Chavez in major cabinet reshuffle/"A new offensive is coming,"

DuH2 · #1 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Chavez in major cabinet reshuffle

Mr Chavez insists he will push on with reform plans

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced a major cabinet reshuffle - weeks after his reform proposals were defeated in a referendum in December.

Mr Chavez said he would make 13 changes, including the replacement of Vice-President Jorge Rodriguez.

Mr Rodriguez was blamed by many Chavez supporters for the defeat of the proposals on constitutional changes.

The referendum would also have given Mr Chavez increased powers and the right to run for re-election indefinitely.

But Venezuelans voted 51% to 49% against the proposals on 2 December.

'New offensive'

Mr Chavez said Mr Rodriguez would be replaced with Ramon Carrizales, currently a housing minister.

He declined to give details on most of the other changes saying he would speak to his ministers first.

Last month, President Chavez decried the opposition's success at the referendum, and said he would not give up on his reform plans.

"A new offensive is coming," he said.

Mr Chavez, whose mandate lasts until 2013, suggested that his supporters might take his ideas and modify them to make them simpler.

A petition signed by 15% of voters could demand that a new referendum be looked at.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7170993.stm

IOW... One way or another you people will make me look good and accept my Bolivarian Benito impersonations

Sadistic-Savior · #2 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 08:53 AM

I still dont see what the big deal is...why does it matter how many times he is allowed to run?

I've never understood the point of term limits. Especially from conservatives. Why not let the People decide when a candidate's time is up?

glitch · #3 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

I still dont see what the big deal is...why does it matter how many times he is allowed to run?

I've never understood the point of term limits. Especially from conservatives. Why not let the People decide when a candidate's time is up?

Well in this case it seems the people have decided that what they want is term limits. In the case of Chavez the sooner he is out of there the better for everyone.

On the case of term limits in general I do see your point. The argument is something to the effect that we don't want life-long politicians but regular people who spend a stint in Washington. If that is truly what people wanted then they would continuously reelect incumbents.

Sadistic-Savior · #4 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 09:57 AM

If you have no term limits, then the people get that anyway. Right?

stekim · #5 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 10:04 AM

One argument I've heard from term limit advocates that makes sense is that incumbents have a huge built in advantage because their coffers are full when they run. The big money has been rolling in. Their opponent's coffers generally aren't full. So the new candidate has a bigger hill to climb to get his or her message out. Without help from some scandal or full scale general anti-incumbent sentiment, the incumbant will generally win. Which is why so many do despite the Congress as a whole sitting at an approval rating of 20% or less.

That's not to say I am for term limits, but I think there is some merit to that argument. Money plays a huge role in American politics. Having more is always better than having less.

justabubba · #6 (**permalink**) 01-06-2008, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stekim

One argument I've heard from term limit advocates that makes sense is that incumbents have a huge built in advantage because their coffers are full when they run. The big money has been rolling in. Their opponent's coffers generally aren't full. So the new candidate has a bigger hill to climb to get his or her message out. Without help from some scandal or full scale general anti-incumbent sentiment, the incumbant will generally win. Which is why so many do despite the Congress as a whole sitting at an approval rating of 20% or less.

That's not to say I am for term limits, but I think there is some merit to that argument. Money plays a huge role in American politics. Having more is always better than having less.

i don't disagree with that observation, but it seems this illustrates a symptom rather than the underlying problem. level the playing field with effective campaign financing reform and that incumbent advantage should substantially dissolve.

(financing of political campaigns should only be possible from those INDIVIDUALS who reside in the precinct where that candidate running for office would represent them.)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode