The Company You Keep
The Opinion Journal has a blistering story on an American with a very familiar name who is cheerfully doing business with another familiar name. One can't say one is surprised by all this.
Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez is an ally of the Iranian mullahs, a supporter of North Korea, a close friend of Fidel Castro and a good customer for Vladimir Putin's weapon factories. Now he's also a business partner of Joseph P. Kennedy II.
The former Democratic Congressman describes the deal he's cooked up with Mr. Chávez as charity for low-income consumers of heating oil. But it's worth asking what the price of this largesse is to Venezuelans and to U.S. security interests.
The arrangement is this: Mr. Chávez's Citgo–a Houston-based oil company owned by the Venezuelan government–is supplying home heating oil to Mr. Kennedy's Citizens Energy Corporation at a 40% discount. Citizens, a nonprofit outfit, says it passes the savings onto the poor, aiming to help 400,000 homes in 16 states that would otherwise have trouble heating their homes. In the process, Mr. Kennedy happens to get a high-profile publicity plug. If you think you qualify, says the television ad that drew our attention to this partnership, just dial 1-877-Joe-4-Oil.
The Opinion Journal rightfully points out that (T)Hugo Chavez is polarizing his country and oppressing his people. But Kennedy prefers doing business with a thug like that just to improve his name recognition. Not only that, but he vehemently defends Chavez.
But Mr. Kennedy keeps on trucking. Last week in a telephone interview with the Washington Post, he defended his Chávez subsidy deal as "morally righteous," arguing that the Citgo contribution to his nonprofit is only "one-half of one percent" of Citgo oil and product sales in the U.S.
We dialed Joe-4-Oil ourselves to ask directly whether it is also "righteous" to assist an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people. In between berating our reporter for daring to ask such a thing, Mr. Kennedy said that Mr. Chávez has done "so much more" for the poor than any previous government. As for democracy, he said there was "ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida." Mr. Chávez chose his partner well.
That Kennedy has veered far over into the fringe left is apparent by the company he chooses to keep. It might be a good idea for him to remember that you are known by the company you keep as well.
UPDATE: Others: Fausta, Venezuela News And Views,
By George Bruce, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 10:27 am
I’m not sure whose reputation is more damaged by the association.
By philip, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 12:11 pm
So are you saying that people that buy citgo gas are “Anti-American”?
By Ed, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 2:29 pm
And we continue to support the despots of Saudi Arabia who supplied 17 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Since Chavez is giving us a 40% discount and verbally instead of physically attacking us, I think I’ll pick Hugo as the despot to go with.
By Ed, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 2:33 pm
Oh, and did you see how Cheney came when summoned by Saudi Arabia:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701573.html
Makes you proud, doesn’t it?
I’ll keep the dollars in this hemisphere, thank you.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 2:34 pm
Keep thinking, Ed. That’s what you’re good at.
By Ed, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 2:42 pm
Sorry, wrong link.
Yesterday’s Washington Post reports that the push for the meeting came from the Saudis, not the other way around:
“Saudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend, according to U.S. officials and foreign diplomats.”
By Ed, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 3:06 pm
What I think is that the world’s supply of oil is largely controlled by miserable regimes, and the sooner we make an effort to move to energy independence the better.
In the meantime, attacking Joe Kennedy because he’s getting a discount from one thug for low income heating oil, while ignoring the connections of this administration to the thugs of Saudi Arabia is just plain hypocritical.
Hey! Maybe there is something to this “thinking” things through.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 3:11 pm
No, Ed. If you honestly believe all the things you have been told about this administration being tied to thugs, then you are being the hypocrite to say, “they did it first so Joe’s ok”.
You believe a media that has been caught lying - repeatedly - with no question when it fits your ideology.
By philip, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 3:30 pm
Seriously, are we not supposed to buy Citgo gas now?
That’s basically what Joe did (at a 40% discount)
If Citgo had a 40% off sale on gasoline, you can bet that everybody criticizing Kennedy would be in line with the rest of us to take advantage.
But I guess it’s ok to smear Kennedy, since he was using it to help the poor (heaven forfend!)
By Gaius, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 3:38 pm
It is not smearing him. It is who he chooses to defend.
By philip, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 4:28 pm
No, it is smearing him to say that “Kennedy prefers doing business with a thug like that just to improve his name recognition”
He was not defending Chavez, he was defending his purchase of heating fuel.
I was just wondering everyone needed to be prepared to defend themselves against accusations of ‘unrighteousness’ and ‘anti-Americanism’ for buying citgo fuel, or just the Kennedys
By Gaius, Tuesday, 28 November , 2006 @ 4:31 pm
You are the one using those words, it dd not appear in the post, now did it?
By philip, Wednesday, 29 November , 2006 @ 10:27 am
Please read more closely…
“But Kennedy prefers doing business with a thug like that just to improve his name recognition.”
“We dialed Joe-4-Oil ourselves to ask directly whether it is also ‘righteous’ to assist an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people.”
Which leads me back to my question: Is everyone that purchases citgo gas “[un]righteous” or “assisting an un-American tyrant”, or does that smear only apply to the Kennedys or liberals in general.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 29 November , 2006 @ 10:33 am
Hugo Chavez is pro-American in your little world? THe word is a descriptor for Chavez - nobody else. Quit trying to put words in my mouth.
By George Bruce, Wednesday, 29 November , 2006 @ 10:42 pm
All this is a bit silly in several ways. It is meaningless to boycott Citgo stations. They aren’t owned by Venezuela. Not even the station owner knows which refinery produces the fuel he sells. There is no spare refinery capacity in the US, so Citgo refineries will be running 24 and 7 regardless of where you buy their fuel. There is little spare oil in the world right now, so we will be buying Venezuelan crude regardless of the retail location from which you buy the refined product.
What is far worse is defending Kennedy in this matter. First, Kennedy doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about the poor. He comes from a very rich family that has no experience of the worries of middle class people, much less the poor. If he cared for the poor, he would advocate economic policies that promote growth, and therefore economic opportunities for the poor. Instead, he advocates economic policies that have been shown time and time and time again to result in stagnation and unemployment, all of which benefits the poor only in the sense that it gives them company. It should be noted that Kennedy’s economic policies do tend to suppress the growth of new money. By suppressing economic growth, you suppress entrepreneurs, thus reducing the challenge to the social status of families like the Kennedys, who already have their money. If Kennedy really cared about the heating bills of the poor, there are countless other ways to help. To get in bed with a man like Chavez, who deserves every adjective applied to him, ( and many more and worse) is unconscionable. Isn’t the irony obvious? Kennedy is holding hands with a man who advocates the killing of a sitting US President.