I’ve been watching some of the links showing up here at my blog and also at The Confluence. Something really STRANGE is going on. The Republicans are abuzz with praises for Pumas. I’m reading blog after blog on the right saying that PUMAS may very well save the country. Check out these links. It will make you a believer in the old saying that politics make strange bedfellows.
From Redstate: More on Why McCain should Win: The Puma Factor
From McCain Democrat Clinton Republican: People Want to know about Puma
From Death by a 1000 papercuts: Pumas the Democrats the Media Doesn’t Want to Talk About
To be real honest, I’ve had a feeling that folks have been reading many of our sites for some time. This includes the media. I also know that some of the things that have been discussed here on The Confluence and on other Puma sites have shown up a few days after the topic was completely dissected by the PUMA community. Several times we’ve been accused of passing right wing memes when I swear the points were discussed here prior to being tossed around on right wing blogs and even right wing radio shows.
Several stories broken here (including SimoFish’s posting of the Hillary Fundraiser where Hillary says she thinks that putting her name up for a roll call vote would help her supporters gain closure) and on No Quarter. ( Think ACORN and most of the ACORN threads including the Obama expenditure on “lights, etc” which turned out to be voter-registration related .) These were first discoverd in the PUMA world.
You may feel discouraged and think that we’re not making a difference, but you really shouldn’t. This should tell you that our voices are being heard and that our cause has been well-argued. Now is the time for us to finally decide where to put our final action: OUR VOTE. As for me, I’ve gone into a voting pack with SM77 who lives in the swing state of Florida. I will be voting for Cynthia McKinney for her, here in New Orleans, LA. Louisiana is a red state. She will be casting my vote for John McCain in Florida.
Please, PUMAs, stick to your guns and cast your vote in accordance with our principles. It is up to us to show the DNC that denying one-man one vote to TWO states, stacking primaries so that small states out count large swing sates, and allowing rampant caucus frauds are not behaviors we wish the democratic party to undertake. Let them know that we don’t appreciate them putting a candidate with no accomplishments and a race-baiting, misogynistic campaign to the front of the line. Vote your conscious! Vote like a PUMA! Even the Republicans know that we can make a difference!
I picked this off Jack Tapper’s blog because I found this woman’s voice to be authentic and touching. Just thought I’d share it with you.
Is there anything the front-runner will not say to become President? No progressive cause would have a chance with him in charge
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Obama invokes change. Yet never has the dead hand of the past had a “reform” candidate so firmly by the windpipe. Is it possible to confront America’s problems without talking about the arms budget? The Pentagon is spending more than at any point since the end of the Second World War. In “real dollars” – an optimistic concept these days – the $635bn (£400bn) appropriated in fiscal 2007 is 5 per cent above the previous all-time high, reached in 1952. Obama wants to enlarge the armed services by 90,000. He pledges to escalate the US war in Afghanistan; to attack Pakistan’s territory if it obstructs any unilateral US mission to kill Osama bin Laden; and to wage a war against terror in a hundred countries, creating a new international intelligence and law enforcement “infrastructure” to take down terrorist networks. A fresh start? Where does this differ from Bush’s commitment on 20 September 2001, to an ongoing “war on terror” against “every terrorist group of global reach” and “any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism”?
Obama’s liberal defenders comfort themselves with the thought that “he had to say that to get elected”. He didn’t. After eight years of Bush, Americans are receptive to reassessing America’s imperial role. Obama has shunned this opportunity. If elected, he will be a prisoner of his promise that on his watch Afghanistan will not be lost, nor the white man’s burden shirked.
Whatever drawdown of troops in Iraq that does take place in the event of Obama’s victory will be a brief hiccup amid the blare and thunder of fresh “resolve”. In the event of Obama’s victory, the most immediate consequence overseas will most likely be brusque imperial reassertion. Already, Joe Biden, the shopworn poster boy for Israeli intransigence and Cold War hysteria, is yelping stridently about the new administration’s “mettle” being tested in the first six months by the Russians and their surrogates. Obama is far more hawkish than McCain on Iran.
After eight years of unrelenting assault on constitutional liberties by Bush and Cheney, public and judicial enthusiasm for tyranny has waned. Obama has preferred to stand with Bush and Cheney. In February, seeking a liberal profile in the primaries, Obama stood against warrantless wiretapping. His support for liberty did not survive for long. Five months later, he voted in favour and declared that “the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool”.
Every politician, good or bad, is an ambitious opportunist. But beneath this topsoil, the ones who make a constructive dent on history have some bedrock of fidelity to some central idea. In Obama’s case, this “idea” is the ultimate distillation of identity politics: the idea of his blackness. Those who claim that if he were white he would be cantering effortlessly into the White House do not understand that without his most salient physical characteristic Obama would be seen as a second-tier senator with unimpressive credentials.
