some old myths are still around

Even as things have returned to normal in Mexico (notwithstanding Oaxaca) and as most international reporters and academics have endorsed the election procedures, it is frustrating to still see some international propaganda attempt to tarnish the results of the July 2 election.

Here is an example of an anti-globalist site in Canada.

"Divided Mexico: The Bankers’ Alliance Holds on to Power"
by John W. Warnock (September 27, 2006)

The first part of this long article is a fairly accurate historical description of (pre IFE) electoral fraud, followed by a one sided (but not inaccurate) view of the presidential campaign (e.g., bankers and business wanted Calderon to win). However, when discussing the post July 2 news, factual distortions abound.

"The two television networks, Televisa and TV Azteca, did extensive exit polls which indicated that AMLO had won, but they did not report the results."

and the conclusion is that this election was a redux of 1988.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAR20060927&articleId=3348


Let's compare this analysis with a July 5 interview with Warren Mitofsky, published on the Pew site:

During the (first) ballot recount, Mitofsky was asked

"Do you think Calderón's current lead will hold up?

Right at the moment he is leading by just about the 200,000 votes I expect him to win by.

That's a thin margin, why do you think it will hold up?

Well look, there were two counts of the votes in Mexico. One is the preliminary count, which they put out on election night; the other is the real count, which has taken place over the past two days. In the real count, 99.5% of precincts have been counted and they show the same 200,000-vote lead they found in the preliminary count. And no one challenged the preliminary count -- no one said it was wrong -- so I expect the final count to mirror that.

Do you think the results of the exit poll will reduce chances of fraud in the recount?

This election commission is so squeaky clean, I don't anticipate fraud. There were international observers there who said this election was as clean as anything they had seen. The way the election commission works, is that it represents all the parties -- not just the major ones -- equally. They all have an equal voice, and they all got to inspect every last count that took place, at every polling place, at the 300 deputy districts where the votes were collected, and again at the national level. I don't see a whole lot of room for fraud.

So you think there is less chance for fraud in a Mexican election than in an American election?

I would think the Mexican system with its strong election commission that is uniform across the country would be better than anything we are doing in the U.S.

http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=36

It is apparent that political extremists live by ideology rather than fact, and that certain events are too precious to be examined factually: Sacco & Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs. The actual determination of a trial or the count of an election is subordinated to the requirements for propaganda.

Secretary Rice's comments

Nothing is more unfortunate in interpersonal or diplomatic circles than when an attempt to make an objective comment (or even to offer a compliment) is taken as an offense. This happens all too often in the field of humor, and that of religion.

Earlier in the week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and said this of Mexico's electoral process

"it's been a vote of confidence in the Mexican democratic system which is ... just now maturing in a kind of two party system."

Ruben Aguilar, spokesman for President Fox, expressed some concern that a foreign government was criticising Mexico's internal process.

Dr. Rice, as a Stanford political science professor, might be used to having her comments received as objective information or an authoritative evaluation, but in the world of diplomacy, things are interpreted as value judgments, and even attempts at praise can be construed as criticism. "Maturing" could be seen as "not grown up yet" and the two party system comment could be seen as pushing a north American model that may not fit Mexico's political climate (or Israel's or Canada's).

Now is the time for Rice to demonstrate her diplomacy skills and issue some kind words, and to follow this up with a show of respect for president Fox. Hopefully, in early December she will be meeting with the new president and work out some important deals benefitting both sides of the border.

passing of Warren Mitofsky

Earlier this month, a great social scientist passed away. Psychologist Warren Mitofsky died in New York city of an aortic aneurysm, at age 71. Most of his early work was with the CBS network developing models for early projections (e.g., exit polling). While his firm was a relatively minor player in the U.S., it was the major polling firm in Mexico (and a half dozen other countries). The expertise and objectivity of Mitofsky polling has never been doubted. He will be missed, but to his credit, Miktofsky assembled a great team to carry on his work.

some northamerican newspapers responsible

I am in southern California this month and am amazed at


1. the lack of coverage about Mexico

2. the coverage of local "Chicano activists" going to Mexico to participate in AMLO's demonstrations.


Some newspapers, magazines, and news agencies (e.g., Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Bloomberg) have consistently given accurate and pertinent coverage. It is heartening when local papers seek out experts on Mexico and give thorough coverage of the news and high level analysis.


Kudos to

http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=11302

which contains interviews with professors of political science at Mexican universities (ITAM) and other experts.

Cardenas blasts AMLO

It was obvious even before the election that Cuauhtemoc Cardenas had only lukewarm support for this years PRD presidential candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, but Cardenas kept a low profile before the election and in the post election disputes.

However, the movement begun by Cardenas must now decide if it is to go over the cliff of obscurity and derision by following AMLO or whether the PRD will remain a vibrant (but constitutional) movement in Mexican politics. Cardenas, to his credit, has chosen the latter.

"I am deeply worried by the intolerance and demonization, the dogmatic attitude dominant in Andres Manuel's environment for those of us who do not unconditionally accept his proposals and question his points of view and decisions."

http://www.mexidata.info/id1056.html

This progressive movement is more important than one man's aspirations. After three runs at the presidency under the PRD banner, Cardenas realized that.

its over

AMLO's sore loser protests are passing from the stage of history with a whimper. These two factors indicate the effective end of his protests.

== He will take down the barricades for a weekend army parade
(prediction: they will not go back up)

== More of his PRD party members (e.g, governors of Chiapas and Michoacan, congressional deputies) are accepting the Calderon victory.

My prediction is that responsible members of the PRD will take control of the party and prevent AMLO from discrediting the party any further. The PRD will remain Mexico's number two party in the foreseeable future (if AMLO is not at the top). Given the right candidate and the right turn of events, the PRD could become the largest force in congress, and capture the presidency in six years.

the right call

Part of me wanted the tribunal to call for a new election. I figured THAT would give the Mexican public a chance to show AMLO what they really thought about him and his post election antics, and it would finally shut him up.

However, when I reflected about the unanimous decision to validate the July 2 results showing a narrow victory for Calderon, I was certain that the tribunal had made the right judgment.

Good legal decisions are not just based upon the Constitution and precedent. Good decisions form a foundation for future rulings. If the tribunal had overturned the July 2 election and called for another, that could be seen as rewarding AMLO for his disruptions. It would only encourage the next sore loser to be more disruptive in hopes of getting a do-over election in which he might do better than AMLO.

So, the long term wisdom of the tribunal must be acknowledged.