Chavez renews reelection ambition

[EconomicLiberal]

Source: BBC

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced a plan to seek a constitutional amendment to allow him to stand for reelection.

Mr Chavez said he hoped to remain in power until 2021. His announcement comes after the president lost a constitutional referendum last year. And it follows a regional election in which his United Socialist party ceded key ground to the opposition, including the capital city of Caracas.


President Chavez told thousands of supporters that he would be seeking the constitutional changes necessary to allow the president to stand for indefinite re-election. The president narrowly lost a referendum on exactly that issue last December and under the present rules, he must stand down in 2012. But now the debate must start around the country, he said. "I am ready, and if I am healthy, God willing, I will be with you until 2019, until 2021," he said. The opposition say that the same issue cannot be voted on twice. But President Chavez may well be able to get around that.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7757784.stm

---

Where are the Chavez defenders now? This is a power grab if I have ever seen one. He already lost at the ballot box on the same issue last year.

[Idealism]

1. There are Chavez defenders on DU?

Shocked, shocked I say...

[Billy Burnett]

33. Yes. Plus, they tend to read the whole OP article too.

Unlike the knee jerking Venezuela bashers squealing about what they imagine the article says.

[struggle4progress]

94. Some of us find the selectivity of the outrage curious. Uribe's 2005 changes to Colombia's

constitution, allowing him to seek re-election, produced no great wave of outrage here in the states. And earlier this year -- when Colombia's Supreme Court ruled that the validity of Uribe's 2006 re-election required re-examination, because the 2005 constitutional referendum (authorizing it) had been marred by criminal acts -- the same folk, who make so much noise about Chavez's effort to amend Venezuela's constitution, remained silent and uninterested. And, in recent months, as Uribe tried (and failed) to amend Colombia's constitution again, to allow himself a third term in office, the same folk (who are so outraged by Chavez's constitutional initiatives) did not consider the matter worthy of any notice


COLOMBIA: Uribe's 2006 Reelection "Flawed" - Supreme Court
By Constanza Vieira
BOGOTA, Jul 5 (IPS) - At the same time that Colombian President Álvaro Uribe was welcoming U.S. Republican presidential hopeful John McCain in the north of the country, the Supreme Court issued a communiqué calling on the government to "respect and obey the decisions" of the courts. It was the Supreme Court's response to Uribe's frontal attack on Jun. 26, when he announced a referendum to settle the Court's legal challenge to the constitutional reform that allowed Uribe to be reelected to a second consecutive term in 2006 ... http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43081

Colombia's Uribe hits snag in re-election effort
Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:37am EDT
By Hugh Bronstein
BOGOTA (Reuters) - The surprise failure this week of a bill in Colombia's Congress aimed at allowing President Alvaro Uribe a third term revealed fractures in his coalition that could doom his chances of being re-elected. The measure, voted down on Wednesday, would have allowed the popular Uribe to run for office again in 2014, after sitting out four years from 2010 when his current term ends ... http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE49U4R220081031?sp=true

[NashVegas]

113. Haha.. Thanks For Posting That

I'm ambivalent to the VZ situation on this, but always amused by the shallow, transparent, attacks on his presidency by Mike's friends here on DU.

[Judi Lynn]

115. We didn't hear a peep from these same people when it was revealed that Uribe's people BRIBED

Colombian senators to get that re-election permission arranged, beyond the limits originally allowed by their own constitution. They didn't leave that choice up to the people of their country the way Venezuela's President did. Not at all. They handled it secretly within the Senate (remember how many of Colombia's legislators have already been investigated, tried, and sent to jail for their connections to the right-wing paramilitary/narco-trafficking death squads) and got their re-election for Uribe by BRIBING Colombian senators, as testified by one of the Senators who was bribed.

Not one lonely peep from the pro-fascist posters regarding how horrified they were than not only did their right-wing Prince of South America ALSO seek re-election outside his original constitution (now working on another extension, if he can manage it). NO WAY. Apparently they were all out of town, didn't know about it. It's o.k. when right-wingers BRIBE their way into new re-elections without trusting the people themselves to vote on it in any referendum.

Uribe's people described the NECCESSITY of his re-election as being the "patriotic" thing to do since only he could work effectively against the leftist FARCs. Uh huh. They claimed it was essential that he stay in office and continue to do his all important work against the FARCs, and anything less would put their country at risk.

[EFerrari]

118. LOL!

:applause:

[ronnie624]

128. As a matter of fact,

in 2005, at least one of the posters to this thread was openly praising Uribe. I remember it very clearly. I don't want to say his name, but his initials are Bacchus39.

Oops.

[Doctor Cynic]

2. Of course if GWB propsed repealing the 22nd Amendment, everyone here would be (rightfully) outraged.

[davidinalameda]

5. some people would

but the more rational among us wouldn't because it's a bit harder to change the US Constitution than the Venezuelan constitution

[AlphaCentauri]

36. with 20% approval rate I'd be worry about it n/t

[ohio2007]

66. What if Barack proposed repeal of the 22nd amendment ?

[davidinalameda]

3. they don't post anything that may be critical of St. Hugo

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidinalameda]

16. yet another whatever post for me

the fact is that St. Hugo is nothing more than another wannabe who supports dictatorships like those in Cuba and murderers like the regime in power in Iran; NO progressive can support the theocrats running Iran and anyone who calls him or herself a progressive and supports Iran is a liar and a fraud

if Bush wasn't in office and if Bush wasn't stupid enough to play Chavez's little saber rattling games, no one would pay attention to him

those are enough for me not to like him or his policies

[rpannier]

22. I have no problem with Chavez putting it to a vote

I agree with your comment "No progressive can support the theocrats running Iran..."

I would add to your list of Chavez's buddies...Gim Jeong-il of North Korea.

[Dorian Gray]

27. In theory I don't have a problem

with it being put to a vote, either. But....

wasn't it already put to a vote last year, and voted down? So he's just going to do it again, until he gets the outcome that he wants?

[rpannier]

64. The difference being...

Last year it was one of 40+ issues on a single ballot...A yes vote meant all 40+ would pass a no vote meant they all failed.

Unless I misunderstood, this time around it's a single issue.

If I understood correctly, then this time around, people are deciding one one issue -- whether to eliminate the term limits.

[ohio2007]

67. he put it to a vote already...it was shot down but he is ready this time

Venezuela's Chavez creates new intelligence agencies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3330748&mesg_id=3330748
Text

He won't take no for an answer

Chavez Revising, Not Revoking Venezuela's New Intelligence Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3343057&mesg_id=3343057

They will be waiting for 'no' voters despite setbacks

[davidinalameda]

87. I didn't know that

not surprising that Chavez is allied, or whatever, with North Korea

[Alamuti Lotus]

4. fantastic news

the progress made is beginning to have major systemic effects, he should stick around to see things further as long as the people continue overwhelmingly voting his party in..

[davidinalameda]

6. like Castro?

[bitchkitty]

99. Like Castro what?

Castro voted for him?

Do you realize what an asinine remark that was?

[cali]

30. the problem with that is the state becomes inextricably entwined

with one person. That's never a good thing.

[ronnie624]

35. Says who? n/t

[cali]

39. a state needs to be able to pass its leadership from one person

to another to maintain stability. And yeah, stability is neccessary for a functioning state. This isn't rocket science. And much has been written on the subject.

[ronnie624]

44. A state can do nothing other than pass its leadership from one person to another.

Nobody lives forever.

The best thing for a democracy is to let the voters decide.

[rpannier]

88. Valid point

I would argue (although in theory I don't oppose a referendum vote on this issue per se) that when a Democracy is young, like Venezuela (or 210+ years ago the United States) that it is important for the President to step down within a 6-10 year timeframe so that the government doesn't become entwined with one man.

Had Washington run two-or-three more times and won the Presidency and the Democracy would have been viewed as being synonomous with George Washington.

A Democracy is (should be) always be bigger than one man.

[Wilms]

7. So "a plan to seek a constitutional amendment" is a power grab?

Chavez doesn't need a defender.

And your problem is...???

[EconomicLiberal]

8. He lost in the same referendum last year.

The voters have spoken. They do not want Chavez or any other future elected president running for re-election permanently.

Will a referendum be a yearly thing until Hugo gets the results he wants?

[Wilms]

9. Oh. I see.

Asking the public to reconsider is a "power grab".

Sorry. I didn't put two and two together. :eyes:

[EconomicLiberal]

10. He's trying to strong arm his way to endless re-election.

It's pretty easy to see through this. He lost last year. Enough is enough. The voters have spoken. Everybody but the most ardent Saint Hugo supporters see this.

[Wilms]

12. Yeah. Elections should be cancelled.

It's all just "strong arming".


Are you done crying?

[EconomicLiberal]

13. The ironic thing about this whole situation is that we know people like you

would be blowing a gasket if a hated enemy like GW Bush proposed to do the same thing.

Yet Saint Hugo does it and it is just fine.

[Larkspur]

15. GWB would not be following the Constitutional process to overturn the 22nd Amendment

He'd write a signing statement and have his cronies at DOJ claim that the 22nd Amendment deprived Americans the right to keep voting the same person as President as long as they wanted and then get his stooges in SCOTUS to overturn the 22nd Amendment on Constitutional grounds.

Remember, it was the Republicans who pressed to get the 22nd Amendment passed in response to FDR winning 3 re-election bids.

Also, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is attempting to bypass the popular referendum that put a 2 term limit on the mayor and the city legislators. He is bribing the legislators to overturn the people's referendum and he most likely will get away with it. At least Chavez is following the laws of his country.

[Endangered Specie]

20. how exactly would the SCOTUS rule a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment

UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

[JonQ]

60. They did with prohibition

[tritsofme]

73. You might want to read up on the 21st amendment.

nt

[Endangered Specie]

82. No prohibition was repealed by another amendment

the courts had nothing to do with it

[StClone]

24. Hugo Chavez is not GWB

Can we start there?

Second the public is voting on it!

Lastly, Clinton would have run as did FDR for another term.

So I don't think you are aware outside what the corporate line is on Chavez.

[tritsofme]

74. The public already voted, and they rejected him.

Its disingenuous to have continual referendums until one finally works out in your favor.

And we may have never had a President Clinton if there were no 22nd amendment keeping Reagan from being president well into the 1990s, despite his sickness.

[StClone]

104. So what's your beef?

Evil Hugo will be gone and maybe then Venezuela may again get a Corporate Lackey. We'll see.

[bitchkitty]

125. Most Venezuelans do not consider

Hugo Chavez as their enemy. Why not let them vote on this single issue? What's your problem with democracy?

I wish you guys would stop with the Saint Hugo, and other stupid little snarks - it makes you look like you're getting your talking points from some right wing boiler room. I'm sure you don't want that! ;)

[Dorian Gray]

28. Can you answer a question

most sincerely and honestly?

If George Bush had a referendum on this very same topic every single year, would you be so lax about it? Or would you be railing against his attempts at consolidating his power? Because I would be doing the latter. Chavez doing it also pisses me off.

[ronnie624]

38. If GWB had a 65% approval rating

his administration's activities would doubtless be regarded a little differently.

The fact that the perfectly legal governmental processes of another country "pisses you off", says something about your own frame of mind, I think. Perhaps some introspection on your part is warranted.

[Dorian Gray]

43. Oh please

I've thought about it. I like some of the programs that Chavez imposes upon his country, especially those that are geared toward the less fortunate lower income wage earners. He has some fantastic programs.

However, he is asking to ignore last year's referendum. It's not just a one time referendum here. He didn't like the results of the last one, so he's going to do it again. Should that be allowed in any country? Really?

I know other people disagree with me. Some do it because they like Chavez so gosh darn much that they can't see to criticize him for this. More than anything, it helps prove to his critics what they fear about his leadership. Some have reasonable reasons why his wanting to extend term limits is okay, and I'm quite open to listening to them. You can equivocate about Bush vs. Chavez's popularity, but this was SHOT down just a year ago, and for him to consider repeating until he gets his way isn't doing anything to quiet his critics.

[High Plains]

45. Repeated referenda are allowed in this country, though not at the fed level.

I don't have a problem with it here or there.

[ronnie624]

46. What you like or dislike about the Venezuelan government is irrelevant.

Venezuela is a democracy, and it is the will of the voters that really matters.

[Dorian Gray]

49. I know that

I was voicing my opinion. This is a message board for just that purpose, isn't it?

[ronnie624]

84. Your point is elusive.

Did someone attempt to prevent you from expressing your opinion?

[EFerrari]

48. Do you honestly believe that anything he could do would silence his critics?

I don't. They don't give a rat's behind about him or his policies. As long as he played ball with the corporatists, he could eat children every day on the lawn of Miraflores.

[Dorian Gray]

50. You are right

that his critics will be vocal no matter what. But this is different. It is adding fuel to their criticisms. But, again, if it goes through referendum, a vote, etc., and he abides by the finality of the vote, fair enough. If it gets voted down, and he goes through this time and time again to get the results he wants? I don't know about that.

[EFerrari]

51. I think it's okay for him to try. On the other hand, I'd also like to see

new talent being fostered and moving up the ranks. We don't hear about that up here very much. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.

[Dorian Gray]

57. That's what I'd like to know, too

Is Chavez interested in fostering other people to take his reins, or is he interested in holding them himself. Are his programs more important to him or the power? I honestly have no idea. I hope that it is the former.

[EFerrari]

58. I'm going to dig around in the next coupla days. If I post a thread,

I'll pm you.

[Dorian Gray]

59. Thanks.

:)

[EFerrari]

110. I found this article which has a lot of names of up and comers.

Venezuelan Political Leaders React Positively to Regional Election Results

Mérida, November 24, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- After the results of the regional elections came out, winning candidates of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) committed to strengthening socialism in their states, while winning opposition candidates emphasized security and said they want to work with the national government.

Pro-Chavez reactions

“Just like we have gracefully recognized the three instances in which the opposition won, we hope that they recognize that here there is a tremendous majority that many parties in the world would love to have,” said the newly elected mayor for the central municipality of Caracas, Jorge Rodriguez, before the results of two more opposition governor’s race victories, in Carabobo and Tachira, were announced.

“We’ve won 17 governors’ positions and furthermore, more than a million and a half votes compared to the last vote on December 2, 2008, while the opposition, in contrast, has lost votes,” he added.

Aristóbulo Istúriz, the PSUV candidate for mayor of Greater Caracas, who lost to Antonio Ledezma, said Caracas has been affected by atomization and called for the creation of a single vision for the city.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3984

[ronnie624]

85. If Venezuelan law allows for repeated attempts at constitutional revision,

I can't imagine why nosy foreigners would have a problem with it. Perhaps the citizens of imperialist superpowers should learn to mind their own business, and stop grasping for justifications to violate the autonomy and dignity of other nations.

[Judi Lynn]

86. They feel their power over sovereign people by extension through their aggressive

right-wing government officials is slipping away from them.

There's no substitute for self-respect and respect for others. Some countries appear to have learned that, as national policy a long time ago, even if they learned it the hard way.

No one is worth consideration who yearns to shove around other people. Venezuela is VENEZUELAN'S business, not the elites of Venezuela, not the scum puppets who have run Venezuela for the America-based multinationals, holding open the doors while they raped and plundered her.

[Bacchus39]

120. "an issue cannot be consulted twice during the same term in office"

http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/12/01/en_pol_esp_chavezs-plans-to-se_01A2152805.shtml

Chávez's plans to seek reelection are "a fraud and a mockery of the people's will"
An issue cannot be consulted twice during the same term in office


Gerardo Fernández, an expert in constitutional law, has termed "fraud" and "mockery" of the people's will the attempt of President Hugo Chávez at amending the Constitution to secure indefinite reelection just one year after the people denied the issue in a national referendum.

The expert insisted on saying that no amendment or reform may be made on a matter that has been already consulted. In addition, he explained that the initiative should be retaken only in a different constitutional term.

"The Constitution clearly states that when a reform is denied in a constitutional term, not a similar initiative may be taken until the following period. No rejected item may be submitted again to the people's will because it was expressed already." The attorney deems it "ludicrous" to ask again what was queried one year ago.

"Proposing the reelection again is laughing at the people's will. The people said already what they had to say. The president's proposal is unviable in political, constitutional and moral terms." The lawyer maintained that the president, or the National Assembly, or any people's initiative may not make again a request for the constitutional reform covering, totally or partially, the matters that were dismissed on December 2nd, 2007.

"Apparently, the issue of reelection was rebutted and may not be proposed again," stressed Fernández. In his opinion, the reelection, given its relevance, impact and significance in the political system and governance, is not subject to amendment. However, any amendment should be first approved by the people and the political feasibility of imposing it is not clear. He advised that the opponents to the attempt at bolstering the amendment should go to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) or the National Electoral Council (CNE) to make the relevant application.

[Zorro]

121. Trying to stir up trouble again, Bacchus?

DU's Venezuelan constitutional experts know more about the legality of Chavez' plan than Mr. "expert in constitutional law" Gerardo Fernandez ever could.

[ronnie624]

122. "In his opinion"

You do understand the concept of a legal opinion, do you not?

I suppose we will have to wait for the Venezuelan courts to decide the matter.

It is interesting that the author of this article chose not to supply a quote from the constitution itself.

[Dorian Gray]

123. Does Venezuelan law

allow for repeated attempts at constitutional revision? Show me where it allows for it. If you can show me an exerpt from the Venezuelan Constitution that allows for multiple attempts to revise the constitution, I will gladly accept his right to put this to a national vote.

[ronnie624]

124. I just happen to have a copy which I have read in its entirety.

Here is the section on constitutional revision, and I see nothing that seems to restrict presidential initiatives. Perhaps you can point something out. The Venezuelan constitution is a rather lengthy document, but there is little ambiguity in its meaning.

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Venezuela#TITLE_IX_CONSTITUTIONAL_REFORMS>

TITLE IX CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

Chapter I

Amendments

Article 340: The purpose of an amendment is to add to or modify one or more articles of the Constitution, without altering the fundamental structure of the same.

Article 341: The procedure for adopting amendments to the Constitution shall be as follows:

(1) The initiative may emanate from 15% of the citizens* registered with the Civil and Electoral Registry, from 39% of the members of the National Assembly or from the President* of the Republic, sitting with the Cabinet of Ministers.

(2) When the initiative emanates from the National Assembly, the amendment shall require approval by a majority of the members of that body, and shall be debated in accordance with the procedure established under this Constitution for the enactment of laws.

(3) Electoral Power shall submit the amendments to a referendum within 30 days of formally receiving the same.

(4) Amendments shall be deemed approved in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution and the law concerning the approval referendum.

(5) Amendments shall be numbered consecutively and shall be published beneath the Constitution without altering the text of the latter, but with an annotation at the bottom of the amended article(s) of the number and date of the amendment modifying the same.

Chapter II

Constitutional Reform

Article 342: The purpose of constitutional reform is to effect a partial revision of this Constitution and replacement of one or more of the provisions hereof, without modifying the fundamental principles and structure of the text of the Constitution. The initiative for a constitutional reform emanates from the National Assembly, by resolution approved by a majority vote of the members, from the President* of the Republic sitting with the Cabinet of Ministers, or at the request of registered voters constituting at least 15% of the total number registered with the Civil and Electoral Registry.

Article 343: The initiative for a constitution reform shall be processed by the National Assembly as follows:

(1) The draft constitutional reform shall be debated for the first time during the legislative session during which it is submitted.

(2) Second debate title by title or chapter by chapter, as applicable.

(3) Third and last debate article by article.

(4) The National Assembly shall approve the draft constitutional reform in a time period no latter than two years, counted since the date the reform application was submitted and approved.

(5) The draft constitutional reform shall be approved with a two third members vote of the National Assembly.

Article 344: Once approved by the National Assembly, the draft constitutional reform shall be submitted to a referendum within 30 days from its approval. The referendum shall pass on the reform as a whole, but up to one third of the same may be voted on separately, if at least one third of the National Assembly so agrees, or if in the initiative for the reform, the President* of the Republic or a number of registered voters equivalent to at least 5% of the total registered with the Civil and Electoral Registry so requests.

Article 345: The constitutional reform shall be declared approved if the number of affirmative votes is greater than the number of negative votes. A revised constitutional reform initiative may not be submitted during the same constitutional term of office of the National Assembly.

Article 346: The President* of the Republic shall be obligated to promulgate Amendments and Reforms within ten days of their approval. If he fails to do so, the applicable provisions of this Constitution shall apply.

Chapter III

National Constituent Assembly

Article 347: The original constituent power rests with the people of Venezuela. This power may be exercised by calling a National Constituent Assembly for the purpose of transforming the State, creating a new juridical order and drawing up a new Constitution.

Article 348: The initiative for calling a National Constituent Assembly may emanate from the President* of the Republic sitting with the Cabinet of Ministers; from the National Assembly, by a two thirds vote of its members; from the Municipal Councils in open session, by a two-thirds vote of their members; and from 15% of the voters registered with the Civil and Electoral Registry.

Article 349: The President* of the Republic shall not have the power to object to the new Constitution. The existing constituted authorities shall not be permitted to obstruct the Constituent Assembly in any way. For purposes of the promulgation of the new Constitution, the same shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of venezuela or in the Gazette of the Constituent Assembly.

Article 350: The people of Venezuela, true to their republican tradition and their struggle for independence, peace and freedom, shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights.

[AngryAmish]

61. Everybody makes mistakes, little buddy.

Don't get down on yourself.

[onehandle]

14. It's mine. Mine. MINE!

Just another thug.

[subsuelo]

34. such an ignorant response

It really is

[arcos]

17. I like Chávez, but I've always thought this is a bad idea...

Renovation, new blood and new ideas are always necessary in a democracy.

And I'm sure there are plenty of capable men and women in Chávez's party that could take over from him.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

40. I agree. nt

[EFerrari]

42. I don't know how I feel about him being re-elected.

There are pros and cons, mostly to do with staving off the vultures safely vs. developing new leadership. If it were my call, I don't know where I'd come down. But of course, the process is perfectly legal and it's up to Venezuela.

[Endangered Specie]

18. Couldn't he just pull a Putin?

'step down' and have a puppet run for you, but still be in charge.

[Winnipegosis]

19. He will go out kicking and screaming.

Kicking anybody who tries to stop him, and screaming: SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!

[w4rma]

21. The U.S. Constitution didn't place term limits on the executive branch until after FDR's 4 terms. nt

[Peace Patriot]

23. There are several rather biased 'framings' in the way this article is written, and

some big black holes where information should be. First of all...

"His announcement comes after the president lost a constitutional referendum last year." --BBC

In truth, his announcement comes after Chavez's party won 17 of 23 governorships in Venezuela, quite a number of them by very large margins. It didn't come "after" the constitutional referendum. The opposition only won six governorships, a slight increase from their previous wins of only two governships. The opposition took to boycotting elections, after they lost the US-funded recall election against Chavez in 2004. It was reasonable to expect that they would win a few more, since they didn't boycott this election. (Their boycott strategy failed because it was absurd. Venezuela has one of the most honest and aboveboard election systems in the world, and the opposition's constant cries of "fraud" and their boycott of voting made them look ridiculous.) The opposition (and their lapdog corpo/fascist media) predicted they would win 60/40 in these elections, and they didn't even come close. How can winning 6 out of 23 governorships be described as anything but a stinging defeat, mitigated by a few prizes, like the mayoralty of part of Caracas?

And it was "after" this big win by Chavez's party--which nobody predicted--that Chavez announced that he wants to seek re-election again and wants the voters to reconsider that amendment to the Constitution. Chavez himself has an approval rating of over 60%.

Secondly, Chavez and the National Assembly (it was a combined proposal) lost the 2007 constitutional referendum by a hair (50.7% vs 49.3%). What politicians do, when they lose on an issue like this, by such a close vote, is try again. Why shouldn't they? You can't say "the voters have spoken" so "forget it and move on," because a vote that close is NOT clear. In addition, there were a total of 69 different amendments proposed on everything ranging from equal rights for women and gays, to pensions for informal workers (street vendors--near half the work force), to lifting the term limit on the president, to more presidential control of the central bank. It is by no means clear that voters were voting in particular against Chavez running again. In fact, I would very much like to see that issue put separately to the voters, to settle the matter once and for all.

"The president narrowly lost a referendum on exactly that issue last December." --BBC (my emphasis)

This is not true. It was NOT "exactly on that issue"--and that is the problem. It is much more likely that Venezuela, a largely Catholic country with a particularly rightwing clergy, was voting mostly on the equal rights for women and gays issue. It was probably a mistake to put this issue to a popular national vote. I'm with those anti-Prop 8 folks who question whether fundamental rights should be put to a popular vote. Should we put slavery to a vote? True, it's difficult to avoid a vote of some kind--whether by a legislature or a panel of justices--but to package it like this, with 69 other amendments, on a laundry list of issues, demeans the issue as a human rights issue, and to put it to a popular vote, without proper preparation--say, councils of our wisest people--scientists, philosophers, artists, legal scholars--holding seminars on a widespread basis, and lots of discussion--is a mistake. People need leadership on an issue like this.

