Sorry- I believe you point zoomed right over my head- point taken and headed - that being said- he spent time in jail IIRC, and then, campaigned, and was elected by a very, very, solid majority- correct? I mean, there is no debate that he won the support of his poeple some years after his coup attempt- is that correct?

A thoroughly unsurprising post, but interesting. Let's start from the beginning.



I haven't seen anyone here give anything but conditional support to what's happening in Venezuela, and no one here has even come close to putting Chavez on a level anywhere near Mother Theresa (I'll concede for the sake of argument that what she did was "good."). And your second statement is either willfully or unknowingly ignorant of history. It's just the same ol' same ol' from the myopic right. The US has supported Suharto, Pinochet, the Iranian Shah, Saddam Hussein, the Afghan Mujahedin, Batista, and any number of other actual dictators. And you're gonna harp on liberals who support a democratically elected president? A guy who's HRW reports tend to be about worries of stifling opposition speech - or most dramatically, calling for an investigation into alleged abuses of protestors by the police.

Which brings us to:



I wonder if you are equally concerned about the HRW and Amnesty reports on the U.S. Do you give them the same credence? If so, you have never mentioned it here. Is HRW right about Venezuela, but wrong about the US?

I have stated my concerns about Chavez. I am fully prepared to believe there are aspects of his presidency that deserve study and denouncement. I wonder, if you are so willing to submit our country to the same level of scrutiny?



OK. He invited Perez to his inauguration, and that's proof he uses violence to quell opposition? In what way, exactly? And why would it concern you that Perez was invited? After all, the US loved that dictator so much they awarded him the Legion of Merit while he was "president."

Here's what happened in the aftermath of the 2002 coup attempt, according to Wikipedia:



So Chavez, this brutal dictator, did what? Let the rule of law prevail? Oh man, what a nut. Your average brutal dictator would have simply strung them up, maybe placed their heads on the palace gates... but Chavez was so brutal, you see, that he wanted them to stand trial! Heavens!

The guy's certainly no saint. I'll repeat for the hard of hearing, again, that I have concerns about his becoming the sole expression of the very positive Bolivarian changes happening in Venezuela. He could easily ruin all the gains by becoming merely a strongman.



Even our own founding fathers felt that there may be times when the government must be overthrown. Venezuela before Chavez was elected was such a place, from the point of view of the poor in that country. The government's neoliberal policies were crushing the majority of the people. The huge oil profits were being funneled to a small minority. Corruption was rampant. And populist revolution in the South was really made inevitable by decades - over a century - of brutal treatment at the hands of the Ameican military-industrial complex. Better a Chavez, whose new constitution (voted in) made politics in that nation far more participatory, gave the people a louder voice, encouraged the people to become literate - and then to read and really understand the constitution, than more of the same old stuff - the Latin American dictator who disappears the opposition, funnels capital to European banks, and shucks and jives to the beat of the American president.

I really encourage you to watch "The Revolution will not be televised." I promise it will broaden your perspective on what really happened in 2002.

I'm not interested in defending Chavez. I am interested in seeing the truth about what's happening in Venezuela. I believe in socialism. You are free to disagree. Neither of us should use those beliefs as a preconceived matrix into which we will then mindlessly insert random, unfounded opinions about the truth. And the truth, from the available evidence, is that the elections were fair; the private media actively conspired in a coup attempt; and Chavez is indeed supported by a majority of Venezuelans. It is also an objective truth that Chavez did not treat the coup conspirators in the way one would expect a dictator would.

I suppose the above reasoning could be made in favor of that coup attempt too. Hey! They didn't kill Chavez! They placed him in jail and wanted him to stand trial! What legitimacy!

Demonstrators against Chavez (some for) clashed in the streets and several gunmen (unknown, never found) shot into those crowds of protestors killing many. During the bloody crisis, Chavez forbid the media outlets from placing any of the footage on the air (though some defied him and used satellite coverage). Only public service announcements permitted...that would be like if Bush forbid coverage of 911. Anyone think that would fly here? With all of the conspiracy theories around Bush with full news coverage imagine if he forbid it by decree. I would sort of make everyone wonder what he had to hide, wouldn't it? The military (already anti-Chavez, true) blamed Chavez for the killings and tossed him in jail. The citizens, who at that time didn't like him anymore (the country currency was down 25 percent, rampant crime in the streets) could tolerate an illegal power grab less and decided they wanted him back.

Chavez didn't have much of a choice at the time but to "let the rule of law prevail" as he had few friends (and perhaps had just sponsored the murder of several demonstrators). He would have had absolutely no support, and he relies on positive propaganda so he would hardly be ultimately served by going outside the law so publicly to seek vengence. But now that the aforementioned Supreme Court has been packed with his appointees he doesn't have much to worry about. And packing the legislative body with appointees is how dictators first obtain power over a democracy. This is the branch that has approved another run for Chavez afterall...The economy has subsequently improved due to the increase in oil prices. It reached a nadir around 2002, after Chavez had already been in office for four years.



Our founding fathers didn't stage a coup over a Representative Republic. They generally sided with liberty and I don't believe that's the direction Chavez is in or has been headed for some time. An argument could be made that there were very good reasons for the 2002 coup attempt too. I will watch "The Revolution will not be televised", but do suspect strongly that it is a propaganda film intended to place Chavez as a hero. I'll bet it is interesting though, and it's good to be informed. I understand that there were vast levels of corruption before Chavez. He neither created it nor ended it. I agree things had to change in Venezuela, but not like this.

This is probably the common US thinking on the politics of S. America. They ought to do things the way we do them, but that's not the way things work down there. Coups are as common down there as caucuses are up here, so it seems. I think that's because up here more of the population has a stake in the relative status quo, as in maintaining the Constitution, than down there where real poverty exists and has existed for centuries.

Wish I had the time to look into this more. This is an interesting mix of political, economic and energy-centered intrigues. But unlike some of the right-wing, I'm not going to automatically demonize the guy, nor am I going to put him in for sainthood. As usual, there's a reasonable middle ground.

BTW, I like Che' because he took that motorcycle trip. It might behoove the communist haters to look a little deeper into why that whole thing got started in the first place, like how it takes root in highly impoverished areas that have a huge spread between the rich and poor. It's better to have some bread than none.

Just to be clear, it's not just those on the right wing who are "demonizing" Chavez (unless you consider Nancy Pelosi "right-wing"). His antics have earned him condemnation throughout the political spectrum.

I won't begrudge your willingness to have an open mind about him, despite his (at best) very-hard-to-defend behavior. I do ask, however, that you extend the same courtesy to his denouncers, too, and not automatically assume that their condemnation is based only on disingenuous motives.

I guess since you can say this it will be fair for me to say: Some of the left wing automatically idolize the guy because he suffers from BDS and likes to bash Bush.
Fair statement?

What boggles my mind is you sit here and say we must stop and look for middle ground on Chavez when I have not once seen you ask for people on the left to do the same thing in regards to Bush.

I suppose it could. The coup government was in power for two days. In that time they were quickly recognized by the US. One could presume, according to mainstream thought in our country, that we wanted to help out a democratic government there, after the autocratic rule of Chavez. Yet, in the hours following being sworn in, Carmona dissolved the supreme court, the national assembly, the ombudsman, among other bodies. So much for democracy.



I must ask, where did you get this story from? It's rife with errors. The film I mentioned shows a lot of raw footage from various sources during the demonstrations and the coup. The opposition demonstration was held one place, where Carmona and his crew incited the crowd to march on the palace. Before they even began to move toward the palace, it had been surrounded by Chavez supporters holding a pro-Chavez demonstration. You can see on the footage, that the two groups never actually converged. As the opposition demonstration approached, shots were fired at the crowd of Chavez supporters. 10 were killed, over 100 wounded.

Chavez at this time did not have control of the media. In fact, the state television station was taken by the coup before they even entered the presidential compound. To say that Chavez forbade media coverage might sound good, but there was no way to do it. Indeed, over the time surrounding the coup, the only media blackout came from the opposition. Since the large private media companies were in on the coup, they did not show any footage of the growing pro-Chavez demonstrations happening around Caracas. There is even a shocking moment during the coup, when one of the coup planners admits on RCTV the degree of complicity and coordination between RCTV and Carmona. In fact, RCTV had broadcast a completely fabricated story in the preceding week, aimed at getting Chavez to cancel his trip to Chile - so he would be there for the coup. This coup, more than any so far in history, was ALL about the media.



