Looks like France's conservatives have become more out-spoken and didn't like the way their country was headed. Sarkozy is known there as "Mr. America" as he's very friendly with America. Great news.


"BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Conservative favorite Nicolas Sarkozy is on course to win France's presidential election run-off on Sunday with between 53 and 54 percent of the vote, Belgian media reported."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070506/...n_belgium_dc_1

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Considering that Sarkozy represents the same party as the current President, Chirac, it's rather difficult to claim that the French electorate doesn't "like the way the country was headed."

The French election hasn't been fought on foreign policy issues. Sarkozy will likely try to shift the French welfare state somewhat to the right, but in comparison to what "conservatives" think is appropriate in this country, France will still look like it's being run by the far left.

For example, Sarkozy couples his support for immigration restrictions with strong support for affirmative action to support immigrants and ethnic minorities. He wants to allow workers to choose to work more than 35 hours per week, but he'll not try to dismantle the guaranteed unemployment or enforcement of month long vacations that the French cherish.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, Sarkozy won't shift France to support American foreign policy. Not by a long shot. He may be more "pro-American" than Chirac (who held a typical Parisian's view of Americans in general), but that doesn't mean pro-Bush. No French President could afford to support American foreign policy in Iraq and France has always been relatively supportive of the war effort in Afghanistan. Neither will change.

The problem American cheer leaders for "conservatives" in Europe always face is that an American "conservative" couldn't be elected dog catcher in almost any western European nation. European "conservatives" would generally be considered moderate to liberal Democrats in the US.

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Never claimed he was "as conservative" as the U.S. conservatives. But regardless----he will be much better than Chirac. And certainly much better than the socialist woman he was running against. And he told Bush in the congratulatory phone call that "he can count on his friendship."

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

jsh1120,
American "conservative" couldn't be elected dog catcher in almost any western European nation. European "conservatives" would generally be considered moderate to liberal Democrats in the US

And when I say that Europe is Liberal fascist, you have the Gull to argue?
In your own words, Europe has no balance of power. it's all Liberal slanted.
which cause's it to always head left.

In America the belief is that going right, or going left to fast will result in a
bad system, with bad results, adapting to much unproven crap.

Sounds like your hading for fascist-ism real quick.
Gook luck.

.

__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

Its just too late ! The French birth rate (1.3) tells the tale. In the next generation there will be almost 1/2 the French now alive - while the Islamic birth rate in France is over 4.0 and Islamic immigration soars. Welcome to the Islamic Republic of France. And the election of a French "conservative" is simply meaningless !!! What France needs is a strong man who will save the culture by expelling Islam. And thats so unlikely its not worth considering.. Sorry its goodby France as we know it!! ( All that culture down the drain - Edith Piaf in a burka - Oh God !)

__________________
"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder." Arnold Toynbee

For someone with as little grasp of the meaning of political labels as you seem to have, throwing terms like "Liberal fascist" around only exposes your ignorance. Let me guess. You think "National Socialists" were socialists.

There are many reasons for differences in the political cultures of the US and Europe. Your comment that Europe has "no balance of power" is ludicrous and wouldn't pass muster on a mid-term in an introduction to comparative politics course.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, there are important differences among various political parties in most European nations and the actual range of differences is far wider than in the US. The difference is that traditional "conservative" parties didn't survive the Second World War, at least on the continent, as a result of their collaboration with Nazis and Fascists.

Likewise, traditional secular "liberal" parties (what might be called conservative pro-business Republicans in the US) parties stopped attracting significant support even earlier and don't count for much in most European nations. Several hundred years of limited social mobility and the particular experience of Europeans in the industrial revolution(s) eventually killed them off.

And unlike the US, most European nations have at least one major "Christian" party. However, since the American version of the religious right simply doesn't exist in Europe, they represent the "clerical" (i.e. Catholic) point of view which, while conservative on many social issues, largely supports the social welfare policies that the Catholic Church has endorsed for about a hundred years.

Contrary to your silly inferrence that Europe is unfamiliar with the experience of "going right or going left to (sic) fast," it is exactly that experience that has resulted in the kind of politics that has emerged in Europe. Europeans have experience with real Fascism and real Communist rule, unlike your cartoon characterization of such experiences.

Rather than try to impose your parochial concept of the relatively limited left-right ideological spectrum drawn from your (apparently similarly limited) experience with American politics, perhaps you should actually learn something about European history and the events that have shaped politics there.

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Griffonfr is from France and I think..no I am confident he would say many of your contentions about what the French people are thinking and how Sarkozy is going to act are wrong.



But anyway Sarkozy-

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...264398,00.html

Victory Speech...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/vi...264397,00.html



The election of Sarkozy is great news for the USA.
Horrible news for Leftists in general and Socialists/Communists in particular.


Biggest short term benefit from a US prespective will be that France as well as Germany with Merkel willl not be out undermining everything we try to do like they did with Chirac and Shroeder.

Longer term will be a possbly more robust French role in Afghanistan(IOW usig their forces in combat) as well as willingness to not sit around and watch Iran try to get nuclear weapons and do little to nothing about it.

Don't know what you were doing 12 years ago when Chirac was elected to succeed Mitterand, but exactly the same glowing predictions of France's turn to the right were common at that time. And in that case, Chirac did represent a significant turn to the right compared to his Socialist predecessor.

With rare exceptions such as when an inexperienced, ideologically driven leader takes office, nations do not shift their foreign policies drastically. You might note that Germany's foreign policy has not shifted significantly with Merkel in charge. Neither will France's with Sarkozy. Each is likely to continue to exert increased pressure on Iran, but that has been a trend for the last two years.

France may support NATO efforts in Afghanistan more actively, but France has been active (including use of its air force in the original invasion) already.

As far as Iraq is concerned, Sarkozy has opposed the US invasion from the start. He's certainly not going to shift significantly toward support of the US there. He'll oppose Turkey's entry to the EU, a position at variance with the US view. He's a stronger supporter of Israel than Chirac, but that may well result in more pressure on Israel to make concessions, not less.

Bottom line is that from the US perspective the trends will follow patterns already established. Feel free to post evidence to the contrary. I doubt we'll be hearing from you.

Of course, when France institutes a carbon tax, I doubt you'll speak up.

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

12 years ago they voted in Chirac becasue the other choice was Le Pen...and Chirac as expected was just a big a mess as President as he was as Mayor of Paris.


Sarkozy is goign to change alot of things in France and get it away from the leftits socialist policies that have almost bankruped the country financially,socially, and internationally.
France is finally waking up.

Anyway....

""Griffonfr is from France and I think..no I am confident he would say many of your contentions about what the French people are thinking and how Sarkozy is going to act are wrong.""

You can act like an elitist with him.

amazing aspect of this election was the 86% turn out! Imagine that, people who still think that voting matters! From what I hear, Sarkozy has one major mandate: to improve the French economy and employment situation. The French did not elect him to alter Chirac's foreign policy for which the French gave Chirac high marks.