I rarelyread Washington Post editorials, but I looked in at this one today simply because I felt I did not know enough about Hugo Chavez, the nutfuck who runs Venezuela and could conceivably stop the export of shortstops to the United States.
The editorial recounts that Chavez was re-elected although he lost the popular vote by 52 percent to 48 percent. The reason was the “blatant gerrymandering” that caused Chavez’s supporters to dominate the parliament. This must be a terrible thing because we in the United States would never countenance having a house of parliament in which members representing half the population have only 20 percent of the seats. We would never countenance having another house of parliament composed of members from districts that are no longer competitive.
The Post goes on to say: “Mr. Chávez's apologists will be pointing to the congressional vote as proof that he still leads a democracy. But in democracies, elections produce consequences in line with the results."
Who knew that irony was still alive -- and that the august Washington Post couldn’t recognize it? As the old saying goes, the editors couldn’t get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Here is a big clue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore