Idiocy From the Times

I am not familiar with Dilma Rouseff, Lula's Chief of Staff profiled here in Sunday's New York Times. Her predecessor, Jose Dirceu, a shrewd, albeit slimy political operative was more visible and got more attention, even before his resignation under allegations of vote buying.

Nevertheless, while I believe that there is legitimate concern about her running for president under the PT banner with a cancerous tumor just having been remived from her chest, there is an underlying core of idiocy in this article and I think it is a classic example of Alexei Barrionuevo's poor journalism.

Here it is:

Nevertheless, he has been forced to parry daily questions about whether he has a Plan B candidate, or whether he would pursue the constitutional change that would allow him to run again.

He has repeatedly said he would not, a point he said Wednesday did not even merit discussion. “First, because there is no third term,” he said, “and second, because Dilma is fine.”

But such denials have done little to quiet conjecture.

Okay, not too bad so far, but just wait for the next paragraphs:

Nor would he be alone if he changed his mind. Many Latin countries adopted strict term limits in the 1970s and ’80s to check authoritarian impulses after years of dictatorships. But lately thetrend has been to loosen those laws.

Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador have changed their Constitutions to allow them to run for additional terms. Supporters of President Álvaro Uribe in Colombia are pushing a measure to let him seek a third term.

Brazil already changed its Constitution in 1997 to allow President Fernando Henrique Cardoso to run for and win a second term.

Mr. da Silva has vowed to be different.

No kidding, Einstein. Here's Lula from two months ago:

Given that I have 84 percent support in the public-opinion polls, I could propose an amendment to the Constitution for a third term. I don't believe in that. But Chávez wanted to stay … I believe that changing the president is important for the strengthening of democracy itself.

So after bringing up this non-sequitur, Barrionuevo decides to abandon it:

As a practical matter it may be too late to change the Constitution, which would require four rounds of congressional voting. The amendment would have to be passed before Sept. 30 in order to be law one year before the election on Oct. 3, 2010.

Why bring it up then? Lula, who has far less formal education than any of the three leaders that Barrionuevo asininely believes constitutes a trend (ignoring the numerous others who are not making any efforts to change their laws), is a firm believer in institutions and effecting change through them, not through the essential rule of one man and has consistently stuck to that position.

Better journalists, please.