Chavez has a 62% approval rating!

[Peace Patriot]

I was reading along in this article about Venezuela's upcoming by-elections--an analysis of the new socialist party (Chavez's party) and its dealings with other leftist parties, and the intent of the rightwing opposition to field candidates in this election. The latter boycotted national assembly elections in 2005, evidently because their support was so poor, but they are organizing to field candidates in this election.

The article gets into some polling stats--for instance, that nearly 60% of respondents want the opposition to have "an important presence" in the legislature; however, about 32% said they will vote for Chavistas and about 25% said they will vote for the opposition, with a whopping 43% being for independents or undecided. Looks like the opposition will win a block of seats in the legislature, as the article says. Then, at the very end: "Meanwhile, 62% of respondents evaluated Chavez’s job performance as president to be either 'somewhat good,' 'good,' or 'excellent.'"

That is a HUGE positive approval rating! What is all this talk from rightwing bloggers that Chavez is "slipping in the polls" and what not? Any political leader here would eat their grandmother for an approval rating like that! All their crap about this is going wrong and that is going wrong in Venezuela hasn't phased Venezuelan voters as to their approval of Chavez and his government. Venezuelans obviously think things are going well--or, whatever isn't going well is not Chavez's fault--but they would like to have some opposition in the legislature (which is totally dominated by Chavistas because of the previous rightwing election boycott), probably for purposes of accountability and scrutiny of the government, and maybe to represent poorly represented interests (such as small and mid-sized business?)

I have ALWAYS said that I would like to see a stronger opposition in Venezuela--that is, a REAL opposition, loyal to the country, working for mutual benefit, uncorrupted by USAID money--and have been appalled at their extremism, their coup mongering and, above all, at their absurd boycott of the 2005 election and their lying complaints about "election fraud" (--against one of the most honest and transparent election systems in the western hemisphere). It's as if they got their script from Karl Rove. I think that people like the woman I read about who ran a small grocery business that was being harmed by a nearby government subsidy food store, should be represented. I oppose big corporate business and monopolies--whether national or transnational--but I do NOT oppose trade and a healthy marketplace. I think they are essential to human happiness and are a progressive force in society.

Anyway, I was struck by Chavez's increased, bigger than ever approval rating, as of Nov. 19, 2009. So much for the corpo-fascist media's anti-Chavez campaign--at least in Venezuela.

-------------------------

The article url:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4936

[Judi Lynn]

1. His national support has hovered right around this number for years, too!

It continues to be broad support regardless of all the machinations and conspicuous hate speech directed at him. We are finding out just how filthy the right-wingers get after seeing the way they've conducted themselves when Democrats were in office here: every one of them since at least as far back as FDR.

It was stupendous seeing something written out before our eyes in this article, something we've known for ages:

This situation contrasts sharply to the run-up to the 2005 National Assembly elections, which most opposition parties boycotted due to their evident lack of electoral support.

We've heard from wave after wave of wingers passing through that it's criminal that Chavez controls the National Assembly.

What a grand charade, isn't it? They just don't seem bright enough to know people already KNOW what's going on, if they are conscious, and the ones who don't know, who are too lazy to think, to look for the truth don't really matter all that much, anyway.

Thanks for this update. It's great hearing how loyal the people still are to their desperately needed, long-in-arriving Bolivarian Revolution.

[Braulio]

2. However, in recent polls a majority said they would rather vote

for somebody other than Chavez. Alfredo Keller and Associates reports the answer to the question:

"If there were Presidential elections would you vote for...

Chavez --- 38 %
Anybody else ---- 44 %"

The problem the opposition faces is their lack of ability to unite to put forth an "anybody else" the people like. The opposition is fragmented, and led by incompetetents. Therefore, even though Chavez seems to be down, he's not out.

[ChangoLoa]

3. I think he's talking about the same poll we were discussing a month ago

The "last IVAD" poll... from august, isn't it?

Same numbers if I remember.

[ChangoLoa]

4. Correction to my previous comment: the poll is from 25/10 to 04/11

Interesting results (tell me if you want me to give you the link to the pdf scan, it's in spanish).

Chavez's performance as the president: excellent=12.1%; good=24.9%; average (regular in spanish) to good=24.6%; average to bad=12.3% ; bad=11.6% ; Very bad (pésimo)= 12.9%

Do you trust the president? a lot of trust=16.4%; trust=20.5%; some trust=13.2%; little trust=21%; no trust=26.9%

Behavior of the president in the current situation: approves=40.7%; disapproves=54%

Political definition: chavista=35.7%; not chavista=32.3%; none of the two=28%

Mandate: Chavez has to finish his mandate with a recall ref. in 2010=29.8%; with the 2012 election giving space for a new leadership=35.6%; stays until 2021=6.6%; stays after 2021=19.6%

Which candidates for the Parliament will represent better the interests of Venezuela: supported by the Govt=36.6%; supported by the Opposition=37.2%

Which candidates will you give your vote to in 2010? chavista=32.4%; opposition=24.8%; independent=31.2%

On the imprisonment of opposition politicians: Agree=32.9% ; Disagree=58.4%

The govt respects or oppresses public liberties: Respects=39.2% ; Oppresses=55.1%

About the students' demonstrations against the govt: they are right=60.2% ; They are wrong=28.4%

Trust in Venezuelan Justice: a lot=7.8% ; trust=15.4% ; some trust=14.5% ; little trust=30.3% ; no trust=31.2%

Suspension of diplomatic and commercial relations with Colombia: Agree=30.3% ; Disagree=65.9%

Is the president right to express himself as he does concerning the presidents of Colombia and USA?
he's right=31.7% ; he's wrong=63%


"I have ALWAYS said that I would like to see a stronger opposition in Venezuela--that is, a REAL opposition, loyal to the country, working for mutual benefit, uncorrupted by USAID money"

What makes you say that this kind of opposition doesn't exist in Venezuela?

Btw, did you notice that the leftist opposition declared against the US bases in Colombia?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[ChangoLoa]

6. You would be surprised :)

[EFerrari]

10. Don't bet on it.

:)

[spanza]

7. Thanks for the work, Chango, can you post the link?

Ni les pares, pura mala fe...

[ChangoLoa]

9. Link

http://www.anajuliajatar.com/index.php/2009/11/14/encuesta-ivad-25-octubre-al-04-noviembre-2009

Gracias por el articulo. Ni pendiente.

[EFerrari]

11. La pura mala fe es obvia y ha sido obvia desde el momento que sos venieron aqui.

Translation: the bad faith is obvious and has been obvious since you came here.

[ChangoLoa]

13. That's right. As we can see in your posts #5 and #12...

:)
Peace and Love

[EFerrari]

14. You have to tell this forum who this "we is that you keep talking about.

I'm sure it would be a topic of interest. :hi:

[EFerrari]

17. spanza, a rough translation of your post is: " Don't let up on them,

it's pure bad faith".

I want to point out to you, because you are new here, that I nor any of the long time posters to this forum act in bad faith. You or anyone can know exactly what we think by reading our posts.

It's a safe assumption that none of us came to this forum for the purpose of attacking anyone, that we are active in Democratic politics and that we're here to exchange information.

And when a group of anti-democratic posters descend on this forum of about 20 regulars at a politically sensitive moment, it is noticed because it sticks out like a sore thumb. It isn't "mala fe" or "bad faith" to notice that. It's just observing the obvious.

Why anyone would want to come here to do that instead of going to forums that are more in line with a right wing perspective, I don't know. And before I'm accused of calling people I disagree with trolls, I want to point out that I have been here five years. I have disgreed with many people and that doesn't make them trolls. The Magistrate and I disagreed on nearly every issue for most of that time. I think we are friends now and I look forward to his posts because his is a mind different than mine and I always learn something from him.

And speaking of bad faith, why would you post, "don't let up on them" in Spanish and not in English and without a translation?

Thanks.

[spanza]

19. EFerrari, your translation is simply not correct

In Venezuela, "No les pares" means "don't care about them" or "be indifferent about them". Ask any Venezuelan.

After ChangoLoa posted a constructive comment (#4), politely sharing information about the rest of the poll from IVAD (which was the topic of this thread), I saw you answering her/him (#5 deleted) something like "You are so careless that you don't even notice PP is a "she". I suspect you to be as careless with the information you give. And, anyway, we all know what you're doing here so you shouldn't expect anyone to listen to anything you have to say".

I thought that your comment was quite useless, unfair and that it showed nothing but bad faith. I didn't want to make any fuss about it, but I did want to express Chango my support after I thanked him for her/his work, so I wrote to her/him 6 words in spanish: "Don't even care about them, it's pure bad faith".

Now, it's risible to see you calling Venezuelan people "anti-democratic" or "right-wing" without any other basis than their dislike of the Chavez's regime. It shows that you are not well informed about the political spectrum in Venezuela, nowadays. In my case, I have told you, more than once, what my political position was and why, {i]as a leftist and as a democrat, I was in essential disagreement with my government. I've given you x reasons, x arguments, but you've always preferred to answer with personal attacks, almost never with an argument. I can perfectly take a "what you say is wrong" but not a "go and write in Free Republic, you right winger, I think you're not even a Venezuelan". For me, this means bad faith.

It doesn't have to be like that, does it?

Peace

[EFerrari]

22. My translation is fine. And I notice you didn't answer my question.

As far as the Chavez regime, there are plenty of lefties on this board who have objections to that administration. On the other hand, they didn't come to this board for the express purpose of bashing it and other progressive Latin American governments and rarely if ever make it their sole activity when they post here.

It is possible that you don't know what "bad faith" means although, it is interesting that you use that expression which is about clarity or obscurity of intention, not about agreement or even civility.

[spanza]

23. According to you, "don't let up on them"="be indifferent about them, don't pay attention to them"?

hmm, I see from your other post #11 that your spanish is really far from being good, EFerrari. How old were you when you left Latin America?

"Pararle a alguien", in Venezuela, means to listen to someone, to pay attention.

Can you show something I said bashing another progressive government? I think you're making up stuff now.

[ChangoLoa]

dupe...

[ChangoLoa]

25. No, EFerrari. "Ni les pares" means "don't even pay attention to them"

Seriously. "Ni LOS pares" would mean "don't even stop them".

Venezuelan slang: párale = listen to him, pay attention to him
Regular spanish: páralo = stop him

[spanza]

8. Right

'Btw, did you notice that the leftist opposition declared against the US bases in Colombia?'

MAS rechaza instalación de bases de EEUU en Colombia

12:17 PM Caracas.- Tomás Terán, miembro del Movimiento Al Socialismo, condenó a nombre del partido la instalación de las bases militares estadounidenses en territorio colombiano.

Dijo que las siete bases son un problema y que la respuesta que dio el presidente Hugo Chávez llamando a la guerra también es un problema.

"El ejército norteamericano es un problema, es una fuerza mundial. Esto lo rechazamos tajantemente porque el ejército norteamericano ha intervenido en asuntos de muchos países. Por eso el Movimiento Al Socialismo rechaza así como lo rechazaron las fuerzas socialistas democráticas del hemisferio".

Comentó que no es un problema de Chávez, sino del país y que existe una amenaza latente.


http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/11/22/pol_ava_mas-rechaza-instalac_22A3097251.shtml

[EFerrari]

12. That's not news. n/t

[Braulio]

15. Huh, there are no US bases in Colombia

There are Colombian bases the US is allowed to use. It's quite different. Since I'm for decriminalizing drug use, I see a better way to fight the FARC and other narcotraffic agents, and I'm opposed to US military personnel being sent anywhere outside the US borders. However, let's be realistic, this is an over reaction by leftists, who seem to like the FARC and realize the big bad wolf may be about to munch it down.

[Downwinder]

16. Ever consider that Uribe and Chavez might be running a good guy bad guy scam? n/t

[Braulio]

18. it could be both realize their political fortunes rise

When the other guy is around. It's like Osama and Bush, both benefited from the other's extremism.

[spanza]

21. You get to hear that a lot in Venezuela

In fact, the whole conspiracy thing started to be mentioned when the coup happened, in april 2002. People from abroad usually think that the popular revolt was what brought Chavez back into Miraflores, as in "The Revolution will not be televised".

In Venezuela, we know the role of the army and we all saw the flip flap made by Lucas Rincon (the High Commander of the Army, who declared Chavez had resigned and then was ascended by him to the highest military rank of the country) and Baduel's rescue, after that mysterious Cisneros' (Bush's friend who then made peace with Chavez) plane landed in the military island's fort (Orchila), where Chavez was detained.

I don't know what to think about that but, from an inside perspective, I can tell you that these events were difficult to understand.

[spanza]

20. It's a short cut, Braulio, indeed. But the US personal will receive no orders from anyone else than

the US army while acting freely in those bases. At the end, they do look like "US bases".

[Braulio]

24. US personnel never receive orders from others

Except when they're in action within the NATO order of battle. Some exceptions have been made in the past for British officers.

The US Army individuals sited within those bases aren't acting freely. I read the agreement, and it doesn't say they can act freely at all. Guantanamo IS a US base. There they do what they want, build what they want, and give permission to whomever wants to come in. That's not true in the Colombian bases.

What we have here is a slick (and venomous) dose of propaganda, old style Soviet agit-prop similar to what the yankees used to justify attacking Iraq - except the agit prop is being used by the marxists in Venezuela, who evidently feel the plan to build a communist hegemon in the Andean region isn't going to pan out if the US military helps the Colombians finish off the FARC. Given the technology they're about to start using on the FARC, the commies are indeed right to be afraid.

I think it's more sensible to decriminalize drugs in the USA, and not to send the troops there. But those are Colombian bases, and all we got here is propaganda flying all over the place.

[ChangoLoa]

26. There's no real guarantee about the use of those bases

And even if I don't really see the current US government starting a war situation in the region, what tells us that the next one won't be 100% PNAC-inspired?

I see it as a structural problem. The US government has been ruled by the same people that have managed the US financial, military and resource industries for the last decades. Their CEOs become secretaries or vice-president or etc. and vice-versa... continuously.

We, Latin American people, are in a structural position of adversity with those companies. That doesn't mean we can't work with the resource multinationals when the capital is needed, but it does mean that our goal, retaining the maximum value-added at home, is contrary to theirs, increasing their profits and flying them back into their accounts.

This "natural confrontation" would be "acceptable" if the resource companies weren't intimately connected with the military and financial sectors in the US. That gives them two vectors to permanently black-mail us, the financial one being a lot more relevant in normal situations.

That's why, even if I think that Chavez putting us on high alert of imminent attack is pure demagoguery and clearly counter-productive, I don't want to have this kind of US military activity in our continent.

Unless they graciously accept a "joint monitoring system" for it... which would be "counter-productive" to them :)

[Braulio]

27. Goals are contrary alright

The goals are contrary. However, your contention that companies are connected with the military and financial sectors in the US requires a better explanation from you. They are of course connected with banks - they borrow money from banks, and prefer to spread risk by using project financing.

Regarding multinational companies having links to the US military, that's going to be VERY hard for you to prove (unless they happen to be companies selling weapons). Companies have links to their respective state or foreign relations dpts - not the military. I myself have been in meetings where companies discuss their concerns with ambassadors from their respective companies, and explain where diplomacy can help them do better business. Brazil is an expert at this in Venezuela, for example. As a person who has been deeply involved in this racket for many years, I can tell you the only relation I have seen between US military and foreign company personnel has been basketball games and some pool side lunches. And there's nothing to tell me anything goes on. As a matter of fact, the US military attaches are known to be the biggest pussies in the embassy staff.

Regarding US military activity on the continent, I myself oppose it BECAUSE it wastes money, it's a dumb way to do things. However, having a few US soldiers manning predators to fight the FARC isn't that big a deal. And of course there's no need for them to accept a joint monitoring system. They want to be able to hunt the FARC down at will. And they don't want outsiders to understand the technology being used.