User talk:Biruitorul/Archive5

God Dahn, please tell me that you are not talking about our fraudulently prolongued nightmare! Are you accidentally from the diaspora? --Eurocopter (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as much as I was a reluctant backer of the first-round Antonescu (who has deeply damaged the credibility of his great party and should resign in disgrace, along with the leaders of the pitiful PNŢCD), and as much as I loathe the idea of bringing back the MAN, this hair's-breadth avoidance of catastrophe (and do savor that video) is to my liking. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, why rain on my parade? :)

Eurocopter, I respect your option as an individual, but I cannot seriously respect the object of that option (I suppose the same goes for the object of my option as seen by you, and I respect that just as well). But for sure the only thing nightmarish was the dystopian alliance of the demagogues and the shady, its lengthy and almost successful war on common sense, the manner in which it destroyed the credibility of Romanian media in the process. I personally see very few things "wrong" with Băsescu himself, and nothing that could have ever prevented me from voting for him: he is in fact an icon of Romanian decency, as far as that goes - meaning, as limited as decency ever was in Romania. Romania needed people like him (and, surely, not just him) to wake up and reform a system that was previously only combated by the thinnest layer of the intelligentsia (many of whom have since shamefully given up the fight). While nothing he did was ever perfect, it was not reasonably debatable, and the arguments against him are generally manipulative hogwash - those public figures who theorize why we should get rid of him are in so many cases malevolent or plain stupid.

And fraudulent? How come? The OSCE stated no objection. The exit polls saying otherwise are in clear conflicts of interest (owned by people who have publicly stated their hatred for the president), and I suspect (given the disgusting shows put on by the mogulision stations down to the last hour) that this was part of the diversion to claim a non-existing fraud post-factum. The one exit poll, the only transparent one, gave a 50-50 estimate give or take. It was all indeed the conclusion of the persistent coup attempt that began back in '05-'06.

Oh and: no, I'm not diaspora. I'm one of those who came in after 4 o'clock, and one of those who voted for Ahab since 2004, first rounds included. I had reserves of the kind outlined by Biru above, but not since 2006. I'll never vote for the PNL, because I realized what's behind it, what's oozing through it. In short, because I realize at the very least the differences between, say, Norica Nicolai and Sulfina Barbu.

Biru, good to see we reached the same conclusion, but why were you ever in doubt? And why would you loathe the idea of bringing back "the MAN"? Sure, his ideas on disciplining children are quaint (if one is to believe Patriciu's rant and that film), but what else would be stopping anyone from the anti-PSD side from identifying with him? Let me see: he's clearly been the most apt at tackling the problems posed by the Ceauşist structures (even if, as Tismăneanu puts it, it was a Henry and Falstaff situation); he's got the main and mainstream right-wing and pro-West theorists on his side (Stoica, Preda, not to mention Stanomir or Voinescu); he's supported by the one PM we've had who actually had the courage to do something important for Romania's economy; he is backed (not uncritically, but that's actually a plus) by some of the main institutions of our fragile anti-communist tradition, and by the only press venues to heva preserved their decency and professionalism; he's clearly been the target of grotesque Securitate-style libel and he's clearly upset the old red-tinged structures; he's practically married to Chirtoacă when the other guys are worryingly opening uncontrollable links to Russia and other "unregulated spaces" etc. Plus, I remember you too were supportive of him back in the day - I'm intrigued. On the other hand, the "great party" (which, incidentally, always managed to reconcile liberalism with corruption and a placated bureaucracy - "Romanian liberalism" they call it) was not lost by Antonescu, but was already compromised back when Stoica and Stolojan were sacked and defamed by the Patriciu clan. The Câmpeanus, the Quintuses, the Fenechius and the Chiuarius have already pointed to where the party was heading, and if it's into the dustbin of history, then let them go quietly.

And let me add: thin margin is a great feat for a man who has been attacked every single day for the past five years. And by whom, and on what grounds? I think we've all seen by now, which is why I never hesitated for a moment. Dahn (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, i'm shocked that there are still so many people (and few intelligent one) which believe that Basescu is the leader of the battle against corruption and communism, a victim of mass media's manipulations and a representative leader for Romania. As you said that you are not from diaspora I suppose that you have watched the last debate between the two candidates and noticed the men standing behind each candidate. I must mention that I'm not a PSD supporter, but as a voter of Antonescu in the first round I was convinced to vote for Geoana only by the agreement between the two parties for proposing Iohannis as PM. Although I've expected Geoana to be a better president than Basescu due to his foreign policy qualities and a little higher level of cultivation, I wouldn't have voted a PSD candidate without this agreement. Regarding fraud allegations, hell, this is Romania, at this difference of 70.000 votes there are 90% chances that the result was influenced by them!

PS: I consider absurd the claim that Basescu and PD-L are genuine promoters of liberalism instead of PNL. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, shocking or not, intelligent or not, I am proud to be one of those people. And I don't believe those things as much as I know them, as much as I can see them as clearly as seeing does get. Băsescu is a representative leader for Romania - his kind is probably the most legitimate moral profile to have emerged from that part of Romania which was previously standing still, and is, to quote a phrase, awaken at last. He is a figure in the fight against corruption, if only because he has a full grasp of what that means and, unlike his adversaries, no real double standard on that front. For what it's worth, he is is also the leader of a fight against communism: on one hand, against the memory of communism, setting himself against the system in its totality (and doing away with the bullshit sophistry about the "good" and "bad" parts of Romanian communism, whichever way they have been stated); on the other hand, his is a struggle against the leftovers of communism, the "method without ideology" that Iliescu was so keen on tolerating as a substitute (and when you see the Cântarea României setting for Geoană's campaign, you have a visual representation of what explicit visual clues are still left behind). As for the media being against him: I suppose you're not diaspora either, so I would find it hard to believe that you missed that (the constant bullshit printed by Cotidianul and JN for months on end, the Grivco coalition, Patriciu's personal involvement, the 1,400 times the "punching film" was aired in a loop by just one station, the jester's late night visit to SOV, the "don't go out and vote" campaigns in several widely-circulated media venues owned and tightly controlled by the same tiny group of billionaires who made their fortunes in partnership with the state...).

As for the debate: yes, I watched it. And your comment simply leads nowhere: those handpicked men and women behind Geoană were all kinds, and some of those I'm supposed to be impressed by leave me cold - I'm sure you'd say much the same about Ungureanu or Macovei standing behind Băsescu, so this shouldn't lead anywhere in particular. On the other hand, I find it telling that, in the narrowest of shots Realitatea filmed while they were awaiting the voting results, at least two mobsters' heads were still visible behind Geoană: Becali (who, by his own admission, is a kidnapper and an extortionist) and Portofel Oprişan. Right there with Mihaela and the kids... Between that and the Chrysostomos quotes, Geoană showed his competence and the extent of his autonomy.

Without commenting on how cultivated Geoană really is, I have to wonder about this Iohannis hypnosis: it's indeed a clue that he was the first to strip himself of this sordid alliance twice this morning (I can only read into this a huge "phew!"), but just what is so especially relevant about the man? I know it became Antonesc's mantra a long time back (the secret stuff Patriciu came clean about after Antonescu lost), but Iohannis really isn't that competent, or at least hasn't been proving himself much of anything. He didn't suck at spending state budget money generously handed down by Năstase (shall I presume he's been repaying the favor these past months?), but who does. That he's German... the entire notion of "going German" is, in this context at least, Caragialesque. The PNL went with him because he's more popular than anyone in that sorry-ass party, and because he's a good front to deal behind - the encouraged anomie in which Patriciu has blossomed. Much like Geoană was the only sound yesman option for the Vanghelies of this world to upgrade themselves a bit. Incidentally, the marriage to the socialists was not announced by that Iohannis travesty: it was in the cards, and doesn't even break with the PNL's tradition in corrupt etatism, going back to even before the Revolution. Btw, Patriciu, you may wish to know, was the proponent of a plan to side with the socialists from back in the day of Iliescu, which is how the PNL got split way before the Stoica episode.

You may be right on principle about the 70,000 (though I don't think you are), but I want to wager that further scrutiny would reveal that the PSD score was the "rounded" one, irrespective of overall irregularities. It may turn out that Geoană has less than the PSD was able to push through.

When it comes to liberalism: it depends what you mean, and it's a pretty complex and confusing situation that we're tapping into here. What is "liberalism" in this context? If we're debating the generic term, classical liberalism and the "liberal" label alike, probably not, though let me note that, even in this context, people who primarily support the notion of liberal democracy (inclusive, participatory, "open society"-style democracy) are well-represented inside the PDL, and the main advocates of this centrist approach, the ones known since the 1990s, are more or less reluctantly behind the PDL (22 being one of them).

If we're discussing economic liberalism, yes it is, and clearly more so than the PNL. This also brings us to the third possible definition, of liberalism in a Romanian context - which does not exclude (and often encourages) etatism, nationalism, corporatism, bureaucracy... The latter was the mainstay of PNL politics in 1875-1947, and, for some pragmatic reason or another, dominates the PNL's politics since 1989: the PNL is and always was the party of the "middle class" that is and wants to remain employed by the state, and who is profoundly conservative when it comes to introducing competition in the mix. For example, the last PNL cabinet milked out that entire semi-mythical economic (three-day) miracle to swell up the bureaucracy and increase pensions - the mechanism through which it shot up from 18 to 30%. So, yes, the PNL is the representative of Romanian liberalism, and we'd all be better off without that hybrid. Especially because of the PLD, the PDL is indeed the voice of economic liberalism, of laissez-faire (as far as that can be applied in Romania) and even of Thatcherite scare tactics (at least in theory). Its very positioning (now) resonates with the European hierarchy: the dominating "populars" resulting from neoliberalism absorbing the pragmatic and cosmopolitan conservatives as well as the orphans of various small pro-free market groups; the social liberals hiding behind ALDE, who always seem to be getting along with both the caviar left and the "what can we do for you?" New Labour experiments. All with a Romanian tinge, but nothing out of the ordinary here.

One more note. I find that the general approach of people who cannot stand Băsescu usually implies absorbing material coming from just one source, and usually the more direct and more base of two sources saying different things. They then claim that the others are naive or uniformed, and then use third-party venues to depict this as the mot du jour. They ignore the opposing viewpoint (a behavior that's understandable only to the measure where, as we've already established, the media is in the grip of people having a glaring conflict of interest). They settle for the propaganda show that the other sides puts on, and they then present this as being the reality: on wikipedia, where the anti-Băsescu viewpoint has polluted several articles, presenting interpretations as facts, overexposing and underexposing info as they see fit. That's a bigger problem. For now, let me note this: I've seen and read the arguments (and the occasional blatant lies) stated by the other sides, including those claims made by the likes of Ciutacu and Ghişe and Nistorescu and Roşca Stănescu. How many of those on the other side have even bothered to read, say, Stoica, Stanomir, Ungureanu, Mihail Neamţu, Andrei Cornea, Rodica Culcer, Tismăneanu, Tapalagă? You see, Eurocopter, I express support for one of the two camps because I know both, not because, as you imply, because of my naivite. Give me the benefit of the doubt, if you please. Dahn (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Biruitorul, thank you for your kind notice. Dahn, you forgot to mention Cristian Preda and Daniel Funeriu. About the rest of your logic trend of thoughts, you know... you are right. I have to admit that although I have read and heard Tismăneanu on the radio many times, I never saw him on TV before the last month. I respected him as a scholar, but I was of a not so positive impression about him as a person (partly because of the dispute with Paul Goma). Recently, however, I was able to watch him, and he surprised me. He is much more of a modest person than I thought (I was imagining someone at best as Patapievici), and every time he opens his mouth he has something new to say, without repeating what he said in his previous remark, and always saying something logical, no empty words. That by itself is very remarkable in a leisure discussion. Your model personality has earned some very high marks in my eyes recently. Eurocopter, among 5 people that openly told me they voted for Antonescu in the first round, you are the first that voted for Geoana (2 voted Basescu and 2 stayed at home). I haven't expected you to support a socialist. You say "leader of a battle against corruption and communism". There are many good people in Romania who can work and defeat corruption, communism, even some good leaders. But, please, show me one who is capable more than Basescu to take the battle. Should there been anyone but him, that person would have conceded defeat 100 times by now. That makes the difference between people like us, which are good at words, but surrender at the first second difficulty, people who think high of themselves and low of their neighbors, people who prefer infighting to getting united for a common good, whatever that is, and individuals like Basescu who can bring together people from so different tracks for the good of the nation, and let them work while he takes the blunt of the battle upon himself. A typical example is when he protected Macovei when she was justice minister. Dc76\^talk 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention a lot of people. While I did actually mention Preda, and Funeriu doesn't inspire in me much confidence, I could go on and on (Patapievici, Radu F. Alexandru, Pătrăşconiu, Ioan T. Morar, Macovei, Pora... and all those whom have been constantly daubed in mud by the mogulesque press). One will get a fair appreciation of what outstanding names and well-voiced arguments the pro-Băsescu "camp" has enlisted by glancing through those venues obscured by the moguls in one or another. There is an answer to each question and each allegation, there is an independent voice opting for Băsescu for transparent and honest reasons in every respectable milieu, one just has to do the job of informing himself or herself beyond what's handed down on a platter. To even it out, I also should specify that I haven't cited illustrious names such as Flutur, Antonie Solomon, Pinalti or, for argument's sake Videanu or Berceanu or Prigoană or Udrea (*though I for one find nothing substantial to make me reject either of the latter four picturesque figures). But, either way, their presence in the same "camp" doesn't divert me from the substance: viscerally, this party is reform, because it represents that delayed change in all its natural manifestations. Ironically, I have been persuaded by this in the course of the last three years, precisely after witnessing the vile reaction to Băsescu's mandate and noting what interests were behind it.

Some more on VT. He is not my "model personality" - as mentioned, I only took it upon myself to edit the article because it was being edited into a disgraceful mess by various detractors, including some with vested interest in destroying his public image. I had previously read a small section of VT's work, and found it groundbreaking as an analysis of Romanian communism. I knew very little about him, and informed myself about his life bit by bit, trying to steer away from prejudice (something I do on all other bio articles, but in this case I was for long the only one who cared about the implications of the libel, and was myself covered in spit for standing up to this). That's how I relate to VT, and I hope I never let my stated admiration for him be interpreted as idolatry - it's a normal attitude, but formulated to the background of an abnormal country. This abnormality is probably why I've had to spend so much time on wikipedia evidencing the obvious. If, at the end of Băsescu's mandate we manage to at least strip away some of that abnormality (at least by naturally emerging with a press that is no longer dominated by Patriciu, SOV and their blackmailers), if we do this at least, it would have been all worth it.

I should also mention that there really was not much of a dispute with Goma (btw, have you ever heard Goma talk? it's a frightening study of certain medical conditions). I mean, one would have expected VT to eventually reject all the torrent of nonsense Goma was and is publishing, but Goma was so quick in defaming VT based on a rumor that there really was no need for that open conflict: Goma does a good job of marginalizing himself. There really was no contest as far as I care, and Goma's present attitudes shame his contributions to the dissident movement, but remind one that he was, after all, the one-time protege of Eugen Barbu... Still, I won't shed any more virtual ink on Goma's case - another saddening section of that national abnormality I mentioned above. Dahn (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't put Radu Feldman and Macovei (very intelligent and respected individuals) on the same level with Patapievici and Pora (with all due respect for her, Pora simply doesn't compare.) Udrea is a test figure: ask any woman about Udrea, and from her answer you will know if she advanced professionally on her own or with "help". About VT, please do let me know if problems reappear again. After being myself partly misguided by the anti-VT libel, I want to help steer away from this. I am sure you admire him, not idolate him. About abnormality: please do count me on board. I am tired of contributing only on my own. I'd like very much to return to the atmosphere of the late 2006 when there was a much more lively Romanian WP community. Contributing concurrently (in parallel) results in a higher quality. Yes, unfortunately you are mostly right about Goma. It is very unfortunate that some people forget they were national symbols, and as symbols they should be very careful. If the man Goma says something, so what? If the anti-communist dissident Goma says some non-sense, it hurts. He was a protege of Eugen Barbu? Never heard of this, I am very scheptical, sounds like a typical libel rumor. Vadim is the typical protege of Barbu. Dc76\^talk 15:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To be sure, I wasn't drafting a chart, but simply listing competent voices who are persistently ignored by the other side when assessing "how ignorant one has to be to vote Băsescu". I was also not trying to let my personal preference get in the way - I don't think everything these men and women say is right (not "even" in VT's case), just that it is well-argued and generally up to a higher professional or moral standard than the alternative has allowed itself to use. As a side note, I still see no objection to including even Moraru in this category: he was a second-rate journalist who earned his credibility, as opposed to people like Ursu, Tatulici, Bogdan Teodorescu and Dumitrescu (not to mention Chireac) who were, or were made to look like, professional journalists and turned out to be mercenaries. And while I would be interested to know what about Patapievici makes you resentful (my guess is that, like in VT's case, it traces back to the massive libel and misinformation campaign targeting that entirely respectable man and continuously fed into the public sphere by the Securitate's orphans since 1990), I don't think this is the best place to elaborate on this.

I'm not sure what you mean in Udrea's case, but the women with whom I've happened to have been discussing her have given me both assessments. Now, she is obviously more competent than the gutter press would have us believe, and she has improved herself dramatically since that memorable Turcescu interview, but she leaves me indifferent all in all.

Without trying to undermine Goma's contribution further than he himself has been undermining it, let me note that, back in the late 1960s, he made his editorial debut in Luceafărul, led by Mr. Barbu and already known for its national communist and xenophobic bile. I'm not saying that he had much of a choice (though it will remain unclear if he did), but that Barbu found him compatible. It's also telling that, from what I've read of his own autobiographical stuff, Goma will not mention this detail, but will focus on how Barbu later attacked him viciously. It is a double standard he applies, and, although I'm willing to believe it's not an essential detail in his career, his more recent antisemitic rants are entirely complementary with what Barbu preached more or less publicly. But that's ultimately his business. Dahn (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, did you perchance enroll in a "Politics for dummies" course by Radu Moraru in the last two weeks? Coup attempt, Russian influences, mogulision? Basescu an icon of decency? Compared to whom, Carol II, or Elena Ceausescu? What reforms? There's the report, which is not a reform, but what else? What exactly did he do in the last 5 years (except bringing high ratings for Antena3)? (OTOH, what could he have done as a president?) What staunchly pro-West decision did he take that was not supported by all the Romanian politicians (i.e. joining EU and NATO)? Was not recognizing Kosovo one of them? Was refusing the recognize a part of the external EU border one of them? Now really, what did he do that another Romanian wouldn't have done in the relation with the West? About the supposed right-wing-ness of Basescu? What left-right divide among the Romanian major parties? Was he true to his creed when he was a declaratively staunch social democrat (he was elected president as a SD after all), or now that he is declaratively a staunch right-winger? Was he making a right-wing move when he supported an alliance with the PSD eactly one year ago? Oh and remind me what part of the press succeeded in keeping this supposed decency? Do I hear OTV, B1, Etno TV? Oh right, you must have meant Taraf TV, the only true objective Romanian TV station...

Basescu has no double standards in managing corruption? This is your best to date! Only somebody from Constanta can know how much wrong did he do to the Romanian economy when he was a transport minister... also I suppose he got the money to get himself and his daughters huge villas from the salary as a minister, mayor or president? And his lil daughter payed her campaign from her own piggy bank... Oh yeah, he is also reluctantly supporting Videanu, one of the great winners of the privatisations of the Nastase gvt, just that he always forget to mention. And when Vantu was his friend less than 2 years (and probably the friendship will be reborn soon), he was doing all in the name of Christian forgiveness. Oh don't make me laugh with those supporters.. should I begin with iron guard admirere neamtu? or maybe with ungureanu, the one whose apocalyptic images made vali stan look like an incurable optimist and whose language made mircea badea blush? Not to mention Tismaneanu, a guy that during the campaign kept attacking an old man without any powers, the same old man for whom he expressed admiration in a book he wrote just some years ago... a guy that saw a perfectly rational electoral alliance (not a governing alliance like the PSD-PDL in December 2008), as a revival of the 1946 BPD, and Iohannis as a Maurer? Read them all... and they made me vote Geoana in the first round, even if I had planned to go blank.

Probably I'll regret this, but I have to say that at the moment, with all his real political ideals I completely and irremediably condemn (I'm sure his feelings towards me are the same), I find Biruitorul much more rational when it comes to pragmatic choices. At least he voted for what he saw as a best alternative, not for a Messiah. (VT does have some interesting essays about political messiah's... sometimes I wonder if he reads them after writing them)Anonimu (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here we go... If this election brought anything, it's the pleasant surprise of seeing you all riled up and patronizing me. Let me begin by saying that, while I have become an avid watcher of Moraru (whose uneven mix of witty charisma and candid stupidity I find fascinating), I don't take or need political courses from him. With all the embarrassing episodes on that show, there are several reasons why it stands out and plays a positive part. For one, it is a sorely needed and long awaited comeuppance: once every five years at least, Romanians should have the possibility of viewing something other than a choice between "nothing happened today" and "Băsescu done it". Secondly, while occasionally inept, the show generally kept laudable journalistic standard and even made a point of defending the profession itself - which I am at liberty to believe is what motivated Moraru. This while journalists who are supposed to be prestigious simply prostituted themselves and compromised with blackmailers (not to mention the grotesque caricature of Vadim and Pârvulescu together, "rocking the vote" on live TV on election day!). Moraru's show is in fact not just better than this absolute low, it is better than the average expected, so sticks and stones on that one. And thirdly, the "heroic" aspect: this guy from a two-bit TV station managed to establish himself simply by standing up in front of a tidal wave, to the point where even you are talking about him like he's the eminenced grise. Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Incidentally, this also answers your loaded question about decency in the press - this, plus 22, EVZ, PRO TV and some others, not many. There was also the underground resistance within Vântu's empire - ID (before Vântu shut it down), Vox Publica, Caţavencu to a certain extent. And obviously HotNews. At the very least, these institutions were not by now proven to be in a conflict of interest, let alone not shown to have engaged in blackmail - and that is by now, alas, the yardstick as set by the other side.

Băsescu is an icon for decency indeed, at least as far as decency goes in Romania: his faults are our "national character", his crowning moments are among the best of what regular Romania was able to produce these last twenty years. He is to me the assimilation of morals, the deep understanding that something needs to give. His Romania is individualistic, entrepreneurial and finally convinced that the rules of the game need to be changed. Not a Messiah by any means (and thank you projecting the image of Codrenism onto me, at least it's a novel stereotype compared to what I've been called in the past) - not a savior, not a providential man, not a dictator. Just the best president we've had, no contest. And one of the first politicians who understand and respect the priorities this country should have.

Your entire argument proceeds to debate with a straw man, one who would truly see in him a Messiah. As stated I don't. As for the detailed policies you touch. For one, recognizing Kosovo was neither a Western nor an EU policy (an EU which is preparing to integrate Serbia without a clear stance on where Serbia should end!), and for him it was damned if you do, damned if you don't - I don't want to begin picturing what they would have said on Antena 3 had he recognized it. If indeed it was his decision to take, which it wasn't: I believe he was and is in agreement with all political sides by not doing so, even if I personally would vote for a Kosovo-recognizing Romania. The external border? Which one exactly? Moldova you mean? If you are: bull. Both he and his Moldovan partners went on record with support for a two-state solution. As for his personal touch: for one, he took the initiative in reshaping the EU's energy policy, which the PSD-PNL lobby will not only not do, but will have a transparent financial interest in preventing from happening. You want to talk ideology? Again: the PDL groups the acknowledged theorists of the right, however you may relate to them. It's a fact. And just what are we finding dubious about transitions in a world that gave us Bernstein or Shachtman? Not to mention Geoană's rapid moves between welcoming the overthrow of FDSN rule, taking hold of that very party under honorary president Iliescu and becoming a social liberal in the space of one month? Băsescu has repeatedly explained in detail how and when he changed, and into what, and presented this is a principled option (one his detractors won't cite, and would instead go on abusively presenting the changes as a skeleton in the closet). You may disagree with the change being based on principles, but, between Petre Roman's affiliation to the PNL, the second alliance between Vadim and the UDMR leaders, and countless other glaring examples of shameless transgression (as opposed to evolution), you'll have to agree that there's nothing much to put into that ideal other side of the scale. Incidentally, he has also explained how and why he "supported" the Boc alliance, and I think it's telling that the core event there was the stiff refusal from the PNL.

On corruption and double standards: yes, and obviously so. For one, all the issues you mention don't touch him even indirectly, and they don't actually rely on much concrete other than tiresome speculation in what is by now the consecrated gutter press. Also, while I'm not a student of Videanu's life and career, I will point out the essential detail you gloss over: if indeed what you say is true, then he was one of the many men involved in a huge racket run by the PSD government. Relevant part: run by the PSD government. Essential part: PSD. Way to state a point. Ditto on Vântu: how is Băsescu's implicated by the relationship Vântu wished to cultivate with him? As for the future: I suspect it's going to be hard for SOV to maintain friendships from behind bars, which I is probably gonna happen (and no, not because of president Băsescu intervening to make it so, but simply because of virtual president Geoană not intervening to prevent it).

Same for the "what he did to Constanţa" argument, which presumes that esoteric knowledge of facts. This coming from a city run by a gangster who, incidentally, is one of the president's stated opponents (albeit one of the most ridiculous public figures in recent history). So allow me not to trust you on that one, at least not until he won't move to Brazil as promised.

No surprise that you should also have a problem with my "namedropping", but you're only moving between slander, sophistry and sciolism with that sort of arguments. For one, Neamţu is not under any definition an "Iron Guard admirer" - and come on, don't waste the epithet on the undeserving. You'd have to be referring to some articles he allegedly wrote when he was a student, while he has openly and unequivocally rejected the Guardist ideology and was attacked for it by the neofascist lobby. This before I remind myself that the Geoană candidature was supported by some politicians from the most indecent (and, given the inherent ambiguities, most hypocritical) manifestations of the Romanian far right. Is your objection to Ungureanu stated on the grounds that he is pessimistic? And, lo, you compare this supposed attitude with the behavior of people who lie, who use up their patrons' TV time to spew venom at anybody who was ever not uncritical of the PDL, and who mix irresponsible opinion journalism with what is admittedly a vulgar form of entertainment? Because equivocating them in terms of "pessimism" don't begin to address the matter, the difference in values: one is a journalist you're free to disagree with, the other is a whore.

About VT: rich. For one, you may depict him as the one attacking an "old man without any powers" (poor old Iliescu, right?), but let's begin by stating that the attacks on VT probably outweigh those on Băsescu himself, in both range and violence. Without exceeding his status, VT simply nominated Iliescu, the present-day honorary president of the PSD, as the engineer of the corrupt system we have to tackle even in our personal lives (and, yes, that he is) and indicated that Iliescu's presence at the top of the party is indicative that the PSD is still unreformed (as it is). As for his "admiration" for Iliescu... puh-lease.

Now, before we go on, I want to state this clearly, so as not to allow room for another equivocation. I don't worship these people, but I do respect them - it's that large middle ground between passions that this covers, and I won't accept to continue conversations that invert this simple argument. It is a credit to you that you read them before commenting, but allow me to state that I find you among the "beyond hope of redemption" cases - it's not like I'd expect us to ever agree on even how to read the same text, which is reason enough for you to celebrate your individuality (and, in this case at least, for me to celebrate your marginality). Btw, if Geoană got your second, who was it in the first round? that guy Rotaru? :D

I'm sure Biru is keen on personally answering that last speculation of yours, so I'll leave him to it and get ready with some pop corn. Dahn (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

After all Geoana was the president elected by Romania's inhabitants, so you are a minority.

Ok... remember when I said the one with Basescu was your best? forget that.. this with Moraru beats it! So much that I read it five times hoping I missed a "not" and searching for a sign of irony.... If Moraru is your standard of journalism... Now that is you problem: you got a single source of information... of course your world view is skewed. I have the advantage of following all the parts of the media.. from the violent reactions to criticism of Patrascoiu to the f*ck u all monologues of Ciutacu... If Moraru is a standard of journalism, then Guta is a standard of pop music (at least Minune didn't get so low to make a hymn to Geoana). If you would have said Rogozanu, Buscu, even Hurezeanu, I would have understood... but Moraru.. really.. Moraru?!? I watched him some times (the ones with Stoenescu beat Dan Diaconescu by far as campy comedy), heck, I even watched a part of the one with VT in it (which BTW, I have to agree with Dc, looked quite reasonable for a time - surely that must have been the effect of his educational background ;) ) This is really beyond my comprehension... probably he has brainwashed you with some subliminal messages :D Oh come one, you can't put ProTv (and Adevarul) in the same category as Revista22 (which I thought I'll ever see giving info coming from "sources") or Tapalaga's playground. As for EvZ, it was more politically motivated than Jurnalul (Cristoiu had his daily pro-Basescu opinion piece in Jurnalul, but there was nothing even slightly anti-Basescu ever in EvZ). Again you have a problem of selection bias.

I pity you... you must have some pretty low-level acquaintances if you came to this result. I proud myself of being a true Balkanic, but maybe the difference between the Eastern Balkans and Wallachia is what makes your view incomprehensible to me... that evil Bucharest to quote a long gone editor. We have a saying in Constanta: "behaviour [like that] of the Port Valley" (if it's not clear, is an expression you wouldn't want applied to yourself); this would perfectly characterize Basescu's behaviour. And Constanta is supposed to be one of the liberal parts of the country giving it's past and present. If Romania's priorities are "panem et circenses" he has to work on the "panem" part.

Probably it isn't that evident to you, but is quite clear from the outside that you see Basescu as a providential man. Don't worry, VT neither sees it when he does it, so you aren't alone in it. As for Moldova, he said it clearly he'll never sign a treaty recognizing the frontier... now if that doesn't brig any '38 memories to you, you should review interwar European history. Reshaping EU's energy policy? :))) Now EU is and will be for quite a while dependent on Russia for energy.. probably as a bonus for getting Basescu reelected, we'll also get some brand new prices for gas, proportional with Basescu's mandate.

Wanna put a wager that you won't see SOV anywhere near a prison in the next 5 years, and moreover you'll see Basescu friendly discussing with him (for the national interest of course). As for who started the relation, Vantu was the only one in the media supporting Basescu in 2004... you can't sell me the claim that Vantu initiated this.

A large part of Constanta's population was employed in jobs strictly related to the good functioning of the port. And when you have no fleet, a port in a closed sea like ours isn't very profitable. So it's only natural we got to know more about who did what, just as I suppose people from Onesti know more about RAFO, and those from Slatina more about ALRO. Should I understand you liked Mazare's photoshoot for Playboy? He may not be the most intelligent mayor around, but he did more for Constanta than Basescu did for Bucuresti and Romania taken together. It would take me more than 1000 words to briefly describe the good things he has done (even if some out of populism), and I know Biru isn't very happy when I write on his talk page. If you're ever interested, contact me on my talk page.

Oh yeah. Now seriously, Neamtu exposes some clearly naeionescu traits, even if tismaneanu had it reformed and denying his real beliefs. Allow me to ignore him, for the simple fact that I don't want another ANI thread about my supposed BLP breaches. Geoana's choice to allow open support from PNG and PRM was the rational thing to do.,. I would have done the same if I would have been in his place... those parties are simply too marginal and without a clear programme to count in any political negotiations, but unfortunately they still have a significant electing public. And I'm not convinced that Vadim is actually worse that Basescu when it comes to pragmatic things. Between nationalist clowns and crypt-fascists I'd always choose the first, especially if I can use them against the others. Wh-Wh-Whaaat? Excuse me.. who was the one journalism paid by the PDL who claimed for months to be politically independent? Gimme a 'T', gimme an 'R', gimme an 'U'... now that's the real whore, not some guy who has personal motivations to hate Basescu and gets paid for it, openly, in a true capitalistic way.

What attacks against VT during this campaign... except two articles from Nistorescu (to which VT reacted much to violently), there was nothing about VT in this campaign. Now blaming Iliescu for the system in today's Romania is really obscene. There was one thing that made Romania significantly different from neighboring Hungary in the first years after 1989. PNT's insistence on restitutio ad integrum made the greedy wannabe capitalist to steal everything they could from the state. Hungary on the other hand quickly imposed a limit on restitution, solving one of the great problems of transition. Iliescu's attempt to impose a similar strategy almost got him impeached. We all know that Iliescu wanted a perestroika-like transition, but some forces, both internal and external wanted Romania rapidly back on the capital market. Iliescu was a single man against a mass of collaborators who didn't share it values, and moreover some of them where rabid sharks, like Basescu, who saw the lack of authority as an occasion to get rich quick. If Iliescu was wrong in something, it was being too idealistically democratic for his time. And we all know the results: Iliescu has no wealth, and lives in a house he gets from the state as former president, while Basescu has an immense wealth and is free to try to play God in Romania. Oh, I see you're ignoring the monstrous comparison VT has made...

I concede that.. you don't physically worship them ("neither with the fist in his face, nor with the fist in his plexus" ;) ) Read again, I voted Geoana in the first round. Kelemen would have been my choice if it weren't for the orange craze. All center to left parties in Romania (from the PDL to the PC-"nepecerişti", which I suppose would be the lame excuse for an extreme left) are too nationalistic for my taste.Anonimu (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"After all Geoana was the president elected by Romania's inhabitants, so you are a minority." Hyeah, you tell yourself that.

It's simply a travesty to imply that I have "a single source of information", when I just gave you my informed take on the state of the Romanian press in general: a) we're talking, beyond agendas, of journalistic standards and the manner in which one chooses to support one's bias, and the motivation behind that bias; b) not only do I clearly don't have "one source of information", but we're discussing (and have begun by approaching here) the fact that Romanians are overall captives of just a number of sources, even when these have been blatantly discredited - discredited not by their agenda, but by their standards. I respect Moraru because he's generally kept those standards throughout (gone are the days when he had Pinalti on a lie detector and called it a show), and because his common sense is itself an indicator that the mass of absentee or formerly gullible people who were cleverly prevented in these past decades from becoming the critical mass in favor of reform are using their own intellectual resources to identify the real problems. Moraru is to me an indicator that millions of men and women, the not especially brilliant but not incompetent, don't want a Romania governed by the PSD-PNL variant of the "strategy of tension".

As for the rest: let's agree to disagree. When it comes to Cristoiu and so many others, I suspect the recredibilizare attempt was being applied. And I'm so not convinced by the JN being made legit when it seasons character assassination with the occasional "not defamatory" piece and calls it neutrality - EVZ kept an informative standard throughout.

Seriously, Anonimu, must I be made into the scapegoat every time some user gets it into his or her head that something I say don't fit into a fantasy world? Good luck on your Dobrudjan separatism, but let me just note that the separation between the "good" and "bad" Balkans, where Bucharest is always the bad one (Au la Sybaris nu suntem lângă capiştea spoielii?), is probably the masterpiece of ridiculous projections, and the best clue that the term "Balkan" has overstayed its welcome.

"Probably it isn't that evident to you, but is quite clear from the outside that you see Basescu as a providential man." How does one begin to respond to this type of demascare session pretend argument? "Bound by class and milieu, Dahn was unable to discard his bourgeois liberalism and identify the correct path to historical progress." I apparently argue what I don't know I'm arguing...

SOV's was not the only media supporting Băsescu back in 2004, but that is obviously not important. And, yes, I do believe that was always a one-way street. It's was indeed probably a tad risque to assume that SOV will be going to jail - there are uncontrollable variables to compute, none of which is dependent on who's in power. But either way, the talk of town is that SOV won't even be able to keep hold of his press venues - they're losing him money and he won't be able to harness the state into paying his bills. As for a possible reconciliation: let's live to see the day and then discuss it.

Oh, the fleet allegations again... Listen, even if he had been proven to have sold it (and he hasn't), it would have been a measure implicating a large portion of the cabinet (from a party you proudly vote for). And frankly your supposed first-hand knowledge of how this happened and to whom doesn't really convince me. On Mazăre: pass. But if you want to write that 1,000-word essay, please do, and I may consider reading it. In the meantime, Dobrudja gave an orange majority.

Yet more unmasking, right? Anyway, the "rational thing to do" was to get in cahoots with two guys who, together, would have produced a 5.4% percent? The ".4" part was standing behind the man as he was awaiting the confirmation of results, this when even the diehard Steaua fans can no longer stand the man, and when, again, he's an admitted common criminal. Yet another intelligent choice from Geoană, God bless his heart. As for Vadim, they had the poor judgment to use him down to the last minute right after they had turned him into the dead cat to throw into Băsescu's yard: some time ago, his unilateral half-support for Băsescu was being used by the same people as a means to daub Băsescu in mud - like the president was made responsible by the "jester"'s action. The substance of your "pragmatic things" argument describes the virtues of some sort of revolutionary tactic involving relativity and infiltration, so it's not of much interest to me. As for TRU: I notice you picked up on the allegations made by that sycophant Buşcu, who simply made something normal look like a conflict of interest - even when he and his his entire staff, unlike TRU, are paid for furthering a political agenda. For example, the fact that Voinescu kept writing for Dilema in the exact same circumstances was not a problem (not to mention the staff of ID, for as long as it survived). It was nothing but another one of those diversions, and an poor attempt at discrediting the side with a moral advantage, this when that other side gave us the likes of SRS...

No, VT was not especially attacked during the campaign, he was "just" attacked during the preceding four years or so, constantly and disgustingly. He's probably not the hobby horse anymore because the venues who kept doing that realize that he has responded to just about any claim they made about him, and because their tactics are by now glaring and embarrassing for all involved. His is a good study case into what was allowed to happen to Romania. And again, let's agree to disagree on Iliescu and his "idealism", I just don't have time for debunking that epic. As for the "monstrous comparison": I'm not ignoring it, it's just that there's nothing monstrous about it, and I simply can't respond in equal measure to everything you write. In short, it's a very apt comparison for the type of show the PSD was trying to push through.

Indeed, that carries the risk of becoming "our" version of transubstantiation, I'll give you that ;). Interesting choice on Kelemen: I'm sure the UDMR itself didn't even make an effort to find someone who could at least make the impression that he was even considering getting someone's vote. But, hey, you would have been among the select few to vote for Kelemen and then for Geoană - even the UDMR voters know better ;). Dahn (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, has anyone noticed this: [1]? Băsescu said in a live OTV show that he gave a job related to state security as a personal favour to Adriana Săftoiu:

(Băsescu, to Adriana Săftoiu): "Cel mai urât lucru este, după ce te-a luat cineva dintr-un purtător de cuvânt, te-a făcut ministru - consilier prezidenţial este rang de ministru -, ţi-a poftit sufleţelul să-ţi fie soţul şef de serviciu secret, ţi l-a făcut preşedintele şef de serviciu secret. Şi când constaţi că e căciula mai mare decât poate să ducă capul domnului şef de serviciu secret, să te superi că ţi l-a schimbat. Păi cine l-a pus să vorbească prostii?"

IMO, this is the worse than all the red herring accusations that flew from both sides during this electoral campaign. bogdan (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

His remark perhaps errs in that it's colloquial, but I for one see nothing wrong in it. Critics of the statement have been looking at three aspects, and, IMO, are wrong on all counts.

1) The manner in which Băsescu refers to these two public figures is an answer to a direct question. It comes after 4 years in which these two persons, who I believe have reached the limit of their competence a long time ago, constantly furnished credibility to every piece of obscene libel that the television stations aimed the president's way, using their past political appointments and their personal contacts with the president to destroy his reputation, knowing full well that he was unable to answer (and knowing full well that they were bound by basic morality not to do so). So the argument that Băsescu is unfair is a serious stretch from reality. I also note that Pleşu, who is abusively cited in that section of the media as an equialent of the Săftoius, did in no way use his position to further similar goals.

2) The manner in which Băsescu describes his past relationship with the couple is blunt, but there's actually nothing illegal or immoral in what is now up for public scrutiny. A president will (and will be expected) to nominate at least some of those who work closest to him based on personal relationships - nothing vile or even nepotistic about appointing a secret service head because a presidential adviser tells you he's up for the task! So the notion that there was something inappropriate about the way in which Băsescu appointed these people doesn't stand to scrutiny, and, if true, that approach would in any case cast a doubt on how the two others related to the presidential office. The argument would also be myopic, ignoring the fact that Băsescu has persistently been awarding offices to men and women regardless of background, including some from the opposition.

3) Claudiu Săftoiu was indeed sacked because "the hat was too big for his head", and he did produce a lot of inflammatory accusations that have the added bonus of implicating himself and the institution he was leading (see here, for example). Let's not hide behind the finger: the man has went from an irresponsible leadership of an institution to becoming a pawn in the total media war against Băsescu, at the risk of losing his own credibility and decency in the process. After her resignation, his wife kept at either (depending on whether you believe her or not) trafficking info from inside Cotroceni Palace or slandering the leader of the state, to benefit a political party that is now in opposition to Băssescu, and whose representative she has since become! Dahn (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What?? You just "don't see anything wrong" with the fact that the president of a country appoints a certain person as chief of one of the most important secret services of that respective country, only to satisfy a caprice of one of his councellor (moreover, the person in question is the husband of your councellor)? Common man, whilst I'll be able to admit where the political persons which I support were wrong, you seem to be completely brainwashed and fanatically sustain the full innocence of Traian Basescu. I must say that I don't believe there is a single important Romanian politician completely innocent in our days. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurocopter, once again you have me pegged in the near-impossible situation where I would have to go on answering to a line of thought which insults and marginalizes me, not to say dehumanizes me. What you're basically telling me with "you seem to be completely brainwashed and fanatically sustain the full innocence of Traian Basescu" translates into: "You are a moron. How do you respond do that?" (the "How often do you beat your wife?" line of reasoning). Let me also note some other essential issues. For one, when you are suggesting that I support "Băsescu's innocence", you imply that "guilty until proven innocent" is how we should relate to the president if we're all sane. The implied notion that "all politicians are guilty" does not alleviate that - not only because it's quite nihilistic (ex nihilo nihil fit, nb), but also because it renders absurd the relationship between all politicians and all members of the public. The man is not on trial, particularly not over actions which are not even illegitimate or discretionary - the only objection to them being that they're "not what a president should do" (and when even this latter interpretation is, IMO, untenable as subjective and frivolous). What's more, your entire argument is, to say the list, unfair toward me, because I have never stated that Băsescu is beyond reproach, and because I simply mentioned that, in this particular case, there is no actual fault to speak of.

Now, concerning your introductory question: look again at my earlier post, and read what I say. You did not actually reply to my argument (one of several) that this situation is not what it was painted to be, but simply repeated the statement that it is. Between the question and the accusation that I'm brainwashed, your post added no real argument. Dahn (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The incumbent president is not on trial because of his immunity and continuos pressure on Romanian justice (not to mention that the Romanian Attorney General Kovesi is his puppet). I'm sure that you are aware of this as you are aware of the fact that no Romanian court would ever dare to judge him or his subordinates and puppets. I'm sure that now with basescu's second term all Ridzi-type corruption scandals will be hushed and forgotten. Simply the fact that you don't respect your constitutional power limits is a fault (or perhaps you believe Boc became prime-minister due to his own merits and achievements). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we're going deeper into speculative territory and avoiding the issue as we go. For one, even if he were on trial, he would still be innocent until proven guilty, or, at least, it would not be more reasonable to assume that he is guilty than to assume that he is not. Then again, nothing of what you cite as a guilt is actually a guilt, let alone a prosecutable guilt, so the criterion you cite is inoperable. This regardless of whether you are wrong or right to speculate about how he has set himself beyond prosecution - and you are wrong, but this etire area of speculation is not relevant here.

That said, your line of reasoning above strikes me as the natural conclusion of the libel, rumors, manipulation and half-truths blasted into our media by people who incidentally do stand the transparent risk of going to trial for their activities. But do I call you brainwashed by these people? No I don't and, if I would, I would have the strength to apologize for it (ahem). Dahn (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we're discussing "constitutional powers", is it or is it not true that the one court mandated to assess this stated clearly that there was no reason for the proverbial impeachment, yet this happened anyway by vote of Parliament, with the result that the voting population backed the president? The claim that he also overstepped the limits of his power in appointing Boc is entirely novel to me, and is quite frankly ridiculous. In fact, the one institution testing constitutional limits in dealing with PM appointments is, whaddya know, Parliament (the parliamentary coalition, I mean), who are also toying with Romania's future by refusing to even consider two PM proposals and, down to the last moment, imposing their own choice in defiance of the rule of law. Just so that they avoid the constitutional outcome - early elections which they stand to lose. Nay, Băsescu is not overstepping his attributes, he is the first to use them. Dahn (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

With this typical brainwashing rhetoric you are not getting anywhere with me. Any lucid person can realise that Boc is Basescu's puppet and PD-L is de facto controlled by Basescu (as can be seen from the moon that PD-L won the elections by fraud - I was convinced of this well before the second round that Basescu will use absolutely any method and assets to remain in power). You don't have to watch any "manipulator" mass media to simply realise this. Regarding ridiculous PM proposals such as Livache, let's not start the discussion. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to encourage you to carry on like this, as you're obviously talking past me and arguing with your own projections. It's a useless effort not to convince you, but to get you to respect another person's opinion. The sad thing is that I end up looking bad no matter what, because most people on the "other side" will carry on debating in the same way you do - Condorcet debating with the Montagnards. In any case: O brave new world! That has such people in't! Dahn (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disrespect your opinion, all I wanted to say is that it is wrong and I believe you're the one manipulated and brainwashed by the people you support. Let's say you're right, but in this worst case I still prefer being manipulated by press instead of ilegitimate and undemocratic politicians. Can we end this here? --Eurocopter (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry because we (as in people with common sense) have lost you Dahn. First excusing nepotism, then exposing HUUUUUGE double standards by referring to Mazare as a "gangster" and Basescu as "innocent until proven guilty", then going to accuse the Parliament that it defied law when it only did what the Constitution told him to do (that is to approve or reject PMs)... probably if you would have lived in the 50s you would have been one of Brucan's favourite pupils.Anonimu (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite the accusations to the contrary, and despite the fact that I have never participated in marginalizing you, I don't recall ever having expressed a wish to be identified with you and what you understand to be common sense. I do recall much of you wanting to climb on my wagon, which I never indicated I either approve of or reject. So far, your interpretation of the "common" part in that expression is only common in the sense that it is coarse. So it's just as well I'm lost for your version of common sense, maybe now the people whose opinion I take interest in will actually realize, if they haven't already, what common sense means to me. But let me seep in the irony of you citing Brucan against me... it has come to pass. Dahn (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What? Under the assumption that you are addressing me and not Eurocopter (either way you'd be on the losing side), I hope you realise that there's no relation whatsoever between my message above and yours. Maybe you need some way to express your frustration in writing, but let's keep it relatively on topic. Me "wanting to climb on your wagon"? Man what are you talking about... sorry if I ever left that impression on you, but I can assure you it was involuntary. Maybe I occasionally agree with you on certain specific topics (but on some specific topics I also agree with Biruitorul, which nobody can suspect I am somehow trying to ingratiate myself with him), and maybe I congratulated you on some good articles you wrote single-handed (I have no trouble appreciating the good work of people with whom I disagree), but sorry, there's nothing else, all of it was disinterested. Yeah, there are some people who may be jubilating reading this, but you can't reasonably affirm your past attitudes were somehow influenced by me. About Brucan... I have no eternal admiration for somebody so as to not acknowledge their mistakes. I thought it was the same case with you...Anonimu (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's anybody else still reading this thread by now, I urge them to tell me what part of my post justifies anything in what Anonimu tells me above, as I can't really see any connection on my own. In any case, Anonimu, this should remain with you from this exchange: I'm glad you chose to define your "common sense people" category without me out and Vadim presumably in. I wouldn't have it any other way. This even if it has to come with your attempt at a character assassination, which I interpret as something in your behavior that you can no longer control. Dahn (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you realizing in your first sentence you are actually parroting me? As for others: yes, at this moment you can consider yourself excluded from the common sense people. And it's surely not my fault, as you are the one supporting some claims that even the best paid PDL propagandists are finding hard to support. I see playing victim has become some sort of prerequisite of beatification in the Basescu-world... BTW, you claimed a lot of Romanian editors are party members... taking into account the majority of Romanian editors are living outside Romania and have little chance of being party members, I know for sure I ain't one, and even if I assume that Eurocopter may be a party member that wouldn't motivate the "a lot" part... to make things short, are you a party member? And if indeed you are, aren't you ashamed of yourself to play the neutral guy, when your adhesion paper most probably had a point about you furthering PDL's ideas (as in propaganda)?Anonimu (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you the one condemning any speculation on the results? Now you're disputing the official result of the time? Moraru has made you a bit incoherent... and much more prone to belief conspiracy theories... Ciutacu and Badea can't have that effect on anybody, so you'd better change the channel now and then.

No, you have informed of the state of the press as it was presented by a bunch of dubious persons, among the most vocal being plagiarists and instigators to violence. Seriously how much (proportionally) have you watched Antena, Realitatea, TVR or ProTV in the last month. What newspapers other than evz have you read more than once in the last month? The difference between the pro-Basescu journalists and the anti-Basescu journalist is the fact that the latter acknowledge their bias and never want to pose as impartial judges, as the other do. It's interesting on the other hand how you find excuses for Basescu's (lack of) morality by trying to portray it as in line with the level of Romanian civilisation, while you hold journalist to a supposed high standard (wilfully ignoring the base attacks from those journalist untransparently paid by a political party)... and as if those skewed perspectives weren't enough, you come and call Moraru a top example of common sense, probably along other great journalists such as Dan Diaconescu, Madalin Ionescu, Luis Lazarus or Nea Petrica. Comparing what happens in Romania to the strategy of tension is really disturbing, that indicates that either you are not aware of what the strategy of tension is about, or you irresponsibly try to project a worse image on Romania just to make Basescu look less bad (way to common strategy among supporters of Basescu).

You seem to have become a prime adept of conspiracy theories... I'm sure Moraru must be proud of you. If "informative" means trying to hide the scandals related to Basescu by hiding them behind five o'clock news type of info, I'll keep to the "agitprop" press. I didn't imagine that Basescu could make an educated person an enemy of the freedom of the press.

You don't have to live in a fantasy would to see that your view of the Romanian world is quite deranged. And yes... there are the good Balkans, and there are the bad Balkans. The eastern Balkans were historically a land of tolerance, a place some of the most interesting forms of religious syncretism took place. Of course, Wallachia is not in the Balkans, nor in Central Europe, so it always has to fight to get an identity.. for itself in the first place. Oh, and I don't want to separate Dobrudja (because of simple pragmatic reasons), but I can't hide that I am a strong supporter of territorial autonomy and regionalisation (that is everywhere in Romania), even beyond the "traditional" regions.

It wouldn't be the first time you're being incoherent. Also, mocking the Stalinist wooden tongue isn't really making me nervous.

SOV's media empire was TB's main supporter in 2004, paying all the pro-Basescu "journalists" when PD lacked the sources. It was also the only major media conglomerate vocally supporting Basescu during his impeachment. If I start watching Nasu probably I'll even start to believe in the conspiracy theory that says Basescu and Vantu planned the midnight meeting of Geoana and Vantu to give Basescu a strong argument during the debate. You don't get away so easy from this. I really want to win smth next time Vantu and Basescu go for a drink.

The fleet affairs is clear to anyone who knows how things worked in the early 90s and has some common sense. And no, Basescu is alone in this (of course he had accomplices among his subordinates, but hey, Basescu was the one who signed himself as head of one of the ghost companies that received several large ships for 1 buck the ship). Remember that PSD is actually the splinter group of FSN, as FSN just changed its name to PD. maybe one day you'll see Mazare a FA and you'll get to see why I and my co-citizens support him :D No, Dobrudja just gave Basescu a majority (the petty bourgeoise idea "let's support him because he is one of us" made political considerations irrelevant)

No unmasking, just plain, sourceable facts (of course, now that you are an adept of Moraru, you probably have to seriously wouldwill become one of VT's main shyster and a blind supporter of Basescu). That guy is a MEP, and if Basescu got to rule Romania, I don't see why he couldn't get a place in the spotlights of the political scene. Again I have to express my puzzlement at the way your standards rapidly go up and down during a short conversation. The attitude of PSD towards Vadim was anyway more moral than Basescu's relation towards the PSD, from a "dream come true" to an "enemy of the people". So you thinks is normal for one guy to be paid openly by a journal with an assumed stance, to be paid behind the scenes by the party in power, and still claiming to be independent? Sorry but that's no better than any of the journalist who got paid by Nastase to present only the good aspects of his governance. Maybe I am to idealist, preferring the agitprop type of advocacy, when everyone knows by who, why and against whom the campaigns are directed, and the one paying the campaign don;t have to shy away. Moral advantage? don't make me laugh... I think even some of Vadim's Tricolorul pseudonyms have a moral advantage over TRU.

Forgot VT's Basescu's Peter, and he must always be right, even when he makes the most scandalous remarks.

UDMR did the right thing by promoting the young generation. Nobody expects a Hungarian to become Romania's president, but this was a good occasion to make UDMR's new wave known to thr regular population. My pools say a slight majority of Kelemen voters preferred Geoana (this while Basescu had Hungarian language posters in the Szekely country and UDMR refused an open support for Geoana)Anonimu (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested that there's no reason so far to accuse the PDL of fraud. Since they won, it's ultimately irrelevant to me if the PSD did in fact "perform" a fraud to get itself up there. In fact, having watched the shows they put on in the media, I have a confirmation that they did at least in such instances attempt to illegally influence the result of the elections while these were taking place, which is relevant enough.

I have been answering your question, but let me be even more explicit: most of my watching was on Realitatea, which I actually watched more than the B1 shows (it only stands to logic if you think about it, because B1 only has two relatively short shows, while Realitatea is on all day and night). I probably watched something else entirely for a "third place", but not much of the Antene - I do glance at the political section of Observator now and then, and do try to watch Antena 3's circus with almost daily frequency, but I quickly become sickened by what they pretend is journalism. Pro TV, TVR etc. I often watch for the rare times when they do go into political issues, and even though Sassu has for long managed to make a mockery of the latter station at the public's expense. Not that I need to, but I always do watch what the side I don't agree with has to say - and the manner in which they need to say it says it all. I probably watch them more than you ever did something other than the anti-Băsescu conglomerate. The rest of your argument is based on suppositions that frankly make no sense, as they are based on ignorance or bad faith. The very fact that you appeal to the weakest links and abusively drag a journalist like Moraru into a crowd mostly defined by people who work for the Antene is telling in that respect. So is the comment you make about "bias" and who acknowledges it, which is a poor attempt at constructing a parallel reality: if you had as much as bothered to follow what the journalists in question actually state about themselves and their profession, and were actually yourself interested in providing a fair overview, you'd not state such enormities. And, incidentally, if it's still not clear, we're not discussing the bias of individual journalists, not even the bias of their patrons (at least, I'm not). The issue here is what the journalist does to the news he presents, to the statements he quotes, to the interpretations he chooses to promote in the public sphere, to the separation between opinion and fact, to the citation within context, and to advancing his own pecuniary interest. For argument's sake, none of the two sides may be free from either of these transgressions, but the neutral or "pro-Băsescu" camp is always more professional than the other, and it is generally up to standards, while the other has by now even been featured in the OSCE report on manipulation and is likely to fall under investigation for breaking electoral law. No comparison, no matter how much you blur the lines.

Yes, solid point: the freedom of the press is brought about by more and more agitprop fed to a captive audience. And in fact Seoul City Sue is the paragon of journalism.

Anonimu, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt on your use of the word "deranged", presuming that you haven't really grasped its meaning - otherwise, you'd be crossing a very thick line civility-wise. For the rest, I don't want to get tangled into discussing the identity of a region where immigration from the "identity-less" region of Wallachia has replaced a displaced Turkophone population, with the benefit that one can hear the muezzins while sunbathing in the semi-nude. In fact, I can't possibly drag myself into debating projections and sectarian use of abstract concepts (beyond commenting on how, yet again, a perhaps genuine wish for diversity becomes a postmodern form of racialism) - it would be irrational rubbing on irrational. I also assure you that, just because I acknowledge (not necessarily with pride, but always with a smile on my face) my Wallachianism and "Mezzogiorno"-ism, I don't feel much "pain" when I'm attacked on such grounds, even when the arguments are unreasonable, and even though I'd rather go without being attacked at all. Then again, you're excused if thinking that this is because I am Wallachian, and we are all tough-skinned, individualistic or whatever. But, mind you, this separation of "identities" between Wallachians and Dobrudjans is bound to discredit you in the outside world. As for the "good" and "bad" Balkans, and any such projections, I urge you to read through Imagining the Balkans, and see my actual point.

Again, tough words from a tough man - let's not and say we did, mkay?

Again, what one does may or may not reflect on the other: if Turner supported Hillary, it doesn't necessarily mean that Hillary supported Turner. I'd prefer to think of this in terms of Henry and Falstaff, but you can go on thinking whatever you please. When it comes to Geoană: the man clearly brought upon himself the justified suspicion that he has patrons, and, by visiting with his Achilles' heel just hours before the decisive debate, also proved that he is, how shall I put this, soft in the head.

Ah, the esoteric knowledge again...

Pass on the insulting straw man about "blind supporter" etc., though I urge you to stop structuring your arguments around misconstruing my explicit points - it does you no service, and only risks giving the impression that the only arguments in opposition to Băsescu are based on slander (something I associate with the propaganda machine, not necessarily with its consumers). When it comes to Vadim and his "regained status", may you and anyone else who thinks he is now quotable enjoy the same kind of credibility he has. I for one am tired of this relativism.

That thick line again, Anonimu... Now, if you want to go on believing against reason itself that I am (and the people I quote are) fanatical and if you wish to rely on proof by repetition, you're really only undermining your position. At least you would, in a normal environment.

Kelemen, Marko's cabana boy, is the UDMR's new wing? I would have thought that the UCM is exactly that... Polichinelle's secret is that the UDMR is no longer truly interested in autonomy, because they know that the first consequence will be an end to their monopoly on power. The reformist section of the UDMR, which Kelemen has nothing to do with apparently, is probably preparing for the day when they will become a new regional party contesting regional elections, and only side with the others because they can only get Hungarian representatives through as a group for as long as Romania is as centralized as it still is. The desperation of others, from Marko and Borbely to, alas, Frunda, has taken them into an informal alliance with the PRM! Contrast this with the image of Eckstein-Kovacs and Tabară, the one sound (and therefore vilified) mind to have emerged from the PUNR, both supporting the "divisive" Băsescu. And what's more, in Kelemen the UDMR found not its well-spoken and civilized candidate with no real chances (the man for all seasons), but a guy with no public profile: not just someone Romanians won't vote for, but someone Romanians won't remember! That is the evolution I was referring to, and is a further indicator of the panic that has been gripping the patron-client network that the UDMR has now sadly become. Btw, Băsescu's model of inclusiveness, regardless of what "pools" (are you quoting Băsescu with that?) say or don't say, is the best thing on offer for the regular Hungarian, and the UDMR knows it by now. Dahn (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi. It must pretty hard for you to supports Basescu if your resort to such lame tactics to deflect some simple questions.

Probably you're right... I don't watch the non-"anti-Basescu conglomerate" enough... I should watch OTV, Etno TV and Taraf TV more often. I'm sure they would give a higher insight on how things actually work in Romanian politics. Forgive me for not being aware of what the sources of "real truth" in the Romanian media are. The Antene have their own Moraru, called Madalin Ionescu. The rest are either showmen, pure entertainers, or would have to had statues erected to them as the highest points in Romanian journalism, if you were to take Moraru as the standard. And again that talk about who holds the source of universal truth and and about how every one else who dares to contest Basescu is the lowest class of humanity... are you sure Dahn is not shorthand for Andreea Pora? Thanks for sharing with us that neutral (aka the truth) means being pro-Basescu... at least now we know were we stand. And then you claim your view isn't influenced by messianism... bleah

Maybe you should militate for the creation of an Inquisition of the press, to liquidate all those shameful heresies that try to contest the perfection of the MAN.

No, here you're wrong. Dobruja was colonised, but with the saner sides of the Romanian universe.. massively Transylvanians before 1918, and Moldavian after... Wallachian are just a minority, with the net inflow between Dobruja and Wallachia being negative for Dobruja.

Forgive me, I didn't know what neutral actually meant when I called you incoherent. Now I could call you safely b... but why use strong words?

Conspiracy theories are OK only when the victim is Basescu. Noted, next please.

Geoana should have had a maffioso-style meeting with Vantu like Basescu. Probably now he would have had a sufficient margin to make the almost-assumed PDL fraud irrelevant.

Unless your name is Mihai Neamtu, I didn't misconstrue any of your points. Again please decide where you moral standards are... are they so low that you came to consider Basescu the best of the pack, or so high to make Vadim unmentionable? You can't have both and still claim an equilibrated view on the world.

Tokes' UCM the new wing?!? :))) They are actually the old wing, the ones who couldn't stand losing influence in the way the party was ruled by their more reformist partners and decided to create a sect of their own. Basescu has made it clear again and again that he is a strong adept of centralism, and this Ceausescu-like discourse had raised the level of ethnic anxiety in regions inhabited by Hungarians (and PSD didn't make anything to stop this, and may have even encouraged it by not silencing their nationalist PC partners). There's no desperation... sometimes political parties with completely different discourse to join forces to prevent a greater evil... just like a communist party and a king joined forces to overthrow a dictator in '44. Moreover you evidently take things out of context: both UDMR and PRM weren't avid adversaries of Basescu... the UDMR only implicitly stated it's opposition by its alliance wit the PNL, but never campaigned on it, and didn't participate in the PSD-PNL pacts, while PRM kept quiet, requesting it's electors to boycott the second round until Vadim was given a chance to get some free publicity (i.e. only 2 days before elections). UDMR's politic is not to make its people know to the regular Romanian, as less than 1% of the Romanian ethnics would ever consider voting for an UDMR candidate. Its politic is to promote the young generation, and their campaign in the Hungarian-dominated territories was as aggressive, even if this meant that it was absent anywhere else. But hey, I guess they should hire you as their spokeperson, cause you obviously know what's better for Hungarians.Anonimu (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me make it simple for you, because you seem to be confused: I don't contest that the PDL has won the election, because, as we stand, I have no reason to assume that it didn't. Given tradition, I am more ready to assume that the PSD has been toying with the results to its own advantage. The binary option you lay out only works in your interpretation, not mine, and there's no absolute "either-or" I should take into consideration for whatever reason.

Again with the straw man and the faulty comparison. Watch whatever you like for all I care, just please leave me out of your phantasmagoria: not the first time you lead me to conclude that you're more intelligent than the argument you concoct. And so am I. I'm sure you can find lots of troglodytes you can set in motion with this type of demagoguery, but if you're addressing them do me the favor of addressing them directly instead of exposing me to their prejudice for the habit of striking a point.

The last I was looking into it, there was such an Inquisition: those newspaper editors who drafted blacklists of "Băsescu's servants". One of them is by now exposed as a blackmailer (he already had been exposed as a Securitate informant). The other, whose credibility is now zero, managed to destroy the reputation of a quality newspaper because his boss wants to stay out of jail. There are other bullshit artists who did the same, particularly the nervous guys on Antena 3, at least one of whom is also liable to come under official investigations for the time he served under two ministers. I don't need to create my own Inquisition, as they all did a pretty good job of discrediting themselves beyond redemption. All that's needed is for Kai to just take those splinters out of his eye. Ad again you put words in my mouth with the "perfection" argument, which is all in your head and should stay there.

Let me know when your city's Gauleiter makes that into a legislation of sorts, and we'll discuss some more ;).

(Seriously, don't make me. Count your blessings when it comes to my tolerance, and hope that someone else doesn't report you for this.)

With or without the theory (which seems to be more plausible), the man, no mtter what his intention, shot himself in the foot. I just had to note this, along his many other disastrous contributions that urban folklore shall preserve for years to come ("I was too young by the time of the Revolution" is just one of them).

We each have our pipe dream, but let's leave them behind now and again.

Read what I have said, Anonimu: he is the best president we've had. I'm not positing that, say, Obama is the best president of the USA to have to compete with Jefferson or Teddy or even FDR. I'm saying that, out of the four presidents we've ever had, he is the best, and not just because he doesn't suck, but because he is a good statesman. I find nothing controversial in the comparison between him and, by order of appearance, an illiterate murderer, a cross between Kadar and Andreotti, and a puppet on a string. I also said that he is as good as this Romania will produce at this stage, and that he fits well at this stage in politics. One last time: to evidence a man's merits instead of soiling him for reasons that you can't even explain convincingly is not to worship him, and I believe you've understood that. To defend a man who has been made a victim by the prime manipulators in this country, when the only argument to support vilifying him is that he might not be an innocent victim, is only rational. The alternative presented by you is obscene, but one has to step outside the herd to get a sense of that. The diaspora, who stepped all the way out, has understood as much. As for the moral standards: the very notion that Băsescu and Vadim are by now terms of a comparison is indecent, so I won't comment here. Again, you've just about reached his level of credibility with that, so you may get a chance to experience this situation first-hand.

The UCM is not just that guy, you know. As for Băsescu, his platform it appears is for decentralization, just not for autonomy - nuance. I don't claim to know what's better for them, but outside of your unattested "pools", they seem to just as fine a guesswork. Their association with the PRM may be by proxy, but it's quite clear that the UDMR preferred to extend its domination over Har-Cov by cutting out outside competition as well (not just grassroots pressures for reform), even when this implied a de facto alliance with the enemy who was supposedly their raison d'etre. The comparison with August 1944 is so Rică Venturianesque that it's not worth taking into account (and just who was it that was on all over the place with "reductio ad..." arguments?). Dahn (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You either did not understand my message, or you are rationally refusing to comment on it.

Sorry for not having some apt comparisons like VT... but the reason is simple: the most vocal mainstream supporters of Basescu in the last month were Radu Moraru, Dan Diaconescu and... Varul Sandel. BTW, appeal to flattery won't work on me.

You may be talking about Nistorescu's list, but you ignore one important fact: most of those on that supposed black list continued to write and make their opinions public in other venues of the same media trust, some of them avidly pro-Basescu. From a guy who devours TRU's article, calling the guys from Antena3 sounds as single-sightedness. Also, if Basescu didn't go to jail for what he has done in the past 20 years, you can be sure Ciutacu won't ever came under any investigation. But hey, weren't you the one with the "innocent until proven guilty"? Why, are you afraid to express your true beliefs too?

huh?

double huh?

He is only man, not god like others.

Basescu a good statesman? All other 3 beat him at it, no matter what's your skewed opinion about some of them. What are Basescu's merits? I mean real merits not just paying some supporters to write a report, half of it used to libel one of his political enemies, or the metaphysical claim he somehow influenced EU energy policy. Being a victim is not a merit, especially in the case of Basescu. No, the alternative would have been a healthier social and economical climate in Romania... but most of the expats are too brainwashed in their anti-communism sans raison d'etre (as if Basescu wouldn't have been in Ceausescu's last government) to see past some non-ideals promoted by the pro-Basescu propaganda. Oh forgot it... it must be a blasphemy comparing Basescu with a simple mortal... hope I don't get burned at the stake...

Yeah, he is just the brain of it. Even Nastase's baron were a higher form of decentralization than what Basescu did in the last 5 years.. he is just another megalomaniac, who thinks Romania is too small for himself, and wants to annex neighbouring countries. The comparison with 1944 is much better than VT's comparison of Iohannis with Maurer or the electoral pact PSD-PNL with BPD, but I guess for one should be less dogmatic to see thisAnonimu (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Or it may just be that your supposed argument is intelligible.

Yes, so you claim: I've heard you the first fourteen times, but it's neither to the point nor witty. As for the "flattery" part: your conclusion was too idiotic to be sincere; you are not an idiot, and I don't believe I'm paying any lip service by noting as much.

For Nistorescu and the others: they did, until the venues were either closed down or marginalized. Their presence only depended on the fits of panic gripping SOV, I'd wager to assume. As for Ciutacu: please. I did not say he was guilty, just that he looks set to lose his credibility in the same public way as the Chireacs of this world. It's never "all of the people all of time", and the moment his conflict of interest masquerading as "true beliefs" is exposed by such inquiries, I'd picture all those who don't fall into "some of the people all of the time" will have no choice but to be repelled. No more an issue of the freedom of the press than the implications of, say, Marat's venomous rants.

Your novel racialism and his uniform, Anonimu. A good match for the post-socialist world.

You heard me.

An incompetent man while at it.

Seriously, what chance would I have of ever convincing you of not that there are other answers to your [rhetorical] questions? It would be a pointless exercise, especially unsatisfactory for me - I'd be plowing the sea without even the prospect of being respected (you already downgraded mew from the ranks of humans with common sense, so how low a self-respect would I have to allow myself this treatment for an unbound period?). If that's what you want to believe, believe it, and, as they say in English textbooks, discuss amongst yourselves. As seen on this page, you were already able to enlist more Montagnards, I'm sure you an keep yourselves busty parroting each other's answers to those half-baked suppositions.

As above. Dahn (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're having a mental blockage, or you simply forgot what were you supposed to answer to.

So if you heard it, why are you having trouble understanding it? Is my English that bad?

Hey, I just saw what the true standards of journalism really are... Patapievici is the God of journalism... yeah Gadea and Ciutacu tried to bring at least some feeble proofs for their accusations against Basescu... but Pata is the man... he is what keeps Romanian journalism alive. The video of Basescu hitting a child was a joke compared to this.

Actually I would prefer a president wearing defaced German uniforms in fashion shows (after all the heir of the British throne did it) once a year instead of one ignoring the will of the Romanian people expressed by the Parliament majority. As for my supposed "racialism", probably you have to find some excuses for everyone else disagreeing with you... if projecting some mental constructions on the people whose political option you don't share works for you, that's OK with me. It's not like I could have more doubts about your commitment to neutrality than I have now.

I doubt there's any party leader in Romanian more competent at stealing from the state than Basescu. So you are probably right.

That's what I hear every day from Basescu supporters: man you're wrong, your questions do have answers. Of course, when it comes to making explicit what that answer actually is, all I hear is tu quoques, or in the best case silence, as with you. Now really, you can call me Stalinist or anyway something better than Montagnard if it makes you feel OK. Also, I'm not trying to enlist nobody. Your views are simply too extreme to allow anybody without interests to stay aside.Anonimu (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. Go troll someone else. Dahn (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? This is not talk page you know, so unless Biruitorul ask me I have to reply to your surrealist claims.Anonimu (talk)

Post wherever you want, just troll someone else. Dahn (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems that this discussion got more and more fanatic over night and all of you ignore the economic crisis which Romania is facing and it will be for sure deepened at least until next summer now that Basescu is most likely remaining president. But maybe the strong promoters of liberalism in persona of the PDL government will continue to promote anti-crisis liberal measures such as the flat tax, and get us out from the crisis. Oh, and I still suspect fraud considering that an exit-poll which was erroneous in the first round by 0.2% in favour (!) of Basescu and by 0.05% in the case of Geoana, got wrong in the second round by almost 2%. Strange, huh? --Eurocopter (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you want to discuss in that extended Bulverism? My "fanaticism"? (Oh, the irony...) The link between Băsescu and the crisis? The measure to which the PDL is liberal (again, and according to what definition)? How taxes in general relate to economic growth? Your suspicion of conspiracy in the elections? The general strangeness of things? Dahn (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurocopter, if you are so keen about seeing the end of the economic crisis, why did you supported people that opposed the Croitoru proposed Cabinet? Jeffrey Sachs is not good for you. Paul Krugman is not good for you. What was your counter-proposal? Karl Marx! The crisis will end when you will realize that Marxist ideology is not a solution to any economic problem. Dc76\^talk 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's very simple Dc, Croitoru might be indeed a good economist but has zero managerial experience, which is vital for a PM. In the best case he would have been appropiate for the Ministry of Finance, but he was proposed for the PM position just because he's Basescu's puppet. Regarding the second part of your message, I think you misunderstood me (probably because I forgot the inverted commas when I described PD a strong promoter of liberalism and their flat tax measure as liberal). What are you suggesting now, that I'm marxist? Then, open your eyes and read above that I expressed my support for authentic liberalism. Again, let's stop here and not make Biru's talk page a place for our political debate. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the current economical crisis was not caused by bad governance, but by the fact that Eurocopter supposedly believes the Marxist ideology is a solution to economic problems. Thanks DC76 for revealing us this immanent truth. I'm sure Basescu needs a John too... you'd be perfectAnonimu (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, am I the first to mention this? And it has come to pass. Dahn (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Radu Moraru has done an exquisite job. The PDL should give him a huge bonus. BTW, how do you feel knowing that the world will end in 2012?Anonimu (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anonimu, as they say: lasă loc de bună-ziua. Dahn (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're taking this all to serious. I can understand Patrascoiu that he gets mad when someone criticizes him for the ideas he is paid to spread, but what are your motives?Anonimu (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he actually is Patrascoiu :). But I suspect him being Dan Diaconescu (based on his username), which proclaimed OTV the "new Europa Libera". --Eurocopter (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you being vulgar on purpose, or do you really not realize the man's name is Pătrăşconiu? Anyway, guys, the sectarian and hermetic subculture you're substituting here for Romania is fascinating, but it's as tiresome as anything coming from the slumber of reason, so you will excuse if if I declare it to be beyond my abilities to have to explore the vented products of the abyssal subconscious. And you're right Euorocopter: I'm Dan Diaconescu, and every time I'm not in the shot on my talk show I'm editing wikipedia... Dahn (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It might very well be. It must be the fact that his name contains a sound not found in any other Romanian name (not ones having as stem an old Romanian name at least) that led me into mistyping his name. BTW, what's so vulgar in a fairly common name? I prefer being part of any subculture other than the culture targeted by PDL with the hymns to Basescu by Salam, Guta and Printesa Ardealului (songs that encourage a degrading image for Romanian women, who are told to vote like their husbands, because only men "know the politics", and are encouraged to act like slaves for their man), a culture where it's OK to make public sexual innuendos towards women, you are free to call people annoying you "gypsies" and if some child may have insulted you, you are free to apply physical correction. Forgive me for preferring a subculture where the only moral way to campaign is white propaganda, and where presidents aren't elected for being "din popor", but for their qualifications, a world where a fighter against Ceausism like Doina Cornea isn't vilified by people who prospered under Ceausescu, just because it doesn't have the "right" political options. That's my subculture, that was represented by Geoana, Antonescu and Iohannis, a subculture where power is not a goal, but just a mean to help the people. That's common sense in the classic, Western definition, not in the Franco-Oriental one, which isn't anything else but an euphemism for "smecherie".Anonimu (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If by chance you are one of the public supporters of Basescu I mentioned by name in an unflattering way, I'm sorry for it, but you should have said so.Anonimu (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have an understanding of what "subculture" means. Anyway, there's nothing in that comment of yours that would stand scrutiny or make any actual sense (from your simulated inability to attribute responsibility to your askew and blabbering interpretation of events) and the demagoguery too thick for me to even following you there. Again, save it for the hotheaded.

Hah. As I'm sure I've said, I am not, and I have no public profile - I'm sure you know I've said as much several times before, so please don't poison the well with other such remarks, whichever way you mean them. When you feel the urge, just don't. I am a private man with probably the same public profile as you, and I should not be placed under suspicion simply for holding a political opinion that you disagree with (or, more so, for suggesting that you're misspelling a person's name). I'm not asking, I'm telling, and I hope I won't have to say it again. I will also say this only once: the manner in which you carried this conversation, and the things you have allowed yourself to say about me so far, are already in breach of civility by regular standards, more so in the case of a person who is under special admin scrutiny. Dahn (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Be careful Dahn, tormenting and threatening an user situated under admin sanctions is a flagrant breach of good editor behaviour. You are in danger of being blocked yourself if you disconsider this. I must say that this is the manner in which all this discussion was ongoing and I don't see anything wrong with a heated political debate. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... checked our article on subculture... unless that article is completely wrong, I think my understanding of the term is perfectly OK. If you take the Romanian culture as the one in which Basescu is the best politician, I can't be part of that. Oh yes, facts must have no meaning in front of someone as perfect as Basescu.Anonimu (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't keep a profile for each and every user I meet on WP, so I couldn't have known what you said sometime ago in God knows what context. The very fact that you find my remark about you being or not being a public figure insulting is extremely strange, as there's nothing wrong in a public figure editing WP if he keeps to our policies. People like Piotrus have no problem in making RL and his WP avatar aware of each other, so I can't really see how my remark was directed at poisoning the well. There's more to the world that a concatenation of conspiracies. I accused you of incoherency, you accused me of faking idiocy... at least in my book, yours is a greater personal attack that anything I may have said on this page.Anonimu (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please spare me the sanctimony, Eurocopter. I was here having a casual discussion with Biruitorul and had the poor judgment of replying politely and in good faith to one of your willy-nilly remarks, only to be called "brainwashed" etc. and have you use me for a shooting practice. Why? Because I have differing argued opinions on facts you support with blatant fallacies. I should have known better than to assume that you have grown more familiar with what is and isn't acceptable in the civilized part of the universe, considering that this is not the first time you descend to this level. For these several reasons, what you find acceptable and persist in doing is not decent, and it is (and should be) irrelevant to me whether you find it acceptable in "heated political debates" or not. In fact, the only reason why this is a debate, let alone a heated one, is that you two decided to create one - I could live well without having to be confronted by your opinions in my replies to Biruitorul. The degeneration into harassment is unacceptable from either you or Anonimu or anyone else, and the attempt to invert the argument onto the person you have unashamedly insulted is an even poorer show of basic etiquette.

If you think I have in anyway erred by informing Anonimu that I find his claims insulting, and that admins are likely to do too, if you picture this is the case, then by all means report me. I'm sure you too realize that doing that would most likely result in Anonimu's block (given that he would be on his nth violation), but if you want to prove it empirically, then who am I to stop you. By all means, let's have it.

As for me, I could have simply reported Anonimu the first time around, and he knows it (no matter how much he takes my tolerance of his attacks for granted) - I decided instead to let him know that my patience is waring thin, and that he can get this point across without resorting to personal attacks and humiliation of his adversary. So can you, incidentally - that is if you have any real point to make. With the above, Anonimu is likely to convince admins that he can't really help himself from polluting this space in this manner, and, alas, that the only sustainable way of raising the level of interactions between Romanian editors is still the application of strict sanctions to repeated offenders. Otherwise, the pathognomy of Anonimu the victim (of "torments"!) is of no importance to me, and I will dismiss it too as demagoguery. I hope we too are also clear on this. One more thing: had I reported his words without warning that I was about to, I want to bet you would have concocted the argument according to which I'm vengeful and sycophantic and whatnot for not respecting some coterie or another (and, in fact, for having the nerve to disagree with you in this one circumstance) - I've already heard it all in the past. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What you should walk away with from that is the following: stop discussing who I am or may be, under any circumstance; I am not secretive about that, I just don't like to discuss it as long as there is not any non-frivolous argument to require that I do, particularly in cases where you hint that I would be in any way disqualified by such an identity. What's more, I don't have a public profile nor do I seek to achieve one through my edits here. Given the amount of misunderstandings and threats I've been exposed to thanks to such irresponsible speculations, I would like to show your respect by refrain from opening this subject in the future. I ow you no explanation, and I have never demanded one such explanation from you.

As for me "accusing you of faking idiocy", I appreciate the skill that went into trumping up that fiction, but surely there are better ways to use it. Dahn (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Look Dahn, I'm not Anonimu's advocate and I previously had several conflicts with him. Believe me I'm aware of how disruptive he was and the fact that we are on the same side in this debate is poor coincidence. My problem is that you are treating Anonimu as patronizing as you treat almost anybody on wikipedia in the last period of time. Being polite and sophisticated in statements is not a blanket license which allows you to threaten and impose yourself as superior, from a position of strength to those who are currently placed in a vulnerable position. The manner in which you understand to impose your points of view around here is indeed imoral, while your patronizing-style of statements is actually the one which usually offends people you debate with. Your air of superiority is unjustified in a comunity in which respect, cooperation and a high degree of civilization should dominate. I must mention as well that this debate degenerated from a comment of mine which had a dose of humour, and it's my right to consider people who support certain opinions manipulated and even brainwashed (I see no harassment or personal attack in this). As I'm convinced that you are going to reply me in thousands of kylobites and we are slipping again in an endless debate, let's just stop here and mind each of us of our business. I apologise for my remark above which started this whole waste of time and, of course, letting you have the last word. --Eurocopter (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"and it's my right to consider people who support certain opinions manipulated and even brainwashed" - it's your right to believe whatever you want, it is not your right or mine to say whatever we want. If you cannot relate to other people without calling them brainwashed or by launching fraudulent accusations of patronizing behavior, then trust me not to pay any attention to how you relate to wikipedia regulations. At the very least that.

Incidentally, even if these accusations of yours had been based on some semblance of rational argument, they would still be irrelevant to this project - they would still not be, as you claim in the absence of proof, intended or interpretable as deviations from either wikipedia norms or general rules of behavior. You just like to throw around serious accusations that you hope will undermine a position I didn't even ever claim for myself. The entire argument you've concocted - from me being "patronizing" while "sophisticated" (your words) as an equivocation for the gross and demeaning name calling you expect I should tolerate from you or anybody else to this being some sort of offense - is bogus and frivolous; you've only vented it around here because your only hope is that it will somehow damage my reputation in front of potential gullible ones who may venture on this page and agree out of herd instinct with such baseless accusations. Again, if you see a problem with how I "treat" other editors, go ahead and report me instead of this sloppy masquerade of a show trial. Otherwise, please refrain now and in the future from testing my patience in this manner. Dahn (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Man, I truly must be the source of evil in the Romanian subuniverse of WP. It's interesting how your perspective on my actions quickly changed after a small political disagreement (i.e. as opposed to the our diverging paradigms of the ideal society). Again I think you're taking it too serious, but hey, if you want to report me I won't be the one begging you don't. I can't ignore however the similarity between your argument and that of Basescu at Dan Diaconescu Direct about his clemency towards Geoana and the mysterious video recording.Anonimu (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anonimu, I don't expect you to beg for clemency, and the self-victimization of yourself as "evil in Dahn's eyes" is another piece of the slanderous wikidrama I have to put up with. Much like other abusive paraphrases of things you claim I have said, that one is actually not based on nothing in my argument, nothing at all, not one iota. Outside of such red herrings, appeals to emotion and straw men, you've got nothing but plain insults. At least cut down on that last category, and we can go on having civilized encounters; produce just one more and you'll leave me no choice but to agree with the sizable of number of users who have come to the conclusion that you've transgressed one time too many the limits of your editing privileges. You frankly leave me no other choice, as much as you know I would still be tempted to give your other contributions some credit. Dahn (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some disjointed musings:

• I do applaud some of what Băsescu has done. He has refused to be bullied by Russia (unlike the British), to forge an obscene alliance with her (unlike Berlusconi, Schröder and to a lesser extent Merkel), or to revert to her orbit (unlike his Bulgarian counterparts). He has taken a courageous stand on Moldova. Just as the Prime Minister of Greece, whether he likes it or not, must take an active stance on Cyprus, so too must the President of Romania have something to say on Moldova, even if (alas) in both cases a two-state solution will be in place for the time being. Moldova is at a delicate moment now: after 20 years of going in circles, she can either become Ukrainized, Transnistrized, Putinized, or she can become a much poorer Estonia. I credit Băsescu for nimbly advancing the latter option. Given the dire implications of the treaty Constantinescu signed in 1997 (if not the other bits, then surely he could have held out for Herţa: sure, there's the Åland precedent, but respect for Romanian cultural rights by Ukraine is hardly what Finland allows its Swedes), I credit him for, as he says, not being ashamed of saying the word "union", and for not irrevocably signing away places like Cahul, Orhei and Tighina, while at the same time not making overt claims to Moldova. Though hardly unique in the region, his partnership with the United States is commendable (despite the military bases, which were a step too far), and a refreshing contrast to the equivocation shown by others.

• That said, his proposal for a unicameral parliament strikes me as a bad idea. First, for domestic historical reasons. I view Communism as a 42-year illegitimate, illegal, immoral and abusive interregnum. I look to restoring an idealized version of the 1920s and early '30s, or more appositely, to continuing the work begun and brutally aborted by the democratic forces in 1944-47. That means King, Senate, Chamber. And if no King, then at least Senate and Chamber. Second, for more general politological reasons. Of the eight largest EU members, all are bicameral (not to mention the US, Canada, Australia and Japan). This implies that larger advanced democracies find the effect of a second chamber useful. It tempers the passions of the lower house, it provides an additional veto point, it brings its own perspectives and understandings. It also restrains the power of the executive. If there must be unicameralism, then it would be well to consider a reduction in presidential powers, perhaps to figurehead status (and in that case, the case for a King becomes stronger). 20 of 27 EU members already have parliamentary systems. Cyprus is presidential and unicameral. The other three (Romania, France and Finland) are semi-presidential; the first two are bicameral and the last is unicameral. It's relevant that Finland has taken steps to reduce the powers of its president, culminating in a reform in 2000. Gone are the autocratic days of Urho Kekkonen; if the MAN is brought back, Băsescu may wish to consider relinquishing some of his own authority in turn. I also abhor his notion of replacing counties with regions.

• Inevitably, as the years wasted away, it became harder and harder to restore much of anything. In 1990, Romanians in their 50s still remembered the dying days of the monarchy. Today you have to be almost 80 for that. The original sin of the Revolution came just hours after Ceauşescu's flight, when Iliescu refused to admit Coposu into the television station. His treatment of the opposition -- the legitimate heirs to power, at least the PNŢ (but also the at-times great PNL, and the much-lamented PSDR) -- as at best a nuisance only aggravated that. Months later, Romanians themselves compounded his sin (and I'm not using the term in a religious sense) when they overwhelmingly rejected both Raţiu (a man totally untainted by Communism) and Câmpeanu in favor of a man little better than Bobu, Postelnicu et al. Now, in 2009, it's time to make use of what levers remain in order to erase the stains of the past. Băsescu, flawed though he is, seems the most serious and capable figure in that regard. Going forward, a dose of humility would also do him well. I very much agree with this comment by VT: "A uita invocarea, grotescă, a numelui lui Corneliu Coposu înseamnă a legitima , prin amnezie, blasfemia pe care au regizat-o, stângaci, Geoană şi Antonescu. Înseamnă a împinge în uitare sacrificiul unei generaţii care , în anii dintre 1944 şi 1947, a opus pactizării cu răul totalitar speranţa ei într-o Românie pe care ne este dat, acum, nouă să o edificăm." Whether they know it or not, the spirit of '45 smiles on Băsescu's backers.

• Comments on this statement by Cristian Tudor Popescu? "Securitatea a învins încă o dată Partidul Comunist. E echitabil, dacă ne gândim că Ion Iliescu a avut două mandate şi Traian Băsescu are şi el două, Emil Constantinescu fiind un accident. Ura a învins frica. "Comuniştii" şi "capitaliştii" moguli au fost consideraţi mai periculoşi decât criza economică... Antonescu reprezintă tipul de politician "generaţia următoare", care nu are legături nici cu Partidul Comunist, nici cu Securitatea. Crin Antonescu este speranţa că aceste alegeri prezidenţiale au fost ultimele în care s-au înfruntat candidatul PCR cu candidatul Securităţii." - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[Before a more complete answer:] Oh crud: I just realized you meant the M[area] A[dunare] N[aţională] - I read it as a capitalized (and thus angry) rendition of "the man" (and thus "the president"). The irony is that we are in agreement to a great extent: I voted no on unicameral, yes on reduction, but to tell you the truth, with the crossover in attributions and the long hiatus between the legitimate upper chamber and Iliescu's Senate, the difference between the two options is not that relevant. All in all, I would have preferred a vote between constitutional projects, not just disparate points. Dahn (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. And by the way, I consider legitimate the criticism that the current Senate is an exact but smaller clone of the Chamber. A difference in attributes, or staggered terms, or in what it represents (eg, it could represent counties and not the people in a more decentralized polity) or a different (s)election mechanism are all worth considering. Even the much-maligned House of Lords, which Blair, Brown et al. seemed ready to torch in its entirety a decade ago, is recognised for the value of the expert opinions it provides. Perhaps, then, the Senate could be a presidentially appointed chamber of experts (à la the Canadian Senate) - with Băsescu, of course, appointing the initial tranche of Senators. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

About Popescu's article: I had first heard it "played" on Realitatea as part of the news (which is in itself a transgression for quoting an opinion piece, particularly since no other opinion was an offer) and it struck me then as it strikes me now as sophistry, not as the first time he's been at it. If I were to assume it's with a bad intention, I would call it a diversion, and given Popescu's witting or unwitting defense of the un-defensible in so many other instances, he's at least shown himself, to my mind, a person who will at the very least walk himself into a corner following his logic. Now, I'm sure it's reasonable to speculate that there is a part of the Securitate that has gravitated toward the PDL, just like it might have done with just about any party. But that not only doesn't necessarily implicate the PDL - unless by the mix of tu quoque and guilt by association theory professed by Anonimu above. Given stuff that we saw happening in the early 1990s, I suppose it would also not be unreasonable to assume that it was for most the pragmatic Securitate, those guys who would watch American videos on film while at home and felt the limitations of the Ceauşescu regime as a personal affront. But even if there were ample proof, or at least decent guesswork, that the PDL is one and the same with that Securitate, allow me to see an implicit added value in that, as opposed to the alternative of both the "national" Securitate of Protochronists and other imbeciles and the cells set in motion by the KGB. In that eventuality, and only if there's any substance to Popescu's argument.

Leaving aside to measure to which Popescu manipulates public sentiment by implying that the more moral choice is still the PSD (who would not prefer the entire PCR to the entire Securitate if parachuted into that dystopia?), let me note that he's either ignoring or obfuscating some rather plain facts and an entire tradition of post-1989 intellectual criticism. The PSD is for sure the PCR's successor in most aspects, its history a living museum of what comes after perestroika in a country like Romania. Unlike other post-communist socialist parties in Eastern Europe, the PSD was also unable to reform itself, and didn't even bother to change much of its propaganda and ideological apparatus - just chopped off some heads who were in personal disagreement with Iliescu and now passed on the flame to Vanghelie. According to the overwhelming critical interpretation at least, Iliescu favored and in the end gave legitimacy to feudalism and corruption, all so that he would keep himself in power - not just because he was let to, not just because it was the easiest way for him to preserve what he believed needed preserving, but also because the stupefied and manipulated Romanian society was unable to stop him (and Popescu was notoriously seen as one of those who helped him do it). In the process, as the Târgu Mureş events and the reemergence of the "national" Securitate under new names will show, the proto-PSD married itself to the Securitate and smoothed out any disagreements between party and the most conservative of secret police structures. By doing that, it lost all the thin moral advantage that other reformed communist parties were able to start with. It only managed, at best, to orphan some of the angry young Securists, all of whom were better, none of whom were ever as politically relevant as, say, Kwaśniewski (if we're to go with one of the contradictory verdicts on his background).

Other than the idiotic and self-contradictory accusations of Securitate collaboration aimed so far at Băsescu (and ironically launched into the public sphere by the likes of SRS and Vadim), what measure of Securitate involvement has been invoked so far when to comes to the PDL? Maybe we can reasonably claim that the PDL is not delighted nor going out of its way to explore the missing portions of Romania's communist history, but it is still the party most transparently dedicated to the cause of probing into the matter. This when the system in place for doing that was sabotaged not just by the PSD, but also by the CDR (the CDR's incompetence or the moles left around in the CDR? I suppose we'll never know for sure, but note how Ciorbea and Constantinescu and Ciuvică now have no seeming problem with legitimizing "the system who defeated them"). And then on: wasn't the Commission Report also aimed directly at the Securitate power before and after 1989? is it the PDL who put the Securitate back at work and beyond the possibility of lustration (not to mention public exposure)? is it not the PDL who placed the secret services squarely under civilian control? is it the PDL who shamelessly blasts into the world that it has illegal control over the 0215 archives? and does the PDL have control of a propaganda machine (with which Popescu will openly affiliate himself ever so very often) publicly exposed for its infinite connections to the Securitate and its rogue leftovers? And so on, and so on.

The evidence I can interpret so far, without veering into that toţi minte, toţi fură delirium that the Securitate has traditionally inculcated and propagated as the best defense against the truth, indicate to me that the PSD is the PCR and the Securitate together. Whatever has favored that historically, the PSD fell way short of the basic requirement that other former communist parties respected: sever the links with the repressive apparatus and the world will look the other way when it comes to your other sores. The filthy trail it leaves behind, where Vadim feeds and welters, completes the image of Romania's absolute failure in achieving that minimal standard of decency that other Eastern Bloc countries received with their mother's milk. To state otherwise and throw the blame onto other participants, just because they may not be completely innocent, is by now itself indecent.

As for Popescu's views on Crin Antonescu: hah. I can't really imagine why people always seem to forget that the guy is not twenty, but fifty - so if suspicion should fall on Băsescu and others just because they happened to exist as persons before 1989, why not subject Prince Charming to the same standard? That's one. But Popescu's idea, I suppose, is that the PNL itself is untapped by the Securitate and the party, and that I'm afraid is moronic. For no other reason than that Patriciu's core policy (and therefore Antonescu's obsession) is to tie the party to the PSD, at all expense. The PNL is now to the PSD exactly what Tătărescu was to Groza. And all of this presumably because Patriciu stands to lose if his self-admitted liberal policy of mooching off the state, the state as it was redesigned by and through PSD administrations, may come under scrutiny. Romania well and truly has become Italy in the 1960s and 70s, only the ideological polarity, as far as that matters, is reversed. The PNL and its many connections are, at best, a symptom of that affliction and, IMO, the party needs to make a quick and lucid choice or risk finding itself a carcass sucked dry by the PSD. And, because I can see the reply forming on some lips out there, even a carcass sucked dry by the PDL (the new PNŢCD Miluţ wing?) is by definition a more decent option. Dahn (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No Securitate, not at all.Anonimu (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And? Even reading the actual article you'd have a hard time explaining "links" between the PDL and the Securitate. I'm sure you wouldn't like to be assimilated with every person you were ever in the company of in some large room - or else Iliescu would be Omar Hayssam's sugadaddy. Dahn (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not PDL, Basescu. Oh yeah, Iliescu may have eaten a soup with Omar (ha!), but he never became his professor ;)Anonimu (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, we keep switching. Regardless, you did not answer my question, nor did anything in the article back your argument. As for the "professor" thing: I'm sorry, I'm not as gullible as to believe that urban legend tracing back to the the convicted terrorist himself and only made "news" by the usual suspects. Much like I don't believe in the Boogieman. Dahn (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

According to this Geoană ally, it's actually collaboration with the UDMR that turned the PNŢCD into a dried-out carcass and risked doing the same for the PNL. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he ain't doing wonders for them either :D. Dahn (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the same logic, you could say Liiceanu was an Iliescu ally in 2000.Anonimu (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may complete your disjointed musings with one of my own. I think we all remember the fable by Grigore Alexandrescu: Şi ce-ţi pasă ţie? Te-ntreb eu ce ziceam? / Adevărat vorbeam, / Că nu iubesc mîndria şi că uresc pe lei, / Că voi egalitate, dar nu pentru căţei. This is the mentality that's gripping Romania, and it's telling that, back in the 1840s, Alexandrescu was aiming at the hypocrisy and hidden interests of what we are told are the same liberals. The main and self-admitted failure of the Civic Alliance and other civic movement back in the 1990s was that Romanian society would not be swayed in support of reform, their frustration was that they could not get a partner to persuade: that between a manipulative proto-PSD and the proletarian limbo where the maneuverable mass resided, there was almost nothing. This while the PNL was already assessing, through both Câmpeanu and Patriciu, a partnership with the dominant party (for reasons that we all are just now getting to assess).

But now that void is filled. Our social structure has changed dramatically with all the good and bad, the free market has been fully integrated into the social fiber and mentality, some forms of clientelism that the PSD thrives on have entirely lost their function. As society has emancipated himself one way or the other, other, more mafia-like, structures have established themselves in resistance to legitimate people, because the the PSD can no longer hold the population captive ("all of the people all of the time").

What is amazing is that critics of Romanian society more or less hypocritically accuse the new grassroots reformist movement of not being ideal, and this despite it being at long last legitimate. That is how most such views translate. After a process as laborious of human evolution, at the end of which the mass of this people would deserve a pat on the back, the mastiff finds the little dog annoying and wants to share the ideals of equality with the lions he entertains. The lion was never the enemy for those who produce the argument: the lion's only fault was that it would not allow the mastiff to create himself an elaborate fantasy in which he too is an animal of the jungle. Some intellectual criticism of where we are today with our grassroots and all does not address the issue, but merely posits on the fact that Romania is not what France is supposed to be (and what France actually isn't any longer, but that's another matter). The only great question that such critics have to ask from the other Romanians is "why are you not my mental image of you?"

And that's just part of the argument. Many of those people know they could never prove themselves were they actually thrown into the turmoil of competition that they so often claimed to be supporting, and which the bricklayers working in Italy have had to plunge themselves into. Some have developed their own forms of networking, their own special corruption, their own ways to advance beyond the limits of their competence. That is, I do believe, the pool where both the PNL and PC alike are content to fish for many of their steady voters. A more politically correct interface for the PSD. Dahn (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the general dismissiveness toward Constantinescu (a rare point of agreement between Dahn and CTP)? True, the energy that propelled him into office quickly drained away into stagnation and endless sniping. True, he made some poor choices (Ukraine, Kosovo). True, he was hamstrung by the ex-Securitate and PCR, whose hands still gripped many levers of power. (Plus, he's been a horrid ex-president.) But still: the first peaceful transition of power. The quasi-fulfillment of the Coposu project. His reformist plans, which hardly advanced past the embryonic stage, were conceived with the right spirit and the same general free market ideas are applied today. He made approaching the West a priority, and that was reciprocated. He was also the only bona fide intellectual among the four presidents. And he made do with three advisers to Băsescu's 9+ (although one could argue the lack of advisers hurt him). - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I recognize the man's achievements and historical role, and I could make my piece with his manifest incompetence and the vented frustrations he projects on others. All in all, I probably would criticize his mandate less than people who are generally not seen as harsh on Constantinescu. But I could never ever accept the obscene manner in which he is trying to shift blame on others for his own mistakes and his continued association with precisely those who preyed on his weakness. So I guess we're actually in agreement. Dahn (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)