WHOA! Gore's Recount Lawyer Advises Obrador: DO NOT Take the High Road

[IndyOp]

On Edit: I am not posting this to be critical of Gore. I hope Gore runs in 2008. I am posting this because we *must* learn - Democratic Party candidates *must* learn - that we must speak and act with confidence and with force to protect democracy! Citizens *must* be involved.

Don't Take the High Road
By Ronald Klain
Sunday, July 9, 2006

Link to Washington Post Article

For the presidential campaign of Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, narrowly declared the loser to Felipe Calderòn in Mexico's much-disputed returns, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that he has avoided the two biggest problems that confronted Al Gore in Recount 2000: being forced to contest the election in a jurisdiction where the governor was his opponent's brother, and being tormented by a chief election official who was a partisan operative with a bizarre Queen Esther complex. The bad news, however, is that, where Gore trailed in the initial tally in Florida by fewer than 2,000 votes, Lopez Obrador is more than 200,000 votes behind. It's only a matter of time before the Mexican equivalent of our pundit class begins its demands for "finality."

For Lopez Obrador, the clock is ticking loudly. If he wants to keep his candidacy alive, he must take decisive -- and quite divisive -- action. He must bring meaningful and documented claims of fraud in the election. He must call his supporters to the streets and question the legitimacy of the vote casting and counting process. He must demand that, notwithstanding Mexican law, every ballot be recounted, by hand, to ensure an accurate tally. Above all, he must reject any suggestion that Calderòn received more votes -- indeed, he must insist that any fair count would show that he is the rightful winner.

This, of course, was not the playbook that Gore followed in 2000. The vice president rejected advice to do these things. Instead of claiming victory, he limited himself to suggesting that the result was in doubt -- and unknown -- until a "full and fair" count could be completed. He urged calm among his supporters and called off street protests by progressive groups and allies. He never, ever questioned the legitimacy of the institutions -- the courts or the canvassers -- responsible for the tallies, and he forbade his lawyers and operatives from doing anything of the sort.

The Gore approach was dignified, responsible, reasonable -- and unsuccessful.
The playbook that Lopez Obrador must follow, if he wants to keep his prospects alive, is the Bush 2000 playbook. Remember the protesters with "Sore Loserman" signs and the crowds near Observatory Circle shouting, "Get out of Cheney's house"? Remember the "Brooks Brothers Riot," bringing an end to the recount in Miami-Dade County? Remember former secretary of state James A. Baker III's condemnation of the Florida courts, and his harsh words for judges who ruled against the Bush campaign? And above all, remember then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush's repeated refusal to accept Gore's offers of reconciliation, and his unflinching (though counter-factual) insistence that the votes had "already been counted and recounted" and that he was the undisputed winner? If Lopez Obrador has a hope at this point, the Bush 2000 strategy is probably his only option.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Isn't this the first time we've heard that Gore made those decisiions

against the advice of his advisers? I for some reason always thought that he had been counselled into the "high road" option.

[IndyOp]

2. I would imagine that he had advisors telling him all options -

Some counseling him to take the high road, some counseling him to let the people get involved.

It appears that Klain, at least, was critical of his decision.

[BeFree]

3. That's a good idea...

...Take off the Gloves! Fight!

Just Imagine if.......

[katinmn]

4. Nice! We need to think about how to respond here in November, too

Very little has been done by elected leaders to clean up our elections. We should hope for the best and be prepared for the worst.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Ain't THAT the truth!!

[klook]

6. Agree - When your opponent has pulled a knife on you

you should no longer feel obligated to abide by the Marquess of Queensberry rules.

[skids]

7. Nitpick: "Lopez Obrador" not "Obrador"

His last name is "Lopez Obrador"

[IndyOp]

10. Sorry. I love names with 3 and 4 and more

parts. I knew it should be Lopez Obrador and just cut it short for the title. The best boyfriend my sister ever had was Sarinivassan Rafsanjani. I liked him best solely for the length of his name! :hi:

[Peace Patriot]

8. I don't believe the 200,000 difference, and I trust that AMLO doesn't

believe it either. These are people who "lost" 3.3 million votes, and, last I heard, they had only "found" two-thirds of them. Thus, Calderon's hairs-breadth re-tally "win." That is B.S. And it should not stand.

I don't think this race was ever close. The number of Mexico's vast, Fox/Calderon/Global Corporate Predator-impoverished population, whom AMLO serves. is far, far greater than the narrow, moneyed interests served by the opposition. I think there was manipulation in the corporate news monopoly pre-election polls--a corporate monopoly news media that is apparently as bad as our own--as they played out a ridiculous, phony, Rovian-type, pre-written election "narrative" that included scapegoating Hugo Chavez and trying to tarnish AMLO with keep "bad company" (company Bush doesn't like*), to create a plausible "explanation" for Calderon's fraudulent "win."

The fascists run (s)elections here the same way. (No evidence, by the way, of ANY connection between Chavez and AMLO. Their only connection is in each of them serving the poor majority in their countries. But facts don't matter in stolen election narratives. They invent the facts or create the scapegoat, and then make THAT "why" they "won," in their drivel spin afterward.)

I know this must be a tough time for AMLO and his many supporters. I hope they hang there, and achieve more fairness there than we have seen here in these successive stolen elections.

----

(*Do the corporate news monopolies think that deliberately impoverished campesinos, indigenous and brown people would have the same opinion of Hugo Chavez that fascist corporatists do? It's absurd. If anything, the Chavez name and reputation for standing up for the poor would generate votes, not alienate them. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was actually Rove written.)

