http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119483047832889621.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc

More Trouble for Chávez
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
November 12, 2007; Page A16

In December 1957 Venezuelan dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez held a
plebiscite on his presidency. By going through the exercise of a
national vote, he thought he would legitimize his rule, which a
military junta had handed him five years earlier.

In the event, his government said he won, but Venezuelans weren't
convinced. Within a month, a popular uprising drove him from the
presidential palace and out of the country.

Next month will mark the golden jubilee of Pérez Jiménez's fateful
December "triumph," which provoked his demise and opened a space for
democracy to emerge in 1958. Coincidentally the anniversary falls in
the same month as a referendum -- called by President Hugo Chávez --
on 69 constitutional reforms that will, among other things, allow him
to rule for life.

Like the last dictator, Mr. Chávez believes that if he can show that a
majority of voters back his power grab, his government will have won
the imprimatur of democracy. But now, as then, Venezuelans are putting
up a fight.

Mr. Chávez has already consolidated his power by getting control of
Venezuela's political institutions. But now he wants to close any
remaining loopholes by writing his absolute rule into the 1999
constitution. The trouble is that, according to the document, a major
rewrite of the text can be carried out only by an elected
constitutional assembly. This process is designed to preserve some
measure of democratic pluralism and by trying to skip it, the
president has provoked a firestorm of criticism.

Mr. Chávez has been working to remove any counterbalances to his power
for almost nine years now. Over that time he has met strong resistance
from property owners, businesses, labor leaders, the Catholic Church
and the media. But since the spring, when university students of
varying backgrounds began to lead an opposition movement against his
crackdown on civil liberties, many have wondered whether chavismo has
begun to lose the support of the population more broadly.

In opposition to the Dec. 2 referendum, university students have
redoubled their efforts in the streets and a number of the president's
heretofore backers have joined the chorus -- all of which has led to
increased speculation that Mr. Chávez's days are numbered.

It's easy to see what Mr. Chávez is after. Besides lifting
presidential term limits, the referendum proposes to allow the media
to be censored and civil liberties suspended under a state of
emergency, to permit the government seizure of private property, to
mandate a six-hour work day, to increase presidential power over state
authorities and to end central bank autonomy.

Up to now the fiery orator has had a rather easy time of rolling over
his opponents. To counter their claims that he is taking Venezuela
down the Cuban path, he has simply sounded the battle cry of class
warfare and pointed to the corruption of former governments. The
opposition has been fragmented and easily thwarted by a demagogue who
promises to spread the oil wealth more equally.

But this year something has gone terribly wrong with the formula, as
evidenced by the dissent coming from previously supportive quarters.
Mr. Chávez's decision to strip prominent media critic, RCTV, of its
broadcasting license earlier this year may mark the tipping point.
Assaults on private property and the jailing of opponents over the
year hadn't produced much of a response from university students. But
the clampdown on free speech set them off. They poured into the
streets, amid tear gas and rubber bullets yet, notably, never called
for Mr. Chávez to leave office. Instead they chanted for "liberty."
While they lost their bid to save RCTV, they gained respect with the
public as a credible voice against one-man rule.

Now the students are back in the streets putting up a fight against
the referendum. In the past three weeks tens of thousands have marched
to the Congress, the Electoral Council and most recently to the
Supreme Court. They are a problem for the president, not the least
because their leaders are from middle and low-middle income
backgrounds and cannot be dismissed as "elites." Moreover, their
defense of civil liberties seems to resonate with an increasing number
of Venezuelans. They say that they are opponents, not of Mr. Chávez
per se, but of the destruction of the country's institutions that
guarantee freedoms.

Last week Mr. Chávez suffered another political setback, this time
from his former minister of defense, Gen. Raúl Baduel, who said that
if the president gets his amendments it will amount to a "coup"
against the democracy. That's a serious charge from any member of the
armed forces, but coming from Gen. Baduel it is devastating. He was a
key player in restoring Mr. Chávez to power when others in the
military had removed the president briefly in April 2002. His
criticism raises questions about whether Mr. Chávez is losing support
within the barracks.

Yet another high-profile defector from the Chávez camp is Hermann
Escarrá, a constitutional-law scholar and one of the architects of the
1999 constitution, which Mr. Chávez has so often cited as sacred. Mr.
Escarrá opposes the referendum, has joined the students in their
protests and has vowed that he will not retreat. Most university
rectors also back the students.

If public support for Mr. Chávez is waning, it may not be due entirely
to his politics. Inflation could finish the year above 20% and milk
and sugar are extremely hard to come by. Still, analysts believe that
the opposition is too weak to derail him at this time and that the
referendum will be carried out regardless of its popularity.

Nevertheless, just as Pérez Jiménez found, holding the vote can't
reverse Mr. Chávez's political fortunes if he has fallen from grace.
Surely he knows this and it is why he has been preparing for a
showdown. His supporters are armed, as we saw on Wednesday when
students returning to the university from a protest march were
ambushed by gun-toting pro-Chávez goons. One student was shot.
Tragically, if Venezuelans decide Mr. Chávez should go it is not
likely to happen without more such violence.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:25:13 -0000, rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In rec.sport.football.college NewsToBeRead <NewsToBeRead@yahoo.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119483047832889621.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc

It's nice to hear the WSJ wingnuts complain about bad-for-their-bidness
vicious dictators. I don't recall, do they complain about the dictators
who are actually good for their business?

rich

More Trouble for Chávez
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
November 12, 2007; Page A16

In December 1957 Venezuelan dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez held a
plebiscite on his presidency. By going through the exercise of a
national vote, he thought he would legitimize his rule, which a
military junta had handed him five years earlier.

In the event, his government said he won, but Venezuelans weren't
convinced. Within a month, a popular uprising drove him from the
presidential palace and out of the country.

Next month will mark the golden jubilee of Pérez Jiménez's fateful
December "triumph," which provoked his demise and opened a space for
democracy to emerge in 1958. Coincidentally the anniversary falls in
the same month as a referendum -- called by President Hugo Chávez --
on 69 constitutional reforms that will, among other things, allow him
to rule for life.

Like the last dictator, Mr. Chávez believes that if he can show that a
majority of voters back his power grab, his government will have won
the imprimatur of democracy. But now, as then, Venezuelans are putting
up a fight.

Mr. Chávez has already consolidated his power by getting control of
Venezuela's political institutions. But now he wants to close any
remaining loopholes by writing his absolute rule into the 1999
constitution. The trouble is that, according to the document, a major
rewrite of the text can be carried out only by an elected
constitutional assembly. This process is designed to preserve some
measure of democratic pluralism and by trying to skip it, the
president has provoked a firestorm of criticism.

Mr. Chávez has been working to remove any counterbalances to his power
for almost nine years now. Over that time he has met strong resistance
from property owners, businesses, labor leaders, the Catholic Church
and the media. But since the spring, when university students of
varying backgrounds began to lead an opposition movement against his
crackdown on civil liberties, many have wondered whether chavismo has
begun to lose the support of the population more broadly.

In opposition to the Dec. 2 referendum, university students have
redoubled their efforts in the streets and a number of the president's
heretofore backers have joined the chorus -- all of which has led to
increased speculation that Mr. Chávez's days are numbered.

It's easy to see what Mr. Chávez is after. Besides lifting
presidential term limits, the referendum proposes to allow the media
to be censored and civil liberties suspended under a state of
emergency, to permit the government seizure of private property, to
mandate a six-hour work day, to increase presidential power over state
authorities and to end central bank autonomy.

Up to now the fiery orator has had a rather easy time of rolling over
his opponents. To counter their claims that he is taking Venezuela
down the Cuban path, he has simply sounded the battle cry of class
warfare and pointed to the corruption of former governments. The
opposition has been fragmented and easily thwarted by a demagogue who
promises to spread the oil wealth more equally.

