Chavez is flat out nuts

[alaskaguy]

Even without changes in the Venezuelan constitution it may be possible for Chavez to retain power beyond 2012 (see the current situation in Russia).

Putin in Russia is bound by law to resign the Presidency this March. However many experts expect him to lead the party and in effect to have more power than whoever assumes the Presidency.

However, the socialist policies of the Chavez government may wreck havoc with the Venezuelan economy to such an extent that even the poor withdraw their support.

 

[alaskaguy]

It will be interesting to see what will happen once his policies start to fail. .

The price of oil has somewhat masked the shortcomings of Chavez's policies. Nevertheless, I stipulate that there is sufficient evidence that his policies have already failed.

 

[CTTB78]

This latest nut job is just modeling himself after Castro. Let's hope he is not as nuts as Castro, however, as good ole Fidel was willing to have Cuba blown to pieces as long as Russia fired upon the US during the missle crisis.

Regarding shutting off oil to the US, that would have toinclude the major gas company they own in the US? Can't remember what brand name.

 

[alaskaguy]

Regarding shutting off oil to the US, that would have toinclude the major gas company they own in the US? Can't remember what brand name.

Citgo is a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). As such, it ultimately belongs to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.

 

[CYKOFAN]

You may think Castro and Chavez are nuts, but they are fairly popular with their people, certainly a lot higher than 30%. Unfortunately it's the greed of the wealthy and our support for leaders like Batiste that makes it possible for leaders like Castro and Chavez to come into power. When the wealthy elite forget about the poor masses, that's what you get.

 

[iceclone]

After surviving the 2002 coup, the 2004 recall referendum (with 59% of the vote), and then finally winning a landslide victory a year ago (with 68% of the vote), his rhetoric and actions have become increasingly more extreme (mad with power syndrome, IMHO). I actually think this defeat might soften him up a bit, and he might start trying to win back support from people that he has clearly lost. Time will tell.

 

[CYKOFAN]

I think you're right iceclone. I was actually surprised Chavez lost the vote 51-49%. I think I was starting to believe the charges that he would rig the election, but obviously he didn't. His post election comments seemed pretty reasonable.

 

[jdoggivjc]

I think you're right iceclone. I was actually surprised Chavez lost the vote 51-49%. I think I was starting to believe the charges that he would rig the election, but obviously he didn't. His post election comments seemed pretty reasonable.

Call this political conspiracy theory, but who's to say that he DIDN'T rig the election to make it look like he lost? I mean, it "proves" to the world that he doesn't control EVERYTHING down there as his opponents have "won" something, but yet he still has 5 years to get the term limits repealed.

I'm not saying it's likely or even realistic, it's just a nutso idea that I had.

 

[iceclone]

Call this political conspiracy theory, but who's to say that he DIDN'T rig the election to make it look like he lost? I mean, it "proves" to the world that he doesn't control EVERYTHING down there as his opponents have "won" something, but yet he still has 5 years to get the term limits repealed.

I'm not saying it's likely or even realistic, it's just a nutso idea that I had.

I am happy to indulge you regarding your request. That is a conspiracy theory worthy of a two-foot tall tin-hat :wink:

My compliments!

 

[Cyclonepride]

My personal take is that the defeat will make Chavez realize that he hasn't done enough to suppress dissent, and will take measures to do so before reintroducing the legislation. This scenario has been played out over and over, and if you really believe that he is a man of the people who won't grab totalitarian power at the first opportunity, then you should be wearing the tin foil hat.

 

[herbiedoobie]

Evidently, shutting down the media isn't enough to qualify you as totalitarian dictator.

G.W., are you paying attention to this?

(I really, really, shouldn't have thrown that out, but I just cannot resist).

 

[herbiedoobie]

You may think Castro and Chavez are nuts, but they are fairly popular with their people, certainly a lot higher than 30%. Unfortunately it's the greed of the wealthy and our support for leaders like Batiste that makes it possible for leaders like Castro and Chavez to come into power. When the wealthy elite forget about the poor masses, that's what you get.

Evidently, "thou shalt not covet" didn't make it into your selective version of Christianity.

How about "the poor shall always be with us."

 

[iceclone]

Evidently, shutting down the media isn't enough to qualify you as totalitarian dictator.

G.W., are you paying attention to this?

(I really, really, shouldn't have thrown that out, but I just cannot resist).

I would certainly not choose Mr. Chavez for a president, but I also think that too much is made of his dictatorship just because he keeps poking us in the eye.

For some perspective, I think the Economist’s Democracy index is a pretty good measure, and they classify Venezuela as a ‘hybrid regime’ (worse than a flawed democracy, but better than ‘Authoritarian regime.’) What does bug me, however, is that we are very selective in who gets called a dictator in the media. Venezuela is a slightly worse than average nation when it comes to democratic freedom (93rd out of 167 in the cited ranking), and several close friends, such as Saudi Arabia are much worse. Very few people around the world live in functioning democracies, but only select few of the 'leaders' of the other countries actually get called dictators. I find that to be hypocrisy.

