This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
They pretended that Capriles had a good chance to win. It was laughable on its face. The Times said "Chavez spent much of the year insulting and trying to provoke Mr. Capriles and his followers."
He gave them hell for good reason. He explained what they are and the danger they pose. Venezuelans remember the bad old days and want none of it repeating.
Instead of explaining beneficial social change under Chavez, The Times said "Venezuela is mired in problems, including out-of-control violent crime, crumbling roads and bridges, and power blackouts""
True enough. These problems and others need addressing. Chavez promised to do more. America has these and many more unaddressed festering problems harming most people nationwide.
The Times failed to notice. It also downplayed the sharp drop in poverty and unemployment under Chavez. He's waged war on inequality and human need. These and other vital issues go begging in America. Instead of fixing them, they're getting worse.
On October 6, a scurrilous Washington Post editorial headlined "Venezuela eyes change," saying:
"IF HUGO CHAVEZ is an autocrat, how could he be in danger of losing the Venezuelan presidency in an election on Sunday?""Polls show a race to the wire between the caudillo and challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski. An opposition victory would mean an epochal change of political direction in one of the world's largest oil producers"."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