In any case, the 2007 Constitutional referendum was NOT a clear-cut vote on Chavez running for re-election. One key is that Chavez's personal popularity remained very high throughout that election, and is still very high. If 63% of the people approve of the job he is doing, wouldn't they want him to continue? Would voters vote on the basis of a political theory argument (the argument for term limits, which is traditionally a rightwing concept) with the politician in question enjoying such high popularity? It doesn't seem likely. And it adds to an overall analysis of that election, that the clergy's opposition to the equal rights amendment, and the sheer confusion of so many amendments, swayed about 10% of normal Chavez voters to abstain. It was by no means a repudiation of Chavez as president, and not likely a repudiation of the idea of Chavez running again.

The BBC has been just terrible on any news events about Chavez or Venezuela. They are as bad on this matter as our corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies. Bias this strong is very seriously misleading. How can BBC readers/viewers understand the world with such biased "framing" and disinformation? This article is a great disservice to the public.

The rich have their money, their entrenched power and their country clubs, as their advantages in getting their interests attended to by government. The poor has time. And that is all it has. So, when the poor majority gets battered sufficiently by the rich elite, and manages to elect a champion in government--such as FDR here, or Chavez in Venezuela--that champion needs TIME to undo the entrenched power of the rich, and to solidify the gains of the majority.

That is the issue in Venezuela. Will the government see-saw back to rule by the rich minority, who will undo universal education and universal medical care and all of the other elements of a decent society that the Chavez government has been working on? Will they give the country's oil profits away to multinationals again, and neglect their own country? Will they undo the tremendous gains in sovereignty and independence and self-rule that Venezuela has made with Chavez as president? The opposition in Venezuela is not like the Eisenhower Republican Party. They are like the Bushwhack Republican Party. They are fascists; they believe in the rich getting richer and the poor be damned. And if Chavez's party puts up a weak candidate, and they lose the presidency, it could well be disastrous for Venezuelan democracy and social justice. And is it all up to Chavez to prevent that from happening? Is there no one else who could fill that leadership role?

I'm with Chavez. Let the voters speak clearly on this issue. There is always a danger, with charismatic leaders like Chavez, that democracy will ultimately be harmed. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Chavez is such a danger. Quite the opposite. His government has encouraged maximum citizenship participation. Lord, they just had a nearly 70% voter turnout for a BY-ELECTION! That is a credit to the Chavez government and the people of Venezuela. Chavez has been in power for two terms (plus a mini-term prior to the new Constitution)--two terms LESS than FDR. And Venezuelan democracy--and its economy as well--have risen from the ashes of rightwing rule during that time. Venezuela has one of the most vibrant democracies in the western world. That, too, is a credit to Chavez, to his government and to the people. Venezuelans have had four opportunities to turn him out (the mini-term, the recall, and two regular elections), and they keep voting for him by ever increasing margins. Let them decide--clearly, in a single issue referendum--whether he should continue. If not, I have no doubt in mind that he will accept that gracefully, as he did the narrow defeat of the 69 amendments, and will turn his energies to getting someone else elected as president who will put his/her own stamp on this amazing, peaceful, democratic revolution.

[rpannier]

25. Would disagree on one point (though I can't prove it)

I am stillof the belief that the referendum failed because it had too many issues on it.

I am no huge Chavez supporter (he lost me when he was fawning over Gim Jeong-il two years ago), but I felt after that election that he needed to break up the referendum into single issues and let people vote on each individually.

Let the voters decide on the merits of each one.

If the vote passes then it passes, if it fails, it fails.

In the end let the voters decide

[subsuelo]

32. he lost your support over that?

seriously?

:shrug:

[Mudoria]

29. The voters have spoken clearly

and it was "No". So is this referendum going to continually be brought up every year until it passes? It sure seems that way. I'm guessing Chavez is not going to take a "No".

[AlphaCentauri]

37. I guess the voters will decide what is best for them n/t

[Peace Patriot]

93. That is the problem, Murdoria. A 50.7% vs 49.3% vote is NOT clear. It was not

clear on equal rights, nor on pensions for informal workers, nor on Chavez running again, nor on anything else. It was MURKY. Post-election analysis pointed to voter confusion. Too many amendments. Chavez listens to a lot of different interests and pressure groups, and tries to rule by consensus. And it was probably a mistake to let everybody with a progressive idea put their idea into a complicated package of 69 amendments. Would Venezuelan voters have approved pensions for informal workers if it had stood alone as an issue? Probably yes. Equal rights? With the Catholic clergy the way it is in Venezuela, probably no (or a tight vote). Chavez running again? I suspect yes, based on his popularity, but I don't know for sure.

Really, you cannot say that "the voters have spoken clearly." Further, such a close vote is an invitation to try again--on any one of these issues. That's how democracy works, and how it has worked for hundreds of years. In the US, for instance, a very weak civil rights bill was passed in the 1950s. More organization then occurred among black citizens and their supporters--the civil rights movement of the 1960s--and then a very strong civil rights bill was passed in 1964. That's how progress occurs. New ideas come along and are tried out. They may not succeed at first. They get time-tested; people think about them, they get better informed, and eventually the idea succeeds. And it is especially compelling--and worth trying again--if, a) there is a close vote, and b) there is reason to believe that the issue was not correctly framed (voter confusion--or legislator murkiness).

There are MANY countries that have no term limit on president/prime minister. Our own Founders considered term limits undemocratic. We ourselves did not have a term limit on the president until the 1950s, when the Republicans rammed it through because they did not want a "New Deal" to happen here ever again. No term limit, in a democracy, gives an advocate of the poor majority TIME--the essential component of progressive reform--to make inroads into the entrenched power of the rich. And this is very much what is at issue in Venezuela, as to Chavez running again. Bear in mind that the fascists of FDR's era also called him a "dictator." That's the propaganda the rich use when the poor are able to elect a leader who works in the interest of the majority and the country as a whole. Chavez is a good leader, has greatly encouraged democracy--Venezuela has never been so democratic, ever--and has done well by Venezuela. For instance, Venezuelans now possess $140 billion in international cash reserves, as a buffer against the Bushwhacks' Financial 9/11. They are in a better position than many countries to ride it out. This is a direct result of excellent Chavez management of the oil industry. (The Chavez government renegotiated the oil contracts with the multinationals, from a 10/90 split favoring the multinationals, to a 60/40 split, favoring Venezuela.)

