PUMA: Poor Unsuspecting McCain Androids

Update: PUMAPAC founder Darragh Murphy wandered into our comments section. I'll print her comments, and a response, at the end of this story.

Update: 6:45pm - I got responses to my questions from Darragh Murphy. I will make them the subject of a separate post, as this one is quite long enough already. Just to be clear, she denies being a McCain supporter, and I find it pointless to debate that. We must have different definitions of "support."

I wrote a story last week about "Citizens For McCain," a group organized by the McCain campaign to get embittered Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for John McCain, and I intended to do a follow-up on PUMA, the group's sister organization. One of my reader pointed out that PUMA (People United Means Action, or, unofficially, Party Unity My Ass) members are more diverse, encompassing Hillary supporters who will write her in, stay home, or vote third party in November, as well as those who will vote for McCain.

In the course of researching that follow-up, I discovered proof of what I already knew to be true: PUMA's PAC is the creation of a longtime McCain supporter. A blogger at Daily Kos connects the dots:

Turns out the founder of the group, Darragh Murphy, who appeared on Faux News this morning is a long-time McCain supporter.

This ridiculous idea the MSM is peddling that there are millions of feminist female Clinton supporters that are backing McCain over Obama is ludicrous on its face. Especially when it is so incredibly easy to debunk. God forbid, the Georgetown cocktail party set actually did any heavy lifting.

There may be some who derive some sense of glee at this revelation, which makes the extremely vocal PUMAs appear to be nothing more than dupes, or patsies. Last week, I might have joined in the Schadenfreude, but not now. At least, not for all of them.

Before I continue, let me dispose of any lingering skepticism you may have about this. Here is the FEC filing to create PUMAPAC, and here is the FEC disclosure of Murphy's donation to McCain. This link contains an email exchange in which Murphy admits to having voted in the Massachusetts GOP primary in 2000, an option unavailable to "lifelong Democrats."

So, now there is factual proof of what any objective observer already knew had to be the case: That this "movement" to harness the ire of Hillary supporters in McCain's favor is actually the work of Republican provocateurs.

That is not to say that some PUMAs don't have valid points. I welcome the ridicule of the transparent fakes, who claim to be lifelong Democrats, yet make statements that only someone truly ignorant of Democratic politics could make. However, after a few minutes on PUMAPAC's blog, I developed an immediate empathy for the genuine article.

I read a piece called, "The Hillary Flashpoint," which was very well-written, and as I read, I felt my own sense of outrage growing.

We KNOW the internet is a pornographic swamp. We know there will be people who will design and sell Hillary Nut Crackers if she runs for office. We know that how much we weigh is far more important to the media consciousness than how much we earn. We know some idiot in Miami is going to form a political action committee against Hillary called C.U.N.T. We know the media only wants powerful women to be seen when they come in packages shaped like Angelina Jolie.

That swamp is there every day. We travel around and above it most of the time in our private lives– by ignoring it; building small ramparts against it; filling it in small places with our good faith, our hard work, and our competence; and fighting its spread when we can. The sexist swamp is an ugly feature of our cultural landscape. We can hate it, fight it, and avoid it, but we know we have to live with it.

What we didn't know was that a major candidate would accept the side effect political benefits to him of a sexist onslaught fueled by the noxious fumes of Swamp Misogyny. We didn't know our political leadership would stand by like cowardly, weak-willed onlookers at a daytime mugging. We didn't know they would classify our support of the most popular and competent woman candidate in history as emotional, angry, irrational, hysterical, ugly, and stupid.

Hmmm, emotional, angry, irrational, hysterical and stupid. Let me see, now where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah I remember now - just the entire god damned history of civilized Western misogyny; from Jezebel to Theodora to Thatcher; Elizabeth to Anthony to Stanton to Eleanor to Hillary. Every single one of them attacked, belittled, and humiliated with accusations of being emotional, angry, ugly, and stupid. We're supposed to believe this is a coincidence? That it's not because Hillary is a woman, but because she is THAT woman. "That woman?" Hmm, I think I've heard that before too.

As a man who is keenly aware of the pervasiveness of sexism in America, this monologue really spoke to me, and I could see how it might arouse legitimate feelings of injustice and anger. It worked on me.

But the author loses me when the time comes to conclude that the remedy to all of this is to elect a candidate who stands, pretty squarely, against women's rights.

I suspect that most PUMAs, the real ones, don't want to see McCain elected, and they see their defiance as a lever. Many would be satisfied with Hillary as VP, and the rest, sadly, still think Hillary can win. It is sad because they are allowing their passion to be harnessed toward their own harm.

There will not be any "Miracle in Denver." Some of them might already know this, but dream of being dragged away, kicking and screaming, with a tale for the ages about the Feminist Warriors who got John McCain elected. I suspect, though, that the vast majority will wise up to the fact that they are being used, and vote for the candidate that Hillary Clinton endorsed.

Unfortunately, in the meantime, their dissonant message will reach the ears of a lot of less engaged voters, and their dollars will be used to aid McCain.

The best outcome for all concerned would be a Hillary Clinton Vice-Presidency. The volume of the noise here cuts against that, however. I've talked to insiders in 3 important camps: Obama's, Clinton's, and the mainstream media.

Those close to the negotiations say that the cooling off of both sets of supporters is crucial to the chances of a Dream Ticket. The folks I've spoken with in cable news seem all too happy to let the Dream Ticket die on the vine. Without it, an Obama victory is still likely, but Hillary Clinton's rightful place in history will be denied.

Instead of being the first female Vice President of the United States, she will be that Democratic Senator who (almost?) got John McCain elected. She created the PUMAs' fervor as a Golem to slay Obama, but now, she can't get the thing to listen to her. Maybe seeing the strings attached to their wrists will wake them up.


One last thing. On the subject of Citizens for McCain, the owner of that abominable sign turns out to be practically my neighbor. She lives in the next town over from me. Reader Katherine turned me on to the following interview with her.



What I found odd was that the sign she is holding (at the end of the event) only has one McCain sticker on it, while the photo on McCain's website has 3. The AP photo also only has 1 sticker. CandidatePhotos.com lists the source of the 3-stickered version as the McCain campaign. Plus, there are 3 different sticker arrangements, depending on whose picture you are looking at. Did they add the extra stickers later? All really is not what it seems.



Update: PUMAPAC founder Darragh Murphy wandered into our comments section. Here are her comments, followed by my response.

Hi, This is Darragh Murphy, founder of Puma PAC, and the author of the essay quoted in Tommy Christopher's post. The accusation that I am a Republican has been floating around for a few weeks and is completely unfounded.

Here's a link to a detailed take-down of Mr. Christopher's unfounded accusations, written by a bloggger I do not know and have never met, other than to reply to her emails.

http://grlpatriot.mydd.com/

I briefly enrolled as an Independent in Massachusetts in 2000 to support McCain against what I considered to be an inept and corrupt GW Bush in the Republican primary, like hundreds of thousands of my fellow Democrats in MA and NH. This is old news and not very interesting. I've never been a Republican -- never will be.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. I gave $650 to her campaign between March and June 2008. I volunteered in Philadelphia during the primary, knocking on thousands of doors in N.E. Philadelphia.

No matter how much the Obamaphiles would like to believe that we are a Republican front, all their wishing won't make it so. We are Democrats. We are protesting the DNC from within our party. And we will win.

http://blog.pumapac.org

Right off the bat, let me say, Ms. Murphy, that you are a truly gifted writer. I didn't attribute the piece, because there was no byline, but I'm glad to be able to credit you now. No kidding, I was sincerely moved by your piece.

As to the claim that you are a Republican, I didn't say that. I said you are a longtime McCain supporter. The documentaion supports that. Your one and only political donation, until the 2nd quarter of this year, was $500.00, to John McCain. I could see a donation to McCain as a hedge, that might make some sense.

But the only documentation I was able to find, and I looked, are your donation to McCain, and the FEC filing to form PUMAPAC, on June 3. The list of dates that you gave for 2nd quarter, 2008, donations is unverified. They could all have easily been made on June 3.

Now, there is your word to contradict this documentary evidence, but given the context that you are mobilizing a massive effort to defeat McCain's opponent, you can see where the skepticism comes from, can't you? I mean, wouldn't a McCain plant say just what you're saying, were she caught?

Still, I don't want to waste time on he said, she said. I'm happy to publish whatever documentation you want to provide, and revise my conclusions as such.

Since I have you here, though, I'd love to ask you some questions. We have a great PUMA soldier here named Katherine, you'd be proud of her, but she hasn't been able to give direct answers to many of my questions. I'd like to hear affirmative reasoning, not "Well, it's better than this..."

As a lifelong Democrat and a feminist, how can you aid in the election of a candidate who has promised to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, the only nominee who has ever done so?

As a loyal Hillary Clinton supporter, how can you vote for McCain's disaster of a healthcare plan, which is a destruction of Hillary's most core issue? What do you like about his plan?

As a loyal Hillary Clinton supporter, and lifelong Democrat, what is it about John McCain's economic plan that appeals to you?

As...you know...What parts of John McCain's Iraq policy do you like?

Is your organization raising money to retire Hillary's campaign debt, and if not, why not?

Your mission statement says, "We consider (Hillary) to be the leader of the Democratic party and our members will continue to support her throughout this election cycle." Doesn't that conflict with you ignoring her pleas that you vote for Barack Obama?

Finally, what do you think the consequences to Hillary would be if your group were instrumental in getting McCain elected?

You can post your reply in the comments, or email me at TommyXtopher@AIM.com. I really hope you do, and I want you to know that I'm less interested in you proving you're a Democrat, and more in what you have to say about the issues.

Incidentally, you said you volunteered in Philly for the primary. Were you at the victory party? I wonder if we might have met.