Chavez seeks end to term limits

Source: BBC

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has confirmed that he will try to change the law to allow him to remain in power indefinitely.

Under the current constitution, Mr Chavez will have to leave office at the end of his term in 2012.

But he says he wants to remain in power for as long as Venezuelans continue to support him.

The constitution is under review and Mr Chavez is expected to make changes to cement in law his socialist revolution.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6932605.stm

but I can't say I like this development. He should be working on building the machinery of a long-lasting progressive state, not thinking of how he, himself, can (or should) stay in power.

It's enough to make your knees buckle.

I don't pay a lot of attention to them. I don't really have an opinion because I haven't heard any first-hand accounts of what's going on. I know about the TV station thing, and his friendship with Castro (which really doesn't faze me, since from what I can tell Castro is a better leader than most of the RW dictators the Republicans and the U.S. have supported over the past several decades).

Like I said, I'm not thrilled by this particular notion because if he actually wants to build a successful state, it has to be about a network of like-minded people in his government, not just about him.

that this will turn out to be something else. That's the way it's gone every single other time.

And remember that station helped with the coup and told the people he'd resigned when in fact, he'd been kidnapped. He didn't take them out and shoot them. He waited FIVE YEARS for their license to expire.

I think you're right. It can't be about him. Watching the documentary about the attempted coup (never ever start a coup when there are filmmakers in the house!) the thing that impressed me was, every single person in his Cabinet are leaders. Not yes men, not idiots like the cons in our government. The film shows very little footage of Chavez because he had been abducted. Instead, you see his team working under immense pressure and out of communication with him. They were amazing.

I don't think a meglomaniac would have put together a team like that. :shrug:

Chávez ratificó que propondrá reelección continua en la reforma constitucional
ABN 05/08/2007


Caracas, 05 Ago. ABN.- El Jefe de Estado venezolano, Hugo Chávez Frías, ratificó este domingo que planteará la figura de la reelección continua en la reforma constitucional.

Durante la emisión número 289 de su programa Aló, Presidente, transmitido desde el Palacio de Miraflores, el Mandatario nacional indicó: “La reelección continua ocurre en muchos países europeos y asiáticos y no significa atentar contra nadie”.

Además, dijo: “Será el pueblo el que tome la decisión final sobre mi permanencia. Pero tengo la esperanza puesta en que nosotros, incrementando la eficacia, la eficiencia y el apoyo de nuestros países hermanos, continuaremos atendiendo las necesidades del pueblo”.

Por lo tanto, subrayó el Presidente, “hay que reformar la constitución. Es una necesidad y lo vamos a hacer. No se puede reformar la constitución, ni una coma, si no pasa por referéndum nacional”.

Asimismo, Chávez mencionó que cuenta con 75% de apoyo a su Gobierno, cuyos resultados son concretos y no provienen de la magia.

“¿Alguien puede pensar que yo estaría aquí si ese pueblo no sintiera que ahora sí hay un gobierno, después de muchos años, que les atiende sus necesidades fundamentales?', expresó.

Igualmente, Chávez ratificó: “Yo estaré aquí hasta que el pueblo decida”.

http://www.abn.info.ve/go_news5.php?articulo=99481&lee=1

Everyone knows the real reports on Venezuela come from Zmag, Common Dreams, and Venezuelanalysis.. are you some sort of right-winger?


/sarc

It's surprising you think you're going to whip up progressives to back your opinion by running down progressive journalists. Damned odd.

The ones who know absolutely NOTHING about this are to the right:

Can't do it, can you?

WMD, too?

lol

Chavistas will sometimes post an AP article that portrays Chavez positively, and they will approve, but then many times they will trash the AP as being "corporatist" when they run a disfavorable article on him?

It's funny how that happens, isn't it? It's almost as if there was some balance in the news they report. On the other hand, if conflicting viewpoints hurt your head/feelings too much, you can run to Venezuelanalysis, where you can read daily about all the puppies, rainbows, and unicorns in Venezuela.

John Pilger deconstruct the BBC today? Starting with their earliest history airing attacks on unions?

Getchur clue here!

Chávez ratified that it will propose continuous re-election in the constitutional reform ABN 05/08/2007 Caracas, 05 Ago. ABN. - The Venezuelan Hugo Chavez, Chief of State You cold, ratified east Sunday that will raise the figure of the continuous re-election in the constitutional reform. During the emission number 289 of his Aló program, President, transmitted from the Palace of Miraflores, the national Agent chief executive indicated: “The continuous re-election happens in many European countries and Asian and it does not mean to attempt against anybody”. In addition, he said: “The one Will be the town that makes the final decision on my permanence. But I have the put hope in which we, increasing the effectiveness, the efficiency and the support of our countries brothers, will continue taking care of the necessities of the town”. Therefore, it emphasized the President, “it is necessary to reform the constitution. It is a necessity and we are going it to do. It is not possible to be reformed the constitution, nor one eats, if it does not happen through national referendum”. Also, Chávez mentioned that it tells on 75% from support his Government, whose results are concrete and they do not come from the magic. “ Somebody can think that I would be here if that town did not feel that now yes there is a government, after many years, that take care of their fundamental necessities to them? ', it expressed. Also, Chávez ratified: “I will be here until the town decides”.
Arabic to English BETAChinese to English BETAChinese (Simplified to Traditional) BETAChinese (Traditional to Simplified) BETAEnglish to Arabic BETAEnglish to Chinese (Simplified) BETAEnglish to Chinese (Traditional) BETAEnglish to FrenchEnglish to GermanEnglish to ItalianEnglish to Japanese BETAEnglish to Korean BETAEnglish to PortugueseEnglish to Russian BETAEnglish to SpanishFrench to EnglishFrench to GermanGerman to EnglishGerman to FrenchItalian to EnglishJapanese to English BETAKorean to English BETAPortuguese to EnglishRussian to English BETASpanish to English

http://translate.google.com/translate_t

Chávez ratificó: “Yo estaré aquí hasta que el pueblo decida”.

Chavez comfirmed: "I will be here until the people decide."

I could translate the whole thing, but it's late and I don't wanna, and your computer "translation" got the basic gist across.

I didn't clean it up that much to make it sound more natural, but here goes.

