Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Sheehan for Senate
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, January 30, 2006

Mother Sheehan is speculating that she might like to run for the Senate against Dianne Feinstein. If she does, I hope she'll remember to use this photo in her campaign:

If she doesn't, I'm sure Sen. Feinstein or her surrogates will.

What is it about Lefties that make them so attracted to commie dictators? Hardly a week goes by without some Hollywood mucky-muck winging his way down to Havana to bump uglies—in a political sense—with Fidel Castro. Back in the 80s, it was John Kerry and David Bonior jetting down to Managua to soul-kiss Commandante Ortega in public.

Is it just me, or is there something deeply screwy about having the same people who have apoplectic fits at the very thought that the FBI might have access to library records, are the same people who get all sloe-eyed at the very thought of trading gentle caresses with totalitarian despots? I just don't get it. I wouldn't cross the street to poke Fidel Castro with a sharp stick.

OK. That's not true. I would.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
You see Dale, they are totalitarian despots for the people
 
Written By: Noodles
URL: http://
Chavez is a flaming asshole, but he’s not Castro. He spouts a lot of the same rhetoric, but he’s a democratically-elected asshole, not a dictator.

Cindy Sheehan is batshit insane, however.
 
Written By: Geek, Esq.
URL: http://
Electing Sheehan as one of their showpiece Senators? Sort of a Truth-In-Packaging move by the Democrats.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
It’s simple, Dale. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. To most of the left, the idea of an America where any conservative has the right to vote or speak out on public policy is anathema. So they gravitate to those people who embody their fantasies of being able to stomp over the homophobe, capitalist, Jeebus-freak red staters.

And BTW - now can we question her patriotism? Or does she have "absolute moral authority" from now ad infinitum?
 
Written By: Christopher
URL: http://
Oh you didn’t post the best picture of Sheehan and Chavez. Visit this site and scroll down a little bit.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/

I am so sick of seeing my fellow democrats cozying up to people like Chavez, it seriously makes me question the party as a whole.
 
Written By: Kamaya
URL: http://venezuela-usa.blogspot.com
don’t forget Jesus... that guy wanted peace as well.. and look how loopy his followers are... we need to just make George Bush King... or at least Big Brother... it would make the republicans happy and the democrats could be all gathered into camps or something... wink...wink
seig heil
 
Written By: The one
URL: http://
Too bad The One isn’t the only one like him...

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Cindy is building her political capital with the ashes of her son’s life.
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
What is it about Lefties that make them so attracted to commie dictators?
I know this is difficult for wingers to understand, but Chavez was twice elected president. Not once, but twice. All sane and rational people accepted the election results as legitimate. Later the military staged a coup attempt against Chavez. The Bush administration tacitly endorsed this attempt.

Why do wingers continually ally themselves with anti-democratic forces south of the border? Over 30 years ago, wingers got behind the coup against Allende - another democratically elected leader. Later, they allied themselves with death squads in El Salvador and Honduras - you know, those nice people who liked to take nuns out and shoot them in the back of the head. Around the same time they made nice nice with the Iranian mullahs to fund another illegal war south of the border. Rule of law? Ha - all wingers know that the rule of law is for suckers.

Why do wingers hate democracy? Why? And what is the fascination with killing nuns and missionaries? And why do wingers continue to feel the need to back illegal coups against democratically elected governments? Are they hard-wired to be this way, or is it an environmental thing? And when will wingers figure out that a politican who is elected in a free and fair election not once but twice is by definition not a dictator?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Wingers love democracy, MK. You leave out a few inconvenient facts in your diatribe, however: Chavez was "democratically" elected in the same way that Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro get "elected" with 99% (or so) of the vote in favor.
He engaged in illegal, violent, and counter-democratic practices to ensure he was elected. He ignored mass public protests and totally dismissed a legal recall. He used violence and threats of violence, and coercion to supress dissent and ensure he had no significant challenges to his continued dictatorship.

It’s no wonder you like him.
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
Chavez got something like 55-60% of the vote. And the elections were certified as fair by the international community. Hardly comparable to Saddam and Fidel.

