"Chavez anticipates crushing election win "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061203/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_election

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez sought another six-year term Sunday in an election that weighed the popularity of his oil-funded handouts to the poor against fears of increasingly authoritarian rule by one of the Bush administration's most outspoken overseas opponents.

Chavez anticipated a crushing victory over tough-talking political veteran Manuel Rosales who has galvanized the opposition by promising to unseat a man he accuses of edging the country toward totalitarianism.

Voters waited for hours in snaking lines, and elections officials predicted a record turnout. An independent AP-Ipsos poll last month and other pre-election surveys gave Chavez a double-digit advantage.

<snip>

On Sunday, the incumbent waved and blew kisses to cheering supporters as he arrived in a red Volkswagen Beetle to vote in a Caracas slum.

"I'm absolutely sure that the process is and will be totally transparent," Chavez said. "Let's vote, leave calmly and wait for the results."



Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez drives away in a Volkswagen Beetle after voting at a school in Caracas December 3, 2006. REUTERS/Jose Miguel Gomez (VENEZUELA)


The contrast is glaring! bush** needs a caravan of SS to keep him secure wherever he goes.

:rofl:

Many countries have recently chosen a Socialist, and most of them have done a very good job with their respective economies. Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezuela and Kirschner in Argentina, have provided a much needed boost to those nations' economies focusing on social programs for the poor and re-distributing wealth more fairly

has this 'dictator' been re-elected in a fair and free election?

repeats that BS every chance she gets. :puke:

because OMG, he's spending the money from Venezuela's oil wealth on them, instead of letting them keep it all. They are terrified that other countries are going to wake up and nationalize their resources.

Chavez makes the news. Take a look around. 'Dictator' appears to mean 'democratically elected socialist leader'.

If the corporations don't support you and you're defending the poor and not their interests and the interests of the rich in their own country, they are called dictators. Language is a bitch - ask Chomsky.

Viva Chavez!! They're nothing they can do to stop your own people voting for you.

"The popularity of his oil-funded handouts to the poor??" The man has put government in the hands of his people figuratively by putting Venezuela's Constitution in their hands literally. He has made sure his nation's national resources are benefitting the owners of them, the citizens. "Handouts??" Gag me.

And, quite frankly, I doubt the voters of Venezuela are all that concerned about "fears of increasingly authoritarian rule by one of the Bush administration's most outspoken overseas opponents." Talk about jingoism!

NGU.

He should be giving to the rich instead. What's the matter with him? (sarcasm)

how dare he help the poor - it's so unBush!:sarcasm:

and Corporatism run rampant!!!!


:eyes:

Everyone in Venezuela can now read this.

and everyone now can.

There are other billboards in Venezuela which say

Everyone in Venezuela now has access to healthcare.

and everyone now does.

Yes the billboards are all part of a political campaign, but education and healthcare are not 'handouts', they should be basics of a nation which is rich in natural resources.

the neo-liberal model to run rampant here. Social services have been cut drastically for the past twenty years. Guess what one of the results of this is now? We have discovered four cases of malaria for the first time in over 30 years. The state must play a role in the economy or we're all collectively doomed.

If a government doesn't exist to provide those things, why exist at all?

Every freedom-loving reichbot knows that only the wealthy deserve such "entitlements" - after all what will they do without a 5th 10,000 sq ft home or 80' yacht or $150,000 sports car in a 5-car garage? :eyes:

FDR must be rolling in his grave at what now passes for development. The robber barons are back.

are the checks that the citizens of alaska get from the oil sales handouts?

:kick:

NGU.

VW bug?

-------

Here's my analysis of the Reuters article (same ilk--disreputable journalism):

Comment #6: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2851892

That photo is a keeper.

"Oh, and shut down the media."

The Venezuelan people are free to decide how to use them.

while we routinely discuss our own absurdly regulated media as 'the corporate media', or 'the compliant media', or 'the bullshit media system'. Was it not just a few weeks ago that al jazeera was shut out of our domestic broadcast market? Did I dream that this happened?

when Rumsfeld tried to bomb them to kingdom come on at least two occasions.

Rock on Hugo!

:toast:

:kick:

I've heard that in the 1960s, state universities were free in the US.

Anyone know if that's true?

You could get by with a pell grant and perhaps a small student loan. It certainly was nothing like what we are dealing with today. Also states varied. California was essentially free or nearly free for residents. New York was very reasonable, and you typically had a small regents scholarship to make it even more reasonable. But heck, everything was cheap. Rent was cheap, food was cheap, gas was cheap, grass was way cheap. Computers, on the other hand, were absurdly expensive :-)

had withdrawn from the Union, Land Grants were established that funded colleges and universities, which meant that tuitions were very low. See http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/27.htm

In the 1960's this meant that tuitions at State Universities were 1/10th the cost of Private Universities, and scholarships that were targeted to low income applicants meant that if the parents could cover at least some part of the living expenses, college was essentially free, if you had the grades, need, and SAT scores to get the aid. Not free, unless the applicant was both poor and highly qualified, but an accessible option for the vast majority of (white, at least - racism was a barrier then as now) Americans. It was more a matter of personal choice, whether to go to college, than one of economics, although economics surely played a role in the kind of priorities one had ("move out, get a job and income" vs. "continue spending on the kid.")

clinics and education.