Chavez denies pressure to concede

[Bacchus39]

Source: cnn

CARACAS, Venezuela (CNN) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday denied he bowed to voters' rejection of a referendum only at the prodding by the military and said he would continue to push for sweeping constitutional changes.

"Get ready, because a new offensive is coming," Chavez said after breaking into a news conference being given by the military high command to address issues surrounding Sunday's vote. "If the people collect the signatures, the reform can be submitted for a referendum again."


In contrast to the conciliatory tone he took in announcing the victory of the "No" forces early Monday, he heaped scorn on the opposition's "Pyrrhic" victory Wednesday, saying that "they're now filling it with sh--."

"It's a piece of sh-- victory, and ours -- they can call it a defeat, but -- it was courageous, full of valor, full of dignity," he said at the Miraflores presidential palace with his top military commanders.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/05/venezuela.chavez/index.html

---

so much for the magnanimous and gracious acceptance of the results for which the Chavistas were praising him for.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. So where's that alleged CIA memo...? n/t

[dipsydoodle]

2. and ?

:shrug:

[boricua79]

3. hmmm...

there is a certain sense of sore loserness in these statements

But then again, there was a lot of abstentions. Who knows what way they would have voted it.

If the people collect signatures, there can be another referendum. That is the law, and that is how it can happen.

[robinlynne]

15. What is wrong with sore losers? I wish the Democrats would start being sore losers.

Maybe they wouldn't lose so often.
Probably he is reacting to the oppositions gloating, not to losing.

[boricua79]

25. let em gloat

he should be more mature than that.

And when he proposes that he'll campaign AGAIN for the reforms, that doesn't show that he's conceding that the people have spoken on this issue.

But, hey...if the Venezuelan people bring it up again through signatures and petitions, by all means, let them go through another referendum on the issue.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Chavez accepts the will of the people, lol. n/t

[Clanfear]

5. Losing the base

"Reports Tuesday showed that in Petare – one of the most densely populated slums in Latin America and normally a stronghold for Chávez – the "No" option won 62 percent while only 38 percent backed the constitutional reform."


"Chávez also warned people against thinking that the vote was a serious blow to his moves to bring "21st century socialism" to the country, and had a few choice words for those who voted "No" in Sunday's referendum.

"Chávez will be here for a long time and the revolution will be here for a long time," he said. "The revolution came here to stay so don't make ridiculous conclusions. If they were looking to punish me, they flagellated themselves."



http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1206/p01s01-woam.html

[LoZoccolo]

6. He doesn't show any contempt or anything for his citizens...nah. n/t

[IsItJustMe]

7. Do you ever ask yourself why all of this media attention is placed on Chavez? Hell, in Africa alone

there must be at least 10 to 20 real life dictators and yet we as Americans don't even know their names or anything else about there countries.

Could it be that our media is driving this story, and if so, why? In the grand scheme of things, this story has no real effect on us and yet the obsessive attention.

Interesting to say the least.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Ha, now that he's caught speaking like a tyrant, we're paying too much attention! n/t

[endarkenment]

26. "speaking like a tyrant"?

Here is what speaking like a tyrant would be like:

"I have ordered the detention and arrest of all opposition party leaders, the closing of all opposition media outlets, and the suspension of constitutional law."

or

"I am the decider".

Not, "this is a piece of shit victory".

Can you tell the difference?

[LoZoccolo]

29. "Piece of shit" victory by the voters!

That's the guy you want in power, lol.

[endarkenment]

30. Your interpretation. There are other equally valid interpretations.

I don't get to vote in Venezuela. The Venezuelan people do, and they overwhelmingly voted Chavez into office. It is you who cannot accept the results of the democratic process in Venezuela.

[LoZoccolo]

35. It all depends on what the meaning of "piece of shit" is, lol. n/t

[endarkenment]

40. yes it does

and either Chavez was referring to the organized political opposition or the people who voted against the referendum. You choose to believe he was referring to the people, the excerpts cited do not support that analysis. Regardless, Chavez has accepted the results as valid. You however, cannot bring yourself to accept that Chavez has acted as a leader of a democracy rather than as a tyrant, as you have invested heavily in your rightwing tainted analysis that Chavez is a tyrant. Consequently you and others here are seeking desperately to spin the successfully democratic results of the referendum as somehow evidence of your belief that Chavez is a tyrant. Good luck with that. It makes you look like a sore winner.

[SpikeTss]

47. Has he led two wars of aggression like our great leader Herr Bush

and is torturing and killing people in concentration camps like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Guraib?
Or is he murdering hundreds of thousand people with cluster bombs, depleted uranium grenades and napalm bombs?

now that he's caught speaking like a tyrant, we're paying too much attention!

[northzax]

13. well, let's see

it's in our hemisphere, so we obviously pay attention. there are many Venezuelans in the US, so we pay attention, Venezuela and the US have been trading partners for generations, so we pay attention.

oh, and Venezuela has a large supply of this thing that the entire world needs (no, not Thneeds). So everyone pays attention when they start throwing money around.

[robinlynne]

16. Let's not forget, the entire continent is moving inthe same direction Venezuela has already moved...

[fascisthunter]

18. That is a Threatening Notion to Some

idealogues.

[northzax]

21. to an increasing difference between rich and poor?

you are right about that, alas.

or to significant concentration of power and wealth in the executive?

[gratuitous]

8. Well, if by "pressure" CNN means recognizing reality

Then, yes, that could be called "pressure." Lord knows CNN isn't accustomed to seeing a nation's leader acknowledging reality and forging ahead with a prearranged plan regardless of the facts. Hint: Iran, nuclear program, intelligence, Crawford Dimbulb. You can do the math.

[UTUSN]

10. K&R #1 for, the "graciousness" lasted, what, 1 day. Just biding his time, just biding his time

Yaas, the "new offensive(s)" will just keep coming and coming, and the "referenda" --till he wears everybody down, and VOILA!1 he will have his democratic(cough) victory!1



Yaas, let's hear that graciousness again:

".... ...he heaped scorn on the opposition's 'Pyrrhic' victory Wednesday, saying that 'they're now filling it with sh--.'

" 'It's a piece of sh-- victory, and ours -- they can call it a defeat, but -- it was courageous, full of valor, full of dignity, ...' "


Let's fill in the blanks: SHIT!1 He is busting his gut to SHIT on "democracy."

[fascisthunter]

11. I'll Wait for a Better more Reliable Source Than CNN

It's not the first time something was posted only to turn out to be propaganda especially concerning Chavez. And it's not the first time CNN has gone out of their way to whore for American business interests. (mischaracterizing Michael Moore's Sicko)

You Anti-Socialists really have a need to prove you were right. It's as if we were all still waiting for WMD's to show up. Bizarre.

