This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Jonn Lilyea

  • Chavez’ cheese slides off cracker

    Venezuelan half-pint strongman, Hugo Chavez, is slowly losing support for the referendum to rewrite Venezuela’s constitution. Caracas Chronicles has the details;

    [Referencing the chart] As you can see, there are two clearly different sets of answers here. When you ask voters in general if they favor or oppose the constitutional reform, you get a clear, consistent majority against it:

    But, at the start of the campaign, most people who opposed the reforms were saying they wouldn’t vote. So, until the last few weeks, the “Sí” camp had a majority among likely voters.

    From Venezuela Politics;

    Luis Ignacio León from the Datanálisis market study group said last Saturday that if the elections were today (actually the day before yesterday), the people would oppose the constitutional reform would obtain 55.4% of the votes against 44.6% of those who favor it. And that only includes the people who said they were going to vote (i.e. absenteeism). 

    So Chavez does what pint-sized tyrants do when they start losing. From Venezuela News and Views;

    Repression is now a given. Today we were treated to the students of the Simon Bolivar campus in Caracas pushed inside their campus by the Metropolitana police. Since the police cannot enter the campus, they kept throwing canisters of tear gas above the fences and shooting rubber bullets by passing their guns through the chicken wire that circles the campus. I can hardly think of any thing more cowardly risible than what the Caracas police did today, shooting defenseless students from afar while perhaps this very same week end the police failed to stop as many as two dozen murders in Caracas alone. But when did fascism worry about current crime?

    Unfortunately today student repression was not an isolated incident. It has been going on steadily for a couple of weeks now, even including torture for some Barquisimeto students. Not to mention the Monte Avila students dragged on the streets of Caracas…

    And to rally his troops around him, he decides to alienate his neighbors, too. From A Columbo-Americana’s Perspective;

    The Venezuelan president, speaking on television, described Mr. Uribe’s attitude as the equivalent of a “brutal spitting in the face,” and called him a “liar.” Mr. Uribe, the Bush administration’s top ally in South America, responded by accusing Mr. Chávez of legitimizing terrorists and advancing ambitions of “assembling an empire.”

    I watched the tape last night on Telemundo of Chavez’ speech and it was much more inciendiery than it reads. You can see the video on YouTube (it’s all in Spanish but Chavez’ arrogance transcends language) as well as Uribe’s response. Chavez’ demeanor and the thuggish way he spoke didn’t translate well into the print media.

    Fausta quotes an Investor Business Daily editorial;

    In theory, a mediator should persuade two sides to each give up something to achieve a common end. The only one who gave up anything, however, was Uribe, who watched Chavez cavort with terrorists before TV cameras, giving them a legitimacy in Caracas they never had known.

    Even worse, Chavez proved to be acting as an agent of the terrorists. Uribe’s sudden cutoff of the mediation effort at a hastily organized press conference last Wednesday suggested disturbing new information.

    On Sunday, Chavez confirmed it: “I think Colombia deserves another president, it deserves a better president,” he said.

    Hot Air predicts a war between Columbia and Venezuela, but I don’t think so – for two reasons. There is a fairly large US military and law enforcement presence in Columbia. Chavez wouldn’t want to risk making the first move entangling US military in a shooting war and destroying his victim facade.

    Attacking Columbia would give Uribe an excuse to start eradicating FARC – FARC killed Uribe’s father twenty years ago and he has no compunction to prevent him from turning the Army lose on them – and Chavez will need FARC for their money and connections for his imperialist plans in the region.

    Western Hemisphere Policy Watch recommend we add Venezuela to our State Sponsors of Terrorism list;

    WHPW Editors believe that there is ample evidence to, at least, warrant further consideration of the inclusion of Venezuela on the list. It will be a tough call. Are we prepared to stop purchasing Venezuelan oil for a time being?

    If we could drill in Alaska and off our coasts we are prepared.

  • Pelosi/Sanchez; bedfellows of defeat

    Jonathan Weissman of the Washington Post writes the page one story entitled “Politics Creates Odd Pair; Sanchez and Democrats“ ;

    It may be among the strangest of political alliances: a former commanding general in Iraq, blocked from a fourth star and forced into retirement partly for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the speaker of the House, desperate to end a war that the general helped start.

    But in partisan Washington, the enemy of one’s enemy can quickly become a friend, and nowhere is that more obvious than in the new marriage of convenience between Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez.

    On Saturday, Sanchez delivered the Democrats’ weekly radio address. He excoriated what he called the Bush administration’s “failure to devise a strategy for victory in Iraq,” then embraced Democratic legislation linking continued war funding with a timeline aimed at ending U.S. combat operations by December 2008.

    Hmmmm. No agenda there, huh? The Democrats want the war ended on their terms…rather than an actual victory. Sanchez wants to clear his name (the name that Democrats sullied, by the way).

    For Democratic leaders, Sanchez’s address has been a triumph, covered by the media nationwide. It interrupted a stream of stories about declining violence, which had stalled efforts to force a shift of war policy.

    A triumph? Today is the first I’ve heard of it. I’ve been on all of the right’s blogs all weekend (fighting off this stupid flu) – unless it’s a triumph among the nattering nabobs of negativity (to borrow Spiro Agnew’s phrase) at Code Pink and the DailyKos. And I guess this pretty much proves that Democrats aren’t interested in winning the war against terror since they’re looking for some distraction from the good news to put the focus back on Sanchez’ tenure. Democrats are trying to recall the past – leadership is about the future.

    “I’m beyond perplexed,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), who criticized Sanchez at Senate Armed Services Committee hearings in 2004. “He’s chosen to play politics here. He’s opened himself up to what happened on his watch. He’s made himself a political figure, and I hope he understands that those of us who were on the ground watching at that time are going to push back.”

    Graham said that he repeatedly asked Sanchez in private whether he needed more troops to pacify the fledgling insurgency, and that Sanchez always said no. “He never said any of these things when it could have made a difference,” Graham said of Sanchez’s criticism.

    So I guess Sanchez’ complaint is that the Bush Administration is culpable for the situation on the ground in Iraq during Sanchez’ stint because they hired an incompetent…Sanchez.

    Wolf Howling astutely observes an apt comparison of Sanchez to “Little Mac”;

    While the Democrats of today may be enamored of General Sanchez and his message, history should provide them a cautionary note. Despite McClellan’s outspoken criticism of Lincoln for his poor prosecution of the war, the rhetoric failed once it became apparent that Union forces were succeeding and that victory was possible. In the end, the American electorate punished the Democrats for their anti-war stance in the 1864 election and for several decades afterward.

    Prairie Pundit doubts his expertise;

    He has already demonstrated a lack of understanding of counterinsurgency operations when he had the opportunity so there is little reason to think has acquired expertise since leaving.

    Even the Left doubts the wisdom of linking their cause (such as it is) to a former target;

    I can understand the cold political calculus that leads one to believe that getting a news cycle out of this is a benefit, but I think the long-term implications of this will prove much more harmful.

    My guess is that the Democrat “leadership” is getting real bad advice from a Karl Rove wannabe.

  • Verdict first; trial afterwards

    The Democrats are scurrying trying to squeeze some bad news out of Iraq, but it doesn’t seem to be working for them. They’ve painted themselves in a corner that they can’t escape. George Bush proved to the Democrats and to al Qaeda that he won’t back down from them, but the autopsy of the anti-democracy movement in the US has begun. In the December 3rd edition of The Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery begins recounting quotes from last November in The Stab That Failed;

    “Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried, and that has already failed.” The surge was “a sad, ominous echo of something we’ve lived through in this country,” according to Illinois senator Richard Durbin. “I’m confident it will not work,” said John Kerry at a Senate hearing, a sentiment echoed by Barack Obama.

    Having Kerry’s seal of disapproval, coupled with Barack Obama, was almost like adding another 20,000 troops on the field, I suppose. Neither has been right about anything in the whole time they’ve been in the Senate.