As a political organiser of his own advancement, Obama is a wonder. But I have yet to identify a single uplifting intention to which he has remained constant if it has presented any risk to his progress. We could say that he has not yet had occasion to adjust his relatively decent stances on immigration and labour-law reform. And what of public funding of his campaign? Another commitment made becomes a commitment betrayed. His campaign treasury is a vast hogswallow that, if it had been amassed by a Republican, would be the topic of thunderous liberal complaint.
Obama’s run has been the negation of almost every decent progressive principle, with scarcely a bleat of protest from the progressives seeking to hold him to account. The Michael Moores stay silent. Obama has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He is more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain, and has been the most popular of the candidates with Washington lobbyists. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful.
So no, this is not an exciting or liberating moment in America’s politics. If you want a memento of what could be exciting, go to the website of the Nader-Gonzalez campaign and read its platform on popular participation and initiative. Or read the portions of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr’s platform on foreign policy and constitutional rights. The standard these days for what the left finds tolerable is awfully low. The more the left holds its tongue, the lower the standard will go.
I’d like to draw your attention to these posts from people that are still not voting for Obama. There are still plenty of us out there with unanswered questions and are not bowing to pressure to vote for him … I listed my reasons yesterday and if you go to the Confluence here, you’ll read many additions to my list. I’m a registered democrat. I’ve voted for Dukkakis, Carter, Clinton, Kerry and Gore. But I will not vote for Obama.
From The Confluence: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/monday-we-are-not-alone/
From Patsy and Sugar: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/tuesday-ohms-law-how-will-you-resist/
My reasons haven’t changed.
My top 10 reasons why I’m not voting for Barrack Obama:
1. His has specious pastors and associates (Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Farakhan, Michelle Obama …).
2. When he’s off the teleprompter and in a debate, he shows no understanding of policy–especially foreign policy and diplomacy.
3. Whenever there is a vote on something difficult, he doesn’t vote or he votes present so he says things but does nothing.
4. His list of achievements can be summed up in one bullet point: getting into office, jobs, and schools on something less than merit and hard work.
5. His demeanor reminds me of Dubya. He is smug, arrogant and when questioned comes off as some one whose entitled to NOT be questioned on anything.
6. He got his house and side yard in a sweet heart deal with his friend Rezko, the felon.
7. He got his two terms in the Il. state legislature by getting his opponents thrown out on technicalities and got the U.S. senate position when his Republican opponent quit when his supposedly sealed divorce records got opened mysteriously.
8. Michigan primary (sic): If he can get pledged delegates by not being on the ballot, then I want some Michigan pledged delegates too. Basically I hate injustice and every thing the RBC and the DNC did to rig the nomination for him falls into that heading. The entire primary process was contorted so he could get the election. The roll call was a sham. The caucuses were gamed and Florida and Michigan were brought back into the fold only after all the delegates were either replaced or bullied into supporting him.
9. He says he will negotiate with leaders of rogue nations which is just one of the reasons he’s been endorsed by the likes of Kim Jong Il, Khadafi, Hamas, Fidel Castro …
and the number 10 reason I’m not voting for Obama:
Since I’m being hammered from many sides to look at Obama as the superior candidate by some folks, I’ve decided to really take a look long and hard at the resume of Barack Obama. Because they tell me not to rely on the debate performances or his command of facts and issues, I decided to look at him like a job applicant. One of my uncles graduated first in his class at Harvard Law School. Just because I always was enamoured by my Uncle John, I started with the Harvard Law School party of Obama’s resume. This was the FIRST thing I looked into. I found that Obama is a job applicant with a short and padded resume and I got this information with very little time spent googling. The MSM are really a lazy and nefarious bunch.
The first Obama accomplishment we’re presented is the constant repetition of this line that I grabbed from his senate bio.
In 1991, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School where he was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review.
That just sounds wonderful doesn’t it? Despite implications by the press and others (I would include his campaign on that), Obama is NOT the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is the THIRD. He also didn’t achieve that position in the historical way which is by merit.
Why hasn’t any one done a little more research in to this? It was completely easy to find that Obama padded his already razor thin resume. Obama, is fact, the third black editor of the Harvard Law Review. Academics get fired for this kind of resume lie. I find it reprehensible that Obama gets away with this on a daily basis.
Not only that, I would think that some one interested in promoting the achievements and history of black Americans would want to clarify this publicly. Any women or minority that achieved this kind of positions prior to efforts by the government to end discrimination is something folks should know about and recognize. Isn’t this the purpose of Women’s History Month and Black History Month? Unfortunately, these two gentlemen have know fallen prey to helping the establishment of Obama, the myth.
I would especially think that Harvard would point out that they’ve had blacks acheive the position prior to Obama. One intrepid journalist asked them to clarify Obama’s resume ‘gaffe’ and published it here.
I wrote that letter to the Dean of the Harvard Law School Oct. 20, 2006. I received the answer in a letter dated Nov. 7, 2006. Dean Elena Kagan thanked me for my letter and said she was pleased to clarify a few points about the Harvard Law Review.
She said, “Members of the Harvard Law Review are referred to as editors. Each year there are many editors, but one person is elected president. The first African-American to serve on the Review was Charles Hamilton Houston, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1922. The second African-American to gain admission to the Review was William Henry Hastie who earned an LL.B from the Law School in 1930 and an S.J.D. in 1933. Barack Obama was the first African-American president of the Review; he graduated from the Law School in 1991.”
How Obama achieved the status of editor is also an interesting story. As ferreted out by many, and published by few, in 1990, the Harvard Law Review ceased to be a position achieved by merit. The first two black men who achieved their post did so because they placed in the top 10% of their graduating class.
Jack Cashill of the World Net Daily wrote this article in September of 2008. Here’s one of the highlights, although I do suggest you check out his entire column.
To Obama’s good fortune, the HLR had replaced a meritocracy in which editors were elected based on grades– the president being the student with the highest academic rank–with one in which half the editors were chosen through a writing competition.
This competition, the New York Times reported in 1990, was “meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.”
It did just that. At the end of his first year, Obama was named along with 40 or so of his classmates an editor of the HLR.
Unlike most editors, and likely all its presidents, Obama was not a writer. During his tenure at Harvard, he wrote only one heavily edited, unsigned note.
NOTE: I know this isn’t the greatest of sources, but the point is that the rules were changed and that mentioned was based on a news article from a legitimate source. I’m not all that interested in Cashill’s opining as I am in why they changed the rules and that they did so RIGHT before Obama’s tenure.
This ‘achievement’ is supposedly Obama’s shining moment. Yet, it appears as much invented and overlooked by the MSM as many of the other things Obama purports and denies. This may serve the interests of Obama and the folks who want him elected at any cost. However, the much needed praise paid to his TWO predecessors remains buried so that Obama the myth, can be elected. Their TRUE achievements remained buried so that a myth can live on.
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!
‘Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!
Madam, how like you this play?
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
Puma is a protest movement. Our blogs outline our strategies. Our votes are our tactics. I’m not exactly sure how much clearer I can make this but it appears that we have to repeat these simple facts over and over. If we don’t, no one gets us.
The nature of our protest vote is that is exactly that a PROTEST. This means that our friends who can’t understand why we might vote for a candidate that doesn’t have a chance (McKinney or Nader) or a ticket that we may not agree with on many issues (McCain Palin) don’t understand what a PROTEST vote means. Protests voting means your vote is a protest. It simply doesn’t have to make sense to any one else.
I started thinking about this today due to a post by Masslib on Alegre’s blog and a response by Or what Vahalla said.
The premise of a protest vote is that it’s not issues-related.
What I meant to say, put more succintly 🙂
This also hit me in the face when I saw a response to my own posting “The No NO Sisterhood”. A post by Ben Kilpatrick assumed I voted all women during the democratic run-off in Louisiana just because I was woman who votes for women as a means to discriminate against men.
Just voting for women is the same as just voting for the black guy, or the republican guy, or or or
And it’s about as smart a move as all of those.
My vote was a protest against the treatment of women candidates this year. I did not vote for all women because as a woman, I was voting for ALL women. I voted for all women as a protest. I did not like the way Hillary was treated. I do not like the way Sarah Palin is being treated. I will not stand for Helena Morena being treated similarly either. Already, it is starting. A blog for the local New Orleans business newspaper picked up one quote from my two day postings concerning the second congressional race and all my comments about Ms. Moreno. You can read it here. The only line the blog picked up from me about Helena was that most folks here were calling her the “little white girl in the race” which I view as confusing folks on her mixed white/Latina heritage and belittling her status as a woman by calling her ‘girl’.
I’m still thinking about what kind of protest vote I will make this year when I step in the booth to vote for President. I know I will not vote for Obama. I will not vote for the issues, for once, because I am protesting how he got the nomination, I am protesting how the DNC actively and underhandedly promoted him over a much more qualified and able woman, and how he has been given a HUGE pass by the MSM. I know many of my PUMA friends will vote for McCain Palin, others will just skip the vote, others will still vote for Hillary, and some will vote for third party candidates.
We do not have to explain the ‘logic’ of our vote over and over and over again. It’s not about the issues (like Roe v. Wade), it’s not about the economy, and it’s certainly not about voting party lines. It’s a protest vote. As such, it only has to make sense to us!
I think we need to take some time and rethink why we view our votes as protests this year. This is especially true if you’re thinking of drinking that koolaid and falling prey to the logic of voting on issues at this point. Puma ceases to become a protest movement at that point. It’s effectiveness at supporting reform within the democratic party has no teeth at the point we stop protesting.
There is no such thing for PUMAs as ladies (or gentlemen) protesting too much at this point. Afterall, it is our democracy at stake.
(cross-posted at The Confluence)