NYT's Cohen: Hugo Si! Jorge No!

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
December 6, 2007 - 08:09 ET
  • Bookmark and Share

After the Venezuela referendum, I 'd been waiting for the first MSMer to make an invidious comparison between Hugo Chavez and George W. Bush.

Didn't take long:

"[D]emocracy was alive and vital in Venezuela on Sunday in a way foreign to President Bush’s America."

That's Roger Cohen writing in today's New York Times, reacting to Chavez's apparent acceptance of the referendum results that turned thumbs down on his "reforms" that would have effectively made him dictator.

The Times's "International Writer-at-Large" is careful to temper his praise of Chavez with some boilerplate criticism, calling him a "strongman" and a "menace." But, time and again, Cohen returns to his theme: that democracy is more alive and well in Venezuela than in the U.S. under President Bush.

Excerpts:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

  • I salute you, Hugo Chávez.
  • And yet, there was a glum Chávez declaring in the unadorned language no totalitarian system can abide that: “The people’s decision will be upheld in respect of the basic rule of democracy: the winning option is the one that gets most votes.”
  • The United States might ponder those words — not just because of what happened in the presidential election of 2000; not just because the arithmetic of voting has proved unpalatable in Palestine; not just because of the past U.S.-abetted trampling of elected Latin American leaders in Chile and elsewhere — but because d
  • There was a directness, meaningfulness and civic responsibility about the [Venezuelan] proceedings that make the early running in the American election look pitiful. Democracy was alive and vital in Venezuela on Sunday in a way foreign to President Bush’s America.
  • Unperturbed, Venezuelans went ahead. And they gave a civic example from which Bush’s battered and blathering democracy can learn.

Cohen's evidence in support of his "Bush’s battered and blathering democracy"?

  • "The presidential election of 2000." -- The Supreme Court, none of whose members were appointed by George W. Bush, ended the recount in Florida. The Miami Herald and USA Today later reported that "George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue."
  • "The arithmetic of voting has proved unpalatable in Palestine." And that's evidence of democracy in tatters in the US just how?
  • "Past U.S.-abetted trampling of elected Latin American leaders in Chile and elsewhere." We can debate the merits of past policy, but as Cohen himself recognizes, that happened under former presidents. So again, how does that demonstrate democracy in peril under President Bush?

Cohen complains of "blathering." He ought to know.

Note: Ace of Spades has colorful commentary on Cohen column

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bush defends democracy

December 6, 2007 - 08:22 ET by nkviking75

Mr. Cohen, President Bush's victory in 2000 actually upheld democracy.  It put an end to Gore's attempt to steal the election by getting courts to tweak the rules until they found a way for Gore to win.  There was no legal basis for most of the recounts.  There should have been one due to the closeness of the race, and it should have been statewide.  If Gore had succeeded, he'd be the president appointed by judges.

As for Chavez, the recent vote might have been a setback, but I hardly think we can trust Hugo not to try something else to get his way. 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

why not count till you win?

December 6, 2007 - 08:55 ET by mbuel

It worked in Washington state. Gov. Gregoire was not elected, they "found" votes, and I have NO doubt the same thing would've happened for Gore in Florida. It's not like faking votes is a new thing for dems, they did it for Pres. Kennedy!

IMO, liberals are still viewing the world through communist rose colored glasses, and want us to forget about the millions of people that socialism and communism killed and remember the evils of Kapitalism.....

The continuing lie about

December 6, 2007 - 13:19 ET by mattm

The continuing lie about 2000, along with the push for eliminating the electoral college, instituting ranked-choice voting, non-partisan elections, lowering the voting age below the age of majority, making vote fraud easier, etc. etc. makes me wonder how in Heaven's name do these people come off calling themselves democrats?  There's not a democratic bone in their bodies!

For all the blathering and

December 6, 2007 - 08:29 ET by Trix Rabbit

For all the blathering and hand-wringing this so-called "International writer at-large" is doing, this putz either ignored or intentionally failed to mention that there is still a majority of anti-Chavezistas.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3539211.stm

Dumbass.

Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell

Holy Cow! Talk about an

December 6, 2007 - 08:38 ET by motherbelt

Holy Cow!

Talk about an exercise in "Six Degrees of Separation" from Bush!

The man is a master!

And yet, there was a glum

December 6, 2007 - 08:42 ET by HypocriteHater

And yet, there was a glum Chávez declaring in the unadorned language no totalitarian system can abide that: “The people’s decision will be upheld in respect of the basic rule of democracy: the winning option is the one that gets most votes.”

So I take it that this was suppose to be a shot at Bush's win in 2000. Can someone give this twerp a American history lesson and let him know that the US is a republic, not a democracy and that we have an electoral voting system for electing our president which is not dependent upon who gets the majority of the popular vote. Geez Louise, he's an idiot!!

bds....bds...bds....

December 6, 2007 - 08:43 ET by rubberpelletfrancis

The litany of bds continues. Is there any event that doesn't stem from Bush? Perhaps the Baltimore Ravens complaints about the refs would have been more seriously heeded if they mentioned Bush in their list of wrong doings.

NYT- may you continue your decline.

 

}}---> Cohen Times Capsule

December 6, 2007 - 08:52 ET by Cool Arrow

Save this article.

Within 4 years Chavez will have all he "requested" this time, and more.

This wasn't a dry run on Chavez' part, it was priming the pump of international acceptance.

“The people’s

December 6, 2007 - 08:57 ET by Jack Bauer

“The people’s decision will be upheld in respect of the basic rule of democracy: the winning option is the one that gets most votes.”
The United States might ponder those words

Is it really too much to expect this dumb *astard to have a passing acquaintance with the Constitution of the United States? (Excuse my expletive... but honest to God... )

Specifically that part which describes how the President is NOT elected directly by a majority of voters, but by the Electoral College.

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

So Rog..  let us know when

December 6, 2007 - 09:12 ET by rimsky

So Rog..  let us know when the truck arrives..  I'm sure there's plenty of folks here that'd be glad to help you load up soze you can depart for Venezuela. 

And Rog,

December 6, 2007 - 09:29 ET by kg

And Rog, don't go away mad, just go away.

Cohen wouldn't be writing if he was in Chavezland

December 6, 2007 - 09:31 ET by JayTee

If Cohen was working in Venezuela, Cohen would probably be working for one of the First News outlets to be shut down by Chavez .......... How can a Newspaper Journalist write an ariticle on Chavez and leave out this information ?

He has to have an Agenda........His next agenda on the horizin is the Un-employment line when Intelligent readers shun the NYT and Company.    

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

That's what is truly

December 6, 2007 - 10:59 ET by CJK51

That's what is truly astonishing! These people whine and moan about how evil Bush has stripped away their rights, yet they continue to publish their nonsense and thus far, I have not yet heard about the cabal of stormtroopers breaking down doors and dragging out Bush-hating reporters and their families for "re-education."

Somehow, I don't see ole' Hugo taking too kindly to such articles being written about him. Since my local newspaper it NYT Lite, I continue to be happy about my decision to stop having it delivered two years ago.

Yeah, Roger, I especially enjoyed the Chavez "democracy"

December 6, 2007 - 09:50 ET by RJ

...as his police goons repeatedly attacked the anti-Chavez demonstrators.   Maybe you think President Bush should take a lesson from Chavez in the area of crowd control? 

Or, how about the original failed Chavez military coup attempt?   Maybe you'd like to see that in America? 

Maybe personally rewriting the Venezuelan Constitution?  (The original rewriting, not the recent attempt to be declared President For Life) 

Admit it, Roger.  You're really in love, not with Chavez, but the Socialism he represents.

Another bitter leftist

December 6, 2007 - 10:15 ET by rbosque

Another bitter leftist complaining about the 2000 election? Give it a rest dumb-ass.

Chavez

December 6, 2007 - 11:11 ET by iveseenitall

Chavez good, Bush Bad-- Castro good, Bush bad --Ahmadinejad good, Bush bad--Putin good, Bush bad--Jack the Ripper good, Bush bad ... on and on it goes for the "liberal" fools in the media and for others around the world. BDS is serious disease.

BTW, Rog. It was GORE who didn't accept the vote in 2000. You can't even get the story right--you fool.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

rbosque

December 6, 2007 - 11:51 ET by MrShy

Yeah, I saw that sentence, right there smack-near the top of the article, opening the paragraph that came right after quoting Chávez's "the winning option is the one that gets most votes." It's fine to spew this total fallacy and nonsense at a dinner table, but putting garbage like this in an editorial in the "reputable" NY Times is a joke.

Also, what article or editorial in a liberal rag like the NYT would dare open with this:

I salute you, George Bush

None. Of course, for this horrible man they open with "I salute you, Hugo Chávez." Unreal.

And then he takes his time until toward the end to remind us, oh yeah, a few things about the man I proudly saluted to open this drivel:

Let’s be clear: Chávez is a caudillo. His “socialismo” equals “Hugoismo.” He’s a menace. He’s about to introduce a new currency, the strong bolívar, with monetary policy in chaos, inflation rising toward 20 percent, and his crony bankers pocketing millions by arbitraging the disparity between the official and black-market rates.

Crime and drug-trafficking are thriving. He’s still a believer in building socialism through local councils for which the Russian translation would be “Soviets.” He accused his opponents of a “Pyrrhic victory” and vowed not to change a “comma” of his rejected reforms.

UGH! And two more keepers:

Bush’s battered and blathering democracy

the macho militarism of Republicans who see war without end

These NYT "writers" must really work overtime, going sleepless nights, formulating new anti-Bush angles.

 

"I still love NewsBusters." - Mr. Shy

What kind of pathological

December 6, 2007 - 11:20 ET by Chris Norman

What kind of pathological hatred must one have of a president to publicly write such nonsense? Even if I hated Bush, I'd be embarrassed to write this kind of stuff. This isn't reasoning - it's just mindless bile.

Superb post Mark.

December 6, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Gary Hall

It's very interesting that Cohen went to this very low and "whining" place. But first, let's not forget Chavez's threats just prior to the election (source - AP):

"He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor," the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people."

One might expect that Chavez will continue to chip away at Democracy and individual rights, as he has done since first elected. He does not require a democratic vote of the people. Cohen had, in recent days, covered the story quite well; emphasizing the danger of where Chavez was leading his hapless citizenry.

It just goes to show how this blatant ugly bias which resides so deeply within our media comes to the surface given any boredom. It just as easily could have been Ronald Reagan - to get the same reaction. I suspect that when the hatred of another political party is so deep (that defines bigotry, by the way), such a journalist sits around waiting and looking for any excuse to vent their personal hatred. It does not have to have any basis in fact; in fact, when one is looking to vent, from within, any concern over what is accurate is not of concern.