    Gaius from Blue Crab Boulevard quotes the Financial Times’ Clive Crook calling the current Democrat situation a “trap”;

    Opposition to the war has been [Democrats’] chief theme. This still commands broad and strong support, of course, but the intensity could continue to fade. Republicans will seek opportunities to accuse Democrats of wanting the US to fail, or of wishing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – and those charges will acquire some force if the view that the surge has worked takes hold. For Democrats, even putting the recent fall in violence in its correct context poses a political risk, because it can be portrayed as failing to recognise the military’s efforts and achievements. If the Republican presidential contenders have any sense, they will tread very carefully here – while hoping that Democrats fall into the trap and helping them to if the opportunity presents itself.

    On cue, LauraW at Ace of Spades records the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum hand-wringing opinion piece about our stature in the world;

    Though I don’t especially want to perpetuate any stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren’t improving in Iraq — it seems they are, at least for the moment — but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America’s relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized. It isn’t just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. What’s worse is the fact that — however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy is a decade from now — our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we’ve paid is too high.

    Probably not as high a price as we’ve paid for foreign policy failures like Somalia and Viet Nam, though. The reason we paid such a high price in Iraq is because everyone expected us to cut and run from Iraq like we’ve done nearly everywhere else in the last 60 years. the fact that there’s a peace conference scheduled in Annapolis with all of the major players would have been impossible last year at this time. President Bush has shown a determination to see the process in the Middle East continue – regardless of the chatter from the left…and the Right , by the way.

    And our “image” in the world is just that – our cosmetic appearance. However, it’s clear that our “image” is backed by stalwart military power and a decisive, unwaivering commander (for the time being). From Curt at Flopping Aces;

    Problem is, we have always been hated, and loved.  It was the same 50 years ago and will be the same 50 years in the future.  Some hate how successful we are.  Some hate Democracy.  Some hate our ideals.  You can count al-Qaeda in that group and the question is, should we care?

    Crotchety Old Bastard writes that the Democrat candidates are cutting and running from the cut and run strategy;

    This is not at all surprising to anyone with a brain.  Of course that eliminates almost all Democrats who constitute the most mindlessly uninformed voting block in history.  But they have decided to surrender from surrendering.  From no less than the New York Times:

    That’s not leadership – that’s politics. The two major candidates for leader of the free world are sticking their finger in the air to determine what they think. COB sums up;

    These people are so pathetic that it is beyond comprehension.  Having championed the cause of defeat while pandering to their leftist base, they now face the very real possibility that we (America) may actually win.  Win in spite of their treasonous undermining.

    The Daily Kooks and so on will raise all kinds of hell and then vote for them anyway.  Why?  Because they have the same level of principles as their socialist candidates.

    Don Surber writes what I’ve been saying all along – they refuse to compromise and still they don’t understand why Republicans want them to fail;

    It is the line of the day from Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington Bureau. Writing about the inability of a Democratic Congress to do anything this year, Lochhead wrote: “Bewildered Democrats have concluded that Republicans simply want them to fail.”

    Just like Democrats want our soldiers to fail in Iraq.

    Unlike our soldiers, Congressional Democrats have poor leaders. Instead of legislating and compromising, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi bull forward.

    At Western Hemisphere Policy Watch, the anonomous author detects leftist lip-licking among our allies’ diplomatic missions here in DC at the prospect of being able to once again fleece the American taxpayers when Democrats take over both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year;

    The international left can barely contain itself. The prospects of a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House too good to pass up or wait for the election results to confirm the outcome in November 2008. WHPW Editors have yet to notice too much of this sentiment in and about town with the locals (i.e., Washingtonians), but the foreign diplomatic corp is buzzing even in Europe.

    Take for example the following program being hosted by the leftist Chatham House in the U.K. (i.e., Royal Institute for International Affairs, uncle of the Council on Foreign Relations based in New York City) next month: America and Europe: From 9/11 to the 2008 Presidential Election with Guest Speaker James P. Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Chief Spokesman for the State Department and senior policy adviser to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright (1997-2000). The program is described thusly:

    The speaker will reflect on European attitudes towards American foreign policy, the loss of American prestige in recent years, the role of foreign policy in the 2008 elections, and what a Democratic foreign policy would mean for the transatlantic partnership.

    And, in the meantime, since they can’t attack the war, they can’t attack the troops, they have no effect on our foreign policy so they still pursue impeachment of the policy maker, according to Michele Malkin;

    Democrat leaders might have thought they put the impeachment circus to rest on November 6. But as I noted, the nutroots are gearing up for a stage production of a Beltway impeachment play that’ll open after New Year’s–and over this Thanksgiving holiday, Denny K’s peeps have been pounding the I-drum and hounding Democrats over their reluctance to go with the impeachment flow.

    I guess they don’t figure that this little drama doesn’t hurt our “image” in the world a bit – or they don’t care.

  • French “Youths” rampaging through Paris

    First read on Ace of Spades, then Pajamas Media an AFP story about rampaging youths in Paris;

    The two youths, aged 15 and 16, died after their motorbike collided with a police car in the high-immigration suburb of Villiers-le-Bel on Sunday evening. Six hours of clashes followed.

    Gangs of youths used guns against police, according to one police union, as they torched some 30 cars and looted shops and buildings. Twenty-five police and one firefighter were injured, officials said. Calm was eventually restored just after midnight.

    About 100 youths thronged the crash site on a high-rise housing estate, accusing police of fleeing the scene.

    A state prosecutor said she had ordered an internal police investigation for “involuntary manslaughter and failure to assist persons in danger” following the deaths of the two youths.

    Police said the bike smashed into the side of their car during a routine patrol. Neither youth was wearing a helmet, according to witnesses.

    Omar Sehhouli, brother of one of the victims, accused police of ramming the motorbike and of failing to assist the injured teens.

    Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs has an exclusive eye witness account of the “not violence, but an expression of rage” (quoted from an AFP interview).

    Liberty Pundit writes that the “youths” have the unwaivering support of French Socialists. Augean Stables and Fausta have very good round ups of various news sources. 

  • WaPo; Ron Paul’s run isn’t about Ron Paul

    In an opinion piece posing as news, the Washington Post put on page B1 of yesterday’s paper that truly mischaracterizes the entire Ron paul campaign;

    Now with about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters, Paul set a one-day GOP record by raising $4.3 million on the Internet from 38,000 donors on Nov. 5 — Guy Fawkes Day, the commemoration of a British anarchist who plotted to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605. Paul’s campaign, which is three-quarters of the way to its goal of raising “$12 Million to Win” by Dec. 31, didn’t even organize the fundraiser — an independent-minded supporter did.

    When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it’s clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.

    That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him….

    Well, unfortunately for them, the “the movement that has erupted around him” isn’t what’ll occupy the White House in 2009 if Ron Paul were to win the election. There are political realities like working with Congress that Pauliens, much as their predecessors in the Ross Perot days, don’t understand. The President doesn’t rule by decree. Much of Paul’s “beliefs” aren’t within the realm of possibility – and many Pauliens would oppose his efforts to do away with their SSI payments and their free healthcare. The “movement” around Paul, is politically and socially naive, much as one would expect 5% of the population to be. Much as one might expect Libertarianism to be.

    Much of his “support” comes from voters who will never pull a lever for a Republican outside of a primary election. People like Adam Kokesh, whom I’ve spent gigs of bandwidth on his deceit and political ambitions. Anyone who thinks that Adam Kokesh will vote for Ron Paul next November is fooling themselves. Kokesh supports Paul to make it appear as if Paul’s appeal crosses party lines. I don’t care if you ran Teddy Kennedy as a Republican – those hardcore Leftists still couldn’t bring themselves to vote Republican.

    5% of Republicans won’t win a national election. Weeks from the primaries, Paul has hit his peak at 5% (if that number is even correct). If Paul did win the primary nod, he still wouldn’t have the support he needs from mainstream Republicans or Democrats to carry him through to a national victory in November. And sorry, but that’s what he needs.

