Someone inside the power wanted the ongoing coalition to die for good. Nothing happened eventually. PD won! Oh, no, PNL is the real winner. Yes, but the president? Didn't he have the crisis cleared up? How about the peasant members who stayed still, letting the others to break their heads? May they have won everything? Keeping like this until you come to understand anything from newspapers. The yesterday press was completely astonishing. A paper that had strongly backed up the liberals grudgingly printed: "PD Won!" "Cotroceni Left PD In Off-Side", others say. An extremely embarrassing presidential paper prints in large caps: "The President Tearing the Cat Apart!" and "checkmates" all. If you despise the president you can see something else. Either "the Cotroceni puppet man has dropped the curtain" or "he's making a pedestal for himself kicking Isarescu", as two presidential papers were printing yesterday. The ultimate conclusion: the Babiuc crisis made no sense at all. Its very logical meaning may have to be searched for somewhere else. To do this we have to ask ourselves where everything does come from. The former minister of Defense said that if he hadn't resigned his political career would have surely come to an end shortly. Just like that. One person's desire and will on a certain power level of solving his own problems were enough to set off a wide spread political crisis. Everything was a long series of strokes and counter-strokes, in which the Babiuc case functioned as a simple excuse. From which the confusion that accompanied the events. The mechanism of ongoing political power in Romania is as much self-conducted as dull-witted and fragile. It's not a paradox we are talking about. Its frailty comes from the inability to reabsorb an inside challenge so blunted as the one set off by a minister's resignation from a party. According to the coalition's inside fun