Obama gets the coveted Chavez endoresment!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9577744/Hugo-Chavez-Id-vot...

Another reason to curtail absentee voting!

I guess it depends. Bush tried to overthrow him--does that necessarily make him a bad guy?

Nah. Everyone fails sometimes. We shouldn't call Bush a bad guy if he tried and failed to overthrow Chavez. At least he tried.

#4--well you confuse me a little--because interfering in other countries affairs does not seem to be something that most libertarians view favorably. Generally it's one of the things I like best about them.

I'm a flexible, pragmatic, open-minded man.

#6--apparently.

~6
"I'm a flexible, pragmatic, open-minded man."

Just like Ayn Rand, who, of course, supported Nixon both times around.

Personally, I think that the Venezuelan people are getting what they deserve for having a buffoon in office this long, without any assistance from crusading Americans. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49319374#.UHGiSsA70dc

Maybe the CIA will orchestrate another coup!

Yep. The Venezuelan people deserve everything they get by electing this buffoon:

Venezuela’s dollar bonds yield 11.05 percent on average, down 3.06 percentage points this year while still the highest among major emerging-market countries tracked by JPMorgan’s EMBIG index.

Under Chavez, poverty fell to 31.6 percent at the end of 2011 from about 50 percent when he first took office. Extreme poverty declined to 8.5 percent from about 20 percent over the same period. Venezuela has the lowest level of inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the United Nations.

Some people still yearn for the days of Nixon/Reagan/Kissinger. G.W. Bush more or less tried to Allende Chavez. The idea that there might be another way than America's version of free market capitalism is a critique that has to be silenced. No doubt there is a good amount of government corruption in Venezuela--but like there isn't any here in the USA? or in Britain? or Israel? or China? Russia? France? Italy? Japan? etc. etc. etc.

#11

And even if Venezuela IS more corrupt than other governments, wouldn't that be a matter for its citizens, not other governments?

And when the government fires teachers because they sign a petition against the President?

#13--it's okay to overthrow a government for the internal affairs of their educational system?--when our own public education system is under attack from within by conservatives who want to replace it with a voucher system or even States that want to destroy teacher's unions.

#12--though I don't think it is as corrupt as some would have us think.

#14

You may be correct; I was merely pointing out that even if the critics were correct, it still wouldn't justify armed or covert intervention.

#16--and I agree with what you've pointed out.

No, it was government employees generally. Basically, the government unexpectedly released the names of all 2.3 million citizens who signed a petition to recall Chavez, and one of his cabinet ministers declared that those on the list should be fired. ( See Wikipedia, Tascon List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tascón_List ) Chavez eventually said this shouldn't happen, but quite a few government employees were targeted and demoted or fired.

This time around, Venezuela had a new all-electronic voting system. A lot of Venezuelans were afraid such a system—which connected voters with their vote in a way paper ballots do not do—was a similar risk. ( See the Christian Science Monitor's story on the new system http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/1001/Election-system-in-Venezuela-H... ). The Carter Center announced they thought the software was safe. Let's hope they're right.

45% of the country apparently voted for Cabriles. Cabriles supposedly had united the segments of opposition to Chavez. After losing Cabriles did pretty much what a losing politician does here--he acknowledged that he had lost. Very unlikely whether or not you can be targeted to your vote that any such targeting is going to happen. Such a thing it would seem could start a civil war. Whether or not--we'd still have no business interfering in the internal affairs of another nation--we're not and shouldn't be the world's policeman.

The real problem conservatives have here is not about fair or free elections or what kind of educational standards Venezuela has or doesn't have. Their problem is with the land reform policies and the nationalization of certain industries--particularly oil. It's an old equation for a certain kind of economic theorist that socialism eventually leads to communism. Oil making decisions should be in the hands of wealthy plutocrats--not in the domain of government decision making. They could care less about the % of people who live in poverty.

What makes third-world countries so terrible is that they don't put any grace behind their voter intimidation or suppression like advanced Western nations do. In the United States, for instance, we orchestrate voter suppression through the legislatures, whose members are often financed by wealthy donors.

#19--true enough.

"Bush tried to overthrow (Chavez)"

I'm not sure that there was a definite
attempt traceable to the George W. Bush
administration.
But Bush did welcome a reported overthrow,
and was quick to recognize the would-be
overthorwers, who were almost immeditely
deposed.
I appreciate your commentary on (3), Carnophile. (4)
Like Chavez I have a sense a humor, even if that's
all we have in common.* And I don't think he
should be called "a buffoon" just because of
having a sense of humor.

*Well maybe more than that: we can both speak Spanish,
and we had a Catholic upbringing.

#21--guess that depends on who you choose to believe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

With Bush's (CIA) family background especially that relating to Central and South America and Bush's other attempts at regime change during his administration I pretty much think it was behind the coup in some way or another whether it's traceable or not.

In skimming that article it seems that the most it says is that Bush administration officials "sanctioned" the coup. What does that mean? Is there any evidence for any material support or did they just say it would be a good idea?

Interesting enough, the paragraph I quoted from the link in 10 has been edited out. Stay on message, Businessweek!

:. . . Bush administration official 'sanctioned' the coup. What does that mean? . . ."
(23)

Good question, jjwilson. "sanctioned" is a confusing way of putting it, since we see/hear in the media much about "sanctioning" Iran, which in
that context means (deservedly or not) punishing them. It's usually expressed by the noun "sanctions" rather than by a verb. Very different from the meaning of
"sanction(ing)"* a coup.
From the point of view of diplomacy, the embarrassing (to the U. S.) thing about the attempted coup was the
swiftness of the U. S's recognition of the supposed new government. I can well
believe that the State Dept.
was opposed to immediate recognition, but were over-ridden by the "Bush/Cheney Act". which would at the very least call it "a good idea", and
perhaps give it tangible aid.

* Oh well, whatever else, this has been a good exercise in
punctuation.

Pro-Chavez propaganda from the New York (Traitor) Times:

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 Frontline show is good: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hugochavez/

Chavéz's rule is fundamentally based on oil. Venezula's got so much oil that, so long as the prices are halfway decent, he's impossible to get rid of. With an attack on Iran never more likely, I don't see that changing any time soon.

That was kind of the point, Tim. Good old fashioned redistribution to help pull large numbers of people out of wretched poverty.

There are good ways and bad ways to use oil wealth—but mostly bad ways. Creating giant political machine, doling out money as patronage and for short-term political gain and with political muscle, is the bad way. The good way is making long-term investments, placed firmly outside the hands of political power—basically, Norway and nobody else. If you were right, oil wealth would be correlated with economic progress, but, as we all know, or ought to know, natural resources are one of the best predictors of economic stagnation and political oppression. You can do a lot of short-term good, but the long term is rarely bright. I don't see Venezuela escaping that. But, hey, let's talk in 20 years.

Here's the "proven oil reserves" chart from Wikipedia. Yowch!

~28

Yept. A great system. Lenin implemented it and Castro implemented it, and everyone was equal (well, except for the Party members). They all lived in barracks and many of them survived.

Give me some of that old-timey socialism! (pdf warning)

This paper looks at some of the most important economic and social indicators during the 10 years of the Chávez administration in Venezuela, as well as the current economic expansion. It also looks at the current situation and challenges.

Among the highlights:

*The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.

*Most of this growth has been in the non-oil sector of the economy, and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.

*During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and do not take into account increased access to health care or education.

*Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.

*Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.

*Real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.

*From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than one-third. The number of primary care physicians in the public sector increased 12-fold from 1999-2007, providing health care to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.

*There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999-2000 to 2007-2008.

*The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.

*Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than doubled.

*Over the decade, the government’s total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.

*Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has been falling over the last half year (as measured by three-month averages) and is likely to continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.

Who knew that putting a boot-on-the-neck of the bourgeoisie would bring about tremendous economic gains?

And for the record, I'm more partial of Lenin than to Castro, though Castro of the early to mid '60s had some great qualities.

~31

Well, this old timey socialism of the barracks, the patriotic exercises at dawn, the assignment to your socially necessary labor, your right to die in struggle for The People at a moment's notice, and many other classical features still exists in North Korea. I know, you aren't there because you don't speak Korean. Well, there are language programs that could help you out there. Good luck with bringing the ideal society into your life.

"Who knew that putting a boot-on-the-neck of the bourgeoisie would bring about tremendous economic gains?"

The American economy grew at astounding rates from 1800 to the Civil War. I bet it was due to putting a boot-on-the-neck of the Native Americans. Leaches, just like the bourgeois.

Thanks for the well wishes, lawecon! Come the revolution, I'll make sure the Committee on Counter-Revolutionary Activities takes it easy on you.

~33

No problem. But I'll be the chairman of that committee, so you don't need to bother The Devil's Advocate

real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.

Yeah, real GDP doubled in a little over 5 years. Right. Mm-hmm.