No progressives should be demanding new elections in Venezuela due to Chavez' health...

[Ken Burch]

...OR gloating over the possibility that Chavez might die of his illness.

We're better than that, people.

It's not our place to try to try to impose our wishes about who runs that country, especially with our long history of imperialism in this hemisphere.

And Hugo Chavez, while he's no saint, is not the personification of evil...He's just a leader that some people support and others don't.

It's really disgusting to see the pre-emptive grave dancing some allegedly "progressive" DU'ers are doing about Chavez' possible demise, and it's beneath the dignity of this talkboard.

We need to see the push for new elections for what it is...a right-wing plot to force Venezuela to give up its revolution(which is the same thing as forcing it to give up on social change forever, because the poor can't gain in that country WITHOUT a continuing revolution).

The poor and the workers of Venezuela did nothing to anyone here to deserve this from supposedly "enlightened liberal" North Americans.

For shame.

[MADem]

1. If Barack Obama took off to another country for a medical procedure on the 20th of December,

and hadn't been seen or photographed since then, you don't think people should mention it, or express curiosity or concern?

I'm not talking about just Americans, but Europeans, South West Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners...they shouldn't say "Where is he? What is going ON over there? Why are mixed signals coming out of the government?" It's not just the opposition that is making noise, factions within the government have been speaking out with differing emphasis.

Saying "It's beneath the dignity of this talkboard" is code for saying "STFU and don't talk about the obvious--that a leader of a country hasn't been seen or photographed for a month, and only ONE GUY has said that he has seen/talked to the guy--the guy who has been designated his political heir."

If it bothers you, hide the thread. Don't tell people they can't talk about this HUGE Hugo News Story. When the President of Uruguay isn't bothering to go to Cuba because he's been told he won't get in to see the guy, and the President of Argentina is going over there ANYWAY to try to see what's up, I'd say there's more than a little curiosity on the topic. Every paper in the world is talking about it--but we aren't supposed to say anything here? Why? That's just absurd.

[Ken Burch]

4. Unless somebody actually has proof that Chavez is dead, there should be great care

in how people talk.

Remember, you are destabilizing somebody else's country when you do, and possibly setting the stage for a coup...that's what talk like this leads to. Nothing positive can come of spreading rumors about Chavez' health...certainly nothing progressive can come of it.

And it's totally inappropriate for anyone on a progressive talkboard to want ANY country to move further right...which is what the Capriles cheerleaders hear want...they want a "pro-business&quot i.e., antiworker and antipoor)agenda for Venezuela, and the abandonment of the community councils, the first genuinely democratic form of government in Venezuela(conventional parliaments aren't democratic at all, since the rich can always buy control of them).

It's getting ghoulish around here...and there's no reason to act as if we can assume that Chavez was dead.

Besides, it's not clear that Chavez death would invalidate the last election...the deaths of presidents here don't invalidate the elections those presidents won, and don't require the winning parties in those elections to immediately vacate power(as the anti-chavistas are demanding in Venezuela).

This is just like the shit people were talking about Allende in the 1970-1973 era...and it will end the same way if Capriles gets in. That's the way the Latin American Right ALWAYS works and always will work.

Face it.

[MADem]

8. We don't have Proof of Life, either. And it's not "totally inappropriate" to wonder what the hell

is going on with the guy, and wondering isn't "wanting" VZ to "move further right." It is what it is--where the hell IS the guy? Why hasn't a single photo been taken of him? Why is there no video with the sound stripped out, like there has been every other time he's gone to Cuba?

When a SOP changes--and Hugo has made this trek at least four times--people DO notice.

It's getting ghoulish because the odds are becoming increasingly likely that the guy is either on life support or brain dead, and the reason many people are thinking this is because there's not one lousy picture of him sitting or even laying in bed looking at Maduro while they hold hands and talk about telling the people of VZ the "whole truth."

I mean, come on--this is horrible, lousy, shitty propaganda, and even the most faithful and ardent Chavistas on the street are smelling a large rodent and anticipating bad news.

This isn't the same as Allende, and Capriles isn't a shoo-in by a long shot. Old God Given Goodhair Cabello -- who is on the Chavez team and a former military pal of Hugo's--could be the winner over the handpicked successor. It's way too soon to even speculate on those aspects; they don't have their shit together vis a vis succession, yet.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/01/201317131121971125.html

If Chavez is unavailable to take office by January 10 and the National Assembly decides to wait, his presidential powers will be granted to the speaker of the National Assembly for up to 90 days.

If Chavez were to die, Cabello would hold the post of interim president and new elections would need to be called within 30 days.

Venezuela's constitutional law on succession could put Cabello at odds with Nicolas Maduro, the vice-president, and the man Chavez has tipped as his chosen successor.

What needs to be "faced" is that something is WRONG WITH CHAVEZ. He's either very sick or dead and not talking about it isn't going to change that one whit.

[Ken Burch]

9. It's only the Venezuelans' business to face that, not OURS.

We are not entitled to do anything to destabilize that country...and spreading rumors that Chavez is dead IS destabilization. Don't be a part of anything the CIA would want you to be a part of, for God's sakes.

It's their country...leave it to them. We, as Americans, as beneficiaries of past acts of imperialism, have no right to aid and abet shit-disturbing in that country.

If Chavez were dead, they'd have told everyone by now...Venezuela in 2012 is NOT the USSR in 1953.

[MADem]

13. That is an ABSURD statement. If Obama disapppeared, it would not be a topic of interest just in

USA. Everyone would be wondering what the deal was.

Last time I checked, all of us lived on the Big Blue Marble.

If Kim Jong Un disappeared, we'd be talking about it. If King Abdullah disappeared, we'd be talking about it. If Hollande of France took a powder, we'd be talking about it.

What makes Hugo "special" so that he gets this foolish attempt at "off limits" treatment you're trying to convince us is somehow necessary? You might as well just acknowledge your concern--if there was nothing to fear, then speculation wouldn't matter.

Your insistence that everyone just shut up and stop talking about this is bizarre.. A leader of a nation that is a trading partner with the US and many other nations on this globe hasn't been seen for a month. No picture, no audio tape, even--NOTHING.

The President of Uruguay was very recently told he would not be allowed to see the guy.

Like it or not, this situation is BIG news--even if you want to play the "Nothing to see here" game. The more you say "Stop talking about it" the more people come to believe that there's something really, really wrong.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-venezuela-chavez-20130109,0,1722479.story

....a statement signed by 38 professors from various law schools said Chavez must either take the oath or demonstrate that he is still capable of governing by formally asking for a temporary delay. If Chavez is permanently incapacitated, the president of the National Assembly must assume power temporarily and call a new presidential election.

"A different solution goes against the constitution, extends a presidential period that has already lapsed and moreover generates unnecessary uncertainty that affects constitutional security and stability," said Enrique Sanchez Falcon, a constitutional law expert at Central University of Venezuela.

The professors were addressing the constitutional crisis enveloping Venezuela with the approach of the end of Chavez's third term Thursday and scheduled start of his fourth. They said an approved absence for heath reasons does not mean the oath-taking can be deferred as well, which is the argument that Chavistas are making.

Chavez has not been seen or heard from in nearly a month. The issue at the root of the wrangling is whether he is truly on the road to recovery and in possession of his mental capacities, as his supporters say, or at death's door and incapable of governing....

[Ken Burch]

15. It's not going to destabilize OUR country if people spread rumors about Obama's health

Nor North Korea's, nor Saudi Arabia's, nor the French. None of those countries has the potential for anything light a Guatemala 1954-Dominican Republic 1964-Chile 1973-Honduras 2009 coup(all of which left the streets in those countries soaked in blood).

No one in the United States has the right to try to do anything that could lead to the overthrow of a Latin American government...that's the big issue. We have a murderous past in this hemisphere, and the spread of these rumors is an echo of that past.

Don't let yourself be conned into doing the work of fascists-you're better than that...and you know enough of the history to be aware of what's happening.

[MADem]

16. There's another strawman. No one needs to spread rumors, by not responding to questions, the VZ

government is fostering speculation.

This isn't about coups, this isn't about blood, this isn't about the US--this is about WHERE'S HUGO? Is he dead or alive?

The big battle, initially, is not going to involve Capriles so just push him to the side. The cage match will be between Maduro and God Given Good Hair. Depending on how that goes, the future will become clear.

The one being "conned" here isn't me. Take a good look at old Diosdado, there--he's the one Chavez's "named successor" needs to look out for.

And don't call me a Fascist, even if you do it obliquely. I am not one and I don't care for that kind of trifling nonsense.

[Ken Burch]

17. "God Given Good Hair"? Why are you so fixated with the guy's 'do? Does it really matter?

All the rhetoric you're using here implies that this is an illegitimate government...that the PSUV has no right to be in power, even though it was just elected again weeks ago(and even though the PSUV made massive gains in local elections after that).

There is no reason to act as if the current Venezuelan government is unlawful.

I wasn't calling YOU a fascist...what I did say was that what you're saying here is objectively helping the fascist types(and the forces in OUR government that are obsessed with getting the PSUV out of office and the poor of Venezuela back in their place are doing that as well...however "moderate" they may think they are being.

Venezuela's future needs to be decided by the Venezuelans...no one else has any right to have a say in it.

Hugo Chavez may die...but us gringos need to shut the hell up about Latin America, because too much of its blood is on all of our hands. We owe the entire Southern part of this hemisphere an abject apology for everything we've ever done down there.

[MADem]

25. I thought you were familiar with the country and its language....and its politicians.

"Diosdado Cabello" means "God Given Hair" -- and he's a pal of Chavez's since the days of the failed coup in 92. He's the guy who will end up fighting with Maduro over who gets the Lead Dog job, on an interim basis, if Chavez dies. NOT the opposition...they don't get involved until elections are called.

Stop telling falsehoods about me. NOTHING I have said " implies that this is an illegitimate government"--I am not implying ANYTHING of the sort at this stage.

I am asking "Where's Hugo?"

You apparently don't understand that the Constitutional nuances are going to set Maduro and Cabello against one another if Hugo doesn't show up to take the oath eventually, notwithstanding stalling tactics by the legislature and his political allies (and Hugo is too "ill" and is not going to appear any time soon, the VP has already said). This isnt "speculation" or "facist enabling" -- that's the Venezuelan constitution for you. VZ constitutional lawyers are weighing in, and they're saying this situation can't go on forever and clarity is needed promptly.

You were, in fact, calling me a Fascist, by insinuating that I might be one if I don't see things your way--which isn't a very civil approach to take, though I won't characterize what you are doing in the same sort of dire and inappropriate language such as you used towards me--I will tell you I don't like what you are saying and I find your comments a poor substitute for discussion.

By asking "Where's Hugo?" no one is "deciding" the future of Venezuela. For you to even say that is absurd. That is just asking a simple question, one that any sentient being with an interest in the nation or even a slight amount of curiosity about international issues is asking.

What I am saying here isn't "helping" anyone or "hurting" anyone--and that line of argument is just foolishness that sounds like it comes from a place of desperation because you can't control what people are asking--you're just not going to shut people up and stop them from asking SENSIBLE questions by calling them Facists or other names, simply because you don't like inconvenient but essential queries.

You're advocating censorship--and that's just wrong.

Again-- I am asking "Where is Hugo and how is his health?" It's the same question that Chavistas in the streets are asking, and have been for WEEKS now.

You'd know this if you read the papers. The government has finally said "He's too ill to attend" but that is all they've said: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/08/168904955/venezuelas-chavez-to-miss-his-inauguration

The Chavistas are acknowledging that there's a problem, and he might not make it. Why can't you? Are these Chavista kids "Fascists" for daring to contemplate a post-Chavez Venezuela?

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/ABC_Univision/chavista-youth-contemplate-post-chavez-venezuela/story?id=18157090

But young supporters of President Chávez are also aware that the charismatic leader could pass away soon. And his imminent death raises uncertainty about the country's future.

"With his leadership, the president guarantees the stability of the country," said Jesús Garcia, a 22 year-old member of the Anti-Mantuanos Chavista collective. Garcia said that if Chávez lives, but is too sick to be the country's president, he should stay on as a "guide" of the revolution, because "there is much work to be done."

....But amongst some young Chavistas there is less faith in the future. Adriana Rivas, a self-described "youth revolutionary leader," who is also from the neighborhood of Altagracia, worries that without Chávez socialism will not progress in Venezuela.

"I don't trust in the deepening of the revolutionary process if Chávez dies," Rivas told ABC-Univison. Rivas said that if Chávez is not healthy enough to be president but continues to live, he should serve as an adviser to his hand-picked successor, Maduro. "[Vice President] Nicolás Maduro is a soldier who does what he is told to do," Rivas opined. "So with that sort of set-up, we could advance."

[joshcryer]

24. The Venezuelan government grants individuals a right to information.

Right there in Article 28. Good old transparency, right?

Information of the head of states' health is a right that all Venezuelans should be allowed.

But they aren't.

And that's perfectly fine.

And anyone who dares question it just better shut up!

[MADem]

26. I'm a fan of transparency. I don't see why they couldn't just take a quick picture of Hugo.

That would shut everyone up--look, there he is, sitting up in bed next to Maduro reading the Cuban paper dated today!!!! Everyone would feel much better...but no, they haven't done that.

Because they haven't done that, it is natural to wonder if the tracheotomy/respirator rumors are true--that wouldn't be a nice photo. Not at all...! Or the "He's out of it" rumors are true. Or the "He's on life support and if it's withdrawn he's done for..." rumors.

All these rumors could be dispelled with a picture of Hugo, even if he's sick and weak. Of course, if he's comatose, that wouldn't be a good image...

He hasn't even told people what kind of cancer he has--even though his treatment pattern is suggestive of sarcoma.

Cafeteria Constitution in VZ?

[Ken Burch]

29. Why is it OUR business, though?

Isn't it enough for Venezuelans to be dealing with it?

I'm no partisan of Maduro, or of Mr. Hair...my loyalties are to the poor and the workers of Venezuela.

[MADem]

32. Why is it your business to try and shut down conversation on this topic?

It's our business because we are citizens of the world and Venezuela is a trading partner of the US. We're talking billions, here (you really need to read the material in this link): http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/venezuela

We also refine a shitload of their heavy oil.

They also provide oil to the poor here in the USA. They have a substantial gasoline distribution interest in this country too, that employs a number of Americans (CITGO).

If the government changes, those arrangements could change as well.

They are neighbors in our hemisphere. We have a large number of Venezuelans and Venezuelan-Americans living in our country.

In sum, we have a right to talk about it because we have an INTEREST in it.

Your insistence, against all logic, that we have no "right" to discuss this topic is bizarre. It also won't make people stop talking about it. As pronouncements are made by the VZ government about Hugo's health and the progress (or lack thereof) of his inauguration, every major paper in USA and around the world is reporting them. They aren't doing that for their amusement, you know.

[Ken Burch]

36. The man's health should not be a political issue.

And the fact that you used the word "INTEREST" in all-caps is part of the problem.

Every horrific thing we've ever done in Latin America was justified by those who did it as being "necessary to protect 'our interests'". That word has been used to rationalize embargoes, invasions, coups, and the acceptance of torture.

And the "discussion" isn't really about having a sincere political debate...it's about helping feed a sense of uncertainty about Venezuela's direction...and such uncertainty has also been part of our legacy of blood in the region-because the imposition of a "man on horseback" has been the usual U.S. solution to "uncertainty".

It would be different if our country's leaders hadn't, over and over again, defended our "INTERESTS" with the blood of the hemisphere's poor.

I'm not against free speech-I'm against the possible abetting of a coup.

If Chavez was dead, they'd tell us. It's that simple and that straightforward. You have no call to imply that he's dead if you don't have proof...to imply it speculatively could put the lives of all of the poor of Venezuela in danger.

I don't want the poor of Venezuela to get slaughtered, which would have to happen in a coup. Do YOU care about that?

[joshcryer]

47. Um, the health of the head of state is in the constitution.

It's political by its very fucking nature.

How in the hell do you even have democratically elected leaders if you have no established method of determining said leaders and when said leaders are no longer leaders?

The only people feeding uncertainty about Venezuela's future are 1) those who want to shut down discussion and slander and malign anyone who wants to have a discussion (with a typical Two Minutes hate with the same canned, totally irrelevant responses) and 2) those who refuse to bring light to the situation and give accurate, fair, responsible reporting as to the health of the head of state.

The only coup happening in Venezuela will be if the homophobic bigot Maduro takes charge Jan 10 against the constitution. And you will defend it, no doubt.

[MADem]

60. It's a CONSTITUTIONAL "interest" of the people of VZ. And it's an INTEREST of the people of the

world whose nations do business with Venezuela.

Your arguments are just lousy. They're unsupportable. Stop with the nonsense about blood and drama--that's not what is happening in VZ. What's happening there is an INTERNAL drama where there's a strong difference of opinion about the constitutionality of the behavior of a couple of characters--two, most prominently, are Chavistas-- on the main stage.

You are against free speech. I'm not sitting here planning a coup, and you know it--yet you've as much as accused me of that, and expended thousands of calories frantically typing a myriad of versions of "You need to just shut up--shut up, I say, shut UP!!!" in an effort to dissuade me from conversing about this matter. The more you do that, the more you goad me to speak further about it.

You're just dead wrong about the impact these conversations have, too. Discussing this subject on DU is not going to make one whit of difference to the "poor of Venezuela"--so just put that silly canard back in the box.

[joshcryer]

21. You didn't answer the question and you just want to shut down discussion.

[Ken Burch]

28. He didn't ask a valid question...its not our place to demand proof that Chavez is alive.

It isn't our country and the United States is forever morally barred from demanding anything from Latin America.

We can assume they'd announce it if Chavez was actually dead-they aren't the Soviet Politboro in 1953.

We need to leave this to the Venezuelans themselves. It's THEIR country, not ours.

[MADem]

34. Forever morally barred? Is that why we do business with them in the billions every year?

You aren't making sense.

I did ask a valid question, and you did not answer it.

We can't assume anything about Chavez at this point in time--no one has seen him in nearly a month.

If that were the case with Obama, people would be having a shitfit. Obama can't go missing for a day--there's a press corps that follows him relentlessly.

It's their country--and we trade with them. We have an interest, like it or not. You aren't the 'decider' on that score.

[joshcryer]

35. He gave you a hypothetical.

Which you deflected and ignored. You didn't answer it.

Anyone can speculate and observe and talk about the politics of another country.

That is not meddling, that is not interfering, that is simply discussing things.

You want to shut people down and slander them for simply wanting to have a discussion about things.

Yes, I expect they will announce it when Chavez dies. But they can keep him on machines for a long long time. Terri Schiavo long if you want to go there.

[Ken Burch]

37. His "hypothetical" doesn't work in this situation.

Rumors about Obama's health aren't going to help instigate a bloodsoaked coup...rumors about Chavez' health, by adding to the uncertainty and giving the right-wing there a chance to call for a "man on horseback", could very do that.

That is the difference.

After all we have done in Latin American history...none of it ever positive...we have a moral obligation to do no further harm there. We have an obligation to leave the Latin Americans alone and let them sort out their problems by themselves, on their own terms.

It's about not being imperialist...it's about letting go of the whole McKinley/Teddy Roosevelt-on up to JFK/Johnson/Nixon/Reagan legacy of assuming that WE have the right to determine the hemisphere's destiny.

That's the legacy we HAVE to totally abandon.

Latin America belongs to the Latin Americans.

[joshcryer]

45. How on earth is revealing Chavez' health = coup?

Oh, right, you compare following the constitution and having new elections a coup.

The guy who wasn't even electing declaring himself intrim president, not a coup at all.

Ignoring the constitution and not electing the Executive Vice-President, not a coup at all.

But elections, that's a coup!

For what it's worth the opposition does not want a rushed election because they're afraid that Capriles wouldn't have time to organize and they think that the longer this thing plays out the more factionalized the chavistas will become. So that theory is itself totally bunk.

[msanthrope]

64. Funny, isn't it....how this 'progressive' stance and crude oil speculation go

hand-in-hand?

The longer Chavez ails and the government is not held to account and forced to make a choice of successor, the more unstable the price becomes, and the more money oil speculators make.

Who benefits from that??? Not 'progressives', surely.

[Ken Burch]

68. The post from Venezuela Analysis PROVED new elections aren't required.

Give it a rest.

And the only reason the opposition wants new elections is that it thinks it can sneak the right-wing minority back into power through a mythical power struggle in the PSUV.

[joshcryer]

74. The Venezuela Analysis article doesn't address Article 234.

Which explicitly says that the Executive Vice-President takes charge, not the homophobic bigot Maduro, in the event of the President's absence. Yes they can delay new elections up to 180 days. So what? There will have to be new elections after that point. Maduro cannot sit in power for 6 years with Chavez absent the entire time.

New elections must be called for if Chavez doesn't show in 180 days.

The opposition does not want new elections in 30 days. In fact Capriles explicitly said that the Executive Vice-President should take power and that it would be a national tragedy.

[backwoodsbob]

53. you really believe that talking about this on DU

will destabilize Venezuela and lead to a coup?really?

wow

[Chathamization]

54. Well...

there are a lot of Venezuelans who read DU, and think that our thoughts about their government are much more important than their own or their fellow country men. These people are also violent revolutionaries ready to take to the streets if they see that people on a web board in the US think their president's sick (but, again, don't really care what those in their own country think).

But yeah, this patronizing attitude towards other countries is all too common.

[msanthrope]

62. There are some posters on DU who think that whatever goes on here

is read by some the strange and mysterious PTB that control The Internets. They are convinced that their membership in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders (Order of the Chairborne) will get them on a list, somewhere.

[Ken Burch]

67. I see it as a real possibility. It's a whispering campaign.

Why should anyone who isn't a total reactionary be involved in trying to do shit-disturbing on this? We all know it would be a tragedy if Capriles got in and moved the country massively to the right(being slightly more "pro-gay" doesn't make up for privitization, submission to international capital and austerity, all of which will end up being part of the Capriles program).

I stand with the poor...the people everyone who claims to be progressive SHOULD stand with first...the people who want Chavez dead and the PSUV out of power want the old days back.

[backwoodsbob]

96. this is amazing

you believe our little web chat board will lead to a coup in Venezuela if we even mention chavez's health situation here.

That is absolutely amazing.

Have you ever read about the joint USA/Russia mind control experiments and have you considered a tin foil hat to protect yourself?You can never be too safe you know.

[DonCoquixote]

2. Normally I would disagree

But let's be honest, you know that the GOP and the DLC are waiting for him to die, because they want to pull off a coup.

[Ken Burch]

5. Indeed.

Capriles is just a front...if he does sneak in through an unneeded snap election, he'll abandon all of his supposed "moderate progressive" ideas the moment he's sworn in, claim there was a previously unknown massive deficit, and immediately impose hardline Friedmanite economics("the Full Miltie", you might call it).

We've all seen how this movie ends before.

[joshcryer]

20. The only coup being pulled is by the homophobic bigot Maduro.

Who believes, while not elected (the President selects his VP after being elected, and the VP only takes power in the last 2 years of the Presidency), he can serve as President indefinitely.

[MADem]

27. I don't know if God Given Hair is going to tolerate that....

I don't know much about the guy, I'll be honest, but I get the impression he isn't a shrinking violet...!

[joshcryer]

46. Cabello would be best suited to allow Maduro his madness.

Then call Maduro a coupster when Chavez kicks the bucket, and claim that he is the true heir.

[MADem]

59. That might be how it goes down...with The Hair claiming to be the heir! nt

[Ken Burch]

30. He'd only serve until the next election, if he DID get in.

You're acting as if the PSUV has no right to be in power, that the last election meant nothing.

[joshcryer]

33. The constitution is clear. The Executive Vice-President takes power in that event.

Not Maduro who wants to have a power vacuum.

And there's no telling how long Chavez is going to be absent.

[Ken Burch]

40. You should read this. It puts to rest a lot of the claims you've heard:

(note: this was originally posted in the following thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014361236)

Exposing Five Key Media Myths about Chavez’s Health and Swearing-in

By EWAN ROBERTSON AND TAMARA PEARSON - VENEZUELANALYSIS.COM , January 8th 2013

Over the last few weeks the private English media has stepped up its campaign against the Venezuelan revolution, spreading a number of lies and misconceptions around President Hugo Chavez’s health, the politics and legalities involved in his swearing-in for his new term, and the Venezuelan government’s handling of the situation.

The media, often taking its line directly from Venezuela’s right-wing opposition, is exploiting a sad time for the Venezuelan people. Media Observatory journalist Mariclem Stelling, talking on public television station VTV, called it a “combination of glee, irony, and necrophilia...an attempt to remove (Chavez) from his political role”.

“They build the news from the economic and political interests to which they respond,” she said.

Here, Venezuelanalysis.com debunks the top five lies currently being spread by private media.

1) The Venezuelan government is being secretive about Chavez’s health

This charge has been made by international media since Chavez first announced he had cancer in June 2011. Criticisms by the private media of government “secrecy” around his condition have intensified as the swearing-in date approaches, in part reflecting an increasingly fractious Venezuelan opposition anxious for details they could use to their advantage.

Mass media sources describe Chavez’s medical condition as “a mystery”, with outlets such as the Los Angeles Times referring to government information on Chavez’s post-operatory recovery as “sporadic and thinly detailed medical updates”. Outlets such as the British BBC and the Australian have picked up the opposition’s call for the Venezuelan government to tell the “truth” on Chavez’s health, implying that the government is withholding information, or outright lying.

The argument that the Venezuelan government is keeping secrets feeds into the discourse most mainstream media use in relation to the Bolivarian revolution, recently describing the government as “despots” (Chicago Tribune) and “autocratic populists” (Washington Post).

Other media has put out its own versions of Chavez’s state of health, with the Spanish ABC going to great lengths to describe even his bowel movements, and reporting that he is in a coma, and the multinational Terra mistaking its desires for reality, reporting that Chavez is already dead. These media outlets have just one “anonymous” source for their reports; they somehow, apparently, have an infiltrator (or an “intelligence source” as they call it) among Chavez’s Cuban medical team.

The government has in fact released 28 statements updating the public on Chavez’s condition since his operation on 11 December, an average of around 1 per day. These statements are available in full text on the internet, and are also being read out by communication minister Ernesto Villegas on all Venezuelan public television and radio.

In the latest statement, released yesterday, Villegas said that Chavez’s condition remains “stationary” compared to the last report, where the public was informed that he has a respiratory “deficiency” due to a pulmonary infection.

It is true however, that beyond mentioning the general cancer site; the pelvic region, the government hasn’t revealed the exact type of cancer that Chavez has, nor the exact nature of the operation that he underwent on 11 December. This is possibly due to privacy reasons.

When asked directly about this issue in a recent interview, Jorge Rodriguez, a doctor and key figure in Chavez’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), said “I’d give the example of Mrs. Hilary Clinton, who had a cerebral vascular accident. There are three factors which influence these cases: the part of the brain where it happens, the size of the affected zone, and if it produces a hemorrhage or obstruction. Well fine, I’ve not seen any serious and decent doctor ask in which zone she had the lesion. And I think it’s fine that they don’t ask because that lady has the right to privacy. I’ve not seen Ramon Guillermo Aveledo (the executive secretary of the opposition’s MUD coalition) asking to know if her accident affected her in the frontal lobe, in which case, of course, she couldn’t continue giving the instructions she normally gives”.

Of course, when the international media report on the Venezuelan opposition’s stance towards Chavez’s health situation, they invariably fail to mention that the opposition’s approach has a lot less to do with a crusade for truth, and more to do with its hopes of creating a political and constitutional crisis over the issue. They make out that the Venezuelan government is being deliberately misleading and manipulative with information, but would never point the finger at Western leaders such as George Bush or Barack Obama for not announcing the exact locations of their frequent, long, and luxurious vacations, for example.

2) It is unconstitutional if Chavez doesn’t take the oath of office on 10 January

This is another lie that takes a leaf straight from the opposition’s book. Most opposition leaders, and even the Venezuelan Catholic Church, are arguing that if Chavez cannot be officially sworn-in as president on 10 January then he will lose his status as president of Venezuela. They say that in that case, Chavez should be declared “permanently absent”, and the head of the national assembly, Diosdado Cabello, would have to take over as president and call fresh elections. The opposition also claim that the swearing-in ceremony cannot be postponed, and that if Chavez continues on as president after 10 January it would be a “flagrant violation of the constitution”. Their strategy is to use their own interpretation of the constitution in order to try and depose Chavez on a technicality while the president-elect lies in Cuba struggling in post-surgery recovery.

Private media outlets have latched onto this argument, and misinformed about the Venezuelan constitution. In a highly misleading article, the Washington Post claimed that a delay in Chavez’s inauguration ceremony would be “a stretch of the constitution’s ambiguous wording”. Similar comments were made in other U.S. outlets, with Time arguing that Venezuela’s constitution is “a murky map that could send the western hemisphere’s most oil-rich nation into precarious governmental limbo this year”. Reuters argued that the Venezuelan government is “violating the constitution” and the country will be “left in a power vacuum”, and the BBC, which maintained a more reserved tone, still portrayed interpretations of the constitution as muddied debate between government and opposition.

However, Venezuela’s constitution is clear on the situation. The conditions under which a president can be declared permanently absent and new elections called are covered by article 233, and are, “death, resignation, destitution decreed by the Supreme Court, mental or physical incapacity certified by a medical council designated by the Supreme Court with the approval of the National Assembly, abandonment of the post, a popular recall of the mandate”.

Currently Chavez’s status is that of “absence from the national territory”, a status which is granted by the national assembly. This could eventually be declared a “temporary absence” from the presidency, which is granted by the national assembly for a period of ninety days, and can be extended for 90 further days, as outlined by articles 234 and 235 of the constitution.

What the opposition are trying to do is use article 231 of the constitution, which describes the presidential inauguration, to argue for Chavez’s deposal. The article states that the president elect “will assume their mandate on the 10th of January of the first year of their constitutional period, through a swearing-in ceremony in front of the National Assembly”. The opposition claim that Chavez’s inability to attend that ceremony means that he has not assumed his term and his “permanent absence” should be declared. However, as noted above, not being able to attend the inauguration ceremony is not considered a reason for “permanent absence” in the Venezuelan constitution, leaving the Venezuelan opposition without a constitutional leg to stand on.

Rather, this situation is dealt with by the second half of article 231, which states, “If for any supervening reason the president cannot take office in front of the National Assembly, s/he will do so before the Supreme Court”. No date is specified.

Venezuelan constitutional lawyer Harman Escarra, an opposition supporter who helped draft the 1999 constitution, explained in an interview with Venezuelan daily Ciudad CCS that constitutionally, even if the president can’t attend the 10 January ceremony, the new presidential term still begins, including the constitutional mandate of the president’s council of state, the vice-president, and government ministers. As such, he affirmed that in Venezuela “there isn’t a power vacuum”.

The constitutional lawyer further explained that under both the letter and spirit of article 231 of the constitution, “The President, from the point of view of sovereignty, is the President. There’s no other, and the mandate of the popular majority cannot not be overturned because of the issue of a date at a specific moment, because that would be to violate a sacred principle that is in article five of the constitution, which says that power resides in the sovereignty of the people”.

Therefore, it is erroneous for international media to report that Venezuela is entering a constitutionally ambiguous situation in which either the status of the president or the next constitutional step is not clear. Further, it is not only misleading, but dangerous to wrongly paint Chavez allies as looking to subvert the constitution to stay in power, when the opposition is trying to question the government’s constitutional legitimacy in order to provoke a political crisis and depose Chavez as president. The opposition is not the “critical” and “unbiased” democratic voice that the private media represent them as. Such reporting also displays a certain level of hypocrisy, as one can be sure that if the U.S. president or British prime minister were unable to assume a particular inauguration ceremony for health reasons, such outlets would not start casting doubt on their legitimacy, as they are currently doing with Chavez.

3) Should elections have to be called, they may not be “fair”**, and opposition leader Henrique Capriles has a good chance of winning

This third myth adds to the previous two to create the impression that the Bolivarian revolution is undemocratic. It is spouted by most private media, but especially media from the US, which rarely points out the utterly unfair conditions in which elections are held in its own country.

The Washington Post claimed that if Chavez were to die and new elections had to be called, “Chavez’s inner circle…may consider postponing the election or even calling it off”.

“That’s why the first responsibility of the United States and Venezuelan neighbors such as Brazil should be to insist that the presidential election be held and that it be free and fair**,” the WP said, and even suggested that “Mr Chavez’s followers or military leaders” might “attempt a coup”.

The US State Department has also called for any elections that Venezuela has to be “free and transparent”** and the Chicago Tribune in an article today said, “In October, Chavez vanquished his first serious challenger, Henrique Capriles, despite being too sick to campaign... Too sick to give speeches, he bought votes through political stunts like awarding a free government-built home to his 3 millionth Twitter follower.”

The Chicago Tribune’s statement is a lie; Chavez attended one to two huge rallies around the country in the month before the presidential elections, including one in Merida the authors of this article attended, as well as fulfilling his duties as president. And, of course there is no basis or need for these calls for “fair” elections. None of the private media will remind its readers of the 16 elections held over the last 14 years, that 81% of Venezuelans voluntarily turned out to vote in the October presidential elections, that Venezuela is building up participatory democracy through its communal councils, and that Venezuelans have access to completely free and widely available health care, education, and even to subsidised housing—basic conditions necessary for democracy to be practiced.

The Washington Post argued that the Venezuelan government “fears” free elections** because “a fair vote would be won by opposition leader Henrique Capriles, who lost the October presidential ballot but is more popular than Mr. Maduro.” This is wishful thinking, another example of the media mistaking its desire for reality. The opposition did not receive more votes than the governing PSUV in the recent 16 December regional elections, despite Chavez’s absence. The opposition is weak, divided, disillusioned after 14 years of losing election after election (except the 2007 constitutional referendum), has no street presence what so ever, and has no program or cause to unite around, beyond wanting power.

4) A split within the Chavista leadership between Maduro and Cabello is coming

This is another idea bandied about by the Venezuelan opposition and propagated by the international media. The notion, or hope, is that if the worst were to happen and Chavez were to die, Chavismo would immediately become divided among itself and fall apart. In particular, it is argued that national assembly president Diosdado Cabello would try to seize the presidential candidacy of the PSUV from Vice-president Nicolas Maduro. Some opposition figures appear to be actively encouraging this, with opposition legislator Maria Corina Machado demanding that Diosdado Cabello take power on 10 January and that “distrust” and “fear” exist between Cabello and Maduro.

On cue, always backed by vague “analysts” or “observers”, the international media has informed the public of, “A potential rift inside Chavismo between Maduro’s more socialist faction and that of the more pragmatic Cabello” (TIME), or, “Mr Cabello wields considerable power and is thought to harbour his own political ambitions” (BBC), and that, “Chavez's death or resignation could set off a power struggle within the party among Maduro, Cabello, Chavez's brother Adan and state governors” (LA Times).

Such commentary has been slammed by Maduro, Cabello and other leaders within Chavismo, who all stress the unity of different currents within the Bolivarian movement in the current difficult situation. Indeed, the scenario of a direct power grab by Cabello or any other figure within Chavismo of Maduro’s role as successor if Chavez cannot assume his presidential term is very unlikely. Just before Chavez flew off to Cuba for surgery in December, he told the nation that, “If such a scenario were to occur, I ask you from my heart that you elect Nicolas Maduro as constitutional president of the republic”. Chavez has such strong support and respect from among his followers that it would be almost unthinkable for another leader within Chavismo to publicly go against Chavez’s express wish that Maduro be his successor. Any attempt to usurp Maduro’s leadership and candidacy in fresh presidential elections would be seen as political suicide.

5) That the revolution is over without Chavez

Most private media have also subtly cast doubt that the revolution will continue without Chavez, suggesting that the leadership will collapse, that Venezuela is already in “economic chaos” and “disaster”, that Venezuela is living a political “crisis” right now, and that the revolutionary process can’t survive without Chavez. The Chicago Tribune said that, “Whoever ends up running Venezuela will preside over the mess Chavez made of a prosperous and promising nation” and there is now “high unemployment, record inflation and rampant crime”. This is despite Venezuela ending 2012 with 19.9% inflation, the lowest in years, and unemployment lower than the US.

The media is ignoring the fact that the country has been doing fine this last month without Chavez, that the PSUV leadership won 20 out of 23 states in the regional elections in December, without Chavez’s presence, that there is no crisis here; schools started again as normal today, the barrio adentro clinics are open, people are working, shopping, returning from Christmas season vacations, as normal. There is no panic buying, no looting, no political unrest.

Most importantly, the media is ignoring, is invisibilising the biggest factor there is; the people of Venezuela. Chavez isn’t just a person, or a leader, he represents a political project; of economic and cultural sovereignty, of Latin American unity, of freedom from US intervention, of all basic rights satisfied, and of participatory democracy. The majority of Venezuelans have showed their support for that project by turning out to vote en masse time and time again, including in elections in which Chavez wasn’t running, with voting rates generally increasing each year. In most other countries people would be tired and would have gotten over so many elections by now. Venezuelans have marched in the thousands and millions around the country again and again, not just to support electoral candidates, but to march for workers’ rights on May Day, as well as for other causes such as gay rights, defending journalists against violent attacks by the opposition, in support of various laws, and more. It was Venezuelans, en masse, who helped overturn the coup against Chavez in 2002.

The list of gains over the last 14 years is a long one. To mention just a few: complete literacy, broadly available and free university education, free healthcare centres in most communities, free laptops to primary school children, free meals for primary school children, subsidised food, subsidised books, increased street culture and street art, a range of new public infrastructure such as train lines and cable cars, laws supporting the rights of disabled people, women, and so on, government assisted urban agriculture, legalised community and worker organising, nearly a 1000 free internet centres, music programs, pensions for the elderly, and much more. These huge changes can’t be quickly reversed, and the Venezuelan people have every reason not to let them be.

Further, over the last 14 years, Venezuelans have woken up. They read and know their laws, everyone, even opposition supporters, spends hours each day debating and discussing politics and economics. Apathy still exists, but is way down. There is a political consciousness and depth that can’t be turned off overnight.

While it is true that after Chavez there will probably be bureaucracy, corruption, reformism, and some internal disagreements, these issues existed with him as a leader as well. Any change in political circumstances is an opportunity to bring these problems to the surface and to confront them.

The people of the Bolivarian movement are fighters, and are here to stay.

--

This work is licensed under a Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives Creative Commons license

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7595
(CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE, my emphasis)

[joshcryer]

41. That does not address Article 234.

And indeed, I read that Venezuela Analysis propaganda piece. It doesn't get to the nitty gritty of the matter and waffles a lot. It doesn't address the core issues.

[Occulus]

79. Said Orly Taitz while complaining about Obama's birth certificate

Yes, that's how you just sounded. Exactly.

Especially the part about "addressing the core issues". You could have been quoting one of her media statements.

[joshcryer]

80. Nice nasty insult to me.

Any substance to refute what I have said?

The TSJ already ruled. Maduro gets to have indefinite power and Chavez:

no debe considerarse que la ausencia del territorio de la República constituya automáticamente una falta temporal, sin que así lo dispusiere el jefe de Estado mediante decreto redactado para tal fin

ie, Chavez is absent only when Chavez decrees he is absent. Yes, the supreme court actually fucking said that. Really. They said that.

So spare me the nasty insults which assuredly expresses your character.

[Occulus]

85. I can't read Spanish myself and I won't trust a translator I already know to be biased

No, I won't go to Google translate either.

If you think I insulted you by pointing out that you- not the TSJ, but you- made comments which could easily have been said by someone generally regarded by thinking, reasoned people as being crazy as a shithouse rat (specifically, "addressing the core issue", a classic birther dodge we've all heard before, and no, for the record, I am not calling you a birther) is not my problem and not my concern.

[joshcryer]

86. Of course not, people who are nasty to me don't care about their nastiness.

That's just how they roll.

But you don't even give a shit to actually go verify what I say is true.

Fair enough.

I stand by my commentary even when someone pulls bullshit insults out of their ass to deflect from facts.

[Occulus]

89. Protip: if you're getting nastiness over this issue from people in general, and are getting it often

you should re-evaluate your position, because it probably means you're wrong, and people are getting the impression that you're wrong intentionally.

And I have gotten that impression from you, often, on this specific issue. That's why I won't trust your translation. I believe your position and arguments are ideological in nature, not based in facts, and driven primarily by emotion. Those are not strong bases upon which to build an argument. That you are taking this so personally, and thinking (wrongly) that I am insulting you, personally, only underscores that the impression I and others here are getting from your posts is in fact correct.

[joshcryer]

90. People who are nasty to me bring nothing to the table.

I would reevaulate my position if they actually brought substance to the table, but if all they have is nastiness, then what can I do?

You haven't said anything to change my mind, all you've done is insult me, and then somehow go on this defense of said insults acting as if insults are all that need be done. You already admitted you can't read Spanish and don't trust auto-translators (the auto-translate of that is atrocious, I admit, but mainly because the justice in question is a bumbling idiot and anyone who would say "Chavez is absent if Chavez declares he is absent" is a moron).

I take it "wrongly" that you are being nasty to me by comparing my simple statement to Orly Taitz? How the else fuck am I supposed to take it? It's not substantiative, it's admittedly drawn from ignorance, because you don't even care to verify what I say. No, I see it exactly what it is, ignorant nastiness in deluded defense of a corrupt system.

Nothing I have said is comparable to Taitz because Taitz makes shit up, I quoted the constitution, and I quoted the justice who said that idiocy. Taitz, like chavistas, relies on uncertainty, innuendo, and blatant lies, I simply state facts.

[polly7]

99. Sigh ........

and again!

[Judi Lynn]

91. I'm surprised a Latin America right-winger hasn't ridiculed you already for not speaking Spanish.

I was amazed to have that bag of poo launched at me repeatedly over the last few years, as if it's a crime to have an opinion on countries whose language you don't speak.

Odd, isn't it?

Wingers make their own reality, I'm sure you know.

[joshcryer]

94. Yeah, you care so much you can't be bothered to learn the language.

Nevermind that the US will be majority hispanic in a few short decades.

It's, of course, not a crime to be ignorant, but it's certainly annoying when one who can't understand what's going on somewhere insists on falsehoods as opposed to sitting down and trying to gather the facts. This is 2013, you can use a translator and determine if something is true or not.

It's also annoying when the regular Five Minutes Hate is trotted out accusing posters here who know more than you about Latin America as "right wingers."

[Judi Lynn]

48. Thanks for posting that information in your thread.

Anyone who doesn't have a deep conviction he/she knows what has been happening in
Venezuela should spend the time reading it from beginning to end.

To anyone who has doubts, still, any part of the information you've heard already which you have questions about, you can determine personally by spending a little time more researching it.

