Oso - 3-15-2006 at 07:41 AM
Leftists win Mexico state as vote nears for president
**
*By Hector Tobar*
*Los Angeles Times*
*MEXICO CITY - *The leftist Democratic Revolution Party and its
presidential candidate, Andr?s Manuel L?pez Obrador, emerged as the big
winners Monday in a key state election, the last big political test
before the Mexican presidential balloting in July.
In the weeks before Sunday's vote in the state of Mexico, L?pez Obrador
campaigned extensively for candidates of his party, known as the PRD, in
a local election for dozens of mayors and the state legislature. The
party gained seats in the state legislature at the expense of the
Revolutionary Institutional Party, or PRI.
The leftist party also won the biggest prize of all, the mayor's race in
Ecatepec, a sprawling industrial suburb of Mexico City with 1 million
voters and one of the largest municipalities in the nation. The victory
ended years of PRI rule in the suburb.
The results in Mexico state came as a new poll by the influential El
Universal newspaper showed L?pez Obrador widening his lead in the
presidential race to 10 percentage points over Felipe Calder?n of the
center-right National Action Party, or PAN, the nation' third major party.
``At this point in the race, with the PAN and PRI candidates seemingly
stuck, you have to ask if it's possible for them to catch the PRD,'' Leo
Zuckermann, a political analyst, wrote in a survey of the El Universal
poll results.
Roberto Madrazo of the PRI was 18 points behind his PRD rival in the
poll. In February, L?pez Obrador had led his PAN and PRI rivals in the
El Universal poll by 5 and 14 percentage points respectively. Other
recent polls also show him with substantial leads.
``It's going to be very difficult for them to bring us down,'' L?pez
Obrador said Monday on his daily morning TV program. ``This is the
struggle of a people against a small group of leaders who have ruined
Mexico. . . . We will win by a large margin.''
L?pez Obrador, 53, is popular among working-class Mexicans in particular
for a number of social programs and public-works projects he launched
during his five-year tenure as mayor of Mexico City, which ended last year.
In Mexico state, a horseshoe-shaped territory surrounding the nation's
capital, L?pez Obrador addressed campaign rallies in 43 municipalities
this month. In about a dozen of those cities and towns, his party's
candidates unseated the PRI.
Dan Lund, president of the Mexico City-based marketing and opinion
research firm Mund Americas, said exit polls in Mexico state showed the
leftist party did best in municipalities visited by their presidential
candidate.
Dave - 3-15-2006 at 08:58 PM
The other candidates are speaking in the abstract saying how they will reduce crime or raise the standard of living. AMLO is promising people
pensions.
It's working. 
Ignorant of Mexican politics
Al G - 3-15-2006 at 09:48 PM
This "leftist Democratic Revolution Party" platform is?
How does it compare to the present President?
Gypsy Jan - 3-15-2006 at 10:19 PM
Another question:
There is a big real estate boom in northern Baja, it hasn't been well reported as far as I know.
Very shortly, thousands of Americans are going to relocate in some manner on or near the oceanfront in this area (Taking out equity loans, buying
another residence).
Highrise condominiums iall along the coast are being constructed at a fierce pace and there is a feverish amount of development going on in the hills
facing the ocean along the toll road and along the free road into TJ.
OK, who and/or what faction is in control of all this in the government?
[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Gypsy Jan]
Oso - 3-20-2006 at 04:53 PM
As far as who is in control, the same people who have always been and always will be in control; those who have the means.
As for the political spectrum, the PRI has traditionally been considered left of center, at least in outward appearance, but the creators of
"institutionalized corruption". The PAN is portrayed as slightly right of center and marginally less corrupt but somewhat ineffectual (largely due to
continued control of "congress" -the Camara de Diputados, and government institutions where long-term bureacrats, placed there via PRI connections are
ensconced like ticks. The PRD is considered relatively far left of center and its level of corruption awaits the opportunity to manifest itself.
Perhaps the following will help:
/March 19, 2006, 4:40PM/
Latin American Leftists Redefine Politics
*By TRACI CARL Associated Press Writer *
*? 2006 The Associated Press*
MEXICO CITY ? These aren't the hide-in-the-hills leftists of yesteryear,
ready to take up arms against the oppressor.
A new wave of Latin American leaders _ variously labeled leftist,
populist, nationalist or socialist _ is redefining politics in a region
where U.S.-backed, right-wing dictatorships spent decades crushing their
mostly leftist opponents and supporting corporate interests amid fears
of inroads by the Soviet Union and its Cuban proxy.
That struggle, fought everywhere from the mountains of Guatemala to the
streets of Argentina, has given way to a new generation of politicians
as the Cold War recedes into history _ a more pragmatic left that
embraces its own flavor of free-market policies while vowing to champion
the poor and forgotten.
The wave has carried leftist leaders to power in South America's largest
and richest nations, as well as impoverished Bolivia. And while
once-dominant conservatives haven't vanished altogether _ right-leaning
candidates are popular in Peru and Colombia _ the trend is likely to
intensify with elections still to come this year in Peru, Colombia,
Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Once-reliable allies can no longer be counted on to support the U.S. in
international disputes, and have refused to sign trade deals that
preserve subsidies for U.S. industries. Standing up to perceived U.S.
bullying is a reliable way to win votes, and the White House has
delivered a tailor-made issue by threatening to cut aid to Latin
American countries that refuse to make U.S. citizens immune to
prosecution in the new International Criminal Court.
The election with the biggest impact on U.S. policy may be in Mexico,
where the front-runner, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, could end a 24-year
run of conservative leadership that has moved the southern neighbor
steadily to the right. Like all Mexican politicians, he has reacted
angrily to the U.S. crackdown on illegal immigration.
And while Lopez Obrador has good relations with most of Mexico's
business community, he worries some American business interests. A
former leader of rowdy labor protests whose left-center party absorbed
Mexico's old communists, Lopez Obrador was noted as Mexico City's mayor
for handouts to the poor and big-ticket public works projects, an
approach to governing that earned him the label many politicians dread:
populist.
The term has come to mean short-term pandering to the masses at the
expense of the long-term good for all. Similar policies left many Latin
American nations deeply in debt and doomed to boom-and-bust economic cycles.
Then there's socialist, a vague term if there ever was one in Latin
America, where only Cuban communist Fidel Castro advocates full-on
socialist-style public ownership of the means of production. The
socialist label is also proudly shared by Chilean free-trader Michelle
Bachelet, Venezuelan firebrand Hugo Chavez and Bolivian coca
farmer-turned-President Evo Morales.
But under Chavez's brand of "Bolivarian Socialism," the state has tried
to maintain a vibrant private sector while claiming an ever-larger role
in managing the economy. Morales' "Movement Toward Socialism" party is
trying to impose the same changes on Bolivia. And while Peru's outsider
presidential candidate Ollanta Humala says he's a "nationalist" not a
"socialist," he too would impose greater state control over a free
market he considers a "utopia."
Some Latin leftists _ like Chavez and Humala, rose through military
ranks. Others came up through Marxist-influenced politics of protest.
But aside from Castro, all now seem unified in the belief that private
business remains essential to economic growth that can in turn ease the
region's widespread poverty.
And that has made for some intriguing twists on the old political labels.
Lopez Obrador has maintained such cozy relations with Latin America's
richest businessman, Carlos Slim, that the Zapatista rebels attack him
for not being leftist enough. Argentina's Nestor Kirchner and Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva, a former radical union leader who has embraced
conservative economic policies as Brazil's first leftist president, face
similar complaints.
Both Silva and Kirchner orchestrated early payoffs of their nations'
International Monetary Fund debts, saving billions in interest and
restoring some national pride. And in Chile, the Socialist-led
government just won re-election with promises to maintain a fiscal
discipline unmatched by the free-spending conservatives in charge in
Washington.
While most of these leaders talk about a common Latin American identity
_ an idea much in evidence when Morales was celebrated at his
inauguration as an example for all of Latin America's Indians _ they
also insist on defending their countries' sovereignty _ an attitude
increasingly labeled nationalist, particularly when it means standing up
to the United States.
Humala, a retired army lieutenant colonel, labels his outsider campaign
a "nationalist project" for Peru, and while he says he wouldn't seize
property or limit free speech, he's gained a strong following among
voters seeking a tough leader to punish the corrupt and impose order.
Leftist, Populist, Socialist, Nationalist _ these can be fighting words,
especially when the U.S. defense secretary joins in the rhetorical battle.
"We've seen some populist leadership appealing to masses of people, and
elections like Evo Morales in Bolivia take place that clearly are
worrisome," Donald H. Rumsfeld warned in a recent speech. He also
compared the nationalist, socialist Chavez to the original National
Socialist, Adolf Hitler.
Chavez's quick response: "The imperialist, mass murdering, fascist
attitude of the president of the United States doesn't have limits. I
think Hitler could be a nursery baby next to George W. Bush."
Imperialist? Fascist? Many Latin Americans attach these terms to the
United States, especially after U.S. President George Bush and Mexican
President Vicente Fox were rejected as bullies for pushing a Free Trade
Area of the Americas deal that critics said would preserve huge
subsidies for U.S. industries.
These acts of nationalist defiance _ along with policies to do more for
the poor and a general revulsion against of the bloodshed of past
decades _ have sapped public enthusiasm for the scattered groups of
armed leftists that remain in Latin America.
Mexico's Zapatistas have refused to give up their guns and masks, and
other small rebel bands sometimes attack Mexican police. Peru's
once-feared Maoist Shining Path is down to a few hundred rebels
protecting drug traffickers and occasionally killing police in the
jungle. And the Revolutionary Armed forces of Colombia has been reduced,
after half a century, to a small peasant army with scarce public
support. Right-wing assassins decimated its political wing decades ago,
and Colombia's peaceful left has withered under the tenure of right-wing
President Alvaro Uribe.
All this goes to show that the old labels are increasingly misleading in
Latin America _ a point made recently by Carlos Fuentes, a famed Mexican
novelist, moderate leftist and frequent critic of U.S. policies.
Fuentes wrote that while Lopez Obrador has been unfairly "demonized" as
a populist demagogue, Chavez is a "tropical Mussolini" trying to pass
himself off as a leftist. His recommendation: Latin leftists should
follow the Chilean socialist model, a real genre-bender that mixes
free-market economics and fiscal restraint with poverty-reduction programs.
In most cases, that's what they're already doing. These new leaders have
found electoral success by walking a fine line between fiscally sound
policies that please international markets and creating social programs
for their long-ignored populations.
"I don't see how we can be opposed to that if it helps stabilize
democratic systems," said Riordan Roett, director of Western Hemisphere
studies at Johns Hopkins University.