Thursday, January 25, 2007

Royal Gaffe Disconcerting For Canadians

Easy there, all you paparazzi lovers. It's not the Royal Family we are talking about here. It's Ségolène Royal, the Socialist Party candidate for the French Presidency. It seems she has become quite the lightening rod. And with her growing list of faux pas, she has certainly reinforced that image.

Who could forget that she is the one that cozied up to a Hezbollah representative, a clearly recognized terror organization?

But now, she is at it again. Super Frenchie covered this yesterday, so he gets the hat tip. But it is this article, in the IHT, that I am referencing for this post.

PARIS: Ségolène Royal, the Socialist Party's presidential candidate, found herself embroiled Tuesday in an embarrassing new foreign policy dispute, denting her hopes of getting her campaign on track and catching up with her chief rival, Nicolas Sarkozy.

"Experience tells us that it is highly inappropriate for a foreign leader to interfere in the democratic affairs of another country," the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, said after hearing of Royal's statements.


Reading the election threads I linked to earlier and analyzing the other criticisms to be found (as you read the coverage), one cannot help but notice, Ms. Royal is proving to be a poor choice for the Socialists. In fact, it's close to being downright, embarrassing. One wonders some things in all of this and I cannot help from sharing.

Those that wanted her to be nominated, seemingly should have known her better, wouldn't you say? She didn't just arrive on the their scene, they should have known that she was prone to these kinds of things. Yet, one has to ask if they did and if so, why did they put her out there for the wolves to devour, knowing that she could screw it up?

I ask these things to get at something here, because I really would hate to think that they did it for the specific purpose of gaining the sex-appeal effect. All right, enough sarcasm, let's be real here. They had to know that this lady was incapable of handling these kinds of situations. Yet, they sent her up anyway. Why else would they try such a thing? You cannot convince me that there were no other highly experienced and skilled Socialist Party politicians that could handle this campaign, better.

But that's not the half of it. There are those that will support her until the final hurrah, if necessary. And frankly, it is surprising that in a nation that has long touted itself as an intelligent and reasoned society, a major party would nominate someone just because she was a pretty face.

I have said before and I will say again, I am not French and cannot vote. But if I were, I'd have be seriously looking at crossing Ms. Royal off of my list. From what I can gauge in all of this, others are too.

6 comments:

Greg said...

I wouldn't vote for her either, but for a more specific reason. Her website indicates she thinks the US is the main obstacle to peace in the world (although not in those exact words), and France should team up with Europe to "counterbalance" the "hyper-power." Her opponent has made clear he seeks cooperation with the US. On the one issue in the French election that matters to me, I find Segolene highly disappointing and Sarko very promising.

My wife, who is French, is convinced that a woman can't win the Presidential election and that Sarko is a shoe-in. I disagree, and I feel that Sarko's pro-American image is a serious negative, akin to an American candidate professing a love for all things French, eg. I feel this way even after the latest gaffe by Sego.

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//I feel that Sarko's pro-American image is a serious negative, akin to an American candidate professing a love for all things French//

With the history both the US and France share as allies, one wonders how this friendship has devolved to this passive-aggressive level.

Greg said...

It's a bit of a myth that the rift b/w the US and France is new.

From the time Adams and Franklin went to Paris to secure funding and recognition for the new nation, the Americans have decried the French arrogance and lack of morality and trustworthiness; and the French have turned up their noses at the simple and unsophisticated nature of the too-big-for-their-britches Americans.

It's annoying and immature. I don't like it. But it's always been this way....

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//It's a bit of a myth that the rift b/w the US and France is new.//

True enough. But even when Mitterand was president, I don't think it was this bad. Just the usual sniping here and there. The French have always had an attitude towards the US, but there have been times that both needed each other, badly. They pulled together and worked through the differences, for the good of boht nations. I would say that it has been exacerbated by the difference in Iraq.

JPH said...

Greg "From the time Adams and Franklin went to Paris to secure funding and recognition for the new nation, the Americans have decried the French arrogance and lack of morality and trustworthiness." You are right Greg, but it was true from Aristocrats coming from some province to Versailles too, imagine two guys coming from err where ?.. America ? where is that ?
LA, life woul be very annoying and boring with no fat americans bashing the frogland and vice versa! More important , we agree on more vital issue.

JPH said...

I wrote " fat american" and I apologize it was ( like would say Royal)a " gaffitude" !