Democrats who believe the worst about Hillary Clinton and the best about John McCain. Sure the two groups of Democrats don't overlap, but it's the same effect - just because you hear Hillary Clinton is a lying bitch doesn't mean she is one. Just because you hear John McCain is a rational maverick doesn't mean he is one.

One of the most depressing things about this damned near suicidally depressing political season is how otherwise smart (and not so smart) people have been dumbed down by 20 years of bullshit. That we're swimming in so much narrative (novels all the way down as Somerby says) that even people who pride themselves on being smart can't see through it.

John McCain is awful. He's always been awful. His selection of Palin didn't just now make him awful, Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan. Obama's lameness doesn't make him less awful, PUMAs. He's always been awful and still is.

but most of them want to come back to the Democratic ticket. It's easy for Obama's people to fix.

Simply become Democrats again.
It's that simple.

Admit the mistake with FISA. Embrace HR676. Stop chasing after Blue Dogs, and make them come back to our ways of policy and good common sense. Stop wishing Republicans would come to us, and start making them dead envious we have so many Democrats sticking with the home team -- not as a last resort but the best chance to put this country back on track.

A talking head on Bloomberg TV this morning said he's been in the business for 30 years, and today was the worst thing he'd seen since the S&L meltdown. Of course, my mind immediately went to Keating and Saint McCain, and the commercial the Democrats need to get busy crafting: BBQ John, maverick overseer of two deregulation-fueled meltdowns (or stick-ups, as Woody Guthrie would have it) your great grandchildren will be paying for.

Please join me as I hold my breath waiting for that ad to appear.

1,2,3....

thank you, THANK YOU for this post, VastLeft.

i could not agree with you more, and i will make an effort to provide links explaining why he's likely to be WORSE than Bush. (i have quite a collection of evidence/links on my home computer.)

that's the bottom line--there's not gonna be anyone like him in a McCain WH.

i don't believe McCain will be as bad or worse--i think he'll be like Daddy Bush--lousy and weak and 1-term.

plucked out of an entire essay. Here's more of the context:

No one should misinterpret that to mean that PUMAs agree with the Republican party in any way. We are Democrats. We do not share the Republican worldview of government. However, we do not see McCain as criminally corrupt as the Bush neo-cons. McCain does have a fairly good working relationship with Democrats. Even so, our vote is a protest vote and not in any way an affirmation of Republicanism. Obama trolls can save their breath. We don’t care if you think we are being “fooled” or that our lack of education is causing us to not see what McCain is or that Roe v. Wade is in danger, yada-yada-yada.

Me, I'm down to .5% less evil these days, so McCain's relative standing vs neocons doesn't mean much. And the .5% is outweighed, this year, by other practical considerations.

Kristol and the rest of them supported McCain in 2000. McCain really is a pro-torture greedy fool. Palin is to the right of the dinosaurs. truly awful people.

What, specifically, did she do as governor to show she is extreme right-wing? And please, spare me the already debunked book banning stuff and similar nonsense. And please, none of this "well, the 'evangelicals' wanted her" crap either. (More on that last one later.)

I'm not trying to say I agree with her or paint her on a good policy light, but I'm genuinely curious about this. The reaction to Palin has been almost identical to that of Hillary, in the immediate acceptance of known fallacies. Much of the stuff that has been used to show her presumed evilness has turned out false or quite misleading. I want to know how far she injected her religious views as mayor and governor.

Here's your title:

In which I officially declare that I am not a PUMA.

Here's your quote:

we do not see McCain as criminally corrupt as the Bush neo-cons.

Do you really think that quoting only that little tidbit doesn't imply that PUMAs are a bunch of Republicans? Which was negated by the surrounding paragraph? Esp. given the fact that the Republican charge is leveled at PUMA on almost every left blog, all the 'A' list blogs, and the freakin' media every time the subject comes up? Seriously. Seriously?

And while the rest of the paragraph doesn't negate the 12 words you quoted, it certainly sheds a different light on them, doesn't it? 'We don't find McCain contemptible' isn't the same as 'We aren't Republicans and we don't like them or anything they stand for, but we don't find McCain contemptible'.

Btw, I am a PUMA, I'm not votin' for McCain, and I do think he isn't as criminally corrupt as the Bush neocons, but only because he hasn't had all the same chances to prove it yet. I'd disagree that 'not as bad as Bush' is a compliment, 'sympathy for the devil', or 'praise'. Is 2% less evil praise for Obama or the DNC?

One of the things I really like about PUMA is that, unlike an unfortunately growing faction of the Democratic Party, there are no loyalty oaths, no uniforms to wear, no hierarchical leadership structure to pay homage to or suck up to, and no demagoguery to reflexively swallow. I've read and participated in many disagreements on The Confluence, esp. recently with regard to voting McCain, and never once been told 'you're not a true PUMA!' or had 'you're a Republican/bitch/trailer trash/freak because you disagree!' The only tenet that demands agreement in order to be a PUMA is rejection of the DNC's sliminess and not voting for The One.

Which brings me to a slightly different point on misleadingness, although maybe not-quite-a-full picture is a better way to describe it. Your title certainly implies that you can't be a PUMA unless you agree with that statement that you pointed out as repulsing you. It implies a doctrinaireness about PUMA that just plain doesn't exist. This isn't the Komsomol or the Comintern.

I realize you prefaced you post with not enough time to discuss the rest of the it, but zeroing in on one partial sentence as a basis for rejection reminds me, unfortunately, of the all the Clinton-haters who reverse- fetishized her AUMF vote and declared her monstrous beyond bounds for that one action alone, while ignoring 30+ years of political life that made up the rest of her record. And I admit, that may be more a problem of my battered-feeling perception than of your post, but they're still not much different in practice.

in here.

in the comments -- if you search on my username the are links spread out among several comments, and include my non-book-burning theory on what Palin's actual actions were all about, for which I have only speculation.

I don't know how to link to particular comments, or I'd do that.

Also, discussion at factcheck.org, along with other debunks.

from the NYTimes>:

And for some, Ms. Palin’s first months in office here were so jarring — and so alienating — that an effort was made to force a recall. About 100 people attended a meeting to discuss the effort, which was covered in the local press, but the idea was dropped.

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

Anne Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.

In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.”

So buying into Palin's claims after the fact that it was all an exercise in rhetoric is debunking it? I don't think so, Tim.

Palin was a member of a church at the time which was very anti-GLBT and very anti-abortion.

The book Palin may have wanted taken out of circulation?
"Pastor, I am gay," by a minister.

The Rev. Howard Bess, a liberal Christian preacher in the nearby town of Palmer, said the church Palin and her family attended until 2002, the Wasilla Assembly of God, was pushing to remove his book from local bookstores.

Emmons told him that year that several copies of "Pastor I Am Gay" had disappeared from the library shelves, Bess said.

"Sarah brought pressure on the library about things she didn't like," Bess said. "To believe that my book was not targeted in this is a joke."

FactCheck's claim that Palin was never an AIP member may be technically correct; it was her husband who was registered. She did attend the party's convention, however, before becoming an avowed Republican prior to running for Wasilla mayor.

And the thing that tipped me over the edge was that, just like W and his DUIs in Midland County, Sarah Palin got away with breaking the law.

At least, thank FSM, she isn't a damn pilot, too.

Being a PUMA takes courage.
Sorry, vastleft, but McCain *isn't* a Bushie neo-con. He never was. He IS a Republican and we do not cotton to Republicans.
What you seem to be missing is that this is the State of the Species and not a personal position of many PUMAs. The thing that ties all PUMAs together is the willingness to publicly state that they will not vote for Obama. We have lost many friends over this decision but we are unshakeable. Now, SOME PUMAs are going to vote for McCain. (You may be surprised at our next move at The Confluence. It's not what you will expect.) It became clear to members of the JSND coalition that the Democratic Party is not taking this seriously especially with respect to downticket Dems. The post was meant to be a wake-up call for the DNC. The intent was to scare them shitless. You should not read anything more into it.
As for McCain, he is not a criminal. He's just a Republican.
Come together at The Confluence

and voting for McCain crosses it, IMNVHO.

Criminal not = Republican? What color is your sky?

If you do not want Obama in office, that means that some people have to vote for McCain. You do not have to be one of those people but you should not criticize the people who do this on your behalf. You can say you do not want to get your hands dirty and that's ok. We have no problem with that but that is where your chiding should stop.
So stop.

Come together at The Confluence

I thought Palin was a pilot? Oh well, I'm certainly not voting for her now.

One request to ban a library book was made in Wasilla during Palin's mayorship.

Wasilla has a population of somewhere between 5000 and 9000 people. Wasilla keeps records of challenge requests, but do not show the name of the requestor. The requestor may have been Palin, or it may have been one of the 4,999 to 8,999 other residents of the town.

As for this chain: Palin belonged to an church => the church is full of anti-gay activities and rhetoric => the book challenged was pro-gay => ergo Palin banned a book! is just crap. Did Palin's church have a memberhip of 1, her? Are there no other anti-gay people in Wasilla? (I thought it was redneck central, with all that that implies for Eastern elitist liberals, aren't they ALL anti-gay thugs)?

Just because the NYT puts the vituperative Anne Kilkenny's name in an article, doesn't give her uber-credibility.

Personally, given other stories about Palin's dismissal of, or alienation of, her at-will employees at each level of government service she's achieved, an equally plausible spin on this whole small-town brouhaha is that she was looking for reasons to fire Emmons because Emmons has supported her opponent in the mayor's race.

This kind of stuff happens all the time when a new regime moves in, small town or big city. Now whether that's a good thing or a bad thing (I'm thinking more toward the latter) is another question entirely.

I know you are not talking to me but just wanted to say. So many thanks for your work.

is that my objection is to the rationalizing of one's vote or non-vote by pretending away how fully John McCain is a corrupt, anti-progressive, authoritarian warmonger.

I guess I just don't have the "courage" to do that.

PUMAs came into being because there is no unity in the party. You vote your conscience. HOWEVER, the sense is that many PUMAs, requiring a destination and sense of self determination, have decided to make sure that Obama loses. That means that some people will vote will vote for McCain.
Look, the world is not black and white. We *know* that. Not all Republicans are as bad as the Bushies. I know that's hard to swallow but it's true. But you don't have to vote for McCain if you don't want to. Make sure you work for Downticket Democrats. You can make a real difference. What PUMA stands for is not accepting what is handed to us. It is taking power into your own hand.
PUMA is self-determination. Use your imagination.
Come together at The Confluence

There is no clear good or bad in this scenario. There is only "more" good and "less" bad. Democrats are up to this task. It requires nuance.

Come together at The Confluence

As far as Republicans go, setting the bar at 'as bad as GWB' is too low. As bad as Dole? GHWB? Reagan? Ford? Nixon? Eisenhower?

VL is right, the PUMA agenda has changed from being party invariate to just 'anyone but Obama'. I don't find that viewpoint compelling - despite my understanding of the origin of that position - except I'm definitely down with being anti-'bad as GWB'. My opinion is that McCain is worse than Dole, but not as bad as GHWB (less effective) and definitly not as bad as Reagan (much less influential) or GWB (less incompetent and venal).

YMMV.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

I should have added that you now are liable to being "forgiven" for your past sins of not sufficiently drinking koolaid.

Full disclosure, I am 95% certain I will hold my nose, choke back vomit and vote for the worst candidate I hope to ever vote for in any election in my life for any office anywhere.

That candidate is Barack Obama.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

simple question, and I'm the one in the wrong.

Oh, that's rich. Really.

If you vote for McCain you are a sellout, pure and simple.
Obama is not great.
Obama is not perfect.
Obama is probably really not a Democrat, in the same sense I am. In the sense my parents were or LBJ was or FDR was.
That's not the point.

The point is if you vote for McCain you are helping the opposition. You are boosting the GOP.

Do it out of some twisted sense of nobility if you have to.
But quit trying to fool me about what it means.
It means you're pro-GOP.
It means you're okay with Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and more just like them.
It means you don't have a problem with the Dept. of Homeland Security.
It means you're backing the lunatic who sings "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

You're doing the wrong thing, Goldberry.
I don't much care what your reasons are for it.
It's just wrong.

but I tend to think parsing out the fractal gradations of badness of most Republicans isn't a very useful pastime. It's like arguing who was the world's worst dictator -- aren't they all so bad that who ranks as #1 vs #2 doesn't really matter?

Now identifying why they're bad, and what political structural circumstances allowed them to take power is a different matter (and a different post).

VL - I read your post the same way you read that one line in The Confluence post. As a post on its own. I don't agree with RD on this one point, but she hasn't kicked me out of the club (I'm not even on probation, afaik). PUMA's barely 4 months old, it's evolving dynamically, as such groups do. Funny, I read the post you quoted when it was posted back in June, but had no memory of it; possibly because I'd already decided no Obama before PUMA created.

But if you've kept up with PUMA (and it seems like you have), you know that that one line is no more a membership criterion than your one post represents the entirety of your opinion/actions on PUMA, truthiness, or making principle-based decisions.

To clarify: My objection was to your delivery, not your argument, and not your work or your person.

As TP said, it does all count. Profoundly, plus other adverbs that I can't think of right now.

thing, pretty much no matter what the wrong thing you're doing is.

It's still wrong.

You're still doing it.

That's pretty simple.
That's pretty black and white.

This isn't about party unity. Party unity can blow itself to hell for all I care.

This is about NOT keeping going down the same damn road, full speed ahead, with McCain/Palin. Simple as that.
Gotta start the correction somewhere.

What makes her so? Links, please.

One request to ban a library book was made in Wasilla during Palin’s mayorship.

You're placing an awful lot of stock in formalities to polish the turd that is Sarah Palin. She brought up book banning "hypothetically" three times, once at a town hall meeting, and then tried to fire the librarian who said no.

Frankly, it's disturbing enough that she raised the issue at all. And you're being very naive if you think that threats don't count unless they're explicit. She'd have been a goddamned fool to just ask the librarian to ban books without sussing her resistance out on the subject in a way that would leave her plausible deniability.

"Nice library here, shame if something happened to it."

So be it, they're bad.
They're not worse than bad.

Election theft? Dude, that's the political SOP of the times.

Smearing two leading Democrats? Yeah, so, what makes BHO different than any other Presidential contender?

IIRC Edwards said some pretty fierce things about HRC in the primaries. Also about Obama. All three of them said some pretty derogatory things about McCain. And Huckabee (well, come on, he had it coming). And Romney. And so on and so forth.

That's like tradin' paint on the inside curve at Darlington. It's what you do, when you're racing. Putting down your opponent is what you do, when you're running for office. It's not safe or pretty or neat or strictly by the book. It's practical and messy and if you misjudge it you'll smack the wall and break your equipment, if not wreck your career.

Trivializing race issues? Puh-leeze. Obama IS a race issue, dude. He's "not black enough," remember?

Leveraging misogyny? Well, yeah, how else was he going to beat Hillary? Bullying groupthink? Isn't that the damn definition of party politics?

Hubris -- well, I'll give him that, he's a professor. Edited a law review or some damn thing. But you have to have some ego to want that damn job, and you have to be enough to big for your britches to go to the trouble to get it. And then you have to hang onto the son of a buck. So that puts him squarely up there with people like FDR and JFK. And the Clintons. And McCain. And probably Sarah Palin. Hubris is a fracking qualification.

Next-best-and-brightest Vietnam, somewhere? I'll take a maybe and a somewhere over a "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." I have kids the age to be drafted.

Aggressive religious pandering? Concrete plan to blur church and state? And this makes him different than the other candidates in this race, now, how? Or the last one?

Boundless capitulation to conservatives -- well I will be dipped. I guess he's a damn Democrat after all.

n/t

McCain is a Republican.
Eight years into this thing, don't we recognize that if we let the Republicans win again, there won't be anything left to save?

First, put out the fire.
Cleaning up the mess starts with stopping the mess from getting worse.
Obama may not be much of a Democrat, from my POV, but at least he's not 100% indelible Republican.
McCain is.
Palin may be something else -- something worse. She may be W redux.
Heard anybody ask if you'd want to have a beer with her, instead of Joe Biden, yet?