President Hugo Chávez is using his decree powers to enact a set of socialist-inspired measures that seem based on a package of constitutional changes that voters rejected last year. His actions open a new stage of confrontation between his government and the political opposition.The government quietly revealed last week that the president had approved 26 new laws on Thursday, when the 18-month decree powers bestowed on him by Congress were set to expire, but officials withheld offering the full text of the new laws until this week.
Some of the laws significantly increase Mr. Chávez's power. For instance, one law allows him to name regional political leaders who would have separate budgets, which could help him offset possible victories by opposition candidates in state and municipal elections scheduled for November.
(In a further blow to the opposition, the Supreme Court upheld a measure on Tuesday that prohibits more than 250 people from running for office while the comptroller general investigates claims of corruption against them. The measure will prevent Leopoldo López, one of the country's most popular politicians, from running for mayor of Caracas.)
Mr. Chávez is also trying to assert greater control over the armed forces through a decree creating militias, a new military branch he has pushed for.
Reigniting private property concerns, another law allows his government to "occupy and temporarily operate" private companies not in compliance with bookkeeping rules.
The set of decrees stops short of removing term limits for Mr. Chávez, which was one of the most polarizing measures in the package voters rejected in December. But more than a dozen of the laws are strikingly similar to items included in the failed constitutional overhaul, angering the president's critics.
One might have asked why Chavez needs emergency decree powers during an oil boom when his country is at peace. Just askin' . . .
1) Shame on the Americans who say they support this guy.
2) This is why I believe in limited government.
John
1) Shame on the Americans who say they support this guy.
In all honesty, how many Americans support this guy? I know Republicans love to talk about how "liberals" support him, but I have never met somebody who supports him. Even so, I'm not going to get into a hissy fit just because a crazed leader from a weak country makes fun of our President.
"but I have never met somebody who supports him."
Perhaps you don't travel in the right places?
Your comment reminds me when Goldwater was running for president I was leaving the Goldwater Department store (Barry had recently sold it.) in Scottsdale, AZ. (Goldwater's home town.) Two well dressed bejeweled blue haired ladies were walking out of the store into Goldwater Mall and one remarked to the other, "I just can't understand how they say Barry doesn't have a chance; why EVERYONE I talk to is voting for him!"
Might be a lesson there fella.
Chavez is more complicated than Bush would like or Cindy Sheehan/Harry Belafonte would like. He has won NUMEROUS elections, he was overthrown in a failed coup attempt in 2002 that had at least complicit support from Bush's State Department. He was the subject of an extended strike by PDVSA employees that any US President would've declared illegal. He has done more for the country's poor than any leader in recent memory and he has shrewdly positioned his country as a regional power while using oil wealth to build infrastructure.
That said, he has been ruthless in attempting to undercut all of the kinds of processes that hold up democracies. He has pulled media licenses from opposition voices, he memorably fired PDVSA employees publicly on the air after the strike. He is embarrassingly rude for a statesman and puts out his 5 hour long public addresses on all stations.
He is neither the comical monster that even Obama seems to paint him as or the lovable liberal that some on the left would like to paint him as. He needs to be engaged because he is a force and in my opinion he has the capacity to do far more good than evil if he is respected by Washington instead of dismissed as an obstacle to the Washington consensus and the Monroe Doctrine.
My daughter's boyfriend was a real red diaper baby.
He follows PC positions down the line, as one might expect. He didn't think much of Chaves' closure of that television station during the early parts of his tenure, as didn't his father, but his mother was an unabashed apologist for this. Something like the assertion that the the station needed to be closed because they supported the US-aided insurgents during 2002.
-dk
John Wright writes: "Shame on the Americans who say they support this guy."
I don't know any Americans who support Chavez, to echo Jordan T. I would guess that most Americans don't even know who he is.
I reserve my "shame on" for Americans who still support Dumbya Bush, a shambling wreck of an evil bastard who has done far more harm to the US than Chavez has done to Venezuela. Have some perspective.
Perhaps you don't travel in the right places?
Considering I would describe my circle of friends/acquaintances as very liberal, I think I do travel in the right places. In a USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2007 9% of Americans approved of him. For approval ratings, this is about statistical noise since there are always people who answer without thinking.
Have some perspective.
Yes, let's do.
At least can we agree on my point (2): limited government?
John
Really, should anyone be surprised? It was clear from day one that he was tyrant wannabe. He will never leave office voluntarily. He and Robert Mugabe are cut from the exact same cloth. In ten years or less, Venezuela will be in the same state of social decay as Zimbabwe.
Perhaps you don't travel in the right places?
Considering I would describe my circle of friends/acquaintances as very liberal, I think I do travel in the right places. In a USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2007 9% of Americans approved of him. For approval ratings, this is about statistical noise since there are always people who answer without thinking.
At least can we agree on my point (2): limited government?
John
I have a pretty liberal group of friends, but I can only think of one who supports Chavez and that friend is not even American. I have heard more of my liberal friends complain about righties throwing us in with Chavez than actual praise for Chavez.
At least can we agree on my point (2): limited government?
Lots of people agree with "reduced spending" and "limited government" in the abstract. When you start talking about where to reduce spending and government involvement is when politicians become unpopular.
Case in point, to cut the federal deficit we will have to reduce spending on Social Security, Medicare and Defense. Reducing spending on any of these items is going to be extremely unpopular and likely won't will re-election. We do hear about SS/Medicare sometimes, but that's more of a "we'll cut benefits 30 years from now" which is just punting the problem to the next person.
Same with the California state budget. Lots of people are for cuts in spending, until the details come out of what's going to be cut. Then you hear the howling about how we can't cut such and such because...
Nobody should really be surprised when Chavez does inherently democratic ideas... The idea of Chavez as a democrat is a relatively recent one. 10 years before the coup attempt in 2002, he threw a military coup and failed.
This guy is a strongman at heart, I'm only surprised he didn't abolish term limits.
Come on you idiots, I just called the president "dumbya" instead of dubya. How come no one is giving me mad props for my clever and well thought out nickname for the President?
Not to mention, people still aren't giving me props for my ironically ironic name MoeLarryAndJesus. (Take that you Reich wing Christianists, I just compared Jesus to the three stooges.)
See, I called them Reich wing, because it sounds like right wing, but I'm comparing you to the Third Reich. If only you reTHUGlicans could match, or at least acknowledge, my superior wit.
Jordan T writes: "In a USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2007 9% of Americans approved of him. For approval ratings, this is about statistical noise since there are always people who answer without thinking."
I'd guess that some of those 9% think he's Cesar Chavez.
In a poll listed in Harper's Index 7% of Americans thought Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.
And of course the idiot post at 3:46 is an impostor. I would never fail to capitalize Dumbya, and I never refer to him as "the President," since he's a rancid, evil maggot who doesn't deserve being referred to by that title.
And, uh, "mad props"? Who still uses that phrase?
In the spirit of a higher quality internet, I hereby call on the impostor trolls to stop trolling the real trolls.
Okay, who's spoofing MLAJ? Please give the guy a break.
As to Megan on Chavez:
It's interesting that this was an early "reform" instituted by Putin after he took over from Yeltsin. It was a massive grab for centralized power structures. Before that, Chavez modeled his media takeover on Putin's work in Russia.
It would appear to me that Chavez is attempting Putin-like tactics in a Latin American context. That would seem unlikely to produce outcomes similar to those in Russia. Putin has worked to reinstate the centralized, authoritarian Soviet society in many ways. Chavez is considered more of an ideological Marxist/Leninist. Of course, you could argue whether or not authoritarianism vs. Marxism is a distinction without a difference...
I can't really speak as to how Chavez is running his country, but I do respect the man for standing up to the US on the international stage.
Ben- although this is early in the post comments I believe the word your looking for is "tacit" not "complicit". Complicit would imply that the us government new and actively partook in planning and supplying the coup. Tacit means they knew or learned of it and were not concerned either way.
I'm the lower case b ben and I seem to find a lot of well crap in this thread. The reason people don't like to deal with Chavez as a bad man is that oversimplifies the situation. He has one reelection fairly a few times. He has successfully helped Venezuela out of a serious economic downturn (yes with massive price increases in petroleum, I know, I know). But he is also a fool kniving to be a true tyrant but just can't seem to cloak himself in all the democratic garb required of a good tyrant. He's laughable and eventually oil won't be enough and then we get to see the live reenactment of the French revolution in South America. This time the Revolution will be televised in color.
I second Rob's call substitute trolls you can't take the real trolls' job.
Rob Lyman (Has he ever posted here before?) says: "In the spirit of a higher quality internet, I hereby call on the impostor trolls to stop trolling the real trolls."
Lyman is the secret of spite.
I can't imagine why anyone would take time to post about "trolls" or "trolling." As far as I can tell such quibbling now amounts to whining about people who express opinions you don't agree with in ways you don't like.
Stop whining and start posting your own opinions in memorable ways, Robby. You may find that more rewarding than being a hall monitor, if you have any talent for it.
ben writes: "I'm the lower case b ben and I seem to find a lot of well crap in this thread. The reason people don't like to deal with Chavez as a bad man is that oversimplifies the situation. He has one reelection fairly a few times. He has successfully helped Venezuela out of a serious economic downturn (yes with massive price increases in petroleum, I know, I know). But he is also a fool kniving to be a true tyrant but just can't seem to cloak himself in all the democratic garb required of a good tyrant."
There may be some good points in there but I'll reserve judgment until I see them expressed in actual English.
It's amusing to be called a "troll" by someone who contributes that sort of gibberish.
Careful, Rob. You'll lose both ankles for pulling tricks like that.
I can't imagine why anyone would take time to post about "trolls" or "trolling."
In that case, you suffer from a rather unfortunate lack of imagination. But to help you out, it was purely for amusement value, which you have now exponentially increased. I may poke you again in the future if it continues to yield this kind of comedy gold.
ben -
The much higher oil prices, calls in to question the "he helped Venezuela out of a serious economic downturn".
The fact that it came out of a downturn. And in fact it would be in question even without this obvious alternative explanation.
"Venezuela came out of an economic downturn" combined with "Hugo Chavez was president in Venezula" does not logically imply that Hugo Chavez helped the economy. He could have harmed it and still it could have come out of a bad period. A president, even as interventionist of one as Chavez, is only one factor in the economy.
Also he became president in 1999, but the economy continued to decline for some time after that. GDP was dropping by 9.2% per year as late as 2004. There has been strong growth since then, but rapid growth during a recovery of such a depression isn't very unusual.
Make that 2003 for the last year of a rapid drop in GDP. One source (Nationmaster) has 2004, but every other source I can find has the economy recovering in 2004.
ben (lower case)
I chose my words correctly. The US supported and funded if not encouraged and directly aided the coup against Chavez.
The correct epithet for Chavez is "former Venezuelan dictator". Back on Thursday, of course, it was "Venezuelan dictator".
Lyman again: "I may poke you again in the future if it continues to yield this kind of comedy gold."
Or you could try to produce some yourself.
Like that will ever happen.
Or you could try to produce some yourself. Like that will ever happen.
I don't think it's even theoretically possible for me to be as funny as someone who wonders if I've ever posted here before, or urges me to express my opinion.
Never mind that, Robby. I found your old blog and I see that you are very definitely capable of producing comedy, albeit unintentionally. Here you are giving aid and comfort to a future war criminal as he was preparing to lie this country into a pointless war:
"It is of course also essential that the population be able to criticize the government, and that the various members of the government have the freedom to fulfil their duties--e.g., that senators be able to dissent from the President's Iraq policy. The problem in 2003 is that such dissent is immediatly broadcast around the globe--and can end up providing comfort and propaganda to our enemies. It may also lead our enemies, who often lack a thorough understanding of our culture and government, to disasterously miscalculate."
Apart from the incredible Kristol-level stupidity of that comment I love your use of "disasterously." Really good stuff. It "immediatly" helped me "fulfil" my need for a good laugh.
Hey, another satisfied customer!
I just have to zero in on this one pre-war comment by Rob Lyman:
"It may also lead our enemies, who often lack a thorough understanding of our culture and government, to disasterously miscalculate."
Anyone wanting to know just what it is about the American public that made it so easy for them to be bamboozled into the Iraq war by a pack of incompetent maggot-sphincters could do worse than begin by studying the awesome cluelessness of that sentence. We had to be cautious in those days because THEIR leaders lacked an understanding of OUR culture.
Hoo boy. Talk about screwing the pooch.
"A team led by Philip Rivers and Norv Turner has a shot against a team led by Tom Brady and Bill Belichick - in Foxboro in a championship game - like Alan Keyes has a shot to be the GOP nominee in 2008.
19-0 will be sweet. (emphasis by troll)
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 14, 2008 11:25 AM"
Right, because being wrong about the Super Bowl is comparable to backing a pointless war.
At least I was right about the Chargers. Norv's an idiot.
So Chavez is just adopting the Bush Unitary Executive Handbook as a basis for governing?
Cool!!
Now, if you had said "welcomed" or "cautiously applauded," you would have been closer to the mark.
David Nieporent says: "That's true, except for the supported, funded, encouraged, and directly aided part.
Now, if you had said "welcomed" or "cautiously applauded," you would have been closer to the mark."
Yeah, because Bushpigs would NEVER interfere with a sovereign nation like that. And even though it was publicly acknowledged that representatives of the administration met with some of the coup leaders shortly before the attempt, they were just talking about lawn furniture and their favorite TV shows.
Sheesh.
Yeah, because Bushpigs would NEVER interfere with a sovereign nation like that.
Well, he certainly would, but do we know that he did in this case?
And even though it was publicly acknowledged that representatives of the administration met with some of the coup leaders shortly before the attempt, they were just talking about lawn furniture and their favorite TV shows.
Well, one could say htat the U likely supported and funded, but can we say that they did, with certainty?
Someone types: "Well, one could say htat the U likely supported and funded, but can we say that they did, with certainty?"
Not yet. But it's not like I'm advocating going to war or killing anyone over what looks like a very likely probability. Actions like that would require a higher degree of certainty, at least for sane, rational adults.
It's too bad we didn't have any of those in charge in 2003.
His creation of "militias" is very ominous. Both Allende and Sukarno got deposed after they attempted to create "Fifth Forces" outside the normal military.
My apologies to everyone on this blog for above posting. It is beyond gramatically incorrect and quite positively terrible, all I can say for myself was Rum was involved.
Now for two stooges and a savior:
Did I call you a troll? It certainly seems like I implied it, and given your tit for tat with Rob I'd say that you have made it a fair argument. This is supposed to be politics, facts, opinions, thoughts. With a little style inbetween the substance, not a series of insults.
As for big B Ben-
I'd have to debate that, going back to the NYTimes article that is written on the Coup attempt. You find a lot of allegations, "two soldiers were with the cabal in the presidential house, CIA was involved." But the only concrete thing I found was that there was a meeting with some "diplomats" (I'm hesitant to call them CIA because someone from State would have been around) and the Cabal a few weeks prior where the cabalists were trying to get a read on US backing. Apparently the aforementioned "diplomats" insisted on a public constitutional course, but did make it appear that the US would not actively support or intervene. With only 3-4 weeks until the actual Coup took place I'm inclined to believe that there was no CIA aid due to the fact that supplying them with anything except money (an easily traced item by the way) would have required a good 3 months to move secretly.
Also that documentary while making a case that the Capitalists, and military were Moving against Chavez speeks very little of US government agnencies direct involvement.
In conlcusion given the further absence of any evidence of any kind I don't see how you can say the US was complicit in this particular Coup. I say they tacitly supported it, but if there was any action it was very weak and quite ineffective. Two things the CIA would avoid in the post-9/11 world.
ben-
I appreciate your respect for the truth. It is heartening. I don't believe we did much more than is out there in the public now (I'm not conspiratorially minded), but clearly if considered as an action against a democratically elected leader our actions were to meet with and encourage and make preparations for a coup that was in the process of taking place.
If we had done the same to France what might the reaction have been?
I have huge concerns about Chavez, but I think that he is easily one of the more reasonable people to engage on the world stage. Compared with Iran or Iraq or China or Russia or Palestinians he is a toddler. He has interests and he behaves rationally given those interests. Just because he doesn't sound like a member of the G8 shouldn't discount this.
Ben
"I know Republicans love to talk about how "liberals" support him, but I have never met somebody who supports him."
TR: I got an argument on a science fiction site with people who support him. Well they didn't wholeheartedly support him, but they felt he was basically good and the cause of socialism good. Which leads to saying that most of those who support him are not liberals, but Socialists. (By socialists I don't mean Social Democrats, I mean someone to the Left of most Social Democrats and possibly nearing Communism) Now outside of academia Socialist activism is rare in the US. Even within academia Socialists are relatively rare outside of the humanities departments.
So basically if you want to find Hugo Chavez supporters look at the sociology department of the nearest PhD granting university. (As sociology is usually to the Left of the other humanities) You may not find a Chavez supporter, but I think it's likely you will at least find a Chavez apologist. Someone who'll say "well he's not my ideal, but he's doing many good things and the US is keeping him down."
My apologies to everyone on this blog for above posting. It is beyond gramatically incorrect and quite positively terrible, all I can say for myself was Rum was involved.
Now for two stooges and a savior:
Did I call you a troll? It certainly seems like I implied it, and given your tit for tat with Rob I'd say that you have made it a fair argument. This is supposed to be politics, facts, opinions, thoughts. With a little style inbetween the substance, not a series of insults.
As for big B Ben-
I'd have to debate that, going back to the NYTimes article that is written on the Coup attempt. You find a lot of allegations, "two soldiers were with the cabal in the presidential house, CIA was involved." But the only concrete thing I found was that there was a meeting with some "diplomats" (I'm hesitant to call them CIA because someone from State would have been around) and the Cabal a few weeks prior where the cabalists were trying to get a read on US backing. Apparently the aforementioned "diplomats" insisted on a public constitutional course, but did make it appear that the US would not actively support or intervene. With only 3-4 weeks until the actual Coup took place I'm inclined to believe that there was no CIA aid due to the fact that supplying them with anything except money (an easily traced item by the way) would have required a good 3 months to move secretly.
Also that documentary while making a case that the Capitalists, and military were Moving against Chavez speeks very little of US government agnencies direct involvement.
In conlcusion given the further absence of any evidence of any kind I don't see how you can say the US was complicit in this particular Coup. I say they tacitly supported it, but if there was any action it was very weak and quite ineffective. Two things the CIA would avoid in the post-9/11 world.
ben doubleposts: "My apologies to everyone on this blog for above posting. It is beyond gramatically incorrect and quite positively terrible, all I can say for myself was Rum was involved.
Now for two stooges and a savior:
Did I call you a troll? It certainly seems like I implied it, and given your tit for tat with Rob I'd say that you have made it a fair argument. This is supposed to be politics, facts, opinions, thoughts. With a little style inbetween the substance, not a series of insults."
Hint: Switching to vodka really didn't help your prose much.