Sarkozy party wins, but not in landslide

Count on the MSM to downplay any election results it doesn’t like. For example, the AP doesn’t like these returns:

Sarkozy’s party and its allies won 346 of the 577 seats in the National Assembly, which was fewer than the 359 seats the UMP used to have. The opposition left took a better-than-expected 226 seats total, led by the Socialists’ 185 seats — a considerable improvement to the party’s 149 seats in the last parliament.

So I pulled out the trusty calculator and did the math.

Sarkozy’s party got 346 out of 577 seats. That comes to 60%. The socialists and their allies got 226 seats, or 39%.

But to AP, 60-39 is not a landslide. Not when the winning side is so, so….pro-American!!!

Do you think for one minute that if the Democrats won a 60% majority in the House or Senate that we’d see even ONE story in the MSM cautioning that this was not a landslide? On the contrary, we’d be subjected to an endless stream of articles with titles like “Can the GOP survive?” As I recall, the MSM treated Bill Clinton’s two elections as ‘mandates’, even though he never got 50% of the vote.

AP even led the story with a picture of the Socialists’ losing presidential candidate. One thing you have to say for the AP: they know how to shake their pom poms for their team.

But on the bright side, 60% means President Sarkozy should be able to pass most of his free market reforms. Although I’m sure every slight bump in the road will end of on the mediots’ front pages.

Because if it is, the picture tells you all you will ever need to know about Hillary and where the Democrats’ heads are today.

I wonder how low the % would be w/o adding in the reporters.

Hillary’s been trying to capitalize on a photo she had taken with Mother Teresa years ago, putting it on her campaign website to fool voters into thinking she would have had the endorsement of the late saint.

But Mother Teresa religious order got wind of the stunt and complained, and now it’s been pulled from the web site:

Fidelis president Joseph Cella called it “wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing that Hillary Clinton shamelessly exploited Mother’s image as a political tool.”

Inappropriate, disrecpectful, disturbing, and shameless. But not at all surprising, is it?

(Sorry, ST, but for some reason today I’m just a linking fool.)

No, Libs have to lie. It is genetic and pathological.

The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld a Washington state law that requires public employee unions to get permission before making political contributions using fees they collect from nonmembers.

Unanimous, as in 9-0. Ripping off non-members to finance Big Labor’s political warchest is now illegal.

Liberals being what they are, they were already looking for ways to slither around the outcome of the case:

But its immediate practical impact in Washington state was limited by the legislature’s adoption of a new law on May 10 that stipulates union political spending is not considered to come from agency fees.

Riiiiight. So the money the unions spend on politicking comes in… how? Falls off trees? Is left under their pillow by the Tooth Fairy? Maybe comes from wise cattle-future investments? With the exception of Lieberman on Iraq, is it possible for libs to be honest about a subject? Ever???

You remember Jim McGreevey. He’s the former NJ governor who took his job so seriously that he put his boyfriend in charge of the state’s department of Homeland Security before resigning as a means of spotlighting his homosexuality. Now he’s in the midst of a divorce, and the case is getting messy:

Dina Matos Mc-Greevey, who is divorcing the former governor, has charged in court papers that his comments calling her homophobic harmed the sales of her recently released memoir.

Not so, says the ex-governor. Care to take a guess what he thinks is the real reason her book sales have tanked?

Well, she wears tacky clothes:

in a letter to a family court judge, McGreevey blamed his wife’s May 1 interview on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” citing “her awful appearance” in “an inappropriate and ill-fitting ballgown with a plunging neckline.”

Geez. Like it’s not enough of an embarrassment being from NJ with all the moonbats running around loose in charge of things here….

You have to wonder why it is that only one prominent liberal can clearly see the stakes in Iraq:

it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda–and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.
…
It’s obvious aim is to use Sunni-Shia bloodshed to collapse the Iraqi government and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, radicalizing the region and providing a base from which to launch terrorist attacks against the West.

And yet Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and the rest of their ilk are fine with that. Just once, I’d like to see that reality presented to them as a question in one of their debates.

He’s also learned that there are geopolitical consequences of abandoning friends under attack:

One Arab leader told me during my trip that he is extremely concerned about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but that he doubted America’s staying power in the region and our political will to protect his country from Iranian retaliation over the long term. Abandoning Iraq now would substantiate precisely these gathering fears across the Middle East that the U.S. is becoming an unreliable ally.

That is why–as terrible as the continuing human cost of fighting this war in Iraq is–the human cost of losing it would be even greater.

It’s rare you can find clear thinking from a liberal on any subject. This is the exception. Read the whole thing.