I wonder...from what point of reference do you come up with such bullshit?  It clearly is not grounded in anything related to the history of pro-chavez that i've engaged in on this very website, including threads in which you were actively engaged in the comments section.  If you're really going to claim Chavez to be without flaw, or in possession of a grandly brilliant long-term plan for building latin-american economics, then you've not been participating in the same reality as the past 500 years of latin american history.

Chavez has the oil revenue to buy up support, but I'm not sure he has a well-thought out economic philosophy, nor does he represent a strong political movement. This makes him more of a populist than a leftist.

He has the money to buy up support. He has the political backing to force political changes. Anti-US rhetoric plays to the peanut gallery, but, the big question is whether he is creating real changes to the economic structure.

In my opinion, Chavez would do better to stop lambasting the US, keep his head down, and build for the long-term.

Why the F does he think the US is funding Columbia's military? They're now the third largest recipient after Israel and Egypt, and it ain't going to fight the drug war.

(Shameless diary self-promotion: I started a previous comment, but it morphed into a diary on this very topic)

He's doing good things, but I'd recommend you compare Chavez's economic surge with Argentina under Peron.

Or DC under Marion Barry.

I know that there's context and spin, and I bristle at both contentions here that I don't know anything about Chavez.  I've spent a ton of time here, at dailykos and in person defending Chavez. And plan to continue.

That's fine. I don't mean to spout off at you, I was more upset at the Atlantic article. Sooo many publications have done that statistical trick of showing how f-d up the country was right after the strike to show that Chavez is failing. It's lying with statistics.

I don't know if I agree with the characterization that he's providing handouts. If that were so, I doubt the poverty rate would be dropping so precipitously.

I'm not arguing that he's executing flawless policy (did I say that?). Who the hell does execute flawless policy? It would be bullshit to argue such a thing.

When you say that Chavez has said essentially that he's in the business of creating power, could you direct me to where he said that.

Yep, my response was from a pro-Chavez website. But you know what? I showed you the SAME set of statistics that the Atlantic used. They just decided to lie with them, while the pro-chavez website didn't. So if you point out something flawed in the New York Times or on CNN and then I use data from TPMuckraker to show that you're wrong, does that mean that I don't have any credibility to point out the flaws in your argument?

Also, please show me how you came to the conclusion that he's been giving men fish, not teaching them to fish. I'm not necessarily arguing with you, I just would like to know what you're basing your conclusion on.

I'm glad you'll continue to defend Chavez when people use flawed arguments. I'll do the same. When people have valid points of criticism, then there will be agreement. I am not blindly defending his government. It's just frustrating that so many in this country are falling for the lies of the administration in claiming that Chavez is a threat to the U.S. and to democracy.  

Nevertheless, he is NOT laying groundwork.  He's providing handouts.  It's a shortterm solution.  It's better than the likely alternative, but Chavez is not interested in long-term society building.  He just isn't.

Chavez is putting in water, sewer, electricity, roads, and schools in the shanty towns that have been neglected for so long. I would call that "laying groundwork". I wouldn't call it, "providing handouts". A society needs infrastrucsure to work best, plus public works provide jobs. I think he's using his country's oil money for good purpose. It beats wasting it all on war.

I agree. Notice that I do not support Castro, or the new president of Peru, nor Ghadafi in Libya. And my user name is a play on my personal occupation (note, not a left-wing terrorist organization). And my defense of Chavez is based on the exact same reasons as we blast the MSM for going after Democrats day in and day out, it belies the facts on the ground. And why should I be very very very careful in defending Chavez? Is it because we're afraid of being labeled communists? Sounds like we're caving into a MSM narrative (and a Bush administration narrative) of who the world's boogeymen are. I was defending Chavez because Lucas O'Connor used a flawed story with cherry-picked facts to make his case that Chavez does not have a long-term strategy for growth in Venezuela. It was a flawed argument and I called attention to it. How is that any different from what we try to do to defend Democrats (and the Ned Lamont's of the world) when they are falsely attacked?

Chavez isn't perfect, and we can have a debate on the merits of his administration, but if we're going to do that, then we need to have an honest debate based on ALL the facts, not just the ones that prove our point.

And as for the "rabid desire to see any[sic] remotely approaching "socialism" succeed." Not so much. I would like to see social democracy succeed. It pretty much already has in Scandanavia. And a good chunk of western Europe. What I really hope is that Chavez lives up to his promises and Venezuela can become a strong Democracy with a dominant middle class along the lines of Western Europe. What is wrong with hoping for that? And yes I wish that the coup in Iran in '53 had not succeeded. I think the world would have been better off with a moderately socialist president like Mosadeqq than with the Shah and then the Ayatollah and the terrorism that has been spread since then, don't you? Your warning to be very very careful troubles me a little bit, and sounds a little McCarthyesque to be frank.