MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Lula da Silva and presidential candidate Rousseff attack the press
Brazil’s ruling party presidential candidate Dilma Rousseff accused the newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo of “defamation” for publishing an article linking her to alleged irregularities during her time as an official and, in this way, joined the criticisms against certain media formulated by President Lula da Silva. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesFolha de São Paulo is an embarassing rag. Last year it accused Rousseff of having tried to kidnap Delfim Netto - a Minister of Finance during the military dictatorship and currently an advisor of Lula - when she was a youth and a member of a guerrilla group that fought the military regime. The claim was based on an e-mail sent by a website maitained by former military suspected of having been torturers during the military regime. It also supported the dictatorship by calling it a “dictablanda”. Folha is clearly, but unconfessedly, making pro-Serra propaganda by fomenting scandals involving the central government.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I´m following this guy http://twitter.com/ChicoBarreira ; he is saying that Serra is losing 2°place.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, Serra is far behind in polls. Defamation and victimology won't make him any more popular with the electorate.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dilma, a former terrorist who kidnapped the US ambassador during the dictatorship and then fingered her coleagues.....ohohoh.......now PT is about to imitate Chavez and turn Brazil into a new Venezuela....only many darn foreigners to believe that she and Lula are the saviour for many poor who want to survive without working.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Besides the polls are fake....as many Brazilians are uneducated mainly in the North and Northeast they will think that will waste their vote just helping Serra or Marina out.....those leftists are responsible for the most corrupted period in Brazil....hopefully southerns will vote for Serra and make the difference in those ongoing elections....people need to use the brain for voting, not the stomach.
Bravo Alvinho....... Bravo...........
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ Poor peope”; should not be allowed to vote!
“ Uneducated Brazilians mainly in the North and Northeast”; should not be allowed to vote!
“People need to use the brain for voting, not the stomach”; hungry people should not be allowed to vote!
“Those leftists are responsible for the most corrupted period in Brazil”; socialists should not be allowed to vote!
Hehehehe.....you're right....I really agree with you....lol.....you're such a good comedian....poor to overcome poverty need to be educated....that's what the Government doesn't want to do.....you're so gullible....
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Alvinho
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your post is of such incoherence, that I don't know how to begin to answer it. Let's try.
1 - Of all the allegations of violent activity by Dilma against the dictatorship, none has been officially ratified. Those by FSP against her were based on forged documents acquired by e-mail from a group of former military accused of torture during the dictatorship. And those by Elio Gaspari - that Dilma was the same person as a guerrilla named Dulce Maria - were rebuffed by Dulce herself when she wrote an article for Observatório da Imprensa about her life.
2 - Dilma didn't snitch any of her companions. She was tortured for a month, and jailed for 3 years, precisely because she refused to tell the truth to her inquisitors. That you're a right-winger and that you do not like the Dilma, one can respect. But to demonize her with lies is unnecessary.
3 - Even in the right, there are people with a history of aggressive resistance against the dictatorship. Fernando Gabeira, a candidate for the Rio de Janeiro government, and a member of Serra's coalition in that state, is confirmed to have had kidnapped an American ambassador. Aloysio Nunes, chief of Serra's office, robbed a bank controlled by the government to sustain the resistance. Why don't you go complain about them?
4 - The dictatorship itself signed the amnesty, the law that guarantees to those who had been persecuted, imprisoned or exiled from the country for political reasons, that they could reintegrate into society with no fear of reprisal. So Dilma, Aloysio, Dulce and Gabeira can no longer be refered with the tag you employ to insult Dilma (“terrorist”). If the dictatorship itself forgave them, why do you need to accuse her? Why do you take pains that the dictatorship itself had forgiven?
5 - When Lula took office in 2002, it was also said that Brazil would become a Cuba. The same when he was reelected in 2006. So, it's hard to take seriously the charge that PT will make Brazil a Venezuela in 2010.
6 - What evidence do you have that the polls are fake? Four different institutes - all in existence for decades and therefore with an old history of monitoring public opinion - show that Dilma is at least 25 points ahead of Serra. And that includes Datafolha, the research institute whose of Folha Group whose newspaper (the FSP) is the one that attacks Dilma the most with the lies you adduces. What evidence do you have that the polls are faked. Do you believe that just because it makes you feel better?
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 07 - Dilma leads in all regions: the North, Northeast, Midwest, South and Southeast. That her lead is the greatest in the Northeast, is true, but in some states more in the south - the Federal District, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais - her lead is as large as that in the Northeast.
8 - That you refer to Northeasterns in this way, just proves the mentality of reactionary and caricaturesque elitism that prevails among Serra's voters. I have met many who look like you. Fringe mentality, hysteria, prejudice, and so the list goes.
9 - As noted by the Corruption Perception Index, corruption levels in Lula's government are stable and similar to that in 2002, the last year of the Cardoso government and the only of that regime monitored by Transparency International. There is only one difference between FHC and Lula when it comes to corruption: Lula gave autonomy to prosecutors and the Federal Police to investigate corruption complaints. FHC did not: he closed parliamentary committees of inquiry aimed at investigating corruption at the federal level, and he forced the Federal Police to do the same. Btw, have you heard how FHC managed to get Congress to approve re-election amendment? By buying votes.
Forgetit 86 and 87
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 09 concise and very informative points..........
And one more thing our two countries share....... People like Alvinho :-)
Yeah. To demonize the political class of a nation is not a rare thing. But that generally happens in crises times. What we see in Brazil and Argentina looks abnormal. Lula and the Kirchners brought their countries back to growth and economic stability. They were not perfect, they had their limits: corruption both in their coalition and the opposition, a bloated state bureaucracy that prevents the fast implementation of development policies, their own personal flaws, etc. But they took their countries to a better phase than the one that preceded them. Lower unemployment, faster growth, poverty reduction - and all this under a scenario of worldwide economic crisis. That alone should suffice for them to be treated with greater respect in their societies. But yet that doesn't happen. One sees a portion of the population of those two countries - fed by some media outlets with little respect for the truth and great will to keep their readership interested by fomenting or fabricating scandals - does not cease to demonize those leaders. These are mostly persons identified with the elite. But as Alvinho has shown us, the thoughtlessness with which they form their opinions and the slogan-ish, base and insulting way with which they're expressed, put into question their pretensions to present themselves as being actually superior or more knowledgeable.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!