I realize that you are attempting to be flippant and mocking, but the moment Chavez decides to sell his oil for Euros rather than dollars, you'd better believe that an invasion will follow immediately. Yesterday on the Palmetto I saw a bumper sticker of Calvin (whose clothes were colored similar to the Venezuelan flag) peeing on Chavez's head. You don't see that every day, even in Miami.
Actually, he's popular among the POOR people in that country. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of them. To be fair, the previous establishment including the affluent mentioned in Slizard's post are at fault for hoarding so much of the oil wealth of that country that a populist like Chavez could come to power. With as much oil wealth as there is in Venezuela, education and health care should be possible for FAR more people than currently receive them in Venezuela. While I don't agree with nationalized industries in principle, I see why Chavez did what he did. And all of this is after a US backed coup attempt failed. For those of you that think the anti-Chavez protests were bad, you should have read about the peasent blockades all over the country after Chavez was removed.
"Not all poor people support Chavez, but their votes are cheaper to buy." Jackie you have provided no proof of this. Why do you think Jimmy Carter and international observers don't support you on this.
I figured you'd love the victory of a socialist, America-hater just like yourself. Anybody who thumbs their nose at the U.S. and enslaves economies with socialism is A-OK in your book. Birds of a feather flock together.....
I have seen how Chavez' government spends taxpayers' money to organize the rallies for Chavez. Carter and the other observers stated that they could not see signs of fraud, as in votes being made up, coercion, etc. However, what happens, as I said in a previous post, is that Chavez directly paid people for votes by giving them free food and transportation and other stuff to go to the booth and vote for him. You saw my previous post about this. You conveniently choose to ignore the reports about the atrocities committed by Chavez' people. You are about to lose all credibility with me.
Jackie, you have provided no proof Chavez paid people to vote for him. I did see your naked assertion. It has no credibiity. Again why do you think Carter and others didn't notice this. Explain how you are privy to the real facts. Are you sure that the opposition did not pay people to vote? After all, they are wealthy. Are they just too moral for this? Don't you think that this could happen in a third world country like Venezuela. I guess you consider trying to have an armed coup, lying in all the media which the oligarchs control, paying oil workers to sabotage the economy and, if I recall an assasination attempt or two , to be nothing. All abuses are on the side of Chavez. There are no abuses on the side of the ogligarchs. Be fari , Jackie.
<a HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50593-2004Jun17?language=printer">Embattled Chavez Taps Oil Cash In a Social, Political Experiment</a> <a HREF="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040712.gtvoteB0712/BNPrint/Technology/">Venezuela using untested voting machines</a>
Nope. Jackie was a middle class lawyer on a round the world trip who was in Venezuela for a few days. His experience is a doubtful with regard to the millions of poor slum dwellers and their political behavior. It is much more likely, as well as understandable, that most of his contact was with the class who opposes Chavez and his lower class backers.
