If PUMA’s Are Democrats Why Do They Write In the Style of Right Wing Propagandists? [View All]

[McCamy Taylor]

In the modern age, it has never been easier to pull CREEPy style dirty tricks---pretend to be a Democrat saying bad things about other Democrats when you are really a Republican operative working for their presidential nominee, as outlined in a plan created by Pat Buchanan for Dick Nixon in 1972. This is called divide and conquer and it is as old as time. And as I have documented in my journals, old CREEPsters like Roger Stone (famous for acronyms like C-U-N-T, his Hillary bashing group), Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan and Rev. Moon have been up to their old dirty tricks this election season.

In addition to the masters, there are legions of nameless worker plumbers. No, not Mario and Luigi. Anonymous dirty tricksters. The internet allows people to pretend to be one thing when they are really another. A twenty-five year old public relations guy in a Brooks Bros. suit can pretend to be a sixty year old veteran of the women’s movement who is pissed off that Clinton is not the nominee, and he can wreck havoc all over the Democratic Party. At the same time, he can pretend to be a teenager who hates all women and especially Hillary Clinton for standing in the way of Barack Obama.

The only problem with this strategy---the GOP has not invested in good writers. All too often, you can spot the Republican propaganda, because the faux Democratic rants are off. The issues addressed are Republican issues. The approaches are Republican approaches. Certain assumptions are Republican assumptions.

I stumbled across this site which claims to represent Democratic women who are splitters---they refuse to support Obama and would rather see four more years under McCain. They call themselves “PUMA’s” as in Party Unity My Ass .

When I first heard the title of the group, something did not sound right. Women almost never do anything that draws attention to their butts.



http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/monday-puma-power/

June 2, 2008

The Party Unity My Ass un-Party (PUMA) was born yesterday. We already have many new members. But, some of you may ask, what does it mean? How can we make a difference? Before I get to that, I’d like to refer you to one of Anglachel’s latest posts, The Idea of Obama. I think that what Anglachel is describing is a kind of “puppy love” or an infatuation. The situation we have here is precisely the reason why superdelegates were created in the first place. There is a unacknowledged immaturity about the Obama faction that many parents among us will recognize.

Ignore the inaccuracy of this statement (Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd immature ?). As I have pointed out in journals before, one of the characteristics that divide liberals from conservatives and Democrats from Republicans is the reaction to The People. Or, as the right wing would refer to them The Unwashed Masses.

There are two types of human being. One, like Thomas Jefferson, believes that all people are good at heart, and that rule by the people is a good thing. Liberals and Democrats are like Thomas Jefferson. Then, there are those who believe that people are naturally corrupt, and that they must be restrained, controlled, preferably by a strongman or leader or the fear of God. These are conservatives and Republicans. (There are Libertarian Republicans and there are control Democrats, but both are a minority so ignore them for now) The former are the type of people who applauded the Latino marches a few years ago. The latter are the type who panicked at the Latino marches a few years ago. The former question authority. The latter celebrate authority.

With this in mind, it becomes clear that the author of the PUMA manifesto is a card carrying conservative, so right wing that he or she would never have been caught dead shoulder to shoulder in a protest rally growling at the police. Look at the imagery. The author identifies himself with the parents which is like identifying with J.Edgar Hoover's FBI. The Obama supporters are cast in the youthful, heroic role, although in this case the word used is “immaturity”, because the author does not recognize that innocence is a virtue. How can he when in the conservative world view, anything that is not leashed is considered feral and therefore dangerous?

The two paragraphs which are quoted have logical problems, namely they are guilty of the crime of which they accuse the vast army of (brainwashed) Obama supporters. One line can easily be changed to read:

They will not acknowledge that Obama is a legitimate political actor and reduce him to an inhuman monster and enemy. They will not acknowledge that his supporters have sound, rational reasons for their support, and reduce them to mindless fools and spoils of war.

However, more important from a propagandist’s point of view are phrases like “conflicting desires” , “sweep to victory”, “purge the party”, “fantasy”, “without…work”, “elimination, purging the ranks”. This is the language of the conservative describing the anarchy of rule by the masses, in which people give in to their desires. They picture lawlessness, theft, rape----a riot. Take this two steps further and you have some southern politician warning of an uprising if the Blacks are not kept in check.

The next paragraph continues the imagery of lawless teenagers who can not be trusted with their own vote---an idea that is anathema to true liberals and Democrats but very much a part of the Republican and conservative mind set.

Like adolescents, they insist on making their own decisions and yet expect us to get them out of a jam later. They hate us because of who we are and yet they need us in order for them to get what they want. And the superdelegates are the too permissive parents who are giving in to them because they can’t handle the screaming and guilt trips that will follow if they don’t.

Since the RNC was smearing Obama and making it look as if Clinton was the culprit, one must assume that they were also doing the reverse. However, I want to focus on the language used in the above paragraph. What is up with the word hate ? Why on earth do they imagine that anyone hates anyone else? The primary was a political contest. No one hates the other candidate. Ali and Forman fought but they did not hate each other. Obama and Clinton competed for the same job, but it was never personal. Certainly, neither or them hated the others’ supporters. They coveted the others’ supporters.

When the word hate is introduced, this is another sign of conservative propaganda. The right wing deals in hate and hate speech. And always, they start with the proposition that the minority group or disadvantaged group hates the dominant group, and that is why the dominant group must be so vigilant---even brutal--- to protect itself. That is why the Klan must arm itself against Blacks and, more recently against Latinos. That is why the Bush administration must imprison ever Muslim without charges. Because they hate us .

This is where we come in, PUMAs. We will fill the role that the superdelegates have abrogated. It is our job to say “no”. We do not want to lose in 2008. We do not want another four years of Republican rule. We want 4 years of intelligence, competence and courage in a time of what will surely be a very critical time in our nation’s history. Terrorism is still out there. There are two wars going on. Our military is stretched so thinly that our national security is compromised. We have an energy crisis and many families are hurting. Our financial institutions got themselves over their heads. And there is a serious environmental catastrophe at hand in global warming.

Quick, what is wrong with this paragraph? Where the hell is health care, the number one priority of every American and every single Clinton supporter? And what Democrat is going to list terrorism as the number one problem? Are these propagandists even trying to put together a convincing document? We have failing banks, but no housing crisis. We have national security compromised but no jobs being shipped off shore----is this GOP Women for Hillary?

Now is not the time to put a love object in office, a weakling who will be entirely dependent on his power elite enablers. Or worse, he may be a dissembler who has barely disguised his contempt for the voters.

You know, Democrats like having a weakened executive branch and a strong legislative branch. It is the right wing that aspires to having Il Duce, a strong man who can override the Constitution with his Article II exemptions. A liberal would be concerned about a power mad Obama who wants to get into the White House and do illegal things like W. A Democrat would not be concerned that Obama is going to be “weak”, because so what? Then he would spend the next four years signing laws that the Democratic Congress would pass and enforcing the laws that they would write and not starting wars.

Barack Obama is a ruthless campaigner who has brought out the worst in the political system but no matter how far he has come, he is a failure. He has failed to live up to core Democratic principles, He has failed to respect the voters. He has failed to disguise his contempt for average, hard working American men and women. And because he has failed in so many ways to appeal to the electorate at large, he will fail the ultimate contest. He will be a failed presidential candidate. We do not wish to be associated with failure while there is still time and an opportunity to avoid it.

Since when has any Democrat—especially any Irish-American Democrat—ever been afraid to associate with a lost cause? This is a hard right wing Puritan stance, one that is based upon the belief that you can judge whether or not a person is among the elect by how his material affairs go on earth. I.e. God awards his elect with wealth and prosperity in all things. Therefore, the word “failure” is the last word that any Republican or conservative wants to hear. It is the ultimate insult. They run from it the way that they are supposed to flee from sin. On the other hand, liberals, Democrats, Catholics---all of them will embrace the cause of the underdog, the oppressed, the losing side and fight for dear life. The more lost the cause seems, the harder they will fight.

Of course, the game plan that PUMA sets up is a dead give away that they are a Republican operation. Just look at the rules that members are supposed to follow. Do not read newspapers or listen to anyone who my try to tell you anything except for us . I guess Karl Rove learned his lesson in 2006. That year he tried to use terrorism propaganda again, but he found out that you can not use a fear propaganda message if some news stations are not with you, because people will not stay afraid if even one source debunks your lies. As long as the women who sign up for PUMA only hear PUMA, then they will not be distracted with any other versions of the truth. Good thing Karl did not think of that in 2006 or he might have kept Congress under GOP control.

Send Clinton your money but dissociate yourself from your party---that means don’t send any to Obama---we all know whom that helps this fall.

Spread the word----wow, it’s a pyramid scheme!

You know, this is some god awful propaganda. I am amazed that anyone gets past this first page. I may delve deeper later. But before I go, just want you to know that the PUMA founder who claims that she is a lifelong Democrat---she changed party affiliations in 2000 so that she could vote for McCain and she gave him money, too. I found that out after I wrote this. Confirms what I suspected from reading this tripe. This is a McCain Supporters Site. Might as well say "Paid for by the RNC" all across the top.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/1/17911/82379