https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...zy-to-face-trial-over-2012-campaign-financing Gotta love this. His past finally catching up with him, God willing. Meanwhile, the guy who beat him for the nomination as candidate for the "moderate" right, François Fillon, is on the ropes in a fake-jobs scandal regarding his British wife Penelope, and maybe others. What a soap opera. And these losers are supposed to be the Bulwark against a National Front victory in the spring presidential election. I thought Marine Le Pen had a fake-job scandal of her own brewing. But since she simply refuses to acknowledge it, nobody seems to care. The irony is that Fillon himself was fond of saying that polls meant nothing. Well, his troubles have brought France a truly uncallable election.
Seriously? Then why are so many Europeans looking down their noses at the U.S. and getting all sanctimonious?
The FN is, as yet, out of power. Trump is our President. The shame for all right-thinking Americans will possibly never be erased.
As objectionable as I find Le Pen and the FN, I have no doubt they have what they perceive to be the best interests of their country at heart, and would attempt to govern soberly and responsibly. I can't say the same for Trump.
Because LePen has no chance of being elected in France (the latest polls show that either Emanuel Macron or François fillon will come out of the first round, along with Marine LePen, and that either one of them would stomp her in the second round) where America actually elected Trump to the White House. Furthermore, if LePen actually was elected, she would never have a parliamentary majority to go along with her ridiculous ideas, where Trump has a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. As for the National Front "making Trump look almost sane," I dispute that. They seem to be very similar in their programs, and Trump has his temper and his total inability to set up a coherent, long-term governing program as well. I think they are about equally disreputable and equally incapable of governing.
In general, I agree. But I would put two caveats on that: One would be a strong emphasis on the word "attempt." The other is that, unlike the system in the US, the French president is not the head of government, and there does not seem to be any chance of the National Front getting a parliamentary majority and thus having the chance to actually govern.
Trump is there to masturbate his ego and that's it. His emotional instability is worrying in anyone that powerful, but otherwise it's the Zoo he's moving into power and the shit his simple presence is going to unleash on the streets that is really scary. This would be true of the NF as well to the extent that the fascists would feel empowered. It shouldn't be forgotten that France actually had a sort of civil war during WWII and damn near had another one over Algeria. There are nasty forces that an NF president -- no matter how politically feeble and ineffective -- could trigger. Interestingly, both are Putin-friendly. Which ought to put us on our guard.
Fillon sure as hell isn't going to beat her in the second round if he drops out this week, which is a distinct possibility. And if he doesn't ---- he's now weakened. Macron? Yeah, maybe. Who knows. Point is: three months is a long time in French politics, especially in this political season. People might say -- as some said of Thatcher in the late 70s -- let Le Pen win. She'll make a mess of things and the country will be begging to have the others back. But things didn't turn out that way with Thatcher. Possibly the best thing that could happen is that Fillon falls on his sword, Juppé takes his place and -- being the unifying, pragmatic chap he is -- gathers all "republican" forces around him. He's been in some creepy governments, but you could do a lot worse than having Juppé as pres. Of course, this won't happen because of all the competing ambitions.
For Le Pen to win in the second round there would have to be extremely low turn out. I have yet to see anyone claim that will happen not even Le Pen herself.
In your dreams. Fillon answered the so-called "fake-jobs scandal" point by point so well that even Radio-France, French public radio which is only a thinnly disguised propaganda service for the left, admitted that he had pretty much covered it all. What he did was perfectly legal and, at the time, not all that unseemly. (By today's standards, hiring family members as administrative assistants is not considered wise.) As he pointed out, this was all public record, some of these things happened as much as twenty years ago, all the documents are out there, and it has never been a secret that he had hired his wife and, for a time, his kids to help with administrative tasks. Why did it just "happen" to become an issue now, when he is the right's candidate for president, and why did the media continually present it as if allegations were the same thing as convictions? It's nothing more than dirty politics. He and Macron are still far and away the most likely choices for president. LePen and Hamon have no reasonable chance, given France's two-round presidential elections.
You just answered your own question. If it's such bullshit, mighty strange that it's kept people on edge for two weeks. And that a poll this past weekend showed him trailing Macron. Well who knows? I'll be back to stick my tongue out at ya if he drops out.
You really think so? God, I hope you're right. But most of us thought the same about Trump until very shortly before the election.
The difference is that Trump was up against a very weak candidate, detested by the Republicans because she's not only a Democrat but a Clinton as well, and detested by many Democrats because she is such a hawk and so much in Wall Street's pocket. LePen has some serious competition in Macron (who has a lot to offer, actually) and Fillon.
As in the US, the president is the top political grandee and also head of state. So François Hollande is currently pres. The sorry bugger.
Trump first had to beat all his Republican rivals. The point is: predictions seem a risky business these days. You think Macron has a lot to offer. Your opinion. And you think Fillon has saved his political bacon. I'm not (yet) convinced. (By the way, you ask "why not?" I ask: why not in April?) Much more than the US, France has a wackamole political landscape on which all you have to do is be among the top two in the first round. Not necessarily difficult or predictable on a fast-shifting field. And if the other person is Marine Le Pen and you don't have the wherewithal to clobber her in the second round, guess what. We saw Lionel Jospin voting for freaking Chirac fifteen years ago. Things can get mighty strange mighty quickly.
The prime minister. Named by the president, but has to have parliament on his (or her) side, or won't get anything done. When François Mitterand was president and lost his parliamentary majority, he had to name the opposition leader as PM. And that's when we discovered just how little authority the president really has in 5th republic France. He's more than just a figurehead when he doesn't have the PM on his side, but not a huge amount more.
That seems like a fairly odd setup I understand the PM running things in the name of a monarchy, but another elected official? But I guess it works if they've kept with it this long.
Basically, the French concept is that the one who "presides over the government" (hence "president") should be "above" politics. The idea is about like having a king who is elected. (The concept of monarchy is very deepy rooted in the French mentality.) In practice, it doesn't work out that way, when the president has a prime minister from his own party. He can put a lot of pressure on him in various ways in order to have the governement do what he wants, to a great extent. As head of state (which is not the same thing as "head of government," even though in the US they are the same person, so that most Americans think the terms are synonymous), the president has a fair amount to do with foreign policy, even when he doesn't have a PM from his own party.
It works, except when it doesn't. The present set-up is known as the "5th Republic" --- the various "republics" (constitutions) being a succession of set-ups that replaced each other because the old one didn't work properly. Actually, the present one --- with an extremely powerful president --- was tailor-made for a certain Charles de Gaulle. After playing an extremely prominent role in French resistance to German occupation in WWII and ending up French leader, de Gaulle bowed out in 1946. Smart move maybe. But when the country was (once again) on the verge of civil war in 1958 over Algeria, de Gaulle swept back to save the day. And a new "republic" was devised just for him. Only problem: he's been dead for almost half a century now.
This may be splitting hairs --- and it's certainly true that the French president is not formally head of government since the government is formed and led by the person he/she/it appoints as PM --- but the pres nevertheless plays a key role in governing the country. So it's a pretty odd arrangement, with various rivals being in bed with each other over the years (Mitterand as pres, Chirac as his PM, for example). It's a good example, as is the US, of why I think a clear line should be drawn between the head of state (monarch or president -- the latter either appointed or indirectly elected ) and the prime minister, who actually runs government day to day and can be replaced without a major operatic drama à la Nixon.
