Leading Peru election candidates lose ground - poll

[Judi Lynn]

Leading Peru election candidates lose ground - poll
Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:13pm EDT

* Three leading candidates see support slip

* Left-wing Humala, former Economy Minister Kuczynski gain

LIMA, March 13 (Reuters) - The three front-runners in Peru's presidential election race have lost ground to leftist Ollanta Humala and former Economy Minister Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, raising uncertainty ahead of the April 10 vote, a poll showed on Sunday.

Former President Alejandro Toledo remained the top candidate, but his support slipped 2 points to 26.6 percent in the Catholic University poll conducted across the country between March 4 and March 8.

The poll, which surveyed 1,570 people in urban and rural areas, had lawmaker Keiko Fujimori at 19.3 percent, down from 20.3 percent previously. Former Lima Mayor Luis Castaneda saw his support inch down to 17.3 percent from 17.5 percent previously.

"These three candidates, who have led voting intention up until now, have seen their levels of support drop slightly. This has been especially the case in Lima, which probably has a bigger impact on the overall national result," the pollster said in a report.

More:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/peru-election-poll-idUSN1330280320110313?rpc=401

[Peace Patriot]

1. How come Humala is called "left-wing" and Fujimori is not called "fascist" or even

"rightwing." (--daughter of the recent heinous dictator).

This is consistent throughout the article. The rightwingers and semi-rightwingers get no designation at all, and Humala gets called "left-wing." In fact, in the next paragraph after your quotation, Rotters says the following:

"Support for the left-wing ultra-nationalist Humala rose 3.5 points to 15.5 percent, while Kuczynski gained 7 points to 10.6 percent." --Rotters (my emphasis)

Not just a "leftist" but an ultra, ultra, ULTRA...um..nationalist (= extremist, radical, bigot, mass murderer, Hitler?). What on earth do they mean by this? He supports Peru's sovereignty? Don't the others? Well, not if they favor U.S. "free trade for the rich" (giveaway of Peru's sovereignty). I really don't know what to make of it. What does "nationalist" mean? But I do know what "ultra" means. It means, don't see any other word. See "ULTRA." He is "ultra," and everything he's "ultra" about, you don't want.

I don't call them "Rotters" for nothing. They really are very rotten.

[rabs]

2. Mildly surprised by the surge for Humala

Just a few months ago he was in single digits, around 5 percent I think. That he has gained 10 points sort of hints that he just might narrowly make it into a runoff.

As for Reuters' use of modifiers, it is cheap-shot journalism for which Reuters is well known. The AP and others are not far behind. (Capitalist President Obama today said ...)


1st President of the Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces

Have you read about Juan Velasco Alvarado? Intriguing personality in modern-time Peruvian politics.

Humala seems to be a reincarnation of this general (leftist/nationalist, if I may put a label on him) who ruled Peru at a time when South America was awash with dictatorships (right-wing all). He was no friend of the United States, armed Peru to the teeth with Soviet warplanes and tanks to try to reconquer territory lost to Chile, nationalized Standard Oil, copper mines, fishing industry and more.

Wiki has the essential details on Velasco (good read):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Velasco_Alvarado

[Peace Patriot]

3. Humala is a militarist? I didn't have that impression of him during the last election.

He's 100% Indigenous. Evo Morales endorsed him. I know he comes from the army but so does Chavez, whom I would not describe as that kind of nationalist (militaristic, aggressive, land-grabby). Morales, Chavez and other leftists are certainly into defending their countries' sovereignty but they are also very big on cooperation, economic/political integration, "raise all boats," "we're all brothers," etc. Are you saying that Humala's polices have a different character than theirs--more rivalry than cooperation?

I'm sure you know more than I do. (You certainly do on many other topics.) Could you say more about this. I read the wiki article on Juan Velasco Alvarado, and I see that defense of the peasant farmers, land reform and nationalization of resources/industries have parallels to Chavez and Morales. Are you seeing something more than this in Humala's policies (more than nationalistic protection of resources and democratic control over "organized money," as FDR put it)? Velasco also spent $2 billion on armaments purchased from the Soviet Union. Neither Chavez nor Morales has done much on this score (Brazil has accumulated the biggest arsenal, by far, in military expenditure charts--Chavez has basically only replaced outdated equipment). Is Humala into a big military budget?

