BY FRANCES ROBLES
 frobles@herald.com

 MANAGUA -- On a sunny afternoon recently, the U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua traveled to the countryside to hand out food aid to the nation's starving.

 Beside him doling out donated rice to the peasants: Enrique Bolaños, one of three presidential candidates here -- the one the Bush administration is clearly rooting for.

 Ambassador Oliver Garza shrugged off reporters' suggestions that the two were out stumping together -- even though it was a publicity-generating event held during the
 home stretch of a heated campaign season and Garza took the opportunity to call the opposing Sandinistas ``robbers.''

 The episode was the latest in a series of U.S. moves to undermine leftist presidential candidate Daniel Ortega and promote his opponent in the Nov. 4 election.

 The U.S. preference for anybody but Ortega has been made clear in a number of ways, including official statements in Washington, declarations by State Department
 officials and what seemed a lot like a stop on the campaign trail.

 SEEN AS MEDDLING

 Eleven years after the United States spent millions of dollars in a bloody civil war here to fight Nicaragua's leftists, Ortega's supporters view public proclamations against a
 candidate for the presidency as one more example of American meddling.

 ``Not even in the dark days of the Reagan-sponsored war in the 1980s did we see the American ambassador going around saying the kinds of things Garza shamelessly
 proclaims in public,'' said Miguel D'Escoto, a priest who served as foreign minister under the Sandinistas.

 ``In the name of democracy, they are pointing a gun at the head of the Nicaraguan people.''

 The leftist Sandinista Front, whose leaders included former President Ortega and his brother, Humberto, former defense minister, ruled here from 1979 to 1990. It was a
 period marked by a plunging economy, mandatory military service, war, uncontrollable inflation and restrictions of civil rights.

 The United States openly -- and later secretly -- spent millions to topple him by financing guerrilla warfare.

 Elections in 1990 finally did oust Ortega, and he's been trying to make his way back to power ever since. If polls are to be believed -- and they have often been dead
 wrong here -- Ortega just might win this time. Surveys show a tight race with Bolaños, the current administration's former vice president and considered by many as the
 candidate of outgoing President Arnoldo Alemán.

 A third party candidate has a tiny fraction of supporters -- about 4 percent -- and nearly 20 percent have yet to decide. And U.S. bureaucrats are making it clear where
 they'd like to see those undecided votes go.

 SCATHING SPEECH

 In June, the State Department's No. 2 diplomat in charge of Latin America, former Ambassador Lino Gutiérrez, delivered a scathing speech in Managua against Ortega,
 blasting his ties to people such as President Fidel Castro of Cuba and the Libyan leader, Moammar Gadhafi.

 This month, the rhetoric has heated up. Following a meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and Nicaragua's foreign minister, Francisco Aguirre, the State
 Department issued a statement that expressed ``grave reservations'' about the Sandinistas.

 U.S. Ambassador Garza has echoed that in later speeches, particularly slamming the party for ties to terrorists and for never returning or paying for properties seized
 during its administration.

 MORE PASSIONATE

 Garza makes no apologies for making the government's position public and said both he and Gutiérrez are likely more passionate in their views because they've seen
 firsthand the poverty and economic ruin left by the Sandinista regime.

 ``Is anything we say going to be perceived as affecting the elections? Are we being a little bit tougher in our words? Yes, probably so,'' Garza said in an interview with The
 Herald. ``. . . You say, `OK, let's go look and see if the Sandinistas have changed.' I've sat down with Daniel and said `Why don't you give us some indication in real
 terms of the changes you've made? Don't say you'll resolve these [property] cases when you come to power; you can resolve them now.'

 ``But he refuses to do it.''

 Garza defended inviting Bolaños to distribute U.S. food aid by saying he wanted to know what the candidate's position was on a so-called famine that Alemán says does
 not exist. Further, it was Bolaños who arranged for the donation.

 Did it look like a campaign trail stop?

 ``Of course it does,'' Garza said. ``As does Daniel Ortega meeting with me and bringing tons of press to document the meeting. Everybody takes advantage for their own
 benefit.''

 MIXED OPINIONS

 Experts are mixed on whether the U.S. position helps or hurts Bolaños.

 Frederick Denton, senior analyst for pollsters CID-Gallup, said he thought the tactic could be counterproductive until his last La Prensa-Ch. 2 poll showed Bolaños inching
 past Ortega for the first time.

 Denton now believes Bolaños crept up three points because of a negative ad campaign against Ortega and the hints from the U.S. government.

 ``Never in my whole life have I seen a sitting ambassador get publicly involved in a sovereign country's electoral process, nor have I ever heard of it,'' Denton said.

 ``The U.S. presents it as if you are either a friend of the U.S. or you're not -- and if you're not, you're out of luck. The undecided voter is thinking, `Well, I need to be on the
 side of the good guys.' ''

 A country that suffered a painful U.S. embargo in the 1980s, Denton said, is mindful of the money that comes from up north, both from the government and remittances
 from Nicaraguans.

 Still others say Ortega will gain votes because of the U.S. remarks. Miguel Diaz, director of the South America Project for the Center for Strategic International Studies in
 Washington, believes Gutiérrez's speech backfired.

 ``I don't think it played well for what we are trying to do: support Bolaños,'' said Diaz, who recently visited Nicaragua on a trip sponsored by a Republican think tank.

 ``The anti-American card can be played in some places, and Nicaragua is one of them. It's not appropriate to give an ultimatum speech, which is exactly what it was.

 ``We have crossed over the line.''
 
 
 
 

                                    © 2001 The Miami Herald and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.