on the GOP VP choice.
October 15, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The animosities and passions that animated Goldwater's unexpected victory in the race for the GOP presidential nomination were mainly two: fears of communist subversion, and of racial integration"

yes, campos, and nothing much has changed.

the right is still running on hate and fear.

sounds like it's not working this time around.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
October 15, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

xeeian writes:

George Bush just nationalized all the major US Banks.

And you kooks are calling Obama a radical liberal?

What color is the sky in your world? It's blue in mine.

ROTFL
October 15, 2008

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

VeryOpinionated writes:

xeeian, I believe that Pres Bush PROPOSED the nationalization of all major US Banks (your words, not mine), and Congress created the legislation (along with tons of earmarks) to make it law. Why don't you give equal credit to Congress for this dangerous piece of legislation.
October 15, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

xeeian writes:

This is too friggin rich to let go with just one post.

Lets also ignore the fact that initially when presented with the $700 billion bailout, the Republican side of the house rejected it on principle.

So in order to get it to pass, it gets slathered with pork and tax cuts. Making it a mighty tasty bill, Republican style. And it passes like sh*t through a goose.
October 15, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

xeeian writes:

Yeah, "PROPOSED" as in "you've got to pass this right away, trust me, it's for the good of the country".

Where do you get this, "PROPOSED"?
October 15, 2008

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Paranoid? No. Concerned that America will elect a ignorant, silver-tongued idiot? Yes.

Vote America! Vote McCain!

Barack 'the moron' D'ohBama doesn't have the intelligence to be president.

Only an idiot would run to the UN Security Council for a problem with Russia. It would be a waste of time and would only make us look like bumbling idiots.
October 15, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

VeryOpinionated writes:

xeeian, maybe I'm wrong, but I believe there's a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate. They wouldn't have had to add any earmarks (which were put in there to gain the support of both Republicans and Democrats) if all of the Democrats supported the legislation. So, your 10:06 post is pure nonsense. Rich is all in the eye of the beholder. Yes, PROPOSED. What part of the legislative process do you not understand, xeeian?
October 15, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Oh_Wise_One writes: "1964. Goldwater. McCarthy?"

Absolutely. The Left lives in the past. "Re-create '68"?.. only in their dreams.

Truth is, Obama represents Liberalism's last gasp. He will probably win - but then people will expect him to deliver on his promises. It even serves that he has a full democrat Senate and House = no excuses. The democrats get to own 100% of policies after Nov. 4th. - including the failures.

Liberalism is all talk and no action. The new Reagan will be back in town come 2012.
October 15, 2008

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

VeryOpinionated writes:

Cowboy63, who will the new Reagan be?
October 15, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The democrats get to own 100% of policies after Nov. 4th. - including the failures."

let's remind some folks here...that the next administration...be it republican or democrat...will be lucky to get anything of value done while cleaning up the republican mess made over the last 8 years.

i'll repeat.

it will be YEARS before we recover from the conservative policy decisions made over the last 8 years....no matter who is in the white house.
October 15, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

GMataisz writes: "The previous comment with its links to the right-wing sources"

Your entire post is pathetic. So just how does the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun Times, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, ABC News, Judicial Watch and the Chicago Daily Observer become "right-wing" sources?

Or the uneditied video of Percy Sutton specifically confirming the connection of al-Mansour & Obama?

Or the facts on the legal docket with the lawsuit against Obama?

Please stop being an ignorant fool.
October 15, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

jay writes: "it will be YEARS before we recover from the conservative policy decisions made over the last 8 years....no matter who is in the white house."

Can you name any non-war related policies that were so detrimental? I'd like to hear what you state so I can pick you apart
October 15, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

CDee writes:

"the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy" that, at different points in America's past, has characterized panics over the Illuminati, Masons, Jesuits, Catholic immigrants and communist subversives.

And the Clintons, let's not forget the "vast right wing conspiracy"
October 15, 2008

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

jay writes: "the right is still running on hate and fear. sounds like it's not working this time around. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Didn't you know Jay, GMataisz stated that my links in the very first post of this thread that went to realclearpolitics was merely 'right-wing nuttery'?

Or does sources only qualify if they fit liberal opinions?
October 15, 2008

12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

Conservativeslayer writes: "Obama graduated from Harvard Law"
Bush II came from Yale. And?

"and was the president of Harvard Law Review."
By current editors voting him in, not from anything outstanding.
Which, btw, the Volume 104 which he presided over is the least cited in volume in the Law's Review of the past 20 years.

"Yet she still couldn't name a single newspaper or magazine she reads."
Palin should willingly disclose what she reads (and be mocked REGARDLESS of what is is) but Obama isn't required to release a single record (medical, school transcripts, state senate history, etc.)?

"You'd be wise to not bring up intelligence argument, because you'll lose badly on it."
*yawn*
October 15, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

VeryOpinionated writes:

jay, I thought that Obama could walk on water. Not to mention the fact that he's such a superb leader. So, with a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House, you should be brimming with confidence.

If Obama is elected (as I suspect he will), he will need to stand on his own, not whine about the problems he inherited.
October 15, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

xeeian writes:

Ok, VeryOpinionated, you win, GW Bush, proposed, advocated, and presided over the nationalization of all major US banks.

That puts him in the same league as Chavez, right?

What's next for Bush? Wage and price controls? Like Nixon?

If Obama is going to be more >liberal< than that, he's got a pretty high bar to clear.
October 15, 2008

1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

VeryOpinionated- Well, at least your name is honest. VeryErroneous would work for you as well.
Nobody has said that Obama "walks on water". Your attempt to set up Obama for "failure" is transparent.
October 15, 2008

1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

VeryOpinionated writes:

WestminsterJ, Louis farrakhan Called Obama "the Messiah." According to the Bible, he walked on water. Therefore, I stand by my remark. Personally, I think Jay is correct in that the $700 billion bailout will tie the hands of whoever is elected, along with the billions in entitlements that are already in the budget. Where Jay and I disagree is pinning the problems on conservative policy decisions. Fair enough for you?
October 15, 2008

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

deoj1 writes:

Neither party has taken the high ground in this election. I understand your column is opinion and, as an educator, I am certain you will be writing a column, "Unhinged on the Left" as you would want to be sure to present both sides of this issue to students at CU. You may want to refer to Michelle Malkin's column which appeared along side yours in today's Rocky.
I am a registered independent and have been for many years as, in my opinion, both parties as well as the media have gotten us into this financial mess. While the actions of both parties are reprehensible so are the actions of the media.
We have had to televised presidential debates and many media interviews with both candidates promising to spend more money and promising more tax credits and neither the liberal nor conservative media has asked them to explain where the money is coming from.
I have sent the same message to Michelle Malkin.
I think our Founding Fathers would agree with me,the Fourth Estate has failed all Americans.
October 15, 2008

2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

usa_mattw writes:

I really can't believe you teach our young people, Mr. Campos. I think this a knee jerk reaction like what was seen in 1976 when Jimmuh Carter was elected and turned in, what was quite possibly the worst 4 years as president of any ever elected...that is until the socialist Obama is elected. If we don't get a clue and vote for McCain, we will see a backlash in 4 years the likes of the Reagan landslide in 1980. Conservatism, not Repulicanism, works every time it is tried. When Repulicans lose, it is because they have turned toward the political middle and tried to hold hands with the people that want to destory them. On a side note, the over-riding chant at Republican rallies is "USA, USA". The over-riding chant at Obamanista gatherings is "Obama, Obama". Just something to think about.
October 15, 2008

2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

CFWDave writes:

The comments "kill him" and "Maoist or Stalinist" were both directed at Bill Ayers, not Barack Obama. It's okay to, like, be mad at somebody who tried to blow people up, isn't it? Is that a symptom of being "unhinged"? Campos' case that the right is "unhinged" and "paranoid" is so pathetically weak that he has to resort to lies and distortions to make it. I forget--is that a Maoist or a Stalinist tactic?
October 15, 2008

2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

boyydz writes:

"Unhinged on the right"? You've got to be kidding me. The race card was never played so pathetically as in this piece (of trash). Trying to link modern conservatism to racism and xenophobia is plain outlandish. Is it xenophobia when terrorists actually DO come to attack your nation? Does the color of Obama's skin make it racism to question the character of a person running for the world's most powerful office? Is such a pursuit paranoia? Or are black candidates immune to vetting because of affirmative action?

Apparently these kinds of delusional rantings are what now pass for enlightened discourse at the University of Colorado, an institution proud to have developed the insightful (not) mind of Ward Churchill. Campos, you should be ashamed of yourself for even advancing for a moment such a farfetched heap of parrot droppings. How about using your brain to actually THINK instead of lapsing into an Obama-induced zombie stupor?
October 15, 2008

2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

shanester writes:

Wow. All the author had to do was Google for what REALLY happened.

