Chavez wins Venezuelan election

Doesn't sound like the opposition is going to claim fraud as they were accused of preparing to do.

Chavez is clearly very popular in his own country. I don't care what anyone thinks of his politics, but he's been repeatedly elected in fair and transparent elections. He is the choice of the Venezuelan people.

I was in the bubble. It was fun.

Yes I won't be posting as much because ... there won't be much to post about.

I just people would quit lying about me and saying I supported a right winger.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-27/news/sns-rt-venezuela-electionpolls-tablevepolls-20120401_1_henrique-capriles-main-pollsters-caracas-newsroom

Out of 7 agencies, there was only one oddball and it still gave Chavez a slight lead.

but even had he won, it was no referendum on policy, not at this point.

I hope Chavez is smart enough to be grooming successors so the default when he dies isn't a swing back to the far right.

Varianzas has been deviating from the other pollsters numbers by 10 points in favor of Capriles. So there is either something wrong with their methodology, or there is something wrong with the methodology of the other 6 independent organizations on the list(and the Venezuelan election process...and Jimmy Carter's judgment). I think it is reasonable to go with the former scenario.

Chavez is polling weaker than the last election though. So there may indeed be a political shift happening.

That is a major erosion in his base.

This explains why the opposition seemed upbeat even with the loss.

They're waiting for Chavez to kick it and will run again.

I'd say 9%.

Chavez got nearly 63% of the vote in 2006, Rosale 37%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006#Results

So I guess I was double counting...

edit: still, Chavez won by 26 points in 2006 and only 10 points in 2012. That's a 16 point drop. While technically Capriles only gains 8 (every vote that Chavez loses Capriles gains), it's still a 16 point erosion in Chavez' base.

Capriles took 16 points from the opposition. Anyone who disputes that can't do math.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mohammed_saeed_alsahaf.html

Forgot about the Iraqi Tommy Flanagan.

I'm really curious why anyone here would be supporting the rightwing dismantlement of democratic socialism in Venezuela.

The people of Venezuela once again voted to continue their experiment in Latin American democratic socialism. The elections were fair and open and monitored by international observers. Had Chavez lost, I would have accepted that defeat. I would not have, absent any actual factual basis, been attempting to discredit the outcome.

For the millionth time.

You can pretend otherwise, and you likely will, but the fact remains that you have been cheering on the right in Venezuela.

The right wing in Venezuela don't like Capriles' views.

As you seem to believe you are or have more authoritarian sources, or perhaps instead you are engaged in a definitional argument over the term "right". Are you claiming that there exist venezuelan political parties to the right of primojustica, and that therefore primojustica is "left"?

It is easy enough to find a link to the right wing and to the left wing but I'm not concerned about it. I just don't like people lying about his views. If I asked anyone on DU who lied and said that he was a right winger what his views on housing were they wouldn't know what to say.

Capriles had the far left socialist and even communists backing him.

45% of Venezuela didn't vote for a right winger.

although he has been a driving force in Latin America, by the people of that region of the world to end the domination of their countries by predatory Right Wing Global Corporations, destroyed by electing a phony, Paul Ryan type right winger in Venezuela, in my experience has never been from the left in this country.

Latin America's shift from the far right dictatorships has been the hope of the world as we watch the destruction of other parts of the world by the same policies that destroyed South America not so long ago.

Never used to be like this on Democratic boards. It began, this opposition to the swing to the left in S. America around 2004 airc.

Had Capriles, with all his rightwing elements who were backing him, won, the whole region would have been in danger of returning to the days of the School of the Americas and the latest Pinochets who I'm sure are waiting in the wings.

On the good side, Capriles had to pretend to be somewhat 'left' in order to even rate in this election which shows that Chavez' policies are now too popular for the right to be able to destroy them openly.

n/t.

n/t.

That's all I have to say about that.

What gets me is he's not really that radical, it's just that America has gone so far to the right that CANADA is considered to be commie.

Quick example: In classic Communist takeovers all deeds on all property are null and void and large landowners have their land seized and distributed to poor farmers. Chavez didn't even shut down the local right-wing radio until they openly called for his death.

The man goes into surrounding jungle villages bringing health care and schools.

For that, he must die.

And people ask if the rich hate the poor. They really do. They are willing to kill leaders who are loved by them.

Want to see the same thing here? All Obama has to do is openly visit and fund homeless shelters and I guarantee you Limbaugh will consider it the last straw.

atleast about it sucking.
Not because I dislike Chavez but rather because I dont feel comfortable with the idea of a politician serving so long in such a high office, I mean imagine the horror if Bush had been able to run for a 3rd or 4th term *shudder*
But that aside I hope the people of his country made a good choice, thats all we can do really.

As you know, he died in office or he would have undoubtedly been re-elected. He pulled this country OUT OF THE WORST DEPRESSION IN HISTORY here, and managed the war, and put it behind the country in less time than either one of _Bush's wars.

It was, of course, the reeking, stinking Republicans who drove to change our laws to make sure no President who was helping bring hope to the masses would ever have the chance to keep being re-elelected instead of allowing them to continue pillaging our national treasury and stufing their filthy pockets as fast as their meaty, sweaty, pale, squishy little hands can manage it.

power causes more problems than it solves.
I'm not saying Chavez is that bad kind either but he wont be around forever and some day someone else will be elected and if its someone say of the George Bush or Dick Cheney caliber then the country might well and truly be screwed without term limits to assist in damage control.

But of course, they're brown people who talk funny, they need us rich anglos to figure it out for them. Silly foreigners.

which proves even us silly anglos (sadly I dont even come close to being a rich one) dont always do well in electing our leaders.

And with that example in mind, exactly how credible do Americans sound when they bitch about who other people elect? Do as we say, not as we do.

Not that it mattered in the end *sigh*

" Yes, I know that judi" or did you read the entire post?
Just wondering because if you have a habit of that you might want to consider breaking it as I went on to say "and sure you sometimes get a gem but more often than not having someone in power causes more problems than it solves."
Take Clinton as example, a very good president and probably the best in the past few decades we have had however would it have been good for the country if he had been able to run for more terms in office? Sure it have been but what if we applied the same question to Bush being able to serve more than 2 terms? Would it have been good for the country?

And we know now that Reagan was elected by treason, and possibly Nixon as well.

It doesn't matter if you have term limits when people who aren't legally elected are never addressed in a legal fashion. They just install their cronies as the mouthpiece for another term or 11.

Or atleast thats my opinion.

But how many times have we seen Poppy Bush behind the scenes running things? Cheney? Rumsfeld?

I look at the last 30 years, and it looks like an unbroken dynasty of Neocon BS. GWB is a good example of having someone sitting in the oval office while someone else is running the show.

I think it would help if we had a smart electorate. We don't. They take the word of people who polish lies until they shine like diamonds, paid millions a year to do so.

It's really sad how little influence the law really has these days.

*shrug*

Bush would not have won a third term. People had begun to awaken to the destruction his regime had caused in this country and I doubt his own party would have encouraged him to run for a third term.

Chavez is a historical figure in South America. He has brought the whole region out of despair and back to sovereignty, not to mention totally pummelled the far right and their Corporate Monsters who kept South Americans in poverty and illiteracy for decades. He is loved in Latin America and in most other parts of the world since they are not exposed to the US right wing propaganda we get here which will always slam any leader who puts his own people first, over and above Corporations.

I am so relieved the right winger did not win even though they tried to pass him off as supportive of some of Chavez' popular policies. We all kow what the Republicans do to the people once they get into power.

I dont care for the whole unlimited terms those in congress and the senate can run for nor do I care to much for the long terms those on scotus have.

limits that is the problem, it is the obscene amount of money that buys seats for people who if we had a politically savvy electorate an a truly free and questioning media, could never have their images and track records polished during election season to fool low information voters the way they do.

Money, the Media, thousands of unelected think tankers working to ensure that big Corps get their representation in Congress and on the SC (see Thomas eg and how his SC seat was bought by Citizens United and how he paid them back when it was needed), lobbyists etc are the problem. And the Republican owned voting machines which we cannot check, which is unbelievable frankly, which are so easy to manipulate.

Remove all of the above, shorten election season to six months at most, give free air time to viable candidates to make their cases in person, no ads, and term limits would not matter.

Even with all that they have to work with, money etc, they still haven't succeeded in totally taking over this country, but they do make it possible for morons like Bush, Cheney et al to be placed in positions of power.

Which tells me that removing all the, what should be illegal, influences on our elections would result in far better choices.

The reason that Chavez was able to overcome all of those influences, and they were present in Ven, outside money, the Right's control of the media there, Capriles family owns or owned a huge part of the media there, is because Venezuelans still remember what it was like before Chavez, they still recognize the deceptions, they still fear a return to the old days when Ven. was controlled by big money and 80% of the people lived in poverty and illiteracy.

Plus, Chavez has given them concrete proof that his promises are not just campaign rhetoric. Capriles was forced to pretend he was supportive of some of those policies because they are so popular now that no Right Winger can win an election there as they can here, by slamming his policies. But the people did not trust him and his right wing coalition, and good for them. Our electorate is not as informed as the people there still are.

Funny how Venezuelan elections are more transparent than ours, isn't it?

That's why turnout is so important. More voters, Dems win is the rule these days.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

No matter what 'side' you're on.

If elections are rigged, then our 'representatives' don't have to give a damn about us.

Please, don't think like a right-winger. Grow up.

Our elections are not transparent.

And given the 1000 or so hours I've spent studying them in the US, any of my opinions on the matter are quite easily and heavily supported.

Lemme guess; you've spent all of 15 minutes listening to what Limbaugh and Fox 'News' have to say about our elections and believe yourself to be an authority.

You could get a solid, well-researched, and reality based education on the matter here on DU, but that would be too much like work, wouldn't it?

Up to you.

I'm tired of the western media blatantly propagandizing Venezuelan elections. You feel like you're reading Pravda USA. The New York/DC investor mafia must be reeling from such a crushing defeat.

Mmmmm, the tasty tears of DU's right wing Chavez haters.

And joshcryer's exceedingly creative math

he was practically orgasmic this morning over the election - and there go his whole red-baiting "Derpty derp socialism is being defeated! Just wait til November!" headlines he was planning to run for the week.

Venezuela's Capriles accepts defeat, congratulates Chavez on re-election
Reuters

11:18 p.m. EDT, October 7, 2012

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique Capriles accepted defeat and congratulated President Hugo Chavez on Sunday for his re-election victory.

"I send him my congratulations," Capriles told supporters at his campaign headquarters, looking downcast but saying he was proud of the large number of voters who turned out to cast their ballots for him.

http://www.courant.com/news/nation-world/sns-rt-us-venezuela-election-caprilesbre89702i-20121007,0,1093933.story

(Short story, no more at link.)

If you had read the U.S. and international media in the last six sixth months, you would believe that President Chavez was first dead from cancer and then defeated in this election. Chavez's energetic campaign and his victory tonight just prove how utterly dishonest our media is.

The big corporations that rule the U.S. are simply terrified that Americans would learn the facts about the wonderful programs the Chavez administration has implemented, including an efficient and verifiable voting system. The last thing the capitalists want is genuine democracy and a government that cares about the lives of its people.

Viva Bolivarian socialism! May the U.S. find its own Chavez and its own socialist revolution -- and quickly!

A loss for the bad guys here, but that's good. I consider our people to also be winners, even if they're unaware of it. We can learn a lot from this example.

GREAT points about Chavez's illness and defeat and their trumpeting in the mass media. Join us in the Socialist Progressive group. It sounds like you might like it.

It seems he's done a lot to improve a country that was in poor standing before, and the people like him enough to vote for him. He may not be a perfect leader, but none are and overall he seems to be the best leader for Venezuela.

and they no longer do. Establishment North Americans feel more kinship with the country club types who started the attempted coup, not with that feisty mixed-race guy who dares to give the finger to international corporate interests.

Since there is no perfect society or perfect government, the Beltway Establishment types and the interns at their think tanks find it easy to pick up on failings of the Chavez government and paint him as a dictator.

By the way, real dictators typically "win" by much larger margins, like 99%, or they don't even bother to hold "show" elections.

Why don't the Beltway elites ever label Rick Perry as a rightist dictator?

It kind of makes you wonder what kind of propaganda machine we have going here. I wonder how we would see a guy like Chavez if he was an American running for office?

issues and he opposes the Death Penalty eg, among other things. And the Right would be doing everything in their power to destroy him.

We learned that Western Powers spend millions on anti-Chavez propaganda, which you see in most of the copy and paste 'articles' that appear in Reuters, Yahoo, the NYT all the time here. They over use 'scary' words like 'socialist' etc and have never once credited him with all he has done for his own people. They outright lie about him knowing the average American isn't going to be reading independent news. And that is what they would still be doing if he was running here and we would be trying to fight them off.

Probably because they are pro-business and often corrupt, willing to admit foreign exploiters of their people and resources in exchange for personal bribes.

Apparently the Chavez experiment in socializing their vast national oil wealth is going more or less okay.

for their own selfish reasons.

To a large extent. They also hate that he seized their private golf courses. For real.

The corruption, crime, and economic disintegration will continue to grow worse.

'Cause reality ain't yer thing, bub.

Go away, troll.

There are probably other places that would be more accepting of the view that a populist left wing democratic government is a disaster.

and do enjoy your hopefully very short stay.

if it doesn't go your way huh?

They are partying all night for sure

and that's a good thing!

made the claim. There are no exit polls in Venezuela that I know of.

aka in their dreams.

And that the real exit polls in The US are fake.

I'm sure that will be the answer.

- Congratulations, El Presidente

but not surprising I guess, to see so many of the DLC/third way-type folks posting here unhappy about the legitimate re-election of a true progressive hero. At least this thread is less ugly than some of the others I've seen.

It's not what I'd prefer, were I Venezuelan; however, they do of course have a recall provision which can be relatively easily utilized. Congratulations to the people of Venezuela for their election. I support Venezuela against any foreign attempt at interference.

The opposition will probably just bide its time. They have governor elections coming up in December (and no doubt the opposition will use their non-totally-obliterated defeat as proof that they can go far) and mayoral elections sometime next year.

The running theory within (the more cynical) opposition circles is to wait for Chavez to kick the bucket and run again. In Venezuela if the President dies or is not able to lead they must have new elections (with the exception that if it is the last two years of the Presidency the Vice President takes over).

4th term?

This is why I thank god we have a 2-term limit in the USA.

And his presidency could have accomplished much more good. The term limits thing in the US is fairly new in historical perspective.

Winning WW II?

Founding of the United Nations?

U.S. voters 4th endorsement of the "New Deal"?

You disagree with virtually all of the Founders of this country, who opposed term limits as reactionary and undemocratic?

If the people elect a leader who is serving them well, there is no reason whatever why they should not be able to re-elect that leader as often as they, in their collective judgement, wish to do so. That was the position of our Founders and they did not place any term limits in the Constitution for that reason. Term limits are undemocratic.

The Republicans rammed through an amendment to change this, in the mid-1950s, and put a two-term limit on the president, in order to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening here again, and to begin to dismantle the one that we had (which they have very nearly accomplished).

In Venezuela, term limits were put to a vote of the people--in an election system that Jimmy Carter just recently called "the best in the world," and which has been closely monitored and certified as honest and transparent by every major elections group in the world. In an honest vote, they voted term limits down, for the president and for governors. And they knew, at that time, that this would mean that Chavez would run for a third term. He has now done so and they have voted for him again.

The thing is, it takes a lot of energy and a lot of time to create a "New Deal" for the majority of the people, in the face of the enormous entrenched power of the rich. The rich have their money and their power, and control of land and resources, and their exclusive clubs and their exclusive schools. The poor have TIME. That is all that they have. And so, when they get a leader who serves the majority, and makes things better for the majority, it takes TIME for that leader to re-order the economy and the institutions that favor the wealthy, who are are never quiet, of course--they called FDR a "dictator," too--and never not scheming to get even richer and more powerful.

That's just the reality. FDR needed time. Chavez needs time. The voters gave them time. Though the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean recently designated Venezuela "THE most equal country in Latin America" on income distribution, and though college enrollment has doubled and tuition is free for the poor, and though health care is now universal and free for the poor, and though economic growth is 5% with good wages and benefits and very low unemployment (after a period of sizzling economic growth--10%--during the 2003 to 2008 period (in the private sector and NOT including oil)), and though the Chavez government created a quick recovery from Bush's depression with no cuts to social programs--no "austerity"--there is still much to do in Venezuela, to finish the Bolivarian Revolution--Venezuela's "New Deal"--and to firm it up to the point that Venezuela's equivalent of Reaganites and Bushwhacks cannot dismantle it.

There are also justifiable criticisms of Venezuela's government and society that need addressing. Venezuelans love guns and have a high murder rate, for instance. But, in the judgement of Venezuelan voters, a rightwing government is not likely to solve these and other difficult problems. The majority of voters trusts the Chavez government which has been so successful at solving income inequality and so many other problems.

Why SHOULDN'T Venezuelans have that choice? Because YOU think so? They voted FOR that choice. You would...what? Cancel their vote?

THAT is why our Founders rejected term limits. It is an artificial CANCELLATION of the will of the people.

We took a rough turn in the 50s.

Prior to FDR, no president attempted to run for a 3rd term because of this tradition set by Washington. After FDR, the 22nd amendment was passed which officially made it law restricting a president to two terms. If FDR was so fantastic, why did this amendment pass so easily? Even Democrats overwhelmingly agreed with it. Only two states in the Union (OK and MA) rejected it.

Washington himself could have decided to run for a 3rd term and would have no doubt won. He voluntarily stepped down for what believed was the good of democracy. He thought after 8 years the risks of corruption increase. And you will never get the guy out of power. The power of incumbency is quite extreme. It's too much power for our the American philosophy of check and balance government.

Washington also warned that political parties are inherently dangerous and a serious threat to democracy. I think most Americans, in both parties, would agree with this. Our two-party system is broken and damaging the nation. Massive amounts of money are being spent on political campaigns to a point where the average man has no chance to participate in government. Such positions are now restricted to the elite class or the super rich. Congress is LOADED with millionaires. This is what worried Washington...an elite class that thinks they know better.

Yes, the two party system in the US is totally fucked up. Maybe if we worked to elect visionary populist leaders (I liked Howard Dean a lot, and he supported this), we could have IRV in some races. That would be a great start.

Washington made his own personal decision about retiring after two terms, as did subsequent presidents following his example, but those actually structuring the government and creating its fundamental law specifically rejected term limits as undemocratic.

There is another thing. Washington was making that personal decision in an atmosphere of uncertainty as to the direction that the United States would take. There were those who wanted to offer Washington a crown. Nobody had any experience of running a government with no king. Thus, Washington wanted to squelch any thoughts of hereditary rule. And circumstances did not arise until much later--after THAT issue had been settled--that might have prompted a leader to run for a third term. Lincoln was foreclosed from doing so by assassination. And not until the total fuckup of the rich and their Great Depression did the issue of a third or more terms arise again, with FDR, who had stabilized a failing country, and then, of course, had to deal with the Third Reich and the Japanese Imperium.

FDR was facing the starvation and homelessness of millions of Americans. He met that potential catastrophe not only with creativity and great energy but also with all-important courage and optimism. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." That line was spoken about the Great Depression not about the war. We're talking about a real leader--someone who can turn the very psyches of a people around.

Chavez has had a similar galvanizing impact on Venezuela, which had been broken by "neo-liberalism"--by the kind of looting by the rich and "austerity" for the poor that we're seeing in Europe--an assault by the rich and the banksters that hit Latin America before it hit the rest of the western world. The Bolivarian Revolution, like the New Deal, took this catastrophe on, totally, and, though it is a country-wide transformation, driven by the people as much as it is led by Chavez, Chavez has provided those vital elements of courage and optimism. He is very like FDR.

It has been very clear, all along, that that is how Venezuelans view Chavez. They have been consistent in that view from the beginning. His approval rating has barely slipped below 60%, throughout his tenure, and he has won honest and transparent elections time and again, by big margins.

And Venezuelans have supported Chavez all this time in spite of the non-stop political campaign waged by the Corporate Media against him, including, during the 2002 coup d'etat, the Corporate Media directly participating in the overthrow of the elected government. So it is not as if Venezuelans are unaware of every rightwing "talking point" that the Corporate Media have tried to hammer into their heads, from the charge that he is a "dictator" to the charge that he is "incompetent," and everything in between. Venezuelans consulted their own experience and their own judgement of the Chavez government. They voted as a people to let him run for a third term and then they elected him again.

FDR faced similar circumstances--an often vitriolic anti-FDR, anti-New Deal press, which also called him a "dictator." Neither of these leaders is a "dictator." But both have acted in the interest of the great majority of the people against the interests of the rich few and their overweaning wealth and power, and that is why they got called "dictatorial"-- because they wouldn't be dictated to by the rich!.

I want to note again how the decision about term limits was made here vs. how it was made in Venezuela. Here, it was made by the political class, led by the Republicans, in an amendment to the Constitution that clearly violated the intent of the Founders. It was made in Washington and in state capitols. In Venezuela, the decision was made by a vote of the people in an election system that Jimmy Carter recently called "the best in the world" for transparency and honesty. If this matter had been put to a vote of the people here, it might well have become apparent to them that it was an anti-New Deal move made by the moneyed class. The Democratic leaders would not have been able to defend it, because their real reason for supporting it was their fear of an Eisenhower third term. This was foolish and short-sighted. The menace behind the 22nd amendment might have been perceived if the matter had been put to a popular vote.

The flawed amendment process, in our own Constitution, is an example of the less than democratic views that were current in that era. Many of our Founders didn't trust "the people" on some matters--on amending the Constitution by popular vote, for instance--but, curiously, they DID trust them to be able to judge a leader's performance in office as to keeping that leader in office for as long as they wished. They were quite adamant on this point.

Merely getting elected to a second, or third term, or more, does NOT make you a scofflaw, a "dictator" or anything else. What you are depends on what you do with the mandate you have been given, in additional terms of office. Chavez has never overstepped the law. NEVER! That can't even be said about FDR! (i.e. the Japanese interment camps). Chavez in fact has scrupulously followed the law and has also made his program very clear. Venezuelans have known very well what they were endorsing and what to expect from President Chavez. They are a very democratic people--passionately democratic--and it is an insult to them to presume that they are stupid peasants who don't know what they're doing--who somehow keep electing a "dictator" or an "incompetent."

Finally, I would just say this, about term limits: We have term limits on many offices now in the U.S. including president, and do we have a better democracy? Hm? The upshot of term limits is that corporate/war profiteer lobbyists run our government and write our laws! Term limits are part of a package of corruption and corrupt ideas that are in truth destroying our democracy--along with all those New Deal reforms that our forebears tried to insure for posterity--for us--by voting for FDR four times.

Power can be used for good or for ill. But without power, you can do nothing. Yes, incumbency gives you an edge of power. You have TIME to put regulators in charge of the banksters and make sure they do the job they are supposed to do. You have TIME to find out who's who, and what's what, in the systems that have failed, and TIME to correct them and correct them thoughtfully and well. You have TIME to create entirely new systems, to bring fresh ideas to fruition. You have TIME to change the culture within government and the private economy. You have TIME to appoint better judges, to influence legislative committees, to educate and mentor new and better leaders in every field. You have TIME to create a better democracy, with more equal income and opportunity, and more public participation.

You can abuse this power that TIME gives you, or you can use it to do the will of the people. And it is up to the people to monitor and judge what you have done. It is an arbitrary law that says that, despite how you have used the power that you have been given, the people cannot vote for you again, even if they very much approve of your actions and want you to continue. And it is an arbitrary opinion, from the outside, that says that they shouldn't do this--lift term limits, let their president run again (also, governors)--if, in their judgement, that is a beneficial decision.

In practical terms, Venezuela has universal free health care, universal free education through college, very low unemployment, good wages and benefits, strong labor protections, high economic growth, high public participation and clean elections. They don't have term limits.

In the U.S., on the other hand, education and health care have become unaffordable for many people; we have high unemployment, shit wages, vastly decreasing benefits; an outright assault on labor rights; economic growth is at a standstill; the banksters are out of control; our people are disempowered and demoralized, and our election system is extremely corrupt and riggable. And we have term limits.

I rest my case.

The problem is most people are voting for the lesser of two evils and not for what they really want. They don't vote FOR a candidate anymore, they are voting against someone.

This is the average American voter right here:
"Well...I don't agree with 'X' very much. I actually agree with a 3rd party much more. But I hate 'Y' and think he's going to destroy the country. So Im going to vote for 'X' because I don't want 'Y' to win and waste my vote. But in the next election I'll vote for the guy I really want."

You wont see any real change in America until we all get out of that funk. The more we keep voting for the "lesser evil" the bigger hole we dig ourselves. Whether you admit to it not, you know that's the truth.

Excellent!

Oh yeah, they don't.

You know what's good for them?

We shouldn't have a term limit in the USA. If we had one earlier, there would have been no FDR in WWII, and if we still didn't, I suspect we'd be better off now as well.

Term limits are anti-democratic. I think eliminating them should be something big-D Democrats go for as well.

I feel it in my bones.

Cake, too

I don't agree with term limits btw.It was only done to neutralize another progressive President.

President Carter says its the best.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8935

A little history on how Bush and the C.I.A. tried to deny the People of Venezuela their rights

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144




























c.





























































i.

But he has made his mark and planted the seeds for future victory. Now he just needs to sit back and wait for Chavez's health problems to reach their logical end.

to reach the logical end for years. Still waiting......... Not that I agree with Castro but we've done a lot to interfere with their government too. Castro is still kickin'.

on the weed for a while and do some research on Venezuela's system of government.

i was arguing with one a few months back who was convinced Chavez would be dead long before the election. keep thinking those happy thoughts.

problems', but the Venezuelan people took care of those right wingers' plans back then, and they have done so ever since. Capriles is a lucky man that he was never jailed for his role in that treasonous coup.

Viva Chavez!

Congratulations President Chavez!

How often are presidential elections there?

Of course he was overthrown in a coup after the first election.

There was an attempted recall once, which was defeated.

There was a massive push he made for some changes in a referendum that he put up for a vote some years ago, but that wasn't an election for him.

So.. this is his third term, but not his third time dealing with large elections or referendums.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, there has been declining inequality in recent years in Latin America, and that decline in inequality is most obviously due to the influence of hard-left political parties: "the story is quite clear: there has been an overwhelming decrease in inequality and based on a casual observation, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela (four left-of-center countries) appear to have performed particularly well.... There is statistical evidence that countries with left-of-center governments have on average decreased inequality more than their counterparts." This is Chavez's broader political influence in the region.

Capriles, on the other hand, wanted to undermine this influence by ending ALBA.

Capriles also thought it was a great idea for Venezuela to confiscate two-thirds of neighboring Guyana's land. Here is a Guyanese newspaper on Chavez's re-election: "For Guyanese a Chavez victory would be good news since unlike the Opposition, Chavez has been very conciliatory on the Venezuelan claim to two-thirds of our national territory."

Inexcuseable.

So glad he's gone for now.

Welcome to D.U., dharmamarx.

I was very active in my union for a couple of years up to the state level, and they couldn't figure out why people never fully got behind their barely perceptible incremental political demands.

The attitude seemed to be if we work quietly enough, we might get what we actually want in a century or two.

seems to be the mindset our country has adopted after the 60s struggles ( although I wasn't around back then).

If it comes from the bottom up, it can't be done slowly and incrementally enough.

If it comes from the rich and for the rich, it can't be done quickly enough.

but it is proving more and more true.

The gigantic protests in Wisconsin we're funneled into a recall election and the Democrats ran the same lackluster candidate who lost to Scott Walker in the first place. It was like the Democrats telling the rest of us, "You don't get it. We already took a dive. When we are paid to throw a fight, we stay down."

K and R

Such happy news to wake up to. This calls for a celebration - red, RED wine!!!!

saw her with Little Stevie Wonder in Yokosuka in 67 - my first concert!

Such a joyous tune is fitting for this day!

There's no one like either act. No one.

Little Stevie Wonder was still little, too.

Youkosuka. I've been there, too. Lived in the Space A terminal waiting to catch a plane back to the U.S.

That would have been some place to get to know. What a country. Lucky you.

He may not be always the nicest person on the planet but he's keeping the right wing authoritarians at bay in South America and giving strength to other SO countries that are embracing a more socialized, bottom-up system.

I hope your revolution spreads through the entire Western hemisphere!

The 1% are so sad to not have Venezuela's minerals, oil, and labor as is rightly theirs through the Lord Jesus christ, amen.

You totally forgot the Hallelujah.

When the wealth of Venezuela is rightly in the hands of the world's worthiest billionaires. God would have it no other way.

This is such a tragic injustice! Democracy ruins EVERYTHING!