Several anonymous sources "have told me that they believe it is doubtful the dictator will live to see the results." (--from the OP)
This is absurd, and, quite frankly, I don't believe that Dan Rather wrote it (and, if he did, shame on you, Dan!).
Chavez is no more of a "dictator" than FDR was--who also got called a "dictator" by the rightwing assholes of his day.
The 1% don't like to pay their fair share. Haven't we learned that yet? And when the people manage to elect a leader who believes in fairness and who is not afraid to assert it, the 1% will do anything--anything!--to bring him down and furthermore to deny people the hope that, with grass roots effort, a real representative of the people can be elected and change things dramatically for the better. That latter target of the corpo-fascist "Big Lie" that Chavez is a "dictator" is us--you and me. They lie about Chavez and black-hole his supporters in so-called 'news' reports in order to hide the truth from us that (after we get rid of the corporate-run, 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines) WE can do the same! We can elect another FDR and vote ourselves another "New Deal."
Part of the Corporate Press "Big Lie" about Chavez is that it's all Chavez, you know, the "dictator"--not the fabulous organizers and tireless political volunteers at the grass roots level; it's not the poor; it's not the people demanding fairness and working for fairness--it's just this one guy--and that way, they can pummel and slander and lie through their teeth about Venezuela and the truly incredible, historic, leftist democracy movement that Venezuelans inspired throughout South America and into Central America, with leftist governments elected in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Nicaragua and other places--all working closely with the Chavez government to expand democracy and social justice throughout the region.
They don't want you to know this--that ordinary people did this. They so badly don't want you to know it that they have created a very special "Big Lie" campaign--part of the lie being that Chavez is the only actor in Venezuela--that has been going on now, throughout the Corporate Press with no exceptions, since 2002 and RCTV's and the Bushwhacks' failed coup against the elected Chavez government.
They couldn't bring him down with a coup (because the Venezuelan people poured into the streets, in the tens of thousands, and convinced the loyal part of the military to stop it), nor with an oil bosses' strike (to destroy Venezuela's economy), nor with a USAID-funded recall election (Chavez won it, hands down), nor with any other traditional method of destroying LatAm democracies, thus the slander campaign--unbelievably intense, day in, day out, suspiciously uniform and monotonous in its negative headlines and bullshit 'news' stories, and very long lasting--going on for a decade now.
Another part of their "Big Lie" campaign is to NEVER tell you the REASONS that people have voted overwhelmingly for the Chavez government, over several elections. They NEVER tell you that Chavez government policy has cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by over 70%, has wiped out illiteracy in Venezuela, and recently earned designation as "THE most equal country in Latin America" on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. They NEVER tell you that Chavez government spending policy--completely opposed to "austerity"--drove Venezuela's economic growth rate to 10% and above, over a five year period (2003 to 2008) and is now back up to 7% despite the Bushwhack-instigated Depression that has hit us and Europe.
Never! Not one word! Are Venezuela voters stupids? That's what they want you to believe. Actually, they don't want you to think at all about Venezuela voters. They want you to think that Chavez somehow installed himself. They want you to think "dictator"--not genuinely popular, not FDR-like, not responsive to the people, not doing the will of the people, not grass roots organizing and transparent vote counting can produce change for the better, not the poor rising up and peacefully electing and re-electing a good government and defending it when the Bushwhack-supported asshole fascists tried to bring it down. Chavez elects himself and "dictates" to Exxon Mobil. Oops! No, they don't want you to know what Chavez did to Exxon Mobil, cuz most of us would agree with it. (Half the oil profits for education and other helps to poor, and, if Exxon Mobil doesn't like it, they can lump it--which they did; they walked out of the negotiation.) (And the gap was soon filled by many other oil companies, anxious for the business.) They don't want you to think about US having a president like that.
Absurd and funny. This "dictator"--Chavez--subjecting himself to the judgment of the voters, in an election system that is far, FAR more honest and transparent than our own?
"...it is doubtful the dictator will live to see the results." LOL!
This report has every indicator of disinformation. It is a type-case of rumor-mongering, from "the highly respected source close to Chavez" to the "danger" that this anonymous source supposedly faces if his or her name should be used, to the piling on of sources--"several sources," all of them anonymous, all facing "danger."
Really, it's laughable. Did Karl Rove write this and put it out under Dan Rather's name as a dirty trick?
This is the smell.
-------------------
Is it true (that Chavez is in the "end stage of cancer"
? This odorous report makes it seem unlikely. It's so very like Rovian tactics to depress voters, make them stay home. (But also very amateurish--for instance, letting the word "dictator" stay in there.) I just saw a vid of Chavez taken during a live broadcast of a meeting, two weeks ago. The meeting lasted several hours, all before the cameras. He looked happy, healthy and well--and energetic. He did NOT look like a man "in the end stage of cancer." There has not been even the slightest whisper that this live broadcast was somehow faked. A man enduring "the end stage of cancer" would not likely have been able to look so well for such a long period of time.
The government secrecy about the details of his illness and treatment does not necessarily mean that it's far advanced or fatal. The government could have MANY reasons for such secrecy other than that the illness is fatal. For instance, they wouldn't want economic indicators to be bouncing up and down over every medical report, and over every medical prognosticator's pronouncements (especially those of the corpo-fascist media). Denying them details possibly curtails such speculation and rightwing obsessiveness (or they thought it would). There are other political and security considerations as well. The secrecy is not surprising and simply doesn't tell us much. Also, Chavez may have personally requested privacy. (He said, early on, that it's in his pelvic region--and perhaps he just doesn't want crude jokes told about him--people leering over his penis or whatever.)
Having said all this, I have to say that it's POSSIBLE that he is dying. What if it's true? What will happen in Venezuela?
The same thing will happen in Venezuela that would happen in ANY democracy, in similar circumstances. They have laws for this, like we do and like everybody does. How can anybody think that there would be another coup d'etat, after what happened the last time? Venezuelans simply wouldn't put up with it, nor would the military, nor would the many other leftist leaders in other South American countries who have been elected since 2002. Furthermore, Venezuela is in fact a very stable country. Chavez has provided them with the most stable government they've had for half a century. Citizen participation is at its highest level. Venezuelans rate their own country one of the highest in the world on their own well-being and future prospects. They are the most equal country in Latin America. Equality fosters stability. There is no reason to think that fascist elements within or outside of Venezuela would succeed in another coup plot, if they are foolish enough to be hatching one.
There are several scenarios that could occur. Chavez dies soon, months before the election. Chavez dies close to the election, or days after the election, or some time after the election. If he dies and there is time to nominate another Leftist candidate and change the ballot, I would expect that there is a law providing for that, as for these other possibilities, and possibly a law for postponing the election to allow time for Chavez's party to nominate a new candidate and for that candidate to have a campaign (although this is a Constitutionally timed election--and I don't know if there is a law permitting postponement). If Chavez lives through the election and wins the election (as he probably would) but dies soon afterward, his vice president (Elías Jaua) would become president.
Elías Jaua: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El%C3%ADas_Jaua
There are also other strong leaders to take up Chavez's mantel, if there is a primary contest for the presidential nomination. And, finally, Venezuela's Electoral Commission is surely prepared for any eventuality. They are one of the best in the world, repeatedly lauded by all the major international election monitoring groups. There will be no disruption. There will be no coup. And any efforts to sow confusion or to destabilize Venezuela, if Chavez dies, will be firmly squelched. The rule of law will prevail. The truth is that Chavez has created a good, beneficial, stable government, and stable institutions, in a stable and prosperous country that has been set firmly on a progressive path--all the crapola from the corpo-fascist media to the contrary notwithstanding. Most people here will be amazed by how smoothly such a transition goes, because they have been thoroughly disinformed and brainwashed about Venezuela.
What will happen with Capriles, the rightwing candidate, if Chavez dies before or around the election? I just read a report on polls that gave Chavez a 20% to 30% lead over Capriles. I don't know if all polls confirm such a big lead but Chavez likely has the edge by a comfortable margin. I doubt that his death could elect Capriles--but even if it did, so what? Capriles is a tool of big business and the rich, and probably of the far right agents of the 2002 coup, and probably also a tool of the U.S. and its transglobal corporate rulers. He is similar to Sebastian Pinera in Chile, a sort of "wolf in sheep's clothing," who, once people get on to his real policies, plunges to a 25% approval rating. That will likely be Capriles' fate--he will be a lame duck for the latter half of his term, due to unpopularity. Capriles could do some damage to Venezuela in a six year term. But do remember that Venezuelans voted themselves the constitutional right to recall the president. Also, the popularly elected National Assembly will likely limit the damage he can do.
Many people have been given the very false impression that Chavez turned the presidency into a "dictatorship," that he could do whatever he wanted to, that he exercised arbitrary power and that a new president would step into a "dictator"'s position. These things are simply not true. Chavez is popular and powerful in much the same way that Roosevelt was popular and powerful. Roosevelt had to submit his programs to a popularly elected congress, just as Chavez has had to do. Among these powers was the power to curtail the banksters, for instance. (Don't we wish we still had it.) Venezuela's popularly elected National Assembly VOTED to give Chavez certain time-limited and project-limited powers to solve a drastic housing problem caused by flooding, for instance. Such powers are COMMON in LatAm countries and bear the unfortunate title of "powers of decree." Lula da Silva exercised such powers in Brazil to protect a wide swath of the Amazon for an uncontacted indigenous tribe. Projects like re-building an entire town, or protecting a swath of the Amazon, are complicated, fraught with many decisions and difficulties, take a lot time and require executive authority on numerous kinds of issues. Many LatAm legislatures turn such projects over to the president and say, "Do it!"
And the legislatures can rescind such powers at any time. Chavez, like FDR, was blessed with a politically compatible legislature because the people voted for the legislators!. Was FDR a "dictator" and the "New Deal" a "dictatorial" program because FDR and Congress (both elected by the people) were in agreement on it? The 1% certainly thought so. They couldn't accept how totally and completely their misrule had been rejected (and have been working hard ever since to deny us that right). To them, FDR was a tyrant. To most Americans, FDR was just doing the job he was elected to do. It is the same with Chavez. Venezuelans have overwhelmingly supported his program.
But Capriles, should he somehow win by default, won't have a compatible legislature unless he somehow fools the Chavista legislators into introducing voting machines run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and largely controlled by one, private, far rightwing-connected corporation, as we have here. Then, eventually, he will have a legislature like our current Diebold Congress. But that is very, very unlikely to happen in Venezuela. Venezuelan voters are orders of magnitude smarter than our own, and they don't have political party leaders like ours who help the rightwing do their worst.
I wish Hugo Chavez well. He has helped to create a LASTING revolution, by being RESPONSIVE to the people who elected him and changing Venezuela for the better with courage and determination. The Bolivarian Revolution will survive him because it was created by, and always has been about, the people of Venezuela, not about him. I think he knows this, and Venezuelans know it. It is THEIR revolution. And it is, in many ways, also Latin America's revolution, taken as a whole--the revolution of the vast poor majority throughout the region. It will reverberate through history for centuries to come. It is very like our own revolution, in its ability to inspire others. Some day--hopefully soon--our people will recognize it as such. Maybe then we will recover our own "New Deal" and the democratic ideals of 1776, and of so many social movements following 1776, that made the "New Deal" possible.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
