PUMAs: GOP Shills

From Pandagon:

I believe that the Republicans are cheerful rat-fuckers and therefore would not hesitate to set up a secretive operation of people running around claiming to be Clinton voters who are voting for McCain to keep the legend of the PUMAs alive.  If you can convince people that there are PUMAs, then you accomplish two giant goals for the McCain campaign:

1) Creating the illusion that McCain is moderate enough to attract the votes of feminist Clinton supporters and
2) Reinforcing the narrative about how feminists are just hysterical bitches with no common sense who subsist on outrage, can’t act in their own self-interest because of their feminine-addled brains, and can safely be ignored.

Snip

I want to draw your attention to the first one, which implies that the PAC was formed to support Clinton during the primary run.  But if you look at the date on the PAC form, the PAC was registered on 6/3/08.  Clinton officially dropped out on 6/7/08, but for days before, it was basically known she was out.

I would like to argue that this PAC was not formed to support Clinton, but to support the media narrative about hysterical feminists, and to help the McCain campaign with goals #1 and #2.

I bet similar digging would show that a lot of PUMAs aren’t exactly what they’re claiming to be.

I’ve blogged about the issue here, here, and here.

It’s about time that those behind PUMA,  Hillaryis44, and No Quarter, and others be exposed for what they are: GOP operatives trying to lead some real Democrats astray by playing on their anger and rage directed at Obama.

Thanks for your work, Amanda.

Advertisements

2 responses to “PUMAs: GOP Shills

  1. Well, it’s either gonna be McCain/Palin or …

    Barack Obama starring as “Change” the Gardener in remake of movie classic, “Being There”, starring Peter Sellers as “Chance” the Gardener!

    *HT to hs commenting on
    puma4palin.blogspot.com

  2. Ted-

    Eh, it’ll be Obama starring as Barack Obama who will provide us with honest leadership and sane policies at home and abroad.

    To PUMAs like you, I always wonder if you think Obama Democrats would vote for Clinton if she were somehow able to steal the nomination from Obama (not that she thinks she can do that). I’d probably give in and vote for her, but such a move would alienate millions of African-Americans and people under 30 who would likely not vote at all.

    In 2004, I didn’t like Kerry one bit, but I voted for him, mostly because he wasn’t Bush. If you’re really a Democrat, why not support the guy you hate with policies closer to your preferred candidate over the guy who pretends to be a “moderate” but who is pretty much a Bush lap-dog?

    Why not vote for Obama or stay at home? And don’t give me the “he’s not qualified” shit. Obama has more experience in public service than John Edwards does or Abraham Lincoln did. Why no outcry four years ago about Edwards being “unqualified” to be president?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s