Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I suppose as long as she doesn't try to out-right the right, she's ok going for the centre. But the end result of all this is to shift the debate to the right overall.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 6th, 2006 at 02:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
After Clinton and Blair, the fear when dealing with these "tactical triangulations" is that they will simply continue in this manner in power, forever chasing the "centre" between their new triangulated position and the right.

After the battering I have taken from those two, it's hard to trust that Segolene actually has principles...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Jun 6th, 2006 at 04:06:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But that was my question: is she triangulating, or is she made to look like she is, even though she isn't really (as her criticsm comes form the left on the 35- hour week?)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 6th, 2006 at 04:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I realize I didn't address your main point, I bounced off desmoulin's interesting comment. What I think is:

We saw the "Blairite" meme in creation, between her reply to the FT about Blair, and the Le Monde article construing it. And my feeling was/is that she was being framed.

Now, with these two major themes in one week, there's no doubt she's doing something deliberately. And she must be aware how her words will be handled by the media and understood by most people. She's not bungling, she's not "innocent". So it appears to me she's triangulating.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Jun 6th, 2006 at 04:57:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series