New at Reason

August 23, 2007

Michael C. Moynihan respectfully declines to join the new Bolivarian revolution.

Comments

|8.23.07 @ 1:36PM|#

Yeah, I'm out, too.

|8.23.07 @ 1:36PM|#

To many gringo observers, Hugo Chávez is merely a mildly buffoonish, if delightfully brave, left-wing populist

Sort of a Hillary Clinton in a suit and tie.

|8.23.07 @ 1:54PM|#

There's an e at the end of LivingstonE.

|8.23.07 @ 2:24PM|#

Moynihan sloppily confuses free markets and democracy in sentences like, But after his 1998 election victory, in which he faced off against a former Miss Universe contestant, Chávez governed exactly like a Castroite.

Really? You mean he ended the elections and banned competing parties? He turned the Parliament into a body appointed by the Party?

If you're going to support democracy, you have to acknowledge that sometimes the bad guy, whose policies you don't support, will win.

When's the last time popular opposition to the consolidation of power in the Chief Executive stopped Castro from doing anything?

|8.23.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Joe: "When's the last time popular opposition to the consolidation of power in the Chief Executive stopped Castro from doing anything?"

Or, for that matter, Bush.

|8.23.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Sort of a Hillary Clinton in a suit and tie.

I'd go with Hillary Clinton in a guayabara.

|8.23.07 @ 2:53PM|#

Adam W.,

2005, with the collapse of the Social Security "reform" effort.

And, to date, his dreamed-of Operation Iranian Freedom.

Gahan|8.23.07 @ 2:54PM|#

"But after his 1998 election victory, in which he faced off against a former Miss Universe contestant, Chávez governed exactly like a Castroite"

This is a bit misleading. Irene Saez was actually a distant third in that election, hardly his main adversary.

|8.23.07 @ 2:57PM|#

It's sad to think that, absent our govenrment's embrace of the coup in 2002, the Venezuelan people might have rid the world of this twit.

Why anybody trusted these people when they promised to spread democracy around the world is beyone me.

|8.23.07 @ 3:02PM|#

It's sad to think that, absent our govenrment's embrace of the coup in 2002, the Venezuelan people might have rid the world of this twit.

"Sad" is one word for it. "Delusional" and "unsupportable by any available evidence" also jump to mind.

|8.23.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Joe,
You are absolutely right. That was an editing error. I wrote "governed like a Castroite"...not "exactly."

Sorry about that.

mm

|8.23.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Josh,

As the article notes, the actual policies of Chavez are beginning to grate on the Venezuelan public. It's pretty much inarguable that bashing the Yanquis has helped to prop up his popularity, and John Negroponte and the rest of administration certainly helped make it easier for Chavez to do that credibly.

Tim|8.23.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Sorry Josh (and MM for that matter), but if you're going to analyze Chavez' consolidation of power you can't ignore the US involvement in the 2002 coup attempt.

|8.23.07 @ 3:17PM|#

It might be inarguable that Chavez likes to bash the Yanquis; it's a lot harder to argue that absent our recognizing the coup against him he'd be gone. He's kind of a long way from a tipping point where we could make the difference between his staying or going.

|8.23.07 @ 3:20PM|#

Tim,
I didn't have time to address it in such a short space, but the authors give a pretty balanced view of the coup; of both the hideous behavior of Chavez (making Plan Avila operational) and the opposition, like Pedro Carmona dissolving the national assembly and globovision refusing to air the pro-chavez marches. The authors don't, on the other hand, suggest any American involvement in the April coup.

mm

|8.23.07 @ 3:23PM|#

Thank you, Michael, but I don't think the conflation of economic policies and democracy is an editting error, but a conceptual one.

Grooming himself for electoral politics, Chávez then softened his radical image, employing the evasive tactics of his Cuban mentor by claiming-depending upon the audience-to be both a democrat and a communist.

Which audiences has he told that he is going to turn Venezuela into a one party state, implement a prison system for dissenters, or cancel beourgeiois elections in favor of a dictatorship of the party, councils, or proletariat?

The answer is, of course, none. What you mean by "claiming to be a communist" is that he has talked about the need for a socialist economic system, with government ownership of property and yadda yadda yadda.

If I'm misinformed about this, if he actually has been echoing Marx and Lennin's arguments about the falsehood of democratic elections and the importance of stamping out dissent by force, by all means, show me.

But everything I've seen about his political positions suggests that, unlike you or me, he genuinely does seem to believe that socialist control of the means of production and competitive, democratic politics (sort of an inverted version of China) can coexist with each other.

Given our government's recent support for an anti-democratic coup, which was largely based on their opposition to his proposed and implemented economic policies, I think it's important to draw this distinction.

|8.23.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Josh,

I did write "might have." But I agree with you - that was a longshot, and the tipping point is yet to come. I'd just prefer we not abandon our democratic principles in the cause of pushing that day even farther into the future.

|8.23.07 @ 3:42PM|#

Joe,
The answer, unfortunately, is not none. Television stations being closed, journalists taken to court and arrested, packing the supreme court, nationalizing the telecom and oil industries, launching coups, packing the election commission with supporters, militarizing the government (the authors point out that Miraflores is now overflowing with generals, etc), and so on. The comparison to Castro, a friend, advisor and mentor, is not a big stretch. Alberto Ramos, once an active communist insurgent and academic, is quoted in the book saying that that Chavez "intended to crush the opposition in the style of Lenin."

And he was initially defensive about his relationship to Castro and Cuban communism, when declared that he was most certainly "not a communist", and telling a journalist that "If I were communist I would have said it already" On a recent episode of Alo Presidente, he again shifted gears, proclaiming that "I am a Marxist-Leninist and will be one until the day I die."

robc|8.23.07 @ 3:44PM|#

If you're going to support democracy

Any claims to "democracy" in Venezuela ended when Chavez got the legislature to grant him the power to rule by decree.

Also, I dont support democracy. I support liberty. If democracy leads towards that then I will use it. If it leads away, I oppose it. Democracy is a tool. It is a means, not an end. I dont support tools, I use them.

|8.23.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Joe,
You seem to misunderstand the 2002 coup: the street demonstrations that precipitated the coup were a response to the PdVSA firings, not the missions...which were implemented AFTER the coup, as a way of buying influence amongst the poor.

Tim|8.23.07 @ 3:54PM|#

The authors you cited may not suggest US involvement, but according to Nikolas Kozloff (Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S.) the US at least funded the opposition group through the National Endowment For Democracy and may have actually directed the coup.

I don't have the knowledge to assess the credibility of either claim, but the suspicion of US efforts to overthrow Chavez in conjunction with existing anti-Americanism in the region has contributed to his hold on power.

|8.23.07 @ 4:04PM|#

MM,

No question, Chavez has clamped down on freedoms. His policies in many areas are deplorable, and are a good reason to regard him warily.

But you still seem to be missing the point - he doesn't seem to be working to eliminate the existence of democratic institutions or processes, but to continue them, and use them to burnish his legitimacy.

Just look at the way you had to throw in "nationalizing the telecom and oil industries" into a list of anti-democratic policies. Nationalizing industries is an indicator of opposition to democracy? Liberalism, certainly. Capitalism, or course. But democracy?

And as far as his crackdowns on the media, are we not talking about people who were actively involved in supporting a coup against a democratically-elected leader? I certainly don't think Chavez is in the right in any of those cases, especially given his own history of trouble-making, but that's a far cry from the broad suppression of opposition that one sees in an anti-democratic regime.

Former communist - you mean like Irving Kristol and David Horowitz? One doesn't gain perfect insight into a movement by converting to its opposition, obviously. I'm sure Chavez does look indistinguishable from Castro to him. Bill Clinton looked indistinguishable from Castro to many of our home-grown anti-communists, too.

Finally, as for the statement about Marxist-Lenninism, the proof is in the pudding. How many Marxist-Lennisnist parties have centered their politics around electoral victory? How many have endoresed and pledged to defend democracy? In his economic ideology, he is clearly in the Marxist-Lenninist camp, but in his relationship to democracy, he seems little different than some of the more authoritarian republicans (small R, people, calm down) that win and lose elections throughout the developing world. Ever read about the security policies in Columbia? Ever read about the Hindi nationalist party that recently held office in India?

Once again, I think we're looking at an inversion of China. The Chinese pledge allegiance to communism, too.

|8.23.07 @ 4:10PM|#

joe,

It is not a democracy if the the ruler of a country rules by decree, even if that leader was elected via popular elections.

Popular elections != democracy. Popular elections are a necessary ingredient of democracy, but you need other ingredients as well (seperation of legislative and executive powers, an independent judiciary, a free press, constitutional limits on state powers, etc).

No one denies that Chavez won popular elections. But that doesn't make Venezuela a democracy. Venezuela is a 'Popular Dictatorship', i.e. a dictatorship that has the widespread popular support of the people of Venezuela.

If Bush abolished congress and ruled by decree (even temporarily), required all Supreme Court decisions must be approved by himself, revoked the broadcast licences of radio and TV stations that critized himself, you would accuse Bush of behaving like a dictator (and rightly so).

|8.23.07 @ 4:14PM|#

robc,

Any claims to "democracy" in Venezuela ended when Chavez got the legislature to grant him the power to rule by decree. And resumed when his right to rule by decree was lifted?

Also, I dont support democracy. I support liberty.

Well, I do. Over the long term, the existence of democratic institutions is the best way to secure liberty. That's why the Founders didn't simply install George Washington as an elightended despot.

|8.23.07 @ 4:24PM|#

MM,

Ah, I see. You didn't make clear which firings you were talking about.

Rex,

It is not a democracy if the the ruler of a country rules by decree, even if that leader was elected via popular elections. And it's not dictatorship for the ruler to cede that power after a period of time. As a matter of fact, many imperfect, immature democracies - Indonesia comes to mind - have included such powers in their constitutions and political processes for a period of time - often a longer period of time than was the case in Venezuela. And let's not forget Turkey. Where are the assertions that democracy is dead there? Oh, right, there aren't any, because the governments that come to power in those countries are broadly proo-American. BTW, Chavez did not dissolved the parliament - the elected parliament voted to expand his powers.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying all is sunshine with Venezuelan democracy, and I realize that there have to be limits on government power and a check-and-balances system for democracy to avoid devolving into popular dictatorship. Thank goodness our system includes such things!

But Venezuela has not made such a devolution, though it still might. I feel like things could go either way, and I just wish we were in a better position to draw them towards the light, as it were. Besides my moral disgust at any attempt to end a democratic term of office through extra-legal force, I am furious that we sold oout our greatest weapon - our ability to serve as a city on a hill for democrats everywhere - by backing that coup.

Finally, I'm agnostic on whether the administration's support for the coup began before or after it occured. In terms our moral standing and ability to influence things in a democratic direction, though, that doesn't seem to matter much.

Paul|8.23.07 @ 4:44PM|#

And it's not dictatorship for the ruler to cede that power after a period of time.

joe, I'm reading your comments with interest. I'm going to stop short of accusing you of teetering on the edge of being a Chavez apologist, but how long does he have to not cede power before we all quit deluding ourselves and declare his failure to cede power a dictatorship?

Joe, if your most cherished Democratic (capital D) candidate (whomever that may be) were elected as our next President, and shuttered TV stations, dissolved congress (temporarily, natch) and began rule by Executive Order but pinkie-promised to undo it all eventually, I have to believe you honest enough to not simply call it "deplorable. I have to assume you'd refer to them as a dictator?

atrevete|8.23.07 @ 5:05PM|#

shecky|8.23.07 @ 5:06PM|#

But he is also the man who has declared his eternal friendship with Libya's Col. Gaddafi, Belorussian dictator Alexander Lukashenko, Iranian leader Ahmadinejad, Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe, Sandinista commandante Daniel Ortega, imprisoned terrorist Carlos the Jackal, Saddam Hussein and, of course, Fidel Castro. Amongst the gringo masses, this side of Chávez is rather less well-known.

Somehow these things make Chavez less buffoonish?

I still don't get the American hand wringing over the man. Chavez is a nobody as far as the US is concerned. And despite his wicked associations, it looks like he'll remain a nobody unless the US decides to alter his status by doing something stupid and out of proportion to his threat.

atrevete|8.23.07 @ 5:14PM|#

No one denies that Chavez won popular elections. But that doesn't make Venezuela a democracy. Venezuela is a 'Popular Dictatorship', i.e. a dictatorship that has the widespread popular support of the people of Venezuela.

Oh, plenty of Venezuelans do. But what is their recourse, exactly? Demonstrations? MILLIONS have demonstrated and continue to do so at their peril. Recall? Has no one heard of the Tascon List? Those who signed the recall petition are barred from government employment or fired from their government jobs. This is a big sector of the economy because the oil industry is nationalized.

If you have a government job you are REQUIRED to demonstrate for Chavez, that is, lined up and sent out on a bus to demonstrate. In the barrios, such as Petare, there are already Cuban style block captains/spies whose job it is to make sure their neighbors get on the government bus to go demonstrate or vote for Chavez.

|8.23.07 @ 5:25PM|#

Chavez is acting more like a Roman Dictator than a military dictator at this point. His call for removing term limits from the constitution, however, is a bad sign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

Paul|8.23.07 @ 5:39PM|#

I still don't get the American hand wringing over the man. Chavez is a nobody as far as the US is concerned.

Shecky:

Exactly. And all I can say is I hope to keerist that the U.S. stays out of Chavez' and Venezuela's business. The Chavez economy will fail on its own, it doesn't need any insurgent help. In fact, we should be aiding Chavez with his Bolivian Revolution. The faster he gets it off the ground, the faster he'll become an ink-blot in Venezuelan history.

Neu Mejican:

His call for removing term limits from the constitution, however, is a bad sign.

Yes, one of many, many very bad signs...

|8.23.07 @ 5:43PM|#

dictator perpetuus Chavez is a problem.

magistratus extraordinarius Chavez, not so much.

Will we have dictator perpetuus Mushariff?
Would it be more of a concern?

robc|8.23.07 @ 5:53PM|#

Over the long term, the existence of democratic institutions is the best way to secure liberty.

I agree. But it the liberty Im supporting, not the democratic institutions that secure it. Its a tool. And like a hammer, it can be used inappropriately.

Notice that Chavez isnt calling a constitutional convention for the changes he wants, he is rewriting it, presenting it to the legislature for them to put on the ballot for the people. He is keeping a pretense of democratic institutions.

I agree with you about us supporting the coup. It was the stupidest thing to do.

Paul|8.23.07 @ 6:23PM|#

dictator perpetuus Chavez is a problem.

magistratus extraordinarius Chavez, not so much.

Ixnay on the atin-lay, Neu, we don't go in for that kind of dago talk* here.

*black adder reference, before I get kicked off the board for making racially insensitive comments.

Will we have dictator perpetuus Mushariff?
Would it be more of a concern?

Any perpetual leader is a bad thing. Hell, eight years is longer than I can stand.

Chavez is a thug|8.23.07 @ 9:18PM|#

"Sort of a Hillary Clinton in a suit and tie.'

Yeah except for the part where Chavez outlaws all opposition, makes himself president for life and happens to have supporters who fire on the opposition.

Chavez is a thug|8.23.07 @ 9:20PM|#

"Or, for that matter, Bush"

Ah, the obligatory comparison of Bush to a dictator. The idiocy never ends.

Chavez is a thug|8.23.07 @ 9:21PM|#

"It's sad to think that, absent our govenrment's embrace of the coup in 2002, the Venezuelan people might have rid the world of this twit."

Once again, the "evidence" supporting this position is thin compared to the opposing view. But hey, that has never stopped you before.

|8.23.07 @ 9:37PM|#

Joe, if your most cherished Democratic (capital D) candidate (whomever that may be) were elected as our next President, and shuttered TV stations, dissolved congress (temporarily, natch) and began rule by Executive Order but pinkie-promised to undo it all eventually, I have to believe you honest enough to not simply call it "deplorable. I have to assume you'd refer to them as a dictator?

If a Republican did that, joe would call them a dictator. If a Democrat did that, joe would be their apologist, judging from all the dictator-hugging he's doing in this thread.

P.S. Just because you hold elections doesn't make your country a democracy if you don't have any intention of giving up power no matter what.

Chavez is a thug|8.23.07 @ 10:23PM|#

"And as far as his crackdowns on the media, are we not talking about people who were actively involved in supporting a coup against a democratically-elected leader"

Here we go again. It is quite simply amazing how easily you swallow such propaganda. Why exactly did it take five years after the coup to shut this station down? One would think that if the station were guilty of sedition, it would have been done a little bit sooner. Evidently, you also believe that the laws he is trying to pass making it illegal for the media to criticize him are also a reaction to the coup.
Since you believe his asinine coup defense, do you similarly believe his pronouncement that independent media is engaged in a campaign of "psychological warfare, to divide, weaken and destroy the nation"? Because as we all know, criticizing the Chief Executive is inherently destabilizing and should not be allowed. If his actions against the media are not "broad suppression of opposition" what the hell is? Never mind what you would classify the move by his cronies to rubber-stamp his president-for-life power play.
The following quote from Alberto Federico Ravell, president of Globovision, perfectly sums up his moves against dissenting stations: "It's like he's holding up a yellow card so that the TV stations behave themselves in an election year." It boggles the mind that anyone is fucking stupid enough to believe the coup excuse, especially when you consider Chavez' track record for "discouraging" dissent.

I guess the process of making it illegal for foreigners to criticize him as well as his seizing of private property was a reaction to the coup as well, huh joe?

"Finally, I'm agnostic on whether the administration's support for the coup began before or after it occured".

Hahahahaha. As if these are equivalent. Because actively participating in a coup is the same as saying, after the fact, that you disagreed with the direction Chavez was taking Venezuala, which is essentially what the US government did afterwards. Such a loose definition speaks more about your political biases than anything else.

"It's sad to think that, absent our govenrment's embrace of the coup in 2002, the Venezuelan people might have rid the world of this twit"

Sure thing. As if Chavez' anti-democratic mindset didn't already exist; the evidence it did is ample, unless you don't consider seizure of private property to be a violation of a necessary principle essential for sustaining democracy. Also, did he not attempt a coup of his own? The only reason this bullshit argument has any traction at all is because gullible dumbasses in Europe and the United States continue to defend this dirtbag.

"I'm going to stop short of accusing you of teetering on the edge of being a Chavez apologist..."

You are being WAY too charitable.

If this thread were about Cuba, joe would probably be telling us those 27 journalists Castro imprisoned were in fact American agents just as Castro claimed. It is a shame your skepticism of governments seems only to extend to liberal democracies joe.


"I still don't get the American hand wringing over the man. Chavez is a nobody as far as the US is concerned."

I guess lending moral support to oppressed masses trampled by the jack boot is passe now.

Chavez is a thug|8.23.07 @ 10:29PM|#

"If a Republican did that, joe would call them a dictator. If a Democrat did that, joe would be their apologist, judging from all the dictator-hugging he's doing in this thread"

Bullseye.

|8.23.07 @ 10:34PM|#

I'm just impressed that Moynihan is engaging joe without calling him a liar or shithead or whatever, which is all joe ever says to Moynihan.

The difference is probably because Moynihan has the grapes to put his real name on what he writes.

|8.23.07 @ 10:36PM|#

Thug,

You just accused someone else of easily swallowing propoganda. That's good. How long you playing?

|8.23.07 @ 10:38PM|#

von Laue,

joe boyle puts his real name and email in all his posts. Do you?

Damned if I won't get accused of defending joe again.

Come one guys...make some arguments. Personal attacks are weak.

Chavez is a thug|8.23.07 @ 11:35PM|#

"You just accused someone else of easily swallowing propoganda. That's good. How long you playing?"

I am playing until you tell me which propaganda I have swallowed. Sorry, I don't unquestionably believe bullshit excuses put out by dictatorships. Maybe you do.

Chavez is a thug|8.23.07 @ 11:37PM|#

"joe boyle puts his real name and email in all his posts. Do you?"

This is relevant because he is the only Joe Boyle in the United States and also because individuals on the internet are scrupulously honest when it comes to doling out info about themselves.

Chavez is a thug|8.24.07 @ 12:06AM|#

"The authors don't, on the other hand, suggest any American involvement in the April coup."


That is because such evidence is scant, to say the least. It seems in order to find such evidence, people have taken to claiming that criticism of the Chavez government, after the coup occured, is akin to participating in the coup itself.
But hey, the voluminous evidence, which I have cited on this site before, fueling my doubt is evidently the same as swallowing whole the pronouncements of a dictatorship in a country with essentially no legal public dissent. At least the statements by some strongly imply evidence arising from investigations in a liberal democracy and vetted by an independent media are no more worthy of belief, and no less worthy of the term propaganda, than the bile emaniting from a dictatorship with no real opposition to check its power. But hey, useful idiots abound, even on libertarian websites.

Chavez is a thug|8.24.07 @ 12:10AM|#

The next to last sentence in my most recent post above should have contained the correct spelling of emanating, rather than emaniting.

atrevete|8.24.07 @ 1:39AM|#

This is my translation of parts of a "note" from Venezuelan comedian Claudio Nazoa

"Why are thee dictators on the Left so "simpaticos" and the ones on the Right "hateful"? The dictators on the Left have a special appeal for some European intellectuals, especially the French. And others in Latin America, above all the Argentines.

How cool to see everything from Paris, sitting in St.Germaine desPres, sipping champagne, or a frothy espresso in the streets of Buenos Aires!

How great to observe Chavez from over there, without having to live with the Red T-shirts (Bolivarian Circles) the military, the Tascon List, the threats and insults and now the shutting down of broadcast stations.

How interesting the Cuban Revolution without having to spend the whold day looking for food to survive, or to have your daughter graduate from university only to have to become a prostitute in order to bring toothpaste, sanitary napkins or soap to the house!

atrevete|8.24.07 @ 1:48AM|#

(More translation)

"Why is it that the Argentine ladies called 'Mothers of the Plza de Mayo', who cry for their sons and daughters disappeared during the Rightist dictatorship never give a thought to those Cuban mothers whose children have been shot, or who have drowned trying to escape? Just because the dictators have different outlooks? Or is it that those thousands who have lost their lives don't have mothers or children? What is the strange extraordinary criteria these women waving the white scarves use to gauge suffering?

If Chavez is a leftist, then I'm on the right. and if Pinochet is a rightist, I'm on the left. Now is the time for humanity to cast off labels of "Left" and "Right". There is only people happy or people suffering. The only thing important to know is we all belong to the human race, who possess a brain perfectly divided into left and right."

von laue|8.24.07 @ 8:17AM|#

Really? I thought he was playing Yukon Joe Boyle. I, however, actually am the Nobel-prize winning crystallographer. ARE YOU REALLY FROM NEW MEXICO?

Personal attacks are weak.

That's right. Frequently I agree with joe and not Moynihan or Bailey so much, but I definitely know where my sympathies lie when joe gets a case of the Internet Tuff Guy and calls them liars or all sorts of things.

|8.24.07 @ 11:34AM|#

I'm just going to ignore the imbeciles.

robc,

If an American politician tried such things, they would violate the law and the Constitution. But in the case of immature democracies such as those in the developing world, they are not. The situation is comparable in my mind to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Was John Adams a dictator? A tyrant? What do you think would have been the consequences of launching a coup against him and installing an enlightened despot in his stead?

When you start saying that someone is a "dictator" and not a democratic leader, you're not just making a statement about him personally, but about the system of governance. I don't want to denounce Venezuela's democracy just because I don't the result of the most recent election.

As long as Venezuela has free and competitive elections, it is a democracy (even if an authoritarian, illiberal, and unstable one, like Indonesia), and we need to recognize the winner of those elections as a democratically-legitimized head of state. That's how liberalism and more solid democratic institutions grow - by allowing a flawed democracy to get better.

When liberalization, reform, and an end to the Chavez era come to Venezuela, it has to be through the ballot box, or we're back to the caudillos and death squads. I'd prefer to see the system that makes it possible for the Venezuelans to remove him from power peacefully, thank you very much, even if it means recognizing the legitimacy of someone like Chavez.

|8.24.07 @ 11:37AM|#

Two people who make up names for themselves and don't post email addresses just criticized ME for hiding behind anonymity?

Quick, regulars, what's my last name?

What state do I live in?

What city do I live in?

What field is my education in?

What's the highest degree I earned?

What a couple of rubes...

atrevete|8.24.07 @ 2:29PM|#

Joe, you sure as hell don't live in Caracas.

|8.24.07 @ 10:37PM|#

To many gringo observers, Hugo Chávez is merely a mildly buffoonish, if delightfully brave, left-wing populist

I think he's looking at you, joe.

|8.25.07 @ 6:57PM|#

I'm sure you do.

You're very reliable like that.