Editorial Venezuela Rallies Behind a Reformer Thursday, Aug 19, 2004 Print format Send by email By: Toronto Star Editorial President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a cheerfully divisive politician. He calls the business and landowning class in his country "a rancid oligarchy" and the conservative Catholic Church a "tumour." U.S. President George Bush is a leader to be despised while Cuba's autocratic Fidel Castro is a friend and role model. Still, most Venezuelans have three times now in the last six years strongly endorsed Chavez and his program to narrow the grotesque rich/poor gap that afflicts the oil-rich nation of 25 million. They supported him in elections in 1998 and 2000, by a respectable near-60 per cent margin each time. And they did it again this past weekend, in a referendum. Yet the country's conservative elite is loath to accept the result. Even before the final votes were tallied in Sunday's referendum to recall Chavez from office and hold new elections — a proposal shot down by 58 per cent to 42 — his foes were crying foul. "We ... categorically reject the result," key opposition figure Henry Ramos Allup said. "We have to take to the streets," warned Antonio Ledezma. They've done it before. This is a repudiation of democracy, pure and simple. And Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin's government should have the courage to say so, through our membership in the Organization of American States. How many times must Chavez prove he has the right to serve out his term, which runs through 2006? How much turmoil must Venezuelans be put through before the majority's will can prevail? The former paratrooper turned social crusader first won office in 1998 pledging a "peaceful and democratic" revolution that would privilege the poorest. That is something Venezuela's two long-ruling rightist parties never contemplated during their decades in power. A year into Chavez' first mandate Venezuelans overwhelmingly endorsed his plans to rewrite the constitution to reform the political and social system. In 2000 Chavez won re-election by another big margin. And in 2002 Venezuelans rallied to his support during a short-lived coup, and reinstated him. This weekend they reconfirmed their support yet again. Chavez is no saint. He has centralized power in the presidency, bypassed Congress on economic policy and purged his political foes from government, the military and the courts. To many, this is Castro-like autocracy. But he has pumped much of Venezuela's $24 billion annual oil wealth into his "revolution for the poor." He has brought in discount food stores where the needy can buy powdered milk, meat, rice and cooking oil at subsidized rates. He has pressed big landowners to cede untilled land to poor farmers, improved housing, built schools and clinics, boosted vocational training, and made people better aware of their rights. And despite his Bush-baiting, Chavez has vowed to continue supplying the United States with 1.5 million barrels a day of oil, 13 per cent of U.S. needs. He is also paying the foreign debt, keeping creditors happy. His reform program, while controversial, is hardly revolutionary. Democracy has only recently taken root in much of Latin America. It is to be cherished, not subverted. If Chavez' critics want to press for his ouster, they should do so at the polls rather than seek to destabilize a popular elected government. That could plunge Venezuela back into the revolutionary turmoil that gripped much of the region a few decades ago, and which his critics so fear. link
President Jimmy Carter: Venezuela Election Trip Report, Aug 13-18, 2004 By Jimmy Carter 19 Aug 2004 After leaving Georgetown, I arrived in Caracas in the evening of 8/13 and was briefed by Ambassador Shapiro, Jennifer McCoy, Francisco Diez, Rachel Fowler, and other staff members of The Carter Center. I gave them an assessment of my visit to Guyana, and they reported high tensions in Venezuela with the approach of the referendum revocatorio scheduled for 8/15. The next morning I met with Organization of American States Secretary General Gaviria, with former presidents Raul Alfonsín and Eduardo Duhalde, both of Argentina, Belisario Betancur of Colombia, and Rodrigo Carazo of Costa Rica, and then our Carter Center staff to discuss our common approach to our monitoring duties. Excluding the presidents, our group then met with President Chavez for about two hours. He appeared quite confident but pledged to resign immediately if he should lose the referendum vote and said in that case he would rest for a week and then resume campaigning for re-election. Toward the end of our meeting, I called on him to be gracious in victory, to make every effort to reunite the divided country, and to let us help in establishing a forum for dialogue between the government and opposition groups. He did not respond directly but was very quiet while I spoke and then said he had always wanted the nation to be united. Subsequently, he said he needed to spend more time with me and asked if we could have lunch together on Monday. We then visited the National Electoral Council headquarters (CNE), where many of our questions were answered, including some about last minute personnel changes in the local polling places and election workers, and our access to all aspects of the voting procedures. In general, we were satisfied. We then met with military leaders, whose forces have always played a major role in elections. The minister of defense finally agreed to abide by all CNE directives and to cancel the military's plan to examine all voter ID cards, which may be seen as intimidation. Our next meeting was with opposition leaders, where we heard a litany of catastrophic predictions about cheating, intimidation, and actual violence planned by the government for election day. We reported on the assurances we had received from CNE and the military, which answered most of their concerns. Gaviria and I then had an overflow press conference, where we were able to answer many questions that had been raised about our freedom as observers and about rumored plans of the CNE and military. Our last meetings of the day were with state-owned and privately-owned news media. The latter group predicted that there would be violent attacks on their property and said that government military forces would not protect them. I promised to share their concern with the minister of defense, and he honored my request to strengthen security. We were out early on election morning and were amazed at the incredibly large turnout, with thousands of people waiting in line an hour before polls were scheduled to open. Venezuela has a system of electronic voting (with a paper ballot backup) and voters' thumbprints are recorded electronically, transmitted by satellite, and compared almost instantaneously to prevent multiple voting. A "No" vote supported Chavez, and a "Yes" vote called for his removal from office. Starting was somewhat slow, but 99.5 percent of the voting machines were on the line by 10:30 a.m. Some of the fingerprint operators did not report for duty, but this was not permitted to interfere with voting. The great waiting crowds were in fine spirits, cheering loudly everywhere we showed up. During the day, the opposition leaders presented to us and their supporters what turned out to be erroneous exit polling data that showed Chavez losing the vote by 20 points or more, and they also sent this information to their own people and to foreign news media. However, the news media honored the CNE ruling against broadcasting any kind of alleged voting results domestically. In the meantime, long voter lines remained intact past the 4 p.m. closing time, past an extended 8 p.m. closing time, and until midnight, when they finally closed. A few people voted as late as 3 a.m. At about 12:30 a.m., we and OAS leaders were invited to witness the disclosure of the first electronic tabulation, which showed "No" votes at 57 percent and "Yes" votes at 43 percent among the 6.6 million votes counted at that time (of 10.5 million expected to vote). Gaviria and I decided to invite the private media owners and opposition leaders to my hotel suite to let them know about this and to tell them that this was compatible with our own quick count results. The media owners and some of the opposition said they would accept our judgment while others were angry. We urged them to check their own sample voting results and stated that we would obtain updated figures next morning before making a public declaration of our judgment. We were in Venezuela to remain neutral, to observe the electoral system, and to make a careful and sound final assessment regarding whether the will of the people is expressed. Chavez called me, and I urged him to wait on any claim of victory until after a CNE public announcement and to be generous and positive in his victory statement. He promised to do so. Finally, after three hours, we offered to the still irate opposition leaders our services in resolving any of their remaining doubts before we had to leave (after two more days). Having insisted all during election day on a 20 point defeat for Chavez, their pollster (Súmate) admitted before leaving that their data now showed only a five point defeat and that quick count data were still being received. Early the next morning, they reported that these results were reversed, with 55 percent supporting Chavez, but opposition leaders still were claiming massive fraud and a victory for their side. Final voting results, including the centers with manual ballots, showed 59-41 in favor of Chavez, with his victory in 22 of the 24 states. Gaviria and I had another press conference early in the afternoon on Monday to confirm the legitimacy of the CNE returns. I called Secretary of State Colin Powell to report our authentication of results, and he promised to issue a statement from Washington endorsing our findings. On Monday, we had supper with Chavez and found him eager to begin substantive dialogues with responsible opposition leaders who are willing to reciprocate. We urged him to show generosity to Súmate and some others who are being accused of crimes going back to the coup against him and to ensure a balanced membership of CNE as local and state elections are planned late in September. He was receptive to these suggestions and supported an additional audit of electronic paper ballot backups from the machines that would assuage any remaining doubters. Although the country was peaceful, some opposition leaders were still in anguish, as indicated by Tuesday morning newspaper editorial headlines, "Catástrofe," "El Fraude Permanente," and "Serias Dudas." After meeting with Súmate and other opposition representatives who claimed there were differences between paper ballot backups and electronically transmitted results, we agreed to have a second audit process to double check the correlation. After making these arrangements, we met with Catholic bishops and then had a final supper with a group of about 20 empresarios. We made it clear to them and to the public that this did not imply any doubt by The Carter Center or OAS regarding the integrity of the electoral process or the accuracy of the reported results. Jennifer McCoy and Rachel Fowler stayed in Caracas to oversee the second audit of the machines that we will do with the OAS and the CNE. link
Interesting how you categorize people in "classes". I am not even claiming that being in a country for a week gives you all that much insight ...but it surely gives more insight than what a communist dreamer sitting in Houston has who sees things through rose-colored glasses as soon as it is about something a leftist government does. You conveniently choose to ignore reports like the one by SlizardOO or the facts presented by rimbaud, only because it does not fit your view of the world. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/americas/9398230.htm?1c Chávez win could make him elected dictator CARACAS - If you are wondering whether populist Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez would radicalize his leftist ''revolution'' if he wins Sunday's referendum, this is my forecast: He would be gracious with the opposition for a few weeks and then move to a more authoritarian rule. Judging from what I have heard in dozens of interviews with key political figures here this week, I believe there is a near consensus that a victorious Chávez would offer an olive branch to the opposition, at least while hundreds of international observers and journalists remain in the country and Venezuela is still in the news. ''He would behave like Little Red Riding Hood,'' said the opposition mayor of Caracas, Alfredo Peña, whose office has been repeatedly peppered with bullets by government-backed civilian militants. ``But the minute international observers left, he would crack down on us harder than in the past.'' It has happened before. Every time Chávez has come back from a major political defeat -- such as when he won the 1998 elections or when he was restored to power after a short-lived coup in April 2002 -- he sounded a conciliatory note. On April 13, 2002, he even brandished a crucifix in front of the TV cameras and talked about love and reconciliation. In addition to being watched by the international community, he badly needed to lower political tensions at home. Then, a few weeks later, when the eyes of the world had turned somewhere else and Venezuelans edged back to their daily lives, he proceeded to take over, one by one, this country's major institutions and threatened to crush opponents like ``cockroaches.'' ALMOST TOTAL CONTROL He already controls the Congress and the electoral council and has most recently stacked the Supreme Court with loyalists, in addition to having purged the armed forces and the almighty PdVSA state oil monopoly. Now, Chávez-controlled legislators in Congress are pushing for new laws that would, among other things, curtail opposition media and disband municipal police forces run by opposition mayors. There are three major reasons to suspect that a victorious Chávez would turn closer to an elected dictator after a brief ''Little Red Riding Hood'' phase: • First, the human factor. Chávez is, by nature, confrontational. A disastrous manager who has performed the miracle of increasing poverty and unemployment despite a record oil income, he needs confrontation to divert attention from his economic failures. • Second, the oil factor. Chávez's moderation is inversely proportional to world oil prices. When he took office in 1999 with oil prices at $8 a barrel, he vowed to carry out a democratic, capitalist government, mainly because he could not afford antagonizing Wall Street or Washington. But today, with oil prices at a record $45 a barrel, he is swimming in money. If oil prices were to stay at their current levels, he could unleash his authoritarian temptations with few concerns about the consequences. • Third, the legitimacy factor. Chávez could claim a mandate to deepen his leftist ''revolution'' and create what would amount to a constitutional dictatorship. LITTLE PROGRESS So far, his self-proclaimed revolution has resulted in little beyond closer ties to Cuba and tougher anti-American rhetoric. Despite having urged his supporters to ''say no to capitalism'' in a speech Thursday, Chávez has not nationalized foreign corporations nor confiscated private businesses, as was done in Cuba. ''He would become more radical if he wins,'' says Manuel Caballero, a prominent historian and a columnist with the daily El Universal. ``He would be able to counter the opposition's claims that he was never put in office to carry out a revolution.'' Yet Chávez, who has vowed to remain in power through successive elections until 2021, is not likely to carry out a full-fledged Cuban-styled revolution. ''He is neither communist nor capitalist nor Christian nor Muslim,'' Caballero told me. ``He is all of the above, together or separately, as long as he can stay in power through 2021.'' I agree. What Chávez likes the most about Castro is not his ideology but his ability to remain in power for 45 years. In that sense, a victorious Chávez would be one step closer to his goal.
By the way, with all due respect to Jimmy Carter, reading his text sounds like he was biased towards favoring Chavez from the beginning. He describes the opposition's concerns as a "litany of catastrophic predictions", plus, sitting in some office and only talking to people, without actually having many observers sent out to the cities where voting took place, how can he really verify anything? Oh, and since you, glynch, always focus on the amount of time I spent in Venezuela, I was there longer than Carter on his trip, and I am pretty sure I spent more time talking to "poor" (or in your terminology "lower class") people than he did.
Which automatically seems to make them evil in your messed up view of the world. glynch, arguing with you is pretty pointless since you seem to be a die-hard communist (even though you seem to mean well) with little knowledge of the real world. IMAGINE FIDEL CASTRO WITH OIL By PETER BROOKES August 13, 2004 -- SUNDAY is a red-letter day for democracy and for the price of oil: Vene zuelans vote on a referendum on whether to recall President Hugo Chavez. Long a friend of the United States and since 1958 one of Latin America's most stable democracies, Venezuela stands at a crossroads, headed for either democracy or Cuban-style socialism. Elected fair and square in 1998, Chavez took office with sky-high popularity on a reform platform. But he has since donned the cloak of political strongman, run the economy into the ground and helped roil world oil markets. Plus, he's a good buddy of Cuba's Fidel Castro. "Dictator" isn't used very often to describe Latin American leaders anymore — beyond Castro, that is. But Chavez, a cashiered army colonel who was once jailed for his leading role in a 1992 military coup, could make it two. Though now highly unpopular (30 percent approval), Chavez may well survive the no-confidence vote. Polling is expected to be rife with voter intimidation, fraud and other voting irregularities. Certainly, his record to date makes that chicanery seem likely. He has already rewritten the Constitution to give himself more power, sucked up power over the state oil company (PDVSA) and stacked lower and Supreme Court(s). He's also made a good start on purging the armed forces, misusing them for partisan political purposes and social programs. Threats to freedom of the press include physical attacks on journalists. The fractious opposition has mostly been peaceful — though a botched, bloodless coup nearly toppled Chavez two years ago. But his misrule has pushed political and class tensions to such a fever pitch that some fear civil war. El Presidente has also made a shambles of Venezuela's already impoverished economy. Per-capita income has dropped 25 percent since 1998, propelling the economy backward to the 1950s. Inflation is running at a household budget-busting 30 percent, unemployment hovers at 18 percent and 33 percent live in extreme poverty despite massive social programs. And that's had worldwide repercussions, because Venezuela is a major oil-producing nation — the world's fifth-largest, with one of the biggest energy reserves outside the Middle East. It provides 15 percent of U.S. oil needs, making it one of our top four oil suppliers (after Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico). Even now, the possibility of another Venezuelan oil strike continues to keep the oil market skittish, helping keep prices at record $45-a-barrel levels. Adding insult to injury, Chavez has also encouraged OPEC to raise its prices, too. In one of his anti-American fits of rhetorical rage, El Presidente has even threatened to cut off oil supplies to the United States. That would certainly he a blow to the U.S. economy (even with this week's welcome Saudi announcement of increased oil supply.) But then, Chavez is a big chum of Cuba's communist Cold War-holdover, Fidel Castro. (He's also been friendly in the past with Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Moammar Khaddafy.) In exchange for getting Caracas oil on favorable terms, Havana is providing doctors and teachers — and military advisers. Venezuela is also knee-deep in Cuban intelligence (DGI) officers. There's no telling what Castro's political plans for Venezuela might be. Chavez already has stated his desire to unite Latin America in a Castro-inspired campaign against U.S. policies. And U.S. officials have expressed concern that Chavez's government is supporting the Colombian narcoterrorist FARC rebels. Democracy is under assault. Chavez is a throwback to the military strongmen who once ruled Venezuela. What Chavez calls his "Bolivarian Revolution" (after Latin American independence leader Simon Bolivar) is in fact fashioned in part on Castro's Cuban revolution. Washington has supported the referendum as a democratic solution to Venezuela's political turmoil — one that offers the possibility of peaceful regime change. But with Chavez in charge, it would be shocking if the voting were free and fair. Unfettered international election monitoring should be a prerequisite, but it's unlikely. Chavez has insisted on stringent controls over any poll observers. The (Jimmy) Carter Center and Organization of American States will field teams, but the European Union declined to participate under these restrictions. (In a hysterical effort to add "international credibility" to the referendum, Chavez's election monitor invitee list does include Barbra Streisand and Michael Moore.) If the referendum turns out to be flawed — or if Chavez resorts to "extra-constitutional" actions — the global community should withhold Venezuela's international privileges until the democratic process is honored. For instance, the United States should encourage the World Bank to suspend all loans to the Venezuelan government. And the OAS should consider suspending Venezuela's membership in the group. Latin America has made great strides in embracing freedom and democracy. Today, 22 of 23 Latin American countries are considered to be democratic. (Cuba is the exception.) But some states, especially those with leftist-leaning leaders and economic problems (such as Ecuador and Argentina), might folow Venezuela's path. This would be a significant setback for the hemisphere and its people. The U.S. and the international community should stand shoulder to shoulder in defense of Venezuela's proud democratic traditions and aspirations. With other Latin American democracies leading the way, the United States should help ensure that the term Latin American dictator is relegated to the dustbin of history once and for all. Peter Brookes, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, served in Latin America while on active duty in the U.S. Navy. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/26747.htm
Jackie, I am a social democrat. I believe in elections and democracy. As a German you should know the difference between sd and communist. That is why I like Chavez. He is for democracy, but is very seriously fighting for the poor masses in his country. The article you quoted is from the Heritage Foundation, a noted conservative think tank that helped us the faulty claims that led us into the Iraq mess. They aren't exactly middleof the road. They wrote the article BEFORE the recall vote as polling showed Chavez was going to win. This reflects poorly on their objectivity. Here's the Houston Chronicle relying on the Carter Center and their correspondent. Please don't call them communists, too. *************** Paper: Houston Chronicle Date: FRI 08/20/04 Section: A Page: 20 Edition: 3 STAR Claims by Chavez critics rejected / Review findsno cyber fraud in Venezuela vote By DUDLEY ALTHAUS Staff CARACAS, VENEZUELA - International observers overseeing an audit of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez 's victory in this week's recall referendum concluded Thursday that the opposition's key fraud allegation was baseless. In pressing their claims, opposition leaders argued that a computer program used Sunday in the electronic voting process had limited the number of anti-Chavez votes, automatically switching those above the cap to votes in favor of the president. As evidence, the opposition pointed to hundreds of cases in which different voting machines in the same precincts recorded the exact or nearly exact number of anti-Chavez votes. But a computerized review Thursday of the electronic ballots cast nationwide found that parallel vote totals appeared both for and against Chavez in more than 700 of 12,000 polling stations. The review, conducted by experts from the Atlanta-based Carter Center and the Organization of American States, found exact or nearly matching anti-Chavez vote totals on different machines in 402 stations. But the study also found nearly identical tallies in favor of Chavez in 311 voting places. While seemingly suspicious, the incidence of parallel counts fell within the range of mathematical probability, a Carter Center official said. "The main point here is that it affects both sides," said Jennifer McCoy of the Carter Center, the organization headed by former President Jimmy Carter that observes elections worldwide. "That indicates a random mathematical effect." The Carter Center and the OAS are supervising an audit by the government-controlled National Electoral Council of 359 voting machines from 150 precincts. Auditors are matching the electronic votes cast on each machine with paper receipts, which were then deposited in ballot boxes. The conclusions of the audit are expected to be announced today. But barring any unexpected further evidence presented by the opposition, McCoy said foreign observers don't expect the outcome of the referendum to change. "This is it," McCoy said. "We're trying to give the Venezuelan people the most information possible, so they can draw their own conclusions about the process." Opposition leaders had demanded a review of Sunday's vote almost immediately after the referendum results were announced Monday. On Wednesday, however, they announced they would not recognize the conclusions of the audit, because it was incapable of discovering cyber fraud. Both Carter and Cesar Gaviria, secretary-general of the Organization of American States, have said that the referendum was clean link
