Captain's Quarters -

... wonders why his colleagues on the Left haven't made the same decision...

Oh, that's easy!

1. They're idiots

2. They're closet totalitarians who believe that a "benevolent" dictatorship is the best way to give health care to everybody and stick it to "the rich"

3. See #1

For all supporters of democracy, here are some quotes by and about Hugo and his democratic friends, courtesy of Caracas Chronicles blog.
(I Googled them all to verify the quotes, but to save space, have not linked them.)
Chávez on Mugabe:
“You are and always will be a true warrior of freedom."

Ahmedinejad on Chávez :
“I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chavez."

Chavez on Bashar Assad:
“We have the same political vision.”
(the same vision as other visitors to Damascus, such as Nancy Pelosi and David Duke?)

Chavez on Belarus caudillo Lukashenko:
“Here, I've got a new friend and together we'll form a team, a go-ahead team."

Chavez on Gaddafi of Libya:
“friend and brother.” ( El Universal- translation cited in Wikipedia)

Chavez on Fidel:
“ I am only a soldier in this battle. Fidel is our president. If we had to name a president of the world with enough powers to set it right, it would be Fidel. I believe in one decade he could set the world right.” ( BBC Spanish 9-16-06. I verified Caracas Chronicles Translation.)

Here is some indication that it may be an uphill battle for El Chavez to win the referendum.
http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2007/08/political-terra-incognita.html
For those who believe in the integrity of Chavez-run elections, here is a link to an article in the International Statistical Review.
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200702221623
(link on:A statistical approach to assess referendum results: The Venezuelan recall referendum 2004) .Abstract in International Statistical Review is at website for International Statistics Institute.

Stalin, Mao, Fidel, now Chavez..
What is the difference?
The Left always adores icons.

Doc J

The majority of them may be idiots...of the "useful" variety. But the "leaders" are actually pretty smart cookies. Commie shysters who should be s*** on sight...but smart cookies nonetheless. You just have to remember what their GOAL is…

Just the fact that they are using “health care” as the battering ram is brilliant. They could try using “transportation” --- growing up near Detroit, every family had at least two cars. Even the “poor families”. Everyone “needs” a car to survive…and a house, right?

No. The fact that they are putting all their eggs in the “health care” basket is going to prove that they are not idiots. Everyone “needs” health care. Ever since reading Atlas Shrugged, I get queasy when a politician (or other shyster) bemoans the “needs” of the people. But these shysters have found the golden goose…we’ll be pounded over the head about the “need” for “health care”…until they finally get it. Then they can move on to the next “need”.

Where are the Capt Q, regular liberal posters who, just a few days ago, were coming on to this site and declaring equivalence between Hugo's actions and FDR's lack of term limits? Hmmm?

You trolls are so selective in your participation in discussions on this site, your transparency is really quite amusing. But not surprising.

There's hope for everyone! Now if the liberals can take another look at the radical Islamic jihadists, and decide that their theocratic government is not correct, that their imprisonment and repression of women is not correct, that their hanging of gays is not correct, that...

The enemy of my enemy may be my friend, but what if the enemy (Western paternalistic imperialism) is not the worst enemy? You are judged by the company you keep, and the liberals are keeping company with vicious tyrants and radical religious murderers. They certainly do need to keep taking hard looks into the mirror.

Let’s not give Koogler a lot credit just yet. Remember that “He thought that Chavez intended to help the poor and downtrodden and made excuses for his tough tactics as a necessary interlude towards a better society.” He is still addicted to the “dream” and is quite willing to look the other way as his latest socialist hero breaks a few eggs to make a better society. All this means is that he has been disillusioned one more time. However, he is still playing a believing Charlie Brown to the socialist Lucy when it comes to socialism. When I see him saying that the concept is wrong then I will cheer. Until then I will consider him a fool to be exploited by the next “man of the people.”

History shows us that whenever a committed leftist amasses power, it's only a matter of time before those opposing the noble leftist start getting shot.

Because the ideas the noble leftist has for making life "fair" (for him and his leftwing cabal, at least), will destroy the economy.

And whom exactly will the noble leftist blame? Why, it must be those dirty kulaks, wreckers, sabatoeurs, "capitalists", the boogey man and other leftwing hallucinations. Line them up against the wall and shoot them and our precious little Marxist vision will come true.

100 million people died at the hands of "noble leftists" during the 20th Century. But there are still people stupid enough to believe in the myth of the noble leftist politician. Good to see one guy has figured it out, but that still leaves billions who are unenlightened.

This is what all socialist/communist leaders. Simply by reading history one can know this and also know that Chavez's system is going to fail. I applaud this guy for recognizing it now but it's really not that hard to have seen what socialist dictators do for their countries.

Of course, this is nothing new. But Jeb does get this right: it is a grave mistake to overlook tyranny or authoritarianism even when it is couched in the rhetoric of liberal reform and social justice. The 'couching' is transparent to the right, but it's impenetrable for many leftist. You would think in that Charlie Brown moment, laying flat on the ground after the foootball has been pulled out from them for the upteenth time, that the light would come on. Oh well. For some, it has.

How anyone could have ever been duped by Chavez in the first place is beyond comprehension. What an idiot and a fool to boot, to only now be recognizing Chavez for what he is...

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton's observation is as true today as it was over a century ago.
It is interesting to me that these left-wing thinkers are so enraged by what they see as the Bush Administration's power grab, yet excuse Chavez's actual elimination of civil liberties.

While having his moral crisis, did he notice that his economic and social reform is taking food OUT of the hands of the Venezuelan poor?

jerry wrote (August 17, 2007 7:16 AM):

Let’s not give Koogler a lot credit just yet. Remember that “He thought that Chavez intended to help the poor and downtrodden and made excuses for his tough tactics as a necessary interlude towards a better society.” He is still addicted to the “dream” and is quite willing to look the other way as his latest socialist hero breaks a few eggs to make a better society.

Excellent point. Libs / socialists / commies (are they really that different from each other?) always excuse the failure of their utopian idols by saying, "Well, if only the RIGHT people were running it"... when they don't blame dirty capitalists for undermining everything (Cuba would be EVEN MORE of a socialist workers' paradise if not for the eeeeevil US embargo). Socialism / communism NEVER fails because it's an unworkable system that completely ignores human nature.

Koogler said this back in March:

"Schneider's main argument is that expanding our aid program in Latin America would be a very smart policy decision. I couldn't agree with him more…a serious change in US policy towards the region would have a major effect in undermining leaders like Chavez and Castro."

I guess this is back when he was "defending" Chavez. Usually, when you "defend" someone you do not want to undermine them. Koogler being a Chavez defender is similar to O'Hanlon being an Iraq war critic. Very funny.

It's very impressive that the Captain found some 19 year old student at Brown University who claims he changed his mind about Chavez, but I doubt it will have much impact. I think my 13 year old neighbor decided she likes Chavez. I'll tell her to write an article.

Jeb is a member of the Salsa club at Brown. He sounds like a fun guy.

I have found great pleasure in seeing Chavez kicking the old oligarchy to the curb in Venezuela.

In Central and South America - the poor, the slums are all a result of concentration of vast wealth in the hands of a corrupt few.

That being said, what has still yet to be seen is a socialist leader who isn't infected with a malignant narcissism that goes on to destroy what, at it's inception, may have been a worthy reform effort.

From WaPO, June 6, 2001 (District Term Limits Tossed;
Council Reverses Voters' Decision In Referendum):

“The D.C. Council repealed term limits for the city's elected officials yesterday, rejecting the restrictions that 62 percent of District voters approved in a 1994 referendum. It marked the first time that an elected body has overturned a term-limits initiative without the consent of voters, said Paul Jacob, national director of U.S. Term Limits, an organization that supports term-limit laws at the national, state and local levels.”