The men behind the military coup against him are free to walk the streets—not even a light prison sentence. I doubt that would be the case under Saddam or Castro.

Don’t get me wrong—Chavez is an irresponsible demagogue who’s an all-around asshole with disturbing flirtations with authoritarianism. But it’s simply inaccurate to describe him as a dictator.
 
Written By: Geek, Esq.
URL: http://
Chavez got something like 55-60% of the vote. And the elections were certified as fair by the international community. Hardly comparable to Saddam and Fidel
.

There’s a big difference between fair and representative. The opposition boycotted the election because of the way Chavez has stacked the election commission, supreme court and re-written the constitution.

While he was certainly "re-elected" whether it represents the true will of the people is arguable ... much like the "fair" elections in Iran.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Wingers love democracy, MK. You leave out a few inconvenient facts in your diatribe, however: Chavez was "democratically" elected in the same way that Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro get "elected" with 99% (or so) of the vote in favor.
He engaged in illegal, violent, and counter-democratic practices to ensure he was elected. He ignored mass public protests and totally dismissed a legal recall. He used violence and threats of violence, and coercion to supress dissent and ensure he had no significant challenges to his continued dictatorship
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Chavez has never eclipsed the 60% mark. He didn’t dismiss a legal recall. To the contrary, the recall was held in 2004 - and Chavez won in an election that was certified by, among other entities, OAS, which is made up of many politically conservative countries.

Nathan’s comment is a perfect example of how the right has attempted time and again to spread disinformation about what is going on in Venezuela. A classic example, in fact. But then for wingers, facts matter little. So why should anyone be surprised.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I’ll bet "The One" opposes "King George" and any other would-be tyrant because he’s a Leftist, and we all know how fervently Leftists oppose tyrants. (If you’ve seen GONE WITH WIND, imagine me speaking that last clause with the same tone of voice Rhett uses when Scarlett donates her wedding to the cause and he says, "and I know just how much that ring meant to you, Mrs. Hamilton.") If Bush is planning to be a tyrant, all he has to do to get the Left on board is announce—the day after he declares himself "El Supremo for Life"—is that he is going to be a "progressive" tyrant. In the minds of some people, free health care, even of the execrable kind, covers secret police, firing squads, "re-education" camps and a whole multitude of sins.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
The opposition boycotted the election because of the way Chavez has stacked the election commission, supreme court and re-written the constitution.
No - they didn’t boycott the 2004 recall effort. Wrong again, McQ. Get your facts straight for once.

Why would the opposition go to the trouble of getting millions of signatures for the recall effort and then boycott the recall election itself? You make no sense McQ. The problem is that they lost. Plain and simple.

Do you really believe that Chavez does not enjoy the support of the majority in Venezuela? Really?

In any event, if really care about representative democracy, what you should be complaining about it the Bush administration’s endorsement of the 2002 coup attempt. But of course, wingers have always given Bush cover for that episode.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
No - they didn’t boycott the 2004 recall effort. Wrong again, McQ. Get your facts straight for once.

Why would the opposition go to the trouble of getting millions of signatures for the recall effort and then boycott the recall election itself? You make no sense McQ. The problem is that they lost. Plain and simple.
You need to get more of an in-depth look at this, gringo:
Everywhere I went, I found a Venezuelan population showing their indignation to the fraud of the National Electoral Council (CNE), which pretends to rob one million Venezuelans of their legitimate right to request a presidential referendum. In all restaurants and public places where I stopped, I heard the same comments from the people. In every city and every village there is civil disobedience in action. The civic protest started peacefully after the absurd decision by the dishonest members of the CNE but, as the neanderthalic troops of the GN charged against defenseless citizens, the protest has been turning violent. There is very little the unarmed citizens can do against the sadistic Venezuelan National Guard. The Minister of Defense has just anounced that he will personally decorate Glenda Nieto, the heavily armed GN soldier who beat a flag-carrying woman to the ground during the march of February 28th. This decoration is clear proof of the perverted values that exist within this government and within segments of the Venezuelan armed forces. The indignation of the people is also fueled by the feeling of impotence Venezuelans feel when faced with extreme brute force. The international opinion should not see these agressions with indifference. There are more than four hundred detainees many of whom have been tortured, 1,200 injured and ten dead. Human rights are being violated at every turn. The cynical members of the government Jose Vicente Rangel and Jorge Rodriguez, the latter a member of the CNE, pretend to give to the outside world a version of events totally divorced from reality. The President of the CNE, Francisco Carrasquero, and the president of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), Ivan Rincon, have been both co-opted by the Executive Power, to the extent that there is no longer any hope that these two institutions can behave in an independent and autonomous manner.

