I have been so busy I forgot to check this morning. I knew yesterday however that it was going to be good when Caracas Chronicles posted:

"Just a few days in Caracas, and the general milieu mirrors what Quico is saying: many people think that, win or lose, this election doesn’t make much of a difference."

LOL. You can bet that if they thought they were going to win they wouldn't have said it doesn't make much of a difference.

http://caracaschronicles.com/2013/12/08/hopeless-in-caracas/

During a short period, the New York Times employed Francisco Toro, Juan Forero, and Simon Romero, all THREE complete oligarchy mouthpieces. What a travesty!

Here's an article which discusses the depature of Caracas Chronicles' departure from the Times:

NY Times Reporter Quits Over Conflict of Interest

Venezuela Misdeeds Adding Up on 43rd Street

By Al Giordano
Special to The Narco News Bulletin

January 14, 2003

The New York Times’ Venezuela problem continued to snowball yesterday as its Caracas correspondent Francisco Toro resigned.

Toro acknowledged, in a letter to Times editor Patrick J. Lyons, “conflicts of interest concerns” regarding his participation in protest marches and his “lifestyle bound up with opposition activism.”

Toro’s obsessive anti-Chavez position in Venezuela was publicly known after last April’s coup when he began sending emails to Narco News and other journalists who he placed on his own mailing list attacking Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. That the Times hired him in the first place was a violation of the Times’ own claims to objective and disinterested reporting. But regarding Venezuela, it was not the first.

Toro’s resignation – the text of his letter sent to the Times management last night appears below – is the latest in a long series of missteps and misdeeds by the New York Times and its reporters regarding the New York newspaper’s one-sided and inaccurate Venezuela coverage:

I think all foreign reporting on the ongoing Venezuelan administration is going to be inevitably skewed to either side by the fact that this is a regime that NATIONALIZED US OIL INTERESTS. US. OIL. INTERESTS. Do you understand the *balls* that that took? Do you understand on how many people's (POWERFUL people's) wrong side that will get you? I mean, I think the only reason Caracas isn't currently occupied by marines is 'cause Dubya was knee deep in his fight against 'terror' at the other side of the world to do much about it. Haters will have to stick to playing Call of Duty: Ghosts to see Caracas in flames...let's hope it stays that way, regardless of the electoral outcome.

However (and keep in mind that this is a latino leftist talking here), don't take it to mean that I back a lot of the ludicrous things Nicolas Maduro says/does. It's just that it's hard to hate him when he's just giving the historically dictator and death squad-backing, murderous latin american right a little taste of their own medicine, rhetoric-wise at least (just substitute religion for the ridiculous Chavez cult of personality and inflammatory anti-communist rhetoric for..well, inflammatory Occupy-style rhetoric). I think this is a BIG reason why latin elites' knees tremble at the mere mention of Chávez and Maduro's names.

There is no doubt Bush was in over his head and was unable to fire up the war machine when the full psychological hate support from the country was needed to pull off his deceitful war against Iraq. It would have been hard to have the lunatic mad-dog pro-war element in the US straining to despise and want to murder people in two completely different environments and circumstances simultaneously. They aren't that well-trained by the government here, yet!

Regarding Venezuela, people won't soon forget US-supported Carlos Andres Perez' massacre of at least 3,000 Venezuelan protesters, and innocent by-standers in "El Caracazo" massacre, when he ordered police and military, with tanks, into poor neighborhoods to mow down people protesting his monstrous price-hike on their transportation, heating oil, and groceries.

Some have said here for years the US and/or Colombia are going to invade Venezuela. Not gonna happen, but the US continues to buy oil.

No creas que los que estan en contra de este gobierno en Venezuela sean de derecha. Aqui hay de todo. Lo que si me parece a mi de extrema derecha es poner militares a hacer politica y a gritar "Patria, Socialismo o Muerte" en cada desfile. Otra cosa que me parece muy de derecha es hacer listas negras con millones de electores que han votado en contra del gobierno para botarlos de su trabajo en la administracion o cerrarles el acceso al credito y al empleo publico. Y por ultimo, es poco democratico nombrar a un oficial del gobierno por encima de otro electo por el pueblo cada vez que el partido de gobierno pierde una eleccion. En un estado petrolero, la elite es la que esta cerca del estado, nadie mas. Aqui no hay industriales ni agroindustriales que influyan. Solo gobierno.

Bueno, tienes razón al decir que todos los gobiernos 'socialistas' del Cono Sur de 'socialistas' realmente tienen muy poco (veo yo como que usan mas el discurso de guerra de clases y de 'socialismo' muy demagogicamente) pero esta es, como siempre, una elección entre el mal menor y el mal mayor...por lo menos en los paises de la "marea rosa" se han visto bajas en los índices de pobreza, desigualdad, analfabetismo, etc...cosa que no se puede decir por ejemplo de mi país, Honduras, que muy "valientemente" se ha mantenido al margen de esta tendencia durante toda su historia, hasta el grado que hoy en dia es el segundo pais mas pobre de América y el mas desigual.

Entiendo que como izquierdista te opongas al gobierno chavista, pero que de eso pasés a apoyar a la oposición...si lo veo como un descarrilamiento severo de cualquier ideal izquierdista que podrias tener...date a la idea de que aquí en Honduras ha gobernado desde el 82 el equivalente a la oposición venezolana, es una dictadura en la práctica porque la única diferencia entre los dos partidos imperantes es el color de sus banderas, todos en la cúpula de poder son amigos que velan por sus propios intereses...se da la misma situación de clientelismo político, si sos bandera roja (o peor aun rojinegra) y el gobierno es azul buena suerte consiguiendo trabajo, las elecciones son aun mas amañadas que las de Venezuela....así que tienes la exacta misma situación que en tu país (corrupción campante y sonante, dictadura, represión, clientelismo político) nada más que en vez de "Misiones Bolivarianas" tienes una politica económica ruinosa del corte neoliberalista mas puro, aquí el sector público del que depende gran parte de la población está próximo a desaparecer gracias al sabotaje sistemático al que se le ha sometido.

Lamentablemente, en Venezuela desapareció la posibilidad de oponerse sin ser catalogado como enemigo de la revolución.

Disculpa que no te haya contestado antes, no he tenido nada de tiempo ultimamente.

La verdad es que yo no hablo de los gobiernos de izquierda del Cono Sur en general. Me limito a considerar al de mi país. De hecho, si te fijas bien, la diferencia es enorme. Ninguno de los gobiernos de izquierda del continente se ha basado tanto en el sector militar para gobernar. En la función publica venezolana es mucho mejor pagado el trabajo de un joven teniente de 28 años que el de un profesor titular de la universidad en su maximo nivel. Con eso que llaman "unión civico-militar", se ha desatado el crecimiento de las milicias civiles que en realidad no son del pueblo ni del estado, sino del partido de gobierno. Mas de medio millón de personas armadas fieles a una ideologia, y no a una colectividad ni a un código de leyes. La fusión del estado con el partido dominante es algo grave que muy poco tiene que ver con cualquier ideal progresista. Esta evolución se ha dado en todos los regímenes autoritarios, reclamense de la derecha fascista o de la seudo-izquierda totalitaria. Por mi parte, yo sigo excluyéndola de lo que considero como la izquierda y considerando que cualquier tipo de apoyo a este tipo de desvío ideológico es un descarrilamiento absoluto con respecto al ideal popular y colectivista del socialismo. La colectividad es y seguirá siempre siendo plural.

Por otra parte, no sé si te has dado cuenta como el discurso chavista en Venezuela ha logrado raptar la palabra "oposición" con la repetición incansable de aquel famoso falso dilema que dice "el que no esta conmigo, esta en mi contra". Hoy en dia en Venezuela, tú puedes ser marxista o socialista y ser llamado apátrida, escuálido, pitiyanqui y vendepatria por el presidente, porque simplemente expresaste tu desacuerdo con el gobierno. Igual como puedes ser el mayor capitalista del país, tener la mitad de tus intereses en el extranjero y haberte enriquecido de una manera obscena en los ultimos 10 años y ser llamado patriota y anti-imperialista por el mismo personaje. Aquí lo único que paga es la lealtad al régimen.

Esa tendencia a excluir ha ido transformando a la oposición venezolana en algo sumamente heterogeneo. Poco tiene que ver con la del 1998 o la que en buena parte propició el golpe de estado en el 2002, con el apoyo de la televisoras y de los patronos. La radicalización acelerada del régimen ha resultado en una gran cantidad de exclusiones y de abandonos de la coalición chavista por parte de partidos claramente de izquierda que nada tenían que ver con la oposición del 2002. Hoy en dia, el único partido tradicional que sigue apoyando al PSUV es el Partido Comunista. De esa forma, los otros socialistas que van desde Bandera Roja (es un partido en Venezuela) hasta el MAS (Movimiento al Socialismo) se encuentran en el amalgama de la "oposición".

Aunque yo no me identifique con la mayor parte de los politicos de la MUD y no me guste Capriles, tampoco soy chavista y por lo tanto mi gobierno me considera como su "opositor" y su enemigo. Y no solo eso, sino que también me insulta llamandome apátrida, fascista y pitiyanqui, simplemente por no estar de acuerdo con su manera de gobernar. Así que a mucha honra si te diré que soy izquierdista y opositor, como de paso siempre lo he sido, porque no me queda otra opción en el falso dilema que impusieron.

I've always taken Chávez regime's relative success to be a direct consequence of his increase on state control/revenue over the Oil sector, in direct opposition to his predecessor's policies...crappy source, but at least wikipedia backs me on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Second_presidential_term:_10_January_2001_.E2.80.93_10_January_2007

The expropriation of foreign oil interests (amongst other things) I've always understood to be an ongoing concern during the 'chavista' administration...here's a recent news story concerning one such case:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/01/venezuela-seizes-us-owned-oil-rigs-in-dispute-over-unpaid-bills/

Obviously do not live in your country, but the general perception among us foreign leftists is that a big part of the "satanization" of Chávez and his cohorts is his cutting into Big Oil's profits...

That way he can bring all the benefits of socialism to the cities whose citizens are not wise enough to vote PSUV.

And you DO know that that's the capital of the state where Chávez was born, right? And that the governor of that state is Chávez's own brother? Ever since Chávez became president, that city was always under chavista governance. It's only NOW that they lost it after almost 15 years. For SOME reason this must've happened, and considering the situation, it's likely because the many years under Chavista governance did not go well for the city.

Sorry, it really seems like you're bringing up ideas that involve intruding in the affairs of the local governments that the people in those cities democratically elected. Are you telling me that the central government should "intervene" in those cities somehow simply because they lost? They'd be basically disregarding the results, officially making them anti-democratic. They'd be basically saying "Well, yeah, we understand the majority of you people elected the other guy to run things here, but we're still gonna try to have a presence anyway". That'd be in clear violation of the Magna Carta and the Venezuelan Constitution itself. They've already pretty much done that with Ernesto Villegas who lost against the opposition candidate Antonio Ledezma in the Metropolitan District of Caracas. Since Villegas lost, Maduro is now designating him as the minister for the "Transformation of Caracas", a charge that they pulled out of their asses right after learning they didn't win because they feel they're entitled to meddle in the affairs of places where they're not wanted by the majority. Please, tell me how this is exactly "democratic"? Or are you gonna try to defend the indefensible?

If it is good enough for Detroit, it is good enough for Caracas

(Sorry, I know I need to use the sarcasm thingie more often)

Did the people from Detroit actually vote for the federal government to intervene? Or for that matter even the day before?

The people of Caracas said it outright with their votes that they don't want a figurehead from the government party. And even then they still felt that in the very night when the results were in, they basically flipped them a big, flaming bird, and for no reason other than the fact that they lost. Detroit had the excuse of actually being in a crisis and actually became bankrupt. No such case ever happened in Caracas. And even then, the government's solution is not even a bailout, it's more a parallel entity that they simply want to put there so that they can give that entity all the federal resources needed to carry out projects while the constitutionally enacted charge of Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Caracas gets nothing, which kinda already happened back in 2008 when the PSUV lost that position. After the election of Antonio Ledezma as Metropolitan Mayor of Caracas, the Venezuelan National Assembly (then controlled completely by the PSUV), they passed a Capital District Law on April 30, 2009 that transferred most functions, funding, and personnel to the control of Jacqueline Faría, an official directly appointed by Hugo Chavez. And the funny thing is that, despite the P(o)SUV coming up with that charge that completely disregarded the popular vote of the people of Caracas, the people still reelected Antonio Ledezma this time around, meaning that either he still did a pretty decent job despite having being stripped of the resources that rightfully belonged to him, or the incompetence of Jaqueline Faría was simply too astounding to even consider a chavista be given the mayor's office.

...what is happening in Caracas.

The people of Detroit, of Caracas, and everywhere else on Earth should have the right to elect their own civic leaders.