-----

Viva AMLO! Viva Mexico!

[Peace Patriot]

9. How to respond in November? If you want people to come out by the

hundreds of thousands, to protest another stolen election, you have to build something first, and it has to be rather widespread. The only idea I've heard of that has the potential for November is Absentee Ballot voting. This is a protest that is already underway (it's up to 50% in Los Angeles), by ordinary citizens who are, all on their own, protesting the machines by casting a ballot that reflects how they want to vote: paper ballots, hand-counted. Many don't realize that AB votes are also scanned into the electronic system, with its TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, thus separating vote from the evidence of the vote. But it is THEIR protest--an indigenous, ordinary citizen protest doing their best to figure things out and get their ballot counted.

And, interestingly, if enough people do this--say, it gets up to 70% nationwide--then we really have something. We have a REBELLION against the machines! Native born, on its own, against all the knowing advice of election reformers, who pooh-pooh Absentee Ballot votes, because WE know better. We know it isn't the answer.

If it gets up to 70%, the machines are then nearly OBSOLETE before their time! And imagine the panic--all these corrupt election officials having to scramble around, hiring hundreds of word processors to deal with the avalanche of Absentee Ballot votes.

I just thrill to think of it. What good are their shiny, new, corrupt election theft machines THEN?

Yeah, they scan the AB votes--their sneaky little subterfuge. But can they scan 30 million of them? 50 million? What a money-wrench!

So maybe all of us sophisticated, computer-savvy, new election fraud experts--with all our gobble-de-gook talk (which is beginning to sound just like the corrupt and the corporate)--are WRONG. And maybe the stupid old "sheeple" are RIGHT this time. You get rid of the machines by BOYCOTTING the machines. If nobody will vote on them, what good are they?

I think it just needs a little push, a little leadership, a few good bumper stickers. ("Bust the Machines--Vote Absentee!" , "Vote Absentee--and Make Them Count It!")

Of course we should build support for TRANSPARENT vote counting in other ways, too--by monitoring, by lawsuits, by challenges of suspicious results, by lobbying, and what-all.

But I love this very plain idea, which might just bring down the Corporate Junta that has seized our land. It's simple things like this--salt, cloth, buses, cafes, drinking fountains, poll taxes--that always do.

[katinmn]

11. That is a great idea! Vote absentee. I did in '04 and I'm in a

supposedly safe state. But we use ES&S optical scan machines. Lots of problems in many areas with those!

[kster]

12. I like this idea

have you checked your inbox lately? NGU on the absentee ballot idea I like it.

[Time for change]

13. I think that Gore's approach was the right one

"He limited himself to suggesting that the result was in doubt -- and unknown -- until a "full and fair" count could be completed."

I think that was absolutely appropriate. To claim victor, rather than to say that the votes needed to be counted, would have made him look somewhat ridiculous -- like the Republicans who were involved in this. I don't think that we help ourselves, or the cause, by lowering ourselves to their level.

I don't see what more Gore could have done in 2000, and I followed that fiasco closer than I've ever followed a news event in my life. Well, actually there was one big mistake. His lawyers argued for a counting of the undervotes only, and not the overvotes. Counting the overvotes would have clearly given him the victory, and maybe if he would have done that he would have won. Why his lawyers didn't recognize that I don't understand.

Anyhow, beyond that, he "lost" the election because of the most corrupt Supreme Court in the history of our country. They had no basis in law whatsoever for that decision, but they were determined to hand Bush a victory.

[IndyOp]

14. I disagree. Communication strategy & respect for the people

indicate that Gore should have pulled out all of the stops. Why? To counteract, with appropriate force, the lies being repeated by the right so often that they become truth and to respect the will of the people. The candidate is *not* defending themselves, they are defending OUR democracy, OUR votes.

Two quotes from articles on today's ERD

"Much of the mainstream media has also been portraying a Calderón victory as a fait accompli, as part of a communications strategy which posits that repeating a supposition often enough will make it a fact. Their power has been somewhat curtailed by openly biased coverage of the campaigns and access to independent media and Internet as alternative sources of information."

But Lopez Obrador and his allies know it would be ''irresponsible to call out the masses to disrupt the peace." Someone must not have told that to the masses Saturday. Because they were out in force, jamming into the square. And some of the protesters said they weren't so sure everyone would pay attention to Lopez Obrador's calls for peaceful dissent. "With all due respect, he's not the one who will decide," said Hilario Lizama, a member of a giant electricians' union. "The people will decide, and they will rise up."

Re: Gore & the recount specifically - the courts had recommended a full recount of the entire state and Gore had agreed with that option. SCOTUS prevented the Fla Supreme Court from coming up with an appropriate, consistent standard for recounting the whole state and starting the recount. What else could Gore have done? Asked people, including Senators and Congresspeople to stand with him to resist the theft of the election - all the way to rejecting the electoral college votes of Florida. One of the members of SCOTUS spelled out (in his dissenting opinion to Bush v Gore) that that was the option left open to Gore. He did not take it, I believe, because he naively 'believed in the system'. The system of democracy works, except when it is being controlled by moneyed interests - as ours is now being controlled.

[Time for change]

15. Ok, I won't disagree that it would have been appropriate to formally

object to the Florida count in the Senate. I think that should have been done, though it certainly wouldn't have changed the results of the election.

What I was objecting to was the opinion that, during the recount battle he should have "claimed victory" rather than claimed that all the votes should be counted. He had no basis for claiming victory without the votes being counted. Demanding that the votes be counted, not claiming victory, was the appropriate strategy.