In France, Running Against Bush

posted by John Nichols on 05/04/2007 @ 3:05pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (102)

Subscribe Now

PARIS -- American elections do not usually turn on the question of how the candidates for president propose to relate to foreign countries.

But elections in other countries often feature debates about how potential presidents or prime ministers might relate to the U.S.

That is certainly the case in France where the two contenders in today's presidential contest have taken distinctly different stances with regard to whether France should maintain or alter what are now relatively strained relations with the U.S.

The issue is not anti-Americanism versus pro-Americanism, as the sillier U.S. commentators might suggest. France actually has reasonably good relations with the U.S., which is generally an ally of the European state. U.S. and French troops have fought side-by-side in Afghanistan and shared intelligence in the war on terror. They have reasonably solid trade relations and deep cultural ties going back to the days when the French were essential backers of the American revolution..

Rather, the issue is whether France should maintain an explicit policy of setting her own agenda when it comes to international affairs or follow the lead of Tony Blair's Britain and establish a policy of generally deferring to Washington -- even when the leaders there may be less than competent. Far from being offended by froeign leaders who seek to keep their distance from the U.S. and its presidents, Americans should recognize the value of having international allies who are willing to speak bluntly about what they think to be mistaken policies of a U.S, president.

The Socialist Party candidate, Segolene Royal, has made French independence in international affairs an central focus of her campaign. At a rally in Toulouse, before 17,OOO cheering supporters, she declared, "We will not genuflect before George W. Bush. In Europe, we will defend the emergence of a multi-polar world, safe from the imperial temptations of another age."

There have been no such statements from the conservative front runner in the race, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy is no Blair-like puppet. He allows as how "the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome."

But the conservative has distanced himself from retiring President Jacques Chirac's policy of distancing the French from the Bush administration. Sarkozy, who served with Chirac and has the outgoing president's endorsement, says he shares the current president's opposition to the war in Iraq. But he also talks about wanting to "rebuild the transatlantic relationship" with the U.S., and protests that "profound, sincere and unfailing" French relations with the U.S. do not amount to submission.

Royal is not so sure.

Referring to a trip to Washington on which Sarkozy met with Bush and requested that they be photographed together, she says, "I shall not be the one to shake George Bush's hand like nothing happened [in the sometimes bitter pre-war debate over Iraq], without a word on our tactical and strategic disagreements in fighting religious extremism and terrorism.

Specifically, Royal says, "I am not for a Europe that allies with the U.S. I have never been, and will never. apologize to President Bush for the position of France on the issue of refusing to send troops to Iraq."

Sarkozy denies making any apologies. He says that, under his leadership, France would be an independent player that would not be afraid to tell U.S. presidents when they are wrong.

But that has not stopped Royal's backers from trying to chip away at Sarkozy's popular appeal -- most of which appears to be rooted in the appeal of his tough approach to domestic issues such as crime and immigration -- by referring to him as "an American neo-conservative with a French passport." and producing a 9O-page review of Sarkozy's links with U.S. right wingers that refers to the conservative candidate as a "French unit of Bush & Company."

Linking Sarkozy to Bush is smart politics for Royal and her backers, According to a recent poll for the Paris newspaper Le Monde, the American president has a six percent approval rating in France.

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

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 (102)

""I am not for a Europe that allies with the U.S. I have never been, and will never. "

I was wondering if she said this in english, French..or German... \I think she needs a crash course in world history and especially a reminder of what her mother tongue could have been...twice..

Frau Royal..Bleib gesundt.

Posted by john maasch at 05/04/2007 @ 3:15pm
Uh, Mr Nichols, you DO realize by this "theory" that...

if Sarkozy WINS, you've just said it's because he's "linked to Bush" or because Royal dissed Bush.

It cuts both ways.

Seriously, get back to an impeachment post....they're irrelevant, but not as dumb!

Posted by Mask at 05/04/2007 @ 3:28pm
Go have some "freedom fries".

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 3:31pm
I was wondering if she said this in english, French..or German... \I think she needs a crash course in world history and especially a reminder of what her mother tongue could have been...twice..

If you read anything other than facile discussions of WWII you'd understand that it was Frenchman like you that chose to bend over for the Nazis rather than put up a real fight.

And in WWI the Yanks went to war to make sure the French could pay back all the loans American banks made to them and the Brits.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 3:36pm
"Linking Sarkozy to Bush is smart politics for Royal and her backers, According to a recent poll for the Paris newspaper Le Monde, the American president has a six percent approval rating in France."

if Sarkozy WINS, you've just said it's because he's "linked to Bush" or because Royal dissed Bush. Posted by MASK

He didn't write that. Always distorting what other say.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 3:39pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/04/2007 @ 3:39pm

Can you find a job? Writing here is not a job, ...its a hobby for those with time to kill..

Posted by john maasch at 05/04/2007 @ 3:43pm
Do you actually read what YOU cut and paste?!?!?

"Linking Sarkozy to Bush is smart politics for Royal and her backers..."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/04/2007 @ 3:39pm

Okay, why? Because Bush linked to Sarkozy hurts him and helps Royal.

Okay...now, what is the complement to that? That if Royal (and her friends) link Sarkozy to Bush and he WINS....what does THAT indicate?

Can't have it BOTH ways, MTSP (or Mr Nichols). If Sarkozy loses....Royal, her allies, Mr Nichols, MTSPENCE will say "Ha! He lost because he was too close to Bush".

But if Sarkozy wins.....???

Posted by Mask at 05/04/2007 @ 3:50pm
It's smart politics, it helps, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's why she would win.

Always trying to twist things to what you want them to mean.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 4:07pm
Given that Chirac's popularity in France is at only 22% (lower than Bush's here), both candidates are trying to distance themselves between them and him, more than them and Bush.

France is a mess. Their economy is the sick man of Europe. With 9.8% unemployment amoung the general pop. (50% amoung those 25 and younger), and their health-care system deeply in debt, they need close economic ties with the U.S. more now than at any time.

Posted by Zeddmen at 05/04/2007 @ 4:16pm
Or that Sarkozy would lose simply because of his position in relation to the US. I mean, I'm confident there are more pressing issues driving the election than how the candidate feels about the US.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 4:19pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/04/2007 @ 4:07pm

So....even....logic doesn't work with you, does it? Maybe if we try the classical form?-

A. Linking Sarkozy to Bush hurts Sarkozy's chances in the French election. (Mr Nichols/MTSP his flunky)

B. Ergo, Segolene Royal tries to link him to Bush to improve her chances of winning.

C. If Sarkozy loses, the contention that linking Sarkozy to Bush (if Royal is successful in doing so) is proven true.

BUT

D. If Sarkozy wins, either D-1: Royal and friends attempts to link him to Bush failed....or D-2: the contention that linking Sarkozy to Bush hurts him politically is weak or false.

If D-1, Royal attempted to implement a political operation and failed miserably, ergo it is reasonable to conclude that she would be a failure in other aspects of politics....and a failure as French President.

If D-2, the contention is flawed or weak and its proponents are dizty-doodles for thinking it's functional or strong a contention.

MTSPENCE's counter-argument...

"Apples and oranges" (or perhaps a term of disparagement broadly hinting at his own homophobia).

hehe

Posted by Mask at 05/04/2007 @ 4:25pm
"there are more pressing issues driving the election than how the candidate feels about the US."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/04/2007 @ 4:19pm

Yet John Nichols is writing...

"But that has not stopped Royal's backers from trying to chip away at Sarkozy's popular appeal -- most of which appears to be rooted in the appeal of his tough approach to domestic issues such as crime and immigration -- by referring to him as "an American neo-conservative with a French passport." and producing a 9O-page review of Sarkozy's links with U.S. right wingers that refers to the conservative candidate as a "French unit of Bush & Company."

Linking Sarkozy to Bush is smart politics for Royal and her backers, According to a recent poll for the Paris newspaper Le Monde, the American president has a six percent approval rating in France."

?????

Posted by Mask at 05/04/2007 @ 4:28pm
MTSPENCE's counter-argument...

"Apples and oranges" (or perhaps a term of disparagement broadly hinting at his own homophobia).

hehe

Posted by MASK 05/04/2007 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person

A hidden fruit fixation?

Posted by john maasch at 05/04/2007 @ 4:35pm
"hehe" You're so cute.

You're still coming up short. As usual you've developed an obsession with this and you're gonna do everything you can think of to try and make the square peg fit. You're a victim of your own thoughts. Get over it.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 4:41pm
"Apples and oranges" (or perhaps a term of disparagement broadly hinting at his own homophobia). Posted by JOHN MAASCH

You never seem to know what you're talking about, and yet you've always got that ignorant, nasty mouth of yours open?

I don't support the party that makes denying gay Americans their rights a wedge issue in campaigns. Hypocrite.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 4:43pm
(Off topic, but do you remember making some sort of silly statement about how the problems with the sub prime loans is not an issue, old lying coward? Did you notice what impact it had on GMAC and how that impacted GM's profits? You really are a stupid, no nothing git.)

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 4:50pm
I don't support the party that makes denying gay Americans their rights a wedge issue in campaigns. Hypocrite.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/04/2007 @ 4:43pm

No, you just like using homosexual references ("gay bar") as put-downs of your political/personal opponents....

and use "Swift Boat" tactics against Vietnam veterans whose politics you disagree with, instead of taking them on on the issues ("Ollie North and 'deep-shrinking'")....

Or say how the rich only got what they got by cheating and stealing....unless they're liberal rich and then you backpedal like a Tour de France shown in reverse loop....

So I'll take your charge of "hypocrite" ...for exactly what it's worth!

Posted by Mask at 05/04/2007 @ 4:54pm
So you're giving up on this inane little argument you were trying to fabricate?

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 4:56pm
Oh, it was the old lying bald coward I called a hypocrite. But hey, if the shoe fits...

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 4:57pm
Posted by ZERO

Well done.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 4:59pm
So....even....logic doesn't work with you, does it? Maybe if we try the classical form?- . . Posted by MASK 05/04/2007 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person

Once again, Mask demonstrates beyond all doubt, his complete failure to grasp even the most fundamental understanding of logic.

"...the classical form..." Mask?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by Lillian at 05/04/2007 @ 5:15pm
Posted by ZERO

Oh c'mon, take the bastards to court (and squandered thousands on a lawyer). Sure, they'll drag it out and you'll pay thousands to your lawyer (and maybe even win five years from now), but it's the principle of the thing. What a system we have.

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 5:16pm
"At least the French try ..."

Jesus...come on.. what about the food for oil, the nuke sales to Iran and Iraq...don't get us started on France..(plus, the hairy arm pits on the women are kinda nasty)....

Posted by john maasch at 05/04/2007 @ 5:22pm
So, because Sarkozy made the 'mistake' of voicing his desire to "rebuild the transatlantic relationship" with the U.S., he's left an opening for Royal to portray that as cozing up to Bush. In response of course, Sarkozy denies making any "apologies" to Bush (for not committing troops to the Iraq debacle) and insists he'd maintain the French independance from the US that his predecessor and mentor Chirac has already established.

Obviously BOTH candidates want to keep their distance from Bush, most certainly based on this...

"According to a recent poll for the Paris newspaper Le Monde, the American president has a six percent approval rating in France."

...but Royal has seized the initiative by portraying herself as being farther away from Bush than Sarkozy. Her prospects improve, his diminish.

Of course, nobody has ever said (especially not Nichol's in this piece) that, whether the candidates win or lose will be decided on a direct cause/effect correlation with their distance from Bush. ONly point of note is that the candiates' closeness to Bush provides a decided negative affect.

Seems simple enough to understand...

...for everyone except Mask. (Big surprise there.)

Posted by Lillian at 05/04/2007 @ 5:22pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH

They have hair in the pits, you have no hair on your head--which is worse, old lying bald coward?

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/04/2007 @ 5:26pm
Posted by LILLIAN 05/04/2007 @ 5:15pm

Uh, LILLIAN in that refutation of my logic....

did you offer any logical counter-argument to the idea that if Sarkozy could lose because of Bush, then if he won the opposite inference could also be made?

Posted by Mask at 05/04/2007 @ 7:56pm
France: RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ

This "projectile-bomb" thing (projectile-bombs are the new name for IEDs.) Giving it a new name is an attempt to revive the war drums against Iran - which was stalled when the 15 UK Sailors were released. This is serious - Bush still hopes to bomb Iran.

You idiots who want to bomb Iran - first of all Liberals do not want to bomb Iran - it is the Conservatives. You idiots who hope Bush bombs Iran - you cant. You are in Iraq. You are in Iraq. To bomb, without a full-scale occupation, is a death sentence for the troops in Iraq training the Iraqi military. YOU IDIOTS.

Posted by conshame at 05/04/2007 @ 8:06pm
Hey, I would like to distance myself from the United States, but I do not live in France. So let's impeach his Royal Arse King George, (Comander Guy)

Posted by Leefeller at 05/04/2007 @ 8:53pm
"They have hair in the pits, you have no hair on your head--which is worse, old lying bald coward?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/04/2007 @ 5:26pm |

Which is worse? Being totally unemployable...with or with out hair.

How are the paper clips holding out? Get your break yet? any sick day coming? Over time. Anything else the rest of us get to pay for coming your way loser?

Posted by john maasch at 05/04/2007 @ 10:03pm
Posted by MASK 05/04/2007 @ 7:56pm | ignore this person

Uh Mask, I didn't need to 'refute' anything...since your idiotic post was completely devoid of anything approaching 'logic'.

Let's walk through it, just so you can (maybe) learn...(ya..sure...I'll try anyway)...

You said this...

"A. Linking Sarkozy to Bush hurts Sarkozy's chances in the French election. (Mr Nichols/MTSP his flunky)

B. Ergo, Segolene Royal tries to link him to Bush to improve her chances of winning. "

So far so good...but I've highlighted a few words to make things easier for you in this next part...

"C. If Sarkozy loses, the contention that linking Sarkozy to Bush (if Royal is successful in doing so) is proven true. "

...see, from A. and B., logically, you can't get C. If Sarkozy loses, it could be for any number of reasons. A. and B. might have "hurt" one candidate and "helped" another...but there is NO cause and effect regarding one winning and the other losing. Even using cool-sounding 'logic' words like "ergo", the only way you can transform "helping" and "hurting" into 'being the sole reason for' is through fantasy...which Nichols didn't employ in his piece (but you apparently did in your head.)

So, your attempt to say result C. "proves" anything amounts to 'Maskian BS'...not logic.

As far as you D., D-1, and D-2 goes...well...stupidity following BS doesn't qualify as 'logic' any way you slice it.

hehe!

Posted by Lillian at 05/04/2007 @ 10:09pm
This 'Maskian logic' here sounds a lot like the 'Maskian logic' Mask was using back in November when he was predicting Jon Stewart was going to be unemployed soon because the Republicans lost.

If you squint your eyes up real small, and blur your vision, while looking through your fingers...

...sorry...it STILL looks like stupidity!

hehe!

Posted by Lillian at 05/04/2007 @ 10:16pm
It seems to me there are bigger issues in the French election than the candidate's stance on the US. I question the people who feel that things are so great in France. My sister-in-law has lived there for the past 15 years and she is not impressed. The people are nice, but the economy sucks and the taxes are oppressive (sp?). I think it is a bit narsisitic to believe that with all the problems they have in France that a candidate's stance on the US will make that much difference. But then maybe the people in France do not hate the US as much as it seems the author of this article does.

Posted by Sawdust at 05/04/2007 @ 10:55pm
France is pertinate to the U.S., if I recall, the French gave us the Statue of Liberity, now they may want it back, because we are losing ours.

Posted by Leefeller at 05/05/2007 @ 12:57am
It's amazing how this topic only appears to be covered by the US media while we hear nothing about it in France... Right now the focus is on national issues and the campaign had nothing to do with for or against Bush. If it had been the case, Royal would win easily, instead we are going to get our own little Ashcroft.

Posted by Caramel at 05/05/2007 @ 02:53am
Bonjour

I am afraid Americans (Conservative + Liberals + journalists), do not have a correct interpretation of the French campaign. The posts here show a poor level of understanding on the issue.

Even one blogger mentionned "Freedom Fries", myopic approach, that for the only power in the world!!!

Posted by areyouok at 05/05/2007 @ 04:30am
Posted by LILLIAN 05/04/2007 @ 10:16pm

LILLIAN, can you QUOTE what I said about Jon Stewart....a real quote, not a LILLIANESQUE one.

Speaking of quotes...apparently, Left, Right and French (AREYOUOK) think that Mr Nichols is off on a wild Bush hunt on this one as well as I do....

It seems to me there are bigger issues in the French election than the candidate's stance on the US.----Posted by SAWDUST 05/04/2007 @ 10:55pm

there are more pressing issues driving the election than how the candidate feels about the US."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/04/2007 @ 4:19pm

Right now the focus is on national issues and the campaign had nothing to do with for or against Bush. If it had been the case, Royal would win easily, instead we are going to get our own little Ashcroft.----Posted by CARAMEL 05/05/2007 @ 02:53am

I am afraid Americans (Conservative + Liberals + journalists), do not have a correct interpretation of the French campaign. The posts here show a poor level of understanding on the issue.---Posted by AREYOUOK 05/05/2007 @ 04:30am

Posted by Mask at 05/05/2007 @ 07:23am
Posted by ZERO 05/04/2007 @ 4:55pm

I'm not saying that everything here is perfect, far from it, but the idea that France is somehow this great country is a joke. Yes we have a lot of poor people in this country, but with millions of poor, legal, immigrants coming to this country every year, (nevermind the illegal ones), that is to be expected. France on the other hand, like much of Europe, has much tighter immigration standards. If they were enacted here, you would probably call them racist. By the way if France's economic system is so great, then how come it has high unemployment, over a million homeless people, and millions of decendents of immigrants living in ghettos who riot in the streets. And you wonder why Chirac's popularity is lower in France than Bush's is here.

As far as "taking" natural resources from people, you don't take or steal oil, you buy it on the free market based upon supply and demand. Maybe thats why the price always seems to fluctuate? One country sells oil, another buys it. If there was no demand for the product, then it would be just be worthless, black goo. Any first-year econ. student could tell you that.

But since you're so interrested in oil and war, try looking into France's past, especially ELF's invovlement in France's former African colonial countries. It just might shatter your whole image of France as this peace-loving nation.

Posted by Zeddmen at 05/05/2007 @ 09:06am
The writer should have bothered to be informed with the latest news. He seemed to enjoy mentioning that 6% anti-american poll but perhaps he should have checked the latest polls before writing this nonsense. Sarkozy es between 6 and 9 points up in all the polls. I wonder what that indicates? Maybe something, maybe nothing, but Royal would win in a landslide if that bogus 6% poll reflected the true attitudes of the French people.

Here's probably how the question in that 6% Bush approval poll went :"Do you support Bush's failed war in Iraq that has cost millions of lives and that, even though every intelligence agency in the world indicated Saddam had WMDs (Clintons included), Bush is the only one who lied about it, and that was only for oil to enrich his friends in the oil industry?" Well ...? In essence this is what kook liberal dems think.

Posted by facethetruth at 05/05/2007 @ 10:20am
Vive la Royal! View Casablanca again and depart the merely nationalistic/statist view for the "next level:" egalite, fraternatie,...and what was the third social virtue? I'm blanking here.

Thanks Rese for the link to "impeach the blimp before the chimp," although dirigible manufacturers and our simian predecessors might be understood to take offense at the allusion/correlation with war criminals/profiteers and traitors, IMHO.

Posted by lewwelge at 05/05/2007 @ 10:20am
The real joke is the nation thinks France is pertinant to the U.S.!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/04/2007 @ 11:57pm

You, and MAASCH, LUVVY and all the rest of The Fearful here, are still all to happy to say "The French intelligence said Saddam had wmd's" But then you will lambast the French for being more Christian than you and at least trying to take care of the poor.

even though every intelligence agency in the world indicated Saddam had WMDsPosted by FACETHETRUTH 05/05/2007 @ 10:20am

Nice revisionist history there. Another ironic name? Like Rio COWARD and HATESLIBERTY?

The CIA was split on wether he had wmd's. The IAEA KNEW he had no nukes and no nookyoolar program. Hans Blix nd his crew KNEW Saddam had not reconstituted his wmd program. I knew it, millions of people knew it.

but, alas, you were willing to believe Chimpy, Clinton, the Russians and French over the facts. Great company!

Oh, well. We welcome all frightened sheep here. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow your BS.

Remember how the war in Iraq was going to bring a blossoming of freedom and democracy around the ME, and would bring Europe together with the US in a grand struggle for light? Now not only the French, but the 10 repubs running for CIC can't get away from your Pearless Leader fast enough.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 10:35am
Seriously, get back to an impeachment post....they're irrelevant, but not as dumb!

Posted by MASK 05/04/2007 @ 3:28pm

Well, just check out:

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

The Newsweek polls are the most interesting. Seems as though after the November dose of reality, the word 'impeachment', was proclaimed a terrorist act by the hsuB/heney/ove admin and/or another word or phrase had to be substituted for a poll to happen. And now-- not even that...

Date______Poll__________Issue Question_____________Support___Oppose___Net

1/25/07__Newsweek__Wish Bush Presidency Was "Over"___58% ____37%____+21%

10/21/06_Newsweek__Impeach (by Democrats)___________51%____44%_____+7%

3/18/06__Newsweek__Impeach and remove______________26%____69%____-43%

VVVVVVVVVVvvvvvvvVVVVvVVvVVVvVvVvv

So, indeed when hsuB/heney are impeached, and France's new president takes office...

What's a word for 'more moot'? Or does it make it then even 'most' relevant?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2007 @ 11:45am
Make no mistake---if I lived in Frogland I would vote for Ms. Royal, but from what I have read about her and seen of her on the BBC and French-language TV news shows, she sounds like a lightweight and looks to be, possibly, in over her head. Think Sarkozy is going to win easily.

Peter Murphy

Posted by petermurphy at 05/05/2007 @ 12:13pm
France didn't give us the Statue of Liberty, it was a French citizen.

Looks like desperate times for the Socialist when she pulls out the anarchy card:

"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.

A relaxed Sarkozy laughed off her comments.

"She's not in a good mood this morning. It must be the opinion polls," he told Europe 1 radio.

I smell a loss.

Posted by Sliver at 05/05/2007 @ 12:19pm
WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Marcus Mabry

Newsweek

Updated: 1 hour, 48 minutes ago

May 5, 2007 - It's hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every '08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public's approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.'s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP's chances for victory in '08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

Way major ouch for repubs-- new cons:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18491981/site/newsweek/

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2007 @ 12:22pm
Apart for the few far right dictators still out there, after hsuB's admin is impeached--if Sarkozy wins, will he be the only neo con leader of a country left in the world? Will all the new con lemmings in the USA migrate to--------------------- FRANCE!!!!!???!!!???!!

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2007 @ 12:34pm
"The issue is not anti-Americanism versus pro-Americanism, as the sillier U.S. commentators might suggest. … Rather, the issue is whether France should maintain an explicit policy of setting her own agenda when it comes to international affairs or follow the lead of Tony Blair's Britain and establish a policy of generally deferring to Washington -- even when the leaders there may be less than competent." Mon Dieu! Incroyable! So being like-mindedness equates to not having a policy of setting ones own agenda? Mr. Blair didn't follow or defer to the US; he believed the same thing and acted accordingly. Monsieur Nichols, j'accuse. It is you who is the silly commentator. Your logic is fatuous and gelastic. In other words, it is typical liberal logic.

Posted by AlwaysRight at 05/05/2007 @ 1:08pm
er, negotiating policy for an advantage, as a separate nation to another, would dictate one gets something different to that of the other (barter/trade) and thus have different reasons for doing so. Having the same reasons, would automatically assume a mercenary role, providing a service from the follower-- rather than receiving a separate advantage unique to being a separate nation. What did Brit's get out of the Iraq war? What would France get out of it? MIC profit. Is that enough? Not. Not if that's not your national industry...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2007 @ 1:28pm
Hey HSUBFOOLS! You go on and believe the NEWSWEEK polls if you want. Most reputable polls either show the top GOP candidates over the dems or in a dead heat. What you fail to realize is a big chunk of those who disapprove of Bush will never vote for a liberal democrat. Sorry!

And you CRABCAKE or whatever, yes there may have been some intelligence to the contrary, but the consensus WORLDWIDE was that Saddam had WMDs, had programs (proof of this was found), and that he acted like he had them (even HANS admitted this). Lets not forget that he used them before.

Posted by facethetruth at 05/05/2007 @ 1:51pm
Why do the neo-cons have screen names like "luvliberty, bravo, alwaysright, facethefacts"?

do they think we are sheeple like them and will fall for pap slogans like "clear skies" and "grrr, kill, kill"?

Must be awsooommmme to be always right. Quick questions, did you believe Iraq had wmd's and working relationships with Usama? Because if you did, your name is incorrect. If you didn't, why the phrase " Mr. Blair didn't follow or defer to the US; he believed the same thing and acted accordingly"?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 1:56pm
Posted by FACETHETRUTH 05/05/2007 @ 1:51pm

so, Saddam played you like a cheap fiddle.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 1:57pm
Sorry, FACE, I misrepresented your name in my last post.

Here are some Truths:

No wmd's

aluminum tubes were not for centrifuges, both the energy Dept and Blix said so before the war

No working relationship with Al Qaida

terrorism has gone up every year since Chimpy declared a GWOT and "Mission Accomplished"

Not a single ME country has moved toward a liberal democracy, Iraq's guvt is less than useless.

Etc Etc, ad nauseam ad nauseam

hope you like apples.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 2:01pm
Lets not forget that he used them before.

Posted by FACETHETRUTH 05/05/2007 @ 1:51pm

Lets not forget who sold them to him, stood by while he used them on our enemy Iran and did business with him after the first Gulf War.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 2:02pm
Maybe FACE would like to join the "He moved them to Syria" crowd?

Would that make you feel better about being dead wrong about going to war?

would you like to compare the Cole to WTC and claim they are both on US soil, but the Green Zone is not?

we've seen 'em all here, the dodges, the blaming, using Clinton as a foil, the platitudes and jingles. go ahead, trot out the worn out excuses for being wrong, if you forget one or two look them up on the RNC site and get back to us.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 2:08pm
mmmm, crabcakes...

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 2:09pm
Boy crabwalk, I really got to you didn't I. Intelligence gets it wrong a lot of times. At least I wasn't dancing to Saddam's fiddle like you. You were probably just fine with his mass graves being filled with hundreds of thousands.

I don't have anymore time for this. It's pointless. Besides ... you need to take up any of your complaints with your own -- the Clintons and the rest of the liberal democrat lot who'll take any position, for or against, when it's convenient to gain a vote or a few points in a poll.

Posted by facethetruth at 05/05/2007 @ 2:30pm
Hey HSUBFOOLS! You go on and believe the NEWSWEEK polls if you want.

Posted by FACETHETRUTH 05/05/2007 @ 1:51pm

So you don't or can't really face all the truth, thus your name should be FACELITTLETRUTH.

And a question: Are you related to Mask (tm)? Like maybe a cousin?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2007 @ 2:46pm
from Wicki:

France is the sixth largest economy in the world in USD exchange-rate terms. With a GDP of 1.7 trillion euros (1.7×1012 €; 2005 data), the seventh largest by purchasing power parity, it shows the lowest poverty rate amongst the large economies, the lowest income inequality rate and has some of the world's strongest social services (such as health care, education, retirement systems) and public service sectors (such as public transport and public security). According to World Bank and IMF figures, it is the third largest in Europe after Germany and the United Kingdom.

hey Maasch, ever been in Paris? Nice?

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/05/2007 @ 3:02pm
"Hairy armpits"

Excuse me? What kind of strange American cliché is that? All across Europe, the women of France have the reputation of being most obsessed with their appearance and of being also most sucessful with that!

Any above that, this cute, lovely accent when they speak English or German...

Seriously, I NEVER saw any hair in any female French armpit!

Posted by elziax at 05/05/2007 @ 3:09pm
"willing to discuss reality in the terms most obviously demanded by any honest observer"

Posted by ZERO 05/05/2007 @ 2:25pm

Well, Zero, that's exactly the problem when talking to hardcore-neocons: In 2001, I read a very telling interview with Richard Perle, the neocon-mastermind in a German newspaper. In referring to his political philosophy, he stated that the so called 'reality' is always ambigious, that there are always so many different, contradicting 'facts' - so it is not that important to base politics on this 'reality' or these 'facts' but rather to define what reality actually is - and then make everyone believe that 'reality' in as many different ways as possible.

I reckon, that explains the choice of names of FACETHETRUTH and ALWAYSRIGHT.

...by the way another example where the neocons have learnt from Hitler's propaganda-mastermind Heinrich Himmler...

Posted by elziax at 05/05/2007 @ 3:33pm
am afraid Americans (Conservative + Liberals + journalists), do not have a correct interpretation of the French campaign. The posts here show a poor level of understanding on the issue.---Posted by AREYOUOK 05/05/2007 @ 04:30am Uh! - Does this mean the French did not give us the Statue of Liberty? My level of expertise and understanding of the French comes from the great documentary Monty Pythons's , "Search For The Holy Gail".

Posted by Leefeller at 05/05/2007 @ 3:42pm
Off topic, but... Curious thing about female shaved armpits I've come to realize, being a father of two highly intelligent and beautiful young women. Also being a divorced single parent for a while now, I noticed a bizarre trend (to me anyway), with some of the women I dated. And these are women were in their late 20-30's. They had shaved off their pubic hair, completely off, nada! And I realized a direct corollary to female shaving of armpits, legs, eyebrows, etc. Approaching mid-life now, I find it a shame that our culture values the pre-pub youth look to the extent that we devalue any culture that allows women to look like women. An incredibly sad self-deceit.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2007 @ 3:46pm
Seriously, I NEVER saw any hair in any female French armpit!

Posted by ELZIAX 05/05/2007 @ 3:09pm

Maybe you had her upside down?..:) Only kidding...tastlessly, of course..yet still crass...my apologies.

Just kidding..I love German, French, American, Italian...ect...with or without hair...and I really don't care where or how much, what color, or what style hair is involved....

JR,

I went to France along the Alsac(sp) border back and forth and passed through some small French towns..people were nice...my cousin has an Uncle who lives in one of the wine countys..he and his partner live in an old chateau complete with fine vineyard apparanetly...I have been invited to visit but never have..yet...it is supposed to be right out of a fairy tale setting..think MT will mind? These guys are gay...My cousins honeymooned in their chateau and went ballooning, drinking and partying all month..almost makes one want to get married again...naw...

A friend of mine bought a private small jet last year..in Albaq..an Elipse, maybe Dr Decibles knows the company,...anyway he wants to go and visit WW2 battlefields and see the history..so it looks like I may have a free ride over there...after a few test flights, of course.

I encountered hairy arm pits in France then and part of Germany, but that was 20 years ago...once in close, ah, proximity, it seemed not to matter...:)

Never seen Paris..yet..hope to next year, but as we kill the dollar it become preiswert(sp). Lower dollars makes American goods cheap over seas but kills the travel expenses..

Posted by john maasch at 05/05/2007 @ 4:30pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/05/2007 @ 3:46pm |

I have noticed the same phenomina..and heard some women in our office in NY talking and they said it is an American thing with the shaving...and the middle aged women supposedly are returning to the natural state.. I never knew why..thought it was a convient fad issue as oppose to hygiene...but then I heard some men do the same...

Posted by john maasch at 05/05/2007 @ 4:34pm
FACETHETRUTHiness doesn't have time to argue the Truth. Funny, that. Maybe because The Truth isn't what he wants to believe. Of course Saddam was a threat to you, sure. Yep, the French and Russians thought so, the Italians used their intel services to feed you some more crap about Niger uranium. Great sources there, TRUTHINESS.

Yep, the last 4 years of failed wars are Clintons fault, not the Commander Guy's. Or he Decider Guy. Or the War President Guy. That silly Clinton, he must be all powerful.

same old worn out platitudes and jingles.

Here some opinions based on The Truth:

Chimpy will leave office with IRaq in shambles.

The repubs will run from his legacy as fast as their l'il hamster feet can carry their fat/bloated bodies.

In the minds of the neo-con Apologists it will NEVER be their fault, because personal responsibility is for the Other Guy.

Baaa. Baaa. Another sheep joins the fold to sing us some songs of revisionist republican history. Did you know Jessica Lynch went down like a good All American Hero, guns blazing, Saddam Fedayeen falling like dominoes in SE VietNam in 1973? Did you know that if we fail in VietNam, communism will take over the world?

Can any of you sheep PUHL-EASE answer my question; why, if Chimpy is such a Great Leader, is terrorism up every year since 2003?

baa baaa.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 4:52pm
Where are these shaved womenfolk? I must inspect this phenomena up close. There is a good chance the areas in question will have to be numbed.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 4:54pm
Oh yeah, even though I never voted for Clinton in my life, he is "my own".

Must be more of that Truthiness that Face will not face. Gosh almighty, it must be awsooommmee to be omniscient.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 4:57pm
Can any of you sheep PUHL-EASE answer my question; why, if Chimpy is such a Great Leader, is terrorism up every year since 2003?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/05/2007 @ 4:58pm
Posted by ZERO 05/05/2007 @ 2:25pm

Since you can not counter any argument that would contradict your point, you are reduced to pathetic name-calling. It is the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and going BLAH BLAH BLAH! You are no liberal, but rather as closed-minded as any conservative you despise.

Posted by Zeddmen at 05/05/2007 @ 5:30pm
Posted by ZERO 05/05/2007 @ 2:25pm

Since you can not counter any argument that contradicts your point, you are reduced to pathetic name-calling. It is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going BLAH BLAH BLAH! You are no liberal but rather as closed-minded as any conservative you despise. Which by the way I am not. I voted for both Gore and Kerry.

Posted by Zeddmen at 05/05/2007 @ 5:35pm
Speaking as an American happily dating a French girl, I find this amusing. You only see the vitriolic anti-Americanism coming from the French left elite. But I also love how Nicols has bought the nonsense that Tony Blair isn't capable of acting on his own and that he's the lapdog of the Bush administration. He's obviously someone who has never listened to Blair with an open mind, as it's obvious the man is speaking from the heart. Same thing goes for John Howard. But somehow, anyone who came to the same conclusion regarding Iraq as the US administration and Congress must just not have any willpower, eh? Pathetic. In the words of my girlfriend, "Sego can cram it." And frankly, Nichols can, too.

Posted by Cheyennepress at 05/05/2007 @ 5:56pm
Anyone making the claim that the US has the worst healthcare in the developped world is just so plain naive about healthcare that they can just take a hike, Zero. (Appropriate name, by the way!) Take a look at the 5-year cancer survival rates and get back to us a tad more educated. As for the 40-million uninsured, about 40% of those aren't even US citizens, but Mexican and other foreign nationals who have no business being in the US in the first place. The largest chronically uninsured group? 24-35 year olds (about 41%), i.e. people who could likely afford healthcare (because it's inexpensive at that age) and choose to opt out..

I love a lot of things about France, but bashing the US regarding something you're obviously clueless about is just miserably pathetic.

Posted by Cheyennepress at 05/05/2007 @ 6:03pm
JM,

I noticed the change around 5 years ago and I still encounter women completely shaved. Mostly the model types. They seem to express their beauty in the editing and covering up... I kinda miss the good old full disclosure pre-hsuB days. Ironic don't you think...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2007 @ 6:17pm
Do you suppose it's an underground (so to speak) protest against hsuB?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2007 @ 6:22pm
Your page one pugilism is impressive Crabby! I like your footwork, you crusty crustacean! Yeah, feliz Cinco de Mayo hermano. Viva la raza!!

Posted by lewwelge at 05/05/2007 @ 7:56pm
It seems like maybe it would be a good idea for the French to try to make sure that their economy doesn't collapse, so I'm for that. Sarkozy acts like Bush though, and France has nuclear weapons...a French Bush could be dangerous, what with all the weird psychological and hygene problems that the men of that country seem to have. He might notice that his part is crooked and bomb Algeria just to make himself feel better... Plus he's short. Short men are totally inadequate in bed, and this must haunt him.

Posted by laydyleft at 05/05/2007 @ 9:33pm
The Gauls are great, not leastwise for Voltaire and, via Brown, aknowledging the "sacred feminine," and, most noteworthy, the wisdom to recognize that "se excuse, s'accuse(sp?)", i.e. (en Englai[sp?]): "those who excuse themselves, accuse themselves."

Go Royal! Viva la raza! Down with the "war-hawks! Imagine!

Posted by lewwelge at 05/05/2007 @ 10:12pm
Lo sciento, mi amigos y amigas. Buenos noches.

Posted by lewwelge at 05/05/2007 @ 10:13pm
The answer to all your questions about why this and why that about hsuB:

Hunh...it's like...

I don't care about nuthin man.

Roll another poll.

Yeah cuz...

I was gonna clean th' gervment up... Until I got high. I was gonna get up and find the budget... But then I got high. My plan is still messed up... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna go talk at congress... Before I got high. "C'mon y'all...check it out." I coulda created stuff and I coulda passed forms... But I got high. I'm doing it next session... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

"Go to the next one" "Go to the next one" "Go to the next one BUSSSHHOSH!"

I was gonna go read th' NIE... But then I got high. I just got a new power. But I got high. Now I'm sellin surge... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna get a new court... Before I got high. I was gonna stay unimpeached... But then I got high. "No you wasn't." They took my whole DOJ... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I wasn't gonna run from Katrina... But I was high. "I'm serious man" I was gonna help victims and not stop... But I was high. Now I'm a limp duck... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna get Iraq for keeps... Until I got high. "Say what...say what?" I wasn't gonna gamble on the OBL... But then I got high. Now the congress's pullin away... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna make Rove do you... But then I got high. I was gonna lead our country too... But then I got high. Now I'm wackin off brush... And I know why! "Turn that shit off" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

"Go...go...go...go."

I messed up your entire life. Because I got high. I lost your kids at Iraq. Because I got high. "Say what...say what" "Say what...say what...ohhhhh." Now I'm sleepin at Kennebunkport... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I'ma stop speachafying this speach. Because I'm high. I'm speachafying this whole thing wrong. Because I'm high.

"Bring it back" "Bring it back" "Bring it back"

If I don't sell the next surge... I'll know why! "Why man?" Cuz I'm high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

"Are you really high though...man?"

Cuz I'm high. Cuz I'm high. Cuz I'm high.

"Hey...where the buck stops at man?"

Bu-bushi-bushi-bushi-buSSSSHHHOSSSHHH!!

Because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high,...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2007 @ 10:13pm
Never seen Paris..yet..hope to next year, but as we kill the dollar it become preiswert(sp). Lower dollars makes American goods cheap over seas but kills the travel expenses..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/05/2007 @ 4:30pm | ignore this person

I wouldn't try to pass myself off as an expert on french women.

I do know that french actresses have a beauty, grace and sophistication few if any american actresses possess.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/05/2007 @ 11:19pm
Where are these shaved womenfolk? I must inspect this phenomena up close. There is a good chance the areas in question will have to be numbed.

Posted by CRABWALK 05/05/2007 @ 4:54pm |

A splendid idea..good subject for a LONG study.

Posted by john maasch at 05/06/2007 @ 12:36am
Posted by CRABWALK 05/05/2007 @ 4:58pm

Can any of you sheep PUHL-EASE answer my question; why, if Chimpy is such a Great Leader, is terrorism up every year since 2003?

Because the media re-defined the meaning of 'terrorist attack' to include every skirmish in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan? And because the statistics you are now citing are therefore meaningless, and everyone knows that, because we have had virtually no successful attacks on American civilians since 9/11?

Not that I expect this little intrusion of reality to make any impact on your worldview, CRABBIE. Just a comment.

Posted by pontificus at 05/06/2007 @ 01:43am
Look no further than France to see what 'progressives' (re-framed socialists) have to offer America. France has 9.8 percent unemployment, but to the left it doesn't matter, because hey, they've all got generous welfare and unemployment benefits. Who pays for it? Don't worry! The rich are paying for it! But oh, in France, the 'rich' (those who actually are engaged in wealth creation) are deserting the sinking ship like rats, because they're getting just a mite bit tired of paying for the party.

People in France who support the system love to point out what a wonderful lifestyle they have. The problem is, it's all built on other people's productive labor. Many, if not most of the 'jobs' held by those who hold the French lifestyle so precious are nothing but sinecures. The whole superstructure is tottering, and it will either be reformed or it will collapse.

Will France choose Sarko or the road to ruin?

By Simon Heffer

...the majority of French are bought off with a lavish welfare state and jobs on the public payroll, financed by a minority who pay high taxes for the privilege of living in France. That deal, however, is almost completely broken. Business has had enough of bankrolling bureaucracy and funding feather-bedding. Well-known French individuals, such as the popular singer and actor Johnny Hallyday, have sundered their ties with the country and gone to live abroad because of the penal wealth tax, which led to Hallyday complaining that he now has to send two thirds of his annual income to the French treasury.

... Reaction to Mr Le Pen's abstention call has been largely negative, but some of his most ardent followers - stung by Mr Sarkozy's labelling of them as extremists - may well do what he tells them. If too many do, they could well be handing the election to Miss Royal. This would be awful for France, which badly needs even the mild dose of liberal economics and reduction in the size of the state that Mr Sarkozy is promising. The present situation, where 52 per cent of France's GDP is spent in the public sector (against 42 per cent of ours, which itself is too high) is unsustainable. It might well provide an opportunity in 2012 for the FN, who might feed on the greater social and economic problems that a hard five years of corrosive, introspective, un-radical and profligate Left-wing government would bring. But the state France would be in by then, even further detached from economic realities that are now commonplace for the rest of Europe, hardly bears thinking about.

Posted by pontificus at 05/06/2007 @ 02:00am
The bedwetters are heard from once again. Where do we send your case of Pampers, John??

Posted by SgtStryker at 05/06/2007 @ 02:02am
Posted by CRABWALK 05/05/2007 @ 2:08pm

Maybe FACE would like to join the "He moved them to Syria" crowd?

Would that make you feel better about being dead wrong about going to war?

would you like to compare the Cole to WTC and claim they are both on US soil, but the Green Zone is not?

we've seen 'em all here, the dodges, the blaming, using Clinton as a foil, the platitudes and jingles. go ahead, trot out the worn out excuses for being wrong, if you forget one or two look them up on the RNC site and get back to us.

CRABBIE, you are reaching the point of self-parody. If I might indulge in a little folk psychology, I think at some deep subconscious level you're smart enough to realize that your world-view, built as it is on knee-jerk America-hating and, perhaps more deeply, self-loathing, is ultimately dysfunctional. Thus, as your statements become ever more articulate, the fundamental absurdity becomes ever clearer. Viewed in this way, even YOUR posts might be seen as useful. Good luck in your journey.

Posted by pontificus at 05/06/2007 @ 02:19am
Hum... I would be a lot more concerned with France's stance re: Israel and their policies.

Posted by Raygun at 05/06/2007 @ 10:23am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/05/2007 @ 11:45am

HSUB, keep forgetting. I actually heard a reporter of Newsweek on NPR last week...and an e-mailer ACTUALLY ASKED about the Newsweek poll and why that data had never been repeated or reported on.

He said he'd never heard of it, but that it wasn't Newsweek's job to push any issue.

Which to me came off as it was a ONE-time result and NW couldn't repeat the data...as NO OTHER polling company apparently has either.

But don't worry, with Kucinich's bill gaining steam by the minute (is he upto 3 co-sponsors yet?)....Gallup, Rasmussen, Harris and the rest will be dragged, kicking and screaming to show the massive move to impeach Bush and Cheney.

BTW, on that Newsweek poll, it said "58%" support it...but that online poll you had just a few days ago...it was "98%"?!?!?!

hehe

Posted by Mask at 05/06/2007 @ 10:33am
FaceTheTruth-Not one of you war supporters cared what Saddam was doing to the Iraqi people until Bush told you to pretend to care so you may stop the phony concern now.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/06/2007 @ 10:47am
Ponti aka rese-So there is no rise in terrorist attacks,but there is a massive plot by the MSM to make it look that way?O.K.

Posted by i'm nobody at 05/06/2007 @ 10:49am
Cramer's 'Mad Money' Recap: The French Connection

By TheStreet.com Staff 5/2/2007 7:48 PM EDT

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

When James Altucher from Stockpickr.com recently asked people their top picks for a country to invest in, Jim Cramer responded with France.

"France, of all places, is the best market in the world because of Nicolas Sarkozy," he told viewers of his "Mad Money" TV show Wednesday. Although everyone expected him to give a "standard" BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India or China) answer, Cramer explained that Brazil is too levered to the U.S. economy, he doesn't trust the accounting in Russia or China, and India has moved too much.

Meanwhile, Cramer believes that Sarkozy could "single-handedly" turn France into the best market in the world if he wins the presidential elections. It would be a win of the "capitalist counterrevolution," Cramer said.

With the strength Cramer sees in some of these French stocks, "this is the France of equality and profitability," he said. "We're about to have the right man running France," and to celebrate, Cramer gave viewers two stocks to play "the most exciting market in the world."

Posted by OneVote at 05/06/2007 @ 11:47am
Fox News has Sarkovsky winning 53% to Royal's 47%; a veritable landslide in our winner-take-all, zero-sum gamed world of war.

Posted by lewwelge at 05/06/2007 @ 2:18pm
The winners...George W. Bush, Sarkovsky, and the non-Muslim French citizens!!!

Posted by woodyee at 05/06/2007 @ 3:08pm
Posted by WOODYEE 05/06/2007 @ 3:08pm

I'm actually a little disappointed. It was fun bashing the dysfunctional nation of France. Now they've got someone, a relative conservative as usual, to come in and pick up the pieces from the usual socialist-experiment-gone-awry. He'll probably right the ship just well enough to pave the way for some future leftist to run into the ground again.

Posted by pontificus at 05/06/2007 @ 3:25pm
Oh, and I should also mention, that the instant Sarkozy takes office, the moonbats will assign responsiblity for the 10 percent unemployment caused by the last 10 years of eurosocialism, to him.

Posted by pontificus at 05/06/2007 @ 4:34pm
Pontificus, PLEASE check your history: France has got a conservative government since 1996!!! And in 1996, when the conservative Jaques Chiraq took office, the unemployment was at about 6%.

And please look up the words "Socialism", "Communism" and "Social Democrats" up at Wikipedia or the like - and then come back. Just because the party of Ségolène Royal is in French called "Parti Socialiste", they are not promoting Socialism. Countries like East Germany were socialist until the fall of the wall. Uh - and that's something different from Communism again.

So - before you attempt to enlighten us with your ideological, simplistic, black-and-white worldview, PLEASE know what you're talking about.

Oh, and thanks for the "dysfunctional nation of France" - joke! This from an American really made me laugh!!!

Posted by elziax at 05/06/2007 @ 5:08pm
So, George Bush-- AWOL, disapproved by 72%, and about to be impeached by Dennis Kucinich...

just won an election in France.

And a fight with the Democratic Congress over Iraq.

If he's a dummy, what does that make the opponents he keeps trouncing?

Posted by Mgmax at 05/06/2007 @ 6:05pm
I've never cared much about what the French think or do BUT, MOST OF YOU LIBS DO! How about that? Sarkozy, the conservative wins in what is almost a landslide. Madame Royal, the leftist Bush hater, who tried to win by tying Sarkozy to Bush, loses. Most of the French may not like Bush much, but it is not nearly to the extent that the liberal media and their agenda driven polls would like you to believe.

What was that poll you cited, Nichols? Only 6% like Bush or or rather 94% dislike Bush? How could this be? If this was so, Madame Royal would have won in a landslide. Of course there were other issues involved, but it was you who wanted to make it a Royal vs. Bush campaign. The truth is; to a degree it was.

Speaking of agenda driven polls, don't get too excited about liberal biased Newsweek's poll. They've rarely gotten it even close to right. The Rasmussen poll has been consistently accurate (even though they oversample democrats). They have Bush between 38% and 43% approval. Not great, but also not the bogus 28% you see in some ridiculous polls. Remember, probably 10 to 15 points of those who disapprove of Bush in the Rasmussen poll do so for many different "conservative" reasons. These will never vote for a liberal democrat. So we're back up to 50% or above. Sorry!

Posted by facethetruth at 05/06/2007 @ 6:56pm
Posted by FACETHETRUTH 05/06/2007 @ 6:56pm

Speaking of agenda driven polls, don't get too excited about liberal biased Newsweek's poll. They've rarely gotten it even close to right. The Rasmussen poll has been consistently accurate (even though they oversample democrats). They have Bush between 38% and 43% approval. Not great, but also not the bogus 28% you see in some ridiculous polls. Remember, probably 10 to 15 points of those who disapprove of Bush in the Rasmussen poll do so for many different "conservative" reasons. These will never vote for a liberal democrat. So we're back up to 50% or above. Sorry!

Thanks for emphasizing a point that is mostly missed here amongst the avid readers of The Nation. These poor folks take great comfort from polls (conducted mostly by liberals at publications generated by liberals) which show something on the order of 30 percent approving of Bush's performance. Somehow they gather that this means that 70 percent of the country are Bush-haters like themselves. Poor deluded fools.

Posted by pontificus at 05/06/2007 @ 8:41pm
Hey, haven't you liberals told our Army that they've lost enough times yet! What's the matter with you folks? Haven't you been demanding retreat and defeat hard enough? Seems our troops just aren't getting the message! Tell your representatives to cut off funds pronto! We can't have this kind of patriotism in America! You folks need to show our troops how America-hating is DONE!

The Army National Guard reached its congressionally authorized end strength of 350,000 Citizen-Soldiers on March 30, six months earlier than originally projected, Army Guard officials have reported.

"The strength of the Guard has been the amazing levels of retention among members of deployed units, surpassing all expectations," said Lt. Col. Diana Craun, the Army Guard's deputy chief for strength maintenance.

"Retention is highest among units that have returned from deployments, and retention is an essential element in end strength," she added.

It is the first time that the Army Guard has been at full strength since 1999, Craun said. Officials had projected that the Army Guard would reach 350,000 troops by Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year.

Posted by pontificus at 05/06/2007 @ 8:47pm
Posted by ELZIAX 05/06/2007 @ 5:08pm0

Pontificus, PLEASE check your history: France has got a conservative government since 1996!!! And in 1996, when the conservative Jaques Chiraq took office, the unemployment was at about 6%.

Oh, silly me - here I thought you socialists were going to blame the French unemployment rate on Sarkozy - now I understand you've been blaming it on the conservatives all along! Silly me for thinking that France is anything BUT a conservative country, what with all those socialist programs and all!

And please look up the words "Socialism", "Communism" and "Social Democrats" up at Wikipedia or the like - and then come back. Just because the party of Ségolène Royal is in French called "Parti Socialiste", they are not promoting Socialism. Countries like East Germany were socialist until the fall of the wall. Uh - and that's something different from Communism again.

Again, silly me and my simplistic view of the world! Here I thought a Party which called itself the "Socialist Party" actually was socialist! How simplistic of me! And so good of you to explain!

Posted by pontificus at 05/06/2007 @ 8:54pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/06/2007 @ 8:54pm

Again, silly me and my simplistic view of the world! Here I thought a Party which called itself the "Socialist Party" actually was socialist! How simplistic of me! And so good of you to explain!

It's getting harder and harder to find a socialist today, you know? Here in the states, you can look and look, and nary a socialist in sight - just a bunch of people who call themselves 'Progressives' and Bernie Sanders! Now, even over in Europe, apparently, the people who call themselves 'Socialist' aren't even socialist anymore, if you believe our friend ELZIAX! Hey, what happened to all the socialists???

Posted by pontificus at 05/06/2007 @ 9:07pm
One more time-- from less than sober hsuB per cel, giving advise to Sarkozy:

Hunh...it's like...

I don't care about nuthin man.

Roll another poll.

Yeah cuz...

I was gonna clean th' gervment up... Until I got high. I was gonna get up and find the budget... But then I got high. My plan is still messed up... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna go talk at congress... Before I got high. "C'mon y'all...check it out." I coulda created stuff and I coulda passed forms... But I got high. I'm doing it next session... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

"Go to the next one" "Go to the next one" "Go to the next one BUSSSHHOSH!"

I was gonna go read th' NIE... But then I got high. I just got a new power. But I got high. Now I'm sellin surge... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna get a new court... Before I got high. I was gonna stay unimpeached... But then I got high. "No you wasn't." They took my whole DOJ... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I wasn't gonna run from Katrina... But I was high. "I'm serious man" I was gonna help victims and not stop... But I was high. Now I'm a limp duck... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna get Iraq for keeps... Until I got high. "Say what...say what?" I wasn't gonna gamble on the OBL... But then I got high. Now the congress's pullin away... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna make Rove do you... But then I got high. I was gonna lead our country too... But then I got high. Now I'm wackin off brush... And I know why! "Turn that shit off" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

"Go...go...go...go."

I messed up your entire life. Because I got high. I lost your kids at Iraq. Because I got high. "Say what...say what" "Say what...say what...ohhhhh." Now I'm sleepin at Kennebunkport... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I'ma stop speachafying this speach. Because I'm high. I'm speachafying this whole thing wrong. Because I'm high.

"Bring it back" "Bring it back" "Bring it back"

If I don't sell the next surge... I'll know why! "Why man?" Cuz I'm high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

"Are you really high though...man?"

Cuz I'm high. Cuz I'm high. Cuz I'm high.

"Hey...where the buck stops at man?"

Bu-bushi-bushi-bushi-buSSSSHHHOSSSHHH!!

Because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high,...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2007 @ 11:45pm
Bush won an election in France? you jerks must be insane. he couldn't win the job of dogcatcher now. to cast an election in a foreign country, one that is so consistently misunderstood, as a rerendum on Bush , is the height of arrogance.I'll say it again, it's not all about the US. it also shows how desperate the idiots on this blog are.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/08/2007 @ 09:48am