Tag | 2012 election
It’s certainly a ‘gaffe’, there’s no question about it. But the way to understand this is in the context of the two respective campaigns:
Capriles has been going door-to-door, pitching himself as someone who is interested in addressing ‘local’ issues affecting the people. But focusing on these ‘local issues’ is his way of taking the attention off of the ‘large-scale’ policy changes that his administration would implement if he were elected–changes that entail a return to more conventional free-market economics, which brought the country to ruin during the Fourth Republic (1958-1998), and from which most Venezuelans are grateful for having moved beyond.
On the other side, as part of the messaging for Chavez’s campaign, one can understand why the President would be trying to call attention to all this larger-picture stuff that Capriles doesn’t like to talk about, and presenting the upcoming election as a choice between two radically different visions of the country and its future (which, in my opinion, is what the election really is about–though potholes are important too).
You have to be willfully ignorant to believe (or to pretend to believe) that Chavez, personally, doesn’t care about addressing the problems affecting the people. In fact, if you listen to what Chavez has actually been saying, rather than dismissing or excusing away the failures of his government (as members of the opposition might assume he would do) he is actully acknowledging and accepting responsibility for such failures and promising to do better. Wouldn’t it be far worse if he denied that there were such failures?
“Some people might be unhappy because of failures by our government – ‘They didn’t fix the road. The power went off. The water went off. I couldn’t find a job.’” “Well, that may be true in some cases and I take the responsibility … . One of my pledges is for greater efficiency in the management of the government.”
There’s no guarantee Chavez will be able to deliber on these promises. But neither is there for Capriles.
Chavez has a democratic election to win. And unless you actually want to see his government turn toward the type of tyannical rule one finds in Iran and Ghaddafi’s Libya, you should accept that one must make necessary alliances to prevent the restoration of oligarchic power and the overturning of years of progress. Revolution cannot and will not happen overnight. It does no service to anyone to demand ideological purity.
Just because it is not true that "elections are always honest" doesn’t mean that if Chavez wins the next election, that election is not honest. BTW, Venezuela’s [electoral system](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1503) receives favorable [evaluations](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1533) by numerous reputable international organizations including the [Carter Center](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/331), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the [European Union (EU)](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2243?page=124). Venezuela [welcomes international observers to monitor its elections](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/12/venezuela-opens-election-to-observers/), something the U.S. never does.
>thankfully the tide seems to be turning I urge you to read the last sentence of the article submitted above: "[Most polls give Chavez leads of up to 35 percent to win the election](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ien4Pn_g8yWFTatsHQ1MPOR2Hx9g?)." Keep in mind Chavez won the last presidential election by a 26% margin.
They say all these great things to win the votes of the masses but they don’t really plan on doing any of it. They just plan on stealing shit.
I thought you were talking about Radonski for a second! I seriously doubt that he would have the political capital to govern from the center-left or make good on his promises (which he makes in seeking to win the vote of the masses) not to dramatically cut popular social programs if he were to get elected, and I’m not the only one.
I wouldn’t deny there are government officials who claim to be loyal to Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution, but who are actually corrupt and who steal from the people whom they are supposed to serve and represent. I say one should definitely root our corruption even among Chavistas, fight within the PSUV or PPT for great space for dialogue, and criticize the government when it deserves it, but voting for the opposition is no solution at all.
Some people may regard Chavez as the savior, but I don’t. The choice this election is not between good and evil but between (A) deepening the revolutionary process and (B) suspending if not reversing it altogether.
You do serious damage to your credibility when you make absolutely ridiculous allegations such as this… which are verifiably false! I’m sorry, but this is why I do not trust your perspective on Venezuelan politics.
Who is the “they” in your sentence? “Venezuelans” (the subject of the one-sentence-comment to which your comment was a response)? Or is it Chavez and his supporters who you are alleging “own the polling agencies”? And which polling agencies? Take your pick! Because nearly all of them show, and have shown for months, Chavez leads the opposition candidate by a wide margin and is likely to win re-election in two months.
