1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Poll

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:33 pm

France: One-Third Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Poll April 25 Four years after neo-fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen created a political earthquake in France when he beat the French Socialists' candidate for place in the presidential run-off, a disturbing new poll released today in France shows that a third of the French -- 34% -- say the extreme right is close to their pre-occupations (as opposed to 66% disagree). The poll, taken by the leading polling institute IFOP and published today in the Paris daily Metro, also shows that 35% believe that the extreme-right "enriches" political debate. And 48% of the French say neo-fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the National Front, best incarnates the extreme right (followed at 24% by ultramontane Catholic Viscount Phillipe de Villiers, the aristocratic leader of the ultra-right, xenophobic, homophobic, and extreme nationalist MPF (Movement for France). Le Pen's daughter and designated successor, Marine Le Pen, the National Front's vice president, gets 19%). Combine the scores of Le Pen and his daughter, and 67% of the French who identify with the extreme right say their sympathy goes to the neo-fascist National Front. Immigration tops the preoccupations of those who identify with the neo-fascist extreme right with 43%, followed by security (meaning crime in France) at 31%, unemployment at 14%, and education at 7%. With immigration and crime together totaling 74%, it's a clear indication that this poll reflects the heightened climate of racism in France since last fall's ghetto riots, which produced two weeks of car-burnings and arson, and confrontations by ghetto youths with police all across France. Indeed, I predicted a rise in racism would manifest itself in the riots' wake (for background, see my analysis of the ghetto riots from last November 6, "Why is France Burning?" and my followup, "France After the Riots: 'Autism,' Repression--and the Socialists' Impotence"). The resurgence of that violence on the margins of the two successful nation-wide general strikes against a reactionary youth labor contract last month -- even though that much-televised disorder was mostly generated by only a few hundred ghetto youths out of millions of peaceful demonstrators -- also contributed to the increase in security hysteria and anti-immigrant sentiments this new poll records. This poll is also good news for the likely conservative nominee for president in 2007, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The hard-line law-and-order Sarkozy -- who called the ghetto rioters "scum" and worse, and has been pursuing a tough policy of deporting immigrants and making it harder for them to get French citizenship -- is well-positioned to pick up the Le Pen sympathizers in the presidential run-off two years hence against the Socialist-led coalition's candidate. Racism in France, this new poll tells us, is clearly on the increase. <a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=74&ItemID=10154">www.zmag.org</a>  Protests boost far-right leader Le Pen PARIS, April 22 (UPI) -- Rioting earlier this year by French immigrants from the Middle East and Africa has given a boost to the far-right National Front, a new poll finds. Jean Le Pen, the group's leader, has a 21 percent approval rating, the polling institute IFOP said. The New York Times reports that is only 8 points behind Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. French voters' rejection of the proposed European Union constitution also helped Le Pen. The recent demonstrations against a labor law that would have allowed employers to fire young workers supplied television images of immigrants protesting beside students, a reminder of the earlier riots. "All of these crises were very different, but their common point is that they benefited parties outside the political system," said Frederic Dabi of IFOP. Le Pen has had occasional surges of popularity before, even getting into a presidential runoff against Jacques Chirac at one point. But the protests by immigrants were a public relations gift to a longtime opponent of immigration, allowing the National Front to create a video showing scenes of violence under a banner that said "Immigration, explosion in the suburbs, Le Pen foretold it." <a href="http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060422-115426-4373r">www.upi.com</a> <img src="http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/14/images/news1.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **Qutb** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:31 pm

