Chavez Buys Himself An Election

[everythingsxen]

Chavez Buys Himself An Election
INVESTOR'S BUINESS DAILY

Posted 12/4/2006

Latin America: Amazing how well totalitarians tend to fare in elections. Venezuela's was a big win for Hugo Chavez that, in the absence of fraud, the world is likely to approve. But that doesn't make it all free or fair.

Chavez won Sunday's election against challenger Manuel Rosales in a 61%-38% landslide, according to Venezuela's CNE election board. The victory margin was unusually high, but Rosales, to his credit, conceded gracefully, sparing Venezuela a Mexico-style electoral debacle. Uniting all the opposition for the first time, Rosales did well and lost honorably.

It is likely that observers from the Carter Center, the European Union and the Organization of American States, who have been watching this election for the past three weeks, will certify it for Chavez, giving him the veneer of democratic credibility he craves.

We see no signs of fraud, but there are troubling aspects to this race that suggest the outcome was not entirely free or fair.

MORE

[starmaker]

1. garbage

n/t

[salib]

2. All I could do was laugh at this one.

Maybe I am able to survive in this upside-down world for a little longer if I can laugh at this BS.

[tuvor]

3. Investors are grumpy over this, huh?

[Say_What]

4. IBD??? Total f*ck'n BULLSHIT

they claim to love democracy but then hate the results. A bunch of fuckin' WHINERS.

:spank:

On edit: IBD's editorial page runs a close second, or maybe tops, the WSJ. Take this bullshit from where it comes.

[knowbody0]

5. graceful right wing losers!

we need more of that here.

[EST]

6. Whew! Where to start?

I read the article.
Only one place in the entire harangue actually held any facts. That place was the explanation of Chavez's spending on the poor. That was the only statement that contained more than bitching and idle, negative speculation.

It's understandable, I suppose, that the money people would bitch because Chavez has reduced foreign investment-buying up the country and holding it hostage-to the lowest levels since practically forever.

How anyone can consider such a fact free hatchet job as even readable, let alone worthy of any attention is an indicator of a gullible minority, willing to swallow anything that condemns empowering real people.

[billbuckhead]

8. Republicans reward the rich to win elections, ask Welch or Murdoch

God forbid Venezuleans get cheap gasoline or car loans with government subsidies. God forbid they use the oil money to feed everyone in government subsidized cafeterias or are trying to help the poor get better housing.

[Webster Green]

7. Right wing bullshit!

Here's what they call "buying the election":

"The handouts that Chavez shoveled out totaled nearly $8 billion and included everything from single-mother stipends and free Cuban doctors to subsidized groceries and roofing materials for the loyalists among Venezuela's poor."

So........helping the poor is now considered rigging an election?

What a completely asinine fucking article.

[everythingsxen]

9. Actually, I don't think that was the part they meant..

I think they meant:

Meanwhile, fairness tended to be compromised by money. With vast power, Chavez delved deeply into state funds to out-spend his opposition 18-to-1 on the campaign trail. His splattered cash was visible in vote-for-Chavez billboards, street signs, truck paint jobs and building murals. There was even a Chavez-brand toothpaste in state-run stores.

Chavez also had a 20-to-1 advantage in TV airtime and arbitrarily broke into TV programs for any absurd reason to get his face in front of voters. The cost of such campaigning almost certainly exceeded the nation's low $8 million campaign-spending limit.

[burf]

13. My question is...

And how much US taxpayer money was spent to try and defeat Chavez?

[Say_What]

15. Like Cuba, Allende's Chile, and others --unlimited amounts and still

counting. For starters, Google USAID and Venezuela.

Welcome to DU!! :hi:

[katsy]

14. Let's talk warchests....

"Collectively, the RNC and two GOP congressional fund-raising committees took in $204 million last year and began 2004 with about $52 million left. The DNC and Democratic Senate and House committees raised $93 million and had about $21 million left Dec. 31."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4206696/


"President Bush spent twice as much as Democrats in just four weeks on the air, pouring about $40 million into television and radio commercials that championed his record and assailed John Kerry's."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=30&num=4334&printer=1

How many times did bushco* appear on teevee prior to the election? How many fundraising cross-sountry jaunts were taxpayer funded?

[Webster Green]

17. Actually, that is exactly what they said....you missed it..

The sentence in bold is the one you missed:

"Meanwhile, fairness tended to be compromised by money. With vast power, Chavez delved deeply into state funds to out-spend his opposition 18-to-1 on the campaign trail. His splattered cash was visible in vote-for-Chavez billboards, street signs, truck paint jobs and building murals. There was even a Chavez-brand toothpaste in state-run stores."

"Chavez also had a 20-to-1 advantage in TV airtime and arbitrarily broke into TV programs for any absurd reason to get his face in front of voters. The cost of such campaigning almost certainly exceeded the nation's low $8 million campaign-spending limit."

"This is all small potatoes compared with Chavez's ramped-up government spending. It exploded to 4.5% of GDP in 2006 to enhance Chavez's campaign, according to Santander Investments data. Last year, that figure was 3.2% of GDP, or $4.6 billion."

"The handouts that Chavez shoveled out totaled nearly $8 billion and included everything from single-mother stipends and free Cuban doctors to subsidized groceries and roofing materials for the loyalists among Venezuela's poor."


The things you mentioned were considered "small potatoes" by the authors. What the elitist chimpanistas (Bush-lickers) really hate is a democratically elected leader, particularly if he is actually trying to help the poor.

[WinkyDink]

10. Projection.

[Jcrowley]

11. Oh the tears of the crony capitalist

Did anyone actually sign their name to that article or was it just some morphed piece of garbage emanating from the bilge in the cesspool of the World Bank?

Investors Business Daily has zero problems with anyone buying anything unless it threatens their never-ending greed.

[Say_What]

12. Background on William J. O'Neil, owner of IBD and Bush pal...

<clips>

...O'Neil, a GOP supporter who claims influence with the Bush White House on economic policy, stresses that he doesn't involve himself in editorial affairs. There is no question, however, that IBD serves a decidedly conservative agenda. The newspaper's op-ed page regularly calls for tax cuts and supports racial profiling as a means to combat terrorism.

O'Neil himself expresses strong conservative views in private and even, on occasion, publicly: An open letter from O'Neil that appeared in the New York Times right after 9/11 called on the government to reduce the capital gains tax, lower corporate income taxes, lower interest rates, open up the deep interior of Alaska to oil drilling, and begin funding a missile defense system.

One former employee told me he left IBD when Jesus Christ was featured in the newspaper's "Leaders & Success" column.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-tm-oneil10mar05,0,5260200,full.story?coll=la-home-business

[John Gauger]

16. Wow, someone should explain elections to IBD.

See, Chavez had popular policies. Therefore, he won. That's not "buying votes," that's spending government funds on things that actually benefit the voters. That doesn't happen in this country, so we have to pick other issues to vote on. But in Venezuela, they have a man who is actually looking out for them. So they vote for him.

By the way, if Chavez is so repressive, how is it that Rosales was able to mount an effective campaign? Maybe because Chavez's wild popularity means he doesn't need to be repressive. Which is more than we can say for our President.

[MasonJar]

18. He sure did by spending the country's oil money to help his people

and not the American corporations who were not even paying the taxes that they owed.

[marmar]

19. What a John Birch Society rag the Investors Business Daily is.....

I'm sure they were equally vigilant in their criticism of the Florida and Ohio voting fraud, right? :argh:

[bemildred]

20. Moonbats.

To use their own terminology, WSJ opinion is a bunch of KoolAid drinking moonbats.

[yurbud]

21. hmmm...this is a surprise coming from investors business daily. The headline below was probably how

Chaves wouldn't let corporations make dog food out of Venezuelan children.

[Judi Lynn]

22. OAS Praises Venezuela Vote

OAS Praises Venezuela Vote

Caracas, Dec 4 (Prensa Latina) The Organization of American States highlighted the support provided by the Venezuela electoral authorities, political organizations and civil society during the observation mission on the presidential elections.

Juan Enrique Fischer, head of the OAS Observation Mission, also congratulated President Hugo Chavez for the triumph conferred by the preliminary counts carried out by the country s maximum electoral authority.

Similarly, he recognized the opposition candidate Manuel Rosales for his civil behavior and determination to strengthen democratic institutionalism in addition to the recognition for the dialogue willingness of both candidates.

Fischer expressed satisfaction for the notable civic example, the high and extraordinary index of participation and for the security conditions prevailing during the process.

The agreement signed by the OAS and the National Electoral Council fixing the terms of mission was absolutely fulfilled and facilitated the mission s performance, he remarked.
(snip/...)

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B2398C2D2-3E72-46AF-996C-CA4D86EBBDF5%7D)&language=EN

[classysassy]

23. Bush stole himself an election

[bemildred]

24. All our elections are bought.

What is all that emphasis on raising money about, if not that?
Money is free speech, right?
So what's the big deal?