The sad thing for Venezuela is that now that the country is receiving an oil windfall, Chavez, who has taken absolute power in this country, has decided to spend it on arms and other deals that are not going to create jobs in Venezuela. When oil prices come down again, the poor will be left poorer.

Hey, you've got to give credit to Chavez for thinking and talking about poverty. That's more than our administration has been doing.

"The most plausible explanation of their reticence is that these heads of state think that criticizing Chavez would hurt them in their own countries."

No, the most plausible explanation is that they wanted to talk about Colombia and Peru and you journalists wasted your time trying to get a quote about Venezuela.

Colombia and Peru are big countries with their own success stories, challenges and agendas. Not just Hugo's neighbors. Maybe you'd like to print a Q+A with both of those presidents too rather than just treating them like pawns in US-Venezuela relations.

Dude! Get over your hatred towards Chavez. You and the US Gov. are just upset because he has what we don't have and desperately need-- OIL!
So stop your propaganda, even a simple college student like me can see that the current US Gov. is full of BS and it's the biggest bully.

Chavez has done what Pres. Bush hasn't done in this country, brought education to the poorest people and ALSO gave them medical care. DO YOU RESEARCH Sis, and stop being so bias. This blog was similar to the one you had a couple of days ago but it was regarding Cuba. You did your research on bias studies...so get it right next time!

It's not too complicated. Venezuela and the world are divided between the comfortable and those who live in great misery. The level of suffering in the unjust order of the world system is intolerable. National leaders who favor the interests of the poor in this intolerable situation are few and far between. Hugo Chavez is one of the few who is willing to acknowledge the perversity of the system and to speak act against it. That pits him against the leadership of the United States because the United States is commited to maintaining the unjust and indefensible hemispheric and world system. Hugo Chavez is an imperfect person and the political culture is imperfect in Venezuela, as it is in both Cuba and the United States. Should a person of conscience stand on the side of the poor majority and the revolution, or on the side of the overprivileged minority of the former ruling class, who put their interests above those of the majority, thus perpetuating hunger, disease, and illiteracy? The answer should be clear.

Andy Klatt
Spanish to English Translation
www.gis.net/~andyk

Boz...did you ever think that Peru and Columbia might have reflections on Venezuela, being a regional neighbor? Venezuela's policies have a direct influence on what happens in those two countries due to trade, politics and geography. So A question or two about a neighboring country like Venezuela makes sense.

Rock...first, if you think this blog is biased and full of propoganda, I'd hate to see what your information source is. Second, I sincerely you've done any non-biased research of your own. If you did, you'd know things aren't nearly as black an white as you believe them to be.

What happened to intelligent conversation about international politics?

There is much to criticize regarding Chavez. But he is an elected president who has been ratified as president of Venezuela many times over the last few years. He has brought medical care and literacy programs to people who have never received this kind of attention. There is total freedom of the press in Venezuela, even though recently a news analyst, Walter Martinez, was fired for disagreeing with the director of the TV channel where he was working. That was very unfortunate, but it does not make Venezuela a police state. The main newspapers, El Nacional and El Universal are open and uninhibited Chavez opponents. Nobody threatens their editors or reporters. What Chavez needs is a decent, organized, political opposition in Venezuela. Not a hysterical foreign opposition that suggests murder and violent overthrow. The U.S. is clearly more interested in Venezuela's oil than the welfare of its population.

Intagible and unmeasurable benefits, i.e. Weisbrot's non-cash income. Now do you know the one about the Irish?? (Good that you have identified Weisbrot as a Chavez supporter. Perhaps you should have said that he gets his info from the VIO...)

Wider access to health care in Barrio Adentro whilst patients die in hospital for lack of oxygen. See hospitals are not part of the revolution...

BTW education has been free in Venezuela since at least 1961. The next time you bumpt into a Venezuelan chavista, asked how much did their parents pay for university education.

Internal debt has jumped under Chavez's tenure from $2 billion to +$16 billion, oil income for the same period has been how much, $150 billion? Yet Venezuelans are poorer today than in 1998...

