VHeadline.com commentarist Charles Hardy writes: Okay, students. Take out your notebooks and pencils. Sit up straight with feet on the ground and give me your opinion on the following question:

Why did Senator John Kerry come out with such a lopsided statement against President Hugo Chavez a few days ago?

A) He had bad advice.

B) He received money for his campaign.

C) He will get lots of free publicity.

D) All of the above.

At first I was flabbergasted by what I was reading. I thought it was George W. who was speaking or maybe another shenanigan on the part of the opposition press in Caracas. But I went to www.JohnKerry.com and sure enough there it was in red, white, blue and black. Reality set in and I had to ask myself, why?

I finally arrived at these possibilities:

A) He had bad advice. The statement reads as though it were from the mouth of someone in the misnamed Coordinadora Democratica. My guess is that the CD got to Dagoberto Vega, Kerry’s s spokesperson on Latin America, and did a brainwashing job on him.

The statement calls upon the international community to put pressure on Chavez to have a referendum ... yet Chavez has always said that he would abide by the decision of the National Electoral Council. If there are sufficient signatures for a presidential referendum, there will be one. If not, there won’t.

It is the Coordinadora Democratica which has never said that it would be willing to abide by any ruling of the Council. It is another one of those twisting of the truths for which the opposition has become famous.

We are told that President Chavez “has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power.” It was the opposition that backed the coup and the two-month-long lockout/strike that tried to economically cripple the country.

• It was the opposition that rounded up political leaders, beat them and displayed them for the delight of the opposition television viewers.

(By the way “undermined democratic order” were the words used in the October 6, 2003 US News & World Report article on Venezuela. Much of Kerry’s statement seems to be based on that article. You might want to check out my editorial “The CIA News and World Report” which appeared in VHeadline back in November).

His friendship with Fidel Castro “has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.” Is there anything in the Venezuelan Constitution, (which the opposition accuses Chavez of personally writing), that is not in line with democracy? What are those serious questions that the statement mentions? Are Lula and Kirchner to be questioned also because they have had relations with Castro? Didn’t Lula say that Brazil had an obligation to help the poorer countries of Latin America and included Cuba in his list?

Chavez is accused of “allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.” Again, just accept lock, stock and barrel what Linda Robinson said in the US News article.

Very nobly, the statement proclaims that the “referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot permit Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far.”

• Again, BALONEY! The Chavez government brought the referendum concept into the Constitution! And the Chavez government is committed to see that the constitution be observed! Please, do tell us about the opposition’s opposition!

Finally, a blast is taken at the Bush government for what happened in Haiti after criticizing them because it “acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez.” This statement confuses me a bit. Would it have been all right if they acquiesced to a successful coup?

Sure, throw in a pious statement about “leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.” It sounds nice after almost 300 words against one of the most democratic governments Venezuela has ever seen, but it smells bad!

I left a voice message for Dagoberto Vega to call me. Since it is so one-sided, I would like to ask if he consulted with Venezuelan government spokespeople before issuing the Kerry statement. I will be willing to share his thoughts if he returns my call. But for the moment, it seems clear to me that the Kerry campaign needs to do more homework.

B) He received money for his campaign. Every campaign needs funds. It is no secret that Gustavo Cisneros, the wealthiest Venezuelan, contributed to the campaign of Chavez and then turned against him when Chavez didn’t dance to his tune.

Is there any reason to think that the Democratic party will not benefit financially from this stance?

At this moment, it looks as though Kerry will win the forthcoming elections in the US. Anyone with money would have to be a fool to not place a bet on his winning and look for rewards in the world to come.

Cisneros is an important person in the United States and could be a possible generous donor. But there are also many other wealthy Venezuelans in the US and here who would like to see Chavez go.

Will this type of statement by Kerry help the Democratic coffers more than if he came out in favor of the oppressed in Venezuela?

You can answer that yourself. I can assure you that collections are not taken up in the barrios to help political candidates in the US.

C) He will get lots of free publicity. Publicity costs. The help of the owners of the mass media to give free publicity is super-important.

According to an April 2002 article in the New York Times, the Cisneros group was the largest shareholder in Univision which owned, at that time, 18 stations in the United States and distributed yearly over 19,000 hours of programming “to 40 million households in 21 countries on three continents.”

Wow! Get some favorable coverage as news and you don’t have to pay a dime for it.

A political friend in Cheyenne once said that his father (who was also a politician) told him to get his name in the newspaper as much as possible. He said that it didn’t matter if the papers said good or bad about you, the important thing was to get your name and picture out there. I can’t verify if that is true or not, but I can assure you that Kerry’s statement has made the front pages of the opposition newspapers here, and it hasn’t cost him a single Bolivar.

Now students, the next question: Is there any difference between the international policies of the two major political parties in the United States?

A) Yes.

B) No.

C) Sometimes.

D) What two parties are you talking about? I didn’t think there was a difference between the Demoblicans and the Repucrats.

So there you have the quiz, students. After seeing Senator Kerry’s statement on Venezuela, I chose D) in both cases.

Now what are your opinions?

Charlie