Hugo Chavez has lost his bid to become President For Life™
Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.
“I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense,” he said after voters narrowly rejected the sweeping constitutional reforms by 51 percent to 49 percent.
Opposition activists were ecstatic as the results were announced shortly after midnight with 88 percent of the vote counted, the trend was declared irreversible by elections council chief Tibisay Lucena.
Some shed tears. Others began chanting: “And now he’s going away!”
Well, he’s still there till 2012. Yep, he’s going away. But will he shut up?
“This reform was about democracy or totalitarian socialism, and democracy won,” said opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez said.
Yes.
bernarda
Congrats to the CIA and its fascist flunkies in the well-to-do class which has been looting Venezuela for decades leaving 80% of the population in poverty. Another job well done.
Wilfred
I guess Chavez is not so much of a dictator after all, seeing as how he lost the referendum; Again the usual bullshit, as if it were only a question of letting him run for president again; Hey, he might even have lost the fucking election. But he’s a dictator and dictators never lose elections and…
Bernarda is exactly right. Chavez offered a genuine choice between socialism and more of the same cutthroat capitalism. The voices of FREEDOM, that never shut the fuck up about the single aspect of ending Presidential term-limits managed to drown out the larger issue of people choosing the kind of economic system they want.
Fear wins out. Again. He’s the first dictator to ever lose an election. Unfuckingbelievable.
Incertus (Brian)
We’ll get to see if Chavez is the strongman that the western media has been claiming he is for the last decade. Will he let the election stand? Or will he find a way to suspend it?
maxbaer (not the original)
What’s going on here? I thought everyone who disapproves of Bush, loves Chavez. That’s what Rush said.
DR
1. Chavez, to date, has shown more respect for the constitution of Venezuela than the Bushies have. He actually ASKED THE PEOPLE before he changed the rules, instead of simply going ahead and ignoring it… OHMYGOD!!!!!!
2. I’m no huge Chavez fan, but frankly, the picture made of him in the U.S. media is completely distorted. To date, he’s been far more respectful of the laws of his own country than:
a. the U.S. (well, take your pick)
b. Canada (the Security and Prosperity Partnership is in direct violation of the Canadian constitution)
c. the U.K. (Big Brother, anyone? the U.K. is the most surveiled nation on Earth)
d. the E.U. as a whole (E.U. members giving access to CIA unmarked planes for “extraordinary rendition”).
So while he is an asshole, he’s really a far less damaging asshole than most western countries have to deal with right now.
So before you try to take that straw out of your brother’s eye…
Lupin
Chavez’s better than Putin, and our Leader looked into Putin’s soul, and said he was okay, so…
Redhand
I guess the 51% who voted against the referendum had nothing to do with it.
Ned R.
I would like to ask Bernarda if he or she is either from or has been to Venezuela. As I’ve mentioned on this blog before, I have been there, I have close friends there, they aren’t Chavez fans at all, and to describe them as either fascist flunkies or belonging to the well-to-do class is not merely insulting but grossly inaccurate.
Cling to your stereotypes if they make you happy, Bernarda. But the situation was and remains more complicated than your cartoon.
Cindrella Ferret
He also said druggies should be deported or given a ticket to Amsterdam. Or something to that effect. Last I heard he still lives in the U.S.
Attaturk
1. Chavez, to date, has shown more respect for the constitution of Venezuela than the Bushies have. He actually ASKED THE PEOPLE before he changed the rules, instead of simply going ahead and ignoring it… OHMYGOD
2. I’m no huge Chavez fan, but frankly, the picture made of him in the U.S. media is completely distorted. To date, he’s been far more respectful of the laws of his own country than:
Yep, if this was the modern GOP they’d be declaring themselves the winner and stage riots while the chads were being counted.
After all, they, unlike Chavez have a track record of doing so.
I’m also no fan of Chavez, but I don’t view him as the embodiment of all “teh evil” as the GOP and the media does reflexively. The reason Chavez exists is precisely because South American countries have had it up to here with American meddling.
Wilfred
Once again a comment that says nothing. In a few short years Chavez managed to reduce poverty from nearly 50% to 30%, somehow I doubt that Ned knew any of those people, however.
The real issue in the referendum was not about this President for Life bullshit – the Bushco line, btw. If it was, we wouldn’t support the Mubaraks, Musharrafs, Saudi dynasty and assorted dictators who march to America’s tune. The most important issue was reverting control of the country’s resources, oil in this case, to one person – the President, who would have continued to distribute the wealth both inside Ven. and throughout South America. Of course, for people conditioned to believe that real distribute-the- wealth populism is worse than fuck-the-poor capitalism, that argument won’t matter at all.
Now the people who don’t like that are the same plutocrats who managed to steal the country’s oil wealth before Chavez came to power, Ned’s friends that is. But now they can stock the oil ministry again with their American educated cronies and make another direct cash pipeline to Grand Cayman, which is where developing countries’ money usually ends up.
So now the poor can get fucked again. Long live freedom.
Jen
Come on, guys, the enemy of the enemy is not always your friend. I’m glad he’s helped some of the poor of Venezuela, but that’s about the best you can say for him. He’s antidemocratic, has a habit of ruling by decree, and is doing everything he can to consolidate power in himself. Autocracy isn’t justifiable just because he’s helping the poor. Human Rights Watch’s thoughts on him kind of illustrate the dark joke that there is freedom of expression in Venezuela, but not freedom after expression.
demimondian
Evidently, Wilfred, the people of Venezuela disagree with you. They appear to respect Chavez’ abilities and to generally hold him in high esteem — but they don’t trust him implicitly.
Wow. Sounds like those poor lumpenproletariat aren’t so lumpen. Good for them, bad for you.
Zifnab
Cheers to that. I honestly didn’t see this coming at all. My money was on a 60/40 election where Chavez “won the will of the people” while wide scale accusations of voter fraud and intimidation were brutally repressed.
This sounds kind of like the ’06 election in the US, when our dictator got a giant political kick to the crouch.
Venezualan socialist reactionaries under Chavez aren’t any different from Russian socialist reactionaries under Lenin or Chinese reactionaries under Mao or French socialist reactionaries during the French Revolution. Except, honestly, I think the Venezualans have been doing markedly better than their EuroAsian counterparts.
Last I’ve checked, Chavez hasn’t committed any wholesale genocides yet. But he has instituted free public education, food programs for the needy, and government funded health programs. So in that case, I can see why Righties in the US consider him worse.
Of course, I still think anyone who run around using the power of government to shut down TV stations and bust up demonstrators is a dirty little thug.
Incertus (Brian)
I have to agree. Of course, we saw that election this weekend too, only it was in Russia, and the strongman was named Putin.
AnonE.Mouse
Ned R, you seem to be deliberately misinterpreting bernarda’s rhetoric.No one made any “insulting” statements about your friends.Cartoonish describes your whiny protest.
That the US has historically involved itself in Latin American and Venezuelan politics to an extent that would not be tolerated here (not solely on behalf of but certainly to the benefit of a mostly pale skinned oligarchy)is not a secret.If the attempted coup in 2002 wasn’t a production of “the CIA and it’s fascist flunkies”,then who is responsible?Are you also contending that subsequent events in Venezuela(the strike,for instance) haven’t been coordinated efforts of the US government(with many millions of dollars flowing into Venezuela from North America in attempts to influence elections there,something that is considered illegal in this country)and the Venezuelan elite(including the media,which until recently,when a single station failed to win approval of a license renewal,has operated without restrictions)?
By the way,would ‘pale skinned’describe your friends?Do they know how to read and write?Do their kids go to private school or college?Are they able to afford trips abroad and medical care?How would you describe the “well to do” class?
bob
All I know is if Bush thinks Chavez is bad, he probably isn’t. Why on earth would anyone believe a word Bush says anymore? It DOES seem as though Chavez respects the law more than Bush. My grandfather used to rail against Roosevelt, but in the end Medicare and Social Security kept body and soul together for him for the last 10 years of his life. I certainly never felt this afraid for my country when the liberals were in charge. But, contrary to popular belief, that all ended in 1969 when Nixon and the thugs took over. Ooooh, look, they are STILL there.
Wilfred
Black and mestizo peasants are not lumpenproletariat, they’re serfs in the feudal interior of Venezuela. Lumpenprole, the white kind who work in industry voted against Chavez. How can it be bad for me? It’s the children of serfs who will will go back to being hungry once Chavez is gone. Still feeling superior?
El Cruzado
Can’t say I love the guy, but if he steps down when his time comes in an orderly fashion, he’ll certainly go up a few notches in my scale.
As for Wilfred’s comments, I wouldn’t decree that the referendum means the end of Chavez’s particular style of socialism after 2012. I’m pretty sure someone will run as the anointed successor, and with some luck might actually mean it. Whether he’ll win or not, hopefully it will be determined by fair and transparent elections.
MNPundit
Why is removing term limits undemocratic?
We only had term limits because of the fear of another FDR, a Traitor to his Class, that was so popular with the people that he could actually do some god. The two terms was pure tradition before that.
Zifnab
Russia doesn’t know what the hell it wants. After the disaster that was Boris Yeltzin, I’m willing to cut Russia some slack for putting up a strongman like Putin. At least he’s respectable competent. Unlike Bush and Chavez, Putin has had a long reign relatively devoid of clusterfuckups.
That said, while I’m sure there was a respectable degree of voter intimidation and gerrymandering, Putin’s approval in Russia today isn’t much worse than Bush’s approval circa 2004.
Psycheout
Somewhere, Cindy Sheehan is crying.
grumpy realist
Wow–didn’t see that coming. I, too, thought that Chavez would rig the voting much more in his favor.
Now let’s see if he abides by the decision of the populace.
Methinks that a bunch of the other people helping keeping Chavez in power were getting restless and lowered the boom: “ok, you can stay on this track, but only if you win. And don’t rig it!” People who are sensible realize that lying to yourself about the level of support you have usually ends up with things like revolutions and other messy incidences.
ATS
It is really a measure of how far dialogue in the US has sunk when a demagogue like Chavez losing is seen as anything but a good thing. A great part of the US “left” didn’t close its eyes to his flaws. Too many examples cautioned against that this time.
Look, this wasn’t a victory for United Fruit Company any more than Chavez’s previous wins were a vote for Communist Albania.
For too long the tub-thumping loonies on both sides have shouted down the reasonable elements. Chavez and Rush Limbaugh deserve each other, but we deserve better.
Ned Raggett
Hmm, about that cartoon part. But since you want to play these games, they are distinctly NON-pale-skinned, are state-educated, as yet have no kids, share cramped places with their folks in neighborhoods that are definitely not the worst in Caracas but are nonetheless nowhere near the elite level, etc. And oddly enough, they still have a complete contempt for Chavez while thinking that said elites are also completely useless and loathing Bush as well.
In fact, strangely enough, they seem most of all to despise the arrogance of power and those that defend the arrogant on all stretches of the political spectrum, having seen the end results across the board. Now I wonder why?
scarshapedstar
Butbutbut he’s the worst and most powerful dictator since Hitler! Clearly, this is a clever ruse on his part.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
And that’s different from Bush in what way?
horatius
In the “Don’t steal elections by disenfranchisement” way.
demimondian
Oh, I see. Your ideology is closer to Lenin than to Mao, and you distinguish between the oppressed workers and the oppressed serfs. Sorry. I forgot. You’ll have to forgive me.
Wilfred, you don’t like it that the Venezuelan people are wiser than you in the ways of power. I don’t blame them — they know it from experience, and you, for all your big talk, don’t. Chavez was playing for all the marbles, and his backers had the wisdom to say “Love ya, Hugo, love your policies…but not that much. We need to reserve the right to change our minds.”
Jen
Punchy
I prefer his brother, Julio Ceasar. What a pugalist.
Rudi
Democracy triumph in Venezuela. While watching the story on ABC national news, I found out that the “Chavez for life” election happened on touch screen voting machines WITH A PAPER RECEIPT. When will democratic elections come to America?
Tom S
Jeez, it’s like the Sandinistas all over again. Reducing poverty means nothing if one doesn’t have freedom. The reactionary left as shown here is like the Ancien Regime in France. They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
That said, hat’s off to Chavez for his mature response to the results, and to the Sandinistas before him, and to the SWAPO in Namibia as well.
Dreggas
That’s Russian history though, if you go far enough into it you see they preferred strong leaders to unite them since time immemorial. Of course strong was usually accompanied by totalitarian and blood thirst but those were features not bugs.
Rudi
Not a peep about voting fraud in this election, but in prior elections our “Librul MSM” ranted about fraud. From 2004. they used paper even then:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/08/19/2003199293
Wilfred
Fuck off, wanker. I live down here and haven’t even set foot in the land of the free and brainwashed for the last 6 years or so – I see the effects of South American oligarchy every damned day and the effect of mass media on American minds any time I care to turn on my computer. Hence Chavez is the great dictator but Mubarak, who has locked up thousands of the opposition receives billions in American bribes and not fucking peep here, or anywhere else.
I guess you don’t like it that the 51% of you fuckheads who voted for Bush are ‘smarter and wiser in the ways of power’ than you, unless you’re one of those 51%, who knows?
Democracy didn’t win in Venezeula (what a stupid, conditioned formulaic chant to begin with). What did win was the same klepto-oligarchic, coronelismo, patrão system that Chavez challenged in the first place and which has held back South American for hundreds of years.
jcricket
I don’t love Chavez at all, and I bet that despite his popularity, the gains he’s making for his populace will be outweighed eventually by one or another disastrous economic program he promotes.
That said, both Chavez and Schwarzenegger have done the right thing after the referendums they supported failed. They said, “I accept the will of the people”.
No matter how many times people vote against Bush and the right-wing agenda, Republicans never seem to do the same thing. The general consensus amongst the right after 2006’s results was that they weren’t sufficiently “ideologically pure” – which means they’re running farther to the right now.
The right is more like Putin or Musharraf then they’d ever care to admit.
Jen
Not cool, Wilfred.
horatius
It looks like corporate cock-suckers are out in force.
Chavez- Dictator
Putin – President
Musharraf – President
And a vote to reroute all the oil money back to the Caymans after 2012 – Victory for Democracy.
jcricket
I want the whole country to move to all-mail-in voting. Built-in paper trail, distributed vote collection mechanism (i.e.. the US Mail), difficult to intimidate people. Generally increases turnout (though not always). Uses optical scan ballots, which have the best scanning technology (in terms of accuracy). Much better than levers or punch cards. None of the issues with touch screens.
I’d just combine that with something I call “computer assisted voting” – where you get a special envelope with a PIN mailed to you. Then you log on to a web site (if you want to) and can use a computer to print your ballot (doesn’t store it in a database or anything). The printed ballot (with the bubbles filled in) would avoid over-voting, under-voting, bubble-filling errors, stray marks, etc.
WA state is going all-mail-in. Oregon’s already that way. California is probably next (judging by the trends).
It’s not the Nirvana of instant computer-results that a touch-screen offers, but I think it’s the best, most practical solution, given the makeup of our country (huge, spread out, no day off for voting, low interest in voting).
DR
Just love how some are talking about a “reactionary left”, using the language of the Left itself (the word reactionary referring to Capitalists).
The Sandinistas were far more legitimate as a government than the rag-tag bunch of drug runners the U.S. pushed against them (it was kinda funny to hear of them referred to as “freedom fighters” in the U.S. press, when they were the very people supplying the American Inner Cities with Coke…); They weren’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean that the demonization that took place in the CorpMedia was warranted.
Nor is the current demonization of Chavez warranted. Chavez’ track record is simply better than Bush’. Do you call Bush a dictator? Chavez has issued some decrees; but decrees are not as uncommon as you would imagine, even in democracies. Bush has issues a massive number of them (he calls them “signing statements”). Even Canada, a beacon of western democracy if there was ever one, has had its share of governmental decrees.
The real complaint against Chavez in the U.S. and amongst *most* of his critics (not all…) is the fact that he dared nationalize the oil industry; And the oil industry was the very engine of the upper and upper middle classes in Venezuela. He used the money to attempt to raise the majority of the Venezuelan population above its station as serfs (read: legal slaves), and has been pretty successful.
As for “liberty”: before Chavez, there was NO liberty, NO freedom for the majority of the Venezuelan population: a serf is not a farmer; a serf is a slave by another name. You can’t have liberty, when you’re a slave.
So, Chavez is no hero, but please, let’s leave the Right-wing idiotspeak behind…
grumpy realist
From the commentary I’ve seen in news reports, it looks like a case of the average Venezuelan saying: “We like what Chavez is doing–but we don’t want him around permanently. We want to reserve the right, as voters, to throw him out. We don’t want him grabbing any more power.”
I fail to see how keeping power from the hands of a potential strongman means that the “oligarchy has won.” It’s more likely that the power which has devolved to the Venezuelan people will remain in their hands–a good thing, no?
It’s sort of equivalent to having a vote in the US as to whether to remove the term-limits-on-the-Presidency-clause out of the Constitution. I think most Americans, no matter how great they believed a President to be, would feel antsy about that.
Remember Lord Acton’s maxim: “power corrupts–and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
AnonE.Mouse
Not playing games,Ned.You know the point I was making.From my experience,your friends sound pretty middle-class by the local standards.I also have Venezuelan friends,rich whites with shared Dutch citizenship.No surprise they despise Chavez.Politics in Venezuela is class and race based as you well know.
I haven’t read any of the Chavez defenders here represent him as without fault.The hyperbole and absolutes seem to be emanating from his demonizers,who want to pretend Venezuela exists in a vacuum and ignore the context of Latin American politics past(El Salvador,Guatemala,Honduras,Brazil,Chile,etc.,not to mention the social and economic paradise that was Venezuela before Chavez)and present,the sordid behaviour of other American allied governments and leaders in Pakistan,Saudi Arabia,Israel,Indonesia,etc.as well as our own destruction and occupation of Iraq,and the unique democracy we experience here in the US,with our ‘unitary’executive(whose signing statements exempt him and his office from the laws us other 300 million Americans are expected to follow),congressional representation determined by money,incumbency,and districts drawn by M.C.Escher,a Supreme Court with justices appointed for life,etc.
You folks who want to hold Chavez up to the standard of some enlightened leader who exists only in your imaginations,he fails the test.By the standards of the real world live in,he’s relatively harmless and has arguably made substantial progress in improving the lives of many Venezuelans.
canuckistani
I always thought that Chavez’s real crime was saying rude things about America, and George Bush in particular. How can he not be an evil dictator if he doesn’t love America?
Wilfred
I think the mistake is in looking at the referendum as if ‘keeping power out of the hands of one person’ was the only thing. Again, the main issue was putting control of the oil resources into the hands of one person, instead of returning control to the oligarchy-controlled infrastructure. It is terribly naive to think that power remains in the hands of the Venezeulan people, any more than it does in the hands of Iraqis, whose own oil resources are now controlled by another incipient oligarchy.
Chavez spread the wealth around, To continue doing so, he needed to control it. Now he won’t. That’s not a victory for the ‘people’, few of whom will ever see any of the money that comes from their resources, but rather a victory for a small handful of serial kleptocrats.
Zifnab
Gag. Yeah, you dove straight off the deep end there Wilfred. Chavez had all the cards stacked in his favor. He controlled the media. He controlled the government. He controlled the legislation. And he crafted a document that was rejected by the majority.
Chavez attached “President for Life” to his socialist reforms, and that probably cost him the 5% or so he needed for victory. He shot himself in the foot. Democracy prevailed. And now you’re bitching about the decision-making process because it didn’t come to the decision you wanted. Tough shit.
A good citizen would turn to his constituency and respect its decision, than redouble his efforts to change their minds. That’s what far-left liberals did in the US after ’02 and ’04. No need to lynch any oligarchical thugs or seize the assets of FOX News. No need to sling profanity at “democracy”. If your legislation isn’t hot enough to catch the interest of 51% of the voting public, I’ve got two suggestions for you: Change the legislation or change people’s minds. But mindlessly ranting about klepto-oligarchics, coronelismos, patrão systems just makes you look like an ignorant douche.
Wilfred
Only a stupid fuck like yourself could possibly think that with control of the media, the government and the legislation, he still lost. How, jackass? With the help of the sweet loving Jesus? Or maybe with black and white zombie constructions like this?:
That was certainly how the opposition posed it. Well, you’re either with democracy or against democracy, right?
Oh God.
grumpy realist
So putting control of all the oil in the hands of one individual with immense power is better than having it in the hands of a group and has more checks and balances? Wilfred, this does not compute. You’re placing an immense trust in the probity of one individual. It is quite possible that, having seen how Chavez has acted in the past, the average Venezuelan felt they didn’t want to allow Chavez that power.
There’s also been a lot of fracturing, shifting of alliances, and etc. in Venezuela over the past several years anyway. I don’t think you can say that a vote against giving Chavez more power necessarily means the person is an oligarchy-supporter. It’s a nice insult to throw around, however.
Zifnab
Did the opposition not phrase the debate in a way you approved of? Were they being all dirty and mean because they “opposed” you? Oh noes! The opposing party called us names and questioned our patriotism! Whatever shall we do?! Democracy as an institution has failed us!!!11!!eleventyone
How did the “Permanent Republican Majority” fall in ’06? How did the French Progressive Movement faulter in ’07? Why do the political currents ebb and flow if not because of the evil hand of the kelpotcratic elites? Perhaps Chavez crafted and pitched legislation that the majority of the citizenry didn’t like. Perhaps that’s how he lost, eh? Could it be that Chavez did something the general population of his country disapproved of and got his political ass handed to him for his trouble? Nah, gotta be a conspiracy.
horatius
In this case, given Venezuela’s history of the ruling class shafting the underclass, yes.
grumpy realist
So you are assuming that the individual with immense power will not be shafting the underclass as well, yes? Or that the individual is smart enough at running things so that he won’t make a mistake and bring the whole system down?
And maybe the average Venezuelan has decided that with what they have now, there’s a nice balance of power between the previous oligarchy and the present “strongman” and they don’t want to push it any further in either direction. Maybe that is all that what this vote was about, yes? The oligarchy has had a lot of its power removed, and the possible strongman has had his nose slapped.
(I recommend people take a look at the history of Western Europe to discover how democracy can grow up because of the existence of a balance of powers.)
grumpy realist
It also looks like some rather unusual groups came out after Chavez–the students were definitely NOT on his side, accusing him of attempting a “constitutional coup d’etat.”
And Chavez’s attempts to demonize his opponents backfired, especially since some of them were the exact same people who had helped put him in power before.
All in all, it looks like Venezuela wants moderate government, a balance of power, and democracy. All good things.
Thom
Hey, since he held a vote and lost, and conceded and everything, can we stop calling him a “dictator”? Just wondering.
Tax Analyst
That’s a pretty good point, Thom. I don’t think that shoe fits anymore. We can’t know what his actual intent was (or is), but as long as he abides by the votes of his citizens in fair elections he is as good a practioner of “Democracy” as anyone else in the current scene, and a whole lot better than some.
Hey, maybe someday we can have fair elections here again…Naw…After all, that would be “unfair” to the Republicans, right?
Right now it appears we (U.S.) are run by the signing statements of one of the least informed, most fact and common-sense resistant leaders in the Western world and behind the scenes, under the table machinations of Dick Cheney and his assorted ass-hat cronies.
If it weren’t so sad this farce would be funny.
Zifnab
The electoral process has a notorious liberal bias.
Tom S
It should also be pointed out that some of Chavez’s own prominent supporters were against him on this one. It’s too bad some posting here seem incapable of shedding their preconceptions and stereotypes.
Also using and defending ideologies that have been superceded by events over the last few decades does make one a reactionary, however much the term may offend.
Badtux
Hopefully Chavez learned a lesson from this, which is that he has to govern in a more conciliatory manner. As others pointed out, the reason he lost is because many of his previous allies deserted him in this election. My suspicion is that term limits were the biggest reason for the desertion, many of his allies want to succeed him in office, and obviously if term limits were overturned that would not be possible.
In any event, Chavez is no more a dictator than George W. Bush. Both were elected by a clear supermajority of the people of their nations (75% in both cases, if you count the “don’t care” who didn’t vote as Bush supporters since they obviously had no problem with Bush being President), and assuming that they both leave at the end of their term of office, both will be private citizens within the next few years. Chavez may not be a nice man (just as GWB is not a nice man), but you can’t call him a “dictator” when he was elected in elections that international observers admit were free and uncorrupted (something not true of U.S. elections, BTW).
Jen
I just did a search on “dictator” throughout this thread, and no one called him a dictator in an un-ironic way. I called him an autocrat, which I think is fair given his actions. I would also call GWB an autocrat. They deserve each other. They should run away together to the hot springs out west, where the sulphur smell will mask GWB’s…
THOM
Jen
I meant a bigger “we.” (That’s why I linked to the Google page.)
CodpieceWatch
If you only rely on what the MSM says about Chavez, it’s understandable that you would perceive him as some sort of monster. Considering the fact that a large percentage of Americans still think Iraq had WMD and was connected to 9/11, I’d venture to guess the same Chavez-bashers are getting their news from the MSM. Since 1998, he has legitimately won 11 elections and referenda. He has put a huge dent in the gap between rich and poor. Extreme poverty has been halved, illiteracy has been almost eliminated, and thousands of people now have access to health and dental care. Operation Miracle has restored sight to 750,000 people for free. He also sells cheap oil to US citizens and has nationalized the oil industry and utility services in his country. CIA documents now show that the CIA – at the very least – knew about the plot to overthrow him in a military coup in 2002. And so we all join in the celebration that he lost this recent referendum to make changes to the constitution, while doing and saying nothing about our own dictator that has destroyed our country, started 2 wars, spied on us illegally, catered only to the rich and the corporations, ordered torture, disregarded the rule of law, destroyed our environment, supported the mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, and fawned over Saudi Arabian kings, etc. While Chavez is far from perfect (he does seem to want to be a dictator), given the record of the two leaders, which really is worse?
chopper
i don’t know venezuelans, but i sure as shit wouldn’t give either control of the biggest segment of my country’s economy or a permanent president status to any one person, much less both.
hell, not even the people i really know and trust. shit, no. even if i knew they meant well.
Redhand
I frequently disagree with Zifnab, which makes his right-on-target put-down of “Only a stupid [f*ck] like yourself” Wilfred too delicious for words. (What a foamer!) I haven’t had as much fun reading a B-J thread since . . . ThymeZone lost his sh*t (again) in response to Michael D.’s post daring to point out Senator Craig’s hypocracy.
Nancy Irving
Give him credit first for not fixing the results, and second for accepting them.
merlallen
Look at the weenie crying, he must be a Publican
bernarda
Ned R, I have known Venezuelans residing in the U.S. They were students from the old ruling class and of course we had some political conversations. Despite our differences of opinion, we were quite friendly.
One of the agencies, among several, the U.S. uses to subvert the Chavez administration is USAID. Under the guise of promoting “democracy”, it funds the “opposition”.
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/transition_initiatives/country/venezuela/rpt0907.html
“In August 2002, USAID initiated a program in Venezuela to support democratic stability and strengthen the country’s fragile democratic institutions. The program operates out of the U.S. Embassy.
The Venezuela program has two main objectives: (1) strengthen democratic institutions and promote democratic dialogue between political groups; and (2) encourage citizen participation in democratic processes. USAID supports five implementing partners: Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), which focuses on dialogue, public debate, citizen participation, and training for democratic leadership; the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI), which offer technical assistance for political parties; Freedom House, which provides technical support to human rights practitioners; and the Pan-American Development Foundation (PADF), which provides support to civil society.”
You can look up the details of the groups mentioned yourself. USAID’s statement of purpose.
“The USAID Office of Transition Initiatives supports U.S. foreign policy objectives by helping local partners advance peace and democracy in priority countries in crisis. Seizing critical windows of opportunity, OTI works on the ground to provide fast, flexible, short-term assistance targeted at key political transition and stabilization needs.”
Of course “stabilization” means supporting the friends of the U.S. corporate oligarchy. For more on how this works.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1350
BIRDZILLA
lOOKS LIKE HE IS LOSING HIS MIND AS WELL HE,LL HAVE TO CALL FOR THE MEN WITH THE NETS AND STREIGHT JACKETS
Noyola
Dear Friends,
Not for or against anyone here, but Chavez is truly harmful. Did you know that he promoted that all oil producing countries keep production low, for oil prices to keep increasing. If he is a socialist, then why does he harm the economy of entire societies, plus the poorer you are, the more you are affected by high fuel costs.
Chavez is Fidel Castro’s puppet, he is even changing laws to make Children above 3 years of age, property of the government. The government has rights over children once they reach 3 years of age.
Schools have to teach the communist doctrine, all including private schools, or he shuts them down.
If that is not a harmful dictator, then I do not know what is.
Please note I am not comparing him to Bush, Bush is a whole different story. Bush and his administration are puppets of all the Sionist Jewish Billionares that control the world.
Thank you for reading my oppinion