Why Hugo Chávez Was Re-elected - Oct. 2012

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

Unlike the United States, Venezuela has a paper trail audit system which duplicates all electronic voting machine ballots cast. When you vote on the electronic voting machine in Venezuela, a paper (receipt) trail of your vote is instantly created and placed into a locked ballot box that all political parties have an observer watch at all polling stations. These locked boxes are then delivered to election headquarters under the auspices of all political parties who have candidates on the ballot. The electronic vote is tabulated nationwide and then randomly selected paper ballot boxes are opened to make sure they match the electronic results. The result of this process is that no party can claim that the votes were altered or tampered with. All attempts to implement a similar system here in the U.S. have been vociferously blocked by the Republiklan party. Example: In the state of Georgia all voting is done on electronic touch screen machines with NO paper trail; the Republiklans have blocked all efforts, multiple times, to implement the backup paper trail system that is in place in Venezuela. WHY??



<hr noshade color="#333333" size="4"></hr>


i3VZ2HdA9EwPP.gif


Why Hugo Chávez Was Re-elected


October 9, 2012

by Mark Weisbrot


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/opinion/why-chavez-was-re-elected.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print

WASHINGTON | For most people who have heard or read about Hugo Chávez in the international media, his reelection on Sunday as president of Venezuela by a convincing margin might be puzzling.

Almost all of the news we hear about him is bad: He picks fights with the United States and sides with “enemies” such as Iran; he is a “dictator” or “strongman” who has squandered the nation’s oil wealth; the Venezuelan economy is plagued by shortages and is usually on the brink of collapse.

Then there is the other side of the story: Since the Chávez government got control over the national oil industry, poverty has been cut by half , and extreme poverty by 70 percent. College enrollment has more than doubled, millions of people have access to health care for the first time and the number of people eligible for public pensions has quadrupled.

So it should not be surprising that most Venezuelans would reelect a president who has improved their living standards. That’s what has happened with all of the leftist governments that now govern most of South America. This is despite the fact that they, like Chávez, have most of their countries’ media against them, and their opposition has most of the wealth and income of their respective countries.

The list includes Rafael Correa, who was reelected president of Ecuador by a wide margin in 2009; the enormously popular Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, who was reelected in 2006 and then successfully campaigned for his former chief of staff, now President Dilma Rousseff, in 2010; Evo Morales, Bolvia’s first indigenous president, who was reelected in 2009; José Mujica, who succeeded his predecessor from the same political alliance in Uruguay — the Frente Amplio — in 2009; Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who succeeded her husband, the late Néstor Kirchner, winning the 2011 Argentine presidential election by a solid margin.

These leftist presidents and their political parties won reelection because, like Chávez, they brought significant — and in some cases huge — improvements in living standards. They all originally campaigned against “neoliberalism,” a word used to describe the policies of the prior 20 years, when Latin America experienced its worst economic growth in more than a century.

Not surprisingly, the leftist leaders have seen Venezuela as part of a team that has brought more democracy, national sovereignty and economic and social progress to the region. Yes, democracy: even the much-maligned Venezuela is recognized by many scholars to be more democratic than it was in the pre-Chávez era.

Democracy was at issue when South America stood together against Washington on such issues as the 2009 military coup in Honduras. The differences were so pronounced that they led to the formation of a new hemisphere-wide organization — the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which excluded the United States and Canada — as an alternative to the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States.

Here is what Lula said last month about the Venezuelan election: “A victory for Chávez is not just a victory for the people of Venezuela but also a victory for all the people of Latin America … this victory will strike another blow against imperialism.”

The administration of George W. Bush pursued a strategy of trying to isolate Venezuela from its neighbors, and ended up isolating itself. President Obama has continued this policy, and at the 2012 Summit of the Americas in Colombia he was as isolated as his predecessor.

Although some media have talked of Venezuela’s impending economic collapse for more than a decade, it hasn’t happened and is not likely to happen.

After recovering from a recession that began in 2009, the Venezuelan economy has been growing for two-and-a-half years now and inflation has fallen sharply while growth has accelerated. The country has a sizeable trade surplus. Its public debt is relatively low, and so is its debt-service burden. It has plenty of room to borrow foreign currency (it has borrowed $36 billion from China [pdf], mostly at very low interest rates), and can borrow domestically as well at low or negative real interest rates.

So even if oil prices were to crash temporarily (as they did in 2008-2009), there would be no need for austerity or recession. And hardly anyone is predicting a long-term collapse of oil prices.