I think there is good reason--on many grounds--to ask the Venezuelan voters for a clear, single-issue vote on term limits. The Republican anti-New Deal, anti-FDR, anti-Democratic Party term limit on the US president was never put to a vote of the people here. In Venezuela, virtually everything, including this, is put to a national popular vote, in one of the best run, most transparent election systems in the world. That's very democratic, it seems to me, and it tells you a lot about the people who have been running things in Venezuela over the last ten years.

[Vidar]

26. Viva Chavez!!!! America benifitted greatly from FDR's four terms.

I wish the same to Venezuela. May Chavez' "Bolivarean Revolution" continue to spread. He wields power well & for the benefit of his people & other Latin American countries as well. Bravo, Hugo!!!

[WriteDown]

47. Maybe not....

His social programs may have been very beneficial, but his economic policies may not have been...

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

[slackmaster]

54. Didn't we get into some kind of a war during the FDR administration?

I believe it was a short time before his third innauguration.

[WriteDown]

55. That may have helped....

as well :).

[Vidar]

68. Thanks for replying to whomever. I have him on "ignore" & he stays there.

[brentspeak]

83. The economists you cite are free-market, "trickle-down" shills

In other words, they have an agenda -- and it's not objective truth:

http://american.com/archive/2008/november-11-08/don2019t-raise-capital-gains-taxes/

[WriteDown]

126. Please cite other articles refuting it then....

and not articles about capital gains. I am in favor of keeping capital gains taxes low though. Especially considering I plan to sell my house in the next few years.

[wuushew]

138. Most people do not pay capital gain taxes on their primary residences

if you own two or more houses maybe you can sacrifice some of your income to pay down the national debt and fund needed social programs.

[subsuelo]

31. Good, I hope he succeeds.

For the benefit of the people of Venezuela and for the rest of Latin America.

Viva Chavez!

[EFerrari]

41. Power grabs are not voted on by the electorate. n/t

[aldo]

52. I'm against all term limits

Sorry, Hate Chavez Crowd, but Chavez was honestly elected twice, which is twice more than GWB. Last go around, he tied too much into one referendum -- but he naturally accepted the result. This time he should make it a vote on just term limits.

Chavez is not a dictator, Venezuelans have the final say. That's how it's supposed to work. I guess some people just hate that he's not a bootlicker siding with the elite.

[slackmaster]

53. I thought only conservatives did whatever was necessary to stay in power

Damn.

[EFerrari]

56. Like call for a vote?

When was the last time a conservative asked for people to vote on a power grab?

lol

[JonQ]

62. You're going to get flamed for this

I posted an article that was a direct translation of Chavez vowing to use tanks to crush any opposition if the election didn't come out his way. People flipped out. It has to be some corporate/fascist government/racist/nationalistic propaganda attempt (for some unclear sinister plan).

To the chavez lovers evidence doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. Eye witness accounts don't matter. The man simply can do no wrong. It is a bizarre form of stockholm syndrome where they're sympathizing and ultimately falling in love with someone elses captor (of a sorts). I don't get it. But then I don't want to know how they think.

[EFerrari]

63. Except he didn't say that. He said that if the opposition kept trying to

destabilize the government with extra legal means, he'd fight back.

Nice try, though.

[JonQ]

70. Thanks for illustrating my point

that is absolutely not what he said. I provided the direct translation, and another skeptic provided an almost identical translation, and at no point were any of you able to squeeze the words coup, illegal, armed insurgency, or any of the like in to his quote. He simply said if the opposition tried to get back in to the government through these elections he'd use tanks to see the "will of the people" done.

But thank you for providing a perfect example of the mentality I was trying to describe.

[EFerrari]

71. No, you didn't.

And he clarified his statement further with CNN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x10253

Btw, I'm a certified Spanish interpreter and you either have no idea what he said or are relying on babblefish.

[JonQ]

72. Oh well

if he "clarified" his statement later after recieving a whole bunch of negative press that clearly proves he never said it in the first place. Because a politician would never say something that he would later regret and hope to erase/alter.

Yep. That's the ticket.

Also, you didn't believe CNN when it was first posted because it showed Chavez in a negative light. But now that chavez decided to put himself in a good light, in a CNN interview, you loyally accept everything they have to say without question.

That was another point that I made on that thread: that any criticism, from any source would be dicounted. Whereas any positive news about chavez would immediately be accepted, no questions asked (even if it was from a source previously denounced as corporate propaganda).

That's another point of mine you've come here to support. Thank you, but I think I was doing a good job myself. You can stop proving me right.

[EFerrari]

76. Chavez's statement was clear from the outset and I hope

you didn't break your neck trying to justify this. :)

[JonQ]

79. So clear in fact

he needed to add about a paragraph of very important qualifiers, after the fact, that were never present in the original.

Can't get any clear than that.

Oh, does every politician get that privilege? You know, they can say any asinine thing they please, so long as they come out with a retraction several weeks later that "clarifies" their original position and all will be forgiven?

Somehow I suspect if bush had made a similar statement, then "clarified" it later you wouldn't be so forgiving.

Niether would I, but then I am consistent in my beliefs.

[EFerrari]

111. 80% of any communication never makes it into words.

Whatever. Cling to your bias and be prepared to be embarrassed later, just like all the people who have been supporting silly claims against Chavez are now embarrassed.

[Bacchus39]

97. here is Chavez himself saying he would take out the tanks if the opposition wins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooVlAa3Y53s&feature=channel

nice try though.

[EFerrari]

100. That's bs and you know it. You read and understand Spanish. n/t

[Bacchus39]

101. yes, but apparently you don't. "....if they return to governing,.....

"....perhaps I'll end up taking out the tanks from the brigade..."

what I don't understand is why you are not cheering like the supporters at the rally did when Chavez said he would take out the takes if the opposition returned to power. a good Chavista would be encouraging Chavez and not trying to cover up for him.

p.s. Carabobo's opposition party won the governorship despite Chavez's threats.

