Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Colombia says Chavez will head home early next week
Colombia says Chavez will head home early next week
Reuters – 5 hrs ago.
CARACAS (Reuters) - - Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said on Wednesday Venezuela's Hugo Chavez will return home next week from Cuba where he is recovering from surgery to remove a cancerous tumor.
The two presidents were meeting in Havana to discuss a regional summit and bilateral trade.
"We found him in good health, happy, in high spirits. He told me his recovery is going well," Santos told reporters as he left the island. "He said we would stay a few more days and he thinks he will return to Venezuela at the beginning of next week."
Colombia's conservative government has clashed with Chavez in the past, but since Santos' election the two Andean nations have increased cooperation on security issues and strengthened economic ties.
More:
http://news.yahoo.com/colombia-says-chavez-head-home-early-next-week-010103220.html
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6853
Chavez discusses the second tumor in detail and says that all tests show that the cancer has not spread. He's undergoing radiation therapy to kill localized tumor cells.
Chavez has a way of speaking that inspires confidence--in me, anyway--that he is speaking truthfully. His phrases do not come across as "canned" (as those of so many politicians do). He speaks off the cuff, often in great detail, and sometimes with a "streetwise" bluntness that is disarming in a political figure. (I'm thinking of his remarks about Bush at the UN; said he could still smell the "sulfur" at the podium--and other similar instances of straight-talking--of saying what you really mean.) Of course, we have to be wary of all politicians, no matter how much we agree with them. "Candor" can also be "canned" (he-he) by a clever actor. I'm just trying to evaluate these Chavez statements on his health. They have a ring of truth. But, with so much at stake--as with FDR's declining health when he ran for a 4th term here--there would be plenty of motivation to lie, if Chavez's cancer has spread further and his life expectancy is short.
Chavez--a very FDR-like figure--is running for a 3rd term, which Venezuelans decided to let him do, in a nation-wide vote on the constitution a couple of years ago. FDR had no legal bar to running for 3rd and 4th terms. The Founders of the U.S. opposed term limits for the president as un-democratic. The Republicans rammed through a 2-term limit on the president in the mid-1950s, here, without, of course, putting it to a vote of the people--specifically to make sure that no "New Deal" could ever happen here again, and to begin to unravel the "New Deal" that we had.
Reforms like the "New Deal" in the U.S.--and like the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela--take TIME. The rich have their wealth and their entrenchment, to insure their continued power. It takes TIME to make inroads against such power and to establish a more equitable society. Venezuelan voters had the savvy to understand this. U.S. voters were never given the opportunity to understand it and to decide the matter for themselves.
So THAT is what seems to be at issue here, as to Chavez's health. Will the Bolivarian Revolution be permanent or will the rightwing opposition, in cahoots with the U.S., begin to unravel it, depending on how things go with Chavez's health and this year's presidential election in Venezuela? (The rightwing candidate--the son of a very wealthy family, which owns media, among other things, is apparently 20 points behind Chavez, currently in the polls. He has little chance to win--unless Chavez's health falters or he dies.)
Another and very important question is: Is the Bolivarian Revolution (Venezuela's "New Deal"
so dependent on Chavez that it could be easily unraveled, if Chavez was not in the picture, leading it?
The Corporate Media has taken pains to "personalize" this leftist democracy revolution and to HIDE the fact that it is a grass roots driven revolution--a Peoples' revolution. Chavez would not be in office--and certainly would not have remained there, in the face of a U.S.-supported coup d'etat and other strenuous efforts to topple his government--if the Venezuelan people were not behind him, and well-organized, at the grass roots level, to win elections, time and again, and to generate ideas and energy "from below." Chavez is as much in their debt as he is their leader. We are NEVER given this true impression of things by the Corporate Media. They are unanimous (even including the BBC, which got corporatized under Tony Blair) in slandering Chavez as a "dictator" and IGNORING the Venezuelan people, not to mention their honest, transparent election system and healthy political culture. (It's a country where street vendors will talk about the Constitution and many people carry a little copy of it around in their pockets!)
The Corporate Media has also black-holed any news about this leftist democracy revolution's influence in the region, except to portray Venezuela as some sort of menace. Venezuela's revolution has profoundly affected the region in a positive way, including influencing powerhouses like Brazil and even including countries with rightwing governments, whose leaders MUST pay at least lip service to Latin American sovereignty and independence. The Venezuelan people were the pioneers, inspirers and leaders of this regional revolution, which has seen like-minded leftist governments elected in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay (!), Peru, Nicaragua, El Salvador and other countries.
I don't want to get into political and governance theory here--for instance, positing a "pure democracy" in which no "leaders" are needed, or criticizing Chavez for being a strong leader (because that doesn't fit somebody's notion of how democracy should work). Making a guess, I'd say that--Chavez or no Chavez--the Bolivarian Revolution is at least as resilient as the "New Deal" has been here (for instance, Social Security and Medicare are still with us), and has already permanently stamped Venezuelan society with social justice and independence imprints. It will take a long time--at least as long as it has taken here (say, starting with Reagan--40 years) for the rich to loot the gains made by the poor and for the rich to re-assert oligarchic rule in a top-down society. And, given the regional impact of the Bolivarian Revolution, the rich may not succeed in the case of Latin America.
The question of who will succeed Chavez--if his health fails--has several precedents, thus far. Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. In all three cases, leftist presidents were elected to succeed former leftist presidents. The voters liked leftist policies! There is no reason whatever to surmise that this won't be the case in Venezuela. Chavez has been falsely portrayed as this great bogeyman/dictator by the Corporate Press, but, a) it is an egregiously false portrayal, and b) the voters of Venezuela have never bought it. THEY have ALSO chosen leftist policies, time and again, and will very likely do so even if they lose their charismatic leader.
This doesn't illuminate the question of whether or not Chavez is lying about his health. But it is the vital matter at the heart of questions about Chavez's health.
And there is one other element that should be mentioned, and that is, that the U.S. will make a particularly strong effort--including covert aspects--to destabilize Venezuela and get the oiligarchs back into power, should Chavez withdraw for health reasons or die. It will do everything it can to thwart the will of the voters of Venezuela in those eventualities. It is their "golden opportunity" to turn back Venezuela's "New Deal," to re-install Exxon Mobil as the oil profiteer, to loot Venezuela's economy and remove Venezuela as an example of social justice and grass roots leftist success. They also want to force Venezuela into their "circle the wagons" region (Central America and the Caribbean) against the growing power and unity of South America.
So, while Venezuelan voters would vote for Chavez even if he were dead, and would welcome his VP as their president, they may be faced with serious destabilization and propaganda-sewn confusion and God knows what else.
Chavez discusses the second tumor in detail and says that all tests show that the cancer has not spread. He's undergoing radiation therapy to kill localized tumor cells.
Chavez has a way of speaking that inspires confidence--in me, anyway--that he is speaking truthfully. His phrases do not come across as "canned" (as those of so many politicians do). He speaks off the cuff, often in great detail, and sometimes with a "streetwise" bluntness that is disarming in a political figure. (I'm thinking of his remarks about Bush at the UN; said he could still smell the "sulfur" at the podium--and other similar instances of straight-talking--of saying what you really mean.) Of course, we have to be wary of all politicians, no matter how much we agree with them. "Candor" can also be "canned" (he-he) by a clever actor. I'm just trying to evaluate these Chavez statements on his health. They have a ring of truth. But, with so much at stake--as with FDR's declining health when he ran for a 4th term here--there would be plenty of motivation to lie, if Chavez's cancer has spread further and his life expectancy is short.
Chavez--a very FDR-like figure--is running for a 3rd term, which Venezuelans decided to let him do, in a nation-wide vote on the constitution a couple of years ago. FDR had no legal bar to running for 3rd and 4th terms. The Founders of the U.S. opposed term limits for the president as un-democratic. The Republicans rammed through a 2-term limit on the president in the mid-1950s, here, without, of course, putting it to a vote of the people--specifically to make sure that no "New Deal" could ever happen here again, and to begin to unravel the "New Deal" that we had.
Reforms like the "New Deal" in the U.S.--and like the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela--take TIME. The rich have their wealth and their entrenchment, to insure their continued power. It takes TIME to make inroads against such power and to establish a more equitable society. Venezuelan voters had the savvy to understand this. U.S. voters were never given the opportunity to understand it and to decide the matter for themselves.
So THAT is what seems to be at issue here, as to Chavez's health. Will the Bolivarian Revolution be permanent or will the rightwing opposition, in cahoots with the U.S., begin to unravel it, depending on how things go with Chavez's health and this year's presidential election in Venezuela? (The rightwing candidate--the son of a very wealthy family, which owns media, among other things, is apparently 20 points behind Chavez, currently in the polls. He has little chance to win--unless Chavez's health falters or he dies.)
Another and very important question is: Is the Bolivarian Revolution (Venezuela's "New Deal"
so dependent on Chavez that it could be easily unraveled, if Chavez was not in the picture, leading it?
The Corporate Media has taken pains to "personalize" this leftist democracy revolution and to HIDE the fact that it is a grass roots driven revolution--a Peoples' revolution. Chavez would not be in office--and certainly would not have remained there, in the face of a U.S.-supported coup d'etat and other strenuous efforts to topple his government--if the Venezuelan people were not behind him, and well-organized, at the grass roots level, to win elections, time and again, and to generate ideas and energy "from below." Chavez is as much in their debt as he is their leader. We are NEVER given this true impression of things by the Corporate Media. They are unanimous (even including the BBC, which got corporatized under Tony Blair) in slandering Chavez as a "dictator" and IGNORING the Venezuelan people, not to mention their honest, transparent election system and healthy political culture. (It's a country where street vendors will talk about the Constitution and many people carry a little copy of it around in their pockets!)
The Corporate Media has also black-holed any news about this leftist democracy revolution's influence in the region, except to portray Venezuela as some sort of menace. Venezuela's revolution has profoundly affected the region in a positive way, including influencing powerhouses like Brazil and even including countries with rightwing governments, whose leaders MUST pay at least lip service to Latin American sovereignty and independence. The Venezuelan people were the pioneers, inspirers and leaders of this regional revolution, which has seen like-minded leftist governments elected in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay (!), Peru, Nicaragua, El Salvador and other countries.
I don't want to get into political and governance theory here--for instance, positing a "pure democracy" in which no "leaders" are needed, or criticizing Chavez for being a strong leader (because that doesn't fit somebody's notion of how democracy should work). Making a guess, I'd say that--Chavez or no Chavez--the Bolivarian Revolution is at least as resilient as the "New Deal" has been here (for instance, Social Security and Medicare are still with us), and has already permanently stamped Venezuelan society with social justice and independence imprints. It will take a long time--at least as long as it has taken here (say, starting with Reagan--40 years) for the rich to loot the gains made by the poor and for the rich to re-assert oligarchic rule in a top-down society. And, given the regional impact of the Bolivarian Revolution, the rich may not succeed in the case of Latin America.
The question of who will succeed Chavez--if his health fails--has several precedents, thus far. Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. In all three cases, leftist presidents were elected to succeed former leftist presidents. The voters liked leftist policies! There is no reason whatever to surmise that this won't be the case in Venezuela. Chavez has been falsely portrayed as this great bogeyman/dictator by the Corporate Press, but, a) it is an egregiously false portrayal, and b) the voters of Venezuela have never bought it. THEY have ALSO chosen leftist policies, time and again, and will very likely do so even if they lose their charismatic leader.
This doesn't illuminate the question of whether or not Chavez is lying about his health. But it is the vital matter at the heart of questions about Chavez's health.
And there is one other element that should be mentioned, and that is, that the U.S. will make a particularly strong effort--including covert aspects--to destabilize Venezuela and get the oiligarchs back into power, should Chavez withdraw for health reasons or die. It will do everything it can to thwart the will of the voters of Venezuela in those eventualities. It is their "golden opportunity" to turn back Venezuela's "New Deal," to re-install Exxon Mobil as the oil profiteer, to loot Venezuela's economy and remove Venezuela as an example of social justice and grass roots leftist success. They also want to force Venezuela into their "circle the wagons" region (Central America and the Caribbean) against the growing power and unity of South America.
So, while Venezuelan voters would vote for Chavez even if he were dead, and would welcome his VP as their president, they may be faced with serious destabilization and propaganda-sewn confusion and God knows what else.
