A New El Presidente Wants to Be Born

[Sacrilege]

Reuters Link

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, a former guerrilla fighter, said on Sunday his country should extend presidential term limits after neighboring Honduras toppled its leftist president in a coup over the same issue. Ortega, a U.S. foe during the Cold War, first ruled Nicaragua after taking power in a 1979 Marxist revolution.

Ortega ruled Nicaragua for 11 years as head of the Sandinista's revolutionary government until he was voted out. He returned to power in 2007 but presidents are barred from running consecutively or serving more than two terms.

A call to overhaul the constitution could raise alarm bells in the region already reeling from the crisis in Honduras where President Manuel Zelaya, an Ortega ally, was pushed into exile after he moved to reform laws to allow re-election.

I know people here are divided on the issue of term limits.... I myself am in favor of them. Would 8 more years, or 16, 20 more years of Bill Clinton have been better than Bush's two terms? Maybe. Would having Nixon in power for a quarter century like in Watchmen have been a good idea?

What has Ortega done in Nicaragua to warrant more years in office? I realize if he is the Socialist candidate the poor will automatically vote for him, but is he uniquely qualified and successful compared to his opponents? If anyone can speak to the details of Nicaraguan politics it would be appreciated.

 

[Steeplerot]

These guys are going about the revolution in the wrong way, it is about building up a modern Socialist party the whole time educating the public so new opposition parties will grow challenging the vanguard party so it does not lapse into capitalist reformism and thus stagnation.

Nothing less then a informed highly participatory public and Democratic state will be the Socialism of the 21st century.

The old Stalinist ideas of dictatorship are bankrupt and highly undemocratic and thus counter-revoloutionary, always have been since before the Russian Revolution itself.

It is long past time for the Stalinist and most of the Leninist doctrines to go the way of the CCCP.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Nothing less then a informed highly participatory public and Democratic state will be the Socialism of the 21st century.

The people who vote for that sort of thing only need to be "informed" about how much "free" stuff they'll get from the government in exchange for their vote.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Nothing less then a informed highly participatory public and Democratic state will be the Socialism of the 21st century.

The people who vote for that sort of thing only need to be "informed" about how much "free" stuff they'll get from the government in exchange for their vote.

I have yet to ever in my life hear someone say out loud they are specifically voting for someone because they get more welfare/tax break etc.

This is such a dumb talk radio myth.

People vote for their interests, what their family recognizes themselves as, and/or whoever the corporate media tells them is best looking/someone to have a beer with.

 

[Double Trouble]

People with power will always do whatever is needed to remain in power and gain more power. The longer someone is in power, the more difficult it will get to oust them, especially in third world countries where "el presidente" can make the opposition vanish into some jail. Term limits are a good thing, it prevents the president/party in power from taking anti-democratic steps to try and ensure that they remain in power. The only negative to term limits is that you might force out a good president prematurely, but I find it hard to imagine that a country only has one single good candidate available for a decade or more.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Nothing less then a informed highly participatory public and Democratic state will be the Socialism of the 21st century.

The people who vote for that sort of thing only need to be "informed" about how much "free" stuff they'll get from the government in exchange for their vote.

I have yet to ever in my life hear someone say out loud they are specifically voting for someone because they get more welfare/tax break etc.

This is such a dumb talk radio myth.

People vote for their interests, what their family recognizes themselves as, and/or whoever the corporate media tells them is best looking/someone to have a beer with.

so financial issues are never an "interest"? So, you've never heard anyone talk or say out loud that they will vote for so and so because he will cut taxes or provide healthcare? Really?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Term limits are a necessity in a truly free and democratic society. If one person's ideas are so great, his/her successor can feel free to mimic them during their limited term(s).

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Nothing less then a informed highly participatory public and Democratic state will be the Socialism of the 21st century.

The people who vote for that sort of thing only need to be "informed" about how much "free" stuff they'll get from the government in exchange for their vote.

I have yet to ever in my life hear someone say out loud they are specifically voting for someone because they get more welfare/tax break etc.

This is such a dumb talk radio myth.

I've seen many rich people vote for candidates based on tax cuts for themselves.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: CPA


so financial issues are never an "interest"? So, you've never heard anyone talk or say out loud that they will vote for so and so because he will cut taxes or provide healthcare? Really?

Only thing I have heard of healthcare is it is about time the politician is getting it done, never that it was the ONLY reason. As far as Obama I heard many other reasons. (I was living in a rough part of Oakland, CA during the election)

As far as republican friends, I never heard people say they were voting for a candidate because they were getting a bigger tax return, only that either it was nice to get a new tv and how dumb it is that they got money back when we have so much else to deal with maybe we run in different circles or the fact that I do not know many Reps that would admit such an idiotic thing around me *shrug*

I have yet to run into someone proud of being on welfare unlike the talk radio likes to make (mostly minorities) to be all about. The whole premise stinks of typical ignorant racist bullshit started from Reagans Cadillac driving welfare queen story (that was a lie) but whatever gets your outrage juices flowing, some people seem to really dig being addicted to anger/outrage that the radio feeds them as if there was not real life to deal with. Maybe some people have no lives I guess. Once again not my thing.

This is all my own experiences, granted I don't live in Iowa or Tennessee or something.

 

[Craig234]

The history in the OP is pretty off.

Daniel Ortega was a Sandanista leader, in the classis 'left wing opposition to right-wing tyrant backed by the US', in this case Somoza.

He wasn't any threat to the US, which is absurd to even have to say, when you look at the relative militaries. He was a threat to some US corporations' exploitave profits.

The US government took a group of former Somoza thugs and criminals and formed an army of terrorists, and had them go around assassinating and killing civilians.

The point was to pressure the Nicaraguan people - vote out Noriega, and the terrorism will stop.

The (Democratic) US Congress didn't think think this was such a good idea, and made funding the Contras illegal, while Reagan was calling the terrorists "the moral equivalent of our foundig fathers" in one of the most perverse, evil statements I can think of from a President in history (when he wasn't visiting the sites of murdered civil rights figures or concentration camps in symolic support for something).

Congress made it illegal to fund the terrorists, and that's where the Reagan administration - including VP George H.W. Bush, former CIA director, come in with the illegal, secret fund-raising for the Contras, from selling missiles (though Israel as a middleman, giving them some blackmail power, perhaps helping to explain our senidng US Marines to help them with their Lebanon invasion) and reported drug smuggling.

It worked. The terrorism led the Nicaraguan people to vote him out, to end the violence.

That's a little but the OP left out, why they voted him out. He's not back in power, and last I checked, the US has not been overthrown by Nicaragua.

 

[Drift3r]

Wow color me surprise....NOT!! Hello the Chavez contingent is making a power grab in order to form a communist power block of nations in Central and South America to use in a economic, political and military fashion against the nation they see as a threat to their leftists ideals and this is the Untied States of America. Daniel Ortega and the other lingering remnants of the communist lackies from the 80's just don't realize that their ideology failed but they still see potential in attempting to become the next mini-Castro if they are successful. President for life is not a path to "freedom" it is only a one way ticket to despotism.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Term limits are a necessity in a truly free and democratic society. If one person's ideas are so great, his/her successor can feel free to mimic them during their limited term(s).

A truly free and democratic society should be able to vote for the man who excels at his job for many years and has a proven record, if he is no longer effective he can be voted out; term limits have no true effects on democracy. UK, Canada, Australia and Japan have no term limits and are doing fine. Iran has term limits, and we all know how democratic Iran is as of late. Russia also has term limits; whether or not having Putin out of office directly and having a puppet in his place instead is good for Russia democratically is up to debate. I also would question the democracy involved when only 2 parties have the ability to represent the people irregardless of term limits.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Firebot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Term limits are a necessity in a truly free and democratic society. If one person's ideas are so great, his/her successor can feel free to mimic them during their limited term(s).

A truly free and democratic society should be able to vote for the man who excels at his job for many years and has a proven record, if he is no longer effective he can be voted out; term limits have no true effects on democracy. UK, Canada, Australia and Japan have no term limits and are doing fine. Iran has term limits, and we all know how democratic Iran is as of late. Russia also has term limits; whether or not having Putin out of office directly and having a puppet in his place instead is good for Russia democratically is up to debate. I also would question the democracy involved when only 2 parties have the ability to represent the people irregardless of term limits.

Hey pre-Gulf War 2 Iraq had no term limits and I guess Saddam getting 100% of the vote meant that he was actually popular using your logic. Of course the UK, Canada, Australia and Japan (with US oversight for a while) all have long histories to adhering to the rule of law and the will of the people. A Chavez style removal of term limits will only allow those who seek power to push further to have their rivals and supporters removed permanently so that they can be re-elected over and over again.

Edit: Let me further add that as TheSkinsFan stated correctly if an idea or political party is so great they should be able to withstand term limits. The attempt to remove term limits is an obvious attempt to grab power by guys like Zeyala and now Daniel Ortega. I guess his carpet beggars in Hondurans are working out for him so he is recalling them to see if he can pull the same stunt. In other words this move to remove term limits is not being done for the betterment of the "people" because if you believe that then I got ocean side property for sale in Arizona.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Firebot
I also would question the democracy involved when only 2 parties have the ability to represent the people irregardless of term limits.

in that, and only that, we can agree.