My moment with Sarko

You have to admire the French appetite for politics. Nicolas Sarkozy had been interviewed for 1 hour 20 minutes before I got my 20 minutes with him on France 2 television last night. Ségolène Royal, the Socialist, had submitted to the same ritual the night before. Not many countries would put up with so much political talk on prime time.

Arlette Chabot, the France 2 (main public network) anchor; asked me to play l'Anglo-Saxon and push the favourite for the presidency on the usual areas of contention. Sarko came back with his polished and plausible defence of the French line. If anyone still imagines that a President Sarkozy, an admirer of the United States, would reverse four decades of l'exception française, here's a flavour of what he said.

We can expect the usual fireworks at European summits. "I want to change the way we look at Europe," said Sarko. He will push hard for new tariffs -- called European preference -- on imports to the Union. Peter Mandelson, the EU's (British) trade Commissioner has got everything wrong, he said. "Why should we have to open our markets when the Americans don't do so? I want reciprocity. I want Europe to protect us from globalisation and not become a Trojan horse for globalisation."  Sarko did say that, if elected, he would work closely with the five other big EU states -- Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland. He even called Britain "the world champion" of managing the currency for the benefit of the economy.

Sarkozy may be a fan of the USA but he struck the usual Gaullist chords, saying "we should have calmer relations... I say to the Americans, we will be demanding friends, and in particular, free friends." On Iraq, he told me "I would have done the same as Chirac.. The form of what he did could be questioned -- notably the use of the veto. But on substance I would have done exactly the same." He added: "We have to say to our American friends that the only solution now for Iraq is a plan for withdrawal."

Talking to Sarko, it is clear that he has a far broader and more authoritative grasp of the outside world than Ségo. In comparison, she is uncomfortable,  hesitant and often ill-informed about a field that is the special domain of French presidents, taking up about half their work time.

A couple of notes: I cannot imagine British or American television inviting a French journalist to put the foreign policy questions to the candidate in a key TV appearance a week before the election. It says something about France's openness to the world.   

It's impressive watching the Sarko machine at work. He comes with a big entourage of lieutenants, aides, advisers and security people, mostly men and most of them taller. The boss, though pint-sized, exudes energy and command. Royal, who is not tall either, operates with a much smaller, quieter and more feminine group. While Sarko is constant motion, Ségo's weapon is stillness and a withering smile.

They revealed something of their character in television questions this week.   Sarkozy was asked on the TF1 network what he thought was Royal's greatest quality. "She is pugnacious", he said. When asked the same question about Sarkozy, Royal replied much less charitably: "He knows everything".

Hearing that last night, Sarkozy came up with a riposte. "It's up to the French, but maybe it's better to have a president who knows everything than one who knows nothing." We'll see if they can keep up the repartee in their television debate -- the only one of the election -- next Wednesday evening. Sarkozy has been training for the difficult task of debating against a woman without coming over as a bully.   

Thank you Ros, Sam Young and the others who have kindly commented -- some by e-mail -- on last night's Sarko show. By the way, to zap straight to the foreign policy segment, drag the video cursor to the 1h20mins mark on the Fr2 site. 

Comments

[anne]

Hi, I watched these 4 interviews on the last 2 days.
If what you writes looks right, your view is clearly a bit partial :
- Ségolène Royal was not so uncomfortable with foreign issues
- what you forget to say about Nicolas Sarkosy who was not so "charitable" is that he did not want to tell Royal's main defects (sorry I am French, so I am not sure about this word : the oppsite of "quality") because he did want to "keep gracious"...

[Hugues]

Arlette Chabot said you had just got off the Eurostar when she introduced you. Must have been quite a trip down the Seine to the France television building...

[Ros]

Just for a joke, Mr Bremner, in your lunch hour (if you have one) - go into the video on France 2, click on "avance rapide", look at Sarko and try to imagine what he reminds you of ?!

[Dominique]

Hi Charles,

I saw it all last night. I thought your questions were good, but the answers not so.

I have a small sarcastic comment, and i must admit, a small disapointment : how come did you behave like a french journalist and didn't you push him when his answers were contradictory? (i had to make his comment!)

He spent the first part of the show saying that he would implement the reforms he wants against the unions because he would have the legitimacy if elected, but then criticized Poland's head of state claiming being elected does not allow them to do anything they want (regarding the eurodeputy).

More, about Afganistan, he clearly said he would withdraw the french troops. That was clearly a surprise. Sego said she would keep them there. It was clear that this was a moove in favor of the french hostages kidnapers. I did not think of Sarko in such a move.

As usual, Sarko says it all and it's opposite. He is liberal and the opposite, he is humanist, and the opposite. He is agains Talibans, an does what they want.

And no journalist to face him. I had hopped you would have tought this terrible Arlette how to behave as a honnest journalist. Arlette Chabot never asks the right questions. She only repets what other say and ask politicians to only comment about politics. Who cares about what he thinks of what Sego thinks of him?

At least Charles, you had real questions. But, it would have been OK if you had pushed him a bit more...

[windowlicker]

Reuters is now reporting that the debate has been cancelled. And Bayrou is further claiming that it was Sarko who wanted it cancelled. Any truth in they rumours?

[Brian Dixon]

Nice to see you in action. I would like to temper the comment above about not pushing him. Ok your style wasn't Paxman, but you were an invité with a flag to fly, so journalistic hoolganism was out of the question.
I find it interesting that with your simple question about Russia, you actually made the "know-all" trip up and lose his otherwise great confidence in words. You say that he talks comfortably about everything international but the substance is, as Dominique says, thin and contradictory. To me, he has absorbed the headlines of the Parisien for 5 years, collecting strong images and vignettes to pull out at any possibility. Suburbs: Mothers of daughters burned to death. Work: reward. Paedophiles: genes. Russia: The Chechens. Afghanistan: Ingrid Betancourt. It's like word association, a game everyone can understand. Bread? Butter. Cow? Milk. Take him further like: how does the cow make butter? And if he hasn't got the word, he stalls. He hasn't read that far.

It's a tactic that has got him far. He reacts instantly, with a simple message. The analysis takes place later on page 13 of Le Monde (or in posts on this blog), which few of his supporters will read. Hence he has chinned the left and maintains an image of control.

[D.Strohl]

It was interesting yesterday evening, and FR2 had the good idea to invite a talented foreign journalist (furthermore qualified at once by my wife as "un bel homme" - she never told that to me !).

DOMINIQUE said Charles should have pushed Sarkozy because of his contradictions. May be, but Charles was a guest and it is not the role of a (foreign) guest to push too hard in one or the other direction. Arlette Chabot and Gilles Leclerc, although French, are nevertheless both excellent journalists who try at their best to remain unbiassed; they most probably think that the TV watchers who stay tuned late in the evening to watch political interviews are intelligent enough to spot contradictions by themselves, either by Sarkozy or by Ms Royal, who is also quite talented in this field (see the current political Juliette-Romeo romance between her and Mr. Bayrou).

[Patricia Kirwan]

Watched both candidates on France 2 on successive nights and was enormously struck by the different approach to each of them by Arlette Chabot. Time and again she allowed Royal to get away with tedious generalisations without once trying to get her back to the question and answer it. We got a lot of guff which comes down to the fact that she is in favour of Motherhood and Apple Pie and has no concrete proposals for tackling France's problems and absolutely no understanding of how to create the wealth that will pay for all her caring policies. Mme Chabot, smiling, even seemed to be helping her along.
In contrast she was incredibly on the offensive in her approach to Sarkozy, constantly interrupting, picking him up, arguing - and, frequently scowling, looked thoroughly anti throughout.
I have no objection to thorough, in depth, questioning of politicians, but surely both should have had the same treatment.
To my mind he was the clear winner : clear thinking and coherent even tho' I did not agree with everything he said.
Great that you were invited to interview him ! The answers were what one would expect, but more statesmanlike than Royal who simply launched into an anti US/Bush rant !
It makes one realize how lucky you in the UK are to have TV interviewers who question all parties equally thoroughly. Long live Paxman and Humphreys - and, of course, Bremner !

Patricia Kirwan
France

[Hugues]

My moment with you and Sarko: http://hugues.blogs.com/commvat/2007/04/trucs_en_vrac.html

[Serge Uberti, Toulouse]

Hello Charles,

I was glad to see you on French TV given I regularly visit your blog with much interest and what is more, like you I love the Cévennes.
That said, and truly speaking I think you are over estimating Sarko's grasp of the outside world.
Questionned on US-French relations or Darfur crisis, he just delivered what an average person would have delivered, nothing more. I am not sure he would have acted like Jacques Chirac did with Bush and Iraq as he claimed. As for Darfur it is just common sense and nothing more to say : we have to open a 'humanitarian corridor'. Who would dare say the opposite in his position ?
He may look comfortable or more at ease but in the end is it that that really matters? We have to keep in mind not to base our opinion on the way he or she looks, in the end it is superficial. Moliere would surely have made a funny play out of all this, with lieutenant, advisers, aids, all of them buzzing around Sarko
Thank you Charles

[John Gregory Flinn]

There were 3 or 4 things of interest that came out of the first round.

The disappointing vote for Le Pen.
The eclipse of Dominique Voynet with the Green agenda; which tends to confirm the somewhat sceptical and often maverick attitude to the fashionable eco-lobby of the French.
The big vote – 31% - for Sarkosy; and the 4% for Olivier 'chubby-cheeks' who easily came out best of the other, and older far-left candidates.

There may be a degree of symbiosis between Le Pen and Sarkosy – what the one lost the other gained. Stealing each other's ground is “de rigueur” these days and despite Le Pen's convictions that the voter would prefer the original to the copy it seems he was wrong.

The voter wants the new generation of younger people, in a similar way that gave New Labour in Britain their victory. Thus, a big part of Le Pen's electorate probably thought it would be better to invest their vote in Sarkosy. Also, Sarkosy may have been “dog-whistling” to them, which Bayrou seems to have noticed and may explain his attack on him as a 'dangerous demagogue who would widen the rifts in French society'.
Listening to Sarkosy, for example on France 2 last night, it is true that he makes comments and drops hints without actually committing policy, and, significantly, of which De Villiers and Le Pen approve.

M. Bayrou's 18% vote seems to have seduced him into thinking some kind of centrist-social democracy can emerge, and reminds me of the old SDP in Britain when Roy Jenkins and Co., thought the same....

[Christine]

Hello,
As an inside (french) watcher of this presidential race, I am getting really worried at the verbal violence that is rising more and more in this campaign. I sincerely think Sarko is a dangerous man, but I also am getting really worried that Sego could potentially be equally dangerous. And what worries me most is the radicalization, the collective tension and the shared paranoia that is splitting the French people in two antagonizing camps (supporters of each camp accusing the other of anti-democratic moves). As an outside viewer, I am asking for your opinion: am I stuck in the collective mood and getting as paranoiac as everybody else, or is there really something to be worried about?

[Dominique]

Saying " Arlette Chabot and Gilles Leclerc are not biased" is a jock.

They are not bieased toward Sego or Sarko in particular, they are biased toward any politician they interview. They can't come up with a true question, they just tell their political grammar "Sego said this, what do you think? Sarko said that, what about it? Bayrou disagreed, what about you?"

They are both on the screens since 20 years or so, will be there for another 20 years or so. They have dinner with politicians, kiss each other etc... Arlette Chabot sharing her life with a former Chirac minister. All this is so pathetic!

Ah ça ira ça ira ça ira, les aristocrates à la lanterne,
Ah ça ira ça ira ça ira, les aristocrates on les p....,

[rocket]

Christine,

Welcome to politics in the 21st century. Another import from the US. Inspite of the anti-americanism which is so prevalent in France among politicians, the French politicians have endorsed American style mudslinging with open arms.

It keeps us from being bored

Every political consultant knows that it works, especially in the present time of blogs and real time info.

Just check out liberation.fr to see how they have gotten into the game.

Get used to it! I can only get worse (better)

[Valentin]

Politics is a hard, even violent discipline, I’m not surprised tensions mount at the end of 3 years of campain. I wait for this to be over ever since they asked that famous question of Sarko, "when you shave in the morning, do you happen to think of Presidency" and his even more famous reply, "not only when I shave !"

I’m curious why Sarko is seen as dangerous. I agree he’s not a calm, monumental figure, like Chirac or Giscard. He’s small, nervous, mobile, energetic and impatient, but he has a very long managing experience. The State will be safe under his eye.
He seems authoritarian and know-it all, but he breathes cleverness, industry (in the old sense) and depth.
But to go as far as to call him dangerous, I wonder why, is it feminine intuition, or are there actual reasons ?

Would people like Valerie Pecresse, Borloo, Giscard or others support him, if they had doubts ? How come there is no defection from his camp. So many leftwing celebrities, would they join him, were he indeed "dangerous" ?

[Valentin]

Good questions Charles, even though I too felt you should have pushed a bit harder. The one on Russia wasn’t really answered to,in my opinion.
Anyway, funny to see you on TV and be able to attach a live image to the online posts !

[Maggie G]

I saw you too, Mr Bremner. I ran all the way home from choir practise, and got there at ten, in time to see the last twenty minutes or so of the domestic part, and then you.

You looked terrific but I thought they rushed you a little. The whole thing went very quickly. Several people above said that Sarko's answers were superficial, but that could have been because of the limited time. They wanted to cover a lot of topics, so he couldn't really expand too much on any one of them. Considering that, he was quite skilled at getting answers out without losing time humming and hawing.

I was just over at my neighbour's watching a discussion with Ives Calvi where they had more time to discuss issues in depth. They were very professional at not revealing any bias towards either candidate. They seemed to think that the Bayrou - Royal connection indicates the beginning of a real change in the socialist mentality. It was interesting (but we were also chatting a bit).

To Christine above, who is worried about 'the radicalization, the collective tension and the shared paranoia' I would say, after listening to the Ives Calvi discussion, that the participants did not seem to think that things were so negative. They seemed to thing that there are a lot of positive changes taking place in this election campaign.

[Matthew Warren]

I just watched the show online and you were very good. A career in television awaits! I think Arlette Chabot is very good as well (I think I prefer her to PPDA). She's good at pushing for clarity when necessary yet she doesn't go into the horrible Paxman/Humphreys attack mode that ends up being counter-productive. You're right that the insular British media (my view, not necessarily yours) would never be able to stomach a French journalist asking a candidate questions. Too many egos in the British journalistic world perhaps. I'm constantly reading or hearing accounts in the French media of how the foreign media is viewing this election. I can't remember the same during a British general election.

[Christine]

Valentin,
I guess it is a question of point of view...
Where you see cleverness, industry and depth, I can only see ambition, desperate longing for power and limited intelligence (unless you call unresponsible babbling about the role of genes "depth"). You will probably answer that that is the case of any politician, but Sarkozy is without a doubt their world champion, and that worries me. Very much.
I think he is dangerous because he uses accusations and simplistic oppositions as a (successful) electoral tool. I think he is dangerous because he is using a meticulously built network to get to his means. And I think that his recent comparison of the presidential function with a footbal cup is only one more clue of his mental immaturity.
When you talk about "leftwing celebrities", you have to be refering to Bernard Tapie, so well known for his political and moral integrity?

But I was actually hoping for an "objective" (i.e. outsider's) comment from Charles Bremner about this campaign and its candidates...

[Christine]

Maggie
I am sure there is at least one very positive point: the renewed interest in politics that has arosen these two past years.
But I can assure you that everyone I talk to is really starting to freek out. Let's not mention the internet, where people are insulting each other an a daily basis through posts.
But true, I may also be influenced by the fact that I am living a couple of blocks away from Sarkozy's headquarters. I don't need to mention that tension is quite high around here.

[Valentin]

Thinking Sarko a better choice, I dared hope, doesn’t completely stripe me of my objectivity :)

As to simplistic oppositions, Sarkozy is correct saying that the right was no longer daring to affirm its principles, from fear of being constantly accused of reckless capitalism and fascism, just like Giscard was right saying to Mitterrand "vous n’avez pas le monopole du coeur". It is the left who always reasoned in a black vs. white terms.

As to personnalités de gauche who support Sarkozy, besides Tapie, there is André Glucksmann, Pascal Sevran, Roger Hanin, Max Gallo, Eric Besson to name just a few - some of them close friends of François Mitterrand’s. I would also add Simone Veil, who no one can accuse of lack of integrity. But a true supporter of Mme. Royal will surely find something to say about the "traitors" :)

Anyway, I dont remember when exactly, but Charles did comment once on the "dangerous Sarko" thing.

[Brian Dixon]

Picking up on Christine answering Valentin:

The danger we see is on the edges: rue Rampal (among others), fixing crime figures, the cynical use of the police as a political force, the unpublished books, the un-held debates, the everyman to everybody, the use of public office so blatantly for career ends, the economics that don't add up, the violence of the public pronouncements, the violence of the reported private announcements, the uncanny manipulation of the media, the Berlusconi connection, the twitching of strings tugging in the background, the sheep-like abandonment of Chirac by his new acolites, the "I know everything", the smile that isn't, the absence of pleasure, the absence of pleasure, the absence of pleasure...

The list is

[Valentin]

"the cynical use of the police as a political force"... my oh my... concrete example ? Isn’t he right saying one of the most unionized public services, the police, is quite ok with his management ?

"the use of public office so blatantly for career ends"
They all do it, they’re politicians, you cannot ask from a minister to not brag with what he does, like you cannot expect from the opposition to not criticize. Other than that (bragging - but he did save Alsthom and changed EDF, right, and with nearly no trouble from unions), he at least didn’t do any phonetapping - like François Mitterand did, out of pure paranoic fear of journalists.

"the Berlusconi connection" : I’m sorry ? Which one? Except a support declaration, what else is there? What does Revolutionary Besancenot support say about Royal then ?

