The only problem I see with the expropriation of US-owned oil companies, illegitimately bought as they were in sweetheart deals with previous Venezuelan autocrats — is that he then sold out his people to the Chinese and Russians. They should have been returned to the people who actually run them as a producer’s coop.

The so-called violations of ‘free speech’ and media rights’ are more BS and hypocrisy by the American media than anything else. If an American media outlet were to help facilitate a coup against the US President, and that President were then returned to power, the reaction would be far more swift and punishing than the failure to renew a broadcast license - a procedure that predates Chavez, even if his predecessors used the process as nothing more than a political rubber stamp. I question the legitimacy of ‘ownership’ of Venezuelan airwaves by the private media monopolies in the first place: it’s not the result of free-market competition, but is rather “political capitalism” at its most vulgar.

- John

I haven’t followed you on Chavez much, how big a deal is this? As the piece notes, Kennedy mentions Citgo and Venezuela, not Chavez directly, which makes this seem more like corporate publicity — which, sure, does benefit Chavez, but so what? I’d expect this from any energy company that gave away fuel.

Chavez is a thug, but at this point an elected thug — “just barely prevented” from becoming president for life via a referendum, after all. Since Citizens Energy has been in existence for years (and probably dealing with Venezuela long before Chavez came to power) what criterion should they use for breaking off relations with a government? I recognize that some standard should be used, but is general gasbaggery on the part of the country’s elected leader sufficient?

Besides, to use Ron Paul’s argument, would it really be better to allow Chavez to fill his own coffers with the money?

But maybe I’m underestimating Chavez’ despicability.

Anon