Typically liberal ranting from the French Socialist candidate

On one hand, you'd think they would mature at some point, these lefties. But on the other hand, fear mongering is one of the most often used plays of their playbook, so they pull it out whenever they can.

France risks violence and brutality if right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday's presidential election, his Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday.

On the last day of official campaigning, opinion polls showed Sarkozy enjoyed a commanding lead over Royal, who accused the former interior minister of lying and polarizing France.

"Choosing Nicolas Sarkozy would be a dangerous choice," Royal told RTL radio.

"It is my responsibility today to alert people to the risk of (his) candidature with regards to the violence and brutality that would be unleashed in the country (if he won)," she said.

Pressed on whether there would actually be violence, Royal said: "I think so, I think so," referring specifically to France's volatile suburbs hit by widespread rioting in 2005.

Isn't that pathetic. It's not "vote for me because my ideas are good" or even "vote for me because I'll work for prosperity", but instead the french hear "vote for me or else . . . something bad will happen."

But it's typical. The left really can't offer anything that people will vote FOR. If they did that, then they'd have to tell people that they are FOR abortion, FOR higher taxes, FOR bigger government, FOR the nanny state, FOR more regulation . . . you get the idea. And there's no salesman on earth who could make that pitch (not even Slick Willie). But they can run like mad against any idea.

And there's some hope for our own Hillary problem

Rudy Giuliani beats the top three Defeat-ocrat presidential candidates in a Quinnipiac University poll:

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has a slight 44-41 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in a possible 2008 presidential face-off, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released Thursday.

Giuliani leads former Vice President Al Gore 48-41 percent and tops New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 49-40 percent.

Keep going, Rudy.

Thursday night, ten Republican candidates debated each other at the Reagan Library (missing are Chuck Hagel and Newt Gingrich). Not getting MSNBC on my satellite receiver, I didn't watch. But, as you can see from my left navigation bar, I am backing Rudy for President. So far, he's the one candidate that has spoken presidentially concerning our need to defeat the terrorists. And, of course, no one, Republican or Defeat-ocrat, can match his experience.

The wild card is Fred Thompson, undeclared and also missing from tonight's debate. I believe his conservative credentials are real, but I don't know that he has the stomach to go through a presidential campaign.

Time will tell.

France's Hillary problem may be clearing up

France's conservative candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, appears headed for victory after their debate earlier in the week.

French conservative Nicolas Sarkozy extended his lead after a television debate with Socialist rival Segolene Royal and stayed on course for victory in Sunday's election, opinion polls showed on Thursday.

A poll for the Opinionway institute showed 53 percent of viewers found Sarkozy more convincing during the sometimes fiery debate, against 31 percent who judged Royal better.

...

Sarkozy, a right-wing former interior minister and the favorite of financial markets, has hammered young hoodlums, illegal immigrants and enthused supporters with his attacks on the left wing protesters of May 1968.

Hated and feared as a dangerous authoritarian by many on the left, he has nonetheless been consistently rated the more "presidential" of the two candidates by most voters.

Lucky them.

President Bush vetoes the Defeat-ocrats surrender bill

In a blow to the party of defeat and to Al-Qaida, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have signaled America's surrender in the War Against Terror.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."

Finally, after a long wait, something good has come out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

May Day II: what happened?

I was so looking forward to the second "new" May Day, the day where those who have violated our nation's sovereignty brandish their violation for all to see. But for some reason, this year the celebration isn't as large as last year's.

Demonstrators marched in cities across the United States on Tuesday to demand rights for illegal immigrants, but the demonstrations were much smaller than last year's massive rallies, which were hailed as the start of a new American civil rights movement.

...

In Los Angeles, where an estimated 500,000 protesters poured into the streets last year for boisterous pro-immigrant rallies, about 10,000 people converged on City Hall for a noon protest.

What's the deal? Aren't these people proud of their illegal status?

And, just to be sure, they are indeed illegal. Here is the applicable law: United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VII, Section 1325.

Sec. 1325. - Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United State by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Seems pretty clear to me.