Thanks for posting, Jeff. This is really scary. And it's not just France, it's all of Europe, much like in the 1930s. In Eastern Germany it's really, really bad. The last few years, Nazism - not just xenophobia, Nazism - has with increasing frequency been described as "becoming mainstream". In the year 2000, incidences of neo-Nazi violence increased sharply in Germany and it has remained at a high level. I think the French and Dutch referenda may possibly have marked the beginning of the end of the 50-year corporate-driven "European Integration" project. Public sentiments have consistently been majoritarily negative of this for about 15 years now, and currently every government seems to be in "protectionist" mode and everything is stalled. The institutions are there and nothing short of a revolution could remove them... and good riddance, if it should come to that, but I'm starting to think I'm not going to like what might take its place. I'm not so sure it would be the social democracy of the 1960s and 70s. I don't remember the details, but Dave Emory was talking about a meeting in Switzerland last year (?), apparently shrouded in secrecy, between (among others) Jean-Marie Le Pen, Gianfranco Fini (Italy's neo-fascist foreign minister), and "Akhmed" Huber, the al-Taqwa director, friend of Ayatollah Khomeini, neo-Nazi, Paganist and fake Islamist ("I'm a Sunni with the heart of a Shia" - gives speeches in fundamentalist mosques but also participates in neo-Pagan rituals with Swiss fascists). That's parapolitics for ya. Who benefits from young European Muslims being attracted to the most uncompromising, militant, fundamentalist strain of Islam?

by **Sepka** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:34 pm

You'll see much the same reaction to illegal immigration (the mainstreaming of fascism) here in the States over the next few years, I think. Were I inclined to metapolitical conspiracy theories, I'd wonder if Bush didn't have a secret agenda in pushing for amnesty for illegals. As it is, I'm inclined to think that he's a venal man, and tends to do whatever looks good in the short term with little regard for long term consequences. It's his corporate backers who're looking to the big picture - cheap labour now, and a far-right resurgence later. -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **Mentalgongfu** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:58 pm

The French language was one of my majors in college, and I spent Jan-May 2002 studying in France, most of that time in Paris. It was during their last Presidential election. (interesting sidenote: equal time laws for EVERY candidate on TV, saw all 15) France has two elections; essentially the primary and then the runoff. To everyone's surprise, Le Pen and Jaques Chirac were the two leaders in the first election and went on to face each other. Le Pen was considered an extreme radical and his win in the first election was largely attributed to lack of turnout by disinterested leftists for candidate Lionel Jospin (I think that's the right name). Afterward, the streets of France erupted in protest against Le Pen. That's one great thing about the French; they love to march for a cause and aren't afraid to take the day off to do so. There were literally days of marches in Paris and other cities, some which brought police intervention when they got rowdy, not unlike the well-publicized riots of late. I remember sitting in a French college dorm with some Parisien friends whose big plan for the evening was to go to the 'Manif,' short for 'manifestation,' i.e. protest. Even then, there was a whiff of anti-arab and anti-immigrant sentiment. Not among the youth I knew, but certainly in their parents' generation, and in graffiti one would see at metro entrances and the like. I lived in a room in an apartment with a retired couple. When I said I was going to shop at a particular discount store, the Madame advised me not to, "because that's where the arabs go." Still, I'm extremely surprised to see how much ground Le Pen has gained since 2002. Quite frightening. I'd' be curious to see where the collective Dutch opinion stands, as other European countries might follow. The Netherlands has become noticeabley anti-immigrant and dare I say, xenophobic, in conjunction with terror attacks, high profile crimes and other social pressures. I recall one Dutch politician who said something like "Holland is full."

by **albion** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:45 am

Who benefits from young European Muslims being attracted to the most uncompromising, militant, fundamentalist strain of Islam? FWIW, in one of Emory's archived interviews with Kevin Coogan (sorry, can't remember which one), Coogan suggested that one reason why the Euro far right (and Huber in particular) support fundamentalist Islam is because of a shared interest in the ideals of racial separatism and "fatherland". I guess the idea is, if both parties fan the flames of racial & religious strife, all the Muslims would theoretically return to fight the jihad in the Middle East, leaving "Western Civilization" for White Europeans. Untenable perhaps, but whoever said fascists were smart. I think Emory also briefly mentioned Coogan's theory in his recent program on Dubai & "Cartoongate".

by **Qutb** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:25 am

Albion, I remember Coogan saying that, and Coogan is a guy who's worth listening to. One basic tenet in "third position" thought is this "organic" view of cultures/societies which posits that different "cultures" ought best to live in virtual isolation and cultivate their respective particularities. Cultural cross-pollenation is supposedly "unnatural" (and here I thought culture and nature were opposites?). It makes sense that they would want European Muslims to not integrate into French/German/etc societies. The theory that Muslims in Europe would want to move "back home" (where's that for a second, third or fourth generation "immigrant"?) if Muslim countries would only become Sharia-ruled theocracies (and so more "natural"?) is rather far-fetched, but as you say, who said fascists were smart. But beyond that, the third-position Euro-fascists and their more extreme neo-Nazi brothers in arms would definitely be the ones to benefit from the dynamics created by a radicalization of European Muslims, which has already taken place to a certain degree. Just as Hitler needed the communists, Le Pen and Co need the Islamists. Unlike Hitler and the communists though, there seems to be some actual cooperation between the neo-fascists and the Islamists. Huber was on the board of al-Taqwa, which was a major source of funding for Hamas and al-Qaida. He claims to have met the leadership of al-Qaida. And there are lots of other connections beyond Huber. It seems as though some kind of strategic alliance has been forged here. I think this is very interesting.

by **Gouda** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think the French and Dutch referenda may possibly have marked the beginning of the end of the 50-year corporate-driven "European Integration" project. Public sentiments have consistently been majoritarily negative of this for about 15 years now, and currently every government seems to be in "protectionist" mode and everything is stalled.<hr></blockquote> A friend of mine works for his government in committee at the EU parliament. Over beer with him, he expresses and confirms exactly this. His pessimism about the prognosis of the EU project is very high; but his (neo-liberal) idealism that it should work is also high, but perhaps not quite as high as his parapolitical naivete. That's not a knock to him, by the way, as I was probably more naive not too long ago. Anyway, I'll copy out a few relevent statements from a March 2nd, 2006 International Herald Tribune (paper copy) article ("In EU, nation state appears to be back" By K. Bennold and G. Bowley) for you to decode: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"There is a resurgence of the nation state in Europe," said Elie Cohen, a member of the Council of Economic Analysis, an independent panel of economists that advises the French government. "These nationalist and protectionist instincts [my emphasis] are hard to reconcile with the idea of European integration." ... Political leaders, particularly in France and Germany, have have shown a tendency to play to their voters' concerns rather than trying to defuse them, often attacking the European Commision in Brussles for policies aimed at opening and integrating markets further ... Daniel Gros, director of the Center for Eurpean Policy Studies in Brussles, is one who takes a different view of the rise in protectionist rhetoric. For Gros, the apparent rise in nationalism is not a serious threat the the EU's single market, but rather a symptom of how much the single market has already broken down borders in certain sectors... "Ten years ago a takeover bid for an energy company would have been unthinkable--they were all monopolies," he said. "We have come a long way and what we're seeing now is a perfect deja vu. It will blow over.<hr></blockquote> Deja vu, indeed. (And it blowing over reminds me of the sun's phallus swinging to make the wind blow referenced in today's RI post...) Sepka, (I think) I agree with you about the reaction the immigrant mass movement is likely to have with (too) many Americans. People I know in my old midwestern hometown have been a-grumble for awhile, and now they are really battening down the hatches. Perhaps not directly correlated to the recent immigration issue is the fact that Neo-nazi/KKK-ers are springing up all over this Myspace.com thing, and have latched onto the issue. Lame duck, but dynastic Bush Inc. plays to his true, financial base and not his popular, electoral base on this issue - in contrast to french and german politicians. This all bring to mind what Mark Collett, the BNP Youth Leader said in the expose doc Jeff posted a few weeks ago: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>“I think there’s going be a lot of bloodshed, to be honest. It’s going to be a big mess. Asian gangs are attacking white lads and driving them out. But it’s only so much will the white community take. And with the economic slump coming as well, when it all hits there will be militant gangs of lads join…formed around people like me and then I will eventually become, in essence, not a Johnny Adair or a Billy Wright maybe, but I will become a leader people will cluster around in those areas, and people will, you know, fight, fight alongside me.”<hr></blockquote>

by **Qutb** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:13 pm

What immediately strikes me in the IHT article, as in most establishment media articles on this subject both in the US and in Europe, is the elitist, even anti-democratic disregard for the opinions of "ordinary" or working class people: "Political leaders, particularly in France and Germany, have have shown a tendency to play to their voters' concerns rather than trying to defuse them, often attacking the European Commision in Brussles for policies aimed at opening and integrating markets further" Gee, democratically elected politicians "play to their voters' concerns"? We don't want to much of that do we. Ever noticed how opposition to corporate/financial globalization is usually construed as fear? As in, people fear it because they are simple minded and don't know what's best for them. You almost never read a mainstream story that says the majority of the French or Germans disagree with the direction things are going, it's always they fear the change. The implication is that objection to globalization can never be an informed, legitimate opinion. It has often been theorized that after the fall of communism, the inherent dynamics of Capitalism inevitably pits Capital against the State in the central political conflict of our time, transcending old divisions between left and right. A similar position was thusly articulated by <a href="http://www.hermetic.com/bey/millennium/nation.html" target="top">Hakim Bey</a> in 1996 : <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Like the left in general however anarchism collapsed in 1989 (a growing North-american movement for example suddenly imploded) in all likelihood because at that moment our enemy the State also secretly collapsed. In order to move into the gap left by the defeat of Communism we needed a critique of Capitalism as the single power in a unified world. Our careful & sophisticated critique of a world divided into two forms of State/economic power was rendered suddenly irrelevant. In an attempt to rectify this lack, I believe we need a new theory of "nationalism" as well as a new theory of Capitalism (and indeed a new theory of religion as well).<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The result might be called the Capital State: the power of money wedded to the power of war. Ultimately, once the struggle against Communism was won, it would be logical to expect a last & final struggle between Capital & the State for power pure & supreme. Instead the Molochian State appears to know that it was already secretly beaten long ago (all thrones hopelessly in debt...) & has capitulated without a whimper to the triumph of Mammon. With a few exceptions the nations are now falling all over themselves in their eagerness to "privatize" everything from health to prisons to air & water to consciousness itself. "Protection" -- the only real excuse for the State's existence -- evaporates in every sphere of government's influence, from tariffs to "human rights". The State seems somehow to believe it can renounce not only its vestigial power over money but even its basic functions, & yet survive as an elected occupying army! Even the US, which boasts of itself as the last & final "superpower", found itself in the very moment of its apocalyptic victory reduced to a mercenary force at the bidding of international Capital -- blustering bush-league bully boasting of its crusade to overthrow a "Hitler" of the Middle East, but capable only of serving the interests of oil cartels & banks. National borders must survive so that political hirelings can divert taxes to "corporate welfare"; & so that huge profits can be made on arbitrage & currency exchange; & so that labor can be disciplined by "migratory" capital. Otherwise the State retains no real function -- everything else is empty ceremony, & the sheer terrorism of the "war on crime" (i.e. the State's post-Spectacular war on its own poor and different).<hr></blockquote>

by **robertdreed** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:39 pm

Qutb, it looks to me as if that's what this insistence on using foreign regimes as havens for "extraordinary rendition" is all about- Bush-style globalism, breaking down sovereignty and imposing de facto autocracy as the "legal" standard for an array of conduct that contravenes every hard-won protection of individual rights, due process, and civil liberties for around the last 800 years. Waving the bloody shirt of "global terrorism" and "perpetual war" as the rationale... Notice how at the outset, the seat of empire (the U.S.A) takes pains to reassure its national subjects (formerly citizens) that they won't be subjected to the same campaign of abduction, torture, imprisonment, and murder as foreigners... but American citzens, don't ask for whom the bell tolls, when you see those hooded figures bundled off to internationalized gulags. It tolls for thee, unless you rouse yourselves to recognize the thieves of liberty.

by **robertdreed** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:42 pm

A small quibble over terms, though- what's being proposed really isn't the end of "the State." It's the end of sovereign regional government. In fact, to some extent, it's an extinguishing of the functions of government, and their replacement by alliances of private resource monopolist and military-industrial power with a State that recognizes no boundaries.

by **Sepka** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:54 pm

Gouda said:<blockquote>Quote:<hr>People I know in my old midwestern hometown have been a-grumble for awhile, and now they are really battening down the hatches. Perhaps not directly correlated to the recent immigration issue is the fact that Neo-nazi/KKK-ers are springing up all over this Myspace.com thing, and have latched onto the issue.<hr></blockquote> I find my younger friends routinely expressing, in their Live Journals and in person, attitudes towards blacks and Mexicans that, when I was their age, we might possibly have confided to our best friend in a moment of absolute honesty, after a night of drinking, after hedging it all about with disqualifiers such as "I try not to feel this way, but..." We live in interesting times. -Sepka the Space Weasel Edit: And I'll note that while I don't follow MySpace, it's pitched at a younger demographic than Live Journal. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see confessed Nazis on there, given the trends I've seen on LJ. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sepka>Sepka</A> at: 4/28/06 2:01 pm

by **Gouda** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ever noticed how opposition to corporate/financial globalization is usually construed as fear? As in, people fear it because they are simple minded and don't know what's best for them. You almost never read a mainstream story that says the majority of the French or Germans disagree with the direction things are going, it's always they fear the change. The implication is that objection to globalization can never be an informed, legitimate opinion.<hr></blockquote> Yes indeedy. Apropos, I would be crazy not to post the following research essay on the KKK by (now) primitivist anarchist John Zerzan, a) since it arrived in my mailbox today, b) since you mention Hakim Bey (with whom Zerzin has his anarchist differences), and c) since we are discussing capital, state and the re-rise of a neo-fascist right. Unfortunately, I do not know too much about John Zerzan - a quick, superficial google and wiki shows quite a life and some controversy. He also became disillusioned with the far left of which he was once a part. I hope the following is germane to the discussion and relatively stimulating. He really digs into overlooked realms of KKK history in the 20's and illustrates a lot of complexity and overturns much of the received wisdom on the makeup, politics and alliances of/with the Klan. He says this at the end: "The above research, limited and unsystematic as it is, would seem to raise more questions than it answers. Nonetheless, it may be possible to discern here something of relevance concerning racism, spontaneity and popular values in the context of a very important social movement." on edit: Hitler and the communists may not have cooperated, but some 20's american socialists (Huey Long not included!) seem to have formed symbiotic relations with the Klan...complicated, interesting... <a href="http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/kkk.htm">www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/kkk.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Rank-and-File Radicalism within the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s  By John Zerzan In the following article are presented some unusual features of the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, the only period in which the KKK was a mass movement. In no way should this essay be interpreted as an endorsement of any aspect of this version of the Klan or of any other parts of Klan activity. Nonetheless, the loathsome nature of the KKK of today should not blind us to what took place within the Klan 70 years ago, in various places and against the wishes and ideology of the Klan itself. *** The key to all these examples of apparently disparate loyalties is a simple one. As I will show, not only did some Klansmen hold relatively radical opinions while members of the Invisible Order, but in fact used the Klan, on occasion, as a vehicle for radical social change. The record in this area, though not inaccessible, has remained completely undeveloped. *** The rise of the Klan began with the sharp economic depression that struck in the fall of 1920. In the South, desperate farmers organized under the Klan banner in an effort to force up the price of cotton by restricting its sale. ``All throughout the fall and winter of 1920-22 masked bands roamed the countryside warning ginneries and warehouses to close until prices advanced. Sometimes they set fire to establishments that defied their edict.''(22) It was from this start that the Klan really began to grow and to spread to the North, crossing the Mason-Dixon line in the winter of 1920-21.(23) *** Hiram Evans, a head of the Klan, admitted in a rare interview in 1923 that ``There has been a widespread feeling among Klansmen that in the last few years the operation of the National Government has shown weakness indicating a possible need of rather fundamental reform.''(34) A 1923 letter to the editor of The New Republic details this awareness of the need for deep-seated changes. Written by an opponent of the Klan, the passage expresses ``The Why of the Klan'': ``First: Throughout all classes there is a growing skepticism of democracy, especially of the current American brand. Many Americans believe there is little even-handed justice administered in the courts; that a poor man has little chance against a rich one; that many judges practically buy their places on the bench or are put there by powerful interests. The strong, able young man comes out of college ready to do his part in politics, but with the settled conviction that unless he can give full time there is no use `bucking up against the machine.' Furthermore he believes the machines to be equally corrupt. The miner in West Virginia sees the power of the state enlisted on the side of the mine owner.''(35)  *** Also favored were immigration restriction and prohibition. The Outlook, obviously displeased with the response, categorized the Klan participants as ``more inclined to accept panaceas at face value, willing to go farther. In general,'' they concluded, ``this leads to greater radicalism, or `progressivism.'''(41) The Klan movement declined rapidly within a year of the poll, and research substantiates the enduring validity of The Outlook editors' claim that ``The present table provides the only analysis that has ever been made of the political views of members of the Ku Klux Klan.''(42) With this kind of data, it is less surprising to find, for example, that the Socialist Party and the Klan formed a 1924 electoral alliance in Milwaukee to elect John Kleist, a Socialist and a Klansman, to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.(43) Robert O. Nesbitt perceived, in Wisconsin, a ``tendency for German Socialists, whose most conspicuous opponents were Catholic clergy, to join the Klan.''(44) The economic populist Walter Pierce was elected governor in Oregon in 1922 by a strong agricultural protest vote, including the endorsement of the Klan and the Socialist Party. Klan candidates promised to cut taxes in half, reduce phone rates, and give aid to distressed farmers.(45) A recent study of the Klan in LaGrande, Oregon revealed that it ``played a substantial role in supporting the strikers'' during the nationwide railworkers' strike of 1922.(46) <hr></blockquote> Sound familiar? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 4/28/06 2:10 pm

by **robertdreed** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:59 pm

That said, I can't say that I'm totally unsympathetic to all of the motivations for Europeans to feel inclined to support "rightist-nationalist" leaders and parties in their countries. All of the fault for the present problems does not lie with the Europeans. I've been reading a lot of Bruce Bawer's essays lately, and while we have some areas of disagreement, he brings up a lot of uncomfortable but quite valid facts and points about the cultural and political tensions associated with the Muslim immigrant communities present in various Western European nations, many of whom adhere to a set of social and political values that are hostile to European institutions of political liberty, social liberalism, gender equality, and free expression. <a href="http://www.brucebawer.com/">www.brucebawer.com/</a> Consider this essay, for example: <a href="http://www.brucebawer.com/fortuyn.htm">www.brucebawer.com/fortuyn.htm</a> There's a tremendous lack of assimilation of immigrant communities in places like the Netherlands, France, and Norway, to a degree that simply is not present in the cultural mosaic nation of the U.S.A. Reading Bawer's stories, one thing struck me: Amsterdam and Paris ain't Sacramento or Washington, D.C. Europe host countries have been sweeping a lot of that under the rug- in denial, failing to address the challenges of laying down a standard of conduct and responsibility for the immigrants living in an adopted country. And given that denial- that neglect and passivity, disguising itself as "liberal tolerance"- I think it's inevitable that a large number of Europeans are driven to seek answers from the nativist Right. At least the nativist-Right parties are addressing the question and acknowledging the experiences of the man in the street- even if their "solutions" are poisonous. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/28/06 2:17 pm

by **Gouda** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:52 pm

Third parties can win! (If they promise to erect a wall cutting off Mexico)... <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/April%20Dailies/Election%202008.htm">www.rasmussenreports.com/...202008.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Election 2008: Democrats by 12 April 27, 2006--Democrats currently hold a 12-point advantage over Republicans on a generic 2008 Presidential ballot. However, a third-party candidate focusing on immigration enforcement issues could fundamentally alter those political dynamics. The latest Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey finds that 44% of Americans say they would vote for a Democrat if the Presidential Election were held today. Just 32% would vote for a Republican. Those figures are likely a reflection of unhappiness with the Bush Administration rather than a commentary on prospective candidates from either party (see crosstabs). The survey also asked respondents how they would vote if "a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority." With that option, support fell sharply for both major parties. The Democrats still come out on top with support from 31% of Americans. The third party candidate moved into a virtual tie at 30% while the GOP fell to 21%. ... Another earlier survey found that two-thirds of Americans believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. That same survey found that 40% of Americans favor "forcibly" requiring all 11 million illegal immigrants to leave the United States.<hr></blockquote>

1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Poll

1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Poll

Re: 1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Pol

Re: 1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Pol

Re: 1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Pol

Re: 1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Pol

Re: 1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Pol

Re: 1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Pol

Re: Globalism and the end of the state

Re: Globalism and the end of the state

Re: Globalism and the end of the state

Re: 1/3 of France Identify With Neo-Fascist Right In New Pol

Re: KKK in the 20's

Re: Globalism and the end of the state

Re: 3rd parties and new us poll, wall, poll, wall

Who is online