Debunking Needed: "The Spanish Election"

[UTUSN]

From day 1, my local radio wingnut claimed that the Madrid bombing CAUSED the "cowardly Spaniards" to turn against the wingnuts in power.

That never washed with me, but I can't prove it: The Spanish populace was 90-something % against the Iraq attack/involvement. So it would have seemed natural that they would vote against the party that defied their wishes WITHOUT any influence from the bombing.

The wingnut claims that the polls BEFORE the bombing were running in the incumbents' favor.

The wingnuts are now using "the Spanish election" as justification for postponing the election, claiming that a terrorist event would CAUSE the election to GO AGAINST the Shrubbites.

This is (intuitively) wrong. We know people RALLIED around Shrub after 9-11 and that the same would happen again, not the opposite.

How can I move OUT of the "intuitive" area and into the PROOF area?

[gandalf]

1. Here in Europe, it is common knowledge

that NOT the attacks were responsible for the fact that the outcome of the election differed from what was expected before the attacks.

The reason was the behavior of Aznar and his government. People strongly suspected that he was hiding, manipulating and distorting the truth in order to exploit the attack for his reelection.

Aznar tried to blame ETA, even though quickly distanced itself from the attacks and people began to realize that al Qaeda might be responsible.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. The best way is to research Spanish News websites' archives

Find an article from before the bombing indicating their polling numbers at the time.

[noiretextatique]

3. the wingnuts are lying

of all the idiotic rightwingnut claims, this has to be the most idiotic.

[apnu]

4. ask for facts...

... I know its a radio host but the point still stands. Every time I've debated this, and other subjects, with a conservative they offer no facts themselves and yet demand that I provide proof of my facts.

This got annoying real fast so I switched tactics...

Now I let them make the point and say "prove it", "give me a credible (neutral) source", and "show me on the BBC, Yahoo, MSN, and/or CNN, otherwise your point is conjecture and holds not water"

Needless to say, the conservatives I know won't argue with me any more. The bag of tricks in political arguments are not the GOP's alone. We, too, can (and should!) dip into that bag of tricks and hit them with their own slings and arrows of conversation.

(edited for clairity)

[CaTeacher]

5. there is some truth to this.

I used to have a boyfriend from Madrid. Yes--the people were quite against the war, but they were also pretty pro-USA and the majority supported their government. (I visited there with him 2x last year).

Prior to the attack, his family and friends thought the old government would be reelected handily--the bombing definitely DID change things. Mainly--1) people felt that their government had not done enough to protect them 2) the attacks were initially blamed on Basque separatists, so the people felt that their government was trying to mislead them 3) yes--it is true--they did want to appease the attackers to stop further attacks 4) they do not have the "rally round the flag" mentality that Americans have.

So the attack definitely turned the election against the incumbents. BUT I doubt the bombers knew that would happen. The government really messed up by blaming the wrong people and losing the confidence of the people. The people responded by supporting a new government. (which the majority already regret--according to my contacts there. if they could do it over again--this new government would not happen.)

Heat of the moment--they were angry at the incumbents and threw the bums out.

[Bridget Burke]

7. So, if we get attacked before the election...

You trust we'll all be good little sheep & vote for Bush.

[UTUSN]

10. I? n/t

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

13. I just wonder

Why does many spaniards regret that the voted for the left?

[tandot]

6. Aznar tried to pin the attack on ETA although he knew Islamic extremists

were behind it. I guess, fearing that he might be voted out, he didn't want to admit that Spain's involvement in the Iraq war made Spaniards less safe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64633-2004Mar16?language=printer

"By Friday night, police found new leads -- the discovery of a sports bag containing undetonated explosives and a mobile telephone. At a news conference, however, Acebes continued to insist ETA was the main suspect. "How is it that after 30 years of attacks, they are not going to be the prime suspects?" Acebes said. Still, he said, "We haven't closed off any line of investigation."

At the makeshift shrines set up to honor the victims, young people gathering to light candles and lay flowers were starting to voice skepticism about the ETA claim.

On Saturday night -- hours before the polls opened -- the government announced the arrests of three Moroccans and two Indians, and the discovery of a videotape from a purported al Qaeda official asserting responsibility for the attacks. Thousands of Spaniards responded by taking to the streets, banging pots and pans in protests and denouncing the government.

That voter anger swept the Socialists back to power for the first time in eight years"
-----

A majority of Spaniards already were opposed to the Iraq war. After Aznar lied and blamed ETA for the attacks (in an obvious attempt to save his ass from being voted out) voters had finally enough and voted him out.

[CaTeacher]

8. yep--that was the fatal error

(blaming innocent people for the incident).

As far as what would happen here--it would depend on the perception. If there was a perception that we could have (should have) prevented the attack, or that people were misrepresenting facts--it would work against the administration.

But if people thought that the attack could not have been prevented and that the US is doing its best to protect us--then we usually rally around our governement in times of trouble. This is just historically what we do....

the circumstances would dictate what happens...

[Hoping4Change]

9. Actually everyone expected Aznar to win however he lost

because he tried to pin the blame on ETA (Basque Speratists) The following article in Asia Times Online gives excellent analysis of the election result. BTW Asia Times is a conservative magazine.

"Up until last Thursday's devastating bombings in Madrid, which killed 200 and injured more than 1,500 people, opinion polls had clearly shown that the conservative Popular Party would win the election by a comfortable margin. However, the widespread belief that an al-Qaeda-linked terror group was behind the mass murder completely changed the closing dynamics of the election.

Initially, the Popular Party insisted that the Basque separatist group ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, or Basque Homeland and Liberty) was responsible for the Madrid terror outrages, something that if true would have worked to the party's advantage because of its tough stance against the group. However, as it appeared more and more likely that an al-Qaeda affiliate was the real culprit, many people became angry with the government, which they accused of trying to manipulate the tragedy for its own ends."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC16Aa03.html

[oldcoot]

11. So Bush is entitled to win the election?

It sounds like the fascist radio hosts believe that Bush has a right to win the election no matter what. I find this actual line of reasoning frightening.

I think that if the United States is hit with another major terrorist attack under the Bush administration, the public might turn against Bush (and rightly so). After all, Bush has argued that he is better qualified than Kerry because he can better protect us from terrorists. The American public might also wonder why so many resources that could have been used to protect them against terrorism were instead used to attack a toothless tiger (Iraq).

[donkeyotay]

12. I've been watching this also

...and in light of this being the justification for suspending our elections, I looked into this latest thing that “we all know,” that al Qaeda is rigging elections. There are several other factors to consider: 1) One source says the Socialists were ahead in polls before, so this was not an upset, 2) This was a foreseeable consequence of Aznar’s incredibly unpopular support for war, and 3) voters were mad that Aznar blamed ETA instead of al Qaeda; presumably, they might have supported Aznar’s party if he had blamed al Qaeda, which makes a pretty shakey argument that al Qaeda was hoping to defeat Aznar's party. Here's some of what I found:


Spain's response to terror
By Claude Salhani
Washington (UPI) March 16, 2004

But interpreting these events as Spain's surrender to terrorism would be gross oversimplification of the facts… Spaniards did not capitulate to terrorism -- domestic or international -- as many pundits have professed. Instead, Spaniards have chosen to send a clear message to their elected leaders. The message is: "Stop lying to us."… According to a report aired by Radio France International, Aznar personally telephoned managing editors of Spain's leading media outlets after the attacks to impress upon them the need to spin the Basque separatist angle and place the blame for the attacks on ETA - the Basque separatist organization. Aznar was hoping that would give his Popular Party the upper hand in Sunday's election…. Independent polls carried out on Wednesday, the day before the bombings, showed the Socialists ahead with a slight majority.
A poll carried out by Noxa Consulting on Wednesday gave the Socialists less than a 2 percent margin, putting them, nevertheless, in the lead.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/terrorwar-04g.html


Anti-War Sentiment Weakens Aznar Government
By Tito Drago
MADRID, Apr 9 (IPS)

"The image of the centre-right government of Prime Minister José María Aznar in Spain continues to weaken due to the administration's support for the U.S.-led war on Iraq… But the prospects of winning lucrative contracts for Spanish companies in the reconstruction of Iraq has not altered the results of opinion polls which show that more than 90 percent of public opinion remains opposed."


Also, The Daily Howler did a piece called “Spinning Spain,” showing how deceptive domestic coverage has been. (Sorry, don't have the link.)


Mon 15 Mar 2004
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=299442004

Some Spaniards were vitriolic in accusing Mr Aznar of "manipulating" public opinion by spending three days blaming the bombings on ETA, despite denials from the guerrillas.

Protesters shouted "liar" and "Get our troops out of Iraq" at Mariano Rajoy, the man who was placed to take over from Mr Aznar.

Overnight, thousands of voters had swarmed round PP offices across Spain to denounce government "misinformation". Banging pots and pans, they chanted: "Before we vote, we want the truth."



Reuters March 14, 2004
http://globalsecurity.com/world_politics/anger_over/anger_over.htm

Anger Over Attack Puts Spain's Socialists in Power
by Adrian Croft

Controversy over the government's handling of the bombing of four commuter trains three days before the election clearly helped swing the election Zapatero's way.
"The government has paid the price for its involvement in the war in Iraq, for Aznar's relationship with (U.S. President George) W. Bush and (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair. The vote has been a reaction to this," said Carlos Berzosa, rector of Madrid's Complutense University.

[rinsd]

14. It wasn't the bombing.....

It was The PP's reaction to immediately blame the Basques. It was handled very poorly. Before that the race was fairly close if I recall.