It won't take long before you really know what's behind the Chavez-hatred by "DU'ers" who always rush to attack progressives. With your own foundation of real information you gather on your own because it matters to you, you will never be fooled by the true crap being spread daily against any leftist leader.

It matters more than you may know. Hundreds of thousands of precious human beings have been tortured and destroyed in the Americas by US-supported, funded, backed, counseled, protected monsters. That is why throughout the Americas, any country which has started getting free of its former right-wing torture-happy, murderous dictators, or military juntas has bravely started bringing their former leaders to trial for their acts of extreme, hellish inhuman carnage and treachery against their own people.

It has always been hidden from us by our corporate media until years later, when the news finally starts getting out, bit by bit, getting exposure to the sunlight in our own country, long after the last screams of agony have died away, long after their loved ones have grieved and suffered perhaps for the rest of their lives.

Progressives KNOW what happens when the Americas are controlled from outside their own borders. Progressives do NOT want it to ever happen again, and work constantly to keep informed.

Thank you, Ken Burch. You know progressives support you, by now.

[polly7]

50. +1000 nt.

[JaneyVee]

3. I'm saving up all my gravedancing for Cheney's day.

[lunasun]

6. +1

[Ken Burch]

7. The Undead don't NEED graves, though. n/t.

[bluestate10]

10. Chavez is a dictator. There should be elections after he, as expected, dies.

I hate leftwing dictators as much as I have rightwing dictators. Populations should determine who they want to lead them in free and fair elections.

[Ken Burch]

11. He's no dictator...the man was just freely and fairly re-elected a few weeks ago.

He won because the people didn't WANT Capriles-they didn't want to go backwards. You've got to accept reality on that at some point.

It would be a tragedy for the poor of Venezuela if the PSUV were knocked out of power by the "moderate" Capriles...social progress and social change would stop dead in their tracks. And it would be disgusting to have U.S diplomats toasting the guy as a "model for the hemisphere"...that's always code for "he's our lapdog and will follow our orders blindly".

We don't need to have a repeat of Chile in September, 1973, here...and that's the only thing the Venezuelan Right can give that country.

[DonCoquixote]

12. amen, and if I might add

The Iranians would see a coup in Venezuela as "you are next!" Especially as the same rape of the nation we did in Iraq would be repeated, full bore. And let us not forget China, after all, they know who we are trying to keep the oil from.

[roody]

14. That is right wing bs.

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. Your statement that "Chavez is a dictator" is facially and ludicrously false.

Chavez was just RE-elected in a free and fair election. Stay away from the Fox News!

[JaneyVee]

49. Uh, Chavez has a 70% approval rating and was democratically elected by the people.

[joshcryer]

19. Translation: No progressives should care about following constitutions.

[Ken Burch]

22. That's not it...and it's not OUR country.

The people of Venezuela can interpret their Constitution as they see fit.

Americans have no right to interfere...especially since the intent of any outside interference is simply to end the Bolivarian Revolution and crush the poor.

The United States and its rulers have brought nothing but misery to Latin America...and we are obligated now to leave them alone as a result. We have nothing positive to say there. Our guilt is too deep.

[joshcryer]

23. I absolutely agree.

And I can observe when a constitution is being effectively burned.

Simply making that factual observation does not mean I am interfering.

[Scootaloo]

31. It's more of the usual, Ken

For all their vaunted progressivism, DU'ers still have some, uh.. .blind spots.

Take for instance, Alvaro Uribe. While I don't think any DU'ers are going to pat that fuck on the back and give him praise, I don't see as much hate for a far-right bloody-handed military dictator as I do for the clumsy leftist to the east of that guy.

Why is that? Is it because we expect it from the right and so don't comment on it as much as we do about a leftist who doesn't always pitch a perfect game? is it because we've been trained to think anyone who disdains the Americna empire is the "bad Guy"

Or is it something else? After all...




Come to think of it, DU'ers don't seem real keen on Evo Morales, either...

[Ken Burch]

39. NO, a lot of them don't.

For some reason, they still buy into the bullshit notion that the U.S. is entitled to set the limits of the political spectrum throughout the hemisphere(and possibly the world) and that when OUR government intervenes in other countries, it's always for purer and more "democratic" reasons than when any other regime does it.

They don't understand that they're abetting an imperial project when they accept that notion of how our government operates in the world. They need to read Latin American history...and they damn sure need to read Chomsky and Zinn.

A lot of these folks sound like the "New Republic" editors during the Reagan era(the ones whose unquestioning support of everything the Gipper did in Latin America made the phrase "even the liberal New Republic" one of Reagan's most frequently repeated lines)...obsessed with sounding just as "patriotic" as the Right.

They've swallowed the propaganda and they didn't even taste it going down.

[flamingdem]

55. Excellent point Scootaloo n/t

[Prometheus_unbound]

42. .

Would you object to any of these statements?

1) The "free" elections won by Chavez were significantly more flawed than those that elected Bush, in terms of vote buying, counting fraud, voter intimidation, client politics etc. . Never mind the constitutional term limit, or the fact that Chavez tried an unsuccessful army coup when he still was a military man.

2) The media in Venezuela are anything but free, what with the President's personal tv program and the attempts to close down rival tv stations.

3) In any democratic country, the health of the people's delegates is an important matter and should be granted full transparency.

Court intrigue is for monarchies. A decent country deserves better and there is no legitimate reason for trying to shut down those who'd like to know more.

[Ken Burch]

69. I'd object to ALL of them. Chavez won because the people support him.

Why can't you accept the fact that the voters really didn't WANT Capriles? It's not as though he's ever done anything all that special as governor. And he has no real charisma or any real program.

Venezuelans just don't want what you want them to want. They aren't conservatives. Why is that so hard to see?

[cali]

43. How dare YOU write this sanctimonious, coercive demand?

Who the hell do you think you are?

It's disgusting to see you trying to shut down any discussion of this situation. And by the way, I read the thread in LBN that inspired this crap and there were perhaps two comments that denigrated Chavez.

It's not YOUR place to tell anyone here what to talk about or how to talk about it.

[Ken Burch]

70. It's immoral to gloat about a democratically elected leader's possible death-in-office

and to use that democratically elected leader's health to scheme to return the right-wing(under Capriles)to power is demagogic and anti-democratic.

Some of us remember Chile in 1973, and Guatemala in 1954 and other episodes where the "well-meaning" U.S. caused misery in Latin America. Some of us recognize a whispering destabilization campaign when we see it.

It cannot be progressive or humane or honorable to spread rumors about Hugo Chavez health, or to claim he has died and his democratically-elected government is hiding the fact.

We have an obligation, out of simple hemispheric decency, to leave this alone. Destabilization is NOT "free speech".

[malaise]

44. It's truly sad

Only the greedy must be supported.

We are eternally grateful to Chavez for cheap oil

[flamingdem]

56. Truly. Many in New England survived nasty winters because of Hugo's generosity! n/t

[Ken Burch]

92. Many here in Alaska as well.

Chavez isn't "the Messiah", and nobody ever said he was...but he's done far more good than harm. I take his choices as a natural result of his experience of Latin American reality and history, and the collective experiences of his mass supporters as well.

[polly7]

51. +1 Thank you.

But this won't help. There are a few here who can't contain their hatred of him or the people who've voted him in time after time. They're desperately hoping his death may allow the right-wing losers some sort of second chance. It's ugly.

[Ken Burch]

97. Indeed...it's probably the most sickening thing I've ever seen on DU. n/t.

[polly7]

98. It really is, but the Venezuelan people are saying Enough!.

They very much miss Chavez' presence in their daily lives, and as disgusting as many of us see it as here, they're becoming increasingly enraged and indignant by the lack of humanity, sensitivity and respect for the president they consider as family.

All the opposition has left since the election is media noise, now they see this fantastic opportunity to create chaos and fear. I just read this morning his daughters lives have been threatened. F"ing buzzards. I hope their attempts end up very, vary badly for them.

[obamanut2012]

52. 100% correct

[flamingdem]

57. The Venezuelan supreme court has ruled in favor of postponing the inauguration

That said, their vice president is an appointed position so there will be an election should Hugo be incapacitated going forward. He has already given his support to his veep so he will likely win hands down.

[Ken Burch]

71. And the meme has already been started here on DU that such an election would ONLY be legitimate

if Maduro lost and Capriles won...because Capriles is apparently the ONLY acceptable Venezuelan leader in the eyes of Wall Street and the State Department.

This thread has been an amazing exercise in how right-wing propaganda is spread by "liberal" dupes, without those dupes ever seeing what they are doing.

[flamingdem]

72. Capriles is exactly what you have described

Many people think that whatever is good for the ole USA is good for humanity? Not much has changed in the last 100 years or longer -- as in Manifest Destiny, this time with oil.

[slackmaster]

58. It's their country and their Constitutional crisis

I hope they solve it without bloodshed.

[msanthrope]

65. Check the futures market on light crude. Now it becomes an international

crisis with only oil speculators making money.

[msanthrope]

61. I think Chavez is dead, Ken.

As in, incapable of thought, speech, or any rational intent. He might be on a respirator, but he's gone, Ken.

[joshcryer]

75. I think so too and I think his poor family is being manipulated.

If so they'll keep him on life support until his body literally gives out. It's tragic.

[msanthrope]

78. Well, I wish him what I would wish any human--dignity at passing.

And yes, I recognize that I made a Trekkie joke, but I do hope that his family is able to find peace with his passing.

[joshcryer]

81. If a doc says "he'll recover" few will pull the plug.

I can't imagine anyone pulling the plug if a doctor, an intelligent, respectable authority figure, tells you that your loved one is OK. And that's where I think the manipulation comes in.

[msanthrope]

84. "What will 'recovery' look like?" is a question few families will ask. Scary to contemplate

living in that state.

[joshcryer]

87. My dad was in that state.

We refused to pull the plug but somehow he did manage to recover (died a few years later though). A second doctor came in, said he needed to be off every drug he was given, and be given a very specific intravenous diet. I believed that doctor and if he had said "he needs to be on life support for 6 months" I would've kept at it. The second opinion saved his life. He was loaded with a dozen drugs and the effects were traumatic to be sure. Total fugue state at one point, recounting his childhood, thinking we were his childhood friends, etc.

It's a really draining experience, though. I feel for those at Chavez' side right now. I think eventually though the stress will drag them down to a point of wanting a second opinion.

[msanthrope]

63. Progressives shouldn't help Wall Street speculate on crude prices, either....but refusing to demand

an explanation for Hugo's health and being without a clear path to succession in VZ just helped the futures market jump the price of light crude....

CRVZVZBK--you keep an eye on that, watch how that jumps.

The quicker this is resolved, the less the money men on Wall Street make. Bet on it.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

66. If Cabello

is next in line to succeed Chavez if he were to die, then why did Chavez pick Maduro? Maduro does not seem to have any rights assigned constitutionally to him, so I'm not quite sure why having Maduro instead of Cabello would be acceptable constitutionally.

It would be as if Obama had picked Hilary Clinton to succeed him, although constitutionally the duty would fall on Biden.

In other words, how would that play constitutionally?

How long has the VZ Supreme Court granted for the delay in the oath process? And if Chavez were to indeed pass, doesn't the VZ Constitution require elections? Sorry, I'm confused and I admit I am not too familiar with the VZ Constitution. I appreciate any explanations.

[joshcryer]

76. Chavez called for new elections and said Maduro should be party head.

He didn't say that Maduro should take over the country without elections, in fact he explicitly called for new elections.

It would be similar to Obama endorsing Hillary in a primary or something. Though there's a difference. The Vice President in Venezuela only takes over in the last 2 years if the President dies, otherwise the Executive Vice-President takes over temporarily as they hold new elections. Of course, the OP doesn't want us to talk about this.

Chavez has 6 months to get better starting tomorrow. But Maduro's power grab is nothing but a coup. Unless Cabello takes over in that time, Maduro is doing a coup.

[Spider Jerusalem]

73. No-one outside Venezuela has a right to an opinion

it's a question for the Venezualan government and the people through their representatives to decide; does the constitution require new elections, or not? If the answer is "no" then Chavez can be sworn in when he's fit to be; if "yes" then Maduro or his other designated successor can take up the banner of the Bolivaran revolution and, probably, emerge victorious.

[joshcryer]

77. Everyone can say what they want as long as it's within the ToS of this site.

So please spare me the attempt to shut down discussion.

No one tried to shut down discussion over Lugo's ouster, did they?

[Spider Jerusalem]

82. Not trying to shut down discussion

And for what it's worth I'm not exactly an admirer of Chavez--I don't care for his choice in allies or his methods of stifling judicial independence and press dissent; I'm not so sure that "progressives", whatever that means, should support someone who's ready to get in bed with Iran and Syria and who has reporters locked up for "insulting the president", or who has a judge locked up for three years without trial because he doesn't like a decision. But leaving that to one side, I also think that the evidence shows that the elections in Venezuela were free, fair and democratic, and that the Venezuelan constitution appears to be clear that new elections are only necessary if Chavez is incapable of discharging the duties of his office; a postponement for health reasons seems reasonable enough, honestly, although if he's as ill as he appears he's more likely to have a mass than a swearing-in.

[joshcryer]

88. The question is shoud they keep his health secret indefinitely?

The supreme court ruled yes.

So the OP is a foregone conclusion.

[Ken Burch]

93. The Venezuelan government has issued daily reports on President Chavez' condition.

If he were dead or dying, they'd tell people...they wouldn't let it hit Venezuelans as a total shock.

[joshcryer]

95. Link me to todays report?

Thanks.

[mythology]

83. Wow

This is a really silly attempt to stifle debate because you disagree with others. There is zero evidence that people talking on a website, primarily filled with English speaking Americans is going to cause a coup in Venezuela.

Chavez has done some good things and some bad. Particularly on point for this discussion is that he called Bashar al-Assad "a humanist and a brother" and called Muammar Gaddafi "a great fighter, a revolutionary, and a martyr." Should he have refrained from commenting on the leadership of other countries?

Chavez likes to rile things up by saying outlandish things. In my experience that tends to bring some negative backlash.

Yes he's done good things in greatly reducing the poverty rate for example. But I suspect he's mostly been able to do that because of Venezuela's oil. But that comes with it some real significant dangers. Look at the troubles in the Middle East or what happens to a country when it's primary export falls in value or use.

Additionally as the Soviet Union showed, it can be relatively easy to make significant gains, but maintaining that over the long run can be difficult.