About that label.

I can say with ease that I am a PUMA. From what I gleaned from Tamerlane's piece and the conversation that followed last week it seems to me that the thrust of "PUMA thought" fits me quite nicely. Frankly, most everyone seemed within range of being right. We should duke it out over where we are headed. Not so long ago, this kind of fight was a hallmark of the Democratic Party. Will Rogers, one of the true unsung saints of the old Democrats, said it: I am not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

Here's the thing: I do not think I was ever not a PUMA. Ever. Before O, these people now calling themselves Pumas were called Democrats. I see nothing in the general parameters of what a PUMA is, expressed here and other places in the aftermath of that post, that contradict the Democratic Party of, say, 2006. We simply did not know of the duplicitous, and often sexist, nature of our leadership then. What broke off from the Democratic Party and became a vocal, albeit smaller, group in 2008 was not some rump faction. The Democratic Party broke away from the Democratic Party. What was left was a thing that looked like the Democratic Party but was, in fact, an evil twin.

The simplest way I can put this is to rely on the one word that expressed what the former Democratic Party always returned to: Fair. Even when it was off base in policy, as it sometimes was, the party's fuel came from a sense of fairness. This goes back to Jackson and even Jefferson. The idea of what is "fair" has changed and in some instances is to us repellent now. Skipping over the Civil War and Reconstruction at my peril (The Democrat's century long moral collapse around slavery and civil rights cannot be excused.) I do think that from Jefferson, and Jackson to FDR, Truman, Kennedy, yes Carter, and Clinton a prime mover in the Democratic party has been a sense of fairness. (I can't deconstruct our entire history here - obviously. Jefferson owned slaves, Jackson murdered Indians, FDR interred Japanese - Americans etc. Fairness was not always fair in practice.)

That said: The old Democrats gave up the ghost last year. This word fair, as we all saw, went to Neverland on May 31.

PUMAs did not change. The Democrats did. The 2 party system being what it is, this new thing - the Obamacratic Party - took the name of the conquered entity and went on to win. Rank and file Democrats for the most part saw the new Obamacrats as the old Democrats, wanted a change, and went along.

On June 3rd, 2008 I made my peace with it and re-registered as a "decline to state." They can have the name. I said at the time I'd left the Democratic Party. That's not really true. The Democratic Party that I thought I was a member of was effectively destroyed on May 31st last year. A generation's long attempt to make the nominating process more fair was heaved into the wind - in the open, for all to see. The heavers smiling and waving as they left the room. Awarding 4 delegates to a man who chose freely to take his name off a state ballot was the absolute last straw for me. This could not be my party. From that moment on it was the Democratic Party in name only.

In reading the Credo over at The Confluence I am struck by the fact that it is a recitation of what were once Democratic Party values. I can quibble here and there. ( I can no longer abide the phrase "social justice". It has been destroyed in my mind by university ninnies and professional resenters. However, her explanation that follows is spot on. I would simply called it "fairness" not "social justice.") I landed consistently on the Left end of the party but was always in the room. Generally speaking that credo could have been written by Harry Truman or Bill and Hillary Clinton. It is an explanation of the Democratic Party that once was.

So sure. I'm a PUMA. Always have been.