Lula visits Chavez to show vote support

Brazil's newly re-elected leader visited Venezuela on Monday in a show of support for his fellow leftist, President Hugo Chavez, who is himself campaigning for another term in a December 3 vote.

Chavez and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva are probably the two most influential men in Latin American politics and have forged a solid relationship despite representing two sides of Latin America's generally leftist tilt of recent years.

The presidents shook hands enthusiastically and laughed when Lula stepped out of his plane late on Sunday on his first foreign trip since re-election last month.

Chavez, who ordered the arrival to be broadcast live on all national TV stations, put his arm across Lula's shoulders as they chatted at a red-carpet ceremony to greet each other's diplomats.

MercoPress

The Chimp will be hitting the bottle again by X-mass.

eom

For all his hatred of Bush, Chavez sure seems to know his political tricks.

his record in Brazil is a stretch.

nm

If Chavez wants Venezuelans to know what's at stake in the Venezuelan election, it makes sense to show this event. It's a powerful and honest shorthand for the most important issues in this election. And if the opposition doesn't like it, they can portray it as political tricks, and the people can decide whether what they see and hear is a trick or if it's highly relevant to the choice of the direction the country will take.

"If Chavez wants Venezuelans to know what's at stake in the Venezuelan election, it makes sense to show this event. It's a powerful and honest shorthand for the most important issues in this election."

So its okay for the exceutive power in a country to order coverage of what is ostensibly a campaign event?

"And if the opposition doesn't like it, they can portray it as political tricks, and the people can decide whether what they see and hear is a trick or if it's highly relevant to the choice of the direction the country will take."

In other words, its okay because Chavez did it.

and I'm not sure the criticism is that the executive shouldn't be allowed to do it. The criticism is the subject matter.

I bet there wasn't one post on DU during the "Mission Accomplished" Bush photo op that said that Bush shouldn't be allowed to have private stations broadcast something like that.

I'm sure the objections had to do with the content.

And frankly, if the president of the US of A wanted ABCNBCCBS to broadcast him alligning himself with pro-worker foreign leaders, I would be pretty happy.

DU to criticize it.

I've seen Bush/his admin ask for time on the networks and most of the time its given but it has been refused. I've seen plenty of Duers pissed when he gets it for so-called policy speeches that basically were campaign events.

"I bet there wasn't one post on DU during the "Mission Accomplished" Bush photo op that said that Bush shouldn't be allowed to have private stations broadcast something like that."

You would lose that bet.

I'll grant that at times it is difficult to eliminate the campaign feel from what are rightly covered national events. But this seems to be a campaign event more than a national one and just like Bush is wont to schedule pressers that are little more than campaign events, Chavez seems to believe his power should also be wielded in the same manner.

And I am sure you are aware the phrase "mission accomplished" was used many times (mostly in mocking) just for that event making a search for threads from that time frame difficult to obtain.

You've been here long enough. I am sure that you are aware of the bemoaning of the networks(broadcast and cable) giving Bush time just because he says he is going to hold a presser or make a speech.

Why you are arguing DUers did not feel that way during the sooper-dooper photo op is strange.

complain about the fact that presidents ask for their events to be broadcast and seeing many people who love to discuss the subject matter of the events.

And I've been here long enough to find striking the occassions when it's the opposite: someone complaining about the fact that executive branches do this rather than the subject matter of the event.

I'm pretty sure that I've never seen that happen with Bush events that are televised.

But maybe there is an All My Children or Dateline NBC fan out there who'd rather see one of those shows than have a chance to see (and justifiably criticize) what even an unpopular president is doing and saying. But I don't recall it if there was.

happened? now that is sad and a bit obssesive.

I really doubt you know much of anything you claim to be an expert of, most notably politics, Chavez, Venezuela or DU.

Next thing you know you will claim that my stance is hypocritical based on a previous stance you think was taken a few years ago... How sad.

"I really doubt you know much of anything you claim to be an expert of, most notably politics, Chavez, Venezuela or DU."

I never claimed to be an expert on anything. I simply voiced an opinion.

"Next thing you know you will claim that my stance is hypocritical based on a previous stance you think was taken a few years ago... "

No, I will claim you are a poor debater whose arguments amount to putting words in my mouth and calling me sad.

I am not the one arguing hypocracy on what you just THINK that OTHERS said YEARS ago HERE.

That is really really bad, I have heard plenty of "gee just like W! you hypocrite" but this one takes the cake.

I never said any Duers were hypocrites for having issues with Bush using the media for campaign shit when presented as news.

Its a sticky thing to draw a line between the two. I feel that Bush has crossed that linea few times. Many Duers feel the same way.

"THINK that OTHERS said YEARS ago HERE"

You can't even figure out what I have said on this thread forget about relying on your memory.

And we're not talking about content. We're talking about the act of asking the media to put him on the air.

I really don't think I've ever read a DU'er wish that Bush wasn't given broadcast time. Most DU'ers seem to be happy to engage in a disucssion of what he says rather than complain about him having an opportunity on TV to state his case.

"And we're not talking about content. We're talking about the act of asking the media to put him on the air."

But content is an issue for one to distinguish between campaign vs., newsworthy though these lines can be blurry at times.

I would argue that Mission Accomplished, the cost involved, the media spectacle of it all was both newsworthy and a campaign event.

There have been other policy speechs which seem to be more election geared rather than policy defenses which one expects from the "bully pulit" of the President.

"I really don't think I've ever read a DU'er wish that Bush wasn't given broadcast time."

I have. Most of the time there are quite a few hoping that loyal viewers of whatever was pre-empted were pissed at Bush enough to drop him.

"Most DU'ers seem to be happy to engage in a disucssion of what he says rather than complain about him having an opportunity on TV to state his case."

I think DUers will do the former irregardless but saw the latter as an abuse of office.

I am sure you have seen the campaigning on our dime threads detailing his air travel, SS detail and such. This is very much in the same vein.

I mean seriously there has to be a single exception of someone whining about it right? a lone poster that irrationally wants Bush to be in a media black hole?

Let me finish by stating that your whole argument is so fallacious that the whole "he is just like Bush!" is debate material in comparison.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2849707

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/196.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/04/16_stupid.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/p/152.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2605571

"Let me finish by stating that your whole argument is so fallacious that the whole "he is just like Bush!" is debate material in comparison."

From someone who has done virtually nothing but post strawmen I found this very amusing.

In the last one, one poster is anxious because she MISSED the press conference.

I didn't see anything in those posts that mirror the concern about Chavez in this thread (which is that Chavez is publicizing the Lula event by requiring all the stations to carry it). They all address the content, but not the fact that the events were televised at all.

You seem to require a double standard for Chavez: you criticize him for doing something that nobody at DU seems to care about if Bush does it.

I said I had issues with the pressers of both. How can that be a double standard?

"
I didn't see anything in those posts that mirror the concern about Chavez in this thread (which is that Chavez is publicizing the Lula event by requiring all the stations to carry it). They all address the content, but not the fact that the events were televised at all."

I see people having issues with the coverage.

"you criticize him for doing something that nobody at DU seems to care about if Bush does it."

So? Is that the standard for critique?

think supports your argument?

a typical campaign stunt. You might note the difference in treatment various sources give news events, as if you hadn't already! This Bloomberg article comes closer to actual news reporting, whereas the other, like almost ALL the articles we get here, wanders all over the place, attempting to incorporate as many political insinuations as possible while attempting to resemble a news article. We usually get the same reiterated political shadings in ALL our news concerning leftist politicians, to mold perception among the weak minded, simple, feeble, and slow among us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chavez, Lula Vow Closer Cooperation at Bridge Opening (Update1)

By Peter Wilson

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva pledged to draw their countries closer together while inaugurating a $1.2 billion bridge over Venezuela's Orinoco River.

``Brazil needs Venezuela, and Venezuela needs Brazil,'' Lula, 61, said in televised remarks from the bridge, the second to span the Orinoco, South America's seventh-largest river. ``I am very happy because projects like these, which we want to do with Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, and Argentina, will allow us here in South America to dream of having a union like the Europeans.''

The new bridge, built by Brazil's Odebrecht SA, the country's largest construction company, will also allow for greater trade between the two countries, Chavez and Lula said.