And how about state sponsored political prosecution:

http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200509152101

Or HRW take on Venezuela's judiciary:

http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200509281045

I guess Weisbrot won't be commenting on that...

Chavez should not be called a dictator, and he has not taken absolute power. Dictators don't fight fair elections, which he has won repeatedly. He won a recall (did anyone try to recall Hitler or Stalin) election last year, by most sources free and fair, with almost sixty percent of the vote. This dictator with absolute power has yet to even successfully prosecute the coup plotters who tried to overthrow him in 2002. As I recall, Stalin shot people like that without trial, while Hitler hung them with piano wire. Chavez makes angry noises when he loses court cases, but he accepts the decisions.

The underclass and revolution? Yeah, that worked well for the USSR and Vietnam. I agree that many people are poor, and need work and healthcare. And cutthroat free trade is not the answer. But there have been many socialist governments in South America, with varying degrees of failure and success; the extreme idea of revolution is certainly not going to help anyone.

Yes Gary, and Hitler also brought Germany out of poverty and into great economic development... right before he declared war on the world causing what +100 million deaths?

The hatred of Chavez is the way the rich and powerful think. We all know the desparate and inhumane poverty south of the border didn't happen by chance or luck - rather by a disparity of power in the rich. Historically, the rich label and attack as evil, those popular movements to alleviate the inhumane maldistribution of wealth: attack as socialism, communism, anti-democratic, anti-capitalist, even terroristic. So it's no surprise that US rich and powerful (like Bush and Pat Robertson and their ilk)fight tooth and nail against a leaders who - guess what? - want to make power structure changes to rid their nations of the capitalist pestilance of poverty. Men like Chavez and Castro are heroic in the face of an oppressive, control-freak neighbor.

There's nothing new here. Inhumane oppression is a common theme of US behavior. Just as the genocide in Palestine is a continuum of historical Anglo-European atrocity policies, so is the US official hatred of Chavez a continuum of decades of US facilitation of ruthless oppression in Latin-South American to favor the rich. Witness: CIA/United Fruit/Guatamala in the 70's, Batista in Cuba in the 50's, etc.

History, my point was that Chavez is NOT like Hitler and Stalin. So your bringing up Hitler's atrocities only shows that Chavez is unlikely to do it. Not your best point, I think.

Chavez may not be a dictator, but you have to stop short before saying that there is totally free press in Venezuela. The new Law on Social Responsibility that Chavez introduced last year gives immense power to the state to control the broadcast media in Venezuela. Anti-Chavez reporters have been harassed and in some cases assaulted (although you cannot prove that the "thugs" committing these acts were acting on the government's behalf). The new law , supposedly put into place to protect the rights of children, permits the government to dump heavy fines and even cancel any broadcasting that it deems unsuitable. This law leaves vast opportunities for the government to abuse its power and silence any broadcast media that speaks out against Chavez.

Let's face it; Chavez is not perfect. Sometimes I think he's mentally ill. How can he go on and on talking like that. He probably doesn't have what it takes to unite the country, significantly improve the economy and significantly reduce poverty.

But one thing is for sure: he's a whole helluva lot better than his opposition.

Poverty isn't something that any administration can change overnight. Look at how many terms it took the FDR administration to finally get the U.S. back on its feet after the Great Depression.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has laid a foundation for reducing poverty too: Public spending on social programs has oscillated between 10.7% and 11.8% of GDP over the last six years; Infant mortality has fallen by 30% since Chavez took office in 1998; literacy rates are nearing 95%; a huge child immunization campaign against Hepatitis B has reduced the infection rate by 15%; and 90% of children are now enrolled in school where they receive free or reduced meals to fight malnutrition.

More than one million infants enjoy free day care though a network of nurseries. Primary health care has been strengthened by focusing services on prevention and bringing qualified doctors from abroad in exchange for cheaper oil. In addition, over one million elderly people enjoy benefits, and a high percentage of the population now has a state-sponsored pension plan. HIV/AIDS patients enjoy free treatment and medications.

Given the above statistics and initiatives, I'd say Chavez has done more to fight poverty than George W. Bush has in both his terms so far. Although I despise Chavez's stranglehold on the free press and other "un-democratic" moves, I think the lives of poor Venezuelans ARE improving.