    So why are Democrats supporting Paul? For the same reason they supported John McCain in 2000 – he’s the easiest candidate for them to beat.

    So, in many ways, the Washington Post is right – Ron Paul’s candidacy and his support isn’t about him at all, it’s about the clowns around him whom he either seems willing to exploit or he doesn’t recognize the character of his supporters (or, rather,  the lack thereof). Paul’s candidacy seems more in the model of Pat Buchanan’s Reform Party run – an attempt to destroy the Republican Party from within.

  • MSN: More bad news from Iraq

    Earlier in the month we were shocked to find that Iraq’s gravediggers were in danger of being unemployed with the sharp decline in violence in Iraq. While we barely recovered from that news, we soon discovered that emergency workers’ jobs in Baghdad were being threatened by the same events (or, rather the lack thereof) as the poor grave diggers. While this is terrible news indeed, prepare yourself for, perhaps the worst news of all.

    Refugees returning to Iraq are clogging border checkpoints from Syria and Jordan according to Agence France-Presse;

    Iraqi generals say refugees are streaming back to their homeland from Jordan and Syria in such large numbers that frontier guards are struggling to prevent the smuggling of insurgents and arms.

    “We are receiving tremendous numbers of displaced families at the borders of Syria and Jordan,” said Maj. Gen. Mohsen Abdul Hassan, head of Iraq’s department of border enforcement.

    Border crossings are becoming congested with returning refugees waiting to re-enter Iraq, Gen. Hassan said at a press conference.

    “We have difficulties dealing with the large numbers. There are long lines of vehicles,” Gen. Mohsen said, adding that his guards were already hard-pressed trying to intercept arms smugglers and insurgents attempting to cross into Iraq using forged passports.  

    Yes, terible news indeed. Hasn’t the most recent complaint of the Left, since they can’t seem to agree on a number of dead Iraqis, been that millions have been displaced? So this should be more good news for them, right? They’ll be celebrating and clapping our troops on the back any minute now.

  • How the world looks from an insane asylum

    According to the Associated Press, Hamas is shocked that Arab countries would want to attend a peace conference;

    Hamas said Saturday it was shocked Arab countries have decided to attend next week’s U.S.-backed Mideast peace summit and underlined its opposition with a threat to launch deadlier rocket attacks on Israel.

    Hamas argues the time is not right for talks with Israel because the Palestinians are divided. With the Islamic militant group in control of Gaza, Hamas says moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas does not have a mandate to negotiate.

    “The announcement of the Arabs that they would participate in the Annapolis conference was a great shock for the Palestinian people,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, said in a statement. “Participation opens doors for normalization of relations with the Israeli occupiers.”

    Another Hamas official said the group was on the brink of developing a more lethal type of warhead for the rockets it regularly lobs from Gaza into Israel.

    “They can be developed in a short period to create sufficient terror and fear and make the Israelis live in pain no less than what our people live through because of the repeated incursions into our villages and cities in the West Bank and Gaza,” said Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister in Gaza.

    Israel, which warmly welcomed the Arab League decision Friday to go to the Mideast conference in Annapolis, Md., has repeatedly said it expects Hamas to try and thwart peace efforts.

    Why couldn’t Arabs just enjoy the bombings and rocketings and killings like Hamas enjoys it all? When the Israelis penned up the Gaza Strip and stopped the marauding murderers from crossing into Israel, Hamas turned on their allies – just to keep their edge. Maybe those Hamas guys don’t have as firm a grasp on reality as some in the world would like us to think.

    Wall Street Journal writes that the US and Israel are making overtures to Syria to isolate Iran (Like Nixon used China to isolate the USSR thirty five years ago);

    Underscoring that effort, the Bush administration is even courting a long-time pariah, Syria. Syria’s bitter enemy, Israel, is going even further, indicating that its arms are open wide to Damascus. Talks with Syria could go some way in weakening Tehran’s strongest alliance in the region.

    “This is one of those moments in history where the Syrians have been given an opportunity to jump,” a senior Israeli official said this past week. “If they do jump, they will be embraced.”

