Posted on 05/19/2008 1:19:35 PM PDT by Ebenezer
(English-language translation)
“Even if I am alone, and I am willing to accept that,” former Governor Pedro Rosselló González will stand by his values and beliefs on what the [pro-statehood] New Progressive Party (PNP) should be. As he indicated, the party promotes values and beliefs that are very different from his own.
The Senator and former PNP Chairman, who lost the gubernatorial nomination to fellow party member Luis Fortuño in the past primaries, understands two different, “irreconcilable” viewpoints faced each other during the primaries.
On his side, there are the theory of people’s empowerment, promoting statehood in every election as the solution to the [island’s political] status, and the remaining values known as “the ten principles” which the past [PNP] General Assembly managed to adopt.
[Rosselló] indicated that the present leadership embraces the vision that the status is not an issue and that other matters should be prioritized, such as the economy. But, to the Senator, the commonplace and even serious matters can be solved up to a certain point. He argues that, from there on, the colonial system is a straightjacket that prevents its solution. In that sense, prioritizing the attainment of statehood is one of the values he and the present leadership differ on.
Rosselló firmly believes the Tennessee Plan is aggressive enough to lead to a solution to the status. However, he thinks the new PNP leadership has discarded it. “There is no discussion on it,” he affirmed. Another mechanism to advance his cause was statehood petitions during the primaries, a mechanism that was disapproved. “Actions meant to solve the status are being shelved,” he indicated. “They are with the status quo.”
At no moment during the interview did Rosselló refer to PNP Chairman Luis Fortuño as the other side of the coin; in fact, he strongly insisted that he meant no criticism towards the PNP Chairman. He said he was only trying to point out the “differences in values” with the new leadership and admitted he does not participate in the Directorate, the caucus, or the Legislative Conference since “the party has taken a direction I do not share and which would not be beneficial” for him to assist in. He said he is now a candidate “for nothing”, is now in a position “to freely analyze the different matters in the party and the island”, and, of course, reveal it publicly. “I insist I am not a candidate. I say it freely, without any room for suspicion or doubt,” he affirmed.
He also indicated that his measure to elevate the right to health to constitutional rank is a value of great benefit to the island as it imposes on the state the responsibility to tend to it with no excuses, and not to do so would be a grave violation of the Constitution. However, the party leadership assumes it is very controversial “and has tabled it.”
Another value he differs on with the party, and in which he was insistent, is the way he has to govern, “protecting and defending the most vulnerable” rather than the party’s current vision “of improving the economic conditions of those on top so it filters, trickles down.” Rosselló maintained that was Reagan’s and Bush father’s and son’s “Republican” style, which widened the socioeconomic gap among classes. “It’s a type of corporatist government,” he said. The Senator brought up statistics that indicate that, while a CEO in 1960 earned twice what the President made, he earned 60 times [the President’s salary] in 2000. And while a CEO in 1980 earned 40 times his employees’ average salary, he earned 500 times that average in 2000.
The former Governor believes that, if Republican-style measures are adopted in the island given the serious crisis it is experiencing, “this turns into a time bomb.” “The breach is already there,” he pointed out, “and could accelerate if they were adopted.” He affirmed that “if we allow it, this is the raw material for a revolution, which hasn’t happened because we have migration to the United States as an escape valve, but it does not cease to be a threat to social stability.”
Rosselló indicated that, also differing from what Fortuño’s offers, his proposal to eliminate the tax burden on the middle class should have better results for the island rather than reducing taxes “for everybody, including those of greater means” who don’t need the reductions.
“The party moved. It moved to other values I don’t believe in,” he warned. Although he pointed out that the party has the right to change those values, it does not mean that he himself has to necessarily adopt them. “I don’t have to change my values....but neither do I want to force anyone [to do so],” he commented while accepting that the members of the PNP were the ones who confirmed this change in values during the primaries. “I have to accept the results,” he acknowledged. He also ruled out leaving the party [but] wants to make known “where I stand. It’s not a criticism; I only reaffirm what I believe the party should affirm.”
ping
I hate to sound colonial-minded but...
...Is it possible for us to foist a decision upon Puerto Rico?
The island WILL hold a binding referendum. The three choices are:
1. Independence
2. Territorial Status
3. Statehood
Voters will be encouraged to choose very carefully as this vote is irreversible.
However, if voters choose Territorial Status, they will be allowed to vote again in 10 years as to whether they want one of the three above options.
For the sake of this island and its people, we (and they) need to make a concrete choice about their future instead of these non-binding referendums that have been held in the past.
Comments or opinions - anyone?
There’s a U.S. House bill that proposes something along the lines of your suggestion. H.R. 900 by Jose Serrano, D-NY.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-900
I seem to recall that Rosello (nice Catalan name there, from Roussolin), 1. supported mainland Democrats 2. looked like a young Leslie Nielsen and 3. was a crook.
I wish the statehooders the best, but they have an uphill battle. If I were a Boricua, I would support the status quo (but I am not, so my opinion doesn't matter).
I’m with you ... PR has all the benefits of statehood (welfare, etc) with none of the responsibilities (tax revenue submission, etc). IMHO there is no real reason to change status.
After reading the two articles, you have to wonder what Rosselló accomplished by taking that Senate seat in the Arecibo District after first-term incumbent David Loubriel resigned (or was made to resign?) shortly after being sworn in. Since I don’t live in Puerto Rico anymore, I can’t tell what really happened.
I wish the former Governor good luck with the “write-in” gubernatorial campaign being organized on his behalf, but (for what it’s worth) the local punditry in the island sees the initiative as merely a protest-vote movement against Fortuño. To be honest, I really don’t see how Rosselló can be elected that way; the island’s political history (particularly the 1968 and 1984 elections) shows how poorly splinter movements do at the polls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.