Is Chavez' Star Rising?

[xsedrinam]

Calling for a revamping of the UN, Chavez offers himself to replace the Guatemalan seat, and be the voice of the third world (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un.ap/index.html). Do you think Chavez is on the rise or too reckless with his rhetoric to be trusted in this capacity?

[mactastic]

How about both?

[Warbrain]

He's definitely seen as a rising star in some aspects. But some still see him as a bit out there. Well, only those who don't like anything remotely left-wing.

And he called Bush a devil! I totally agree with that!

[KingYaba]

So the leader of my country is the devil? :confused:

[skunk]

Yep, Mammon's representative on Earth. :)

[Ugg]

He's the only third world personality that seems to be getting any press in the US. He likes the stage and likes making grandiose gestures. He also seems intent on uniting South America which is a good thing IMO. However, his rigid controls on the Venezuelan economy are going to back fire before long so I guess he's a potential rising star. He really doesn't have enough of a track record.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Corporate greed has fueled his star rising in my view. Lets face it though we dont care for him that much at least he isnt a prostitute to the Corporations like our Entire Govt in the U.S. so he does have that going for him. Congress & our President are eager to screw America and the middle class at every chance. Just look at the border at a time of war and yet.... The people need a leader for the people its something that missing big time in the States.

[xsedrinam]

How about both?
My wording asked for that, didn't it? :p

Next December 3 comes another election for Venezuela. Seems like the most viable Chavez opponent is Rosales. Chavez' strong suit has been his perceived, sincere desire to reach out to the poor. Though his Bolivarian style of leadership continues to come under criticism, he's an astute politician and manages to dodge bullets and pass the Bolivares to the bad advice coming from those around him, when mistakes are made.

In context, Chavez' posture may influence coming elections in Nicaragua (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/18/MNGJPL7MQ61.DTL) which present the possible resurgence of Ortega & Co. Interesting days.

[obeygiant]

what gets me is that there was "applause" after his speech.

i say let the UN re-seat themselves there. let the delegates
find places to have $3000 dinners (totally expensed) in chavez'
capital city.

[solvs]

So the leader of my country is the devil? :confused:
No.

The Devil was smart, even if evil. ;) Bush is just incompetent.

[KingYaba]

No.

The Devil was smart, even if evil. ;) Bush is just incompetent.
:D Maybe the devil was insulted by Chavez?

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=58016&stc=1&d=1158768952
Free publicity for Noam Chomsky? I think Bush is the devil? So buy this book all you Bush-hating lefties! Come to the light, open your mind, expose American imperialism! This book says it's true, so it has to be!

What sucker would believe this?

[dsnort]

Calling for a revamping of the UN, Chavez offers himself to replace the Guatemalan seat, and be the voice of the third world (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un.ap/index.html). Do you think Chavez is on the rise or too reckless with his rhetoric to be trusted in this capacity?

How about Chavez is the Venezuelan Dubya?

[Foxglove9]

Free publicity for Noam Chomsky?

Amazon is reporting a huge spike in sales for Noam Chomsky's book soon after the comments Chavez made.

I loved the applaud after he called Bush the devil. It made my week. :D

[KingYaba]

So Chavez shoots his mouth off, everyone praises him. If Bush shoots his mouth off...(Do I have to finish the sentence?)

I agree with Chavez. The UN is a waste of time and money. Let's move it elsewhere and we (the US) never be apart of it again.

I'm just getting real sick of this unbridled Bush basing.

[mactastic]

So Chavez shoots his mouth off, everyone praises him. If Bush shoots his mouth off...(Do I have to finish the sentence?)
Are you saying that nowhere does anyone praise Bush when he shoots his mouth off? I can point you to places where "Bring 'em on" went over real well...

Also, I can point you to plenty of places where Chavez is criticized heavily any time he opens his mouth.

So either you're being disingenuous, or you're too lazy to go look around outside the MR forum for political thought.

I agree with Chavez. The UN is a waste of time and money. Let's move it elsewhere and we (the US) never be apart of it again.
Funny that Chavez and the extreme right wing of the GOP find common ground here...

I'm just getting real sick of this unbridled Bush basing.
Hey, if I want to put Bush in a glass pipe and smoke him, that's my business, right Mr. Libertarian? ;)

But seriously, if President Kerry had sucked this bad, would you refrain from bashing him, simply because there was plenty going on already?

[bousozoku]

So Chavez shoots his mouth off, everyone praises him. If Bush shoots his mouth off...(Do I have to finish the sentence?)

I agree with Chavez. The UN is a waste of time and money. Let's move it elsewhere and we (the US) never be apart of it again.

I'm just getting real sick of this unbridled Bush basing.

They're be no need for Bush bashing if the president would do his job and not be the puppet of every business in the U.S.A. The man isn't doing a good job for the people and that's who he is there to serve.

Chavez is a little man with a big mouth but it's popular to attack the U.S.A. and he got another 15 minutes of fame.

I know that we need a world government, but the United Nations isn't it. They should be hosted somewhere else--Greenland, perhaps, Antartica, if that doesn't work out. That will clear up traffic in the fast lane of the New Jersey Turnpike with all those Chinese Diplomatic cars going 35 mph.

[Macky-Mac]

the more publicity that Chavez gets, the more it helps Bush and the Republicans with the upcoming election as it simply convinces undecided voters that maybe the USA's security interests are better served by the right

[zimv20]

the more publicity that Chavez gets, the more it helps Bush and the Republicans with the upcoming election as it simply convinces undecided voters that maybe the USA's security interests are better served by the right
in your opinion, you mean. or do you have some poll data?

[clevin]

in your opinion, you mean. or do you have some poll data?
just read the replies of this post, you can see the so called "patriotic" ppl, yeah, US citizens can blame bush, but other people can't, to some degree, I agree, no matter how bad the president is, he is "one of us", can't be attacked by "outsider", remember dixie chicks?
In my opinion, you like it or not, the fact is hundreds of thousands of people died because of his decision, if thats not enough, I don't know whatelse do people need to blame him.

[Thanatoast]

Chavez's star isn't rising. He gets publicity because he tells off Bush, but he's not accomplishing much. He's annoying his neighbors and scaring off investors in Venezuela with his rhetoric.

He talks a good game but he won't get anywhere unless he calms down and starts talking to people instead of at them. Kinda reminds me of Bush, actually.

[Dont Hurt Me]

So Chavez shoots his mouth off, everyone praises him. If Bush shoots his mouth off...(Do I have to finish the sentence?)

I agree with Chavez. The UN is a waste of time and money. Let's move it elsewhere and we (the US) never be apart of it again.

I'm just getting real sick of this unbridled Bush basing.You shouldnt, this man took us to war over made up missing facts, Has done a heck of job with Katrina and the borders are still open for the most part. He deserves all this bashing since his party runs the whole govt. Please dont ask ,yes I use to be a republican.

[xsedrinam]

Chavez's star isn't rising. He gets publicity because he tells off Bush, but he's not accomplishing much. He's annoying his neighbors and scaring off investors in Venezuela with his rhetoric.

He talks a good game but he won't get anywhere unless he calms down and starts talking to people instead of at them. Kinda reminds me of Bush, actually.
Perhaps, "star rising" isn't the best metaphor. But his increasing influence in the region cannot be so easily dismissed. He's made "amigasos" with Fidel (Cuba), Morales (Bolivia), received the only standing ovation among invited dignitaries, when in Ecuador, and has convinced many a Venezolano of his intention to address the needs of the poor and marginalized (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4204869.html). Venezuela is paying around 12¢ a gallon for gasoline. That does not resemble Mr. Bush.

I'm not coming down on a side for or against him, at the moment, but I do think his popularity among countries where there's anti-U.S. sentiment in Latin America is on the rise.

[mactastic]

I'm not coming down on a side for or against him, at the moment, but I do think his popularity among countries where there's anti-U.S. sentiment in Latin America is on the rise.
And IMHO, the big problem is that Bush feeds this anti-US sentiment because it makes his base happy. This leads to further rhetoric from Chavez that increases HIS standing among the anti-US crowd. And it builds support for an anti-US axis, and it helps these leftist-type candidates get themselves elected by running as "tough on Bush".

More self-fulfilling prophesies all the way around.

[Macky-Mac]

in your opinion, you mean. or do you have some poll data?

polls do show that "security" is still a issue that a majority of people say will be better handled by Bush and the Republicans

fear and uncertainty are definitely things that have an impact on how people vote

[zimv20]

polls do show that "security" is still a issue that a majority of people say will be better handled by Bush and the Republicans

to then conclude that chavez' comments at the UN will translate to GOP votes goes beyond a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, i don't even see how there's a correlation.

is it because mr chavez is brown?

[mactastic]

to then conclude that chavez' comments at the UN will translate to GOP votes goes beyond a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, i don't even see how there's a correlation.

is it because mr chavez is brown?
While it may not be logical, I think he does have a point. When bin Laden spoke prior to the '04 elections, that speech was exploited by the GOP as proof that bin Laden wanted Kerry elected. That perception filtered down to the public, and likely played a part in providing Bush with electoral victory.

The same assumption can credibly be made here. If this is seen, rightly or wrongly, as being tied to left-wing politics in the states -- if lefties are seen as supporting Chavez because they hate Bush so much -- that can potentially translate into votes for the GOP. Whether those votes are deserved or not is a seperate matter.

As we now know, bin Laden was actually hoping to boost Bush's electoral chances, not Kerry's. But that's not how it was spun when it counted.

[Macky-Mac]

to then conclude that chavez' comments at the UN will translate to GOP votes goes beyond a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, i don't even see how there's a correlation.

is it because mr chavez is brown?

Well it's fairly straight forward;
Chavez has been quite busy building alliances with Castro, Iran and other groups that are intently anti-american. The more publicity his ongoing anti-american statements get (and that would include UN comments) the more aware americans will be with his aggressive anti-american stance. When they hear talk of other countries organizing to defeat the USA, that's going to worry a percentage of those voters. It may not be high on your own list of issues, but the security of the USA is something that concerns a lot of people, especially those swing voters who aren't necessarily committed to one party or the other.

Despite the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq, polls still show that americans view the republicans as better prepared to deal with security issues. The democrats just haven't made much progress on changing opinions on the security issue. So if voters perceive an increasing threat to their national security, that's going to work in favor of the republicans.

[xsedrinam]

...Despite the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq, polls still show that americans view the republicans as better prepared to deal with security issues. The democrats just haven't made much progress on changing opinions on the security issue. So if voters perceive an increasing threat to their national security, that's going to work in favor of the republicans.
Which polls are you referring to? A link would be helpful. Bush's overall Job Rating (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) shows that most U.S. Americans are not seeing it that way.

[lord patton]

Which polls are you referring to? A link would be helpful. Bush's overall Job Rating (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) shows that most U.S. Americans are not seeing it that way.

job approval is a pretty blunt measure. This report suggests Republicans are indeed benefiting from any perceived uptick in "security insecurity."

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/092106.html

Gallup asked, “What impact do you think this fall’s elections will have on terrorism in the U.S.? Do you think the country will be safer from terrorism if the Republicans keep control of Congress, would be safer from terrorism if the Democrats gain control of Congress, or would it not make a difference either way?” (In its questioning, Gallup rotates mentioning the Republicans or Democrats first.)

Forty-four percent say it wouldn’t make any difference. But 31 percent say the country would be safer if Republicans keep control, and 21 percent say it would be safer if Democrats gain control.

[lord patton]

to then conclude that chavez' comments at the UN will translate to GOP votes goes beyond a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, i don't even see how there's a correlation.
I think others have responded to this well.

Today Nancy Pelosi called Chavez a thug. Obviously, she knows the calculus here works to Bush's favor... smart move to condemn the little Marxist.

is it because mr chavez is brown?
:confused:

[xsedrinam]

job approval is a pretty blunt measure. This report suggests Republicans are indeed benefiting from any perceived uptick in "security insecurity."

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/092106.html
Thanks. That's the one I was looking for.

[dpaanlka]

I get a sense of publicity stunt from everything Chavez does. I was pretty surprised about the U.N. applause. I'm really starting to think the U.N. is a joke. Maybe Saddam kicked them out because he realized this pretty early.

It would be interesting to see Bush and Ahmadinejad have a debate.

[DZ/015]

to then conclude that chavez' comments at the UN will translate to GOP votes goes beyond a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, i don't even see how there's a correlation.

is it because mr chavez is brown?

No stretch is necessary. His comments are obscene. The comment on President Chavez' skin color smacks of racism.

[zimv20]

i still don't see the connection between mr chavez and terrorism.

regarding the comment on the color of his skin, it's a reflection of the last 6 years of foreign policy: "brown people cause all our problems". whether it's terrorism, illegal immigration, or being outspoken against the administration, the bush administration is using racism to further its own agenda.

[solvs]

I'm just getting real sick of this unbridled Bush basing.
Unwarranted maybe. But what about warranted? Chavez is a rising star among those who dislike Bush. The rhetoric against him is entertaining. Not saying it's right, most of us have very valid reasons to dislike Bush and his administration and can recognize statements by those such as Chavez for what they are. Some, like Jon Stewart and Nancy Pelosi, will flat out say he isn't helping. Wanting to make it clear they don't support Chavez or the guy from Iran, any more than Bin Laden or Saddam. They have plenty of reasons to dislike Bush without resorting to rhetoric and personal attacks. But the other side likes to pick up on those who do and relate all of them to the far left or those darn foreigners who want to hurt us. The left does the same with Ann Coulter, but it's kinda hard not to based on how cosey the right likes to get with her (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/22/ann-coulter-tony-snow-to-speak-at-the-frc-action-values-voter-summit/).

Moderates can just dislike them all, but if a Dem was screwing up as much as Bush is right now and Ann was attacking them, if it's justifiable and not an outright lie (as she is known to :ahem: shall we say stretch the truth) we might give it a giggle just the same. ;)

[KingYaba]

I'm shocked that Nancy Pelosi of all people actually stood up for President Bush! :eek:

The Republicans have been absolutely silent. I doubt any of them know what to say really. I doubt Pres. Bush can articulate his feelings well enough, hence why he's been silent. I could be wrong. I would expect every staunch Republican to be throwing bombs back at Chavez. They let him walk all over the Bush administration. Maybe they dont have the balls to stand up for themselves anymore. :confused:

[mactastic]

I'm shocked that Nancy Pelosi of all people actually stood up for President Bush! :eek:
Why? Do you really buy into the Republic rhetoric that she's the devil? :confused:

[KingYaba]

Since when has Nancy Pelosi ever stuck up for Bush? She's always been one of the harsher critics. It's not something I'd expect to come from her, that's all.

No, I don't think she's the devil. :p

[xsedrinam]

Unwarranted maybe. But what about warranted? Chavez is a rising star among those who dislike Bush. The rhetoric against him is entertaining. Not saying it's right, most of us have very valid reasons to dislike Bush and his administration and can recognize statements by those such as Chavez for what they are....
Here's a linked transcription of Chavez' address to UN "Rise Up Against the Empire" (http://www.alterinfos.org/spip.php?article535) from Sept 20, if anyone's interested.

"And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.
Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.
So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south."

[lord patton]

The Republicans have been absolutely silent. I doubt any of them know what to say really... Maybe they dont have the balls to stand up for themselves anymore. :confused:

Staying siltent could be a good move. Sometimes it's best to give your opponents rope and let them hang themselves.

[mactastic]

Staying siltent could be a good move. Sometimes it's best to give your opponents rope and let them hang themselves.
Opponents meaning Democrats, or Chavez?

[xsedrinam]

Staying siltent could be a good move. Sometimes it's best to give your opponents rope and let them hang themselves.
As true as it is prudent also to take opposition seriously. I don't think it's a good move to smugly dismiss this or to seek to "ridiculizar" (English n/a) the intentions.

“Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.”

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”
--Sun Tzu (Chinese General and Author, b.500 BC)

[mactastic]

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”[/i]
--Sun Tzu (Chinese General and Author, b.500 BC)
Oh man, isn't that exactly why Bush is losing his war in Iraq, in a nutshell...

[lord patton]

Opponents meaning Democrats, or Chavez?

In this case, Chavez.

[xsedrinam]

If there truly is a formation of fronts for what Rumsfeld claims to be the "battle of ideas", what kind of mixed signals are being perceived by those other than U.S. countries? The messages being sent are being contextualized not only by M.E. countries, but also by South American countries as well as the rest of the world. Again, I don't condone Chavez' reckless rhetoric and defiance, but surely there's enough cultural sensitivity and insight at Washington's disposal, to recognize how blatantly pugnacious some of these messages have been.

"President Bush is to be commended for his effort to make plain the danger posed by Islamofascists. By so doing he has also implicitly underscored the imperative of waging this war on the ideological level — what Donald Rumsfeld has called the "battle of ideas." For far too long, America has done far too little to fight and win on this front of the War for the Free World. We can no longer afford to do so." Mixed Signals (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/gaffney081506.php3) --Jewish World Review

[Bobdude161]

isn't chavez hated by most of his venezuelan peeps?

[solvs]

I'm shocked that Nancy Pelosi of all people actually stood up for President Bush! :eek:
I don't think it's so much that she defended Bush, so much as she's criticizing Chavez. As I said, there are plenty of real reasons to hate Bush. You don't need to go insulting the Devil like that to make your point. :p

isn't chavez hated by most of his venezuelan peeps?
Just as Bush is hated, but he gains support from the base by calling other nations' leaders evil and talking about how they're out to get you. It works. Just take a look at some of the nutcases around here defending Bush as if he was our saviour. Work against Bush too. People really, really hate him, so when some other world leader calls him the devil, a lot of people cheer. Or at least smile a little. Even if they don't believe it. People really, really hate Bush.

[xsedrinam]

isn't chavez hated by most of his venezuelan peeps?
One of the best written and recent articles (May/June) discussing the move to the Left in Latin America is "Latin America's Left Turn" (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85302/jorge-g-castaneda/latin-america-s-left-turn.html) Foreign Affairs by Jorge Castañeda. I think it’s well worth the read.


As to Chavez’ popularity among his own countrymen, you can read linked reactions from sites like VHeadline Latest (http://www.vheadline.com/main.asp) and decide for yourself, though this particular site has not been without bias, at least they do make an honest effort in this case to show reactions from both sides, and it’s in English. If you happen to read Spanish, their prominent newspaper El Nacional (http://www.el-nacional.com/) should add flavor.

[Flowbee]

Amazon is reporting a huge spike in sales for Noam Chomsky's book soon after the comments Chavez made.

I bought the book that night (it had been on my "to read" list anyway). They still had several copies at the little bookstore down the street. I'm hoping to dig into it this weekend.

[princealfie]

:D Maybe the devil was insulted by Chavez?

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=58016&stc=1&d=1158768952
Free publicity for Noam Chomsky? I think Bush is the devil? So buy this book all you Bush-hating lefties! Come to the light, open your mind, expose American imperialism! This book says it's true, so it has to be!

What sucker would believe this?

At least Chavez held up a more intelligent book than whatever document Bush would have been holding up.

[KingYaba]

Bush labeled some entire countries as evil. (part of that axis)

Chavez labeled Bush as evil. (calling him the Devil)

:D

[Flowbee]

I don't see why it's so hard to believe that some world leaders may see Bush and his administration as an evil, destructive force in the world (and not just because they "hate our freedoms"). While I agree that the UN shouldn't be the forum to voice such rhetoric, the Bush administration hasn't exactly shied away from publicly demonizing their enemies as it suits them.

[solvs]

The other side isn't allowed rhetoric. Rush used to call Tom Daschle El Diablo all the time for pretty much no reason. He used to make fun of Chelsea Clinton's looks too. Those in glass houses of course, but I loved the whining when Al Franken dared to call him fat. Same thing happening right now with Chavez. Rush and other neocons are allowed to call people evil and the devil and all sorts of other things and it's ok, but God forbid Chavez does it. Not to mention all of the horrible things O'Reily and Coulter say on a regular basis.

Like I said, it's disgusting all around because it doesn't help anything. There are real things to to worry about and valid, constructive criticisms to make. This is just partisan rhetoric. And worse, pandering to the lowest common denominator of your base.

[xsedrinam]

The other side isn't allowed rhetoric. Rush used to call Tom Daschle El Diablo all the time for pretty much no reason. He used to make fun of Chelsea Clinton's looks too. Those in glass houses of course, but I loved the whining when Al Franken dared to call him fat. Same thing happening right now with Chavez. Rush and other neocons are allowed to call people evil and the devil and all sorts of other things and it's ok, but God forbid Chavez does it. Not to mention all of the horrible things O'Reily and Coulter say on a regular basis.

Like I said, it's disgusting all around because it doesn't help anything. There are real things to to worry about and valid, constructive criticisms to make. This is just partisan rhetoric. And worse, pandering to the lowest common denominator of your base.
You make a good point, though it may have been Limbaugh (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/42028/) calling Daschle "el diablo" and referring to Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog".

It's not the rhetoric that's nearly as concerning as is the flippant dismissal of anything perceived as an opposing ideology. I continue to think this is a more serious ideological paradigm shift in Latin America. And Chavez' drum beat is resonating with a number of those countries. Among those concerns remains the question. Does U.S. leadership have any humility at all to listen and to discern what's being said between the lines? Present administration included, of course, but the question is non partisan in to the future.

[solvs]

You make a good point, though it may have been Limbaugh (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/42028/) calling Daschle "el diablo" and referring to Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog".
I know. Rush Limbaugh. ;)

And we don't listen, all we seem to understand is rhetoric. Kinda funny when the shoe is on the other foot. I'm sure these same people will call Bush brave when he goes after some other evil dictator who probably is evil, but it's still rhetoric and doesn't get us anywhere.

[xsedrinam]

Nicolas Maduro (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5375144.stm?ls), Venezuelan Foreign Minister was "detained" and "strip searched" in NY on his way out of the country. U.S. Immigration at first denied there was an "incident", but later acknowledged it and sent apologies. Apologies were not accepted.

This is another example to demonstrate how small foxes eat away at the vines as eroding diplomatic relations continue.

[Agathon]

Despite the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq, polls still show that americans view the republicans as better prepared to deal with security issues. The democrats just haven't made much progress on changing opinions on the security issue. So if voters perceive an increasing threat to their national security, that's going to work in favor of the republicans.

What better evidence of the innate cluelessness of the American public could one want?

Please elect another Republican nutjob in 2008. Nothing would please me more than to see your country driven into the dirt.

[solvs]

We're not all bad. Half of the voters didn't vote for him. And a majority of us don't even vote.

[xsedrinam]

With Castro gone, there's probably another reason (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1543828,00.html) why Chavez' trumpet has jumped an octave higher.

[xsedrinam]

With homicides up 67% in Venezuela since '99, insecurity and unrest throughout the country, yet Chavez seems to be in the driver's seat going in to this Sunday's Elections (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/world/americas/02venezuela.html?ex=1322715600&en=3bd8d942014d5486&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).