Upstate Activist Responds to RINO Trey Gowdy’s Assertion the Party Platform is “Sheer Lunacy”
Letter to Editor SCHotline,
Date: Friday, November 27, 2009, 11:08 PM
Thank God some folks understand that the “go along to get along” guys have not been getting the job done. It is okay to bend the platform. Now the platform in the last election cycle has been broken beyond fixing. In some areas we had a man running for President that was almost as far to the left as the guy we have now in the white house. You can see what a great job moderates and even leftists can do in government from the way we have the biggest cash loss in 1 year that we have had in all the last 220 years combined.
I am glad some folks [Bob Inglis, Trey Gowdy and David Thomas*] are willing to come out of the closet and let us know that they are not conservatives-even if they claim to have some conservative views. I feel we need to have folks that not only understand their Party’s platform but will do everything in their power to uphold the VALUES we have as Republicans and not wavier on any of those Values.
It was by departing from these values that cost us our majority in Congress and the Presidency. Thanks to unprincipled Republican candidates and office holders we have become a party with no votes to pass bills. We are now the “ones with no say” as my mother would tell me.
Bill Welch, AKA Bill the farmer
Princeton, South Carolina
PS… if they* will not stand up for School choice what will they do about immigration, Cap and trade/tax and card check. We saw it only cost the tax payer 300 million for Mary L of LA to buy her vote there is no values if you can be bought
| Dr. Harris PastidesPresident, USC
Dear Dr. Pastides, I read your editorial in the Greenville News, November 26th with great interest. I agree with you that Americans need to keep as much civility as possible when discussing the great, and often volatile, issues of out times. I do take exception to one characterization you have made and ask you to consider my view of the matter. You wrote, in part “Hecklers financed by special interests have disrupted town halls and forums across the country …” Sir, I believe you have misunderstood the phenomenon you are observing; and, you have been misinformed about the financial arrangements. I have been to a number of “town hall” meetings by Senator Lindsey Graham and several members of Congress. I have also attended numerous “tea party” events around South Carolina as well as trips to Washington, D.C. on 9/12 and again on 11/5 of this year. Members of Congress spoke at most of these events and the reception they received ranged from tumultuous applause, (for Jim DeMint) to, in at least one case, exchanges of shouted barbs. I wish to make two points. First, much that you see merely as a lack of civility, is, in reality, a deep seated frustration. It is frustration at not being listened to. The citizens of South Carolina have seen Congressmen Bob Ingles, Gresham Barrett, and Senator Lindsey Graham, attending meetings to tell us what must be done because they, rather arrogantly, believe they are better informed and just plain smarter than we are. Dr. Pastides, if I addressed you, in the manner these “public servants” have addressed us, you would probably not still be reading. The frustration is deepened by the fact these Congressmen and this Senator, have rather arrogantly forgotten just who pays their salary. They have forgotten they work for us sir! Instead of listening to the will of the people, they want to marginalize their detractors by saying they are “bigots” or supporters of one failed Presidential candidate, or otherwise out of the mainstream – therefore, their opinion does not count. The folks inside the beltway know best. The unwashed masses need to just shut up, and go meekly about the business of being good little Politically Correct serfs. It is that attitude of condescention, arrogance, and derision, that has driven the rank and file American voter to record levels of cynicism, frustration, and (justified I believe) anger. When you are not being listened to by the very people who are supposed to represent you, it is natural to get more than a little frustrated and raise your voice. So, yes sir, you did see folks raising their voices in anger, and displaying a lack of decorum. I suggest this is not because of any deficiency in their education, upbringing or breeding, but because they were sorely provoked. If that anger is not justified, it is at least understandable. And if the ruling elites who really are “financed by special interests” don’t get the message; there will be even more uncivil discourse, not less. This brings me to my final point Dr. Pastides. You claimed the folks disrupting town halls, friends of mine, were “financed by special interests.” You have been completely misinformed about that sir. The angry Americans coming to town hall meetings, and who went to Washington, D.C. both times, were not financed by anyone but themselves. They would be insulted by your implication that they could be bought. The kind of passion you have seen comes from the heart, and from deep frustration; not from any mercenary interest. The people who went to Washington, D.C. did so at their own expense. Those younger than retirement age, had to take time off from work or away from businesses they own. That means, not only were they not paid to be there; they lost real money in order to do something they believe just may save this country from a slide into socialism. Probably less than 3% of the people who went on the bus trips to Washington, mostly senior citizens, were financially unable to afford the trip. There were businessmen in town who could not be away from work obligations who paid for a few folks to go in their place. Not big corporations either, family physicians and college professors, mostly. There was no corporate money, no party money, no PAC money, and none of our people benefited from any grants by a 501 (c)(3) foundation, or some group like ACORN. In my own case, I did not have a trip to Washington, D.C. in my family budget. The economic downturn has hit me as hard as anyone. A friend paid for my bus ticket on 9/11 and I lost money being away from my home based business two days. On the second trip to Washington, a different friend called me, said he was taking his SUV to Washington, and there was an empty seat I could sit in. He really wanted me to go. I did chip in $20 for gasoline once, and I am quite sure that was less than my full share, so once again I was subsidized by a few dollars. None of us were paid a penny to be there and all of us lost money, and time with our families, in order to do something we believe is making our country stronger and keeping it free. I will be 59 years young this coming Tuesday. Riding all night in an SUV, or a bus with a bunch of strangers, was very uncomfortable, and the sleep deprivation was not really good for my health. Still, it was better than sleeping on the ground as I did the last time I had to fight communism, in Vietnam. Oh yeah, all those strangers on that bus, and in that SUV…. we are friends now! And we are getting organized. You ain’t seen any lack of civil discourse yet! Respectfully, Dean Allen (864) 641-0066 |
Happy Thanksgiving!
When we were children, we learned about the first Thanksgiving, about how the pilgrims celebrated their first good harvest in 1623, just three years after landing, and how they invited the friendly Indians to join them.
Now that we are grown, we should reflect again on this heritage and being older and wiser, we should consider well, the rest of the story.
Our forefathers did not merely leave religious oppression, they left a civilization, a good civilization, but one that was less perfect than what they hoped to found.
These were not the huddled masses longing to be free – those poor souls would be welcomed later. No, the pilgrims were professionals, educated people of England’s emerging middle class.
While the Virginia colonies were suffering, unable to recruit new colonists, and lacking in people capable of survival in the wilderness, the pilgrims planned ahead. They acquired investors, so they could properly equip and provision themselves to survive. They tried farming in common, as the investors wished, but abandoned socialism when it did not work. Americans have never embraced socialism since.
But they did not come for economic advancement – they were leaving European comforts and financial success. There was little chance they would soon become comfortable, much less wealthy in the wilderness toward which they sailed. No, not money, but the chance to rule themselves was what drew them from kith and kin. Unlike the middle class of today, they were cheerfully political. Why? Because it is God’s will that we govern ourselves. The British government was glad to see them go.
Their first act, one of the first political acts in the New World, was committed even before they landed in the North America. The Mayflower Compact, signed by 41 men aboard the Mayflower in what is now called Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod said in part:
….Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws…
And so they did. We should be thankful for this example and for the direction it has given to our country.
Wishing you a very Happy (and reflective) Thanksgiving.
Christina, Robert and Marjorie Jeffrey
Henry McMaster: Yo’ Govnah?
By Michael S. Smith II
“Attorney General Henry McMaster has helped Gov. Mark Sanford get away with breaching the trust of South Carolinians in order to ensure Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer will not challenge him as an incumbent in the governor’s race next year.
“It was clear that justice was taking a back seat to the attorney general’s own desires when McMaster first asserted the governor’s activities did not warrant a criminal investigation. Days later, he reversed that position and directed SLED to initiate an investigation of Mr. Sanford. …
“McMaster and SLED Director Reggie Lloyd, who was appointed by Sanford, should have recused themselves and asked for an independent investigation.”
Michael S. Smith II in a letter published in The State on July 22, 2009
On November 24, Ben Szobody of the Greenville (S.C.) News reported: “The question of criminal prosecution of Gov. Mark Sanford on 37 charges of violating state ethics law now rests in the hands of state Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is running for Sanford’s job.”
Regarding the question of whether McMaster, a longtime friend of Sanford’s, plans to recuse himself of this responsibility, and instead lean on his constitutional authority to appoint someone else to oversee any prosecutions of the governor, Szobody reported that on November 23 a spokesman for the office of the South Carolina attorney general advised Henry McMaster does not intend to invoke that option. The spokesman said taxpayers have twice elected McMaster to serve as their attorney general, and “he will not shirk that responsibility.” This, despite the obvious conflicts of interests that could bungle his prosecution of Sanford for any ethics violations charges filed against South Carolina’s sitting governor.
This is not the first time South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster has exercised exceptionally poor judgment while serving in his current position in state government. In fact, some say he has repeatedly shirked his responsibility to approach his job with the moral authority or regard for ethics with which the people of South Carolina expected him to when they elected Henry McMaster to serve as attorney general.
Regarding his first high-profile lapse in judgment, in May The Washington Post noted that through his press-conference-focused fight against Craig’s List Henry McMaster, the so-called “Craig’s List Crusader,” was doing a fine job of “giving even the normally sleazy Attorney General title a bad name.” Regarding that suit, the Anderson (S.C.) Independent explained: “McMaster came up with his crusade, tailor-made for a gubernatorial candidate.”
The amount of money McMaster’s office wasted on legal actions and press conferences that targeted Craig’s List has yet to be disclosed. The case was just as specious as his friend Mark Sanford’s “trade trip” to Argentina, or SLED’s 2009 investigation of any legal wrongdoings on Sanford’s part. Meanwhile, many South Carolinians are curious about why McMaster’s office has not done anything to prevent “escorts” from advertising in telephone books distributed throughout their state.
In June, soon after Gov. Sanford returned from his secretive rendezvous with his Argentine mistress in Buenos Aires, Henry McMaster publicly proclaimed Sanford’s actions did not merit an investigation into whether the governor broke any laws while visiting his paramour. Soon thereafter, however, McMaster effectively conceded this statement was made in haste, and ordered SLED, whose director is a Sanford-appointee, to launch its farcical investigation of any prospective breaches of trust committed by Sanford.
Later, on October 1 The Wall Street Journal highlighted McMaster’s disdain for the term conflict of interest in an editorial exposing his appointments of donors to his own political pursuits to represent South Carolina in his office’s tort suit filed against drugmaker Eli Lilly. “In case anyone thought pay-to-play legal rackets were solely Democratic scandals,” the Journal’s editorial staff wrote, “look to South Carolina, where Attorney General Henry McMaster is proving that Republicans can also get cozy with the plaintiffs bar. … This sweetheart deal is rife with conflict of interest … Consider due process. Both the U.S. and South Carolina constitutions make clear that the state and its lawyers must be guided by justice and the public interest, not monetary gain. South Carolinians would be outraged if Mr. McMaster won a personal financial cut of any case he won as Attorney General. How is it better that his lawyers get it instead?”
Today, virtually anybody working with the campaigns of other gubernatorial candidates will confirm McMaster’s emissaries are employing some very unsporting, if not outright threatening tactics. Accordingly, it has become all too common for those staffers to be heard advising representatives of other campaigns that it might not be wise for anybody to work against the interests of the candidate who, according to McMaster’s political operatives, has the grand jury on his side. Then there is the matter of McMaster’s campaign consultants spreading rumors about their possessions of evidence that one of McMaster’s Republican rivals, not just his friend Mark Sanford, has also been having an extramarital affair.
This latter-mentioned aspect of matters points to what may be Henry McMaster’s greatest lapse in judgment to date — his decision to remain attorney general of a state in which he would be campaigning to become that state’s next governor.
If anyone is looking for an example of a politician in McMaster’s shoes who did the right thing — who resigned his post as attorney general in order to allow someone without a stake in his state’s top political contest to manage the important affairs of that office, thereby avoiding the sorts of conflicts of interest that have confronted McMaster in recent months — Virginia’s Republican Governor-Elect Bob McDonnell is the man who comes to mind.
Last spring South Carolina Attorney General and Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Henry McMaster told participants in a special S.C.GOP conference, “If you like what I’m doing as your attorney general, you gonna love what I’m gonna do as yo’ govnah.” If Henry McMaster continues doing what he’s doing as South Carolina’s attorney general it may not be long before the state’s Ethics Commission directs its investigative energies toward him.
Worse still, if Henry McMaster is elected governor, Mark Sanford’s issues with unethical behavior may be just the start of a new legacy established by Republican governors from the Palmetto State.
-#####-
Update>>> To: <lchapman@thestate.com>
Subject: Re “McMaster won’t withdraw from Sanford case”
Re “McMaster won’t withdraw from Sanford case”
Dear LeRoy,
I enjoyed your recent piece regarding how the McMaster “McEgo” debacle is playing out. Just when I thought it was looking like The State was planning to do whatever possible to portray McMaster in a good light in order to make it harder for Bauer to win over supporters from the Sanford crony class, the publication of your report has made me rethink things. Please keep up the good work.
Too many of our spineless “representatives” in the State House (not to mention gubernatorial candidates from both major parties) are far too (perhaps rightly) concerned about McMaster’s proclivity for conflict-oriented interactions with anyone around him to point out he too should be at the mercy of the Ethics Commission’s considerations of his (mis)conduct in office. That story is more important than the AP’s investigation of Sanford’s alleged (mis)uses of state resources for personal purposes because the governor’s career in politics is over — McMaster’s appears to be just beginning to take off unless you guys start pointing out how problematic this may prove.
Still, I realize I may be appealing to representatives of the wrong forums that could be used to illuminate the South Carolina attorney general’s corruptibility when I encourage journalists from Palmetto State-based news organizations to examine the obvious, which is that McMaster has made himself a veritable caricature of the Southern Good Ol’ Boy Politician whose self-serving agenda will only beget more outcries regarding corruption in state government the longer he is serving in it. After all, scandals do sell ads!
The bottom line is that the Fourth Estate should not be simply suggesting McMaster should recuse himself of the responsibility to manage an assessment of whether criminal charges should be filed against Mark Sanford. Instead, you and your colleagues should be calling for McMaster to resign and disappear from the political stage altogether. If people think the political scandals emanating from Chicago are terrible, I assure you that if McMaster’s aspirations are realized South Carolina’s state government will start to make the world’s banana republics look good.
Obviously, my instinct is that national papers with no stake in the South Carolina political ads race are the best places for me to voice such concerns. But don’t blame me for trying to encourage The State to do the right thing, something which would benefit you paper’s ad sales-focused interests much more than McMaster’s campaign chest can.
All the best,
Mike Smith
Michael S. Smith II
Charleston, S.C.
D. Jeffrey Sewell
SCHotline.com
100 Sunset Boulevard
Suite 203
West Columbia, SC 29169
(8030 318-3000
November 24, 2009
South Carolina State Ethics Commission
Cathy Hazelwood
5000 Thurmond Mall, Suite 250
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
RECORDS REQUEST
Dear Records Request Officer:
Pursuant to the state open records act, We are requesting access to and copies of the signed letters (Related to: from Hazelwood, Cathy
to “jeffrey@sewellconsultancy.com“
date Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM
subject RE: Cathy, May I have a copy of the letter sent to the Lt. Gov and Gov candidates regarding expense detail please and thanks!
hide details Nov 16 (8 days ago)
Attached is the unsigned memo.
