At The Economist: My reply to Humberto Capiro

Mr. Capiro, thank you for your comment.
It is easy to agree with Mr. Oppenheimer, in his conclusion:

‘My opinion: If Maduro wants to prove to the world that this year’s legislative elections will not be a sham, he should appoint a credible National Electoral Tribunal — one of the main demands of the student protests that left 43 dead last year — allow an audit of the voting registry, and give opposition candidates equal time on television.
That may be too much to ask to a president who has arrested Venezuela’s top opposition leaders, including democratically elected Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma and Leopoldo López, on bogus charges that are hard to take seriously.
But if the Obama administration and Latin American countries are serious when they say that Venezuela’s crisis should be resolved at the ballot box, they should start demanding Maduro take these steps to clean up the election process —and they should do it now.’

One can only wish that the Neo-Confederate/Originalist Justices on America’s Supreme Court and their Centrist ally Justice Kennedy could have demonstrated the same dedication to a transparent,free, and fair system of voting, that was at the center of Shelby County v. Holder!

On the question of Mr. Dallen, who describes himself as a ‘good capitalist’ said in half-jest in this YouTube video, probably places him in the Anti-Meduro camp, or am I reading too much into it? From the video Mr. Dallen handles himself like an experienced intellectual politician i.e. a think tank good citizen.

But his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee is not on YouTube, nor as I searched under his name and the date of his testimony at C-Span, I was unable to locate it. Would be grateful if you could supply the link or links.

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.