"A French Lesson for Republicans"

American right wingers, led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, fell in love with France last month. They got excited because the voters of France turned to the right in May and elected Nicolas Sarkozy as their new president. Sarkozy, an urbane secularist who has appointed a leading socialist and one of the world's top human rights advocates to his Cabinet, is hardly an American-style yahoo conservative.

But Sarkozy has proposed serious assaults on France's social-welfare commitments, and that excited Gingrich and his circle – so much so that the potential Republican presidential contender has recently been writing columns with headlines like "A French Lesson for Republicans."

"I know this will seem strange to those of us who like to make jokes about the French, but the fact is that there is a great deal to be learned from the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy (a member of the ruling party) in last weekend's "change" election in France -- and Republicans had better learn it," Gingrich was busy telling his fellow partisans in May.

What Gingrich loved about Sarkozy's win was the fact that a conservative "reformer" replaced a status-quo conservative, former President Jacques Chirac. To his view, it held out the promise that an American conservative reformer who was willing to criticize George Bush – say, um, Newt Gingrich – might be able to hold the presidency in 2008.

Gingrich was especially enthusiastic about predictions that Sarkozy's "blue wave" was going to sweep over France in this month's parliamentary elections.

But as the French have gotten to know more about Sarkozy's plans for domestic reform, they have grown less excited about surfing that blue wave.

Going into Sunday's second round of elections for the French parliament, it was predicted that Sarkozy's Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) would dramatically improve its position – giving the new president a blank check to battle with unions, university professors, elderly retirees and pregnant moms to cut their benefits. It made political sense, Sarkozy was getting a friendly response from the French media and the opposition Socialist Party was in disarray – with its defeated presidential candidate Segolene Royal sniping publicly at its chairman, Francois Hollande, her longtime but apparently now former romantic partner.

Instead, the UMP lost 45 seats, while the Socialists gained 36 seats and the Communist Party, which had been predicted to collapse, held onto at least 15 seats.

One of Sarkozy's top Cabinet picks, former prime minister Alain Juppe, was defeated by a Socialist and had to resign his position, while a number of the president's allies and aides lost.

"The Right Wing Takes a Left Hook," declared the left-leaning Paris daily newspaper Liberation on Monday, which reported that, "Voters refused to give the party of Nicolas Sarkozy the blank check it demanded."

Though his position is weaker than that of his conservative predecessor, Jacques Chirac, Sarkozy will still have a parliamentary majority. He promises to go forward with his conservative reforms, and he'll undoubtedly succeed on some fronts.

But Sarkozy's demand for a broad mandate has been met with what the conservative business daily newspaper Tribune was met with a "first warning to the president."

Will Newt Gingrich get the warning? Unlikely. American conservatives are desperately seeking heroes these days. So desperately that they are looking in increasingly unlikely places – on the set of the television show "Law and Order," in France, even in the reject bin to which Gingrich was consigned. Gingrich and others will keep pointing to Sarkozy as an example of what they hope for: the prospect that that the failed Bush presidency can be replaced by another conservative presidency.

The facts from France suggest that circumstances are more nuaced. Sarkozy, both by his own savvy choices and by the choices of the French people, will not play the role Gingrich and other American right wingers would like him to fill. And those American conservatives who have aided and abetted George Bush's presidency will have a much harder time refashioning themselves than their French counterparts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (41)

1. Fascinating dichotomy with Sarkozy....

   Mr Nichols sounds almost identical to Limbaugh and friends in 1992 with Clinton's win.

   "It's no mandate"..."Look how he ran"..."Repubs picked up seats, Clinton was given a warning not to go to far to the extremes!"

   In other words, his (Mr Nichols or Mr Limbaugh) side lost the Presidency, but they want to make sure that everybody understands that it is totally meaningless and not anywhere close to a call for that President's policies to be implemented.

   Sure Sarkozy is no "Gingrich conservative"...but the Socialists lost, and for France...that's a big deal. Because if they'd won, Mr Nichols et al would be proclaiming a "New Left movement in France, sweeping away ANY Right popularity among the French people"....but they can't, so now it's sour grapes time!

   Posted by Mask at 06/18/2007 @ 2:58pm

2. Nichols somewhat overstates the case. Although Sarkozy's coaltion did lose seats, it's still the first time since 1978 that an incumbent legislative majority retained that majority in another election and he retains a 56-seat majority (and 59% of the seats).

   "one of the world's top human rights advocates to his Cabinet, is hardly an American-style yahoo conservative."

   Agreed, but that advocate (Koucher) supported the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds. Further, his supposed "serious assaults" on French social programs are designed to free up an economy that has had double-digit unemployment, slow (avg. about 1.5% over the last five years) GDP growth and budgets in deficit.

   Posted by brunowe at 06/18/2007 @ 3:05pm

3. Sour grapes? It doesn't sound like the elections for parliament provided Sarkozy with any kind of mandate. The "right" in France is about as right as the "left" in the US is left.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 06/18/2007 @ 3:39pm

4. Further, his supposed "serious assaults" on French social programs are designed to free up an economy that has had double-digit unemployment, slow (avg. about 1.5% over the last five years) GDP growth and budgets in deficit.

   Posted by BRUNOWE

   And how does the French society compare to the US? Healthcare, education, crime, poverty rates, ect--what are the numbers for the two nations?

   Posted by mtspence05 at 06/18/2007 @ 3:41pm

5. Would you like some Freedom Fries or Freedom Toast with that Newt?

   Posted by BlueTexan at 06/18/2007 @ 3:56pm

6. The "right" in France is about as right as the "left" in the US is left.

   Posted by MTSPENCE05 06/18/2007 @ 3:39pm

   Uh...yeah....believe that was my point here when I said "Sure Sarkozy is no "Gingrich conservative"---(Posted by MASK 06/18/2007 @ 2:58pm)

   But the Socialists were...socialists (dictionary definition and everything...heheh!) and they lost.

   So, if you want to claim that a "progressive" beat the socialists, I'm in agreement. But that means ...again...the socialists LOST! Not that "they really didn't" as John Nichols wants to stretch for.

   But hey, maybe it was because some idiot French bloggers were saying "I'm not voting, there's no difference between the UMP and the Socialists...what France needs is a national crises for some REAL progressives to win!"...and they let Sarkozy win?

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 06/18/2007 @ 4:03pm

7. And how does the French society compare to the US? Healthcare, education, crime, poverty rates, ect--what are the numbers for the two nations?

   Posted by MTSPENCE05 06/18/2007 @ 3:41pm |

   YEAH!....and why aren't we upto their standard for nuclear power useage!?!?!?!?

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 06/18/2007 @ 4:04pm

8. THE TERMS "LIBERAL" AND "CONSERVATIVE" ARE RELATIVE...

   If Sarkozy were an American politician, he'd be regarded as a liberal at the very least, and would probably BE a liberal Democrat. I've had discussions with European friends on this very issue and they contend, probably correctly, that most American liberals would be considered somewhat right-of-center in Europe. The reverse definitely holds true as well.

   For anyone as left as French socialists to come to power in America or even get as close as they have to it in France is simply unthinkable.

   Posted by w_m_bear at 06/18/2007 @ 4:19pm

9. And how does the French society compare to the US? Healthcare, education, crime, poverty rates, ect--what are the numbers for the two nations?

   I grant that the French healthcare system is better than ours, and I don't think Sarkozy's going after it. Our life expectancy is only two years lower than France's and we do have double France's infant mortality.

   I would point out that the most recent Human Development Index report rated the United States at 8 and France at 16. Our school enrollment rates and literacy rates are similar. US universities do much better. In Shanghai Jiao Tong University's rankings of world universities [ed.sjtu.edu.cn], 17 of the top 20 were American and none were French. The Top 200 THES - QS World University Rankings [topuniversities.com]has 11 US universities coming in above France's premier Ecole National Superieure.

   France's poverty rate is half of ours but they have a much bigger problem with long-term unemployment.

   Not surprisingly, given their dirigiste economy, France is less innovative. The US has almost double the patents granted ratio that France has and we have proportionately more money and personnel in R&D. Further, high-tech exports are a much larget percentage of total exports in the US than in France.

   France and the US have about the same percentage of their population victimized by crime.

   France does do better re poverty, with a lower Gini coefficient.

   Posted by brunowe at 06/18/2007 @ 4:23pm

10. heheh

    Posted by MASK 06/18/2007 @ 4:04pm |

    BTW, what happened to the "hehe"? (Which, BTW, should be spelled "hee hee.") Moving more to the center in your old age?

    Posted by w_m_bear at 06/18/2007 @ 4:24pm

11. But hey, maybe it was because some idiot French bloggers were saying "I'm not voting, there's no difference between the UMP and the Socialists...what France needs is a national crises for some REAL progressives to win!"...and they let Sarkozy win?

    Posted by MASK

    That's it, just keep doing the same thing, and you're gonna get the same thing.

    Now an idiot is somebody that votes for a party that does nothing more than gives him/her a bunch of lip service, smoke.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/18/2007 @ 4:28pm

12. Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/18/2007 @ 4:24pm

    For the benefit of FRANKGRITS, who thought as you did that "hehe" was "hee hee", when it was meant as "heh-heh"...so I opted to expand the "h" at the end.

    Posted by Mask at 06/18/2007 @ 4:44pm

13. Thanks for the stats, Bruno.

    Bear, I'd be careful about taking the relativity argument TOO far. Sarkozy's claim to fame was his stance as a law and order minister making none too veiled appeals to Fench nativism and racism. And his economic platform didn't exactly hide the fact that he wanted to take France down the neo-liberal, Reaganite, Thatcherite path. My reading would be that he would therefore fit more comfortably in the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democratic Party, or perhaps in the moderate, socially liberal but economically conservative wing of the Republican Party.

    Not that I would trust a liberal Democrat as far as I could throw him or her, either.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2007 @ 5:00pm

14. The BBC has had it's own internal investigation and low and behold they've found " liberal bias " in thier reporting. They blame this on " group think " and a " confortable workspace". And many ask, " what liberal meadia"! Pathetic! furthermore, another lunatic liberal has gone down in flames and the victims of his psychotic liberalism/race baiting, are still waiting for apologies from all of those at duke, in the MSM, the black panthers, Jesse Hi-Jackson etc. Nifong is gone baby! Where is all the outrage from the left on this abuse of power by Nifong? We hear outrage from the left when a convicted murderer was put to death ( tookie williams/Saddam Hussien etc. ), yet when INNOCENT whitey is falsly charged of a crime and has their name and life ruined by an out of control DA and a racist media/local citizenry ( see: detectives falsely accused of raping Tawanna Brawley and still waiting for an apology from al sharpton ) the left is predictably quiet! Pure scum.

    Posted by barry25 at 06/18/2007 @ 6:42pm

15. Double digit unemployment in France? Ahhhhhh, the wonders of socialism!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/18/2007 @ 6:45pm

16. There is no way the French are going to undo their welfare state overnight, if they do it at all.

    They don't mind double digit unemployment since they can just live a comfortable life on the dole at taxpayer expense.

    Over the next 20 years, their economy will continue to stagnate without these reforms and they will be crushed by aggressive, hard working Asian Tigers.

    In addition, they will have major social problems when their undocumented workers (the ones that rioted last year)are unable to find work in their stagnating economy and don't get public assistance like their legal French brethren.

    Let's admire the French for their wines and chateaus, not their economy.

    Posted by SDsurfer at 06/18/2007 @ 6:48pm

17. I agree with the basic tenants of Nichols' arguments, and I do think that it is important to note that Sarkozy did not receive the 'mandate' that the media and he claim to have received. However, one thing that was left out of the article that is an important piece information to present the entire picture is that the election had only 60% turnout. The turnout for the runoff election that saw Sarkozy elected was 85% - itself unusually high - but 60% is low for the French.

    Posted by supanich at 06/18/2007 @ 6:50pm

18. Posted by CKA2ND 06/18/2007 @ 5:00pm

    I have a question that seems more up your alley than anyone else here.

    I went to the Socialist Conference in Chicago this past weekend sponsored by the International Socialist Organization. There was a great deal of discussion regarding what the world could be like when the people doing the work were in the position to make their own decisions and people were free to pursue their bliss. There were critiques of capitalism - particularly, U.S. style capitalism. I found much there that I agreed with.

    The problem I kept seeing was in the solution. While quite a few people went to great pains to distance themselves from the authoritarianism of a Stalin, without exception people were making an argument for some form of authoritarian decision-making, predominately majority rule but also vanguard parties and the like.

    At one point, there was even someone that made it clear, people that didn't agree with the "democratic majority" would get the same treatment as the capitalists during his hypothetical revolution. I don't see that as an improvement.

    I came away from the conference with the perspective that unless socialism is construed to protect minorities, socialism is simply another name for tyranny - whether of an individual (Stalin, Chavez, Avakian) or of the majority (ala Federalist Paper #10). I didn't hear any discussion on this issue, but it seemed like a glaring weakness that needs to be addressed.

    I guess the question I have for you is that outside of an anarchist perspective and some form of concensus decision making that most people consider impractical, who talks about balancing minority interests under socialism? How is it done? What are your thoughts on this issue?

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2007 @ 7:08pm

19. What a tired and trite article Nichols posted here. When is he--and others--going to learn that there is a big difference between "conservatives" and "right wingers", just as there's a big difference between "liberals" and "left wingers", whether he's aware of it or not. They are NOT interchangeable terms.

    The difference is in the degree toward the right or the left that one is, and a conservative or liberal is more moderate than a right-or left winger. It's simplistic of Nichols to confuse these terms, and most importantly, shows his ignorance of anything that dares to exist to the right of his views. In his view, anyone to the right of say, Madame Hillary, is instantly worthy of being branded as a weird looking redneck who plays the banjo and replays the movie "Deliverance" everyday in his personal life.

    Pathetic.

    Posted by Pcon-T at 06/18/2007 @ 7:38pm

20. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/18/2007 @ 7:08pm

    Can't be done, not fully, SRJ....protecting minority opinion under a pure socialist state.

    Somebody comes up with an idea or thing, builds it, manufactures it, hires or gathers together "comrades" to join him in its manufacture....and then the State comes in and usurps it for "the good of all" and the guy or gal who came up with the idea is no better off than he was before.

    So...what's the point in trying? Better just to keep plugging away at the job that pays the same as every OTHER job, pay your 95-100% taxes, get your free food, housing, health care, transportation, etc....and work no harder or be any more creative than anybody else.

    And if you complain about the system or the leadership (who know what's best)....you're obviously deranged and need to be "treated" for mental illness.

    Posted by Mask at 06/18/2007 @ 7:53pm

21. SRJENKINS, posting above, finally begins to see a glimmer of the light.

    SRJENKINS, the reason you came away frustrated that socialism is difficult, if not impossible, to rationalize without tyranny, is because the two go hand in hand, and are indeed, inseparable. Here's the issue:

    The socialist perspective, which, is more prevalent the more left of center one becomes, sees the acquisition of wealth and power as a zero sum game. That is, with only few exceptions, a person or entity cannot acquire wealth or power unless it's at the expense of another person or entity. Leftists/socialists see wealth and power as a fixed size pie, and the larger the slice that one person acquires, the smaller the slices for everyone else. The only fair and equitable thing to do, therefore, is to minimize the sizes of each person's slice of pie, to maximize the chance of everyone getting as equal a slice as everyone else.

    This perspective drives the entire left/socialist mindset, and is the engine for all its policy. Everything is born from this belief.

    Conservatism on the other hand, is based on faith that the more a person or entity accepts personal responsibility and moral character, the LARGER the size of the TOTAL PIE that is created for EVERYONE. You see, conservatism does not see the acquisition of wealth and power as a zero sum game, but rather, as a dynamic entity that can grow and shrink based on the actions of an interdependent society. As the pie grows larger due to personal and private sector ingenuity, creativity and responsibility, the larger the individual slices for every person, at every rung of the socioeconomic ladder, as each chooses to also accept responsibility and work for their slice.

    And with greater personal responsibility comes greater personal empowerment. With less personal responsibility comes less decision-making control over our own lives, as we shirk off this job to distant bureaucracies at the governmental level.

    At this point, the leftist knee-jerkedly jumps to the victimhood mantra and claims that an oppression-based system deprives the disenfranchised from fairly earning his or her slice, to which I say: PROVE that is happening, on a case by case basis. Instead of reacting and saying oppression is built into the system, use your energies constructively and actually demonstrate examples of this. What has happened to the myriad CEOs and others found guilty of fraud and other forms of deception and oppression? No one cheers at their guilty verdicts and harsh punishments more than this capitalist, namely because they ruin the system for everyone else as they destroy the lives of countless people.

    No, oppression is not inherent in the capitalist system, but it is part and parcel of socialism. As we shove the decision-making power over our own lives to less and less local entities like government, we inch ever closer to tyranny, and a one-size-fits-all type of solution to our daily problems.

    And who is the ultimate tyrant but government, which, by definition, has the blissful absence of any competition, and wields the jackboot of police power?

    Posted by Pcon-T at 06/18/2007 @ 8:04pm

22. Can we infer from French elections that the converse could happen here in the US....another conservative Republican president to balance the new and fiscally irresponsible business as usual Democratic majority in Congress? Maybe results in France should be heartening for conservatives here at home....that people feel that all politicians need checks and balances. The way the Democrats have behaving, they certainly look like they need to be held in check and balance.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/18/2007 @ 9:14pm

23. Posted by PCON-T 06/18/2007 @ 8:04pm

    I have a few minutes, so I'll respond briefly.

    First, conservativism is at heart either about preserving the status quo or returning to the values of some golden age.

    Second, you are describing the "rising tide raises all boats" position - which you will recall has been used by both sides of the political aisle in the U.S. including Kennedy and Reagan. It has appeal on the surface, but unfortunately doesn't bear up well to scrutiny.

    The problem is that there are necessary conditions to have tides - such as the moon, a fairly equitable distribution of a large liquid mass, gravitation, etc.

    If we wanted to press the analogy, we could argue that most economies are more like a series of lock and dams designed to make particular boats rise and move in directions otherwise impossible. If we use this metaphor, then we have to also start questioning the whole incentive argument the rising tides argument implies.

    If others (whether they are capitalists or socialists) profit from your endeavor, where's the incentive? If corporations generate profits and distribute them disproportionately to the C-level executives, where is the incentive for anyone other than C-level executives and perhaps major stock holders?

    Socialists, and I think rightly, argue that money or economic well-being is not the primary motivator. Certainly there must be a tipping point where other things matter more than material well-being - but capitalism doesn't even acknowledge this fact.

    Even if you use the limited scope of material well-being. Your argument doesn't make sense. It only applies to a small universe of people - and you have essentially the same problems.

    Anyone that has ever worked in a corporation knows it is inherently oppressive. When your labor is a product you have to sell to survive, you are oppressed. The difference between the master and the slave is one sells the products of labor and the other sells their labor. It doesn't get any more basic than that.

    And who is the ultimate tyrant but government, which, by definition, has the blissful absence of any competition, and wields the jackboot of police power?

    Exactly. If you are going to have government, then the question has to be, "Whose side is government on?"

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/18/2007 @ 9:21pm

24. SRJENKINS 06/18/2007 @ 9:21pm:

    Methinks thou does protest too much. You're trying too hard to dispel that which is causing you frustration in the first place, namely that socialism leads inexorably toward oppression. It's oppression in the hands of competition-free, police power-wielding government, as opposed to the private sector, which can never wield such power and will always subject to the checks and balances of competition.

    Don't try to hard to fight it, SRJENKINS. Open your mind to the fact that the acquisition of wealth and power is NOT a fixed size pie or a zero sum game. Instead of dumping your talking points onto this blog, address the issues I brought up above.

    There just might be hope for you yet, particularly if you keep an open mind and replace your judgment hat with your curiosity hat.

    Might I suggest some appropriate reading? This book at the link below will change your life, but having an open mind is YOUR responsibility.

    http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-4774729-0591665?url=search-alias%3D stripbooks&field-keywords=Basic+Economics&Go.x=9&Go.y=10

    Posted by Pcon-T at 06/18/2007 @ 9:44pm

25. Anyone that has ever worked in a corporation knows it is inherently oppressive. When your labor is a product you have to sell to survive, you are oppressed. The difference between the master and the slave is one sells the products of labor and the other sells their labor. It doesn't get any more basic than that.

    from SRJENKINS

    This is truly one of the most class warfare-mongering statements I've read in quite a while. It absolutely demonstrates what I've explained, that the Left believes that the acquisition of wealth and power is a zero sum game: for one person or entity to triumph, another must be trampled upon.

    Their minds completely refuse to consider the fact that the pie gets inexorably larger with greater numbers of people accepting responsibility and working for their share of the pie. As the pie gets larger, the slices get larger for EVERYONE involved, at all rungs of the ladder.

    Leftism = economic illiteracy.

    Pure and simple.

    Posted by Pcon-T at 06/18/2007 @ 9:51pm

26. Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/18/2007 @ 4:24pm

    For the benefit of FRANKGRITS, who thought as you did that "hehe" was "hee hee", when it was meant as "heh-heh"...so I opted to expand the "h" at the end.

    Posted by MASK 06/18/2007 @ 4:44pm

    I stand corrected. Heh heh does "sound," shall we say, a bit SANER than hee hee. Hee hee is pure evil whacko scientist rubbing his hands together as he contemplates his planned destruction of the planet Earth. Heh heh (I'd still suggest the space) is a bit more merely the self-satisfied chuckle of having skewered someone with one's rapier wit.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 06/18/2007 @ 9:55pm

27. Posted by RESE 06/18/2007 @ 9:23pm

    Dear God.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 06/18/2007 @ 10:01pm

28. buwahaha. I Iove it!.

    American conservatives are desperately seeking heroes these days. So desperately that they are looking in increasingly unlikely places – on the set of the television show "Law and Order," in France, even in the reject bin to which Gingrich was consigned.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2007 @ 11:39pm

29. BARRYCUTESORTS, you missed Marion Barry getting arrested again. You could've gotten your knickers all twisted up. I know how you like that.

    I noticed that when Lewis "whitey" Libby got sentenced to 30 months, the conservative outrage was quite evident. According to the neo-con logic, the Duke prosecutor was doing fine. Lies are all part of the Plan. You guys have to make up your mind, is lying good or bad? Or is it just situational ethics as usual?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2007 @ 11:43pm

30. SR, I am sure you noted that socialism is a dying, if not dead, movement in this country. I am wondering how many showed up at this convention? It only serves the boogeyman mentality of the wingers. while there are many calling for better healthcare/equitable incomes, almost nobody I talk with speaks in terms of socialism. What I, and many others, seek is an actual middle ground, maybe even slightly "left", where individuals and groups of individuals have more power than a mindless corporation whose sole purpose by law is maximization of profit.

    What we have now, and have had for decades, is a near fascist state. (I know, I know, that word gets the neo-cons all aquiver, and they like to link socialism and fascism, but that is just more boogey talk). We have two political parties joined at the hips, lips and tits with corporate America. The consumer/voter is just something to be played on the way to the bank. Keep giving them shiny new toys (designed obsolescence being the engineering mantra) and some one to fear/hate, and the machine rolls on.

    The result? the largest gap in wealth since the 1890's. Bush/Clinton/ClintonBush/Bush (god forbid another Clinton) That is not a healthy system.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2007 @ 11:53pm

31. Sorry, conshame, I gotta borrow your style for a monent.

    neo-cons= wrong on France.

    wrong again. the wrongo-cons. Don't they have any adults watching over them, other than Judge Walton?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/18/2007 @ 11:57pm

32. I am going to keep printing it till it sinks in:

    We have one more political party than China.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2007 @ 12:00am

33. Lets see, France covers 211,000 sq miles and has 60 million people.

    the US covers 3,718,000 square miles and has a population of 300 million.

    France is 7th in the world in GDP. I don't think they are doing as bad as the neo's would have us think.

    4 of the top ten are "socialist", more if you use free health care as a measure.

    Iraq is not on Wikis list, but I think they rank some where near Luxemburg (pop 480,000) and Angola. A true success story.

    France counts unemployment of all unemployed. The US counts unemployment by how many collect unemployment benfits. When they run out, you don't get counted as unemployed. Comparisons of percentage of unemployed have to take that into account. Given that, I think they still have more non-working than the US, though.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2007 @ 12:18am

34. Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/19/2007 @ 12:09am

    Woo Hoo.

    A divorced, trophy wife gettin' hollywood actor!!

    You go boy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2007 @ 12:19am

35. Phred, a prosecutor that thinks it's ok to lie to prosecutors. He wants to pardon Marc Rich's savior.

    And he's the best they have.

    Buwhahaha.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2007 @ 12:21am

36. Keep up the smear and spin tactics CRABMAN and maybe you and guys like Nickelman can enjoy having someone new to hate and lie about!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/19/2007 @ 12:43am

    No spin here, KORESH. Phred is everything I said he is. You see, unlike you I have my eyes open and don't look to prophetic symbolism to guide me.

    don't you just love old men that marry chicks younger than their kids? Or prosecutors that don't want to know the truth when prosecuting? Or people that don't want to be president, but want to do things only a president can do? What ambition!

    Now that's morality for a new age of neo-conservatism.

    and yeah, I guess old Al is a slacker.

    Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. (born 31 March 1948 in Washington, D.C.) is an American politician, businessman, and environmentalist. Gore served in the United States House of Representatives (1977–85) and the United States Senate (1985–93) representing Tennessee. From 1993 to 2001, he was the 45th Vice President of the United States, serving while Bill Clinton was President. Gore was the Democratic nominee for President in the 2000 election -- one of the most controversial and highly contested presidential elections in U.S. history. Gore won the popular vote with over half a million more votes than the Republican candidate George W. Bush. However, after a month of ballot recounts and court challenges in the state of Florida the United States Supreme Court, with its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, handed the electoral college victory, and consequently the presidency, to Bush.[1] Today, Gore is president of the American television channel Current TV, chairman of Generation Investment Management, a director on the board of Apple Inc., and an unofficial advisor to Google's senior management.

    If only Buchanon had not cost him Florida!! ;)

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2007 @ 08:18am

37. RIO, when can we count on you to enlist to fight the jihadists?

    Your gonna miss your chance. Chimpy will have them beat any day now.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2007 @ 08:19am

38. BTW, chimpy failed to take his home state of Connecticut. He must not be any good, right?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2007 @ 08:24am

39. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush declared a global War on Terrorism and ordered an invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, destroy Al-Qaeda and to capture Osama bin Laden in October 2001. In March 2003, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and that the war was necessary for the protection of the United States.[1][2]

    Hows that working?

    [5][6] After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies. His domestic popularity has decreased since the 2004 election.[7]

    Bush attended Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts where he played baseball but "mostly made his mark as a cheerleader for the teams."[9] Following in his father's footsteps, Bush attended Yale University, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1968. As a college senior, Bush became a member of the secretive Skull and Bones society. By his own characterization, Bush was an average student.[10] In May of 1968, at the height of the ongoing Vietnam War, Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard despite there being a national waiting list of over 100,000 for the N.G. and only scoring 25 percent on the pilot's aptitude test, which was the lowest acceptable passing grade [2]. After training, he was assigned to duty in Houston, flying Convair F-102s out of Ellington Air Force Base.[11] Critics have alleged that Bush was favorably treated during his time of service due to his father's political standing and that he was irregular in attendance.

    There are a number of accounts of substance abuse and otherwise disorderly conduct by Bush from this time. Bush has admitted to drinking "too much" in those years and described this period of his life as his "nomadic" period of "irresponsible youth". [13] On September 4, 1976, at the age of 30, Bush was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine. He pleaded guilty, was fined $150, and had his driver's license suspended until 1978 in Maine.[14][15]

    Bush presided over the trading away of Sammy Sosa, who would go on to be a popular and prodigious home run hitter for the Chicago Cubs.[24]

    He's a great leader.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2007 @ 08:29am

40. Hey! How about Judge (never seen a tort case I like) Bork filing a claim against the Yale Club because he fell down while climbing onto a dais? He wants a million, even though he finished his speech just fine and walked away from the horrible incident.

    I guess tort suits are only good for neo-cons, not the masses.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/19/2007 @ 08:34am

41. Posted by PCON-T 06/18/2007 @ 9:51pm

    Leftism = economic illiteracy.

    Rather than address the issue of oppression, you choose to go the stupid route. This kind of argumentation defines closed mind - not to mention it is obviously false.

    I make it a habit to talk to everyone from communists to people in love with free markets. The problem is that most people advocating free markets haven't even read the "Wealth of Nations" and either have no idea that they are referring to the invisible hand or that they are misapplying it. But go on being complacent - you too can go the route of those that came before and declared, "Let them eat cake!"

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/19/2007 @ 11:27am