Michael L.,
I didn't understand your comment below. Why is it a bad analogy to support
terms limits for a union President and also support term limits for
President of a socialist movement such as the Bolivarian? The power of a
Presidency in either case leads to a flow of payoffs/perks that can
institutionalize the incumbent and limit the development of the power of
the people. I think it is a pretty useful analogy.
Are you claiming that due to the existence of capitalists in Venezuela the
Bolivarian movement needs unlimited terms? What do capitalists have to do
with the issue at hand?
I have seen it happen that a President fails to encourage the development
of alternative leaders to himself, precisely to be in a position to claim
that he is best one for the position in question (yes, I mean 'he', in this
case). This is pretty serious stuff, in my opinion.
Paul Z.
--On 12/4/2007 12:00 AM -0800 Automatic digest processor wrote:
bad analogy re preventing people from re-electing a leader and
preventing union members from re-electing officers, Paul, unless the
capitalist media is playing an important role in your union elections.
************************************************************************
(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 "a benchmark in 9/11 research"
video summary from Snowshoe Films at http://snowshoefilms.com
(Vol.24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND IN POLAND AND SYRIA
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
