Monday, September 19, 2011

The Marrakech Pact

The long-rumored Marrakech pact between Aubry and Strauss-Kahn was reluctantly confirmed last night by the latter. So Aubry would have stood aside to allow DSK to run for president head-to-head against Hollande. And then, no doubt, he would have named her prime minister: it's hard to imagine such a bargain without a quid pro quo. Hollande's minions are already using this pact against Aubry. And what about Royal? In some versions of the rumor, she, too, was party to the pact. There's nothing illegitimate about such a deal, but of course one wants to know more. Was DSK afraid of losing the primary? Why did he choose Aubry rather than Hollande? Were there overtures to Hollande, which he rejected?

If Claire Chazal had been doing her job, she might have asked some of these questions. She might also have asked what, since it wasn't un rapport tarifié ou forcé, Ms. Diallo found so irresistible about the naked IMF director. But as Anne Sinclair's friend, Chazal knew what her function was and performed as intended.

2 comments:

MCG said...

If Claire Chazal had been doing her job, she would have challenged DSK's mischaracterization of the Manhattan District Attorney's report. Contrary to his emphatic and repeated suggestion, the District Attorney did not absolve DSK.

Dionyssis G. Dimitrakopoulos said...

DSK chose Aubry because she (unlike Hollande) is not (believed to be) from the same flank of the PS. By doing so he would have increased the scope of his appeal within the party.