Wednesday, May 09, 2007


TAB has been covering the reactions to Sarkozy's election coming from some of the more violent segments of the French population (e.g. here and here) . We'd like to be more specific than that, but we only know what we read in the press - and although they've been very insistent that Sarkozy is "divisive", they've been a little less forthcoming on precisely where those divisions lie. Because that description seems a little weird to us, given how he drew support from across almost all sectors of French society:
Nicolas Sarkozy won the women's vote and fared well among blue-collar workers, even though his rival for the French presidency was a woman and a Socialist. It was one of the surprising subplots in Sarkozy's resounding election victory over Segolene Royal — and shows his vision of pro-market reforms and scaling back immigration appeals to a wide audience. Sarkozy's ability to attract votes from a broad spectrum of the public is an early indication he may be able to overcome his image as a polarizing force and achieve crucial popular support for pushing through his ambitious program of overhauling France's welfare system.
Well, almost all sectors. AP got the number of burned cars wrong by an entire order of magnitude, did they? And that's compared to the undoubtedly lowballed numbers provided by the French press, is it? We refuse to believe it.

[Cross-posted to Mere Rhetoric]

1 comment:

Reliapundit said...


the msm standard LIE is that politicians oif the right are divisive.

those of the loeft are uniters.

this is illogical.

kerry, zapatero, prodi, shroeder, royal, hillary are all just as polarizing as their opponents were.

what makes this an even more ridiculous assertion by the msm about sarko is the fact that he polled the most in the first round, - a round with several other candidates many from parties which did much worse than previsously.

so it would seem - if sarko got many of their votes - he's a uniter.

now NO ONE in french politics is
more radical than Le Pen - and yet WHEN HE MADE IT THROUGH TO THE SECOND ROUND CHIRAC GOT 82%!

so, when a candidate is truly "polarizing" the electorate is NOT even,y split, but split UNEVENLY.

i think the msm should drop the polarizing jargon and instead say PASSIONATE.

sarko arouses passions as does le pen. and bush and kerry - and hillary and sheehan.

whereas folks like biden and gravel and tommy thompson DO NOT.

and passions - obviously - are not partisan; they exist on all sides.