Greta Van Susteren on Sunday took issue with CNN's Howard Kurtz for a report he did on “Reliable Sources.” In it, Kurtz accused the cable news network of going “out of its way to avoid a lot of reporting on its parent company's troubles” involving the British tabloid “News of the World” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Continue reading …Britain’s top police officer has resigned and turned on the prime minister in a dramatic escalation of the phone hacking scandal Britain’s top police officer has resigned and turned on the prime minister in a dramatic escalation of the phone hacking scandal. In a carefully-worded resignation speech that appeared aimed directly at Downing Street, Sir Paul Stephenson, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said the prime minister risked being “compromised” by his closeness to former
Continue reading …Nothing reminds me to take my blood pressure medicine like another Sunday morning in Absurdistan! Is it just me, or is it crazy to turn the deficit “crisis” into a political argument, and not an economic one? Have the Villagers so completely bought into the Grand Bargain narrative that it doesn’t even occur to them that this is a really bad idea? Oh, you already know the answer. These shows are nothing more than a high school vanity project for the Village elders. And that, of course, includes the media “journalists” who take part. What an incoherent mess. Why does multimillionaire host Christian Amanpour [$2m salary, married to James Rubin , executive editor at Bloomberg News, adjunct professor at Columbia University, salaries unknown] allow Sen. Jon Kyl [worth between $519,090 to $746,082 ] to get away with saying a targeted tax increase on billionaire hedge fund managers is a “job killer”? She probably asks tougher questions of her 11-year-old son. And OMB head Jacob Lew [In 2009, got $944,578 bailout bonus after working for Citigroup, where his salary was $1.1 million and "additional compensation". Current salary unknown] speaks in spin, all of which whizzes past Amanpour like a whiffle ball. Could we just once have a real discussion on the nuts and bolts of the issues, instead of partisan spin? AMANPOUR: This morning there are reports of a resurrected grand bargain. So, is a breakthrough on the horizon? Joining me, a man at the heart of these tense negotiations, White House budget director Jack Lew. Thank you for joining me. LEW: Good to be here, Christiane. AMANPOUR: How worried should the American people be? Is the country going to default? Is a deal at hand? LEW: I do not believe that responsible leaders in Washington will force this to default. I think that all of the leaders of congress and the president have acknowledged that we must raise the debt limit. And the question is how? I think the question is, do we do more than that? Do we do as much as we can to reduce the deficit and provide some assurance that we’re taking seriously the fiscal problems this country faces? AMANPOUR: So is there a grand bargain still on the table? LEW: Well, I think that there’s multiple tracts that are being discussed. It’s not a given how we get to raising the debt limit. There are some extreme voices that are saying, we should push it over the edge. I think the risk of taking that path is just enormous. The present referred to it as Armageddon. It would mean higher interest rates, which are taxed on all Americans, it would undermine our standing in the world and it could have a cloud for a long time over the United States. I think the question how we get there — Senator McConnell, Senator Reid have been working on a path that would, in fact, give congress perhaps a way to get that done. I [think] the challenge is doing more. It’s not enough for us just to do what we have to do. We have to do as much as we possibly can to deal with the fiscal challenges. AMANPOUR: Sitting here today with the time ticking away. What do you think is the realistic? Will it be the McConnell sort of last-ditch effort which allows the president to raise the debt ceiling and allows Republicans or anybody to register their disapproval of it? LEW: I think that what we face now is not a challenge of do we have the time. It’s a question, do we have the will. The president has shown through his leadership that we must take action, we must take it now. He’s spoken to the issue in his State of the Union, in his budget, he spoke to it over the last few days to the public. He is pressing these discussions forward that we should do as much as we can. And he’s willing to take on some very, very difficult issues that will require for both sides to move into areas to make them uncomfortable to get this done. AMANPOUR: Well, let’s talk about entitlements. The Democrats, you’ve heard Nancy Pelosi, you’ve heard Senator Reid talk about not touching entitlement. Is that just a public posture or will that be part of a deal? LEW: I think it’s very, very hard for Democrats to make these changes in entitlement programs and for good reason. They have an effect on people that’s really very significant. We are concerned first and foremost about the stability of Medicare as a system to provide for the medical needs of our elderly. It does contribute to the problems we face in terms of rising costs over the years. The challenge is could we get a balanced package together? It’s not fair to ask senior citizens to pay a price, to ask families paying for their college educations, for their children to pay a price , but to leave the most privileged out of the bargain. And everything has to be on the table. Um, Jack? We’ve already paid a price. High unemployment, declining wages and public services. We had our turn, leave us out of this “balance” argument. It’s their turn, the rich people. The people like you – and Christiane. AMANPOUR: But who would be part of the big deal — entitlement cuts, correct? LEW: I think the president made clear that, depending on the size of the package, there would be different kinds of things that could be done in entitlements. There are some relatively small technical changes and there are structural changes. In order to get the kinds of structural reforms that would be needed in a long run, there has to be a balanced package that puts taxes, revenues as well as spending on the table. There’s that “balance” fetish again. Hey Jack, WE PAID AT THE OFFICE!!! AMANPOUR: Does the president have his own plan? What is on the table? You saw Speaker Boehner saying where are the president’s cards? LEW: I think Speaker knows quite well how far the president is willing to go. There have been detailed conversations on many, many subjects. And I think the president has shown that he’s willing to move into space that is a very hard place for Democrats to go . And the challenge is, can we find a place where there will be some kind of fairness and balance. And leadership takes partnership as well. The president has shown a willingness to go there. We need a partner to work with. Yes, and apparently leadership takes deep cynicism and an abiding faith in disreputable economic theories — that just happen to dovetail with the desires of the elite. Funny how that works out! AMANPOUR: If it gets down to that, would the president, as Representative Cantor suggest, do a one-year extension to save the country from going into default? LEW: The president has been very clear on that subject. It would be a very unacceptable outcome to have… AMANPOUR: But would he do it? LEW: He’s made clear that he will not have this debate over should we raise the national debt a year from now. It would be a bad thing for the economy and a bad thing for the country. AMANPOUR: So to be clear, he could be pushed into default then? LEW: I do not believe the country will be pushed into default. I think congress knows what it has to do. It’s got time do it. The president has made clear what he is prepared to do and the parties are going to have to come together. It’s kind of unfortunate that things always have to get to the last minute. Sometimes there are no consequences, right now, we’re in a place where the world is watching. And we should get our business done, congress should get its job done and the president has been working every day for the last month trying to work with them to get it done. AMANPOUR: And some kind of a deal, whether it’s the grand bargain, or the Mitch McConnell last-ditch effort, plus whatever it might be. Would the president agree to any deal that does not include revenue raising? LEW: I think the president made clear that there are reasonable steps that can be made to reduce spending. We’ve already made many, many deep cuts in spending. There’s more restraint that we think is in order. He has made it clear that for a big deal, there will have to be balance between revenue and spending. The question is how much can we get done? And the president’s view is clear. We should get as much done as we possibly can to give assurance to the market and to the American people that we got our fiscal house in order. No matter who we have to screw and leave by the side of the road. Tough luck, chumpies! AMANPOUR: So if you had to predict right now, what would be the deal that will get done to avoid this deadline, this potential catastrophe as we’re calling it? LEW: So I think the minimum is I believe the debt will be extended. I think notwithstanding the voices of a few who are willing to play with Armageddon, responsible leaders in Washington or not. Our efforts over the next days will be to, in addition to that, do as much as we possibly can to make the tough decisions — this is a question of leaders coming together and saying, we are going to do hard things on both sides. And the time is now, as the president said, if not now, when. Yes, because that’s what disaster capitalism is all about : Seizing the opportunity. AMANPOUR: On that note, Jack Lew, thank you so much of you for joining us. LEW: Thank you. NOTE: I’m continuing my little experiment (inspired by this ) of illustrating just how large a class divide exists between us and our elected representatives. As has been reported elsewhere, members of Congress seem to have amazing luck with the stock market – frequently beating the Street by significant margins. So let’s keep in mind that their interests may not always align with ours.
Continue reading …Prime minister cancels plans to visit Rwanda and Sudan but will use visit in South Africa to speak about debt and free trade David Cameron begins a two-day visit to Africa which has been curtailed to allow the prime minister to fly home early to finalise the terms and membership of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry into the media. In his first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as prime minister, Cameron will fly into South Africa with a message that an African free trade area could increase GDP across the continent by more than it currently receives in aid. He will praise his generation for marching against African debt and for holding concerts to raise funds for aid to the continent. But in article in the South African Business Day he will call for a change of approach. “They have never once had a march or a concert to call for what will in the long term save far more lives and do far more good – an African free trade area,” he writes. But Cameron’s free trade message is likely to be overshadowed by events back home following the arrest of Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of News International, who entertained the prime minister at her Oxfordshire home over the Christmas period. Downing Street aides, who had at one point considered cancelling the trip altogether at the height of the phone-hacking crisis last week, instead decided to cut it back from four days to two. Cameron will now just visit South Africa and Nigeriaon Tuesday. Plans to visit Rwanda and Sudan have been scrapped. Time has been found in the diary to allow No 10 aides – and possibly the prime minister – to watch the appearance by Rupert and James Murdoch. The prime minister will fly home late on Tuesday to allow him to finalise the arrangements for Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry in four areas The first area will look at the terms of reference for the two elements of the inquiry – the first one focusing on media regulation and the second, presided over by Leveson, that will examine the alleged wrong doing and relations between the police and the media. The second part will not begin its work until after the criminal investigation. The remaining three areas are the membership of the panel, which will examine media regulation over the next 12 months; the start date for Lord Leveson, and the size and location of the secretariat that will assist Leveson. One No 10 aide said: “Of course events have intervened to curtail the trip to Africa. We really need to get the arrangements for the inquiry done and dusted by the end of this week because civil servants head off on their holidays by the end of July. But there were other good reasons to visit Africa for slightly less time. Just look at the state of the eurozone.” Cameron will try to use his visit to the two largest economies in sub-Saharan Africa to highlight the importance of creating a free trade area in Africa. Accompanied by a 25-strong business delegation including the Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond, he will say that such an area could boost GDP by $62bn (£38.4bn) a year – $20bn more than the world gives sub-Saharan Africa in aid every year. In an article in the South Africa Business Day, the prime minister writes: “In the past, there were marches in the west to drop the debt. There were concerts to increase aid. And it was right that the world responded. “But they have never once had a march or a concert to call for what will in the long term save far more lives and do far more good — an African free trade area. The key to Africa’s progress is not just aid. It is time for some fresh thinking. “Consider these facts. An African free trade area could increase GDP across the continent by an estimated $62bn a year. That’s $20bn more than the world gives sub-Saharan Africa in aid. Backed by investment in people and infrastructure, sound government and effective tax systems, imagine what this would mean: businesses growing, new jobs on offer, families on the up, living standards transformed.” Britain supported the decision last month at the tripartite summit in South Africa to launch negotiations on a free trade area covering 26 member states. This came 20 years after the signing of the Abuja treaty which agreed to establish the African Economic Community by 2028. Britain is providing assistance through the Africa Free Trade Initiative in three ways: helping to reduce tariff barriers, reducing bureaucracy, and advising on infrastructure bottlenecks. Britain is also investing more than £160m between now and 2015 to help ease trade by halving delays at 10 key border crossings. One factor which persuaded the prime minister to press ahead with visiting Africa’s two economic powerhouses is the challenge of keeping up with China which dominates trade across the continent. Cameron will meet Nigeria’s newly elected president Goodluck Jonathan who has taken personal charge of improving power supplies in Africa’s largest oil producing country which has little refining capacity. Nigeria, with a population of 155 million, is the world’s seventh largest country and seventh biggest oil exporter. But it has the same amount of grid power as Bradford, according to the Economist. PM’s African delegation Major blue chips 1. Aggreko (Rupert Soames, CEO) 2. Barclays (Bob Diamond, CEO) 3. Coal Authority (Philip Lawrence, CEO) 4. De La Rue (Tim Cobbold, CEO) 5. Diageo (Nick Blazquez, president, Africa) 6. G4S (David Taylor-Smith, CEO, UK, Ireland and Africa) 7. International Hospitals Group (Hertford King, CEO) 8. Mott MacDonald (Keith Howells, chairman) 9. PWC (Ian Powell, chairman and senior partner) 10. Royal Mint (Adam Lawrence, CEO) 11. Turner and Townsend (Vincent Clancy, CEO) 12. Vodafone (Vittorio Colao) 13. Waitrose (Mark Price, MD) Private equity firms 14. Aureos Capital (Sev Vettivetpillai, CEO/CIO) 15. Omidyar (Stephen King) 16. CDC (Rod Evison, acting CEO, managing director, Africa) SMEs and others 17. All Amber (Matthew Dawes, MD) 18. Frontline SMS (Ken Banks, founder) 19. Monitise plc (Alastair Lukies, CEO, co-founder) 20. Osannimu (Alaka Ayodeji, managing partner) 21. Wired Magazine (David Rowan, editor) 22. English Premier League (Bill Bush, director of comms/public policy) 23. Supersport (Imtiaz Patel and Tex Texeira) 24. Perimeter Institute (Neil Turok, founder) 25. School for StartUps (Doug Richard, founder) David Cameron Phone hacking Africa Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Former Egyptian president in stable medical condition according to sources at Sharm el-Sheikh hospital Hosni Mubarak is believed to be in a stable medical condition, following earlier reports suggesting the former Egyptian president had slipped into a coma. The 83-year-old is currently in a hospital in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh, awaiting trial on charges of corruption and the unlawful killing of protesters during this year’s nationwide uprising against his rule. “I was informed about the sudden deterioration in Mubarak’s health and I am now on my way to Sharm el-Sheikh,” said Mubarak’s lawyer Farid el-Deeb. “All that I know so far is that the president is in a full coma.” But sources at the hospital where Mubarak is being treated denied there had been any decline in his condition. The facility’s director told state television that el-Deeb’s comments were inaccurate. Speculation about Mubarak’s medical condition has been rife since the western-backed dictator was toppled in February, and has intensified in recent weeks as the scheduled date of his court case, August 3rd, fast approaches. Rumours of Mubarak falling into a coma have circulated before, as have allegations that he has secretly travelled to Saudi Arabia for hospital treatment despite a judicial ruling ordering him to remain under detention in Sharm. His two sons Alaa and Gamal – the latter being Mubarak’s one-time heir-apparent to the presidency – have both been remanded in custody at Tora Prison in Cairo, and are also scheduled to face trial next month. If convicted of ordering police to open fire on unarmed demonstrators, Mubarak could face the death penalty. Almost a thousand people died in the 18-day revolt, and seeing Mubarak in the dock has been a key demand of protesters – tens of thousands of whom have returned to the streets in recent weeks calling on the interim authorities to speed up the process of holding Mubarak and senior members of his regime to account. Egypt’s Supreme Council of Armed Forces (Scaf), which assumed power in February and has promised to give way to a democratically-elected civilian government later this year, has been accused of leniency towards the country’s former leader, who was not put under arrest until several weeks after his resignation. The postponement of other key court cases, such as that of former interior minister Habib el-Adly, has generated an angry backlash from ordinary Egyptians and helped fuel violent street clashes between protesters and police in Cairo, Suez and other cities earlier this month. Hosni Mubarak Egypt Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Africa Protest Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Taliban claim responsibility for attack less than a week after assassination of president’s brother Gunmen strapped with explosives killed a close adviser to Afghan president Hamid Karzai and a member of parliament on Sunday in another insurgent strike against the Afghan leader’s inner circle. Jan Mohammad Khan was an adviser to Karzai on tribal issues and was close to the president, a fellow Pashtun. His killing, which the Taliban claimed responsibility for, came less than a week after the assassination of Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president’s half brother and one of the most powerful men in southern Afghanistan. Two men wearing suicide bomb vests and armed with guns attacked Khan’s home in the western Kabul district of Karti Char, said Defence Ministry official General Zahir Wardak. Khan, who was governor of the Pashtun-dominated Uruzgan province in the south from 2002 until March 2006, was shot along with Uruzgan lawmaker Mohammed Ashim Watanwal, the official said. Police killed one of the attackers before he could detonate his explosives, while the other was still barricaded inside the home, said the head of the Kabul police investigation unit, Mohammed Zahir. A member of the police’s anti-terrorism unit was also killed, he added. The surviving gunman was alone in the house, Zahir said. The assassination came as international military forces handed over security for Bamiyan province to Afghan security forces, part of a transition process in which seven areas are to be handed over to Karzai’s government this month. It also came one day before General David Petraeus, the top Nato commander in Afghanistan, hands over responsibility for the military campaign in Afghanistan to his replacement, Lieutenant General John Allen. It was unclear how influential Khan was with Karzai, but he was thought to wield considerable influence in Uruzgan. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the attack on behalf of the insurgent group. Mujahid said the Taliban killed Khan because he was assisting coalition forces in carrying out night raids against Afghans. The controversial raids carried out by Nato forces have been highly effective in capturing or killing Taliban fighters and mid-level commanders. Karzai has complained the raids anger many Afghans who are mistakenly targeted. “He was cooperating and helping the American forces,” Mujahid said in an emailed statement. The Taliban had also claimed responsibility for Tuesday’s killing of Karzai’s half brother, who was shot dead by a close associate. Wali Karzai’s death left the president without an influential ally to balance the interests of the southern region’s tribal and political leaders, drug runners, insurgents and militias. Sunday’s violence marred the handover of control of a peaceful province in the centre of the country to Afghan police, another step in a transition that will allow foreign troops to withdraw in full by the end of 2014. Bamiyan province is one of seven areas going to Afghan security control this month in a first round of the transition. Another, Panjshir province in the east, began being transferred earlier this month. Both places have seen little to no fighting since the overthrow of the Taliban nearly 10 years ago and barely had any coalition troop presence. The transition to Afghan control will allow international military forces to slowly start withdrawing from Afghanistan until all combat troops are gone in just over three years. Bamiyan only had a small foreign troop contingent from New Zealand. Bamiyan and Panjshir are the only two provinces that will be handed over in their entirety during this month’s transition phase. Other areas to be handed over are the provincial capitals of Lashkar Gah in southern Afghanistan, Herat in the west, Mazer-e-Sharif in the north and Mehterlam in the east. Afghan forces will also take control of all of Kabul province except for the restive Surobi district. In other violence on Sunday, Afghan and Nato troops fought an overnight gunbattle with Taliban insurgents and called in an air strike on the building where the fighters were holed up. At least 13 Taliban were killed. Also on Sunday, Nato said three of its service members died. One was killed by a roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan and two were killed by a similar device in the south. It did not release their nationalities or any further details. The deaths bring the total number of coalition forces killed this month to 34. Afghanistan Middle East Hamid Karzai Ahmed Wali Karzai Taliban Nato David Petraeus guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media After chatting during a commercial break that they weren’t going to touch the Murdoch scandals, this weekend Fox’s supposed “media watchdog” site devoted their first two segments to it. ‘Fox News Watch’ Covers Hacking Scandal For Two Segments : Last week, “Fox News Watch” FNC’s media criticism show was criticized for not covering the hacking scandal involving its parent company, News Corp. On this weekend’s edition, host Jon Scott led with the scandal, revealing the latest details — or almost latest, since the show was taped before Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton resigned late yesterday — and spending two segments of the half hour show on the growing scandal. Cal Thomas , who last week said “I’m not touching it,” blamed News Corp.’s competitors for blowing up the story in order to end News Corp’s bid to take over BSkyB… which it did last week . “The left has been out to get News Corp. and especially Fox News Channel and the Murdoch family for years,” said Thomas. Panelist and former Fox News host Alan Colmes , said don’t blame the left. This knee jerk, ‘let’s blame the liberals, let’s blame the left. They’re out to get the News Corporation and out to get Mr. Murdoch.’ There has to be some personal responsibility and look, Mr. Murdoch seems to be taking that and put out an apology and visited the family of [ Milly Dowler ]. But there has to be personal responsibility and stop blaming the left and liberal media like it’s the liberals fault this happened. And during the second segment, Jim Pinkerton complained that if the DOJ did launch an investigation, it would of course be evidence of an agenda by the White House. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …Click here to view this media A top Democrat Sunday accused Republicans of demanding a balanced budget amendment to “manipulate” the Constitution and end Medicare as it exists today. “What is wrong with ‘cut, cap and balance’ and what are the chances it will get through the House, through the Senate and signed by the president?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “No one should be fooled about this,” Van Hollen said. “They’re not proposing a clean balanced budget amendment. What they are proposing is to manipulate the Constitution and use it to impose the Republican budget plan. He continued: “If you look at that plan, it does end the Medicare guarantee. It slashes Medicaid. It slashes deeply to education and it protects tax breaks for special interests. They would write that into the United States Constitution. Under their proposal, it would be easier to cut Medicare than to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies. You have majority vote to cut Medicare and majority vote to create special interest loopholes. You need two-thirds to close tax breaks. That is an anti-majoritarian position. The framers would be turning in their grave if they read their provision.”
Continue reading …Click here to view this media A top Democrat Sunday accused Republicans of demanding a balanced budget amendment to “manipulate” the Constitution and end Medicare as it exists today. “What is wrong with ‘cut, cap and balance’ and what are the chances it will get through the House, through the Senate and signed by the president?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “No one should be fooled about this,” Van Hollen said. “They’re not proposing a clean balanced budget amendment. What they are proposing is to manipulate the Constitution and use it to impose the Republican budget plan. He continued: “If you look at that plan, it does end the Medicare guarantee. It slashes Medicaid. It slashes deeply to education and it protects tax breaks for special interests. They would write that into the United States Constitution. Under their proposal, it would be easier to cut Medicare than to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies. You have majority vote to cut Medicare and majority vote to create special interest loopholes. You need two-thirds to close tax breaks. That is an anti-majoritarian position. The framers would be turning in their grave if they read their provision.”
Continue reading …Venezuela left without interim president as leader receives chemotherapy, sparking fears about future government He had been home for less than two weeks. Long enough to milk the adulation from his fanbase. Not long enough to dispel the cloud of uncertainty over Venezuela’s future. Now that cloud has become darker with the news that Hugo Chávez is to return to Cuba for chemotherapy to treat his abdominal cancer, the severity of which is still unknown. As he flew out of Caracas at the weekend, Chávez left both friends and foes speculating about the future of Venezuela – and wondering if chavismo can survive without its namesake and founder. Chávez, who did not specify a return date, left the vice-president, Elías Jaua, and his minister of finance, Jorge Giordani, in charge of carrying out his instructions in his absence. But, tellingly, neither was sworn in as interim president. Constitutionally speaking, Chávez can be away for up to 180 days, at which point a vice-president would be sworn in to act as president until the next elections, due in December 2012. In reality, few believe Venezuela can be governed from afar for long. Many have interpreted Chávez’s refusal to name just one successor, and his vehement calls for unity, as a clear sign that the fissures within chavismo run deeper than chavistas themselves want to admit. For the political analyst John Magdaleno, the official announcement of Chávez’s cancer brought to light the many factions within chavismo. “It is a point of no return, whereby the small factions are not going to stop vying for the overall leadership,” he said. For the past 12 years, Chávez has amalgamated a coalition of political actors from across the spectrum under his homemade brand of populist ideology that mixes socialist programmes with Bolivarian instincts and strong anti-imperialist rhetoric aimed chiefly at the main export market for Venezuela’s biggest revenue earner, oil. Amid the uncertainty swirling in Caracas are three questions. The first involves the severity of Chávez’s illness and the extent of any likely incapacitation. On this, the president has given few hints. In one of the few cryptic references to his illness, he has deemed his cancer “as one of the best, not the kind that many [of my enemies] would wish upon me”. Before he left at the weekend, he told supporters that the cancer was not advanced. “No other malignant cell has been detected in my body,” he said. A former vice-president, José Vicente Rangel, said in a recent interview that finding a successor to Chávez would not be necessary because although “Chávez is ill, his condition is not critical”. But the illness has focused attention on the fact that at some point Venezuela will have a new leader. And so the second question: who might succeed him? Before Chávez’s unexpected return from Cuba on 4 July, the names of successors within chavismo ranged from the logical vice-president Jaua to the constitutionally impossible Adán Chávez, his brother and the governor of their home state, Barinas, and Chávez’s own daughter, Ma Gabriela, who more often accompanies Chávez in his public appearances. The leader himself has given few clues. Javier Corrales, professor of political science at Amherst College in Massachusetts, said Chávez could easily raise the profile of a chosen heir if it became clear that he could not carry on as president. “Chávez could do miracles, including raising
Continue reading …