Because it’s none of our business ? Because it tends to be counterproductive ? Putting in the Shah got us the fundamentalists, to use an obvious example. Plus, it’s hypocritical. I’ve seen Americans get very offended at the suggestion the foreign powers are fiddling in American politics; how can we justify doing to others ? Not that it’s ever stopped us. 
What are the “dire ramifications” of having Chavez as president of Venezuela? Nevertheless . . .
I’m sure you would, and may you never get the chance.
Not an irrational conflation. The habits of thinking underlying “past US activity” can live on after the environment that produced them is gone. There’s a lot of living institutional memory in Washington – Bush is surrounded by old Cold Warriors.
Mebbeso. Nevertheless, Pat Robertson still has his own TV show, and in Florida (or at least in Miami) it’s almost impossible to have a rational discussion about Castro.
Interesting. Is there any theory as to why?
Ever seen that canal thingy going through the middle of the country? With that in mind, can you guess why the US might have taken an interest in Panama? No, it didn’t have much to do with communism…but it had a lot to do both with the cold war and with US vital strategic interest.
So you say. Afaik thats still debatable and not proven. Am I wrong?
What do either of those invasions have to do with Mexico? How are the circumstances similar?
None that I know of.
As you said, ‘Mebbeso’…but if so I’m not seeing a lot of overt aspects of this institutional memory surfacing in our current foreign policy, which seems to be predominantly focused on the ME…and focused on Islamic fundamentalism, not communism.
Hey, I never said that there were no cold warrior types left. Hell, my dad is one. 
But Pat Robertson? Come on BG…the guy is a dinosaur. Same as the old school anti-Castro types yearning for a free Cuba so they can go home.
Well, I’m sure JM will give his own answer. I’ll give you my interperatation filtered through my own experience (and understand that my family who are still there are dirt farmers, not the elite types in the city).
First off, to be rich (I’m talking about the really wealthy) in Mexico is to be a target. Kidnappings and such are fairly common among this class. They are also the target for other distasteful type things happening to them. So…you live in isolated communities, and under protection. You think its bad here? Not even close to what its like in Mehicho, 'mano.
The next part is hard to explain so I’ll just try and lay it out stream of consious style. Corruption is all pervasive. If you want to get anything done you got to grease the wheels. And I mean anything. In addition, the big families (i.e. the rich guys) aren’t some monolithic group…but made up of different factions. If the faction that your family is part of is linked to the current folks in power…well, life is good and America doesn’t probably look like such a great deal (today). If not…well, then life isn’t so good, and America probably looks like a great deal (until tomorrow anyway).
Anyway, thats my quick and dirty theory. Maybe its kind of what JM was getting at…maybe (probably) not. Like I said, I have my own prejudices and worldview of things in Mexico, so take what I say here with a big grain of salt.
-XT
It had to do with removing Noriega from power. No more, no less.
Your argument is that the United States will not interfere in the Mexican election because the United States no longer interferes in the internal affairs of other nations because the cold war is over. Your argument has been proven wrong. Given what it sees as an adequate reason, whether it is or not, the United States will most certainly interfere in the internal affairs of other nations at the drop of a hat.
Your insight is probably right, given the personal connections you have. I don’t know of any theory as to why, just that the part of that poll that was so newsworthy was precisely the fact that it wasn’t only the poor who wanted to come here. We already knew that…
I, too would prefer that Mexico not meddle in U.S. politics, but they do it all the time, so why unilaterally disarm?
I agree. That doesn’t come close.
WTF?
In case you haven’t noticed, we are talking about the possibility of Bush using covert ops or the military to interfere with Mexican politics. When was the last time Mexico did that ? Did I miss a Mexican-backed presidential assassination attempt ? Has the Mexican Army recently conquered Texas and annexed it ( please 
).
I guess we need to define “meddling.” I’m all for meddling in Mexican politics to the extent that it means helping them get their corruption and other problems under control so they can make the place an attractive place for … just about everyone, apparently … to want to say. Military strikes, assassinations and covert ops like the one that put the Shah on the throne of Iran … not meddling in my book. More like coups.
med·dle
intr.v. med·dled, med·dling, med·dles
To intrude into other people’s affairs or business; interfere.
A few examples of recent Mexican meddling in U.S. affairs are refusal to extradite fugitives wanted for murder in the United States, telling Hispanics to continue speaking Spanish in the United States as a patriotic duty, agitating for California driver’s licenses for illegal Mexican aliens, agitating for the acceptance of Mexican identification by local and state governments, opposing local laws requiring commercial signs to be in English, lobbying Congress to give amnesty to illegal aliens, claiming the right to speak for American citizens of Mexican descent, encouraging dual loyalty and nonassimilation among Mexican immigrants to the U.S., characterizing American attempts to control its border as racist in motivation, opposing state laws restricting benefits for illegal aliens, using the Mexican-American vote as a foreign policy tool, encouraging illegal immigrants to cross the border, organizing demonstrations, and telling illegal aliens how to avoid detection by U.S. authorities.
Mexico doesn’t have to resort to covert operations to interfere with American politics because most American politicians are too stupid to see what’s going on in broad daylight.
My experiences differ. I get things done on a daily basis, from building permits, to business permits to land acquisitions etc. and I rarely have a problem.
Again, we seem to be living in seperate realities. The ones with conections to power may have easier access to certain resources but they aren’t the only ones doing well.
I don’t think Bush would be stupid enough to do anything, but if he did, he wouldn’t be the first American leader who has decided that when other people exercise democracy they don’t know what they’re doing.
Can we say “Guatemala”?
European states won’t do that either, not without a guarantee the suspect won’t be executed. What are the details/issues in the particular cases to which you’re referring?
I’ve heard something about that but I’m not clear . . . cite?
All things in which the Mexican government has a legitimate interest, in view of the number of citizens it has living in the U.S. A much more legitimate interest, at any right, than the U.S. would have in the question of who should be president of Mexico.
Again, I think that’s true, but cite?
Well, DUH! (See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310401)
See above.
Now that would be meddling! Cite?
And that would be just plain nasty. Cite?
What makes you think they’re “too stupid to see”? Maybe they just accept it. Politics is the art of the possible.
BrainGlutton, much of the ground is covered by this article (partly just assertions but also liberally laced with concrete examples and quotes from the usual suspects) and this article . I’ll just focus on the one you agreed would be “plain nasty”: organizing demonstrations, and telling illegal aliens how to avoid detection by U.S. authorities.
In a notorious how-to pamphlet published by the Mexican government, illegal immigrants are counseled to “avoid calling attention to yourself…avoid loud parties…” etc.
Google consulate “proposition 187” demonstration and you’ll find numerous claims that the Mexican consulate organized a demonstration against the ballot-approved California state Proposition 187.
Is this meddling? Look at the Mexican government’s own actions. In 2002, they deported 18 American students from Mexico for participating in a protest against an airport expansion. If the U.S. deported every Mexican who joins a protest, there would be a Greyhound leaving Los Angeles for the border every day.