Are you seriously trying to argue that if the Sandinistas didn't control the media, the result would have been the same? "Ready for a change" is an amazing understatement. I'm sure you would be 'ready for a change' if your country was being ruled by a group of thugs who surpassed basic liberties and killed basically whoever they wanted? The fact the opposition coalition included basically every party that wasn't the Sandinistas should give you a fair indication of how repressive Nicaragua was. Even the communists were rejecting the thuggery of the Sandinistas. Ortega only won in 2006 (with 38% of the vote) by heavily, heavily moderating (at least vocally) and rejecting (at least vocally) outright Marxism-Leninism in favor of democratic socialism. And the only reason he could run in 2011 is because the Supreme Court, stacked with Sandinista judges, ruled term limits were illegal. And the 2011 election was widely criticized for being non-independent and non-transparent by the EU and US. If anything it's shown he has a fairly consistent base of around 40% of the vote, with the only two times he got above that 1984 and 2011) being unfree, unfair elections.
If Nicaraguans and Cubans love their communist overlords so much, why not have actual free elections, with a secret ballot and a free press? Oh wait, because as soon as they allowed that in Nicaragua (1990), the communists were out of a job.
If the election was free and fair, why wouldn't you be happy with the same rules here? Fair is fair! Yeah, communism would have been awesome if everyone agreed! The Sandinistas should totally have been free to do whatever they wanted. So would you be willing to have the same rules here? If it was a fair election, what's your problem? So naturally one bad election means Nicaragua can't also have bad elections. Excellent logic!
Ah, Chomsky... now I know why you are defending an oppressive communist dictatorship. Would you be willing to have the same 'free' Nicoraguan election here? The GOP's military wing will seize power in a violent coup ban all other parties for four years and kill lots of people they don't like. They'll ban all opposition press. Then, a few months before the election, they'll let new parties form. But there will be no free press, no secret ballot, and Republicans will control most polling stations. Sound fair?
and just like nobody can pin Obama, nobody can pin Reagan.
Wow, that's amazingly free! New parties that had previously been banned had all of three months to organize, and didn't have the benefit of a free press or even a secret ballot. Such freedom! Very fairness! The source you picked is literally a propaganda website for Sandinistas. Great choice. I'm sure I could find the North Korean website certifying their elections as fair. How about reading this from the Dutch observers:
Once again - the Dutch observers said only left parties, with no discernible differences from the Sandinistas, participated in the elections. The Sandinistas, with rigged rules, undoubtably won a majority of votes. It's a minor miracle 30% voted against the Sandinistas given the opposition abstained due to unfair and unfree rules and despite the ballots not being secret. Once again, "not perfect" is as big an understatement as saying Vegemite is "kind of salty". The elections weren't acceptable by any Western standard. Would you be happy with the Republicans instituting these rules - banning opposition parties for a few years before giving them only a few months to campaign, no secret ballots, no opposition press? I doubt it.
And are you seriously going to defend elections with no opposition, no free press and no secret ballot by saying we can spend money in ours, so doh we aren't free? Do you even understand how stupid that sounds? And no, they didn't. They did it to on Nov. 4 to try and appear legitimate before the US elections on Nov. 6th.
Do you consider a public election, boycotted by opposition parties (who had just been legalized and had literally no time to organize) and lacking any sort of free press to be 'free'?
lolololol Iran-Contra is the liberal Benghazi.
You're right, he is an oppressive dictator. Saying he 'wasn't perfect' is like saying Vegemite is 'kind of salty'. Seriously, what is with you liberals and embracing communist dictatorships? You aren't communists, right?