6 Comments »

1. 1 Jim Et Al

   December 10, 2007 @ 10:20 pm CET

   Or maybe a lot of Chavez voters didn’t show up at the polls…

2. 2 Jason Steck

   December 10, 2007 @ 11:14 pm CET

   Or both.

   There is no contradiction between the notion that many of Chavez’ supporters didn’t show up (perhaps granting Hugo president-for-life powers with dictatorial decree powers attached was a bridge too far even for them) and the notion that Chavez may have tried to steal the vote after their failure to turn out became apparent.

   It is fascinating, Jim, that after you repeatedly lecture people about partisan sources and withholding judgment, you keep being shown embracing highly partisan sources (the one you cite is nothing other than PURE pro-Chavez propaganda, it doesn’t even pretend otherwise) and spinning wildly whenever the story of the day doesn’t fit your ideological biases…

3. 3 Jim Et Al

   December 11, 2007 @ 12:31 am CET

   You shouldn’t be too fascinated Jason. The intent of the article I posted was to counterpoint the Ed Morrissey link, and as such represents the Chavezistas point of view. Rarely is it a good idea to take info verboten, especially from known partisan sources . The topic needed something from the other side for balance, so I did the reasonable thing a provided everyone a link. If that is considered "lecturing," then it appears the term has been redefined beyond  historical recognition…

   It would be nice though if you could respond to me sans what has become an obsessive attack upon my person. Your first paragraph was a good attempt to begin a larger discussion, which I may have participated in. The second one leaves me with little desire  to do so…

4. 4 Jason Steck

   December 11, 2007 @ 12:34 am CET

   I didn’t attack your person, Jim, I attacked your comments. There is a difference between criticizing someone’s comments and attacking their person. It is time that you stopped trying to shield your comments from criticism by conflating the two.

   And I don’t buy your explanation that you were only providing balance because I have never once seen you attempt to “provide balance” the other way. The ideological direction of your comments is very predictable.

5. 5 Chris

   December 11, 2007 @ 1:14 am CET

   "The ideological direction of your comments is very predictable."

   I’d say that goes for a lot of people around here.  And I don’t except myself.

6. 6 Tully

   December 11, 2007 @ 2:21 am CET

   I live-blogged the election at the time, using personal contacts in Caracas and running live-feed on both Venezeulan news sources and blogs both pro- and anti-Chavez. The latest reports match with the reports from Caracas on election night, as I detailed in today’s post.

   The “we woulda won if not for those pesky kids” apologetics of the Chavistas at this point are, to be kind, less than compelling. It’s pretty apparent that not only did Chavez lose this one, he lost by much larger margins than were officially reported, and the results were not announced until after representatives of the military had directly confronted Chavez at the CNE (Venezeulan election agency) on election night.

   So far the noted discrepancies and the unreported actas total up to around a million votes, versus the 9 million reported. The second “official” total release was over 400,000 votes short for the respective additional actas reported, and CNE is refusing access to the written tallies for comparison. The NO activists are sitting on their own hot tallies, just wanting to hold on to their win, not trusting anyone (as well they shouldn’t) but my sources say the poll tallies indicate higher turnout than officially reported.

   You do NOT declare an election “irreversible” with only a 1.3% spread and 14% of the vote still outstanding, nor would Chavez accept such a call without demanding a recount IF it were actually that close with that much of the vote still out. But he did, and CNE did–and the National Guard surrounded the CNE building on election night while Chavez was inside (”for safety reasons”) when CNE did not release results on time.

   The supposition that the actual results were much more lopsided is supported by the available evidence.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.