Macron Makeover: Fifty-Seven Percent Now Dissatisfied With French Leader

Emmanuel_Macron_in_July_2017Blush-Rouge-_2013-08-29_12-13We previously discussed how the coverage of President Donald Trump’s low polling numbers often omits that Bill Clinton had similar numbers and more importantly media darling French President Emmanuel Macron has similarly low numbers and those numbers are dropping.  That does not change the fact that this White House is rapidly alienating allies both domestic and foreign. However, a new poll confirms that Macron shows the same dropping popularity over the same period of time with only 40 percent now in favor of the job that he is doing.  If you think, it is time for a Macron makeover . . .  think again.

Macron’s dissatisfaction number are virtually the same at Trump’s at 57 percent.  It did not help that recently it was revealed that the French President spent €26,000 ($31,000) on makeup during his first 100 days in office.  That is quite a makeover.

That is more than the average annual income of a French citizen . . . on the President’s face.

94 thoughts on “Macron Makeover: Fifty-Seven Percent Now Dissatisfied With French Leader”

  1. What does it matter what a politician looks like? Our best presidents were not photogenic. The public obsession with appearance – encouraged by fashion editors (what an absurd profession is that of a fashion editor!), useless publications like: ‘People’, and the morons now passing for actors and actresses – is a mark of cultural degeneracy. Who cares whether a man has coarse skin, does not have the: ‘right’ haircut, or whether a woman is wearing: ‘last year’s makeup’? The fashion and cosmetic industries – to say nothing of the field of interior decoration – are organs of blackmail. It is intellect and character that matter.

    1. Professor Turley sued the Obama administration for “executive overreach.”

      Does anyone doubt that the judicial branch has been in “overreach” for a century?

      How many votes of the People has the “imperial judiciary” abrogated?

      The 9th Circuit usurped the power of the executive branch on subjective, political criteria.

      Justice Roberts recently rewrote the dictionary and Constitution before God and everyone.

      What are Americans, stupid?

      The “imperial judiciary” is under no controls and issues its edicts with impunity. Most of the judicial branch should have been impeached and convicted long ago for “legislating from the bench” and voiding the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

      Alexander Hamilton –

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

  2. As for the Judge one dioesn’t file a charge without proof and then allow a jury trial to look even more stupid. instead Judge Stupid says ‘you may not do what you are accused of doing but since there is no proof of the doing i will order you not to do what you are already not doing. Which sums up the case neatly. trump should have a. not only pardoned but b. instituted an investigation on the judge.

    Let that sort of miscarriage of justice go unchecked they might as well make Arizona part of San Salvador.

  3. The implication of this article and others regarding “polling” is that there is an election everyday.

    The election is over.

    Macron is President.

    Deal with it.

    Stop recommending subversion and sedition.

  4. $31,000 on makeup for a young guy of average good looks? Wait. He does seem to waffle a bit between socialist and centrist Liberal, but his bona fides as Liberal alone typically means he sneers at how capitalists “waste” their money that could be better spent by government. France has some of the highest taxes in the world. Isn’t it just grand to see what taxpayer money is spend on?

    $31,000 in less than a 1/3 of a year is extremely high for set makeup. A full time CNN makeup artist earns around $43,000 a year. The absolute top 10% movie star makeup artists earn $120,000 a year, working full time. How in the world did a single client spend that much…in France where everyone earns a comparative pittance?

    Not to sound like Captain Obvious, but France is a mess economically, politically, and culturally. Plus, even more tragically, its golden age of art is essentially over.

      1. Good point, but the Jacket was paid for by the Trumps, not taxpayers. Who paid for Macron’s makeup?

  5. Most politicians pay big bucks for hair cuts, powdered noses, etc. Trump probably has a team of engineers working 24/7 to keep his hair up. Add the skin, corsets, manziers, and other accoutrements to keep this fat lying sac-o-sh*t barely viewable, and Macron’s costs are peanuts. Turley, there are much more important things to post. This is pandering to the moronic sorts on this blog, and pandering only. This is very Trumplike; identify someone to vilify and rally round the angst.

    1. JT is a SUCCESSFUL attorney and professor, not an alleged 3rd rate architect. Thousands of people are attracted to this great blog. How many people would read a Canadian Rain Man blog?

      1. Gumshoe,

        The remarks were focused on your sort. But, of course, you missed that.

      2. I’ve read some of his articles in the Washington Post and other rags, not much different than what he writes here, trying to eke out an opinion, just like the rest of us. One thing is for sure, those that get published, get to represent, get to make laws, get to the top, are not always the best of the best, but typically the worst of the best, sometimes the best of the worst, and in the case of the current clown in the oval office, the worst of the worst. Kind of reflects on its supporters.

    2. Actually, this story has been headline news as a scandal of government waste. Liberals are not, in fact, morally superior to anyone else and are subject to the same foibles.

      Michelle Obama had a glam room and was showered in couture. So did Jacqueline Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, and Nancy Reagan.

      This seems to be a modern phenomenon. Females want to look camera ready to avoid ridicule and bullying. But males now want to look as fresh, youthful, healthy, and powerful for the camera as possible.

      Personally, I think everyone should get over it. I think it would be really brave and confident of Melania to have a makeup free day once in a while to connect with Americans. And I don’t really care how “pretty” a guy looks on camera. Do the military get powdered up to go on camera or do they just do the job?

      But I know what would happen if Trump went au natural in front of the camera. Liberals have a habit of engaging in skin or gender or race deep criticism that they so despise in others, as long as their target is Republican.

      1. Not long ago Tucker Carlson on Fox News stated that he is actually older than he looks, and colors his hair, in addition to having had “lots of work” done on his face. He said he’s always been open about it; that in the broadcast media business one is more successful if he/she looks youthful.

      2. As long as thier target is a conservative which is the official label used by the liberal socialist regressives for al that disagree or disobey them. It’s evident many former Democrats are seeing that basic character flaw from the amunt that are fleeing to join other more meaningful partys that represent their beliefs and not just play fiffth fiddle to the classless societies ruling class.

    3. You should really seek help to quit talking abut yoursel fthat way. For sure you will never measure up to President Trump and no amount of ulykkelig misundelse is going to cure that condition.You shouldn’t use big words from foreign languages without understanding their meaning.

      1. This is incredibly great! It perfectly encapsulates the difference between the red county map and the blue tumors that look like a cancer upon it.

        Poor, poor, Jon. He’s gone native.

        Sheriff Joe was targeted. The Obama regime was an outlaw regime. They targeted him, and broke the Constitution to do it. Not one word of that do we hear. Trump is a hero. The swamp can’t acknowledge that.

        1. patrick – those of us who live here know that Sheriff Joe was targeted by the Obama administration. It was cut and dried.

      2. Sorry, but I gave to disagree with JT. Saying Arpaio could appeal is not a reasonable remedy. Appeals take years, and the Sheriff is 85 years old. Plus the legal fees could easily range from $30,000 to $50,000. Clinton and Obama pardoned outright criminals; people convicted of fraud, drug dealing and so forth. Arpaio was targeted due to his politics. Yes, we should respect the courts and the rule of law, but not when the courts and the law are misused to target political opponents.

  6. It did not help that recently it was revealed that the French President spent 26,000 euros ($31,000) on makeup during his first 100 days in office. That is quite a makeover.

    Tell his wife to quit using a trowel.

  7. Very telling that you worry about the French President and ignore Trump’s flaunting of judicial orders and the Constitution.

    1. Very telling that you worry about the French President and ignore Trump’s flaunting of judicial orders and the Constitution.

      1. ‘Flaunting’ does not mean what you think it means.

      2. There’s very little that Trump could do which would demonstrate more contempt for the Constitution than the federal judiciary demonstrates as a matter of course. (He’s actually played by the rules with them. He shouldn’t).

      1. An Ode to Ourselves by Barack Obama and Company.

        Mirror Mirror On the Wall
        How best Can I describe us all
        And turn the tables of contempt
        To reflections I so deeply resent.

        It would be impossible for Trump to catch uip to the contempt for the Constitution shown by his predecessor .but not impossible to keep shredding with contempt the efforts to destroy it by that same predecessor.

  8. j pismo, frankly/SWM is a woman and might want to consider going to church. I know a very left wing renegade Catholic church in Minneapolis run by former nuns that might help soothe her angry soul.

    1. Don’t live in Minneapolis. Don’t know any of any priests that support Trump and the torturing sheriff.

            1. I posted something from NPR. The information is widely known. Won’t be on internet for hours but you can research it.

                1. There is NO completely] reliable source, only better and worse. NPR’s newscast is lower mediocre because it is afraid to diverge much from the other MSN networks. It started down a slippery slope when threatened by fund cutting by Gingrich and right wingers were put in charge at executive levels.

                  1. There are no ‘right wingers’ in charge at NPR and there never were. The only such animals ever employed there consist of a few commentators. (NPR was run for 8 years by George McGovern’s one-time campaign manager and used to employ red-haze political tourists to broadcast from Latin America).

          1. Prove it. Did the words in the charge not ring clear. Same old innuendo with nothing but a leftist fascist judge in an an SS uniform to back them up…Starting with deny a trial by jury. Prima facie case for impeachment or recall. Open and shut.

      1. Not good enough. You made the charge on this forum. Your place to back it up or just shut up. You lose again. Repeating the unproven charge three times didn’t work this time and tell lykoff he’s a plagiarist for teaching such crap.

  9. If there is curiosity about the amount of money spent on makeup, I suggest that one need look no farther than the 39 year old’s 64 year old wife–who was a 40 year old teacher and married when she started up with her former student, purportedly, a mere 15 or 16 years of age at the time. Yes, yes. . .granted, this is was in France. . .but, even in France, his parents had to, allegedly, tell the old, married pervert to back off and leave their son. The mystery regarding the makeup? I suspect it is for his wife, whose skin resembles leather that has been tanning in the scorching summer desert.

    1. The orange scum and the hair dye T rump uses could be cheaper. T rump is more like Miss macron. He goes after the teen age beauty queens.

      1. How would you feel if you stole Pelosi’s Botox leaving her with a placebo that welded those wrinkles in place only tto find out someone had beat you to the punch and you ended up looking like Mad Max of Chrome Dome in a stolen James Brown Wig?

        Really got to be more creative than just a copy cat clonette machine part with a very bad programmer.

    2. Would you have a problem with a 64 y/o male President and a 39 y/o wife? I think your sexism is showing, or maybe your age, or both…..

      1. Read the article–the article mentions the surprising amount of makeup purchased by this president. Seems odd. A somewhat fresh-faced 39 year old male needing that much makeup? I suggested who it is who may, in fact, need all of that industrial strength spackle to go out in public. Yes, call me old fashioned, a prude, sexist. . .anything that you wish. . .I readily admit that I do have a problem with married teachers having affairs with minor children. . .yes, mere children. . .with whose care and education they have been charged. Key words–minor children, married teachers and affairs. Get it? As far as I know, while Trump may, in fact, be a womanizer, there is no evidence that he was, at any time, a married teacher, at a private high school, f’ng one of his students. The woman, who chose to get involved with him, were of age. Get the distinction, sonny boy?

        1. bam bam – well he could be buying for his wife but charging it to his govt acct.

        2. I have noticed Bam Bam, that virtually every time there is a female who is the subject of this blog, you put her looks under a microscope and proceed to tear her apart based on her physical appearance. Quite frankly, it gets old. You don’t do that to men, only women. You need to examine your own anger, jealously, and/or hostility towards other women. And you don’t need to go off on some hyper-defensive angry, name-calling vitriol towards me. I’m just pointing out something that is obvious to everyone who has read your remarks.

          1. You can imagine what you wish. Your posts indicate that to be the case. A 40 year old female, married–TEACHER–had an affair with her 15 or 16 years old male student. His parents had to warn the old perv to stay clear of their innocent child. Offended by that? Too f’ng bad. That is the truth. The article pertains to thousands and thousands of dollars that, supposedly, a young and somewhat impish-looking president is, purportedly, spending on makeup. Get with the program, grandpa. Try to hang with the big kids. My comment simply stated what may, or, may not be, obvious to some–the makeup is probably not for him. That is what I was implying. He married this old cougar, and she needs a lot of shellac to go out in the sunlight. Don’t like my comments? Quelle dommage. It’s French. Look it up.

      2. Would you have a problem with a 64 y/o male President and a 39 y/o wife? I think your sexism is showing, or maybe your age, or both…..

        1. There is no such thing as ‘sexism’. It’s a rhetorical thrust.

        2. May-December marriages are generally indicative of something amiss, and, no they’re not granted much respect in this culture even when conventional. People chuckled at Fred Thompson and Tony Randall.

        3. He seduced a middle-aged married woman with three children, one of whom is older than he is. That’s just plain strange.

        1. We live in an era when it is supposedly “normal” for a man to marry another man. Or two women to be “man” and wife. So I hardly think it amiss for a younger guy to marry an older woman. The traditional reason for a woman to marry an older man was that he would be more financially stable and could support her and any children born of the marriage. But those days are over, as men and women now have relatively equal earning power. There will always be old men with trophy wives, a la Trump. But then you have Prince Charles, who left Diana for an older divorcee whom he found more interesting and engaging. Good for him.

          1. TIN – Charles would rather be Camilla’s tampon than married to Diana. That was per recorded phone calls between the two. Makes you wonder about their relationship.

            1. Paul – Diana was selected so that Prince Charles could produce suitable heirs. Her selection was based on her looks and scandal-free family. Neither one had any interest in the other, other than she presumably wanted to be a princess and hoped it would work out. And yes, the marriage did produce a suitable heir, but other than that, it’s a shame that they each agreed to an arranged marriage. But Europe’s royal families have always arranged marriages based on consolidating power and finances. I kind of wonder with Trump’s kids how much they married for love or for money…..which they don’t need…but the very rich usually only marry among themselves…..

              1. TIN – I am reading a book on the history of the War of the Roses. Besides the high death toll, there is a high incidence of convenient weddings, including a 21 y/o to a 65 y/o (my personal favorite). However, it is also interesting that most of these couples found a way to love each other and were devastated by the death of their spouse.

              2. 1. She didn’t have a scandal-free family. Her mother abandoned her father in 1969 and had gone and married someone else.

                2. She had a certain utility in that she did not have ‘a past’. The Royal Family has not been particular about that in many cases, but it was something in her favor and something which Charles’ advisers told him was a deal-breaker re the young Camilla Shand. It was his great-uncle, Lord Mountbatten, who was Charles’ principal sage on such matters, not his father or mother.

                3. Lord Spencer was a personal friend of the Queen. The Queen and the Queen mother were reportedly very pleased he was seeing her as they were already familiar with her; she was a child of the aristocracy so would be less disoriented by the Royal scene than someone more ordinary might be; and it got him pried loose from Camilla. (Complaints about his affair with Camilla had supposedly percolated northward to the Queen from Andrew Parker-Bowles unit).

                4. With scant doubt, she was interested in him. Their problem was not that it was ‘an arragned marriage’. Their problem was something the Queen and the Queen Mother did not anticipate: she was a @#&$*&^ head case. (The term ‘borderline personality disorder’ has been bruited about). She was not only difficult to her husband, she had periods of estrangement from her mother, her step-mother, the younger of her sisters, her brother-in-law, and her brother (at the end of her life). She was witlessly jealous of the nannies hired to look after her sons, gratuitously canning one of them and entertaining paranoid delusions about the one her husband hired after the separation. Princess Michael of Kent, her neighbor at Kensington Palace, described her thus:”bitter, nasty”.

                5. She was certainly cheating on him by 1986 if not earlier.

                  1. She contended she knew by 1986 that Camilla was back in the picture. Her complaint about the previous period was that there were reminders of Camilla around (his cufflinks, for instance).

                    1. DSS – I know that at one point Diana went to the Queen to get help to keep her husband in line. Either the Queen didn’t want to interfere or it didn’t take.

                    2. The story was that the Queen and Prince Philip called the two in to try to mediate between them. How true any of these stories are is a matter of conjecture. You can learn from Andrew Morton a reliable account of Diana’s take on her situation. Then you take a step back and look at how she conducted herself over the years and the descriptions of her contact by quondam palace employees.

                      There were four Spencer children. Two who were married by age 25, had a mess of kids, have remained married, and have kept their name out of the papers (one all her life and the other as much as possible over the last 40 years). Another has been married 3 or 4 times (including a tour with a fashion model), co-operated with his sister’s publicity capers (while debarring her from his premises), and stuck a stiletto in his brother-in-law in the midst of his sisters eulogy. The last Spencer took tours as the paramour of James Hewitt, James Gilbey, and Dodi Fayed; aired her dirty laundry in the papers; and was infected with pathological jealousy (of her step-mother, of the nannies, and even of Sarah Ferguson).

          2. We live in an era when it is supposedly “normal” for a man to marry another man. Or two women to be “man” and wife. So I hardly think it amiss for a younger guy to marry an older woman.

            I’m not seeing how it’s less amiss because there are people who engage in burlesques.

            The traditional reason for a woman to marry an older man was that he would be more financially stable and could support her and any children born of the marriage. But those days are over, as men and women now have relatively equal earning power.

            They do not. The point of being married is that men and women can specialize, and the result of such specialization is generally that the husband devotes more energy to earning and the wife to domestic life. Unmarried men and unmarried women have similar earning power, because they are not specialized (among other reasons).

            As for May-December marriage, they can have many properties, but the modal type is a cash-for-sex deal. That’s what makes them dubious bits of business.

            There will always be old men with trophy wives, a la Trump. But then you have Prince Charles, who left Diana for an older divorcee whom he found more interesting and engaging. Good for him.

            Very few men have ‘trophy wives’. Charles did not leave his wife. They had a mutually negotiated separation after six years of mutual adulteries. Camilla Parker-Bowles was not divorced until years later. And there’s no ‘good for him’ in this situation (or any ‘good for her’, either).

  10. Why does Turley keep refusing to see reality? Trump is overwhelmingly popular with Normal People (the human beings that live in the “red” counties), and utterly despised by the Swamp Creatures, Hollyweirdos and denizens of New York and the Bay Area (the blue tumors on the electoral map). So a national poll is completely meaningless. To trumpet it is merely wishful thinking.

    France does not have anything remotely like this phenomenon, so the two situations cannot be compared.

    Trump’s support grows ever stronger, as his consistent ability to attract tens of thousands of adoring fans to his rallies continues to demonstrate. And his fantastic, bold and courageous pardon of Sheriff Joe is bound to seal his popularity with Normal People, and add new fans who didn’t vote for him but were disgusted by the travesty of his persecution. The pardon will of course further solidify his unpopularity in the blue tumors, most likely.

    Bold, courageous action to undo injustice. The more he does this, the more popular he will be.

    Macron? Nothing like the Trump phenomenon. The two can’t be compared.

    1. You are right. Macron has yet to pardon a torturer. Don’t believe that “normal people” approve of torture.

      1. Wow! All the reporting about the trial omitted that important charge. I thought it was about the Obama Justice [sic] Department persecuting him for enforcing the immigration laws, and the judge unconstitutionally denying him his right to trial by jury (it is 100% certain he would have not been convicted by a jury of his peers, who adore the man).

        Thanks! All the same, I’m amazed the lefty press hasn’t focussed on he torture part of the trial. They hate him, after all, as much as the Normal People like him.

        1. The reporters from the Arizona Republic would hang him, if they got the chance.

    2. Macron’s predecessor Hollande spent on average 10,000 Euro a month on makeup! A French thing for sure.

      Macron’s mandate is weaker than Trump’s. Turnout was below 43 percent 1st round, lowest in history. And 35 percent 2nd round. So much for the reported ‘landslide win’. So the basis for comparing popularity with Trump seems a bit off.

  11. He’s a frog he’s a frog.
    He’s a frog all the way.
    From his first makeover to his last dying day.

      1. Not bot here …just a disgusted informed senior citizen exercising my freedom of speech. Apparently you disagree with my opinions.

        1. Sheriff Arpiao did his job. Something he was held in contempt for, illegally. Do you have a problem with that?

          1. “As debate escalates over the CIA’s alleged mistreatment of detainees abroad, and evidence continues to pile up, the issue of torture challenges American values. Ironically, a person comes to mind who terrorizes children, women, families and an entire community, but he is doing it right here on U.S. soil. He is on the loose and has been at it for years. What’s worse is that he has a badge and a gun. A son of immigrants himself, he exploits the issue of undocumented migrant workers to gain national attention and pushes the levels of abuse, denigration, humiliation, physical cruelty and absurdity to new heights. Meet Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona — self-proclaimed “America’s toughest sheriff.” “

            1. Wow AGAIN! You’d think the Obama Justice [sic] Department would have charged Sheriff Joe for THAT, not for enforcing the law.

              Wonders never cease. Obama and his pack of scumbags truly hated the man, and had the power to charge him with such obvious illegality–yet they didn’t do it. One wonders why?

              Obama’s lawbreaking judge (she denied him his constitutional right to a jury trial because she knew his peers would never convict him), hand picked, naturally found him guilty of something he obviously did not do. Trump rightly pardoned him for it.

              But if he really IS a torturer, and he was given a jury trial presided over by a not hand-picked judge, no doubt he’s be rightly convicted, and Trump’s supporters would find it very hard to agree with a pardon.

              So why try to destroy the man by convicting him be means of a lie, when if what you are saying is correct it would have been easy to lock him up doing it the honest way?

              Have you asked yourself that question? Were Obama’s people not just corrupt and evil, but stupid, too?

            2. frankly – you listen to those progressive idiots? No wonder you are out in left field all the time. I live in Arizona, in Maricopa Co., I know what the Sheriff does and doesn’t do. He cannot take a dump without the paper reporting it.

              1. I thought he lost the election by quite a large margin. People had had enough of his tactics.

                1. frankly – so, I know guys who have been in Joe’s jail who adore the guy.

                2. So? What does that have to do with your unsupported opinion? You lose again

            3. Doesn’t matter. Frankly your mirror speaks for you. We asked for facts not an opinion piece.

              1. “”Concentration camp”

                As newly elected Sheriff of Maricopa County in the early 1990s, Arpaio pushed the construction of an open-air jail called ‘Tent City,’ which he claimed was a solution not only to prison overcrowding but to “soft” incarceration policies.

                Inmates were made to wear pink underwear and handcuffs, meals were cut down to two a day with salt and pepper removed to cut costs and Arpaio pushed for mugshots of inmates to be posted online.

                He also reintroduced the use of chain gangs—including for women and juvenile inmates.

                Responding to an audience member in 2008 at the Arizona American Italian Club in Phoenix, Arpaio allegedly boasted of the camp’s toughness, comparing it to a Nazi death camp.

                “I already have a concentration camp,” Arpaio said during the 2008 appearance. “It’s called Tent City.”

                1. frankly – the New Times hates Arpiao. However, Tent City passed court muster as did most of his jail reforms. The chain gangs were voluntary and got the prisoners outside. Often they would pick citrus for the rest of the prisoners or clean the roadside. Juvies were required to go to school and he even gave them lessons in manners so they would succeed as adults. The pink underwear is because they were stealing the jail’s underwear when they were being released. By dyeing it pink, it stopped it dead.

                  Like any large jail system there were/are problems. The new sheriff has not closed down Tent City even though he ran on a pledge to do that. The sheriff runs the jail for the entire county, some 4+ million people. And when the prisons are filled he is required to hold convicts until there is an opening in the prison system.

          2. Hear, hear!

            The “imperial Judiciary” decides that criminals hold dominion.

            Sorry, the real crimes here are crimes of high office as “judicial overreach” and usurpation.

            The impeachment process must be enhanced and accelerated to deal with a rogue, criminal judicial branch perpetrating a seditious and treasonous juggernaut across America.

Comments are closed.