J-10
BETTING ODDS FAVOR SARKO 4-1
INTRADE BETTING ON SARKOZY
INTRADE BETTING ON ROYAL
Posted on 04/27/2007 1:47:31 AM PDT by Cincinna
Ségolène Royal, the Socialist candidate in the French presidential election on May 6, accused Nicolas Sarkozy, her conservative opponent, on Wednesday of having “apologized” to President Bush for France’s decision not to back the United States militarily in Iraq.
Mr. Sarkozy’s campaign team called her words “lies.”
“I am not for a Europe that aligns with the U.S.,” Ms. Royal said on France 2 television. “I have never been, and will never, go apologize to President Bush for the position of France on the issue of refusing to send our troops to Iraq.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Would a terrorist attack throw the elections to the defeatists, as it did in Spain, or would it finally wake the French up to their terrible danger? Hard to say.”
Not very hard to say.
A terrorist attack would anger the French, and push more of them to vote for the law-and-order candidate.
Spain, recall, was deeply divided on being in Iraq. The people didn’t want to be where the government sent them. When the attack came, it played on this weakness.
France isn’t in Iraq. The French are minding their own business, as far as the French are concerned anyway. They know terrorists want to attack France - the terrorists DID attack back in the 1980s. They don’t like the lawlessness and criminality. If there is a big terrorist attack in France, it will convince more French people than ever that they have to vote Sarkozy to fight it.
The disturbance in the Gare du Nord drove up Sarkozy’s numbers by about 2%, and drove down Royal’s by about 1%.
French people are dirigiste and really quite bad tempered. They want things run correctly. If France is just attacked out of the blue, within France, it will make French people mad as hell, and they will want the government to use its full powers to shut that sort of thing down.
All a terrorist attack would do would be to make more French people vote for Sarkozy. It’s not a bit hard to predict.
It will backfire. I agree Cincinna.
The secular left is scum.
The political fighting is getting goofier as it nears the end.
Hopefully, the terrorists understand this and won't try anything. Thank you for your analysis of things, and please keep postinng.
Royal really is hapless.
She should have walked away with this election.
I knew she was in trouble early, because I subscribed to her “Desirs d’Avenir” website, conversed with her partisans, posted thoughts there too. She herself did online chats there, and she posted her position papers.
Here was this bright, polished woman from ENA, attractive, and a mother of four to boot: she looked like a slam dunk, and should have BEEN a slam dunk.
But then she posted her opinion essays.
They were banal. Absolutely banal. There was no insight there. Platitudes like “Yes, yes I do believe that France has a future...”, followed up by calling those who webloggged for her cause her “militants”. It was like some sort of college student union pep rally. Flaccid, cabbage-headed, cud-chewing rhetoric. Abject.
I stopped reading after the second essay. And stopped saying that she was going to win. She was inept. When she proved as inept at international relations as she was in her Desirs d’Avenir, and the Guignols d’Info picked her up as a dimwitted suit, it was fading to black.
And then came the Gare du Nord and the reassertion of reality. After that, she was doomed.
Sarko is an excellent candidate who will good for France and good for the US.
It is not just that he is not a Socialist, like Royal, but that he is smart, capable, experienced, and has a spine of steel. He has shown throughout his career that he supports individual initiative, the work ethic, pay according to merit, lower taxes, and a strong relationship with the US.
At great political risk to himself, he met with, and was photographed with President Bush and Condi Rice. (see above photos taken September 2006) He was sending a strong signal that the anti-Americanism endorsed by the Chirac government was going to end.
I don’t think Sarko is a socialist, but he knows it is pointless to even try to undo the French socialist model that is currently in place, he simply wouldn’t have the mandate.
Even Ronald Reagan understood that “entitlements are forever.”
Royal is again trying to change the rules after the game has been played. This time in a Soviet-like manipulation of the media and electoral process.
Royal is going against the will of the people who voted massively (85% turnout) in a democratic election to have a runoff between Royal and Sarko. They voted to eliminate Bayrou, not make him part of the process.
Two thirds of the elected officials of Bayrou’s party, UDF, have thrown their support to Sarko.
Bayrou is proving himself, once again, to be the bitter, disappointed loser. He lost, and wants to turn his position as a loser into that pof a Queen maker.
IMO Sarko is handling it very well. He is keeping his cool and showing he has the strength of character and disciple to deal with things like this.
By calling attention to the “Stalinist” and “Soviet-like” actions of Royal, he is again focusing attention on the fact that she is a Socialist, no matter what kind of cockamamie “centrist” groveling she is willing to go through to get elected.
They were banal. Absolutely banal. There was no insight there. Platitudes like “Yes, yes I do believe that France has a future...”, followed up by calling those who webloggged for her cause her “militants”. It was like some sort of college student union pep rally. Flaccid, cabbage-headed, cud-chewing rhetoric. Abject.
Fascinating, I noticed one of the “charges” that Royal laid against Sarkozy is that “He talks like an American”. What an odd thing to say.
Is that an attempt to point out that Sarko is the son of immigrants? Or that he is anti intellectual?
And folks, if you cannot see the next charge that Royal will throw up against the wall to see if it sticks, let me guess
After the only debate, Royal or a sycophant will say
“Sarkozy is secretly planning on sending our military to Iraq to Fight Bush’s war of imperialism, we have secret insider information on this..”
And the media will run with the story.
INTRADE BETTING ON SARKOZY
INTRADE BETTING ON ROYAL
“’Sarkozy is secretly planning on sending our military to Iraq to Fight Bush’s war of imperialism, we have secret insider information on this..’
And the media will run with the story.”
Yes, but then Sarkozy will respond firmly that he opposed the American war in Iraq, and still opposes it, and state categorically (and truthfully) that France will never be sending any troops to Iraq during his Presidency.
Sarkozy has always opposed the American intervention in Iraq.
He is of the same mindset of many in the French right. Americans never listen to this, and they won’t now, but I am really going to try to explain where some thinking French people, people like Sarkozy (and Chirac, actually), who have no dislike for America at all, were and are on Iraq.
The problem for Sarkozy and Chirac, and those on the French right who like America but opposed the invasion was this, and always this: the belief that America could not possibly win in Iraq, that America would never be able to devote the amount of force or the degree of force necessary to actually conquer the country. The French know the Arabs better than anybody: their empire was the Muslim world, they fought an endless insurgency against the Algerians. They think of themselves as understanding the degree of fanaticism and of ruthlessness that the Arabs would bring. They also looked at the Middle East and saw, and see, a whole bevy of bad regimes. It was never just Iraq. It was Iraq and Iran and Syria and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and Libya and the Sudan and Somalia too. And Pakistan. The problem of terrorism and support for it, and bad government, and Islamism, was not and is not confined to one country. To invade the Middle East was to invite open-ended war, and the French did not believe that America had anything like the political will to commit the sort of resources necessary to win, for as long as it would take to win. What France feared was another Vietnam, another Lebanon, another Mogadishu, in which the Americans faced fanatics, suffered a lot of casualties, could not militarily win a political problem in so many countries, and would end up leaving in defeat, and leaving the place worse off and more radical than ever.
That was what the French feared. Of course, they also feared losing their oil concessions, but that was then. The concessions are lost. NOW Sarkozy looks at Iraq and sees that America is losing the war. Public will in America is slowly but steadily declining. Tony Blair is practically cooked given how discouraged and disgusted England is with the war. The “Coalition of the Willing” has fallen apart. The Americans still don’t have enough troops. The adventure turned into precisely the fiasco that Sarkozy and other well-meaning French conservatives thought it would, and for precisely the reasons they thought it would. So, obviously Sarkozy is not going to hitch France’s star to the falling American star in Iraq. The Americans are going to lose the war in Iraq. The French were convinced of it from the beginning. The French thought that Iraq would be another American Vietnam. They were convinced of it, and time has borne them out. So, folks like Sarkozy AND the French left are more confident then ever of their own strategic insights, given that they opposed going in with the US on the Iraq adventure.
If there were a way to bail America out, Sarkozy probably would, because he and Chirac both have stated what a disaster an American defeat and pullout will be. But France is not going to send in a bunch of troops to lose a war anyway. The French are going to simply watch, and folks like Sarkozy will shake their heads sadly and say it’s a tragedy, but if you had just listened to us in the first place you would have never gotten into this mess.
Americans do not want to hear it. It enrages them. But enraged or not, that is PRECISELY what Sarkozy and the whole French nation thinks about American in Iraq: America will lose, for the same reasons America lost Vietnam, France was right to refuse to get involved and to counsel so loudly against it, we told you so, you didn’t listen, and now it’s come to the ugly end we predicted all along.
That’s what he thinks.
That’s what they all think.
Now, he’s still pro-American, but he isn’t going to be sending troops into Iraq. He is not going to hitch his own star, and France’s, to an American defeat.
Hopefully, he and Chirac and the rest of France will be proven wrong, and resistance in Iraq will collapse before the American electorate gives up and elects a government that will end the war. But as of right now, the French think they were right, and Sarkozy is no different from Royal on this. Whether it is Sarkozy or Royal, or had it been Bayrou and Le Pen, no matter who is elected, France will continue to firmly oppose the war in Iraq, and will not be sending any assistance to the United States effort in that country. The reasons are different. Royal may well like to see an American defeat. Sarkozy never wanted an American defeat, but in Sarkozy’s eyes, an American loss was inevitable from the moment that America committed to invade Iraq. That’s why he opposed the war from the beginning. And now that, in his eyes, the war is nearly loss, sad as it is, he cannot allow France to be dragged down in defeat along with the Americans in the foolish operation that America launched against Chirac’s and his advice.
So, in Sarkozy America does have a friend. But America has a friend that expects them to lose the war in Iraq, and who is not going to commit France to what he always saw as a monumental strategic error.
Expect Sarkozy to be gracious to the US in public discourse, much moreso than other French Presidents have been. But do not expect on troop or dime of support in Iraq. Sarkozy, in his own view, was right. Had America listened to him she wouldn’t be in this pickle. She didn’t, and now it’s up to America to do what she can. France cannot bail her out of her own self-inflicted wound, executed contrary to the advice of France.
That’s the way it is.
That’s the way Sarkozy thinks.
And that’s the way he’ll behave as President.
I think your mistake is assuming that Sarko is anyting like Chirac. Different generation, different experience. The son of an Hungarian refuge,someone who fled the economic, religious repression of Communism, his experience is something Americans can relate to. Never forget that Hungary has always been the most conservative country in Europe. The Hungarian community in America, which votes almost 75% for the GOP is carefully following this election.
Chirac, aka Jacques Iraq, is a lifelong Arabist with close personal and financial ties to the repressive regimes in the Middle East like Syria and libya. His great close personal and financial relationship with Saddam explains more his anti-US policy than anything else.
Americans are smart enough to understand the arrogance and anti-Americanism of the French elite. They are also smart enough to recognize a friend and an ally in Sarko.
They don’t call him “Sarko the American” for nothing.
Interesting, I will say the book on Iraq has not been closed ...yet...but the final edits are being drawn up. It would have been better if the Neocons had been jettisoned earlier and a practacable strategy been implemented, but it is what is, the dog barked but the caravan left anyway...
For myself, nations act in their own best interests, if France’s interests are not in fighting for a pie in the sky vision of Iraq, the Democracy, that is understandable.
Sarkozy Imo, would be far more helpful to the US than Royal would ever be, she is running against Sarkozy but mentions the US all the time, Sarkozy mentions the US but in a different light.
As I recall, France had “won” in Algeria, the insurgency was defeated, but when the methods that were used were made public in France, the public outcry forced a withdrawal from Algeria.
It is also my opinion that France perhaps needs and economic shot in the arm, just for the good of France as whole, I think Sarkozy is far more likely to do that, then Royal would ever be.
“As I recall, France had “won” in Algeria, the insurgency was defeated, but when the methods that were used were made public in France, the public outcry forced a withdrawal from Algeria.
It is also my opinion that France perhaps needs and economic shot in the arm, just for the good of France as whole, I think Sarkozy is far more likely to do that, then Royal would ever be.”
As to Algeria, it would be more truthful to say that the corner had been turned, and the French Army was defeating the insurgency, but the way that it had to be done resulted in mass death of civilians. It wasn’t so much immediate public outcry as DeGaulle’s decision, having just created the 5th Republic and now leading it, that Algeria was a millstone around France’s neck, sucking all of the life out of the country. And what’s more, what France was having to do in order to hold onto a wrecked country was essentially changing the nature of what France was. He decided the game wasn’t worth the candle and pulled the forces out. Suffered a coup attempt too, as a result (the Army was NOT pleased).
As to the economic thing, France’s economy has been steadily expanding since 2001, and joblessness has declined into the mid 8% range, and continues to go down. There is no “Big Boom” economic strategy for France, but to the extent that Sarkozy is able to rationalize Europe and prevent labor madness from getting WORSE (Royal is talking about 32 hours now. Hell, why not 12?), it will bring stability. Sarkozy needs to not provoke the damaging general strikes, but he also needs to put a firm hand on wildcat public sector strikes, which are illegal. Deregulation is more of a Bayrou thing. Sarkozy wants to cut taxes, but cutting taxes without cutting expenses is an American Republican gimmick, and ultimately a fool’s game.
Sarkozy’s economic plan runs the risk of being a fiasco, with ill-advised tax cuts and headstrong anti-labor tactics that end up costing milliards in lost time due to furious strikes. My hope is that he will restrain his natural elan and tendency to be a muscle-flexing jerk, and focus on law and order. Bring down the crime rate and you make everybody’s property a lot more secure, and THAT is good for the economy.
Yes, Sarkozy IS an ally, and will be the best ally America can reasonably expect to get in a French President.
But no, he is not going to follow America into Iraq.
Not ever.
So, do not get your hopes up.
He doesn’t applaud Chirac for Chirac’s stance on Iraq in order to brownnose the old man.
He means it.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
It is delusional to believe that France’s economy is in good shape.
High taxes, less ability to work freely, the extremely high cost of living, and enormous unemployment rates make France’s economy “at risk”.
Taxes plus expenses are not higher than in the US if you compare what you GET for those taxes in France, compared with taxes plus the private expenditures you have to make in the US to get the same thing.
The unemployment rate is progressively lowering. The problem is the racial and geographical concentration of it. Perhaps Sarkozy will make soup out of the Arabs and this will reduce that problem.
Housing is expensive in Paris. This is because Paris is desireable. That is not such a bad thing.
If you add up all the taxes in France, income tax, social charges, TVA, and a tax on everything you possess for people having a new worth over $75,000, including their home, taxes are over 60% for middle class working people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.