Garcia's getting military aid from the U.S. Would Humala? I wouldn't think so. What about U.S. "free trade for the rich"? Would he tear up that trade agreement? (I would think he would, but that doesn't make him militaristic anti-U.S. That's just sensible.) Chavez is nationalistic but hasn't thrown out Chevron or the Italian, Spanish and other oil companies. Would Humala toss out foreign mining companies? (Is he more militant, in this sense, than Chavez?)

Another key policy of the leftist leaders in general is positively seeking outside investment and partnerships, but from a wider range of places--all over the world, really--with some emphasis on "global south " countries. Velasco seemed insular in his nationalism. Is Humala insular, or would be ally with the other leftist leaders on policies like this?

[rabs]

4. Homework assaignment received

Have to go back and refresh on Humala on Spanish-language sites.

Be back later tonight if possible.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Thanks, rabs! You are wonderful! Will check back later. nt

[rabs]

6. Humala, a militarist? No not

in the classic sense (like Japanese in WWII).

Humala bills himself as a nationalist. His military career came to a halt when he was booted out after a brief, failed 2000 attempted coup against Fujimori. He resembles Evo in his nationalistic posture, moreso than Chavez.

After his army career, he formed a political party, the Nationalist Party of Peru and is now running in a coalition of small parties called Peru Gana (Peru Wins). Citing his boost in the polls, this past weekend he said "we are just getting started" because "the people of Peru are clamoring for a change."

As it is shaping up now, Toledo is ahead, Keiko seems to be slipping, Castaneda is embroiled in a just-revealed (today) audit scandal when he was mayor of Lima. Several other candidates are minor players at this stage, but they could be important in the runoff.

Toledo is the main stumbling block. Toledo was elected president (2001-2006) after the downfall of Fujimori. Then Toledo supported Garcia in the 2006 elections against Humala and Garcia won. Now, Garcia is returning the favor by backing Toledo and throwing the considerable APRA vote to Toledo.

Humala has said it is time to break that circle of "overripe, corrupt" politicians. That message is apparently gaining approval. His backers are mostly from the Indian population in southeast Peru and among the poor who live in Lima's widespread slums.

Humala's father is a character in his own right, he is indigenous, a lawyer and member of the Peruvian Communist Party. Humala's mother is of Italian heritage.

An interesting fact, Humala attended and graduated the School of the Americas in Panama in the early 80s. He fought against the Shining Path and the Tupac Amaru guerrillas and in the brief war with Ecuador in the mid-90s. Humala was accused of human rights abuses in the fight against the Shining Path and that was used against him the the 2006 election.

Looking at his webpage, he promises the usual things, anti-corruption, pay hikes for the poor, pensions, reviewing the FTA with the U.S., etc etc. Will he make it to the second round? It looks very close less than a month before the first round, but there is no doubt that he is making up ground.

http://www.partidonacionalistaperuano.net/prensa/noticias.html
Latest: Humala met today with the head of the OAS mission that will oversee the elections on April 10.

About his ideology, found info below, but it is from when he was running in 2006. It may be that he has toned down the rhetoric this time arounds. Don't know because have not been paying much attention to Peru recently.

-------------------


Ollanta Humala has embraced the Bolivarian concept of a Pan-American republic, often referring to other Latin American nations as "brother nations" particularly with regard to Bolivia which was for a short time in a Confederacy with Peru and which sided with Peru in the War of the Pacific against Chile. Humala has also expressed sympathy with the government of JUAN VELASCO, which took power in a bloodless military coup on October 3, 1968 and nationalized various of the country's industries whilst pursuing a favorable foreign policy with Cuba and the Soviet Union.

Foreign policy

Questioned by the media, Humala denied any ties to Venezuela's president Hugo Chávez, but said he would welcome his support in the 2006 presidential election. On January 3, 2006, Evo Morales made his first official visit to Venezuela as President-Elect of Bolivia. Humala attended the official ceremonies held in the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas where both Morales and Chávez pledged their support to Humala in his bid for the 2006 presidential race in Peru. In objection to this, Peru recalled its ambassador to Venezuela, Carlos Urrutia, in protest against Venezuela's alleged interference in the election.

In March 2006, Humala also met with President Néstor Kirchner of Argentina in Buenos Aires. During the meeting, Humala stated that regional integration took priority over bilateral agreements with the United States and called Kirchner a "brother" in the cause to integrate Latin America. Humala would also meet with Brazilian President Lula da Silva to discuss regional integration.

On May 8, 2006 Humala met with Bolivian President Evo Morales in Copacabana, Bolivia on the Bolivian border with Peru. While meeting with Morales Humala stated that he stood in "solidarity with the historical and legitimate demand of the Bolivian Republic" of access to the Pacific Ocean which Bolivia lost after the War of the Pacific when Chile annexed what is now the Antofagasta Region of Chile. Humala also explicitly stated that he was not opposed to a free trade agreement with the United States but said that any free trade agreement with the United States would have to be negotiated through the Andean Community (CAN) and signed with approval of all members of CAN. During the meeting Humala emphasized the need to maintain CAN as a bloc to negotiate with the United States and asked Morales to work to help maintain the CAN, referring to the CAN's recently troubles with Venezuela removing itself as a member in protest to the signing of trade agreements with the U.S. by Peru and Colombia.

-----------------

Finally, "wonderful." Who, me? Nope, but thanks for the thought. I read the Latin American news and post stories of interest that the English-language media may not.

Then I sit back and await your analyses. :-)

[Judi Lynn]

7. +100 n/t

[Peace Patriot]

8. Ha! Thanks, rabs! No, I insist--you are wonderful! What would I have to "analyze"

if it weren't for you and Judi Lynn (and a few others, but mostly you two). My Spanish is too primitive to understand original sources. But I am avidly interested both in the leftist democracy revolution in Latin America and in the "treatment" it receives in our corpo-fascist press. (What an eye-opener the latter is!) I have "reversed my poles," so to speak. I no longer look at other countries as foreign countries. I look at MY country from THEIR perspective. MY country--or at least its political/economic establishment--has become "foreign" to me. At the same time, though, I feel more connected then ever to what I believe most Americans of the north want, to the ideals of fairness and equality that have arisen so often in our culture in great peoples' struggles of various kinds. These are direct heart connections to the people of the south. It is one struggle for real democracy. It is the promise of the Americas. What a joy it has been to see this great struggle unfold in Latin America in my lifetime. I hope it catches on here soon. Actually, it has started, hasn't it--in Wisconsin? Long struggle ahead of us, though.

Thanks for the info on Ollanta Humala. (I thought he was 100% Indigenous. He has an Italian mother?) It looks like he has the advantage of being "on the rise." Good positioning (as they say) with the election only a month away. I'm finding it odd that Garcia is considered an asset for Toledo, rather than a severe liability. Last I saw (about a year ago) Garcia had a 25% approval rating. Humala gave them quite a scare in the last election. It sounds like he would make a great contribution to regional integration goals as well as to eliminating poverty in Peru. And, though I don't have a lot of information about Peru, I don't imagine that a "free trade" deal negotiated by the Bush Junta has resulted in benefit to the majority in Peru. Probably they have a new and small but powerful urban elite with their new riches driving their politics, as has happened in other U.S./neo-liberal dominated countries, and they will fight tooth and claw for their new cars and cushy jobs and upscale apartments, allied with the "old" rich and the corporate. Still, I'm wondering if polls are skewed toward the urban areas and to rich enclaves within them. Could be the polls are not that accurate. Humala may surprise everybody again. (He wasn't given a chance in the prior election and almost won it.)