If liberals applied the same standards to Venezuela today that they applied to Florida four years ago, then Michael Moore would be leading protests to invade the South American nation.

"A 61-year-old grandmother was shot in the back as she ran for cover," Thor Halvorssen writes in the Wall Street Journal. "The bullet ripped through her aorta, kidney and stomach. She later bled to death in the emergency room. An opposition congressman was shot in the shoulder and remains in critical care. Eight others suffered severe gunshot wounds. Hilda Mendoza Denham, a British subject visiting Caracas for her mother's 80th birthday, was shot at close range with hollow-point bullets from a high-caliber pistol. She now lies sedated in a hospital bed after a long and complicated operation. She is my mother."

If only George W. Bush had goons shoot a bunch of people after the Florida recount controversy, some Republicans must be thinking, then maybe liberals would have declared him the legitimate president. Well, not really. Bush is a Republican and Hugo Chávez is a Communist. When you're a Communist, you get to rig elections, further loot your impoverished country, and allow goons to open-fire on crowds--and liberals will look the other way. When you're a Republican, discounting felons' ballots or counting absentee votes from overseas servicemen is enough to provoke cries of "fraud" and "illegitimate."

Halvorssen reports election officials moving one opposition voter's polling station hundreds of miles away and erasing others from the voting rolls. Worse still, the Chávez regime bought into a company that supplies computerized ballot boxes and then awarded the company the contract to tally the votes in Venezuela.

Halvorssen writes: "Smartmatic Corp., a Florida company that has never before supplied election machinery, is owned by two Venezuelans. The software came from Bizta Software, owned by the same two people. The Miami Herald recently revealed that the Chávez regime spent $200,000 last year to purchase 28% of Bizta and put a government official and longtime Chávez ally on the board. After the story broke, Bizta bought back the government-held shares and the official resigned from the board. But not until after the two companies were granted a significant part of the $91 million contract for the referendum."

Had George W. Bush's lackeys owned the company responsible for tallying votes in the controversial 2000 election, how do you suppose Jimmy Carter and the other liberals vouching for the fairness of the Venezuelan recall loss would have reacted?

My goodness. I can't believe what I just read.

I could point out numerous factural errors in your report here, Dan, but I'll just stick to logic on this one. The main difference between Florida 2000 and Venezulea 2004 is the margin of victory. Flordia was statistically a dead heat. Chavez had nearly a twenty point margin. Electoral fraud can only make a difference in a close election. It defies logic to believe that even if Chavez engaged in fraud, that the fraud was so widespread it managed to corrupt nearly 1/5 of the electorate.

Further, Jimmy Carter was not the only international observer that certified the elections. The Organization of American States, which, unlike the UN has been effectively dominated by the United States for most of its history, certified the election as well. The man in charge of the OAS right now is a conservative Columbian polititan, a man who idealogically and nationally is opposed to Chavez.

The voting machines issues are suspicious, been again such issues only really make a difference when the election is close. This election was not close. The people of Venezuela want Chavez in power. That is democracy. The United States should respect that.

Also, there is a despotic country that actually has the term People's Republic in its full name. Its called the People's Republic of China, and niether George Bush nor barely anyone on the right except Pat Buchanan ever critizes that nation, even though there elections don't even exist! Why dosen't the right chastize China for its autocratic rule? Because there's simply too much money too be made there. That's the difference, and that is the true reason the right hates Chavez. It's not that he's communist. (So is the PRC). It's not that he's autocratic. (So is the PRC). It's that Chavez, with his populist rehetoric, is a threat to American bussiness interests, while China has long ago decided to leave American bussinesses alone, and keep its Communist rule over its people. How can the right dare be outraged by the fair election of a twice elected democratic Presiedent when it stands so silent and complicit in the obstruction of the democratic and free market yearnings of over one billion people?

....4 posts and they're all from this tiresome windbag...

Dan, you do bring them out of the woodwork!

Would you care to rebutt this tiresome windbag? Or would you rather just insult me and hope my ideas go away so you don't have to face them?

