The new French President loves the USA :"Sarkozy can be expected to go along; he has described Iranian leaders as "extremely dangerous."

Source

Do you think he will be good for France or is he inviting terrorism to his country ?

Best thing that's happened to France in decades.

No, of course his election won't 'invite terrorism to his country' but quite the reverse,if anything. One desperate, last ditch, claim made by his socialist opponent was that there would be rioting in the streets if he were elected.His response was to ask who would be doing that rioting, with the subtext that these people were not to be allowed to dictate to the people of France. (He is renowned for calling troublemakers in the suburbs 'rabble' or 'scum',depending on which translation you use). For his electorate , that's exactly what they are

It says something about French politics that his opponents, thinking to down him, labelled him 'Sarko the American'. A dose of 'American', or , to be more accurate, a 'dose of Mrs Thatcher'is precisely what France needs and has needed for many a long year.

By the way, the turnout was 84 per cent of registered voters and Sarkozy won quite comfortably

Does this mean that French Fries are OK to eat now? I can really stop ordering Freedom Fries?

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Does this mean that French Fries are OK to eat now? I can really stop ordering Freedom Fries?

Er, no. They aren't and weren't French in the first place. You should call them frites (or chips: it's not our fault that you think crisps are chips )

Looks like it's OK to also eat French toasts and give French Kiss now! Hourrah Vive Sarkozy!!

Very interesting report newnickname.

Most amusingly, Fox News keeps describing President Sarkozy, now visiting the US, as 'a conservative' !In what context, pray? He would rank far to the left of Ted Kennedy, were he ever to be in American politics. He wouldn't be on the scale of left to right of the candidates in the current primaries.

Fox News' definition of 'conservative' must be 'anyone who seems friendly to President Bush'

Fred, you've made me curious. While I think I know the answer to the following questions, I may not. The question generally define the Left and the Right in US politics.

What is his position on the following:

Abortion

Gay Rights, including Marriage

Health Care

The War in Iraq

The Iran situation

Deficit Spending/Balancing the Budget

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:

What is his position on the following:

Abortion

Gay Rights, including Marriage

Health Care

The War in Iraq

The Iran situation

Deficit Spending/Balancing the Budget

Abortion:Surely for. He's the President of France, not the head of the Vatican Republic Do not think that France, a largely Roman Catholic country,pays any attention to what priests say.(For many years she had the lowest birth rate in Europe and nobody thinks that that was achieved by abstinence !)

Gay Rights:Surely for. He's the President of France. France has allowed what amounts to 'gay marriages' for years. This takes the form of a civil union, a 'contract' recognised by the State.Without research I can't say whether there are proposals for a further stage: this contract is available to heterosexual couples who don't wish to have a full marriage, for whatever reason, too.
France has a liberal and practical approach in such matters.One curious example: when an unmarried policeman was killed his female partner applied to be allowed to marry him after he was dead. The ceremony was a full ceremony in the town hall , differing from the norm in that there was an empty chair where the groom would have been.That's permitted under French law: she then got the status of widow. Not sure what your conservatives would make of that. Can't think the Old Testament provides for it exactly. What's more, no church marriage is recognised in France. The only legal marriage is a civil one.
France has no aversion to homosexual politicians . Paris has had a gay mayor.(However Paris has not caught up with Cambridge, my own nearest city, where we have two women, a couple, as Lady Mayor and Lady Mayoress both of whom started life as males.Give Paris time, and the candidate ...)


Healthcare.Now you must be joking!French healthcare is much admired in Europe.No European would recognise what the US has as 'healthcare'. It's not universal in the US, for a start Conservatives in the US would be wide- eyed (but not, of course, speechless) at the other benefits which France grants to its citizens from cradle to grave.

War in Iraq.He must have been against it on the same basis as Chirac, his boss,was against it.

Iran situation. He has just said, during his visit to the US, that he is in favour of Iran (and Syria) having civil nuclear installations.He spoke strongly against Iran having nuclear weaponry. The indications are that he is in favour of sanctions against Iran coupled with diplomacy.

Deficit spending/Balancing the budget. I've no idea ! It hasn't figured as an issue, so far as I'm aware.The US and its economy are unique.Sarkozy could not and would not try to be like President Bush in that regard.

Aren't there a few more news sources that describe Sarkozy as "conservative?" Like CNN. Like the Washington Post. Like just about every one you can find?

I suppose conservatism is relative to where you are. JFK would likely be conservative by today's American standards. And I can't imagine today's liberal being excited about Harry Truman. Different times. Different places. Sarkozy is conservative, relative to France.

While I agree with Fuse, that Conservative is used relative to location, I must point out that Truman had credentials that even today would put him in the Liberal camp. He busted war profiteers, he integrated the military, and he supported a national health care plan for everyone. Those are hardly Conservative positions, even today.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:

I suppose conservatism is relative to where you are..... Sarkozy is conservative, relative to France.

Yes, you are right: all American media have taken to calling Sarkozy 'conservative'. In fact the BBC international version of its website has used the term, aiming to get some comprehension in America.

What do the American media call Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, both of the governing Labour Party i.e to the left of the Conservative Party? (That party would be to the left,very strongly 'liberal' in America) Sarkozy could equally be a member of the Labour Party in government in Britain: Tony Blair approved policies like his, in changing retirement age qualification and Blair also continued laws and policy towards trade unions which are like Sarkozy's proposals. Gordon Brown was the finance minister, under Blair, who approved them and certainly would never change course.(If he did, he'd finish a long way last in a general election )

Nothing that Sarkozy proposes is at all outside something which our Labour government would do in his circumstances.(Nor, come to that, the Conservative Party: there would be consensus )He is, however, right of centre in France.Note that his opponents in the presidential election were a communist, a socialist (Mme Royale), a 'centrist' [untranslatable for Americans or Britons ],an 'anti-European' [broadly someone who is against their country being part of the European Union] and an 'ecologist' [what elsewhere in Europe we'd call 'Green', a 'tree- hugger' in American parlance] To some of the conservative ['conservative' in its true meaning of 'opposing innovation' 'cautious',its everyday meaning in Britain] French he must seem revolutionary : his opponents of the far left call him 'neo-con', which is untranslatable into French politics, but which is meant to suggest that he is like an American, and some few Americans in particular . To think that John Kerry had to keep his own Frenchness out of the public mind in America

While DG is certainly correct on Truman's positions, I honestly don't believe today's liberal would condone a Presidential decision to use nuclear weapons or one to enter the Korean war. Those decisions by a modern day President, IMHO, would trump any stance on social issues.

Truman's approval ratings in 1951 and 1952 dipped to "below Dubya" territory, making a decision not to seek re-election prudent. I submit that today's liberal would stand firmly on the disapproval side.

This Liberal would approve of Truman being president today, even though he's been dead for a few decades, and if someone with Truman's record and positions were running in 2008, he'd have my vote, regardless of his party.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
...if someone with Truman's record and positions were running in 2008, he'd have my vote, regardless of his party.

That we can agree on. Men and women of impeccable integrity are difficult to find among today's politicians.