2
   

Chirac and Schroeder just got mugged by reality

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 09:37 am
Re: Chirac and Schroeder just got mugged by reality
rayban1 wrote:
It could be argued that I know very little about a situation that is unknowable but it could be argued that you as an international political Junkie, know very little about the American political scene but that never seems to enter your mind.........you just keep trying.......and trying ..........and. My god you're arrogant Walter


You see, I'm living in Germany, visit only France (and England) frequently, and I'm engaged in German and European politics by various means, private and professionally.

You are correct, I know the US-American scene only what my friends say and what I read.

Arrogant? When you think so.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 09:46 am
Well, i should think so. How dare you, Walter, arrogate to yourself the right to speak about German politics?

Some people, i'll tell ya . . .
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 11:59 am
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/30/130801.shtml

French Prosecutors Eye Chirac
NewsMax ^ | 5/30/05 | Carl Limbacher


Prosecutors in France are waiting for President Jacques Chirac to leave office so they can investigate corruption charges against the controversial French leader.

"Several prosecutors we talked to would love to have him," Fox News Channel's Greg Palkot reported on Monday. "But as long as he's in the president's chair, he's immune to any prosecution."

Once Chirac leaves office, however, "he could be prosecuted on a range of corruption charges," Palkot said.

Prominent Chirac allies have been on trial in France since March, accused of rigging public works' contracts to arrange millions of dollars in kickbacks to Chirac's political party.

The trial, which is expected to run until the end of July, implicates four former ministers and spotlights one of several scandals that have come to light from Chirac's tenure as Paris mayor from 1977-1995.

The investigation was opened in 1997. Chirac has just 22 months before his second term ends.

Efforts are currently underway to arrange "something special for Chirac to preserve his immunity," Palkot said. "So far, those efforts have failed."
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 12:02 pm
Suck it, Jocky.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 12:26 pm
I mean, claiming that Jacques Chirac wasn't in on or didn't profit from the oil4food scandal is like claiming to know about a whorehouse where the madam is a virgin...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 12:51 pm
I haven't liked Jacqures Chirac since that little rule about Jews and Muslims not being able to wear or show things that would point them out to be either jew or muslims. (forget exactly how it went)

As for his guilt in the oil for food,I guess if the Senate says so it must be so. Rolling Eyes

Even if he is guilty, we are not ourselves left clean in the whole mess. Cheney was right up there getting dirty with the rest of them.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 03:12 pm
EU just won't take 'no' for an answer
May 29, 2005
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Following Sunday's vote in France, on Wednesday Dutch voters get to express their opinion on the proposed ''European Constitution.'' Heartening to see democracy in action, notwithstanding the European elite's hysterical warnings that, without the constitution, the continent will be set back on the path to Auschwitz. I haven't seen the official ballot, but the choice seems to be: "Check Box A to support the new constitution; check Box B for genocide and conflagration."

Alas, this tactic doesn't seem to have worked. So, a couple of days before the first referendum, Jean-Claude Juncker, the "president" of the European Union, let French and Dutch voters know how much he values their opinion:

"If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said No, would have to ask themselves the question again," "President" Juncker told the Belgian newspaper Le Soir.

Got that? You have the right to vote, but only if you give the answer your rulers want you to give. But don't worry, if you don't, we'll treat you like a particularly backward nursery school and keep asking the question until you get the answer right. Even America's bossiest nanny-state Democrats don't usually express their contempt for the will of the people quite so crudely.

Juncker is a man from Luxembourg, a country two-thirds the size of your rec room, and, under the agreeably clubby EU arrangements, he gets to serve as "president" without anything so tiresome as having to be voted into the job by "ordinary people." His remarks capture precisely the difference between the new Europe and the American republic.

Sick in bed a couple of months back, I started reading A Declaration of Interdependence: Why America Should Join the World by Will Hutton, and found it such a laugh I was soon hurling my medication away and doing cartwheels round the room. Hutton was a sort of eminence grise to Tony Blair, at least in his pre-warmongering pre-Bush-poodle phase. Hutton is the master of the dead language of statism that distinguishes the complacent Europhile from a good percentage of Americans, not all of them Republicans.

That said, even as a fully paid-up Eurobore, Hutton's at pains to establish how much he loves America: "I enjoy Sheryl Crow and Clint Eastwood alike, delight in Woody Allen . . .''

I'd wager he's faking at least two of these enthusiasms. As for the third, Woody Allen is the man the French government turned to for assistance with a commercial intended to restore their nation's image in America after anger at post-9/11 Gallic obstructionism began to have commercial implications for France. In the advertisement, Woody said he disliked the notion of renaming French fries ''freedom fries.'' What next, he wondered. Freedom kissing?

Despite the queasy mental image of Woody French-kissing, I'm with him on that one: If you don't like the phrase ''French fries,'' there's a perfectly good British word: ''chip.'' It conveniently covers both the menu item, and what the French have on their shoulder. That the French government could think that an endorsement by Woody Allen would improve their standing with the American people is itself a sad testament to the ever-widening Atlantic chasm. And that Will Hutton could think his appreciation of Woody is proof of his own pro-Americanism only widens the gap by another half-mile.

But, having brandished his credentials, Hutton says that it's his ''affection for the best of America that makes me so angry that it has fallen so far from the standards it expects of itself.'' The great Euro-thinker is not arguing that America is betraying the Founding Fathers, but that the Founding Fathers themselves got it hopelessly wrong. He compares the American and French Revolutions, and decides the latter was better because instead of the radical individualism of the 13 colonies the French promoted ''a new social contract.''

Well, you never know. It may be the defects of America's Founders that help explain why the United States has lagged so far behind France in technological innovation, economic growth, military performance, standard of living, etc. Entranced by his Europhilia, Hutton insists that "all western democracies subscribe to a broad family of ideas that are liberal or leftist."

Given that New Hampshire has been a continuous democracy for two centuries longer than Germany, this seems a doubtful proposition. It would be more accurate to say that almost all European nations subscribe to a broad family of ideas that are statist. Or, as Hutton has it, "the European tradition is much more mindful that men and women are social animals and that individual liberty is only one of a spectrum of values that generate a good society."

Precisely. And it's the willingness to subordinate individual liberty to what Hutton calls "the primacy of society" that has blighted the continent for over a century: Statism -- or "the primacy of society" -- is what fascism, Nazism, communism and now European Union all have in common. In fairness, after the first three, European Union seems a comparatively benign strain of the disease -- not a Blitzkrieg, just a Bitzkrieg, an accumulation of fluffy trivial pan-European laws that nevertheless takes for granted that the natural order is a world in which every itsy-bitsy activity is licensed and regulated and constitutionally defined by government.

That's why Will Hutton feels almost physically insecure when he's in one of the spots on the planet where the virtues of the state religion are questioned.

"In a world that is wholly private," he says of America, "we lose our bearings; deprived of any public anchor, all we have are our individual subjective values to guide us." He deplores the First Amendment and misses government-regulated media, which in the EU ensures that all public expression is within approved parameters (left to center-left). "Europe," he explains, "acts to ensure that television and radio conform to public interest criteria."

"Public interest criteria" doesn't mean criteria that the public decide is in their interest. It means that the elite -- via various appointed bodies -- decide what the public's interest is. Will Hutton is a member of the European elite, so that suits him fine. But it's never going to catch on in America -- I hope.

As European "president" Juncker spelled out to the French and Dutch electorates, a culture that subordinates the will of the people to the "primacy of society" is unlikely to take no for an answer. And, if you ignore referendum results, a frustrated citizenry turns to other outlets.
LINK
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 03:26 pm
Just two comments on the above quoted opinion:

- the referanda in France and the Netherlands just give two alternatives: 'yes' and 'no'. I think, it's quite legitime to make a referendum campaign, for both sites.

- Junker is throughout the article called European "President" Juncker . Prime Minister Juncker is the speaker of EU's current rotating presidency.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 03:39 pm
Next time, they'll get it right.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 03:42 pm
What are, btw, the US-American experiences with referenda on the constitution?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 03:45 pm
What are your experiences as an American citizen?

Does that preclude your participation in related discussions?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 04:09 pm
I think he may have been trying to point out that the EU at least deserves kudos for putting up the damned thing in a referendum in the first place. They could have just conspiratively adopted it, Grand Old Men and people's representatives amongst each other, like they did with the Maastricht Treaty and the Euro.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 04:09 pm
Quote:
What are, btw, the US-American experiences with referenda on the constitution?



We haven't done so good, Walter. We tried to pass the Equal Right Amendment back a few years ago, but the right wing saw that as making sure that women had equal responsibilities and we had the draft then so that got scotched. No pun intended.

Then, for years and years, the Conservatives fought hard for a Balanced Budget Amendment which would force the US Federal Government to act like a business and have a balanced budget. We kept pointing out to them that most of the businesses we knew didn't aim for a balanced budget, they tried to make a profit, but they didn't listen. Then, of course, Ronald Reagan discovered that you can cut taxes without spending cuts, run up HUGE deficits and walk away clean, so the wind kind of got knocked out of that one's sails, that the fact that Bill Clinton is the most recent President to have a surplus budget. Before him it was Lyndon Baines Johnson, hmmm, you would think with all the GOP Presidents....well.

Anyway, the plan now is to pass the One Man on One Woman Amendment unless they can re-name it something that sounds less dirty. It's to protect the sacred institution of marriage from being too widely defined. It would be the first amendment in a hundred years that would restrict the rights of Americans rather than expand or secure them. (The last was the ill-fated Prohibition Act, another grand idea from the religious right.)

So that's the recent brief history of the US Constitution, not to be confused with the ship in Boston Harbor which has a fine gift shop and is docked near to where this whole adventure in freedom began.

Joe(I hope I haven't left anything out)Nation
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 04:14 pm
Lash wrote:
Problem is--as disgusting as Chirac is--isn't the right there racist? Vehemently anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic?

Do you have a viable alternative there?

Yes they do!

Lionel Jospin and the Parti Socialiste <holds head high in pride>

(so OK they first gotta persuade Jospin to come back, and theyve got some issues to figure out after the whole referendum tearing their party in two. But that goes for everybody there).

The one you probably wanna be going for is Nicholas Sarkozy though. The rightwingers who opposed the Constitution, like Le Pen and De Villiers, are pretty much like you described. But Sarkozy is a Thatcherite moderniser, who's in the same Gaullist party as Chirac but his mortal competitor. If and when Chirac goes, Sarkozy will likely be the next leader of the right. You'll probably like him.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 04:22 pm
I shall Google him!
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 04:29 pm
Oh yes. I like the thumbnail sketch of him for the most part. Not too cool on quick fixes that can't be sustained--or turned into something sustainable--

But, I like his response to crimes--and those who poo-poo-ed crime.

I think what I must like the most about him is his goal of reform.

He will make France less France-like.

That has got to be an improvement.
Sarkozy...To Replace Jocky soon.......?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 11:06 pm
Quote:
Polling Data

If incumbent Jean-Pierre Raffarin is sacked following France's rejection of the European Constitution, who would you prefer as prime minister?

Nicolas Sarkozy
25%

Michèle Alliot-Marie
13%

Dominique de Villepin
11%

Source: CSA / Le Parisien
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 5,216 French adults, conducted on May 29, 2005.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 11:09 pm
Quote:
Ambitious Thatcher admirer set to exploit Chirac's humiliation

By John Lichfield in Paris
30 May 2005


France's rejection of the EU constitution was a clear victory for the hard left - but could open the door to the man the French left loves to hate.

With President Jacques Chirac, 72, humiliated by last night's result, Nicolas Sarkozy, 50, a clear-speaking, bumptious admirer of the Thatcher-Blair revolution in Britain, seems odds-on favourite to win the centre-right "nomination" for the 2007 presidential election.

M. Sarkozy, a former Chirac protégé, likes to present himself as a kind of anti-Chirac, an energetic, can-do politician, who wants to be judged by results, not the capacity to cling stubbornly to office.

The referendum campaign has, however, revealed a more fragile, vulnerable and, some say, cynical M. Sarkozy than the image that he has crafted in the past two years.

Last Thursday, the former interior and finance minister admitted on television that there were difficulties in his marriage. Since Cécilia Sarkozy is not only his wife but his chef de cabinet - or chief political adviser - this implied an abrupt loss of voltage in France's premier "power couple".

Even before this development, M. Sarkozy had played an enigmatic, lacklustre part in the referendum campaign. As president of President Chirac's centre-right party, the UMP, he was, ex officio, one of the leaders of the "yes" camp. Often, however, he seemed to have made a tactical side bet on the "non".

In his three television appearances, President Chirac tried to reassure left-wing voters by saying that the proposed EU constitution would help to preserve France's "social model".

To this, M. Sarkozy retorted, in effect, "what is so great about a social model which produces 10 per cent unemployment and high levels of illiteracy and poverty?" This may be a reasonable question but it handed ammunition to the left-wing nonistes. Since defeat for the "yes'' camp would be a crushing defeat for le vieux (the old man), politicians on both sides cast doubt on M. Sarkozy's real motives.
Source
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 11:09 pm
Anyone found a good profile of Sarkozy to post or a good website reference? I'm curious .
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 12:04 am
dagmaraka wrote:
Anyone found a good profile of Sarkozy to post or a good website reference? I'm curious .


There are a couple "pro-sites"on the web, mostly in French, of course, likeSarkozy Blog - Tout sur Nicolas Sarkozy or the one on LePolitique.com


Then you have (here link to the English website) official infos by the ministry
and (in French) the Assemblée nationale and the infos via Wikipédia.

The BBC infos are a bit different to this more personal website.


There are hundred of sites online ...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 03:46:52