The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Regional Democracy At Work

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

Polimom — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:33:58 -0000

What, in the name of the political gods, is a "regional democracy"?

And then there&#39s this:

"I know that your real reason for carrying out this pretense is because Velaya is a leftist, supported by other leftist leaders in the region, and Velaya&#39s political opponents in the Honduran government are conservative or right-wing. If it&#39s against a leftist, then it&#39s perfectly democratic and legal, and not a coup."

Jeesum. I gotta agree with DaGoat: you&#39re sounding really paranoid, Kathy.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

Polimom — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:33:58 -0000

What, in the name of the political gods, is a "regional democracy"?

And then there's this:

"I know that your real reason for carrying out this pretense is because Velaya is a leftist, supported by other leftist leaders in the region, and Velaya's political opponents in the Honduran government are conservative or right-wing. If it's against a leftist, then it's perfectly democratic and legal, and not a coup."

Jeesum. I gotta agree with DaGoat: you're sounding really paranoid, Kathy.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

EEllis — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:35:44 -0000

And Clintons reponse? The "isolation" that Obama&#39s admin has promised? That is hardly "no preference", and the claim that it does borders on the absurd.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

EEllis — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:35:44 -0000

And Clintons reponse? The "isolation" that Obama's admin has promised? That is hardly "no preference", and the claim that it does borders on the absurd.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

kathykattenburg — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:45:07 -0000

Oh, and also: Pres. Obama most definitely did not "take sides" in the Honduran coup. He said, "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections." He said "he would work with the Organization of American States and other international institutions to restore Zelaya to power and &#39see if we can resolve this in a peaceful way.&#39 "

He expressed no preference for either Zelaya&#39s administration or for his political opponents. He said only that political differences between the two should be resolved peacefully, in democratic elections, NOT by military force.

This is similar to the approach he used with Iran, in which he expressed no preference for the dissenters&#39 point of view over the current government of Iran, but merely said that violence was not an appropriate way to resolve the conflict and that people everywhere and anywhere had the right to non-violently protest government policies.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

kathykattenburg — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:34:23 -0000

I honestly don&#39t know whether the interim president is any less of a leftist than Zelaya (since you&#39re upset I&#39m guessing he&#39s not a leftist), but that&#39s not relevant to the issue on whether Zelaya was legitimately removed.

It&#39s certainly relevant to most of the people -- bloggers, readers, media pundits, etc. -- who are saying that overthrowing Zelaya and exiling him was the correct thing to do. However, if you mean it shouldn&#39t be relevant, that&#39s another thing.

The phrase "legitimately removed" is problematic because that word, "legitimate," has several different nuances of meaning -- it is not necessarily synonymous with "legal." For example, the final result of the 2000 U.S. presidential election was reached via a legal process, but the result, in my view and the view of many other Americans, was not at all legitimate -- it was a political outcome, and one in which the U.S. Supreme Court should never have involved itself. And no, I&#39m not trying to start a side argument; I&#39m simply using this as an example to explain why I cannot and do not agree with the assertion that Zelaya was "legitimately removed.

What are the consequences provided by the Honduran constitution for the president having a difference of opinion with Congress and the Supreme Court over whether it is permissible to ask the Honduran people, via nonbinding ballot initiative, whether they agree to convene a constitutional assembly to explore the possibility of amending the part of the Constitution that deals with term limits? Let&#39s set aside the issue of whether doing such is a heinous constitutional offense, or a perfectly acceptable thing to do in a democracy. What are the prescribed consequences under the Honduran constitution?

If you tell me that the prescribed consequences for doing the above are having the Supreme Court order the military to enter the presidential palace by force, wake the sleeping president and force him to leave the palace, get in a car, be driven to the airport, and then flown permanently out of the country, I&#39m going to say I very much doubt that.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

DaGoat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:16:14 -0000

And I say "pretending" because I know you don&#39t actually believe that U.S. foreign policy should be identical all over the globe, but you are pretending that you do. And because I know that your real reason for carrying out this pretense is because Velaya is a leftist, supported by other leftist leaders in the region, and Velaya&#39s political opponents in the Honduran government are conservative or right-wing. If it&#39s against a leftist, then it&#39s perfectly democratic and legal, and not a coup.

Your comments are approaching paranoia, Kathy. Unlike many conservatives I thought Obama was right not to choose sides in Iran, although I did criticize him for not speaking out more strongly against the violence. I also complimented him when he finally did speak out more forcefully. If this is all left-hating on my part why did I do that? Just to fake you out?

Now I think Obama is wrong for taking sides with Honduras for the same reasons I thought he was right with Iran. While I think the use of the military was improper and overdone, as far as I can tell the decisions of the Congress and Supreme Court were legal. I honestly don&#39t know whether the interim president is any less of a leftist than Zelaya (since you&#39re upset I&#39m guessing he&#39s not a leftist), but that&#39s not relevant to the issue on whether Zelaya was legitimately removed.

It is possible to try and look at issues without checking your party&#39s position first.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

kathykattenburg — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:16:27 -0000

you&#39ve decided to look at this in the context of winning some future comments discussion instead of looking at the issue itself.

Who is it who is not looking at the issue, DaGoat? If you were looking at the issue, you would not be pretending that Iran and Honduras are the same country with the same history, the same political realities, the same strategic and historic relationship with the United States. If you were actually looking at the issue of what&#39s happened in Honduras and what the U.S. response to it should be, you would not be pretending that you believe the United States should have a "fine with us, no problem" foreign policy because to express concern, opposition, or disapproval would be "meddling in the internal affairs of another country."

And I say "pretending" because I know you don&#39t actually believe that U.S. foreign policy should be identical all over the globe, but you are pretending that you do.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

kathykattenburg — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:45:07 -0000

He expressed no preference for either Zelaya's administration or for his political opponents. He said only that political differences between the two should be resolved peacefully, in democratic elections, NOT by military force.

This is similar to the approach he used with Iran, in which he expressed no preference for the dissenters' point of view over the current government of Iran, but merely said that violence was not an appropriate way to resolve the conflict and that people everywhere and anywhere had the right to non-violently protest government policies.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

kathykattenburg — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:34:23 -0000

I honestly don't know whether the interim president is any less of a leftist than Zelaya (since you're upset I'm guessing he's not a leftist), but that's not relevant to the issue on whether Zelaya was legitimately removed.

It's certainly relevant to most of the people -- bloggers, readers, media pundits, etc. -- who are saying that overthrowing Zelaya and exiling him was the correct thing to do. However, if you mean it shouldn't be relevant, that's another thing.

The phrase "legitimately removed" is problematic because that word, "legitimate," has several different nuances of meaning -- it is not necessarily synonymous with "legal." For example, the final result of the 2000 U.S. presidential election was reached via a legal process, but the result, in my view and the view of many other Americans, was not at all legitimate -- it was a political outcome, and one in which the U.S. Supreme Court should never have involved itself. And no, I'm not trying to start a side argument; I'm simply using this as an example to explain why I cannot and do not agree with the assertion that Zelaya was "legitimately removed.

What are the consequences provided by the Honduran constitution for the president having a difference of opinion with Congress and the Supreme Court over whether it is permissible to ask the Honduran people, via nonbinding ballot initiative, whether they agree to convene a constitutional assembly to explore the possibility of amending the part of the Constitution that deals with term limits? Let's set aside the issue of whether doing such is a heinous constitutional offense, or a perfectly acceptable thing to do in a democracy. What are the prescribed consequences under the Honduran constitution?

If you tell me that the prescribed consequences for doing the above are having the Supreme Court order the military to enter the presidential palace by force, wake the sleeping president and force him to leave the palace, get in a car, be driven to the airport, and then flown permanently out of the country, I'm going to say I very much doubt that.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

$199537 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:16:14 -0000

And I say "pretending" because I know you don't actually believe that U.S. foreign policy should be identical all over the globe, but you are pretending that you do. And because I know that your real reason for carrying out this pretense is because Velaya is a leftist, supported by other leftist leaders in the region, and Velaya's political opponents in the Honduran government are conservative or right-wing. If it's against a leftist, then it's perfectly democratic and legal, and not a coup.

Your comments are approaching paranoia, Kathy. Unlike many conservatives I thought Obama was right not to choose sides in Iran, although I did criticize him for not speaking out more strongly against the violence. I also complimented him when he finally did speak out more forcefully. If this is all left-hating on my part why did I do that? Just to fake you out?

Now I think Obama is wrong for taking sides with Honduras for the same reasons I thought he was right with Iran. While I think the use of the military was improper and overdone, as far as I can tell the decisions of the Congress and Supreme Court were legal. I honestly don't know whether the interim president is any less of a leftist than Zelaya (since you're upset I'm guessing he's not a leftist), but that's not relevant to the issue on whether Zelaya was legitimately removed.

It is possible to try and look at issues without checking your party's position first.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

DLS — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:15:47 -0000

Leftist neurosis and obscession about this event is disheartening (also inexcuseable, but it&#39s here. [shrug]).

I&#39m also surprised that Father Time would be so short-sighted as to spare the USA from similar "liberation" that so many lefties would want, albeit more commonly imposed from within Washington instead of at the hands of others. (Plus the beloved Soviet Union is no more.)

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

DaGoat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:38:30 -0000

That&#39s great Kathy, you&#39ve decided to look at this in the context of winning some future comments discussion instead of looking at the issue itself. Why is appropriate to meddle in Honduran internal affairs and override the decision of their Congress and Supreme Court?

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

kathykattenburg — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:16:27 -0000

you've decided to look at this in the context of winning some future comments discussion instead of looking at the issue itself.

Who is it who is not looking at the issue, DaGoat? If you were looking at the issue, you would not be pretending that Iran and Honduras are the same country with the same history, the same political realities, the same strategic and historic relationship with the United States. If you were actually looking at the issue of what's happened in Honduras and what the U.S. response to it should be, you would not be pretending that you believe the United States should have a "fine with us, no problem" foreign policy because to express concern, opposition, or disapproval would be "meddling in the internal affairs of another country."

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

kathykattenburg — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:11:34 -0000

Obama should use the same approach he used to Iran&#39s internal politics - stay out of it.

DaGoat, I am going to hold on to this comment and show it to you again when you tell us, in the context of a future conflict, that different countries require different approaches.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

DLS — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:15:47 -0000

Leftist neurosis and obscession about this event is disheartening (also inexcuseable, but it's here. [shrug]).

I'm also surprised that Father Time would be so short-sighted as to spare the USA from similar "liberation" that so many lefties would want, albeit more commonly imposed from within Washington instead of at the hands of others. (Plus the beloved Soviet Union is no more.)

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

DaGoat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:47:15 -0000

Obama should use the same approach he used to Iran&#39s internal politics - stay out of it. As with Iran he is going to have to work with whoever is president of Honduras, and there is no reason to galvanize the Honduran people by taking sides.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

$199537 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:38:30 -0000

That's great Kathy, you've decided to look at this in the context of winning some future comments discussion instead of looking at the issue itself. Why is appropriate to meddle in Honduran internal affairs and override the decision of their Congress and Supreme Court?

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

kathykattenburg — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:11:34 -0000

Obama should use the same approach he used to Iran's internal politics - stay out of it.

DaGoat, I am going to hold on to this comment and show it to you again when you tell us, in the context of a future conflict, that different countries require different approaches.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

$199537 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:47:15 -0000

Obama should use the same approach he used to Iran's internal politics - stay out of it. As with Iran he is going to have to work with whoever is president of Honduras, and there is no reason to galvanize the Honduran people by taking sides.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

Father_Time — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:40:24 -0000

Venezuela and Cuba should invade from the sea and Nicaragua from the South. This liberation should continue all the way to the Rio Grand putting and end to Central American corrupt states. We should stay out of it of course, but we could donate Texas as a gesture of good will.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

EEllis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:08:20 -0000

"It’s not at all clear that Zelaya did violate the law,"

I guess I&#39m just simple in that the Honduran Supreme Court saying he did violate the constitution not to mention violating without a doubt the new law passed outlawing any referendum so close to a election. So he obviously violated the new law and since it&#39s hard to see your opinion on the Honduran Constitution mattering more than the Honduran Supreme Court. Also you continue to fail to indicate that there doesn&#39t seem to any unilateral actions taken by the military.

Now they need a more official way of impeaching or removing a president then they now have. That is clear. Regardless of how I feel about the legality it&#39s obviously a public relations nightmare and raised the specter of a military coup. That can&#39t be good. I also wonder if as bad as it might be, it&#39s still not better than the possible consequences of leaving Zelaya in power. In a few months they will have a new election and it&#39s hard to see how anyone will still be able to continue action against Honduras at that point. Pres Zelaya would of been gone, the interim Pres has already said he wont be running, the new Pres will be elected the same as he would of been if nothing happened (unless Zelaya majorly interfered with the legal process). So what then?

Me I would hold fast and refuse thinking that would be the safest (assuming they believe the threat of Zelaya is and was real and serious) way to go.

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

keelaay — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:57:32 -0000

Easy. Stay out of it. Not our business. Its their constitution, their consequences, their country. The US has no right to intervene and US citizens have no right to pass judgment (as we individually and even collectively have no knowledge to base our judgment upon). Ms Kattenburg - what is your expertise regarding Honduras and what factual knowledge do you have of their constitutional and political system? I have recently done business in Honduras --- but I wouldn&#39t dare chime in on so complex a national issue from so far a non-vantage point...

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

Father_Time — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:40:24 -0000

Re: Regional Democracy At Work

EEllis — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:08:20 -0000

"It’s not at all clear that Zelaya did violate the law,"

I guess I'm just simple in that the Honduran Supreme Court saying he did violate the constitution not to mention violating without a doubt the new law passed outlawing any referendum so close to a election. So he obviously violated the new law and since it's hard to see your opinion on the Honduran Constitution mattering more than the Honduran Supreme Court. Also you continue to fail to indicate that there doesn't seem to any unilateral actions taken by the military.

Now they need a more official way of impeaching or removing a president then they now have. That is clear. Regardless of how I feel about the legality it's obviously a public relations nightmare and raised the specter of a military coup. That can't be good. I also wonder if as bad as it might be, it's still not better than the possible consequences of leaving Zelaya in power. In a few months they will have a new election and it's hard to see how anyone will still be able to continue action against Honduras at that point. Pres Zelaya would of been gone, the interim Pres has already said he wont be running, the new Pres will be elected the same as he would of been if nothing happened (unless Zelaya majorly interfered with the legal process). So what then?

Me I would hold fast and refuse thinking that would be the safest (assuming they believe the threat of Zelaya is and was real and serious) way to go.