Skip to main content

Are we going to see a "parallel government" declared today in Mexico?  

Or an organized, mobilized grassroots "civil resistance" to Mexico's rabid supply sider government policies ("neoliberal" in Latin American discussions)?

What, then?

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps over a million, liberal-left activists are today heading toward Mexico City's downtown plaza (the Zócalo) to the National Democracy Convention to declare something.

Energies are up after Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his co-ralliers pressured outgoing President Fox to give the Independence Day speech (the "Grito") not in the Zócalo but in the alternate location of the small albeit historical town of Dolores Hidalgo.

More from this Reuters report, excerpted from Tiscali:

Mexican left must decide on tactics
16/09/2006 13:38
By Alistair Bell

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican leftists decrying election fraud will decide on Saturday whether to make their fight with President-elect Felipe Calderon a radical struggle on the streets or to adopt a less confrontational stance.

Supporters of leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will hold an open-air convention in the capital's sprawling Zocalo square to hammer out strategy after losing the July 2 vote by a marginal 234,000 votes.

Organizers predict 1 million people will turn out at the event, which could name Lopez Obrador the leader of a civil resistance campaign or the head of an alternative government....

...Lopez Obrador aide Manuel Camacho Solis said leftists were leaning away from street protests and towards challenging Calderon more like a traditional political opposition.

"We are getting to the point where there should be a space for politics and a space for protest. It's not just protesting against Calderon anymore," he said.

The convention is likely to approve plans to draw up a new constitution, he said...

..."It is going to be very rough for Calderon. Wherever he goes, we'll be there to remind him he became president through fraud," said nurse Lidia Alvarado, 51, in the Zocalo.

Here's the same basic story, from the scarier point of view of the Houston Chronicle's headline writers.  Cue the spooky danger music.  And cue sound effect of babies crying, to represent the view that these are all little silly followers of Lopez Obrador who is a useless laughingstock WHY WON'T THEY JUST GO AWAY?

Lopez Obrador ends siege
Leftist leader pledges he'll still try to derail the new government
Chronicle Foreign Service

MEXICO CITY - Leftist leader Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador called an end Friday to the crippling, weeks-long siege of downtown Mexico City, but vowed to continue trying to derail the incoming government.

...Most of the delegates attending today's convention are members of Lopez Obrador's Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD. They may declare the protest leader president of a separatist government that will challenge Calderon administration.

Some analysts question whether such a government, without a budget or an army, will do much to push Lopez Obrador's causes, which he says include helping the poor.

"If he can't collect taxes to do anything for them or use the police or the army to do anything for them, they've got saints that are probably more effective than he will be," said John Womack, a Harvard historian who is an expert on Mexico's leftist movements. "It will become a joke before long."

Ha ha ha ha ha.  Funny stupid Mexican lefty liberal ninnies.  Don't they know that if they would just shut up and be patient that in 60, or maybe 80 years many of their problems might be addressed by the standard political processes?  Gosh, why are they so impatient???!!!

He said Lopez Obrador would be better served working within the system to influence social policy. His party made historic gains in the July 2 congressional elections, becoming the No. 2 force in Congress.

PRD officials are upbeat about the shadow government and say it wouldn't be the first time Mexico had two rival governments.

From 1864 to 1867, President Benito Juarez was forced to run his government in hiding while he fought a war against the French-imposed rule of Emperor Maximilian I. And during the 1910-1917 Mexican Revolution, power struggles resulted in at least two rival presidencies.

But those were different times, historians say.

"I don't think it has anything to do with Juarez or the others," said Womack, who noted that in the past, the country was at war.

"The PRD increasingly sees Lopez Obrador as an embarrassment," said George Grayson, a political scientist and the author of a critical biography of the leftist leader. "He's too much of a maverick, and it's verging on comedy what he's doing now."

Ha ha ha ha ha.  Stupid funny crazy Mexican leftists.  They should simply learn to politely lose like many other liberal political parties, because the WORST thing in the world is to disturb a nation's political stability, it's far, far worse to have angry, weird protests and odd leaders than it is to concentrate a poor nation's resources increasingly in the hands of a billionaire few.

MexiKos is a news collective.  Add articles, views, commentaries, reports on Mexico issues below.

Originally posted to el cid on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 07:17 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips / Rec's for Mobilized Mexican Liberal Force (14+ / 0-)

    With wisdom and a lot of luck maybe they'll create something we can learn from too.

  •  Has Any Fraud Been Proven? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theboz, epppie
    •  No, of course not... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Last Lemming, epppie

      No more than elections in Florida or Ohio or Georgia have been proven frauds.
      Of course, nobody's allowed to see that that any of these were honestly counted, either.

      "Think this through with me, let me know your mind." - Hunter/Garcia

      by epcraig on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 07:16:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But at least some fraud has been absolutely prove (0+ / 0-)

        right?  Fox's advertisements, for example?  That was fraud and it's been proven, as I understand it.

        a hope that may come close to despair

        by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 07:25:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Difficult to Sustain (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I don't think inappropriate or illegal advertising constitutes outright fraud.  

          The question is whether the ballot boxes were stuffed, etc.

          Otherwise, you are arguing that the votes were fairly counted, but the voters were fooled by Fox's advertising.  That is a shaky case in the court of public opinion (have to get people to admit that they are easily manipulated.)

          •  Are Companies Wasting their Money (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Let me see.

            In the US, companies spend over US$ 250B a year in marketing.

            WorldWide, companies spend over US$ 550B a year in advertising.

            Is this spending effective, or not.

            Do we believe that SwiftBoat campaigns agianst Centrist candidates in the US and Mexico are effective or not.

            How many Americans believed that Senator Kerry was a war hero in early 04, and ho many believed this after exposure to the SwiftBoat campaign in Nov04.

            •  True (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              But most people don't like to think of themselves as being manipulated by advertising.

              I'm just saying that your argument will be very difficult to use when convincing the general public.

              If ballot boxes were actually stuffed, etc, that is a much stronger/easier argument to make.

          •  Surely does illegal advertising does count as (0+ / 0-)

            fraud if it is forbidden in a campaign.  That is, illegal campaigning is fraud.  It's not a matter of getting people to admit that they were manipulated, I think.  It's a matter of not having been given fair access to information.

            "fraud  [frawd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

            1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
            1. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
            1. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
            1. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur."

            a hope that may come close to despair

            by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:28:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would use term "manipulation" or "intervention" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nhc1978, epppie

              As a mere hypothetical, if a government said that candidate X received Z,000 votes when in arguable reality candidate X received significantly fewer or more than Z,000 votes, I would call that "fraud."

              If a government said that candidate X had received Z,000 votes and that was fairly accurate but the government or other forces had prevented people from voting, or had shut down polling stations in opposition areas, or had broken campaign rules significantly in favor of one candidate, I would call that "manipulation" or "intervention."

              •  Well, I would call what you call "manipulation" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                el cid

                "fraud".  I suppose the precise term doesn't matter, except that "manipulation" is, I think, too mild a term.  "Manipulation" was enough to cause prison terms, I think, in NH because of a phone bank scheme.  

                I guess one can argue that there is no trickery in tactics such as voter suppression or false advertising - except that there IS trickery involved.  Maybe terms like racketeering and intimidation would be applicable to some tactics where the word "fraud" is objected to?  

                In most cases of election fraud, it seems, all those labels apply.  

                a hope that may come close to despair

                by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:52:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fair enough, but coup's aren't fraud either (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Latin America has experienced a lot of rather direct manipulation and intervention, including assassinations, massacres, jailings, torturing, censorship, etc. -- which certainly don't count as "fraud", but I don't have a better (and preferably one-syllable) word to describe them.

                  •  As I understand it, "election fraud" is a (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    el cid

                    wide-ranging catchall phrase for election manipulation.  I have never, that I recall, seen it used to refer only and exclusively to abuse of actual votes.  I would suppose that the proper phrase for that might be "vote fraud".  

                    I mean, if we are going to be very precise about terms, which perhaps we should be, then "vote fraud" would be, I submit, the narrower phrase suitable for deleting or stuffing actual votes.

                    a hope that may come close to despair

                    by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:03:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Differences B/W US and Mexico Electoral Law? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Eppie, I'm not very well versed in US electoral law, but I don't believe that you can allege manipulation as grounds to annul an election.

                  In Mexico, the TEPJF MUST consider manipulation and third-party interference in deciding whether an electino is valid or not.

                  Therefore, while a Judge in the US may find that manipulation (ie. phone bank) did indeed change the results of an election, he can't overturn the results.

                  In Mexico, if a Judge finds that manipulation did change the results, HE must annul.

                  And, given the 0.3% of the population you needed to sway, how can ANY judge not find that the CCE and FOX's interference did not change the results of the elecion.

            •  The problem is the deception part (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              el cid, epppie

              The propaganda hurled against AMLO by the Fox administration and soft money groups may have been deceptive - in the sense of being a plain ol' pack of lies - but that's not why it violated Mexican law. The law prohibits any campaig activity by government officials and soft money groups, whether deceitful or not. So if you want to call any form of propaganda fraud, then this was fraud as well, but otherwise it wasn't; however, what matters is it was against the law in any case.

              Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

              by brainwave on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:17:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  To present advertising illegally is fraud. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                It most certainly is deceptive, unless there is a notification incorporated into the advertising that states that it is illegal.

                This point isn't pedantry.  People don't know that such advertising is illegal unless they are told that it is and the illegality  of such advertising is an important aspect of it, in someways THE important aspect of it.  People would never do illegal advertising if they had to tell people at the same time that it was illegal - that's how important the fact that it is illegal is to people's being able to evaluate it fairly.

                a hope that may come close to despair

                by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:42:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Guilty as charged (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Pedantery is my middle name, especially when it comes to semantics. It's a professional thing.

                  Anyway, you got yourself a point, methinks.

                  Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

                  by brainwave on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 10:09:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I wasn't suggesting that you were being a pedant. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I was afraid that I would appear that way.  And I don't think my point about fraud is pedantry.

                    If we ARE going to be VERY precise in our terminology, I think that "election fraud" is the appropriate catchall phrase for most election manipulations, whereas "vote fraud" is the appropriate phrase for falsification of actual votes.  

                    I actually love semantics and I don't know why folks are so impatient with them!! Lol!

                    What's your profession?  I'm a painter.  

                    a hope that may come close to despair

                    by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 10:53:05 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Believe it or not (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm a semanticist (a linguist specializing in semantics) :-)

                      Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

                      by brainwave on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:18:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  doubly interesting (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm reading Chomsky's On Nature & Language right now, mostly on the Minimalist Program.  Most interesting are his insights on the history of not just linguistics but science as well.  The Chomsky-haters miss out on a lot.

                        •  Ah well (0+ / 0-)

                          With me it's the other way around - I like his politics; his linguistics, not so much. I happen to work on Native American languages (mostly, you guessed it, in Mexico), and while it's indisputable that Chomsky's done a lot for the field, he overemphasizes universals and innate knowledge and underestimates the extent of crosslinguistic variation and the importance of interaction and culture. (And yes, I also love to trash Lakoff's linguistics :-))

                          Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

                          by brainwave on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:26:53 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  An amazing mind tho (0+ / 0-)

                          old Noam has, no two ways about it.

                          Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

                          by brainwave on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:44:34 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah, but what a revolution when he was young (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            el cid

                            In one of the early chimpanzee signing (sign language) experiments they named the subject "Noam Chimpsky"

                            That must have been the 1970s.

                            Chomsky is a genius, tho he must occasionally be a difficult person to have a discussion with.

                            But the density and clarity of his thinking/reasoning!  Even when I don't agree!

                          •  Nim Chimpsky (0+ / 0-)

                            The silly buggers called the chimp Nim Chimpsky

                            Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

                            by brainwave on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:56:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  There's also proof of WMD in Iraq (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rambaldifl, epcraig

      The evidence is that we have not found WMD, so that means Saddam hid them well, that's all.

    •  Where computers are involved (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      epcraig, el cid, pinkhardhat, epppie

      and they were in that election, fraud might never be proved. That, especially since they've a convenient law (FLorida does too, by the way) wherein you CANNOT hand-count the paper ballots.

      That was one of the most signifigant findings of those Princeton fellows' recent work on the Diebold Accuvote. It is an invariable rule of computer science. A file or structure can delete itself.

      So you can't prove fraud with computerized election systems. Even if you do hand-count the paper ballots instead of just running them back through the machines, the most you can prove is an error.

      If you're going to wait for computerized election fraud to be proven, you're going to wait forever.

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:23:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But that has nothing to do with what most posters on this page are alleging.. which has to do with pre-election advertising by Fox.

        •  Are we in a time warp? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You posted "Has Any Fraud Been Proven?" before any of the comments you're describing?

          I don't get that.

          It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

          by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:27:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No.... (0+ / 0-)

            I was asking a question.  Had any of the hand-counting (a significant percent of precincts were hand-counted) detected substantial errors?  

            Most of what I see on this page are posts are complaints about Fox's illegal advertising...  which I don't view as "election fraud."

            •  Okay... lets get this straight (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The only areas that were hand-counted were the few that did not have computerized vote counting. Not exactly the places you would suspect computerized election fraud. Not the sort of places where such fraud would be attempted, right?

              The ballots from the computerized vote-counting areas have not been hand-counted. How do I know that? Because it is not provided by law in Mexico to hand-count those votes and they weren't hand-counted.

              It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

              by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:35:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I Thought There Was a Partial Recount? (0+ / 0-)

                which didn't uncover significant variation.

                •  The only recounts (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  epcraig, epppie

                  of the computer-counted votes was the running them right back through the same machines that counted them the first time.

                  Find me information that says different.

                  I've read all I could find on it and that's what I've found. Perhaps el cid can confirm.

                  It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                  by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:39:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Partial recount results not available (4+ / 0-)

                  The TEPJF which conducted a partial recount did indeed uncover significant variation, and it adjusted the results of the election based upon that partial recount.

                  However, we do not know, because the actual results of the recount are not available in their particulars.

                  Also, the main reasons for the TEPJF to choose certain stations to recount were that (a) one of the candidates offered detailed arguments about that particular polling station in the short time frame alloted after the close of the vote;  and (b) instances with "clear arithmetic errors" such as when there were significantly more votes recorded than voters recorded.

                  Many non-AMLO legal commentators were thus a bit confused as to why the results of a large partial recount were not a justification to recount generally.  The TEPJF mainly cited cheaply legalistic reasons not to do so -- that, i.e., the liberal coalition should have been able to present detailed arguments about specific, explicit problems in every single one of 130,477 polling stations, and since they didn't, they would not recount those not specifically contested.

                  A statistical approach typically draws the conclusion that excess and unexplained variability in a small sample supports a closer examination of the entire population.

                  •  I find such arguments to be not only legalistic, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    epcraig, We hold these truths

                    but specious.  It puts nearly the entire burden of proof on the party that has both extreme time pressure and little to no access to evidence.  

                    If anything, the burden of proof should be on the folks who have the majority of the evidence in their control and who have asserted what that evidence states in the first place - the folks running the election.

                    a hope that may come close to despair

                    by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:32:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  As I recall, variation was found in most (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  el cid

                  voting areas.  I suppose it comes down to what one defines as "signfigant".  

                  a hope that may come close to despair

                  by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:57:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Your initial question, as I recall, was whether (0+ / 0-)

              any fraud had been proven.  I brought up the advertising as a form of fraud that has, in fact, been proven.  And it certainly is fraud, as far as I can tell, but I suppose you can use another term referring to illegality if you preferr.

              As far as I know, there has been signifigant evidence of substantial errors. In the recount itself, that majority of vote packets, as I recall, had errors re. the number of votes in the packet.  As I understand it, this is very serious, as an indicator of possible vote stuffing and/or deletion - which, I presume, is part of the reason the numbers are recorded in the first place.  

              a hope that may come close to despair

              by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:56:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No. You asked about fraud generally. (0+ / 0-)

              Here is the quote:  " Has Any Fraud Been Proven? ".  The correct answer, in my opinion, was that fraud had in fact been proven - the illegal advertising.  You THEN specified that you were only interested in fraud relating specifically to ballots stuffed or deleted or changed and further, you asserted that only such falsifying of votes was "election fraud" and that no other fraud (if I understood you correctly) is "election fraud".  

              To which I would answer that what you call "election fraud" is actually "vote fraud".

              a hope that may come close to despair

              by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:28:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Sometimes comments move around on list (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            epcraig, epppie

            I know that from time to time I've posted a comment that "jumps" up to a far earlier time than I actually posted it, so a 2pm posting actually "precedes" a 10am posting.  Haven't looked for any explanation yet.

        •  It has a lot to do with what you are alleging, (0+ / 0-)

          which is that the only fraud that counts (as I understand your point) is that which involves actual ballots.  Since much voting today is done by computer, and there are no tangible votes in many cases, it could be said that your stance amounts to asserting that election fraud categorically cannot exist.

          a hope that may come close to despair

          by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:38:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Mexico Votes on Paper Ballots (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            el cid, epppie
            •  Thankyou for that clarification. (0+ / 0-)

              a hope that may come close to despair

              by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:08:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And most of those paper ballots are counted (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              epcraig, epppie

              by computers!

              They CANNOT and WERE not counted by hand!

              It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

              by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:10:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                epcraig, mango, epppie

                I was under the impression most of the votes were counted by hand. Or am I totally stupid here?  To be honest, this is the first time I have heard that votes were counted by optical scanners.

                •  I encourage people to find out (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  epcraig, epppie

                  The information I had was that either

                  1. A very signifigant portion, or
                  1. A majority of the votes in the Mexico's recent election

                  were counted by computerized-optical-scan.

                  That's in fact, why it was an issue that the law did not provide for hand-recounting those ballots.

                  It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                  by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:34:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Can you provide a link? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mango, epppie

                    because this is the first time I have heard this.

                    •  I'm looking for a link (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      epcraig, mariachi mama, epppie

                      I've seen the numbers somewhere. I did find a link that says that the computers that WERE used...

                      Suspicions about computer-generated fraud ­ rooted, in part, in the fact that IFE's computer systems were partly designed by companies and partners of Calderón's brother-in-law Diego Hildebrando Zavala



                      I'm going to keep looking for tha actual percentages of computer-counted votes as opposed to hand-counts. Keep checking back to this thread. I'll post them here or email them to el cid so he can update.

                      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                      by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:52:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  el cid (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Research this and you'll find that a majority of Mexico's votes were paper ballots, counted by computer. My understanding is that ALL the recounts of the ballots previously counted by computer... were recounted by computer. None of the previously computer-counted ballots were counted by hand. None of them. That elections-body or elections-court wouldn't allow it.

              Obrador's folks darned well know that and will be happy to confirm it.

              It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

              by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:18:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  not sure about that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mariachi mama, epppie

                but if so, today wouldn't be the day I'd have time to refresh my memory.  I really recall the TEPJF-ordered recounts as being hand recounts, which were often videotaped & accompanied live, though the final decision process among the 7 judges as to how each recounted vote ballot was disposed of, this, this is the unreleased information.

                •  I know the recount (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mango, epppie

                  was counted ballot by ballot by a panel of people, representing each party, not scanners.

                •  I think (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  epcraig, epppie

                  a lot of those recounts were just re-adding the tabulation sheets and that the actual ballots weren't involved.

                  I'm pretty certain that ballot-by-ballot hand counts were not allowed by the Judicial Electoral Tribunal (or the IFE) and that that very ruling was among those which Obrador's folks were most upset with.

                  It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                  by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 10:01:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That was true definitely of original 'count' (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    epcraig, epppie

                    The count which caused the greatest controversy was the original "count" which was no more than the slightly more extensive re-examination and tabulation of the tally sheets, absolutely.

                    The only actual hand re-counting of the votes occured under the large partial recount, I believe, ordered by the TEPJF itself and conducted exclusively by jurists acting under TEPJF authority.

                    The Coalition objected to the limited extent of the recount, the vague and ad-hoc TEPJF judgements on how to count or discount disputed votes and stations, and the non-release of specific resolution information.

                •  I'm finding conflicting information (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  el cid, mariachi mama, epppie

                  As to whether ANY of the actual ballots in Mexico are counted by computer. There are obviously computers involved, but that might be downstream of the actual counting process. Perhaps they use computers for some of the gross tabulation.

                  Which would be ridiculous, when you think about it.

                  It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                  by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 10:26:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  right (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Fishgrease, epcraig, mango, el cid, epppie

                    In the precincts, the ballots are hand counted and sealed in packets with the tally handwritten and signed by those involved in the counting, as well as observers from each party (although one problem was that there was a shortage of observers in many polling places). The Hildebrando computers then tabulated the totals and this is where there is a possiblity of computer fraud. Mexican scientist, Luis Mochan published a study about this:


                    I do recall reading that there were a few polling places, in Chiapas, where thery were trying out some voting machines, but it was only in a handful of precincts.    

                    •  'computers then tabulated' (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mariachi mama, epppie

                      There's a lesson for us!

                      It's not just hand-counts we need. We need the entire system free of computers. It's amazing that this might immediately strike us as impossible or difficult... when it's just addition!

                      Shows how much we think we need computers!

                      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                      by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 11:01:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The rw is all about changing what is possible. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Fishgrease, epcraig

                        That is, changing perception of what is possible.  The Dems refuse to do this.  That, more than money, is the reason that they are constantly mugged by the rw.

