In my opinion the countries listed are not leftist, they are simply very, very corrupt with very poor law and order and poor government accountability and democratic in name only.
I don't think they are "leftist"; they are just very corrupt and the majority of people are powerless to change it because criminal and military elements are opposing them.
That's just "authoritarian", which isn't really limited to a specific place on the left-right spectrum. You can have left-wing governments based on strong state control and security services (USSR, GDR, Cuba), as well as right-wing ones based on the same (Francoist Spain, Pinochet-era Chile, Iran, apartheid South Africa).
I also don't know why you think Venezuela is less democratic then many other N Hemispheric countries. But having no comparison with which to judge I don't know how corrupt a country needs to be in order to register as 'very, very corrupt' on your radar.
Corruption perceptions index score: 19/100 (100 = least corrupt)
World rank: 165/176
He said that the word "leftist" implies certain characteristics, among them heavy government presence.
I struggle to think of a real-life example where this is not the case.
Using violence to make your point has been a good way to get that point tainted in the minds of most of the U.S., especially after the Atlanta Olympic bombings, 9/11, etc.
Liberal and socialist have also started to take on a negative connotation, but not as bad as 'leftist'.
And of course it bears keeping in mind that many of those who oppose NSA surveilliance on principled grounds also oppose any type of leftist/socialist government by the same principles.
> "...the leftist governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua...."
This implies the asylum was extended because they are leftist as appose to other reasons, such as these countries felt rebuffed by US for forcing down the flight of the Bolivian president, or purely on humanitarian or other reasons.