The least of Crin Antonescu’s real problems in this electoral campaign should be what he has done in the last 10 years, although I notice that the attacks are focused on this biographical element.
As long as the source of income he lived on raises no suspicion, considering the positions held by his wife, the way the Antonescu-Vălean family chose to organize their life is a private matter.
In comparison, in the case of the Georgescu spouses, it is not clear exactly what the source of income was during the years spent in Vienna, at least because neither of them had a highly paid visible position.
As long as there are no suspicions regarding integrity or illicit/immoral activities, I do not see, as a convinced liberal, why anyone should be interested in what a person has done in a private life stage.
In other words, I do not believe in returning to the essence of the phrase "he did not eat salami with soy," in an adapted form.
It is equally true that the conservative rebranding of the former liberal Antonescu somehow invites this questioning, considering that the situation represents a deviation from the traditional roles within a conservative family.
Mr. Antonescu, however, from my point of view, after watching his recent public appearances, has other much larger problems.
And the most serious one seems to be the lack of consistency in his discourse when he is put in a position to respond to specific questions. So far, I have not understood from him what concrete vision he has for Romania. What are the principles upon which he would approach relationships with parties, the criteria for appointing the prime minister, for proposing heads of intelligence services.
I have not heard from him, although I asked him myself, if he has a vision on how the secret services in Romania should be reformed and civilian control over them.
I understand that he wants to relaunch foreign policy, on a Euro-Atlantic dimension, of course. But how exactly? What would be the content of this relaunch in the complex Trump era.
A lot of ambiguity regarding the rule of law. I understand that he does not want to return to the Kovesi model, it is his choice and, ultimately, a sign of consistency.
But when Mr. Antonescu questions the respect for a ECHR decision, the one obliging the Romanian state to ensure a legal framework for same-sex couples, we can no longer speak of a vision issue.
Mr. Crin Antonescu says that very solid arguments are needed not to comply with the ECHR decision. Am I to understand that ECHR decisions can be respected or not depending on pro or con arguments? Are they not mandatory? Is this also valid for court decisions?
Mr. Antonescu says he has not applied for a special parliamentary pension, but does not rule out doing so. If he does not rule it out, does it mean he has no principled issue with this type of pension? An ambiguity that may shed a different light on the 10 years missing from his pension contribution.
Just as I have a very big problem with the fact that Mr. Antonescu claims he is not a representative of the parties supporting him in the presidential elections. Yes, he is, at least as long as they finance his campaign.
He is responsible for their decisions, especially for those in the past, for the actions of the leaders of these parties? Certainly not. But from the moment he became their candidate, Mr. Antonescu cannot dissociate himself from their liabilities, just as he does not dissociate himself from their subsidies.
Surely, Mr. Antonescu's position is ungrateful. His campaign is marked by a major deficit of trust from the coalition supporting him. He knows he will not be able to gather all the electorate of the three parties, which will partially migrate to other candidates.
But that does not mean it is acceptable to fuel the great deception, the big trick of these elections – the independent candidate from parties who will turn into the president independent of parties.
We are not electing a king. We are electing a president to whom the Constitution gives very few exclusive powers and very few direct levers. Most and most important are at the beginning or end of a process in which other political actors decisively intervene.
I have said before, he appoints the prime minister, but Parliament votes for or against, refuses to promulgate a law, but only once, proposes the heads of services, but Parliament appoints them, appoints chief prosecutors, but those proposed by the Minister of Justice. And so on.
A president who cannot rely on a parliamentary majority is useless. Therefore, I find it essential to know which parties a candidate relies on and how he sees collaboration with them.
No one questions Mr. Antonescu's rhetorical talent, but if he fails to add vision consistency and principles to his campaign, he risks remaining in the minor range of fencing charges in a battle destined for heavy artillery.