What Sarkozy Loss Really Means for America

Breitbart.com ^ | May 6, 2012 | Joel B. Pollak

[Kaslin]

The mainstream media will attempt to spin French President Nicholas Sarkozy's loss today to Socialist challenger François Hollande as a rejection of "austerity" policies--and to urge American voters to reject the deficit-cutting politics of the Tea Party when we go to the polls in November. In fact, there are important lessons from France--and they are the precise opposite of what the media is telling us.

First, to call Sarkozy's policies "austerity" is to insult both austerity and socialism. The French government--like other European governments--sought to close its budget gap primarily by raising taxes, not by cutting the size and cost of government. Neither Sarkozy nor Hollande had the courage to confront the basic, failed structure of France's welfare-state economy, which is the fundamental cause of its budget problems.

Insofar as French politicians have relied on tax increases as the key to deficit reduction, that is far closer to the policy of U.S. President Barack Obama and his Democrats than to the approach of the Tea Party and the Republicans. Even so, American media commentators like Joan Walsh and Paul Krugman are blaming Congress and "austerity" for slow economic growth--though federal spending keeps growing.

[RFEngineer]

I’m not as pessimistic as you.

I don’t think we are any more or less moral than we’ve ever been.

The point that we’ve got official government positions that are generally hostile to Christianity is a good one though - but that is a symptom of big government as much as it is anti-Christianity....in my opinion.

Successfully kill big gov’t, and Christianity and it’s characteristic charity will grow and thrive.

In other words, stick (or return) to Constitutional principles and Faith will fill the void that was never really filled by big gov’t.

[MikeSteelBe]

“Which could end up with a second American revolution.”

Well, another phoney, fradulent “election” will fix nothing in this country.

If enough people can wake up and realized we are bieng ruled by one republicrat oligarchy party with two faces, then things might change.

If we end up in another civil war, then the side fighting for states rights will be the right side this time around.

[chris37]

You have a good point.

What worries me though is that the left, as a result of taking control of the institutions of education, media, and entertainment, are manufacturing horde members at an extremely alarming rate.

Those of us raised in a better time will simply die of old age and other natural causes, and our void will be filled with their drones.

We may well be on the other side of that curve already. I suspect that we have at least two, but possibly three generations of Americans that are lost, their heads have been filled with poison.

[cornfedcowboy]

It simply means that France is driving just a little bit faster towards the edge of the cliff.

[af_vet_rr]

What I’m saying is that we now live in an amoral country, and the reason for that is because Christ has been systematically removed from our country.

Says a lot about the country if Romney gets the nomination. That will mean the Democrats and Republicans will both be running candidates with a track record of supporting abortion and homosexual "marriage".

I went with a friend to a smaller church in our area yesterday, and afterward as we were all eating, the topic of Romney came up, and many said they were not going to support him no matter what. I was very pleased that so many pro-lifers are willing to stick to their guns on this issue and saw right through his "pro-life conversion" that just so happened to coincide with his decision to look at running for President. Quite a few had religious problems with Romney over his being a Mormon, but his support of abortion was what lost him that crowd.

Some good may come out of a Romney nomination. Not much, but some - it's making people re-examine whether they are truly pro-life or just say they are. The GOP maybe able to nominate a pro-abortion candidate this time around, but they'll lose with Romney, and I think they will have to rethink supporting a pro-abortion candidate in 2016.

They pushed us pretty far with McCain, and coming back with somebody even more liberal than McCain is going just too far.

[yield 2 the right]

It means we are so screwed.....

[chris37]

I agree that Romney is an awful candidate.

The problem is that none of the conservative candidates could even come remotely close to defeating him, which shows how poor they were, and it shows just how shallow the pool of talent is for the GOP.

The GOP has zero leadership, and much as I hate to say this, American consrvatives have even less.

We got serious problems on our side.

[eyedigress]

America is following the weakest link to the drain. France, You Suck, and you KNOW IT!

[usconservative]

Almost sounds like the conversation Mrs. USC and I had yesterday on this topic. Couldn’t agree more with the analysis in the article.

[af_vet_rr]

I agree that Romney is an awful candidate.

The problem is that none of the conservative candidates could even come remotely close to defeating him, which shows how poor they were, and it shows just how shallow the pool of talent is for the GOP.

The GOP has zero leadership, and much as I hate to say this, American consrvatives have even less.

We got serious problems on our side.

As long as we as individuals stick to our morals, and don't support the RINOs the GOP tries to shove down our throats, the problem is not with us.

I would go so far as to say the GOP is not "our side" at this point, not if they are willing to nominate a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, pro-socialism candidate by the name of Romney.

The fact that Romney should be running as a Democrat since he's got a better liberal record than many Democrats sums up the problem nicely - we don't have two major parties, we have one major party and the members get to pick one of two labels.