On the contrary, the majority of Venezuelans have been very happy with the Chavez government. He had many friends. And surely a "brutal dictator" (someone else's words here) wouldn't have to worry about observing the law of the land. Actually, right after he was released, one of the first things he said was that he didn't mind people opposing him. And there is exactly zero evidence that he had anything to do with the people who shot and killed some of his own supporters. Of course "positive propaganda" is used - just as it is used here in the U.S.



Sort of like here, you mean? How exactly does the judicial branch work in Venezuela?





Interesting. You don't believe that Chavez has promoted liberty in Venezuela? I mean, we can all have our opinions, I suppose, but if we go by objective standards - if we look at laws and structures that can be proven (or disproven), then your belief is wrong. In every area, the government has become more participatory for the Venezuelan people. An entire branch of the government was created with this in mind. Feel free to read the Venezuelan constitution. People are represented to a degree we do not see even in the U.S. Subjectively, of course, your belief could be correct. But your view requires one to "read into" everything. Or to buy unsourced stories from the opposition.

I don't believe in Chavez, but I believe in social democracy, and by all measurable standards, social democracy is gaining a foothold in Venezuela. I believe the people of a nation should have a voice, and if we judge only by measurable structures, that voice is more sure, and surely protected, in Venezuela than it is in the United States of America.

Just a quick example of how things get twisted by those who demonize Chavez: the recent proposal to change the constitution, to allow unlimited re-election. Many in this country report such a move as a sure sign of impending dictatorship. But objectively, it isn't. The UK, France, and Germany all have the same law, and yet we don't tend to think of them as dictatorships. We may disagree with that law, but that doesn't make it anti-democratic. In fact, not having term limits could be seen as more democratic - the people aren't barred from making a choice due to a term-limit law. They can choose whomever they feel is best for the job, for as many times as they think is right.

From what I've read the majority of victims were anti-Chavez. Depends on who you read I suppose. What every American Should know about the rest of the world, by Rossi, is hardly a Conservative piece (in fact if you read some of the editorials Conservatives berate him as a fan of Michael Moore), and that's where a lot of my information came from ( I've read it elsewhere also).



From Wikipedia.



Before the coup attempt Chavez’s popularity was 34 percent. He had few friends left and the economy was a mess. The coup was a popularity boost, and then the price of oil went up.



No, not like us.

Mrs P- I really see no difference between what Chavez has done with the courts and what GW has done with the courts as so different- especially in light of the political firings of prosecutors for not going after GW "enemies lists".

The only difference seems to be Chavez is more competant at it that GW.

No, there's a difference. And it's one of those things that can be twisted to whichever way you are predisposed to believe. According to the Venezuelan government, they were attempting to get rid of the decades of deep judicial corruption. Many judges were ousted on corruption charges, the supreme court was expanded, and new judges were put in place - through the constitutional process, which requires 2/3 of the National Assembly's vote on each judge. Now, no one disputes that before this move, the judicial branch in Venezuela was extremely corrupt. And though there seems to be less corruption now, it is still a problem. But there's two ways to see this. MrsP sees the autocrat 'packing' the court with supporters. There's no evidence he has done this, really, but the entire process does lend itself to multiple interpretations. And I suppose it could be true. She, like many (across the political spectrum) are inclined to jump to that conclusion, based on (it seems to me more and more as I study this) the news reports - the news reports being filed for international press by the very same private news corporations who are so active in the opposition movement.

But let's assume for the moment that he is packing the courts with judges whose judicial philosophy he supports. First, Chavez and the National Assembly were elected in free and clear elections, monitered by Carter's group and the OAS. Second, corruption was so rampant in the judiciary that many judges were removed from the bench. Third, judges to replace them were selected by 2/3 of the Assembly.

Whatever happened with the judges, it was done under a democratic constitution, just like it is here. Those who oppose the sitting government usually don't like it when it happens (Roberts, Alito), but the process is legal and constitutional.

Yes and if he is packing the court it may be so indefinitely. The point is that he is also changing the rules for the election allowing himself to be reelected indefinitely. Do you really think that if/when his popularity drops he will allow for “fair” elections?

Certainly we should be worried that his model is Fidel!

IMO he will wreck the economy with Socialist "reforms" and then maintain power by force - just as Fiderl does.

Only time will tell.

QH- what I was refering to was packng the courts- in both cases- not really the legality of the process- since both processes were legal- however, I think that GWs picks are AT LEAST as corrupt an beholden to the GW regime as the Chavez regime.

Personally- I think it is dishonest to give GW a "pass" on his behaviors regarding the erosions in freedoms in this country- where, if anything, things are IMPROVING in Venezuela.

There are those in our own country who oppose term limits. In a democracy, they say, the will of the electorate is lessened by term limits. I've already pointed out that the UK, France, and Germany have no presidential term limits. The proposed change in the constitution will be voted on by the people of Venezuela. Your post gives the impression that Chavez is just doing this on his own, but he does not have that power.

His 21st socialism may wreck the country; or it may not. At that point he may maintain power by force; he may not. When that time comes, I will oppose him as strongly as anyone. As it is now, though, he is the elected president of a democratic nation, Ted. But let's be clear. He has not acted autocratically so far - at least not more autocratically than any other democratic president.

Here's a tidbit you may not know. The food sold at the subsidized groceries in the barrios usually has on the label various articles of the Venezuelan Constitution and the bill of rights. Not only does the Chavez government want the people to be literate, but also to know and understand their political rights. Yeah.. sounds pretty much like what a dictator would do, right?

The US, as has been pointed out before, has a long history of opposing democracy in Latin America, when it takes any socialist cast at all. The ugly truth is that we (as a nation) don't care about real democracy - we are more concerned with the economic model than the political model. I find it truly unbelievable that in 2007 so many people can't seem to even pick up a history book. Time and again, we have undermined democratic movements in Latin America - because the "will of the people" in almost every case would institute an economic model we don't like. Of course, and predictably, this history probably pushes Latin Americans even farther from an economic model we would like.

I showed you what happened in Venezuela. In TWO DAYS the Carmona regime dissolved almost every democratic institution in Venezuela. The US funded and supported that coup, and was quick to recognize the Carmona government. It's the same old story. It's really quite sad.

Look even at Cuba. What did we think would happen?!? We supported Batista and the compliant leaders before him, because they allowed (again, here we see it) US corporations to own vast parts of the country. Batista and his cronies, along with the US businesses there, grew fat and rich while the people of Cuba starved. And then we act so shocked when those people decide to take a different route. Unbelievable.

Yes, we have to face the ugly truth. Foreign policy in the US is about freedom. The freedom of capital, not the freedom of people.

If the end of term limits were the only troubling aspect of the Chavez government, no one would give it a second thought. It's another brick in what is becoming a wall. Imagine if Bush expanded the Supreme Court, adding five justices at once and "Bushites" placed into those positions. Then removed many judges for being "corrupt" (defined how precisely? Do we know? Is voting against Chavez a sign of corruption? Did any judicial Chavez followers fit that category? Somehow I doubt it...).This is how democracies become dictatorships. It doesn't happen all at once (that would be a military coup), the stages are usually incremental until it is too late. The Germans voted themselves into a dictatorship, as did Iran.

"packing the court" Yes, indeed - that's a technique he learned from our own FDR.



But of course, he wants to be President_for_life like his mentor Fidel.

Nancy Pelosi is just as much a member of the U.S. "power elite" as Dick Cheney is. The political sun doesn't rise and set on the Democratic and Republican parties, you know. Holding a perspective substantially to the left of Pelosi's, personally I think that most of Chavez's actions are quite easy to defend.

I don't know why Mrs. Pigpen cavils over Chavez's past willingness to engage in a coup. In the first place, is this meant to suggest that he doesn't currently enjoy the support of a large majority of Venezuelans? In the second place, Mrs. Pigpen should understand that it is perfectly possible for an oppressive regime to make use of democratic forms. It is not so difficult to disenfranchise the poor, to undermine working class and peasant political organizations, to suppress unions, to ensure that money always talks, and so on and so forth, within such a structure. In the third place, it is not as if the United States has respected democratic outcomes in Latin America, or anywhere else, if they contradicted the interests of U.S. elites. E.g. Arbenz, Allende, and "our" recent attempts to overthrow Chavez himself.

It's remarkable to me that so many people consider Marxism-Leninism obsolete, when it's very clear that in most places on this planet, the class struggle is what politics is all about, and also very clear that capitalist imperialism is rampant across the face of the globe. And these two, related struggles are, obviously, precisely the ones being fought out in Venezuela.



Well actually, the Constitution doesn't say how many Supreme Court justices there will be; and my own preference, as soon as the Democrats take control of both houses and the executive, would be to change the rules of the Senate to eliminate the fillibuster and then confirm 2-3 new Supreme Court justices. Power to the people, in other words. But this is for another thread.

Just pointing out an obvious inconsistency. He attempted a coup over a democratically elected government and that was "understandable". Others attempted a coup and that was, on the contrary, a very egregious violation of the democratic process somehow.


I didn't suggest he is currently unpopular, I said that his popularity is due to an upswing in the economy brought on directly from the increase in oil prices. Before the coup, after four years in office, he was very unpopular (same figure as Bush's all-time low). The coup gave him a ten percent boost in popularity and then the economy improved.



Indeed. I understand this very well and said so above. I believe that is precisely what is happening in Venezuela right now. Or do only right-leaning governments oppress the masses? If you think so, history would argue with you on that point.

Oh my, I must have a double standard! Well, we know about GWB a lot more than we know about Chavez. I don't see where the Bush-bashing is based on ignorance, whereas I do see the Chavez-bashing as being exactly that.

Give me an example of the left wing automatically idolizing Chavez. Haven't seen it happening, so this could be the straw dawg arg, but I'll take a look-see at your link.

Like it says in the old union song, "Which side are you on boys, which side are you on?" That's what these questions boil down to. There are those who think that democracy is in the forms, which is what we're taught to think; there are those who think it's in the results. I'm one of the latter, though I think that observance of the forms is desirable in principle.

Personally I am hopeful that Chavez's poularity, whatever its sources, will last. I believe there will be some tendency toward that, since his program is a good thing for the Venezuelan masses. But as I said elsewhere (or was it above?), I am suspicious of the cult of his personality, and I don't like what it forbodes.

The speculation that Chavez will become a dictator for life, is exactly as worthwhile and reality based on a republican coup by GW this next election cycle- because it is all just speculation- and even worse- we have to deal with our own press for our information- left wing, right wing, whatever you want to call our press in America- it is still very, very American-centric, and telling the truth about Chavez, fair and balanced and all that- just won't go over in the advertising sales department.

Like with what English Horn said about Russia- 99.9999999999999999999% of what every American "knows" about Soviet life, is pure, undultered liquid fecal matter.

And all that info is crap because the only place you can get it is from American propaganda sources. Same thing is happening with Venezuela- from any objective measure- overall, the poeple of Venezuela are doing better right now than the entire South American continent, and including central America.

So any talk of disintegrating rights, economy, totalitariansim etc is just as speculative as a coup by GW.

IMO its not “may” but only when. Socialism has never worked anywhere so why should this be different? If not for the oil money that would be in trouble right now. Right now he is popular as he does his Robin Hood shift – but once this runs its course and the GDP heads for the tank things will change and imo he will not be willing to give up power when that day comes.

Democratic societies do not allow the government to control the media last time I checked.




Yes we did this during the Cold War and it was wrong and we don’t do it now. That said show me a successful Socialist “democracy” in the world today.




Absolute nonsense. The “people” of Cuba were better off then, then they are today. Sure US companies made money but billions were spent in Cuba. What do they have today? A bankrupt dictatorship.



Ya right. So freedom is Chavez? He nationalizes industries and then takes the media and you call this freedom. And how do you think he will treat the political opposition as the country heads for the tank?

Vladamir is correct. The “cult of personality” is the first sign in Venezuela that trouble is ahead.

Thanks for admitting your double standard.

Also, I am a bit disappointed AM. I thought as an junkie you would be more learned on political stories..

