As the date of May 28 nears, political themes begin to surface more intently in the conversations. In a moment with a longtime acquaintance, someone who is more like a casual contact these days, they agreed to meet for coffee and talk. After a quick catch‑up about families and mutual acquaintances, the discussion turned to the matters at hand.
The challenge stands: can Sánchez be decisively concluded? In a loud, provocative manner, the acquaintance invited a dialogue about the head of government, aware of the writer’s high profile within the circles they inhabit and their firm support for him and his policies. The provocation goes beyond mere disagreement, signaling a preference for a future leadership under Felipe González, seen by many as a stabilizing figure. If a camera had flashed in that moment, the look would have frozen into disbelief. Sánchez’s name is murky here—González’s supporters are not in agreement about how to celebrate him. The conversation touches on past loyalties and memories, and the people involved recall past positions that different sides once held about González and his era.
The dialogue shifts to recollections from González’s years in power, especially around the 1993 and 1996 election campaigns, when the pressure and hostility were palpable. The phrase “Get out, Mr. González” cropped up amid insults and heated public debates. A prominent journalist, Luis María Anson, once tied the end of the González era to a coordinated effort by several media figures and political actors. The claim suggested that right‑leaning forces aimed to end that political chapter and even questioned the integrity of state institutions. The recollection ends with a preference for Sevilla’s vibes over the present climate in some days, a subtle nod to personal loyalties that linger beyond the headlines.
Turning the focus to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the discussion grows more confrontational. The acquaintance uses harsh descriptors to criticize the former president, almost portraying him as a malevolent figure. The interaction lightly probes the reasons behind that hostility, especially considering Zapatero’s role at the time when ETA declared its end. The response frames a bold shift: the Iraq War, advocated by Aznar, is cited as a critical turning point. The decision to withdraw troops, promised during Zapatero’s campaign, is framed as a test of political consistency and a pledge kept in office hours. The war’s repercussions in Spain are acknowledged, including Aznar’s association with a controversial moment abroad and the international context surrounding that period. When the conversation notes the pledge to withdraw, it underscores a sense of promise fulfilled when the new government took office.
With the past set aside, a question about the current president arises in a spirit of cautious naivety. The reply centers on the desire to curb sanchismo, to move away from ETA remnants and the newer laws associated with that era. The notion that ETA is no longer active is met with skepticism, as lingering tensions remain visible in the room. The exchange also touches on Catalonia, observing that recent public appearances by the king and visits by ministers reflect a calmer era, even as voices of discontent persist. The sentiment expressed is that Sánchez has paid a heavy price for his decisions, and some view him as betraying national interests by compromising with regional demands, even as the political landscape remains unsettled.
The conversation notes several practical shortfalls. When probing for policy proposals, the other party moves quickly, leaving little room for deeper exploration, and the dialogue shifts away from a thorough, color‑driven discussion of alternative paths. The exchange ends with a sense of unfinished business and a reminder that the political terrain continues to be shaped by contested visions and rapid shifts in emphasis.