                        They've got us believing that we can't vote without computerized machines recieving the vote or tabulating it or both.  They've got us believing that exit polls are hogwash, recounts are for losers and paper trails are impractical.

                        Watch all this change if they lose a big one.

                        a hope that may come close to despair

                        by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 11:16:32 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Wow! (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      epcraig, epppie

                      I'm darned glad I came to this thread. However silly using initial hand-counts followed by computer tabulation may seem, it's exactly the sort of thing that could happen here in the USA.

                      Government: "Okay, okay, you're right. We'll hand-count the ballots! That way everything is provably fair, right? Anything else? No? Good. See ya."

                      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                      by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 11:08:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Which would make it EASIER to manipulate the (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Fishgrease, epcraig, mariachi mama

                    results (perhaps with the help of computer programs developed by a friend!),

                    a hope that may come close to despair

                    by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 10:59:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Here's this Salon thing (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  epcraig, mariachi mama, epppie


                  (have to view a short ad)

                  It says there were definite suspicions of computer fraud, but I think now that everyone here is right about the hand-counting of individual ballots. That brings up the question:

                  Why on Earth would they then use computers for tabulation?

                  My head hurts!

                  It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                  by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 10:54:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  No, nor any investigation allowed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fishgrease, epcraig, epppie

      In part we are bumping up against an epistemological question:  if it is physically possible that electoral fraud be committed, it is not realistic to assume that any fraud or manipulation be (a) completely obvious at a first glance to a casual observer, and (b) that a political opposition not possessing the powers of Government be required to first absolutely prove fraud before an investigation may be held.

      This is apparently the standard to which democracies now hold themselves -- i.e., no matter how many problems there may truly exist, it is not the role of electoral authorities to ensure transparency and verifiability, but the role of political candidates and / or social movements to first prove fraud and manipulation on their own.

  •  What about Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas' letter? (3+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    nhc1978, GN1927, epppie
    Hidden by:
    Fishgrease, mango, PatriciaVa

    I don't think that you present a full picture of what is going on, especially when it's looking more and more like Lopez Obrador's coalition is falling apart.  Why don't you cover the two-page ad that Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas took out in a few Mexican newspapers telling Lopez Obrador to stop what he's doing and accept the ruling of the courts, since he failed to prove any fraud occurred?  Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas has spoken up a few times since the election, and has been getting even more anti-Lopez Obrador each time.

    For those who don't know, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas was a founder of PRD and is a very outspoken politician.

    •  Some analysis of the letter (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      el cid, epppie

      here. The PRD is about to merge with other groups to integrate a new party, and Cárdenas isn't going to go along with it. It's the culmination of a leadership fight that has been raging off and on for decades, between Cárdenas, Lopez Obrador, Porfirio Muñoz-Ledo, and others. Over time, Cárdenas has increasingly become isolated. It's quite ironic that the man who is now recognizing Felipe Calderón and publically bashing AMLO is really much more the representative of the traditional left. Not a great way to secure is legacy; but, if that's the way he chooses to go out, that's his way.

      Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

      by brainwave on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 07:44:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't understand why this post has been (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      troll rated.  

      a hope that may come close to despair

      by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 07:51:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it should've been (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        epcraig, epppie

        The poster has a history of trolling the Mexico News Roundup (now MexiKos) threads. But I personally think comments should be TR-ed for content and language, not for their authors. But this has been a long-term dispute here on dKos - it's a question of your attitude towards the so-called "troll hunters" or "troll busters".

        Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

        by brainwave on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:01:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  my own preference is to use TR rarely (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brainwave, epcraig, epppie

          and only in cases of simple trolling or cheap insults such as calling the diarists or commenters here "Communists."

        •  Stop lying (0+ / 0-)

          I go to threads like this because I feel that people like you, el cid, and others are being completely dishonest in presenting propaganda and presenting an untruthful picture of the Mexican political system and what is really going on down there.  When I bring up legitimate points, such as the above comment where one of the founders of Lopez Obrador's own party is telling him to stop, you all know that your propaganda is going to fall apart if people at Dailykos start digging into it and find out the truth.

          You people don't even know what a troll is, and if your mind is so fragile that disagreements with your opinions constitutes trolling, you should just turn off the computer, quit your job, and hide in your home.  People are going to disagree with you, get over it, and stop trying to dehumanize me or anyone else that doesn't agree with your god damned self-important bullshit.

          •  "Dishonest": 1 More Direct Insult to DailyKos'r (0+ / 0-)

            Look, I'll admit like anyone that I post stuff I choose and there's an entire world of other views.

            In fact Orwell once wrote of politically oriented speech that "It's lying even if it's true," because in choosing to emphasize one set of facts or views, you immediately close off the raising of others.

            I fear no point raised by anyone.  You in fact have raised a bunch.  I'm afraid of no call for Lopez Obrador to do anything, least of which because, as your small mind simply cannot conceive, people like me aren't personality cult worshippers of Lopez Obrador and if I thought it would help the grassroots mobilization which I favor, I too would suggest he find another way to occupy his time.

            But now, however, at least you've added to the number of occasions in which you have specifically insulted and made baseless accusations against DailyKos posters.

            Add the charge of "dishonesty" to the charges of "communism" and "Stalinism" you've already made.

            You are not a brave dissident, nor some courageous fighter for the truth.  You're just simply not.

            Now, on a personal level, given the rate at which you've directly and fraudulently insulted me, let my ask:  why have I troll rated you so little?

      •  Fraud-Laden Election Process (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        epcraig, miguelmas, epppie

        ....failed to prove any fraud....

        That's like saying that no fraud ocurred in Florida in 2000.

        How can anyone who read the TEPJF ruling not say the election was fraudulent.

        Third-party spots are illegal.  The CCE spent over US$ 20M during the last two weeks, Swiftboating AMLO (like the GOP Swiftboated Senator Kerry).  The CCE in fact, according to an extrapolation of El Universal media figures we have cited in past diaries, spent more during the last two weeks of the campaign than even RightWing Calderon did.

        The difference between the two candidates is less than 0.6% (meaning, that if the CCE spots influenced even 0.3% of the populace, the election should have been annulled).

        And yet, the TEPJF validates the election.

        How can any reasonable Centrist or Progressive say that no fraud took place.

        •   Unallowed Advertising v. Fraud (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Advertising may be inappropriate or even illegal.

          However, non-permitted advertising is NOT fraud.  It may convince people to vote for a candidate, but it does not suppress votes or create fictitious votes.

          Fraud is destruction of ballots, stuffing ballot boxes, etc.  

          Did election fraud occur at the ballot boxes?

          Allegations are being thrown around very loosely here.

          •  3rd Party Ad Buys are Fraudulent (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            epcraig, epppie

            Mexican electoral law PROHIBITS 3rd party ad buys on behalf of or against candidates.

            To engage in such buys is FRAUDULENT.

            The TEPJF acknowledged that the CCE buys were fraudulent.

            Why is this so difficult to comprehend.

            •  Not Difficult to Understand (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              But "election fraud" is not typically used to describe that sort of illegal activity.  It refers to stuffing ballot boxes, etc.  AMLO has been very  inconsistent in his allegations about vote counting.

              If the votes were fairly counted, but the VOTERS were manipulated by this advertising, then you will have to get the Mexican public to admit that they are easily MANIPULATED by advertising to get the election overturned.

              Good luck.  

              •  Fraudulent Advertising Necessitated Annulment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                We're talking about influencing 0.3% of the population.

                It comes down to this.

                Do you believe that the fraudulent advertising by the CCE and Fox influenced 0.3% of the population, that is, convinced them to change their mind, to vote for RightWing Calderon, instead of Centrist AMLO.

                Three days before the ruling, at least 3 of the 7 judges (according to anti-AMLO Lopez Doriga, whose column we have documented in past diaries) believed this to be the case.

                I believe that only a Bush Worhshipping Calderon Sycophant who wants a Bush-type govt. in Mexico would believe that the elections should not have been annulled.

                •  But What's the Remedy? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  First, the courts should have stopped illegal advertising as it happened.  Did AMLO challenge this advertising as it was occuring?  

                  If you annul the election and hold a re-vote, the people will still have been influenced by Fox's advertising.  So I don't really understand how re-votes are a remedy.

                  Also, practically speaking, I strongly suspect that a re-vote would trigger a landslide defeat for AMLO (based upon the opinion  polls that I have seen from Mexico.)  The "sore loser" label is very powerful, even if unfair.

                  •  The sore loser label would quickly change (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    if AMLO started scoring some wins, so to speak.  That's how people are - they identify with the winner.  Winners change.

                    Re. remedy- I think the obvious remedy would be to provide equal time to AMLO to counter the illegal advertising.

                    a hope that may come close to despair

                    by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:47:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Fraudulent but Effective SwiftBoat Campaigns (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    epcraig, el cid, epppie

                    AMLO had his lawyers practically set up camp at the IFE the moment the CCE and Fox begain interfering in the campaign.

                    Regrettably, the IFE (whose leader, Ugalde, had Cadlderon serve as a witness at his wedding) did not address the situation in a timely fashion.

                    So, to answer your question, yes, AMLO did challenge the advertising as it was ocurring.

                    What bother me the most about the fraudulent election is how effective SwiftBoat campaigns can be.

                    Here you have AMLO, a man whose fiscal policies as Mayor of Mexico City were praised  by S&P, Fitch, and Moody's.  Credit Suisse First Boston called him a pragmatic smart politician.

                    And yet, thanks to a fraudulent SwiftBoat campaign, many people in Nuevo Leon (where both my parents hail from) believe that he would expropriate their property.

                    •  I Have Friends from Nuevo Leon.. Same Belief (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      These are highly-educated people.  They were voting absentee from the United States for Calderon.  Very concerned about expropriation and also AMLO's alleged ties to Chavez.  

                      I guess I just don't see the remedy at this point.  I suspect that turnout would be even higher among the anti-AMLO forces if there was another election. All their "fears" (that AMLO is a "Messiah") have been proven, and the media will re-air those allegations daily until the re-vote.

                      •  Of Nuevo Leon and Mexico City (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        epcraig, epppie

                        What is interesting is the vast difference in electoral preferences between professionals in Nuevo Leon and Mexico City.

                        In Mexico City, the vast majority of IBankers, Consultants and Lawyers under 40 were all hoping that AMLO won.  They were very happy with his term as Mayor of La Capital, and believed that his economic policies could lift Mexico out of the stagnation that it has suffered since 1982.

                        Monterrey, with professionals being MUCH more conservative, actually believed that Calderon, a man who vows to impose a flat tax on the ecoomy would solve its fiscal mess, a man who has publicly sparred with scientists, was the better option.

                      •  Same Old Song (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Again with the same allegations of ties to Chavez.

                        The newspaper that began that campaign, La Cronica, is run by a relative of Augusto Pinochet.  At least on one occasion, he has denied that Pinochet committed genocide.  La Cronica makes Fox News look like a moderate news organization.

                        Regrettably, we had the RightWing Pedro Sevcec (again, we have chonicled his ties to RightWing causes in past diaries), the anchor of Telemundo Network news, use the Cronica story as a basis to defame AMLO.

                        The people who belive that AMLO has ties to Chavez (he has never even spoken to him on the phone) are the same kind that believed Senator Kerry was a coward in Vietnam.  Now, I don't doubt that some Monterrey professionals did so, but these, for the most part, graduated from VERY conservative institutions, similar to our Hillsdale and Oral Roberts Universities.

                        Mexico City professionals are far more worldly, and many have graduated from the UNAM, which fosters a Centrist and Progressive ideology, very similar that pur forth in Stanfords and Harvards.

                        Mexico City professionals realize the danger posed by another six years of a reactionary regime.

                    •  Wow. It sounds like IFE is full of people (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      from Calderon's wedding!  One witness, one brother in law (designed software for IFE) - I wonder how many other rocks there are to look under!

                      a hope that may come close to despair

                      by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:19:46 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I tend to agree. Fraud (via the advertising) was (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  operative before the voting even began.  The election probably should have been annulled at that point.  Once the illegal advertising gets out there, it can't be recalled.  Maybe they could have given PRD some time to balance out the illegal advertising.  Why didn't they do that?  It seems like the fix was in from the start.  But one doesn't need such speculation, it seems to me, to say that fraud was proven before the voting even started and the election should have been annulled or some fair remedy should have been arrived at.  This latter was not done, I take it.  So the election should have been annulled.

                  The ones who are at fault for undermining democracy are the ones who allow fraud to stand, not the ones who challenge it.

                  a hope that may come close to despair

                  by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:45:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I'd call that a giant etc.. (0+ / 0-)

                a hope that may come close to despair

                by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:32:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Sure, if election fraud only refers to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            things done with ballots, then barred advertising is not fraud.

            My guess is that if we define fraud narrowly enough, not many things would be fraud.  For example, manipulation of voting waits in Ohio would not count as fraud.  

            a hope that may come close to despair

            by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:32:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Swift-boating is not election fraud (0+ / 0-)

          No matter how much we dislike it, we have to have proof.  The left pisses me off a lot because we've become like the Republicans -- whiny babies who say the other side is cheating when we don't get our way.  I have to admit that I was pretty upset after the 2004 election also, and I wanted there to be fraud found so we could have justification.  However, reality set in and all the claims of fraud turned out to be propaganda from egotistical deluded morons, and no evidence ever turned up.  The reality is that our side picked an ass-tastic piece of trash for a presidential candidate, and we lost because of it.

          The same situation is in Mexico.  Dirty campaigns, even illegaly campaigns, are not the same as election fraud.  George W. Bush didn't steal the election from John McCain in 2000 when Rove spread rumors of McCain's illegitimate black child, but it was certainly dishonest and immoral.  There is a big difference.

          Additionally, all three parties ran dirty campaigns and broke the law in the Mexican election.  In fact, I seem to recall PRD being guilty of doing more illegal campaigning than PAN or PRI, and being fined more.  Of course, if all your news about Mexico comes from La Jornada, you might not know that, or anything else that shows a fuller picture of what is going on in Mexico.

      •  With theboz (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mango, epppie

        We've just gotten into that habit.

        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

        by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:29:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good question (0+ / 0-)

        There's a few people that follow me around here and troll rate me for no reason because they disagree with my views.

    •  Cardenas is a Whore (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PatriciaVa, epppie

      Cardenas' only goal is power... he lost to salinas by fraud in 1988, yet refuses to come out in support of a vote by vote recount. Why? he's just as corrupt as any PRIista or PANista...

      Ah, Boz, you do pick the winners.

    •  A reasonable perspective, but unconvincing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      epcraig, mariachi mama, epppie

      I understand Cardenas' arguments, and there are certainly many who hold the same views.  But as far as what is happening now, I just don't see them as being very convincing.

      On the other hand, yes, it is clear evidence that the liberals and leftists are intensely divided on the proper goals and behavior of the AMLO-centered opposition.

      Similar debates rage within the Democratic Party in the USA as well as with leftists who are not within the Democratic Party.  And such divisions have been more quietly raging in the US, because of the lack of popular protest legacies in the US population, since at least the turn of the Democrats towards supporting Civil Rights and especially divisions over their stance toward the Vietnam War.

      But the point is not the validity of one or other perspective for US politics -- that should be for other diaries, but just to note that there are strong divisions of opinions.

      •  Another problem is the left-right discussion (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think we can really call any party in Mexico "right", but at the same time, some of the qualities we look for in the left are non-existant in the most "leftist" parties (e.g. PRI.)

        I think one of the reasons we have so much trouble discussiong the topic of the Mexican elections is because you can't overlay American politics on top and expect to be able to map anyone to anyone else.  PAN is further to the right than any other party in Mexico, but they are more like Jimmy Carter Democrats in reality.  PRI is the furthest to the left in their rhetoric and some of their organization, but they are extremely corrupt in a way that the right here in the U.S. has adopted with cronyism and embezzlement.  I do think that PRD is overtaking PRI in representing the left, but at the same time I am bothered by the more radical elements that seem to be gaining power in PRD.  When I complain about Stalinists in PRD, that doesn't mean every single person is one, but the ones that are there have enough influence that I can see them resorting to violence if given the chance.  I don't want to see genocide in Mexico, especially in the name of the left, and I worry that if people gain power who want bloodshed to occur, things are going to get very ugly.  For the record I don't think AMLO wants to see genocide, but I have no doubt that his most hardcore supporters do.

  •  MexiKos (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, kestrel9000, mango, el cid, epppie

    I like the new name better than Mexico News Roundup (hadn't noticed it before). -- The English-language section of El Universal has only four short paras on the counter-grito held by the mayor of Mexico City, Alejandro Encinas, yesterday:

    In Mexico City´s Zócalo, where the president traditionally delivers the "grito" from the balcony of the National Palace, Mexico City Mayor Alejandro Encinas presided over the ceremonies, accompanied by Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal, Encinas´ wife, María Nájera, and Sen. Rosario Ibarra de Piedra.

    However, Encinas was relegated to a balcony in City Hall, to shout his "Vivas!"

    After giving the grito in which he extolled popular sovereignty, Encinas rang a one-ton bronze bell donated by Michoacán artisans that was installed earlier Friday.

    The original bell that Padre Hidalgo rang in 1810 hangs on the facade of the National Palace and was not used in Friday´s ceremony, marking what is thought to be the first time that the bell did not ring out during Independence Day celebrations.

    LaJornada has a lot more - sounds like it was quite the party!

    Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

    by brainwave on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 07:28:21 AM PDT

  •  Evidence of Fraud - Fix is In (5+ / 0-)

    Anyone who wants to see how the fix was in should read the ruling by the TEPJF, which is not viable.

    Another columnists take on the TEPJF ruling, as he refers to the report by Comité Conciudadano de Seguimiento del Proceso Electoral (Citizens Committe on the Electoral Process), issued a couple of days ago.

    I've translated a couple of paragrahps of the column, which refers to the report.





    15 de septiembre

    In its analyses of the ruling, the Committee found, among other things, the following monumental contradiction, already addressed in earlier columns, but expressed much more eloquently.  “The TEPJF established....that the CCE violated the law, and the President of the Republic violated the governing principles of the electoral process and jeopardized the validity of the election.  But because it was unable to gauge its effect, the TEPJF decided to dismiss these transgressions.  It did so not because it was impossible to measure the impact of these violations, but because the TEPJF decided that these misdeeds did not change the results of the election.  The TEPFJ did not establish a rule, reference point or parameter to judge when a violation of the constitutional principles have a consequence in the validity of the election, and when it does not, however.  How many more declarations from President Fox would have been invalidated the election (since the TEPJF ruling states that the President abstained from campaigning in time to safeguard the election)?  How much more interference from the CCE would have been necessary for the TEPJF to rule that it change the result of the election?  Of course, it is impossible to respond to such questions, as the TEPJF acknowledges when it cites the impossibility of measuring the consequences.  But it does so in a contradictory manner, because, by dismissing the transgressions, it is tacitly admitting that their impact can be measured, and that they did not impact the election.   Where the TEPJF affirms that the impact of the transgressions can’t be measured, it nonetheless decided t measure them, arguing that they did were not determinant.

    It is surprising that upon establishing the validity of the election, the TEPJF president Leonel Castillo Gonzales did not consider has own statements, which lacked judicial value since they were not expressed in the document or formal discussion, that, the narrower the difference between the two candidates, more care should be taken in assessing the determining factors used to argue the annulment of the election..  The difference between Calderon and AMLO was less than 0.5%, while the range put forth by Castillo was 8x to 10x that amount.


    original text...


    Ya en el análisis del documento, el Comité halló, entre otras, la siguiente monumental contradicción, ya expuesta aquí mismo pero desarrollada de manera muy elocuente: "El Tribunal electoral estableció... que el Consejo Coordinador Empresarial (CCE) violó la ley y que el Presidente de la República violó los principios rectores del proceso electoral y puso en riesgo la validez de la elección. Pero ante la imposibilidad de medir su efecto, el Tribunal decidió desecharlas. La razón para hacerlo no fue esta imposibilidad, sino que a su entender el efecto no había sido determinante de la elección. Sin embargo, el TEPJF no estableció regla, referente o parámetro alguno para decidir cuándo una violación a un principio constitucional tiene consecuencias en la validez de la elección y cuándo no. ¿Cuánto tiempo más de declaraciones del presidente Fox hubiesen sido determinantes (ya que el dictamen dice que el Presidente se detuvo a tiempo)? ¿Qué intervenciones adicionales del CCE hubiesen sido necesarias para transformarlas en determinantes? Por supuesto que es imposible responder a estas preguntas. Así lo reconoce el TEPJF al aludir a la imposibilidad de medir una consecuencia. Pero de manera contradictoria el motivo para desecharlas es justamente una medición (nada explícita ni aceptable) de que esos efectos no son determinantes para la elección. Donde el Tribunal afirma que no se puede medir, argumenta la determinancia, de forma contradictoria".

    Sorprende que al establecer la determinancia el magistrado presidente Leonel Castillo González no tuviera presente su propia apreciación, carente de valor jurídico pues no la expresó en documento o discusión formal, de que mientras más estrecha la diferencia entre la votación de dos candidatos y partidos más cuidado habría que tener con la condición de determinantes que tuvieran las causas invocadas para anular casillas. La diferencia entre Calderón y López Obrador fue de sólo la mitad de un punto, mientras que el rango expuesto por el magistrado montaba 8 o 10 veces esa cifra.


  •  Is Loprez-Obrador really losing support? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, el cid, PatriciaVa

    That seems to be a key question.  

    But as far as the utility of a shadow government is concerned, Womack's scorn strikes me as hilarious, in light  of the tendency here in the US to constantly lambast the Dems for NOT offering alternative ideas!!  Offering alternative ideas is precisely what a parallel government could do and is precisely what typically cannot be effectively done when "working within the system".    And as far as working within the system goes, I would argue that the Dems have given a brilliant demonstration over the last six years of how ineffective it is to swallow a stolen election and then attempt to work within the system.

    a hope that may come close to despair

    by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 07:30:29 AM PDT

  •  Uneducated/Regressive Still Drinking the KoolAid (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, GN1927, miguelmas, mango, epppie

    It never ceases to amaze me how effective SwiftBoat campaigns can be.

    Even today, there are those who believe that AMLO would  expropriate property.

    Why?  For the same reason some people in the US believe that Senator Kerry was a "coward".

    Because these people lack the critical thinking skills needed to discern truth from fiction.  Consequently, they are susceptible to RightWing propaganda.

    On July 2, Centrists and Progressives voted for AMLO, while the Regressive and Uneducated elements of Mexican society opted for Calderon.  Very similar to Centrists and Progressives voting for Senator Kerry, and the Regressive and Uneducated opting for Arbusto.

  •  Of Cardenas and Docility (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brainwave, epcraig, miguelmas, epppie

    For those of you who don't know, C. Cardenas, like AMLO, was also a victim of elect. fraud.  Unlike AMLO, Cardenas decided not to fight it.

    Also, please note that C. Cardenas wanted to be Centrist candidate for the presidency, yet again, last year.  Yet, faced with 5% support, next to 90%+ for AMLO, C. Cardenas decided not to compete for the top spot this year.

    Last December, as AMLO was accepting the PRD nomination for the presidency, a Jornada reporter asked onlookers about C. Cardenas.  Almost universal repudiation, esp. among the young who resented the fact that C. Cardenas was not campaigning on behalf of AMLO.

    Finally, on July 2, according to the Wall Street Journal, his son, Cardenas Batel, accepted a call from Calderon, as the results were coming in.

    Both C. Cardenas and his son, Batel Cardenas (gov. of Michoacan) are effectively personas non-gratas in the Centrist and Progressive communities.

    In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they soon leave the party.

  •  Diary of the Week (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    el cid, epppie

    No shit.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:17:07 AM PDT

  •  Interesting about son; assumed Cardenas jealous (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of the passing of the generations.  That he was no longer the darling of the left; the boss.

    But maybe it isn't so simple.

    •  To be honest, I've long had my doubts (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      epcraig, mariachi mama, epppie

      about Cuauhtémoc's political skills. In a sense, Cuauhtémoc's politics have always been mostly about Cuauhtémoc as a symbol of something. First, as a symbol of the promise of Mexico's revolution, because of his name - Cuauhtémoc's father remains Mexico's most revered post-revolutionary president. And then, after the fraud of 1988, he became a symbol of everything aggrieved as a result of the corruption of the PRI system.

      Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

      by brainwave on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:55:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Traidor (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Colorado Luis, brainwave, epcraig, epppie

      Shortly after the election, when his son came to visit AMLO in his campaign war room, as Batel Cardenas was leaving, he was called a "traidor" by many in the area.


      "Traidor, por ti perdimos", le espetó una mujer seguidora de Andrés Manuel López Obrador al gobernador de Michoacán, Lázaro Cárdenas Batel, quien salía de la casa de campaña del aspirante de la coalición Por el Bien de Todos.

      De inmediato trepó a su vehículo y se retiró tras haber dialogado unos minutos con López Obrador. Ahí también se topó con la gobernadora de Zacatecas, Amalia García Medina.

      De acuerdo con fuentes de la coalición que integran el PRD, PT y Convergencia, existe molestia en López Obrador por los resultados obtenidos en ambos estados gobernados por el PRD, aunque García Medina negó todo e incluso comparó que les fue mejor que hace seis años, cuando era mandatario Ricardo Monreal Ávila, hoy coordinador de redes ciudadanas del tabasqueño.


  •  The CND a new phase, not just about 'fraud' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Although most of the comments here seem to be going back to the original inspiration of the protests -- the belief that there was illegal intervention and fraud into the elections -- that there seem to be some newer, and much broader, goals for the Convencion Nacional Democratica.

    Personally, right now I'm finding that a lot more interesting than the electoral fraud.  Not because I'm "moving on," but because I also know that even had AMLO been officially elected, it might be just one more center-liberal government, but now, now there might actually be a large civil movement.

    •  It's easy to lose sight, in politics, of the fact (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      epcraig, el cid

      that "winning" is not the ultimate goal.  Changing the way people think and what they suppose is possible is the ultimate goal.  

      a hope that may come close to despair

      by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:17:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All of this is correct, and very well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        el cid

        but 6 years of right wing administration, adamently neo liberal, in Mexico is not what Mexico, or the US needs right now.

        Especially if the U.S. takes a left turn in the congressional elections and the 2008 presidential.

        Be nice if both leaders operated on the same wavelength.  Or something resembling.

        I mean Lazaro Cardenas and FDR got along partly because the same oil millionaires who were trying to sabotage the New Deal were trying to get the U.S. to intervene over the nationalization of oil and creation of Pemex in Mexico.

        Roosevelt flashed his middle finger at the bastards and issued statements "respecting Mexican national sovereignty" or some such.

        Helps to have the ever ignorant big brother to the North at least trying to develop reality based policies with its neighbor.

  •  If only the stupid Gringos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, miguelmas

    north of the border had the cujones of these Mexicans

    •  We Had President Clinton (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      epcraig, miguelmas, epppie

      As bad as things are in the US, they are MUCH worse in Mexico.

      According to S&P, on a per/capita basis, Mexico grew 0.6% from 82 to 02.

      According to INEGI, Mexico grew at a 0.8% a year clip during the first five years of Fox's tenure.

      Clearly, laissez-faire economics has not been good to the median Mexican household.

      At least in the US, during that strech to time, we had President William Jefferson Clinton, whose govt. intervention in the economy helped so many lower and middle-income Americans.

    •  maybe we're just slow learners (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      like, reeeeeeeeeeally slow

  •  el cid; PatriciaVa, Recount viewed from abroad (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, miguelmas, el cid, PatriciaVa, epppie

    All that follows is influenced by my observations as a student in Guanajuato in the 1960s.  Very dated view of social realities, I admit.

    1.  Obviously a vote by vote recount was possible; there were paper ballots for every vote.  Nor would it be particularly difficult
    1. The electoral authorities have not released detailed information about the recount.  Obviously they could.  By not doing so they either A) are trying to avoid a pettifogging argument over small discrepancies, or B) do not wish to publish what amounts to a self-evident argument for a full recount.  In this case, "B" would seem more likely
    1. A recount was so obviously required for accuracy that objections would be self-serving and legalistic.  If changes in the law to permit the recount were required, these could obviously be achieved by a message from Fox to congress and a quick small change in the law affirming such a change.
    1.  Such a change in the law, if required, and a recount could even be to the PAN's benefit if they WON the recount.  PAN's authority to govern would not be in question.  And there was plenty of time to do so.  That there was no will to do this indicates that PAN A) saw no reason to take a risk, and B) possibly knew that the results were tainted/fixed.
    1.  All of which leads, by means of Occam's Razor, to the simplest explanation:  That the election was fixed and the electoral authorities participated and/or were covering up this fraud.

    The rest seems misdirection; "flores" that the panistas, pristas, neo liberals etc. are using to try to pretty up the ugly, obvious truth.

    I'm curious, what does the Mexican public believe about this election?  Do they really believe the official story.  Or are some of them just going along--a bit of fraud just being part of the elections process?

  •  Good interview yesterday w/ Mex anthropologist (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, miguelmas, PatriciaVa, epppie

    On Berkeley, CA radio station KPFA (first station in the Pacifica network of community funded radio stations, which preceded "public radio" in the US by a generation) their excellent Morning Show has had interviews on the Mexican electoral and post-electoral situation.

    The strength of the Morning Show is in my view threefold:  the knowledge and insight of its hosts;  the lack of commercials to interrupt;  and the typical in-depth focus of a half-hour (minus news breaks etc) to one topic or person.

    The Morning Show
    Friday September 15th, 2006

    Other ways to listen:

    Stream to your computer's media player (24kb/s mp3).

    Download this program to your hard drive (this file is about 20.58 megabytes).

    About this program:

    7:08 Mexican Independence Day

    Gilberto Lopez Rivas - Anthropologist with the National Institute of Anthropology and History in Mexico City. He is also a frequent contributor to La Jornada.

    Dick J. Reavis, Reporter and Asst. Professor at North Carolina State University

    7:33 Kathy Gannon, author of "I Is for Infidel, J Is for Jihad, K Is Kalashnikov:

    From Holy War to Holy Terror in Afganistan"

    Sonali Kolhatkar, KPFK host of "Up Rising Radio"and Vice President of the Afgan Women's Mission

    8:08 Reyna Cowan on Film: The Madcat Film Festival

    8:38 Darvag Theatre presents "Suitcase: An Iranian Tragicomedy with Global Reverberations" at Intersection for the Arts, 446 Valencia, SF

    Th, Fr, Sa 7PM Su 8PM 'til Sept. 24

  •  Also from KPFA: Flashpoints en Español intv (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, epppie

    From KPFA's Dennis Bernstein's Flashpoints en Español, yesterday (Friday) afternoon (evening Mexico time) Miguel Guerrero headed to the Zócalo to talk with the assembled about the (in their title) "new Mexican revolution."

    Friday, September 15, 2006

    Today on Flashpoints: We broadcast both from our studios in Santa Rosa and from our homebase at KPFA in Berkeley. On the show tonight, we’ll feature a young, new investigative unit of bilingual producers and hear some of their maiden voyages into radio with an emphasis on the immigrant revolution; also, an interview with the filmmakers of Occupation 101, a historical timeline through Israel’s illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine; we’ll hear sounds from the film; and on Flashpoints en Espanol, Miguel Guerrero goes home to cover the Mexican revolution in the Zocalo, and we go to Alejandro Reyes who will meet with the Zapatista’s other campaign.

    01:00 Introduction
    Francisco, Nora, Dennis

    05:00 New Investigative Unit Focuses on Immigrant Revolution
    Dennis with new producers

    15:00 Occupation 101
    Sufyan Omeish, directorAbdallah Omeish, director
    Interviewed by Nora Barrows

    31:00 Excerpts from Film: Occupation

    43:00 Flashpoints en Espanol
    Miguel Guerrero, Alejandro Reyes
    Interviewed by Francisco Herrera

  •  Video of El Grito (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, el cid, mariachi mama, epppie

    Short clip of El Grito, produced by El Universal.

    Please note that Abascal, which the producer characterizes as "El Incomodo" (ie. the uncomfortable one) is the Sec. of Gobernacion, arguably the 2nd most important Executive Branch position, behind the president.

    He is also the same person who, at the start of Fox's term, when he held the position of Sec. of Labor (when I first arrived in Mexico City, a friend explained to me that govt. positions are like wash and wear), he stated that the woman's role is in the kitchen.  He also had a teacher fired from his child's school because, in his opinion, the child was exposed to texts that were "contra los valores de familia."

    And, if you think that Abascal is conservative, you have no idea just how reactionary Calderon is.

  •  Dang it, this should be front page. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If not today, when?

    a hope that may come close to despair

    by epppie on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 11:10:51 AM PDT

  •  Minister of Environment: AMLO 'Mussolini' (0+ / 0-)

    The Minister for the Environment and Natural Resources advises the PRD to put the brakes on Lopez Obrador, who increasingly in his view acts like 'Mussolini' and as a self-declared 'messiah.'

    •  Buried Alive (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      epcraig, el cid, mariachi mama

      A man whose presidential candidate, Calderon, has both publicly sparred with scientists (please review past Mexico diaries) and promised to impose a Fascist flat tax on the already regressive Mexican tax code, dares attack Centrist AMLO??!!!

      By the way, speaking of the enviornment and natural resources, has Fox yet decided to allocate the resources necessary to recover the bodies of the miners who were buried alive?

      Or perhaps to do so would mean that the affluent would need to pay a capital gains tax, which the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal would never allow a PAN/PRI president to even discuss openly.

      So, Mexico doesn't have enough resources to recover the bodies of miners, but it does have enough to both, not to ask the affluent to pay a capital gains tax, and to cut the top marginal rate, as Fox has did early in his tenure.


      With 65 Still Entombed at Mexican Mine, Ache Deepens

      By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
      Published: March 3, 2006

      SAN JUAN DE LAS SABINAS, Mexico, March 2 — There is no hope at the mine here now, only the anguished, wrung-out ache to recover the bodies of their loved ones, to put an end to the waiting, the praying and the torturous talk of miracles.

      Eleven days after an explosion sealed 65 miners in an airless coal shaft here, the mine operators and their American consultants are no closer to finding the men than they were last week. Methane gas has filled the mine, making it impossible to excavate without risking a second explosion and more deaths, mine officials said.

      The federal government has declared the miners dead because air samples from the shaft were found to be lethally poisonous — and recriminations have begun. The disaster has focused attention on the harsh working conditions of Mexican miners and provoked a national debate on mine safety. It also spawned two days of wildcat strikes at mines across the country and a struggle for the leadership of Mexico's largest mine workers' union.


  •  Common Good coal. now 'Broad Progressive Front' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mariachi mama

    The PRD, Convergencia, and PT parties have formed the Broad Progressive Front (Frente Amplio Progresista) to realize their legislative strategies.

    Also looks to me like a way of starting to carve off the progressive / liberal PRI legislators and voters without having to call them to be part of the same coalition they electorally fought against (Por el Bien de Todos.)

    I'm thinking that a non-literal English translation might be something more like Open Progressive Caucus or something like that.  Except if it were really the USA it would be "Progressives United for America" or some such, just to pre-inoculate yourselves against red-baiting and charges of hating Amurka.

  •  I must go, CND starts in 1/2 hour, live cov'g? (0+ / 0-)

    If anyone is still here during the CND, it's scheduled to start at 3pm local time (4pm Eastern US), and I have to go, please if you're paying attention give me some updates for MexiKos coverage.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site