"There is the very real risk that this is part of a propaganda war by sections of the right-wing opposition with the aim of creating destabilization and unrest."
"It would be irresponsible of journalists to give this poll any credence. To use it risks inadvertently supporting a campaign from the more extreme sections of the Venezuelan opposition to try to claim that any defeat at today's election is simply the result of fraud."- Advertisement -
"As both campaigns said earlier today, people should await the official results from that will be released in the next few hours."
The Times called Chavez a longtime "fiery foe of Washington." He's opposes neoliberal injustice and imperial ravaging. Times editorial policy supports them.
The article claimed Chavez is "an ailing and politically weakened winner facing an emboldened opposition that grew stronger and more confident as the voting neared, and held out hope that an upset victory was within reach."
In fact, opposition insiders knew they had no chance and said so. Capriles was too far behind to win. Days before October 7, cohesion among them began disintegrating. A previous article discussed it. Corporate media scoundrels said nothing.
They pretended that Capriles had a good chance to win. It was laughable on its face. The Times said "Chavez spent much of the year insulting and trying to provoke Mr. Capriles and his followers."
He gave them hell for good reason. He explained what they are and the danger they pose. Venezuelans remember the bad old days and want none of it repeating.
Instead of explaining beneficial social change under Chavez, The Times said "Venezuela is mired in problems, including out-of-control violent crime, crumbling roads and bridges, and power blackouts""
True enough. These problems and others need addressing. Chavez promised to do more. America has these and many more unaddressed festering problems harming most people nationwide.
The Times failed to notice. It also downplayed the sharp drop in poverty and unemployment under Chavez. He's waged war on inequality and human need. These and other vital issues go begging in America. Instead of fixing them, they're getting worse.
On October 6, a scurrilous Washington Post editorial headlined "Venezuela eyes change," saying:
"IF HUGO CHAVEZ is an autocrat, how could he be in danger of losing the Venezuelan presidency in an election on Sunday?"
"Polls show a race to the wire between the caudillo and challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski. An opposition victory would mean an epochal change of political direction in one of the world's largest oil producers"."