[David__77]

78. He said he's send tanks against fascist coup plotters. I say "wonderful!"

I would hope that Chavez would use force of arms to keep them at bay. If they break the law and conspire and plot, then smash them mercilessly.

[JonQ]

80. No

he didn't say that. He never mentioned the word coup. Merely that if the opposition returned to power (this was immediately preceding the election for context) he would use tanks.


Somehow pro-chavez types turned this part of his quote " " in to "evil fascist coup against me, using weapons to overthrow the will of the people".

[David__77]

89. He referred to the oligarchy, not to an election opponent.

He has always referred to the coup plotters and fascists as the rancid oligarchy.

[subsuelo]

91. plus he took time to clear the whole thing up

but some continue to defy reason and insist they know what he *really* meant

[JonQ]

96. He cleared it up

weeks after the fact, after he got a lot of flak for it, by adding words that he never spoke. He's a politician. What other politician would you give this free pass to? If bush had mentioned using force to "correct" an election result, and then a month later came out and said the whole thing was a misunderstanding would you let him slide on that? I wouldn't and I suspect neither would you. Think about that.

[subsuelo]

98. good lord man think about what you are saying

Clearing up some statements by "adding words he never spoke" is a problem?? Please explain how that is an unacceptable method of clearing something up? Do you recommend another method of communication other than words? Do you need pictures sketched out or something


Plus -- you compare his clearing up some remarks to GWB correcting an election result??? Have you gone completely mad over this?

My recommendation to you -- just give it up already. I'm sorry that his amended statements didn't fit your agenda. Just move on already though, it'll be ok. It really will.

[JonQ]

103. By adding important

words that completely changed the meaning. Like coup that's a key piece right there that was never in the original.

And I wonder, why is CNN now the harbinger of truth regarding Chavez, when just a few weeks ago they were evil, lying corporate progandists?

[subsuelo]

105. Why is it so painful to just accept the amended remarks?

The man took the time to clearly state his position on the matter, and he did so.

Why not just accept that position and move on?

[JonQ]

106. Why not accept

lies from a politician that make said politician look like a saint? Um, do I really need to answer that?

Could you find the word "coup" or revolution or any other term implying a violent overthrow of the government in his original quote? Go ahead, I'll wait for you to check.

[subsuelo]

107. Why would he lie?

:shrug:

[JonQ]

108. Why would a politician lie?

Again, do I really have to answer that?

[subsuelo]

109. Please, that's such an evasive answer

I'm really curious about this specific situation. Why would Chavez lie in his amended remarks?

If he really meant what you believe he meant in the first place, why would he then make up something else later on?

[JonQ]

112. Because he recieved a great deal of negative press about it

he wants support from people here. And overt comments of his intentions tends to hurt that. So he says what he really thinks, most of the time it is ignored. Occasionally when we pick up on it and he looks like a tyrant he has to backpedal. He's riding a fine line of keeping his people in line at home, and trying to gain legitimacy as a democratically elected ruler internationally.

Remember saddam had elections too, and he won every time with nearly 100% of the vote. It must be true, he said it and why would he lie about that?

It isn't rocket science.

[Judi Lynn]

114. You apparently have not taken the time away from posting to inform yourself regarding Ve. elections.

They have been heavily monitored persistantly by international election observers, posted throughout the country, including former President Jimmy Carter's group. They have always given the elections a TOTALLY clean bill of health.

DU'ers have discussed it here repeatedly for years. It's been going on a long, long time. No elections anywhere, most clearly not here, have been more observed, more studied, more transparent.

[subsuelo]

117. Chavez the tyrant?

First of all, obviously we will just have to disagree on the statements. What you've done is put a negative spin on it, when the situation could just as easily have been that he simply cleared up what was meant. IMO there's still no reason to lie (if he really *were* this menacing tyrant, wouldn't he want to actually boast that a little bit? rather than backing down going 'oh no! I didn't mean that! Sorry to the U.S. news reading population! Didn't mean to scare you guys!' ... These you would have us believe are the methods of a tyrant?)

But what I want to ask now is this -- Can you name one thing Chavez has done to seriously warrant the description of "tyrant"? Putting aside the words, because obviously words can be twisted into anything. What one action has he done to deserve the 'tyrant' label? Massacred his own people like Saddam, for example? Commanded any illegitimate invasions similar to Bush's war on Iraq? Massacred any neighboring populations? Killed and imprisoned any peace protestors like the Burmese junta?

This ridiculous notion that Chavez is somehow this fearsome 'tyrant' or dictator is pure right-wing propaganda. What amazes me is that so many well intentioned yet misinformed Democrats continue to buy into it. It just isn't true. There's nothing tyrannical taking place in Venezuela. There's no dictator on the rise. There *is* on the other hand, a revolution of the people taking place, and Chavez is the democratically elected leader of that revolution. And *that* revolution is precisely what the corpo-fascist right-wing in this country is trying to stop. Chavez represents a direct threat to their interests (corporate profits over the people of Latin America). Any honest observer of the region with a sense of humanity *should* be able to see that. I just don't understand how many people are so gullible and fall for the right wing b.s. that's all.

Anyway if you can name some action(s) that warrant the 'tyrant' description I'd be really interested in hearing it.

[EFerrari]

119. It isn't rocket science to determine that Saddam had fake elections

and that Venezuela does not.

Good grief.

[JonQ]

95. No

it was in reference to an upcoming election. You guys always talk about how his words are taken out of context, then say stuff like this. Sheesh.

[ohio2007]

65. he must stand down in 2012 unless

This would be a proposal for a single amendment to the constitution, and as such could send Venezuelans back to the polls some time next year.

Unless he gets the courts to over rule the vote allowing the change in the constitution.

Of course, when the oil based economy tanks next year,
he can always play the fear card and protect the citizens from spys and outside forces. They are everywhere and are increasing

[fascisthunter]

69. So Venezuelans Get to Vote for it? Your Problem is...?

Your deliberate misinterpretation of this being a "power grab" sorta makes sense given that name of yours... "economic liberal" as in neo-liberal as in "why can't we have a right wing leader in Venezuela so we can rape thier country for peanuts".

The reason you and others hate him so much is because he won't let people like you take advantage of their country. I bet you have no problem with Uribe though.

[bitchkitty]

137. None of them have a problem with Uribe.

He's seeking the same thing, but not a peep from the neo-liberal brigade. (good label for them btw).

[tritsofme]

75. I hope the crash of the oil market does the same thing to the Chavez government.

nt

[David__77]

77. I think it's a good idea.

The PSUV is still consolidating its leading role politically. I have no doubt that it will continue to do so, as it just won 15 or 19 governorships and the vast majority of elected posts voted upon. I think a one term extension is fine, if the people approve it. I do not think it would be wise to simply remove the term limit. This was the different proposal which was part of a package narrowly defeated last year.

[The Traveler]

81. "Power Grab?"

The use of emotionally charged terms is basic to propaganda, and so I distrust comments like this.

I am no defender of Chavez. I merely recognize it is difficult to understand American politics from the inside ... from the outside it probably seems totally insane. Therefore I will not sit in judgment on the politics of another nation that seems to be more or less behaving itself. (At least they haven't invaded anybody lately.)

It seems to me he has a right to ask again. The people have a right to choose again. I am not an expert on the laws of Venezuela ... there may or may not be a legal barrier to raising the matter again so soon. So long as due process is followed, I don't think anyone has a basis for raising a gripe.

Trav

[robcon]

90. He's like the Parti Quebecois: keeping running referenda

until he gets a response he likes.

He lost the referendum, but he'll keep trying, I suppose, to be president-for-life - or at least until 2021.

[BklnDem75]

92. Power grab?

How is it a power grab if Chavez is bringing it to the people for a vote? At least, there's a choice unlike NYC where Bloomberg hadn't gone to the people at all. In the end, it's the people's will whether Chavez remain or not. You don't like Democracy?

[onehandle]

102. President For Life!

And with Mafiosa inflection, "And its perfectly legal."

[EFerrari]

136. . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3631980&mesg_id=3631980

[Codeine]

116. I personally cannot stand Chavez,

but there is nothing inherently sacred about term limits -- I wish we didn't have artificial limits on reelecting effective Presidents in this country. If the people vote him in I see no problem, personal distaste for the man notwithstanding.

[SOS]

127. In 1993 the voters of NYC passed a term limit referendum on the Mayor.

That referenedum passed overwhelmingly.
A few weeks ago Mike Bloomberg pressured the City Council to allow him to run for a third term, in direct defiance of the voters.
Yet when Chavez asks for a vote on limits he's a "dictator"?

[On the Road]

129. From What I've Heard from Venezuelans,

I would rather Chavez be around rather than some of his lieutenants or deputies. The other alternative is a Carmona type, which is arguably worse.

I suspect Chavez's political revolution is the type that becomes more partisan and less beneficial over time. But we will see.

[ohio2007]

130. Venezuelan students begin campaigning against indefinite reelection

Venezuela's Chavez has new goal: to be president for life

CARACAS — Hugo Chavez wants to remain president of Venezuela for life, and this week he began campaigning for Venezuelans to lift term limits so he can run for re-election indefinitely.

"The opposition will not stop our revolution!" Chavez told hundreds of red-shirted supporters�at a rally in Miranda state�Tuesday night.

Chavez, 54, wants Venezuelans to approve an amendment to the constitution in February that would permit him to seek re-election in 2012 and every six years thereafter.



http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/56907.html

[Judi Lynn]

131. Venezuelan student groups are on the payroll of the U.S. government, thanks to right-wing a-holes

like _{George W. Bush,} and his filthy, scum-ridden right-wing power mad maggots. Most DU'ers who keep an eye on South American politics have known this for years.

Saturday, May 10, 2008
Who Pays the Opposition Students in Venezuela?

By Pablo Roldan and Mauro Vanetti
Thursday, 08 May 2008

It is not true that US imperialism does not help the Third World! One of its agencies, the Cato Institute based in Washington DC, just signed a cheque for $500,000 (yes: half a million bucks!) to a young Venezuelan. Yon Goicoechea has been awarded the "Milton Friedman Liberty Prize", for his merits in the promotion of "Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace".

Well, we have to admit that Mr Goicoechea is not exactly a poor boy from a Caracas slum. He is a law student at the expensive Andrés Bello Roman Catholic University in Caracas, whose fees are 5,820 Bolivares Fuertes (officially equivalent to $2,710) per year, a very high price in Venezuela. Nevertheless, this badly needed financial aid was honestly earned by Mr Goicochea for the good job he did in the cause of the free market (i.e. capitalism) and democracy (i.e. conspiracy against the elected government of Hugo Chávez). The reason he is considered a hero by the Cato guys is that he is the leader of the "students' movement" that opposes the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela.

Right-wing and Anti-Democratic

The main activities of this movement have been organising demonstrations (and clashes with the police), with the typical display of inverted Venezuelan flags and an overwhelming presence of white-skinned people, on the following issues:

*In favour of the private right-wing TV channel RCTV, that supported the coup against Chávez in April 2002;
*Against progressive reforms in the universities (e.g., equalising the weight of students' and teachers' votes in elections for
university institutions) and promotion of affordable universities for the poor;
*Against the progressive reforms proposed by the Constitutional Referendum held on December 2, 2007.

There is no need to comment on the recurrent accusations about "erosion of human and civil rights" or "a constitutional reform that would have turned the country into a dictatorship". In the current war that the US ruling class and the nation's government are waging against the Bolivarian government of Venezuela, those statements have the same character as the old stories told by the British and American governments during the First World War about German soldiers cutting off the breasts of Belgian women - they are purely war propaganda fabrications.

More:
http://advant.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-pays-opposition-students-in.html

Nice try.

[ohio2007]

133. ahhhhh. no citizen is worthy of the Bolivar ian revolution .... I see. All are collaborators

The poor are also "on the take"

;)

not worthy !!!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=125_1228587763





PBS Front Line is also an enemy of the revolution

[EFerrari]

134. No, it's simply that some of those student groups get your tax money

to demonstrate. Whether they are worthy or not, that's what happens. lol

[ohio2007]

132. PBS: Front Line's "The Hugo Chavez Show" video 7 of 8

The video was made before the bubble peaked let alone burst

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=644_1228587640

I didn't know he hated Europe as much as the gringo's


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=125_1228587763

[EFerrari]

135. The RCTV story has been debunked here ad nauseum. n/t