Iran Elections

“.. a familiar and implacable foe that now also has a legitimacy problem. ..”
“legitimacy” is often in the eyes of the beholder, so it is said. Are the elected leaders of China ‘legitimate’? Former USSR? Saddam’s Iraq? Venezuela? Cuba? The Sundanistas?

” .. In (nuclear-armed) Israel, which has reserved the option of a military strike on Iran, .. officials said Mr. Ahmadinejad’s victory dramatized .. the need for a tough response. ..”

Belligerent Israel dramatizes .. the need for a tough response. Our uppity ward, Israel, does not wish to co-exist peacefully with its neighbors. A nuclear-armed Israel is a threat to other countries in the region and a threat to world peace.
Sanctions for North Korea. Sanctions for Israel.

So now what?
.
You deal with what you have, not what you hoped to have had. What happens next will be a defining moment of the Obama administration. The arrogant, naive Bush administration thought they could somehow will Hamas out of power after they won their elections. Hopefully Obama will recognize that there is next to nothing he an do to revert the win of Ahmadinejad. Trying to delegitimize his victory will only unite the country against us.
.
Our best option is to use these divisions to remind Iran that a large section of their population strongly desires reform, and that ignoring the voice of the reformist will only cause more instability in their country. Force Ahmadinejad and Khomeni to confront that reality, and I guarantee you Iran will see change in the near future.

The problem is that it strongly looks like the election was rigged. The Ahmadinejad “win” was orchestrated by the state, not the people. Maybe.

Sean-
How so? What evidence is there of this besides allegations by the losing faction? We cannot continue this rhetorical de-legitimization of Ahmadinejad, as Nathan said. It bolsters his support with Iran, and encourages belligerent Israel in its nonsensical warmongering intentions.

Reposted from earlier:
As an Iranian-American, I am utterly frustrated with the lack of understanding by Western journalists of the Iranian political system. It’s not as confusing as you all make it sound and you are all so very inaccurate and misdirected.
.
For starters, please read the Iranian constitution, which does not grant the President the penultimate power to direct foreign OR domestic policy or to authorize a strike on any country, even Israel. This is a power granted to one man, the SUPREME F’ING LEADER, Ali Khamenei, and his Guardian Council of aging Mullahs (don’t get this confused with the 70s band of the same name). The constitution is available in English here: http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ir00000_.html
.
So, while the media looks for the President of Iran to change, they should be really looking for a change only in the Mullahs’ policies. Stop misinforming the people! And Karen, Joe, I am not singling you out, but rather reaching out to you because I find that you’re of the more intelligent reporters out there. Please grab your colleagues by the ears and make them listen to reason. THE IRANIAN PRESIDENT = THE US WHITEHOUSE SPOKESMAN AND NOTHING MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, please don’t get confused. Mousavi supporters are not protesting on his behalf but for their civic freedoms. All of Iran 100% backs the government in its legal and peaceful enrichment of nuclear technology. Let’s open up Dimona to nuclear inspectors, and then Israel can open its filthy mouth.

Paging Katherine Harris. Your presence urgently needed in Tehran.

Neorationalist, there is a great deal of evidence, not least the bizarrely smooth vote tallies, that this election was stolen. Juan Cole has a characteristically well-informed and insightful post on this. See also Andrew Sullivan’s blog– he’s all over this today.
-
persianadvocate, you’re right, of course, that the Iranian president doesn’t have much power. But the people of Iran sure seem to care about this election’s results.

Sean DeCoursey forgot his password: The problem is that it strongly looks like the election was rigged.
Such accusations have surfaced in our USA’s presidential elections, as well as in the state and local elections. So?

” .. The Ahmadinejad “win” was orchestrated by the state, not the people
The people voted – in record numbers. Should we assume that we know what you mean by “orchestrated”? Civic elections in USA are ‘managed’ by local, state and federal agencies that also declare the winners. Is that what you mean by orchestration?
[But we appreciate the psyche war: You would declare our killing of THEIR civilians as unavoidable "collateral damage" while their killing of OUR civilians is an willful, unmitigated "crime against humanity"]

What can the US do about this? I’d think that shutting the hell up wouldn’t be a bad short-term strategy.

Well, congratulations to Daniel Pipes. He got what he wanted, at least.

nathan7777: ” .. So now what?… use these divisions to remind Iran that a large section of their population strongly desires reform, ..”

Suppose we are sincere in our desire to spread American values and for the world to perceive us the epitome of the best that can be.
We would viciously sanction any foreign agent who uses any perceived divisions in our society – and colludes with the disgruntled elements to undermine our order of things, right?

Put the country on the terrorist list even.

And we – that is the government and the people – would move forcefully against seditious/treasonous elements in our citizenry who connive with foreigners and foreign subversive agencies to destabilize our lawful system of government and bring harm to our people.

Right?

How would our limbaughs, hannitys, oreillys and newts frame our assault on the unpatriotic, subversive elements? [Protect our republic from all enemies within and/or without, eh?]

Elvis,
I agree and many members of my family are amongst the protesters. My cousin was hit in the head by a baton and rescued by the mob. But, one thing everyone should understand is that this is not about the nuclear program or foreign policy issues but the domestic struggle of the educated class to earn their civic freedoms.
.
In this way, the Mousavi rallies were not rallies for Mir-Hussein Mousavi, the reform candidate hand chosen by the untrusted Guardian Council, but for greater freedoms for women and men alike. The people are rioting because they chose the path of peaceful reform only to see their hopes squashed. I analogize this thirst for freedom to a hungry wild animal kept in captivity. The animal will simply whimper until it dies if you never let it smell or taste food in any fashion. However, if you waft in the scent of a fresh meal and then take it away, the animal will simply go berserk. In the same way, the Iranians tasted some freedoms during the rallies and had their hopes set on a brighter future. This hope was snuffed by the apparent outcome of the election.
.
The Mullahs may have created a tidal wave they cannot stop.

Karen Tumulty: ” ..Paging Katherine Harris. Your presence urgently needed in Tehran. ..” She may not find pregnant shards there.

BTW, Do they have cold sodas in Tehran?

@cfukara, yes, they even have a fake Baskin Robbins by the same exact name lol

persianadvocate: ” .. Also, please don’t get confused. Mousavi supporters are not protesting on his behalf but for their civic freedoms. ..”
I have no doubt that you believe that.
Now, didn’t they listen to the speech in Cairo where they were cautioned to denounce all violence and pursue change onl;y through peaceful means? Now, why are they rioting and breaking things? Who doesn’t get it – our POTUS or these violent, criminal Mousavi elements?
It may be said that their destructive violent acts (and their propensity to engage in undemocratic, anti-social behavior) de-legitimizes – and criminalizes – them, their organization and their violence-embracing unpatriotic flagbearer Mousavi.

” .. we – that is the government and the people – would move forcefully against seditious/treasonous elements in our citizenry who connive with foreigners and foreign subversive agencies … “

For completeness, we should modify that statement to:
“.. move forcefully against seditious/treasonous elements in our citizenry who connive with foreigners and foreign subversive agencies – with the de facto exception of Jewish-Americans and Israel – ..”

Why the apparent exception? Most Americans – and our finest constitutional scholars – do not have a firm clue and are afraid to ask.

cfuk,
-
What the heII man? How exactly do you know what’s going on in Iran better than a guy who’s from there and who’s family is actively engaged in these activities?
-
You remind of a chick I met in a bar when I got back from Iraq who decided to enlighten me about what was REALLY happening in that country, since have just spent 15 months there and not sharing her opinions I was obviously mistaken.
-
The world doesn’t conform to your views of reality. It conforms to reality itself. Seriously dude, you just wrote one of the dumbest and most absurd things I’ve ever read on the internet. Which is kinda saying a lot.

Cfuk,
They voted for peaceful reforms. The election was stolen in the most amateur of ways as any idiot can point out. This is the result. They are in no way criminal.
Thank you, Sean. Very well said.

KT,
Instead of making appalling jokes about the situation which already has seen more than 100 deaths and promises to get much worse in the coming hours, you might consider trying to reach your colleague Joe Klein, who is apparently in the vicinity and update us on his safety, and even his eyewitness account, if available.

They voted for peaceful reforms. The election was stolen in the most amateur of ways as any idiot can point out. This is the result. They are in no way criminal.
-
I wish you and your family well PA. Revolutions have been started (as you yourself are well aware!) when the will of the people has been subverted to a degree as may have happened in Iran. Again, right now the news reports are sketchy, but there does seem to be at the very least strong anecdotal evidence that something fishy is going on. I have no idea how much the mullahs will bow to internal pressure but if it can be shown that the results are indeed fraudulent can the Supreme Leader overturn the results? This is an honest question as I do not know the exact powers of the Guardian Council when it comes to presidential elections in Iran. Please stay safe during this interesting time.

If nothing else, this illustrates why the oversimplification implicit when we refer to ‘Iran’ in the singular can have tragic consequenses. If we or Israel were to attack, we can be confident that 40% of our victims would actually be potential allies – until such time as the explosions start at which point everyone would unite against the attacker.

If we or Israel were to attack, we can be confident that 40% of our victims would actually be potential allies – until such time as the explosions start at which point everyone would unite against the attacker.
-
If I were Obama I would be on the phone with Netanyahu right now telling him to keep his big mouth SHUT. Anything Israel does right now could have very disastrous consequences for the region. And we need to stay out of it period. A hands-off approach right now is the best course for our relations with them no matter how ugly it gets. Iran is nervous enough being flanked on two sides, the last thing we need to be doing is flaring up their paranoia and possibly triggering a major backlash that will descend the region into a war that we can’t contain and will be VERY bad for all considered.

Yutsano-
And we need to stay out of it period.
.
I disagree. I think we need to be involved, but in the capacity of aggressively warning Israel that its actions will have consequences, not only from its neighbors, from Iran, and from Europe, but from the Unites States as well, for once. We need to start making demands linked with concrete timetables and repercussions. We have such considerable bargaining power over them with the military and economic aid we provide, intelligence, veto power at the UN Security Council, and military support. We certainly have the tools to reign in Israel within the boundaries of acceptable internationally condoned behavior. Its certainly not an unreasonable request, scratch that, demand….

“The Mullahs may have created a tidal wave they cannot stop.”
.
The widespread sense that elites have determined an outcome for themselves against the will of the people is very powerful and destabilizing indeed. It took only eight years for it to turn our own politics on its head and only that long, I believe, because of the shock of 9/11.

If you strike “only” from the last sentence it may make more sense. YMMV.

N-R,
-
Mea culpa, I should have defined that “it” better. The “it” there refers to Iran, as far as Israel goes, we should be leaning on them to do as close to nothing as possible until the situation over in Iran is a bit more clear. My apologies if I didn’t make that clear.

So which Sunday show’s are John Bolton and President Gingrich scheduled to go on (to tell us how much Obama sucks and how they would have already bombed their way to victory over the Iran juggernaut)?

Yutsano-
Nessun problema.
No need to apologize, but thanks for the clarification. I agree completely with your original statement, then, given your last explanation.

“Paging Katherine Harris. Your presence urgently needed in Tehran.”
.
KT, I think the Ayotollah has already done the deed. Unfortuanately, it seems, Katherine Harris will not be leaving the US for anywhere anytime soon…
.
I agree with persianadvocate on on a lot of this, but Ahmadinajad, as powerless as he is, is giving Iran a really bad name, undeserved I think, and giving Netanyahu more mileage than he needs.
.
My solution?
.
Take Ahmadinajad and Avigdor Lieberman, take them to the CERN site, and slam ‘em together. That will make one hell of a gamma flash, not to mention a totally impossible number of exotic particles for the CERN detectors to sift through.
.
Heck, we’d be rid of not just one, but two racists, and maybe find the Higgs boson as icing on the cake!
.
Now what could be better than that?

At the very least something MAJOR is happening in Iran. Amanpour (sorry to mention a competitor KT unless you consider her a colleague) is giving details as they are happening and Sully has been all over this like white on rice. The day after will definitely be the most telling time as to whether this is just outrage or if this is indeed the start of another revolution.

Here’s the thing. Mousavi was seemingly the ideal candidate for the Iranian regime. He would have defused nearly all of Israel’s ability to play this sheisty propaganda game of demonizing Iran based on Ahmadinejad’s big mouth. BUT, Khamenei has many personal demons. He has had a long-standing feud with Mousavi, and here, he definitely over-reached.
.
Another thing, if any of you are willing to help me gather some internet crowds together to put pressure on the regime from abroad, I would appreciate it. Independently, there are cyber groups shutting down the paramilitary’s ability to communicate and organize. Even heckling the Iranian regime on http://www.presstv.ir is good. The people of Iran are not taking this lying down.
.
We had an unforeseen turnout at this election… NOT to vote for Ahmadinejad, but his challenger. Why do you think the turnout was so huge??? Khamenei really did himself in with this one.

It really breaks my freaking heart and angers me that this happened. I don’t trust Khameini and his cohorts at all but I never thought they’d go this far and be this obvious. Maybe there’s a silver lining and this will be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Effective change in Iran was only going to come from within. Young folks and intellectuals overthrew and authoritarian regime in Iran in 1979 – unfortunately, that turned out for the worse. Maybe they can do it again, but in the name of true freedom. Remember, many of the revolutionaries of ’79 were liberals and leftists who were then purged post-revolution by the religious goofballs. Folks on the left helped power that revolution and maybe they can do it. Unlike ’78-79, though, they lack a charismatic leader, a liberal, more secular version of Khomeini.
.
The problem for our government is that we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. If we take a low profile, the wingnuts will say Obama is weak and we’ll lend legitimacy to the final results. But if we come out strongly against the results and for those protesting in the streets, the demagogues in Iran will say that those protesting are just tools of the US and the CIA and are not real Iranians. That’s worked in the past and will likely work again. It’s a tough spot for Obama and I hope he doesn’t yield to the Weekly Standard/Commentary/National Review crowd and jump too far into this mess.
.
My heart and best wishes go out to those on the side of fairness and justice and freedom and liberty in Iran. Don’t let them get away with it.

This story is a great example of how weakened the US networks have become. In the 70′s and 80′s they would have been all over this story. The coverage is pathetic. MSNBC is busy showing prison lock up repeats.
.
The revolution will not be televised I guess.

They should have hired Rove. He knew how to sneak out close elections.
.
They should have made it 50.5 to 49.5. The numbers are too ludicrous to imagine. Reagan didn’t beat Mondale this badly. It was too lopsided to pass the smell test.

To be honest, the mainstream media is probably having a problem getting some crucial information about what’s going on because of the jamming of internet, satellite, radio, and tv communications. Most of the foreign correspondents don’t even speak fluent Farsi. Also, there is an 8 hour time difference. Right now, it’s 5:30 AM in the morning there. We will start to hear more tomorrow, I’m sure.
+
Until then, the internet blogs are a great source of information. I’d be happy to provide links if you want…

They should have hired Rove. He knew how to sneak out close elections.
-
Apparently the fix didn’t go in until it was clear Mousavi was going to beat Ahmadinejad and badly. In fact the sequence of events that I’ve found so far suggests they were going that way then suddenly all of that changed and Ahmadinejad turned out the “winner” out of nowhere and contrary to how people remembered voting. The fix was more a panic move than a long thought-out plan, since if they wished to avoid the whole mess they could have simply disqualified Mousavi on some technicality even before it got this far. If it doesn’t look far thought out that’s because it probably wasn’t.

PA we will take whatever information we can get right now. As far as I can tell our news sources are Amanpour and whatever is leaking from individual Iranians. Thank you for staying safe and for keeping in touch, I can’t even begin to think what you and your family must be going through right now.

I lived in L.A. as a young teen next to a few families who fled after the revolution. They were wonderful people. I wish only the best for the people of Iran.

Thank you for your safe wishes. From the bottom of my heart, I wish you well, too. We are all united today in our struggle against tyranny.
-
Of course, the Farsi blogs are more up to date. But, here are some really good English speaking ones:
.
(1) http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/election-liveblogging-saturday/
(2) http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/landslide-or-fraud-the-debate-online-over-irans-election-results/?src=twt&twt=nytimes
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html
(4) http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/
(5) http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/alerts-from-tehran/
#3,4, and 5 are active right now. The first two are on break until the morning (Tehran time).

Thank you PA. Sully I’ve been going back to pretty much all night (I’m at work right now), may try to see what all I can learn from the HuffPo and Tehran Bureau links.

Folks on the left helped power that revolution and maybe they can do it. Unlike ’78-79, though, they lack a charismatic leader, a liberal, more secular version of Khomeini.
-
You should see the statement of defiance Mousavi has released Og. He may have been running for president of Iran but he may indeed have been setting himself up for much more.

I’ve been following events on Twitter for the last hour, am now armed for the next person who says it’s a waste of time. Our old friend, pourmecoffee, has a great aggregation of useful links.
.
http://pourmecoffee.posterous.com/iran-election-saved-searches-aggregated

The conservatives and religious fundamentalists in Iran and the United States seem to have a lot in common. Both of them are all in favor of democracy, except when it doesn’t go their way.
.
Is there an Iranian “Scalia” who will decide that, for the good of the country, that the election was fair?

Sean DeCoursey forgot his password: ” … How exactly do you know what’s going on in Iran better than a guy who’s from there ..”
Don’t suggest that all Americans know where Washington DC is. Neither did most of us appreciate the extent of the lies Bush#43 and Co. were peddling before the Iraq invasion. So “being from there” and “having a family there” does not suggest being privy to intimate knowledge about the situation.

.

shepherdwong Says: ” .. widespread sense that elites have determined an outcome for themselves against the will of the people is very powerful and destabilizing indeed. ..”

“against the will of the people”? Really? I am tempted to take your word as if you physically counted all the votes and ascertained that ‘the will of the people’ didn’t carry the day.
‘
” .. It took only eight years for it to turn our own politics on its head “
What ‘head’?
Maybe whichever way you turn that ‘head’ it is still the right/wrong way up.
Are you suggesting that the ruling elites in USA no longer carry the day? [We have not reached that stage of socialism (for the masses) yet.]

Perhaps you haven’t read that the dollar-rich campaign contributors and other elites and their elite organizations (such as AIPAC) SSSSTILLLLL get/influence/determine policy, prime appointments and ‘free’ $billions (bailouts/stimulus/contracts) in the administrations – now and then.

.

53_3 Says: ” .. Ahmadinajad, as powerless as he is, is giving Iran a really bad name ..”

Somehow I have yet to hear anyone say that the insolent, belligerent, blood-lusting Netanyahu is giving Israel and USA a bad name.

.

persianadvocate: “he(Khameini) definitely over-reached.”
We have head that before.
” .. if any of you are willing to help me gather some internet crowds together to put pressure on the regime from abroad, I would appreciate it. ..”
And if anybody, foreign or domestic, sought however obliquely, to take advantage of the political uncertainty that existed at the end of our presidential elections 2000 to organize anything subversive against our USA – don’t rest yet.
[What is the punishment for subversion in Iran?]

” .. Why do you think the turnout was so huge??? “
To vote in the democratic elections where the loser was expected to concede defeat and try again in future?
To vote for Ahmedi and keep the Mousavi’s foreign-managed subversive louts in check?

I just wonder about the timing of BHObama’s trip to the Middle East – and his duplicity-packed speech in Cairo.
Live in peace. Mutual respect. Co-operation. Peaceful Change. Non-violence. O Yeah.

persianadvocate: ” .. if any of you are willing to help me gather some internet crowds together to put pressure on the regime from abroad, I would appreciate it. ..”
The non-democracy of China and the democracy of USA know what to do to stop internet-based worms and viruses dead in their tracks.

“All kinds of freaks are coming here to do harm on our territory,”
Deal with them, Mr Prez, Treat them harshly!

Who recently said the words in quotes, President Ahmadinejad?
http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=29229

shepherdwong Says: ” .. widespread sense that elites have determined an outcome for themselves against the will of the people is very powerful and destabilizing indeed. ..”
Well. Maybe not.
I don’t know in what world you live.
our (USA’s) founding fathers didn’t really have faith in the wisdom of the masses. And so they gave us a system/process whereby the “wisdom” of the elite may be called upon to subvert the will of the people at the ballot box in the presidential election.

And that is exactly what happened in USA in the presidential elections 2000: The candidate who was the favorite of ‘the will of the people’ and won the majority of their votes was declared the loser.

Did someone talk about organizing something on the internet? Are the commenters at SWAMP, including Joel Klein, wildly gratified that what happens and is accepted in USA, the greatest shining democracy on earth, may be emulated elsewhere? If they are unduly perturbed by the possibility then do they hate our USA where that is the practice?

Duplicity Galore.

Cfuk,
I have family members IN THE POLICE FORCE who HAD TO burn ballot boxes for Mousavi in droves or else they would have been labeled traitors to the Islamic Republic.
I appreciate your even-handedness insofar as your rationality about some issues are concerned (like Netanyahu’s blood-thirst), but you are inaccurate or delusional if you think this wasn’t a coup d’etat. Maybe just misinformed or cynical…who knows.

ogliberal: ” .. My heart and best wishes go out to those on the side of fairness and justice and freedom and liberty in Iran. Don’t let them get away with it. …”
And all men of goodwill share your sentiment.

The will of the people has been expressed as giving President Ahmedinajad an overwhelming majority of their vote. And the people will not let louts like Mousavi get away with mayhem and subversion after the ballot. Carnage.

Sadly, we remember that the people of Iraq also went to the polls and gave Saddam Hussein an overwhelming majority of their vote. That was irrelevant to USA and allies in aggression. Carnage.

Sadly still, we remember that the people of Kenya gave Odinga an overwhelming majority of their votes in the presidential elections of 2007 – but USA and Condo Rice would have none of that impertinence against a friendly incumbent ethnic-cleanser. Ongoing carnage.

Elections? Will of the people? Partnership and co-operation? Respect for the sovereignty of other countries? Shun inflicting Terror(Shock and awe) and Terrorism on civilians? O Yeah.

persianadvocate: ” .. I have family members IN THE POLICE FORCE who HAD TO burn ballot boxes for Mousavi ..”

OK.

I have family members IN THE POLICE FORCE in variopus parts of Iran who HAD TO burn ballot boxes for Ahmedinajad …

PA:
~
I can understand C-Fuk’s perspective, and share it to a point. In my own case, I admit to cyncicism re: the motives of our gov’t and the media to fasten their attn. on Iran. Which is, after all, a country of vital geopolitical importance to our ambitions in the region, good & bad (not to mention that many dems would be thrilled if Obama’s purty speech helped, fractionally or otherwise, a pivot towards more moderate/secular leadership). And, of course, it’s hard to forget that far greater miscarriages of justice have been ignored or, worse, hastened by Washington.
~
Despite all of that, I have several former colleagues and students from Iran, who are most assuredly glued to their tv/twitter et al. And no doubt, for the first time in 30 years, there seems an opportunity to complete the revolution begun in ’79.
~
A question for you: In Beijing (’89), the Chinese authorities had worked long and hard to fill the ranks of the PLA with young rural men who they thought would be less likely to sympathize with the urban, educated and subversive elements leading the movement in Beijing. That if the ironically titled “people’s liberation army” would continue to be loyal to the party, over the people, that the system could survive. In Iran, is there such a strategy? Will the soldiers be at all reluctant to use force against their fellow citizens–is there any way the military breaks from the ayatollahs? Not that a military gov’t is necessarily an improvement, but if it could lead to a transition (a la Pakistan) to greater freedoms… Just hard to imagine that the people can defeat both. The sympathy of the troops is essential.
~
And do you think it’s productive or c-prod. for the west to strongly condemn this result? Don’t the hardliners use that as a rallying cry?

yutsano: ” .. Apparently the fix didn’t go in until it was clear Mousavi was going to beat Ahmadinejad and badly. ..

“Apparently”? “it was clear”? Are you plugged into the Mousavi camp for info?
Some facts here would be appreciated. But don’t tell us about “unnamed sources” or “spoke in confidence since they are not allowed ..”

” .. In fact the sequence of events that I’ve found .. and contrary to how people remembered voting. ..
Were the people then doing a parallel balloting or polling, maybe after the fact, on “how they remembered voting”?

Phew!

Your story is similar to what I read out of Kenya in 2007 – only that in that case it was our side doing the deadly, bloody shenanigans. [And maybe in this case too ..]

C-Fuk:
~
Are you seriously saying that election results favoring Saddam back in the day reflected the will of the people? Or the clearly contested results in Iran today? Maybe there’s some subtext or irony in play, but dictators & theocracies fixing elections, that’s hard for you to accept?

cfukara-
Let us not forget quite possibly the most striking example, i.e. Hamas 2006. The push for democratic elections in Gaza was advocated by Europe and the US with both suggesting that giving voice to the people would finally break the deadlock that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ushering in a new era of freedom, democracy, neoliberalism, and most importantly a self-governing Palestinian entity. With the sweeping victory by Hamas, however, not only was there immediate condemnation of the elections claiming voter fraud, but stringent sanctions and curtailing of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Furthermore, this western approach to the situation has perpetuated instability and war by ostracizing Hamas from any peace negotiations, essentially enabling Israel’s malignant expansionist policy throughout the region and giving legitimacy to the regime’s propaganda concerning their willingness for peace. Israel, with the election of Hamas, continues to propagate the patent falsehood that Hamas stands in the way of peace and Israel cannot move forward until the ‘real’ voice of the people of Gaza is represented in a governing authority.
.
So much for democratic elections constituting the framework of western political advancement….

Surely, democracy doesn’t always deliver up the leaders we’d hope. In Egypt, our long-time favored dictator Mubarak (C-Fuk, do you believe he was elected fairly, by the will of the people?), if he were forced to run in a real election, would have his arse handed to him by the most popular force in the nation, the M-Brotherhood. As would likely be the case in The Kingdom, a secular monarchy being replaced by a borderline theocracy. Iran, however, is the strongest exception to this rule in the entire region. Having gone so far to the fundamentalist extreme of government, a revolution there, if it ever truly occurs, pivots back towards secularism and moderation.

I have to believe that the common wisdom of those with an objective view is probably the most accurate. People vote for the guy that’s going to make the trains run on time. If their cow is stolen they want someone to administer justice without a payoff inducement. They want order and they’ll take a certain amount of imposed restriction to live in a society with some predictability and common rules.
-
Was the Iranian election rigged? I have no idea. But we have seen with Hamas and the infiltration of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the long term conditioning of North Korea that if you tell the people “I will create a society with rules that will keep you safe and I will punish the rule breakers” they will go along with it if you balance the rule enforcement against oppression. Sometimes oppression of women ain’t a big deal. Sometimes oppression of everyone (North Korea) works if you shut the doors and windows and pull down the shades in the entire country.
-
Iran is not really a very closed society. I think the fight is coming from people who see a slide into a nationalist jingoist society and want to hold the line. They know it will slide to a bottom where they don’t want to be. I’m not sure head scarves have anything to do with it.
-
Why have the Democrats done so well in this country recently? Because many people figured the Republicans “change nothing, everything is fine, our enemies will kill us in our sleep, we don’t have a plan but we need more authority” attitude was lifting the rudder out of the water. People saw turbo charged hypocrisy. And what of socialism? If changing your car’s oil and fixing your roof before it leaks is socialist then I guess most people in this country are card carrying.

cfukura:
.
No way would I would overlook Netanyahu, but when you get right down to it, all of these extremists are the product of guess who?
.
George (WTF) Bush II (43). Other than, None. I refer one to neo’s comments above.
.
persianadvocate-
.
I have a fairly strong belief that the abovementioned former POTUS43′s actions set back reform in Iran by quite a bit. People blame the former president of Iran for being a wet noodle, but, as I remember, POTUS43 and Israel were at the height of their antagonism of Tehran. Add to that the newly minted presence of 290,000 American AF plus “contractors”.
.
Comments?

cfukara. Sorry!

[...] More here and here. [...]

FWIW, via marshall, rafsanjani has resigned from the league of pious gentlemen and also maybe the Superfriends.

i know he’s just a politician, but maybe between this and the internal commission calling it a fraud (sully link at top –thanks, karen!), the revolution can be completed.

Cfuk,
On another day I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you, which is why I can’t help but to admire your objectivity and rationale. However, knowing the facts on the ground is crucial here. I know people of all walks of life in Iran, having served as their counsel, their friend, and their family member. First, you should know that Mir-Hussein Moussavi was called by the President of the Ministry of Elections late at night on June 12 to congratulate him on a victory. At that time, he held a news conference proclaiming his win. It was only after this that the situation suddenly reversed. Police entered all reformist-aligned news agencies and shut them down. The official news agencies still in operation were also supervised to make sure that they printed favorable results for Ahmadinejad. People who had been working at the Ministry of Interior since 1979 were not allowed in to count the votes. The Supreme Leader suddenly emerged putting his seal on Ahmadinejad’s supposed victory, in complete contradiction of the Iranian constitution which requires a 3 day waiting period before any such announcements. Mir-Hussein Mousavi was immediately put under house arrest and famously vowed to not surrender. This spurred protests.
Second, you should know that this has every bit to do with the internal power struggle in Iran within the ruling establishment. Namely, you have two titans clashing here: Rafsanjani and Khamenei. Rafsanjani put enormous and unprecedented public pressure on Khamenei to oversee a fair election. Khamenei, under reassurances from his own camps, was under the opinion that Ahmadinejad would win either in the first or second round. When the results showed a Mousavi landslide, he reacted under exigent circumstances and we now see the first gaffe (pretty much ever) by the Supreme Leader of Iran.
The fact that Ahmadinejad consistently won 60% of the vote in regions where they always vote for their hometown candidates and despise Ahmadinejad is suspicious in and of itself. Further clues (www.juancole.com) damn the results further.

cfukara:
.
“Well. Maybe not.
I don’t know in what world you live.
our (USA’s) founding fathers didn’t really have faith in the wisdom of the masses. And so they gave us a system/process whereby the “wisdom” of the elite may be called upon to subvert the will of the people at the ballot box in the presidential election.
.
And that is exactly what happened in USA in the presidential elections 2000: The candidate who was the favorite of ‘the will of the people’ and won the majority of their votes was declared the loser.”
.
Well, that was exactly my point (except for blaming it on the Founders):
.
It took only eight years for it to turn our own politics on its head and it took that long, I believe, because of the shock of 9/11.
.
To which you replied:
.
“Maybe whichever way you turn that ‘head’ it is still the right/wrong way up. Are you suggesting that the ruling elites in USA no longer carry the day?”
.
Perhaps “turned on its head” is a bit too positive but if you think that the politics of this country, particularly that of the average voter, hasn’t changed dramatically since 2000, you haven’t been paying attention. What was, a short time ago, a decidedly “conservative” Republican-leaning electorate is now decidedly centrist and Democrat-leaning (that’s change you ought to believe in). I also believe that it was in no small measure to liberal backlash over the “conservative” coup of 2000.

We’ve had our own experiences with rigged elections here in the US and WE’RE supposed to be the role model for the world. Why are we surprised that Iran’s election was rigged? It’s just the matter of degree. Here the Supreme Court decided the election. In Iran it was the Supreme Leader. The results were the same. The voters didn’t decide the election.

Does anybody really believe that those numbers are accurate? I mean, maybe Ahmadinejad did really win (I doubt it, but still), but come on, he didn’t win 63-34. As an above commenter noted, Mondale didn’t even lose that badly. Maybe we could send over Jimmy Carter to assess the situation. And to me it seems like Israel has a problem with Iran currently due to Ahmadinejad making antagonistic statements towards them, like that they are the standard-bearers of Satan or that the Holocaust was a myth, while also calling for its disolution. Hm.
.
And guys, I realize the 2000 election was infuriating (the electoral college made more sense back in the late 1700′s and early 1800s but not today), but, coming from someone who thinks Bush had a horrible presidency: he was elected fairly according to our system. He won Florida by 535 votes. Maybe this would have changed had the Supreme Court not stopped Gore from his cherry-picking scheme, but Bush did win Florida. However much you hate the electoral college (as I do), that’s the rules.

I have seen this repeated assertion that the 2000 election was rigged and/or stolen. It is an absurd notion and gross misrepresentation of the facts.
.
Firstly, the grievance that the popular vote winner, i.e. Gore, did not win the presidency has nothing to with this specific election (2000) and everything to do with the electoral system we have, whereby the electoral votes outweigh popular vote. At the state level the popular vote is very important, however, nationally it has no bearing on the outcome. If you disagree with this system, take it up with your founding fathers, or, more realistically, petition Congress for an Amendment to the Constitution.
.
Now, on to the the Florida recount in the 2000 Gore/Bush election. This case is confusing, but essentially it began with Bush officially winning the state of Florida by a margin of 1,780 votes. Because of discrepancies in Democratic dominated districts, Gore requested a hand-recount. However, according to Florida law, the election results must be certified by November 18th and a hand-recount would never meet that statutory deadline. Florida’s Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced her intention to certify the vote on the 18th regardless of any pending hand-count in compliance with Florida law. Gore appealed this decision to the Florida Supreme Court, which extended the deadline to November 26th. The USSC, however, overturned this decision pending a legal argument justifying the nullification of state law. Sec. of State Harris then certified the vote as Bush winning by 537 votes. Gore again appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which ordered a statewide hand recount. Bush appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court.
.
The verdict which the US Supreme Court ultimately reached could be construed as a politically motivated decision. However, the same rightly could be said had the court allowed the recount favoring Gore. That fact is, Gore had an ethical argument in that every vote should indeed be tallied. Bush had a legal argument in that failure of the Florida Supreme Court to set uniform standards of tallying votes in various counties, first, would open the door to fraud, and second, violates the Equal Protection Clause in that a vote cast in Miami-Dade County might be counted, while in an adjacent county it may be tossed.
.
By a 5-4 decision the Court ruled that there was a fundamental flaw in the manual recount that would ultimately violate the Equal Protect Clause for several reasons:
1)Lack of uniform standards would result in unequal evaluation of ballots in various counties
2)Overvotes (those with more than one candidate selected) would not be counted, while undervotes would be counted, despite the fact that neither counted under the original state-wide evaluation
3)Miami-Dade County only enacted a partial-recount in an effort to count as many as possible by the final certification; this would violate EPC in the name of expediency
4)The Florida Court did not specify who would conduct the recounts, therefore untrained ad hoc teams were assembled in various counties
**All of these inconsistencies fail to protect the fundamental right of each voter, and as such, unconstitutionally violates the Equal Protection Clause.
.
In their dissent, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer argued that in accordance with McPherson v Blacker (1892) state authority under Article II is subject to the regulation of the state constitution thereof. Pursuant to Florida’s Constitutional Article IV, the legislative power is subject to judicial review. Article III “assumes the involvement of state judiciaries in interpreting state election laws” and therefor the Federal government has no authority to interject its opinion over those of the state judiciary.
.
Both sides essentially put forth legally relevant arguments. Both were in contradiction to historical philosophies. Bush, a Republican, favored federal intervention in state matters to ensure Constitutional compliance. Gore, a Democrat, favored states rights. Both rejected their own political philosophies in matters of federalism to suit their own political gains, yet both presented legally sound arguments.
.
It is farcical to suggest that the election was stolen, given that their is a legally sound case in favor of nullifying the recount. Had Justice Kennedy rejected the majority opinion and favored the argument of Gore, Republicans would naturally have also argued that the decision was politically motivated. They would be correct, but that would not imply that the election had been stolen, this argument would have been equally farcical.
.
The simple fact is that given the legally sound grounds upon which both sides stood, it is erroneous to assume that any conclusion the court reached was not politically motivated. However, political motivation does not constitute illegality in this case, given that there were two legal arguments that could be reached.

“And that is exactly what happened in USA in the presidential elections 2000: The candidate who was the favorite of ‘the will of the people’ and won the majority of their votes was declared the loser.”
—————————————————–
Not true, they researched, counted chads til they were blue in the face and members of the media swarmed all over Florida, doing a recount and much to their chagrin, Bush did win over Gore. I am a-political, or as they say, politically neutral and I didn’t vote in that election because quite honestly I didn’t have a dog in the fight, I would have been just as happy with either one. Not so in the Bush/Clinton election, I was uncomfortable with Bush Senior’s new world order and voted for Clinton. Now with Obama we have that new world order that scared me back then and nobody ever saw it coming. Hope and change has become change with absolutely no hope that our grandchildren will ever be able to repay the massive trillions spent within the past few months and two million taxpayers are not able to contribute because they just lost their jobs at the same time the private sector that provides jobs is under attack. Elections do have consequences and from where I sit we have Obamanomics now, which makes us powerless to do anything about what is happening in the rest of the world, because as our president said the other day “we are out of money.”

Ariasdad-
To be fair to cfukara, this statement is actually accurate:
And that is exactly what happened in USA in the presidential elections 2000: The candidate who was the favorite of ‘the will of the people’ and won the majority of their votes was declared the loser.
.
Al Gore did, in fact, receive the higher popular vote nationally, but he lost because he failed to surpass Bush’s electoral votes. Our system allows for that, however, in that nationally the electoral vote count is the only vote tally that has any bearing. In each state, however, the popular vote dictates how each respective state’s electoral votes will be cast.
.
Of course, the main point of contention came from the recount issue in Florida, which I thoroughly addressed in my above post and I believe demonstrated the legality of the election results.
.

Thanks for the response, I posted my reply before I read yours and your explanation is the best I have ever read on the subject. Since Bush won with over 500 votes, it’s tiring to hear over and over again how he stole the election. Sour grapes just demean everybody.
Meanwhile, from what I have seen of Gore since losing the election, I’m glad he never had the opportunity to govern the country, I have lost all respect for him and that has been hard to take since I once thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.

No problem, I see these ‘stolen election’ arguments all the time, but no one ever elaborates with a factual account of how it was allegedly stolen. Anyway, I agree, Gore has turned out to be a nut-job of the highest caliber, so I am am confident he wouldn’t have done any better than GWB.
.
This is a guy who, while campaigning, was asked what his policy for the Middle East would be and his response was to tell Middle Eastern governments, and I quote, “alright ya’ll, settle down now, there’s a new sheriff in town.” That line sealed the deal for me….

ariasdad Says:““..USA in the presidential elections 2000: The candidate who was the favorite of ‘the will of the people’ and won the majority of their (popular) votes was declared the loser.”

Not true, ..”

.

Not true? ijjut!

” .. The (presidential election of 2000) was noteworthy for .. event of the winning candidate having received fewer popular votes than the runner-up. ..”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#cite_note-0

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Neo, actually, the court ruled 7-2 that it was a violation of the equal protection clause. Apparently to Ginsberg and Stevens using different standards for counting/throwing out votes all across the state isn’t a violation of the equal protection clause.
.
The 5-4 decision you are referring to is the one where they said the deadline had to be enforced, because there wasn’t enough time to get to a uniform, legal standard of re-counting.
.
Also, they ruled 6-3 that the Florida Supreme Court had not acted in contradiction to the intent of the Florida legislature.

Just Logged in. Needed a fresh place to take part of this debate which is linked as much to my birth and exile as it is linked to my generation, globally talking. Rigged or not, what we have here is a passionate demand for change. The problem that I always had with the word ” Change” is that its way too generic, not strategic. What the Movement needs at this moment in time is strategy and an objective vision on what tomorrow will mean. Moussavi, I heard, is under house arrest. I am adamant that move is an error.The logical revolutionary policy would be, emprisonement / death shortly followed by a large scale stalinian national breakdown. Will the international community play before, or will Israel have to make war?

Also I’d like to point out that anyone who only became opposed to the electoral college system AFTER the 2000 election is a hypocrite of the highest order. You can’t just be opposed to a system when it generates an outcome that you disagree with.
.
It’s good to see a couple of people who understand that the 2000 election wasn’t stolen. In Austin, where I go to college, occasionally I’ll hear someone STILL complaining about it.

Apollyon07-
Yes I misspoke earlier, thanks for the correction. The 5-4 outcome was the official ‘per curiam’ decision of the court on Bush v Gore, however, as you noted there were side issues that required adjudication, such as the EPC issue which was in fact a 7-2 vote.
.
I would add, too, that Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas’ concurring opinion drives to the heart of the dissenting argument. This concurring rationale acknowledges that comity would generally cause the SC to defer to the state’s decision, however, given the national repercussions of such, the Supreme Court is obligated to examine Florida’s Supreme Court decision in that this decision will decide a Presidential election. They contend that Florida Supreme Court’s departure from the ‘legislative scheme’ constitutes a federal constitutional issue. In a Presidential election, the state cannot alter the statutorily provided responsibility of the election process, and it is therefore the duty of the USSC to enforce the explicit requirements of Article II.

Farmanfarmaian-
Will the international community play before, or will Israel have to make war?
.
Your use of the words ‘have to’ trouble me. What are you contending here with this statement?

Your use of the words ‘have to’ trouble me. What are you contending here with this statement?
-
It might be merely a linguistic issue N-R. Just from reading his post his grammar suggests English may not be his first language. It’s not unusual, a lot of native Farsi speakers have been making their voices heard on the Web lately.

Thank you for pointing out the problem yatsuno

Thank you for pointing out the problem yatsuno
-
Thank you for confirming it! I was risking putting my foot in my mouth! Not that I haven’t needed a podiatrist before!

farmanfarmaian:
I apologize for the misinterpretation.

farmanfarmaian: ” .. this debate which is linked as much to my birth and exile as it is linked to my generation, globally talking. ..”

Actually, anyone can take on any identity one wishes on the web.
So we pay more attention to ideas expressed – heartfelt (as in cfukara’s) or contrived (as in Rusty’s).
[But then cfukara and Rusty may be one and the same individual! Perish the thought.]

” .. Rigged or not, what we have here is a passionate demand for change. ..”
Any ‘change’ or just the ‘change’ that goes your way? Consider a case whereby we have popular groundswell of ” passionate demand for change” that seeks to replace Egypt’s Mubarak with a rigid ‘Islamic’ regime. Would you then let that statement stand in support of the ‘Islamists’?

[We have an inkling: When "passionate demand for change" in Kenya at the 2007's ballot box swamped the unpopular incumbent - our bloody ethnic boy - the USA/UK/EU came down, actively and hard, against the change seekers - in one of the many tales of duplicity and carnage yet to be told by the chroniclers of USA's experiment in democracy and empire building.]

neo, apollyon07, et al:
.
I’m not really deep enough in the technical issues regarding the 2000 election, however, I think neo’s comments reprised here:
.
“However, political motivation does not constitute illegality in this case, given that there were two legal arguments that could be reached.”
.
really do point to the crux of the issue rather than the individual decisions. It is, given that Kathleen Harris is an activist Republican and an ardent suppporter of their ideology, could have been motivated politically.
.
However, there is no one that can prove this, and no one can argue with proof either for or against political motivation behind the legal decisions that were made.
.
Therefore, I think it is entirely possible that the election could have been stolen. I also point out that immediately previous to this, the names of 44,000 Black Americans were purged from the rolls and were never able to exercise their right to vote.
.
In summary, I view the 2000 election as a possibly egregious abberation, but like has been pointed out, there have been other elections where things like this happened.
.
As a case in point, I wonder what might have happened had not state’s rights been invoked to disenfranchise the Black electorate prior to and immediately following the passage of the Civil Rights Act?
.
Food for thought.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

.
There is no role for the federal courts in a state choosing it’s Electors. George W. Bush sued his way to the White House courtesy of the rank, unconstitutional judicial activism of the conservative Reagan-Bush appointees. It was a “conservative” coup, plain and simple. Every bit as legal and legitimate as the Iranian outcome.

The Federal Courts did not interject their power over selection of Electors, they ruled that a hand-recount lacking in any uniform standard would inherently violate the rights of each voter to Equal Protection Under the law. Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court’s departure from Florida’s ‘legislative scheme,’ i.e. the November 18th deadline, constituted a federal issue. This is a legally sound argument.
.
Had the court denied certioari or ruled that the recount would continue, there would have been no method in place to ensure uniform standards of evaluating ballots and the untrained teams administering the recount would be ripe for election fraud. Gore would have no defense against claims that he led a ‘coup’ and stole the votes need to surpass Bush.

“The Federal Courts did not interject their power over selection of Electors…they ruled that a hand-recount lacking in any uniform standard would inherently violate the rights of each voter to Equal Protection Under the law.”
.
Just saying that the high court “…did not interject their power over selection of Electors…” doesn’t make it so, nor does it make Bush v. Gore a “legally sound argument.”
.
“Gore would have no defense against claims that he led a ‘coup’ and stole the votes need to surpass Bush.”
.
You mean, beside the fact that more people voted for him.