Caracas, August 5. Venezuelan chief of state Hugo Chavez Frias verified this Sunday that he put the idea of continuous reelection into the latest constitutional reform(s).

During episode 289 of his program, Alo Presidente, transmitted from Miraflores Palace, he indicated "Continuous reelection happens in many European countries and Asian countries and doesn't mean to harm anybody."

Then he said "It will be the people that make the final decision on my permanence. But I have the hope that we we will increase eficacy, efficiency, and the support of our neighboring countries, that we will continue attending to the needs of the people."

For that reason, he emphasized, "There is a need to reform the constitution. It's a necessity and we are going to do it. The constitution cannot be reformed--not even one comma--if it does not pass national referendum."

Also, Chavez mentioned that 75% support his government, based on concrete results and not magic.

"Can anyone think that I would be here if the people didn't feel that they had a government that took care of their fundamental needs?"

He added "I will be here until the public decides ".

The only quibble is that the show is "Hello, Presidente"...

Aló is the Spanish phonetic spelling of someone saying "hello" in English.

At least, that's what I've seen.

"Hello, President". Get my drift? :)

Unless...you're translating every Spanish word into English, and every English word into Spanish. Then it WOULD be "Hello, Presidente." :P

Pero, no importa nada. Así es, y está todo bién.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It wasn't a serious dig at the guy, it was all in good fun. I'd like to see how that was an "anti-Leftist" joke.

...Orwell said it best.

but this is a bad move, PR speaking.

He needs to do all he can to keep himself from looking like a dictator, since so many vested interests enjoy painting him that way.

"Open mouth, insert foot. Start chewing..."

BushCo agitprop? We get an average of three of these stories every week and somehow, Venezuela is doing just fine.

selectively reported. The usual.

:shrug:

We are all waiting...

But we won't hold our breath for your lame attempts a bullshit...

Quack, quack, quack.

Who would have guessed?

And it was just as relevant.

He did die in office afterall.

It was petty and desperate on the part of republikkans to say that's what he wanted.
They were just pissed they couldn't beat him.
The only 'one' or 'thing' that could was the 'Grim Reaper'

and he would be subject to recall at any point in time. Venezuela's elections are closely monitored by international agencies and have been repeatedly judged clean open and fair.

Meanwhile we have a real executive dictatorship right here in river city. But don't let that trouble you too much.

FDR was in elected for four terms. I wish he had lived and been in power for considerably longer than he was. So the US changed its constitution in a way that wouldn't have allowed FDR to lead us through World War II, but is it fair to expect every other country to follow that lead?

It's just natural that any man or group that stays in power for a long period of time gets corrupted and stagnant. Entrenched power in general isn't a good thing.

final decision. I assume that means it will be put up for a vote. Unless, their election system is as corrupt as ours has turned out to be, it seems like this is the democratic thing to do. I do hope that everyone who thinks we should be bringing democracy to everyone else in the world sees this as being democratic in process although they may not always like the result.

That's how the Bush criminals justify subverting democratically-elected leaders who dare to oppose the Bush policies internationally.

we wouldn't be hearing sh2t about it -- as long as he played ball with American Big Oil.

But he's standing up to them so obviously he's a monster.

Can they be any more transparent? lol

His fans here would be figuring out a way to make the babies out to be revolutionaries trying to bring down the people's hero.

progressive leader in this hemisphere. What has he done that makes him a problem? Is it the school meals or the literacy programs or helping renters own their homes? That terrible dictator is growing the economy and kicking out American oil companies. Oh, the horror!

a progressive revolutionary= good

Military man that served this country honorably and is now the U.S. commander in Iraq= bad..........

Petraeus is one of the finest men I have ever known, and the progressives call him betrayus........

Chavez has suspended newspapers, nationalized oil refinieries and been an all around nit and the progressives hail him as a Progressive Jesus.......

Yep, tells me all I need to know.....

betrayus - the bush* ass kisser?

Sorry, you lose....

and he isn't an ass kisser......I was a young E-5 when he was the 101st commander and I and my captain briefed him when I worked in Mosul, the only man I rspect more than Petraeus is my own father........

He serves this country honorably, whether we have good leaders or bad ones he serves, the same as me, and the same as most in the military......

Regardless of the goodness or vileness of our leaders, we have a nation to serve and Petraeus is a far finer human being than any of his critics at DU, at least he serves his country instead of ranting from the safety of the states.....

P.S. Before someone says I do too, yes for now but at the end of the year, I'll be posting from Iraq.......

...let me think where do I keep hearing that sort of thing? If they plan to suspend term limits but still have election cycles or a parliamentary process there seems to be no reason to hide "the details".

At any rate, his Socialist revolution could not come at a better time for him and is virtually assured; the Neocons leave a trail of socialism in their wake as they did after their dictator Pinochet had his way with Chile etc. etc. etc.

are still being NEGOTIATED. And that would be OUR man, Pinochet.

Too bad we can't have "a trail of socialism" here that would repair our gutted school and medical system, make us solvent again, and allow middle class people to hang onto their jobs and homes.

Eventually, Chavez may do something that even you will have to admit is over the line.

with Big Oil and other ways the corporatists have ripped off Latin America, an American hobby that preceded Rove by hundreds of years.

Busted.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12933

There isn't much substance to the claims in that article..

There's no doubt it's completely correct. I'm acquainted with the name of the author, as well. He lived in Caracas for quite a while, if I'm not mistaken.