"the violence of the public pronouncements"
So unfair. From the very first day of Chirac’s second term, the Left was in a constant position of crying out catastrophe at every corner. The Left has been continuously provoking and looking for and setting up trouble in the streets, hoping for the Huge Upraising supposed to wipe the Right from power. I have never seen a less constructive Opposition, to the point of destabilizing the State - like the CGT does today, announcing mass demonstrations if Sarkozy wins. But if he wins, isn’t that by democratic elections ? Is the Left really ready for anything, just "pour battre la Droite" ? Is that a democratical slogan and goal for a serious party ?

Sarkozy’s supposed violence comes from the idea of breaking, rupture, with the old habits, with the pensée unique, with the old ways of doing politics and economy of a reactionary and backwards turned Left.

[Maggie G]

"Where you see cleverness, industry and depth, I can only see ambition, desperate longing for power and limited intelligence"

Christine,

What you see in Sarkozy is what I see in Royal. Now that you've told us what you don't like about Sarkozy, please tell us what you like about Royal. (You too, Brian Dixon)

I admit I didn't see the interview with her; I only saw the Sarkozy one last night.

If you see depth and intelligence in Royal, please tell me about it. I just don't see it.

[The 3rd Column]

Glad to have seen you finally "in the flesh" albeit on TV, Mr Bremner!

Must say I was impressed with Sarkozy's performance - clearly he knew his facts and his figures but didn't appear technocratic or inhuman as he recited them. Not really surprising. Unlike Royal who's only ever held a junior minister post in the past, Sarkozy, a trained lawyer has handled major cabinet posts in both finance and interior departments and until recently, served as 2nd in command to current French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. He therefore has had more experience and possibly has greater, more solid expertise in the running of government. Worthy of note is that Sarkozy, who has never once stooped to resorting to below the belt attacks (save for a bit of sarcasm directed at Bayrou) on any of his rivals, didn't fall for the bait laid out by the interviewers, you included in last night's TV interview.

In contrast to Sarkozy's performance, Royal's was lacklustre. She was frankly not clear on issues, so vague about solutions and insisted instead on a 'caring' nanny or school marm/lecturer approach - and tone to boot - to problems facing France, definitely not the presidential stuff one expected of a leader at that level, i.e., "I am a practical woman", "I'm not vague", "I will try to find solutions", "If there are good ideas, because I'm an efficient woman, what I want to do is to reconcile and not to pit people against each other", "You know France is a gathering of people with problems and I want to solve those problems," etc., etc. She was really a disappointment. I really felt that she wasted precious national TV time.

Sarkozy's straight talk was refreshing as when he replied to your question on Iran, something in the lines of (taking liberty with the translation here) "I don't think Americans are going to do that. What do you think America can do? They can barely cope with a war with an Iraq of 25 million people... how do you think they will fare against Iran, a nation of 75 million?" or to your question concerning Iraq (something to do with US pulling out or not), he was rather frank without seeming to criticize the Americans, i.e., (again taking liberty with translation here) "History has proven that there is no nation in the world that waged war on another that could boast of a successful military occupation and stayed. None!"

He may have bungled up a bit on your Turkey-EU membership question but the message came through loud and clear: No Turkey in the EU - that should please a vast number of voters (myself included).

I can very well believe that Nicolas Sarkozy will make 'mincemeat' of pretty Ségolène Royal in their upcoming debate. And I will not be surprised if the gap between the two presidential protagonists becomes wider than the latest opinion poll: 53% for Sarkozy and 47% for Royal.

Before I forget, just wanna say great job, Mr Bremner.

[Christine]

Valentin,
I have been defending many times Sarkozy against the accusations of fascism that have been thrown at him, which in my opinion are stupid (and as you may have noted, I did not mention anything like that).
I could have talked about the reappropriation by Sarkozy of frontist themes (and that have quite embarrassed Simone Veil, by the way), but this would need a longer discussion I did not want to get into here.

But for the good of your defense of Sarkozy, you better take off your list of "leftwing celebrities" Glucksman, who, as former convinced "maoïste", has never been very insightful regarding his political affiliations, Sevran, who has spoken some wonderful words about Africans, their sexuality and their need to be sterilized. What to say about Eric Besson, who has just made a fool of himself by performing publicly a soviet-like autocriticism (or "auto-flagellation", to be more explicit)?

I am sorry you misinterpreted my last sentence, I meant by "objective" someone who is not (as I am, and as you obviously also are) taking part as a voter in this campaign. I should have said "impartial". I don't think you are not objective. You may be misinformed, though (see also added comment of Brian).

[Christine]

Valentin
And by the way, your comment on the Left seeing everything "in black and white" is a perfect example of a simplistic accusation. I did not say anything against the Right, which includes some very fine politicians. I expressed my concerns about Sarkozy.

Thank you for illustrating so well what I meant.

[christopher muir]

Having watched all of the video, one can only admire Sarko's truly energetic and articulate performance. The smoothest of the smooth. It's remarkable how he keeps the pace going with no signs of hesitation. If, as some have remarked, he is a dangerous man then the TV performance signals that he will always demand to have his views prevail. He'll defiantly ignore the voices of opposition.

[rocket]

An interesting read about the foreign press and the French candidates

http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/politiques/elections2007/250573.FR.php

[John Hornsby]

I posted the following on a music lovers' forum: "Rehearsal with maestro Sarkozy: he's well prepared, explains his overall view of the work then lets the orchestra play, stopping now and again to go into details, which causes some griping (the orchestra is French).
The next day: maestro Royal:most of the men are at once won over by her shapely body. "I'm not like that drill-master. I believe in give and take. I don't know the work (I'm modest, you know) so I want your ideas." Chaos ensues. "I want "l'ordre juste!" she cries and goes over a few details again and again without explaining anything. "You, the Chinese girl," (addressing the oboist) "you'll have to give more."
I had a hilarious experience reading the replies, all insults aimed at me ("t'es con", "pédé" (!)) or at Sarkozy ("idiot", "nabot").

[Christine]

Maggie,
What makes you think I see anything in Royal?
Actually, I see in her the possibility of being as ambitious and manipulative (and intelligent, you make a big mistake if you think she is stupid) as Sarkozy, which does not comfort me very much. Or, the possibility that she is sincere, and that is sometimes not very reassuring neither. But in any case, she does not have and will never have Sarkozy's power at her disposal.

Both Maggie and Valentin
Do not the attacks of Nicolas Sarkozy against the Bayrou/Royal debate strike you? He accused them of trying to "steal" the election, on confiscating the democratic debate, only because these two intend to debate!
What in God's name is the problem with that guy?
I am taking bet that in the next days he will accuse Royal of beeing the new Stalin (easy bet, he already started).

And the worst is that whatever this man says, his supporters follow. I have my little idea on why.

[Valentin]

Christine,

When I said the Left always simplified and pretended the "monopole du coeur" I referred to the politicians, PS, PC and so on, not to you in particular. For all I know, you may be a very reasonable left-inclined voter. But it is a reality that capitalism, private enterprise, money, right-wing values are diabolised in France, and especially starting with the left politicians.

Otherwise, ok, everything can be discussed, what interested me the most was the "dangerous" issue. Sarkozy’s character is not what appeals to me, I would have preferred de Villepin, if you want. But to label him as dangerous and leading an underground conspiration of the "Les pouvoirs de l’Argent", this is called diabolisation.
Unless firm proof, it is not democratical, it is not fair, and IMHO, not true either.

[isobel]

I spend quite a lot of time in Paris and have tried to keep up with the presidential debates. If I had the right to vote in France I don't know which of the two candidates I would vote for. However it was unclear to me why Sarko was being portrayed as "dangerous", I thought maybe I'd missed something.Thanks to Bayrou I now realise that I had - not only is Sarko a presidential candidate, but also the multi millionaire owner of several tv channels, national newspapers, publishing houses, a premier league football club, not to mention countless other business interests in insurance, construction etc.He's certainly been keeping that quiet!
What a ridiculous man Bayrou is - if the only way he can find to attack Sarkozy is to liken him to Berlusconi he should keep quiet.
Charles, I too watched France 2 because you were on it (I wouldn't have bothered otherwise)- I thought your contribution was very good - only one small point it would have been nice if instead of using "les Anglais" the correct term "Britanniques" had been used.

[Maggie G]

I mentioned that I was over at my neighbour's and that we started watching Ives Calvi. She is Syrian and I am Canadian, both French by marriage. We have always voted together.

During the discussion she got a little excited and started shrieking, "If Sarkozy wins, they'll all be down in the street again! They'll block everything! Just like they did with Juppé! Just like they did with de Villepin! They have everything! They have jobs for life and cars and holidays and everything they need! What more do they WANT?

And then my sisters will be phoning from Syria and asking, What is going ON there??"

That's the socialists. The spoiled, pampered, "exploited" socialists, with their jobs for life, making sure that no jobs can exist in France except jobs for life, so that none of kids in the banlieus can even get temporary jobs to get started.

Read Matthew Parris in today's Times. He says it so well. He says it would be better for Royal to win, because if Sarkozy wins the riots will be so bad that it will take another generation before anyone dares to try reform again. As long as the French are convinced that if it's not jobs for life, it's exploitation, there is no point in trying reform, and it's too early for Sarkozy. Better to let Royal lead them to ruin so that next time around they may be seeing the light.

It's like Robert's expression, "According to our sacred principles". The sacred principle of the French is that they are downtrodden and exploited, and that taking to the streets is a "solidarity" thing, not a selfish, bullying way for the 'haves' to protect their privileges and prevent reform.

And then they have the nerve to say that it's Sarkozy's fault when the kids in the banlieus follow their example and take to the streets.

[Jim Lancaster]

Charles Bremner,

It was good to see you in the flesh on France 2 after reading so many of your blogs. You came across as a good traditional Times man as in days of yore, following in the footsteps of one of your predecessors, Charles Hargrove. No doubt you have read his excellent book 'Un gentleman du Times, 1944-2000' (which to my knowledge has never been published in English). I hope you will also be writing a book or two in the fullness of time.

Jim Lancaster

[Christine]

@valentin
Thank for your answer, and sorry I have been a bit harsh on you in my last anwser. I am relieved to hear that you would have preferred Dominique de Villepin! So do I (and you should maybe remember the political manoeuvres of Sarkozy to take Villepin out of play, Affaire Clearstream and CPE).
It is a fact that owners of major media groups are close friends of Sarkozy. There is no diabolization in reminding it. And there is in this regard a clear parallelism with Berlusconi. It also is a fact that Nicolas Sarkozy has in the past resorted to pressures in order to prevent stuff from being published. What do you want me to say? Just pretend that it does not exist? But if you know about any similar pressures from any other leftwing or rightwing politician, I would be glad to be informed (and I mean it, la vigilance est nécessaire qui que ce soit et de quel bord politique que l'on soit!).

To answer you comment about capitalism: you may have followed the ideological evolution of the left on that matter. No one among the socialists talks about "lutte des classes" anymore, and Royal has repeated several times that "it is not shameful for a firm to make profits" (a position I do not personnally share, but I guess I am an "incorrigible" archaïc leftist utopist). Again, you may be misinformed...

And last thing... If you have time, have a look at the Bayrou/Royal debate, and compare with Sarkozy's and "umpistes's" (Pecresse especially) reactions... The contrast is striking.

[Ros]

Mr Bremner, For goodness sake take off the title of the Sarkozy photo on the Times Web site or better still take off the photo! Either it's you or him but not both please.

[Ros]

Did anyone see the "private" debate between Sego and Bayrou on BFMtv at 11am? I thought they were very fair to each other & it was quite refreshing to listen to. Segolene is a much better speaker when she's with someone, be it friend or foe. It's in her dreadful school-teacher speeches that she drones on and on with little conclusions.

[Eugene Cappuccio]

Interesting, but shouldn't that be: "Sarkozy and I"?

Not "and me"?

[rocket]

Christine

"No one among the socialists talks about "lutte des classes" anymore, and Royal has repeated several times that "it is not shameful for a firm to make profits"

Ugh!

What about Holland who says, I don't like the rich and anyone making over 4000€/month is rich.

Believe me "La lutte des classes" is alive and well on the French left.

A horse by any other name............

[Valentin]

Christine said:
"Do not the attacks of Nicolas Sarkozy against the Bayrou/Royal debate strike you?"

Sarkozy exaggerates, but Bayrou’s direct intervention in the second round is not good. He had his chances and his time live, now he should mind his new party. The way he’s trying to play a direct role in the second round only to look as the king maker and draw attention back on him, I find it is low-level politics.
He could have said who he’ll vote for, but of course he wanted to weigh on the election, to play the teacher testing the two candidates and deciding who is the better - or who will give in the most.
This continuous, active role of his is not normal - he lost, he should back down.

Maggie:
This is the way the Left always acts, they think Right being on power not only inappropriate, but downright unnatural. That place is theirs by birthright. French keep voting right though, and the whole left barely weighs 36%. So they hijack democracy by means of coup-de-poing associations and the public sector unions.
Sarkozy will be smarter than de Villepin or Juppé. He will never give a pretext for riots. He will always bring forward his own legitimity and the fact that a *big* majority supports the minimal service, the equality of retirement rules, the regulation of the immigration and so on. It’s no longer acceptable that several thousand stubborn commies (cocos, for the French :)) block the whole country.

(whenever you hear about some vicious strike, suspect extreme left behind: it is the case of the recent statistician strike, who cannot stand that their numbers support the government).

[Dominique Dupart]

Dear Charles, you're partial with Sarkosy. You just love him. Well. Have you heard of the hatred felt by many, many french people against him ? WasTatcher so hated at her beginning ? ( It's a true question. I like your comparison between him and her). Everybody is very passionnate with Sarkosy and, so early, that's problematic. That powerful man loves power and power and still power : it's painful for many, sexy for the others...among them we are finding you.
Thank you.

[Valentin]

"and you should maybe remember the political manoeuvres of Sarkozy to take Villepin out of play"

Certainly, and I didn't like that at all. But they all do it, Christine, Chirac, Mitterand, all. I never liked Sarkozy, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a good manager, a statesman or the "rupture" man.
When they asked DSK on Europe1 whether he thinks Royal a stateswoman, he just could not say yes, and that wasn't backstabbing. Merkel is one, Guigou could be. Royal’s intelligent, but she hasn‘t got the spirit of the State. She’s into nice tailleurs, smiling with her newly redone teeth and jaw, playing the Eva Peron of France.

Sarkozy, like Chirac or Mitterand, knows people. He doesn't OWN anyone and anything (unlike Berlusconi), no one owns him, and no evil is proved. No black money, no favourable treatment on TV, no stock options. Let the mouth-stuffed journalists come forth and testify - those not of the Left.
This is called "proces d’intention" at best, "diabolisation" (when one concludes he’s dangerous) at worst.

"Royal has repeated several times that it is not shameful for a firm to make profits"

She also said she wants to scare capitalists. There was a whirlwind here about that. But then she changed tune so often, that it doesn't matter much.

She also said that extreme left and extreme right is not the same thing - the PC is not even extreme see, they are only "antiliberal". Well look at them all singing the International with the fist out, and go tell that to the millions of victims of Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu or Pol Pot.
Hitler was a baby compared - but then France only knew him and kept a romantic vision about the revolutionary left.

Guess who should go get herself an update on political history.

[john]

In response to Dominique Dupart: you say Sarkozy is hated by many people in France. I'd say he's hated by some people, but certainly not by a majority or even by "many" people. I think if you keep reading blogs or listening to the bobo chattering classes of central Paris, you may have a distorted vision of France. Only a few hundreds of thousands of the 64 million French people read and participate in these blogs, and only 2 million people live in central Paris. The rest of the country is pretty much keeping its cool and is certainly not hating the man (nor loving him either).

It particularly struck me that despite all the talk about Sarkozy being persona non grata in the suburbs, he nonetheless won many suburbs last Sunday, including Val-de-Marne where he came first. I think it's the first time the right win Val-de-Marne, a previously communist fortress. I was also quite stunned that he came first in Nord and Pas-de-Calais, two départements that were (still are?) heartland of the left.

This says a lot about the huge gap that exists between the elites and internet bloggers who have a love-hate relationship with Sarkozy, and the "pays réel", as Ms Royal would call it, where people have much less passionate views of the guy and put him first in about three-quarter of French départments last Sunday.

[kerstin]

SARKO HAS THE EGO OF A RAGING TOOTH
THE IMPRESSION YOU GAVE ME IS A RELIEF HE IS NOT YOUR
COMPATRIOT. RiGHTLY SO, THE MAN IS MAD

[Ros]

indeed , "extreme right and extreme left are not the same thing " - one is fascist and the other communist - but to say "Hitler was a baby compared " (above) is surely going a bit far! I imagine Valentin was born long after WW2.

[John Gregory Flinn]

For Maggie G.
Interesting posts, but please do not pay attention to Mathew Parris - he epitomises those many anglo-centric politicians, (a majority) who think the english have a monopoly on 'good ideas' which the world inevitably follows/copies.

His arguments contain two non-sequiturs - why was (his example) Alex prepared to accept work in Britain as a kitchen porter where the employment laws are much less protective than even De Villepin's proposals? The thinking he attributes to Alex seems rather immature.
But the real clanger was to conclude that 'Alex and his kind are the future of their country (France)', it had my daughter in fits of laughter!

The future of France and the rest of the developed West is to stay ahead or compete with the Asiatic economies especially in the field of technologies.
For example, how long do you think that sterling (or the Euro) will stay at its current exchange rate to the Chinese ramimbi if the UK (or France) relies on 'entrepreneurial kitchen porters'?

The election of Sarkosy as President may well provoke ructions in certain quarters, on the other hand it may not. But 'to keep looking over your shoulder in anticipation of such' is to admit to intimidation which is exactly what his opponents might want.

PS - for Isobel;
I'm sure 'L'Anglais' is preferable these days. 'British' has become a mere technical description for those who have obtained a British passport by one means or another and is no longer solely representative of the English, Scottish, Welsh or N.Irish.
Criminals, terrorists, murderers and rapists from Somalia, Pakistan and Egypt and elsewhere can become 'British'... and do so with ease!

[Christine]

@Valentin (et accessoirement Maggie, mais Maggie commence à me fatiguer sérieusement)

"they all do it, Christine, Chirac, Mitterand, all".
(By the way, the correct spell is Mitterrand)

Why do you have to accept such a cynical view of politics? It is not because they all "did it" that we have to accept it. I do not have much respect for Mitterrand on many regards, and both (Mitterrand and, even more Chirac) are impersonating a way of doing politics that I deeply disapprove. The problem is that Sarkozy is their heir, and, worst maybe, the heir of Pasqua that incarnates the perfect example of what politics should NOT be. Should I remind you that several politicians supporting Sarkozy have been convicted of corruption? I don't see any reason why we just should let go on this matter. It is that fatalism that is, in my view, dangerous for democracy.

You want indications that Sarkozy could be dangerous? What about the aknowledgment, by several journalists, that he has exercised pressures on press freedom? What about his lies and manipulations of the truth in order to legitimate his actions (déni de présomption d'innocence pour Yves Colonna, les ados morts de Clichy-sous-Bois traités de "délinquants", trafiquage des chiffres sur la délinquance, report de publication d'un rapport sur la délinquance...). And more recently, what about his aggressive and extremely violent attacks on Royal and Bayrou (just to name a few: "bavassage", "délit de faciès", "procès stalinien"...). What about his several laws, that are restricting more and more civil rights? Have you heard, dear Valentin, about his ELOI project, that was finally rejected by the Conseil Constitutionnel?

What strikes me is the unability of Sarkozy to view politics and, more generally, social relations other as violent. He seems to view the world and the people as brutal and violent, where the only response can be brutality and violence. This manicheistic vision (which is, by the way, eagerly promoted by TF1) is explosive.

I have another question for you, Valentin, and for you, Maggie: why do you hate the Left so much? As I already said, I don't have anything against the Right as a political opinion. But all I can see in your comments are general accusations against "leftists" (should I remind you that they constitute about half of the french population?). Let me just illustrate with some of your comments:
Maggie:
"That's the socialists. The spoiled, pampered, "exploited" socialists, with their jobs for life, making sure that no jobs can exist in France except jobs for life"
Valentin:
"It is the left who always reasoned in a black vs. white terms"
"The Left has been continuously provoking and looking for and setting up trouble in the streets"
"This is the way the Left always acts, they think Right being on power not only inappropriate, but downright unnatural. That place is theirs by birthright.(...) They hijack democracy by means of coup-de-poing associations and the public sector unions"
(Let me just comment on this one: dear Valentin, you really seem to be lacking some historical knowledge, as indicated by your comment about Hitler. You are right assessing the French are in their majority rightwing. Saying that the left sees power as its birthright (a very aristocratic notion, by the way) is ridiculous, and really funny considering the few years the Left has actually been in charge in France during the past century).

You can disagree about the socialist Party, about Royal and about her programm. But please stop throwing such stupid accusations at everyone that is "de gauche". Your reactions only comfort my worries, because it shows to what point Sarkozy's manichean and aggressive way of thinking has successfully penetrated french society. As Bayrou accurately reminded yesterday, "nous ne sommes pas en guerre civile".

And no, I do not hate Sarkozy. His actions and words frighten me. Nuance.
(but it seems that quite a lot of people in France,leftwing and rightwing, have lost their "sens de la nuance" during this campaign).

[Christine]

John Gregory Flinn

"Criminals, terrorists, murderers and rapists from Somalia, Pakistan and Egypt and elsewhere can become 'British'"

Please elaborate? Please.

[isobel]

To John Gregoy Flinn - try suggesting to the Scots , the Welsh or Northern Irish that they might prefer to be called "English" and see what kind of reaction you get!

[The 3rd Column]

Mr Flinn's "The future of France and the rest of the developed West is to stay ahead or compete with the Asiatic economies especially in the field of technologies."

Absolutely agree.

Ms Royal's proposed 'generalisaton' of the 35-hour work week is a formula for sure fire disaster. Her platform is typical of the outdated Socialist/Mitterandist principle of 'nivellement par le bas' - (levelling down).

As Mr Sarkozy rightly pointed out, France is not gaining on the foreign investment front because of the country's immensely complicated labor laws, incredibly stringent measures with regard hiring and firing, including its draconian rules and requirements for setting up business, etc.

While the rest of the world works harder, putting in more hours to compete, French work force is adamant to keep its old Socialist working habits.

And they wonder why France is lagging behind, tagged as the 'sick man of Europe'?

This moribund state of affairs cannot go on particularly with China and India no longer the sleeping giants that they once were.

[The 3rd Column]

Isobel,

'Les Anglais' is a generic term used by French-speaking people (not only in France) to mean British.

I do accept, it's rather an odd way of calling Brits en toto 'Les Anglais' but that is just an idiosyncracy and not meant to insult the rest of British humanity; best exemplified by how Northern Ireland is technically seen in France; no amount of pleading with the employees at the 'mairie', i.e., Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland and not Great Britain, will alter the way they look at things British.

Even if you are a N Irish person born, say, in Belfast, place of birth in your carte de séjour will still be marked, born in 'Grande Bretagne'.

Must say that on the whole, the French like and respect the Brits (although not reciprocated by the Brits). There's no general innate animosity towards the Brits, sadly something that you'll find is so prevalent in les Anglais where the French are concerned.

[pouet]

To Valentin,
"Sarkozy will be smarter than de Villepin or Juppé. He will never give a pretext for riots."
I'm sorry but Sarkozy is already a pretext for strikes and riots (and I think it's a shame), even more than Juppé was. It's not a question of being "smart". We'll see in september if he wins. He thinks he can do it by himself, but he will be surprised when he will discover what opposition really means (in the National Assembly, in his own government, and so on)
The point I hate about Sarkozy: he doesn't own media, but he is a very good friend of: Bouygues, Dassault, Pinault, Arnault.
That's about: Le Figaro, L'Express, TF1, Paris Match, Valeurs Actuelles, Le Point. He doesn't leave them out of pressure. He even threats Rotschild, the owner of the left-wing paper Libération.
He got the head of Genéstar (Paris Match), he managed to keep a book on his "wife" from being published. Sounds like Miterrand's style to me.

"no favourable treatment on TV" You must be joking!!! When was the last time you saw Jean-Pierre Pernault on TV?
How can he talk about "séparation des pouvoirs", when he wants to embody the power by himself? When he wants a "presidential" government with fewer control than Bush has.
But maybe UMP won't have the majority at the National Assembly. Which would be a true democratic situation, with a true control of the Assembly.
He is the worst side of UMP: la démocratie des Hautes Seines (Blakany, Pasqua, Shuller, himself)
About Bayrou, I think he did well, he doesn't have the same media power as the other candidate, and he is already preparing "les législatives". I was relieved to see that he didn't share Ségolène Royale's views on economy. I hope that it means his electors and Sarkozy's ones want a change on this matters (moins d'état). Which would be a new thing in France.
About Ségolène Royale, I'm sorry she didn't play a very interesting card (I think the anti-sarko campaign is stupid): individual liberty for french citizen. Nowadays, Policemen are acting on arbitrary basis (for example: ID card check, which is not allowed) I'm not saying that Sarkozy is encouraging that, but I'm saying that he will not change that: he didn't do it before + he has some bad results as a minister, so why is it going to change with him?
The only good point to me is some of his economic views. But he was not such a good finance minister. He is a true good communication manager.

Charles you're French was very good. I wish I could speak English like you speak French. Were you impressed by the presence of Sarkozy?

[Valentin]

"Why do you have to accept such a cynical view of politics?"

Realistic, not cynical. Professional politics collaterally leads to that. The fatality in this case comes not from abandonment of ideals, but from the acknowledgement of the imperfections of democracy. Nothing to do with an "old style". What I call new style, is, for instance, telling the truth: speaking of continuous public service does not mean limiting the right to make strike; retirement rules must be the same for all; the State functions must be MUCH more efficient; speaking of "Frenchness" does not make one a racist; the values of ’68 have been proven wrong; making money does not make one immoral, but dividing people in "the rich" and "the poor" does; jobs for life are gone for good, accept it and adapt; the Left does not have "le monopole du coeur". Telling the truth.

Sarkozy too spoke about "dépasser les clivages gauche-droite", but in a meaningful sense: find pragmatical solutions to real, everyday-life problems within a political project, and giving up the purely ideological debates. Thus it may happen that the Right touches themes traditionally alien.

"What strikes me is the unability of Sarkozy to view politics ... other as violent."

The violence comes from the deep desire of putting an end to hypocrisies and political correctness. "La rupture" has a certain violent side, but in the good sense. Someone from the Left cannot imagine HOW MUCH we others are fed up with lies, corporatisms, hypocrisy, backwardness.

"why do you hate the Left so much?"

Euh... I wanted to contradict you. Actually I shamefully admit I do - this political Left: PS, PC, CGT. Why? People like Jack Lang, François Hollande, Laurent Fabius, or the fist-up communists, and their behaviour during the last 5 years, made me lose all respect for the Left wing politicians.

"Saying that the left sees power as its birthright ... is ridiculous"

I maintain that, notwithstanding. PS and the likes (PC, CGT - not the voters, mind you) do see power as theirs to have - because France is at the Left, the heart is at the Left and so on, don’t ask me why. Luckily the population thumps them out now and then.

"You want indications that Sarkozy could be dangerous?"

We can discuss your points. I dont remember the corruption bits.
I still don’t see him as dangerous. Veil, Giscard, Gallo and many other independent, serious people, how come they support a dictator in the making ? Can Royal count on the same kind of support ?

[Valentin]

--
indeed , "extreme right and extreme left are not the same thing " - one is fascist and the other communist - but to say "Hitler was a baby compared " (above) is surely going a bit far! I imagine Valentin was born long after WW2.
--

Indeed, and I will make the same kind of comment about Ros : he probably has little idea about the mass-murders and genocides perpetrated in the name of the communism, and by the communists. Meanwhile no one is convicted for denying that.

[Valentin]

Le Figaro, L'Express, TF1, Paris Match, Valeurs Actuelles, Le Point. He doesn't leave them out of pressure. He even threats Rotschild, the owner of the left-wing paper Libération.

Concrete examples please.
Oh come on, you cannot make France look like a dictatorship. France is free, the press is free as well, the journalists are rather leaning to the left, despite their bosses’ friendships.
All this is a setup to make Sarko look like a dictator.
Bayrou was never refused time live or discriminated. All his crying out loud was the only way he found to attract attention. All his anti-system rhetorics is bogus, he was part of the "system" the whole time, that’s why his party could send 30 people in the Assemblee.

Press is not free, Sarkozy is a dictator of fascist inspiration (Montebourg just said it, "la droite pure et dure..."). What else ?
The same old themes of the Left: "you’re not with us, therefore you’re a fascist and a racist".

[Christine]

Valentin

Who exactly among the leftwing politicians said Sarkozy is a fascist or a dictator! Some names please!
(and who accused the other candidate of a stalinian trial against him? Sarkozy).

About pressures on media, here are a few examples:
the SNJ released a statement denouncing pressures against the organization of the Bayrou/Royal debate. Asked on live by Bayrou on BFM, Bourdin said he had been submitted to pressures. The ex-director of the Figaro Magazine said that he was fired because he refused to be too complacent towards Nicolas Sarkozy. Alain Genestar was dismissed because he published the picture of Sarkozy's wife with her lover. Sarkozy threatened to fire the France 3 direction once he was elected. He threatened the owner of Libération. The France 3 journalist syndicate issued a statement expressing their worries. A Figaro journalist was threatened to have his private live revealed if he would not change his critic tone against Sarkozy.

I don't know what the definition of "proof" is supposed to be. In that case, it is the word of Nicolas Sarkozy against that of journalists, and not a few. Maybe all these horrible leftists are lying. Maybe Nicolas Sarkozy is lying.
Everyone has to make his own opinion on the subject. You are, of course, free to choose to believe Sarkozy.

[Valentin]

France3 has one of the most leftist rédactions in the Hexagon, while being public service and payed from our taxes; if Sarkozy promised that, he’s even better than I dared hope ! (I’m not at all polemical here)

PS personalities dont pronounce the word "fascist" of course, they only draw the picture clearly, so that everyone understand.
Propaganda mails that circulate in Paris are more open on the subject. Sample received this afternoon :

"Démontons l'image que Sarkozy se
> >donne, c'est urgent car c'est un homme extrêmement dangereux, et je crois que nous ne sommes qu'au balbutiement des horreurs qu'il pourrait développer une fois au pouvoir.Faites largement passer à vos amis, et particulièrement aux connaissances que vous savez ou pensez sarkozistes.
> >On ne pourra pas dire qu'on ne savait pas."N'oubliez pas que c'est par les urnes qu'est arrivé Hitler."

[Valentin]

Allez, a last post for the day, to congratulate Charles for his blogging promptness. I didn’t hope our posts (half must be mine...) will be published so regularly and quickly over the weekend, but I clearly underestimated the power of the wireless, even at high altitudes ! :)

[Christine]

Ok Valentin, so I guess that once Sarkozy is elected this is the kind of covering you will hope to watch on France 3:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1tber_sarkozy-human-bomb
(sent by UMP militants on a large mail action)

Or this:
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/sarkozy%2Bmeaux%2Bnstv/video/x1pn66_rencontre-en-banlieue

(and for comparison on the same subject; you should also watch this:)
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/sarkozy%2Bmeaux/video/x1qtbc_sarkozy-a-meaux

[terry]

"History has proven that there is no nation in the world that waged war on another that could boast of a successful military occupation and stayed. None!"

Did Sarkozy say this? Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan ring a bell. We defeated these countries, occupied them successfully and we are still there.

[The 3rd column]

Terry,

You mean a major western power is still militarily occupying ex-Nazi Germany and Japan?

By gum, must agree that's news to me...

Btw, which western power is your "we (are still there)"?

[Tiny Tom Shiney]

Does anyone know how I can view the English-language French channel?

[Valentin]

"Ok Valentin, so I guess that once Sarkozy is elected this is the kind of covering you will hope to watch on France 3"

Sigh. No. I didn't say UMP don't have their own propaganda. It often happens that obviously biased (to the left) commentaries can be seen on both France 2 and France 3, especially the latter.
All I want is a serious, neutral, informative press, where if the journalist wants to give his opinion, he does it clearly and openly, not in a hidden political propaganda way.

Otherwise, your comments go in the same direction: Sarkozy, the future dictator that will suppress civil liberties. What's next, taking it to the streets in a new may'68 ?
Poor France...

Oh and when I said I hate the left earlier, it's of course the hate one feels against lies, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[Valentin]

I couldn't find Charles' blog on the main page of Times Online. I had to google Charles Bremner.....

Anyway, here's the info on France 24 :

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/fr/bas-de-page/comment-recevoir-la-chaine.html

Flux vidéo en direct de France 24:

mms://live.france24.com/france24_en.wsx

et

http://live.france24.com/france24_en.wsx

[Christine]

Double sigh

Valentin, please stop giving me intentions I do not have. I never talked about a dictator or the suppression of civil rights (although the horrible leftist International Commission of the Children's rights seems to be worried about that).
I guess you did not get my point. My point was that, firstly, such ridiculous propaganda does not seem ridiculous to a lot of people (and I am not talking about Sarkozy here, but about his supporters). Secondly, if you watched for comparison La tele libre's coverage on Sarko's visit in Meaux, it actually gives a much more interesting, open and (as a matter of fact, favorable) image of this visit and of Sarko: we can see him courageously trying to face the audience and to explain his views, which is quite appealing.
That tells us a lot about the horrible leftist and unobjective journalist that made the report on one hand, and, on the other hand, of what a "correct" view of this report is supposed to be for a close friend and support of Sarkozy (Gougeard, the man that made the NSTV report).

I won't be answering you any longer, unless you would like to discuss Royal and her programme.

[Terry]

3rd Column:

By gum, we (the U.S.) still have bases in Germany and Japan. Oh, I forgot Italy too. Therefore, there are 3 countries we waged for with, conquered and occupied until stable governments could be elected. All were brutal dictatorships. Apparently, that is also news to Sarkozy.

We also conquered, liberated and occupied France until it established a stable democratic government. Although, this is a little different since France, for the most part, didnt wage war on the U.S.

[Terry]

Someone wrote:

indeed , "extreme right and extreme left are not the same thing " - one is fascist and the other communist -

To be clear, both fascism and communism come from the extreme left. Hitler's party were national SOCIALISTS. You can call it facism if you want, but it is nothing more (nor less) than socialism. The animosity displayed between the two "philosophies" can best be described as that reserved for heretics.

[John Gregory Flinn]

Isobel;
"John Gregory Flinn - try suggesting to the Scots...."
I'm not.

Christine;
Are today's (30 April) headlines any help - as an example?

[Ros]

Yes, Tiny Tom Shiney, Valentin is right. You CAN get France 24 in english on the Cable (noos or Numéricable) but it doesn't come amongst the "Pass" Channels, i.e. you have to pay for it separately.In order to do this, quite useless to go into the Noos website - you must telephone 0892 020 010 at €0,34 per minute but obviously this is only if you already have a Noos decodeur. TPS seems to have disappeared!

[pouet]

I don't agree with you Tery on the nazi part. You seem to know what historians are still discussing.

Socialism is about class struggle and Nazism is about race struggle. At first, socialism seemed an important feature of nazism. But Hitler never claimed to abolish private property (maybe in early writtings? but not in Mein Kampf) and never acted in this way, and there is a true contradiction in the term national-socialism (socialism doesn't need a country from an ideological point of view) Mein Kampf is more a racial program than anything else. NSDAP was anti-capitalistic, but more in a formal way. When in power, Hitler never tried something like abolishing private property.
I also remind you that Hitler eliminated Röhm, and that it corresponded with his will to destroy the old guard of the DAP, and to eradicate the socialist side of the party.

Some historians assume that "socialism" was a mean for Hitler to take control of the DAP (which he was, at first, supposed to spy on)
I'm no specialist but to me there is a difference of nature between nazism and socialism.
Harendt showed that they were both totalitarism, because they share some very important features: oppression of the individual, control of the mass, and so on. But she never said that one is proceeding from the other.
Surely, it leads in both cases to disaster. But still there is a true difference in nature.

Concerning facism, I find you quite assertive. I'm more on your side on this point. But Paxton used to think that the first form of fascism was KKK. And then some french ideologists: Sorel (socialist), Lebon (conservative), Blondel (vitalist)
Mussolini, himself, called it many times a right-wing ideology. Franco is considered as facist and he was far from being a left-wing ideologist.

[The 3rd column]

Terry,

I think what Nicolas Sarkozy said was there's no country that waged war on another, occupied it and stayed, i.e., military occupation still ongoing.

Believe he's right, there's none - last time I heard, Germany and Italy ARE NOT UNDER military occupation by any of their former enemies.

It's like saying that because 26 nations (US included) have a military base in Brussels, Belgium is under military occupation of these countries.

There may be a couple of U.S. bases in the countries you mentioned but that can be hardly defined as 'US military occupation of Germany, Italy or Japan...'

[Mike Tarlton]

Quite hard to follow all the above.

I watched the France 2 programme on Sarkozy. Getting a bit weary of the routine stroking of the electorate (France this, France that, the French this, and so on), I fast-forwarded to Charles Bremner and was impressed by my compatriot in action. I would have wished that you could have elbowed Arlette Chabot aside a bit more vigorously, but you were on foreign turf.

Then I watched a bit of the Segolene Royal interview but got bored here, too, as I have been before in other of her appearances. How many times can she say "rassembler", "rassemblement", "la famille de la Gauche rassemblee"? Comforting, but empty. There was also a lot about 'la crise'. Things aren't that bad in France. It's worse here.

What I find worrying is the 'diabolisation' of Nicolas Sarkozy and the suggestion, repeated by Mme Chabot, that there would be riots and demonstrations if he were elected president, and that he is a dangerous man. It reminds me of the slogan, 'New Labour, New Danger' used by the Conservatives in the 1997 election in the UK. The then Conservative Home Secretary used to warn of 'the danger to our country' if Tony Blair were to be elected. He was elected and yet the country has survived somehow. Demonizing an opponent, just because you don't like him or her, is not good for democratic politics.

I recall that Sarkozy was well thought of after the last presidential elections in France. A major concern at the time was 'insecurite' and, as France's 'super-flic', he seemed to answer that concern. I have always had a soft spot for him because he speaks so clearly (as does Le Pen, it has to be said). Then Sarkozy became Minister of Finance and rolled over in front of the public sector just like any other French politician.

I agree with Charles Bremner. I can't see a huge change arriving with Sarkozy as president. Certainly not the full force of Anglo-Saxon liberalism unleashed upon the poor French. France, ruled by the street and by the 'fonctionnaires', will carry on much as before. It drives me mad, but I love the place.

[Valentin]

Indeed I hadn’t gotten your point, Christine, mea culpa. But hey, nothing easier for me to admit there are very good left-inclined journalists and bad or unethical ones on the right. On the other hand, propaganda is not journalism.

"I won't be answering you any longer, unless you would like to discuss Royal and her programme."

It wouldn‘t be elegant from my part to call the end of your phrase a perfect oxymoron, so I‘ll just say, no hard feelings Christine, and - well ! may the best man win ! :)

[Ros]

I missed Terry's post at 14.06 pm -he said "We also conquered, liberated and occupied France until it established a stable democratic government. Although, this is a little different since France, for the most part, didnt wage war on the U.S."
Since when did the U.S. CONQUER France (please, please elaborate - I have never heard this affirmation before & cannot understand what you mean. Liberated (yes, partially and indeed Eisenhower was the principal actor)but perhaps you could give a little credit to us (the British, also the Canadians & even the Free French)! On 4th june 1944 we were all together on the Normandy beaches. If you stay in France until june and especially if you go to Normandy you will see what I mean- it is a month of celebration for ALL THE ALLIES (yes, we were called the ALLIES - & still are in the history books.) You did certain ly "occupy" France in a certain way by setting up bases all over France - Laon (where Franco-American families are still living happily), Orleans, Toul & others whose names I've forgotten - all this of course with NATO'S blessing.
Whether this americanisation of France was good for the country I really have no idea -
all the same I should really like to know how the USA "conquered" France & to finish on a different note what do you mean by "France, for the most part, didnt wage war on the U.S."

[Valentin]

Pouet and Terry,
regarding the extreme left and right,

actually, maybe you noticed, maybe not, the question PPDA asked Mme. Royal meant, basically, whether she regards the two extremes the same way, ie, as two totalitarisms that both led to crimes against mankind.
Not the same in nature, but in their extremism and dire consequences.

A communist will always answer the extreme right is monstruous while the left one is a beautiful utopia badly interpreted and implemented.
This shows the PS, PC etc. are still marxist in essence.

[Terry]

3rd Column:

But that's not what Sarkozy was saying. He said that the US could not succeed in Iraq/Iran because no one has ever conquered and occupied a country successfully. First, Sarko's analogy is poorly chosen. The U.S. does not intend to annex Iraq or Iran. Second, his history is wrong. We did did conquer and occupy Italy, Germany, and Japan. We didn't want territory. We set up stable governments and left when we were done. Those were successes.

[Terry]

Pouet:

Fair comments. I disagree on the socialism aspect. National Socialism. The "national" part was the racism you've correctly identified. The socialism was that all industry and property belonged to the state to benefit and propogate the German people. I stole the "heretic" thing from Hayek. I've written about him in so many posts some may think it's the only book I read. Anyway, a good part of Road to Serfdom is how Nazism was socialism. But you are right, the jury is out on this question and there is a lot of room for debate.

Eliminating Rohm was not to get rid of the socialist side of the party. Rohm wanted a second revolution that would, indeed, have been MORE socialistic. But this was not because Hitler wanted to eradicate socialism. Now that Hitler was in charge, he did not want a second "army" of thugs threatening his power and undermining his rule. He also needed the army on his side which was desperately opposed to the SA.

[Dominique]

Terry,

"We did did conquer and occupy Italy, Germany, and Japan. We didn't want territory. We set up stable governments and left when we were done."

Who is this "we"? you were there? are yu talking about the "we, the americans"? All by your selves?

Then, please add an additional :

"We did conquer and occupy Vietnam, Irak, Grenada... We didn't want territory. We set up unstable governments and left when it was a mess."

Please note the meaning of the word "occupation". That is used when an army is in a country against people's will. For instance, France was "occupied" by Germany, and it was "freed" by the USA. Neither do i think that the germans were against the presence of the USA on their soil during the cold war.

You have a very wierd use of words that make it very difficult to anderstand what you are up to.

[The 3rd column]

Terry,

Difficult to make sense when we're talking in snippets.

Here's what happened: Sarkozy spoke in French, and rightly so (it was on French TV) and if you want, his phrase "and stayed" was evoked in relation to a premise, i.e., a continuing military occupation of a country following its invasion by another.

Your presumption that it was Sarkozy who opened the discussion on Iran is wrong. Sarkozy merely replied to Charles Bremner's question about Iran which touched eventually on the US' posture on Iran. You may, if you wish blame Charles for asking the question at all!

I suggest you watch the 73 min France 2 TV broadcast of the interview - Charles has the link in this thread.

[terry]

Dominique:

No, you are right. We didn't set up those governments by ourselves. The British, Canadiens and Australians all helped us. My apologizies to those countries.

You are always lagging behind the argument. Either you are purposely trying to distort the arguments wiht inane responses or you just don't get it. I used to give you more credit. Now I think its the latter.

[Christine]

It wouldn‘t be elegant from my part to call the end of your phrase a perfect oxymoron

Posted by: Valentin | 30 Apr 2007 22:58:36

Valentin
You know what really exasperates me? You do exactly what you criticize: throwing false accusations at people. Royal has been developping her (in my view brilliant) programm for the past three monthes. You may agree, or disagree with that programm. But saying that this problem does not exist is just stupid.
Royal's programm is founded on a insightful idea: replace defiance and fear with trust and individual responsability. Its the basis of what she calls the "win/win", and that she proposes to apply to all sectors of social life (democracy, economics, education etc...). Her programm bets on a revolution of mentalities, and is profoundly modern compared with Sarkozy's passeist view of french society.

The truth, Valentin, is that her programme is brilliant of political, economic and social cleverness.
Why, in your opinion, could it be that the UMP has been telling (and quite successfully, I have to say) people for monthes, against the evidence, that Royal does not have any programm?

[Pierre Bernardi]

Dear 3rd Column, I must reply to your post of 29 April, 12:38:37. You say that "if you are a N Irish person born, say, in Belfast, place of birth in your carte de séjour will still be marked, born in 'Grande Bretagne'."

The correct inscription would be "Royaume Uni", the French name for the UK, as proven by the French identity card I have before me.

Excellent accent, Monsieur Bremner!

[Maggie G]

Terry,

I agree with Dominique.

I too immediately thought of the occupation of Germany when I heard Sarkozy say that never in the history of the world had one country successfully invaded and occupied another. I thought, what about the occupation of Germany by the Americans?

But that really wasn't an "invasion". The Americans (and the Allies) did not come out of the blue to "invade" a peaceful, innocent Germany.

They managed to defeat the Germans after years of a terrible war that the Germans had started themselves. The German people suffered because of Hitler, not because they were "invaded". The defeat of the Nazis was basically a liberation for the German people as much as for everyone else.

And the Marshall Plan was not your typical "occupation".

[Terry]

Dominique:

I dont know about Vietnam, Iraq and Grenada but I will say:

We did conquer and occupy France. We did not want territory. We set up unstable governments and when we left, it was a mess.

[Maggie G]

Sorry, I meant 'conquer', not 'invade'.

With the word 'conquer' it is even more obvious -- the Americans did not 'conquer' Germany, and they certainly didn't conquer France -- they liberated France.

[The 3rd column]

Spot on Maggie! Thanks for elucidating.

Just checked my daughter's French ID - Pierre Bernard is right, it's Royaume Uni (although must say my spouse's carte de séjour has GB on it).

Meanwhile, I don't know what Terry is trying to prove but US 'conquered'? 'occupied?' France?

You sure you're not referring to Vietnam, a part of French Indochina?

You remind me of my American brother in law who has this one-track conviction that Americans lost more lives in Europe during WWII than all Europeans combined; it was useless telling him that Russians, who btw were and are still technically Europeans, lost more lives than US French British and other allies combined during that war.

[Valentin]

"You know what really exasperates me? You do exactly what you criticize: throwing false accusations at people."

Oh come on, be a good sport, that was just a pinch (with a grain of truth, I’ll agree :)).

"Why, in your opinion, could it be that the UMP has been telling (and quite successfully, I have to say) people for monthes, against the evidence, that Royal does not have any programm?"

Simple: because it was announced from November I think, and postponed till February, when even the socialist militants were getting - exasperated, yes, that’s the word. Because it is based on stuff like the participative democracy, which we, les loups méchants de droite, stubbornly consider both anti-democratic (the soviets had that kind of popular councils) and a cover for the lady’s lack of competence. Because many economists tend not to give it much credit. This and many other reasons make me think it’s not a real program, but an eclectic mixture of leftish and centerish ideas with little coherence.

About the competence part: she doesn’t have it, period. Minister of the Family and a dull member of parliament, each and every time I saw Royal facing someone on financial or foreign affairs, her insecurity and hesitations were visible from the moon. Presidents dont need to be experts, but she was clearly destabilized, sign that she did not work the subjects. Finally, most of her solutions are of the type "we’ll set up a big conference to discuss this with all partners". In English, this is called bogus.

[Ros]

Maggie, that's more or less what I said last night at 23.02 - a slight nuance: one could perhaps, (but only perhaps) say that the Americans first "conquered" Germany (after all they were at war) & then helped to put it to rights but as for "conquering" France?? - as I said, but I'm only repeating myself which is useless, they HELPED in the liberation. I still don't understand what Terry meant when he said "France, for the most part, didnt wage war on the U.S."

[Christine]

Ok, one by one

"Because it is based on stuff like the participative democracy, which we, les loups méchants de droite, stubbornly consider both anti-democratic (the soviets had that kind of popular councils)"

Participative democracy is an excellent answer to the problem of today's parliamentary democracy, that is totally disconnected with the "France d'en bas", as Raffarin would say. Anti-democratic? Please! Her reform of institutions, that articulates parliamentary democracy with participative democracy, and intends to give a greater room for the voice of parliamentary opposition, gets us the closest to democracy we ever have in France... Compare with the swiss model.

"and a cover for the lady’s lack of competence".
Depends on what you call competence. Accepting to listen to people, and give them faith in democracy and political action is for me a sign of a great political competence.

"Because many economists tend not to give it much credit."
Actually, many do. But unfortunately they are never invited on TF1.

"This and many other reasons make me think it’s not a real program, but an eclectic mixture of leftish and centerish ideas with little coherence".
Funny coming from a Sarko-follower, since he has been throwing around contradictory promises since the beginnnig of the campaign! As I explained, Royal's programm is profoundly coherent in ll its aspects. You maybe should take time to really look at it...

"About the competence part: she doesn’t have it, period."
Mais encore?

"Minister of the Family and a dull member of parliament",
Sarkozy is much more experienced than Royal, agreed. But experience is not competence. Unless you call the incredible increasing public debt as he was Minister of Finance, and the increasing of the "délinquance" (he actually promised to reduce it, total failure) competence.

"each and every time I saw Royal facing someone on financial or foreign affairs, her insecurity and hesitations were visible from the moon."
Agreed. She does not have the experience. But she is getting better!

"Finally, most of her solutions are of the type "we’ll set up a big conference to discuss this with all partners".
Not most, some, as the "Conférence sur les salaires", that she wants to set up between the different social partners. But the objective is clearly defined: revalorisation du SMIC et des bas-salaires. She just does not want to impose blindly, but negociate with the different partners. What a crime!

"In English, this is called bogus." And in french, it is called "culture du compromis", instead of wanting to bully around all the time. I told you her programm was revolutionnary: replace the "culture de l'affrontement" with a "culture du compromis", what an insane idea!

[Terry]

Maggie:

My uncle would be surprised to hear the U.S (and its allies) didn't invade Germany. He was at Remagen. He remembered seeing Germans strapped with explosives trying to demolish the bridge on a suicide run. Certainly, the German army thought they were being invaded. Germany was occupied and placed under martial law. If the German people were liberated, I certainly can make the same argument for the Iraqis. You might remember the pictures of Iraqis pulling down Saddam's statue.

What about Italy? What about Japan? Is Sarko's memory that short. 3rd column said I got the translation wrong. Could be. My French is the level of a 13 y.o. You, however, seemed to agree that my comprehension of what Sarko actually stated was correct.

[Terry]

Ros:

Sorry, I missed your first comment. I said France, for the most part, didn't wage war on the U.S. during WWII. During the 1942 invasion of North Africa, French forces fired on American landing craft. Your navy sortied with a battleship, cruisers and destroyers to try to kill American soldiers landing. Your battleship (Jean Bart), four destroyers and 4 or 5 submarines were destroyed. Opposition lasted for three days and many Americans were killed. Do they skip WWII in French history classes?

[Terry]

3rd Column:

Conquer simply means to subdue by military force. That is precisely what allies did in France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc. My other remarks were sarcasm directed to an inane comment by Dominique.

As to your American brother in law, I do not share his opinion that we suffered the most. We lost 400K thousand soldiers. Britain, a smaller country, lost over 300K soldiers. It is hard for me to cry for Russians, who as you will remember, signed a treaty with Hitler and invaded the other half of Poland. The chinese suffered greatly too. However, not one American should have died. This was Europe's war. After WWI, France (and Lloyd George) insisted on war reparations and other humiliations that created the climate for Hitler to rise. We had to clean up your mess and too many Americans died doing it.

It's still a debate who won WWII. The war started over Poland being invaded and occupied by Germans. The war ended with Poland being occupied and controlled by the Russians. We, and our anglo saxon allies, destroyed nazi socialism only to see Europe move to socialism.

Perhaps, next time we should skip that party.

[Dominique]

Terry,

You always blame France for the Vichy regime and it's acts, just like if France was responsible for the german invasion. Should'nt France have declared war in 1939 to Germany, therefore taking the risk of loosing? Maybe France should habe waited Pearl Harbour in 1941...

[Valentin]

Terry said :

"What about Italy? What about Japan? Is Sarko's memory that short. ... You, however, seemed to agree that my comprehension of what Sarko actually stated was correct."

The idea is that Italy and Japan, and even Germany, were under dictatures themselves and they felt liberated afterwards so they didn’t resist the Allied occupation. It wasn’t even an occupation for real, and the military bases are seen as friendly force contributing to Europe’s security.

This is not the case with Iraqis though, even if the situation is similar - they started seeing US as an occupation force.

"We had to clean up your mess and too many Americans died doing it."

This is putting it simplistically. It’s part of that american style of reply that looks more like a retaliation, that I was accusing the other day.
Well no, sorry, the US was so totally against the war that they waited for Pearl Harbour to move against Japan (huge mistake) and they attacked Germany only because of fear of what would happen if Hitler became the Master of all Europe, UK included.
That’s all, no brotherly feeling involved and not much altruism either, let’s be realistic.

In the process, of course, Western Europe got liberated and we are much indebt to the US.
But if we speak about the eastern part of Europe, the way US dealt with Stalin and cut it all in half, trading whole countries like cheese at the market... Yalta is one of the most cynical and horrible treaties ever, and US was all behind it, because all they cared about was to keep Greece and Turkey.

So it’s advisable to keep cool and not get too hot on the US role during and after the WW2.

Dominique: