French Presidential Election 22 April 2007 Thread

[Michael Z]

Am I right in assuming that Sarkozy is a shoo-in for the Presidency?

[Michael Z]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1950383,00.html

"Clear victory for Royal in race to be President"

[Michael Z]

It seems like so far neither Sarkozy and Royal have exactly set the election alight (though Sarkozy seems to be very comparable to Thatcher or GW Bush in that people either love or hate him). I still think Sarkozy will win, but he's going to be a heck of a polarising President and will probably do France more harm than good in the long run.

[Michael Z]

It seems like so far neither Sarkozy and Royal have exactly set the election alight (though Sarkozy seems to be very comparable to Thatcher or GW Bush in that people either love or hate him). I still think Sarkozy will win, but he's going to be a heck of a polarising President and will probably do France more harm than good in the long run.

Of course, you also think Thatcher did more harm than good.

Of course she bloody did! Unless you're, perhaps, a buy-to-let landlord or a hedgefund manager, then yeah, I suppose she was bloody brilliant. But not if you're actually a normal person with an average income. And I'm not just talking about wealth or material gains here, since I happen to believe that some things are more important than money -- which is downright freaky, I know, but true.

But actually, Thatcher is quite an apt person to mention here to further illustrate my point about Sarkozy. I don't actually mean their similarities in policies (which I wasn't talking about to begin with), I meant more their style of politics. I don't actually care all that much what Sarkozy stands for. If he wants to privatise the sh!t out of France, then fine, let him. What gets me is this whole partisan & deliberately polarising attidude, this "get screwed" bullyboy mentality towards anyone who may not agree with your policies, so espoused by the likes of Thatcher, Bush and Sarkozy, which does little but divide people and turn them against each other and which, quite frankly, belongs into the dustbin of history.

[Michael Z]

It seems like so far neither Sarkozy and Royal have exactly set the election alight (though Sarkozy seems to be very comparable to Thatcher or GW Bush in that people either love or hate him). I still think Sarkozy will win, but he's going to be a heck of a polarising President and will probably do France more harm than good in the long run.

Of course, you also think Thatcher did more harm than good.

Of course she bloody did! Unless you're, perhaps, a buy-to-let landlord or a hedgefund manager, then yeah, I suppose she was bloody brilliant. But not if you're actually a normal person with an average income. And I'm not just talking about wealth or material gains here, since I happen to believe that some things are more important than money -- which is downright freaky, I know, but true.

But actually, Thatcher is quite an apt person to mention here to further illustrate my point about Sarkozy. I don't actually mean their similarities in policies (which I wasn't talking about to begin with), I meant more their style of politics. I don't actually care all that much what Sarkozy stands for. If he wants to privatise the sh!t out of France, then fine, let him. What gets me is this whole partisan & deliberately polarising attidude, this "get screwed" bullyboy mentality towards anyone who may not agree with your policies, so espoused by the likes of Thatcher, Bush and Sarkozy, which does little but divide people and turn them against each other and which, quite frankly, belongs into the dustbin of history.

The mentality you speak of is only a result of the constant bullying of the right by the left. According to pseudo-intellectual leftists, people on the right can never be clever, are constantly belittled and pushed aside, care only for their personal interests and those of the wealthy, etc. No wonder there eventually comes a reaction from the right against people who think they own the truth.

Bono, I could just as easily swap the words "right" and "left" and substitute "wealthy" for "poor" here. Either way, two wrongs don't make a right.