Sarkozy seems more dangerous than I thought | 79 comments (79 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Because (none / 1)

Yes, but if six years ago, let's say, Chuck Hagel, had aligned with Al Gore to stop George Bush and the neocons, wouldn't we be in much better shape today. Of course we didn't know, except for Molly Ivins, what Bush would really be like. But we do have a good inkling, what Sarcozy will be like.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!

by LEP on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 05:35:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (4.00 / 7)

Reasoning like this is validating the rightward drift. It is tantamount to giving up on the left and its values. It is attempting to settle for the lesser evil and neglecting to draw a line and take a stand. The end result will be, we will all be on the right, and wondering why we are being led further and further to the right. (See Tony Blair and Britain).

But a lot of this talk of Bayrou is based on the perception that Royal is a dud, her campaign has failed, she can't win, etc. That has been carefully fostered by the Sarko-sympathetic media with the intention of cloaking him with an aura of inevitable victory and infecting the left with defeatism. Bayrou plays cannily into the gap by pretending he has one foot on the right and one on the left, and we shouldn't be taken in by that.

I don't know the answer to this question, but how much of the Republican Party could Chuck Hagel have brought with him if he'd allied with Gore? Currently Bayrou runs a small rump party that owes its electoral existence to the UMP. He's a centre-right maverick who has seen some good poll numbers that may or may not have been exaggerated. It's also a mistake to see him as more than that.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 07:31:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As far as I know, we are all commenting on a diary (4.00 / 4)

with the title " Sarkozy seems more dangerous than I thought" by Migeru. So firstly, I ask do you and Jerome agree with Migeru that he's dangerous. If you agree, then how dangerous is he? Do we risk losing our civil liberties as the people in the U.S. almost did under Bush. ( My opinion is that if it hadn't been for Katrina, and the fact that the whole country saw on TV that Bush didn't give a shit about them, all might be lost there by now.)
So if we can arrive at the answer as to how dangerous he is, we can then discuss what is required and what it is worth doing to stop him.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!

by LEP on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 08:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As far as I know, we are all commenting on a d (4.00 / 5)

Jerome kindly posted a pdf of the article. Have you read it?

The last three paragraphs were very strange to me, almost a Voltairean "I hate what you say but I'd give my life for your right to say it":

Voter Sarkozy n'est pas un crime. C'est même un droit. Nous ne dirons pas, nous, que ce candidat représente la fraude, la délinquance, l'anti-France et la faillite morale.
Nous voudrions simplement qu'on se souvienne plus tard — quitte, ensuite, a nous en demander compte — que nous avons écrit qu'il représente pour la conception que nous nous faisons de la démocratie et de la République un formidable danger.
S'ils est élu, nous savons que nous pourrions en payer le prix. Nous l'acceptons!

A shorter Marianne: he could wreck us, democracy and the republic, but we'd pay that price as long as we can say "we told you so" afterwards.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 08:16:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Translation of Marianne: (4.00 / 2)

"We don't care what happens. We just want to remember later that we spoke out and wrote that Sarkozy represents a great danger to the Republic as we see it. We know that if he is elected we all may very well suffer, but we accept that as long as we can say 'We told you so.'"

Me, I think it makes more sense to make an alliance with the center right than to suffer later on. And I notice that there are some others on the left who agree.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!

by LEP on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 09:20:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Translation of Marianne: (4.00 / 5)

I have now read that Marianne piece and there is nothing substantially new in it. The high point to me is a very Jean-François Kahn passage where he says Sarkozy is mad and no one dares say it. I think this is a deliberate pitch for worried people on the left to vote Bayrou (whom Kahn openly supports, one should be aware of that). I think people should also be aware that Kahn is known for bombast and is not always taken all that seriously in public discourse.
I have already, and often, said I think Sarkozy would be bad for France and Europe. I say again in a comment above that he's dangerous. But comparison with Bush/Cheney and the Grover Norquist GOP, and the enormous freedom available to them after 9/11, is imo completely over the top.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 10:09:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dangerous Sarkozy (4.00 / 3)

Actually, I'd expect a Winter'95 scenario: an attempt at brutal reform, and massive protest against him - and even more sustained than against Chirac.

And that would decide a lot of things then.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 10:34:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dangerous Sarkozy (none / 1)

With or without police violence?

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!

by LEP on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 10:37:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dangerous Sarkozy (4.00 / 2)

I'm trying to avoid envisioning the hypothesis of a Sarkozy victory -- but what if : Sarkozy were to defeat Royal narrowly in the run-off and then exclude the UDF from his new government, while the PS settled accounts and put forth new leadership for the legislatives (eg, DSK) in an alliance with Bayrou, do you think there's any chance of a full-term cohabition?

I think its highly possibly under one condition -- if the National Front candidates forced triangular legislative run-offs.

In other words, they worst scenario I can possibly imagine is what I think you Jerome are envisioning -- Sarkozy runs below expectations in the first round and Bayrou and LePen score strongly without qualifying (and the PCF and Verts do very poorly), followed by a narrow Sarkozy victory. At that point, a PS-UDF alliance would make sense, leaving Sarkozy to do what we all know he wouldn't hesitate to do -- cut a deall, overtly or covertly, with LePen and the FN to allow him to win a legislative majority.

Like I said, I try not to think about it.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 10:57:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Translation of Marianne: (4.00 / 2)

The "we told you so" makes sense coming from a Bayrou supporter if we believe the polls that claim Bayrou would beat Sarkozy, who would beat Royal.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 11:41:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Translation of Marianne: (none / 1)

You know, France does have a history of "little guys" acquiring too much power and then abusing it. (I'm not disparaging "little guys"- I'm one myself- but we can be quite authoritarian.)

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!

by LEP on Wed Apr 18th, 2007 at 12:51:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (4.00 / 7)

What is the exact nature of this so-called "Alliance" anyhow? How do two first-round candidates ally against a third? There is no Instant Run-off Voting AFAIK. In the vote on April 22 they must choose Bayrou, Royal or an other. As I read it this was essentially the response from Royal's camp, that there is simply no practical way to achieve said "alliance" anyhow.

Now, should one candidate essentially drop out and endorse the other to "unite" the party you would have essentially the scenario we saw in the US in 2004. Kerry represented the "Anybody But Bush" electorate and he got wiped off the map in an election that several other Democrats who sought the nomination would probably have won. This idea that Royal or Bayrou might have difficulty defeating Sarkozy in a 2nd round thus we should vote for the other one is absurd.

Vote for your candidate. If your candidate, say Royal, were to miss the 2nd round at the expense of Bayrou, vote for Bayrou as the lesser evil in that case. Until that occurs there is no discussion. It is a pathetic attempt to undermine Royal yet again. Meanwhile her poll numbers are surging indicating a strong finish going into the ACTUAL election.

Frankly with Sarkozy's constant pandering to the racist right it seems clear that he and Le Pen are fighting over the same voters. Those voters are not known to be a huge group, either.

Lastly, did I understand correctly that Le Pen said he would appoint Sarkozy as Minster of Racaille's? If so, that's hilarious. Le Pen is if nothing else an entertaining nutter. He reminds me greatly of Pat Buchanan.

by paving on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 12:32:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (4.00 / 6)

Excellent comment. There are no alliances, open or otherwise, until at least Round Two. All that is happening right now is pressure on the nerves of left-wing voters to scare them into running for the (illusory) Bayrou shelter.

The left in France has never numbered more than half the electorate, yet can win elections with a certain amount of discipline - because the right is divided. In this case, three ways.

The second round, in any case, is another election, and all previous opinion polls on the outcome are to be viewed with extreme caution (I'd say disdain). I don't know if Royal will beat Sarkozy, but I think she has every chance. Sarko does scare people. He has been pandering to the extreme right. People see that, and there's no reason to think that Royal cannot gather anti-Sarko voters just as Bayrou might. The only reason we hear that Royal "cannot beat Sarkozy" is that this idea has been dinned into people's heads for weeks with the aid of dubious poll data.

Yes, Sarkozy has been doing Le Pen's work for him so assiduously of late that Le Pen can spend half his time cracking jokes. That might be fun, if Le Pen weren't Le Pen.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 01:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (4.00 / 5)

Absolutely right, paving, about the Alliance. Thats why I think the real issue to be addressed, and I presume its being discussed en coulisse now, is whether there could be a basis for Bayrou to support Royal in the second round; that basis would not simply be a personal support but the prospect of not only Bayrouistes in a Royal-appointed government but an actual electoral alliance for the legislative elections in June. And that would be very tricky to pull off.

Rocard's proposal was clearly intended to begin that discussion rather than to propose either Bayrou or Royal
make an endorsement before the 1st round.

I'm as skeptical by the way of polling showing a late Royal surge as I was/am of polling showing Sarkozy comfortably ahead (or for that matter showing Bayrou falling back).

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 01:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (4.00 / 2)

It is my observation of dubious US polling that they tend to try and make up the gaps as the actual election nears or even is over. They even adjust their exit polls after the fact to make it look like they did a better job (or to hide the election fraud, more likely).

It is natural that the "polls" would want to be viewed as doing a good job so they can maintain some semblance of credibility. If they know Royal will make the 2nd round, which seems rather likely, their polls had better show it if they want to have any chance at influending the 2nd round vote.

I also think that Bayrou's support comes at Sarkozy's expense more than anyone else and is essentially your anti-Sarkozy vote. Should Bayrou fail to reach the 2nd round his support will be more likely to move toward Royal.

Lastly I suspect Sarkozy might be in real danger of missing the 2nd round. A Royal/Le Pen matchup does not seem out of the range of possibility here.

by paving on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 03:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (none / 1)

Remember one thing about the pollsters: they never admit to having been mistaken because they can always say (with no possible risk of being proved wrong): "we were right about the state of opinion at the moment the poll was taken".

That opens the door to manipulation.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 04:02:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (4.00 / 2)

I continue to be surprised at how polling data is taken seriously by the media despite being completely wrong the past two elections specifically and more often than not before that.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the French population has caught on to the dangers of polling (or have always understood it) and are by nature misleading those polls and best of all ignoring them before voting.

Americans have the pathetic, sad and depressing tendency to vote the way the polls are, you know, because people like to vote for a winner. UGH.

by paving on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 04:10:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (4.00 / 2)

the French population has caught on to the dangers of polling (or have always understood it) and are by nature misleading those polls

This has been suggested and discussed in Le Monde and other outlets. It's surely true of a proportion of the electorate.

As to taking no notice of the polls before voting, I hope so. Though some on the left seem to be getting the poll jitters...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 05:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (4.00 / 2)

I have also noticed those "jitters" of the left. That's not surprising considering the massive media onslaught against everything they stand for.

If they win this one it was to their fortune that the candidate of the right was so disagreeable. Bush, for all his political faults, is reasonably likable on a personal level for most and that is his greatest asset.

by paving on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 05:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Likeable (none / 1)

Maybe you can explain to me WTF people are thinking when they say Bush is the kind of guy they'd like to have a couple of drinks with at the bar?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 05:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likeable (4.00 / 2)

Bush is "confidence man"

He remembers names and tries to act like your good buddy even if you don't know him. Most people are flattered by such behavior and especially when that person represents so much power.

This would be less effective if so many US politicians weren't such total pricks. Bush/Cheney is essentially a good cop/bad cop routine.

by paving on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 06:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likeable (3.75 / 4)

He gives off the vibe of an average happy go lucky guy with the sort of political people skills that paving mentions below. Or at least that's how I've always figured it - for me he has the air of the obnoxious frat boy. Dem politicians seem to leave an impression of over-intellectualized cultural elitists - which is actually much more my taste in people to hang out with, but I'm a minority. Clinton managed to give both impressions simultaneously, along with even better people skills than Bush plus the intense charisma that Bush lacks. When that whole theme started I ended up idly speculating to myself about who my choices would be, and in what situation - Gore good for a quiet chat over a few drinks or coffee, not so much for a more raucous party, Clinton good for both.

by MarekNYC on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 06:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sarkozy seems more dangerous than I thought | 79 comments (79 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

The problems with formal education

Speaking right: What an Taoiseach should say in Washington

Ambushing an Taoiseach

Net Zero Energy - March 2025

We do have the cards

Manipulating Irishness

Thomas Paine's Age of Reason

Recent Diaries

Crossroads, Ukraine Loses Either Way

Like a tsunami rolling ashore ...

Breaking: A Christian In the Kremlin

Going Down!

The Inside Job to Murder JFK [Update]

Ukraine Victory In Retreat

Ceasefire Negotiations Step by Step

17th of March

Ukraine Violated Human Rights in Odessa - 2014

Rutte In the Apprentice Theatre

Rearming Europe Peace Through More War

Keith Kellogg Is Out

Nordic States Join Baltics Again WWII Redux

Goodbye NATO/USA, Welcome Europe's E5

Zelensky and the Terror State Ukraine

EU Commissioner VDL In Full Panic Mode

The problems with formal education

The Battle for Kiev/Kyiv

VDL At the Crossroads of Europe - Part 1

The speech Micheál Martin should make in the White House:...

Occasional Series