by Goldy, 07/31/2006, 9:40 AM

1.2 million Mexicans poured into the streets yesterday — the largest demonstration in Mexican history — supporting leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s election challenge, and demanding a revote in the nation’s disputed presidential election. Yet curiously, our good friend Stefan over at (un)Sound Politics didn’t join them.

Stefan made his blogging career staunchly defending democracy at home and abroad by championing revotes in close elections and seeding distrust of the electoral process in general. Yet apparently, he either dismisses any suggestion of electoral monkey wrenching south of the border… or simply thinks democracy isn’t as important to Mexico as it is to America or say, the Ukraine.

Could it be because Lopez Obrador is a leftist whereas the declared winner, Felipe Calderon is a conservative? Perhaps I’ll ask Stefan when the two of us speak before the Microsoft PAC this afternoon.

24 Responses to “Defending democracy at home & abroad”

1. rhp6033 spews:

Inconsistency must be considered a virtue in Republicans:

1. Throughout the 1990′s, Republicans insisted someone who didn’t serve in the military wasn’t qualified to be President (i.e., meaning Clinton). Yet when Gore was a candidate, they skipped right over his service. And when Kerry was a candidate, suddenly military service wasn’t a legitimate issue anymore.

2. When Bush was first running for President, Republicans argued that it wasn’t fair to attack Bush because he was “only” in the Texas Air National Guard. They argued that an attack on his service (or lack thereof) was an attack on all guardsmen. Yet that didn’t stop them from a full-bore attack on Kerry, a real combat veteran.

3. When Clinton was running for President, I heard a lot of santimonious huffing and puffing about how Clinton “broke the law” by smoking (but not inhaling) Marijuana as a student in England. “It’s Illegal!” they proclaimed, saying it disqualified him from any public office. Yet when I asked them if G.H.W. Bush was also disqualified if it could be proven that he ever drank liquor before age 21, they sputtered that was “different”. And G.W. Bush’s drunk-driving arrest was also “different”.

I guess there are “laws” for Republicans, and “laws” for Democrats. That’s why Rush Limbaugh is so confused – he still thinks his maid should be the one being prosecuted for getting pills for him, and he should get off scot-free.

4. Elections Fraud – The Florida 2000 elections were “close enough”, and the Ohio 2004 elections are a “closed book” according to Republicans. But the King County 2004 election demands not just a re-count, but a re-vote??????

5. Surveillance, Suspense of Habeus Corpus, etc. – It’s okay for a Republican President to run his own prison system, refusing not only to give any semblence of a fair trial to the prisoners, but also refuse even to identify them. Wonder how they will feel when a Democrat gets in the White House?

Consistency, people, is the hallmark of our Constitution. Those principles must remain the same regardless of who is in office!

2. REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX] spews:

DENVER – The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday upheld a state law that prohibits convicted felons from voting while they are on parole, a ruling that will keep some 6,000 people from casting ballots this year. Colorado law denies felons the right to vote while they are serving their sentences, and the justices said in a unanimous opinion that parole must be considered part of a sentence. […………………………………….Democrat lose 6000 votes in Colorado!!! Jesse and Al are furious!!!!!!!!!]

3. ArtFart spews:

4. “The fact that he can get 1.2 million protesters means he is being financed by Chavez…”

Gee whiz, Janet! You mean you couldn’t possibly conceive that that many people might actually agree with Obrador?

Who…uhhh…”financed” the folks who made all that fuss in Rossi’s behalf? Or paid for the busloads of people who showed up to demonstrate in Florida in 2000?

4. REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX] spews:

Los Angeles – Jewish groups have demanded Mel Gibson be investigated for hate crimes after the Hollywood star allegedly made anti-Semitic comments to US police officers when he was stopped on suspicion of drink-driving and speeding. /break/ Calling for a criminal investigation into the Oscar-winning actor and director’s remarks, Abraham Foxman, the national director of the US Jewish Anti-Defamation League, said: ‘’We believe there should be consequences to bigots and bigotry.’’ […………………………………………………………………………………..Fair enough…………………………………………, but I must have missed the “hate crime” investigation of Hillary against Dick Morris ["You Fucking Jew Bastard!"]. Could any of you commie libs repost? Goldy? Bueller? Frye? Left Turn? Dr. E? Anyone? Anyone? hehe, JCH]

5. REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX] spews:

1.2 million in Mexico City……….12 million illegals ready to vote Democrat in LA. Kalifornia: “Baja Norte”. Atlas has Shrugged. JCH

6. ArtFart spews:

“Inconsistency must be considered a virtue in Republicans”

“Inconsistency” is too polite a term. “Amorality” seems more accurate.

7. REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX] spews:

Right now, the minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Except for workers who rely on tips, this is the least amount of money an employer is allowed to pay somebody they have employed legally. The argument that is always trotted out for raising it is that this is not a “living wage.” How is a single mother supposed to raise a family on $5.15 an hour? That’s what we always hear from politicians. With that in mind, it’s time for some insensitivity training when it comes to the minimum wage.

First of all, if you are trying to raise a family on $5.15 an hour, you are a loser. Entry-level jobs that pay minimum wage are not meant for somebody trying to raise a family. They’re meant for kids in school or adults with minimum job skills. Basically people trying to get out and earn a little extra money. It’s not meant to support a family. If you have kids and $5.15 an hour is the best you can do, it is your own fault that you brought those kids into this world without the means to provide for them.

It is not the job of an employer to step in and cover for the irresponsibility of some fool that thinks they can raise a family without any job skills.

Second, what happens when the minimum wage is raised? Prices for the goods and services provided by those workers rise right along with their wages. If a restaurant employs 10 people at $5.15 an hour and the minimum wage goes up to $6, then guess what? That means the hourly labor costs of that restaurant just went up $8.50. Either some people are fired or the prices go up. That’s how it works.

There is one more argument the left never seems to be able to counter. Why raise the minimum wage to only $6 or $7 an hour? Why not $10? $12? Surely it takes at least $20 an hour to raise a family, so why not make the minimum wage $20 an hour? Just think of all the people we could lift out of poverty if we were to raise the minimum wage to $20 … or even more? If any of you are successful in getting an answer to that question, let me know.

Another question — why won’t the media explain the union connection to all of this? Many union contracts out there have a clause in them that ties minimum union wages to an index based on the minimum wage. When the minimum wage goes up … so do these union wages. Now you understand why unions are behind this increase.

Oh .. one more thing. I’m still looking in our Constitution for some provision that allows the Imperial Federal Government to set wages between private employers and private employees. Can’t find it.

8. rhp6033 spews:

Janet S. at 4 said:

“Maybe there is no uproar about the results of the Mexican election because the elections were held in accordance to Mexican law, and were generally seen as legitimate. The loser decided long before the election that he would contest the results if he lost.”

My Comment: “Seen as legitimate”, by whom? “Held in accordance with Mexican law”, as viewed by whom? If Rossi had been on the losing end, you can be damned sure he would be contesting this vote. The Republicans put King County under a microscope over

“The fact that he can get 1.2 million protesters means he is being financed by Chavez and crowd,…”

My Comment: Its amazing how you jump to conclusions/assumptions without any basis in fact. In reality, you have no idea of the motivations behind these protestors, or who is financing the opposition party. You just revert to your preconceived bias.

….and that the Mexican economy is so pathetic that these people have nothing better to do. It’s either this or try to cross the US border.”

My comment: Gee, you are inconsistent even in the same sentence. First you say that the only way to get 1.2 million protesters is through financing via Chavez of Vensuella (implying they were paid to protest), and then point out that the Mexican economy, for the poor and working people, is in bad straights which compells them to look for jobs over the border! Isn’t it more likely that the protestors are in favor of removing the governing party because the economy is so bad, or because of corruption or inadequate distribution of the country’s wealth and resources?

9. Sisal spews:

Hi. This site is very nice. Good job :)
Sisal Rug

10. Milkmans Book spews:

Hi. This site is very nice. Good job :)
Milkmans Book

11. Thomas Trainwinder spews:

Janet, do you believe the quality of Mexican elections to be higher than elections in King County?

12. For the Clueless spews:

The fact that he can get 1.2 million protesters means he is being financed by Chavez and crowd, and that the Mexican economy is so pathetic that these people have nothing better to do. It’s either this or try to cross the US border.

Can you back this up Janet or is it just the latest wingnut talking points or just plain old knee-jerk bigotry?

13. For the Clueless spews:

Goldy, go get that showboating, grandstanding charlatan, Stefan “Minnow” Sharansky!!

The “Orangies” are strangely MIA on the election in Mexico. LMAO at the “Orangies”!!!

14. For the Clueless spews:

JDB – nice find. The gravy train for some of these paid wingnut shills is sputtering to a halt!

15. Dr. E spews:

Janet, I’ve got to object as well. There has been precious little coverage of the overt electoral fraud in the Mexican elections in the MSM in this country (that includes the so-called “liberally biased” joints). The only American journalist to have done any substantive reporting on these elections, as far as I’m aware, is Greg Palast — and he works for the BBC! But, if you really want to have some inkling of what’s going on, just visit his website (www.gregpalast.com) and read his recent articles on the elections, which include reportage he did for the BBC. You’ll see, for instance, video of ballot boxes being stuffed by poll workers. You’ll hear the all-too-familiar tales of exit polls being at serious odds with official vote tallies. You’ll hear of vote tallies that suddenly, in the 11th hour, reversed the trend from Obrador to Calderon, sometimes at an utterly implausible vote ratio of 100:1. You’ll also hear that Choicepoint (the company that helped Jeb Bush scrub the voter rolls in Florida) was sent by the FBI to obtain voter rolls in Mexico — and hey, Venezuela too! — ostensibly as a part of the “war-on-terror” effort. You’ll also find out that the election fraud almost certainly has to do with oil.

Don’t take my word for it, take Greg’s. He’s a real journalist.

16. Dr. E spews:

We’re also overlooking the fact that Obrador can mobilize well over a million people to demonstrate, many of whom have traveled by foot from their respective voting districts across the country. We see similiar types of mobilization in support of Chavez in Venezuela (although not reported at all in the US MSM — again, see Palast’s excellent coverage). Obrador in fact has claimed that he can shut the country down with a general strike if he so chose, and it seems like he would have the backing to do so.

17. REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX] spews:

“1.2 million Mexicans poured into the streets yesterday” [....................Goldy, LA or Mexico City?]

18. JDB spews:

Something else you won’t find on the “minnow” Sharansky’s site:

On the heels of her campaign’s first statewide television ad campaign, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell’s poll numbers have improved for the first time in months. Cantwell now leads challenger Mike McGavick (R) by 11 percentage points, 48% to 37%. That’s up from a four point lead in June.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/washingtonSenate.htm

Strange, though, since they were perfectly happy to post Rasmussen’s numbers last month when they were 44-40. Wonder why they won’t post them now in July when they are 48-37?

19. Janet S spews:

Maybe there is no uproar about the results of the Mexican election because the elections were held in accordance to Mexican law, and were generally seen as legitimate. The loser decided long before the election that he would contest the results if he lost.

The fact that he can get 1.2 million protesters means he is being financed by Chavez and crowd, and that the Mexican economy is so pathetic that these people have nothing better to do. It’s either this or try to cross the US border.

20. Living in the 8th spews:

In short, what are the reasons they are giving for thinking it was rigged? Were they finding ballots numerous times? Counting know illegal fatal pends ballots? Finding dead and double voters? What?

21. Living in the 8th spews:

I noticed that about 60% of Mexicans think Obrador has acted “irresponsibly”. Could it be that you didn’t mention that a strong majority of mexicans is NOT on his side because he’s a LEFTIST??

22. Dr. E spews:

20

Where are you getting these statistics you have “noticed”?

23. Living in the 8th spews:

Dr. E, clearly you didn’t read the link that your beloved Goldy provided for us in this post.

24. L7dHCrIzJD spews:

DigygSqPMx3kD I6iXK0eWjuU zR8zw7PHpuk