Tags: 
Categories: 
The Venezuelan strongman died of cancer on Tuesday. As the CNN story notes, he left a deeply divided, economically fragile country behind. The vice-president of Venezuela noted that Chávez’s cancer was most likely caused by “outsiders” infecting him.
Chávez was a populist; a politician who gained office by exploiting the worst fears of the population and using that fear to pave the way for stronger and stronger government controls. After his first run at the presidency resulted in a loss, Chávez led a coup attempt. When he was released from jail after the coup attempt, he managed to create a populist machine and won the presidency in 1999. He then changed the constitution to allow himself to continue in office without term limits. Elections themselves were clean, but the government shut down opposition parties, refused to allow popular opposition politicians to run for office, and managed to control all major media outlets in the country. The opposition media in Venezuela was shut down paper by paper and television station by television station until only the state-run media was left. Removing alternate sources of information is the best way to control your population.
Chávez espoused communist/socialist/populist views, but the reality is, he was president of Venezuela for the power and personal gain he could amass (a close look at his political ideology reveals a little bit of everything espoused at various times when convenient – incoherent and jumbled). Venezuela is practically drowning in oil and is a member of OPEC, but its citizens face rolling blackouts, chronic food shortages, a crumbling infrastructure, and an economy that tops the list of “worsts” in debt, deficit, and inflation rate. They have the honor of being the only OPEC member to be in such dire straits. That means they are worse than Nigeria. Typical of leaders and governments who have promised the moon, yet cannot even deliver a rock from earth, when economic numbers and things such as crime rates continued downhill, the government simply stopped publishing any statistics. Because, after all, if you don’t admit to it, it didn’t happen, right? Chávez not a man whose leadership benefitted “his people.” Yet there are many in the United States who regard Chávez as a hero who, in the colloquial term, “stuck it to the man.” Of course, those that feel that way don’t have to live in Venezuela.
Typical of such people is Joe Kennedy, who brokered a deal to have Citgo, the Venezuelan oil company donate gas to the needy in the US. I heard a radio ad a few months ago that touted Citgo as the only oil company that cared enough to keep poor people warm. You have to admire such propaganda when you run across it. Kennedy commented that Chávez cared deeply about the poor while others who made “more money than they can ever reasonably expect to spend” did not. Of course, Kennedy and his wife made over $1.2 million from Citizens Energy, the company that distributed oil to the needy. So, it’s ok to make a buck off the poor, just be sure to tell them how much you care.
Venezuela is at a cross-roads. If the opposition can regain its footing, perhaps the country will begin to head down the long, slow road to recovery.
you’ve delivered your bundle of joy…
I am going to return once again since I book-marked it. Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and continue to help others….
HotAir
I’m kinda surprised at you Ms. Jones, stooping to the level of Mr. Willis’ disingenuous rhetoric to capitalize on an opportunity to jab at a Democrat. I fail to see what brokering a deal in 2005 has to do with “tax filings” in 2011 and how that is “making a buck off the poor.”
Do you have the “tax filings” from 2011 that show where his/her income came from so your “Moonbats…” vitriolic Carr opinion piece citation isn’t so laughable? Surely you could have found a better “citation”.
Snoopy, I love how you always manage to find one small point and blow that up while ignoring everything else. Given that Citizens Energy is a not for profit company, I’m sure you can find out that information for yourself if you are that interested. I look forward to the results of your research.
Ms. Jones, I didn’t ignore “everything else”. It just didn’t warrant comment.
Your unsubstantiated indictment of the Kennedys is a different matter. The onus is upon you to show how 2011′s “tax filings” showed they “made a buck off the poor”, which your vitriolic citation did not.
Snoopy, I love how you demand response without ever providing any.
Personal attacks (aka baseless allegations) do nothing to further discourse, Mr. Willis. When appropriate, I always provide citations, which are summarily ignored.
You are not a very cunning linguist with your allegation of “demand” – only a request to substantiate a claim, surely to be ignored as the factual information of the 2011 “tax filings” most assuredly would not support the author’s “interpretation” of far-far-fringe-right winger Carr or Ms. Jones’ contention the Kennedys “made a buck off the poor”. Interesting even Carr didn’t provide a link to his citation as it would surely deflate the rhetoric and provide facts in conflict with the bloviating.
So did you have anything to add to the dialogue, or just another baseless allegation and your protecting of your “comrade” holding her to a different standard as, oh, say, the left-leaning posters here?
Snoopy when your focus is on the post and the substance of the post you provide interesting opinions and commentary. The he said/she said thing just gets annoying. Let me know how your research on that tax thing is going, otherwise no response is needed.
As previously stated, the onus is on the accuser to provide evidence of the accusation. The accuser merely parroted a vague reference. These are the rules you set up, are they not, Mr. Willis? Or do you only “demand” the left leaning posters follow your ruse? My focus is on having the author substantiate the outrageous allegation she has made. It’s really quite simple once the obfuscation is ignored.
Yes, I expect crickets as supporting evidence for the salacious allegations. So no need to respond unless you take on Ms. Jones’ responsibility of justifying her statement.
Excellent point Ms. Jones. My theory is that when Snoop cannot address the major points of a post (I’m assuming even Snoop wouldn’t stoop to some liberals’ love for Chavez, but I may be wrong), he attacks a small issue and tries to ignore the topic of the overall piece in an attempt to bait the writer into a tangential and non-productive debate. In this way, he can claim the high ground, while ignoring the issues that matter most to the author.
Yes, Greg, you are wrong, not “could be”. Shame you “conveniently” ignored my qualifying comment that the parts of the post I didn’t comment on didn’t warrant comment. Tangential and non-productive indeed.
Ms. Jones chose to attack the Kennedys and I merely challenged her to provide substantiation for the attack, which as you notice, she still is unable – or is it unwilling – to do. She devoted an entire paragraph to this attack and outrageous claims so it isn’t just a passing comment.
Protecting your comrade is to be expected. The hive mind wouldn’t dare veer from the collective’s narratives.
FWIW, how about you avoid the attempts at punitively censoring my commenting through your vitriolic personal attacks. You add nothing to the discussion by concentrating on me.
And as always, thanks for reading and putting your “special” spin on the veiled hatred. The entertainment value is worth the price of admission here.
How you coming with that “journalistic integrity” research, Ms. Jones? Even the crickets seem to have gone silent in your echo chamber.
So another dictator has passed away and just like the others, the world is a better place without them. Don’t worry, there are still a few dictators around to make us miserable. No one fills that definition better than our own socialist dictator, Barack Obama. Everyone affected by him, namely Americans, have had to suffer and will continue to suffer as long as he is in the White House. We’re not just talking the latest boondoggle, the sequestration, but the entire last four plus years under his regime. Take heart America, usually dictators come to an end, either by violence or by the electorate. Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadaffi, etc. There is hope–for a change.
I seems to me that the 2011 tax records would have little to do with a profit made by Joe Kennedy back in the forty’s.
If they’re looking for a new socialist president, I know someone who would fit the bill!!!