TO: STATEWIDE CANDIDATES IN THE 2010 ELECTIONS
FROM: CATHY L. HAZELWOOD, GENERAL COUNSEL
RE: REIMBURSEMENTS
DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2009
Reimbursement is not an acceptable description of an expenditure. I refer you to Section 8-13-1360(A)(8) which states in part, “…the reporting form (now in electronic format) must include….the amount, date and a brief description of each expenditure…” Merely stating “reimbursement” is not descriptive. More importantly, all expenditures paid on behalf of a candidate are to be drawn from the campaign account and issued on a check signed by the candidate or a duly authorized officer. (Quoting liberally from Section 8-13-1312.) I ask that you review your past filings and amend where appropriate. Although we cannot “return” an electronic filing, we will be auditing forms to determine if filers are complying with the appropriate level of disclosure for expenditures. If filers are not complying, then the Commission will take the appropriate action.
Cathy L. Hazelwood, General Counsel
State Ethics Commission
5000 Thurmond Mall, Suite 250
Columbia, SC 29201
803-253-4192
803-253-7539 (fax)
Cathy@ethics.sc.gov) to the following 2010 candidates for Lt. Governor and Governor to include:
GOVERNOR:
Gresham Barrett (R) – Congressman, Ex-State Rep., Businessman & Army Veteran
Andre Bauer (R) – Lt. Governor, Ex-State Sen., Ex-State Rep. & Teacher
Larry Grooms (R) – State Sen. & Businessman
Nikki Haley (R) – State Rep. & Businesswoman
Henry McMaster (R) – Attorney General, Ex-State GOP Chair & Ex-US Attorney
Dwight Drake (D) – Attorney, Lobbist & Vietnam War Veteran
Amos Elliott (D) – Minister
Robert Ford (D) – State Sen., Ex-Charleston City Councilman, Real Estate Developer & Ex-Civil Rights Activist
Joel Lourie (D) – State Sen., Ex-State Rep. & Businessman
Mullins McLeod (D) – Attorney & Democratic Activist
Jim Rex (D) – State Superintendent of Education
Vincent Sheheen (D) – State Sen., Ex-State Rep. & Attorney
Inez Tenenbaum (D) – Ex-State Superintendent of Education, Attorney, Ex-Teacher & ‘04 US Sen. Nominee
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR:
Andre Bauer (R)* – (Campaign Site)
Ken Ard (R) – Florence County Councilman
Bill Connor (R) – Attorney & Army Reserve Officer
Tim Scott (R) – State Rep., Ex-Charleston County Council Chair & Businessman
Note: Specifically, we are requesting detailed explanations for and related to credit card expenditures/payments whereby there exists no detail for the last completed filing period.
We also request a reduced and or waived fee as we believe it in the public interest pertaining to this matter and current events.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
D. Jeffrey Sewell
“Going Rogue”: An Opportunity Squandered?
By Michael S. Smith II, SCHotline.com Contributing Editor
Last year, 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain made a special campaign stop in the Palmetto State, picking up some gifts from several hundred S.C.GOPers who crowded the Columbia Convention Center late in the day on May 9. Before the visit’s main event kicked off I was asked to participate in a small by-invitation-only cocktail reception hosted to honor the candidate. During this reception one of the higher profile attendees asked McCain who his running mate would most likely resemble. “Anybody but Lindsey Graham,” he replied, jocularly jabbing at his honorary host while smiling in the direction of Jenny Sanford, whose husband, an old friend of Graham’s, was then thought to be a prospective “veep” pick. Four months later the veracity of that subtly sarcastic remark became all too apparent as a high-heeled, lip-glossed, children-in-tow star was born at the 2008 National Republican Convention.
“Going Rogue” is former Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin’s highly-anticipated opus. Penned with assistance from ghostwriter Lynn Vincent, the book is obviously intended to augment Palin’s brand equity cultivation efforts of late, portraying Palin in a light the McCain campaign did not. Oddly, its writer(s) did not seize this as an opportunity to issue many unique or new policy prescriptions. Then again, the dearth of gravitas inherent in the work’s politically-focused commentary is rather fitting for a politician who is casting herself as a folksy fixture on the pop-political stage part of this so-called era of Obama – upon which substance, as a function of job qualifications, is clearly taking a backseat to form.
In small part, “Going Rogue” is written to right the not-so-favorable records set about Palin by several former McCain-Palin campaign staffers, staffers alleged to have misdirected their frustrations over their campaign’s loss into attacks on Palin. At the same time, the work provides a few new intimate tidbits of personal information that chronicle Palin’s family life, her political career, along with, in what some politicos might point to as disappointingly general terms, her “conservative” political views. Perhaps most exciting for her fans: The book’s stump-speech-like conclusion could be construed as a signal Palin is planning to formalize her own bid for the presidency.
“Going Rogue” is not likely to end up on lists of required readings for any political science courses offered at a college or university near you. Yet this has little to do with Palin’s political persuasions not aligning with those of so many prominent liberal-leaning academics. The manuscript is simply too light on politics in terms of Palin’s purveyance of anything all that noteworthy on the forward-thinking policy front.
Nevertheless, the book, with its initial print run of more than one million copies, is certainly elevating Sarah Palin’s profile. Still, the question that is mounting in the minds of many onlookers: Is this all too much – and in many respects too little – too early in the game, Mrs. Palin? As demonstrated by John McCain, launching your campaign efforts years before your prospective primary opponents do doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be left with enough wind in your sails to win a general election. As demonstrated by polls regarding the president’s fast-declining favorability, there is also such a thing as overexposure.
GOING ROGUE: An American Life. By Sarah Palin. HarperCollins. 413 pages. $28.99.
Open thread, tell us what you know… All comments will be posted!
Question: Is the so-called transparency kick just politics when there seems a total lack of oversight? Now if you are as sick of this #%@& as we are then take a break from it and enjoy our friend the… The Lady GaGa… Rapidly developing…
Related: Office of the Speaker | Media Advisory: Subcommittee Hearing on Impeachment Resolution
SCHotline FOIA Request to S.C. State Ethics Commission
As the flame said to the pouring rain: Let’s Dance
In South America there is a path forward for team Obama
By Michael S. Smith II
“Few believe that Mr. Chávez will start a war with Colombia. But then, as a couple of seasoned Latin American observers have pointed out, no one believed Argentina’s similarly beleaguered strongman, Leopoldo Galtieri, when he began threatening to take Argentina to war with Britain in 1982. In the annals of the region’s authoritarian populism, stranger things have happened.”
-The Washington Post
“Save water, make war: Is it safe to ignore Hugo Chávez’s Bellicose Rhetoric?” (November 12, 2009)
For more than a decade Venezuela President Hugo Chávez has taunted U.S. foreign policy-makers, first as a veritable mosquito in their ears, now as an increasingly serious cause for their concerns. According to some observers, in light of America’s newly negotiated terms for its uses of military installations located throughout Colombia, bases U.S. troops and Drug Enforcement Agency officers will use as staging points for operations part of America’s War on Drugs in the Andean Region, Hugo Chávez is stepping up his provocative rhetoric to new levels. Aside from his paranoia regarding American forces’ growing presences in his neighborhood, mounting obstacles to Chávez’ ability to sustain the social programs that are the lifeblood of his waning popularity in Venezuela are prompting Chávez to employ some very vitriolic remarks, most of which seem to scapegoat America for his country’s and his region’s woes. For some, it appears Chávez may be reaching a point where — in his mind at least — it is time to take a step so many dictators have historically deemed necessary to maintaining support for their agendas at home — initiate a war. But why, most Americans will ask, should we be concerned about how the Obama administration will handle the cuckoo-nest-flyer in Caracas?
President Obama entered office pledging to shift the course of foreign policy away from the one set by President Bush. Rather than confronting anti-American dictators with tough talk, along with what some might call tougher policies, America’s new president announced his plan to take an altogether different approach. Change, so many Americans thought, was in the air as Obama announced his intentions to engage with words leaders who view America as their enemy. “We will extend a hand,” he proclaimed in the case of Iran, “if you will unclench your fist.” Such dialog, it was no-doubt hoped by some in the administration, would expose the terrible flaws at the core of the so-called “hawkish” geo-political strategies endorsed by Mr. Obama’s predecessor.
Soon, however, team Obama ran into what may still be a tough reality for the president to swallow: For “leaders” like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela President Hugo Chávez, exchanges of “diplomatic” dialog with the U.S. are the last things they wish to associate with their respective legacies. By now, the notion that these leaders are perhaps something other than the nonrational actors they were pegged as by Bush administration policy strategists has surely flown out of the window. In effect, the president is fast realizing the forms of engagement Mr. Obama hoped he could rely on when dealing with these leaders are not actually actionable options available to him.
If nuance is the essence of statesmanship, a notion posited by Dr. Henry Kissinger in his book “Diplomacy,” Hugo Chávez is no statesman. Chávez is a blowhard. Like many strongmen, he is thinking, speaking, and acting without any form of filter, and no one can forecast with much certitude just what he will do next.
Addressing the world’s foremost forum for diplomacy in 2007 Hugo Chávez broke into one of the most undiplomatic tirades ever issued there by a head of state from anywhere, at any time. After making a great sales pitch for a book titled “Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States,” a book written by pseudo-scientist turned political scientist Noam Chomsky — who Chávez mistakenly referred to as “one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals” — “Hurricane Hugo” revealed just how distorted the lens through which he views the world truly is, unleashing the following statements:
“The devil [U.S. President George W. Bush] is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.
“And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. [crosses himself] And it smells of sulfur still today.
“Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.
“I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday’s statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.”
Most, irrespective of their views of George W. Bush, were left wondering the extent to which some chemical imbalance was impairing this man’s judgment. “El Diablo. Did he really just call the U.S. president the devil?” we asked.
This bizarre display was not so much a talking-point part of the news cycle in which those remarks were made as it was a laughing point, the likes of which was not paralleled by any other address at the U.N. until Muamar Gadaffi performed his opus there in 2009. Simply put, a psychiatrist would have to be consulted to develop an accurate assessment of the delusions of grandeur Hugo Chávez demonstrated he suffers from that day. Still, it seemed safe to assert Chávez, in the very least, suffers from a personality disorder categorized somewhere among those of the Cluster B spectrum of such mental impairments. And the same holds true today.
In 2007 Chávez’ remarks at the U.N. were not much cause for concern. Then, most heads of state from Latin American and the Caribbean regarded Hugo Chávez as little other than a loud-mouthed idealist. According to their thinking, in time he would prove himself incapable of delivering on his promises to his supporters in Venezuela, and thus fall on his own sword. His gravitas was so discounted on the global stage that during a dinner hosted for the heads of Spain and numerous Latin American countries the king of Spain actually told Chávez to shut up when Chávez began to bloviate before him over supper.
Yet since that time many events have reshaped the world’s views of the man who, pursuant to his implementations of certain constitutional “reforms,” may now be called “el tirano de Venezuela.” Chief among the events that have offered a more disconcerting persona for Hugo Chávez’ legacy:
-Chávez has amended Venezuela’s constitution in ways that may enable him to retain his power over the country for decades to come, and his grip on virtually all major sectors of the Venezuelan economy, from banking to oil, is ever-widening;
-Chávez annually invests billions of dollars in absurdly extraneous military hardware, particularly for a country facing virtually no existential threats, thereby foregoing opportunities to adequately invest in his regime’s expensive domestic social programs. Included among his purchases in recent years are several military submarines. According to the Associated Press, in 2007 he bought 53 military helicopters and 24 SU-30 Sukhoi fighter jets from Russia. Not long thereafter Chávez constructed Venezuela’s own Kalashnikov factory. This, after he purchased 100,000 Kalashnikovs from Russia in 2007. There should be no doubts that Venezuela’s dictator is successfully setting off an arms race in Latin America with such investments;
-The discovery in 2008 of evidence contained on hard drives of laptops owned by key leaders of the Western Hemisphere’s largest terrorist organization directly linked Chávez to those leaders. Information found on the hard drives revealed what was once regarded as conjecture concerning Chávez’ relationship to the Fuerzas Armado Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) was more than just the stuff of previously unqualified dot-connecting;
-Venezuela’s new role as the primary exit point from South America of cocaine bound for the U.S., Canada, and Europe, cocaine usually produced under the supervision and subsequent transport management of FARC. This shocking fact was made public by The Miami Herald when a classified DEA report on the flow of narcotics in our hemisphere was leaked to Herald reporters early in 2007. Before the Herald reported on this trend Hugo Chávez discontinued Venezuela’s partnership in the U.S.-led assault on the cocaine business in the Andean Region. More recently, it was noted in various news reports that in the months preceding the removal of Manuel Zelaya from the presidential office in Tegucigalpa Venezuelan government planes loaded with cocaine were making frequent stops in Honduras, their cargoes en route to America;
-Revelations of Chávez’ growing relationship with the theocratic leadership in Iran. This alliance has been largely codified by each regime’s paranoid fixations on plans which the leaders from both countries say America has to subvert their power. The partnership between these regimes is ostensibly being formalized in order for the leaders of Iran and Venezuela to work together to thwart U.S. interests wherever possible. In July of 2007, Jane’s reported Chávez claimed in January of that year that America’s stance towards both Caracas and Tehran has the same root cause. According to Chávez, “The aggression against Venezuela and the threats against Iran have the same imperialist objective: To dominate our oil reserves.” More recently, Chávez has stated it is his intention to do whatever he can to help Iran achieve its nuclear ambitions, regardless of how many international laws he must break to provide assistance to Iran;
-Chávez’ growing exercises in economic statecraft focused on undermining America’s relationships with virtually all countries in his region. Through his access to Venezuela’s vast supplies of oil Chávez has launched a crude-based form of economic warfare in our hemisphere. He is selling Venezuelan oil to many South and Central American countries at very special rates, which is in turn giving rise to various scenarios where the region’s smaller, less stable countries are becoming almost entirely dependent on Venezuela when trying to meet their energy needs. Another component of Chávez’ economic statecraft strategy is rooted in his new loans programs which target those smaller countries, programs made possible by his accumulation of huge cash reserves. Aside from his newfound role in the drug trade, much of his cash is gotten from sales of oil at non-discounted rates to developed nations, but mostly the U.S., a country where most of Venezuela’s oil is refined into gasoline then sent back to Venezuela for domestic consumption and sales abroad. It has long been rumored some of this gasoline is sold at hugely discounted prices on the “grey market” in order to bolster support for Chávez among the poor peoples of Venezuela’s neighboring countries like Colombia;
-Chávez’ efforts to disrupt the political landscape in Central America through his overt support for Manuel Zelaya’s desires to revise the Honduran constitution in ways that would make it easy for Zelaya to establish another Latin American dictatorship there. This has brought to the forefront evidence of an unexpected evolution in terms of Chávez’ relationship with his neighbors. Specifically, Brazil’s support for Zelaya should be understood by analysts as an extension of Chávez’ growing influence in a country previously thought of as the logical “check” to any extraterritorial ambitions Chávez may harbor;
-Growing concerns regarding Chávez’ relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah cells based in Latin America and the Caribbean. Those relationships should be especially worrisome for security experts when taking into account the dynamics of Chávez’ alliance with Iran, the nation which provides these terrorist organizations the majority of their support in the ways of weapons, money, and passports that provide ease of movement around the globe for members of each organization;
-Finally, just as projected by so many world leaders in years past: Chávez is fast proving himself incapable of living up to the promises he has made to Venezuelans who have helped him stay in office this long. As a result, now the great unknown looming in the minds of most Latin American leaders has become the question of “What will Chávez do next to maintain his rule over Venezuela?”
Throughout the past decade there has remained an overarching consistency relevant to the issue that is Hugo Chávez. That consistency is observable in Chávez’ unyielding disdain for the rule of law, both in terms of Venezuela’s domestic laws and international law, not just his fervent anti-Americanism. Today, even his close friend and ally Fidel Castro is not matching the growing volume of Chávez’ anti-American statements with Castro’s own diatribes of late.
Highlighting Hugo Chávez’ escalation of rhetoric, on November 10 Foreign Policy magazine published an article by Michael Shifter titled “Calm Down, Chávez.” Shifter, the vice president for policy and director of the Andean program at the Inter-American Dialogue, began the piece by providing the following insights:
“Hugo Chávez’s Sunday TV and radio program Aló Presidente is not exactly known for its brevity or reassuring tone. The Venezuelan president’s chief communications vehicle — the 21st century, socialist version of FDR’s notably less incendiary ‘fireside chats’ — often signals his preferred next steps in the 11th year of his grandiose ‘Bolivarian’ reformation of the country.
“So it was cause for concern when Chávez used last Sunday’s program to declare in his characteristically combative style, ‘Let’s not waste a day in our main aim to prepare for war and help the people prepare for war.’”
Shifter went on to ask, “In a politically unsettled and polarized South America, where arms purchases have nearly doubled over the past five years, reaching almost $50 billion last year, could his Venezuela be the spark needed to light a conflict?”
Explaining what has — at least at surface level — spurred Chávez’ latest round of ranting, Shifter notes: “Both Bogotá and Washington have been trying to control the considerable political fallout since the base agreement was leaked in August. Suspicions of U.S. military motives remain, not only in Caracas, but throughout the continent. South America’s strong reaction could have been averted with some diplomatic groundwork, such as prior, high-level consultations with natural allies like Brazil. But the Obama administration had apparently miscalculated how big an effect such seemingly narrow questions can have in the hemisphere.”
Fortunately there is more than meets the eye there.
Just before John McCain made his 2008 presidential campaign stop in Colombia, arriving soon after the high-profile rescues of several Americans and Europeans previously held hostage by FARC, a security specialist from the U.S. met with Colombia’s minister of defense. Days before that meeting the specialist was busy gathering information used to highlight a little-known fact: The rugged, mountainous jungles that demark much of Colombia’s border with Venezuela are the most heavily landmine-laden places on earth, not just places largely controlled by FARC guerillas, not just an area whose topography alone would hamper most large-scale movements of troops therein.
Mr. Chávez, who has become quite chummy with leaders of the FARC — one of whom recently succumbed to injuries he received when he stepped on a landmine that had been buried by his own comrades — is certainly aware of this logistical encumbrance for any plans hatched for Colombia to serve as a staging point for an invasion of Venezuela. The bottom line is that Chávez is no more concerned about the U.S. or Colombia launching an invasion from Colombia than President Obama is worried about Usama bin Laden making an appearance on Dancing with the Stars in order to grow his brand equity among al Qaida sympathizers.
At the risk of presenting a statement that could be construed as suggesting the Obama administration should get a “pass” for its lapse in judgment in Colombia, the president’s advisers should not be held responsible for any near-term prospective turmoil in South America for which Chávez may point to their blunder as the spark. If the U.S. wants to invade Venezuela to overthrow the Chávez regime it will launch that invasion from the sea and by air. Not from Colombia, a country whose infiltration by such vast numbers of Chávez-allied terrorists makes for anything but a suitable environment from which to launch an attack on neighboring Venezuela.
Put simply, speculations about America’s reasons for striking its new deal with Colombia as extensions of anything other than Washington’s renewed focus on fighting narco-trafficking and narco-terrorism in the Andes are the stuff of Chavista propaganda aimed at bolstering support from other Latin American leaders for any conflicts with Colombia which Chávez may be planning to instigate. Any such conflicts will be initiated by Chávez as a means to the ends — so he hopes — of distracting Venezuelans’ attention away from the rapidly declining quality of life they are enduring under Chávez’ rule. Still, the entanglements of U.S. forces that Chávez will certainly arrange through his proxies in Colombia (i.e. FARC guerillas) will serve to provide Chávez — in his mind, that is — a vehicle Chávez may use to portray the U.S. as a bloodthirsty aggressor whose relationships with all South American nations should be the stuff of history moving forward.
If that latter facet of any near-term skirmishes in the Andes between the Chávez regime (and FARC guerillas) and Colombia (and U.S. forces based in Colombia) sounds familiar, it should. It is the same approach to portraying the U.S. in that light as Iran has endeavored to do for nations across the Middle East and Persia since late in 2001.
For policy-makers, the question that must be considered is: If Chávez can succeed in effecting such a relegation of America’s role on the continent, why should Brazil, the nation thought to be anything but an ally of Chávez until Manuel Zelaya was ousted from his seat of power in Honduras, do much to stop him? Chávez will seek to use any conflicts that may arise between his regime and Colombia to diminish the region’s other leaders’ interests in dealing with the Yankees. Therefore Brazil, so Chávez will try to assure “Lula,” will only benefit from new opportunities to become the leading purveyor of goods and services traditionally sold to South American nations by the U.S.
A message to the Obama administration: It is not time to talk to Hugo Chávez. Instead, it is time to establish your dialog with all nations in his region but Venezuela — until Venezuelans muster the will to restore the institutions of democracy that once thrived in their country. It is imperative for the U.S. to repair and strengthen its tenuous trade and other partnerships with our neighbors to America’s south. There is absolutely no reason for the U.S. to have sat back and allowed China to become the largest trade partner for the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean. Today, there is no reason for the U.S. to avoid launching an imperative effort to reestablish its historic role as that trade partner.
This will require much straight talk, and the Obama administration should direct its first words to Brazil, a nation whose leaders must come to realize Brazil’s ascendancy within the global economy is one that will only be fueled by further strengthening Brazil’s ties with America. Unfortunately it seems that Brazil’s leaders must first be reminded their country will not benefit from pandering to the whims of a dictator whose burn rate with his domestic political capital could soon enough leave him searching for a new country to call home, if not dead.
When America demonstrates its commitment to restoring and sustaining its vital partnerships with the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean there will be no hope left for any aspirant strongmen from the region whose predecessors’ only net accomplishments have been temporarily disrupting economic growth and political stability in the region. Dually, fewer reasons will be left for leaders from the region to include alliances with any Latin American nations helmed by such strongmen in their agendas.
The best way for America to achieve such desirable outcomes will be for the U.S. to put its money where its mouth is. This means the Obama administration must wise up to the fact that expanding trade ties by reducing barriers to trade with all non-“rogue” nations is intrinsic to our national security. And this realization must be had before the dollar is left in the dust, and Mr. Obama is left with too few carrots to accomplish much of anything, let alone pay for the social programs he wishes to implement in his own country.
Americans should care about how President Obama deals with the blowhard in Caracas because this is a fairly simple test of Mr. Obama’s comprehension of the issues in his own hemisphere. If he and his advisers cannot master those issues, the Obama administration need not try to master the mysteries of the Middle East.
If Hugo Chávez wishes to tango with the “Colossus del Norte,” America should respond by working with all countries in Latin America to remove Chávez from the dance floor altogether.
Many analysts will argue it is impossible to isolate Hugo Chávez. They will ask: “Why should we even try to take that course of action when Chávez can simply continue to grow his trade ties with China, and we will be foregoing access to his oil in the process?” We will lose, and he will win, they will assert when in fact the only way for Chávez to win is for the U.S. to continue to avoid the issue that is Hugo Chávez on the whole. By acknowledging this problem for what it is, and taking steps to address it — however indirectly the process of addressing this issue may be — Obama will be reversing what some are now suggesting was a significant flaw inherent in the Bush administration’s Western Hemisphere policies. He will be tackling the issue, rather than simply ignoring it.
While access to oil has been a paramount concern for America’s foremost security strategists since the passage into law of the National Security Act of 1947, oil is a global commodity, and the U.S. can just as easily access it elsewhere than Venezuela. By redirecting America’s petro-dollars spent on Venezuelan sour crude to sweet crude-harvesting nations in the Middle East and Africa, America will only strengthen its critical relationships with those nations, meanwhile leaving Chávez struggling to fit the bill for his already crumbling empire that was built on promises to give away the world to the poor people of Venezuela.
Perhaps ironically, when it comes to promoting democracy and capitalist economic constructs throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, policy-makers may find the fastest way to generate positive outcomes on those fronts will be to remove the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba, while at the same time introducing an embargo on the imports into the U.S. of Venezuelan crude products. There are absolutely zero reasons that exist for the U.S. to continue to provide Latin America’s newest dictator — whose economy is based on oil sales — the resources he needs to promote America’s own economic decline in his neighborhood. (When the CIA is regularly listing the U.S. among Cuba’s top trade partners in its annual publication titled “The World Factbook,” it’s clear the embargo on trade with Cuba, however worthwhile in spirit, is ineffective in practice.)
Hugo Chávez clearly wants to fight an economic war with the U.S. He perceives this as the surest way to militate the demise of America’s role in Latin America and the Caribbean. In response to these ambitions President Obama should send Chávez a message he probably won’t be expecting to receive — Let’s dance. After all, given his performance at home in Venezuela, Chávez has already demonstrated he is quite likely to stumble and fall.
-#####-
SCHotline
RSS - Posts