I do however maintain that economic and media power was concentrated in a closely knit network of a handful of individuals who were (be it by persuasion, by necessity or by acquaintance) heavily connected to LDS.

We could go on ad infinitum about the reproductive rate of elites in Slovenia or even about the “six-handshakes-theory”, but the fact of the matter is that at its zenith LDS was basically omnipresent. At the very least it seemed so - and we both know that appearances are often much more difficult to overcome than actual problems. Case in point being this post of mine.

I do agree that LDS hit rock-bottom in early 2007 (and is making a rather rapid recovery, don’t you think?), but the problems within the party started waaay before that - shortly after 2004 parliamentary elections, when Ljubljana branch of LDS split into two fractions. It all went downhill from there.

So - if you really want to nitpick - I wrote that first came “(…)removal of LDS from power and its later near-demise.

Not that Golobič stuck around to witness the demise, of course. As soon as he saw that the party was about to enter a downward spiral, he bugged out and kept to the sidelines until last Saturday when he became the top dog of the new party.(…)”

So first came the removal of power and then came the near demise which (writes I) you didn’t stick around to see. And here you are, saying that you “mucho stucked around for a long time (till the eve of 2004 election)”.

Which of course confirms that you left before the demise of the party began. I just might have used a bit too colorful language and the meaning got lost.

I do concede that one could argue that the term “jumping ship” is not accurate enough, but to solve that one we would have to hold an entire debate on causes and effect of dissolution of LDS. So suffice it to say “a heterogenous group of prominent individuals saw where LDS was headed but was all of a sudden powerless to stop it”. Which basically amounts to the same thing - it’s just a matter of how you spin it.

But this really is nitpicking, no? I mean - you’re right (and I don’t think I said anything to the contrary) that at the end od the day it is all about quality of governing. That is where LDS sort of lost its track and became to self-involved, too arrogant and idea-less. Again, at the very least it seemed so from the outside.

And just as miracles were expected from the post-Drnovšek leaderships of LDS (Tone Rop, for all his qualities is no good at managing a crisis, whereas Jelko Kacin was simply beyond comprehension), miracles are now expected from Zares. I’m not saying you can’t deliver - it’s just a matter of whether you can deliver what people want.

Perhaps I’m over-reaching here, but I do strongly believe that people want politics to stop snowing them with bullshit which includes promises of politics done in a new way.

And that is the main quarrel I have Zares. Indeed

As I said - I’m more than willing to give Zares the benefit of the doubt (not that it matters a pair of fetid dingo’s kidneys what I do) and I eagerly await your political platform upon which I will be able to position you political continuum (although my scarce and possibly out of date info places Zares in the strongly liberal column)

But regarding the three consecutive mandates of LDS government: I never dismissed that as something unimportant. Au-contraire! I think it was (politically speaking) an astonishing achievment, especially in the period of economic, social and political transition. It did, however, bring about a lot of political baggage which you have to deal with now.

I would disagree about George W. though… If he were to run again, he would face either a Clinton (a woman, at that!) or a black man whose middle name is Husein.

But thanks for the compliments (and vice-versa, of course (bows slightly) and especially thanks for link to the interview in Mladina. It was very insightful. I remembered that I’ve read it when it was published, but it takes on a whole new meaning today.

http://www.finance.si/189340

IMHO 2002 was way too late to realize what a mess you guys have made. I have left the country in 2000.

and - almost forget: Igor Lauš, Kdo se boji slovenskih tajkunov? Finance, 27.8.07, tiskana izdaja št. 162/2007. Sorry, no link (guest only) – just the old fashioned data…