|
they "LOST" 3 million votes--votes which drew Lopez Obrador within .06 of winning, in the re-tabulation (not a recount)!--is enough for me. Add in the Choicepoint element, the stakes for the Bush junta, the devastation of poor Mexicans by Fox/Calderon's Bushite/corporate polices, 1. 2 million Mexicans in the streets demonstrating against election fraud, and the profound peaceful, democratic, Leftist revolution that is sweeping Latin America, and I don't need any more convincing. I just hope that Lopez Obrador's supporters are able to nail them.
A word about Peru: Leftist governments have been elected in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Venezuela and Bolivia (neighbor to Peru). In Bolivia, they elected the first indigenous president ever to hold that office, Evo Morales, who was elected partly on the strength of a protest movement against Bechtel Corporation, which had taken over the water system in one Bolivian city and had jacked up the price of water to the very poor people, even trying to charge poor peasants for collecting rainwater! The Bolivians threw Bechtel out of their country and elected Morales, who also opposes the murderous U.S. "war on drugs."
A short time later, in Peru, an indigenous, Leftist candidate--Ollanta Humala--came out of nowhere, with no money, to win 30% of the vote in the primaries, bumping the rightwing candidate out of the race. At this point, both Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez (both neighbors of Peru) endorsed him. He then went on to gain 15% more votes in the final, but ended up losing by about 55% to 45%, to a LEFTIST candidate (but one who is something of a corporatist, and is corrupt--the only choice left for the corporatists and the Bushites). The U.S. corporate news monopolies then blamed Chavez for Humala's loss, saying that his support lost Humala votes. But where did Humala's INCREASE in support between the primary and the final come from? From the rightwing voters, whose candidate got bumped out by Humala? Not likely. Morales and Chavez are part of this huge Leftist movement in the Andes region and throughout Latin America, which represents the vast population of the poor, the brown and the indigenous, traditionally oppressed and excluded by the rich fascists who colluded with the U.S. in brutal repression. This movement does not particularly respect colonial-drawn borders. In fact, it is called Bolivarianism--after the great revolutionary hero Simon Bolivar who favored Latin American unity, and who said, "The name of my country is America." Morales' and Chavez's endorsement of Humala would not be seen by this vast, poor, indigenous population as "interference." On the contrary, it would be reason to get out and vote. And I think that's what they did. They pushed an unknown candidate with no money into a position to almost win the presidency.
Upshot: There is a GROWING Leftist movement in Peru, akin to that in all of Latin America (even in Columbia), and it is only going to get bigger. It is a profound, continent-wide rejection of fascsim, corporatism and U.S. control, perhaps best epitomized by the election of socialist Michele Batchelet in Chile, its first woman president, and one who was tortured by the U.S.-backed dictator Pinochet. But there is also Argentina, where center/rightists destroyed the country's economy--and decimated the poor--with World Bank/IMF policies. That will likely be Peru's fate, under Humala's opponent (Garcia), and then the true Left will be back (as it was in Argentina). It is a wrong characterization to say that Humala was "defeated." It is more accurate to say that he "almost won"--against big odds. And it is unlikely that Chavez and Morales hurt him, and more likely that they helped. But our corporate media looks for every opportunity to dis Chavez, without looking any deeper--because he is the most vocal and colorful spokesman for this anti-corporate movement. They want to give us the impression that he stands alone, and is an extremist, and also dictatorial (which baffles me entirely). But he is hardly alone--billions applaud him. And he is not an extremist. He has supported a mixed capitalist/socialist economy in Venezeuala, wth a strong social justice element. He's a Leftist (majorityist) not a communist (and not even close to being a communist). His biggest sin is that he's called for Latin American self-determination.
The same thing is happening in Mexico--but it's closeness to the U.S. makes it more vulnerable to corporate/Bushite interference. They did Rovian 'hit piece' TV ads, trying to tie Lopez Obrador to Chavez, on the basis of zero evidence. The two have never even met. This was a typical Rovian pre-written narrative, to "explain" the stolen election. I suspect that it brought more poor people out to vote for Lopez Obrado, if anything--as I strongly suspect in Peru. The Zapatista/campesino movement is very big in southern Mexico and Mexico City--and I'm sure they approve of Chavez. But the purpose wasn't really to convince anybody. It was just a "talking point" for after the election. That's how Rovian dirty politics works. They lay out newsturds all along the way--hatred of gays, hatred of brown immigrants, joy at bombing Arabs. They steal the election. Then they talk for months about why voters chose hatred, war, and thievery by the super-rich, over sensible policies that serve the majority. I will say this, however. They were right on the money, in a weird sort of way. Lopez Obrador doesn't have any connection to Chavez, but his supporters do--they've been impoverished and oppressed by the same people who hate Chavez--the Corporate Rulers of the U.S.--and they are determined to end those U.S.-dictated policies in Mexico.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
