Spain is just Spain

However, CQ -

If you were, hypothetically speaking, implicitly supporting a government that was occupying the land of your attackers friends and family. If you were bulldozing your attackers house, overthrowing his governement and killing his children.

You shouldn't be surprised that your attacker is attacking you.

When it comes to the Middle East, you have just chosen one side. Both sides are the "attackers". Both sides are using inhumane tactics and both sides have legitimate grievences.

You have chosen to demonize one of the sides ... and thus you are a cheerleader for the bloodshed and violence.

Both sides could leave this mess by stopping inhumane violence. But, both sides keep using the same rhetoric.

But, to get back to the topic - Spain....

The Spanish public has chosen the third option. They don't want to be a part of our mess any more.

I only wish I could do the same.

ebrown, I was thinking of a way to say just what you just said, but you said it better than I could. Thanks. Excellent post.

Hmm - it would be, indeed, were it true. But I defy you to prove it.

As people have said, terrorists will read whatever they want into things, and claim them.

Also, this rather gets us into odd logical territory, doesn't it?

Say Al Quaeda organise a terror attack in Oz just before our next federal election. Currently, the more progressive party, (which was against Iraq II without UN mandate) looks set to unseat the conservative government which decided to go to war in Ira.

Does the electorate then decide to change their vote in order to avoid looking as though they have given into terrorism?

Before the attacks, the polls forecast a victory for Mariano Rajoy of the Popular Party, for the very good reason that he was the chosen successor of Prime Minister José María Aznar, who has led Spain on the path of modernization and prosperity with almost universally acknowledged success. Three days before the elections, Mr. Rajoy seemed to be headed for victory over José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, who campaigned on a pledge to withdraw the 1,300 Spanish troops stationed in Iraq if the United Nations did not assume control of the occupation. Mr. Zapatero's call was not merely to avoid more casualties, but to affirm that the Iraq war was an act of imperialist aggression that Spain should never have supported.

Yes?

And you think the actions of the government had nothing to do with changing the vote?

We can all have opinions, McGentrix...but that is all they are.

It's really amazing, how (and why!!!) this is always left out by the American right/conservatives (here, in Europe, even those at least accept this).

I find it equally amazing that many refuse to acknowledge that terrorism changed the vote in Spain.

I gladly acknowledge that there are some in spain that were unhappy with their government. We even have a few here the US that are unhappy with the present government, (not that you could tell from reading the Fora at a2K...)

Actually, you don't know (and I either), how the election would have outcome, if the government had't cheated their citizens (and the world) after the attack.

Please, could someone tell me *why* this ongoing argument matters?

What if McGentrix is right and the Spanish voters voted out the Popular Party because of the terrorist attacks?

So what?

Don't people in a democracy have the right to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason? Shouldn't people who believe in democracy respect the decision of the people?

What is McGentrix suggesting that anyone should do about the Spanish voters clear choice?

This debate seems devoid of meaning.

It's important so that it doesn't happen again. Do you want Bush to be in office for another four years because Al Queda sets a bomb off in Penn Station? Do you want to see the end of free elections based on what people think is best vs fearing a terrorist bombing?

You act as though I am saying they should overturn the results of the spanish election when I have never suggested any such thing. Basing an election of fear is no way to establish a competent government.

I hope that Spain is able to live with itself and is no longer asked to appease Al Queda. I hope that no further terror attacks happen any where, but I sincerely doubt Al Queda will stop after such a success as Spain. Do you?

Well, now, THERE'S a meta-question!

So when people like Phoenix say they'll probably vote for Bush out of irrational fear do you have the same opinion?

Sincere question, because if you have the same distaste for the surge in Bush's popularity after the 9/11 attacks then at least you are uniform in this regard.

One of the few reason's I am considering voting for Bush is his stance on terrorism. Not irrational fear, but the hopes that if carried through for another four years, some progress against this global evil can be achieved.

I have yet to see any indication from Kerry that he will be tough on terror.

McGentix said

from what I remember at the time, and not just a few histories, It's commmonly thought that JFK won the presidency due to Nixon's "five o'clock shadow" during the televised debate. So I suppose basing an election on fear is just as valid as basing an election on "five o'clock shadow"
The issue of "establishing a competent government" is a totally different matter indeed. (the shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men)

In other words you are letting terrorists influence your vote. lol

The government that Spain voted in has a tough stance on terrorism. It seems the argument that terrorism influences a vote is limited to when they decide on a party that you do not like.

Just a few side notes.


Even if Spain arrived relatively late to post war European properity, the big economic surge starts in the mid-fifties, and keeps on the last 20 years of Franco's dictatorship. After the mid-seventies stagnation, a democratic Spain goes through the path of both modernization and prosperity under Felipe González and PSOE. During their 14 year government (1982-1996), Spain becomes not only a full member of the European Community and NATO, but also a prosperous nation with sound pro-business economic policies and, at the same time, a web of social services.
The Socialists lost in 1996 due to corruption scandals. Aznar's conservatives kept, roughly, the same economic path as PSOE. So he didn't "bring" a prosperity that was already there. One can only add, in Aznar's favor, that he kept it.

Zapatero did not campaign on the issue of Spanish troops in Iraq. The 3 axis of the Socialists' campaign were: gender equality, betterment of public education and recomponing the strained relationship with France and Germany, in support for the European Constitution.

Finally, historically PSOE has been harsher on terrorists than the Populars. In fact, one of the reasons of their loss in 96 was that the existance of GAL was revealed. GAL was the acronym of "Antiterrorist Liberation Groups", financed by the State and who illegally fought the ETA.

Wikipedia explains GAL


As I have written elsewhere, for whoever wants to read, the Al-Qaeda attacks did cause a shift -according to exit polls- but only in about 1% of the electorate, and also caused that around 6-7% of people -most of them young and centrist voters- who were planning to abstain finally went to the booths (and voted massively for PSOE).

Just as an aside, when I say "irrational fear" I usually mean a fear that won't likely be realized.

Since everyone has irrational fears it's not really a comment on one's ration as much as a simple delienation of types of fear.

Just wanted to mention it because it can sound different than I meant it.

Quick question...

Weren't the polls prior to the Spain election saying that the old gvmt was polling only slightly ahead of the party that got elected?

CIS, the most important polling company in Spain, had the Partido Popular leading by 3.4% of the vote one week before the election (polls are prohibited by law since 5 days before election day).
The lead reduced to 1.4% if you counted "undecided leaners".
So there was no gigantic swing.

Any idea what the margin for error was in the polls?