I knew 100% that Paul would mention the "Terrorist" and "Kill Him" comments at McCain rallies. However, Paul doesn't like to deal in facts and "forgot" to mention that those comments were directed towards Bill Ayers. So, either Paul was lying, or is ignorant. Ignorance could be corrected with a little research. So, Paul is either lying to us, or too lazy to check any facts.

Either case is grounds to fire him.

Go ahead Paul, keep lying, we'll be here to check it. Every time.
October 15, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

shanester writes:

Also, in regards to the lies in this article (see my previous comment exposing just one of the many), this is a guy who is a Professor at UC.

That's scary.
Someone either intellectually lazy, or flat-out lying in this article is teaching our kids.

THIS is what's wrong with out educations system.

Come on, Paul! Quit mooching off of the taxpayer and get a real job where you have to perform to get paid... not get tenure, a pension, and can get away with lying.

Face it, you could not make it in the "real world", so you had to become a Professor. Sure, there are many excellent Professors out there, but the pure lies or laziness in the article proves that Paul isn't one of them.
October 15, 2008

3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

shanester writes:

Obama recently states that he wanted to "spread the wealth around".

That should make Paul and his socialist friends happy.

Funny how Obama will backtrack. He lets the truth slip out. The truth he's been hiding for 2 years.

Liberals cannot say exactly what they want to do and believe. They'd never get elected. If Obama confessed to wanting to bring Socialism, at least some of it to the USA, he would have lost badly. That's why they have to hide it. Now we know what he feels. However, it might be too late. He's already bought his votes and Acorn will make sure there are plenty of "extra" votes to go his way.
October 15, 2008

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

shanester writes:

jay writes: "it will be YEARS before we recover from the conservative policy decisions"

If you can name anything conservative to come out of GW's admin, I'd LOVE to hear it. True conservatives cannot stand Bush. He is NOT a conservative by ANY means.
October 15, 2008

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Can you name any non-war related policies that were so detrimental?"

you mean like cutting taxes during time of war while setting records for pork barrel spending?

how about breaking another record...size of gov't.

i know....disengagement policies in the middle east and east asian penninsual.

shifting a burden of the tax code from the upper to the middle class.

failure to regulate the oil, housing and finance markets.

i can go on all day long...
October 15, 2008

3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Badgerjohn writes:

Bush nor McCain (nor Palin, for that matter) are true conservatives. That's why Chris Buckley left the magazine that his father founded.
October 15, 2008

4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

radagan writes:

The difference here than with McCarty's time is people were concerned about such things as a threat. Now the Dems welcome such things. The more radical Obama could be, the more they would love him. They would actually put in the likes of Ayers himself if they could. Where else could someone like that succeed but in the academic circuit and in the political left. The reason Obama beat out Hillary is even she isn't left enough anymore.

I like how all the Dems on here keep touting Bush's gov't spending to justify Obama's proposed spending. McCain would try and cut spending, as would Palin. Regardless the Gov't can't keep borrowing. Spending will eventually have to be reduced and taxes will be going up as well. Several years ago there was talk about a proposal for the states to do a constitutional amendment to force the US congress to balance the budget. Unfortunately that never happened and now about a third of the US States have deficits as well.
October 15, 2008

4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

jay writes: "you mean like cutting taxes during time of war while setting records for pork barrel spending?"
The Bush II tax cuts were in response to the recession he inherited from Clinton including the 9/11 attacks plus I don't think you have a clue what pork barrel spending is. That'll be Congress's fault, fool.

"how about breaking another record...size of gov't."
Very broad statement. Size of what? Welfare? Education? Military?
Keep in mind Bush II -opposed- the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security.

"i know....disengagement policies in the middle east and east asian penninsual."
Specifics? None? Wow.

"shifting a burden of the tax code from the upper to the middle class."
Please, enlighten us how the -burden- was -shifted- to the middle class?

"failure to regulate the oil, housing and finance markets."
Regulate oil? You mean akin to the Carter fiasco?
Housing? That'll be the Democrats creating the problems, then preventing a fix.
Finance markets. What needs to be fixed? Bush II was losing clout 4 years ago. Anything he offered would be opposed as "there's nothing wrong".

"i can go on all day long...(blubbering like a fool)"
I know you can.
Yet when asked for -specifics- you give NOTHING.
Why should the great "Jay" even provide EVIDENCE?
October 15, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

MarkInIrvine writes:

It's almost amusing how the so-called "right" conveniently forgets the past and present associations by McCain and Palin with the same kind of groups over which they are now exerting so much energy excoriating Obama:

API for Palin (Palin has a long term sexual relationship with a former member of a domestic terrorist group)

ACORN, United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, the U.S. Council for World Freedom, the Albanian American Civic League, James Hensley (father in law and operator of the United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson, convicted of filing false liquor records), Kemper Marley (manager of United Liquor, umbrella org. for United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson, and alleged mobster).

Hypocrisy lives on and on!
October 15, 2008

5:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

MarkInIrvine writes:

Let's try that again:

t's almost amusing how the so-called "right" conveniently forgets the past and present associations by McCain and Palin with the same kind of groups over which they are now exerting so much energy excoriating Obama:

Palin: AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) - Palin has a long term sexual relationship with a former member of API, a domestic terrorist group

McCain: ACORN, United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, the U.S. Council for World Freedom, the Albanian American Civic League, James Hensley (father in law and operator of the United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson, convicted of filing false liquor records), Kemper Marley (manager of United Liquor, umbrella org. for United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson, and alleged mobster).

Hypocrisy lives on and on!
October 15, 2008

5:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

maidenman writes:

Campos is an ignorant, petty, resentful and calumnious individual. He belongs to the Daily Kos wing of the Left, dedicated to the proposition that your ideological opponents are evil, and not merely confused or misinformed. There is no possibility of honest debate with the likes of such people.

Somebody give him a copy of Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, to show him that the conservative movement he envisioned refered to maximizing individual freedom and minimizing coercion. Is this a racist or xenophobic concept? Were Hayek, Mises, Hazlitt, Friedman all concealing their boiling hatred of colored people with their promotion of a smaller government? If you think so, then I can see why you consider any opposition to Obama's socialism as a form of racism.

Like Charles Krauthammer wrote, if patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, playing the race card is the first refuge of the liberal scoundrel, used time and time again to deflect criticism of their utterly bankrupt mid-20th century statist notions.
October 15, 2008

5:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

derge, i've said it before and i'll say it again.

i'll be happy to tutor you on the specifics of those failed policy stances IF your ignorace is real.

i don't waste my time with willfully ignorant footsoldiers any more.

so...if you truly have no idea what i'm talking about when i talk about "disengagement" as a foreign policy initiative...i'd be happy to share some information so you that you'll be a more informed voter.

that said, if you're just refusing to acknowledge politically inconvenient information, well, don't take this the wrong way, but if that's the case, i honestly just don't want to waste the time.

so...which is it...good, old, plain, honest ignorance or politically or theologically motivated willful ignorance?
October 15, 2008

5:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Vern writes:

Even the LA Times debunked the AIP - Palin smear. When the MSM is debunking nutroots leftist nonsense, you know your argument is hollow. Not to mention the now famous "terrorist" and "kill him" comments were being addressed to AYERS not Obama.

Meanwhile, as the MSM sheds crocodile tears the Obama brownshirts on the left are busy rounding up political dissenters and legistating away free speech via "truth squads" and lawsuits filed against anyone who speaks out, and the fraudulent voter rolls are now up to 200,000 in Ohio alone. Yes, those right wingers sure are scary.
October 15, 2008

5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

arcus writes:

"Every mass political movement has its lunatic fringe. In the case of contemporary conservatism, that fringe is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from the center". Paul may have a point. By the way does anybody know where to get one of those "SARAH PALIN IS A CUN1" tee shirts?
October 15, 2008

6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

bobmartin writes:

Fact: The educated people in this country are supporting Obama.
As reported in a FoxNews article (I dare you claim they have a liberal bias): "Obama's support comes from the well-educated and the young. McCain does best in Evangelical, rural areas with low educational achievement." (The people who thought Algebra I was so gosh-darn hard)

Fact: Uneducated Chinese/Indian workers can do the same work as uneducated American workers, except a lot more cheaply.
So, uneducated Republicans, how do you figure you're going to survive globalization?

By celebrating ignorance instead of intelligence, and bigotry over racial tolerance, Republicans are dooming themselves and their children (sadly) to poverty in a globalized world, where successful American companies will employ people overseas and value American workers who are educated and not afraid of working with non-whites.

America has the best universities in the world, and not enough smart American children to send to them.

The nice part about being a wealthy, educated Democrat is that if Obama wins, I'm happy because we'll have a smart person at the helm (instead of a guy who was fourth from the bottom of his Naval Academy class).

If Obama loses, well, I get a nice tax cut under McCain (I make well over $500,000 a year, and people like me get the bulk of the benefits from tax cuts under McCain. Thanks McCain!).
So I'm happy either way, because I'm a proud white man who didn't make excuses like blame "affirmative action" whenever I didn't get the promotion I wanted. I kept working hard, and voila, I'm in the top 2% of Americans in terms of income. Oh, and I pulled my money out of the stock market when the Dow was over 11,000, so I'm pretty good when it comes to guessing about the future.
October 15, 2008

6:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

wils2021 writes:

Derge has so many entries, I am inclined to believe he is a victim of the Bush Depression--a lot of time on his hands.
October 15, 2008

6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

rjnova writes:

Well who is more unhinged on the left than Campos and a flip of the coin--Obama. These guys are in bed with ACORN, Ayers Rev Wright, Jesse Jackson, Black Muslims, the dumb Congressman Lewis from Geo.---I mean where do you stop. Obama's complete history is to buddy up with anyone radical or terrorist if it buys him position in an organization that promotes his radical agenda---liberal, left wing, socialist, terrorist or anyone that can grease the slides for him.

The man is an opportunist of the first cut. It does not matter what the man or organization stands for if it helps him keep his name in the news.

The big laugh here is that 15% of white Democrats are not going to vote for the jerk and that will sink him in the election---unless ACORN can register enough convicts, dead people and Micky Mouses to game the election.
October 15, 2008

6:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

readytovote18 writes:

Am I the only one a little disturbed reading all these comments? I've found points on both sides for sure, but some of the comments are so angry and divisive I wonder when the post became about who scores more witty insults instead of discussing the actual article.
I think that campos was right, that the conservative media can be hysterical when it comes to Obama, (terrorist fist bump??) but I think that it goes too far to say that this type of lunatic hysteria is a central trait of conservatives. The media exaggerates and dramatizes everything, it's up to the viewers to step up when it's gone too far.
and to Vern, isn't any case of a large crowd shouting 'kill him!' a bit disturbing, regardless of who they're shouting at?
full disclosure, I plan to vote for obama as of right now, and I hope I won't be insulted and mocked for it, just as I don't plan to belittle anyone else's choices, whether I agree with them or not.
October 15, 2008

6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

SophusE writes:

After having read the article and all of the comments here, it seems to me the best solution would be to divide your country into two separate countries. Only thing is though, the grass is always greener on the other side.
But then again I'm just a stupid gun-controlling taxlovin' welfare-addict socialist/communist/terrorist Dane.
October 15, 2008

6:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

hoopoe36 writes:

I think you can learn everything you need to know about the Democratic Party's commitment to free speech from the fact that they spent millions in 2004 to fight Ralph Nader in virtually every state in the Union. Not to defeat his campaign through debate or ads but to use legal challenges to keep him off the ballot entirely.
October 15, 2008

7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

Always interesting comments when Campos writes one of his poke-the-snake-with-a-stick columns. So, as an exercise for the student, please take the opportunity to study these wonderful examples of a particular class of obsessive ultra-right wing anti-Obama extremist…parroting identical talking points from anonymous emails, talk radio, and fringe websites (wouldn’t it save time if they just numbered them? Then they could just write “NObama, TP#4! #6! And double #12!!” without forcing everyone to wade again through their repetitive dreck).

In contrast, let’s review a few examples from intelligent, rational, thoughtful conservatives (an increasingly rare and unfortunately dying breed). First, this from an article by Wick Allison, former Publisher of William F. Buckley’s National Review (and a distant relative, although we’ve never met) which helped me finally confirm my decision to vote for Obama. You’ll really want to ready the whole thing but here’s a sample:

“I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment
in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those
don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative
view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books…or listen to him speak
without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man.

“…as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe
[Conservatism] is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a
liberal named Barack Obama.”

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.a...

…or how about this by George Will:

“Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start,
and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections.
But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to
people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges
by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude
for either.

“It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for
the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism
and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency.
Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience.
Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
October 15, 2008

7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

How about one more? Interestingly, Christopher Buckley (Bill Buckley’s son) just came out for Obama (and, by ‘Mutual Agreement’ immediately left the National Review because of it). Sample:

“While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have
any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for.
Eight years of “conservative” government have brought us a doubled national
debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy
Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of
breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at
federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

“So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the
Republican Party. It left me.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...

