Thursday, August 31, 2006
Rosales, Miraflores, April 11th 2002
OW called it and now it is reality; Manuel Rosales' visit to Miraflores during the short lived Carmona champagne party at the presidential fortress is becoming an issue in the upcoming elections.
For those who were visiting another planet during that time period, Rosales is accused of signing what some call an attendance sheet, and others call a manifesto, of sorts in support of illegal and newly proclaimed government. Little did the bubbly sipping attendees expect that in less than 24 hours after The first hint of inebriation the people of Venezuela would rise in support of the Chavez government. As foreign sponsored coups go, this case posed problems, an anomaly of sorts with history as a guide, where popular support unexpectedly surpassed the whims of the few, foreign and domestic alike, eventually correcting the illegal wrong committed by the opposition.
Now there is a candidate who was in attendance at the swearing in of the new, short lived government, as the chosen candidate, sans primary elections. One must pause and take notice of who the opposition thinks the proper candidate should be. Can they plausibly expect for someone in attendence at the Moet bubbly party to win? What were his reasons for being there? In the controversial aftermath of the decision to produce a formidabele candidate, have fallen by the way side and into the gutter, pronounced candidates Teodoro Petkoff and Julio Borges. To what is owed such prominence as a candidate such that Rosales can supercede candidates whose campaigns have preceded Mr. Rosales’ by months?
The absence of primaries, duly entitled to the likes of SUMATE (NGO), sponsored by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and abruptly cancelled due to lack of cohesion amongst the Venezuelan opposition parties led to Rosales’ popular candidacy, curiously after the fact. A unification effort, supposedly made without the support of known US receipt of funds. Rosales’ credentials are in line with what a serious candidate against Chavez might be; Governor of a state, popular, such that he might survive elections touted to be controlled and fixed by the ruling party, and verbose in his stance against the government.
The jury is out, and those among the voting population are sequestered. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation, personal in nature, or does attendance constitute complicity, compliance, or some other Bastardization against democracy.
Your thoughts...
email at:
johnny_loconozco@hotmail.com
(Ruben, Flanker, Slave contact me)
|
For those who were visiting another planet during that time period, Rosales is accused of signing what some call an attendance sheet, and others call a manifesto, of sorts in support of illegal and newly proclaimed government. Little did the bubbly sipping attendees expect that in less than 24 hours after The first hint of inebriation the people of Venezuela would rise in support of the Chavez government. As foreign sponsored coups go, this case posed problems, an anomaly of sorts with history as a guide, where popular support unexpectedly surpassed the whims of the few, foreign and domestic alike, eventually correcting the illegal wrong committed by the opposition.
Now there is a candidate who was in attendance at the swearing in of the new, short lived government, as the chosen candidate, sans primary elections. One must pause and take notice of who the opposition thinks the proper candidate should be. Can they plausibly expect for someone in attendence at the Moet bubbly party to win? What were his reasons for being there? In the controversial aftermath of the decision to produce a formidabele candidate, have fallen by the way side and into the gutter, pronounced candidates Teodoro Petkoff and Julio Borges. To what is owed such prominence as a candidate such that Rosales can supercede candidates whose campaigns have preceded Mr. Rosales’ by months?
The absence of primaries, duly entitled to the likes of SUMATE (NGO), sponsored by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and abruptly cancelled due to lack of cohesion amongst the Venezuelan opposition parties led to Rosales’ popular candidacy, curiously after the fact. A unification effort, supposedly made without the support of known US receipt of funds. Rosales’ credentials are in line with what a serious candidate against Chavez might be; Governor of a state, popular, such that he might survive elections touted to be controlled and fixed by the ruling party, and verbose in his stance against the government.
The jury is out, and those among the voting population are sequestered. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation, personal in nature, or does attendance constitute complicity, compliance, or some other Bastardization against democracy.
Your thoughts...
email at:
johnny_loconozco@hotmail.com
(Ruben, Flanker, Slave contact me)
|