As an illustration, here are some rankings from the Economist’s analysis:

93 Venezuela
102 Russia
113 Pakistan
134 Kuwait
135 Afghanistan
159 Saudi Arabia
167 North Korea (last place)

Source: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

 

[herbiedoobie]

I would certainly not choose Mr. Chavez for a president, but I also think that too much is made of his dictatorship just because he keeps poking us in the eye.

For some perspective, I think the Economist’s Democracy index is a pretty good measure, and they classify Venezuela as a ‘hybrid regime’ (worse than a flawed democracy, but better than ‘Authoritarian regime.’) What does bug me, however, is that we are very selective in who gets called a dictator in the media. Venezuela is a slightly worse than average nation when it comes to democratic freedom (93rd out of 167 in the cited ranking), and several close friends, such as Saudi Arabia are much worse. Very few people around the world live in functioning democracies, but only select few of the 'leaders' of the other countries actually get called dictators. I find that to be hypocrisy.

As an illustration, here are some rankings from the Economist’s analysis:

93 Venezuela
102 Russia
113 Pakistan
134 Kuwait
135 Afghanistan
159 Saudi Arabia
167 North Korea (last place)

Source: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

I think that there are contextual ways to look at "dictators" that defy simple ranking. For instance, a fictional country that is significantly more dictatorial or authoritarian than most of it's surrounding neighbors might be worse, than one where all the surrounding neighbors have similar gov'ts.

Or maybe a traditionally dictatorial country may be moving toward democracy, but still retains elements of its past. Do we give them credit for moving in the right direction?

How about traditionally free and democratic countries that are heading the opposite direction? Do they get negative rep for movement, regardless of absolute freedom/democratic function?

Just a different way to look at it. Nazi Germany is reviled not because what they did was unprecedented. If Nazi Germany existed in 1600 or before, they would probably be seen as pretty average among nations, by historians. What made what they did so horrible, is that they did it in the context of mid-20th century Europe.

 

[iceclone]

I think that there are contextual ways to look at "dictators" that defy simple ranking. For instance, a fictional country that is significantly more dictatorial or authoritarian than most of it's surrounding neighbors might be worse, than one where all the surrounding neighbors have similar gov'ts.

Or maybe a traditionally dictatorial country may be moving toward democracy, but still retains elements of its past. Do we give them credit for moving in the right direction?

How about traditionally free and democratic countries that are heading the opposite direction? Do they get negative rep for movement, regardless of absolute freedom/democratic function?

Just a different way to look at it. Nazi Germany is reviled not because what they did was unprecedented. If Nazi Germany existed in 1600 or before, they would probably be seen as pretty average among nations, by historians. What made what they did so horrible, is that they did it in the context of mid-20th century Europe.

You make good points about both context and trends. Venezuela is well below average for its region, and it has been trending in the wrong direction, especially over the past year. I may just be the eternal optimist, but I remain interested in seeing how Chavez’s first election defeat will affect the process.

 

[herbiedoobie]

You make good points about both context and trends. Venezuela is well below average for its region, and it has been trending in the wrong direction, especially over the past year. I may just be the eternal optimist, but I remain interested in seeing how Chavez’s first election defeat will affect the process.

It wasn't much of a "defeat" imo. Basically all it was was a negative ballot, that was narrowly defeated.

And to go back to your earlier post, Chavez appears to be getting lots of press play, perhaps more than he should, in the scheme of things.

It's almost as if the media is trying to goad the gov't into another confrontation. The media "seems to be" goading us toward an Iran invasion, also, if you pay close attention to coverage, and not what the gov't officials are actually saying.

 

[Cyclonepride]

It wasn't much of a "defeat" imo. Basically all it was was a negative ballot, that was narrowly defeated.

And to go back to your earlier post, Chavez appears to be getting lots of press play, perhaps more than he should, in the scheme of things.

It's almost as if the media is trying to goad the gov't into another confrontation. The media "seems to be" goading us toward an Iran invasion, also, if you pay close attention to coverage, and not what the gov't officials are actually saying.

I agree that our media is trying to play up the rhetoric towards Iran, as well as Venezuala. Possibly to goad the administration into something, but in my opinion, to paint the admistration (and anyone who supports any of their efforts) as war mongers.

 

[alaskaguy]

I agree that our media is trying to play up the rhetoric towards Iran, as well as Venezuala. Possibly to goad the administration into something, but in my opinion, to paint the admistration (and anyone who supports any of their efforts) as war mongers.

I find it unlikey that the media is attempting to "goad the admininistration into something." The media business is the business of promotion. The bigger the story the better the ratings.

 

[herbiedoobie]

That's closer to what I mean than what I typed earlier. Thanks, guys.

 

[iceclone]

And to go back to your earlier post, Chavez appears to be getting lots of press play, perhaps more than he should, in the scheme of things.

I agree that our media is trying to play up the rhetoric towards Iran, as well as Venezuala. Possibly to goad the administration into something, but in my opinion, to paint the admistration (and anyone who supports any of their efforts) as war mongers.

I find it unlikey that the media is attempting to "goad the admininistration into something." The media business is the business of promotion. The bigger the story the better the ratings.

That's closer to what I mean than what I typed earlier. Thanks, guys.

What you guys all said. This much agreement is no fun.