[UTUSN]

14. BwahaHAH!1 Oh, yaas, this and ALL messengers who QUOTE Huguito are false!1

The video ran on Univision yesterday. Of course, Univision is another wingnut tool owned by wingnut slave masters.

How dare these outlets run VIDEO of Huguito vomitting in his own language without need for translation.

Oh, yaas: "WMD's". Follow my hand, away from the magic trick, away away!1

[fascisthunter]

17. blah blah blah blah

sorry, did you say something?

[Andrushka]

45. I think it was the same thing as was blanked out in story

n/t

[Bacchus39]

19. yeah, I saw the video on Globovision or one of the other Spanish networks this morning

The dignified Chavez accepting the will of the people.

[endarkenment]

27. A case study in how not to influence a debate in the intended direction. nt.

[ronnie624]

12. Obviously, he has accepted the results of the referendum.

Believing that he should now keep silent and fade into obscurity seems rather naive - or contrived in order to make a shaky point.

Chavez will continue to push his agenda. Why would it be otherwise?

[boricua79]

20. agreed

He accepted the results. The constitution was not amended. The democratic process worked great.

If the turnkey of the process is turned again (through popular signatures), that's their right as Venezuelan citizens and it's perfectly democratic to have another referendum in the future.

No dictatorship here.

[Peace Patriot]

28. Truly, Ronnie624, we should expect nothing less from a leader with a 72% approval rating,

who has won election after election for 9 straight years, with ever increasing margins, and has lost only 1 election, this one, by a narrow margin. Indeed, if he is true to his constituency, he owes them nothing less than to keep fighting for stronger reforms.

Developments in Bolivia today explain well enough why all of the Bolivarian presidents and their supporters--Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia and Correa in Ecuador--are seeking to strengthen the presidency, and are undertaking a process of constitutional reform. The rightwing minority in Bolivia is violently opposing reforms that strengthen that presidency, and that more equitably share the nation's rich natural resources (gas, oil, minerals). These resources are concentrated in rural provinces, where rich landowners hold political control--often through violence--and they are trying to split the country up--to sever their provinces from the federal government, in order to deny benefits to the vast poor majority in the urban areas (concentrated there by fascist land policy that drove many thousands of poor peasant farmers off their land into urban squalor.)

The rich rightwing elite in all three countries is supported, overtly and covertly, by the Bush Cartel (using our tax dollars), and the reason is very clear. Exxon-Mobile and brethren are the puppet masters. Fairness for Venezuelans, Bolivians and Ecuadorans cuts into the ungodly profits of the global corporate predators who now rule in the U.S., and who are spitting mad about the poor daring to achieve their rightful majority power in these democratic countries--countries that are conducting elections that put ours to shame, for their transparency.

Re: Chavez saying the opposition is filling their narrow victory "with shit" (claiming more meaning than is warranted), you can dwell on Chavez as a personality (his blunt manner, his lack of polish, due to his blue collar/military background), or you can broaden your understanding of what is happening in South America, in many countries, and try to grasp the total picture--a "war" between the rich and the poor that the poor are fighting peacefully, through democratic means, and that the rich are fighting with threats of violence and destabilization, backed by the Bushites. Take your pick. Focus on what CNN and the corporate news monopolies want you to focus on--this one leader, and his "man in the street" truthful manner--or focus on the problem that the Bolivarian leaders throughout the region are WORKING TOGETHER to solve: vast poverty, for which the U.S. and its global corporate predators are singularly responsible

Focus on Chavez alone, and ignore the past theft of these countries' resources, and the infliction of unfair "free trade" deals and onerous World Bank loans that WORK TOGETHER to disempower and impoverish the majority of people. Or, focus on these causes of poverty, and on the Bolivarians' strong challenge to the coordinated evil of first world profiteers.

CNN is playing with your mind. And people who post their latest mind-game ploy, without criticism, without analysis, without context, are furthering the agenda of global corporate predators who are stealing from YOU, not just from the South American poor. They are looting OUR treasury for their corporate resource wars. They are using OUR kids as cannon fodder. They are destroying OUR democracy and OUR future, as they have done elsewhere in the world. And if Donald Rumsfeld is their strategist--and I have little doubt that he is--his WaPo op-ed this weekend, a day before the Venezuelan referendum, declares economic war on Venezuela, with not-so-veiled threats of U.S. military intervention on behalf of another rightwing coup.

That's who anti-Chavez posters are allying themselves with. That's whose agenda they are are serving. Donald Rumsfeld.

You can think of Hugo Chavez as a "thug," if you want--and ignore the real thugs of this world, who may not use bad words in public, but don't hesitate to torture and kill for profit. Or you can step back and understand the "Big Lie" that they are using to BLIND YOU to who the malefactors really are. A blunt manner is one thing. Slaughtering a half a million innocent people to get their oil is quite another.

If the South American rich elite doesn't get their way, they do coups, they suspend Constitutions, they assassinate leftist leaders, and if they lose that way, they come back into the electoral process, that they have time and again boycotted, and try to look legitimate with millions of U.S. tax dollars behind them, paying for their t-shirts and their banners and their "rioters," and with corporate news monopolies spreading lies and disinformation; or, if they succeed in their violent coups, then, years later, the UN finds the bones of all the union leaders and other political leftists in mass graves. Torture, murder, fear and suppression are the hallmarks of rightwing rule in South America, whether by direct coup or by corrupt electoral victories.

Those are the stakes. And right now, in Bolivia, today, with the rightwing in riotous rebellion against an orderly, democratic process of constitutional change, and President Morales--the first indigenous president in Bolivia's history, and an ally of Hugo Chavez--offering to organize yet another plebiscite on his presidency, to resolve the threatened civil war, can there be any doubt at all whose side the Bushites, collusive Democrats and CNN and its corporate news monopoly brethren, are on, are funding, and will propagandize the American people to support?

They can't accuse the soft-spoken, gentlemanly Evo Morales of bluntness. What will they accuse him of? Is this former union leader of indigenous coca leaf farmers a "dictator" because he seeks more power for the presidency? Maybe they'll say he's a cokehead (cuz he also opposes the murderous U.S. "war on drugs," as they all do). Or, as he seeks the power to hold the country together, and to adequately represent the vast poor indigenous MAJORITY in Bolivia, they will call him "weak" (blaming him for the very thing he is trying to remedy), and will demonstrate his "weakness" with riots and destabilization.

Beware, beware of corporate news monopoly propaganda! Know that it serves ONLY the rich and the corporate. It doesn't serve YOU. It doesn't give a shit for you, or your children, or your future. To be blunt. Not one shit. It is filling the airwaves with shit about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela--so you won't understand what's really going down.

I'm of the impolite school of democracy. Call shit shit. And that's what I'm calling here.

The question is not whether Chavez used a blunt word. The question is, why does it matter? Does this make him a "dictator"--that he got mad? Does his desire to pursue a political program that lost by a very narrow margin (50.7% NO, vs 49.3% YES) make him a "dictator"? Does no one here understand the parallel with Bolivia, in the NEED FOR strong presidential powers to protect these countries against U.S./Bushite-backed destabilization, that would rip these countries to pieces?

I will post some relevant articles in a moment--Rumsfeld's threatening op-ed, and today's news of Bolivia. In the meantime, I ask you to consider the big picture, and why CNN doesn't want you to see it.

[ronnie624]

31. Thank you, Peace Patriot, for your always excellent commentary.

You may rest assured, that I have been closely watching events in Latin America for several years now, acquiring news and information from myriad sources. I am impervious to the shit that comes from cable 'news'.

[inMD]

34. The enemy of my enemy is still not my friend!!!!

[Judi Lynn]

42. A lot of right-wingers go to all the trouble to come here to spew that.

Attempting to misrepresent people, to imply they are imbeciles who actually are that slow, and simple, is only an insult to yourself.

You're simply wasting your time, and you're not doing anything useful.

Many DU'ers are far better informed, and actually have REASONS for their beliefs because they READ, even bother to research for answers.

Enter insulting, slurring DU'ers, you'll only impress the right-wingers who shouldn't be here, anyway.

[inMD]

65. Plenty of DU'ers do not support Chavez

Are you sure you meant to write this to me? All I wrote was "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend", which is the arguement being made. I did not misrepresent or insult anyone.

In fact, I think it is right wingers who believe and have often used "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic and has gotten us into a lot of trouble in the middle east with that logic. I disagree that it is an argument that (necessarily) makes sense.

I just have a different opinion to the person I responded to. Sorry if that offends your view. Plenty of DU'ers do not support Chavez.

[Bacchus39]

32. because the Venezuelan people have rejected it maybe??

what do you think about that?

[Peace Patriot]

39. 50.7% of the Venezuelan voters rejected it, 49.3% approved, with...

3 million voters abstaining. The latter stat points to voter confusion (69 amendments--complicated ballot, too many issues--providing the rightwing with a wedge to create FURTHER confusion--which they did). That's a very slim margin of defeat. Yeah, if I were a political leader, I'd carry on the fight for those proposals. And it has been Chavez's ONLY defeat. He's still a hugely popular leader, whose personal leadership has been repeatedly endorsed by Venezuelan voters, in huge-margin victories in presidential elections (the latest, with 63% of the votes). He has no reason whatever to give up. The Chavistas made some political mistakes with this referendum. They won't likely make them again. It is extremely difficult to sort out why they lost. Were Venezuelans voting against gay rights (bullied by rightwing Catholic prelates)? Were they voting against Chavez running again in 2012? That one doesn't seem likely, when they gave him a 63% mandate, just last December--but who knows? There were so many issues--control of the central bank, for instance, and a 4.5 day work week. It was probably a mistake to bundle all these issues together--especially issues that could have been handled legislatively (didn't need to be in the constitution)--to better sort out what Venezuelans DO want.

But that's the breaks. Democracy is messy. People make political mistakes. They make strategic mistakes. Happens all the time. And they take the consequences, evaluate defeats, and try again. Even people who get badly defeated try again. What is the other option? Well, we know what it is, and we know the rightwing has tried it before--violent rightwing military coup. And if THEY had lost this referendum by a hairsbreadth, would THEY have accepted it, and vowed to continue the fight in a lawful, democratic way? If Donald Rumsfeld is their strategist--and his WaPo op-ed this last weekend (see my post below) sure sounds like he is--they had a rightwing coup all prepared, with possible Bush/U.S. military as backup. And they furthermore may intend to collude in an economic war against their own country, that Rumsfeld lays out. The Venezuelan rightwing elite are much like our Bushites. They don't seem to give a fuck for anything, except their cushy lifestyles at the expense of the poor, and the power to lord it over others and to DICTATE to the majority. They want the U.S. and global corporate predators to control their country, to benefit THEMSELVES. They are willing to sell out their own country and its people for that purpose. What what have the Bushites done here? They've sold us out--to China, to the sheiks of Araby, and to global corporate predator banks and oil corporations.

The issue here is SOVEREIGNTY. And, to protect their sovereignty, the Chavistas feel they need a strong president--as do also the supporters of Evo Morales in Bolivia, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, who are also trying for constitutional reform and a stronger presidency. As I've said before, in regard to the FDR comparison: No strong president, no "New Deal." It's as simple as that.

When the rich and the corporate threaten your sovereignty--by preventing strong government control over their "dog eat dog" ethic, in the interest of the majority (workers, the poor, the victims of Big Money)--you need a STRONG PRESIDENT to counteract them. When the rich and the corporate go out-of-control in their greed and viciousness--as they did prior to the Great Depression, as they have done in South America, and as they are doing here, now, you need a STRONG PRESIDENT to fight for the interests of the poor majority.

If FDR had given up--under the withering contempt of the rightwing news media of that era, and in the face of charges of "dictatorship"--where would we have been, as a country? His strength as a political leader, and his enthusiastic use of every power in his possession, plus additional powers he sought (for instance, trying to "pack the Supreme Court," as the rightwing media put it), were a decisive factor in beating back the overweening power of the rich, and creating a more equitable society. We owe Social Security to one of FDR's most "dictatorial" ploys. His pressure on the Supreme Court resulted in one justice changing his mind about "New Deal" programs. Thus, Social Security was saved.

And you want Chavez to give up--because of this one slim-margin electoral defeat? He would be violating his oath to the Venezuelan Constitution, and his allegiance to Venezuela's sovereignty, and his electoral promises of a fundamental, structural change in the "balance of power," to favor the poor majority, if he were to give up so easily. Further referendums are certainly warranted by that slim margin. You can respect the verdict of the people--as Chavez has done--and still seek further opportunities to put your ideas before the voters. That IS democracy. And only people with some other agenda could interpret it any other way. Why should a president with a 72% approval rating give up?

And what if Chavez were to assert some power--over the courts, or through executive action--to, say, implement social security for Venezuela's informal work force (about half the workers in the country, who currently have no protection)? The rightwing and their corporate news media will no doubt yell "dictator," and some DUers will echo them here. Or what if he does put this back on the ballot, or ask the National Assembly to do it? "Dictator! Dictator!" they will cry, no matter he does. And if he puts removing term limits for the presidency back on the ballot? Oh, boy, then he's REALLY a "dictator," isn't he? How dare he ask the people to VOTE ON this, separately from other issues?! And what if Venezuelan voters agree that the threat of Chavez running again in 2012 is important to the protection of their sovereignty and their now more equitable economy? Ah, then we will hear "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Yup, I think he's going to use all his powers to protect and extend socialist gains, as he was elected to do, and to put items from the constitutional proposals back before the voters, in different ways, through lawful, democratic processes, and he might even pull an FDR on some of them, and push his powers to the limit, against the forces of greed. That is his duty. That is his mandate. And he would be failing the people of Venezuela if he didn't try.

[Clanfear]

51. It's not quite that pretty.

Chavez lost 41% of his support from LAST year. (7.3 million to 4.3 million) Chavez said a vote against this referendum is a vote against Chavez. This WAS indeed a vote against Chavez. He tried to grab too much power, and many of his supporters have said so. He lost ALL of the slum neighborhoods to the "no" vote. That should tell one something.


"3 million voters abstaining. The latter stat points to voter confusion (69 amendments--complicated ballot, too many issues--providing the rightwing with a wedge to create FURTHER confusion--which they did)."

And wasn't Chavez asked repeatedly to put them on the ballot individually? Si!

"It is extremely difficult to sort out why they lost."

No, it is not extremely difficult to sort out why he lost unless one would like to think that the majority of people were for the changes to the constitution, but somehow were hoodwinked or confused(stupid). The poor abandoned Chavez in this vote! That is a fact. One can spin it any way they like but the results in the poor areas where he has enjoyed his greatest support speak for themselves. It might lead people to understand that he isn't quite the champion of the poor he pretends to be. At least at this point the poor in Venezuela understand it, even if the leftists in this country are unwilling.

[ronnie624]

63. There is no indication that the Bolivarian movement has been rejected

by a majority of the Venezuelan people.

I think Peace Patriot is correct in his analysis; the proposal was too ponderous and complicated, making it an easy target for propagandists. This broad array of issues, some of which have deep cultural implications, was no doubt an easy target for those who wished to generate confusion and doubt in the minds of as many people as possible. Perhaps the articles should have been pared down somewhat.

I would not presume to give advice to Hugo Chavez regarding political strategy, but obviously, he has made mistakes, and he will doubtless learn from them, as he continues to lead his country through its revolution.

[stillcool]

22. Still? What will it take for United States...

citizens to stop being obsessed with the "Democracy" of a foreign country?

Latin American Leaders Praise Chavez for 'Democratic Posture'
December 4th 2007, by Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com
(Reuters)
Mérida, December 4, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) - Leaders from various countries and political parties around Latin America congratulated Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for his "democratic posture" in accepting defeat in the referendum on Sunday. Meanwhile, Chavez assured yesterday that nothing had been lost and that it simply wasn't the right moment for the proposed changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentinean President Nestor Kirchner called President Chavez a "great democrat" and said he wished politicians in Argentina could practice the same recognition of democratic results.

"If only that could happen in Argentina, where there is a candidate that lost by 23 points and now says that we cheated," said Kirchner on Monday.

Bolivian President Evo Morales praised Chavez "because he submits his thinking, his feelings, and his ideas to the decision of the people. And that is democracy."

President of Paraguay Nicanor Duarte also praised the Venezuelan president, stating that "his posture demonstrates that he is a great democrat and it puts to death the impression that he is authoritarian."

And while the Cuban leader Fidel Castro said Chavez' acceptance of the results was "dignified and ethical," Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque reminded journalists that "the only thing that has been rejected, by a narrow margin, is a reform project. Chavez is president and has been elected until the year 2013."

Even the President of Peru, Alan Garcia, with whom Chavez has had previous disputes, said that President Chavez "shows that he is a leader that knows how to listen to his people, and knows how to accept the results."

From Brazil the response was a mixed one. While the Brazilian government praised Chavez for accepting the results in a "very calm and elegant way", the political opposition in Brazil celebrated the defeat of the president's proposal.

"The defeat of Chavez will make the clumsy ones that are pushing for the reelection of Lula think twice," said Brazilian opposition leader Onyz Lorenzoni.

Venezuela Accuses U.S. of Double Standard over Constitutional Reform Referendum
December 4th 2007, by Kiraz Janicke - Venezuelanalysis.com
George Bush speaking at White House press conference (AFP)

Caracas, December 4, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) - The United States government cheered the outcome of Venezuelan's constitutional reform referendum of December 2, which prompted Venezuela's Ambassador to the U.S. to accuse the Bush administration of a "double standard" because of its criticsms of the referendum shortly before the vote.
--------------------------------------------------------

In a statement on Friday, only two days before the referendum, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack questioned the validity of the referendum and the electoral system in Venezuela, saying that there were not enough international observers and that it could not be assured, "if the result would reflect the will of the people" or not.

However, shortly after the result was announced, showing a defeat for the reforms, McCormack told reporters in Washington on December 3, "We don't have any reason to doubt that this result reflects the will of the Venezuelan people."

------------------------------------------
José Serrano, US Congressman for the Bronx also criticized the attitude of the U.S. government towards Chavez in a statement on December 3, saying "The Bush Administration and much of the U.S. and international press must come to grips with the idea that Venezuela is a fully functioning democracy and Chávez is a product of that democracy. There is no other way to view this situation that reflects the democratic realities on the ground."

"President Chávez and the Venezuelan people yet again showed that they indeed have a democratic system in place and that the system is operational," Congressman Serrano added. "I hope that Chávez' critics, who often deploy misleading terms like ‘anti-democratic,' will take note of this development and confine their criticisms to policies. The will of the Venezuelan people has been heard and respected.

Significantly, Serrano argued, "a full 49 percent of the people voted in favor of moving towards Chávez' program of 21st Century Socialism. While in this referendum they constituted a minority, their wishes cannot be ignored. Chávez has sought to represent the people's wishes in his programs. This explains his popularity-not hocus-pocus theories about dictatorships."

[Peace Patriot]

46. Thanks for posting this, Stillcool47! The Bushite game is so absurd.

Before the referendum, they question Venezuela's electoral system (prepping for the Rumsfeld-threatened coup?), then after the vote--with Chavez losing a close vote--suddenly their "doubts" about Venezuela's electoral system vanish, and "We don't have any reason to doubt that this result reflects the will of the Venezuelan people."

What would they know about transparent elections anyway? Do you know what the Carter Center said about the election system in Florida in 2000? --that it did not meet BASIC CRITERIA for transparent elections, and thus COULD NOT BE monitored. It's even more non-transparent now, with rightwing Bushite corporations 'counting' all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually audit/recount controls, all over the U.S. of A., not just in Florida. Florida writ large.

So, that's THEIR criterion for democracy. If the rightwing wins, it's democracy. And if the rightwing loses, it's tyranny. And if the rightwing cheats to win, that's even more democracy. And if the people cry foul, that's "whining." And if their so-called Democratic leaders fail to cry foul, that...well, that is a victory for Exxon Mobile, Halliburton, Blackwater, Diebold and ES&S, and Bushites everywhere.

[stillcool]

50. While waiting for the results of the vote..

I read an article that the opposition was already passing out t-shirts with "Fraud" written on them. The 'outrage' insanity just kills me. Stolen Elections in this country are a 'conspiracy theory', but a country that uses open source codes, paper ballots, and hand-counts 54% of the votes is a dictatorship.

[Enrique]

23. he rejected "media reports" of the pressure

keep in mind, the anti-Chavez media in Venezuela makes Fox News look like serious journalism.

[endarkenment]

24. Chavez is attacking the opposition propaganda.

Not the people who voted against the referendum. "they're now filling it with sh--." 'They' refers to the propagandist claiming he was forced into a concession by the military. Chavez indeed has contempt for the oligarchs and CIA-backed political parties that pushed a well funded campaign against the referendum. Me too. He has fully accepted the results and is going to bring back these reforms, item by item, and continue to move Venezuela towards democratic socialism as long as his party remains in power. It's that democracy thing.

[Peace Patriot]

33. "The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants like Chavez," by Donald Rumsfeld

Read here the agenda that anti-Chavez posters, and CNN and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, are serving...


"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez"
By Donald Rumsfeld
Sunday, December 2, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html
Discussion at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x323889

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

"...we face a moment when swift decisions by the United States and like-thinking nations could dramatically help, supporting friends and allies with the courage to oppose an aspiring dictator with regional ambitions." --Donald Rumsfeld

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

Could it be any clearer? Rumsfeld was threatening Venezuelan voters with another violent rightwing coup, backed by the U.S. military. What else can "swift decisions by the United States" mean? He goes on to lay out a plan for economic war on Venezuela, using the Bush/U.S. client state, Colombia, as the launching pad.

And, indeed, he declares war on the entire poor majority of South America, which has rejected U.S.-dominated "free trade," and has rejected the militaristic, failed and neverending U.S. "war on drugs" (the excuse for the U.S. military foothold in South America, no doubt now used to further Bush Cartel drugs/weapons trafficking), and is strongly asserting independence, regional cooperation and social justice. THEY are Rumsfeld's new "enemy." Not Hugo Chavez. But Hugo Chavez's--and Evo Morales', and Rafael Correa's, and Nestor Kirchner's (Argentina) and Daniel Ortega's (Nicaragua)--SUPPORTERS. The poor are the "enemy" whom Donald Rumsfeld threatens with military and economic war.

It is the new war. It is theater of war, part two, in the Corporate Oil War--now that the rest of the world (and our own intelligence and military professionals) have made clear that these fuckers will not be permitted attack Iran.

And people wonder why Chavez wanted control of the central bank (one of the amendments), and wanted to maintain the threat to DONALD RUMSFELD AND HIS PALS--EXXON-MOBILE, THE WORLD BANK, ETC.--of Chavez running for reelection in 2012. Too bad the rightwing in Venezuela--supported by the Bushites--and the rightwing Catholic hierarchy in Venezuela (who had a hand in this election loss, due to an amendment favoring gay/women's rights) managed to confuse some Venezuelan voters (about 10% of them) sufficiently to narrowly defeat the amendments. Personally, I think those voters will live to regret their votes, when first world/global corporate predator financiers start putting the squeeze on Venezuela, and Rumsfeld's black operatives add some more "riots" and murders, round about 2011, to get their guy (possibly General Raul Baduel) in there, to start undoing the Bolivarian reforms, and get control of the oil and other resources back into the hands of global corporate predators.

The same struggle is occurring in Bolivia--also Ecuador--where popularly elected Bolivarian presidents are seeking the power to fend off global predator attacks on MAJORITY RULE. A constitutional reform process is underway in both of these countries, as well. Is Evo Morales a "dictator"? Is Rafael Correa a "dictator"? That, or some other slander, will soon be promoted by the corporate-controlled "news." You can bet on it.

This is a rightwing, fascist/corporate WAR. There is strong evidence of it in all three countries, and in Bushite policy, and stated quite nakedly by Donald Rumsfeld.

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

News of Bolivia:

"Bolivia to Denounce Destabilizing Plans
(Prensa Latina, 12/3/07)

"La Paz, Dec 3 (Prensa Latina) The Bolivian Government will present evidence before the Organization of American States that the opposition has plans to destabilize the country, Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca said on Monday.

"We will present the denunciation on Wednesday, including violence acts perpetrated in the southern city of Sucre, where the Constituent Assembly, a body of national re-foundation, was in session, said the Bolivian diplomat.

"The accusation will be presented by a delegation led by Deputy Minister of Government Coordination Hector Arce.

"Blockade of the Assembly and measures of protest by people who oppose the departmental redistribution of the Direct Tax on Hydrocarbons led to clashes, leaving three people killed and dozens wounded.

"In addition, opposition groups attacked police facilities in Sucre on November 21, burning vehicles and kidnapping constituent assembly members, he recalled." (MORE)

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B8081AF96-21A8-4906-B0FD-993DEAA13956%7D)&language=EN

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

"Bolivia's Morales calls for vote on his presidency
Wed Dec 5, 2007 9:16pm EST

"LA PAZ (Reuters) - Bolivian President Evo Morales called on Wednesday for a nationwide referendum to decide whether he should stay in the job as a way to resolve a deepening political crisis in the country.

"The leftist leader's plans to overhaul Bolivia's constitution have reignited long-running conflicts between more indigenous Andean regions, where Morales has his support base, and wealthier lowland areas.

"In an apparent bid to draw a line under the conflict, Morales proposed a referendum to decide whether he and nine regional governors should remain in their posts. Six of the country's nine regions are controlled by his opponents.

"'If the people say 'Evo's going', I've got no problem. I'm democratic,' the former coca farmer said in a televised speech. 'The people will say who's going and who's staying to guarantee this process of change.'

"He said he would send a bill to Congress on Thursday to call the referendum vote.

"Morales -- Bolivia's first indigenous president -- is a close ideological ally of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, whose own constitutional reform project was defeated narrowly in a referendum vote at the weekend.

"Bolivia's sweeping constitutional changes, a key Morales project, are at the center of a power struggle between the leftist leader and his conservative rivals concentrated in lowland areas that are also home to large natural gas fields." (MORE)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN057134720071206

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

So, DUers, who's side are you on? Rumsfeld's? Exxon Mobile's? The rich landowners' in Bolivia? Or, are you on the side of the poor, the previously despised and excluded, the oppressed, the brutalized, who are trying to assert their rightful power PEACEFULLY and DEMOCRATICALLY?

The "war" in South America is NOT their doing. They are not making war. And their leaders are NOT "dictators." It is Rumsfeld and the rich elite who are making it a war, because that is all they know: force, violence, oppression, theft. It is Rumsfeld and the rich elite who are the dictator-wannabees in South America. And everything they say about this--every one of their nasty little "memes" (that Chavez is a "tyrant"), and their sneaky little phrases ("the former coca farmer said...")--is serving the goal of restoring fascist rule over the resources and people of the Andes region.

Know that you are being lied to--directly, and in many sneaky, indirect ways. Know it upfront. Hold it in your consciousness when you watch CNN or their brethren propaganda monopolies of our public airwaves. Read between the lines, in their corporate-controlled newsprint. You are being fooled. You are being toyed with. You are being brainwashed--because they fear you, citizens of the U.S. They fear your native sense of justice and fair-play. They know which side the majority of north Americans would be on, if you knew what was really happening in South America. And--even with their rigged voting machines and all the rest--they fear what you would do about it, both as to dismantling the power of these global corporate predators who are operating from our shores and have seized our government, and as to having our own Bolivarian revolution here. Social justice. The use of a country's resources to benefit the people who live there. Dangerous ideas. They fear the majority there, and they fear it here. Know this--and get informed.

Recommended, as a start, on understanding the Bolivarian Revolution:
www.venezuelanalysis.com (a pro-Chavista site, with excellent, factual, detailed news articles, and well-reasoned, fact-based opinion).

Don't trust CNN et al--neither in WHAT they choose to report as "news," nor in how they frame it.

[LoZoccolo]

36. You are either with Chavez, or with Rumsfeld!

Yay Rumsfeld!

:woohoo:

[inMD]

37. I am for....

You asked, "So, DUers, who's side are you on? Rumsfeld's?"

I am for term limits, everywhere, and I'm glad Venezuelans (marginally) saw that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". And they voted it down even when the extensive constitutional reform for unlimited terms was sprinkled with attractive treats for the voters like a 30-hour work week. Chavez will be in power until 2012, he should have plenty of time to do all that he needs/wants to.....then pass the torch.

I don't trust any politician, especially if given unlimited power. Sorry to dissapoint, but I don't side with Rumsfeld or Chavez. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

[Peace Patriot]

44. Would you have term-limited FDR--who ran for and won FOUR terms in office,

and died in office in his fourth term? (He was a "president for life"!) Why would you deny the voters the choice of voting for whomever they want and need as leaders at a particular time? Our term limit on presidents is a later development--in the 1950s--and was a rightwing reaction to FDR's strong leadership and socialist policies. Our founders very pointedly did NOT include a term limit on the president in the Constitution, and many of them considered such a limit to be un-democratic. As long as elections are transparent--as they are in Venezuela--why shouldn't the people have that choice?

I think it's as yet unclear whether Venezuelans want that choice. There were 69 amendments, on a wide variety of issues, in two packages, for a yes or no vote. And 3 million voters abstained. If the term limit issue were put a vote on its own, I really don't know how they would vote, nor does anybody else, at this point. The only clue we have is that they gave Chavez a personal mandate as president of 63% of the vote, just this last December in the presidential election. And considering how close this referendum vote was, I think it would be fair to put the term limit question to them again, in a separate vote. If they vote it down, then perhaps we can conclude that Venezuelan voters think Chavez is going too far, too fast, with his socialist program, and they want different leadership in 2012. And if they vote it up, then it will be clearer WHAT they were voting on--or abstaining from--in the referendum.

You "don't trust any politician, especially if given unlimited power...". Chavez neither possesses, nor asked for, "unlimited power," and it really is disinformation to imply otherwise. And he has NEVER used power unlawfully or illegitimately, so to keep suggesting that he might want to, is itself disinformation.

You are way, way over-interpreting this 50.7% vs. 49.3% vote on the referendum. You are implying that it was a vote to deny Chavez "unlimited powers." (And if it was, half the voters of Venezuela apparently want a "dictator.") It was a vote on MANY things (including gay and women's rights, in country with a powerful rightwing Catholic hierarchy). The amendments on the presidency would have permitted Chavez to run for office again (and be VOTED ON by the voters), to control the central bank (which may be used in Rumsfeld's plan for economic war), and emergency powers in case of an attack or a coup, or a natural disaster (emergency powers that did not include suspending the Constitution or civil rights). Given that a U.S./Bush-backed rightwing military coup has already been tried once--and various other destabilization efforts--I don't doubt that the Chavistas are worried about future such attempts, and were trying to guarantee Venezuela's sovereignty and stability by beefing up the president's powers. But whether or not the voters objected to THESE among 69 changes is unknown. And they do NOT constitute "unlimited power." The powers are specific and limited--and were put to a vote, for godssakes! Did Bush put the "unitary executive" to a vote? Did he put spying on all of us to a vote? Did he put torture to a vote? Who is the "dictator"?

[inMD]

67. flip side of coin

And the flip side of that coin, would you allow Bush to run for another term? And a lot of fools would vote for him, and our voting machines. Scary thought, huh. Sorry, you don't convince me, I like term limits for a President, but that's just me. I respect your opinion, but disagree.

I am not way, way over-interpreting anything....I said MARGINALLY. I am implying nothing, I stated my thought and you are inferring from it.

[Psephos]

68. Yes

Despite Churchill's urgent advice, he unwittingly sold out the Poles to Stalin to curry favor, and was simply outmaneuvered at Yalta, with lasting consequences that led to the Cold War.

I cannot imagine how different the world would be now if we had those trillions back (from both sides) that were poured into the Cold War for so many decades. Screw the trillions. What if all those millions of Eastern Europeans been spared Soviet empire rule?

Roosevelt knew he would soon be medically unfit to continue the presidency, yet he went ahead with it anyway. I think his decision was made with honest belief that no one else could fill his shoes, but nonetheless, he stayed past his time, because the man had become bigger than his office. A common condition, when one looks back over history.

Party officials, aware of his runaway high blood pressure and failing heart, knew that Roosevelt was likely to die early in his fourth term. They saw to it that Henry Wallace, who shared Roosevelt's optimistic view of the Soviets, was eased out of the Vice Presidency, ultimately to be replaced by Truman.

I believe FDR was one of the greatest of all US Presidents. I can forgive him overstaying, because he was human, and his judgment was becoming frailer along with his health. Meanwhile, his other Herculean accomplishments remain undimmed and eternal.

[Judi Lynn]

38. It's really time people woke up and advised our right wing to leave these people alone.

Our NeoCon administration has brought a kind of bloodthirsty, dishonest treachery to this country beyond anything anyone would ever have dreamed possible.

They need to know there ARE some serious, not easily duped Americans watching them, day in, day out, who disagree in the strongest possible sense with their dragging this country down as they unleash hell on earth upon the most helpless of the world.

Hoping Latin America has learned enough to protect itself in the end from what has already been done to it from the administration of American right-wing Presidents, starting with Eisenhower and onward, in contemporary terms. I pray more people will realize, finally, they need to find out what has happened for themselves, as a matter of conscience, instead of brushing it all back and forgetting about it again.

There has been wild, wicked, hideous bloodletting done already, massacres destroying 100,000's of thousands of our fellow people in the Western Hemisphere, all set in motion and financially arranged by American right-wing Presidents. You can't continue to ignore it, on the eve of a possible new onslaught of violence against more innocent people, at the hands of this clown Prince who has stolen the Presidency.

Best wishes for the new world the people of Latin America are pursuing. I hope they have learned enough to make it to their destination, despite the effort the U.S. right-wing will make to murder everyone who attempts to gain freedom for Latin America.





Hugo Chavez, Ecuador's Rafael Correa, Bolivia's Evo Morales at the occasion of Correa's inauguration.

[Peace Patriot]

43. Wow, those photos say it all! Pix = 1,000 words. THIS is what Rumsfeld hates.

Look at those strong faces. Look at those brown faces. And look at their obvious accord amongst themselves. They represent a formidable social justice movement that is peaceful and democratic, and that is profoundly changing Latin America, toward goals of independence and social justice. And that really, really, really frosts Donald Rumsfeld's ass. THEY control the oil. These good-hearted, brown-faced, courageous men--each with a Bushite bull's eye target on his back--control the oil and other resources, on behalf of the people of their countries, and by the choice of the people of their countries. And Rumsfeld lusts after those resources, on behalf of his pals at Exxon Mobile and the World Bank, and would torture and kill--and HAS tortured and killed--to satisfy his psychosis and the greed of the super-rich.

Who's side are you on, DUers? I ask it again. ALL THREE of these leaders are seeking stronger presidential powers to BLOCK Rumsfeld's plan for economic and possibly military war against their countries. It's not just Chavez. They ALL know what's coming. They are ALL seeking expanded, centralized powers to confront it--and are, at the same time, actively and systematically seeking to spread power around, though mechanisms of inclusion and participatory democracy. Are these "tyrants"? Nope. They're smart--that's what they are. And another thing they are is: united!

Thank you, Judi Lynn, for posting these photos!

[KingOfLostSouls]

48. I was gonna say

look at those dark skinned faces. the kind that rumsfeld wants to put a fence up with machine guns to keep out.

how dare those dark skinned people want to run their own countries! don't they know they're sitting on OUR oil!


:sarcasm:

[Clanfear]

54. I'll side with the poor.

Who dramatically sided against Chavez.

[cali]

61. I don't trust people who frame things in false choices.

I don't think Chavez is a dictator. And I don't at all like people suggesting that if one disagrees on anything with Chavez, one is on the side of Rumsfeld. It's unfortunate that you choose to do this.

[Peace Patriot]

64. I didn't say that Chavez critics are on the side of Rumsfeld. I said that

"anti-Chavez posters" are on the side of Rumsfeld, and are serving Rumsfeld's agenda and that of his global predator pals. To me, that is a very important distinction. There are posters who come here for the sole purpose of posting anti-Chavez lies and disinformation. They don't criticize--that is, analyze, present reasonable arguments, cite facts, add to the discussion. They merely repeat disinformation, and echo Bushite "talking points." And I think you know who I mean--the posters that get on threads like this and just keep saying over and over again, the same nauseating, disinformation points--that Chavez is a dictator, and if there is no evidence for that, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then Chavez wants to BECOME a dictator, etc., etc. They loathe Chavez--for what reason, it is not clear. They call him an asshat and a loudmouth and a buffoon, and every kind of insulting name--when the man has harmed NO ONE.

I was not talking about reasonable criticism. It's not a matter of disagreeing with Chavez. It's that, when people call him a "dictator," they are not only spreading a lie, they are in fact serving Donald Rumsfeld's agenda, and the agenda of the corporate news monopolies, who have been unrelenting in their attempts to portray him as a "dictator," for the purpose of toppling his government, and disenfranchising and further impoverishing his constituents.

What I object to is attributing everything Chavez does to a desire of his to be a "tyrant"--whether it's interrupting the head of Spain's government, on a point having to do with the prior Spanish government's support of a violent military coup in Venezuela, or wanting to run for a third term. They presume that he wants to run for a third term because he wants to be a "dictator." They presume that the National Assembly proposed beefed up emergency powers for Chavez because Chavez wants to be a "dictator." And since there is ZERO evidence that Chavez has acted dictatorially in the past, there is no reason to make this presumption about what Chavez will do in the future. And there is a far more reasonable explanation for Chavez seeking a third term, and for his supporters wanting him to have stronger emergency powers, and control of the central bank. And that is, that a violent rightwing coup attempt has already been attempted once, in Venezuela, against the Chavez government, with U.S. backing, and Rumsfeld and his corporate predator pals are clearly gunning for Chavez, the Chavistas and the Bolivarian Revolution.

Yes, he seeks more power. So did FDR. It is essential that leftist leaders--leaders who are truly representing the poor majority--have sufficient power to fend off violent, vicious rightwing economic attacks and coups.

Those who interpret an ELECTED leftist seeking strong powers to protect his country's sovereignty and economy as a desire to be a "dictator" might as well be Exxon Mobile's P.R. department.

Rumsfeld laid it all out, in his WaPo op-ed. That is the plan. You can see it in black and white. LIE that Chavez a "tyrant," use that to chip away at his power and deny him further powers (by confusing and scaring some Venezuelan voters), and then the REAL dictators move in for the kill--a squeeze on the banks, more destabilization, economic warfare launched from Colombia, perhaps capped by U.S. military intervention, in support for another rightwing coup. Rumsfeld PROMISES it. And you think Chavez doesn't KNOW this? He knows it better than anyone. WE didn't know Rumsfeld's plan, or even that he was interested in Venezuela, until 12/1/07, when his op-ed was published, one day before the Venezuelan referendum (--although I have to crow that I did guess, in previous threads; I wondered what Rumsfeld had planned for his 'retirement,' and my first guess was war on Venezuela). Chavez has known this all along. THAT is the most reasonable explanation for his pushing these reforms.

The Bushites are also practiced at stealing elections and bullying their way into power that way. Look what they did in Florida. They know how to use disinformation, confusion and phony "riots" to steal elections. That is what they are teaching the rightwing elite in Venezuela--if all else fails, how to steal the 2012 election from the Chavistas. Point 1: Chavez must not be permitted to run again.

I truly feel that the 10% of Venezuelan voters--the voters who are pro-Chavez, but who voted against the reforms--are going to regret that vote. Because what their country is more open to now is loss of ALL the reforms up to this point.

And I do--yes, I do--think that we must choose sides. This is not our war. It is Rumsfeld's war, although clearly he wants to make it our war. It's not the war of the poor in Venezuela. They are not at war. They are entirely peaceful. So, whose side are you on?

I have no objection to criticizing Chavez, or being skeptical of him and of all politicians, but when the super-rich DECLARE war on an elected government and an elected leader, as they have now done with Chavez--and when they declare war on a region and on its vast poor population--as Rumsfeld also does--we, whose resources and possibly whose military will be used in this war must choose sides. At this point, you should suspend your criticism of Chavez, as if this was some normal kind of debate, and understand the REAL situation: war. A war against democracy. A war against the poor. If you don't choose Chavez's side in this planned war--and Evo Morales' side, and Rafael Correa's side, and Nestor Kirchner's side, and Lula da Silva's side--for they will be Chavez's allies in this war--then you are contributing to the further impoverishment of the poor, and quite possibly to torture, death and all manner of oppression, by your silence.

You want to engage in normal political debate. Rumsfeld won't let you. Not me. Not Chavez. Rumsfeld and the ugly, monstrous global corporate predators who operate from our shores. Exxon-Mobile. Chevron-Texaco. Halliburton. Blackwater. Chiquita. Monsanto. Which side are you on?

I don't like it. I don't like it on evolution. I don't like it on abortion. I don't like it on gay rights. I don't like how the fascists shove us into a corner like this, and FORESTALL reasonable debate, by reasonable people, on issues that are not simple. But when they stake out these outrageous positions, and declare war on democracy, on freedom of religion, on civil rights, on civil discussion, and on people--whom they want to torture and kill and oppress--NOT choosing sides is a choice. It serves them.

[Swagman]

41. no problem here. Chavez has accepted the result but is fighting on

sounds OK to me.

[ohio2007]

49. "the reform can be submitted for a referendum again." ( no it can't )

unless he "rules by decree and ignores what the constitution says about returning the referendum while the same presidente is in office.

[Clanfear]

52. Only under the Constituent Assembly

And that is if he is able to get enough signatures to convene a Constituent Assembly, which he will.

By decree he can only do things that do not go against the existing constitution.

Ultimately, if he wants this revolution to succeed it has to be bigger than one man.

[stillcool]

53. I read 'they',..an you read 'he'?

Chavez: Venezuelan People Can Present New Reform Proposal
December 5th 2007, by Kiraz Janicke - Venezuelanalysis.com
http://venezuelanalysis.com/
Caracas, December 5, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) - The Venezuelan people have the capacity to modify and newly present the constitutional reform proposal defeated in the referendum on December 2, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday, during a telephone call to the popular political commentary program La Hojilla (the Razorblade) on the Venezuelan state TV channel VTV.

During his phone call, Chavez reflected on the referendum results and affirmed that he had lost the right to introduce a constitutional reform proposal. However, he said, "the Venezuelan people have the power and the right to present a request for constitutional reform before this term finishes, of which there is still five years."

Under the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999, the President, the National Assembly or 15 percent of registered voters have the right to present a proposal for constitutional reform.

The Venezuelan people, Chavez emphasized, could present another reform proposal "next year or in three years."

"It doesn't have to be exactly the same," he continued, "It can be in the same direction, but in a different form, improved and simplified, because I have to accept that the reform that we presented was very complex. And in the debate it became more complex. This was utilized by our adversaries and we lacked the capacity to explain it."

-------------------------------------------
Chavez also ridiculed the international media campaign to discredit and personally attack him, particularly U.S. television channel CNN that has begun to spread information about a supposed crisis in the revolutionary government in reaction to the results of the electoral process on December 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------
He also completely denied the versions of El Nacional journalist Hernán Lugo-Galicia, who alleged in an interview with Daniel Viotto on CNN in Spanish that Chavez had only accepted the results of the referendum because of pressure from the Military High Command.
http://venezuelanalysis.com/

[Clanfear]

55. Let's not kid each other.

Do you really think poor people in slums are going to make it a first priority to get the apparatus together to get the needed signatures? Or do you think they will be more concerned with feeding themselves and their babies?

If this comes back up it will be spearheaded by Chavez, make no mistake.

[stillcool]

56. I won't be making any mistake..

Where does that phrase come from..."Make no mistake"..Is that just a political meme of sorts that people throw out there to sound more convincing? And...tell me...how do you feel about the state of democracy in this country....the loss of our civil liberties....do you care?

[Clanfear]

57. Figure of speech.

No conspiracy.

This thread isn't about the state of democracy in this country, and I'm not quite sure what relevance it has to the issue being dicussed. But, since you asked. I think it has disolved into what we the people have demanded. We have demanded 20 second sound bite answers to very complex problems, and that is what we have. Thus allowing those with greater attention spans(whomever that may be) to direct policy. It is that way on the national, state, and local levels. I'm sure you are probably pretty active in your local level poltics, as am I, and on the national scale it is the same thing just magnified several thousand times. There are a handful of people that take the time to be pro-active in the day to day issues and their voices get heard. The masses it seems could care less as long as the performance of their basic services don't hinder their existence. So in a word I would say the state of demcoracy is apathy on the large scale.

I don't know if you have ever had the opportunity to read some of the debates of the late 1700's and early 1800's, but those were inspiring. Each candidate given 30 minutes to an hour to lay out his positions, then rebuttal, for an additional 30 minutes. You couldn't just read from talking points, one had to formulate responses on the fly without help. It was truly a thing to behold. I'm sorry we have lost that level of discourse and importance in whom we elect to office.

[stillcool]

58. Conspiracy?

I see.

[Clanfear]

59. Do you really?

Or are you hung up on some ideal that you wish or had hoped the people of Venezuela would see?


What do you see?

[stillcool]

60. My ideal is a healthy society..

in the country where I live. I live here..in the United States. I do not understand the obsession with a foreign countries democratic policies. I am far more concerned with what is happening in my country. I see..."make no mistake", and "conspiracy" as token verbiage thrown around like spittle by one with no intent to express an independent view with another individual. I see spouting talking points, regardless of how emphatic as a waste of time.

[Clanfear]

62. Could I ask?

Why would you be responding to a thread about Venezuela then?

I find it rather interesting that you would take umbrage with one phrase in admittedly a topic you claim to be less concerned with. You suggest I am citing a meme, and I retort that it is no conspiracy. But alas it is something you are less concerned about, while seeking my opinions on the state of democracy here? Of course all predicated on your desire to point out the difference between "he" and "the people"????? Okay. If it is such a waste of time, then undoubtedly your time would be better spent elsewhere. I don't get it. Or maybe I do get it. You are wishing that I would spend more time commenting on our society than pointing out the flaws of Chavez's failed attempt at turning Venezuela into a socialist state?

[stillcool]

66. My interests in Venezuela...

are centered in my governments history of interventions in other countries.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Venezuela_page/Venezuela_page.html
I believe it is a fine example of spreading "Democracy", and freedom for U.S. business interests around the globe. I understand the lure of valuable resources, but I am appalled by the means used to obtain them.
Obviously I read..hence I was bemused by the substitution of "They..the people", for "He..the dictator".
And yes, I wish my fellow citizens would take a fraction of the time they spend arguing over another country's choice of leader and apply it to finding solutions to the problematic society in which they themselves live. I am also baffled that those who are so obsessed with a foreign country's "democracy", don't seem to notice the stark contrast between a free and fair election elsewhere, and their own completely broken voting apparatus.