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.

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.

Touchy, touchy . . . :-0

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.

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.

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.

I am sad to see a lack of crazy Chavez defenders.

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?”

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.”

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

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.”

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?”

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.”

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