Don't tell me you buy into that "president-for-life" frame, Lowell?
The most controversial of the 69 changes proposed in the referendum would have ended term limits and extended the term of office from six to seven years.
He still would have had to run for reelection.

In other words, Chávez is not giving up on his attempt to turn Venezuela into a Castro-style socialist workers' "paradise."  He may -- MAY -- have lost for the time being, but watch this guy; if his history tells us anything, he'll definitely be back.

WTF? Did you wake up on the Right wrong side of the bed this morning?

Daily Kos:

The one paradoxical victory here is that Chavez and his government have made the dictator narrative from a panicking corporate press a pretty tough sell.  That is a breach we can go though to make an inch or two more progress in our general unmasking of what passes for journalism in the United States.  This will also stand down contingency planning from Embajada Americana to foment a coup d'etat.... hopefully.  (Old joke in Latin America:  Why has there never been a coup in Washington DC?  Answer: There is no US Embassy there.)

It was an open and fair election, and he lost, and conceded gracefully. That, to me, sounds less dictatorial then events in Florida in 2000 that led to Bush v. Gore.

He may have acknowledged losing and conceded for the moment, but he seems hell-bent on grabbing power some day.  He's just not stupid enough to do it prematurely.  I listened to an NPR story last week about how his family has gone from dirt poor lower middle class to the richest and most powerful people in their state.  As a matter of fact, a position was specially created for one of his siblings to be Secretary of State for another sibling who's the governor of the state.  It's the only state in Venezuela which has such a position.

Chavez has abrogated numerous contracts with outside companies and is clearly making a grab to nationalize all industries and companies in Venezuela.  His only mistake in this march toward power was his underestimation of the fondness of the Venezuelan people for their constitution.  Only by taking to the streets were concerned Venezuelans able to stop him from his otherwise inexorable march toward power.

Chavez's fantasy of a Cuba-like paradise, complete with a personality cult just like Castro's, is dangerous and bound to destroy the Venezuelan economy.  His bread and circuses approach to his country's deep economic problems and pandering to the lower classes can only result in disaster.  It's great to be a voice for the poor, and to want to improve their lot, especially to give them opportunities for education, housing, and health care.  Nothing wrong with that.  But he's doing it by destabilizing other parts of the economy and by creating an environment which discourages investment and economic growth and eventually cause the middle class to flee in droves.

I agree with Lowell.  Chavez is bad news and Castro lite.  We don't need another Castro in the region.  

Is there something wrong with nationalizing industries key to the Venezuelan economy?  Is there something wrong with ensuring that more oil revenue is repatriated to Venezuela?  

I'd be interested to hear the case that he is devastating the Venezuelan economy.  Or the case that his policies will lead to their economic ruin.  And if their economic growth is lackluster but he manages to lift more people out of poverty and expand literacy in the country, does that still constitute ruin?

We force fed Argentina our neoliberal economic policies and look at what it did to their economy.  All our economic policies seem to be effective at doing is increasing the gap between rich and poor, achieving economic growth that benefits a select few at the expense of so many.

Last, if you and Lowell think he is dangerous, what do you propose?  How dangerous are we talking, WMD dangerous, Saddam dangerous?  Do you propose the Henry Kissinger approach to Latin American policy?  Should we throw him out by supporting a violent military coup (we did try that, but maybe the second time is a charm)?  Maybe this time, the military rulers won't ruthlessly torture their own people or make them disappear.

Mine was that Chavez is a power-grabbing narcissist who should be watched carefully as he continues his efforts to eviscerate the checks and balances of the Venezuelan constitution.  If the Venezuelan people want their industries nationalized, and if they go about it in a constitutional way, then that's their business.  But Chavez is not just about nationalizing industry or about raising literacy and health care for the poor.  He's very much about accumulating all power in himself.  The constitutional changes he championed included a provision that he could establish federal districts throughout Venezuela and appoint vice presidents to run them.  This would do away with any independence on the part of the states and further concentrate power in his hands.  He's already taken over the Venezuelan courts and has been doing his damnedest to establish a unitary executive in Venezuela.  The fact that so many of his old allies united against him to defeat the proposals shows that even those who supported him understand that he's going too far.  Check out this article from the WaPo this morning:  Old Allies Abandon Chavez

Highlights?  

In interviews, three former key allies of the president said they remain true to their leftist values but felt it was time to break with Chávez because of what they characterized as his lack of tolerance and his drive for more power.

