Dean's World

Give Al Gore more credit than that. He didn't pledge to set up a Shadow Administration that would follow the Bushies around for four years demanding that they do everything their way.

Al Gore's concession -- when he finally got around to it, a month too late in my opinion -- was one of the most gracious and eloquent and healing speeches I ever saw. In that speech, he showed more humanity and statesmanship than in his whole campaign. Indeed, he showed he had what it takes to win. It was exactly what the country needed.

If he had retired then, he would've gone out on top. If he had stayed in politics but maintained that tone, the nomination and election would've probably been his in 2004.

Instead, he went insane.

But who says it has to be funded? They've already proposed a funding mechanism: "Pay us your taxes."

Considering how crooked the system is in Mexico, answering any degree of popular participation in such a scheme could get pretty ugly. I don't see why you need foreign provocation to get there.

Ron: Please give the Mexicans more credit. They've made HUGE strides in the last 10 years in their election laws. I mean HUGE. So much so that the "international community" (I know, conservatives hate that term, but it has some bearing here) has, from all over the globe, hailed their reforms as breathtakingly progressive--and progressive in the RIGHT sense of the word: anonymous voting, independent observers (including international observers), strict counting and public accountability requirements, open access to any party or individual who wants to run for office, reasonable anti-fraud requirements (more stringent than ours I might say), and more. They went from 70 years of effective one-party Machine Politics rule to genuine pluralism in only about 10 years. And now for the first time all that's being genuinely taxed--possibly to the breaking point, and we should pray it won't break.

Again I use the Freedom House data set, which is used by political scientists. To whatever extent political science data is valid--and yes, there are arguments around the edges always--these folks have been rating every country on political rights and civil liberties for over 50 years, and students of political science the world over use these ratings. Their rankings are on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being the worst (essentially, no freedom at all) to 1 (essentially, maximum freedom). And here's what Mexico has looked like just from 1996-2005:

1995: 4,4 (PF)
1996: 4,4 (PF
1997: 4,3 (PF)
1998: 3,4 (PF)
1999: 3,4 (PF)
2000: 3,4 (PF)
2001: 2,3 (F)
2002: 2,3 (F)
2003: 2,2 (F)
2004: 2,2 (F)
2005: 2,2 (F)

30 years ago they were ranking a 5 on political rights.

And "Political Rights" are scored on such things as: how universal are voting rights? This includes women, minorities, and other limitations (or lack thereof) on the franchise. How free is ballot access (restrictions on running for office, or lack thereof). Rules against ballot tampering, rules against vote buying, rules against intimidation, how readily available polling places are, etc.

Even 20 years ago Mexico was amazingly corrupt; in some parts of the country, the single ruling party (PRI) had a great scam going: the rules allowed a voter to go to the polling place, take their ballot, leave with it, and then come back later and turn in their vote. Hey that sounds convenient right? Maybe we should do that here?

Yeah, here's what the PRI would do: go into a poor neighborhood and set up in a house near the polling place. One of their party guys would go and get his one ballot, and bring it back to the booth. Then he'd fill it out with all PRI candidates. But he wouldn't vote. Instead he'd sit there. Then when a poor person showed up, they'd hand him the PRI-filled-out ballot. They'd say, "go get your blank ballot, then stick this filled-in ballot into the box. Bring the blank ballot back to us. Then you can have these cigaretos & this nice cold cerveza and a little rice and sugar for your family." And they'd set up a mill that ran all day that way. The lines at the PRI houses were nearly identical to the voting lines all day long. And they'd often do it just a few doors down from the polling place!

They openly did crap like for decades. THAT'S how corrupt they were. Plus they often had rules set up that made it damn near impossible for anyone who wasn't a PRI candidate to even run for office--ridiculous requirements, like proof that at least half of the voters in your district might vote for you just before you could get on the ballot--unless you were already in the pre-approved parties, of which there happened to be only one most of the time!

The Mexicans have gone from THAT in the space of only a decade or so into what is now hailed by most international observers as a model for other emerging democracies to follow. And THAT is what Lopez Obrador is now trying to claim is total corruption and cheating.

Right now the Mexicans have election laws that are actually arguably better than ours in many ways. They aren't perfect but they've made HUGE improvements.

We should really be rooting for the people of Mexico right now that this whole thing is resolved well. Because say what you will about Mexico's faults, we really WANT them to become a thriving, prosperous, and FREE DEMOCRACY. If nothing else so that so many Mexicans aren't so anxious to run up here because they find that their life in Mexico doesn't REQUIRE leaving for greener pastures up north.

I think the Mexicans can do it. I'm really pulling for them.

That was cool Dean.Thanks