The fraudulent decision of the CNE was based on regulations which did not exist at the time the signatures were collected. Assistance in filling out the personal data of citizens during the signature process was totally acceptable. It is after the fact that they have decided that this is unacceptable. This represents a violation of universal principles of Law which preclude the retroactivity of bureaucratic decisions. Worse still, the signatures by Chávez followers against opposition congressmen and mayors which show the very same characteristics of having been assisted HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS VALID by the three dishonest members of the CNE. This has been documented on national television.
Perhaps now you understand? BTW, read the whole thing. In fact, read all of the cited author’s article.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
The opposition in Venezuela relies on DemocraticUndergroundesque theories of exit polls and fantasies to maintain that they won.

Chavez is a red meat demagogue who explicitly appeals to class resentment. That is a tried and true approach in South America. See Morales, Evo.
 
Written By: Geek, Esq.
URL: http://
McQ:

Are you seriously citing Gustavo Coronel as a news source? That’s like citing John Conyers for the proposition that the Iraq war was based on a lie.
 
Written By: Geek, Esq.
URL: http://
For those who don’t know, Gustavo Coronel was the campaign director for Chavez’s principal opponent in 1998. Citing him is like citing Dennis Lehane or someone like that as ’proof’ that Bush stole the 2000 election.
 
Written By: Geek, Esq.
URL: http://
Geek: I’ve also cited Javier Corrales’ article from Foreign Policy magazine. He essentially makes the same point (pertaining to the election commission, signatures, the oppression of signatories , etc), so I see nothing untoward about citing Coronel, someone who was actually in country and reporting on what was going on.

I mean, unless you have a factual refutation of his points, I’m afraid I don’t understand your objection to an account which has been pretty much corroborated by others.


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
For those who don’t know, Gustavo Coronel was the campaign director for Chavez’s principal opponent in 1998. Citing him is like citing Dennis Lehane or someone like that as ’proof’ that Bush stole the 2000 election.
Your analogies are pretty strained, Geek, but they provide nothing in terms of refutation. As mentioned, his observations and accusations have been corroborated by others. Try a rebuttal which includes something better than trite characterizations.


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Corrales is a credible source of analysis. Coronel has as much credibility as a random Free Republic or Daily Kos poster. I have no reason to put any credence in his factual assertions. Similarly, I don’t read articles by Michael Moore or John Conyers if I’m looking for information. As far as corroboration is concerned, I’m much more interested in what the allegedly corroborating sources say—their observations actually carry some evidentiary weight.

Don’t get me wrong—I have no love for Chavez and I can see as well as anyone that the man is flirting with authoritarianism.

However, his opponents in Venezuela are no lovers of democracy themselves—and they themselves would be eager to disguise an authoritarian system of governance as a free democracy. As you yourself have noted, Latin American countries tend to swing between right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing authoritarianism.

As a general rule, no one in Venezuela is as good as their supporters claim or as bad as their political enemies claim.
 
Written By: Geek, Esq.
URL: http://
As a venezuelan there is no dobut that Chavez was elected in 1998 and 2000. But to say that he is ruling democratically is a whole other story. I suggest that you visit the Human Rights Watch site, Reprters without boarders, Inter-American Press Association, Freedom house, etc...

I suggest you see the video (from this weekend) where the Supreme Court of Venezuela started chanting Uh Ah Chavez no se va! "Uh Ah Chavez is not leaving". How can you expect democracy and impartiality when the supreme court acts this way? Is this democracy? Oh ya what about political persecution how would you feel if the US government created a database with ever voters information, including if they receive government aid, and whether they are against or for the "revolution". BTW, I have found my self and all of my family! And this list has been used by the govt. to fire governemtn employees, etc.. So please elections do not mean democracy, and until we have free and transparent election we will never know if Chavez is popular or not.

As for Chavez winning with ~60% of the vote in 200, yes but that was with ~3.5 million votes, when he was the most popular. If you look at the current number or registered voters 3.5 million is only about 25%. It is widely known that Chavez always has 15-25% hard core supporters. But don’t get me wrong the opposition has been ineffectual in confronting Chavez. As for Coronel he was former head of PDVSA.
 
Written By: Kamaya
URL: http://venezuela-usa.blogspot.com
Sorry I forgot to put the link so interested individuals can see the video of the chant by the Supreme Court.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/
 
Written By: Kamaya
URL: http://venezuela-usa.blogspot.com
Corrales is a credible source of analysis. Coronel has as much credibility as a random Free Republic or Daily Kos poster.
That’s your opinion and an irrelvant one to boot.

What he wrote is corroborated by Corrales. So, unless you have something which refutes what both of them are saying, might I suggest it is you who lacks credibility?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I know this is difficult for wingers to understand, but Chavez was twice elected president. Not once, but twice. All sane and rational people accepted the election results as legitimate.
I make no claims about Chavez’ actual level of support, or whether he won the 2004 election outright or through fraud. However, when you claim that "all sane and rational people accepted the election results as legitimate", you open the floor for evidence to the contrary. Here, for example, is one of those insane, irrational people...
Doug Schoen, is a very respected Democratic Party pollster. He was President Clinton’s favorite pollster ... Schoen was a busy man during the Clinton years. Schoen’s firm, which was hired by an opposition group in Venezuela, conducted pre-election surveys, and also undertook a large exit poll on the day of the Chavez recall. His pre-election surveys indicated that those who wanted to recall Chavez were ahead by at least 10%, and gaining momentum. In his exit poll, the margin for the anti-Chavez side grew to 18%. Schoen expressed disbelief when the results showed that Chavez retained his office by the same 18% margin. That, of course, is a 36% swing from an exit poll conducted the same day, or about six times the margin of error in terms of a vote shift.
The author also mentions that "On over 400 voting machines, the anti-Chavez vote was identical—down to the single vote", which suggests a, ah, fix. Plus, "statistician Jonathan Taylor, on whose researches The Carter Center based to claim that no fraud was committed in the August 15 revoking referendum on President Hugo Chávez, and Taylor publicly backed down in his web page ... and admitted he was wrong."

And more.

Now, you can argue that they are wrong and that there was no significant fraud. But you can’t really argue that "no sane" people are contesting the outcome of that election.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Hey, I thought this was about "Mother Ter-Cindy".
I wonder if she’d willingly sacrifice her son again. She’s sure getting a lot
of free travel, food, and entertainment out of it.

And Chavez, yeah, keep telling yourself he’s a swell guy...
But I can easily believe the population is voting for him. Why not, he’s pretending he’s going to displace the evil ’rich’ landowners.

The fact that when he completes his efforts there will just be a new set of ’rich’ landowners is beside the point. Difference is this time they’ll be HIS friends.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
To those so sure about themselves. Where is your first hand info? You are reading the words of guys that read other peoples words that litened to either Rush or Pacifica, with axes to grind.

I’m sure the truth is out there somewhere, but the obfuscation is so complete that you would need to demonstrate more faith than you’d find at a decades woth of revival meetin’s.

Cindy Sheehan is dispicable in the constant degradation of her son’s name, but then again have you seen those supporting her?

There’s an old saying, that I have forgotten, that deals with pigs and lipstick, I think it applies to Ms. Sheehan.
 
Written By: corkscrew
URL: http://
cindy is kissing the devil!!
she is kissing somobody who hate her and all american people to death .. shame of you old bag!
 
Written By: henry233
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider