Reaction to Sarkozy Victory

There's no shortage of reaction to Sarkozy's victory in the French presidential race.

The Telegraph says the victory for Sarkozy is a victory for France. 

Socialists are looking for someone or something to blame other than their own failed policies.

John Fund refers to Sarkozy as L'Adulte, and notes a hopeful pattern in Europe:

With the victory last year of Angela Merkel, the pro-U.S. leader of Germany, and the impending changeover in power in Britain from pro-American Tony Blair to equally pro-American Labor leader Gordon Brown, there is also at least a chance that Europe will begin to address its problems straight on and avoid needless scapegoating of the U.S. With Mr. Sarkozy's victory, France's government looks like it will finally have some energetic adult supervision.

As a reminder of why adult supervision is indeed called for, Taliban terrorists seem to think they're still in a position to dictate terms to France in Afghanistan.

As usual, the forces opposed to Sarkozy and in favor of ruin are already seeking to attain through violence what they could not achieve at the ballot box.

Despite the terrorists, thugs and socialists, France finally has a chance.  But the French can't just sit back and expect Sarkozy to do all the heavy lifting.  Day by day, the French will need to choose economic freedom instead of socialism and security instead of excessive political correctness.  France will have to make better choices not just in one presidential election, but again and again.   

Comments

[Steve]

Nice to see that Royal's politics of fear didn't win out in the end...

[Stephen McCrimmon]

"Socialists are looking for someone or something to blame other than their own failed policies."

Uhhh, just to insert some reality here - Sarkozy is replacing a President _of his own party_, the UMP... and in fact the right-wing UMP has been largely running the government in France for more than a decade now.

Gawd.

[Sirkowski]

Sarkozy said it is imperative that America reckognize the threat of Global Warming. What will Bush do about that since Global Warming is supposed to be a myth?

[Cassandra]

If parliamentary elections in a few months result in a cohabitation with the socialists it'll be years of stagnation and things going nowhere fast.

[Steve]

"What will Bush do about that since Global Warming is supposed to be a myth?"

The only "myth" here is your ridiculous question. The debate is over the CAUSE of the warming, not the warming itself.

Repeat a lie often enough and you begin to actually believe it...

[DemocracyRules]

"Socialists are looking for someone or something to blame other than their own failed policies."

Yes, Socialists shared power with Chirac, but most of the strong Socialist initiatives in the last 12 years have come from, well, the Socialists (eg 35 hour work week).

Global warming is not a slam dunk. Many climate scientists now doubt that significant warming is occurring. Surface temperature measurements are now suspect, as are NASA's space measurements.

Sea level changes, the last resort, now look dicey, too. The Sea level is actually DROPPING steadily in many places in Canada. This is caused by 'rebound', where the Northern Hemisphere was pushed down into the earth by the massive weight of the ice age. It's taking thousands of years to rebound, now rising roughly a foot per century. While Canada's northland rises out of the sea, it's hard to measure any sea level changes caused by 'warming'. Russia must be doing the same thing.