Venezuela: CNN Inadvertently Reveals Moonbat Militancy of Carter Center Director
CNN has just performed a valuable public service by revealing that the director of the Americas Program at the (Jimmy) Carter Center, Jennifer McCoy, is a complete moonbat. And how did they do that? Simple. They merely quoted her.
Although McCoy is often cited in the MSM as some sort of expert on the subject of Venezuela such as in her recent USA column about the Chavez "legacy," her efforts to defend the Chavista thugs extends even to the point of completely misconstruing the opposition to vice president Nicolas Maduro's unconstitutional takeover of the presidency of that country. Here is how McCoy incorrectly describes that opposition:
The opposition was arguing that Maduro should have served both as interim president, without being sworn in, and vice president, said Jennifer McCoy, director of the Americas Program at the Carter Center and professor of political science at Georgia State University. "But now that he's named a vice president and has the presidential flag, we'll have to see what they do about participating in the election," she said.
"A constitution cannot specify every single scenario that could occur," she continued. "That's part of the problem."
Um. No, Jennifer. The opposition never said that. What they have very clearly said is that Maduro becoming interim president is a definite violation of the Venezuelan constitution which it is. Here is an AP quote about the relevant section of that constitution that McCoy conveniently tries to overlook:
The country's 1999 constitution says the National Assembly speaker becomes interim president in the event of a president-elect's death or inability to be sworn in.
So the constitution of Venezuela most definitely did specify this particular scenario which the Chavista regime violated and for which McCoy makes silly excuses. And exactly who in the opposition made the ridiculous agrument that McCoy alluded to that Maduro should have served both as interim president without being sworn in and also as vice president? Perhaps it was an opposition that exists only in McCoy's fervid imagination. McCoy's moonbat silliness did not escape notice as you can see in the following reader comment:
Great comment of this Jennifer gal: "the constitution cannot specify any single scenarios...". What about this one, Jennifer: the president dies, what should happen? This Carter center is really becoming a joke
To get an idea of just how just how far McCoy has gone into the realm of the moonbat, even some DUers over at the sanity-challenged Democrat Underground sound more rational than her. Here are a few sample comments:
Diosdado should have been sworn in as acting President until the elections.
What makes this unfair is that Maduro is unconstitutionally given powers which he is not allowed...
Maduro needed state coffers to run for election. By being unconstitutionally sworn in he has the power of the Presidency and all the liquid funds to run a campaign at his disposal. Anyone can read the Venezuelan constitution and recognize that Diosdado was supposed to be sworn in...
The Venezuelan constitution specifies that the Speaker of the National Assembly takes over when the President dies. Maduro may well be elected as President, but he shouldn't have been sworn in as President on Chavez's death; that's not kosher.
What does it say about the Carter Center when even DUers sound much more rational than their own director of the Americas Program? And thank you, CNN, for exposing Jennifer McCoy in all her moonbat glory (even though you probably didn't intend to) by merely quoting her.