Hugo Chavez tastes defeat in referendum

I bet he's just as surprised.

yeah i thought that he was threatening everyone who voted no.. you'd think he was driving arround with machine guns making people vote yes according to the furver hear on the vine.
I reacll how it was the pro chavez malitia patrolling the voting booths.
SO what happens ajs??? where yall makign a bunch of hot air over a true democracy..
funny i dont hear from you any story about how putins party just won an overwhelming victory in an old school saddam style democracy
I'm only upset he didnt win.. now this means ajs and others will continue to fill the vine with this trash.
Shoot I'm almost ready for him to give the oil back to the oil companies so they can quit on ven.

Have the results and Chavez's graceful concession cured the right-wingers xenophobia? Retractions anyone?

"In the past we have turned alleged defeats into moral victories that then became political victories. Do not be sad. Do not feel sorry, please! For now, we could not make it. (But) I am not taking one single colon out of this proposal. This proposal is alive!"

-- Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez

It will pass next time.

Thanks, ajs.

I don't feel crabby anymore.

:-D

Jdoyle:

Ajs, has a hollow victory. The vote was close, the corporate media like Ajs, carried on the proud tradition of servility, ideological distortion, as the deformed middle classes, shock troops for fascism. Read Djd article by Greg Palast. The claims of dictatorship comes up against the fact they Ajs has to put away his shirt of Fraud, as most of the yahoo middle classes. In fact his gracious acknowledgement that he did not have the votes, will allow a more considered strategy to move the social movement forward. The corporate media, even the New York times, pretended that Chavez had made himself dictators, but even multiple terms in office require majority votes, and like this election is proof that AJS is distorting the facts.

Next time he needs to remove the issue of his own candidacy and multiple terms to a social movement, so that the corporate media, like the New York Times cannot lie. This crucial ommission, lying through ommission is typical of all rotten corporate media hacks, both liberal and conservative. That is why they were state propagandist for our illlegal war in Iraq and continue to lie, as the Western corporate press in Venezuela.

By the way, the corporate media, New York Times, all got another black eye for their warmongering, cheerleading ideological rot, and lies on Iran. US spy agencies all contradicted the warmongering flottilla of ships off the coast of Iran, threatening it for having nuclear weapons, and contradicted the New York Times zionist Judith Miller liar, and lying partner, Michael Gordon who cheered us into the illegal Iraq war, while Gordon continues to do the dirty ideological propaganda that Iran is a threate and has nuclear wepaons. NOT!!!!! This is the corporate rot that AJS binds himself to, full of lies, and lies of ommissiion. Go ahead and put your shirt on, that says, FRAUD, OR DICTATOR. Chavez is certainly not the Bush corporate dictator, class dictator, that AJS loves.

Make it compulsory, and get rid of term limits, That will go a long way to getting better candidates and getting voters to turn up.

Spy,

Make 'em do it. Freedom , you say

Just think, Bushs forever.

Actually, I'm in favor of compulsory voting, and making Election Day a national holiday so there's no excuse. It would be perfectly OK if someone were to turn in a blank ballot, however. I'd just strip the voter registration of anyone who failed to vote for an election cycle. In other words, if you don't vote in this election, you also don't vote in the next one. If all you have to do is mail in a blank absentee ballot to maintain your registration, that seems like a small burden, particularly if you also get the election day off.

Make it compulsory

I agree; freedom isn't free!

many democracies have a requirement of participation.
AJs remark is cause if you forced everyone to vote, dems would win more often.
SO he uses a cute little bummper sticker remark in attacking you.. some BS about freedom.
See you are against freeedom for bringing that up.
BUT WTH does that mean
I HAVE TO PAY TAXES.. well what happened to freedom??
I cant kill my nieghbour for the late night loud music.... well what about my freaken freedom??
And you mean I actually have to show up for jury duty..... I thought we lived in a mo fo free country.
Freedom doesnt mean the lack of participation or that forcing you to vote means you arent free.
SHoot I HAVE TO SEND MY KIDS TO SCHOOOL.
DAMN FREEDOM HATING AMERICANS.
dont let ajs bumper sticker you.

If he wants to truely argue the merits of forced voting fine.. but it's not like we have an anarchy or 100% pure free society, we have a particitory democracy. I have to do jury duty, i have to sign up with selective service, I have to go to school, i have to follow the law.

The old Soviet Union used to have nearly 100% turnout as did Saddam's Iraq if I'm not mistaken.

Actually, I'm in favor of compulsory voting, and making Election Day a national holiday so there's no excuse.

I'm in favor of repealing the 19th amendment and literacy tests for voters. Enough morons vote as it is. Certainly, the process shouldn't be made any easier.

All that talk about Freedom and how great America is because of its participatory government is just so much hot air then?

You just don't get it when I go tongue-in-cheek, do you? Actually though I do favor reasonable restrictions that would make voter fraud harder to commit and ballots should be printed in no languages other than English. No one in this country can reasonably claim that voting is an onerous procedure.

I'm in favor of repealing the 19th amendment and literacy tests for voters. Enough morons vote as it is. Certainly, the process shouldn't be made any easier.

Hell, you should go even further, Bill. Let's have literacy tests for candidates. As well as geography and spelling quizzes.

We might not be in the mess we're in had we instituted the practice . . . um . . . 6 or 7 years ago.

I'm with you on English only ballots, actually. I think the citizenship test should only be in English as well, which last I heard was the case. If you can pass the test, then you should be able to read a ballot as well.

How about only allowing property owners to vote, I've always been a fan of that one.

That would kind of suck for those who rent.

It would. It's the exact sort of thing I would expect from a Tory. Our Founders were a motley assortment of leftist radicals (Sam Adams), pointy headed intellectuals (Franklin), slavers (most of the Southern delegates), and drug smugglers (Hancock). Not exactly the law and order crowd.

Ajs,

Has no perspective, history, or connection to ideology. It is all about ideological distortion, lies, and warmongering. I wonder what he will say when the flotilla of war ships off of Iran have to be removed based on the lies that he supports by both class parties, and their imperial agenda, that now have been disproven, including the distorted claim that Chavez will be a dictator. AJS has nothing to say about American corporate class dictatorship, but is free to call him a dictator, being the good middle class distorter of ideology, that routinely is servile to the oligarchy, class dictatorship. Only silence here. Chavez is not a very good dictator, if he acknowledges he lost the vote. But then Ajs is not a very good ideological agent of history, ideology, and morality.

Hey AJS, sounds like he's guilt-ridden for being in bed with the corporate whore. Wannabe revolutionaries have to eat you know ;)

@ AdipicAcid

Actually, I'm in favor of compulsory voting, and making Election Day a national holiday so there's no excuse. It would be perfectly OK if someone were to turn in a blank ballot,

Even with compulsory voting, if you dont want to vote just write Mickey mouse or something worse on your ballot, they are still secret ballots. :)

i guess ajs missed the debate on that
you know when we were discussing the merits of property owners voting.. which is worse than what is going on in ven as the top 10% own all the property
But anyways the arguement went like this
if a man can vote this year because he owns a mule and the mule dies..has that much changed in the man to prevent him from voting. He is still just as intelligent, etc/. He is just mule-lesss.

and thomas paine called these rules, you talk about as slavery.. to prevetn anyman from voting it is enslave that man. to subject him to the will of others, even morons. And heck if morons couldnt vote, they shouldnt be allowed to run for president either

Nice that yall so misunderstand democracy and support slavery..

Isn't this what Hamilton et al had in mind in the beginning...only property owners voting...white male property owners. This is progress???

Well although I am against the hurricanne of anti chavez news, and can see right though it all..
term limits are important in any democracy and franlky.. we need some here in the us.
senators and such tend to serve nearly for life.. and their constituants would be insane to vote them out, no matter how scummy or corrupt they are, as senority brings home the largest portion of bacon.

we need some here in the us.
senators and such tend to serve nearly for life.. and their constituants would be insane to vote them out, no matter how scummy or corrupt they are, as senority brings home the largest portion of bacon.

Thanks for that comment, That is a shame that senators incumbent have that kind of leverage. In that case I agree term limits are appropriate. I too would want such a leveling in that system.

In a Parliamentary Democracy Term limits are not a good thing and unnecessary, There is no Executive appointments all are elected, so you need to be a lot better than the sitting member to vote him out. The phrase "Vote Him Out" shows you have a good understanding of political process.

In the case of Chavez, Getting rid of term limits will be inevitable unless he makes a serious error, Like with Putin in the Duma, he has retained power amnd will now likely become Prime Minister, From this postition he could abolish limits and seek re-election.

I'm with Kyle - my bet is on another 2-3 years of systematically stamping out opposition followed by another "democratic referendum." This one he will play to win.

LOL bush cheers egypts oviously flawed election.. due to the fact that it was aleast a small step forward.
Ven has a real ellection that disproves all the fears mongering brought up on the vine.. and chavez actually loses and rather than cheer the vens.. You decide to agree with the fear mongers...
OK i know this looked ereal but it cant be.. it is chavez... ajs must be right.,. soemthign is up..

well if over half the people are against him.. and he didnt have his roving bands of miliatary forcing people to vote... how do you think he will be able to stay in power in 2012?

and are you upset what just happened in russia?
You know one of the questions on the russia ballot was will putins party win big or real big and yet i dont see an onsalught of posts condemning russias failed and fake democracy.

Well fortunately this is Newsvine, so you can get cracking on those Russian news posts if it really bothers you that much.

This is true i like to complain but serious ajs you get a daily onslaught of chavez chavez chavez
when crap like russia is going on. you claimed the other day that you are concerned with chavez as it is current events.. and yet you ignore russia now you say that is my job.
I am saying we overthrew iran for nationalising their oil. chavez did this, it is ovious to the world why we are so upset.
If we pretended to be concerned with russia, pakistan, saudia arbaia, egypt, darfur, then the world might believe us when we act upst about ven.

You seem to think that just because we're talking about Venezuela, we're somehow completely ignoring what's going on with the rest of the world.

I'm not ignoring Russia but I've ignored old joules from day one. Anyone who cannot write a grammatically correct English sentence with proper usage doesn't merit a second look.

"If the official vote was narrow, that probably means the actual margin of defeat was significant." - Glenn Reynolds

pseudo:

What the @!$%# does Glenn Reynolds know?

I'm serious. You righties are maddening in your inability to alter premises when confronted with empirical data contrary to your previous belief.

I mean, this is un-@!$%#ing-believable. Why the @!$%# would Chavez cheat to ensure a close loss?

"Oh. Maybe the Venezuelan Electoral system isn't as corrupt as I previously believed" is both a hellava lot more rational as a response and a hellava lot more likely as an explanation than "Oh, he must've cheated anyway" coming from some ignoramus lawyer in Knoxville, TN or wherever that ass is belching from.

I'm serious. You righties are maddening in your inability to alter premises when confronted with empirical data contrary to your previous belief.

I'm chuckling Gillis. As if the lefties aren't expert at moving goalposts. And what do you mean "empirical"? That the results are subject to credible peer review? I think the margin was so large that Chavez couldn't afford to report it honestly, so he reported the margin as slim to save face, and I believe that because I have looked into Chavez's "soul". The official report of a slim defeat will give Chavez cover to refloat constitutional reform in a couple years. 2012 is a long way off and the real Chavez is still with us.

pseudo:

That would've been idiotic. A supposedly corrupt nationalized electoral system utilized to save face? Do you think Tammany Hall ever stuffed ballots on elections they lost?

Moreover, if you were on the Vine yesterday and saw numerous seeds of the various early returns and exit polls, and you know that BOTH sides had numbers showing a close result, although each side had themselves winning. By far the most likely scenario, then, is that it was in fact a close election.

Even more Moreover, the opposition IN VENEZUELEA is not making the charge you and that ingnorant asswipe in Knoxville are making. So. Glenn Reynolds doesn't know @!$%#. You don't know @!$%#. Yet you spew @!$%#. Whereas the people who DO know @!$%# aren't spewing that @!$%#.

... the real Chavez is still with us

We now KNOW the "real" Chavez. He's a Democratic Socialist willing to accept the judgment of the people (at least now; won't vouch for his previous career).

Redruby:

They are still using the Russian bugagoo, what shallow thinking.

Even more Moreover, the opposition IN VENEZUELEA is not making the charge you and that ingnorant asswipe in Knoxville are making. So. Glenn Reynolds doesn't know @!$%#. You don't know @!$%#. Yet you spew @!$%#. Whereas the people who DO know @!$%# aren't spewing that @!$%#.

The "opposition IN VENEZUELEA" is hardly at its leisure. We rarely have the luxury of making our most important determinations from a condition of "knowledge" but we plug away anyhow.

I suspect Reynolds is one of your buttons. He is an contrary voice, isn't he? And all the more irritating due to his credibility.

With Chavez, the proof is in the pudding. I expect his future to be typical of his past, and I confidently interpolate to his present.

Eric,

They are still using the Russian bugagoo, what shallow thinking.

Nice double standard from the guy continually invoking Hitler and the Nazis.

pseudo:

We rarely have the luxury of making our most important determinations from a condition of "knowledge" but we plug away anyhow.

You gotta be kidding.

If you want to claim that @!$%#wit in Knoxville has knowledge superior to those with direct experience of the situation, fine. So far, I've cited two pieces of evidence in this sub-thread, the fact that both opposition and government exit polls showed similar results and the fact that there are no claims from Venezeula of significant irregularities.

You and your idiiot compadre in Knoxville haven't cited @!$%# except yourselves repeating other people who haven't cited @!$%#.

We now KNOW the "real" Chavez. He's a Democratic Socialist willing to accept the judgment of the people (at least now; won't vouch for his previous career).

Jack - 6.4 - I gotta say it troubles me to hear you defending Chavez in this manner.....just because he lost this time doesn't mean the election was fair.....he overplayed his hand but not by much.

Ajs- I hope this isn't a double post - if so please delete the dupe....having comuter woes....signing off now - goodnight!

lisa:

.....just because he lost this time doesn't mean the election was fair.....

But the facts call for the opposite inference.

For God's sake, not one of you righties has even hestitantly offered the possibility that maybe Chavez wasn't as bad as you thought after all based on the fact that HE LOST AN ELECTION AND DEFERRED TO TO WILL OF THE PEOPLE. That makes him a small-d democrat regardless of what some nitwit lawyer in his pajamas in Knoxville thinks.

- I gotta say it troubles me to hear you defending Chavez in this manner

Noting for the record: ajs posted almost all his many Chavez seeds to Tin Horn for the last ten days or so and although I read them all I haven't commented because I don't know what to make of Chavez and I wanted to see the outcome of this plebecite before commenting substantively.

pseudo #6.6

I suspect Reynolds is one of your buttons.

Jack has several such buttons, Bill Kristol is another one. It's kind of an involuntary spasm like Tourette's as diagnosed long ago by Dr. Krauthammer in Jack Germond whenever Bush's diddy was mentioned.

Alternatively it could be because the Ravens are about 9 minutes from making another year for Nick Buoniconti and Shula.

Bill:

That can't be it. Look at the timestamp.

Although now that you mention it, Krauthammer's another nincompoop in the same category as Reynolds and Kristol.

I was referring to the time left on the clock not the EST. Bellichick should give Billick a game ball for that bonehead timeout call.

Bill:

I'll say. Man, the coaches wanted these sideline timeouts. Between Gibbs yesterday and Billick today, think the coaches might just give that rule back?

Billick may finally be on his way out in Baltimore. Talk about overrated blowhards. Gibbs's @!$%#up is simply mystifying. I was watching the end of the Skins game at our Vikings fanclub when he did it and immediately told the assembled that would be 15 agin the Skins. I cannot believe he didn't know that rule which isn't exactly new.

You and your idiiot compadre in Knoxville haven't cited @!$%# except yourselves repeating other people who haven't cited @!$%#.

We don't have to cite "@!$%#": Chavez's documented history is our "@!$%#". The leopard doesn't change his spots, if only because he can't. The presupposition is everywhere, and every time, against the machinations of Chavez and you know it. The man could balance his reputation only by abdicating and emigrating, but, again, you already know that. I'm surprised you're expending energy over this. You might as well be defending the honor of Putin or Ahmadinejad: totally 'taint got none.

Just to be clear: I have no doubt that Chavez will do WHATEVER it takes between now and 2012 to make sure he gets a lifelong presidency. Mark it, and measure the present accordingly. The guy is who he is, he's got the bit in his teeth, and nobody needs any "empirical" study to know what that means.

If it walks like a duck, ....

If it walks like a duck, ...

Shoot it? But I like duckies

- Vince

pseudo:

No, unproven allegations and unsupported opinion is your "@!$%#."

Now let's talk about these here ducks of yours:

Just to be clear: I have no doubt that Chavez will do WHATEVER it takes between now and 2012 to make sure he gets a lifelong presidency.

You've said that or things very similar previously. There was just an election in which Chavez tried to do just that. It was REJECTED by the people and Chavez DEFERRED TO THEIR WILL. That is a FACT, some of them there empirical data I mentioned above.

I trust Chavez to be himself. That's all the empiricism I'll need, but I'll rely upon you to remember this exchange.

yeah all you guys were saying he was going to steal this that people were being forced to vote that peope who even suggested that they might vote no were labveled as traitors and sent to reeducation camps and now we see he lost and so you say.. since he was losing by so much.. he cheated just enough to not lose badly as if he cheated more it would be obvious.. man that is the most tin foil conspiracy dribble, far reaching out your butt, bs thing i have ever heard. Seriously you want us to belive that he couldnt cheat enough, as it would be obvious.. this same guy forcing people to vote via machine guns?? I think that people would notice th emachine guns no??
Se3e once again we see you are nothing but hot air
And who cares if chavez is leader for life.. maybe the ven but why do we? we dont care about people dying in dafur cant see why we care about people being opressed in ven.
I am very very very sorry that chaevz took the oil away from exxon making their stocks go down by micro percentages. Deal with it, and let the ven people deal with their DEMOCRACY.

I don't know what to make of Chavez

Jack - chavez is a tyrant....plain and simple....please, don't let these "published" referendum results fool you. Empirical evidence when he is controlling all? No, you can't weigh this election outcome on "empirical" evidence....if you do - you are delivering to him just what he wanted.

lisa:

Tyrants don't lose elections.

Having said that, I don't deny that Chavez has shown some anti-democratic tendencies. In fact, I seeded this last June:

Big Brothers: Newspeak Translated into Spanish and Russian

which is ESPECIALLY noteworthy considering events of the last few days--in addition to beating ajs's anti-Chavez seeds by about six months.

:^{)>

However, there's simply no rational reason to continue to contend that Chavez is a "Tyrant" based on the events of this week. You want to call him a Socialist, populist or even a demagogue, that's fine. But "dictator" or "tyrant" won't do based on the facts.

Tyrants don't lose elections.

Competent tyrants don't lose elections.

That was my point. Putin waited until he had systematically crushed his opposition before launching a referendum to allow him to retain power. Chavez got greedy and his reach exceeded his grasp: this time.

I expect he will still be in charge come 2013. He just needs to gear up the machinery to guarantee a win the next time he brings this up.

I expect he will still be in charge come 2013. He just needs to gear up the machinery to guarantee a win the next time he brings this up.

He might, but even if he can stand for re-election, and I think that part of the constitution will and needs to be changed, It is still no garuntee he will win.

Which part of "systematically crush his opposition like Putin did" escaped you?

Which part of "systematically crush his opposition like Putin did" escaped you?

Well Putin did not systematically crush the opposition, He failed to get 66% of the vote. Even if the election was held again and you were allowed to impliment what you think would be fair, Putin would still win the majority of seats. It's a mute point.

He didn't crush them? The leaders of anti-Putin parties were arrested on trumped up charges, businessmen who could contest with him were stripped of their assets, and the independent media utterly shut down. Crush is a pretty good verb for what Czar Vladimir is doing right now.

Heh. Not to mention probably targeting journalists like Anna Politkovskaya for execution or foreign critics like Litvinenko for a little "tea party". Ole Vlady's still hoping to emulate his KGB goon forebears though and have his party gain 100% of the vote.

ajs:

As I mentioned above, I haven't said much either. For the record, I think his previous elections mostly reflected the will of the people as well, although I didn't like his media clampdowns recently.

But it just seems to me that when an election goes against the government and the government accepts the results, that's a huge quantum leap in the development of democratic institutions in any country. That alone is reason to cheer this election regardless of Left/Right.

Hmmmmm...."What kind of totalitarian communist dictator can Chavez be if he loses an election and admits having lost?"

One that is not yet assured of his power base.

just because he lost this time doesn't mean the election was fair.....he overplayed his hand but not by much.

sorry but that sounds very simular to just cause saddam says he turned over all the nukes doesnt mean he isnt hiding some.
It is very hard to disprove a negative..
like saddam said, how do i prove that i dont have the wmds i dont got.
The 2006 election was close.. i guess that meant the republicans underestimated how many dems would actually vote and didnt cheat enough.

Just saying your assumtion that he must have cheated is just as dangerous and partisan opionated as jack thinking that he didnt cheat.

DO you even have exit poll evidence? of cheating. Anything besides opinion.?

I would hope we wouldnt ATTACK anyone based on opinion.
I'm not a chavez supporter but i also know why there is a non stop onslaught on cahvez and it's not cause he is more evil that putin, kim jung il, amadinajad, castro
stay opinionated, watch chavez but understand their are interests and adgendas involved when reporting about him. Dont let the flood of news form your opinion, find out the truth. And last dont treat opinion like fact. Just cause he lost doesnt mean the election wasnt fair either.,