Thanks to a
Washington Post letter writer for exposing
the Post's Cold-War style weirdness from the editors and their hypocrisy on Latin America, in which all leaders seen as pro-US and pro-business are angels (sensible modernizers), and all leaders seen as too independent from the US and interested in business regulation or reform are devils (dangerous populists yearning for the evil past).
I do not understand how The Post admonishes Mexico to accept Felipe Calderón as its president with "scarcely one-third of the votes cast" [editorial, July 8] yet develops a case of the vapors at the prospect of Daniel Ortega becoming president of Nicaragua "with as little as 35 percent of the vote" [editorial, Aug. 4].
-- Steven Dutky
Takoma Park
IF right winger Felipe Calderon wins in Mexico with 35% of the vote, good, Mexicans have regained their senses.
IF left winger Daniel Ortega wins in Nicaragua with 35% of the vote, bad, Nicaraguans have lost their minds.
I wish the editors would read more of the material their reporters and bloggers write, which is so muched more fact-based and balanced.
First the evil, mean, smelly leftist candidate Daniel Ortega, running for the presidency of Nicaragua:
Nicaragua's Leading Loser
Can a candidate despised by most of his countrymen still win a presidential election? Ask Daniel Ortega.
Friday, August 4, 2006; Page A16
Washington Post
DANIEL ORTEGA, the failed former Marxist dictator of Nicaragua, ought to be facing a dim political future this summer. He's a candidate for president in elections in November, but he's already lost three previous votes, including the one that removed his Sandinista party from power in 1990. As he has acknowledged, no more than 40 percent of Nicaraguans would ever support him -- most are disgusted by his record of misrule or the charges of corruption and sexual abuse that trail him...
...Mr. Ortega, however, has an advantage over the other leftist populists who have tried and failed to take power in Peru and Mexico. Through a patient strategy of corrupt manipulation, he has gained control over much of Nicaragua's fledgling democratic political system and is steadily twisting it to his advantage. Knowing that a majority of voters would never choose him, Mr. Ortega has managed to alter the electoral rules so that he could win election as president with as little as 35 percent of the vote. He has managed to stack Nicaragua's supreme court with his cadres. He has stripped the current president, Enrique Bolaños, of much of his power. Consequently, Mr. Ortega is regarded by many as the favorite to become Nicaragua's next president...
...At this point, the best chance of thwarting a ballot-box coup probably lies with the OAS and its member governments, which between now and November must insist on a free and fair election. If Nicaragua remains a genuine democracy, Mr. Ortega will lose.
Now for a heroic crusading modernizer who is sure to united the country after some bad blood: Right wing candidate Felipe Calderon of Mexico:
A Victor in Mexico
Mr. Calderon's surprising win heralds a moment of peril.
The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Jul 8, 2006
Section: EDITORIAL
BY SCARCELY 240,000 votes out of 41 million ballots cast in Mexico's presidential election last Sunday, Felipe Calderon, a conservative, U.S.-trained technocrat, edged out Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a fiery populist and former mayor of Mexico City. Given Mr. Lopez Obrador's extravagant (and fanciful) promises to reshape Mexican society, the ascent of leftist politicians in parts of South America, and the traditional appeal of charismatic champions of the poor in Latin America, one might have handicapped Mr. Lopez Obrador as the easy victor. That Mr. Calderon was declared the winner, albeit by a hair, suggests that many Mexicans are at least open to the idea that free trade, open markets and sound fiscal management will eventually pay dividends -- even if the benefits of such policies to date have been spread unevenly...
...Mr. Calderon should tread carefully, too. Although his party improved its position somewhat in Mexico's fractured parliament, he would assume the presidency -- assuming he survives his rival's appeal for a recount -- on the strength of scarcely one-third of the votes cast (a third candidate won 22.27 percent of the vote). What's more, he apparently won few votes from Mexico's legions of desperately poor people. If Mr. Calderon is to succeed as the leader of Mexico and its 106 million people, he will need to convince the have-nots -- not just the haves who already believe it -- that they stand to gain from his policies.
I'm so angry at the understated arrogance of these dweebs that I will not comment further. For the moment, I will quietly mention that it was interesting that regarding Daniel Ortega, they might have at least mentioned that whatever a good or terrible candidate he was, in 1990 the US vowed to continue its terror war against Nicaraguan civilians via the "Contras" if the Sandinistas were re-elected, whereas if Nicaragua voted for the pro-US UNO coalition, the murderous terror war would stop. Now, maybe in their minds to even bring up this seemingly important historical fact makes me an America-hating past looking raging Stalinist Al Qaida appeasing Lamont-supporting hippie maniac, but unfortunately we have no scientific experiment on what would have happened had the U.S. with the gleeful support of U.S. newspapers not been killing thousands and thousands of civilians.