A dictatorship in Washington DC! Wow! At least in Venezuela there will be a vote on the term limits. Washington DC has taken this dictatorship thing to a new level!

From NY Times, December 4, 2005 (Council Wants To Extend Term Limits):

“Twelve years after New York City voters adopted term limits for many of their local officials, the City Council is poised to allow its members to serve one more term, -- without asking voters how they feel about changing the term limits law.”

Dictatorship in NY City as well! Without asking voters! It’s spreading!

France does not have term limits. I guess they are already a dictatorship.

Many argue that term limits are undemocratic:

“Term limits are fundamentally undemocratic. You and I -- as citizens in a free society -- should have the right to vote for (or against) nearly anyone we want to. But term limits eviscerate this right and do so in a very surgical way.”
San Diego Union Tribune, July 28, 2006

“Term limits are a noxious weed - attractive to some but a weed nevertheless - in the garden of American politics…But the idea of term limits has been around since the founding of our country, which means its pros and cons have been studied for a very long time - long enough, certainly, to draw the conclusion that term limits, generally, are a bad idea. They are because they are unnecessary, harmful and fundamentally undemocratic.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 10, 2006

“Term limits are simply undemocratic. Voters should be able to choose any eligible resident of their districts they want to represent."
Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), Feb. 28, 2001

From WaPO, June 6, 2001 (District Term Limits Tossed;
Council Reverses Voters' Decision In Referendum):

“The D.C. Council repealed term limits for the city's elected officials yesterday, rejecting the restrictions that 62 percent of District voters approved in a 1994 referendum. It marked the first time that an elected body has overturned a term-limits initiative without the consent of voters, said Paul Jacob, national director of U.S. Term Limits, an organization that supports term-limit laws at the national, state and local levels.”

A dictatorship in Washington DC! Wow! At least in Venezuela there will be a vote on the term limits. Washington DC has taken this dictatorship thing to a new level!

From NY Times, December 4, 2005 (Council Wants To Extend Term Limits):

“Twelve years after New York City voters adopted term limits for many of their local officials, the City Council is poised to allow its members to serve one more term, -- without asking voters how they feel about changing the term limits law.”

Dictatorship in NY City as well! Without asking voters! It’s spreading!

France does not have term limits. I guess they are already a dictatorship.

Many argue that term limits are undemocratic:

“Term limits are fundamentally undemocratic. You and I -- as citizens in a free society -- should have the right to vote for (or against) nearly anyone we want to. But term limits eviscerate this right and do so in a very surgical way.”
San Diego Union Tribune, July 28, 2006

“Term limits are a noxious weed - attractive to some but a weed nevertheless - in the garden of American politics…But the idea of term limits has been around since the founding of our country, which means its pros and cons have been studied for a very long time - long enough, certainly, to draw the conclusion that term limits, generally, are a bad idea. They are because they are unnecessary, harmful and fundamentally undemocratic.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 10, 2006

“Term limits are simply undemocratic. Voters should be able to choose any eligible resident of their districts they want to represent."
Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), Feb. 28, 2001

Thanks, Dave for injecting a bit of reality and context . I really have to marvel at the level of stupidity and malice that prevades many of the comments here. Who the F**k is Jeb Koogler, anyway? Even if he did (in his microscopic little corner of the blogosphere) support Chavez's growing dicatorial tendencies, who gives a FAT RAT'S ASS, apart from the rabid rightwing partisans here and at LGF, who seem to always be at the ready to vent their faux outrage and advocate the "shooting on sight" of all traitorous commie-pinko-liberals, based on the real, imagined or misrepresented scribblings of some obscure college student. SWJOTC, people. Please get some psychiatric counseling. Fast.

For all supporters of democracy, here are some quotes by and about Hugo and his democratic friends, courtesy of Caracas Chronicles blog.
(I Googled them all to verify the quotes, but to save space, have not linked them.)
BTW, El Chávez ‘s proposed constitutional changes keep term limits for everyone else except El Chávez.
El Chávez on Mugabe:
“You are and always will be a true warrior of freedom."

Ahmedinejad on El Chávez :
“I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chavez."

El Chávez on Bashar Assad:
“We have the same political vision.”
(the same vision as other visitors to Damascus, such as Nancy Pelosi and David Duke?)

El Chávez on Belarus caudillo Lukashenko:
“Here, I've got a new friend and together we'll form a team, a go-ahead team."

El Chávez on Gaddafi of Libya:
“friend and brother.” ( El Universal- translation cited in Wikipedia)

El Chávez on Fidel:
“ I am only a soldier in this battle. Fidel is our president. If we had to name a president of the world with enough powers to set it right, it would be Fidel. I believe in one decade he could set the world right.” ( BBC mundo 9-16-06. I verified Caracas Chronicles Translation.)

Oh, dear! Looks like "dave", "R.Mutt" and the rest of the Kool-Aid Krowd want to repossess Koogler's tinfoil cap. This could get ugly.

But - give credit where it is due. Good work, dave & R.Mutt!. The part about tossing those who disagree with them into psychiatric “hospitals” came straight from Stalin’s playbook. Old Joe is smiling up at you today!

Chavez is almost not worth the electrons expended on this page. He is the continuation of a 500+ year history of failed development due to oligarchic statism. It goes back to pre-colonial culture. The fundamental problem in Latin America is not a choice between "capitalism" and "socialism." It is really one of who controls the levers of power, the monied aristocracy or the radical revolutionaries. Unfortunately, neither has the interests of the middle class and poor in mind. BTW (htp: Neal Boortz), the BBC reports that Chavez's "reforms" include "bringing in a maximum six-hour working day." I guess Chavez thinks Venezuela is France, on steroids. What a maroon.

We don't hate America. We hate your version of America. The bitter and very deluded view that George Bush will keep you safe and will protect your money and home, etc.

These blanket assertions that ALL liberals support Chavez has no basis in fact. That a few Hollywood types have cozied up to him means little to most of us. Why do you ass-u-me we all take direction from the entertainment industry. We could as likely ass-u-me you take direction from talk radio...oops, bad example, never mind.

The fact that you bring up "talk radio" on a thread about Chavez...causes lol.

If people in talk radio advocated for the "improvements" that Chavez champions...they'd be torn to shreds on this blog.

Where are your lefty pals who have the stones to call a spade a spade vis-à-vis Chavez or the Hollywood nitwits? I think that's the point of CE post.

Have another swill of the Koolaid.

@Hugh Beaumont

I enjoyed seeing you in "Leave It To Beaver," but didn't you die a couple of decades ago?

'The fundamental problem in Latin America is not a choice between "capitalism" and "socialism." It is really one of who controls the levers of power, the monied aristocracy or the radical revolutionaries. Unfortunately, neither has the interests of the middle class and poor in mind.'

That was more true 50 years ago than it is today. Chile and Peru would disagree with you.

A thought problem for our liberal friends.

Take any of these articles on Chavez's move toward dictatorship and substitute "George W Bush" for Chavez, and substitute "the United States" for references to Venezuela. Would your response to the situation remain the same or would it change?

If your response stays the same, then you are consistent. If your response changes, you are not. The response on the right side of the blogosphere would be consistent.

"You can lead a liberal to knowledge, but you cannot make him think."

MikeDevxPatriot wrote: "There's hope for everyone! Now if the liberals can take another look at the radical Islamic jihadists, and decide that their theocratic government is not correct, that their imprisonment and repression of women is not correct, that their hanging of gays is not correct, that... "

Recall that prior to Bush, there was quite an outcry from the left/fem/gays crowd regarding Islamic treatment of owmen, gays, etc.

Ironic (hypocritical is far more the appropriate word) isn't it how now those are just "cultural differences" now?

Sick puppies...really SICK.

R Mutt said: "apart from the rabid rightwing partisans here and at LGF, who seem to always be at the ready to vent their faux outrage and advocate the "shooting on sight" of all traitorous commie-pinko-liberals, based on the real, imagined or misrepresented scribblings of some obscure college student."

Beyond the idiocy of the hyperbolic histrionics of this post, I might remind R Mutt that the outrage is not faux and that no one here is advocating vigilante shooting on sight. Take a pill and relax, my friend. The comments here come from the experience of years and knowledge of history. Marxist redistribution of wealth, especially under a dictatorship, does not work; it only spreads the misery.

This is all well and good, but -- like always -- it has happened too late to be of any good to the victims. Liberals forever keep regretting the results of their own policies, rather than showing any kind of sane analysis before savage tyranny has been established. Their national anthem ought to be, "Oops! I Did It Again."

If you substituted the name of anyone of numerous "intellectuals" for Koogler, and the name Lenin or Stalin for Chavez, it reads like numerous articles that were published in this country, and elsewhere, between 1917 and 1960.

Bill M:
“The response on the right side of the blogosphere would be consistent.”

Really? I like your comment very much about turning a situation around and looking at it from the opposite point of view. I do it constantly. It’s good to hear someone on the right does it as well. So maybe you could answer a question I have asked several times on this blog, and never received an answer to.

Here’s a hypothetical. Communists get elected into power in the US, and stay in power for 40 years. During that time, all of the Supreme Court justices end up getting appointed by the Commies, and of course, they appoint all Commies to the Court. Finally, a Republican gets elected. The Commies freak out because they lost, so they decide to regain power by staging a violent coup attempt. Their coup attempt fails, and many of those responsible end up before the Supreme Court, which is still full of Commies. The Supreme Court Commie judges decide that instead of following the law, they will protect their Commie friends who plotted the coup and decide that the people who tried to violently overthrow the president cannot be tried for any crime. Obvious and blatant corruption. What is the correct action for the new Republican president to take in this situation in regards to the actions of the Supreme Court?

Hypothetical number 2. Some of these Commie coup plotters were in charge of CBS, and were vital to the execution of the coup attempt. So vital, in fact, that when the Commie president briefly took charge of the presidency of the US, the first thing he did was to thank CBS. What would be an appropriate course of action to take against the CBS president and the CBS network?

I look forward to your honest reply.

Here’s the nut of it: If Koogler is really has open minded as his writings here seem to suggest, then perhaps in some point in the not so distant future he will actually address the question of where leftist policies have taken root, where the like of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, etc, didn’t end up being the result.

Yeah, sure he will.

Here’s a hypothetical. Communists get elected .....

Dave,

Please be serious. Given your hypothetical, a Republican (Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, etc.) would never be elected. It is unlikely in the extreme that "communists" would ever allow a real election. Instead, you would see the usual "democratic people's republic election" with one choice and a 99+% turnout ratio, with all the votes going to the "communist". You know that as well as anyone.

And before you start in on all the elections the "communists" have allowed where they have been voted out of power (perhaps a handfull or so - don't have time or inclination to research it), in none of those possible cases had the conditions of your hypothetical been met or even remotely approached.

"You can lead a liberal to knowledge, but you cannot make him think."

"Here’s a hypothetical. Communists get elected into power in the US, and stay in power for 40 years. During that time, all of the Supreme Court justices end up getting appointed by the Commies, and of course, they appoint all Commies to the Court. Finally, a Republican gets elected."

1. Likelihood of Communists being elected: 0.01%. But, in that miniscule possibility:

2. There would be no Supreme Court once they took power (except perhaps in name only).

3. There would be no more elections.

4. Communists would destroy the country.

5. Revolution or anarchy would ensue and maybe something good would result in the end.

Note: See USSR for example of above (of course, the Bolsheviks skipped step 1 and the jury is still out on step 5). See Cuba for example of above currently at step 4 (also skipped step 1). See Venezuela for example of above currently at the beginning of step 4 (did step 1 first time & cheated the second time, all under the banner of "Bolivar Socialism" – wink, wink).

Bill M:
I bet myself a million dollars you would be unable to answer my question, despite your claims of being open-minded. I won.

"the conditions of your hypothetical been met or even remotely approached"
I have received this type of response before. People on the right have no idea what the word hypothetical means. Even if you do not beleive a situation can happen, you can still answer the question. For example, I'll ask myself a hypothetical question:

Q. Would you rather have sex with Angelina Jolie or Jessical Beil?

A. Jessica Beil.

See. I think it is impossible that this situation will ever come up, but I was able to answer the question. It's a hypothetical question.

You don't want to answer it because you know your response will prove my obvious point.

So when you say "If your response stays the same", I can honestly answer that if any of the situations that have happened in Venezuela happened in the US, I would both expect and understand much harsher reactions from the US government than what Chavez reaction to the situation was. For example, in response to hypothetical 2, I think this statement from the LA Times comes very close to describing what would happen in the US:

"The U.S. government probably would have shut down [CBS] within five minutes after a failed coup attempt — and thrown its owners in jail.”

(From May 30, 2007)

I would have no problem with this reaction. In comparison, what CHavez did was far less benign. He waited5 years until the station license was up for renewal, and simply did not renew it. As far as the individual involved, he did not go to jail. Actually, none of the coup plotters went to jail. If a coup attempt happened in the US, do you think the plotters would go to jail? I think they would. They would probably be executed. But Chavez decides to not renew a station license (something the US has done 100 times for much less of a reason than a coup attempt), and he is pure evil to people on the right. And you claim people on the right are objective. Complete bullshit.

"You can lead a liberal to knowledge, but you cannot make him think."
I cannot find a single fact you have presented on this thread. What about the reverse? I presented you with a couple quotes about how two city governments in the US changed term limit laws against the will of the voters. I have led you to some knowledge. So what do you think? (Answer = Commies suck).

"the conditions of your hypothetical been met or even remotely approached"

Referring to ths paragraph:

And before you start in on all the elections the "communists" have allowed where they have been voted out of power (perhaps a handfull or so - don't have time or inclination to research it), in none of those possible cases had the conditions of your hypothetical been met or even remotely approached.

not you hypothetical.

Since you asked for a "response" here it is.

Given the situation you present (part 1), the president has no choice but to honor the decision of the court.

In part 2, I can see no way the network could be legally shutdown, but it is quite likely the owners would have run afoul of the law. I'd expect them to be arrested for those violations.

All of this pre-supposes that a president would have some support from the other parts of the system (presumably the FBI) and lower courts (for obtaining indictments, warrants, etc.).

"The U.S. government probably would have shut down [CBS] within five minutes after a failed coup attempt — and thrown its owners in jail.” -- LA Tmes

Conjecture on their part, driven by an unmitigated bias against Republicans in general and the Bush Administration in particular.

Yes, Chavez showed "remarkable restraint". It couldn't be, of course, that he wasn't yet in a position to do what he may well have wanted to do. Consolidation of power not yet complete.

From a prior thread and this one:

The references to France, US before Truman, etc. regarding no term limits is immaterial. Those are/were the conditions in place in those govenrmental systems.

For those other governmental systems where term limits have been changed, the people have recourse through the courts, if the original measures had the force of law and did not contain conditions where this could be done by the councils/governments, etc.. The people also have available the ballot box, either by refusing to re-elect the politicians who voted to change the term limits decision, or re-emphasizing through another ballot measure that "Hey, we mean it!"

I have my doubts that the Venezuelian people will be allowed that luxury. Yes, I kow they have to vote on the change. Bu will it be a free vote or will Chavez' people intimidate the voters and otherwise rig the elections. I don't see him bowing humbly to the will of the people on this; not when he is attempting to abrogate to himself what is essentially a President for Life title. I could be wrong on that and he could just be all sweetness and light, but unlikely in the extreme, I'd wager.

Enjoy your "million dollars" but don't forget to pay the taxes on it.

“Given the situation you present (part 1), the president has no choice but to honor the decision of the court.”
In that situation, the president would be able to propose whatever solution he wanted to, have the Congress write it into law, and then make it happen. FDR tried to pack the court:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937

It didn’t happen, but in the hypothetical situation I drew up, I think it would most definitely happen. This is irrelevant anyway, because what Chavez did with the Supreme Court was completely in line with the Venezuelan constitution and laws as they stood. It’s nothing different than what FDR tried to do, and for an infinitely better reason. If the scenario I outlined happened, I do not expect your response on the Captains thread to be “Bush has no choice but to honor the decision of the court”. What complete bullshit. I think your comment would be “throw those Commies off the court”.

“In part 2, I can see no way the network could be legally shutdown, but it is quite likely the owners would have run afoul of the law. I'd expect them to be arrested for those violations.”

I am sure that there is a way the station could in fact be legally shut down. But that is not what Chavez did anyway. He did not renew their license. That is legal in both the US and Venezuela. As I said, the US has done it 100 times. Why can’t Venezuela do it? Especially under the circumstances of the station participating in a coup. All 100 cases of stations losing their license in the US were under conditions not nearly as drastic.

“The people also have available the ballot box, either by refusing to re-elect the politicians who voted to change the term limits decision, or re-emphasizing through another ballot measure that "Hey, we mean it!"”

So why wasn’t this your response to what happened in Venezuela? I thought that people on the right looked at situations in the same way regardless of what side they are on. Once again, everything Chavez does is within the law and the Constitution. The people can vote Chavez out. Saying that the elections are rigged is complete BS. His approval rating is 70 plus percent even when measured by the opposition. There is no question about his popularity. Presidents with 70 percent approval ratings do not need to rig elections. They simply win them.

You orginal comment about looking at issues the same from both sides is crap.

The sum of these recent developments, combined with previous measures to stack the courts and the legislature, have solidified Bush’s rule to the point where there should no longer be any doubt about the direction in which the country is headed. Bush is pushing for dictatorial-like powers and there seems to be little hope, at least in the near future, of re-establishing any semblance of democratic governance.

In that situation, the president would be able to propose whatever solution he wanted to, have the Congress write it into law, and then make it happen. FDR tried to pack the court:

Agree, that is an option. However, in then hypothetical, I did not make the assumption that the president also controlled the Congress. Hence, while I considered the option, I ruled it out.

You see the problem with hypotheticals? When you make a huge leap (your proposed situation), there are entirely to many options available, so it is impossible to make a choice that cannot be countered with "but he could do this..." For instance, I could have said "He would probably declare martial law and..." and it would havebeen equally as "valid". Hypotheticals provide an interesting thought problem but they are hardly the way to carry on a debate.

I take it from your comments that you see nothing wrong with Chavez essentially making himself President for Life. So long as he does it within the law, everything is OK.

Fine. I think history tends to show that doesn't work out so well for the people of the counry where it occurs. Time will tell. Perhaps he will turn out to be another Simon Bolivar. Perhaps he will turn out to be another Fidel Castro. Or something in between. I'd hazard a guess, however, that he will be closer to Castro than Bolivar and the next couple of US presidents will have to deal with the fallout.

If the scenario I outlined happened, I do not expect your response on the Captains thread to be “Bush has no choice but to honor the decision of the court”. What complete bullshit. I think your comment would be “throw those Commies off the court”.

You may think whatever you want about a remote hypothetical. No matter what I say, you will counter with a contrary. OK by me. But there is a distinct possibility that your "thought" is inaccurate. In other words, don't draw too many conclusions from hypotheticals. The starting data is suspect.

You orginal comment about looking at issues the same from both sides is crap.

As I said, don't draw conclusions from faulty data.

{We have spent entirely too much time on this one and unfortunately my vacation ends tomorrow. Back to the salt mines.}

bill

“I take it from your comments that you see nothing wrong with Chavez essentially making himself President for Life. So long as he does it within the law, everything is OK.”

Grow up. He is not making himself president for life. He is eliminating term limits. To be president for life, he will have to win elections for the rest of his life. Sarkozy in France can also be president for life, as long as he wins elections. There is absolutely no evidence of election fraud in Venezuela. Until there is, I see no problem with not having term limits. So what is your position on term limits, anyway? Does it depend on the country? Is it OK for France, but not for Venezuela? If the oligarchy regains the presidency in Venezuela, will it then be OK to not have term limits?

“In other words, don't draw too many conclusions from hypotheticals.”

I am drawing conclusions based on your writing. You have made it clear that you treat identical situations differently, depending on who is on what side, which is exactly what you said you do not do. This is typical of the right, and you are no different.

So what is your position on term limits, anyway? Does it depend on the country? Is it OK for France, but not for Venezuela?

If lack of term limits is such a good thing then why does El Chávez not propose lack of term limits for all elected officials? Why has El Chávez proposed lack of term limits only for himself?

France has an independent legislature, an independent judiciary, and an independent media. The same can hardly be said of Venezuela.

Can Sarkozy take over the radio stations and non-cable TV stations at will and harangue the nation as long as he likes? The last such El Chávez cadena of El Chávez lasted 6 hours.

If Venezuelan media is so independent, then why are the non-cable TV stations in Venezuela saying so little about Maletagate? Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson, a Venezuelan with business connections to the government, traveled to Argentina in a private plane with PDVSA (national oil company) officials, and was caught at customs in Buenos Aires with $800,000 in his luggage. (luggage= maleta. Thus, Maletagate.) It is ironic that one of the reasons that El Chávez was elected in 1998 was that he said he would do something about the corruption in Venezuela. All that El Chávez has done is to preside over an explosion of corruption, and the murder rate, in Venezuela.

Venezuela’ s legislature and judiciary are appendages of El Chávez. Did the French legislature grant Sarkozy the right to issue laws for 18 months without submitting them to the legislature? The Venezuelan legislature granted that enabling law to El Chávez. Guess who also was given such an enabling law? Adolf Hitler.

Dave, do you defend Hitler as much as you do El Chávez ? You defend El Chávez’s strangling of freedom in Venezuela, and bypass the explosion of corruption in the last 9 years, yet you would not put up with all that for one minute if someone tried it in your own country. In other words, what in your opinion is good enough for Venezuelans is not good enough for you.

“There is absolutely no evidence of election fraud in Venezuela”

Do you also have a bridge in Brooklyn you want to sell us? For those who believe in the integrity of Chavez-run elections, here is a link to an article in the International Statistical Review.
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200702221623
(link on:A statistical approach to assess referendum results: The Venezuelan recall referendum 2004) . Abstract in International Statistical Review is at website for International Statistics Institute. The Devil’s Excrement blogsite also has links.
You might also recall that the Sate of California recently decided that electronic voting machines were not secure.

Have you forgotten that we funded armed and trained the group who eventually went on to fly two jumbo jets into the Twin Towers - you know, the Taliban? And, that they were all well and good provided the guns were pointed at those dam Ruskies. And, in case you have forgotten, let me remind you that it was Ronald Reagan who was all too willing to assist arm, fund and train them.

So, I ask – why do you hate America?

I think most Americans would prefer the rhetorical attacks of a Chavez like figure, than the actual death and destruction brought about by, say, al-Qaeda.