Hugo Ha Ha Ha
have paved the way for limitless re-election and a dangerous expansion of his already excessive executive power.
I can't tell you that I am very surprised though I will admit to a certain sense of glee. A few days ago, several polls already showed Chavez starting to slip in the vote that would have lifted all term limits on the Presidency and that would have ratified a series of executive-heavy measures that Chavez said were crucial to his notion of "21st century socialism."
When those polls came out, of course, we heard from the usual chorus of Chavez apologists that this was all about CIA manipulation, brain-washing, influence of foreign money, AID, NED and probably STD as well! Convenient, no, that when your boy is winning, it's all about his undeniable democratic populist appeal. But when he's losing, well, it must the Yankee Imperialists' fault.
I don't think so. Instead, I think Hugo has let his inflated ego take himself a bridge or two too far and that he doesn't fully understand the world the rest of us, including the people of Venezuela, inhabit. This is no longer 1959 and the dawn of the Cuban revolution. The experiences of the last 50 years have forged a new-earned respect for formal democracy, no matter how distorted, how empty or how partial. Very few national populations are in a rush nowadays to deprive themselves of "bourgeois democracy." Latin Americans have seen the horrors of Pinochet, Videla, and Banzer. And, sorry, Hugo, they've also seen the half-century of ossification to which Cubans have succumbed thanks to Mr. Chavez' best friend over there.
From what I've read, it seems to me that Chavez spoiled his extended honeymoon earlier this year when he shut down the opposition RCTV network. Oh... sorry... he didn't shut it down as the Chavistas argue. He merely failed to renew its license. RCTV for better and most probably for worse, was the country's most popular channel. Not so much because it was right-wing but rather because it was chock-a-block with mindless entertainment shows, game shows and silly soap operas i.e. exactly what most people like to watch on TV!
It's one thing for Hugo to bluster against the rich and use his petro-fortune to spread some good old-fashioned pork around to such an economically deprived population. But it's quite another when the Venezuelan people began to sense that this giy might actually start interfering with and perhaps controlling their lives. Don't ever underestimate, please, the righteous appeal of even the most formal and superficial aspects of what we call democracy. Start toying with what people can watch or hear or read and then propose you might want to be president --as Chavez suggested the other day-- until 2050 and you better stand back, amigo.
A similar point was argued earlier this year in a piece on Chavez I translated which was written by the former Salvadoran guerrilla commander, Joaquin Villalobos. He argued, then, that Chavez has miscalculated and had grossly underestimated the attachment that ordinary Venezuelans had developed toward even nominally democratic institutions. Chavez had doomed himself, Villalobos said. And he was apparently right:
Oh, I can write the script that will play out among a stunned bunch of lefties over the next few days. I can imagine three separate lines of argument: a) the really wingy faction will argue that Chavez didn't really lose the election, that somehow the ballots have been miscounted by George W. Bush b) the slightly less fetid faction will instead argue that Chavez lost the count for real but that the Venezuelan people were, in fact, brainwashed by Washington and its allies and c) the third really sorry faction will shamelessly reverse course and try to argue that these results ratify Chavez' democratic heart and soul because, after all, he was kind enough to admit his defeat and not stage a coup. Thanks to Hugo alone Venzuela's democracy is stronger than ever. All of these hypotheses are wrong. The real answer is that Hugo Chavez lost because a majority of Venezuelans decided he had taken them far enough off, thank you very much, and simply did not want to cross the threshold into an uncertain and prolonged chapter of personal dictatorship and political darkness. Good for them. Let's hope they can make it through the next six years of Chavez' current term.Forty years of peaceful transitions of government power created a democratic culture among Venezuelans that has, fortunately until now, made violence unnecessary. The rule of law might be weak, but there is nevertheless the rule of law. The mistake made by the opposition in the attempted coup of 2002 was precisely to undervalue this democratic tradition. Overthrowing governments is no easy task, nor is peacefully modifying the basic pillars on which they are built. A revolutionary rupture creates a situation of great social exaltation that--for better and worse--opens up spaces to change many things, including prevailing ideologies and cultural traditions. But short of revolution, these things are difficult to change...
...With his latest acts Chávez has turned the process of accumulation of forces against himself and has suddenly revitalized a demoralized opposition. Maybe he will be able to make some more changes in Venezuela. But he will never be able to get rid of elections. And as long as there are elections, there will be no permanent majorities, no fraud so great as to be insurmountable, no set of alliances that are eternal. Oil money can help Chávez do many things--but it will never be enough to buy himself a revolution.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 am
All three of those pwoggie reactions can be seen on this Daily Kos Diary, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/3/04422/7447
, “Breaking: Chavez Referendum Fails (for now).” Usually, Chavista diaries on dKOS get very few critics of Chavismo but, liberal/social democrats came out of the woodwork for this thread.
Sample post title, “Hugo-haters: Where are the mass graves?”
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 am
This is off topic, but thanks for the article in L.A. Weekly about the proposed gambling compacts that will be going on the ballot. In particular, you noticed that the California Democratic Party’s Executive Board took a neutral position on the issue. I was on that board long ago, and I remember how principle took second place to expediency way too often. It’s the price we pay for having the price of campaigning paid by corporations and tribes and the ultra-wealthy.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 am
Narconews, a fave source for the ultras.
A kossack reaction on another diary there at dKOS,
>…500,000 massed in support of the reforms (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
anna, KiaRioGrl79, skywriter, Groucho Marxist
I wonder why I had to go to venezuelaanlaysis to find this.
Wasn’t in my statewide paper, where they run only anti Chavez pieces and phots.
Hmmmmmmmmm?
And polls? Everyone I read in the MSM or saw on CNN said Chavez will lose. Then I go to narconews and they quote the most reliable pollster in Vene pointing out that reforms will win by no less than 7% and more likely up to 16%. Of course, the MSM and their lackeys will howl when the reforms win, saying that the vote was rigged. When the international observers confirm the results as fair in Vene—as they always do—those reports will be censored from the MSM.
John Edwards: “Join the campaign to change America.” Hillary: Join the campaign to change insiders.
by formernadervoter on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:53:08 AM PST
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:49 am
* To: “marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu”
* Subject: Re: [Marxism] NO wins venezuelan referendum
* From: “Jorge Martin”
* Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 06:38:31 +0000
* Delivered-to: lnp3@panix.com
* Reply-to: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
* Sender: marxism-bounces@lists.econ.utah.edu
just on the figures, in relation to the 2006 presidential elections, the
opposition has only increased less than 100,000 votes (thought this is not
yet 100% count), while Chávez loses 2,8 million which go to abstention.
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
* Prev by Date: [Marxism] Venezuelan vote, from Prensa Latina
* Next by Date: [Marxism] South Africa: The left and Zuma: be careful what you wish for
* Previous by thread: [Marxism] NO wins venezuelan referendum
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:02 am
If Chavez had just restricted the constitutional reforms to those items designed to help the poor, and skipped the power grabbing stuff, he probably would have won the referendum hands down. But nooo…
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:31 am
Nice contribution to the blogosphere. Especially happy to see Villalobos invoked as an authority on democracy in Latin America. His consultancy with the Colombian oligarchy gives him unique insights. When can we expect a post touting Petraeus’s surge?
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:57 am
What Michael Balter said.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:05 am
In reply to Booby: Discounting what someone says on a particular subject because of what they might have said or done in another sphere is a logical trick often used by those who want to avoid really engaging with a topic. Irving Howe said some very insightful things about Communism, Joseph Stalin said some very insightful things about capitalism, George Bush has said some insightful things about immigration, Hugo Chavez has said some insightful things about US imperialism, and even Woody has said some insightful things about the Democrats. Let’s bring the level of discussion up a notch, shall we, and actually engage with the arguments?
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
How about an option (d): relief, that Venezuela is not headed toward dictatoship. Period. That was my feeling, and it came with none of your weird snottiness toward your straw man lefty reactions (a)-(c). I don’t support the dictatorial trend of Chavez over the past few years (maybe longer?), but I also don’t purport to understand all of the factors involved in why Chavez has the support of something close to a majority (if not beyond) of the population. People like this guy:
“He is a man who feels for the people, a man who has suffered, a man who comes from below,” Carlos Orlando Vega, a 47-year-old carpenter’s assistant, said outside a polling station in a Caracas slum on Sunday.
You can say he’s just a silly duped man, unaware of what is really good for him, and you will sound as pedantic and asinine as all of the armchair academics who claim that the Chavez’ detractors are pawns of the CIA. Both claims are simplistic, unproductive, and boring. The facts are these: 1) Chavez’ policies have millions of supporters; 2) Chavez’ policies have millions of detractors; 3) Chavez’ referendum was dangerously antidemocratic; 4) the Venezuelan people rejected it.
So here is this lefty’s response: hooray for Venezuela! See how honest and un-asinine that was?
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:39 am
I am not surprised….many on the Left would have voted si for all of the excellent reforms, the work wee, pensions, etc. But the other part of it was a little unacceptable. And Chavez is taking it quite well, showing that there is nothing at all undemocratic about him or Venezuela.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:40 am
Quoting a murderer doesn’t help Marc’s case either.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 am
Michael – There you go touting Josef Stalin again. Woody has said some insightful things about this…
Seriously, while I don’t disagree with any of what’s been noted on the topic in substance, understanding where someone stands on on a range of issues can be helpful in evaluating a particular argument – or at least its value as part of a broader debate. Especially if one isn’t expert in all of the facts at hand. I take Irving Howe seriously because I know his track record and his intellectual seriousness and believe he had insights into both capitalism and communism – not that I always agreed with him by a long shot. I don’t believe Josef Stalin had any “insightful things to say” about either capitalism or communism – unless you also believe Hitler had “insightful things to say” about the evils of the Versaille treaty. (I’m trying to figure out what Woody has ever said about the Democrats that’s “insightful” and not kneejerk or a product of mindless bias. I guess a stopped clock is also “insightful” twice a day.)
I’m not condemning Villalobos because I don’t know enough about him and I happen to agree with him on the particulars. But if I knew something truly horrible about him, i.e. he was an operative for a rightwing dictatorship or a proponent of U.S. interference into Latin American elections, I would at the least ask myself questions about his logic and motives before I simply felt satisfied by his “insights” into Venezuelan politics. Context, prior reliability and motive isn’t irrelevant in evaluating someone’s arguments. Would you quote Elliot Abrams on Chavez or would you discount his statements as neocon ideological apologia that at the very least needed to be corroborated by less suspect sources ? Just making the point that in criticizing “Booby” (whose post was, in fact, a “driveby” and not substantive IMHO) you’re going a bit overboard and jettisoning some valid distinctions.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:09 am
>…Let’s bring the level of discussion up a notch, shall we, and actually engage with the arguments?
Why do that when some loony ad hominem can be quoted?
I assume this is about jcummings.
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_silencing_machine.htm
The Unmasking of a Crypto Zionist Authoritarian
>…This is a series of emails from Jordy Cummings regarding the republishing of his article, The Zionist Silencing Machine…Seven Examples of Zionist Authoritarianism on this website. It seemed to be a valuable revelation of the manner in which Zionists control the media and discussion about current affairs and Jewish history…
>…He offered that I could keep the article on the website if I would remove all reference to the questioning of the Holocaust and linking Zionists and Nazis in other articles on The Seventh Fire. His attempt at censorship was not welcomed, but showed me the hypocritical side of this Jewish intellectual who had written The Zionist Silencing Machine…Seven Examples of Zionist Authoritarianism but who asserted without facts, principles, or logical analysis: demanded and threatened, attempted to cajole, and would not entertain any kind of dialog. Here was his own Zionist authoritarianism unmasked, an Eighth Example of the Zionist Silencing Machine. I had discovered the demon inside the man who exposed demons for the public. The irony should not be lost upon the progressives and liberals of the left. Here is a hidden gatekeeper, an opinion leader who will not take his own advice or recognize his own demons.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 am
Yes. I was attacked by a website that put up my material, that I asked to take down.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 am
Pugliese is scum if he’s trying to imply that what is above is something I wrote. In fact, its a criticism of me from a Neo-Nazi, who threatened me.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 am
good lord jordy, don’t be paranoid, i may not agree with your politics but, i know you aren’t in bed with that loon i quoted, politically
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Though being one who has followed the mary rizzo/gilad atzmon vs. tony greenstein debates (all anti-Zionists) recently, with one side accusing the other of being crypto-Zionists, I did find your being initially hornswoggled, not that untypical
Out of the mass of anti-Zionist websites, only Electronic Intifada makes any attempt to disavow the Holocaust Denialists who populate that mileau,
http://www.davidduke.com/general/zio-lobby-shuts-down-no-more-wars-for-israel-conference-first-amendment-rights-violated-boycott-of-anti-american-marriott-corporation-urged_2911.html
Recently in Veterans for Peace, Eugene, Oregon chapter, they have given repeated speaker sponsorships to that crowd, Mark Weber esp.
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/11/oregon-peace-group-to-host-anti-elie.html
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/11/oregon-peace-group-to-host-anti-elie.html
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 am
oops on last URL,
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/11/oregon-peace-group-to-mark.html
Oregon “Peace” Group to Mark Kristallnacht with Holocaust Denial Conference
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 am
Actually I’ve always disavowed Anti-Semites and Nazis, never been close with them and cut off ties with Press Action among other sites for their anti-semite laden comment boards.
Not that this matters, since Pugliese fancies himself Harvey Matusow
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Pugliese,
You point out a trend that is indeed disturbing. All I can say is that actual Palestinian and/or organized Left run Palestine solidartiy and peace groups have never gone near Anti-Semites. This is the realm of the Alex Jones/Ron Paul crowd. Furthermore, the most non-Arab people in the movement are Jewish.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 am
Michael Balter Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:05 am
In reply to Booby: …
Well said Michael!
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:11 am
My own account of my experience with Nazis
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/cummings09282004/
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
Jordy>…All I can say is that actual Palestinian and/or organized Left run Palestine solidartiy and peace groups have never gone near Anti-Semites. This is the realm of the Alex Jones/Ron Paul crowd.
You should check out the lunatics of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party though, the official affiliate of the Green Party here.
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/08/solomonia-greenislamistracist.html
Alex Jones fans and Ron Paulistinians show up at peace rallies in Denver.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 am
Picking a name and piggybacking a movement is nothing new to those fascists. At the same time that in no way should stop actual left groups from pursuing justice against those who support war crimes.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 am
The people whose work you cite are, by the way, nakhba deniers, and probably deniers of the Armenian holocaust.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Can someone here please explain how a thread congratulating the people of Venezuela for turning down two referenda from Hugo Chvez has turned into a diatribe on “The Zionist Silencing Machine”, Alex Jones and Ron Paul. If the Illiminati show up I’m out of here!
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Ask me about 9/11…
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
richard locicero Says>…If the Illiminati show up I’m out of here!
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/ has had a bunch of refs. to The Illuminati when they get going on a rant against The New World Order Bilderberger Trilaterialist CFR Ruling Class
http://www.google.com/search?q=www.venezuelanalysis.com+Illuminati
http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1351.cfmTitle: VENEZUELA FLOODING — PLANNED EVENT USING WEATHER CONTROL TO FURTHER UNITED NATIONS’ BIODIVERSITY PLANNING!
Subtitle: President of Venezuela Seeks To Relocate People Away From Devastated Coastal Regions of Venezuela! We will depict you United Nations maps that will show you that the U.N. considers the coastal region of Venezuela to be one of the global “Hotspots” that need the immediate attention of emptying of people, permanently!
The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!
Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!
>…Venezuela lies right on the North-South line of the hexagram. We think it highly likely that the Illuminati has chosen Venezuela …
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Alex Jones website.
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation Truth crusaders Walter and Rodriguez to appear on Hugo Chavez’s weekly TV broadcast …
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
51% to 49%. Hugo sure got his ass kicked!
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
YouTube – Alex Jones Interviews Noam Chomsky (Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSXFX8bM6s8
Not as funny as when Borat interviewed Noam or Alex Jones interviewing scruffy Marxist-Leninists here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NDMpZC_WPc
, “Alex Jones confronts Communist @ RNC 04.”
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
OK you win. I’m outta Here!
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Lots of embedded URL’s herein for backup.
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/12/03/the-smug-left-hails-hugo-the-democracy-lover/
THE SMUG LEFT HAILS HUGO THE DEMOCRACY LOVER
CATEGORY: General
It’s pretty sickening the way the left has reacted to the defeat of Hugo Chavez’s bid to turn Venezuela into a full fledged dictatorship rather than the authoritarian government he currently enjoys leading. And my-oh-my are they all puffed up about Chavez being so gracious in defeat – just like a regular politician in a democratic country.
Of course, lefty commentary on the vote tends to leave out just a few, minor details – like the desperate effort by the opposition at CNE (the electoral commission in charge of the vote) headquarters early this morning to hold Chavez to his word and carry out some semblance of a fair count of the ballots. Apparently, the NO! forces were being denied access to the totals – a clear violation of the law and pretty suspicious to boot. There were reports that scuffles broke out as the opposition tried to exercise their right and the Chavistas tried to stop them.
It apparently took a personal TV appearance by former defense minister and former Chavez ally General Raul Baduel who appeared late in the evening and demanded that the results – which were electronically counted and should have been available within a couple of hours after the polls closed – be released immediately.
It’s a story that will probably dribble out in the next few days as Venezuelan students – who took the place of international poll observers because Chavez didn’t allow them in for this vote – will add up their “hot audit sheets†from each district and see just how close this election truly was.
Most pre-election polls had NO! winning by 55% or greater. For those on the left who are sneering about the fact that Chavez didn’t try and rig the election, I would suggest you wait a day or two. There certainly were some strange things going on at CNE headquarters in the wee hours of the morning.
And one rumor is the final margin of victory for the opposition was actually negotiated between the two sides so that Chavez could save face with a razor thin loss rather than the 57%-58% that some polls were showing prior to the vote. That particular rumor seems wildly off base – until you remember we’re talking about Chavez’s Venezuela where after the last presidential election, half full ballot boxes disappeared for hours only to turn up later stuffed to the brim with votes for Chavez.
Anything is possible.
Buttressing the idea of vote manipulation is that the government cancelled its victory celebration for the following day around 9:00 PM – more than 4 hours before the tally was finally announced. And if it had been an honest vote, why didn’t Chavez demand a recount? The margin of victory for the opposition – 1.7% – was small enough that a recount request would not have been out of line.
So a strange night in Venezuela indeed. But not if you’re reading lefty blogs today. In the cockeyed world of liberal blogs, all that matters is that Chavez has “proved†he’s not a dictator:
“It’s nice that some countries believe in limiting executive power. Now compare that with things like…†(Bush, the dictator)
Last time I looked, Bush wasn’t ruling by decree. Nor was the President nationalizing industries, using para-military militias to shoot and kill his opponents, close down the New York Times or CNN because of their negative coverage, or any one of a dozen “limited†powers exercised by Mr. Chavez.
“The Bushies have called Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez a dictator and a tyrant… but since when do dictators lose elections?â€
Since the margin of their defeat is so big they can’t get away with vote rigging.
He’s a left wing populist with an authoritarian streak, but no matter what they say it’s “left wing populist†which makes the Villagers froth, not the authoritarian part. There are plenty of dictators around the world which get respectful treatment from our media, and the anti-Democratic authoritarian actions of our own president disturb them not at all.
An “authoritarian streak?†(See above). More like a meglomaniacal, power hungry, demagogue with a mean streak. Besides, some people like to differentiate between those who purport to be our “friends†to one degree or another (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) and those who are declared enemies like guess who. That sort of real politik formulation doesn’t sit well with our moral betters on the left. But then, when one is a “leftist populist†all manner of sins are forgiven – especially if he’s an enemy of the United States.
“I would be the last to claim that Hugo Chavez is a saint, or even a politician worth emulating. But I do find it interesting that when faced with the will of the people, Bush ignored that will and Chavez bowed to it. One we are told, is a vile threat to the freedom of his nation becasue of his incessant power grabs and disdain for democratic process. The other is a great leader of men, fully committed to democracy in his home country and abroad. If I hadn’t attached names to this story, could you tell which was supposed to be which?
I’m not sure exactly how to respond to this idiocy except perhaps to say that if we had a President who governed solely by “the will of the people,†chances are pretty good we’d have all manner of interesting social and political baggage that the gentleman would no doubt find disgusting. Slavery? Perhaps not. It certainly wouldn’t have died as a result of the civil war. And Jim Crow would have died a lot later than it eventually did. Would women have the vote? Vox populi, vox dei makes for a nice campaign slogan but horrible government.
To be fair, a couple of lefties got it right. Kevin Drum:
So the constitutional changes were rejected (good); Chavez didn’t try — very hard, anyway — to rig the election (also good); and apparently he’s willing to accept the negative results (yet more good). All in all, a satisfying result so far. We’ll see what comes next.
As far as “accepting the negative results,†that’s true – today:
However, Chavez promised to continue his pursuit of the defeated proposals.
“Not a single comma of this proposal will be withdrawn,†he said, holding up a small red book containing the text of the proposed changes. “I will continue proposing this to the Venezuelan people. The proposal is alive, not dead.â€
It makes one wonder whether Chavez will try another way to get these proposals enacted or whether he’ll simply wait a few months or a year and try again. He’s got more than 4 years to get the SI! vote he wants.
And Booman also analyzed the situation intelligently:
This is how things should be. I have no problem with Venezuela staking out its independence from America. But they should keep their Constitution and the balance of powers. When Chavez fulfills his term it will be time for someone else.
We can only hope.
The smug, self satisfaction, however, evident in many blog posts from the left leave little doubt that liberals will put up with a lot from an authoritarian socialist – just as long as he “speaks truth to power†by calling Bush childish names and sticks it to the rich. By doing that, he can get away with ruling by decree, attacking and intimidating his political foes, shutting down opposition media, and generally acting like a bully and a thug in the eyes of the rest of the world.
By: Rick Moran at 2:12 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Michael Pugliese – You are about a nutty as a Chinese Chicken salad.
I am sad to see a lack of crazy Chavez defenders.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
But before I go (you knew that was coming!) I will refer everyone to the new FIREDOGLAKE where Jane Hamsher asks the musical question – who is the bigger dictator? Hugo Chavez or George Bush (he of the “signing Statements”, “Executive Privilege”, “FISA” and so much more).
I’m agnostic on Hugo, I’ll defer to Marc and Randy who ave made a career outof looking South of the Border but I’ll say this. With a clown like Bush – placed in office by a constutional coup and reinstated thru some dodgy means in Ohio and Florida – I’m pretty careful about casting stones and glass houses and all that.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
This thread is absolutely wrecked–too many long urls posted has screwed up the page margins.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
There must be something stronger than fluoride in the water these days.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Just as a matter of principle, should it be possible for any constitution to be amended by 50.01 percent of the vote?
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Josh -
I am one of many people who believe that this referendum would have passed if it was simply about socialism. The Left was split on it. I would have voted no, but I was in favor of most of the social legislation.
I think that this is good news because none of the bourgeois critics of the process will be able to call Chavez anti-democratic at this point. They may not like him, but it will be humbling. Maybe – I hope – process will be the concentration now, not just words.
I was inducted into the Illuminati at a Grateful Dead show…at least I think.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
With a clown like Bush – placed in office by a constutional coup and reinstated thru some dodgy means in Ohio and Florida – I’m pretty careful about casting stones and glass houses and all that.
If we were being silent on Bush, that would be true.
However, making the argument that Bush is worse is the flip side of the argument that the right made when we spoke about Abu Ghraib, saying that Saddam was worse.
In other words, if you use either Bush or Saddam as your benchmark, then don’t have much in the way of room except for improvement.
Bob Williams. At least 50.1 is a majority, as opposed to making someone president with not even a plurality of the popular vote – since we’re discussing principles here.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Well, RP, that was a snarky, ugly, little reply. My point was that, ideally, constitutions should be hard to amend.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Randy Paul is correct. I’m of the left, but it pains me that because Chavez is a populist leftist who likes to tweak Bush’s nose so many Americans go ga-ga over him. Chavez is demagogue who wants to stay in power for a long, long time. Plenty of those who oppose him are people of the left who can see through his demagoguery.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq12032007.html
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Bob Williams,
Touchy, touchy . . . :-0
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:48 pm
“If Chavez had just restricted the constitutional reforms to those items designed to help the poor, and skipped the power grabbing stuff, he probably would have won the referendum hands down.”
Uh, did you happen to miss the point of the ‘other’ included constitutional reforms MB? Why do I get the feeling you would have been willing to accept the needed concession.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“should it be possible for any constitution to be amended by 50.01 percent of the vote??
I remember thinking the same thing when I heard it took only a majority Bob. With these rules, a Constitution doesn’t have much of a constitution does it?
Kinda scary when you consider the number of people that actually think a Constitution is a good place to declare social programs…….and discount groceries.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
The California Constitution can, and is, regularly amended by a simple majority vote. Unlike tax hikes that require 2/3 (and that by amdt!)
December 9th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Jcummings: How can anyone claim to have made a break from the anti-semites and then cite Counter Punch? Counter Punch! I count 9 anti-Israel / anti-Zionism books for sale on their front page alone, including one by the site editor and another called “Zionist Collaboration With The Nazis.” You would think Israel must be the leading source of evil in the world. Counter Punch is no better than the worthless folks at Press Action, who you say you have disowned.