June 13, 2006
YOU MEAN HE WAS SERIOUS?:
Ex-Morales backer decries party betrayal (Martin Arostegui, 6/13/06, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
Adriana Gil braved death threats, public insults and social ostracism to campaign for Evo Morales in Bolivia's conservative eastern region during the presidential election last year. She now feels "betrayed" by the ruling Movement Toward Socialism, which expelled her and invaded her family's land.
Miss Gil had won a seat representing MAS on the city council, and her family contributed generously to Mr. Morales' campaign. But none of that has protected her from the new government's revolutionary land redistribution policies.
She cried before TV cameras earlier this month when truckloads of armed Quechua Indians occupied her farmland, burned down the homes of tenant farmers and seized their cattle.
"It's a conspiracy and a vendetta against me," said Miss Gil, a 24-year-old Santa Cruzheiress who described herself in an interview as a "social democrat."
She said she is being persecuted for speaking out against the increasingly authoritarian policies of the new president. "The Bolivian people voted for change, not for a dictator," she said.
Her mistake was thinking there's a difference between the two. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 13, 2006 8:31 AM
OJ, you should clean up your comment a bit. The statement "Her mistake was thinking there's a difference between the two." is nonsensical in that there is no correlation between change and autocracy. Electoral change is common in democracies and can result in greater freedom and economic stability, not just socialism and autocracy.
Her mistake here was not in thinking that there's a difference between the two, but in thinking that one could support socialists without becoming subject to their depredations.
Posted by: Robert Modean at June 13, 2006 9:11 AMBig deal. It's what all Leftist supporters think: that they will end up with enough power or have bought enough immunity to avoid the effects of Leftists (or other thuggish allies) taking control.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 13, 2006 9:35 AMBut she will still support his re-election?
Posted by: AC at June 13, 2006 10:20 AMGood Heavens Mr. Modean, are you channeling your namesake from Babylon 5? Movement Toward Socialism ran on the dictatorship platform. She's just another trustfund baby who voted for "Change" and got the honest iron fist she voted for. Sad. Reminds me of the factions in the Democrat party who were always surprised to find that Bill had lied to Them.......
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 13, 2006 10:36 AMRobert:
No, the comment makes sense. Her statment said, "The Bolivian people voted for change, not for a dictator." Thus the two to which OJ refers are voting for change and voting for a dicator. By voting for change, i.e. replacing the current (and I'm assuming less socialist) administration, the people were voting for a dictator. Therefor, by voting for change, they also voted for a dictator because in this election there was no difference between those two possibilities.
Thank you for your post Mr. Jay. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I understand that. I was amazed that Mr. Modean was unable to follow the statement. It's not like anyone was running under false pretenses. Very clean if stupid platform. "Vote for us and we'll steal your land!". This is not the first time this has happened. Why are people still suprised?
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 13, 2006 11:22 AMYou know, now that I've re-read it I can only say D'OH! *sigh* that's what I get for not having caffeine in the morning.
Coffee first, then read blogs...
Coffee first, then read blogs...
Coffee first, then read blogs...
Miss Gil must not have known about the fate of Mensheviks after the Russian Revolution.
Posted by: PapayaSF at June 13, 2006 4:35 PMRM. Just be careful not to read this blog while drinking coffee, it might be detrimental to the health of your keyboard.
Posted by: erp at June 14, 2006 9:45 AM