Hipolito

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
That Gentleman(???) has been keeping a VERY low profile lately! What with the Justices wanting to have him "in" for a conversation about his "extra-cirricular" activities as Presidente and to ask him about his "associations" with various "other" nefarious personalities (now under indictment in the US) he must be really begining to think the world is against him. I expect in the very near future we will be giving him the nickname of "His Whinny-ness" instead of the others he has gleaned in the not so distant past.

Let's hope his big mouth gets him into a lot of trouble, resulting in indictment and incarceration in the USA ala Noriega! It's the least we can do!

Texas Bill
 
Come on, the U.S. puts him into office like all the others and now we want to crucify the guy. Please, we knew his kind from day one. As long as he satisified American interest, i.e. number one trade partner and exchange rate, he was ok and he never pissed off the U.S. or the tourist.

The presidents to fear is the one who decides to nationalize the island...hmm I wonder of DR1 would get shutdown and taken over by some Dominican government office called the Minister of IT(for you non techy...Information Technology). hmmm.
 

rellosk

Silver
Mar 18, 2002
4,169
58
48
sancochojoe said:
Come on, the US puts him into office like all the others and now we want to crucify the guy. Please, we knew his kind from day one. As long as he satisified American interest, i.e. number one trade partner and exchange rate, he was ok and he never pissed off the US or the tourist.
Why is it that some people have to blame everything on the US (or the IMF, which is obviously controlled by the US;) )?

Assuming "the US" had a preference in 2000, I believe the choice would have been Danilo Medina. Being that "the US" was happy with the direction he country was heading under Leonel, they probably would have preferred someone from his political party in office, rather than someone who's politics they were unsure of.

However, the concept of the US having a major influence on the 2000 elections in the DR is just another conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
rellosk said:
However, the concept of the US having a major influence on the elections in the DR is just another conspiracy theory.

Don't fool yourself my friend, don't be that naive to think that the U.S. does not influence elections.

"President Lyndon B. Johnson sent 20,000 U.S. Marines to stifle the revolt. Balaguer returned and, with U.S. backing, was elected president in 1966..."

Anotherquote from a credible source...
"Follwoing Trujillo's death, the U.S. government assumed a decisive and often controversial role in the Domincan Republic's political development and even helped organized the 1962 election that briefly brought Jaun Bosch...However, the U.S. swiftly lost enthusiasm for Bosch's administration as he failed to exercise power effectively. In a message to Washington written only days before the September 25, 1963, coup that overthre Bosch, U.S. Ambassador John Bartlow Martin called him "not much of a president..."

Another and most recent quote
"United States government officials used many traditional
tools of U.S. diplomacy to help keep the
election on track, including direct engagement
with the Dominican Republic?s most senior political
leaders. Dominican participants told Embassy
officials that U.S. political and diplomatic influence
contributed directly and positively to forestalling
any threats to the regular and successful conduct
of the election."

Don't suggest that even though some of these events happen in the past does not mean the U.S. all of a sudden had a kind heart and stopped cold turkey infleuencing leadership in countries. If I was a super power, you better beleive I would be doing the same thing around the world.

Ever read any of Niccolo' Machiavelli's books--"Discourses on Livy", and "the Prince". I suggest you do. Many of our American leaders including this exective office running the U.S. now have quoted him several times in the media.
 
Last edited:

rellosk

Silver
Mar 18, 2002
4,169
58
48
sancochojoe, both your original post and my response to that post refer to the 2000 election. I don't know why you are bringing up the 1960's.

BTW, I realize that this is not the debate forum, and the rules for quoting might be different, but when you are posting a quote, you should name the source and not just say "Another quote from a credible source". Also, I have difficulty believe it is a credible source when the first word of the direct quote (which I am assuming you cut and pasted from another source) has a typo.
 
rellosk said:
sancochojoe, both your original post and my response to that post refer to the 2000 election. I don't know why you are bringing up the 1960's.

BTW, I realize that this is not the debate forum, and the rules for quoting might be different, but when you are posting a quote, you should name the source and not just say "Another quote from a credible source". Also, I have difficulty believe it is a credible source when the first word of the direct quote (which I am assuming you cut and pasted from another source) has a typo.

Do you read what you wrote. YOU SAID..."the concept of the US having a major influence on the elections in the DR is just another conspiracy theory."

Oh, and the typo was because I hand typed a PDF from a .gov site because I didn't know i could copy and paste from it on that article. Honest human error. At least I have something. What do you have except, "Conspiracy Theory... blah blah blah. typical when you have no argument"

And I provided references to counter your claim. Simply stated. Oh, and I can submit more info if you are still in doubt. I personally don't believe in conspirecy theories. I know that is a nicely coined phrase by conservative Fundamentalist and liberals too. As you may know, I'm neither. I just like the truth about things.

Oh, I can get more references if you like. As you will come to know, I read a lot. Oh, and when references are listed, the proper protocol is that you check the references to see if they are valid. So i'll leave that up to you my friend.

References:
Finally, to no small extent, the Embassy had to
cobble together the financial arrangements for the
2000 observation effort almost at the last minute.
Considering that Dominicans will almost certainly
continue to require U.S. and other electoral assistance,
it would serve U.S. interests to make a
long-term commitment to fund electoral reform
activities in the Dominican Republic. Naturally,
Dominican citizens? best interests would be served
if such a commitment were to be undertaken
together with the country?s increasingly active and
effective civil society groups, including
Participaci?n Ciudadana, religious groups, and
representatives of all of the Dominican NGOs who
contributed their time and talents to the 2000
election.

4. ?Populist Mej?a Declared Winner in Presidential
Race,? Chicago Tribune, May 19, 2000,

?Recent Election in the Dominican Republic
(Part 1),? Hearing before the Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, House of Representatives, 103d Congress, 2d
Session, May 24, 1994, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1994.

Hartlyn gives fine accounts of the 1990 and
1994 elections in The Struggle for Democratic Politics in
the Dominican Republic, Chapel Hill, N.C.: University
of North Carolina Press, 1998.

The U.S. Embassy played a direct role in brokering
the deal that slashed Balaguer?s term and
opened the way for electoral reform. See D?az?s
Trauma Electoral and Howard Wiarda?s The 1996
Dominican Elections: Post Election Report, Washington,
D.C.: CSIS Americas Program, July 8, 1996.

In discussing the 1978 election in The Struggle
for Democratic Politics in the Dominican Republic,
Hartlyn cites decreasing U.S. government concerns
about the Dominican Republic?s political stability and
strategic importance. Even then, years before the end
of the Cold War, this allowed that ?the general policy
of supporting free and honest elections could hold as
the U.S. ?strategic objective?? in the Dominican
Republic.

El Siglo, October 30, 1998. The Embassy?s
Charg? d?Affaires, Linda Watt, had also made it abundantly
clear to Dominican officials that the United
States government would not support efforts to starve
the JCE of funds.
 
Last edited:

Keith R

"Believe it!"
Jan 1, 2002
2,984
36
48
www.temasactuales.com
Joe, I do not believe the US rigged either the 1996, 2000 & 2004 elections. I think these were decided by Dominicans. In particular, Hippo was elected in 2000 by too wide a margin. He bullied and manuevered into his party's nomination without US help, and then Dominicans elected him (in part because Danilo was a very poor campaigner).

True, once in office Hippo kept himself in US favor by sending troops to Iraq, allowing US drug interdiction activities in Dominican jurisdiction, and seeking the FTA, among other things.

In any case, let's all get back to the OP's question rather than engaged in yet another debate over the US role with Trujillo & Balaguer...
 

rellosk

Silver
Mar 18, 2002
4,169
58
48
sancochojoe, I don't want to hijack this thread. The premise of my responding to your post was to refute your claim that the US put Hip?lito in office. If you want to continue the discussion, I will start a thread "Do you think the US government was responsible for getting Hip?lito elected in 2000" in the debate forum. Otherwise we can get back on topic.
 
Keith R said:
Joe, I do not believe the US rigged either the 1996, 2000 & 2004 elections. I think these were decided by Dominicans. In particular, Hippo was elected in 2000 by too wide a margin. He bullied and manuevered into his party's nomination without US help, and then Dominicans elected him (in part because Danilo was a very poor campaigner).

True, once in office Hippo kept himself in US favor by sending troops to Iraq, allowing US drug interdiction activities in Dominican jurisdiction, and seeking the FTA, among other things.

In any case, let's all get back to the OP's question rather than engaged in yet another debate over the US role with Trujillo & Balaguer...

I understand. "Rigged" is a harsh word and sometimes difficult to prove. "Influence" seems to more civil in use. I was responding to the comment,

"Let's hope his big mouth gets him into a lot of trouble, resulting in indictment and incarceration in the USA..."

I understand American pride is at stake with many posters here, but I believe that if Hippo kept himself in favor with the U.S., the U.S. is known for rewarding individuals handsomely. If he is off somewhere living very well, I could only assume that much of that wealth was not only from Dominican sources. I could be wrong, none of us commoners never truly know the financial dealings between political elites and elites in general. I think in a since, Hippo is part of that class.

I don't think it was that much off topic. If statements or words are put into the discussion, then it should be fair game to extend the discussion. But I do like to stick to the topic. Maybe I watch too much "HARDBALL" here in the states.
 

Keith R

"Believe it!"
Jan 1, 2002
2,984
36
48
www.temasactuales.com
sancochojoe said:
I understand American pride is at stake with many posters here
I think you know me well enough by now to know that's not the case with me.

Let's get back to discussing where/what Hippo is up to lately. :tired: I'm curious to know too.
 

rellosk

Silver
Mar 18, 2002
4,169
58
48
Keith R said:
Let's get back to discussing where/what Hippo is up to lately. :tired: I'm curious to know too.
I'm also curious. A couple of months ago it seemed like he was always in the press, mostly in a positive way. There was even some sort of extended news show on Univision where they were interviewing him with his family at the dinner table. With all the coverage, I felt for sure he was gearing up for 2008.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
Back to Hopolito------

Most of Hipolito's machinations and leadership of the corruption ddn't start to become obvious until late in his tenure.

The first I recall was the buy-back of the Electrical systems (immediately after the letter of intent with the IMF) for very near the amount that was to be borrowed through the IMF. Then, the Peso started to slide when the IMF withheld the remainder of the loan and put the whole thing on hold.
Then there was the begining of the many, many loans being taken out, which further cast doubt on what was happening within the political mileau!
Topping ll this off was the sudden and devastating effect of the collapse of Banninter and others that caused the Peso to go wild, the credit rating of the DR to slide to the bottom and the finances of this country to implode almost overnight.

And on top of all this evidence of gross malfeasance of acceptable administration (with the collusion of the Legislative Bodies), sanco still has the opinion(?) that the effect was promulgated in Washington?

I submit, no government wishes that the economy and political system of a trading partner to go awry in such a manner and certainly wouldn't lend itself to internal manipulations to actually cause such to happen. I think such logic is bound to be skewed.
I will admit and support the policy of the US to try to prevent the establishment of another "far-left" leaning society within the umbrella of influence established.
I will admit that mistakes have been made; that steps have been taken that backfired because of mismanagement.
What I resent is the continued "ugly head" of accusation being raised at the slightest provocation. it seems that there are those that lurk in the wings waiting for the chance to cast disparagements against the US and it's policies.
It must be understood that a nation's "interests" take on many cloaks. And that those nations will Always seek and take those actions that are in it's interest's. To do otherwise would be to deny sovereignty.

So, why would the US continue to support an individual's administration when the evidence is clear that that administration is corrupt and self-centered as was Hipolito's? It doesn't make sense and if you read the recent history correctly, support for Hipolito, by Washington, went down the drain midway through his administration.

Texas Bill
 
Texas Bill said:
So, why would the US continue to support an individual's administration when the evidence is clear that that administration is corrupt and self-centered as was Hipolito's? It doesn't make sense and if you read the recent history correctly, support for Hipolito, by Washington, went down the drain midway through his administration.

Texas Bill

Hmmm. Don't know. There could be several theories, and you may know I have some. But anyway. Do you think that Hipolito had good intentions from day one??? Or once he ascended into power like many others, the temptation was too great, which seems to be the case for many leaders of poor countries.

Another question, what role is Hipolito playing in terms of agriculture, since that is his background.
 
Last edited: