Poll says Chavez loses Venezuela referendum lead

Source: Reuters

Poll says Chavez loses Venezuela referendum lead
Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:19pm EST

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has lost his lead eight days before a referendum on ending his term limit, an independent pollster said on Saturday, in a swing in voter sentiment against the Cuba ally.

Forty-nine percent of likely voters oppose Chavez's proposed raft of constitutional changes to expand his powers, compared with 39 percent in favor, a survey by respected pollster Datanalisis showed.

Just weeks ago, Chavez had a 10-point lead for his proposed changes in the OPEC nation that must be approved in a referendum, the polling company said.

Despite the swing, company head Luis Vicente Leon said he did not rule out a comeback by the popular president.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN2333983120071124?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Certainly more so than any poll commissioned by groups like Sumaté.

til this one gets "locked".

http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg91974.html

After all, counterpunch says so. And besides, their results aren't favorable toward Hugo... :eyes:

Luis Vicente León, director de Datanálisis,procura contar la cruda realidad de las encuestas causando el menor dolor posible a un sector al que él mismo pertenece como ciudadano: la oposición.

http://www.eud.com/2007/09/30/pol_art_chavez-se-encamina-a_500155.shtml

His polls have been reliable in the past, but then again the elections were not even close and he had everything to lose, now with a close margin he can let loose his methodology.

I find it fishy that in the last week polls are allowed (no more polls after monday) that a dramatic drop was reported by Datanalysis. But I will agree with him on one thing, it could go either way.

And it ignores that this is the reporter's observation, not an "admission". One that the reporter says might be in error.

After all, he's not running for mayor.

up whenever its name has been mentioned in any polling material. Here's an article I found a long time ago which leaves no doubt about their rabid anti-Chavez director, Jose Antonio Gil Yepes:

~snip~
Can you believe Venezuela's pollsters?

by Justin Delacour; Narconews Bulletin; February 06, 2003

Over the last year, several correspondents in Venezuela have repeatedly attempted to portray Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as an unpopular leader. The most common basis for these statements has been the recitation of “polls” claiming that Chávez’s approval rating is down to around 30 percent.

The commercial media correspondents rarely cite the source of their polls. So this reporter contacted them, and most of the reporters offered only the names of two Venezuelan companies – Datanalisis and Keller and Associates.

An investigation into the operations of these two Venezuelan polling firms and their relationships with correspondents reveals that, by any fair measure, it is irresponsible for correspondents to cite the two firms’ polls without also mentioning that the two firms are headed by virulently anti-Chavez figures who frequently use polling samples that are unrepresentative of the overall Venezuelan population.

The first factor that calls the polls into question is the well-known political partisanship of the polling firms’ directors, Jose Antonio Gil Yepes of Datanalisis and Alfredo Keller of Keller and Associates.

In a recent e-mail interchange, The Los Angeles Times’ correspondent T. Christian Miller acknowledged that the two pollsters are “pretty anti-Chavez,” but he defends their credibility on grounds that "both do door to door polling, to get the poorest of poor represented in their surveys, and also balance for things like gender and region." Miller’s defense of Keller and Gil Yepes is very questionable in view of contrary evidence. However, before presenting this contrary evidence, we would like to point out the problems with the two pollsters’ political partisanship.

Datanalisis' Pollster: Chavez "has to be killed"

Gil Yepes and Keller are not merely “anti-Chavez”; they are openly and virulently anti-Chavez. In a July 8 article in the Los Angeles Times, Miller describes Gil Yepes as a man of “Venezuela’s elite” who “moves in circles of money, power and influence” and “was educated in top U.S. schools.”

It’s certainly shocking that the LA Times quoted Gil Yepes saying that Chavez “has to be killed.”

But it is even more shocking that the LA Times and other commercial media continued to use Gil Yepes’ polling “results” after his homicidal fantasies leaped out of the closet through the pages of last July’s LA Times.

According to T. Christian Miller of the LA Times, Gil Yepes saw an assassination as the only way out of the “political crisis surrounding President Hugo Chavez.” Gil Yepes has since claimed that his quote was taken out of context, and that he was only making reference to an oft-expressed sentiment among Chavez’s opposition.

But let’s look at the full context as reported by the LA Times:

Jose Antonio Gil is among Venezuela's elite.

He moves in circles of money, power and influence. He was educated in top U.S. schools. He heads of one of the country's most prestigious polling firms.

And he can see only one way out of the political crisis surrounding President Hugo Chavez.

"He has to be killed," he said, using his finger to stab the table in his office far above this capital's filthy streets. "He has to be killed."

One need look no further than Datanalisis’ website to find the kind of blatant political partisanship that one normally does not associate with respectable polling operations. For example, in Datanalisis’ summary of a July 2002 report, the polling firm absurdly characterizes the current political conflict as one between the government (“el oficialismo”) and “the rest of the country.”

Despite the preposterousness of this portrayal, it is nevertheless an appropriate demonstration of the deep-seated class hatred by a large segment of Venezuela’s business-led opposition, which prefers to pretend that thousands of poor and working-class Chavez supporters do not exist.

When a massive pro-government demonstration in Caracas on October 13 showed that a good portion of “the rest of the country” supported Chavez, the editorial board of Venezuela’s elite-controlled newspaper El Nacional was incensed. El Nacional, which commissions and publishes polls by Datanalisis, disparagingly referred to Chavez’s supporters as “lumpen” who were lured from the country’s interior with “a piece of bread and some rum” to “come and cheer the great con man of the nation.”

As the Venezuelan anthropologist Johnny Alarcón Puentes points out, the terms "lumpen, rabble hordes, drunks, riff-raff and mobs are only some of the epithets foisted by the wealthy on citizens of dark skin, on street merchants, on workers, on the indigenous and on all those who live in slums or modest neighborhoods and dare raise their voice against the powerful.”

Thus, from the warped perspective of much of the opposition, Datanalisis’ contention that "the rest of the country" opposes Chavez makes sense. Since elites are the people that “matter,” and those of less privilege can be reduced to virtual sub-human status, poor and working-class Chavez supporters do not qualify as part of “the rest of the country.”
(snip/...)

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=2985

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

There's a point a woman made here, all the way back in April, 2004. She has lived in Venezuela for years, has family members living there, still. She told DU'ers that the polling places make PHONE CALLS to determine answers to their questions, and that most of the very poor, which is a VAST number of people, don't have telephones, and can't be reached by random polling phone calls.

She said that any person to person polling in virtually non-existant with the very poor, as they don't go into the poor areas to poll.

Here's the matter addressed in the same article I just posted above:

Our source informs us that Datanalisis’ polling samples are less skewed than Keller’s due to the firm’s superior operational team of field workers and access to Venezuela’s 1998 census tracts. However, the poll that Gil Yepes is currently releasing about the population’s views of the so-called “general strike” and Chavez’s handling of the crisis appears to be highly deceptive.

Here’s another fact unreported by English-language correspondents who cite polls by Gil Yepes and Keller as gospel: Since the “strike” began on December 2, Chavistas are not allowing Datanalisis’ field workers into the Chavista-controlled slums of Caracas and Maracaibo. While Gil Yepes recently released lopsided polls that purport popular support for the “strike,” he fails to mention that his polling sample excludes the populous slums where the “strike” has proved to be a complete failure. The progressive economist Mark Weisbrot, who recently spent time in Caracas, wrote a column for the Washington Post explaining that there were “few signs of the strike” in “most of the city, where poor and working-class people live.”

The academic source said that Keller and Gil Yepes generally do not poll rural inhabitants. The opposition newspapers that commission the polls are not willing to pay the increased costs that rural polling entails. Thus, landless peasants who may benefit from Chavez’s agrarian reform are also excluded from polling samples.
(snip/...)

I always appreciate and look for your comments.

Gil Yepes and Keller are not merely “anti-Chavez”; they are openly and virulently anti-Chavez. In a July 8 article in the Los Angeles Times, Miller describes Gil Yepes as a man of “Venezuela’s elite” who “moves in circles of money, power and influence” and “was educated in top U.S. schools.”

Of course he moves in "circles of money, power and influence". Of course he is well connected with other corporate millionaires in Venezuela, including no doubt, media executives. How could anyone logically conclude otherwise? He himself, is a millionaire businessman in Venezuela. How could anyone believe that the executives of a polling firm, would be aligned with anyone but the Venezuelan elites, who oppose Chavez at the expense of millions of the working class and poor? Even if there was no obvious evidence of it, it should be immediately suspected on general principle alone.

How ridiculous it is, that so many well read individuals, can be so easily bamboozled by propaganda seemingly designed to target simpletons. Is it willful? Do people simply cling to the status quo against all logic, out of an intense and blinding fear of change, even though the change represents something better and more equitable for all?

(No need to reply, I'm just yammering.)

during the run-up to the recall referendum. (I just checked the date, July, 2004, and it suddenly really hit me HARD: immediately after losing their coup, after so much careful planning and propagandizing, and scheming, trips to Washington, D.C., arranging things with people in Washington, then kidnapping Hugo Chavez at GUNPOINT, they were right back in the saddle again, charging after recalling him. Don't forget the industry lock-out of employees in the collossal reverse strike, also.

Who on earth would imagine, after all the relentless effort they put out, that since they haven't heard from the previous opposition figureheads, who haven't gotten anywhere, yet, that they would simply give up and "fuggedaboudit?" No, just as the published transcript of two opposition figures revealed, they have simply shifted it all over to letting the right-wing college kids (their own children) get behind the wheel for a while, to see if they can get anywhere!)

This article compares various polling groups in their views of how Venezuela was going to fall during the recall election:

~snip~
Conflicting report by Datanalisis
The 10% Chavez lead revealed by DATOS prompted an emergency meeting of opposition leaders, held June 24th at the Globovision TV news network headquarters, according to Venpres. Prominent opposition leaders joined representatives of all mainstream TV stations; Globovisión, RCTV, Televen, Venevision, and CMT, to discuss the contradictions between the DATOS results and those of Datanalisis, an openly anti-Chavez polling firm which had reported more favorable numbers for the opposition.

A Datanalisis survey conducted May 10 and May 19 found that 57.4% would vote against Chavez vs. 42.6% who support him. The same poll also found that between 50% y 55% support Chavez’s social programs to help the poor, while only between 6.4% and 15% of those surveyed benefited from such programs.

The Datanalisis numbers were highly publicized by the Venezuelan mainstream media, most of which openly opposes the government. Analysts speculate that Chavez’s acceptance of the National Electoral Council’s decision to hold the recall referendum after determining that his opponents had collected the constitutionally-required number of valid signatures, may have boosted his image. The Datanalisis poll was taken in May, before authorities approved holding the referendum, while the DATOS poll was held in June, after Chavez’s acceptance. Chavez has criticized opposition leaders for not publicly declaring that they would respect electoral results that are not favorable to them.

All polls confirm an upward trend favorable to Chavez, who has been accused by opponents of using extra revenue from higher oil prices to "buy votes" through the implementation of several social programs for the poor. Some opponents of Chavez also have accused him of paying demonstrators to attend political rallies in his support. Opposition leaders have recently stopped their criticisms of Chavez’s social programs and now claim that they will be maintained in an eventual post-Chavez administration.
(snip/...)

http://www.voltairenet.org/article121349.html

Nice try.

as outlined by the article to which Progressive Friend has linked.

Do you find the information in error?

- President Jose Antonio Gil Yepes had told the
Los Angeles Times in July 2002 that Chavez "has to be killed."

- Datanalisis' website has been running John Kerry's Chavez-bashing
misstatement at the top of their "news"column for over a month

- I decided to ask Jose Miguel Sandoval_an expert
on Latin American opinion polls at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill_how the political views among Venezuela's poor could undergo
such a dramatic shift. Sandoval replied that reports of "drastic changes
of opinion in a short period of time are not to be taken seriously,
particularly in Venezuela, where opinions are well entrenched."

- (Datanalisis' website acknowledged that its December 2002 poll regarding
the opposition's so-called "general strike"was conducted by telephone).
The sociologist Greg Wilpert, who resides in Caracas, estimates that
only 50 percent of Venezuelan households have mainline telephones,
meaning that Datanalisis could scarcely have polled stratum E (the poor)

Carville is a dick for interfering with another country's politics. I'll dig deeper on datanalisis.

anti-Chavez propaganda being busted on DU. How many times are we going to see a post that turns out to be propaganda?

Oil

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

yes. I've been reading DU for a while.

Justin Delacour:

Between November 2002 and February 2003_the period of
business-led economic sabotage against the Venezuelan government and
people_Datanalisis temporarily stopped sending field workers into
Chavista-controlled slums. Due to the heightening of resentment towards
biased pollsters as well as increasing levels of crime resulting from
the misery induced by the economic sabotage, field workers could not
safely perform surveys.

In other words, Leon relied on telephone polls for his claim that
lower-income respondents had turned strongly against Chavez
(Datanalisis' website acknowledged that its December 2002 poll regarding
the opposition's so-called "general strike"was conducted by telephone).
The sociologist Greg Wilpert, who resides in Caracas, estimates that
only 50 percent of Venezuelan households have mainline telephones,
meaning that Datanalisis could scarcely have polled stratum E (the poor)
during the period on which Leon based his deceitful claim.
(snip/...)

By the way, his name was brought up recently in another reference you might find interesting:

Latin America News Review: It's Worse Than I Thought (11/11/07) by Justin Delacour

Latin America analyst Delacour updates his own earlier post on how Associated Press reporter Eduardo Gallardo "omitted the historical context behind Hugo Chávez's recent harsh words for Spain's former Prime Minister José Maria Aznar." Video of Chávez's actual speech shows that "AP's omission looks even more irresponsible than I first thought."

Chávez expressed anger over Aznar's support of the failed coup against his government in April 2002. Thus, AP's omission of the historical context looks rather suspicious. It is not as if the reporter could have been unaware of what Chávez was fuming about. In view of Chávez's full statement, the demand by current Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero that Chávez speak more politely about Aznar is highly questionable. Aznar has never taken responsibility for his role in supporting the failed coup. Would anyone expect Zapatero to speak politely about any foreign leader who supported the extra-constitutional overthrow of his own government? I doubt it.

A day late, the AP, "finally, in another story on the subject... provided some of the historical context that it so carelessly ignored."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=9502

Will that be enough? Or will y'all not be satisfied until Chavez is shot dead and the oil returned to US Plunder & Conquest, Inc.?

Same question if it wins in a landslide?

Its not who votes, but who counts the votes.
Yes, as much as some people dislike it, Hugo is morphing into a dictator.
Some of you rabid supporters are going to have to face that reality.

Venezuela's elections are far more above board than any we have held in this country recently. So as far as vote counting goes, you have nothing to fear. But what is it exactly that you do fear about what is happening in Venezuela? Yes we know that you just 'know' that Chavez is 'morphing into a dictator', which is to say that precisely now, Chavez is not a dictator, he is in fact the directly elected president of the vibrantly democratic republic of Venezuela. So what is it about what is happening in Venezuela that so terrifies you? Is it the universal healthcare? The public investment in schools and communities? Is it the re-nationalization of Venezuela's oil resources that were in the process of being de-nationalized at the direction of the usual neoliberal agencies? Is it just that Chavez refuses to show proper obeisance to the American potentate? What? Is it the horror of a revitalized democratic socialist movement in Latin America, a popular and democratic and socialist alternative to the neocon/neolib nightmare that has enveloped the rest of the globe? Is it the uncomfortable idea that perhaps all the crap about the superiority of 'free markets' and unfettered capitalism that you have been spoon fed ever since Saint Reagan assumed office is being proven to be as much a dead end as the dreary stalinist systems of that bygone era?

so if you isn't 100% supportive of Chavez, that means that you want him shot dead and the U.S. to control Venezuelan oil? Hardly, but savage attempt at try to shut down debate.

If Chavez loses the referendum, let's see how he reacts to such a loss. It's far more likely that he'll win- and unless there's indendent auditing of the vote, nope, I won't trust it to be accurate. Sorry if that offends you who see Chavez as doing no wrong, but I don't trust people that eager for power. And I don't give a shit if they have altruistic motivations for it. And yes, I absolutely think American elections should also be monitored.

about Chavez.

Any chance I could convince you to read them?

the interlibrary system. I gather this is the book: "Hugo Chavez: The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela". I do want to read something to balance it; not an anti-Chavez book, but something a bit more dispassionate.

That's the other title. You should read that one too.

These books are definitely logical, truthful and rational, but I hope you don't discount them if you find a hint of passion in them.

every once in a while to naively support the foaming rightwing anti-socialists?

"unless there's indendent auditing of the vote, nope, I won't trust it to be accurate."

Of course you won't.

It was a rhetorical question.

Kerry in 2004, and Hillary in 2007, have spoken in support of Venezuelan elites and, had they been President, they would have supported a Pinochet-style coup in Venezuela.

President Clinton kept the infamous School of the Americas open at Fort Benning, under a new name, but with the same old mission of training murderers and torturers.

President Clinton also began the genocidal Plan Colombia, an anti-drug program whose real mission is to defeat counter-insurgency movement and murder peasants to make way for oil pipelines.

America's wealth is build on the backs of the exploited people of the world.

Neo-libs are to the economies of the world what the Neo-cons are to foreign policy.

He seeks continuity for the revolution. This can only be achieved through fundamental changes in the system that enables the oppression of the working class and facilitates the continued enrichment of the ruling elites; a system that was established long ago for the purpose of exploiting the labor and resources of the "common man".

I believe I understand why many Democrats must oppose Chavez. We need similar changes to our own governmental structure. Acknowledging the general goodness of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution, would entail acceptance of the fact that the Democratic Party is part and parcel to the corporatist political power structure that rules over our own society and makes war against political movements in other countries. Most of those who control the party apparatus, are as beholden to corporate interests as your average Republican. I realize that this fact of life is difficult for many to accept, but accept it they must, if we are to ever have any hope of preventing our country from plunging into an abyss of oppression and war. The Democratic Party's only saving grace, is that it includes amongst its ranks, many who recognize the need for progressive change.

Chavez is nothing more than an egomaniac petty wannabe dictator, that wants power for power's sake.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is only fooling themselves.

It is interesting that given the popularity of the movement that Chavez obviosuly sees himself as the only leader. Surely there are many others that could lead such a movement, no?

Hugo Chavez is the President of Venezuela, elected by a large majority, in elections that were closely monitored by several international organizations. Clearly, the Venezuelan people have chosen him to lead the revolution.

Why do so many presumed Democrats, have such a hard time understanding the concept of their party's namesake?

election monitoring groups--who are permitted to crawl all over Venezuela during elections, with hundreds of election monitors--and have unanimously declared Venezuelan elections to be honest and aboveboard. And what this means is that these groups have not only verified presidential elections, and other elections, they have also given advice and helped to set up transparent elections--procedures, checks and balances--over a long period of time. They don't just drop into a country and watch things. Their participation means a long period of cooperation by the government and elections officials and local groups, with these international monitoring groups--leading up to elections. They would otherwise not participate, for their reputations are on the line.

Secondly, in Venezuela, while they use electronic voting, it is an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated--and they hand-count a whopping FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of the votes, as a check on machine fraud. Know how much WE hand-count? If you don't, you'd better find out, cuz that's the whole ballgame. And, if you don't know how much WE hand-count the vote, in our system, that is run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, then you are not qualified to evaluate Venezuela's system, and your statement of distrust in the Venezuelan system is without foundation.

The rightwing elite in Venezuela has been whining and crying, ever since Chavez was first elected, that "we was robbed." They trot this absurd accusation out every time they lose, and throw temper tantrums and boycott the vote (the stupidest tactic they have ever used). And they have been repeatedly contradicted--and given the lie--by report after report of international election monitoring groups. Why do they keep repeating this "talking point"--to the extent that all reasonable people in the possession of the facts can only laugh at it?

Because it is part of a strategy designed in Washington DC to "explain" the destabilization that has been inflicted on Venezuela, with our tax dollars, preparatory to plans for ANOTHER rightwing military coup attempt. That was the plan last December ('06) when Chavez was re-elected with 63% of the vote: a) plant phony polls via the corporate news monopolies, saying Chavez didn't really win; b) stage phony rightwing "riots" protesting, once again, that "we was robbed"; and c) involve rightwing elements in the military to take over the government, against the will of the people once again, and suspend the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, as they did before, in order to install a rightwing junta.

The rightwing opposition candidate in '06 had to publicly disavow this coup plot, because it got exposed. And it furthermore likely had connections to rightwing paramilitary death squads in Colombia, who were planning to assassinate Hugo Chavez (a plot that was exposed in Colombia last year).

Now, we know that the Bush Junta repeats disastrous strategies of greed and slaughter. They currently are hot to repeat the disaster of Iraq in Iran. That's all they know how to do. Steal elections. Drain public treasuries. Create civil chaos. Make war. And rule by fiat--and by bribery, bullying, spying, blackmail, propaganda, lies (control of the media) and bludgeon power. They have no respect for civil discourse, democracy or law. THAT is who is ADVISING the Venezuelan rightwing. John Negroponte. John Bolton. Donald Rumsfeld. Condi Rice. Dick Cheney. This is their OTHER corporate resource war. And EVERY TIME the Venezuelan elite follows their advice, they lose the next election to Chavez bigger than before.

South Americans are sick of this behavior by the U.S. and their own rightwing minorities. That's why the left has won elections in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Nicaragua, and will likely win more. And that's why the rightwing in Venezuela is going to lose this one. Not because there is anything questionable about the transparency of Venezuelan elections. There is not. But because they are traitors to their own people, and have mismanaged their countries' resources and economies for decades, to the point of ruin, impoverishing millions of people and crippling their countries' ability to compete in the global economy--at Washington's bidding.

To undo the enormous damage that has been inflicted on these countries--by global corporate predators, with the U.S. in the lead, and in cahoots with the local rich elite--takes structural reform, and a bold, visionary re-thinking of the entire Latin American situation vis a vis the U.S. That's what the constitutional reforms that are on-going in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador are all about. Our news media's narrow focus on Chavez blinds us to the bigger reality--and the bigger movement--that is driving these changes. And that it is a peaceful, democratic movement, with devotion to Constitutional government, and passionate attention to democratic procedure, is truly one of the miracles of the 21st century, and puts our democracy to shame, not only for our miserable failures as citizens, but for our inability to stop our own government from interfering in these countries. They are spending YOUR taxpayer's money--through the Bush USAID-NED, and other budgets--to FUND the rightwing opposition in Venezuela and other countries. You should be outraged. But instead--like the Bushites and the Corporatists--you dis Chavez!

that make it a deportable offense to criticize him. or when he allows the media to criticize him. or when he stops proposing changes to the constitution which would give him dictatorial powers. how would you react if Rudy Giuliani proposed the exact same measures that Hugo Chavez has proposed? Authoritarianism is authoritarianism regardless if it comes from the Marxist left or the Fascist right.

nm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/07/23/venezuela.chavez.ap/

Sure sounds like it is illegal for people to criticize him publicly. A headline like "Chavez warns critical foreigners will be expelled" isn't that ambiguous.

And on the constitutional reforms, that's been discussed ad nauseum.

I pointed out two things, not three.

"...he makes laws that make it a deportable offense to criticize him(statement one). or when he allows the media to criticize him(statement two). or when he stops proposing changes to the constitution which would give him dictatorial powers."(statement three)


First, just because something sounds like something doesn't make it so. What you reference is foreign criticism, not the people, also, the privately owned media criticizes him regularly and the changes do not give him dictatorial powers.

You sir are wrong on all accounts.

1) The law was never made, it was always there, that he threatened to selectively enforce it is one thing, something that has yet to pass the bluffing stage.

2) The media is allowed to critiscize him heck that is what some papers always do, this is a right wing talking point.

3) Dictatorial powers, blah.

If it fails it will surely be a shot to to the nuts. How he reacts to that will be very interesting to watch.

When the government fears the people, that is liberty. When the people fear the government, that is tyranny. - Jefferson

Chavez talked TOO much and his grandstanding and comments like the "traitor" comment probably had the same effect on his people that they had on me: they turned me off.

Before I get bashed, I generally support about 90% of what Chavez does. But, as of late, he's been very intolerant in his comments and I think that's costing him support.

Policy disagreements are part of any democracy, but to label those opposed to your policies as traitors is not healthy debate in said democracy.

a few others who claim to be for Chavez but oppose the constitutional reforms. He did NOT say that anyone who opposed the reforms is a traitor. He said that anyone who claims to support him and the revolution and opposes the reforms is a traitor. He was talking about a particular faction in his own support group. And this puts a different coloration on the word "traitor." He meant something more like "hypocrite." (What came to my mind, when I first read it, was 'Et tu Brute'--the betrayal of a friend.)

It's an intemperate word--traitor--but can you imagine the pressure Chavez is under? He's a man with a Bush Junta bull's eye target on his back. And that could well make you think in terms of the loyals and the traitors. It has a more visceral meaning, when your life is in constant danger, when you have been kidnapped and threatened by a U.S. supported coup attempt before, and are hearing reports every day of yet more threats, and are seeing U.S.-funded destabilization operations in your country.

Baduel seems to be a smooth operator, rather like the original Brutus, but hopefully merely positioning himself to run against Chavez in 2012, and not a tool of Exxon Mobile, or part of current coup plans. A fawning article I just read about him in the NYT (which Judi Lynn sent my way) makes me uneasy. Are his ambitions merely coincidental with U.S./fascist/corporate plots, or is he their man? I was encouraged by him telling people to vote--not to boycott the vote--because it indicates his support for Venezuela's democratic institutions, something that the rightwing opposition has tried to undermine and outright destroy. And Chavez certainly needs decent opposition and criticism. Any politician does--especially one as popular as Chavez.

I think the constitutional reforms will go the way every Chavez election has gone--in his favor. The process has gone on for many months, with hundreds of town meetings all over the country, and widespread participation. Half of the amendments--including some of the ones that rightwingers cite as "dictatorial"--were actually written by the National Assembly, and not by the Chavez government. The changes have been thoroughly vetted, in other words--voted up by the National Assembly, and are now going to be voted on by all Venezuelans. And these are folks who carry little copies of their Constitution around in their pockets, to whip out for reading and discussion--a common practice among Venezuelans. They even print parts of the Constitution on grocery bags! It's not as if the people are having the wool pulled over their eyes. It's all out in the open. And I find it amusing that a leader who puts everything to a vote of the people, in transparent elections, gets called a "dictator" by Bushites.

I think the more important question is, not what Chavez will do if he loses the referendum, but what Baduel will do if the referendum succeeds (the most likely scenario)? Is he coupster? Or is he just a normally ambitious man who intends to run against Chavez?

even if I'm your friend and I generally support you, that doesn't mean I will support EVERYTHING you do. That's where the "treason" comments start sounding VERy much like the paranoia of Castro (when he began to cement his dictatorship in the early decades of the Revolution). the same excuse of "pressure" from the United States was and is used to justify Castro's dictatorship. And I don't discount it. I believe the pressure...the coup, after all, occured. But still...that's no excuse for being irresponsible with one's comments.

If the reforms are what the people REALLY want, then so be it. I just worry a lot about the fate of Chavez' social changes. I want to see a better Latin America, but not another man who gets drunk with power and goes the way of Castro. I don't say he is there yet...but...I worry.

If I were to start worrying about Chavez calling his former allies traitors I would have started to worry 7 years ago...

I presume you understand Spanish?

April 11 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiuBz0GN96c

"Hugo Chavez is a murder with venezuelan blood on his hands"

What do you think is the fate of such individual?
A) Rotting in a dungeon
B) Exiled in Miami
C) Is the Venezuelan Ambassador to the UN

I shit you not!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Arias_C%C3%A1rdenas

Together with Hugo Chávez, Arias led a coup attempt against the government of Carlos Andrés Pérez on February 4, 1992. Arias was in charge of the battalion that took over the city of Maracaibo. Despite the success of Arias' battalion, the coup failed when Chávez surrendered to the government. Arias was detained and imprisoned until 1994, when he was pardoned by Rafael Caldera.

In 1995, Arias ran for governor of Zulia State, whose capital is Maracaibo. When preliminary results showed the candidate of Acción Democrática winning, people rioted. Things returned to normal later the same day after a final recount of the votes showed Arias as the winner of the election. In 1998, Arias supported Chávez in his bid for the presidency, while he ran again for the governorship of Zulia. Both won their respective elections. Over time, Arias became critical of Chávez' policies and actions. In 2000, as result of new presidential elections being called following the approval of a new constitution, Arias contested the election against Chávez, but lost. Despite his loss, Arias remained in politics at the head of his newly formed political party, Partido Unión.

Arias has called Chávez the head of a "gang of criminals" and in April 2002 held President Chávez personally responsible for the killings that occurred on April 11, 2002. He referred to Chávez in a televised interview as a "murderer," "paranoid," "possessed," who had to be held accountable for ordering snipers to fire on protesting crowds. He repeated that Chávez could not be supported "for one more second....a murdering president stained with the blood of the Venezuelan people."

On February 4, 2006, Chávez announced that Arias would be rejoining his government. On May 1, 2006, Arias was designated Venezuela's ambassador to the United Nations

You have to see way beyond what the media tries to portray something Chavez is bizarrely eager to show, but I doubt the government got any more stupid since last year ;)

else th state dept will destroy your reputation fiddle with elections foment a coup and hound you out of office and get a puppet that can take orders in your place. Big oil does not tolerate defenseless countries that try to control their own oil. Just ask Saddam.

The director's problems with seething bias are well known, have been for years.

A quick run to google provided this link:

Recently Chavez challenged other Venezuelan polling firms aligned to the
opposition to release the results of their latest polls. Venezuelan
Information Minister Jesse Chacon has claimed to have copies of these
polls--which favor Chavez--and has threatened to publish them if the
polling firms do not come forward.

One should not mistakenly conclude that these polls vindicate the
anti-Chavez pollsters as "unbiased."Rather, in the hour of truth, some
pollsters--after having long engaged in highly biased polling designed
to demoralize the government's supporters and to embolden the
opposition--will issue less biased polls in a last-ditch effort to
salvage their own credibility in the face of impending defeat.

In early February 2003, the anti-Chavez Venezuelan polling firms
Datanalisis and Consultores 21 held a joint press conference in Caracas
claiming to be "neutral parties"in the country's deeply polarized
political conflict. Just over two weeks before the press conference, I
reported that Datanalisis' President Jose Antonio Gil Yepes had told the
Los Angeles Times in July 2002 that Chavez "has to be killed."I pointed
out that a simple glance at Datanalisis' website revealed "the kind of
blatant political partisanship that one normally does not associate with
respectable polling operations"(as this report goes to print,
Datanalisis' website has been running John Kerry's Chavez-bashing
misstatement at the top of their "news"column for over a month).

Since I first reported on Datanalisis' blatant partisanship and biased
polling, Gil Yepes has mysteriously disappeared as a public spokesperson
for his company (although he occasionally pops up brandishing a letter
from L.A. Times correspondent T. Christian Miller, who now supposedly
claims that the pollster did not have criminal intent when he told
Miller that Chavez "has to be killed").

With Gil Yepes' reputation in question, the job of restoring
Datanalisis' mythic neutrality was left to company director Luis Vicente
Leon. Never mind that Leon had also been making blatantly anti-Chavez
statements to the press long before Gil Yepes blurted out his homicidal
fantasies to the L.A. Times. In Venezuela, where Chavez-bashing
journalists abound, "neutrality"means telling the business-controlled
propaganda apparatus what it wants to hear.

Thus, in the spirit of "neutrality,"Leon made a startling announcement
at the conference of February 2003. Although it had long been
established that Chavez enjoyed his highest levels of support among the
poor, Leon declared that Datanalisis' latest "poll"disproved the
"myth"that public opinion was divided along class lines. According to
Leon, "people of lower incomes"had become even more inclined to reject
Chavez than the rest of Venezuelan society.
(snip/...)

http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg91974.html

On edit:

I need to apologize to "Progressive Friend," who posted this article before I did. I just saw his link, and his article a moment ago. I'm not the first to post this information on this thread. Sorry, Progressive Friend.

Oh, the days until Bush/Cheney are gone are so dangerous; I wish we had the British style of government which can rid itself of undesirables.

The name of the course is: How to be in power forever.

Chavez will not take the Republican course titled, "Redistributing money to the rich without it seeming so."

Sounds to me like this pollster is taking lessons from Mark Penn's polling company -- use polls to influence voters, instead of being a barameter of how voters plan on voting.

This Hugo bashing is kind of pathetic. The bashers cite only right wing sources that have been exposed as such, and can't seem to stop with the dictator buzzword. Surely they know how ridiculous they are. If I could see just one post from them that is reasoned and well thought out...but I've looked for a while now, and I haven't seen one of them back up their argument with facts.

Can just one of you tell me the exact event(s) which lead you to characterize Hugo Chavez as a dictator? And provide a link that isn't the Miami Herald or some such goddamned propaganda mill?

Viva Chavez!

The horror.

Or will Chavez denounce the "traitors" who didn't vote to give him dictatorial powers? Will Chavez rule by decree?

I don't think Chavez will let a "no" vote stand.

referendum, when the opposition tried that one in 2004? Did he refuse to accept it? I guess not.

You probably would be able to establish your credibility if you went ahead and posted some evidence which would support your unrealistic charge. You've entered the Twilight Zone to snag that one.

http://www.wunderland.com.nyud.net:8090/WTS/Andy/Leftovers/pics/Rod.gif

democracy.

You don't call your political opponents traitors and not have some consequences. His reaction tothis possible defeat will surely be very telling.


I'm just hoping the people of Venezuela can see through his charade.

about first, before you overextend yourself.

Even reading some of the posts already written before yours could have helped to give you a clue to understanding the material you failed to grasp originally.

Are you so invested in Chavez that you can't stand for an opposing thought to go unchallenged?

You often seem to have a penchant for telling others what to do. Why is that? I responded to your requests for showing that Chavez was an anti-semite, and I heard nary a response.

apparently, if you want people to see the material.

Feel free to post that information.

By the way, some of us have to fit DU time around our lives, and can't be here to read every post. It would be foolish to imagine if someone didn't answer you, that you must have "won" the point.

I think it is just that you don't like to respond to posts that you have no direct answer for. My response to your inquiry was within a few hours and spent a good part of a day bumped up on this board. You like to demand "linked" proof of assertions, but when you can't defend Chavez's actions you simply ignore. There is a search feature that you could employ if you so desire.


Back to the topic. A poll comes out that says that the referendum may be failing. Why is that bothersome to you? Would it be a slap in the face to your ideology if the people chose against what you think they should? I'm just curious as to why you are so defensive about this poll?

he will become presidente for life via the "Rule by Decree" clause

if the referendum loses (which is not likely), but what General Baduel will do if it succeeds? Is Baduel going to provide some decent opposition and criticism (unlike the frothing-at-the-mouth wingers and greedbags), respect Venezuela's democratic institutions, and run against Chavez in 2012? Or is he a global corporate predator tool, and/or part of a coup plan? He could be either one. I simply don't know. I don't have enough information. He comes from a similar background as Chavez, and was once a Chavez supporter (in fact helped foil the 2002 coup). So he has some pretty good creds, as an alternative to Chavez, and seems to have political ambitions. (The constitutional amendment to let presidents run again, after two terms, may be particularly nettling to him, if he does have such ambitions--which I'm pretty sure he does.)

My prediction for Chavez, if the referendum is defeated (which I think is unlikely): He will work on these changes in other ways--through legislation (some of them could possibly be done that way--for instance, the shortened work week, and funding to the community councils)--and will possibly re-start the process, with new constitutional assemblies, to get some of them passed. The president of Venezuela really does need emergency powers, for instance. The Bushites and collusive Democrats are gunning for Venezuela's oil. They have funding and operatives in place for continued disruption in Venezuela--and also Bolivia and Ecuador--which are threatening Corporate Rule in so many ways (--just for instance, the billion-dollar "war on drugs" boondoggle, the World Bank, and overall U.S. hegemony in the region). I don't have even the slightest fear that Chavez would misuse these powers. He has shown absolutely no tendency to do so. And he is dealing with a lawless U.S. WE are the ones threatened by out-of-control executive power--and WE have no control over our government any more. They could invade Venezuela, and we couldn't stop them. (And don't kid yourself that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't have plans drawn up.) And they will, for sure, be continuing to place operatives in the country and the region, funding the rightwing minority, and running black ops out of the Embassy, and the leftwing majority government has to have ways to protect itself. Have the Bushites not proven that already? They supported and helped organize, and no doubt funded, the overthrow of the legitimate government!

I love how fascists always want leftist government to be weak, and cry "dictator" when it is strong. They did this to FDR as well (who ran for, and won, FOUR terms in office, and who committed some undemocratic actions, in his view to protect the country, including the incarceration of Japanese-Americans--although it wasn't that that got him called "dictator" by the rightwing--it was Social Security and other socialist measures!).

Another important item is Venezuelan government control of the central bank (essential to building a national economy whose resources and funds are not continually drained off to first world investors). The presidential term? I don't think it's that important--to remove the limit--IF Venezuela remains on the democratic path, and does not succumb to U.S. interference. I think this is a profound revolution--very deep, here to stay--and it will produce other leaders (and HAS produced other leaders). The structural economic items are more important, and the measures to maximize citizen participation in government decisions. I should also mention gay rights--which wingers and anti-Chavistas never mention here at DU. It is a bold, courageous proposal in a country dominated by a rightwing Catholic hierarchy (which participated in the '02 coup attempt). That's going down to defeat, if the referendum fails, and it might be difficult to resurrect as a singular issue, but it should be fought for, even so.

"He will work on these changes in other ways--through legislation"

Let's circumvent the will of the people by using alternative methods. And since he controls the legislature it shouldn't be too difficult.

That's ridiculous. You are against democracy and politics, if you think that. It happens ALL THE TIME, in democracies, that proposals lose, for one reason or another, in a particular public forum, or lose as worded, and are resurrected in another forum, or with different wording or focus. This happened with the ERA (women's equal rights amendment). Never got ratified. But did people stop working for it, in other forums? They have made significant gains in equal rights for women, without the amendment. What do you call that, hm? The "dictatorship of women"?

You are furthermore saying that you oppose Chavez no matter what he does. If he were to rule by fiat, he's a "dictator." If he were to rule according to constitutional changes VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE, he's a "dictator." And, if he loses this referendum, and works for change in other democratic ways--by VOTES of the legislature, who are ALSO ELECTED, or in a new referendum, VOTED ON BY ALL--he's a "dictator."

You leave him no room NOT to be a "dictator." What you want is a WEAK Chavez. And that was the rightwing view of FDR. They wanted a WEAK, USELESS, POWERLESS leftist president, whom they could swat like a fly. And they wanted NO CHANGE in the lopsided power of the rich to DICTATE TO the poor, to squeeze, starve and bully the poor, and to throw old, sick, injured, or uppity workers away like used toilet paper.

You want a WEAK leftist, who cannot change the balance of power. You oppose peaceful, democratic revolution. So, what DO you want--violent revolution? That's how you sound.

I was speculating. Someone asked, what will Chavez do, if the referendum loses? My prediction: He will work for change in other democratic ways. That has been characteristic of him and his presidency, which has been scrupulous about the rule of law and democratic process. I have seen ZERO evidence that he will do otherwise.

But I think the far more important question is, what will Gen. Baduel and/or the Bush-backed rightwing opposition do, if the referendum succeeds (a more likely scenario)? THEY are the ones who destroyed democracy when they couldn't get their way before! (Not Baduel, but the coupsters.) Will they do it again, when they lose another election--this time the referendum?

And what do YOU think of their threats to do so? That is called VOTER INTIMIDATION! It is a fascist tactic. It is a NAZI tactic. The Hitler "brownshirts" beat people up, at the polling place. What were those rightwing "students" doing the other day, surrounding Chavista students, penning them in a building, threatening to lynch them, while some unidentified motorcyclist drove around shooting a gun off? And when you threaten violence, and promote violent protest, people can get scared, stay home and not vote.

WHO is promoting that kind of atmosphere in Venezuela? Chavez? No. There is no evidence whatsoever that he and his supporters want violence. It is the Bush-supported rightwing that commits and threatens to commit violence--including the ultimate violence of a rightwing coup.

I think you are blind, Clanfear. Nothing Chavez could do would change your opinion of him. Whatever he does--hold nationwide referenda with widespread discussion, run for office, scrupulously obey the law, promote maximum citizen participation, hold free and fair elections, work for change through the legislature--he is a "dictator." You will hold that view no matter what the evidence is. And apparently you will never criticize rightwing violence, or their connections to the Bush regime, or the money they get through Bush from our pocketbooks.

So I have to ask--or better yet, I think you should ask yourself--WHY? Why is Chavez always a "dictator," no matter what he actually does? And why do you never criticize the people who really are dictators--the people who really did suspend the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, who shot people dead in the streets, and kidnapped Chavez and threatened to kill him?

Who are the democrats? The Chavistas, who put everything to a vote? Or the rightwing elite, who really did rule by fiat, by suspension of the rule of law, and by violence, and will likely do so again, if they get the chance?

And why do you side with the rightwing against the democrats?

Or try to magically guess what I think or want.

First off the analogy comparing women's rights to what is going on in Venezuela is absurd. Chavez turned this into a referendum mainly about himself and secondly his ideas. He did that by making it an all or nothing vote. We are not talking about fighting for basic human rights. Can he go about the legislative process for some of his reforms? Certainly, but IF he loses the referendum those ideas have been rejected BY THE PEOPLE, democratically.

Secondly, I have never called him a dictator, well I may have called him a dictator wannabe, but that is beside the point. You say that I leave him no option but to be a dictator. This is not true. You on the other hand ARE suggesting that Chavez's way is the only true way, and whatever means necessary to get to his end is a-okay. A few weeks ago you even said it was okay for Chavez to use "CIA tactics" on the opposition. Assuming that we both vehemntly disagree with "CIA tactics", I don't think the ends justify the means for anyone. For some reason for you it all depends on who is using the tactics and he ends they are after.

The question about what Chavez would do if he lost is by far and away the most important one, given that it would render him a lame duck, so to speak. We know of his ambition to lead the country "'til his bones dry up", and he is the one currently in power. So given those facts it is certainly an important question of what he would do. Baduel is certainly not rightwing, and many of the opposition are not either. They just don't want the country going down the Marxist model.

You brought up the recent student protests and a version of what happened. Even the government's own site says, "according to Chavez supporters", etc., etc.. The other side says that is not the way it happened, so in reality we do not know what actually went down. We do know on the other hand that the Chavez government has repeatedly used masked gunmen to quell opposition, or "intimidate" as you put it. No Chavez supporters have been shot, have they? Who is doing the intimidating here?

You call me blind, but I think it is you that is blinded by your desire to see a leftist revolution in the country, which leads you to want to justify everything Chavez does. No man is perfect. So, while he has some good ideas an areas of helping the poor it does not mean that his ways of attaining those goals is best for the people of Venezuela at large. And this is where you are correct. My opinion of Chavez at the current time is solidified. He's done/said enough to help me come to the conclusion that he is not what will make Venezuela a better place for its peoples.

If the people of Venezuela decide they want him to be their leader for his lifetime, more power to them. And going back to my original point this referendum if rejected is a vote of no confidence in Chavez and his ideas. To go around the people's direct vote in other ways just because he controls the legislature is wrong.

*cough* It must be getting harder and harder to support this dictator.

declares a state of emergency and declares himself dictator for life?

Like him or not when someone threatens to alter their own nations governing document to extend their grasp on power its a sad, sad thing..

And worse... oh, he just happens to hate Bush and his supporters, thats why.