Here's more, in the same vein. A comment by John Pilger made during a speech given by several journalists, including Seymour Hersh:

Normalizing the Unthinkable
John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Charlie Glass, and Seymour Hersh on the failure of the world's press
by Sophie McNeill
Z magazine, June 200

~~~~~~~~~~~snip~
Pilger turned his attention to the BBC. Generally accepted worldwide as a reputable and independent source of information, Pilger rejected this notion outright. "In Britain, where I live, the BBC, which promotes itself as a sort of nirvana of objectivity and impartiality and truth, has blood all over its corporate hands." Pilger cited a study conducted by the journalism school of the University College in Cardiff that found in the lead up to the war, 90 percent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested Saddam Hussein actually possessed them.

Pilger added, "We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by MI-6, the secret intelligence service. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI-6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fake. But that's not the point. The point is that the role of MI-6 was quite unnecessary because a systematic media self-censorship produced the same result."

To Pilger the most significant way journalists are used by government is in what he calls a "softening up process" before planned military action. "We soften them up by dehumanizing them. Currently journalists are softening up Iran, Syria, and Venezuela," Pilger said. "A few weeks ago Channel 4 News in Britain, regarded as a good liberal news service, carried a major item that might have been broadcast by the State Department. The reporter presented President Chavez of Venezuela as a cartoon character, a sinister buffoon whose folksy Latin way disguised a man, and I quote, 'in danger of joining a rogues gallery of dictators and despots-Washington's latest Latin nightmare.'

"Rumsfeld was allowed to call Chavez 'Hitler' unchallenged. According to the reporter, Venezuela under Chavez was helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. No evidence was given for this bullshit." He cited a recent report by the media watchdog FAIR, which found that 95 percent of the 100 media commentaries surveyed expressed hostility to Chavez, with terms such as "dictator," "strongman," and "demagogue" regularly used in publications such as the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. "The softening-up of Venezuela is well advanced in the United States. So that if or when the Bush administration launches Operation Bilbao, a contingent plan to overthrow the democratic government of Venezuela, who will care? We will have only the media version, another lousy demagogue got what was coming to him. A triumph of censorship by omission and by journalism," he concluded.
(snip/...)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Normalizing%20_Unthinkable.html



John Pilger
A longer look at his speech from a transcript, 'War by Media:'

On 14 April 2006, the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University in New York brought together John Pilger, Seymour Hersh, Robert Fisk and Charles Glass for a discussion entitled 'Breaking the Silence: War, lies and empire'.

......

By John Pilger

~snip~
If we journalists are ever to reclaim the honour of our craft, we need to understand, at least, the historic task that great power assigns us. This is to “soften-up” the public for rapacious attack on countries that are no threat to us. We soften them up by de-humanising them, by writing about "regime change" in Iran as if that country is an abstraction, not a human society. Currently, journalists are softening up Iran, Syria and Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is likened to Hitler. That he has won nine democratic elections and referenda -- a world record -- is of no interest.

A few weeks ago, Channel 4 News in Britain - regarded as a liberal news service - carried a major item that might have been broadcast by the State Department. The reporter, Jonathan Rugman, the Washington correspondent, presented Chavez as a cartoon character, a sinister buffoon whose folksy Latin way camouflaged a man “in danger of joining a rogue gallery of dictators and despots - Washington's latest Latin nightmare.” In contrast, Condaleeza Rice was afforded gravitas and Rumsfeld was allowed to call Chavez Hitler, unchallenged.

Indeed, almost everything in this travesty of journalism was viewed from Washington, only fragments of it from the barrios of Venezuela, where President Chavez enjoys 80 per cent popularity. In crude Soviet-flick style, Chavez was shown with Saddam Hussein when this brief encounter only had to do with OPEC and oil. According to the reporter, Venezuela under Chavez was helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. No evidence was given for this absurdity.

The softening-up of Venezuela is well advanced in the United States.

Ninety-five per cent of 100 media commentaries surveyed by the media watch dog FAIR expressed hostility to Chavez. “Dictator”, “strongman”, “demagogue” were the familiar buzz words, so that people reading and watching had no idea that Venezuela was the only oil-producing country in the world to use its oil revenue for the benefit of poor people. They would have no idea of spectacular developments in health, education, literacy. They would have no idea that Venezuela has no political jails - unlike the United States.

So that if the Bush administration launches “Operation Balboa”, a mooted plan to overthrow the Chavez government, who will care, because who will know? For we shall only have the media version - another lousy demagogue got what was coming to him. The poor of Venezuela, like the poor of Nicaragua, like the poor of Vietnam and Cambodia, like the poor of Fallujah, whose dreams and lives are of no interest, will be invisible in their grief -- a triumph of censorship by journalism.
(snip/...)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13629.htm

the memory of DU'ers who do their own homework, just for the hell of it!

The Media by Steve Kangus

Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.

The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today’s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post’s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence. (8)

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism:

Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
William Paley (President, CBS)
Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star)
Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
James Copley (Copley News Services)
Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
ABC
NBC
Associated Press
United Press International
Reuters
Hearst Newspapers
Scripps-Howard
Newsweek magazine
Mutual Broadcasting System
Miami Herald
Old Saturday Evening Post
New York Herald-Tribune
(snip/...)

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

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--Former CIA Director William Colby

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

John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, was one of New York's best loved newspapermen. Called by his peers "The Dean of his Profession", John was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club, and in so doing, made a monumentally important and revealing statement. He is quoted as follows:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
(snip)

http://community.freespeech.org/cia_media_project_operation_mockingbird_is_government_propaganda

And we wouldn't be giving Bush this sort of leeway.

The people just kept electing him, because he served their interests, and they needed his strength and vision.

How is that any different from Chavez wanting to be RE-ELECTED?

The smug, uninformed posters who ape the Bush State Dept. line that Chavez is a "dictator" don't seem to know that Venezuela's election system--by which the voters will decide the issue of term limits, and will vote or not vote for a Chavez third term--is many orders of magnitude more transparent than our own. As a consequence, Venezuela's democracy is many orders of magnitude more democratic, more open, more participatory and far, far more representative than ours is.

In Venezuela, they use electronic voting, but it is an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated--AND they hand-count FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of the votes, as a check on machine fraud. Venezuelan elections are furthermore heavily monitored by the OAS, the Carter Center and EU election monitoring groups, who have unanimously certified them as honest and aboveboard.

In the U.S.A., we now have an electronic voting system which uses extremely insecure and insider hackable voting machines, run on TRADE SECRET proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. We hand-count ZERO to ONE PERCENT of the vote, as a check on machine fraud! In one third of the country, there is NO audit. The vote cannot be recounted. The rest have miserably inadequate auditing, and many rules and costs that blockade a recount--a recount is a rare event. There is barely an office holder in the United States who can establish that he or she was actually elected.

And, basically, that's it. Venezuela has a democracy. We do not. Non-transparent elections--with private RIGHTWING businesses "counting" all the votes under a veil of corporate secrecy--are not elections. They are tyranny. It is actually Bush who is the "dictator."

In 2006, in the FL-13 Congressional district, ES&S voting machines 'disappeared' 18,000 votes for Congress in Democratic areas, in an election that was "won" by the Republican (of course!) by only about 350 votes. When the lawyers for the Democratic candidate, Christine Jennings, took the matter to court, and asked to review ES&S's source code, to try to figure out what happened to those 18,000 votes, ES&S REFUSED, and argued that their "right" to profit from our elections and to keep their code secret TRUMPS the right of the voters to know how their votes were counted (or 'disappeared,' as the case may be!). And the judge agreed! And Congress has done NOTHING about this!

Who lives in a tyranny?

70% of the American people oppose the Iraq War and want it ended--an overwhelming consensus of the people. Yet Congress just played lapdog to George Bush and Dick Cheney, and ESCALATED the war on Iraq, and larded Bush and Cheney with $100 billion more of our tax dollars to keep killing Iraqis until they sign over their oil rights to U.S. companies.

Who lives in a "dictatorship"?

The other day, Congress went even further and gave George Bush and Dick Cheney NEW POWERS to spy on all Americans. This is a purported 'Democratic' Congress, whom the people thought they were electing to end the war, and STOP presidential tyranny.

Which country, Venezuela or the U.S.A., has a functioning, transparent election system that reflects the will of the people? Which country has a president with a mandate from the people? Which country has a national legislature that is acting in the interests of the people?

WHO has Hugo Chavez "dictated" to? What laws has he broken? What Constitutional provisions has he violated? Who has he tortured? Who has he killed? Who has he even jailed unfairly? No one who claims that Hugo Chavez is a "dictator" can answer these questions, and provide ANY evidence that he is.

Compare and contrast with George Bush!

The comparison of these two presidents, on democratic values and the rule of law, is ludicrous! Bush doesn't believe in democracy! We all know this. He is a miserable, mean-spirited, murdering, torturing despot! Chavez, on the other hand, is passionately committed to democracy. His government has created strong policies to MAXIMIZE citizen participation in politics and government. Is this the action of a "dictator"? He won the last election with 63% of the vote, in highly transparent, open and honest elections. Bush squeaked by in 2004, with Bushite-controlled rigged voting machines whirring round the country, and now has a 25% approval rating--and is STILL swaggering around, arrogantly, writing his own laws and granted himself dictatorial powers. Chavez and his government have scrupulously followed the law, in every respect, in every policy, in every action.

The only reason I am comparing Bush and Chavez--a laughable comparison-- is that this DISINFORMATION that Chavez is a "dictator" is coming from GEORGE BUSH and his disinformation team, and is being mindlessly repeated by our war profiteering corporate news monopolies. Why? Because they want the oil, gas, minerals and other resources in the Andes region, and they get their greedy hands on those resources they need to topple at least three democracies--Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Chavez is leading a coalition of those very democracies, who, with other allies in South America (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil) have the goal of South American self-determination. They don't want to be dictated to any more by the United States and our Corporate Rulers.

And people who repeat this stupid, lying Bush line that Chavez is a "dictator" are going to believe BUSH and Bush's Corporate pals?

All I'm asking is that DU posters KNOW what they are talking about, gather and discuss facts, and, for godssakes stop getting your "talking points" from the Bush Junta and our lying, deceitful, fascist news monopolies!

They get it wrong, every time. They never provide context. They are FIXATED on making Chavez into a bad guy. They are obsessive and even psychotic about it. It is very like the war fever they created the illusion of, in early 2003, with lie after lie after lie after lie, straight from the Bushites.

PLEASE get educated on this matter. DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT COMMIT MORE ATROCITIES IN SOUTH AMERICA!

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


I recommend www.venezuelanalysis.com for a primer on Chavez, Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution--from a LEFTIST (majorityist) perspective. We need to understand this democracy movement that is sweeping South America. Also, do see "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the Irish filmmakers' documentary on the U.S.-backed violent military coup attempt against the Chavez government, in 2002. You will be impressed with the Venezuelan people, and will be loathe to insult them by asserting that they would support a "dictator."

I too think Chavez is Venezuela's FDR.

FDR saved capitalism from its own internal contradictions and failure.

Chavez is driving a stake through its cold, cold heart and burying it...

had the movement in Venezuela not begun after Carlos Andres Perez had his police mow down people protesting his fiendish new measures which left a lot of them without means of transportation to work and elsewhere, which culminated in people like Hugo Chavez coming forward as instruments of change on behalf of the needy.

They would STILL be screwn, living with no hope in sight, had the oligarchy pResident not violently pushed them all past a point of no return, in his career highlight, the "El Caracazo" massacre, the only highlight, as he was impeached for embezzlement and corruption, although he remains a darling of the Venezuelan elite to this day.

Can you imagine how life was before they started getting DRINKABLE WATER in the last few years? Here's a two-day old article:

Venezuela Achieves Water Millennium Goal

Caracas, Aug 4 (Prensa Latina) Venezuela fulfilled millennium goals regarding drinking water for the population, assured Cristobal Ortiz, Vice Minister of Water Resources of this South American nation.

During his participation in the VI Social Summit for Latin American and Caribbean Unity he informed that, currently, 94 percent of the urban population and more than 82 percent in the rural region have drinking water supply guaranteed.

We are ahead 10 years in fulfilling the objective called for by the United Nations on lowering the number of people without access to this important liquid, Ortiz noted.

The ministry official explained that achieving this goal counted on the participation of the communities through a mechanism of civilian organizations that analyses water problems in their region.

Afterwards projects are presented to government entities to solve the problem, he noted.

Ortiz recalled that this leading role of the communities is not a chance occurrence because it is set down in the nation's Constitution, as is the fact that water is a public right.
(snip/...)

~~~~ link ~~~~

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

You'd think it would occur to the right-wing idiots we hear from to wonder why it is they NEVER have heard of any of the important changes in Venezuela, for one reason or another! According to our own corporate baloney, all that happens in Venezuela relates to chest-thumping by a terrifying commie ogre, who intends to crucify all the smaller community of hard-working, goodly wealthy fair-skinned Venezuelans, and take their "stuff" and give it to the masses of unworthy, lazy dark-skinned poor.

But nooooo. These clowns don't have time to think! Better to keep crashing progressive message boards to spew ignorant right-wing venom than to take some time off and start doing their homework!

"The War on Democracy" about the United States in Latin America. It opened in the UK this summer but for some reason, isn't being distributed here.

A Pilger film not being distributed here in the belly of the beast...

I hope it's available by other means soon. I heard him recently on radio and he's a good one!!!

But...but...but...Piffle!


Hugo ain't done a fiftieth of the shit that Chimp has. It's amazing to see the hyperbole. :shrug:

FDR didn't ask to change the rules to allow himself to be reelected. Chavez isn't suggesting (if this report is accurate) that the rules be changed for the next guy, after his term is completed, but for himself. If he said "you know what? I now think multiple terms are a good idea, and so I will support changing the Constitution to allow for them, after I leave office" I'd be more appreciative of his sentiments. Anytime an incumbent advocates changing the rules, midstream, to increase their power, I am dubious, and you should be as well.

I trust you would support a similar initiative in the US? to repeal the 22nd Amendment and allow George Bush to run again? After all, if it does no justice to the people of Venezuela to suggest a consolidation of power might not be in their best interests, then it certainly does no justice to the people of the United States, who have a longer history of elections and a much deeper opposition bench to challenge the incumbent.

of what We, the People, might want is moot. Bush's approval rating has been in freefall since the 2004 election (which tells you something about that election), and stands at 25% today. So, the American people would be overwhelmingly opposed to amending the Constitution to let that murderous little shit run again.

But if we, by some miracle, saw the emergence of a REAL president, someone who genuinely represents us, and has the strength and vision to get us out of the deep dark hole that the Bush Junta and its Democratic Party collaborators have shoved us into, I might well want such a leader to have a third or fourth term, and so might a lot of others.

Removing the two-term limit, by Constitutional amendment, in Venezuela, is the business of the Venezuelans. They have every right to do it. Chavez has every right to suggest it. He has something like a 70% approval rating! He has merely suggested that he be RE-ELECTED for a third term, after a referendum by the people in which they VOTE ON removing the term limit restriction, and then VOTE AGAIN in the next presidential election, in which any and all Venezuelans are free to oppose him and to run against him.

FDR did not have to suggest removal of a two-term limit for presidents, because there never was such a restriction, in our history, prior to his FOUR-TERM presidency. IF there had been, Congress would likely have removed such a restriction, if they had been asked to, and most Americans likely would have approved.

Venezuela has a DEMOCRACY, as we did prior to "trade secret" vote tabulation by far rightwing corporations. It's up to THE PEOPLE to decide how their affairs are to be run, and by whom. The voted on their Constitution. They can CHANGE their Constitution. Chavez and his government have scrupulously upheld that Constitution and the rule of law.

And what can we say of OUR Constitution, these days? --that is, after you wipe off the Bushites' and our "Democratic Congress"'s footprints. Does it ever pertain?

with GWB in office. Get it?

with less than a 30% approval rating, what difference would it make? Who the hell would vote for him again? Oh yeah, I forgot, we don't have REAL elections, so I guess you are right, that would be a problem.

I said hypothetically. In the more general case, let's say

1) You are a citizen of Country X, whose leader you strongly disapprove of.
2) A majority of your fellow citizens (say, 60%) do approve of him, for reasons you cannot comprehend.
3) This leader proposes suspending term limits and running for office perhaps indefinitely. Your fellow citizens are likely to approve.

Do you still like the idea? Why not just have someone in this particular leader's party run and win if the party's policies are popular?

as long as they continued to serve the public interest.

The new constitution will be put before parliament within the next 10 days.

Later this year, there will be a referendum allowing Venezuelans to decide whether to accept the changes.
(snip)

Always ignored is the common knowledge the Venezuelan constitution allows each term to be terminated by referendum any time after the half-way mark is reached.

When the people don't like the job, they don't have to wait until the next clean election, they can bring the whole thing to a screeching halt, and get a new President, unlike the system we're facing here: stolen elections every time until they are allowed to be transparent, and are overseen by international observers, like Venezuela's, as mentioned in Peace Patriot's remarks.

There shouldn't be exceptions for anyone. FDR's reign 'caused' the amendment to our constitution.

President for life is a disgusting concept. That's for kings, not elected representatives.

I have asked the VIO to confirm or clarify this story.

certainly it is. How many elected officials in Venezuela at the national or regional level? how many governors are from the opposition? when there is no opposition, continuous elections are not really reasonable, are they?

and, I ask another person: would you support the same circumstance in the US? Should George Bush be allowed to run again in 2008?

What do you mean "no chance for the opposition to develop"? This is about giving the new popular government a chance to develop. You forget that the "poor opposition" is the wealthy elites who have run the show for a very long time, own all the land and capital, and have the US military and CIA covering their backs. If the people want Chavez to be able to continue to run for office, what is wrong with letting them vote to do that? Suspending term limits is not the same as handing over an unlimited term. Because let's face it, who, other than Castro, has represented a popular agenda and been able to avoid the wrath of the US? This is a virtually unprecedented experiment and it is extremely vulnerable to external interferance - primarily from our own government. I say we support Venezuelan sovereignty and stop whining over the precious rights of the oligarchs to oppress their people with impunity the way they have for centuries.

without having a clue about its history. I'm starting to think they DO know all this, and believe the right-wing, racist grubs have the right to run roughshod over the darker, less European descended huge majority.

Sad. No class at all. All out in favor of meddling in the business of others at all costs. Poorly bred people.

how dare they complain when "we" try to rig the system to keep them out of power......... :eyes:

The stupid in this thread burns.........

positively -- look what I found about the establishment and the funding of community councils:

Constitutional Reform to Give More Power to Venezuelan Communities
Saturday, Aug 04, 2007


By: Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com

Mérida, August 4, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— At a meeting with communal councils on Thursday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez emphasized the power of the grassroots as one of the most important changes of the proposed constitutional reform. The communal councils are a part of the new political model being promoted by the Chavez government to transfer power from the state to the communities in what is called the "Explosion of Communal Power."

With the purpose of evaluating the progress of community organizing through the communal councils, Chavez met with councils from around the country yesterday at an event in Caracas. Communal council spokespersons presented the details of their individual projects and the government announced the advances in this program. The government designated a further 1.8 trillion bolivars (US$ 837 million) to six thousand projects, as well as a total of two thousand Bolivarian computers to two thousand communal councils.

"This is a demonstration of the successful advance of communal power, and that the people can administrate economic resources and even surpass the management of the national government," said Minister of Social Protection and Participation David Velasquez.

Since the communal councils were founded in 2005, the Venezuelan government has granted them to date more than 2.5 billion dollars, according to President Chavez. And more than 25,000 communal councils have already been formed throughout the country with 17,000 of those formed just last year according to Minister Velasquez. The goal is have 50,000 of these community organizations by the end of 2007, which would cover the entire country.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2373

the centrists and right wing to go fuck themselves. I love reading on DU how so many got their panties in a wad over this guy. Jokes on you, United States. This is just the first lesson, US.

he gets my support. lol

Danny Glover was just in there and Sean Penn is there now.

...to make sure those steps toward dictatorship are made to seem like they are not a big deal.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But I am uncomfortable with any "endless" re-election scenerios...

that your Congress has a higher rate of return than the Politburo did?

When was the last time we elected our president? Sometime in the last century?

What you leave out is that he came into power with the promise of limited power with respect to terms, used that power to do things like freak people out with this idea that we're coming to invade Venezuela, and now wants to destroy that term limit barrier. The idea of term limits is to prevent people from even trying to use their power to extend it indefinitely, because there would be no incentive to do so. In congress, each member holds at most only 1/200th of the power of the entire body, so there is less potential for that kind of abuse.

simply untrue.

Additionally, the reforms they're negotiating right now DECENTRALIZE power by establishing community councils that identify local needs and administer FEDERAL funds to meet them.

And btw, John Perkins says if BushCo wasn't so obsessed and over extended in Iraq, we'd be in Venezuela. Is Perkins a "lackey" as well, trying to "freak people out"? No, he's not.

I wish the UK would have term limits on its Prime Ministers.

Booooooooo!!!! Bugga bugga bugga

Fuck Hugo and the faux white horse he rode in on.

...in a mis-informed ironic sort of way.

If you were actual paying attention, you would know that within the past week Obama stated

1. He would meet with the likes of "Hugo".
2. He would not use nukes to fight terrorism.

I guess, to some, criticism of despotic demagogues equals wanting them "nuked"...

Are you aware of the meaning of that term?

/typo

And you know of the charges, even if you don't agree with the label.

what a smear campaign looks like,

Why so many people here by into it is beyond me.

when you work from a position of willful ignorance of the facts...

:eyes:

What are "the likes of Hugo"?

Do you mean the elected leaders of countries who criticize the US?

If you missed the "YouTube" debate, here's a partial transcript ---

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

Whatever common thread you can find that links the leaders of those nations, so be it...

just as Saddam was. So the American public really has no idea who these people are or what kind of leaders they are -- all we're fed is the smear.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather know the truth even if I don't like it or agree with it.

Chavez is not the Second Coming but he's being smeared but good in the American and also in the British press because he's kicking out foreign parasites (for one thing). Tar the man for his real faults, not for the fictitious ones. :shrug:

This whole Chavez bashing reminds me of another illusion created in US society: we spread democracy! Do you remember that thread that asked, where have we spread democracy? No one could come up with one single example.

The US doesn't spread or protect democracy. It protects corporate interests wherever and however it can.

Let's see

Has a Legislature that is dominated by his own party created in his name

Makes it a crime to disrespect the President or government.

Cows major media rivals or forces them of the airwaves

Seeks to eliminate pesky terms limits by making major changes to the Constitution that has been in affect for less than a decade.

Is it a dictatorship yet?

The legislature was elected in elections that are cleaner than yours.

Many governments have laws about SEDITION.

Most of the media is owned BY THE BUSHCO BACKED RIGHT WING and most governments have OVERSIGHT over the airwaves.

And, the changes to the Constitution are being NEGOTIATED and have to be VOTED on. And, I notice the BBC doesn't mention any of the decentralizing measures being put in.

Geezus. Got any more half truths on hand?

/ack

"The legislature was elected in elections that are cleaner than yours."

No surprising, since the opposition parties boycotted the last election. Not that I think Chavez stole the election, petro dollars buy alot of support in a poor country.

"Most of the media is owned BY THE BUSHCO BACKED RIGHT WING and most governments have OVERSIGHT over the airwaves."

Most don't pick and choose who gets their license renewal based on how they treat the government in editorials.

"And, the changes to the Constitution are being NEGOTIATED and have to be VOTED on. And, I notice the BBC doesn't mention any of the decentralizing measures being put in."

Negotiated? By whom, a Chavez party dominated legislature?

"Geezus. Got any more half truths on hand?"

Got anymore propaganda from Dear Leader

so you can stop repeating rightwing talking points. Or, disagree with Greg Palast, Amy Goodman, Sean Penn, Danny Glover (this list gets long and progressive) and keep mindlessly attacking what you have no grasp of.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The one people have been touting when they call Pelosi "Madam Squeaker"? And if our Congress had approval power over those changes, people here would just call them Bush's lapdogs.

I don't understand accepting such behavior from one leader but not the other, based on whether or not one likes his poltics.

signing statements require not vote.

"Most of the media is owned BY THE BUSHCO BACKED RIGHT WING and most governments have OVERSIGHT over the airwaves."

Most don't pick and choose who gets their license renewal based on how they treat the government in editorials.
The tv station which didn't get a license renewal hosted coup plotters on its shows, and called for the violent overtheow of the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:(

So his supporters here will be able to trumpet that NOBODY else has been ELECTED so many, many times!!1

lol

Why do some DUers dislike Chavez so much? Is it because they think he's insulting the US and not just BushCO? I really don't get it. :shrug:

Myself, I'd love to go teach there. For one thing, my Spanish needs the workout. :)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

listening to our every communication? Please say, "F**k you, Bush" in every post you make and phone conversation you have.

F**k you, Bush.

lmao

I'm sorry to have been such a pain on this thread. But it drives me nuts to see BushCo talking points just being accepted without scrutiny. These mofos shape our worldview in a warped way. Be careful out there, people.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

El Ano que viene en Venezuela...

Viva Bolivarismo, Viva Socialismo, Viva el Pueblo de Venezuela, Viva Chavez...

:hi:

I was there a couple of times. Melanie is great. :)

is sort of like the end of term limits too. Isn't it? Tweedle dee and tweedle dum. Not too much choice there.

From what I can see, Venezuela has a much fairer system than we do.

which followed ByGod Richard Milhaus Nixon and Gerald Ford. Holy smokes! Makes you pray this isn't all there is for one lifetime, doesn't it?

http://www.zefrank.com.nyud.net:8090/web/34.jpg http://www.zefrank.com.nyud.net:8090/web/18.jpg http://www.zefrank.com.nyud.net:8090/web/114.jpg

On edit, adding photos:

Only because he believed it when those legislators went over to White House and told him it was over. Today those pencil necks working either side of aisle are even afraid of their own shadow it would appear, let alone confronting something to do with the executive.

Btw, that breather with Jimmy Carter wasn't that great either if you part of the military then. When they were paring down the budget around that time it seemed like the first things to go was anything that would benefit personal, like the G.I. bill as a glaring example.

The Carter years were so liberal. Maybe we were a bit young and naive back then, but I remember the solar energy funding, high fuel efficiency standards, and the end of the Vietnam War. So much has gone backwards since then. War, fear, and SUVs prevail. Time to change all that.

In the U.S., we have a single corporate party with two faces. There is no term limit.

When you read this without anti-Chavez bias, it is actually as democratic as you can get. The people will vote on the change to the Constitution and, either approve or disapprove of term limits for the President. Then, the people will vote on who will be President. If the people approve the change and support him enough to elect him in, by all accounts, legitimate elections how is that dictatorial? It is just as valid to remove term limits as it is to put them in place.

As people have pointed out, FDR was elected 4 times, would have served 16 years as President of US if he hadn't died and would almost assuredly been elected again after winning WWII if he had lived. So, where do you fall? On the side that FDR was a dictator, like some Republicans called him, or that he was a democratically elected President?

When Chavez actually does something to supersede the Venezuelan constitution and declare himself dictator or refuses to leave office when his time is up, that's when I'll know he's a dictator and tyrant. As it is, nothing has been reported to support that he has done anything outside the scope of his position and has every right to try and change the constitution and the law.

Oh, if we had that here!!!

was the standard operating procedure (claiming the news agency is US funded right-wing shill) not good enough?

Now that is quite the spin. Who attacked FDR? FDR is an example that multiple elections to President of a widely popular person isn't a dictatorship or the markings of a dictatorship. Unless, of course, you do think FDR was working toward that goal by running for office so many times and if he had lived he would have become one. Do you?

If being elected multiple times was good enough for our system, at one time, why isn't it good enough for anyone else? Term limits are a mixed bag and letting the people decide to change from having them to not having them isn't the mark of a dictatorship, but participatory democracy in action.

I find it interesting the term "Hugo lover". If you think putting things in perspective and removing the anti-Chavez bias when reading reports from Venezuela is Hugo loving...whatever. I'm more of an anti anti-Chavez person. lol

start up BRITISH PETROLEUM?

lol

Hugo lover, my bald headed granny. I happen to enjoy FACT.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

move of a wannabe dictator.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We won't hold our breath tho,

Are you lost?

If people want to keep voting for the same person then they should be able to. (Says the man who will keep voting for Kennedy until one of us dies). :)

It's one of the most moving statements ever posted here. I can just imagine flyarm shaking when she posted this.

Thu Sep-21-06 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #30
80. and most that ran Venezuela before Chavez were
US OIL puppets..i know..i lived there and i can assure you the way the government was in Venezuela before Chavez..only gave a damn about one thing..and that wa s the richest of the rich played ball with the US oil companies..and they didn't give one rats ass about the people..they ruled with an iron fist..

there were 18 yr old military boys on the streets with machine guns..every quarter of a mile..to keep the poor in control..

Americans were god and ruled Venezuela..to the bitter destruction of the Venezuelan poor!

Like i said..i lived there..and it was horrible..before Chavez for the majority of Venezuelans..

i saw little poor children who had people put their cigarettes out on their arms and chests for a boulivar..


there was no middle class..there was the oil boys and the companies that catered to the oil boys..and nothing else..

i saw children with their teeth rotted out with only points in their mouths..and blood on their gums..

there were no doctors for the poor..

there were only the very very rich..and the very very poor..

nothing in between..

i lived their 2 times with my husbands business..and each time we returned home i got down on the ground and kissed it!

the crimes against humanity before Chavez was disgusting..but it was run by our oil corps..and the Kuwaiti's had their hands in the oil as well.. so you heard little of it! there was no possibility of decent by the poor..they had no voice. NONE!

the pres of Venezuela and the VP were owned by US corporations..and don't you even attempt to tell me other wise..i knew the VP of Venezuela..and i danced with him 2 times on Christmas and New years and told him off..of what they did to their people..and he laughed at me..and said i was an American idealist!

fly]
\
Reply #95
111. i just get sick of people talking about what they know nothing of.. Updated at 11:40 PM

Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 02:07 AM by flyarm
when we lived there under previous governments ..one time machine gun fire went off in the caracas hilton where we lived..for 6 months..not once but twice!!..yes machine gun fire went through the lobby by young military ..

there was no freedom under previous presidents..

we were there 2 times through xmas..

my husbands boss sent xmas gifts to my son and myself..and for my husband in a duffel bag..a motorized car for my son..and the military was at the door of the hotel and took it all way from my husband and would not let him go into the hotel with gifts..xmas gifts!

my husband took a bus for some road trips..and several times had their bus stopped by military that got on the bus with machine guns..and put them in their faces ..and took their watches and money..and any other jewelry they had..

this was under the presidents that the * cabal liked, the ones that stole every thing they could from the people of Venezuela.


There were days my son and i sat at the hotel pool and we had helicopters flying over head and the pool,.. so close you felt like you could reach up and touch them..with guys hanging out of the helicopters with machine guns pointed at us..i would run my son and I up to our room and hide..as best we could..

it was terrifying...

there was no hope at all for the poor..none at all..the young men had only the choice of military unless they were from the very rich families..

or working in the american oil fields for pennies...

so bullshit is bullshit.,.

i saw it..and i lived it..and i can tell you..Chavez may not be perfect..and i am sure he is not..but he could be no worse than what those poor people lived under for so many years with our oil puppet presidents and governments down there!! and they were ours!..they were owned by our oil companies!

I lived with the oil people at the rich hotels i lived in..and the pilots for our oil companies..and the pilots for the Kwaiti's...they used to show me the Krugerrand they got as tips..big ones!!

my husbands boss had a Renior in his freaking bathroom!

yes a real one!!

like i said..bullshit is bullshit..the previous governments were American oil company owned..and our government ran them ...

fly

it? We elected FDR four times - if we wanted to, we could abolish term limits. Just because a repuke sits in the WH now doesn't mean we might not want the choice to elect a president to more than two terms - as long as we repealed the amendment according to constitutional procedure, there would be nothing wrong with it.

It's up to the Venezuelans. Presumably any such rule would apply to future presidents also.

in Chicago this year. One illustration: when the author of the John Hopkins Public Health study of civilian deaths in Iraq announced that the number is about the same as the Rwandan genocide, the BBC refrained from reporting that Mr. Blair already knew that. . .

Pilger is on Amy's show today. It will replay at least twice on LinkTv.

DU'ers can find them in DU political videos.
So completely worth the time investment.

Thank you for alerting DU'ers to his new film coming out soon. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=379x1215

It's time the blinkers come off!

:)

Until then, I can't see any reason to be bothered. Here's another thing, if the people of Venezuela do not seem to mind and they like the guy, then why should those outside the country mind? They are the most qualified people to judge if Hugo is a good or bad guy, right?

I understand, though, how the BushCo/Big Oil smear campaign in the bought-n-sold media might look like FACT to their consumers.

Worst kept secret in South America, Presidente por Vida, President for life, This guy is no better than Fujimori or any other banana dictator with oil.

lol

and rules by the Constitution.

As long as it's the people who make the decision and he abides by whatever they decide, Venezuela
is still a democracy. You don't have to have fixed terms for that - Australia is a democracy, and
we don't have fixed terms. Howard could go on until he drops as long as enough dummies vote for
him, but it doesn't make him a dictator either.

Chavez has free elections, and has never suspended the Constitution, or dissolved the National
Assembly or the Supreme Court. He's as much a democratic leader as any other in the western world.

Don't know why no one here hasn't howled and carried on about it already, just like they never carried on about the blood baths our right-wing pResidents engineered all over Central and South America, and the Caribbean, and elsewhere, through the use of right-wing soulless, completely amoral right-wing dictators.

Didn't know about Australia's election methods. Very interesting.

Federally we have flexible terms for the Lower House, but the Senate
has fixed terms of six years - half the Senate stands for re-election
each three years (or thereabouts, depending when the Prime Minister of
the day calls the election). It works pretty much the same way as your
mid-terms, I think.

All the states have a similar system, except for Queensland, which has
abolished its Upper House and has a fixed term for its Lower House. But
they do eveything differently in Queensland.

Edit to add: Anybody who has the numbers can challenge the leader of
either party at any time during the life of the Parliament, but as long
as he keeps winning elections, the Prime Minister can remain leader.
Robert Menzies was PM for 18 years, from war-time to the early 60s,
although that was as much due to internal fighting in the Labor Party as
anything else.

"Chavez has ... never suspended the Constitution, or dissolved the National Assembly or the Supreme Court."

But guess who DID? The Bush/U.S. backed violent military coup members in 2002...

a) suspended the Constitution
b) dissolved the National Assembly, and
c) suspended the entire court system.

Democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela were AT AN END! And how long do you think it would have been before they started throwing dissenters out of airplanes or chainsawing them to death and throwing their body parts into mass graves?

It's so absurd, it makes you feel like rending your garments and pulling the hairs out of your head in chunks! Chavez, the "dictator"! It is a TOTAL LIE. The Bushites and the people they are funding with our tax dollars in Venezuela are the ones who hate and oppose and want to topple democratic government. Not Chavez!

Chavez owes his power to the PEOPLE--not only by means of transparent elections, but also by their rising up, by the tens of thousands, in the streets of Caracas to PEACEFULLY stop that coup! The PEOPLE put him in power and he KNOWS IT. The People RULE!

Taken in conjunction with his other initiatives his intentions are quite clear.

Dictatorship is fun if you can get one.

This dictatorship thing is lame but hey, nobody's perfect.

than conservative blue dog democrats........It's enough to make you want to hurl......

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

yes it is quite easy to see it........

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

On the side of Chavez supporters we have, respect for the rule of law, an expanding economy and a new quality of life for the people.

On the side of Chavez detractors we have name calling.

Hmm.

Chavez actually does things that help the people of Venezuela and the blue dog Democrats don't do much to help the people of the US?

I think Chavez is an abomination on the world stage and the people of Venezuela one day will have a govt. that truly works for them, I think the DLC and Moderate to Conservative Democrats are the only ones keeping the party from going over the "crazy cliff" so many people here want when they talk about purges of people who don't agree and other such bilge.........Of course that is strictly my opinion....

like the fair elections that put and held him in office, why should he go?

Roosevelt had four terms, so why not? If a guy has the support of his people...

He can be recalled continually by referendum, a power not granted the American taxpayers/voters.

No? I thought so.

something in the first few paragraphs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6932605.stm

...otherwise known as excessive spin.

The rest of the article clearly states that the only thing Chávez wants to do, is bringing an end to term limits. Just like European countries (like The Netherlands) and e.g. Australia don't have term limits.

European countries and Australia, etc. were being controlled by dictators.

I think it's safe to assume these guys have absolutely NO IDEA of what they're attempting to discuss. Sad.

Last two sentences:

The new constitution will be put before parliament within the next 10 days.

Later this year, there will be a referendum allowing Venezuelans to decide whether to accept the changes.

There was a time when members of this message board were smarter/better informed than the average Fox "News" viewer.

The public is the fourth branch of government in Venezuela. 10% of the voters can start a referendum to remove any of his non-constitutional powers. Just imagine what we could do with a system like that? FISA law - goodbye.

No, not really.

If G-Dubs said "the consitution is under review" there would be a mass pants shitting by many on DU.

and continues to lay the ground work for latin american cooperation against american hegemony and neo-liberalism than im for it.

as long as he has popular support and keeps getting democratically reelected, this is posistive.

Last thing we need is another Uribe in Latin America, I would take 1000 Chavez's over 1 Uribe

BTW this report is probably false bush-"freedom press" bs though but the BBC is normally reliable