Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Venezuela Is Not Florida
Last Monday, with less than 90 percent of the vote counted and the opposition leading by just 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent, President Chavez congratulated his opponents on their victory. They had defeated his proposed constitutional reforms, including the abolition of term limits for the presidency.
No one should have been surprised by Chavez's immediate concession: Venezuela is a constitutional democracy, and its government has stuck to the democratic rules of the game since he was first elected in 1998. Despite the non-renewal of the broadcast license for a major TV station in May - one that wouldn't have gotten a license in any democratic country - Venezuela still has the most oppositional media in the hemisphere.
But the U.S. media has managed to convey the impression to most Americans that Venezuela is some sort of dictatorship or near-dictatorship.
Some of this disinformation takes place through mere repetition and association (e.g. "communist Cuba" appearing in thousands of news reports) -- just as 70 percent of Americans were convinced, prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the massacres of September 11. In that case, the major media didn't even believe the message, but somehow it got across and provided justification for the war.
In the case of Venezuela, the media is more pro-active, with lots of grossly exaggerated editorials and op-eds, news articles that sometimes read like editorials, and a general lack of balance in sources and subject matter.
But Venezuela is not Pakistan. In fact, it's not Florida or Ohio either. One reason that Chavez could be confident of the vote count is that Venezuela has a very secure voting system. This is very different from the United States, where millions of citizens cast electronic votes with no paper record. Venezuelan voters mark their choice on a touch-screen machine, which then records the vote and prints out a paper receipt for the voter. The voter then deposits the vote in a ballot box. An extremely large random sample - about 54 percent - of the paper ballots are counted and compared with the electronic tally.
If the two counts match, then that is a pretty solid guarantee against electronic fraud. Any such fraud would have to rig the machines and stuff the ballot boxes to match them - a trick that strains the imagination.
In 2007, Venezuelans once again came in second for all of Latin America in the percentage of citizens who are satisfied or very satisfied with their democracy, according to the prestigious Chilean polling firm Latinobarometro - 59 percent, far above the Latin American average of 37 percent.
It is not only the secure elections that are responsible for this result - it is also that the government has delivered on its promises to share the nation's oil wealth with the poor and the majority. For most people - unlike the pundits here - voting for something and actually getting what you voted for are also an important part of democracy.
The Bush Administration has consistently sought regime change in Venezuela, even before Chavez began regularly denouncing "the Empire." According to the U.S. State Department, Washington funded leaders and organizations involved in the coup which briefly overthrew Chavez's democratically elected government in April 2002. The Washington Post reported this week that the Bush Administration has been funding unnamed student groups, presumably opposition, up to and including this year.
Venezuela must be seen as undemocratic, and Chavez as the aggressor against the United States, in order to justify the Bush Administration's objective of regime change. As in the run-up to the Iraq war, most of the major media are advancing the Administration's goals, regardless of the intentions of individual journalists.
This column was distributed to newspapers by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C.
109 Comments so far
Show AllIt's hard not to be skeptical of a guy seeking to run for president indefinitely. It's hard not to be skeptical of a guy who wants to mix shortening a workday or workweek with 69 "constitutional reforms."
It says something for both Venezuela and Chavez, though, if they have better election systems than ours.
The proof of whether Chavez is good for his country and good for the world will be in how he acts in the coming weeks and months after losing his proposed reforms, not in what he says in the first few hours or days.
The more absolute power a single person has, whether in Venezuela, Cuba, the United States, Russia, Pakistan, or anywhere else, the more risk there is to citizens.
He either will keep working for people with a little less absolute power, or he'll keep seeking the power.
We'll see.
The referendum works. America needs it badly. See:
http://nationalinitiative.us/
Daniel David.
My good man with two first names, the proof that Chavez has been good for his country is already on the books with such incredible abundance it has the same air of certainty as global warming.
Chavez has nothing left to prove. The challenge instead is for you to embrace the tradition of critical thinking that we celebrate in western culture. Take a serious look at his accomplishments, inquiring honestly and without prejudgment, and you will realize that he has no work to do whatsoever to prove himself.
In the meantime Karl Rove is planning the cancellation or rigging of the 2008 US elections.
Daniel,
You mean when Bush let slip that it would be easier if he was a dictator? I mean after all Bush and Cheney are above the law ion this country. And Cheney does not require accountability!
tell me again, who is closer to dictatorship?
"It's hard not to be skeptical of a guy seeking to run for president indefinitely."
Really? If I had a leader that defended my interests in the way Chavez and the Bolivarian government does, I'd want him to be able to run indefinitely. Why not? The opposition is also able to run "indefinitely" too, isn't it? If they aren't winning, in spite of help from the overwhelmingly pro-opposition venezuelan media, isn't it their own fault?
Mr. Daniel sold-out-Democrat David, you relly need to stop listening to your parties propaganda and educate yourself about Venezuela. Here's a couple good links for starters:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
http://www.zmag.org/venezuela_watch.cfm
What is "democratic" about term limits anyway? Few other, much better-run, democracies have such a thing, and term limits in the US (22nd amendment) only arose as a Republican rection to the four-time re-election of FDR.
It IS hard not to be skeptical, lately...
Fortunately, Chavez is such a shining-example that, although he is well-aware of the intent and power/viciousness of the threats against his people that he is willing to martyr-himself through lifetime-Service if need-be, he will bow to the Voice of his people...
[If ONLY America could have even a few leaders so-worthy, or a system so 'actual' as a Democracy...!]
If any 'triangulating/Centrist-Dems' here think threats against Venezuela are not extreme-enough for Chavez to fear-us, Google: Gates, and his planned 'base' in Suriname...
As someone has already pointed out and I would like to reiterate, Chavez wasn't trying to remain leader indefinitely. He was attempting among other things, to remove his term limits, putting Venezuela in line with many other democracies.
Myself I believe Chavez bit off more than he can chew. I think he should have more faith in the system that, after all, got him into office. In any event, the voter turnout and the methodology of the vote counting puts many other countries to shame.
I am sick and tired of people equating democracy with voting.
As Weisbrot noted, political democracy means very little if it doesn't translate into directing the local, state and federal governments' budgets toward serving the needs of all of its citizens.
A few US political scientists who don't equate voting with democracy have tested democracies by finding out what the majority of citizens want from their governments' budgets. These scientists then take the top five or ten areas listed (each weighted by importance) by sample polls and observe how much government spends on each of these areas of concern.
These polls are taken over time in order to observe how stable support for spending on each area is.
What has been observed is that the US federal, state and local governments' spending priorities tend to be the exact reverse of the US population.
What can be inferred from this test of democratic is that the US is perhaps a formal or elite democracy, but it doesn't "trickle" down.
"In a democracy it's your vote that counts; in feudalism, it's your Count that votes."
And, every-bit of our Governmental-policies/budgets DO, explicitly and intentionally "serve the needs of it's Citizens" (if, by Citizens, one is referring to our new super-Citizens -- our&aligned-Corporations and their-Owner's Interests).
News to you...?
mirf59,
Daniel is my real first name. David is my real middle name. I didn't knock Hugo Chavez for his record so far. But I do knock the idea of a fast power grab, in Venezuela or anywhere else. It's not a matter of whether Chavez has anything to prove. It's a matter of how well he responds in the future to this rejection---for the sake of his people. Sometimes big egos don't respond well at all to such things. And wasn't it a former wife of Chavez who advised against giving him to much power.
As for dictatorship in the U.S., we've already been too close and it's time for the un-Bush in America. As for the long future of Venezuela, if Chavez is beneficial, there will be a long line of people wanting to imitate him when his time runs out. No one needs to be an incumbent king in any kind of democracy.
BushClintonBushClinton...all one big happy family, what with Bill being Babs newly embraced "son" and all...
Meanwhile we embrace Pakistan's dictator and align with Likud Israel shock troops and cuban Right terrorists as the good guys, but the very worst evil in the universe is that growing red tide which threatens to even out the playing field. can't have that most of all.
Sure don't make us look like that beacon to the rest of the world except for those still drinking the patriotism koolaid.
It's too bad that rescinding term limits is seen as evil. What about term limits for lobbyists? When a brand new rep sets up his office in Washington, he's met by a seasoned cadre of perhaps 100 lobbyists, all offering free help in getting things set up -- introductions to the proper people, "loaned" staff, heck, they'll even prepare legislation for you!
Term limits for lobbyists -- THAT's something I could get behind!
Chavez and other leftists would never win an election anywhere if it wasn't for the US government's extreme right wing politics. The further right the US gov. moves, the more fearful third world voters are of the US. The extreme left is seen as the only way for them to survive in a world dominated by right wing US politics.
"Daniel is my real first name. David is my real middle name. I did't knock Hugo Chavez for his record so far. But I do knock the idea of a fast power grab, in Venezuela or anywhere else."
All three of my names are 'first names' (all Celtic, too -- which is just-about as 'relevant'). No one cares about your-name (or who you 'vote for')...or, even, 'who you knock'. I do-care that you work-so-hard to spread the misinformation that 'Dem's will change-things' -- because I find "good-cop/bad-cop"-nonsense gets in the way of any 'real change'...
If you (or Hilly&Co, for that-matter) get 'distressed' about "power-grabs", then you all should overwhelmingly be supportive of Chavez...considering that its public-knowledge that the CIA [and all the Dem's in the CFR, most in-Congress, and virtually-all within the DLC] tried to forcibly remove Chavez just a few-years back with a conservative-Coup, fund all the covert-crap directed against any real emergent-Democracy in S.A. or anywhere-else, and regularly-vote/initiate militaristic 'enduring-endeavors' to bring nascent-Democracies 'to heel' [exactly as most-Dem's back all the BS-to-date in the ME].
Quit spouting this lame 'Party-line' in here and elsewhere...we 'ain't buying'.
Mr. Chavez's "reforms" are not a secret, they were available to read for anyone with the inclination to do so. So, to question them is not "propaganda" or "disinformation".
I agree with David, the answer to how this all shakes out will not be known for several months. Personally, I think that Mr. Chavez needs to let his ideas stand or fall on their own accord, without falling into the trap of trying to tie too much power to one individual. Nor should there be a movement based on a "personality cult".
I hope that some lessons have been learned from this vote, but we will have to wait and see.
What are you people talking about?
This guy "Daniel David" didn't mention Hillary or Democrats...
Is there some kind of Common Dreams loyalty oath he failed to sign?
MeAlsoToo,
I clarified my name because someone brought it up in an odd way in a post. As for your demand I quit spouting a party line in here, I'd suggest you mind your own business and advocate your own opinions. You don't control mine, no matter how mad you get. That's why blog sites are worth visiting.
As for Democrats, they're sometimes dumb, but the best hopes we have. Your "real change" stuff with long shot candidates sounds good, but never happens in real life America. I like Dennis Kucinich, but most actual voters do not. So we go from there.
Thank you, MeAlsoToo. It's stunning how sanctimonious these mainstream Democrats are when their own party is so viciously undemocratic. And yeah, the Republicans are worse. But on this road to a fascist Hell, does it matter all that much if you're traveling in the fast lane or slow lane? Maybe the slow lane's worse. Takes people longer to realize what's happening.
The reason I'm angrier with the Democrats is that the Republicans are upfront about what they're doing, but the Democrats are lying to our faces while they pick our pockets.
youbetterwork--or whydonyougetajob--must view everything within the realm of electorial politics as presented by Fox news.
???
What?
That doesn't even make sense. I don't watch Fox news. I do have a job. My login name refers to the song by Ru Paul, something of a gay anthem. And I still don't understand the vitrol... I suppose I'm just in the middle of some long standing comment war carried over from some other story... I'll just move along.
It amazing to me--all this whining about chavez when he actally took it to the vote despite the oppsitional media and CIA meddling, yet our own Congress whines their hands are tied when it comes to our own president's abuses of power and war crimes.
And you sanctimonous so called reasonable (reasonable to whom?) Centrists (the center of what?) wonder why we don't bow to your scare tactics and proven losing DLC framing of the NeoCon illusions.
Give me break--you are way off course other than clinging to the mouthpiece.
Well, yobetterwork, if you are going to fire a shot over the bow...better be prepared for incoming.
youbetterwork, you wandered into the crossfire of a longstanding difference of opinion. Daniel David is well known on this site for cling to the Democratic party - "my party, right or wrong". You know, sort of like the loyalty alcoholic family systems maintain.
Youbetterwork
Hang in there. Some of us like a diversity of opinion.
Diversity of opinion? Or parroting the deliberately spun conventional wisdom?
Many of us are here because we are sick of spinning our wheels with what could be considered equivilant to those who vote against their own economic interests.
What is so diverse about the same old uncritical, kneejerk pablum?
Okay folks, it's time to stop banging heads here and get back on topic. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?
As I see it:
1. Chavez asked his people to vote to eliminate term limits just like in many democratic European nations. He was asking his people if they wanted the opportunity to vote for him in the future if he was doing a good job for them. He was not asking them if they wanted a dictator for life. He was asking them if they wanted to lift term limits, period.
2. From the article it appears that Venezuela has a much more transparent and better voting system than the US. I wish the US could emulate the good things about the Venezuela system. Looks like it is better representative of the people.
3. The US government and its representatives of both parties seem to prefer dictators or leaders in other countries that they "own". Hence all the interference.
4. The MSM is not telling the truth or the facts about what is happening in Venezuela or about Chavez.
Why is the US hell bent on getting Chavez ousted? IMHO, "its all about the OIL stupid"! And what do you think our government will do if they can't control the government in Venezuela? Does Iraq and Iran come to mind?
youbetterwork,
Sorry they subjected you to "incoming". It's not unusual here. Mentioning my name, except in a scathing criticism of something I've written, is considered politically incorrect at Common Dreams, because I usually do plug for the Democrats. Some imagine I'm addicted, or paid off, or just a meanie of some sort. My apologies, really.
Bligh ~ I wish that all would appreciate diversity of opinion! Some would rather you march in lockstep with the crowd and do not have your openness to discussion and debate. I'm more in the independant mode and see the wisdom resident in all political directions rather than hate the right and love the left, or visa versa. In my opinion; Idiots reside in both directions!
I don't know Vern, is "kneejerk pablum" whatever you disagree with? One mans truth is anothers "KP"!.
So, would you say that your views are in keeping with the spirit and views of CommonDreams?
Why are you here? I don't find that your generally "centrist" views--fairly in line with mainstream illusions from Israel to Latin America are enlightening or diverse. It is the same old shit that unquestioningly buys into the manufactured consensus that finds us in messes like Iraq. And we took alot of shit from the likes of you, questioning our patriotism, accusing us of not "supporting the troops", or being purists for not supporting politicians who capitulated time after time after time while blaming Nader, chastising Cindy Sheehan, championing the Clintons, marginalizing progressives.. Let me tell you, we were Right--Nader was right--and we continually are proven as Right--so you should be lining up with us--and not demanding we follow your disasterous course.
"Chavez and other leftists would never win an election anywhere if it wasn't for the US government's extreme right wing politics. The further right the US gov. moves, the more fearful third world voters are of the US. The extreme left is seen as the only way for them to survive in a world dominated by right wing US politics."
This is so ignorant I don't know where to begin. US liberals, in power, are no different on foreign policy and economic issues than conservatives. Could it be that Venezuela was one of the poorest countries in Latin America (despite it having endless natural resources), with access to education, healthcare, food and housing horrible and their election of Chavez and support (overall) of his policies be a reflection of THAT? No, couldn't be. Listen, capitalism works well for certain countries, it works horribly for everyone else. In a world with finite resources, when you have the developed countries consuming as much as they do (and consuming the resources of the countries that are poor) you leave little for the rest. The means to that end is the financial markets and people have been rejecting the IMF, World Bank and capitalism as a result of this. This is why you see a leftward shift not only in Latin America but here as well. Chavez could go away tomorrow and if the economic system stayed in place you'd have the same support for the same type of change that you see today. If you want someone to blame for this situation look in the mirror. You supported candidates who back this economic system and you have a lifestyle that negatively effects people in the developing world. Until that changes there will be many more Chavez's and I think that's a good thing.
Well, back to Venezuela. I think that Mr.Chavez may have been his own worst enemy. With his statements of "I want to be President until 2050" and "Until I am nothing but bones" I think he scared even some of his most loyal supporters. This along with his ridiculous spat with the King of Spain " I'll nationalize the Spanish banks unless he apologizes" and with the President of Columbia didn't help his cause.
Well, I never said Venuzala was a dictatorship. In fact, I'd like to add that there is no real Left in America, just a fake "Left" whereas in Venuzala, at least there's some attempt at putting the progressive ideology to work ! Instead of merely throwing stones at rightwing thinktanks and institutions, the Left should SHUT THE FUCK UP and BUILD THEIR OWN THINKTANKS AND INSTITUTIONS AND PUT THE PEOPLE'S PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY FIRST !
Good points, Rebel Farmer. I think what sunk Chavez was not the term limits part, but all the other bells and whistles. He was trying to clean house, but it placed a huge amount of power in the executive branch, and who knows what someone else down the road might do with that. You know, like we have here now, except that ours wasn't given, it was taken.
There's a lot of anger between progressives and Democratic party apologists. They blame us and Nader for Gore and Kerry. But Gore and Kerry did that to themselves, they ran lousy campaigns, and refused to challenge the outcome. Gore tried to be selective about the recount and actually prevented an investigation into voter suppression, and Kerry folded like a wet rag even before the count was complete. It made me wonder what was going on; no Republican would have given up so fast. Remember the Washington state race for governor? But the fact is, most of the Nader voters wouldn't have voted for a Democrat in any case. As far as I'm concerned, they're both scumbag parties.
So, we have to put up with the likes of Daniel David trying to convince us to vote for Democrats where they will use us and betray us. He makes me think of a siren trying to seduce us into sacrificing ourselves to a capitalistic feeding frenzy.
Friends, I take strong objection to the use of perjuritive, nasty terms when debating. I, also, do not agree with Mr Daniel's formulation. However, what entitles the first one answering him to refer to Daniel as "Mr. sellout Democrat?" I've found many of Daniel's comments quite positive, well thought out. For the life of me, I can't see what your nasty and negative, argumentative tone adds to our discussion.
Please knock it off!
Meanwhile, I do strongly agree with those that have taken issue with the idea of term limits being somehow democratic. The 'term limits' movement in our nation was the brainchild of corporate think tanks, trying to unseat long-held pro-labor, Democratic seats. Someone mentioned FDR. To my way of thinking, at least, FDR represented the best we are able to do in this system. His New Deal reforms aided working and poor folks here, and he was consistantly re-elected, by wide majorities.
Chavez, and his Bolivarian movement, clearly overreached in this referendum. I'll wait and see what the workers, comrades and friends involved, on the ground in that fight say, before I draw any hard and fast conclusions.
However, some things we do know now.
First; Chavez has been elected, re-elected and won elections, by increasingly wide majorities, since coming on the electoral scene in Venezuela.
The reason for his wide popularity is that he, his movment, have represented, in both word and (especially) deed, the poorest of Venezuela, the workers and indigenous peoples, long held in servitude there. Chavez govt. has nationalized the oil of Venezuela, (the source of the conflict with Bush and his corporate cronies), and has used that wealth, for the first time in the history of that nation, for the people of Venezuela. People have been fed, unions given rights to organize freely, health care was brought into poor folks' communities, children fed, clothed and taken care of, etc.
It is actually this, certainly any lack of "democracy," that has brought down the wraith of our nation's corporate media.
Far from playing any positive or "democratic" role, U.S. military, political and media forces all joined together to support the ill-fated and illegal military coup against Chavez elected government. The people of Venezuela, however, had the last word, raising up en masse to support their democracy and their elected government.
This is far from unusally, as corporate U.S. forces have invaded many Latin American nations, organized facist military coups in others, all in support of corporate wealthy elites and multinational U.S. corporations. This was true, for example, in Guatemala, where U.S. forces overthrew the elected govt. of Jacoba Arbenz. They overthrew the elected socialist govt of Allende in Chile. Nicaragua, Uruaguay, Brazil, Greneda, Jamaca, Domincan Republic snf Argentina suffered similiar circumstances, not to mention Cuba. Tese illegal, immoral invasions had absolutely nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with keeping corporate profits high by murdering, torturing and supressing movements of poor and working people for justice in those nations.
Meanwhile, I believe that we need to look at the so-called "news" in our own nation very closely, reading between the lines. As the Iraq debacle, as well as this week's announcement that Bush/Cheney have been lying about Iran for over three years, eloquently shows, our's truely is the CORPORATE media. It is here not to inform, but to mis-inform! When they call Chavez a dictator, we really, as progressives, need to look much closer. It is a responsibility of ours. The corporate media uses these code-words, or attack words, to build a base for war on democracy in other nations. Those wars don't help us any more than they do folks in those nations our forces invade. We will both ultimately lose if we don't pay attention.
Finally, in reference to the brother that stated that the "far-left" would never win elections if it weren't for the right-wingers here. While I understand where you're going, you should really read your history.
First, I take exception to the term "far-left." The corporate media called civil rights workers 'far-left,' and anyone left of Eisenhower was termed 'far-left' during the McCarthy peeriod (and actually for some time after). Workers organizing unions were called 'far-left.'
In other nations, every progressive movement for social justice, against corporate rule, is termed 'far-left' by our corporate media.
In terms of the ability of the real left, and progressive formations, to win elections overseas, it has been pretty darn resilent, even while faced murderous attacks from armies of the rich, supported by the U.S. government.
Jacoba Arbenz won in Guatemala in '52, but was drowned in blood after US invasion. The progressive Mossadeyeh won eelction in Iran, only to be overtrown by US & British secret services. Allende won in Chile, but was murdered by the CIA. Jedi Jagan was elected in Jamica, but pushed out by the US, as were progressive elected governments in Greneda and Domenican Republic. A mild social democratic, elected govt in Brazil was drowned in the US-supported "Coronels Revolt." Greece, France, Spain and Italy have all elected popular unity governments, only to have them smashed by outside, corporate interests.
No, I really do not agree that the left can't win. In fact, the exact opposite has been should time and again to be true. The left, the progressive and people's movements, are extremely popular in all corners of the earth. If left to hold truely honest elections and set up governments of their own choosing, most nations would have progressive, left governments now.
"President of Columbia didn't help his cause"
You mean the guy who has well known ties to drug cartels and death squads? Who's former campaign manager was busted in the US with pounds of drug making materials, who had his cronies in government (and not a national vote like Venezuela) change the law to let HIM run indefinitely, who's cousin is under arrest for connections to drug cartels (along with 15 members of his party), who has presided over hundreds of murders of unions activists (one of his death squad buddies, days before he met with him, captured on camera, released a "communiqué" that said the squads would be targeting union leaders) and only prosecuted a handful, I could go on forever. Yeah, he wouldn't help his cause getting into it with THAT guy.
Honestly, the US presidents might articulate things in kind ways but the underlying logic of their polices are usually much more scandalous than people in the US realize. Maybe Chavez should work on how he articulates his points, I just don't think polite articulations make discussions about issues as vital as economics or social relations polite or proper. I can tell you, in an indirect way, that I am going to bomb you and steal your oil (maybe I'll call it self defense, "US interests" and say I regret the decision to go to war) and you can call me the devil. Which, in the end, is worse?
In Canada and Great Britain the Prime Minister continues as Prime Minister as long as his party retains power. No term limits and so far so good. Am I missing something?
the limit on the term of u.s. presidents was the oligarchy's response to FDR's overwhelming popularity and his enmity towards the oligarchy. application to current dicussion is left to the reader.
Amy Goodman on all "opinions" having equal weight excerpted from CD website:
"The Dubious Mr. Dobbs"
by Amy Goodman
"Truth matters. History and context count. 'You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts,' the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed. CNN's Lou Dobbs has migrated to a pre-eminent position in the debate on immigration in the U.S. Since he identifies himself as a journalist, he has a special responsibility to rely on facts and to correct misstatements of fact. CNN, which purports to be a news organization, touting itself as the 'Most Trusted Name in News,' has an equally strong obligation to its audience to tell the truth."
Nuff said.
Tijuana,
Here's a little proof. You don't even have to believe Chavez, take it written and direct from the CIA... er, I mean, the "US Embassy".
http://www.counterpunch.org/petras11272007.html
Can I have a link from you now that shows "...proven meddling of Chavez in internal politics of Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Peru, and probably Mexico..."?
BTW, speaking of our buddy Uribe in Columbia, I don't think anyone here has mentioned yet that he too has very similar proposals in the pipeline to remove his term limits. How many US MSM articles can you find that accuse HIM of wanting to be "dictator for life"? Hmmm, wonder what's the difference?
You're funny, Tijuana. Hugo Chavez is doing in Latin America what we've been doing all over the world, without the military and CIA invasions and assassinations. He's spending money in his region to promote independence from US, world Bank and IMF policies that bankrupt these countries. He's attempting to develop a regional alliance that is independent of US hegemony. Horrors!
Daniel David,
"As for Democrats, they're sometimes dumb, but the best hopes we have. Your 'real change' stuff with long shot candidates sounds good, but never happens in real life America."
Hey, I can agree with you now! Our real change stuff never happens in real life America because we believe Democrats are the best hopes we have. Well put!
This thread has way too much name-calling and foolishness, in my opinion.
Probably the most bogus example of argumentation so far is the reference by Daniel David to Chavez' exwife, Marisabel RodrÃguez's comment that Chavez should not be given too much power.
How many of the folks on this site who are divorced came to that legal status amicably?
I did. But I suspect not many others.
Marisabel Rodriguez may be a perfectly nice person--but from what this poster has seen of her she is unstable and she was really disappointed that the guy she married didn't start right off feeding at the public trough and cutting deals with the oligarchy.
When her then-husband refused to accept the presidential salary, and created a foundation to receive it--for the purpose of university scholarships for poor young folks--she had a rude awakening.
She apparently wanted a burocrat who took weekends off and flew her off to exotic spots on vacations on the taxpayer's Bolivar.
She was conflictive as hell, and at the point of the divorce became actively involved in a religious sect and ran around speaking in tongues (sounds like the religious right is also making inroads in Venezuela--and not just the Catholic religious right).
Be that as it may, I fail to see why her comment should have the slightest weight when discussing geopolitics.
Hell hath no fury, etc....
If DD chooses to be "skeptical", that's his perfect right. But show us a substantial argument for skepticism if you want us to
take you seriously, DD.
I for one have had enough personal experience of Chavez to see him as a real breath of fresh air--a nd not just here in Latin America, either--but around the planet!
Contact your local Board of Elections and ask them to buy this voting equipment. This is what the
U.S. needs.
What is the name of the company that created this system? Please post if you know.
We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we just need to locate it and insist it
be put in place here.
We need a leader like Chavez to straighten out the mess we got going here. Universal health care, nationalizing energy resourses. Rigged election, false flag domestic terror [9/11]. The same creeps who did 9/11 have got their fingers into almost every country and institution you can imagine. We have to clean it up not just for ourselves but for the rest of the world too. Our country is so screwed up by now it's hard to tell where to begin.
We definitely need a third party and a way to keep it from becoming corrupted.
Mr. Daniel David:
Are you skeptical of a British Prime Minister seeking to run for prime minister indefinitely? I am sure you are not.
Had Tony Blair not followed the bush-follies, he would still be in office today. President Chavez simply wanted to have a similar system.
The American media has brainwashed Americans so much that the average American sees President Chavez as a pariah, which he is not.
Thanks to the absence of balance and credibility on the part of the American press, people now rely on Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Asia Times, etc to get a true balance on matters of international import.
Apparently Daniel David would be an opponent of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was basically "president for life' once elected.
One little detail, I don't think I've ever heard Chavez say he wanted to stay in office without further elections.
Instead, what I've heard was that he wanted the term limits removed. In other words, he wanted to do about what
FDR did, keep getting re-elected to the Presidency for as long as he wanted the job.
You Chavez fundamentalists are living in a fantasy world. You see, for you, Chavez is just a symbol
that represents an ideal, so whatever he says or does, doesn't actually affect you directly,
unless it has to do with oil prices. For us Venezuelans, he is a daily reality that affects us directly
big time. So, you can talk all you want about the apple, but we are the ones actually tasting it. Big difference.
If you want to know the real Chavez and the real Venezuela, why don't you stop talking and come spend some
time here with us? You would then know the other side of the story, so to speak, like the fact that Chavez said on
national television today that the opposition had won a shitty victory, his words, not mine. And maybe you will wonder
why we have the highest inflation rate in Latin America: 18,5% so far, expecting to reach 21% by the end of the year.
Or the fact that it's getting harder and harder to get certain foods, like milk and eggs, for instance.
Or maybe you will wonder why the vicepresident and other high government officials drive brand new Hummers and Audis.
But you don't have to believe me. Just come here and start thinking for yourself, for once.
Was this vote a single up-or-down vote with all the proposed changes lumped together? I didn't find a site that spelled out exactly what was on the ballot, other than those 'term limits' - of which I am also very leery. Anybody have a good reference for me (preferably in English)?
What were some of the other major changes, and why were they rejected?