Chavez, 52, has stressed regional integration as South America's only way for economic development and independence from U.S. domination. Chavez, a critic of U.S. President George W. Bush, has rejected free-trade agreements with the U.S., and has instead proposed his own trade association based on the ideals of Venezuelan founding father Simon Bolivar.
(snip/...)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=ahLNotgkCq5o&refer=latin_america

Brazil's Silva predicts re-election for Venezuela's Chavez
The Associated PressPublished: November 12, 2006

PUERTO ORDAZ, Venezuela: Newly re-elected Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva offered warm words for Venezuela's Hugo Chavez on Monday, predicting the leftist leader will win elections next month on the strength of his measures to help the poor.

Silva, making his first foreign trip since winning a new four-year term last month, said it wouldn't be proper to endorse a candidate in Venezuela's Dec. 3 presidential vote, but added that Chavez's anti-poverty initiatives show his heart is in the right place.

"For many years here in Venezuela there wasn't a government that worried about the poor people as you have," Silva told Chavez in a speech. "It's the same people who elected me, who elected (Argentine President Nestor) Kirchner, who elected (Nicaraguan leader) Daniel Ortega, who elected (Bolivian President) Evo Morales. Surely, they will elect you president."

Silva and Chavez, both leading figures in the resurgent Latin American left, have built close ties despite differing approaches. While Chavez lashes out frequently at Washington, the more-subdued Silva maintains civil relations with the U.S. government.
(snip/...)

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/13/america/LA_GEN_Venezuela_Brazil.php

unimportant point to smear the peaceful, democratic, leftist (majorityist) revolution in Latin America as somehow "dictatorial," and to distract DU posters and readers with absurd and irrelevant discussion, in this case, whether or not Venezuelan TV should cover the meeting of two South American heads of state, during an election campaign. The "pequeños diablos," who seem to be "on the case" instantly, every time a Chavez thread comes up, to guide the discussion down deadend pathways to the hidden Corporate "talking point" (leftists are "authoritarian" and "tyrannical") naturally ignore the overwhelming facts and truth about TV coverage of Chavez in Venezuela--that the news media in Venezuela are extremely hostile to Chavez, openly supported the violent military coup against him in 2002, using the airwaves as a conduit of disinformation to assist the U.S./Bush-backed coup, and rail against Chavez, his MAJORITY government and his POPULAR policies in a 24/7 stream of rightwing, Corporatist propaganda. Chavez has no more power to "order" these Corporate monopoly "news" stations to cover an event than Bush does. And he clearly has absolutely no power over their content, and has never asserted any--even in the face of extreme provocation and treason. Compare the Venezuelan "news" reality to the one here, in which Bush's political henchman Karl Rove daily feeds rightwing/Corporatist "talking points" to our war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who dutifully regurgitate them in newslant and commentary.

Mercopress is a private news organization consisting of "several independent journalists" whose description of Mercosur (South American trade organization) indicates a bias toward "free trade" (global corporate piracy) and U.S./EU interests. (Note: Their description of Mercosur is outdated. Venezuela is now a full member.)

http://www.falkland-malvinas.com/about.asp?TEMA=mercopress&IDIOMA=Ingles

And take a gander at the rest of the Mercopress article on the Chavez/Lulu event:

"Lula, a former labor union leader, pushes centrist economic policies that have cheered Wall Street and made him a comfortable partner for Washington. Chavez sells most of Venezuela's oil to the United States but criticizes the superpower for meddling in the region and advocates hard-left socialism.

"Lula will promote regional integration with Chavez by inaugurating on Monday a Brazilian-built bridge across the Orinoco River and overseeing work by the countries' state oil companies exploring Venezuela's vast reserves.

"The visit helps blunt opposition criticism of Chavez -- Cuba's top ally -- that he is out of touch with modern leaders and also provides the impression that his regional diplomacy is producing concrete economic results."

-----

"Hard-left socialism"? What does that mean? How about "soft-left" socialism--policies that show compassion for the poor, that provide schools, medical centers, community centers and small business loans and grants, in extremely impoverished areas never before served by government? Or "compassionate democratic socialism"--policies that at last encourage full majority participation in government?

Hard-left, indeed. Mercopress is even worse than AP. And their attempt to paint this Chavez/Lulu event as some sort of authoritarian monopolization of the news is even less subtle than AP in its rightwing Corporate slant (which never categorizes George Bush as the "right-wing President of the United States"--even though he obviously is ("fascist" President would not be inaccurate, considering some of the things he has done), but often describes Chavez as the "leftist" President of Venezuela, or worse). And both AP and (herein) Mercopress NEVER FAIL TO MENTION CASTRO's CUBA in association with Chavez--however irrelevant it is to the news item--even though Venezuela has many other allies and friends in Latin America and elsewhere.

Then there's this: "opposition criticism of Chavez" that he is "out of touch with modern leaders..." No quotes, no sources. (Are they chatting with Cardinal Castillo Lara, like the NYT, the WSJ, AP and the rest of the gang seem to do--to get their latest "talking points" for the unsourced Chavez "opposition criticism"?) And, finally, the Chavez/Lulu event "also provides the impression that his regional diplomacy is producing concrete economic results."

The "impression?" Just to mention ONE other item of CONCRETE ECONOMIC RESULTS--in addition to the bridge opening that is the occasion of the Lulu visit, and numerous others that go unmentioned: Venezuela recently bailed Argentina out of crippling World Bank/IMF debt. Argentina is now on the road to recovery from U.S/Corporate ravaging, and, as a consequence, recently began talks with Brazil on a common currency, like the euro (to get off the dollar). None of this would have been possible if Chavez and his government and his huge base of supporters in Venezuela didn't believe in SHARING THE WEALTH ("hard-left socialism"), and regional cooperation and self-determination (Bolivarianism).

But our "little devils" don't want things like this to be discussed, or any broad understanding gained about South American politics and economics. They want you to focus on some tiny point that reinforces the Corporate meme that Chavez is a "dictator," and get into endless, time-wasting and distracting arguments about nothing.

:eyes:


These answers are precious.

Chavez allows nasty critiques of him to continue thru the press! What a humanitarian!

Orwell is spinn9ing in his grave.

www.venezuelanalysis.com

It's pro-Chavez, but well-written by a broad spectrum of progressive reporters and commentators, and occasionally includes reasonable criticism of Chavez (not rightwing garbage).

I urge DU-ers to get educated about developments in Latin America, to be able to resist and counter the propaganda from our corporate news monopolies, which has been as bad on Chavez--and on many other Latin American subjects--as it has been on the Iraq War. Remember what our corporate news monopolies were like in 2002-2003, re Iraq? That's how they are NOW on the leftist revolution in Latin America. It smells to me like the preliminary to war. The Bush Junta has spent billions of our taxpayer dollars in Latin America, bolstering fascist military power, in the few dinosaur states, like Columbia, which still cooperate on the murderous, phony U.S. "war on drugs," and they are particularly intent on toppling democratic governments in Bolivia and Venezuela, and destroying strong democratic leftist movements in Peru and Ecuador, to get at vast resources of oil, gas and minerals in the Andes region. They have also built a state-of-the-art military air base in Paraguay, where the Bush Cartel is purchasing a 200,000 acre enclave, very possibly a launching pad for a private corporate war against these peoples and their governments. (Plan Columbia is already on the move in Paraguay.) And they recently changed a U.S. government policy to once again allow U.S. training of the South American military leaders in how to torture and kill poor peasants and leftists.

Get informed! Stop this war before it begins! And, while you're at it, keep working on the democratization of THIS country, so that we, too, can have policies of equity and justice for the poor, and the participation of all our citizens in the creation of government policy that protects OUR interests from war profiteers and global corporate predators.

As Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, has said: "The time of the people has come." Let's help that become the reality there, and here.

VA is an unabashed cheering section for Chavez. Not even the Bolivarian revolution but Chavez.

If you can find an article there that is even mildly critical of Chavez, let me know.

The entire country's dominant media already handle that with gusto. They were involved in creating the circumstances for the coup, and concealing the efforts to overturn the coup. The Venezuelan press is notable for its non-stop savaging the guy, ridiculing him in ways _Bush has never had to endure, publicly, day after day, after day.

I've seen them print slimey scum from critics at VenezuelanAnalysis, including an attack piece by the rabid _Bush mouthpiece at the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl. Many DU'ers are acquainted with that gem.

It's not your responsibility to haunt D.U., waiting to ream every Latin American populist leader who wants to lead his country away from right-wing Washington's control.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1414
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1780
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1564

All it takes is a little research... venanalysis is simpathetic but they are left wing first and foremost.

To find 3 articles, the newest one over a year old, with each of these "critical" articles written by outside sources?

Yes "Pro Chavez Union Leaders Urge Chavez to do better" is scathing!

What an indictment!

"venanalysis is simpathetic but they are left wing first and foremost"

VA is a propaganda arm of Chavez. To not see that one must be willfully blind.

Do you think they should tell lies just to appear balanced?

What story about Chavez do you think is missing from their reporting?

Its more of an opinion page since it sees no need to be objective.

"Do you think they should tell lies just to appear balanced?"

No.

I think their bias is prevalent to the point I wouldn't use them as a source. They can do as they wish. If it leads to people downgrading their credibility, so be it.

Can you cite anything you think should be on their website that isn't?

What do you want from them in order for you not to question their objectivity?

Nor have I seen them involved in getting low and vicious about people, unlike mainstream Venezuelan media.

It's odd seeing someone crabbing that they, like the other Venezuelan media, don't indulge in character assassination, ridicule, and mockery of their President!

There are already others covering those bases, obviously. Apparently you have to make an ass of yourself trying to attack leftists relentlessly, like a lunatic in order to look "fair and balanced" to a right-winger.

What certain people don't like is Americans finding out what is going on in Venezuela, like this nasty trick the Venezuelan paper, Tal Qual perpetrated on the public by erasing a rose from Chavez hand in a photo taken at a speech and replacing it with a gun:



http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1025

Had to find that out from Venezuelanalysis or we wouldn't know about it at all. They are so unlikely to broadcast their own dirty acts internationally!

do (they can't cite any examples of bias). They seem anxious merely because it exists. They don't like the fact that the facts get reported.

an example showing the people producing this publication obscure the truth, or print lies. Never!

It seems to drive them wild that there's still one organization left standing which doesn't exist to assist the old regime, the opposition, in its continual struggle to destroy the only spokesman the poor ever had in Venezuela.

This was a recent clip of a relatively high profile Assembly member being interviewed by Miguel Angel of RCTV. This would never happen in the US, she even came on willingly knowing what was going to happen. You do not really need to know spanish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy7W7bSKeA8

You could see a lot in their voices, postures, tones of voice, mannerisms. God, he was nasty. The host was unbelievably snotty.

It appeared she had evidence to back up her position. He got very quiet for a while. Did he say she was lying?

Thanks, Flanker.

It was mostly showing court rulings implicating the host's brother knee deep in narcotrafficking...

That was mostly what she went on for, of course it devolved into overall heated bickering.

I finally found it on an online Spanish dictionary: I had tried to find it earlier without spelling correctly. Today I learned it means "slander."

It looked, when she started reading her reference material, that he clammed up really, really quickly until you'd hardly know he was there.

It's outstanding learning what they were discussing, and that the opposition anchor was, as usual, a nasty, vicious, hateful tool who got his behind handed to him.

That clip was very, very interesting.

"Can you cite anything you think should be on their website that isn't?"

They are welcome to publish whatever they please.

"What do you want from them in order for you not to question their objectivity"

I don't want anything from them. I will question their objectivety(which quite frankly you must be playing dumb not to see the bias) as I see fit.

But if you're not trying to make compelling arguments supported by facts, then what's the point?

I think everyone recognizes that many people have uninformed, kneee-jerk opinions about all sorts of matters. But if you chose to post your opinions in a public discussion forum that you're willing to subject them to a level of scrutiny that is a degree or two higher than something that is uninformed.

I went to a talk given by Gregory Wilpert in Caracas and I actually thought he was unfairly critical of the Bolivarian revolution. He said that the whole thing relied on Chavez to carry it forward and that without him, the whole thing would crumble. I asked that question to all the people I met afterward in Venezuela, and none of them agreed. They all said that this was the PEOPLE's revolution -- they started it and there is no way it would end with Chavez. So there -- criticism number one. He had some others, but I don't recall what they were off the top of my head (but I have the DVD of the talk...)

Venezuela Analysis was started by American sociologist Gregory Wilpert who was in Caracas on a Fulbright Scholarship during the coup. After witnessing the coup first-hand and seeing how blatantly distorted and dishonest the press coverage was he and his fellow researchers felt there was a need for a source of accurate information since there was only the media supported by and active in the opposition, the Chavez state-run media and website, and not much else in terms of objectivity. The fact that Wilpert is a progressive (like most academic intellectuals) does not mean that he is not capable of objectively observing social phenomonen as a sociologist. If you ever hear him talk, you will see that he is not a Chavez cheerleader and maintains a fair degree of skepticism. The main purpose of VA is to correct the lies and propaganda perpetuated by the media and the US State Dept., so of course it is going to appear "pro-Chavez" since the sources of the lies are decidedly "anti-Chavez". I believe it is one of the most reliable sources of information on Venezuela out there.

in a down website, as some would grasp, so it's unlikely anyone will be able to provide recent articles of any kind.

You asked and I gave, now move along.

So, what should he do to be 'humanitarian'?

villages in Alaska. Is that what you meant? Or what is it you DO mean?

states, as well as the Native American tribes ordered: there were photos of Democratic Congressmen meeting the trucks a year or two ago.

From what I've heard, the contract with the Alaskan villages which made an agreement was this fall. I've not seen more written on the subject since they arranged the contracts.

There's not a reason in the world to dream Venezuela wouldn't honor its agreements. It's not known for trickery, nor is it known for accepting a 40% discounted payment for oil and not delivering it, after going to the trouble of almost cutting the price in half to begin with.

Cheap Venezuelan heating oil reaches NYC for 2nd year
November 17, 2006, 5:28 PM EST

NEW YORK -- For the second straight year, Venezuela's government is delivering discounted heating oil to low-income New Yorkers.

On Friday, a green truck from Citgo, a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, dropped off the year's first shipment of heating fuel to a 60-unit Bronx apartment building. The event drew local politicians and business leaders.

The overall program, part of a promise Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made to assist America's poor, is expected to deliver more than 25 million gallons of fuel at a 40 percent discount to more than 100,000 households in New York City.

Nationally, this year's initiative is expected to send more than 100 million gallons to some 400,000 households in 16 states. That more than doubles last year's commitment, according to a press release from Houston-based Citgo.
(snip/...)

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--venezuela-oildeli1117nov17,0,2499740.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally: The CITGO-Venezuela Heating Oil Program is also operating in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Greater Philadelphia, Greater Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

CITGO is also providing discount oil directly to 163 Native American tribes in the states of Alaska, Maine, Minnesota and New York.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some Low-Income New Yorkers Get Discounted Heating Oil From CITGO

November 17, 2006

Some low-income New Yorkers stocked up on discounted heating oil Friday, in advance of the cold weather, thanks to Venezuela's national oil company. And depending on how you look at it, the move was either humanitarian or political. NY1's Paul Messina filed the following report.



He called President George W. Bush a devil at the United Nations in September, but on Friday Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made good on a promise to help low-income Americans. As he did last year, Chavez, through CITGO, the Venezuelan national oil company provided discounted heating oil to Bronx residents.

“The Venezuelan government is showing us solidarity,” said Bronx resident Rachael Leiner. “The U.S. Government is not going to look upon that as something that they are going to welcome.”

Is that because he is trying to show up the Bush Administration? Or is the Venezuelan President just being nice?

“When our country sends money and goods overseas to help other countries it is considered a humane act, and it is a humane act,” said Representative Jose Serrano. “But when President Chavez does it in this country it's considered a political act. That's a mistake, that's unfair.”
(snip/...)

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=12&aid=64437

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On edit, adding another article:

Cheap heating oil deliveries begin in the BronxOfficials say most low-income families are eligible, they just need to apply
Eyewitness News



(New York - WABC, November 17, 2006) - Officials are beginning deliveries of low-cost heating oil to some low income residents of the Bronx -- a gift much to the chagrin of the Bush administration from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

But as Carolina Tarazona found out, the people getting the heating oil don't care about the politics -- they just want the oil.
Cache Rodriguez is a young mother who's lived in the South Bronx all her life. Here, the world of international politics takes a back seat to something much more important -- survival.

Neighbors welcomed the Citgo-Venezuela heating oil program to this low income community. Today, hundreds of gallons of fuel were poured into underground tanks on Barretto Street in Hunts Point.

The program will distribute more than 25 million gallons of fuel to about 100,000 households in New York City. These low income residents will be receiving oil at a 40 percent discount.
(snip/...)

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4773463

I really like that song.

Oh, LuLA, not LuLU.