Rebut what? You produce heaps of words rather than well-formed points, so which tangential ideological cheap shot (they seem to constitute the entirety of your stream of consciousness) should we rebut? Once you present focused and coherent points rather than long and unfocused posts 5 or 6 at a time, then you should expect dialogue.

DB, Thanks for your posts. I guess my question to you is: if George W. Bush owned the private company that counted all the votes in the upcoming election, would you defend the process as a fair one?

Come on dude...you said in another thread (referring to SBVT):

"The "liberal media" have a great story on this sham group. Check out today's New York Times for the real story on this ad. If you prefer to live in your electorial la la land, you better not read. As Orwell said, Ignorance is Bliss."

What is this? We're all willfully ignorant buffoons who only watch FoxNews (your insult in a previous post) so as to avoid any opinions we can't handle?

You post and post then insult anyone that disagrees with you...BEFORE THEY EVEN RESPOND!

However, I cheerfully withdraw the "windbag" comment. I don't wish to be equally insulting.

Glad you're adding to the lively debate!

Dan, I would not regard it as fair. However, I believe the orginzation that set up the election in Venezuela was indepentant of the presidency.

I attack before I respond because on my first post, without attacks, someone attacked me with a reference to a certain veneral disease. I'd rather strike before stricken. And you'd be happy to know that I respect Dan and many posters here for being so much more intelligent than your average Republican voter, and for genuninly believing what they say. This does not change the fact that on the whole the right wing movement in this country does immense harm to Americans and the world. Conservatism (as opposed to libertarianism, which I respect) is on the whole an archaic and even evil philosophy dating from the middle ages.

To you Mr. Homer: Rebut this:

-China is a Communist nation. Why hasn't the Republican party or Conservatives in general taken a hard line against it, while they continue to bash other leftish governments around the world?

-Venezuela is a democratic state whose legitimate leader is President Hugo Chavez. Mr. Chavez is on balance a good leader for the people of Venezulea because he is the first President to address the plight of the poor.

-The election of the American President George W. Bush was more fradulant than the recent Venezualean recall election.

-Hugo Chavez is not a communist. He is a leftish leader, but has not introduced any policies that one could reasonably believe as communist.

-The title of the episode where we learn that the "J" in Homer. J Simpson stands for "Jay" is a paradoy of a line in the Bob Dylan song "Blowing in the Wind".

-The Republican party of the United States primarily serves the intrests of the privledged few.

Some members of my church (Eagle Heights Baptist, Shepherdsville, KY) just came back from a mission to Venezuela. The video footage was rough to watch.

The kids there showed the same excitement about a new trash truck unloading at the dump that my kids show when Domino's pulls in our driveway. It will be a while before I complain about my lot in life.

Be well,

Sponge

Can I moon for rebuttal?

DB, if you believe the 2000 election was more fraudulent that ANY election, ever in Venezuela then clearly you’ve been off important medication you need. Please refill your prescription, and then come back to the earth.

Roughly half the people in this country are registered Republicans. 28 states including the four biggest have Republicans Governors. The GOP currently holds all three houses in Washington DC (upper, lower and White). In the last 35 years the county has only elected 2 Democrats President. How do you account for the popularity and success of the Republican party considering they “only serve the interests of the privileged few”? In your world do you think each of the so called “privileged few” vote 10,000 times or maybe steal ballot boxes from entire voting areas?

Please keep us posted with a post on your prescription refill and recovery.

Mike I never said that only the privledged few vote Republican. Only the Republican policies favor the privledged few. In Sadamm's Iraq 99% of the vote went to Sadamm. DId that make 99% of the country Bathist? No. THe fact is that Republicans control the portions of government they control because they are better orgainzed, better funded, and more ruthless than thier opposition. You seem to believe that politics is a nice little game where each party respectfully puts forth its ideas, and the voters make thier choices based on sound and honest information about what each party would do in office. Plese. How quaint. Politics is a dirty game, and Republicans are better at it than Democrats.

The Soviets used to call thier opposition mentally ill. Glad to see you have respect for a healthy democratic debate there son.

And I do think elections in this country are quite undemocratic. Not nessacarily because of anything either party does directly or illegally, but because our system of elections is less democratic than others used around the world. For instance, voter turnout in the 2000 elections here was 51%, much less than the voter turnout in Venezuela, 80%. Further, Chavez won 59% of the vote there, Bush won 47% of the vote here. Thus Chavez has recieved the approval of a greater percentage of people in Venezuela,(47.2) than Bush has in America, (23.97). Which is more democratic? No idelogy can refute these fiqures. More people in Venezuela have assented to Hugo Chavez's rule than have people in America assented to George Bush's. More people, Demos in Greek, have assented. Which is more democratic?

And rather than insult me, or claim that these facts are the manufactures of a liberal idealogy, would anyone care to refute this. Would anyone wish to take up the argument that Election 2000 in the United States was more democratic than Recall Venezuela 2004? Come on. I dare you. A factual argument. If you're capable.

DB, you lost me on your Saddam / Iraq voting example, not sure what it’s supposed to be an example of? I’ve earned my wage working in politics for the 7 years so you don’t need to walk me through American National Government 101, I think I have all my bases covered for now at least. Do I think politics is clean and neat? No. It ain’t beanbag it’s a knife-fight. There’s no prize for 2nd place, it’s a zero sum game. The voting electorate in this country is already made up. Campaigns find their base, and make sure they vote. Then they target the swing votes (a.k.a. soccer moms). These swing voters aren’t wingers on either the right or the left, they are for the most part independent thinkers. They vote for the candidate that they are more inclined to agree with on political stances and the candidate they think has the right leadership. So for a reasons you apparently would like to ignore these swing voters have elected Republican majorities to both houses of Congress and more Republicans hold the title of Governor than Democrats. That mean something and it doesn’t mean “Republicans are more ruthless than their opposition.” It means Republicans are attracting more middle of the road, independent people to vote for them. Soccer moms I know usually view ruthlessness as something negative. If you think the Republican Party is somehow fooling these people into voting for them then you should really get to that pharmacy to see about your refill.

Working in politics will surely cloud your mind on the issue.

The fact is that 23.7 percent of eligable Americans voted for George Bush in 2000. That is hardly a majority. And the fact is that the Republican party does fool most of this 23.7 percent of the country into voting for them. That's what politics is nowadays dumbass! Time was when people were activly engaged in thier parties, people formed new parties, people wrote the platforms, etc. Now, with your "swing voters", these voters are largely passive, they're just waiting for the party who does the best job convincing them. The Republicans often are that party because they are beter campaigners and have more money. Not nessacarily because thier ideas attract more people, although it sure does happen.

And usually when Republicans have attracted more middle of the road people its because they've protrayed the democrats as baby eating, Jesus killing, Stallinist sodomites. In other words they convince the public that the Democrats are too "liberal", just because some people in thier party are gay, are for abortoin, or don't go to church. Again, it's a ruthless game. ANd the Republicans are better at it.

Deebs, I didn’t mention President Bush in my last post when I discussed a Republican majority. I mentioned the US Congress and Governor mansions, to which Republicans hold a majority of. I like that fact – you don’t. It makes me happy – it makes you...I don’t know; sad, distraught, possibly confused about a great many things. I forget the names of the people but in 1980 when Ronald Regan beat Jimmy Carter a female reported was shocked and dismayed. She confided in a colleague “I can’t believe Regan won, I don’t know a single person who voted for him.” She didn’t, because she lived in her own world and failed to recognize what for everyone else was pretty simple. Deebs, you are reminding me of that women (pun intended).

You believe the majority of the members of Congress and Governors whom are all Republicans won their seats because they fooled people. Wow how intellectual of you. Care to share any other brain-busters with us? I think they won because more people agreed with the Republican candidate on the issues and felt the Republican candidate was better than the Democratic candidate. That’s usually how elections go, you know the guy or gal who gets more votes is usually seen as the better candidate. But what do I know about elections, I’m just a neophyte compared to you, after all you know all the inside baseball tricks to game.

I do agree with you on one point you have consistently made and that is when you state “Republicans are better campaigners.” You bet your ass we are! It’s a lot easier to campaign when you can actually tell the truth about where you stand on the issues, so yeah Republicans have the upper-hand campaigning, I’ll give you that one Deebs. You made another solid point as well, you said Republicans “convince the public that the Democrats are too ‘liberal’". You are right again Deebs, we do convince the voting public that you Democrats are too liberal. It doesn’t take much, usually your own statements do the work for us which is probably why Republicans hold the majority of…well everything that’s important.

PS if you are going to call ME a “dumbass” learn how to spell first.

Ok I'll learn how to spell YOU ARE A DUMBASS. And you learn what a pun actually is, DUMBASS. I do not deny that Republicans have a large following. But they do not constiitute a majority in this country. Even the governor's races have low turnout. And Gerrymandering makes it impossible for anyone to loose. Further, much of thier following are right wing Christians, who are indeed tricked into believing that the Republicans represent thier values. How Christian is it to destroy the enviroment? Or cut soilder's pay? Or reduce health and safety standards? Not very!!!! But The Right keeps electing these people because the Repubs change the topic from thier misdeeds to crap like "values" and "faith". It's a gimmick, and it works well. This gimmick combined with lots of money, a ruthless strategy, a few true believers and a little gerymandering put Repubs in office. I'm not like that woman. I'm not surprised people vote republican. I understand why they do. I understand why Repubs win. It's not that they represent the will of the people. They change the people to represent thier will.

Your understanding of how elections work is wrong. It's not a simple matter of people voting thier conscience. Its a complex multi-billion effort to manipulate the electorate. Repubs are better than the Dems. Why don't you search the web for political strategy firms! YOU'll find out what electoins are all about. You're so idealistic! YOu're so utopian!It's unreal. Come back down to earth baby! Elections in this country are mulit-billion dollar chess games, not triumphs of democracy!

Venezuela is more democratic than we are.

Have you considered moving there?

Does the US government shoot elderly people in the street? Are Congressmen who are opposed to the leader of our nation shot by our military?

I will post a response to your previous post to continue our debate on campaigns...I haven't forgot to respond I've just been busy working to elect Republicans.

I never said elections were “simple.” I stated that the overwhelming majority of people who vote know well in advanced who they are going to vote for, explaining why the county is pretty evenly split in ½ in terms of political party support. I stated campaigns find their base, ensure they vote, then target the undecided, who, will actually vote (and determine most elections.) Yes there is a ton of money spent (by both Republicans and Democrats) on getting campaign messages to them; commercials, direct mail, the internet, high profile rallies with big name speakers, ect… I think at the end of the day undecided voters pick a candidate (be it a Republican or Democrat) for two reason. 1: they chose the person who they feel the most comfortable with – actually thinking about that person in Congress representing them or as their Governor. 2: they pick the person who closets mirrors their own political beliefs. Could I be wrong about my theory? Sure. Maybe people who have been voting to give Republicans majorities have in fact been fooled somehow by the multi-billion dollar campaign industry that you think “manipulates the electorate.” Both sides work to the control agendas and try to paint the other side in horrible light, sure that’s part of the game and it gets ugly (see the Swift Boats ads and the counter ads by MoveOn.org). But I’ve always thought in reality the only people who actually pay any attention to all that stuff (by which I mean 24/7 cable news coverage of all things politics) are the political junkies, people like me, and probably you. And we talk about it all the time, we post, our thoughts on places like flynnfiles because we want to be a part of the debate ourselves.

I feel a bit bad now so I’ll apologize because you are a decent adversary but the pun in my last post was me calling you a woman…basically I was calling you my bitch. Sorry that was uncalled for. You might not be that reporter whom I can’t place a name on, but let me ask you: How do you think she rationalized Regan wining the Presidency? Given her remark and her total shock that a guy like Ronald Regan and all he stood for could actually be elected by the American people, do you think that she might have thought that people were simply fooled, tricked or manipulated into voting for him? I’m curious as to your thoughts on that matter.