2007-06-01 08:33:06 · 4 answers · asked by Robert L 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, there are several.
Royal was a lightweight with no workable policies, who based her ambitious spending programme on a fantastical "estimate" of future French economic growth.
Her proposed programme was a spending wish-list with no overall strategy or direction.
Her campaign showed how little faith she placed in the value of her proposals in that it consisted solely of personal attacks on Sarkozy and saying "I want...." whatever the desire of the day was. She sounded like a 3 year-old playing up.
On the televised debate she showed how little personal control she has. Not the person you want to have sole control of France's nukes.
She hadn't reformed her party from their communist- dinosaur policies or their class-war jealousy. She was just an electable figurehead (or so they thought) for an unelectable party. Her live in lover would have been the backseat driver once in power, much as Cheney has been in the US.
The way in which the socialists have been so graceless in the face of an overwhelming defeat just shows how immature they are.
The question would be better if it read: "Can anyone give me any serious reasons why SR would have made a good president".
2007-06-04 06:15:51 · answer #1 · answered by BOOBOO 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the obvious answer is that the majority of the voting French citizens did not want her to be their president. I'll stick with the obvious.
2007-06-01 08:37:06 · answer #2 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The French are beginning to lean a bit to the right. They're finding out that their system isn't working for them and it's gotten them into trouble.
I believe that they didn't see her as the Savior to help them out of their muck.
2007-06-01 08:39:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I should hope that, in a run-off election, the two remaining candidates would both have been competent enough to hold office.
2007-06-01 08:35:53 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