As I’ve said here before, I thought all three final candidates had the potential to be decent Presidents but, as a middle-aged, retired military, decidedly non-cultish white guy, I’ve leaned toward Obama ever since it became obvious Joe Biden wouldn't be an option (Biden/Obama was my early favored ticket). Although his positions are certainly more liberal than mine, my judgment is that Obama has a rational pragmatism (the ability to change his mind based on new information) that would allow him to consider other points of view, and an innate intelligence and moral core that would guide sound decisions.

So everyone, don’t be satisfied with what you're told...please make up your mind based not on someone else's distortions, but on YOUR OWN understanding of the ability, intelligence, knowledge, views, positions, temperament, judgment, and moral strength of the candidates.
October 15, 2008

8:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sixtysixdeuce writes:

"If you can name anything conservative to come out of GW's admin, I'd LOVE to hear it. True conservatives cannot stand Bush. He is NOT a conservative by ANY means."

Bush and the rest of the modern GOP, save a very few, are the reason I left the party and went Libertarian.

"MarkInIrvine writes:

Palin: AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) - Palin has a long term sexual relationship with a former member of API, a domestic terrorist group"

AIP a terrorist group? That's quite a stretch. You can't draw that conclusion without it's having reciprocal effects regarding the ties Obama has to myriad radical groups on the other side.

"Fact: The educated people in this country are supporting Obama.
As reported in a FoxNews article (I dare you claim they have a liberal bias): "Obama's support comes from the well-educated and the young. McCain does best in Evangelical, rural areas with low educational achievement." (The people who thought Algebra I was so gosh-darn hard)"

Fact: People supporting either Obama or McCain need to spend some time vetting their chosen candidate. The result will be a revelation that both are shamless demagogues, unfit to run a household, much less a country.
October 15, 2008

8:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

glock27 writes:

The utter hypocrisy or ignorance of Campos is astounding. After enduring eight years of the Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left, Republicans are chastised for some yells from anonymous members of a crowd.

I do not recall Campos criticizing a movie that portrayed the assassination of President Bush. Nor do I recall any criticism of the multitude of organized left wing demonstrations that featured signs depicting a decapitated President Bush. More recently, I do not recall any criticism by Campos of the tsunami of vile hatred directed at Governor Palin: t-shirts reading "Palin is c**t", "Abort Palin" signs and graffiti.

This column is simply another in Campos's seemingly endless supply of superficial and tendentious screeds.
October 15, 2008

10:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

talos_29 writes:

If you need any evidence of the accuracy of the comments by Mr. Campos, all you have to do is read the postings in this site. All the black helicopters lunatic and kooks are out there sharing their wisdom! Some of the postings are quite amusing. It must really be hard to be one of these fellows. Must be a full moon I guess! Boy are these folks going to be disappointed on Nov 4!
October 15, 2008

11:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

commoncents writes:

"Throw a rock in a pack of dogs and the hit one will yelp" has never been a more easy demonstration than the posts on this article.
I was talking to a shrink one day about being crazy, he laughed and said that only the crazy people don't realize that they are, everyone else can see it a mile away. Hopefully some from this movement will find the right meds to get them to a rational state of mind sometime soon before they start offing themselves in protest to the next president.
October 16, 2008

1:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Patron_Drinker writes:

jay wrote: "shifting a burden of the tax code from the upper to the middle class."
Derge responded: "Please, enlighten us how the -burden- was -shifted- to the middle class?"

Derge, in the 1980s the upper class (the top 1% of all wage earners) paid 50% of all taxes. Now, they only pay 45%. To Jay, the middle-class (probably including him) paying closer to their share of the government's largesse is a shifting of the burden. Liberals like Jay want to give your money and mine to people who've not earned it, not their own.
They don't understand that the middle class is mostly made of conservatives who want to pay more in taxes (not by having a higher tax rate, but by making more money). They don't understand, even after years of higher revenues spurred by lower rates, that the best way the government can help the economy is by staying out of the economy's way. (Unfortunately, politicians on all sides seem to have missed this lesson.)
October 16, 2008

1:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

Patron_Drinker writes: "Derge, in the 1980s the upper class (the top 1% of all wage earners) paid 50% of all taxes. Now, they only pay 45%."

Your numbers are off quite a bit.
The fallacy in that statement of Jay's was implying that the wealthiest top had their tax rates cut while simultaneously the tax rates for the middle class increased. There is no way to shift a 'burden' upon a tax brackets if there were no changes. Only the percentage of taxes paid is changed. Thus there is no 'burden' placed on the middle class.

