With 15% of the votes, Daniel Ortega, former dictator of Nicaragua, has 40% of the popular vote. If he can keep that margin, he becomes president. If he goes below 35% he goes to a run-off in which he probably loses.

Ortega has literally seen the light, even being rebaptized into the Catholic church, however the financial support of Hugo Chavez suggests that its all window-dressing.

Nicaragua is commonly cited as one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, but its low crime rate and recent inclusion into the central American free trade agreement has attracted considerable foreign investment. That could all evaporate overnight if Ortega gets elected.

I wouldn't ordinarily be too concerned (Ortega's dictatorship doesn't evoke a lot of fond memories from long-suffering Nicaraguans...), but Jimmy Carter is down there...

Augusto Pinochet died yesterday.

Feelings were mixed.

Thousands of jubilant Chileans streamed into the streets of Santiago after hearing that their former president, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, had died Sunday. Many danced and popped open champagne, while caravans of cars with horns blaring toured the capital for hours.

..on the other hand.

"He leaves us today, but I remain proud to support him," said Ivan Moreira, a member of the lower house of Chile's Congress who was with the Pinochet family during a private Mass at the hospital Sunday. Moreira, of the Independent Democratic Union party, said, "I express what so many silent Chileans want to express: loyalty to his government."

Pinochet was 91.

Emotions are still too high to properly write Chiles history during the Pinochet period. The current government has stated that there would be no state funeral or day of mourning as is customary for former presidents--small wonder since the father of the current president, Michelle Bachelet, died shortly after a brief imprisonment.

Pinochet's views on Chilean democracy were complex, even misleading for Americans were democracy and American culture are indistinguishable. Chilean democracy, and perhaps South American democracy as a whole, always seems to inevitably end up with someone a whole lot like Hugo Chavez running it.

“Merely formal democracy dissolves itself, victim of a demagogy that substitutes simple, unattainable promises for social justice and economic prosperity.”Democracy would inevitably result in a Marxist dictatorship, according to his analysis. Chilean democracy, therefore, was “progressively socializing in its economic experiments.... Those who thought they could detain or control this evolution... were given proof under the Marxist regime of their impotence and incomprehensible lack of vision.” (Pinochet, “Patria y Democracia”, 1983, Santiago, Andres Bello)

Sound familiar?

As stated the other day on France 24--Chavez and his buddies are crypto-capitalists; enjoying the lifestyle of the rich and famous even as they feed revolutionary rhetoric to the poor.

Pinochet of course had the rather typical Latin American flaws--greed and excess. He squirreled away 26 million during his time in office and detained a reported 120,000 Chileans. The irony is that this looks positively restrained when compared to Saddam Hussein.

In the end, Pinochet seems to have been the Chilean version of James Polk.

Polk was infamous for starting the Mexican-American war, an act almost universally condemned by historians, but without which this would not be the country it is today. Sometimes a country needs a bastard to move it forward.

Pinochet, Chile's necessary bastard.

UPDATE: The day after I wrote this, I read very similar sentiments in the Washington Post. Well you could have knocked me over with a feather. Sympathies for Castro and other left-wing bullies is rampant in the nations newsroom, but apparently the editors at the Post can't deny the evidence of their eyes.

It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

How incompetent a crypto-capitalist marxist, fascist dictatorship do you have to be to lose a referendum you're supposed to have fixed?

Caracas Chronicles:

NO 51% SÍ 49%

The NO vote must have been huge to have prevented the Chavistas from stealing the referendum. It seems that the time is right for some strategic support for the opposition and the end Cuban-style fascism.

To be completely honest--I did not see this coming.

Gateway Pundit

[I didn't get around to posting this yesterday...]

Hugo Chavez did a good bit of saber-rattling on the weekend.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened to join the rebels in a war to overthrow hard-line Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a key ally of the United States, deploying tanks, fighter jets and thousands of troops along the Colombian border.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa also ordered troops to the border, expelled Colombia's ambassador and recalled its ambassador to Bogota, but left its embassy open. Venezuela closed its embassy in Colombia and ordered all diplomats home.

A weekend battle sparked the mobilization, in which Colombian forces killed a top leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in a camp in Ecuador.

A cardinal rule of South American politics is that when things are going badly domestically--declare war on your neighbor.

The Falklands war resulted from an invasion by Argentina whose military dictator, Leopoldo Galtieri, needed something to distract the populace from the more intransigent problems he was unable to deal with.

Alberto Fujimori of Peru, actually engaged in an autogolpe--a coup against his own government. He simply dismissed Congress and assumed dictatorial powers to the Peruvian's overwhelming approval (strange people those Peruvians...)

This may explain why Hugo Chavez seems to be intent on provoking Colombia into outright military conflict by sending 10 tank battalions to the border.

Most of the border goes through the llanos, a tropical plain, that is actually pretty good tank terrain, but the lack of cover also makes the tanks highly vulnerable to strikes by aircraft--Colombia has, as a consequence of its long fight against the Narco-Marxists, a considerable helicopter fleet.

It seems to me that this is an irresistable invitation for Colombia to get rid of an annoyance. They don't have to mount a full-scale invasion, but simply deal Chavez a decisive defeat which would embarrass his government and worsen his domestic situation to the point where a coup becomes inevitable. I would also give FARC no place to hide and the international political cover to finally wipe them out.

The entire episode smacks of desperation.

Jim Matheson seems a little out of step with his party...

Fresh off a tour of Colombia, Rep. Jim Matheson says a free trade agreement with that South American country could boost its strength as a U.S. ally, a point President Bush also stressed Tuesday.

Matheson, a Utah Democrat, spent three days in Colombia this weekend with several other members of Congress, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez. They met with President Alvaro Uribe and toured parts of the nation that Matheson says even police would not dare to visit just a few years ago.

"There's just been a real transformation in this country," Matheson says. "This is a country that has made tremendous strides to provide security for its population . . . [however], they're clearly very open about all the challenges they face."

Indeed, while Matheson and other U.S. officials were taking in the local scene and learning about the changes going on in Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador both sent troops to the Colombia border after Colombian commandos killed Raul Reyes, a top leader of the guerilla army FARC.

I wonder he if he gets taken to the woodshed because he's making a connection that no one really wants him to make back in Washington--the link between trade and foreign policy.

Matheson was in Colombia because the Bush administration is working hard to win over conservative Democrats to pass free trade with Colombia--opposed by the Democrats because its opposed by their Union masters. The Canadian government, ever anxious to provide the appearance of moral superiority, are also appeasing their unions with the blood and captivity of innocent Colombians and not a few Americans. Some of the estimated 700 captives held by FARC have been held for a decade.

The necessity for political and economic stability in the region is of paramount importance, and free trade with Colombia is a key element to make that happen. The Democrat's obstructionism is indicative of the power of special interests to dictate national policy now that they are back in a position of power.

The Democrat nomination process is witnessing the paradox of two candidates pledging new politics, a restoration of the respect of our allies AND an abandonment of free trade agreements. Only the general cluelessness of Democrat primary voters makes this possible.

Dinesh D'Souza wrote a book about how the real source of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is America's liberal porno culture. In South America, its long been American economic imperialism and the Democrats seem intent on picking that scab.

[Kirchner at the apogee-->]

A honeymoon and quicky divorce? Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, the successor to her husband Nestor and president of Argentina, is doing her best imitation of a Hollywood marriage.

The new president of Argentina and her country's farmers have been at war. Though a 30-day truce has temporarily ended the dispute, Argentina's politics have become harshly confrontational. Just a bit more than 100 days into Cristina Fernandez's presidency, Argentina has witnessed a spectacle of demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, of rhetoric and bombast, all ominously reminiscent of the dark days of previous presidencies and bad economic times. Cristina, as her followers like to call her, has just seen her honeymoon come to a dead halt; she is now presiding over a deeply divided country.

Her husband was generally credited for sound economic policy, but the current crisis signals near total collapse of the political system. To experience a popular revolt of this magnitude only 100 days after taking office suggests massive dissatisfaction and a lack of mandate. How bad is it? When an Argentinian president brings up Las Malvinas, you know its really bad.

"The sovereign claim to the Malvinas Islands is inalienable," she said in a speech marking the 26th anniversary of Argentina's ill-fated invasion of the islands, located 480 kilometers (300 miles) off shore.

The Falklands war, in which 649 Argentinians lost their lives, was largely the result of a government desperately seeking to distract the country from its administrative failures. Considering the outcome, to rattle that particular saber is a huge "hail Mary".

Argentina's economic situation may well be in no small part due to the decline of the American dollar. The Argentinian financial crisis of the late nineties which lead to the country defaulting on its foreign loans, was largely resolved by pegging the Peso to the American dollar. With the value of the American dollar declining, energy and other costs of imported goods have soared, creating even more pain in a bleak economic landscape. Kirchner's redistributionist policies are a matter of taking from the hungry to feed the starving, and were predictably headed towards social revolt.

There are a couple of interesting lessons for us in this. As I've said before, socialism's inseparable companion is oppression. The only way you can impose policies like this is at the point of a gun. Think about that when you hear Bill Clinton or Al Gore talk about the economic retrenchment necessary to impose a Kyoto-like regime...

Do you still like, Hugo, liberals? IHT:

Caracas, Venezuela. President Hugo Chávez has used his decree powers to carry out a major overhaul of this country's intelligence agencies, provoking a fierce backlash here from human rights groups and legal scholars who say the measures will force citizens to inform on one another to avoid prison terms.

The LA Times recounts some recent history that is hard to disagree with.

After Venezuelans rejected Hugo Chavez's attempt to amend the constitution and install himself as president in perpetuity, he vowed nonetheless to concentrate power in his hands. And he has, in predictably socialist ways. On a nationalizing spree, the government is swallowing up telecommunications and electricity industries, energy and steel.

I feel a butmonkey coming on...

Perhaps Chavez's lust for power would have led him to this point regardless of external events. Yet because the intelligence decree is designed to minimize assassination or coup plots and other national security threats, Washington's culpability in fueling his paranoia cannot be overlooked.

Ah, there it is.

So excellent! Military rescue, (not just talk Barack), wins the day! US ally Colombia frees Ingrid Betancourt and a few brave Americans from leftist narco-terrorists FARC (where were the feminists--missing in action.) Video below:

Colombian military intelligence agents posing as aid workers and a media crew flew to the jungle aboard a white helicopter, staging a mock humanitarian mission that rebels were told would ferry their hostages to another camp for talks on a prisoner swap.

The would-be envoys had honed their accents in acting lessons: Italian, Arab, Caribbean Spanish, and Australian English—"identical to Crocodile Dundee," Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said Friday as he explained how the military duped the rebels into turning over 15 hostages.