Are you claiming that Chavez and his supporters own all of “the polling agencies”? The only polling agency that I’ve heard Capriles criticize is Hinterlaces, which shows Chavez leading by about 19 points. He accused the firm of publising “bogus polls”. In this attack on the integrity of this firm, he never claimed it was “owned by” Chavez.
The truth (the sources for which you can look up, or I can provide you if you don’t believe me) is there are just as many if not more links between polling agencies and the opposition (as there are between pollsters and the government). And pollsters like Datalisis, which in the past were considered sympathetic to the opposition, show Chavez leading by over 15%. Even reputable opposition blogs believe they accurately reflect public opinion.
The only polling firm that shows Capriles with a chance of winning is Consultores 21. Consultores’s record shows it has made some disastrously bad predictions in the past. For example, it underestimated Chavez’s support in the last presidential election (2006) by over 10 percentage points (it gave Chavez a 13% lead, but he won by 26%).
You do serious damage to your credibility when you make absolutely ridiculous allegations such as this… which are verifiably false! I’m sorry, but this is why I do not trust your perspective on Venezuelan politics.
Who is the “they” in your sentence? “Venezuelans” (the subject of the one-sentence-comment to which your comment was a response)? Or is it Chavez and his supporters who you are alleging “own the polling agencies”? And which polling agencies? Take your pick! Because nearly all of them show, and have shown for months, Chavez leads the opposition candidate by a wide margin and is likely to win re-election in two months.
Are you claiming that Chavez and his supporters own all of “the polling agencies”? The only polling agency that I’ve heard Capriles criticize is Hinterlaces, which shows Chavez leading by about 19 points. He accused the firm of publising “bogus polls”. In this attack on the integrity of this firm, he never claimed it was “owned by” Chavez.
The truth (the sources for which you can look up, or I can provide you if you don’t believe me) is there are just as many if not more links between polling agencies and the opposition (as there are between pollsters and the government). And pollsters like Datalisis, which in the past were considered sympathetic to the opposition, show Chavez leading by over 15%. Even reputable opposition blogs believe they accurately reflect public opinion.
The only polling firm that shows Capriles with a chance of winning is Consultores 21. Consultores’s record shows it has made some disastrously bad predictions in the past. For example, it underestimated Chavez’s support in the last presidential election (2006) by over 10 percentage points (it gave Chavez a 13% lead, but he won by 26%).
I really don’t think that’s what he’s doing. First, Venezuela holds nation-wide elections or referenda regularly, nearly every year. And so far, Chavez and his supporters have won 12 out of 13 of them. The opposition has accused Chavez of election fraud, but no accusation has ever proven to be credible. The country’s electoral system receives favorable evaluations by numerous reputable international organizations including the Carter Center, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the European Union (EU). Venezuela welcomes international observers to monitor its elections, something the U.S. never does. No clear cases of election fraud.
Second, why would Chavez resort to election fraud when nearly every poll (over the past several months), from nearly every pollster (out of many), shows him ahead of his main rival by a wide, double-digit margin? And with only a few months to go until the election, polls show Chavez maintaining or extending his lead; his opponent shows little momentum.
If anyone is taking “preemptive” action, it is the Venezuelan opposition! Consider how less credible their accusations of fraud will be when the election results turn out to reflect what the polls have been saying. Since the polls suggest a Chavez victory would reflect the people’s will, the opposition have begun to claim that the polls themselves are ‘rigged’. More than remaining optimistic despite the odds, it’s starting to look dangerous.
(Consider the August 3rd claim that “Capriles is”now winning in the polls", because one poll from June showed Capriles losing by less than 1%! In what universe is losing–45.8 to Chavez’s 45.9–’winning in the polls?)
Finally there is very good reason for Chavez to worry that the opposition might be planning to “refuse to accept the results if he is victorious” because, in contrast to Chavez, who has repeatedly promised that he would accept the electoral results and relinquish power if he loses in October, the opposition has still not publicly confirmed that they will accept the election results no matter what their outcome might be!
If anyone’s curious, [here's an excellent Chavez campaign video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TRV7YIm1sts#!).
If you listen to the opposition, they’re quickly becoming very pessimistic about the October election. For example, Francisco Toro, the owner of Caracas Chronicles, the most prominent English-language anti-Chavez blog, is taking the latest polls (which show Chavez with a comfortable lead) very seriously. He is saying that their best and only hope for October would be Chavez’s untimely demise (i.e. from cancer), and strongly implying that a turn of the electoral tide is unlikely and that the opposition isn’t capable of defeating Chavez this year.
In the comments section, some members of the opposition are already giving up, saying things like:
I have always said that if Chavez is alive, he will win. Hands downs. In fact, if he’s still alive, I’ve even considered cancelling my return home to vote, as it will be a wasted effort. Sad reality, folks.
That is my prediction of the final result as reported to the world.
That’s probably a fair prediction. President Chavez, as super confident as always, is predicting that he will win October’s election “with more than 60 percent of the vote”. (I think he’ll win, but his estimate of 60% is too high.)
For the record, Chavez has announced repeatedly that he would respect the results of the election, no matter what their outcome might be (i.e. even if he were to lose). Henrique Capriles, the opposition’s candidate, has still not made such a commitment, “limiting himself to stating that ‘everything I’ve achieved in politics, I’ve achieved through the vote.’ Capriles participated in the 2002 short lived coup against Chavez” (source).
I find it really obnoxious and slimy how you attempt to sneak in a comparison of Hugo Chavez with Saddam Hussein without coming out directly with (unfounded) allegations of electoral fraud in Venezuela (lest someone challenge you to cite some evidence). But then, why would you be making an allegation of “electoral fraud” when the actual presidential election is still three months away (it’s scheduled for October 7th)?
Did you read the article, or even the headline? Reuters is reporting the results of a new opinion poll conducted by the “respected local pollster Datanalisis”; these are NOT the results of the government-held election!
And the reason why Chavez’s 16-point lead in the poll doesn’t look “mighty suspicious” is because Datanalisis’s poll results are the most reliable, and most likely accurate reflection of Venezuelans’ actual voting preferences available. It isn’t just my opinion. The anti-Chavez blogs are taking these results seriously. Besides, this isn’t the first poll to show a big lead for Chavez; other polls have been reporting similar results for months. There has been some variation, just as you would expect in a democracy, and in a genuinely competitive political race!
Winning something like 57-43 looks like it might be legitimate.
Where did you get “57-43”? The article is reporting 43.6% for Chavez, and 27.7% for Capriles. I don’t think you read the article! But whatever the results of Venezuela’s election turn out to be, why wouldn’t they be legitimate?
Interesting contrast between the two candidates in this year’s election: Both held rallies and gave big speeches to supporters this week. Chavez spoke for nearly 3 hours; Capriles barely spoke 19 minutes.
I thought cancer spreading to the bones was more characteristic of late stage.
First, though I am no medical expert, I believe you are correct. If Chavez’s cancer had spread to his bones, it would mean “Chavez’s cancer has ‘entered the end stage’” (Dan Rather).
It should have been more clear in the article that it was citing a conflicting news report that has come out about Chavez’s health (one at odds with what Chavez or the government have said).
The
newspaper [ABC] did not divulge its sources or detail how it checked the information’s accuracy, and
CNN was unable to verify the report. An official in Venezuela’s information ministry said the newspaper’s report was invalid and the government would not comment on its contents. (
CNN)
Chavez has consistently denied reports that his illness was advanced. Though he has stopped short of declaring himself “cancer free” (as he did last year), Chavez is saying that medical tests following his cancer treatment (three operations to remove tumors from his ‘pelvic region’, and about a dozen rounds of chemotherapy, and radiation therapy) show that he is in good health.
It is true Chavez has not released his medical records; nor has he provided full details about his medical condition and history. His political opponents won’t be satisfied until they can confirm that one of the tumors Chavez had removed from his pelvis was, in fact, the “size of a baseball”.
Chavez insists he is fit enough to run for re-election in October. Two-thirds of Venezuelans believe he will recover, and he is currently holding a double-digit lead over his opponent. Of course, no one can know whether, if re-elected, he will remain healthy for long enough to serve out what would be his third consecutive six-year term, through to 2019! But we hope so.
Francisco, do you think I would respect you so much if you were a right-winger? Possibly, I guess, if you were as reasonably honest in laying out your arguments. But the good news is that I’m fully aware that you identify as a fellow leftist, and I personally regard you as such. I may still question the extent to which the particular positions you take may be unwise, in my view, with regard to political tactics and/or strategy, but I hope that we’re past the point of accusing each other of harboring a right-wing agenda! Opps, my mistake!–I did ask in my earlier comment whether the problems associated with price controls have led you to embrace “market-friendly” policies, so I guess I did forget for a moment that you favor “leftist social economics, where a big state guarantees health care and many other basic needs”. However, my confusion arises from the incredibly ambiguous nature of Capriles’ own position, which I assumed you share, as least as it is described by nearly all english-language news sources that I’ve read, as a “mix of market-friendly economic policies combined with income redistribution”.
“A Capriles victory would be a good outcome from the market’s perspective, in our view, as he seems to be a more viable presidential candidate than the opposition has presented previously,” Credit Suisse analysts Casey Reckman and Igor Arsenin wrote today in a note to clients. “He espouses a gradualist, inclusive, left-of-center but market friendly approach.” (from Bloomberg’s ‘Businessweek’)
Reuters is even more ambiguous in describing Capriles’ favored policies as “free-market economics alongside strong social welfare programs”. I hope you understand that, when I asked whether you were at all convinced (by the rightwingers’ claim) that “free markets are needed”, I wasn’t so much questioning your support for “income redistribution” and “social welfare programs” (which I’ve always associated with “leftist social economics, where a big state guarantees health care and many other basic needs”) as much as I was asking how, if you shared Capriles’ position, these things could be coupled with “market-friendly policies”! Yes, I suppose Lula da Silva’s policies in Brazil did manage to balance these opposing tendencies, but it is far more likely that, in Venezuela, the tension between them will remain, and that one or the other will eventually take dominance.
Thanks for mentioning Jose Guerra. I am definitely interested in learning more about Capriles’ economic plan.
Thank you also for not dismissing the concerns I mention at the end of my comment as lightly as you could have. Although I bring them up, in part, to explain or even justify why I personally do not favor Capriles in the upcoming election, and although I obviously weigh these concerns more heavily than you, it is actually just as important for Capriles supporters to prepare to deal with the consequences of a shift in power, should your candidate win an electoral victory and replace Chavez as President. (I still believe what I wrote here (which you may not have seen)–that not only is there a grain of truth to Chavez’s warnings that right-wing elements in the opposition might not accept the results of the election, if he should win–but also that the same right-wing elements are just as likely to foment disorder should Capriles become elected, if he does not give in to their political pressure!)
I do have love for Chavez, and this news does suck. I wish him well, but he does need to plan for a successor.
*More*: I should say that, while I would support Chavez if he were healthy enough to run against Capriles (the leading opposition candidate) in the election, my support for his successor is by no means already-decided. My support would depend, of course, on whom Chavez were to choose, and on what his plans for Venezuela were. I’ve already suggested elsewhere that Chavez could do worse than throwing his support to Capriles himself–this would guarantee Capriles a far greater amount of support from amongst the Venezuelan poor, which he could use to advance his proposed center-left agenda and make good on his campaign promises–to maintain and even build of Chavez’s popular social welfare programs, while gradually dismantling only the most controversial government policies (i.e. namely, the price and currency controls and some nationalizations). If he is elected without that Chavista support (narrowly, I presume), my concern is that Capriles (who I believe is well intentioned) would be far more likely to respond to pressure from right-wing elements in the current political ‘opposition’ (who may not be exerting much pressure now, for strategic reasons, described below); if he feels his support base is comprised of disproportionately right-wing (upper-class and elitist) elements–who may be willing to support a ‘center-left’ candidate only now because the opposition parties have agreed that the best chance to remove Chavez from office, in light of the failures of all other strategies (which include coup attempts, a recall referendum, etc.), was to rally support around a single candidate–and that he cannot afford to risk weakening his anti-Chavez coalition, Capriles would be less capable of governing truly as a center-left politician and making good on his promises.
Let me just come right out and say it: there are a lot of possible scenarios being discussed. Here’s mine: if President Chavez’s health problems become so severe that he does not run for re-election, given the option of choosing a possible successor from among his inner circle, none of whom possess the charisma or influence necessary to defeat the opposition candidate, perhaps Chavez should consider actually endorsing Capriles. In all honesty, such a move could shift the base of Capriles’ support down a socio-economic level or two, so that Capriles would not need to depend on elite support to compete against the government candidate.
(As in any democratic election where a challenger faces an incumbent who has the benefit of using his resources to his advantage, Capriles will need ‘elite support’ to facilitate his rise to power. Even Chavez had to secure ‘elite support’ from upper- and middle-class voters to secure his victory in the 1998 and subsequent elections. I am not saying that ‘Capriles represents elite interests’, or that ‘Capriles is not a center-left candidate as he is actually claiming’; I’m merely concerned that, if he is to take power, Capriles does so in a manner that is not unnecessarily beholden to elites who could later interfere with his center-left agenda.).
If he goes along with this, Capriles would have the potential to bridge the division between Chavez supporters and opponents, and maybe even steer Venezuela in a positive direction (I say this as a Chavez supporter!).
I should have done that. Thanks for the tip.
I should probably point out why this perhaps seemingly insignificant oversight–the omission of any quotation from Chavez backing up the AP’s story about Chavez’s alleged accusation–troubles me; for if the news report is not itself ‘propaganda’, it is tailor-made for those who engage in anti-Chavez ‘propaganda’. Let me explain.
Chavez has every right to be skeptical about the opposition candidate’s intentions (given the opposition’s history of engaging in a wide variety of tactics, including violent coups, in seeking control of state power). Until recently, the opposition was largely organized by members of the former ruling elite who sought to reimpose a regime that was responsible for great misfortunes, economic crises, decadence, corruption, poverty, etc. Its intentions to re-instate oligarchic rule in Venezuela were made clear in 2002 when it staged a coup attempt against Chavez’s democratically elected government. (The first steps after the “triumph of a small oligarchic elite” were to dissolve parliament and void the popularly ratified Constitution!)
Now, after failing to gain power by all other means (both legal and illegal), the opposition has decided to participate in elections, and, for some strange reason, the same elites who had sought to reimpose an oligarchic regime are now apparently rallying around a supposedly left-of-center candidate, Henrique Capriles! So it is quite reasonable for Presient Chavez–and Venezuelan voters–to suspect that the opposition might be trying to pull an political ‘bail-and-switch’, something that actually has precedence with the 1989 elections.
However, without understanding this important context (which the AP article DOES NOT PROVIDE), when readers hear that Chavez is accusing Capriles of “concealing his true intentions” which he claims are to serve the interests of the country’s oligarchic elite, it’s easy to mistake this accusation for an anti-Semitic attack!
And SURE ENOUGH, just days after the article cited above was published, the AP comes out with this report: Jewish group: Chavez foe a target of anti-Semitism. Again, the article provides no quotation from Chavez making any such accusation against Capriles–and he makes no references to his jewish heritage! The AP repeats the same damn joke that was quoted in the article above–about Capriles dressing up for Carnival.
This stupid joke has become the basis for two AP reports, both of which are extremely misleading. The AP is truly writing its reports in a way that can be easily misread, and misrepresented by anti-Chavez forces!