In fact the data supports that from 1999 to 2006 , under Bush II, the bottom 50% were paying less, and the top 1% were paying more:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?Page...

Everything else you mentioned was fantastically dead-accurate!
October 16, 2008

1:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

talos_29 writes: "All the black helicopters lunatic and kooks are out there sharing their wisdom! Some of the postings are quite amusing."

What's amusing is that no matter how much evidence is provided, to secure your convictions you refuse to actually research into the sources I provided as the first post.

Then you fall into the leftist attack methods of attacking the person, not the argument. Mocking a statement is not a rebuttal.
October 16, 2008

4:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rangerjoe1 writes:

Derge, that the style of rebuttle that is taught at our flag-ship university, that type of rebuttle is taught by this kind of professor.
October 16, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The fallacy in that statement of Jay's was implying that the wealthiest top had their tax rates cut while simultaneously the tax rates for the middle class increased"

actually this is a strawman argument, derge.

i'll say it again...the conservatives in charge of all three branhes of gov't for the vast majority of the last 8 years shifted a portion of the tax burden from the upper to the middle class.

they also TEMPORARILY cut nearly everyone's taxes...but that cuts are TEMPORARY...after which the middle class will pay a larger portion of the debt than they would have had the burden not been shifted.

thus many conservatives are actively voting against their own best interests.

is there anything else from my post that you'd like to try to refute or can we move on to logical conclusions?
October 16, 2008

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

jay writes: "actually this is a strawman argument, derge."

What I am proving to you was that the tax BURDEN was NOT shifted ONTO the middle class.

It's only a 'strawman argument' IF I am arguing against a position my opponent (you) did not make. Yet you did. Contradict yourself much? Or just not understand terminology?

"i'll say it again...the conservatives in charge of all three branhes of gov't for the vast majority of the last 8 years shifted a portion of the tax burden from the upper to the middle class."

Say it all you want, facts disagree with you. The burden was not SHIFTED on the middle class, in fact, the burden was lifted by the tax cuts of the last eight years.
October 16, 2008

1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

fatheromalley writes:

"Goldwater had made his political name by being a staunch supporter of Sen. Joseph McCarthy's campaign to rid American institutions of communists. McCarthy was a lunatic, or a charlatan, or both, who among other things claimed that George C. Marshall, General of the Army during World War II, author of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, secretary of State and secretary of Defense, was either a communist agent or a helpless dupe of "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man."

The marshall plan was the beginnings of the military industrial complex and our current exportation of jobs. Rebuilding Europe had "tax benefits". (manipulation of policy through taxes on income gives too much power to our government).

Nuggets of truth in the ramblings of a mad man?

With the throwing out of McCarthy we threw the baby out with the bath as we did in 1977 Reinvestment Act, where we replaced unlawful discrimination with no discrimination.

These types of laws are based on ideology foreign to the foundations and sovereignty of our country.

We became unmindful of how much socialism is opposed to what made us the most helpful nation that has ever existed. Either through mostly private donations, government foreign aid or our military supplying emergency aid to nations around the world that have suffered natural calamity, our giving has dwarfed any other nation present or past. And for all this we can't swagger just a little bit? We must constantly be ashamed? As we are ashamed of McCarthy?

Unrestrained propaganda, cloathed in "free speech" does not secure our freedoms, it diminishes them.
A way back to strength in our foundations?
Vote out anyone that supports a government answer for all issues.

Tell them "No Thanks"..
Here are some reason's why on the following post:
October 16, 2008

1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

fatheromalley writes:

Dear Supporters of Candidate Obama,

I know by the way you addressed this, my email address was retrieved from my most recent communication to you and sent out with an 'auto reply'.

Why would I wish to support people that are embarrassed of me and wish to dictate my life in order to 'help' me because they perceive that I am incapable. www.facethestate.com ("Educating the idiots")

By the way, why did HAMAS, Rev. Wright, Ayres, and Farrakhan hitch their wagon to Obama in varying forms of endorsements and alliances?

Are they all preaching the doctrine of 'evil capitalism' and 'the evils of Western European and American culture'?

Then we are all ashamed and deserve your lectures?

1.) We must lower our expectations of our own success as a nation because the poor want more?
2.) We are warming the globe by our success?
3.) We all must be increasingly punished (through taxes on income) for achieving?
4.) You support forcing every successful person or business to spread the wealth (through the manipulation of taxes on income)?

Does anyone besides me see a trend here? Or, is it just me?
Yeah, it must be just me..

Thank you for offering but I must humbly refuse your offer,

Yours through faith in our founder's wisdom.

Gary Vincent O'Malley

www.fatheromalley.com
October 16, 2008

1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

nope, trigger, still a strawman.

google middle class tax burden and bush. click on any of the first several links.

i just did...i'm not sure why you're still sticking to the willful ignorance.

can we move on to conclusions?
October 16, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

jay writes: "nope, trigger, still a strawman."
Wow, that's your hard hitting analysis... "Nope", LOL, how lame is THAT?
Plus why did you call me trigger? Is that some covert way to call me the N word?

"google middle class tax burden and bush. click on any of the first several links."
That you rely on Google to randomly select links explains why everything you state has no credibility and I have shown your 'facts' to be wrong. Even funnier, you never provide proof! Yet the FACTS are shown here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/number...
No taxes were INCREASED on the middle class.
Thus, the BURDEN was not placed upon them. This is the facts.

"can we move on to conclusions?"
Conclusion: You incorrectly used the 'strawman argument' to defend your failed position and stubbornly refuse to admit you either lied or are just ignorant.
October 16, 2008

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

reshas1 writes:

The left, unhinged...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/...
October 16, 2008

5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

wow...what did i tell you about willful ignorance?

so not only are you feigning ignorance because you can't refute the point i'm making...you're now too lazy to read the information that i point you to.

here's information from the first link on that search i asked you to reference:

"President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found"

"taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

here's information from the second:

"President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/0...

do you want me to read it for you too, scarecrow?

ready to get back to the conclusions you can't refute?
October 17, 2008

9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

jay writes: "wow...what did i tell you about willful ignorance?"

Of course, you are ignorant.

I point to links that are tax data, from tax reports, analyzed from tax professionals.

You give the Op-Ed journalist websites, LOL, pathetic!

You're a prime example of America's declining skills of proper scientific research and critical thinking.
"Oh, well the headlines say THIS"
Yes, except those 'headlines' are incorrect. But why should that stop you.

And you still don't understand 'burden', do you?
October 19, 2008

8:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

wow.;...now data from the Congressional Budget Office is part of the vast liberal conspiracy?

or do you think the papers are lying about CBO findings?

do you believe people are following you too?

remember kids...politcally inconvenient facts are still facts...
October 20, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

jay writes: "wow.;...now data from the Congressional Budget Office is part of the vast liberal conspiracy?"

Now, Jay, THAT is a strawman argument.

"or do you think the papers are lying about CBO findings?"
I can state definitively newspapers are misleading. A news article using data that is misinterpreted has nothing on tax professionals and tax analysts contradicting those very same papers. An Op-Ed newspaper is not a source for facts.
You still fail.
October 20, 2008

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

gotcha...so the reason for your willful ignorance on this subject is that the "newspapers are misleading" you.

gotcha.

Congressional Budget Office data apparently isn't strong enough to break the will of the staunchest rushian footsoldiers.

all hail, king rush.

i would have hoped that you'd have the intellectual honesty to admit when proven wrong, derge.
October 20, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

Wow Jay... it's fantastic your pride is so large you cannot admit that you're wrong. Jebus dude you KNOW it!
It's fantastic that you have nothing.
It's fantastic that you actually believe The Washington Post and CBSNews trumps REAL analysis of REAL data:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?Page...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/number...
No, you attempt in vain to defend your erroneous statement.

Posting news sources is NOT equal to tax data-analysis sources.
By god you'd post the DailyKos or Rollingstone in a desparate attempt to save face, wouldn't you?
I suggest you leave RMN, and stick with the Disney forums because here you are proven a fool in every thread.
October 20, 2008

8:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

again, derge...those were just articles referencing the findings of the Congressional Budget Office.

no offense...but i'll take the CBO's data over your conspiracy theories.

thanks for playing.

rush would be proud of your ability to stick to your willful ignorance even when presented with credible info that defeats your position.
October 20, 2008

10:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Derge writes:

Jay, those articles stated nothing definitive. "We believe" or "it appears" or even "we assume".

*yawn*

No wonder Democrats get elected. Ecnomically ignorant voting liberals. This thread is done:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fus...
October 21, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

they stated that the Congressional Budget Office has found that republicans have shifted a portion of the tax burden from the upper to the middle class.

which apparently is still a politically inconvenient fact for you.

as i said...rush would be proud.

again kids...politically inconvenient facts are still facts.

thanks for playing.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

CAMPOS: Unhinged on the right

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs