My PUMApology Of Sorts

Okay, where to begin?  First of all, I admit to being one of the most vocal opponents to Republican AstroTurfing of TEA Parties, townhalls and Recess Rallies against any and all things Democratic under the guise of being anti- anything Obama.  And, exposes like this Think Progress one that I came across courtesy of Edge of Forever at Not Your Sweetie, only reinforce my findings and strengthen my resolve to rail against the sneaky, fake grassroots public support tactics of the Rigid Right as vehemently and vociferously as I bitch about the same kind of Axelrovian Obaganda shenanigans from the obnoxious KoolAid ‘n’ Hopium Nation.

Be that as it may, there’s something to be said on behalf of those offended PUMAs who take exception to being labeled as merely being unduly manipulated tools of the evil right wing.  Though there is no doubt that many PUMA sites have been overly influenced by deliberate GoOPer infiltration, there’s more to the story than has as yet met the eye.

What brought it to my attention was a HuffPo article about comedienne Sheryl Underwood, and an Orrin Hatch on Ted Kennedy interview I caught on MSNBO yesterday.  Underwood, who holds multiple degrees and is known for being, ahem…well, frank, is a self-identified Bush-loving Republican, rare as that is in the black community.  She, however, enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama, which unfortunately, is not rare among monolithically-minded African Americans, at all.  In fact, sometimes I think it’s just me, the folks at Black Agenda Report, and a handful of others against the known black ObamaWorld.  Hatch, just another rightwinger as far as I’ve always been concerned, mentioned the oxymoronic phrase “liberal Republican.”  These two incidents though, caused me to re-think, re-examine, and research what I knew and felt about the other side of the aisle.

As I reconsidered the whole Democratic/Republican dynamic, I remembered an article I came across months ago about the Republican Oath/Credo.  I recalled being intrigued by the reasonableness of the thing, and wondered what the hell such a practical set of principles had to do with the “holier-than-thou” war mongering party I knew.  From the Illinois Wesleyan University College Republicans website, the Republican Oath:

I believe that the proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well by individuals, and that the most effective government is closest to the people.

I believe that good government is based on the individual and that each person’s ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honored and recognized.

I believe that free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative and incentive have given this nation an economic system second to none.

I believe that sound money policy should be our goal.

I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or national origin. I believe that persons with disabilities should be afforded equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity as well.

I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideals with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.I believe that Americans value and should preserve their feelings of national strength and pride, and at the same time share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world.

Now, while I found this same oath/credo on multiple Republican sites, like here, here, here, and here, I also found it on the official Republican National Committee site, in a link from its “About” page, and, like this guy, and this guy before me did in 2004, and June of this year, respectively, I wondered just where it fit into the current Republican mindset.   Also in 2004, this blog post attempted to reconcile the obvious dichotomy, and, in October of 2006, a poster on Democratic Underground parodied the oath with principles more in line with what most of us know about the modern day GOP.  Of course, I also came across the various controversial party loyalty oaths, especially Republican ones, with which the above are not to be confused.

So, how do you reconcile such lofty ideals with the party of intolerant and intrusive bigots that today’s Republicans seem to be, especially with their performance not only in the TEA Party town hall disruptive attempts to deny significant portions of the population access to comprehensive health care on behalf of the greedy corporate insurance entities whose interests they’ve deemed so much more important that they’ve sworn to uphold and protect them at all costs and anybody’s expense, but their equally shameful displays at Sonya Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings so fresh in our minds?  We already know that the Democrats sold their own party and ideology down the river in their Obacratic makeover, but, it’s the understanding of most of the Democratically disenfranchised that this was merely a case of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” adaptation of the other side’s sleazy rules into their now equally sleazy playbook.  The notion that the Republicans might have been similarly co-opted by similarly ruthless and nefarious factions in recent history, never really enters our minds.

Which brings me to the “liberal Republican” thing.  Indeed, there was a Liberal Republican party, but that was more than 135 years ago and, they only lasted two years, tops, anyway.  But, that the onerous  “Southern Strategy“…

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that… but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

..culminating in the Reagan Republican takeover obliterated the northeastern Rockefeller Republican wing of their party was news to me.  Mainly because, when it comes to Republicans, I don’t really give a shit.  But, to be honest, socially liberal Republicans being a major faction of the ultra-conservative, “if it feels good, ban it,” Party of No is a compellingly intriguing, if not downright attractive thought.

Progressive Republican asks just what is a “liberal Republican, anyway, (what’s a “progressive Republican, for that matter, ask I) HuffPo’s Robert J. Elisberg assures us they exist,  ehow.com tells us how to be one, and, the New York Times informs us that a lot of them are pissed at being marginalized.

So, if there really are disenfranchised “liberal Republicans,” just how insidious is the infiltration of PUMA?  Are the infiltrators “liberal Republicans” seeking camaraderie and common ground, or, are they the snake in the grass weasels trying to lure the newly, though thoroughly, disillusioned former Democrats to the dark side that I think most of them are?  And, if the moderate Republicans and the centrist Democrats already co-exist peacefully under the Obacratic banner, raping and pillaging our national coffers and denying us Universal Health Care in cahoots, as I suspect, and, the conservative wing is the dominant one of the Republicans, where does that leave liberals of either party?

Just as conservative Democrats, notably the “Blue Dogs,” and the “New Democrats,” are considered by “the left of the left” to be “Democrats In Name Only,” many conservatives feel that “liberals” in their party can only qualify as RINOs.  CNN “autopsied” liberal Republicans in May, declaring Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins the last of a dying breed, and, Michelle Malkin gleefully threw dirt on the metaphorical liberal Republican grave when she cosigned Bloomberg’s declaration that the “moderate” Republican, John McCain’s “shocking” choice of “socially conservative” Sarah Palin repudiated the once powerful “moderate” Eastern Establishment.  And, as mentioned earlier, Orrin Hatch believes there are only 2 “liberals” left in the Senate on his side of the aisle.

So, where does that leave black Republicans, especially the Obama supporting ones like Underwood and Colin Powell?  RINOs?  From Underwood’s actthere’s only so “socially conservative” she can be considered.  Yet, the majority of black Republicans, and, a heck of a lot of black Democrats, are pretty durned “conservative” on social issues.  In fact, it was this conservatism that allowed the Bush administration to woo big names like Rev. Eddie Long and his colleague, Rev. Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King, to their “faith-based” side, and accounts for the influence of “the black vote” for Prop 8, according to some.  But, as we examined this counter-exploitation on the Democratic side in other posts, though black Republicans like to claim Dr. King as one of them, his wife, Coretta Scott King, as well as many of his closest associates, were extremely liberal Democrats, and, there’s not a lot of evidence that Bernice is actually following in her Dad’s footsteps.  However, it seems to me, given all the myriad categories black voters can potentially fall into, conservative, liberal, moderate, Republican, Democrat, etc., it’s a wonder so many of us can be depended upon to vote the same way so often.

Given the number of factions within factions, I suppose it is incumbent upon each individual to decide for him/herself where they fit in the political spectrum.  Doing so has a lot to do with exactly where one directs one’s outrage about the current political situation.  It also helps to keep all these variations in mind when promoting the formation of a new “3rd Party.”  Third party of what?  Who?  Liberal, moderate, centrist, conservative, gay rights supporting, pro-life, gun-toting, tree hugging, creationist, atheist, bitter-knitting Soccer Moms?  I guess, like the Puma cats in the wild, PUMAs can be any one of a number of things, united in their “catness,” wherever you find them, whatever you call them.  Me, I’ll stick to the disillusioned, disenfranchised, liberal Democrat who’s pissed at the Obots and the FreedomWorker Riders, side of the aisle, thank you very much.

And, you can call me whatever the hell you think fits.