Vosem, you do know that Capriles is a Lulan, right? And that Lulaism is the only viable alternative to Chavismo?
Oh, I know. I never mentioned Capriles by name. I really have no idea who 'someone like Thatcher' might be, but it's definitely necessary for Venezuela to reverse Chavismo.
Venezuela has some of the freest, best-run elections in the world (certainly better than those in the United States). But if it makes you feel better to put quotations around things, be my guest.
The hope right now is that a hardcore capitalist gets in, someone along the lines of Thatcher who is willing to put Bolivarianism decisively in the past.
People like you are the reason why the Venezuelan people saw Chavez as the only acceptable alternative.Teenagers? Native Russian speakers? The nearsighted? Westlake High School students? People who have played 'Baseball Player #1' in Thornton Wilder's
Our Town? People who prefer tea to coffee? Elaborate.
Because I thought Chavez' victory was along the lines of Berlusconi's in 1994 (or, for that matter, Hitler's in 1932) -- we're tired of the entire system before this, we're gonna change it and we don't care who gets power because we do. Such elections can be very dangerous.
Also, anyone who seriously claims Chavez didn't win his elections fair and square is an idiot.
He didn't. One can make the claim he would've won anyway (a la Putin), but Chavez' had control over the media, had severely gerrymandered the entire country, and had nationalized many industries to put so as many voters under his control as possible. Now, Chavez wasn't hated in Venezuela, so perhaps he would've won anyway. But saying 'unfair elections are OK because the dude running them would've won anyway', while in many cases true, is a very illiberal argument to make.
