**UPDATE AT 2PM EASTERN** — French newspaper LeMonde declares Sarkozy the winner in a landslide**
Sarkozy’s margin was only 4%�shy of Ronald Reagan’s massive�popular vote/electoral landslide of 1984 in the United States.� This is truly a�new day for the French Republic!� First, Germany elects a conservative Chancellor (post-�and now France a conservative President (post-Chirac).� Perhaps the�Western democracies’�fight against Islamic extremism has turned an important political corner today. I’m going to enjoy a nice glass of French wine this evening!
*********�
Just heard via FoxNews that Nicolas Sarkozy has won the French presidential election with about 53-54% of the vote. This represents a real shift in European poltics. And yet another defeat of an anti-Bush candidate in a foreign land. On Fox, I heard that he won even though his opponents labeled him “Sarkozy the American.” I also recall he was accused of being a clone of our much-maligned President. That notwithstanding, he won by a comfortable margin.
I hope to blog more on this anon, but have a busy day ahead of me.
**UPDATE BY GAYPATRIOT AT 1:45PM** — Excellent liveblogging on the expected Sarkozy win is going on at No Pasaran.� Official results on the French Presidential election will be released in less than 15 minutes.
Turnout is extraordinarily high.
In a hotly contested poll, nearly 75% of voters had cast their ballots by late afternoon – the highest turnout at that point in more than 30 years.
-Dan (GayPatriotWest) and Bruce (GayPatriot)
UP-UPDATE (from GPW): Over at Back Talk, a “professor at a major research university” notes that in the past 3 years, six of the seven “advanced industrialized Nations of the world (i.e., the G7)” have elected governments which support the American war on terror, rejecting anti-Bush candidates and governments and observes:
If America’s standing really were so low, presidential candidates should be able ride anti-Americanism to victory. This should be especially true in France and Germany — the two most anti-American states in Western Europe (according to popularity polls, anyway).Â
(Via Instapundit which features a picture of a woman holding a poster calling France’s incumbent President (Chirac) a “worm”). Now just read the whole thing!
Vive Sarkozy! Un gran homme pour le republique!
Regards,
Peter H.
How did Fox get this information? The polls haven’t even closed in France yet, and there’s a strict news blackout on results until 8pm European time, which is 2 hours from now.
(I’m not in denial about Sarkozy’s victory or anything, and I wish him the best of luck — I’m just wondering how FoxNews got this result sp early.)
#2 – Fox News broke the story based upon exit poll projections, early polling results from yesterday from the French territories, and the voter turnout statistics.
Amusingly, Greg Palkot of Fox News in Paris said of Segoline Royal’s attempt to become the first woman president of France – “Hillary Clinton, take note.” As well she should, since most French analysts thought that Madame Royal’s “shrillness” during the debate swung the election firmly in Sarkozy’s favor.
Of course, Madame Royal is predicting “violence in the streets” in case of a (certain) Sarkozy win. Typical leftists – acting like children when they don’t get their way…
I for one am now breaking my self-imposed boycott of French champagne and will open a bottle of Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin once the official word comes through.
Regards,
Peter H.
I’m glad that Royal’s tactic of fear failed. To say to the French people at the last minute, vote for me, or else there will be more riots in the streets is disgraceful.
I know we tend to lump all the French together as “cheese eating surrender monkeys”, but it’s good to see, when the chips are down – the French display the common sense they have showed in so many other endeavors in life.
“vote for me, or else there will be more riots in the streets”
As opposed to the official GOP slogan for the past 3 elections, and the next one too, which is “vote for us or else you’ll die.”
I’m cautiously optimistic re. Sarkozy. He’s certainly no capitalist, but if this does represent the beginnings of a sea change in attitude, I more than welcome it. This is remarkable considering, as has been mentioned, the smear of G.W. Bush and the United States, yet all the more so considering Tony Blair’s difficulties (and successes), the European politician most likened to and associated with our President.
Now, if Sarkozy can being by doing something about those rioters that, in their violence, helped get him elected…
Sorry. The above should state “…if Sarkozy can begin by doing…”
Oui! Oui! Oui! Now France has a chance (hey, that rhymes) 🙂
Now I can resume eating French cheese & drinking French wine.
C’est si bon!
[This commenter has been banned — under a variety of names — for repeatedly violating community terms of conduct.]
