- With Monday's newspaper in hand: Did the Government care whether or not the Omnibus Law was approved?
- That is the doubt that remains.
Whether they really wanted to approve these texts or they wanted to use them as a scapegoat in a logic of communication, so that they get attention and that they can have a culprit while people's real problems go somewhere else.
I don't know if it was really incompetence or they were looking for a story.
- Were there traitors as they said? Some deputies or benches who said they were going to vote one way and then voted another?
- I am not a friend of that term.
As far as my bloc is concerned, radicalism is very predictable and did not lend itself to any game of give and take, even having five governors.
There was a group of deputies who had a more critical view of specific delegations.
The government already knew that of all the 34 deputies of the radicalism bloc it would not count on some.
Our views are conceptual.
The UCR was responsible, it was anticipatory of the votes, which ones counted and for what.
- But not other benches?
- It is true that other governors acted in the same way as the government.
The government extorted through the media and there is a group of deputies who respond to PJ governors who sounded the same way.
A very graphic example is the governor of my province, Martín Llaryora.
His deputies did not vote for delegations when Llaryora himself has governed with a number of emergencies and unprecedented delegations
- But did the ruling party have a point by which they knew that this was going to happen?
- No, they didn't have it.
That's why the incompetence, that is, the mathematical error, the arithmetic of the session, because, I repeat, in relation to the radicalism bloc, the numbers have always been clear.
- You had informed them...
- For certain topics I had told Martín Menem, Santiago Caputo, and Guillermo Francos.
It seems to me that where they counted very badly is in the other blocks.
- Is the Omnibus Law irremovable?
- The withdrawal was a mistake, there is no doubt.
I would suggest that the Government insist because there is advanced coordination.
What happened is that a set of clauses in the first articles were called into question and privatizations were coming, which was going to have its complexity, but then the law was going to enter into a gentle advance.
.
Paradoxically, (Milei) calls himself a bilardista, but he should have made the reform happen.
He could get out.
- But when the law fell, the President attacked the deputies and governors very harshly. In this climate, do you think Congress will work again or will it be closed?
- I hope not.
If Milei wants to govern without Congress, she has to know that the DNU cannot address tax issues;
that delegated powers require that they be delegated by Congress.
But in addition, they already have judicial fronts.
And all this precarious institutional scaffolding has a central problem: that it does not generate either the trust or the sustainability to attract investments.
Congress has to work.
There are at least three great challenges: finishing the mega reform that was truncated, dealing with the DNU and a fiscal pact that provides balance and resolves the problems that have arisen between the provinces and the Nation.
- In the tweet from the President's Office you were on the list of those who "voted in favor of the people", although as head of the UCR block they continue to accuse you. How do you evaluate that post from an official account?
- Personally, I don't care what the President says.
He has been saying it before, and particularly with us.
It is a rarity that despite that we have cooperated so much.
In the institutional field, what he does seems very serious to me and it seems like a great injustice.
But the social field seems to me the most worrying because the expression of a president builds culture.
And this can be seen, for example, how after Bolsonaro's behavior in the pandemic the percentage of Brazilian society that was not vaccinated grew, or how the fashionable logic of Menemism also generated a more frivolous society and less reproachful of the events of corruption.
So this violent and permanent diatribe of the president generates culture and educates the little ones, the youngest.
That is the greatest damage that is done.
- Do you see a strategy behind the Government's recent attitudes and accusations?
- For me the government has already made a decision.
He decided to confront the governors.
Because resources are scarce and they are disputing that scarcity of resources in a process of searching for fiscal balance.
There may be winners and losers in electoral terms, but I have no doubt that the citizen loses.
Later, he decided to deepen the plebiscitary model, which bypasses institutions and is validated with the people immediately and creates scapegoats and smoke screens.
That is, for the real conflicts of the economy, it looks for culprits instead of solutions.
Third, maintain this tacit pact of impunity that it has with Kirchnerism and Massism.
One can see that it does not advance any of the research agendas of past governments.
And the fourth decision he made is that he wants to eliminate the third option.
There cannot be a third option because you need to construct the dichotomy.
That is why he prefers not to confront Kirchnerism and do so with alternative political spaces that have a more constructive vocation.
- Do you think you are going to hold a plebiscite?
- No, he's not going to do it because he doesn't dare to do it.
Because of the risk it would have, although he is not going to say that is why.
-How was the radical intern? Did Milei's attacks bring them together?
- Very good, because we arrived at the venue with a very large internal debate exercise.
And it is also a fact of reality that systematic external aggression unites the internal front.
- There are radicals angry at the party's cooperative attitude despite grievances. What does it tell them?
- First of all, it's not that we helped Javier Milei.
We help with ideas that we believe are right for Argentina.
At any time and in any circumstance.
We were the first to prevent Kirchnerism from falling into default.
With our votes, when their block was broken.
We have an ethic of responsibility.
We are the party of institutional republican defense.
We will never act in response to grievances or insults, before we were turtles, now we are lukewarm, but the truth is we are a political expression of rationality and honesty.
We do not act based on an angry reaction.
-How do you see the possible merger of your former PRO partners with La Libertad Avanza?
- The definitive incorporation of the PRO is very good news for the government and very bad news for the PRO.
It provides management to the Government, it provides technical staff, since this government is a ship at sea without sailors.
And he also takes away the Peronist weapon that Francos tried to create, which never ends well.
Now, the PRO definitively resigns its will to be a liberal, institutionalist and modern party and ties it to the fate of a populist extreme.
- Why do you think they do it then?
- Mauricio Macri feels that he has no alternative.
I believe that there is responsibility in Macri's view, there is also calculation and also some revenge from his own history.
On Patricia Bullrich's side... Next to her, Milei is lukewarm.
I value her courage, but I do not share the overacting in the field of public policies.
- Could there be radical leaks to this new weapon?
There may be minimal cases, but on a personal basis.
Those that may exist will be minimal cases and on a personal basis.
We have a responsibility to build an institutional alternative to extremes and populism.
Because this is one and Kirchnerism is another, and they are two types of populism.
But also, the responsibility of offering an alternative country model.
Which two existing models?
To the extractive, deficit and distributionist model, which governed us, and the fiscal, primarizing and importing model, which is not new either.
Our alternative, which is where our energies have to be, is an economically stable Argentina, with an exporting, productive, innovative and revolutionary model in educational matters.
- Is the removal of subsidies from groups revenge?
- There is no doubt that fiscal balances must be achieved and that one of the central issues is the allocation of subsidies, but the problem is not whether quickly or slowly but whether it is done well or not.
Doing it like an ax blow, the blow will be very strong, not for the governors.
I don't see anyone who takes a bondi.
It will be strong for users.
Furthermore, everyone is equal.
It is a way to reward those who did things wrong and deepens centralism, benefiting the AMBA.
- What is going to happen with the mega DNU? The Bicameral that has to deal with it is not even constituted...
- It is Martín Menem's responsibility and he has to resolve it as soon as possible.
We are going to insist that he comply and that he be given treatment and we are going to have the same behavior as towards the law.
We are already working on a traffic light, we believe that they have very valuable things and things that eventually we are not going to agree with.
- But the DNU are approved or rejected as a whole, not in parts...
- We believe that the Commission can, due to the autonomy of all the institutes addressed in the DNU, approve some and reject others.
- Are you planning to reinterpret the DNU law to do that?
- Congress is the highest body to give interpretation to the law it approved, which was made thinking of a type of DNU, which has nothing to do with this one of 300 articles.
-How do you evaluate Milei's recent trip to Israel and Italy?
- In matters of international politics I do not like eccentricities.
This overacting by the President is risky and will end up harming the Jewish cause due to its misuse and which puts Argentina at international risk.
You have to be serious.
You must have strategic stability and pragmatism to search for markets and not only for the search for financing.
On the verge of crying over the Omnibus Law and copied by Donald Trump
Rodrigo De Loredo on his bench
At the height of the negotiations with the Government for the Omnibus Law, the head of the radical group of Deputies, Rodrigo De Loredo, had his cell phone blown up with messages.
Organizations of all kinds, and even the CGT, asked him for meetings to discuss his situations.
In the middle of all that, he received two calls that surprised him: journalists from CNN and the Washington Post contacted him to ask if he was going to sue Donald Trump.
It turns out that on January 7, the former American president had officially launched his campaign with a spot equal to one that De Loredo had made in December 2022. Same music, same initial image of the protagonist walking backwards.
Same sequence of images splashed at speed until stopping to name concepts.
"He copied me, yes. It's obvious. I don't know, I passed it on to a lawyer...", now responds De Loredo, who has other more local problems to solve.
The truth is that the spots have been a registered trademark in his style of doing politics for years.
He parachuted, in a suit, for the launch and cover video of his second book, "Stop the Fall", and posed with a real falcon and western music in the background for the 2023 Córdoba campaign, among the most remembered videos.
"It's kind of embarrassing but it amuses me. And I like to take on the challenge of doing something disruptive to draw attention and tell something that I consider valuable," he says.
De Loredo is a lawyer graduated from the National University of Córdoba, he is the son of a writer mother and an engineer father.
None with participation in politics, although his maternal grandfather was active and worked with the former radical governor, Amadeo Sabattini, a hero in the UCR of Cordoba.
He married his girlfriend since he was 17, Carolina Aguad, daughter of the former Cambiemos official, Oscar Aguad.
They went to high school and university together and today they have four children.
He became active in politics before he was 18 years old.
He was a provincial deputy, president of ARSAT during the government of Mauricio Macri, councilor of Córdoba Capital and has been a national deputy since 2021. He first chaired the Evolution bloc, linked to Martín Lousteau, but now that the radical groups have been unified, he commands a group of 34 deputies .
During the debate on the Omnibus Law, his bench, as well as that led by Miguel Angel Pichetto, were key to the advancement of the norm that was generally approved in the chamber.
When it fell, because the Government decided to return it to committee when they were voting in particular on the sixth article - of more than 300 -, De Loredo was approached at the exit of Congress by Movileros and speaking about the situation he was on the verge of crying.
"It is my way of being, I am very transparent in my ideas and my emotions. It seems to me that this reflected a reality that is a kind of very great impotence and anger that exceeds the situation, which accumulates over time in an Argentina that It does not come from fanaticism, from sterile fights, which reflects how difficult it is to build something solid, that is sustained over time, and it seems to me that it arose very naturally. Fundamentally it happened to me when I said that I felt a little naive, because there were those who They alerted me," he says now in dialogue with
Clarín.
Right now
RODRIGO DE LOREDO - PHOTO: THE VOICE OF THE INTERIOR.
A dream:
that the country does well, finds its path and I can retire from politics.
A memory:
the birth of Lucia, my fourth daughter, on January 31st, a super red moon.
A leader
: Fernando Enrique Cardozo
A hero:
Two.
The Arturos, Illia and Frondizi.
One meal:
Milanese with potatoes and salads from Mirta, in the Jardín neighborhood.
A drink:
bitter mate with ginger.
A book:
the dystopia of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
A person I admire:
Jorge Luis Borges
A pleasure:
running listening to music.
A series:
Billion.
A place:
my house.