Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
You're right, it's a strange comparison. I don't see which Repug possible could "do a Sarkozy".

Chirac was stupid with Sarko. He should have offered him the PM's job in 2002, take it or leave it. If Sarko had backed off (Prime Minister is a great preparation for losing in France, ask Lionel Jospin or Dominique de Villepin), Chirac could have sent him out into the wilderness, and Sarko would have looked wimpish. Then he would have had a job becoming head of the UMP (a major condition for winning in 2007). Instead, he let him play a double game as N° 2 in the government while posing as a rebel, which still allows him to get away with not being accountable for the last five years in government. Meanwhile, Chirac did very dumb things to counter Sarko, like the Clearstream smear campaign that backfired on him (and on Villepin, oh dear...) One might almost conclude that Chirac played it so badly he made Sarko president. Er, so Newt's saying Bush is as useless as Chirac??

Newt's "logic" could also be taken to mean that Chirac was (of course) a dangerous socialist disguised as a rightie, while Sarko is the Real Right™.

Now, let's see: America needs a Real Right™ candidate because Bush and Cheney...

Oh well, that's neat.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 28th, 2007 at 09:20:11 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series