Venezuela: Post Election Sour Grapes
By Stephen Lendman
Throughout his tenure, America’s scoundrel media
They did so straightaway.
After his December 1998 election, New York Times
Larry Roher, called him a “populist demagogue, an
(strongman).” He lied saying so.
In death as in life, denunciation continued. Chavez was
hemispheric villain number one.
Independent leaders aren’t tolerated. The threat of a good
example concerns Washington
and media scoundrels most. They go all-out against it.
Candidate Nicolas Maduro was treated the same way.
Following his electoral
victory, expect unjustifiable condemnation to follow.
It’s standard scoundrel media
Pre-election, The New York Times quoted Washington
Office on Latin America’s
(WOLA) David Smilde, saying:
“He’s known as a yes man, and he’s somebody that
has never shown an
Joy Olson is WOLA’s executive director. She’s a
frequent scoundrel media
commentator. She avoids discussing what matters
Smilde is a senior WOLA fellow. He specializes in
Venezuela. He and Olson distort
reality. They claim Venezuela’s “oil-financed social
policies are of questionable
“Lack of transparency and accountability threaten
them.” Venezuela’s “enormous
fiscal deficit (needs) to be addressed.”
The Times quoted an unnamed diplomat, saying:
“I always saw (Maduro) glued to Chavez. I always
saw him as a messenger, and
I never had a signal that would make me think he
was a leader.”
The Times said it’s “not clear what path (he’ll) follow
on his own.”
“Critics say” as foreign minister, he “judged” people
“by their loyalty to Mr. Chavez.”
Anti-Chavista Eloy Torres was quoted saying “(t)he
diplomatic profession was
politicized in the extreme. Today there are no more
professionals; there are
propagandists of the revolutionary process.”
On April 11, Washington Post editors headlined
“The reckoning after Venezuela’s
Maduro’s “manifestly lacking in charisma….(He’ll)
go to extreme lengths to link
himself to his mentor….”
Declaring him acting president after Chavez’s death
“g(ave) him far-reaching
powers over spending and state media.”
“He regularly….hurls slanders at opposition leader”
“The armed forces and the state oil company….
unabashedly mobilized behind” him.
“The national election commission….ignored
complaints about these obvious
misuses of state resources, just as the
sworn-to-Chavez supreme court has
repeatedly enabled blatant constitutional violations.”
Maduro “recently declared that the response
(to him losing) would be a ‘popular
“He may come to rue his expected triumph.
Mr. Chavez left behind an extraordinary
Throughout his tenure, Chavez endured this type
vilification. Managed news
misinformation and lies substituted for truth and full
disclosure. Expect Maduro to fare
no better. Independent leaders are scorned.
Doing the right thing isn’t tolerated. Media liars attack
relentlessly. Chavez challenged
them straightaway. Expect Maduro to follow suit.
On April 12, Chicago Tribune editors headlined
“Chavez gone but candidates ensure
he’s not forgotten,” saying:
“So what’s his face doing on all those campaign posters?”
Why do political rallies “begin with a recording of (him)
singing the national anthem.”
“What’s with the television ad (showing his) smiling
visage winks from the heavens?”
“It’s all designed (to help his) hand-picked successor,
interim President Whatsisname.”
“We get it, we get it. He’s marketing himself as the
second coming of Hugo Chavez.”
“We just don’t get why voters would buy it.”
Tribune editors scorned Chavez viciously. They’re
treating Maduro the same way. It doesn’t surprise.
Expect much more vilification ahead.
Pre-election, Miami Herald editors headlined
“Venezuela’s chance to move forward,” saying:
Sunday’s election “promises to open a tumultuous
new chapter” in Venezuela’s history. Chavez’s name
isn’t on the ballot, “but his presence is everywhere.”
“This election is all about him and the legacy of a
decade-and-a-half of misrule.”
A litany of misinformation, exaggeration, and lies followed.
It didn’t surprise. It’s standard scoundrel media practice.
“For Venezuelans, the choice is clear,” Miami Herald editors
“They can move forward, restoring the democracy that
Venezuela once was, or they can watch their country continue
to deteriorate under a Chavez apprentice like the official
candidate, Nicolas Maduro, the hand-picked political heir….”
Chavez “created a political machine that sharply curtailed the possibility
that the official presidential candidate could lose.”
“The way (he won) and consolidated his grip on Venezuela is not secret.
He controlled all the levers of political power….”
“He stifled the independent news media and systematically dismantled
the independent institutions that could restrain his power, including the
“(H)e failed to create a path to prosperity for anyone except his political
Miami Herald editors matched the worst of Rupert Murdoch’s
demagoguery, right-wing extremism, and deplorable misinformation.
Hopefully their readers took note.
Wall Street Journal ones endure this type treatment daily. Mary O’Grady’s
their America’s commentator. She’s a notorious right-wing attack dog.
Journalism isn’t her long suit. Nor is truth and full disclosure.
She’s beholden to monied interests. They own her. Her credibility is sorely
lacking. She substitutes disinformation for facts. She formerly worked for
Advest, Inc., Thomson McKinnon Securities and Merrill Lynch before its
She’s a Journal editorial board member. She’s closely linked to the Heritage
Foundation. It’s a notorious right-wing think tank. It supports neoliberal
harshness. Wealth, power and privilege alone matter. O’Grady marches
She wins awards for commentary deception. Lying pays well. Truth-telling
is orphaned. It doesn’t surprise.
Her columns appear Mondays. Her latest headlined “Venezuela’s Cuban
“….Cuba-trained ideologue” Maduro represented the United Socialist Party
of Venezuela (PSUV).
“As we went to press, returns were not yet in.”
“The chavistas have been using state power to cheat, intimidate and spend
themselves first across the finish line for more than a decade.”
“International observers were prohibited from sending missions to Venezuela, and
Mr. Capriles was denied access to almost all television and radio stations during
Venezuela’s the hemisphere’s most open society. America pales by comparison.
Free expression is cherished. It’s constitutionally mandated.
Venezuela’s Law of Social Responsibility affirms it. Censorship doesn’t exist.
Dissent is tolerated. So is responsible programming and journalism.
Corporate owners dominate Venezuela’s media. Short of advocating sedition
or treason, they’re free to publish or air what they wish. They take full
advantage. They do irresponsibly. They get away with it repeatedly. Press
freedom is cherished.
Maduro was unfairly criticized. His Bolivarian message got short shrift.
Capriles got lots of coverage. It’s standard corporate media practice.
Sunday’s election was closely monitored. The Carter Center sent a
delegation. So did 170 international organizations. Over 3,400 observers
participated. O’Grady lied claiming otherwise.
She falsely said “Havana made sure it held considerable sway over”
She quoted Spanish newspaper ABC. It’s scandalously right-wing.
Maduro calls it “Franco-ist.” Its anti-Chavista reports are scurrilous.
It claimed Cuba “sen(t) a detachment of agents for electoral control
that could reach 2,500 officers….”
Election monitors called Sunday’s process open, free and fair. It’s the
hemisphere’s best. Jimmy Carter calls it the world’s best. It shames
America’s sham process.
Voters get the best democracy money can buy. Venezuelans get the
real thing. Don’t expect O’Grady and other media scoundrels to explain.
She claims Cuban doctors, nurses, other medical professionals,
teachers, and others performing volunteer services provide “cover to hide”
She blew her own cover quoting Cuba’s chief of missions. He said
they’re there “to ensure our commitment; up until now we have been
giving our all. (We) now are ready to give even our lives, our blood, if
(it’s) needed for this revolution.”
Bolivarianism’s real. It’s vital. It’s revolutionary. It’s participatory
democracy at its best. It’s social democracy benefits everyone. Don’t
expect O’Grady or other media scoundrels to explain.
She said in “a fair fight,” Capriles “might have won easily….The Maduro
campaign relied heavily on emotion to counteract apathy for its candidate.”
She falsely claimed the PSUV had pass codes able “to sabotage the
voting process….The head of the opposition coalition said (it wouldn’t)
affect vote tallies, but it could be used to slow the process.”
At 11:20PM Sunday night, 99.2% of millions of votes were tallied. O’Grady’s
predicted slowdown didn’t happen.
“Electronic voting machines provide plenty of other opportunities for
shenanigans,” she said. America’s corporate-controlled ones for sure do.
Manipulation controls things. Vetting isn’t done. Verifiable receipts aren’t
provided. Reliable recounts aren’t possible. Votes cast for candidate A
can count twice for candidate B. There’s no way to check.
Corporate run machines are inherently flawed. They’re designed that way.
They’re used to steal.
Venezuela uses Smartmatic touchscreen electronic voting machines.
They’re reliable. They’re designed to eliminate tampering.
They provide verifiable paper ballot receipts. They’re a permanent record.
CNE saves them. They’re available if credible recounts are needed.
O’Grady claims otherwise. Sunday’s election “told us very little about the
real preferences of the Venezuelan electorate,” she said.
Her commentaries are deplorably disingenuous. Her readers are
systematically lied to. Why they follow her, they’ll have to explain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago.
He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled
“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests
on the Progressive Radio News Hour
on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays
at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.