    I wouldn’t dismantle the metal detectors at Annapolis yet, though. Jumping back to the AP story, apparently Hamas’ policy is being handled by hormone-driven 15-year-old boys;

    “We tell those going to Annapolis, we will not forgive you, and we will not forget if you give up any of our rights,” said one of the speakers, 15-year-old Uthman Abdullah. “History will curse you and your people will curse you.”

    Speaking of insanity, those people over there in that part of the world look mighty insane protesting US aid to cyclone victims in Bangledesh as reported by Gateway Pundit.

  • Is Chavez losing the referendum?

    Venezuelanalysis.com estimates, 50,000 chavista students rallied for Chavez’ constitutional “reforms” last week;

    Caracas, November 22, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) – In a massive demonstration that dwarfed violent opposition student protests two weeks ago against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s proposed constitutional reforms, more than 50,000 students marched in favor of the reforms in Caracas on Thursday. The rally on the ‘Day of the Students,’ also commemorated 50 years since the student uprising on October 21 1957 that culminated in the downfall of dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez on 23 of January 1958.

    Venezuelanalysis.com, however, is given to hyperbole when it comes to Venezuelan support for Chavez (notice the “violent opposition student protests” parroting the Chavez line that anti-chavistas were the cause of the violence). You’d be hardpressed to find much about the anti-chavistas in their columns, most of their columnists are hardcore US socialists.

    Chavez used the occasion to deride those who oppose his proposed “reforms” traitors to Venezuela. (Breitbart)

    President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a “traitor,” rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

    Brandishing a little red book listing his desired 69 revisions to Venezuela’s charter, Chavez exhorted his backers to redouble their efforts toward a victorious “yes” vote in the Dec. 2 ballot.

    “He who says he supports Chavez but votes ‘no’ is a traitor, a true traitor,” the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. “He’s against me, against the revolution and against the people.”

    His speech followed the recent high-profile defection of his former Defense Minister Gen. Raul Baduel, a longtime ally who called the president’s proposed reforms a “coup.” Others have also broken with the Chavista movement in recent months, including politicians of the small left-leaning party Podemos

    So I guess there’s no room to move around Chavez anymore. That’s why I think this particular rally was organized by Chavez. He seems to be losing ground in polls leading up to the vote. (Reuters)

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has lost his lead eight days before a referendum on ending his term limit, an independent pollster said on Saturday, in a swing in voter sentiment against the Cuba ally.

    Forty-nine percent of likely voters oppose Chavez’s proposed raft of constitutional changes to expand his powers, compared with 39 percent in favor, a survey by respected pollster Datanalisis showed.

    Just weeks ago, Chavez had a 10-point lead for his proposed changes in the OPEC nation that must be approved in a referendum, the polling company said.

    Despite the swing, company head Luis Vicente Leon said he did not rule out a comeback by the popular president.

    Chavez has trounced the opposition at the polls on average once a year and can deploy a huge state-backed machinery to get out the vote, Leon said.

    Chavez is getting desperate. The Wall Street Journal reports he’s even lost the support of Stalin;

    Ivan Stalin González, who prefers to be called just plain Stalin, is president of the student body at the Central University of Venezuela, or UCV, Venezuela’s biggest public university. During the past few weeks, Mr. González and other student leaders here have organized protest marches by tens of thousands of students opposed to a constitutional referendum set for Dec. 2. The proposed changes would dramatically expand Mr. Chávez’s power and allow him to seek perpetual re-election.

    “Historically, students have represented the hope and conscience of Venezuela,” says Mr. González, who, unlike his bushy-moustached and sinister-mannered Soviet namesake, is scruffy-bearded and laid-back.

    OK, maybe not THE Stalin, but a commie nonetheless;

    The 27-year-old, sixth-year law student grew up in a poor household that dreamed of a Communist Venezuela. His father, a print-machine operator, was a high-ranking member of the Bandera Roja, or Red Flag, a hard-line Marxist-Leninist party that maintained a guerrilla force until as recently as the mid-1990s. Its members revered Josef Stalin as well as Albania’s xenophobic Enver Hoxha. As a boy, Mr. González remembers packing off to marches with his sisters, Dolores Engels and Ilyich, named in honor of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

    As a young man, Mr. González burnished his leftist credentials, joining Marxist youth groups and following his father into the Bandera Roja. He traveled to Socialist youth conferences in Latin America.

    Mr. González was still in his teens when Mr. Chávez was voted into office in late 1998. Even then, he says, he was skeptical about Mr. Chávez’s socialist rhetoric, as are many Venezuelan leftists. Mr. Chávez, a lieutenant colonel who had staged an unsuccessful coup attempt in 1992, would be more authoritarian than egalitarian, Mr. González reasoned.

    He says his suspicions were confirmed when Mr. Chávez started forming the “Bolivarian Circles” of civilian supporters, some of which turned into armed gangs used to break up opposition gatherings. “Military men belong in the barracks,” he said.

    Tomas Sancio (Venezuela Politics) and Daniel (Venezuela News and Views) both predict failure by Chavez in the referendum. Tomas asserts that because of the rising opposition, Chavez sends thugs to do his dirty work – shutting up the media. Daniel, however, does his best to convince Venezuelans to vote;

    I do not know whether this serves to convince people to go to vote or not, but it seems to me that it makes a case that by going to vote NO, no matter how much cheating Chavez is already doing, we have a better chance to make our point that the new constitution is inviable. In fact we even have a chance to stop it! If we stay home we know that even with a 20% of Venezuelans Chavez will try to impose it anyway if he has enough spread, which he is sure to get if we stay home.

    Besides, if you stay home you relinquish any right you have to say that your vote was stolen. It is that simple.

    Francisco of the Caracas Chronicles explains why the chavistas have had such a hard time fighting off this new assault;

    Where the old oppo played into the government’s hands by personalizing the debate, ceaselessly “Chaveztizing it”, the students center their message on civil rights. Whereas the old oppo never saw a red rag it didn’t want to charge, the student movement isn’t scared to step away from confrontations that can only play to the government’s advantage.

    Gloriously, they’ve left Chávez without a credible target, without a reasonably demonizable enemy. His attempts to lump the kids in with the old guard are vaguely pathetic. It’s just not credible to slam people who hadn’t reached adolescence when Chávez first came to power as “widows of puntofijismo.” There’s palpable confusion as chavistas realize tried and tested polarization techniques have stopped working somehow.

    The Devil’s Excrement has a linkfest to worldwide opposition to Chavez – finally. We’ve been sitting here waiting for the world to speak out – and it took an “Old Europe” king to get them to finally grow their own respective pair.

    I should have known to check Kate’s blog first while researching, but she’s reprinted the entire WSJ “Stalin” article and another from the Miami Herald to profile the types of people (students) who join the pro-Democracy movement in Venezuela. Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard and Michele Malkin are hopeful. Redstate writes that Chavez’ economics isn’t working too well either.

    Chavez has eight days until the referendum – either way it goes, these are going to be turbulent days before, during and after the vote.

    Just to leave you with a chuckle, one of Chavez’ mini-mes, Rafael Correa, President of Equador, had a hissy because TSA gave the little commie a hard time in Miami; (Associated Press)

    In his weekly radio address, Correa said he accepted an apology issued Tuesday by U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador Linda Jewell, who said U.S. officials learned of his travel plans only hours before and “didn’t have time to make all the arrangements necessary to receive a head of state.”

    Correa received “discourteous treatment” at Miami International Airport, where he’d stopped to change planes Nov. 15 on the way to a summit of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries summit in Saudi Arabia, the Foreign Ministry said in a letter to the U.S. Embassy in Quito last week. The letter gave no further details of his encounter.

    “We accepted (the ambassador’s apology) but personally I’m not going to stop to change planes in the United States until they learn what civilization is,” Correa said.

    What a blow to our economy – one less tinpot dictator stopping to buy Starbucks and a Snickers at the airport.