Sean Penn meets Chavez



*snip



*bold emphasis mine to demonstrate left wing warming up to Chavez.

So were you acting dumb about not knowing about Penn, Glover, and Belafonte?

Also to see more gushing from the left on Chavez simply make a visit to Daily KOS... Or take a stroll to the democratic underground message boards... I like what Donttreadonme calls them: DUMB= Democratic Underground Message Boards.

We have a Venezuelan in the forum, giftzahn, and he has had quite a lot to say about Chavez. Are his opinions valid as English Horn's are about Russia?



Well if "all that info is crap" what "objective" measure are you using to determine that Venezuela is doing so well? Are you privy to some "untainted" information we all don't have and you haven't bothered to share?

Heh, so were you acting dumb to interpret my original statement, the one you called me on in the first place, as applying to anyone other than myself?

No, I wasn't aware that Holywood was so taken with Chavez, well three people anyway, but thanks for the link. I am aware that the right wing slams anything remotely connected with socialism, and these are real politicians, not just actors or singers.

So I go back to my original statement: I will neither demonize nor idolize. You can demonize all you want, it's a free country.

Olay- do you deny that poor venezuealan's have a higher literacy rate, better access to health care, and a higher standard of living, and the highest minimum wage in South America?

Those are empirical things that can be meaured. So far, no one has provided anything substancial about the negatives of Chavez, as concerning something we can measure empircally, nothing that really stands out really like "the poeple of Venezuela are much poorer now and there is a famine"

According to what you have said above, I can neither confirm nor deny. It's "all crap", right? If everything I've read is fallacious, I can't say. The World Bank would indicate that Venezuela has lower primary school enrollment rates than Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil. (crap I must assume) Nationmaster would indicate that Venezuela's overall literacy rate is lower than Argentina, Chile, Puerto Rico, Dominica, ect....Life expectancy Mexico is higher and I can't even find Venezuela's in nationmaster because it is rather low by comparison to most. I must ask again where exactly your information is coming from?

Wait....are you saying that overall GDP is an good indication of how good a country is doing? That's contrary of nearly every argument you've made in the past. It would place the US above all countries...Okay...I'll shout it, "WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! HURRAY! YEAH! WE ARE THE VERY BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD BY ALL "OBJECTIVE" MEASURE!" Wow. That felt good. Thanks. Should I bookmark this page to undermine your foreseeable future arguments? BTW..I do think it's noteworthy that even if you wish to use that measure, Venezuela's GDP (in 2000 dollars) is lower today than most any time in Venezuela's "Democratic" history with the exception of when Chavez first entered office....it's back up to that thanks to the increase in oil price.



For "empirical things that can be measured" you haven't offered much but unsubstantiated claims. I'm honestly curious how you've come to the conclusions you've stated here. If you don't believe that attempting a military coup, nationalizing private property, silencing dissent, taking over media outlets, packing the Supreme Court with one's own appointees...ad nauseum ect is a sign of anything whatsoever... What can I say? No matter what evidence I provide, it "is crap". If nothing I post here can be trusted, and anything the contradicts what you obviously wish to believe is wrong, what's the point in arguing further? I fully admit I could be wrong, but you have anything but proven it here.

I can feel this debate starting to go round and round.

This debate is about Chavez running for a third term. I've already stated twice that not having term limits isn't undemocratic. France, Germany, and the UK share the same law, yet our criticisms of those countries rarely mention a fear of dictatorship.

I've quoted information about the participatory nature of Venezuela's constitution. Their government has five branches. One of them is directly a "people power" branch, with regular citizens acting as ombudsmen for the people - and that branch has checks against the other branches.

I've mentioned the extreme level of corruption in the judiciary. The government, under Chavez, set the bar for the ousting of corrupt judges: those with eight or more pending corruption charges got the boot. New judges had to be chosen by 2/3 of the National Assembly, rather than the previous simple majority.

During the coup, the private media blacked out any coverage of Chavez supporters rallying or demonstrating. It was the community media (which under Chavez had seen freedom for the first time) that let the people know what was really going on.

You "fully admit you could be wrong," yet you continue to state allegations as facts, or describe the electing of new judges by the National Assembly as somehow Chavez "packing" the courts with sympathetic judges. There is no evidence that is the case. None at all.

If the Chavez intended dictatorship, why would the Constitution he proposed, and that the people voted on, be so full of participatory articles? Look at articles 71 through 74. They delinieate 4 types of national referendums we can hardly imagine being in our own Constitution:



Certainly there are aspects to Chavez's rule that raise legitimate concerns and criticisms. But unless and until he dissolves the constitution, these criticisms must be given the same way we might criticize any leader in a democratic country. Many in America may abhor Bush's grabs for power, his attempts to gain more and more executive power. But reasonable people do not suppose he has the power to become a dictator. We know that there is a constitution protecting us from that; in Venezuela there is a constitution in which the rights of the citizens are far more directly stated, in which the citizens of the nation have far more governmental participation and power, than here.

Socialism and democracy are not contrary positions. We have a level of socialism here; every democracy on the planet has varying levels of socialist structure.

And not pointing at you here, MrsP, but many of the people denouncing Venezuela in this thread are the same people who have supported Bush as he tries to consolidate power into the executive branch, as he extends his authority over our democratic institutions. An interesting double standard. I guess Sleeper's 'hypocricy radar' has its limits - or perhaps its blinders.

I'm sorry when exactly did Bush try to extend executive power(or nationalize) into: telecom companies, power companies, supermarkets that sell meats, oil industry. These are things Chavez has or has threatened to take executive control over. In your self proclaimed Zen wisdom , could you please show us where Bush did the same.

Let me guess this must be about surveillance that has most liberals panties in a bunch.

1. Nationalizing industry has nothing to do with executive power; or at least it doesn't necessarily correlate. There are plenty of democratic countries with nationalized sectors of the economy. And nationalized economic sectors does not necessarily put them in the hand of the executive. With a constitution like Venezuela's, it puts them more into democratic control than executive.

2. I must have been asleep, I missed where I proclaimed zen wisdom for myself.

3. Wait; the allegations against Bush are just that, right? Just accusations? Yes... until proven. So... on the other hand, Chavez, in your eyes, is just plain guilty. Forget any burdens of proof.

Your hypocricy meter is losing credibility by the minute.

Chavez is guilty in my mind. He is well on his way to following in the tin-pot dictator's 10 steps to taking over your country. Never mind he is cozy with Castro and Ahmadinejad. When Bush makes a push for removing term limits or tries to stay in office past his elected term then we can discuss a power grab.

Come on, fess up, it's because Chavez held up your hero's book recently at the United Nations that you look at him with admiration. It's OK really. Admission is the first step.

Oh and the Zen comment. Before you had "The libertarian socialist"... It used to say Zen Mind.. Beginner's Mind. Unless you want to deny that?

Sleeper- why not answer his questions logically and with actual points that show he is wrong? Right now your "I believe" is no better than my kid "believing" in the tooth fairy.

Because there is no point, the same way you keep telling Mrs Pigpen that her points are "all crap". Please refer to my sigline for clarity.

Chavez is guilty... in your mind. Exactly what I've been pointing out. Thanks for the confirmation.

What are the ten steps? Seriously. And the US hasn't been "cozy" with people as bad? Pinochet? Suharto? Must I run the list again? What does that have to do with anything?

Which hero's book? Noam Chomsky? Well good for him. And perhaps you slept through all the posts where I've urged nothing more than reasonable caution about Chavez. Because I have concerns about him. My concerns, however, are not based on guilt or sainthood in "my mind." They are based on factors I don't feel I need to elucidate for the tenth time.

"Zen Mind... Beginner's Mind" is a book I admire. I don't claim zen wisdom, and never have.

Read the Venezuelan constitution. Read through my posts here. Then tell me where, other than in your mind, the ten steps of tin-potism are displayed.

Maybe it's in MrsP's list of allegations and innuendo? Sounds like a great basis for factual analysis!

Sleeper and Mrs P- what exactly have you guys pointed out that isn't op-ed, and has a reliable source?

Ascertation #11 by anti-Chavez posters- "The elections are not free"

QH #1 gives RELIABLE non-partisan source- international elections monitors, with source to an accepted journal of science and conclusions of "statistical anomolies" NOT pointing to a "rigged" election.

Any ascertations by media or posters here, would fall under the "crap" as said by me and repeated by others - unless they have some non-partisan international group to show evidence otherwise?

SPECULATION and "BELIEF' of things getting worse- which, in fact, I think it will- but, at this time, THERE IS NO evidence supported by posters here to counter what QH posted in post #11 as well (though, I have to admit, QH didn't provide link to his evidence-I must also admit here, I took QHs post at face value- and did not challenge his source- little help here QH? ) but- is anyone willing to challenge his sources as not biased and/or wrong at this time?

Post #34 by QH, talks of media. Uses fairly partisan source- the media issue is the most debatable at this time- though, clearly, the media such as RCTV was incredibly corrupt, by any measure- no one has disputed the facts QH presented on RCTV actively engaged in an attempt to overthrow Chavez.

It is unknown if all stations will be forced to be goverment run pro-chavez site- because the future hasn't happened yet, still too new to notice- SPECULATION AN BELIEF.



Now- to the "craptacular" portion- that some posters are saying "he is a tyrannt, a dicatator, a ruler for life" etc-

okay- it is all BELIEF AND SPECULATION- and, in fact, he has actually appeared to shift power BACK to the grass roots level- as posted by quoting THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION of Venezuela-

Post #77 by QH- very, very important in this debate- because he posts the actual constitution- had to say it again.

I don't think I need to repost what he did so eloquently there- and not really responded to by anyone with, you know, a serious, logical rebuttal with facts involved.

We are saying "we believe he will be bad in the future"

and of course, based on some history of despots in the past that came to power and held power for decades, so it would be an educated guess

but we have no evidence of that at this time.

AND- the Venezuelan poeple HAVE decided and will have to live with the consequences.

But at this time, they have been better off under Chavez, at least as evidence has shown here, and no one has seriously rebutted that issue.

With the greatest respect and with absolute solidarity with the Venezuelan people's struggle, is "ascertation" an English word? Do you mean "assertion?"

Permit me to jump in here and point out that Chavez is acting like a left-winger and GWB is acting like a right-winger. Nationalizing industry is left-wing and privatizing government is right-wing. The term limits thing seems more right-wing than left, but had a right-winger won as many times as FDR did, I suppose it could have been a left-wing issue.

Okay, back to liberal-baiting

ya, I hear ya- I type like I text sometimes LOL

otherwise- read the sig LOL

I would kike to point out that nationalizing industry is a far left Socialist “thing” and usually bad for a country – esp. if, as Chavez has threatened, they nationalize business that with heavy foriegh investment.


This then looks more like a Socialist takeover of private enterprise – a la Fidel and his ilk. And sure Fidel had vast support when he first came to power. But it did not last and was replaced by the brutal dictatorship we see today in Cuba.

Venezuela is heading down this road and there is little doubt in my mind that when his popular support slips (primarily among the poor) then the dictatorship begins.

Okay Ted- we know your BELIEFS again- but there IS something unique that Chavez has done here that no 'DICTATOR" has ever done- namely, place so much power in the hands of the communities- the very poor we have talked about. Thanks to QHs links- - after reading what Chavez has done in regards to placing MORE power at the grassroots level is very encouraging.

Let me ask you this Ted- any despot that the US has put into power- have they ever attempted to enshrine local control?

I am somewhat intrigued (though, I still am very skeptical of it's success) when I read what Chavez is really talking about with his "21rst" century socialism"- it looks to be a blend of local capitalism (to get out of the "no profit incentive" trap) and goverment control of big business.

Ted and others- you keep sidestepping a couple issues here

1) the judicial system was hopelessly corrupt- his criteria for removal was what, four corruption charges?
2) Oil companies are INHERENTLY corrupt and evil- just look at thier corruptive influence in Alaska- thier record speaks for itself
3) Chavez has enshrined grass roots control over goverment in his constitution for the most part- something, that is really a libertarian ideal- grassroots, normal citizens control goverment.

Now- in the future- this all may change- but so far, it hasn't- can you agree with that Ted? Can you honestly with non-partisan links rebut my above three points?