Venezuela’s economy does have long-term problems, such as relatively high inflation and inadequate infrastructure. But the substantial improvement in people’s income (the average income has risen much faster than inflation under Chávez), plus gains in health care and education, seems to have outweighed the government’s failings in other areas, including law enforcement, in the minds of most voters.

The U.S. economic embargo against Cuba has persisted for more than half a century, despite its obvious stupidity and failure. American hostility toward Venezuela is only about 12 years old, but shows no sign of being reconsidered, despite the evidence that it is also alienating the rest of the hemisphere.

Venezuela has about 500 billion barrels of oil and is burning them currently at a rate of one billion barrels a year. Chávez or a successor from his party will likely be governing the country for many years to come. The only question is when — if ever — Washington will accept the results of democratic change in the region.


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
 
Cuba and Venezuela pose a threat to the economic slavery system that exists in the United States. The economic systems in these countries would transfer huge amounts of wealth from whites to minorities that are exploited in the United States. Economic slavery for minorities include high interest rate loans, limited advancement into management positions, poor/non-existent social services such as healthcare & schools, and low wage, non-union jobs. There is extensive psychological brain washing in the U.S. of minorities to accept these conditions and white superiority.

Just like Thomas Jefferson, feared and greatly disliked the successful Haitian revolt against slavery. As a slave owner, he didn't want his slaves doing the same thing to gain freedom. Thomas Jefferson wanted his slaves to accept their inferiority, and 'natural' place in society. As a result, the U.S. committed to military acts and sanctions to undermine the economy of Haiti.
 
Last edited:
source: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

His independence, help for Venezuela's poor will not be forgiven

chavez-300x204.jpg


Venezuela's left-wing populist president Hugo Chávez died on Tuesday, March 5, after a two-year battle with cancer. If world leaders were judged by the sheer volume of corporate media vitriol and misinformation about their policies, Chávez would be in a class of his own.

Shortly after Chávez won his first election in 1998, the U.S. government deemed him a threat to U.S. interests--an image U.S. media eagerly played up. When a coup engineered by Venezuelan business and media elites removed Chávez from power, many leading U.S outlets praised the move (Extra!, 6/02). The New York Times (4/13/02), calling it a "resignation," declared that "Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator." The Chicago Tribune (4/14/02) cheered the removal of a leader who had been "praising Osama bin Laden"--an absurdly false charge.

But that kind of reckless rhetoric was evidently permissible in media discussions about Chávez. Seven years later, CNN (1/15/09) hosted a discussion of Chávez with Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, where he and host John Roberts discussed whether or not Chávez was worse than Osama bin Laden. As Schoen put it, "He's given Al-Qaeda and Hamas an open invitation to come to Caracas."

There were almost no limits to overheated media rhetoric about Chávez. In a single news article, Newsweek (11/2/09) managed to compare him to Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. (Chávez had built a movie studio, which is the sort of thing dictators apparently do.) ABC (World News, 10/7/12) called him a "fierce enemy of the United States," the Washington Post (10/16/06) an “autocratic demagogue." Fox News (12/5/05) said that his government was "really Communism"--despite the fact he was repeatedly returned to office in internationally certified elections (Extra!, 11-12/06) that Jimmy Carter deemed "the best in the world" (Guardian, 10/3/12).

Apart from the overheated claims about terrorism and his growing military threat to the region (FAIR Blog, 4/1/07), media often tried to make a simpler case: Chávez wasn't good for Venezuelans. The supposed economic ruin in Venezuela was a staple of the coverage. The Washington Post editorial page (1/5/13) complained of "the economic pain caused by Mr. Chávez," the man who has "wrecked their once-prosperous country." And a recent New York Times piece (12/13/12) tallied some of the hassles of daily life, declaring that such

frustrations are typical in Venezuela, for rich and poor alike, and yet President Hugo Chávez has managed to stay in office for nearly 14 years, winning over a significant majority of the public with his outsize personality, his free-spending of state resources and his ability to convince Venezuelans that the Socialist revolution he envisions will make their lives better.

Of course, Venezuelans might feel that Chávez already had improved their lives (FAIR Blog, 12/13/12), with poverty cut in half, increased availability of food and healthcare, expanded educational opportunities and a real effort to build grassroots democratic institutions. (For more of this, read Greg Grandin's piece in the Nation--3/5/13.)

Those facts of Venezuelan life were not entirely unacknowledged by U.S. media. But these policies, reflecting new national priorities about who should benefit from the country's oil wealth, were treated as an unscrupulous ploy of Chávez's to curry favor with the poor. As the Washington Post (2/24/13) sneered, Chávez won "unconditional support from the poverty-stricken masses" by "doling out jobs to supporters and showering the poor with gifts." NPR's All Things Considered (3/5/13) told listeners that "millions of Venezuelans loved him because he showered the poor with social programs."

Buying the support of your own citizens is one thing; harboring negative feelings about the United States is something else entirely. As CBS Evening News (1/8/13) recently put it, "Chávez has made a career out of bashing the United States." But one wonders how friendly any U.S. political leaders would be toward a government that had supported their overthrow.

Though this is often treated as another Chávez conspiracy theory--"A central ideological pillar of Chávez's rule over 14 years has been to oppose Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington, which he accuses of trying to destabilize his government," the Washington Post (1/10/13) reported--the record of U.S. support for the coup leaders is clear.

As a State Department report (FAIR Blog, 1/11/13) acknowledged, various U.S. agencies had "provided training, institution building and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government." The Bush administration declared its support for the short-lived coup regime, saying Chávez was "responsible for his fate" (Guardian, 4/21/09).

Of course, as with any country, there are aspects of Chávez's government that could be criticized. U.S. media attention to Venezuela's flaws, however, was obviously in service to an official agenda--as documented by FAIR's study (Extra!, 2/09) of editorials on human rights, which showed Venezuela getting much harsher criticism than the violent repression of the opposition in U.S.-allied Colombia.

Time-chavez.jpg


In reporting Chávez's death, little had changed. "Venezuela Bully Chávez Is Dead," read the New York Post's front page (3/6/13); "Death of a Demogogue" was on Time's home page (3/6/13). CNN host Anderson Cooper (3/5/13) declared it was "the death of a world leader who made America see red, as in Fidel Castro red, Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo Chávez."

"The words 'Venezuelan strongman' so often preceded his name, and for good reason," declared NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams (3/5/13); on ABC World News (3/5/13), viewers were told that "many Americans viewed him as a dictator." That would be especially true if those Americans consumed corporate media.

The fact that U.S. elite interests are an overarching concern is not exactly hidden. Many reports on Chávez's passing were quick to note the country's oil wealth. NBC's Williams asserted, "All this matters a lot to the U.S., since Venezuela sits on top of a lot of oil and that's how this now gets interesting for the United States." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (3/5/13) concurred: "I mean, Venezuela is a serious country in the world stage. It is sitting on the world's largest proven oil reserves."

And CNN's Barbara Starr (3/5/13) reported: "You're going to see a lot of U.S. businesses keep a very close eye on this transition in Venezuela. They're going to want to know that their investments are secure and that this is a stable country to invest in." Those U.S. businesses would seem to include its media corporations.
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21942617" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1700>
<A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21942617">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Just like Thomas Jefferson, feared and greatly disliked the successful Haitian revolt against slavery. As a slave owner, he didn't want his slaves doing the same thing to gain freedom. Thomas Jefferson wanted his slaves to accept their inferiority, and 'natural' place in society. As a result, the U.S. committed to military acts and sanctions to undermine the economy of Haiti.

Is there some documentation or references for this? I would like to get more information about this to follow up on the reaction of the American government then...especially after they (the US) bought the land from France via the Louisiana Purchase because of the Haitian Revolution...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Haitian_Revolution

After reading about his extensive slavery holdings, I am surprised Jefferson was chosen to be on the currency of the United States. He was the least likely to exchange currency for goods or services.

:lol::lol::lol:


Why are inner city youth taken to see his monument in Washington DC is beyond my comprehension; he would have had them listed next to his furniture as property, yet they are forced to come here to rever him. I guess we will need to start taking Jewish children to Hitler or Nazi monuments funded by skin heads.

After reading the Wikipedia, you will see many similarities to North Korea and Cuba with garbage sanctions to starve out the people.
 
Last edited:
After reading about his extensive slavery holdings, I am surprised Jefferson was chosen to be on the currency of the United States. He was the least likely to exchange currency for goods or services.

:lol::lol::lol:


Why are inner city youth taken to see his monument in Washington DC is beyond my comprehension; he would have had them listed next to his furniture as property, yet they are forced to come here to rever him...

I never went to his monument...closest I've been to it was standing at the MLK Memorial (which is questionable for what it represents) but I've been to Lincoln's Memorial many times...trust me, I know about him too.

Funny that no one talks about how Jefferson was very contradictory in his actions and how some prominent African-Americans called him out on it.
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22000171" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22000171">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Back
Top