For all of you political junkies who obsessively checked the latest poll numbers during last fall’s campaign, here are some numbers you might want to look at, courtesy of Scott Rasmussen:
A solid majority of Americans (57 percent) have an unfavorable view of France, while fewer than a third hold a favorable opinion of that country. Indeed, more Americans see France as an enemy in the War on Terror than an ally (31 percent to 22 percent).
Rasmussen has also begun polling voters on their preferences for the 2008 presidential race. He has found that in a hypothetical matchup between Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice, Clinton leads by a margin of 47 percent to 40 percent. On the other hand, if Rice were running today against John Kerry, she would enjoy an advantage of 45 percent to 43 percent.
It’s unfortunate that just because a country didn’t support a war that another country proposed (under some good, and mostly poor intelligence...) that that country is suddenly "an enemy in the war on terror." I know that as I saw in rural Minnesota there was an effort to put up signs on telephone poles along a rural highway stating, "France: Axis of Evil" there was a sinking feeling in my stomach that Americans were so ready to sell out their support. There is no doubt that America is the best country in the world to live in, but that does not mean that another country should be written off just because they share a different view. I’m sure France never "supported" terror in the way that many Americans think that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. "We helped their a$$ in WW2, so they owe us!" and "What a bunch of pansies" were often heard in the days, months and years after France’s decision to not send troops for an Iraq war. They really shouldn’t "owe" anyone anything. That’s like saying Kuwait owes us for liberating them in ’91, and Iraq owes us for our troop’s heroics in ’04. What ever happened to being gracious winners? We sound more like sore losers if 57% think France is "against us" in the war on terror. If we asked a friend to jump off a bridge with us, it’s ok for them to not follow. In this case there were rocks below and they luckily didn’t jump. Now we need to let them come back to us, pull us out of the water and help get the rocks out of the river. We need to let France help us with our wounds and get terror out in whatever way they see fit.
People are really behind Clinton THAT much? I concede that I am surprised. I really did not think she had that kind of support . . .
Joel Vos:
"We need to let France help us with our wounds and get terror out in whatever way they see fit." In whatever way they see fit? That probably would not be the best option. It seems to me that France (not alone, there are other countries who are the same) would not do a whole lot to attempt to stop terrorism. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that. Its just my opinion. It seems to me that if they really cared that much about ending terrorism, then they might be more vocal about it. Again, I may be wrong.
Hard to imagine Condi running successfully for president when she has no electoral experience. But I think Dick Morris is right that Hillary will be hard to beat and that Condi would bring certain assets to the election. My solution: Rudy for president, Condi for VP.
How about a Hillary/McCain ticket...
Anyone? John McCain as Hillary’s VP?
A novel idea? A sure thing for that gal who wants it so bad she’ll...
They’ve had a lovely time together with the troops lately, haven’’t they? :)
Christopher Stone:
I’m sorry that you have latched on to the idea that France is taking a slacker’s approach to terror. If you look at a recent transcript from the French Minister to the US, you will see that things are changing on the issue specifically with Iraq. France has always been against terror, but has had a harder time with the idea of supporting a war in Iraq before giving the inspectors enough time to look for weapons of mass destruction. (Mind you, Bush admitted, reluctantly, that there were indeed no WMD...oops)
Also, it could be easy to name France as a supporter of terror just because they want immense attention paid to the Russian "gift" of nuclear materials. They want to let Iran have power (other than only oil) and also to have their government know that the world will only allow this if Iran lets people in to watch them while they work.
But, the French support of Syria’s efforts toward "freedom" and "democracy" and getting out of Lebanon. The French want free elections in Lebanon.
The system France is using to fight terror may not be the "smoke ’em outta their holes" American version, but it is an effort to fight terror and monitor global threats of aggression.