WHO WON THE PRESIDENCY: Johnny

One of the following would have been my intro of choice to the article about yesterday's elections:

"Suspected of complicity to murder, (if not even homicide), suspected of going gay in order to curry the favors of his bosses and to rise up quickly in the political hierarchy, former undercover agent of the intelligence services, suspected of sexual orgies (including with minors), notorious liar and plagiarist, Victor Ponta became Romania's president, apparently having all the qualities required for this high position".

Or:

"Suspected of having sold children to be cut up for organs, having acquired wealth through inexplicable means, accused of incompatibility by the National Integrity Agency, a slow-witted provincial, lacking humor and the sense of shame, mayor of Sibiu Klaus Iohannis, was chosen to be Romania's president by voters, who, unbelievably, thought he was just a bit better than his rival."

But I realized that the rigors of journalism don't allow me to make those kinds of introductions, even though they do have their sway.

The role that Ponta allegedly played in the suicide of prosecutor Cristian Panait was never proven; sexual orientation is an individual option; any alleged violation of the law, in case he actually was an undercover agent, may have stopped thirteen years ago; we found out about the orgies from the statements of a parliament member who has actually got a few screws loose, according to people who dislike him; as for being a plagiarist, we know he is, but, hush!, the judicial system disagrees, and as for the lies... well!, is there any politician that doesn't lie?!

As for the other, the same thing applies: maybe Iohannis actually intermediated adoptions, without being aware that the children would be adopted in integrum or in part; perhaps he did obtain his properties "with honestly earned money", like he said in an interview, while refusing to explain what those ways were; perhaps the court of final instance will rule that he was not incompatible when, while he was a mayor, he represented the city in the general shareholder meetings of "Apă Canal" and "Pieţe"; perhaps he does have "vision", he actually thoroughly thinks things through and that is why he takes so long to answer any question, and when he does he looks like he is in a stupor; and perhaps, in spite of his sudden baring of his teeth and then just as abruptly resuming his serious expression, the next second, he does have some kind of special humor and we didn't notice it.

So, without any documented evidence, I can't begin my article the way I would have preferred it.

On the other hand, I could move to a higher level of the meaning of these elections, which would eliminate the need for documentary evidence.

For example, I could look at the personalities of the two "seekers of the crown" from the point of view of British "ranter" Jacob Bauthumely, who, in 1650, claimed that sin is not a gesture, or an action, but a state, a loss of our divine nature.

We're talking about the loss of sacredness.

This perspective works for me, because by eliminating the need for evidence, this reduces the evaluation of the two politicians to what we feel when we look at them.

What do we feel?

Elation?

Hope?

Do they represent us?

I for one, I feel dizzy, just like I would after a drunken night in "2 Mai".

Two huge spiders - two Johnnys -, whose legs are made up of minuscule party members, ready to disintegrate, under the spray of a cheap deodorant.

"You've created a monster, if we lose the elections, then the PSD will disintegrate!", Ion Iliescu said.

It's clear, the honorary president of the PSD must have been a nudist at "2 Mai" once, because if he wasn't, how else did he get such a good image of Johnny?!

The other faction, a visible mish-mash of small and tiny political parties, claiming to be "right-wing", whose members make up the legs they lack, (themselves demobilized by the dull man they are trying to push up towards the Cotroceni palace).

Was this a confrontation between the secret services?

There are many clues that this was the case.

The rebellion of the SIE, which refused to provide its services to one of its main beneficiaries - the Presidency - and actually sent its former director, Teodor Meleşcanu, to run for president, as a diversion meant to boost Ponta, is one such clue.

The earlier rumor that George Maior, the head of the SRI, might become prime-minister, if Ponta became president, is another one such clue.

The very recent topic of undercover agents operating in the press and in politics, which has crossed the electoral campaign, is another.

The common belief has been reinforced that at the top, the intelligence services are pursuing the legacy of the former "Securitate", that they are conducting illegal business (and not necessarily in order to do their job, but for the personal benefit of some members), in which they involve politicians and therefore they become interested in placing their own candidate in the presidential seat.

The lack of quality of the presidential candidates and their terrible weaknesses represent the most telling hint that this is the case.

Don't you think that we have too many former heads of secret services, who would actually have to keep their mouth shut and not take advantage of the information that they have gotten hold of?

At the SRI and SIE alone, there would be about thirteen mouths that would need to be zipped tightly.

And some of them are actually blowhards and lacking in character, with wives or former wives that are political traitors, involved in various electoral campaign teams.

I have no proof, perhaps people are wrong when they say that the services have been involved.

The only certainty is that neither of the two candidates give us the impression that they care at all about us - they have no virtue.

I can tell who will be president without any exit poll.

Johnny.

An induced reason to avoid wishing for sovereignty too much.