"We've all been revolutionaries and we have believed in socialism all our lives, but socialism within democracy," said Ismael García, secretary general of Podemos, a party that broke with Chávez. "We have to ask him, how do you feel abandoning a constitution that says Venezuela is a state of laws, of justice for all, that it's federal, decentralized, plural and diverse?"

The biggest blow to Chávez came when retired Gen. Raúl Baduel, 52, turned against him this month.

Chávez, Baduel and two other young army officers formed a clandestine anti-government group 25 years ago that eventually spawned the movement that ushered Chávez into power. Later, as an army commander, Baduel remained loyal to Chávez during a brief 2002 coup that had tacit support from the Bush administration.
ad_icon

Baduel said he remained loyal to Chávez because the coup was unconstitutional, and that he has now broken with the president for the same reason. He says a new constitution can be drafted by only an elected constituent assembly.

"The proposal, in addition to taking power from the people, is taking the country to disaster," said Baduel. "We're giving discretionary power to one person to take transcendental decisions about the direction our country should take."

Baduel said he carefully pondered whether to publicly oppose the proposed changes.

He said his conscience finally prompted him to act. "We need to be careful to distance ourselves from the Marxist orthodoxy that considers that democracy and its separation of powers is just an instrument of bourgeoisie domination," Baduel said.

I'm a big believer in constitutional authority and an even more fervent believer in the proposition that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Balance of power is the only way to go and anyone, like Chavez, who seeks to do away with the balance of power is nothing but a dictator in the making.

You stated his economic programs will lead to the ruin of his nation.  I just wanted some details to support that assertion.

On top of that, I was trying to illicit where you are ultimately going with your argument.  So, he is "dangerous" so are a lot of leaders in the world.  You could say the same of Robert Muagabe.  So what?  He should be carefully monitored by whom?  And for what purpose?  What are you advocating?  Or is your only point that he is danger to Venezuelan democratic institutions period?  You and Lowell are not Venezuelan citizens so how is this your concern?  Are you going to do something about it?  Because if not, what is the purpose of your argument?  Do you need to school Venezuelans because they are incapable of thinking for themselves?

I am having a hard time not having a visceral response to this.  Because this sounds like a bunch of paternalistic BS.  The same garbage used to interfere in Latin America time and time again.  And in every instance to the great detriment of the people living in those countries.

And why do I have to go anywhere with my argument?  It's not enough to say he's going to ruin the economy ... you have to discover my "secret" agenda?  What are you, his PR guy in Virginia?  And by saying that it shouldn't be any of my concern since it's Venezuela, you might as well be telling everyone in this forum never to mention anything bad about any other country or leader because we should just mind our own business.  Sorry, a destabilized, struggling Venezuelan economy has the potential to screw up a lot of other local economies and to have a deleterious effect on our own.  

Did you even bother to read up on just what Chavez was trying to pull, things that would clearly have a bearing on the country's economic viability?  One of the things the WaPo article mentioned was his initiative to "end the central bank's autonomy and give the president direct control over foreign currency reserves".  WTF??!!  You don't find that likely to lead to the slippery slope of massive corruption and the use by the president and his pals of the national treasury as a personal bank account?  Call me cynical, but again, WTF!

How about his initiative to change the voting age from 18 to 16?  The poor are the most numerous and youngest class in Venezuela.  This was a definite effort to extend his influence.  How about expanding presidential powers during natural or "political" emergencies to allow him to suspend civil rights and censor the media?  

I used to have arguments like this all the time with people in college.  One time in the mid-70s I went off to a college debate tournament up at Villanova - a nice, expensive, private Catholic university just chock full of kids who've never known a day of want in their lives - and found one of the classrooms where we held our debates decorated in Marxist slogans and pictures of Che and Castro all over the walls.  The professor fancied himself a revolutionary.  I had a number of Cuban friends whose families were full of stories about Castro's oppression, his murders of opponents, his jailing of their friends and other family members for seeking the right to democratic elections and to free speech and practice of their religion.  I asked one of the Villanova students what was up with the Castro hero-worship, and she began heatedly to defend not only her professor, but Castro and Che and the whole pantheon of revolutionary heroes.  I relayed to her what I'd heard from my Cuban friends, and she replied that they must have been part of the Batista regime.  No, I replied, they were mostly barbers, hairdressers, and other merchant types who were never wealthy, but were devout Catholics who wanted the freedom to exercise their religion openly and without restriction.  She replied that it was impossible that they were just ordinary folks because Castro didn't target ordinary folks, and that if they were truly just ordinary folks then their opposition to Castro must have been hindering the Revolution, which was for the greater good and which justified the repression they'd encountered.  How her little eyes glistened with admiration for the man!

I asked this young lady whether she would be OK with repression of free speech in the USA (she was wearing a couple of anti-war buttons), and she replied that she would not, but that was because we were just a repressive fascist state and she should have the right to oppose the Vietnam war, whereas Castro was doing what he was doing for the Cuban people, and the greater good outweighed the interests of my friends.  I asked her if the ends justified the means, and she said yes they did, if it was for the greater good.  Silly girl.  I hope she later came to realize that you cannot champion oppression for some while advocating freedom for others, and you cannot call yourself a believer in freedom of conscience and civil rights if you qualify it with the caveat "except when a demagogue talks a good line and panders to the lower common denominator, promising improvement for the least among us, but always emanating from the top."

Jim Webb likes to say that you measure the health of a society by the bottom up, rather than the top down.  When the health of a society is completely dependent upon the beneficence of those on top, with little accountability to society in the form of checks and balances, then what does it matter that the demagogue is saying he's doing it for the common good?  Is he not still a demagogue?  Isn't his power still unchecked?  You accuse me of paternalistic BS, but I'm not the one saying that it must be in the Venezuelan nature to accept demagoguery even though they have a history of constitutional government.    

My reaction is just based on the the U.S. history in the Americas.  Our interventions have rarely done good and in so many cases we have done so much harm.  I guess I was just reading too much into your statements that he should be monitored closely, your concern over his nationalizing industries, and that his policies will lead to the economic ruin of the nation.  That, at least, led me to believe you were advocating some action on our part.  And this administration has demonstrated at least thus far that they have difficulty having constructive relations with other countries.  And in the past leaders of Central and South American nations have been overthrown and replaced with military dictatorships when they tried to nationalize.

To your last points, I never said or implied that it must be in Venezuelans nature to accept demagoguery.  On the contrary, I have faith that Venezuelan people can deal with this on their own and on their own terms.  Chavez is not Augusto Pinochet and he is not Castro.  And the Venezuelan economy is not on the verge of collapse.  And with oil prices poised to be well above $26 a barrel for some time to come, Venezuela will be okay.

I honestly fear overinflating the danger Chavez poses.  Unlike Iran, Venezuela has little recourse if we choose to mess up thier country.  

at least not to us.  Now, as far as his own country is concerned, that's a completely different story, but that's an internal matter for the people of Venezuela to work out.

I totally misread this then.  I read before we start celebrating... then read we should be concerned because there are 4th largest oil supplier.  And I obviously took that way too far.  My apologies.

You really went on the attack when there was no basis for doing so.  I don't go around advocating interference in other countries' affairs and I was offended that you thought that was my point.  Apparently, this was all a misunderstanding, so everything's cool.  But I will stand by my point; within ten years, without serious curbs on Chavez's excesses, the Venezuelan economy will be down the tubes.

Sorry, not for me.  I'm a Progressive, Jim Webb/Mark Warner Democrat, not a "Leftist."

"dictatorial".
Dictators don't gracefully concede election results and move on.

But you're seriously defending Chavez, who first seized power in a coup (in 1992 against former President Carlos Andrés Pérez), has cracked down on the media, and has been condemned by Human Rights Watch for "Prosecuting people for treason when they engage in legitimate electoral activities."  In this case, Chavez tried to eliminate presidential term limits, create forms of communal property and give greater power to the presidency.  Not surprisingly, Venezuelan students strongly protested Chavez's attempt to seize what they called "authoritarian powers."

If you want to defend this guy, be my guest.  I want nothing to do with him, his ideology, his tactics, or anything else about him.

His coup failed and he was thrown in jail and later pardoned.  He was democratically elected president of Venezuela in 1998.  

Courtesy of Human Rights Watch:

Venezuela

Venezuela: Proposed Amendments Threaten Basic Rights
Government Seeks Overbroad Emergency Powers for President
Amendments proposed to Venezuela's constitution increasing presidential emergency powers would jeopardize the protection of fundamental rights at times when they are most needed, Human Rights Watch said today.
November 29, 2007    Press Release

Venezuela: Investigate Pre-Referendum Violence
The Venezuelan authorities should carry out prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into all acts of violence committed against demonstrators both supporting and opposing the constitutional reforms proposed by the government, Human Rights Watch said today.
November 28, 2007    Press Release

Venezuela: Disturbing Plan to Suspend Due Process
Chávez Supporters Seek to Suspend Rights in Emergencies
A constitutional amendment proposed by a pro-government committee in Venezuela's National Assembly would allow the suspension of due process protections, Human Rights Watch said today.
October 16, 2007    Press Release

Venezuela: TV Shutdown Harms Free Expression
The Venezuelan government's politically motivated decision not to renew a television broadcasting license is a serious setback for freedom of expression in Venezuela, Human Rights Watch said today. The decision will shut down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), the country's oldest private channel, when its license expires on May 27, 2007.
May 22, 2007    Press Release

Small Number of Countries Holding UN World Summit Hostage on Human Rights, Security, Poverty
Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International and Amnesty International call on a small number of "spoiler" countries to stop holding the UN World Summit hostage over crucial measures on human rights, security, genocide and poverty reduction. These governments have thrown negotiations on the final outcome text into crisis just days away from the biggest meeting of world leaders in history, September 14-16 in New York.
September 7, 2005    Press Release

Venezuela: Court Orders Trial of Civil Society Leaders
In ordering the trial of four civil society leaders on dubious charges of treason, a Venezuelan court has assented to government persecution of political opponents, Human Rights Watch said today.
July 8, 2005    Press Release

Venezuela: Rights Lawyer Faces Judicial Persecution
Criminal Investigation Launched to Intimidate Critic of Government's Rights Record
The Venezuelan government should immediately halt criminal proceedings opened against one of Latin America's most prominent human rights lawyers, Human Rights Watch said today.
April 5, 2005    Press Release

Venezuela: Curbs on Free Expression Tightened
Amendments to Venezuela's Criminal Code that entered into force last week may stifle press criticism of government authorities and restrict the public's ability to monitor government actions, Human Rights Watch said today.
March 24, 2005    Press Release

Venezuela: Chávez Allies Pack Supreme Court
The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country's Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez's party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court's size by more than half.
December 14, 2004    Press Release

Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression
A draft law to increase state control of television and radio broadcasting in Venezuela threatens to undermine the media's freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today. Venezuela's National Assembly, which has been voting article by article on the law, known as the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, is expected to approve it today.
November 24, 2004    Press Release

Venezuela: Legal Means Used to Address Political Crisis
Referendum Process Strengthens Rule of Law, But Judiciary Still Faces Threats
By seeking to resolve its political crisis through a national referendum, Venezuela has taken an important step toward strengthening the rule of law, Human Rights Watch said today.
August 17, 2004    Press Release

Venezuela: HRW Reiterates Concern Over New Supreme Court Law
In a memorandum published today, Human Rights Watch seeks to clarify some of the questions and misconceptions that have arisen in response to our recent report regarding threats to judicial independence in Venezuela.
July 14, 2004    Background Briefing

Testimony of José Miguel Vivanco
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs
Over the past year, President Chávez and his allies have taken steps to control Venezuela's judicial branch. These steps undercut the separation of powers and the independence of judges. They violate basic principles of Venezuela's constitution and international human rights law. And they represent the most serious threat to Venezuela's fragile democracy since the 2002 coup.
July 7, 2004    Testimony
Printer friendly version

Court-Packing Law Threatens Venezuelan Democracy
By José Miguel Vivanco and Daniel Wilkinson
Published in The Washington Post
When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez faced a coup d'etat in April 2002, the international community roundly condemned the assault on Venezuela's constitutional order. Now, as he faces a recall referendum in August 2004, Chavez's own government threatens to undermine this country's fragile democracy through a political takeover of its highest court.
June 22, 2004    Commentary

Venezuela: Judicial Independence Under Siege
The Venezuelan government is undermining the independence of the country's judiciary ahead of a presidential recall referendum that may ultimately be decided in the courts, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. President Chávez's governing coalition has begun implementing a new court-packing law that will strip the Supreme Court of its autonomy.
June 17, 2004    Press Release

Rigging the Rule of Law
Judicial Independence Under Siege in Venezuela
The Venezuelan government is undermining the independence of the country's judiciary ahead of a presidential recall referendum that may ultimately be decided in the courts. President Chávez's governing coalition has begun implementing a new court-packing law that will strip the Supreme Court of its autonomy. This 24-page report examines how the new law will make judges more vulnerable to political persecution and help ensure that legal controversies surrounding the recall referendum are resolved in Chávez's favor.
HRW Index No.: B1603
June 17, 2004    Report

Letter to President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías
In a letter sent to President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, HRW expressed deep concern about credible reports documenting that National Guard and police officers beat and tortured people who were detained during the recent protests in Caracas and other Venezuelan cities.
April 12, 2004    Letter

Venezuela: Investigate Charges of Abuses Against Protestors
The Venezuelan government should conduct a thorough investigation into allegations that state security forces have beaten and abused detained protestors this week, Human Rights Watch said today. The investigation should also examine the circumstances of killings that occurred during confrontations between protesters and police.
March 5, 2004    Press Release

Venezuela: Official Press Agency Distorts Human Rights Watch's Position
Venezuela's official government press agency has published an article that distorts Human Rights Watch's position on freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today.
October 28, 2003    Press Release

Venezuela's Supreme Court Upholds Prior Censorship and "Insult Laws"
Venezuela's Supreme Court Upholds Prior Censorship and "Insult Laws"
A decision by the Venezuelan Supreme Court upholding prior censorship is a major setback for freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today.
July 18, 2003    Press Release

What do you find specifically objectionable about Chavez's domestic programs?

On your oil point, I am not frightened of 20 more years of Chavez if that is what Venezuelans want.  Chavez isn't driving up the price of oil, Venezuela doesn't have enough production to do that.  The U.S. has remained Venezuela's top trading partner in both exports and imports throughout Chavez's term.  He hasn't stopped supplying us with oil; it still happens to be the most profitable thing for him to do.  So, he wants to take his royalty hikes a step further and nationalize joint-ventures with Exxon and the like.  What's the big deal there?  If it ends up lowering exploration & development investment in Venezuela, again big whoop.

I also object to his self-destructive, revolutionary socialist/communist/nationalist "Bolivarianism."

This seems akin to the nebulous made up word Islamo-Fascism.  What specifically about his domestic programs are self-destructive and why?  You're just lumping a bunch of adjectives on him without any explanation.  It seems if you want to crucify the man, you would more thoroughly deconstruct his economic programs and demonstrate how they will lead to the destruction of the Venezuelan economy.

And have you given up on your assertion that he threatens oil supplies to the U.S.?

I don't like Chavez for his anti-democratic tendencies, but Chavez is not Castro.

He is loudmouth who loves calling attention to himself. He did  shoot for a power grab in this last election. He is trying to become a dictator, in my opinion.

However, up to this point, he was won elections in his country. He is a democratically elected leader. Castro became the leader after a revolution.

And he respected the narrow results of this referendum. I was not expecting him to do that.

And Chavez is reckless, but not stupid. After 7 years, he is still trading with the U.S.

Why is he so friendly with Castro? Because this irks the Americans. He enjoys making the Bush administration angry, especially since it tried to outs him in 2003.

Chavez's electoral strategy and power style is a lot closer to Bush and the Republican majority in Congress until 2006 than he is to Castro: an organized, disciplined base and legislators steam rolling a disorganized opposition.

He is bad news, I agree, but we must force ourselves to be fair towards him.

"reckless" and "bad news."

First of all:

While those of us who do agree with Lowell celebrate the good news for Venezuelans, I'd like to point out that halfway around the world Putin succeeded in his latest push to re-instate one-party rule in Russia.

Second of all:

Let's not criticize the people of Venezuela for making this choice.  I don't think anyone out there, even Chavez himself, would say that they didn't pick the more Democratic option.  Practically every single liberal Democracy in the world has term limits, and if they don't, they at least have leaders who understand that staying in power for too long is detrimental to the commonwealth.  Whether you agree with Lowell or Hugo Chavez, shouldn't the people of Venezuela have the right to pick a new leader, even if he is from the same party as Chavez?

As for agreeing with Lowell or Hugo Chavez... Latin America does not have the same relationship with socialism that Europe does.  During the Cold War, all but three Latin American nations (Colombia, Costa Rica, and Venezuela) had a one-party government allied with either the US or the USSR at one point or another.  It was an era of gross political extremes and massive human rights violations.  Any step - ANY - made towards one-party rule in Latin America is A CURSE.  In Nicaragua Daniel Ortega, through his control of the courts, made it so that a candidate need only 40% of votes (in a 4-way contest) to become president.  Ortega got his 45%, but he never would get majority support in a runoff.  There, the voice of the people of Nicaragua was drowned out by corrupt judges.  In Venezuela we see the same tricks - making it easier and easier for those who already have the power and money to keep it.

I am a liberal and a and a progressive and a leftist.  The Democratic organization of which I am a member has a saying:

"Why am I a Democrat?  Because I care about people."

I care about people, including the people of Venezuela, and today they are better off.

I share your views almost exactly (except I don't really consider myself a "leftist").

How do you define "leftist"?

I say I'm a leftist because I believe people need a liberal majority, in this country, a Democratic Party majority.  Perhaps you're thinking of something more extreme?  If so... I'm probably with you on that one too.

Same thing with "rightist" or "right winger."  I consider myself a pragmatic Teddy Roosevelt Progressive, not an ideologue.

I do consider myself left-wing, but I will not blindly support anybody on account of a label - good example of that happening today:

The Richmond Times-Disgrace endorsed Rob Wittman - why you ask?  Well, it's not that they agree with his policies, it's not that he's a better candidate than Philip Forgit, it's not that Forgit wouldn't make a good congressman - it's that Forgit is what the RTD likes to refer to as a "Democrat", which, in case you hadn't noticed, is evil, and just by virtue of being a member of the Republican minority, Rob Wittman would make a better congressman.  They literally could not have been less enthusiastic about their endorsement.  I'm sure they thought long and hard to come up with that excuse to endorse him.

It was basically like, "Forgit's much better than Wittman, but we're Republicans so we HAVE to support Wittman.  Bummer."

Endorsed George Allen over Webb because Allen was already there and seemed to get along okay with Warner and Webb would not be able to behave himself in the "rarified air" of the Senate.  

I do agree that Chavez is a power-hungry demagogue whose primary goal is to secure greater power for himself rather than promote the welfare of Venezuelans in general.

However, far from implementing "ruinous" economic policies, he has vastly increased the quality of life for Venezuelans; indeed, that's why a large portion of Venezuelans are willing to stomach his authoritarian tendencies.  They'll overlook the shadier aspects of his personality as long as his tenure leads to tangible economic improvements.  And that has happened -- he's slashed the poverty rate by ~20%, taken key industries out of the hands of large corporations, made health-care more affordable, overseen an immense increase in social spending targeted at the poor, etc.  Moreover, Venezuela has experienced very strong economic growth recently.  For example, thus far in 2007, it has seen real GDP growth of 6.9%.  Compare this with the US's growth of 1.8% this year.  Which one is the "struggling" economy, again?  The truth of the matter is that Chavez's policies have been an enormous boon to Venezuela's economy; unfortunately, he may personally be a highly corrupt man, jeopardizing those huge economic strides forward.

And to call this a "dictatorial power grab" is stretching the truth -- he attempted to extend the term limits, be he didn't declare himself president for life.  Indeed, that's not significantly different from Roosevelt's long stay in office, although I doubt many would brand him a "dictator" for refusing to bow out after his second term.

Another important thing to note is that Chavez could easily have tampered with the results of the vote, causing it to swing 51-49 the other way.  But he didn't -- not exactly the sign of an aspiring tyrant.

"success."  Same thing with Putin in Russia.  I wouldn't give either one much credit for their brilliant economic policies.

Chavez admits defeat, while Putin engineered victory. Yes, Chavez is a loudmouth, but it takes a loudmouth to attempt to challenge the hegemony that the U.S. exercises over Central and South America. The list of U.S. interventions to our south is too long to explore here, but you can get a good idea of them from the current intervetions and training activities for paramilitaries at the School fo the Americas Watch site: http://www.soaw.org/article.ph...

BTW, Lowell's favorite Progressive, Teddy Roosevelt, spoke about Latin America when he said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick!" American intervention in Latin affairs can be traced back to this "progressive" and has continued through every Republican and Democratic administration to the present--the least abusive being Jimmy Carter's four years. It's no wonder that Latino political survivors, like Chavez, froth with bluster.

Thomas Friedman suggested in the film "addicted to oil" that the higher fuel prices are, the more successful dictatorships in oil-exporting nations are.  He cited Iran and Russia in particular.  I wonder why this is the case...