As I said earlier, we need to applaud our leaders when they do the right thing, and boo them when they don't.

"Men like Chavez and Castro are heroic in the face of an oppressive, control-freak neighbor."

Given the lack of freedom in Cuba, Castro wins the "control freak" award, hands down.

Bush doesn't like Chavez because he is seen as a threat to American business interests in Latin America. Traditionally, depending on the Administration, we have practiced Economic Imperialism in Latin America. Teddy Roosevelt created Panama because he couldn't make a deal with Columbia to build the canal. In the 1950s during the Eisenhower Administration there was another coup in Guatamala against an elected leader. John Foster Dulles was the Secretary of State. As an international lawyer, he represented United Fruit which practically ran Central America. Now CAFTA is the tool of choice which allows American Business interests to employ cheap, unprotected labor in Central America. We also have the Coup in Chile during the Nixon Administration. Previously, Chile had a long democratic tradition. Lets not forget the Iran/Contra scandal in the Reagan Administration. I recently read the Saudi king who just died had a piece of that action too. To see how it works, there is a movie with Marlon Brando on cable called "Burn". I am not a big Brando fan, but that was a good fictional account of how economic imperialism works.

I have always been wary of Hugo Chavez. I have also always been aware that his opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Those who make all nature of accusations against Chavez are the same people who were responsible for decades of misrule and kleptocracy that left the poor majority shoeless and destitute while calling their system 'democracy'. Despite my revervations about the man, I long ago recognized that the Bolivarian movement could not possibly be worse and could only be an improvement over what went before and should be given a chance to produce results. It is notable that those who criticize Chavez for limiting speech (a false charge in any case) would also tell you that things are are on the right track in next door Colombia, "Latin America's Oldest Democracy" where journalists and union activists are regularly shot down in cold blood by allies of the government as well as oppositionists and the major political parties represent identical political and economic interests. Where would they rather practice critical journalism or engage in opposition political activities, under George Bush's favorite Latin American president "the democrat" Alvaro Uribe or under his nemesis ("the dangerous radical") Hugo Chavez?

Andy Klatt
Spanish to English Translation
www.gis.net/~andyk

Jefferson

Your take is not bad except for a couple of points.

1) you write: "Chavez's hemispheric popularity derives from his fiery attacks on the Bush administration and his rhetorical defense of the interests of poor people."

Not in that order. When Chavez was elected Clinton was still US president. Chavez has deliberately used the anti Bush card (though business as usual on oil matters kept going) after September 11. Actually, Lina Ron, one of today's main Chavez supporters, started her political ascencion on Spetember 11 by burning an US flag.

Also, let's not confuse the anti Bush sentiment with the anti US sentiment in Latin America. That president Bush is not improving the image of the US in Latin America is true, but Chavez started from a solid foundation set by centuries of bad relations between North and South America. He just found an easy way to exploit it to build a regional following.

2) The 18 % growth in 2004. You should keep in mind that this came after a near equivalent drop in the previous two years. We cannot talk of growth until 2005 results are in, at best a recovery, fueld by high oil prices (which you duly acknowledge). Only when detailed resutls of the 2005 exercise come out will we be abel to see if there was any real growth in Venezuela. By real I mean at least a +6% of non oil sector above the 2004 results, since 2005 is still a "recovery year". Let's not forget that we are still not at the 1998 per capita level, no matter what manipulation Weisbrot does, a paid for pro Chavez lobbyst. Weisbrot numbers might actually be accurate but I would be weary of his interpretation, not any better than this blogger I can assure you :-)

Rock,
It is a shame that a college student like you is so ignorant about Chavez and the current Venezuelan crisis.
I am Venezuelan, and you my friend need to come to Venezuela, so you can see the "hell" that we are living with this "DICTATOR".

Aleksander, Que orgullo eres mi hermano!

Is it possible that regional leaders like Uribe and especially Toledo bite their tongue on Venezuela to avoid offending their US hosts? I don't think you can just take for granted their sympathies is any Bush-Chavez spitting contest.

It wasn't long ago that Chavez was briefly toppled in a palace coup. While I'm sure Cuba was the first, virtually every government in the hemisphere rose and condemned the coup as a setback for democracy. The US rose and... quietly left the room. I guess we needed a bathroom break. Is that possible?

Rumsfeld did suggest that he had it coming, a Clint Eastwood moment that I can assure you was not lost on our "friendly" neighbors.

And in certain neighborhoods, a friend of the president telling a million people it's time to have you whacked, well, that's just hard to laugh off. That is, until Robertson assured Chavez he just wanted to "take him out" to Six Flags, because he looked tense.

Chavez has a mandate and he's trying to execute it. It's fair to say he's failing. But as Rummy now remembers, democracy is messy. And the "constant undercurrent" of anti-American sentiment this piece refers to is not a one way stream. Bush and Chavez each do their portion to keep it running.

I have read in the comments several allusions to freedom of expression in Venezuela. I would like to take on that collectively to try to dispell some of the myths fast growing around that.

1) In the books there is indeed freedom of expression.

2) In the practice, for the casual observer that comes only for a few days Caracas visit, it would seem that a vociferous press is a sure sign of freedom expression

3) That blogs like mine exist can also be added as evidence.

However:

1) since the 2004 "Ley RESORTE" or "gag" law voted among great protest of the opposition legisaltors, there has been a considerable self-censorship in the Venezuelan air borne media. Most of the talk shows have gone off the air and only Globovision still maintains, because of its nature, a significant debate, where by the way more and more chavistas call-in as the state media does not offer a real outlet for pro Chavez supporters who wish to complain. Anyone can subscribe to the live feed of Globovision to realize that!

2) The problem is that the press is totally ineffective. Any research article, any evidence presented falls on the deaf ears of the sequestered judicial system. Thus Chavez and his accomplices CAN AFFORD A FREE PRESS as it is unable to threaten them no matter what it decides to expose of the illicit practices of the government. This is the great originality of chavismo as an authoritarian system, it can present the face of democracy to the world who is used to a free press as a hallmark of liberty, because it has managed to neuter it.

3) so, why that neutering? How come?

The "gag" law is actually very ambiguous on many things and leaves the decision at the discretion of the judges. Since most judges are on the bench as long as they rule in favor of Chavez interests, few are willing to take a chance to rule against them. And if media are willing to take a chance to test the judicial system.

For those who do not know, during the cosntitutional assembly of 1999, a decree was emitted that allowed a special comission to intervene the judicial system for "corruption" reasons. In fact that was the start to a take over of the judicial system which was completed late 2004 when the high court was packed with 12 new members all political appointees. during 1999 and 2000, many of the judges with a distinguished and independent career were purged or sent into retirement and nominations of new judges was sped up to include many second or thrid rate "revolutionary" lawyers. This judical problem is at the core of all that is wriong in Venezuela today, and somethign that few people are willing or able to discuss. But I am willing in case anyone wants details.

I hope this helps.

PS: for those who still think that there is a real freedom of the press, inquire when was the last time that Chavez gave a press conference to the Venezuelan media the way Bush or Clinton or even Reagan were obliged to give once in a while. It has been YEARS since a Venezuelan independent journalist has been able to ask an unscheduled question to the president and call him on that until a real answer is given. The very few instances are for some journalists that attend the press conferences in some coutries that Chavez visits and where he cannot control who would be attending the joint press events, events he tries to avoid like the plague anyway.

A true story illustrating why the former ruling class feels that they are living under a dictator in Venezuela:

The mother of a Venzuelan friend complained to him in horror what they are going through under Chavez: There is no longer anybody that they can call in the government when they need an economic or political favor. This is their "hell" and their nightmare. Accustomed to virtual ownership of the state and its political apparatus, to the exclusion of the poor majority,for the first time they find themselves on the outside looking in, despite their fair skin. I recall a favorite song of the insurgents under George Washington called "World Turned Upside Down." By what right, asked King George, did that upstart rabble think that they could control their own destinies?

But in fact, when the privileged lose their dictatorial prerogatives for the first time in historical memory, they truly believe that they are living under a dictatorship. After all, they have always been told that and they do believe that their status is divinely ordained.

Andy Klatt
Spanish to English Translation
www.gis.net/~andyk

Juwan is totally right when he says: "Bush and Chavez each do their portion to keep [the constant undercurrent of anti-American senitment] running."

Bush (and his outspoken political allies) give Chavez a reason for being, while the mere existence of Chavez (and Venezuela's oil) keep U.S. policy in the region unchanged. Because both need each other, I suspect there won't be any direct American intervention in Venezuelan politics in the short-to-medium term.

Meanwhile, thanks to Chavez, Condi Rice and others have been handed a host of "pro-democratic talking points" and reasons to criticize, which are likley to remain exactly that: just talk.

Well, we can say that there is no more Soviet Union, but the "left wingos" have spread all over the world. Americans, wake up and smell the coffe before history repeats again but on this side of the continent. They are out there after us and they are very smart. God bless America.

Chavez is Castro's lackey and will do to Venezuela what Castro did to Cuba...turn it into a Stalinist Communist state.

Well, we can say that there is no more Soviet Union, but the "left wingos" have spread all over the world. Americans, wake up and smell the coffe before history repeats again but on this side of the continent. They are out there after us and they are very smart. God bless America.

Although I'm an American, I spent 10 years of my life in Venezuela, both before and after Chavez. It's hard to describe exactly why he is such a popular leader right now. Yes, the social programs are adding value to people's lives, but it's more than that...For the first time in generations, the poor and rural in Venezuela have a sense of hope. They are being included in the political process and feel like they have control over their destiny. It is really hard to underestimate what this means for a group of people who have been so shut out from the system in the past.

If Chavez is crazy, the traditional opposition should be institutionalized. They throw around words like "dictatorship" like they know what it means. The truth is they no longer have access to the power, and their is a large majority of Venezuelans who will never go back to the old ways of being mere "negros," or "indios" to the ruling class.

The president is not perfect, but I believe that in the future people will look back at the social tensions and realize that they, and he, were crucial to bringing in a new era, much like the civil rights movements in the 50's and 60's were to North Americans. (And here's where one of the Venezuelan lurkers will write in to say that there was NEVER any racism in Venezuela until this undeducated indio started stirring up trouble...just wait).

In the United States, as with anti-Chavez Venezuelans, "Democracy" and "Freedom" are code words for unregulated capitalism. We will soon need a Hugo Chavez of our own.

According to the IMF economic data which Mr. Morley sites, Venezuela's GDP per capita (adjusted for inflation--using constant dollars) has yet to return to its early 1990s levels. Since 1998, when Chavez was first elected, GDP per capita has declined over 5% during his entire term.

Yes, 2002 and 2003 showed a big decline, followed by a big rebound in 2004 and 2005, but I fail to see how this shows any validation of Chavismo.

If Morley is right in arguing that the strike caused the decline, than probably the strike ending caused a lot of the rebound too. As he said, oil prices (which account for roughly two thirds of Venezuela's GDP) were the biggest factor in the increase of GDP. So again, what economic success are all these Chavez fans cheering about??

Of course, Morely fails to mention Chavez's capital controls, currency devaluations, and the huge decline in investment as contributing to the decline in GDP.

Typically, Left-of-center analysts often like to correctly point out the extreme limitations of using GDP as a measure of people's quality of life. After all, GDP is not a measure of people's well being. Ironically, some on the Left are now cheering two years of rebounding GDP growth as proof of a supposed revolution to help the poor.

If we look at internationally accepted measures of quality of life, such as the human development index published by the UN, we see that Venezuela's ranking has fallen drastically during Chavez's term.
Poverty, by any documented measure, has increased dramatically as well.

Chavez supporter, Weisbrot,is smart to suggest that one needs to look beyond the data for evidence that Chavez has made Venezuelans better off. Because, all of the data suggest that he has made life worse for Venezuelans.

I guess the Chavista response to this is that Chavez's success is proven by his support in the polls. I suggest reading the comments from the earlier debate to answer that hypothesis.

Morley makes a remark that is key: "Chavez clearly speaks for a significant sector of public opinion in Latin America". I think that is true, but it is also true that that has nothing to do with the welfare of Venezuelans. In fact, that is probably the ONLY thing that he does. He keeps saying things to the outside world while at the same time the political, economic, and social conditions of Venezuelans deteriorate. Of course, European and American liberals couldn't care less about the actual conditions of the people. Ideology and nice-sounding words about social justice blinds them from seeing the reality of the outreageous events happening inside Venezuela. I would like to see what they do if a militaristic autocrat coupster like Chavez takes over in their country.

It is easy to have different opinions if you are not inside the country feeling what they are going thru, but let me say something, the country is a lot better with Mr Chavez as President, maybe he is a little hot headed but the ones that are crying in Venezuela are the rich families that always benefited from the two only parties that always governed Venezuela, and robbed the country, before Mr Chavez came. Probably he just needs a little more time to demosntrate that he wants good for the whole country not just one sector. God help him, thanks.

GDP per capita is a retarded statistic to trot out when you are talking about poor peopel being better off. It is about as relevant as batting average is in a football game...

Chavez has been quite lucky of having such a good oil run. Sure he has created some good social programs, but corruption is still rampant if not worse than ever. millions of dollars received from oil and just a few nice little programs created for the poor. Why does he need to buy part of the foreign debt of Argentina and Ecuador instead of doing something better with that money inside the country that so much needs it? Why do we need Cuban Doctors in Venezuela when these doctors are desperately needed in their own country? It just does not make sense. Give the jobs to the Venezuelans that need them. It's true, past governments did not do much for Venezuela, if anything at all, but Chavez has not done much either. The People voted for him, so the people will learn the hard way. Sad but true. Every country is under the regime it deserves, and Venezuela is not the exception.

RG,
You wrote, "...So a question or two about a neighboring country like Venezuela makes sense."

Of course, but the Washington Post has not published a single article, editorial, op-ed or interview transcript about Toledo and Uribe's visit outside of the comment that they didn't talk about Venezuela.

Venezuela is not the only story in Latin America. Over a dozen Latin American leaders visited the US in the past two weeks, the reporters and editorial board of the Washington Post met with at least two other presidents from the region, and they can't find the room to write about anybody but Chavez?

Luis Viteri writes, "Give the jobs to the Venezuelans that need them," referring to the thousands of Cuban doctors in Venezuela.

As I recall, Venezuela originally envisioned the medical missions to be staffed by Venezuelan doctors, but literally recieved less than 10 takers. Some realized they'd make more money in private clinics (many sticking to the plastic surgery that the Venezuelan upper classes are so famous for), and many others, frankly, felt above treating the poor.

I've spent time in Venezuela, and the racism in the upper classes is mind blowing. By all accounts, the Cuban doctors have been a Godsend for Venezuela's poor majority.

U. S. government hostility to President Chavez is not based on oil, as some suspect, but on the threat that social progress represents to the secure and well-established. This percieved threat gave rise to the U. S. century-old Domino Theory Policy whereby no socialist country, no matter how small, can be allowed to succeed for fear that others will follow its example, falling over like a row of dominoes. That's why all the world's socialist countries are on the U.S. "enemies" list. To get on the List all a country need do is to adopt policies of eliminating poverty, universal education and health care, or (anathema!) redistribution of wealth. All are of ominous portent to Domino watchers. The idea is to enshrine unregulated capitalism as the essence of democracty and freedom.

Unregulated Capitalism, by its very nature, lacks social conscience or even patriotism. Over the centuries it has not delivered its promise to the world's peoples, particularly those, who have religiously followed its precepts, in Latin America. Viva Chavez!

Con un precio promedio de $46 el barril de crudo y exportaciones anuales de casi 1,000 millones de barriles, Venezuela descendió este año al puesto 75 en la lista del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD), desde el número 46 que tenía cuando el barril de petróleo estaba a $9.

La Comisión Económica para América Latina (CEPAL), reporta, entre el 2000 y el 2004 el índice de reducción de la pobreza extrema en Venezuela retrocedió 64 por ciento..

El Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE), entidad oficialista, admitió que el índice de pobreza se incrementó de 42.8% primer semestre de 1999, a 53% al cierre de 2004.

Y, todo esto, mientras han entrado al país más dólares en estos 6 y pico años, que en los 40 anteriores....

It is greatly amusing to see that still at this point a few naive souls write that the problem of the rich in Venezuela is that they cannot go to government officials and get the service they used to.

I am not sure if that was really taking place before Chavez to the extent they would like us to believe. Perhaps they would be kind enough to reassure us that this is not happening in Venezuela anymore. Maybe they have not heard of the Tascon list?

It is just amusing to observe that people hold dear to such worn out cliches when any serious observer of Venezuela knows that harboring a red shirt will open you the same doors that you could open in the past wearing a white or green shirt.

Sad. But sadder is the implication. To hold to their cliches, to hold to their hatred of Bush, or to hold to any of their hatred, people will refuse to let go of some mental concept that they have grown with or adopted as a life direction. And while they hold to it they have no problem watching someone like Chavez become a modern autocrat, screw his people, while they are safely in the US or some safe haven, pretending that Bush is infinitely worse than Chavez [or any leader you want to write in this space].

I would laugh if it were not that I have to put with Chavez everyday, and for real. It is of very little comfort to me that Chavez excoriates Bush while I wonder if my business will survive yet another year of Chavez.

The notion that Chavez is some incompetent despot is rather hard to swallow, given the history of Venezuelan presidents who embraced your writer Jackson Diehl's Washington Consensus policies. Remember Jaime Lusinchi, who got away, with his cronies, with about 7 billion dollars, courtesy of the Office of Differential Exchange Rate Controls - which same office was used by Carlos Andrés Pérez to accrue a cool 10 to 20 million.

Peanuts, of course, but the point is that the Washington consensus is enforced in Latin America by a kleptocracy which is well serviced by American banks, always looking for that emerging market to loan to, with a little creamed off the top for the local elite.

Venezuelans didn't vote against Chavez' opposition because they are anti-American, but because they recognized the opposition has been implicated in the massive peculation that, over the late 80s and 90s, turned Venezuela from a solvent country to a basket case. Meanwhile, the oil revenues were distributed in a wholly unequal way, and the mismanagement of the country was such in the mid nineties that the government nearly went bankrupt making huge payments to depositors at banks, while crooked businessmen went scot free and enriched themselves on the government largesse.

As for Chavez bending the law to support him - is this honestly proposed as a criticism by the same people who supported making "misappropriation of public funds" a misdemeanor instead of a felony when the people around Perez were caught repeatedly stealing from the government? Which they were doing at the same time they were instituting the kind of tough love Chicago school medicine the U.S. loves to praise, even though a country with a 400 billion dollar deficit should have some shame about recommending policies to others that would sink this country.

Chavez is no hero. He has demagogic tendencies, he likes to showboat, some of his programs for the poor are clearly programs to shovel money and jobs to his supporters. But in comparison to the recent line of Venezuelan presidents, he is George Washington.

Sandra wrote "Cuban doctors have been a Godsend for Venezuela's poor majority".

You are correct, there were not many Venezuelan doctors that enlisted in the medical missions, but instead of giving oil to Cuba at "Skinny Chicken Price" like we say in Venezuela, he could have created a better program and motivate more Venezuelan doctors into joining it. But that was too much effort and money he could have spent traveling around the world, so the easy way was to give a call to his old friend Fidel.

Do you really believe those Cuban doctors had a choice? I mean, seriously. Castro probably forced them to go to Venezuela. Go or die! Maybe yes, it was good for the poor, "godsend" as you mentioned. Maybe it was even good for the Cuban doctors themselves since they are now far away from oppressive Cuba, but the poor Cubans these doctors left behind, who care about them? Nobody it seem.....

What I object to most is not Chavez's policies (though job creation would certainly be preferable to handouts, and free education should be more than pro-Chavez indoctrination), what I object to is the blatant classism of his approach. Rather than trying to unite his countrymen and women under a progressive socialist banner, he has resorted, from day one, to the strongest of we-they rhetoric that has done nothing but exacerbate the tensions in Venezuela. (We've got a "Uniter, Not a Divider" that I'd gladly send down there!) And for all the talk about being such a populist, I found it very amusing that Chavez came to the rescue of the Ecuadorian govt. when poor peoples' protests there helped shut down the country's oil lines. Guess he only supports the poor when it's in his own interests.

I like Chavez, just because he gives the poor the feeling he cares for them. We tend to only measure "development" in economic growth, but I am sure that the poor in Venezuela feel quite empowered by Chavez's strong talk in their favor. He seems to care for them, and gives the impression he tries to make it better for them, and that works better for the poor than IMF/USA criticism on lack of economic growth.

THE MOST HON. SNR. CHAVEZ IS A MODERN DAY JESUS FOR US. HE HAS DISPLAYED MORE GODLY WAYS THAN DR DEATH BUSH CAN EVER HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IN HIS LIFETIME. HE NOT ONLY SPEAKS OUR LINGO BUT HE FEELS OUR PAIN HE HAS LIVED IT.

People. I ask. Have any of you bothered to actually take a trip to Venezuela? You don't have to travel deep in the country to see the deep poverty and the social hatred this man has created? Venezuela used to be by far the friendliest country in the world towards immigrants. Nowadays, if you are a chavista, is the equivalent to being a member of the Bath party. Chavez simply doesn't care about any of this people. It's all a mirage that most Americans seem to fail to see. Elected? The CNE is completely rigged and control by Chavez thugs. How did you think Saddam Hussein always won elections by 99% of the vote?
Next time you want to talk about issues, buy a 700$ travel to Venezuela. Talk to the people for a few days. You will see the fear, poverty and separation this man has created. All meanwhile an Oil Barrel is $70 and most of that money is going to buy and silenced the rest of our Hypocrites and opportunist neighbors. Money is a great thing and silences people around you and politicians know that.
Do travel to venezuela sometime, is the most beautiful country in the world.
I live here.

Balewa: Why don't you tell that to the thousands of people that live in Vargas? Those people have lived in the most inhumane conditions even 5 years after the terrible mudslides that covered coastal cities in Vargas state. Just 7 months ago, 75% of the state was without water for 2 weeks because mudslides broke a main water line that supplies water to the region. A slap in the face is what Mr. Chavez gave to the citizens of Vargas when he agreed to buy 500 Million Dollar of the Argentine foreign debt. Why wasn't that money used to complete the cleanup and reconstruction of Vargas state? I'm sorry, but there is nothing Godly about that.

Jeff, Craig, good question: who is right?

I think I am. Chavez is a terrible leader: a populist, an autocrat, a military man, someone that stirs divisions and hatred to gain power. None in modern Venezuelan history has divided the country as much as he has. A dangerous man in democratic terms.

On the other hand, he has been blessed with good timing and a very bad opposition at home. He is exploiting the ROW (Rest of the World) anti-war and anti-Bush sentiment, he has seen the price of the oil barrel triple or more during his mandate, and with that lot of money and good publicity he has sold the idea of the modern Robin Hood to those that like social justice but do not know enough about Venezuela to get a proper opinion.

Everybody loves Robin Hood.

I laugh when people naively explain all the dissidence in Venezuela by saying that is the "oligarchy" that complains about losing its privileges. If Venezuela had as many oligarchs as people that profoundly dissent with Chavez, Venezuela would indeed be an extremely rich country. Which, unfortunately, is far from being the case.

So while the international press and the open minded people of the world are buying Chavez's populist Robin Hood rethoric, what is left of democracy in Venezuela is being destroyed. There are no longer institutions in the country, there is just one figure: Chavez. Chavez is god.

With the excuse that Chavez is someone that "cares" about the poor, the world is closing the eyes to the ugly face of the Chavista regime.

The sad truth is that, like with so many autocrats before, when the world realizes what is really going on, it will be too late. Venezuela will be another totalitarian regime.

But, this time, with a lot of oil.

I´m brazilian and I do wish Pres. Lula would be more like Hugo Chavez or Nestor Kirchner (Argentina). Good luck to Mr. Chavez. Latin America needs more leaders like him.