But this year something has gone terribly wrong with the formula, as
evidenced by the dissent coming from previously supportive quarters.
Mr. Chávez's decision to strip prominent media critic, RCTV, of its
broadcasting license earlier this year may mark the tipping point.
Assaults on private property and the jailing of opponents over the
year hadn't produced much of a response from university students. But
the clampdown on free speech set them off. They poured into the
streets, amid tear gas and rubber bullets yet, notably, never called
for Mr. Chávez to leave office. Instead they chanted for "liberty."
While they lost their bid to save RCTV, they gained respect with the
public as a credible voice against one-man rule.

Now the students are back in the streets putting up a fight against
the referendum. In the past three weeks tens of thousands have marched
to the Congress, the Electoral Council and most recently to the
Supreme Court. They are a problem for the president, not the least
because their leaders are from middle and low-middle income
backgrounds and cannot be dismissed as "elites." Moreover, their
defense of civil liberties seems to resonate with an increasing number
of Venezuelans. They say that they are opponents, not of Mr. Chávez
per se, but of the destruction of the country's institutions that
guarantee freedoms.

Last week Mr. Chávez suffered another political setback, this time
from his former minister of defense, Gen. Raúl Baduel, who said that
if the president gets his amendments it will amount to a "coup"
against the democracy. That's a serious charge from any member of the
armed forces, but coming from Gen. Baduel it is devastating. He was a
key player in restoring Mr. Chávez to power when others in the
military had removed the president briefly in April 2002. His
criticism raises questions about whether Mr. Chávez is losing support
within the barracks.

Yet another high-profile defector from the Chávez camp is Hermann
Escarrá, a constitutional-law scholar and one of the architects of the
1999 constitution, which Mr. Chávez has so often cited as sacred. Mr.
Escarrá opposes the referendum, has joined the students in their
protests and has vowed that he will not retreat. Most university
rectors also back the students.

If public support for Mr. Chávez is waning, it may not be due entirely
to his politics. Inflation could finish the year above 20% and milk
and sugar are extremely hard to come by. Still, analysts believe that
the opposition is too weak to derail him at this time and that the
referendum will be carried out regardless of its popularity.

Nevertheless, just as Pérez Jiménez found, holding the vote can't
reverse Mr. Chávez's political fortunes if he has fallen from grace.
Surely he knows this and it is why he has been preparing for a
showdown. His supporters are armed, as we saw on Wednesday when
students returning to the university from a protest march were
ambushed by gun-toting pro-Chávez goons. One student was shot.
Tragically, if Venezuelans decide Mr. Chávez should go it is not
likely to happen without more such violence.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:25:13 -0000, rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In rec.sport.football.college NewsToBeRead <NewsToBeRead@yahoo.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:

Does this mean you're a fan of Chavez? I'm just curious, because it's
hard to tell and you seem to be intentionally avoiding having to
say...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119483047832889621.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc

It's nice to hear the WSJ wingnuts complain about bad-for-their-bidness
vicious dictators. I don't recall, do they complain about the dictators
who are actually good for their business?

rich

More Trouble for Chávez
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
November 12, 2007; Page A16

In December 1957 Venezuelan dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez held a
plebiscite on his presidency. By going through the exercise of a
national vote, he thought he would legitimize his rule, which a
military junta had handed him five years earlier.

In the event, his government said he won, but Venezuelans weren't
convinced. Within a month, a popular uprising drove him from the
presidential palace and out of the country.

Next month will mark the golden jubilee of Pérez Jiménez's fateful
December "triumph," which provoked his demise and opened a space for
democracy to emerge in 1958. Coincidentally the anniversary falls in
the same month as a referendum -- called by President Hugo Chávez --
on 69 constitutional reforms that will, among other things, allow him
to rule for life.

Like the last dictator, Mr. Chávez believes that if he can show that a
majority of voters back his power grab, his government will have won
the imprimatur of democracy. But now, as then, Venezuelans are putting
up a fight.

Mr. Chávez has already consolidated his power by getting control of
Venezuela's political institutions. But now he wants to close any
remaining loopholes by writing his absolute rule into the 1999
constitution. The trouble is that, according to the document, a major
rewrite of the text can be carried out only by an elected
constitutional assembly. This process is designed to preserve some
measure of democratic pluralism and by trying to skip it, the
president has provoked a firestorm of criticism.

Mr. Chávez has been working to remove any counterbalances to his power
for almost nine years now. Over that time he has met strong resistance
from property owners, businesses, labor leaders, the Catholic Church
and the media. But since the spring, when university students of
varying backgrounds began to lead an opposition movement against his
crackdown on civil liberties, many have wondered whether chavismo has
begun to lose the support of the population more broadly.

In opposition to the Dec. 2 referendum, university students have
redoubled their efforts in the streets and a number of the president's
heretofore backers have joined the chorus -- all of which has led to
increased speculation that Mr. Chávez's days are numbered.

It's easy to see what Mr. Chávez is after. Besides lifting
presidential term limits, the referendum proposes to allow the media
to be censored and civil liberties suspended under a state of
emergency, to permit the government seizure of private property, to
mandate a six-hour work day, to increase presidential power over state
authorities and to end central bank autonomy.

Up to now the fiery orator has had a rather easy time of rolling over
his opponents. To counter their claims that he is taking Venezuela
down the Cuban path, he has simply sounded the battle cry of class
warfare and pointed to the corruption of former governments. The
opposition has been fragmented and easily thwarted by a demagogue who
promises to spread the oil wealth more equally.

But this year something has gone terribly wrong with the formula, as
evidenced by the dissent coming from previously supportive quarters.
Mr. Chávez's decision to strip prominent media critic, RCTV, of its
broadcasting license earlier this year may mark the tipping point.
Assaults on private property and the jailing of opponents over the
year hadn't produced much of a response from university students. But
the clampdown on free speech set them off. They poured into the
streets, amid tear gas and rubber bullets yet, notably, never called
for Mr. Chávez to leave office. Instead they chanted for "liberty."
While they lost their bid to save RCTV, they gained respect with the
public as a credible voice against one-man rule.

Now the students are back in the streets putting up a fight against
the referendum. In the past three weeks tens of thousands have marched
to the Congress, the Electoral Council and most recently to the
Supreme Court. They are a problem for the president, not the least
because their leaders are from middle and low-middle income
backgrounds and cannot be dismissed as "elites." Moreover, their
defense of civil liberties seems to resonate with an increasing number
of Venezuelans. They say that they are opponents, not of Mr. Chávez
per se, but of the destruction of the country's institutions that
guarantee freedoms.

Last week Mr. Chávez suffered another political setback, this time
from his former minister of defense, Gen. Raúl Baduel, who said that
if the president gets his amendments it will amount to a "coup"
against the democracy. That's a serious charge from any member of the
armed forces, but coming from Gen. Baduel it is devastating. He was a
key player in restoring Mr. Chávez to power when others in the
military had removed the president briefly in April 2002. His
criticism raises questions about whether Mr. Chávez is losing support
within the barracks.

Yet another high-profile defector from the Chávez camp is Hermann
Escarrá, a constitutional-law scholar and one of the architects of the
1999 constitution, which Mr. Chávez has so often cited as sacred. Mr.
Escarrá opposes the referendum, has joined the students in their
protests and has vowed that he will not retreat. Most university
rectors also back the students.

If public support for Mr. Chávez is waning, it may not be due entirely
to his politics. Inflation could finish the year above 20% and milk
and sugar are extremely hard to come by. Still, analysts believe that
the opposition is too weak to derail him at this time and that the
referendum will be carried out regardless of its popularity.

Nevertheless, just as Pérez Jiménez found, holding the vote can't
reverse Mr. Chávez's political fortunes if he has fallen from grace.
Surely he knows this and it is why he has been preparing for a
showdown. His supporters are armed, as we saw on Wednesday when
students returning to the university from a protest march were
ambushed by gun-toting pro-Chávez goons. One student was shot.
Tragically, if Venezuelans decide Mr. Chávez should go it is not
likely to happen without more such violence.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When
you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts