May 6, 2007

Sarkozy Vs Royal - BUMPED

UPDATE - Sarkozy wins French election. And CTV just cannot help themselves;

The charismatic but divisive 52-year-old reached out to all French citizens in his first speech as president-elect.

If you're somewhat to the right side of center in the public policy debate, and you've just scored a convincing victory in a 86% voter turnout - you're "divisive".

If you're a screeching, finger pointing Marxist inviting violence should you be defeated.... you're a Socialist "strong on the environment and schools" who would "have become France's first female president".

Original May 5 post continues below .............

Innovations in Newspapers;

Mr. Sarkozy grabbed the opportunity to bore in on his point that she could not lead France in such a temperamental fashion.

“Calm down,” he told her.

“No, I will not calm down,” she replied.

“Do not point at me with this finger, with this——” he said.

“No. Yes,” she said.

“With this index finger pointed, because frankly——”

“No, I will not calm down,” she said.

“No, I will not calm down. I will not calm down.”

“To be president of the republic, you have to be calm,” he said.

She responded: “Not when there are injustices. There are angers that are perfectly healthy because they correspond to people’s suffering. There are angers I will have even when I am president of the republic.”


France risks violence and brutality if right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday's presidential election, his Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday.

On the last day of official campaigning, opinion polls showed Sarkozy enjoyed a commanding lead over Royal, who accused the former interior minister of lying and polarizing France.

"Choosing Nicolas Sarkozy would be a dangerous choice," Royal told RTL radio.

"It is my responsibility today to alert people to the risk of (his) candidature with regards to the violence and brutality that would be unleashed in the country (if he won)," she said.

Pressed on whether there would actually be violence, Royal said: "I think so, I think so," referring specifically to France's volatile suburbs hit by widespread rioting in 2005.


Paul Wells - "Early on, she refused to reduce the size of the civil service; then she said she wants to "de-bureaucratize the state"; all this while demanding that female police officers have (presumably male) escorts when going home at night for their safety."

Posted by Kate at May 6, 2007 4:22 PM

Did you know that she's a graduate of France's finishing school for bureaucrats, the School of National Administration?

Posted by: Daniel M. Ryan at May 5, 2007 8:50 AM

typical leftoid tactic....once the argument is lost, attack on the personal level.....our leftards have learned from the masters....even my 16 yr old daughter noticed it on a trip to Paris last year....her position on global warming elicited some interesting opinions, to say the freedom of speech from those morons.....ask Mike Harris - LOL

Posted by: kingstonlad at May 5, 2007 9:04 AM

Segolene Royal is the nanny state personified, complete with a tendency to nag her charges when they don't wash their hands. But the economic statistics tell the story and the French have a choice between continued relative economic decline or reform.

Posted by: mtaylor at May 5, 2007 9:06 AM

Dion holds ... a doctorate in sociology from the Institut d’études politiques in Paris." Marxist, of course.


Will the Canadian MSM publicize with a "photo-op" the casting of Citoyen Dion's ballot/vote in the French election? Where will Citoyen Dion vote? Montreal? Ottawa? St. Pierre-Miquelon? Paris? At the official residence, Stornoway, in the suburb of Ottawa, of the Canadian Leader of the Official Opposition?

The question is: For which leader/party will Citoyen Dion vote?

We demand a photo-op of Citoyen Dion voting in the French election.

Canadians demand/need to know.

Posted by: maz2 at May 5, 2007 9:18 AM

Isn't it ironic that the Moonbat French will resort to violence only with the threat of their government handouts and socialist programs being taken away.

Posted by: John at May 5, 2007 9:20 AM

She is referriung to the upcoming suburban Car B Que.

Like the fact that some people will riot because they dont get what they want is a reason to not do what you want.

Ridiculous. We have heard this here and in the US....people are angry...if 'x' candidate wins a democratic election there will be trouble..

ridiculous and scarey becasue it is a threat.

Posted by: Stephen at May 5, 2007 9:39 AM

I don't trust EITHER of them, given their words and actions in the past: Sarkozy has shown that he's just as much of a threat to freedom as Royal is, given these statements to the press.

"I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home."

Posted by: SDC at May 5, 2007 9:44 AM

'Seems to me that Segolene Royal belongs in her kitchen, planning meals for the week and baking cookies. She seems incapable of reasonable discourse. But wouldn't it be just like the French to elect her as their President?

Look at the women we have in politics: Alexa verbally-over-the-top-all-the-time McDonough, Eliza the-sky-is-falling-PM Harper's-worse-than-a-Nazi, Hedy burning-crosses Fry, Martha I'm-a-puppet-mouthpiece-for-Liberal-mismanagement Hall-Findlay, Libby Mama-Cass-Clone Davies, Hillary it-takes-OTHER-women-to-care-for-my-kid-damn-the-Right Wing Conspiracy Clinton...

It could be that the shouted-down adage that women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen wasn't as hysterical and retrograde as it appears.

Margaret Thatcher seemed to be able to keep her temper in check, but these other women are menaces to democracy. They're harpies who seem to think that BECAUSE they're women they have special privileges and a green light to vent their agendas as loudly and nastily as they please.

Spare us these fairer-sex floozies.


Posted by: getalifeladies at May 5, 2007 9:44 AM

“Do not point at me with this finger, with this——” he said."

WHOA!..HEY! Ya don't want to let her get away with that...that finger pointing is deadly coming from a churlish Franco-commie culture that's the finger they pick their nose and anus with then stir their wine with as they evade the work force and it's also the finger they open their entitlement checks with....boy did you get insulted...using the commie sloth digit to put the political hex you...oh the humanity.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at May 5, 2007 9:47 AM

BTW, I think that being in the kitchen, planning meals for the week, baking cookies, and caring for the kids or grandkids is a high calling--certainly a higher one than these nasty, nagging ninnies are engaged in, in politics.

Posted by: getalifeladies at May 5, 2007 9:50 AM

For a Canadian this debate was sooooo deja vu - I kept waiting for her to refer to Sarkozys' "scary hidden agenda"

Posted by: tom at May 5, 2007 9:50 AM

Have the French exploited the shallow depths that Canadians have long enjoyed? Did either of them hurl the ultimate insult: accusations of wanting something "American-style"?

Posted by: Leo at May 5, 2007 10:05 AM

In listening to a newstory on CBC by Schlessinger the other night, I felt he did an admirable job of dispationately reporting on the nuances of the French election...right up until the end, that is, when he concluded the newstory by saying that the French had a distinct choice to make between these two, with the two representing two different figures from France's past:

- he likened Royal (the socialist) to Joan of Arc, and then
- he likened Sarkozy (the conservative) to Napoleon. bias there. It ruined what otherwise was a well-done piece (imho) of journalism.

Posted by: Eeyore at May 5, 2007 10:16 AM

Royal's probably right - left leaning 'activists' always resort to violence when they don't get what they want, so it won't be a surprise when they incite riots.

Posted by: philanthropist at May 5, 2007 10:23 AM


saw that, too much
the comparison works only on GENDER.

Posted by: aj in calgary at May 5, 2007 11:11 AM


To the French a Napoleon reference wouldnt be such a bad thing.....but the parallels are surface and an easy hook to hang on.

Immigrant, meaning not "pure French" (Napoleon = Sardinia, Sarkozy = Hungary), they are both short, both "outsiders or people who have climbed their way in (not a bad thing because it means at the moment they appreciate talent and merit while recognizing the utility of the establishment for what it is and isnt)

In the last respect Harper is similar, he got there on his own merits but has learned how to recognize the latent power some have, how to avoid, how to leverage and how to dismantle or neutrealize (slowly and through co-option is generally the answer)

Posted by: Stephen at May 5, 2007 11:29 AM

Methinks Fwance deserves Madame.

Posted by: Alienated at May 5, 2007 12:04 PM

alienated thinks "...Fwance deserves Madame."

The problem is, do the rest of us?

Posted by: 'been around the block at May 5, 2007 12:10 PM

I think we found someone more insane than Jack Layton in Royal.

Posted by: Ryan at May 5, 2007 12:25 PM

Royal has given a call to arms to anarchists, hoodlumS and ethnofascists, plain and simple. Why else would she make such a statement? Democracy is fine until you don't get what you want, according to her ilk.

Posted by: Shamrock at May 5, 2007 12:29 PM

1: "you're retarded"

2: "no, you're retarded"

1: "no you're more retarded"

2: "you're a million times more retarded"

1: "you're retarded to infinity"

2: "nyah, nyah, nyah"

See what the nanny state does to grown adults?....matured bodies and childish ways.

Posted by: Doug at May 5, 2007 12:51 PM

Sarko is about as right-wing as Joe Clark, but less stupid.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at May 5, 2007 1:10 PM

shamrock - that's a perfect analysis. It's her way, or no way. Quite the tyrant.

Posted by: ET at May 5, 2007 1:13 PM

I think Royal and Dijon should have sex together.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at May 5, 2007 1:13 PM

If the French elect Royal they are pussy-whipped.

If the French elect Sarkozy they will crack the whip.

In any case the French are whipped...

Posted by: Observer at May 5, 2007 2:20 PM

Stephen, I agree that there are some parallels between Sarkozy and Napoleon:

- foreign-born, male

And there are parallels between Royal and Joan of Arc:

- pure french, female

The similarities are STAGGERING, eh?! I can SURE see the resemblance! /sarc off

Using this same standard for comparisons, you could equate anybody to anybody wit, Stephen, you are a male and you type, therefore you are just like Hemingway (or Chomsky).

This news article was for Canadian consumption...and it was quite clearly enunciated that Royal was "socialist" and Sarkozy was "conservative"...and I believe that the majority of Canadians would view Joan of Arc positively and Napoleon negatively.

Therefore, my point remains.

Posted by: Eeyore at May 5, 2007 2:51 PM

fRENCH FEDERAL CANDIDATE'S DEBATE ( english translation on):

"Ah pont ma fingair at you son of a silly person"

"Pardon me?"

Ah blow ma nose at your you wipair of other's bottoms"

" now see here!"

"Go and boil your bottom, you empty headed animal food trough wipair"

"look, if you continue this sillyness I will be forced to speak to the moderator"

"I don't wanna talk to you no more,I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"

"Um Mr. Moderator is there another candidate I can debate?...this one's head appears to have been ripped off and replaced by a gibbering Welsh turnip"


Hmmmm Mr. Sarkozy of the Sensible Party has requested a less silly candidate to debate.

Well sir we have candidates waiting in the green room..let's see....

there's Kevin Philip Booong from the Slightly silly party...

and then there's Jethro Q. Walrustitty the Silly candidate...

...and a Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim bus stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel from the extremely silly party.

Any particual choice Mr. Sarkozy ??

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at May 5, 2007 2:51 PM

Royal is taking after the Islamofascists – do what I say, or you will pay of it: do it my way or there will be violence. Vote for me, or I will kill you, all in the name of peace and good government, of course.

Posted by: terrence at May 5, 2007 2:58 PM

Is there a third choice? It would appear that neither are capable of leading a modern state. Sarko's view of what constitutes a republic and its values is as scary as the matricat Royal. Sarko seems to have graduated from the Chavez ecole de service publique.

Posted by: Skip at May 5, 2007 3:44 PM

"Is there a third choice? It would appear that neither are capable of leading a modern state. Sarko's view of what constitutes a republic and its values is as scary as the matricat Royal. Sarko seems to have graduated from the Chavez ecole de service publique.

Posted by: Skip at May 5, 2007 3:44 PM"

And once again a member of SDA demonstrates that actual knowledge should in no way impede them.


Posted by: Don at May 5, 2007 3:55 PM

is she muslim? caricature even?

Posted by: george at May 5, 2007 4:48 PM

Sarkozy Vs Royal:

Royal looks pretty good in a bikini, especially cosidering she's 54 and has four kids. Sarkozy certainly wouldn't look as good.

Posted by: lberia at May 5, 2007 5:06 PM

Ah Don, you superficial troll, the question is rhetorical... Once again, we have to lead a lefty by the hand to the garden of enlightenment. Given the choices, a Frenchman might be excused if he vainly looked for some other, any other, choice, in the faint hope there might be someone else, somewhere. Compris, mon ami?

Posted by: Skip at May 5, 2007 5:44 PM

Not much is going to change in France after this election. Neither one of them has a strong enough mandate or drastic Reagan/Thatcher plan to change the rot.

Segolene Royal is smarmy. What's she is doing is a Tony Soprano number on the voters, my thugs in the suburbs will do violence if you don't vote for me.

Here's a country with a policy to vilify America, too stupid to appreciate that we are the only good world power left standing. The Russians have activated their Energy Bomb directed at the EU - Estonia was cut off this week, Iran will have France in striking distance, and over 10% of their population is Muslim and perpetually agitated.

The French need to get over themselves. They aren't players anymore. The wheels came off for them in the ME when their favorite thug to do business with, Saddam, got nailed.

I've been boycotting French products since after their post 9/11 utterances. Think before you buy. Who would have known that the Red Roof Inn motel chain was French owned.

Turkey has a more interesting election coming up, where the secularists are embattled with the Islamists. The good guys are winning there. The French are irrelevant. I miss their brie cheese with my probably life enduring boycott, that's all. A small sacrifice.

Posted by: penny at May 5, 2007 6:00 PM

Sarko seems to have graduated from the Chavez ecole de service publique.

Hey, Skip, are you for real or just a fatuous brainless drive-by troll? Back that statement up with some facts, my friend. And in what way is Sarko nationalizing private companies, aligning with Fidel Castro and spewing Marxist collectivist garbage like Chavez?

Try to stay on task, Skip. Got an answer?

The French didn't seek a third choice. They riot for everthing else. These inadequate candidates weren't riot material. End of story. France rots.

Posted by: penny at May 5, 2007 6:40 PM

Fatuous, good choice of words, Penny. Read this quote, think a bit about the mind that speaks it. Try to expand your horizons a bit. The distance between these words and Chavez is nothing but a short walk.

""I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home."

Posted by: Skip at May 5, 2007 10:22 PM

WHOA!..HEY! Ya don't want to let her get away with that...that finger pointing is deadly coming from a churlish commie...

It's almost as brutal as John Bolton's aggressive putting of hands on his hips when mad at underlings.

Sarko is about as right-wing as Joe Clark, but less stupid.

And that's the best on offer, so let's hope he pulls it off. He's got some protectionist inclinations and can be heavy-handed (like the BS ban on taking pictures of street crime he promoted), but he's at least pointed in the right direction - and if Royal gets in the country is screwed.

Posted by: Dudley Morris at May 6, 2007 3:25 AM

Addition to Doug's good comment.

Those French guys just don't know how to debate -that monumental debater - Bugs Bunny - would handle the situation as follows:

Royal: "You're retarded."
Sarkozy: "No, you're retarded."

Royal: "No, you're more retarded."
Sarkozy: "No, you're a million times more retarded"

Royal: "No, you're retarded to infinity."
Sarkozy: "Yes, I'm retarded to infinity."

Royal: "No, I'm retarded to infinity."
Sarkozy: "Okay, you're right!"

Posted by: cconn at May 6, 2007 4:24 AM

And the winner is! From GnM "French government exit polls show Nicolas Sarkozy is the likely winner of Sunday's presidential election "

Posted by: Greg Grandy at May 6, 2007 12:53 PM

Did any one here actually see that debate on TV?

I wouldn't let her babysit my kids, much less have fingers on the french nuclear trigger.

She's utterly illogical, and mentally flexible enough to hold the illogic in one mind. On one side she going to lower taxes and reduce bureaucratization, on other hand increase the number of bureaucrats to do this and that. (Nevermind the Quangos.) She wants to dialog and discuss.

Sarko is a right cynical bastard but he has actual policies he wishes to implement because he thinks they are a good idea.

The consequence will be that if he is elected there WILL be (leftoid) violence, and riots in the banlieu.... but that's a not necessarily a bad thing. That's special interests getting their ox's gored.

Afterall, if the French unions/interest groups feel like their "rights and priviledges" are being threatened they WILL strike and they will be violence.

This is going to be a prime example of public choice theory brought to life. Smaller and larger special interest groups are going to complain VERY loudly, the vast majority of the public is going to think quietly "f-them and the horse they rode in on" so the question will be whether the government will take the heat for the public good and whether the French public will in the end vote for the greater good rather than vote for candidates who pander to their narrow good.

Posted by: Fred at May 6, 2007 3:16 PM

Is Paris Burning?

Posted by: Largs at May 6, 2007 4:37 PM

""I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms
I forget who said it, but it is so true, “I would not trust a government , who does not trust it’s own citizens with guns”

Posted by: Alan at May 6, 2007 4:48 PM

The french are getting tired of the mess that idiot CHIRAQ was making of the country so they ousted him they got tired of the poodle and replaced him with a german shepard

Posted by: spurwing plover at May 6, 2007 5:00 PM

Seems like Royal had a Dean moment and got the same results as he did. Message to all conservatives in next election. DON'T SCREAM. Message to all watermelon candidates KEEP SCREAMING.

Posted by: mary T. at May 6, 2007 5:02 PM

This election shows just how much the backs of the "native" french are against the walls. The socialist enviro-social anti-conservative schtick has finally jumped the shark.

Let's see if the slide into communist sharia oblivion has officially been stalled or just slowed a little. I'm hoping it's not a case of too little too late.

Posted by: Martin B. at May 6, 2007 5:03 PM

To answer your question, Daniel:

Interestingly enough, three of the four front-runners as of the end of March—Sarkozy, Bayrou, and Le Pen—were not enarchs. And Royal, though an enarch, seemed to have fallen out of touch with that milieu. Of the four, Sarkozy, openly pro-American and a (cautious) critic of the welfare state, was probably the only candidate to have given serious thought to France’s necrotic condition, hinting at various constitutional reforms—from the abolition of the prime minister’s office to a stronger parliament and stronger parliamentary commissions, not to mention progressive cuts in the civil service—that would bring the republic closer to the American political model. Not to be outdone by Sarkozy, Bayrou announced in early April that, if elected, he would abolish the ENA altogether.

Via Power Line blog (although written before, even, the first round of elections):

And a slip of the keyboard, Stephen, that's Cosica not Sardinia.

And re. "Is Paris Burning", only when she pees, Largs.

Posted by: andycanuck at May 6, 2007 5:26 PM

It just proves the mistake that the Americans and Canadians made in the second World War.We should have stayed home and let those Europeans fight it out for a few more years.We saved France's ass twice,maybe one of these times they will have to save their own.

Posted by: spike 1 at May 6, 2007 5:38 PM

I happen to Sarkozy's win is rather good for France, leagues better than the alternative!

Posted by: John Murney at May 6, 2007 6:03 PM

OH OH Kanukistni red media cannot allow this to go unspun....any conservative electoral win against the shining path Euro socialists must be the work of sunversion.

Star headline Monday:
"Brown Shirt Wins French Leadeship amid syuspicion of subversive balloting"

"Police on 24 hr watch that Riechstadt is not burned by fanatic briwn shirt followers of new French leader"

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at May 6, 2007 6:04 PM

I think that the Royal with cheese was right, They're now rioting in France.,,30200-1264337,00.html

Posted by: multirec at May 6, 2007 6:05 PM

France has three enormous problems that will have to solved within the next ten years or there will be no France. First, the population is entirely too addicted to its nanny-state entitlements (something like Canada, only a more advanced state of the disease). Second, they have forgotten that sex is also about having children, so there soon will be nobody around to pay for all these entitlements. So, third, they are importing people who want to kill them and accomplish what they failed to do in 732 AD.

Sarkozy may not be the man to solve these problems, but he is the closest candidate the French had to such a person and for whom they were willing to vote. If he fails, then he will be able to say, with far more certainty than Louis XV said it: "apres moi, le deluge".

Posted by: felis corpulentis at May 6, 2007 6:15 PM

LGF has several links about the election and France's "youth" problem.

Posted by: andycanuck at May 6, 2007 6:42 PM

Calling Royal a marxist is kind of like calling a Mormon a Roman Catholic. Or like my referring to everyone to the right of me as fascists - or liberals or conservatives or libertarians, for that matter, so long as important distinctions are obscured. She's a Blair-type social democrat.

Posted by: exile at May 6, 2007 6:43 PM

What's wrong with europe first Germany and now France electing a less socialist government. Problems in the utopia? On a related not if their are riots because of this election; will the CBC finally cover them?

Posted by: Kevin at May 6, 2007 6:44 PM

The rioting is small beer though, multirec, nothing like what was expected or Royal was hoping for.

It's funny watching how this was covered by the international services of BBC vs CNN - for all its justly being criticized for its leftard biases, the Beeb's reporting was actually quite even-handed, whereas CNN was more like CTV - worrying about Sarko's "divisiveness", looking for interviewees to express concern, detailed speculations on the extent of rioting and expected violence in reaction to his win, etc. Who'd have thunk it?

Posted by: Dudley Morris at May 6, 2007 6:45 PM

In other news, Harper and the Connettes still tanking. Woo hoo!

Posted by: Reformed Minion at May 6, 2007 6:46 PM

I just read that the Left organized the physical violence in the Paris streets using their internet sites. No surprise, the anarchists on the Left have found fellowship with France's jihadis, intolerance and violence as driving forces for both.

France, Europeans, all of us, better get a grip. Now. There wouldn't be an Act II. There are forces out there that are as evil as anything that was fomenting in the 1930's.

I was disgusted when Clinton won re-election, burning my neighbors car wasn't an option, the normal civic model of my generation, there is always a remedy next election cycle. Fast forward. Viewing the news clips, there are a lot of skinny little white French boys acting bad. I can only conclude that tonight's car torching and the anarchy in Paris is the terminal end of indulged narcissism.

An armed society is a polite society. I defy punks like in Paris to pull their stunts here. Europe isn't getting that.

Posted by: penny at May 6, 2007 6:50 PM


Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at May 6, 2007 7:12 PM

heh- CTV was up to its usual deranged standards of reporting. They had a (what else) York University professor on, who informed us gravely, how bad Sarkozy was.

She told us that he had proposed immigration requirements that would, for example, with reference to family members, well, the applicant would have to show that he/she could provide accomodation for these family members he was sponsoring! And, the immigrants would be expected to learn French. In her words - these are 'stringent requirements'.

So, rather than any and all coming into France, immediately applying for welfare, the immigrants would be expected to, yuck, get a job and work. And rather than one person coming ahead and then, bringing in the rest of the extended family, who would apply for welfare, this would not be permitted. If you come, you work; and if you want others, you must sponsor them. And, rather than setting up isolate ghettoes, to assimilate with the country they chose to immigrate to, ie, learn French.

By the way, these are the same standards that exist, now, with Canadian immigration.

And, on the CBC, it was doing its part in the Great Canadian MSM Nightly Indoctrination. It was presenting a show explaining how the US was going around the world, forcing democoracy on nations, to serve its own needs. Bad, evil USA. Good, wise, CBC.

Posted by: ET at May 6, 2007 7:17 PM

I just don't understand why the left is so hysterical. They've been hysterical over Nixon, Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Bush, Harper and now Sarkozy. (No one can take British Cameron seriously, so no hysteria there).

It's beyond simple political antagonism. I think it may be due to two things:

1) The unacceptable realisation that socialism is a fraud; it doesn't bring Utopia, but distopia.

b) Guilt over their success in defeating America in Vietnam and all those re-education camps and boat people that didn't make it. Also, the Vietnamese government is proving point (1).

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at May 6, 2007 7:26 PM

Is Sarkozy (the son of a Hungarian immigrant to France ) a descendant of Attila The Hun?

Posted by: Joe Molnar at May 6, 2007 7:30 PM

Penny: "An armed society is a polite society."

What armed society did you have in mind?

Posted by: exile at May 6, 2007 7:35 PM

American did not lose any war....Vietnam was just one tactical engagement, in a bigger strategic picture....actually, because of the tenacity of the Yanks, and the resources expended by the commies(Ivan and Mao), the Vietnam engagement allowed the west to gain the military domination that lead to winning the cold war.....just my little piece of historical revisionism

Posted by: kingstonlad at May 6, 2007 7:35 PM

I agree with you kingstonLad.

The Tet offensive was a military victory for teh US but the left anti-war movement managed to convince the world it was a pivotal defeat.

The left made the US withdraw and hey, look what happened.

They want to do the same thing now in iraq.

They are shameless cowards.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at May 6, 2007 8:07 PM

What armed society did you have in mind?

Mine. Carbeques not an ongoing event here.

See if you can figure out why the regular torching of cars in an American neighborhood not become a regular event? Both counties have 911. What could it be?

I'd say we are more polite.

Posted by: penny at May 6, 2007 8:08 PM

"not become a regular event?"... let's try "would not beome a regular event?

Posted by: penny at May 6, 2007 8:15 PM


thanks....I couldnt remember and i was just too freakin lazy to google it, thinking I could go by memory....50 50 and I guessed wrong.

thanks for the correction.

And no I dont think he is Napoleon....and one should hope he isnt....

However, the good aspects of Napoleon, as is often the case when an outsider fights his/her way inside is that they brng that appreciation for merit.

France has lots of change to go through...not the least of which is how to deal with car b quers...if he sets immigration limits etc he will be like Napoleon, and start something that will spread across Europe like wildfire.

Bethoven wrote the Eroica in admiration of Napoleon but then, after seeing what he really was, tried to remove his dedication.

Should be an interesting summer and fall.

Posted by: Stephen at May 6, 2007 8:32 PM

Luc Malo led the singing: "We Are the Champions".
No reports yet from Citoyen Dion.


MONTREAL, May 6, 2007 (AFP) - Most French expatriate voters in Canada backed Socialist candidate Segolene Royal, who lost her bid for France's presidency to Nicolas Sarkozy on Sunday, government figures showed.[...]

Still, parties erupted upon news of Sarkozy's win. Around 200 Sarkozy supporters gathered in one Montreal restaurant for a victory celebration, singing the Queen hit "We Are the Champions" followed by the Marseillaise. ...-

Posted by: maz2 at May 6, 2007 8:54 PM

It's amazing how whenever the socialists take power things fall to pieces. I was living in B.C. when Harcourt and the NDP were elected and what a nightmare that turned out to be. They managed to ruin the economy and turn B.C. into a have-not province overnight. Same thing with Ray in Ontario.

The UK had to elect Thatcher to fix their mess, and it looks like France is starting to wake up to the train wreck that is socialism.

Posted by: Belisarius at May 6, 2007 9:49 PM

"A great nation, like the United States, has a duty not to block the battle against global warming but — on the contrary — to take the lead in this battle, because the fate of the whole of humanity is at stake," Sarkozy said.

Do you still like the guy?

Posted by: TruthSeeker at May 6, 2007 10:32 PM

Tonight's CBC reporter first claimed that Sarkozy was like "the Margaret Thatcher of French politics" -- but that he admires Tony Blair and, more quietly, Bush.

An updated report shown later this evening removed any reference to Blair and simply said Sarkozy "is the Margaret Thatcher of French politics -- he admires George W. Bush."

Posted by: Stella at May 6, 2007 11:59 PM

NY Times:
"Arrogant, brutal, an authoritarian demagogue, a 'perfect Iago': the president-elect of France has been called a lot of unpleasant things in recent months and now has five years to prove his critics wrong."

"It's true, we can't attend to you here and now as we'd like, but just try to stay out of our way. Just try! We'll get you, shorty -- and your toy poodle, too!"

But he wasn't called divisive -- only polarizing.
Too bad political spectra from different countries don't really correlate well. What would the Times et al have written if a hard-boiled Brit type of conservative had been elected.
Given the choice between the two, it's still a very good poker hand.

Posted by: Ramon Daley at May 7, 2007 12:06 AM

Baby steps.

Posted by: Belisarius at May 7, 2007 12:07 AM


Fascism is to the left of socialism, always has been. Mussolini coined the word to describe his new type of government when he felt socialism didn't go far enough.

Churchill was a right wing Conservative driven by a passionate hate for socialism.

Posted by: Trent at May 7, 2007 12:18 AM

penny "See if you can figure out why the regular torching of cars in an American neighborhood not become a regular event"

Well they do murder each other an awful lot more. Suggesting America is a less violent society than France is ridiculous.

Posted by: Jose at May 7, 2007 2:13 AM

Good job. How much Sarkozy can or even wants to achieve is very much up in the air given France's long history of welfare statism, but his victory is welcome and encouraging nonetheless.

Posted by: Blackadder at May 7, 2007 3:30 AM

Ramon Daley - Beat me to it on the New York Times coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle links to it on their web page, with the headline "France's Polarizing Leader", and the kicker "U.S.-friendly Nicolas Sarkozy, called arrogant and brutal by some, defeats Socialist candidate Royal."

Posted by: Silicon Valley Jim at May 7, 2007 11:55 AM

"Well they do murder each other an awful lot more."

Proprtionately? I rather doubt it.

Posted by: Plastic Yank at May 7, 2007 12:33 PM

This guy has a proper conservative attitude towards guns. Better that a person can point out their attacker in a court than provide foresnic evidence to convict.

Posted by: Iain at May 8, 2007 12:52 AM

Burn,Paris, burn!


Posted by: lambgoat at May 8, 2007 1:32 AM