How do these people take themselves seriously? It’s like these liberal reporters try to find the stupidest notion that directly opposes common sense and then expound on it for the dull-witted masses. Today, at the scholars feet, we learn about Hugo Chavez’s democratic impulses. Here are the words Simon Romero of the New York Times uses to describe Chavez:

• self-reinvention
• incredible political instincts
• gambler

The tone of the article could be described as effusive. In the last paragraph, the effects of Chavez’s policies are touched upon:

Indeed, the national temperament is now much less buoyant than in December 2006, when voters re-elected Mr. Chávez to a six-year term, and his handlers may have recognized the shift. Despite record oil prices, economic growth is slowing and inflation is soaring. The nationalization of telephone, electricity, oil and steel companies has scared off foreign investment. While shortages of some items have eased, many basic food items remain in short supply.

Sounds like a socialist paradise. And then, there’s the little detail of Chavez’s funding and supporting terrorists, which gets skeptical mention in the last paragraphs. The FARC funding is alleged. Right.

The writers must get bored with reporting the facts when the facts don’t suit them. Chavez is the most recent example of the failure of the socialist ideology. Don’t tell the media types that, it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Cross-posted at Dr. Melissa Clouthier

0

Comments are closed.