By an uncanny coincidence, 53.5% was also the approximate size of the Democratic landslide in November. 🙂
It’s worth noting what the Royal (the Socialist’s) policy platform was:
1. An increase in the minimum wage
2. Increased regulation to combat “Global Warming”
3. Punitive measures against corporate executives who were “disproportionately compensated.”
4. Increased welfare subsidies
4. Expanded educational spending, especially in subsidies for college students
Sound familiar much?
That’s the pantywaist lib translation of “vote for us because the pantywaist libs can’t/won’t protect you.
As opposed to the libs fear tactics of vote for us or Bush will reinstitute the draft, take away your Socialist Stupidity, drag black men to their death, burn black churches, etc.
You call a razor thin majority to the point where they can’t legislate, so they’ll investigate a “landslide”?
By the way, vaara, since the election was about picking up House & Senate seats, where do you get your 53.5% approximation?
Much as I think the GOP got what was coming to them in November, some facts bear noting:
1. Turnout in 2006 was less than 35%
2. Several GOP districts flipped on razor thin margins.
Sarko won. Brace yourselves for violence and horror. He will kill us all. He will burn our houses. He will make us eat cheese with foul odor. I´m gonna get myself a cold one. Vive la France!
I can’t believe he did it, he di it! Such news makes one want to break out into song.
#13 – it’s the aggregate percentage of popular votes received by Democratic House & Senate candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_general_elections,_2006
The Democratic vote was 52% for House races, and 53.8% for the Senate. The total Democratic vote was a bit lower than I said earlier, but not by much.
#17 – Oh, and Wikipedia is a valid source? Please.
You can do better than that, vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaara.
Regards,
Peter H.
While I’m on the subject of liberals who hate America, I was at a local Vietnamese restaurant with Hubby when CNN showed Sarkozy’s win with the caption “French Elect Conservative” (even though Sarkozy represented the same party that Chirac did). One young man sitting at a nearby table glanced at the TV, muttered “Shit!” and slammed the table with his hand.
So obviously he wanted Royal to win. Why is it that liberals identify more with anti-American socialists than pro-American centrists? Do they hate their own country that much?
(Shaking head.) C’est incredible…
Regards,
Peter H.
#19 Peter I had the same thought. Since a conservative, pro American won in France are the world’s worst anti Americans now in the Democrat party?
And by the way. 100 hours have elapsed. As have 100 days. My employees are still waiting for a federal minimum wage increase. People are starving here while Queen Nancy flies all over hell and back. And gasoline prices have never been higher…I recall the Democrats promise they would do something about this misery as well. Lies all lies.
Gene, I think Dan posted a relevant observation regarding the reason why in the past 3 years, six of the seven “advanced industrialized Nations of the world (i.e., the G7)” have elected governments which support the American war on terror, rejecting anti-Bush candidates and governments.
Of course, Fox News is now reporting that the anti-Sarkozy thugs are now starting to torch cars in and around Paris. Wonder if the “voter fraud” refrain will be played by the losers as well?
Regards,
Peter H.
#1 Constitutional scholar:
Bzzzzzt. Mon Dieu, two errors in six words. I guess I’ll have to add “French scholar” to your appellation. LOL!
Are you kidding? The libs passed the legislation to pacify their union masters and are now focusing on their tort lawyer masters.
Typical libtard reaction – when you can’t win an argument or an election, you snivel about spelling/grammar/punctuation.
Of course, it just proves that libtards have this snobbish attitude towards others that underline their own “shortcomings.”
Regards,
Peter H.
They did it to pacify the American people.
I don’t see what the big deal is. The French elected Chirac who is conservative and now they have elected Sarkozy who is also conservative.
#18 – The Wikipedia article clearly cites its (multiple) sources. Anyway, those numbers are fairly easy to verify.
If you have alternate numbers demonstrating that the U.S. popular vote in 2006 did not constitute a Democratic landslide on a par with the 53.06%* vote total that Sarkozy received today, please share them.
* per lci.fr just now
#23 – actually I counted 3 errors. 🙂
Call me cynical, but I think 53% of an 85.5% voter turnout is more of a mandate than 53% of a 35% voter turnout, particularly when the results in the latter are skewed by Democrats in large states like New York and California who ran with no real opposition.
#30 – anything over 50% is a “mandate.”
But your other point — that U.S. voter turnout is pathetically low — is a very valid one indeed.
Now that a more reasonable pro American government is in power in France, I think we’ll plan a 2 week vacation. Better than spending my hard earned money in a blue state, socialist, anti American enclave here.
I really don’t get the conservative obsession with Muslims. I’m almost totally baffled by the righties fear of Muslims and Islam. I’m also baffled by the implied belief there were VAST LEGIONS of Muslims that was just seconds away from taking over all of France should Royal been chosen.
Are you righties that frickin’ paranoid? Geez, you guys are scary.
Not too long ago, righties were spitting in France’s eye and calling them frogs and now they are practically kissing French ass. What’s the deal?
The French voted for Sarko not because he is conservative (dream on you right-wing nut jobs!), but that he actually had a viable plan. They’ll turn on Sarko quickly enough if he can’t pass this ‘mandate’ they people gave him.
1. It’s not Islam, it’s Islamists.
2. It might have something to do with Islamist whackjobs threatening to kill 200,000 to 300,000 Americans, while other Islamist whackjobs vow to wipe America and Israel off the map while working feverishly to acquire nukes.
Just exactly how long were you deprived of oxygen at birth?
By the way, the peaceful Muslims and their leftist allies in France are already rioting and torching cars because the election didn’t go their way.
#29:
Heh-heh. Well, I don’t speak French although I took it in high school in the 1960’s. Even so, the two errors I noticed were glaring nearly 40 years after my last French class. I don’t normally tweak someone for typos but the original commenter is so pompous and full of himself that I couldn’t resist. 😉
don’t you repugs hate france? freedom fries and all… so, why bother threading on it?
#19 (Peter): the liberal agenda is “America is evil”. If there exists a group of self-hating people, it is western leftists.
Pym Fortun was a professor of literature and gay and he was labeled as a conservative just as Sarkozy is.
His heresy, (which he paid for with his life) was to question the mass influx of individuals who, among other things, regard the killing of gays as a religious duty.
The high turnout of French voters is a good sign. Hopefully, Europeans are beginning to see the the runaway truck headed their way. I just hope it’s not too late.
I’d like to think that Royal’s warnings of street violence prompted a “kiss my ass” reaction among French voters.
I wonder who she thought would riot: her supporters? Or Muslim “youths”?
Which is precisely why people like you have no business running our country. We d0n’t need 9/10 liberals who ignore getting shived by our “allies” to protect their Oil For Fools kickbacks. And we sure as hell don’t need anymore Clintonistas willing to bend over and lube up to keep our “allies” happy.
If you don’t get it, you sure as hell never will and may crawl back under your rock.
Believe it or not, my limey looney friend, I never took formal lessons in French. So snivel all you want at my “pompousness,” but the fact remains that (a) I learned French by rote and (b) I never claimed to be a graduate of L’alliance Francaise.
My experience in learning French was and is through listening and conversations, not by reading or writing. So quit acting like you’ve got a pile of merde between your ears.
Oh, wait…you do. Pardonnez moi.
Regards,
Peter H.
#38 – Robert, you are correct. Pim Fortuyn, had he lived, would have been the first openly gay prime minister of the Netherlands in all probability. Yet there are no HRC-ers who celebrate his life and accomplishments. They’d rather wallow in self-pity and canonize Matthew Shepard as their patron saint.
Regards,
Peter H.
#40:
Oh, I believe it, trust me. LOL! BTW, forgive me but I must correct three more of your errors: I’m not limey, nor looney not your friend.
If Pete had said pompous ass, he’d been spot on.
Mark Steyn is also skeptical of Sarkozy’s conservative bona fides.
Money quote: In an advanced technocratic state, where almost any issue worth talking about has been ruled beyond the scope of partisan politics, you might as well throw away terms like “left” and “right.”
OK, maybe this part is better:
The unions in Michigan work the same way.
Don’t forget it was a radical leftist that killed Pym. Not any immigrant. Some Leftists would rather kill a fellow citizen than allow them to defend thier own country against enemies. Some Leftists will settle for simple mocking and insulting of their fellow citizens’ efforts. One thing they will never do is actually join in to help thier fellow citizens.
#43 – TGC, the term “pompous ass” would have been too good for IgnoAndNaus. Although quite an apt description, now that you mention it.
“Limey” was a good adjective, since IgnoAndNaus reminds me a lot of uptight Brits as depicted on BBC America. And that’s just on the news programme for starters…
Besides, with “friends” like him, who needs terrorists? 😉
Getting back to the topic at hand, you have to know that Sarkozy must be a really good choice for France since even the NYT has taken potshots at him so quickly.
If “Sarkozy Derangement Syndrome” is any indication, this guy must be the second coming of Charles de Gaulle!
I’m still waiting for the “voters were disenfranchised and not all the votes were counted” sob story from the losers on the left.
Poor lefties – first Germany, then Canada and now France has elected pro-US leaders. If it hadn’t been for the Spanish chickening out, we’d have pulled the superfecta.
Regards,
Peter H.
#46:
I notice you don’t claim they’re “pro-Bush.” I certainly don’t see any of these conservative leaders rushing to support Bush in his foreign policy disasters. Neither are these conservative all that conservative in comparison to leaders in this country. Indeed, many of them have positions too far left for even the Dems to embrace. Even Sarkozy is a strong supporter of Kyoto and has stated that he will end France’s deployment of troops in Afghanistan.
Having pro-US leaders among our allies is a good thing because when a Democrat is elected President in 2008, he/she will then have great support once again around the world as the US goes back to being a respected leader instead of a detested bully.
Of course, Ian, the Democrat Party was saying that we should be listening to the previous ANTI-American leaders — many of whom were receiving large bribes of cash and oil from Saddam — in determining our foreign policy.
I’m sure several governments would like to see a Democrat in power again in 2008, given that it would once again render the United States the way they prefer us — as a giant with an IQ of 50, an unlimited trust fund, and a willingness to do anything they want regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
This is why I consider Of Mice and Men to be such a good allegory of the relationship between Europeans and the Democrat Party.
Quick math lesson for all the math-challenged lower-casers I see above.
53% margin x 35% turnout = 18% of registered voters wanted the Democrats in 2006.
51% margin x 60% turnout = 30% of registered voters wanted Bush in 2004.
53% margin x 85% turnout = 45% of registered voters wanted Sarkozy in 2007.
So Bush’s 2004 support was approximately 1 and 2/3 times the Democrats’ 2006 support. (And that was a high water mark for the Dems, as their poll ratings are now largely lower than Bush’s.)
And Sarkozy’s 2007 support was approximately 2 and 1/2 times the Democrats’ 2006 support.
But I agree Sarkozy is no conservative. Only America’s fevered liberal media could, upon noticing Sarkozy is a tiny shade less anti-American than themselves, figure he must be “conservative”.
“I certainly don’t see any of these conservative leaders rushing to support Bush in his foreign policy disasters.”
BZZZZT – wrong again, Limey. Sarkozy not only responded to the charges against him by his opponets that he was “Bush’s French poodle,” but he even traveled to Washington during his campaign for a warm, enthusiastic meeting with President Bush. Upon returning home, he spoke against “reflexive anti-Americanism” by his countrymen.
After the Bush White House meeting, aides reported that no world leader since Japan’s ex-PM Junichiro Koizumi had impressed the President more, or hit it off as well with him. In fact, according to “Le Figaro,” Bush became one of the first world leaders to phone his congratulations to his new best friend. In his victory statement, Sarkozy even mentioned friendship with the U.S. and promised to “stand beside” America in the struggle against Islamic terrorism.
By the way: in addition to pledging a much closer French-US relationship, Sarkozy also promised much stronger French support for Israel. Quite a contrast to Socialist Segolene Royal, whose clumsy visit to the Middle East left French voters confused about her policy priorities.
Actually, the confusion was what all her supporters (read: Islamic fundamentalist militants) would think about her dealings with the Middle East and Israel’s place in it. (Gee, this sounds dampeningly familiar. Calling Air Pelosi…)
And if anything, Limey, Sarkozy’s victory illustrates that the leftist conviction that “the whole world hates us” is obviously exaggerated. Not as if we needed the world’s approval or anything, but it is nice not to have “allies” stabbing us in the back.
Ten days until Chirac is gone…I just can’t wait for that piece of merde to be swept out of the Elysees.
Regards,
Peter H.
No, wrongalwayswrong. Only terrorist murderers, and their supporters / excusers / abettors. Don’t you?
V the K
How long have you been brain-damaged yourself?
Conservative?
I would’ve voted for Sarkozy.
Anyone construing France’s Presidential election through the guise of foreign affairs didn’t follow the race very closely. It was all about the French economy, which clearly needs some capitalistic intervention. Segolene Royal had no tangible economic policy and simply wasn’t ready for primetime. She once even suggesting that the province of Quebec “deserved” independence.
Please.
Sarkozy and the next American President should get along famously. Clearly, Europe is open for business.
Also, Sarkozy supported a slimed down EU Constitution, while Royal did not. Sarkozy has already negotiated with Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown in regard to the EU Constititution and has advocated for its passage. With the evermore dominant role of the EU in European affairs, it’s absolutely essential that they ratify a new governing document…. and soon.
Furthering European integration is vitally important. It will be the defining issue of 21st Century Europe. On that issue, and others, the Socialists were wrong.
Very good points, Chase. A lot of people had forgotten that Chirac’s intervention in the EU constitutional ratification led to France voting it down in a plebescite. With Sarkozy’s election, Europe will soon indeed be “open for business.”
Also, you are spot-on with respect to the inept campaign that Madame Royal ran. Basically, Sarkozy had a plan and she kept saying “it won’t work,” without offering viable alternatives.
(Gee, that sounds awfully familiar….)
Needless to say, France voted overwhelmingly for a change and we should respect their opinion. Unless, of course, you work for the NY Times and print something akin to “how could so many sophisticated French people be so stupid?” on your front page.
Like most snobs, the MSM see Paris as the “only” representative of the French body politic, and the rest of the country (with maybe the exception of the Cote d’Azure) as “flyover country.” Typical.
Regards,
Peter H.
Actually, from what I read, the Socialists in France usually do well in rural areas. The industrialized areas were Sarkozy’s strength. That is in contrast to here in the United States. Of course, European elections aren’t fought much on social issues and that may be cause for the rural/urban flip in the United States.
France would do well to follow the model of Great Britain. In fact, America would do well to follow the model of Great Britian. The British have a pro-business economy with strong growth rates, yet have socialized medicine and welfare programs too. They’ve settled on the important social questions, having established civil partnerships for gay couples and abolished the death penalty. They’ve also maintained a strong national defense. To top it off, they have that sassy Queen! Nice hat she had on at the Derby…
Well, Chase, you had me up until the very end…
Socialized medicine would never work in the USA. If we can’t depend upon the government to deliver mail without screwing it up, or running the VA hospital without any problems, what do you think nationalizing 1/6th of our GDP would do?
As far as the death penalty goes, a lot of people don’t want to admit the truth – it is a better deterrent against crime than anything else around.
I have no problems with civil unions as long as it is not something that is shoved down my throat and wastes my tax dollars. If you live in a state that decides via state constitutional amendment to allow civil unions, goody for you.
As far as the Queen goes…well, we have too many of them around here to begin with. And like Elizabeth, some of them don’t know how to dress.
Nice try.
Regards,
Peter H.
Oh, I wasn’t saying I wanted a Queen, haha. That’s not in our DNA! That’s their thing. It’s just been interesting to watch her visit, since she is such a large historical figure.
As for the socialized medicine bit, I don’t advocate a completely socialized system, but some sort of reform that would bring the (50?) million uninsured under some sort of coverage. Admittedly, I have no idea how that would be accomplished.
On a contrary note, our health care system could be improved also through more participation by big business. We need more minute clinics, as there is no reason to have to pay a big doctor’s bill simply to go get an anti-biotic when you already know you have strep throat! I think there is a real need for a company that provides a service like that.
And one last note… Was not the French presidential campaign the ultimate GQ election?!! Those were some fashionable, gooooood looking candidates.
They both were very easy on the eyes.
The British have a pro-business economy with strong growth rates, yet have socialized medicine and welfare programs too.
Mhm — which is why my biggest recruiting tool for Europe is the fact that we provide health care and retirement plans that allow people to be independent of government-provided care.
What Chase, as is typical of Democrats, also leaves out is the effect of contingency fee contracts — that is, when a plaintiff pays a lawyer a percentage of the judgment if they win or settlement, and nothing in the event of a loss. With those, plaintiffs really have nothing to lose by bringing a lawsuit, since they’ll always get something, and lawyers are encouraged to bring lawsuits, since more often healthcare providers will settle rather than run up massive legal bills and the risk of a judgment going against them.
Those contracts are ubiquitous in the United States; however, they are banned or severely restricted in almost every other country as champerty or as bad legal practice, including the UK, because they encourage people to file lawsuits unnecessarily and they make it too easy for trial lawyers to harass companies and extort money from them.
But the reason Chase and the Democrats won’t tell you that is because it would open questions about the effects on healthcare costs of the lawsuits repeatedly and regularly filed by their trial-lawyer masters like John Edwards.
We need more minute clinics, as there is no reason to have to pay a big doctor’s bill simply to go get an anti-biotic when you already know you have strep throat!
Ah, but you see, Chase, it doesn’t work that way.
The reason doctors have a “big bill” is because it costs them money to take throat cultures, spend office time, do analysis, repeat tests, and verify with absolute certainty that a) you have strep throat and b) that the antibiotic will work against it.
That’s because, when Johnnie Edwards hits them with a subpoena because his “poor patient” didn’t get well fast enough, the only thing that will save their behind is having double and triple backup and documentation for every portion of their diagnosis, including lab tests, blood tests, and evaluation times.
The British, and the Canadians, for that matter, have health care systems where people can’t get health care when they need it. Hardly models for us to emulate.
Chase-
Unfortunately, America has a self-appointed Queen now. Thy name is Pelosi I.
Well, let’s anticipate Chase a bit, ILC.
First Chase is going to try to argue that people are being deprived of emergency health care — which can be easily countered by pointing out that the biggest cry of hospitals nationwide is their inability to collect on or get reimbursement for emergency care offered.
Second, he’s going to try to argue that providing free medical insurance to everyone would cut costs by reducing the number of emergency-room visits; however, what he couldn’t then explain is why, in a study of emergency-room usage, the people who used the emergency room the most were the ones for whom it didn’t cost anything — those on Medicaid.
And then when he babbles that people on Medicaid have to go to the emergency room because they can’t find doctors who will take Medicaid’s low reimbursement amounts for procedures, we can point out that that is because of government price controls that make it impossible for doctors to meet their costs — just like the ones he and his fellow leftist Democrats want to put on prescription drugs.
And finally, if he tries to drag out “we have to insure the children”, we can point out to him the fact that, despite CHIPS, the last legacy of Hillary Clinton’s attempt at fascist medical care, having been in existence for over a decade, millions of children still remain uninsured — mainly because the setup of the program, since it rewards states for increasing the number of people on it, regardless of whether they’re children or not, vacuums money away from those who need it to those who are using it as ersatz socialized medicine to those making twice or three times the poverty level.
The answer to the giant problems created by socialism is always… more socialism!
Heads, the socialists and “re-distributors” win; tails, all us productive people lose.
North Dallas Thirty, you make good points about the contingency fee contracts. I don’t disagree. And I don’t believe government provided health care should be the dominant force in the market place, as you suggested. I feel government provided health care should be a fall back, some sort of basic coverage to fill in for those left out of the current system.
As far as minute clinics go, I’d support the necessary reform to get them up and running. If that means tort reform? So be it.
Saying I advocate for “socialized medicine” earlier was definitely a poor choice of words. America doesn’t need an entirely new health care system. What I desire is universal coverage, working within the current system. To achieve that, it’s likely both the trial lawyers (Democrats) and medical lobby (Republicans) would need to be curtailed.
But I do believe that big business can play a role. GIVE US CHEAP MINUTE CLINICS!
Cause here is my thinking. If we had minute clinics that were cheap and allowed regular people to pay for basic coverage without insurance, then a lot of people, particularly younger people like myself, would only need to pay for a health insurance policy that would cover emergency care and major surgery.
That is the the sort of system that would be good for me.
I feel government provided health care should be a fall back, some sort of basic coverage to fill in for those left out of the current system.
And we already have that; it’s called “Medicaid”.
Now that that’s handled, go tell Johnnie Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama — all of whom are trial lawyers themselves — that they need to support tort reform, including the end of contingency-fee contracts for lawyers.
Once you bring those folks on board, then we can talk about minute clinics. But as long as your Democrat Party puts the interests of trial lawyers and their big houses and $400 haircuts first, your minute clinics will not exist — nor should they, since no medical practitioner should be forced to risk financial destruction at the hands of rapacious trial lawyers who care only about getting a fat settlement and nothing about efforts to control medical costs.
“Was not the French presidential campaign the ultimate GQ election?!! Those were some fashionable, gooooood looking candidates.”
No argument there, Chase. The female candidate actually wore makeup, shaved under her arms and could actually smile. Who’da thunk it in France this day and age? 😉
Sarkozy is actually part Hungarian, so he’s got some of that continental Gabor-like charm that just exudes through him. Also, given the fact that Chirac looked like he has been embalmed these past few years, Sarkozy is a refreshing change of pace. Kind of reminds me of Blair, almost.
I’d give anything to hear Sarkozy say “dahlink” in that voice.
Regards,
Peter H.
NDT, must everything always be so *&^% partisan? I realize the Democrats have special interests that aren’t in everyone’s best interest. The Republicans do too. I was just enjoying shooting the breeze about the French election. I’m not that interested in arguing about health care.
It’s nice to just agree sometimes and not be like, BUT…
But NDT – Medicaid itself has created a raft of problems over the last 4 decades. Many of the same problems that Hillary and other Democrats propose to “solve” with… more socialism.
I’m not saying how much Medicaid and Medicare contributed to the tort problem, which you rightly highlight as one of the major causes of today’s high costs.
But Medicaid and Medicare have definitely contributed a lot to other aspects of today’s problem with high costs. They have created a situation where government effectively dictates the prices of most medical treatments. In other words: Price controls. Not in name, but in fact. An end to market forces. That’s a huge part of why our medical sector has gotten bloated, inefficient and costly over 4 decades.
And everyone expects a subsidy. Everyone expects their “insurance”, tests and treatments to be taken care of by “someone” – meaning taxpayers – regardless of cost. The more you give people insurance, the more wastefully they run to a doctor at the drop of a hat. That’s another factor behind our 4-decade rise in costs.
Yet, despite all those terrible problems, we still somehow have the best medical system in the world. Why? Because we *haven’t* completely socialized. Because, despite our terrible policies and grievous errors, we still aren’t 100% of the way to the Canadian or British models. Yet today’s Democrats want to take us there. Our medical system still doesn’t suck enough for them. It won’t suck enough for them, until it is completely ruled by government.
last time i looked it wasn’t the best. delusion.
Back on topic, I found it interesting that the reaction to the French elections was focused on the spectre of violence, particularly the 1200 or so in Toulouse who rioted against the national results. These rioters were described as ‘anarchists’, yet they were upset that the Huge Government candidate lost. This only proves that an anarchist is merely a communist dressed as a nihilist. After all, if a nation were to become anarchist, what would happen the very next day? Tyranny.
With exception of the previously mentioned Peru, Panama and Colombia, of course. Oh and anybody else the liberals choose to give the finger to.
Here, in a nutshell, is why socialized health care doesn’t work.
I get a cold. I know it’s a cold, so I buy some OTC medication, tough it out, and feel better in about five days. Cost to health care system: $0.
A certain I know gets a cold, goes to the doctor, gets a prescription for medication, all paid for by Medicaid. Cost to health care system: ~$200.00
See, when people don’t have to pay for their own health care, they’re much more willing to access it even when it’s not necessary. Because it’s free.
Also, under socialized medicine, my responsible behavior (healthy diet, healthy weight, exercise regularly, no smoking, no drinking, no unsafe sex) ends up subsidizing all the obese people, all the smokers, all the lazies, all the drunks, and all the sluts.
How fair is that?
Ian bloviated:
I guess Stephen Harper doesnt count, or the govt of Poland, or the govt of the UK, or the Govt of Australia. or the Govt of Germany
Now we can add the govt of France back on the “friend (to be proven)” list.
That leaves your friends , the Arab world, South American dictatorships, Russia and China as the anti-US block.
Where have you been leftist?
Notice how it “galls” leftists that there might be a “pro American” Government in France?
Hell, the left doesn’t even want a pro-American government in America.
Any ideas on this:
I dont think Congress has the power to “undeclare” war.
They have the power to Declare war.
Now.. in all through history, what has always ended war?
The destruction of the enemy in which case, the war just ends I guess… not too many examples of these in recent history
The surrender (unconditional or not) of the enemy (or ones own side), in which case, the terms of the end of the war were the stuff of Treaties.
Who has the power to make Treaties? The President (with Senate confirming)
Based on that history.. I dont think Congress has the power to unilaterally stand down the country from a war. Yes, they can be treasonous and defund the military.