Skip to content

We love dirty laundry!

22 February 2011

I’m still on the road, without a laptop.  Posting (let alone watching the present administration’s continual decomposition) is a challenge.  I haven’t been able to update my own “wikileaks” page in quite some time, and admit, this is the first I heard about the leak that may finally sink the belief that the victor in the 2006 election was the real winner of that cock-up:

Víctor Mayén (The [Mexico City] News)

MEXICO CITY – On Monday, National Action Party (PAN) senators said that the WikiLeaks allegations dated Sept. 2006 regarding the United States’ intervention in 2006 to maintain governance in Mexico and help Felipe Calderón become president were idiotic and ludicrous.

They noted that the government of Barack Obama has been disappointing due to his lack of cooperation in problems the nations share, including the fight against drug cartels and arms trafficking.

Federico Döring Casar, a PAN senator, said the diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks should be disregarded.

Cables stating that former Mexican ambassador to the United States, Antonio Garza, saying Felipe Calderón was politically weak, should be ignored completely, he added.

Döring said it was idle and pointless to talk about the 2006 election, because it was a topic that only concerns Mexico.

Rubén Camarillo Ortega, a PAN senator, condemned Garza for not telling the truth regarding the political situation in Mexico after the elections in July 2006.

He said that U.S. functionaries should not act as “saviors of the world,” responsible for safeguarding world peace.

“I have many doubts regarding the real intentions of the U.S. government. I am very disappointed with the support that the U.S. says it is giving to Mexico in sensitive matters, including the battle against organized crime,” Camarillo said.

Felipe González González, the president of the Public Security Committee in the Senate, said that Calderón was not a weak president because he won a close election. He added that there was never a lack of governance because Andrés Manuel López Obrador never called for violence.

Not having had a chance to read the “wikileak” in question I can’t comment directly, but the reaction by the PANista Senators raises two interesting points.

First, that as I have more than suggested (and, despite disbelief expressed by “Ganchoblog“) the United States was more than just following the course of the 2006 Presidential election.  For those with short memories, Federico Döring Casar was one of the more active PANistas in the attempts to smear López Obradór in the build-up to the election,”leaking” videos of then Federal District Comptroller gambling (supposedly with District funds) in Las Vegas… the evidence coming from casino security tapes, which, in turn, appear to have come from the FBI.  If that’s not active intervention, I don’t know what is.

It’s no suprise that extreme rightists like Döring are “disappointed” in the Obama Administration (so are most of the Mexican leftists, although for slightly different reasons (like continued, and painfully obvious, intervention), but what does suprise me is that the right is trying to shift blame for the unpopular “drug war” (or, as the Calderón Administration sometimes calls it, in an attempt to soften it’s own original “hard hand” rhetoric, the “battle against organized crime”) from themselves to the United States.  Which is where the left always did place the blame.

I guess this is the wash cycle, now comes the spin…

 

3 Comments leave one →
  1. 23 February 2011 8:03 am

    just a possible tiny correction….wasn’t Tony Garza the ambassador from the US to Mexico?
    Esther

  2. 24 February 2011 12:57 pm

    Hi Richard,

    I’m disappointed that you continue to believe that the Calderon was not the winner of the 2006 Elections. AMLO has been very vocal on the saying there was fraud, but he has been unable to prove it.

    The way IFE handled the election process was a transparent one. They basically release the entire database for free to anyone who wanted to go and check their numbers, and the way they calculated the winner. But if you lacked the database expertise to work with such large numbers, you could also go and check that the numbers were reported in your local electoral house (casilla electoral) were the same that were reported by the Database. I did just that, and they matched.

    Now, all this transparency does not prove there was no fraud. It makes it next to impossible to have it on the comptuer systems. The fact that the Database was public, and the fact that it’s data matched what was reported by the local electoral houses and that anyone could do the numbers themselves, mean that if there was a fraud, it was not on the computer systems. The fraud must have been on each voting house.

    This scenario has two problems.
    The first one is that the way the voting system works in Mexico, it makes it very very difficult to ridge a national election this way. Each electoral house has a president and a vice-president when counting and reporting the votes computer system, as well as a representative of EACH political party.
    Given the number of electoral houses you would have to bribe nearly 200,000 people, including members of opposing political parties and the general public to get away with it. Needless to say, if bribery on this was attempted, it would not be a secret.

    The second problem is with something called Benford Law. Which is an interesting property relating the distribution of each digit.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law.

    The law basically states that you expect to see each digit a given number of times, if that is not the case, then the source data is probably fake: made up. The IRS is reputably an organization that uses Benford Law to try to catch Tax evasion form people making up their numbers.
    The 2006 Mexican Election, at the national level, complied with Benford Law.

    So we have that there was no fraud on the computer systems (since they were all public, and there was full traceability of where the information came from), and the alternative is to bribe nearly 200,000 people.

  3. 24 February 2011 8:41 pm

    Luis:

    I wasn’t so much thinking of the vote count — although you can find duelling statistical data on that — so much as the role of U.S. “advisors” like Dick Morris and what appears to be “voter caging” (a common practice in U.S. elections in which presumed opposition voters, usually minority group members are actively discouraged from voting … as happened in Oaxaca in 2006) as well as overt attempts in the United States to paint AMLO as “dangerous” and the not-so-subtle threats to the Mexican government (there was a spate of military analysis at the time calling “leftist populism” a security threat) that IF a leftist adminstration was “allowed” that there would be consequences.

Leave a reply, but please stick to the topic

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: