Lakas Kampi is indeed a giant. Organization, money, government resources are in their hands. But flashback to 2007 senatorial elections. Although Lakas Kampi was divided in the local level they were solidly united behind the senatorial ticket and yet they were routed. Because the choice was clear. The opposition had no problem communicating its message to voters. There were no distractions. The focus was on GMA and any national candidate associated with her became her.
Lakas Kampi is doomed at the national level if 2010 is fought like 2007. So the idea is to throw the opposition off its game. No middle of the ring toe-to-toe fighting. Move to corners and tire out the opposition with feints like cha-cha, GMA running for congress, transition governments, and all sorts of other talk.
PaLaKa is big in the small pond (congressional and local offices) but is nowhere in the big pond. As long as the face of corruption looks like a frog they will get nowhere. If they cannot elect a president or a majority senatorial slate, they are nothing. So they throw in everything, every impersonal “objective” issue to avoid turning the fight into personalities.
Here’s the thing. They will keep pushing chacha etal until time runs out. Why? Because that way, we debate legal issues instead of focusing on the personalities who will stand in for Gloria in 2010.
Take Gilbert Teodoro for example. Here’s a guy who, if only he were not in Gloria’s camp, would merit serious consideration. But we are not looking at him that way and asking ourselves why a guy like that would run on the ticket of a party that totally supports everything Gloria has done.
He sells himself as Mr. Clean in the cesspool. As if that’s possible without totally washing himself clean off Gloria and her followers. But until time for cha-cha runs out he will get a free pass.
And after chacha runs out, the next issue will be the legality of Gloria running for a lower office. And all that time Gilbert and Gloria’s senatorial slate will be under the radar.
How do we, without defaulting on the cha-cha issues, keep the heat on any and all national candidates running under Gloria’s party?
Because at the end of the day, if Lakas Kampi control the national offices, we are fucked.
The war is all about “who” not “what.” Because in politics, it is the “who” that tells us the “what comes after.”
Let’s not lose our focus.
Popularity: 1% [?]
So you believe if any national candidate from Lakas-Kampi-CMD is painted with GMA’s paint, they will fail?
And by keeping them out (even the good ones), those who will get through will be able to make things much better?
So it’s better not to let the electorate get distracted by any “subjective” issues? The key is to keep the negative focus on the L/K/CMD personality.
————
If I have that right, now I know why you reacted so strangely toward my other posts recommending that the opposition parties focus on creating a buzz about their visions, goals and specific plans.
But let me ask you this: Can’t one wage a negative, anti-personality campaign AND a positive policy-oriented one at the same time? Especially since a negative campaign full of spite but with no solutions might well backfire? Especially since plenty of people want to be careful this time around about their vote?
From my American perspective, I don’t understand the polls that show Villar among the top candidates. He is stained with an ethics probe. In the US, he would withdraw gracefully so as not to stain his party or the good office (and to avoid the rabid calls for him to withdraw). You elect a stained president, the country remains stained.
Teodoro is a disappointment if he stays in the cesspool. When US Defense Secretary Gates visited, the signal was clear, this is a man we can live with. That is a “no stain” endorsement. But the cesspool, as you point out, is itself a stain. Why would a promising man wallow there? Unless he has to for the money . . . In which case he is stained, too.
And why does Gordon not even show on the radar screen? His credentials are sound, no stains, good track record. No money?
Are the “In’s” controlling the media exposure in a positive way for their candidates, as well as a mudding people’s convictions in a negative way with diversions? Are the polls just getting shallow readouts now? Roxas seems to be on TV a lot, but he is certainly not a landslide.
Where in the world are people (in the polls) getting their information? And are the polls historically reliable?
Sorry there are so many questions. I don’t expect answers; consider them rhetorical babblings of a confused onlooker. Normally I offer up half-baked opinions on things, but here I am so confused, I can only look on in wonder.
Joe
Hi Joe
1. Villar will never gracefully withdraw for the sake of his party. His party won’t even ditch him to save itself. This is because, in Philippine politics, personalities matter above party. Often, parties are not quite similar with high school groups formed by those running for student council. They are formed around a certain personality running for the high positions to serve as his machinery (Like Erap`s PMP, Roco’s Aksyon Demokratiko, Miriam’s PRP, all GMA’s Kampi and even Lakas started this way). They are formed by members supporting a common ticket, not a common ideology. There are exceptions, of course. Some parties are, to some extent, formed by members who share common ideoolgies, like Villar`s Nacionalista and Roxas’ Liberal. But, again, Filipino electorate regard personalities more than parties. Which is why parties like the NP and LP need a strong personality, like Villar and Roxas, to bring them to power.
2. Teodoro is allied with Lakas-Kampi because his uncle and benefactor, businessman Danding Coujangco, is allied with the regime.
3. Gordon is not on the radar scene because he has neither money nor winnability. (Ping Lacson didnt have money too but at least he has some support base)
4. Polls in 1997 showed Erap ahead. In 1992, if I’m not mistaken, Mirian was ahead, although she was neck to neck with FVR (I’m not sure, I was 4 years old at the time). I’m not sure how scientifically reliable these surveys are, but I’m sure it could be manipulated. I read somewhere that a survey outfit didn’t release results of a survey conducted during EDSA 2, because they showed positive approval ratings for President Estrada.
Hope these help. :D
“Often, parties are not quite similar with high school groups formed by those running for student council.” should have been “Often, parties are NOT DIFFERENT FROM high school groups formed by those running for student council. “
ei J…1998 election…erap won by a landslide victory…kahit anong daya gawin ng incumbent party wala sila magawa…ang laki ng margin…obvious kapag sinobrahan ang dag-dag bawas…unlike in 2004 elections…yun effective ang dag-dag bawas sa presidente…kasi less than 2million lang ang lamang ni FPJ… 1million lang ang ibawas kay FPJ di halata…ibahagi ang nabawas kay FPJ sa mga ibang candidates at dag-dagan ng 2million si GMA. :)
J,
Thank you very much for explaining that Philippine party development is based on personality rather than ideology. That was the perspective I had missed, and now things become clearer.
Teodoro’s power-family relationships must be fun for him. I wonder what he thought of his wife on the front page of the newspaper a few weeks back saying “he would go it alone” if he wasn’t the party’s first choice. I wonder what his uncle thought about what his wife said. (I’m such a gossip monger . . .)
This “big money” in the background is what RealityCheck also explained to me drives many political practices.
So in looking at a candidate, I suppose one should really look at who funds him. Because that is who we are actually electing. The force behind the front.
Joe
Dear sir,
We are talking of course of the country like the Philippines. Here, party is formed not because of ideologies or commitments. Political parties are formed here for convenience and nothing else. That is the reason why no un-ethical or even blood-stained politician will ever go out of his party as long as his being a member in that party is still convenient for him.
Good questions joe
MB,
True that Lakas-Kampi will never win the national elections, but its local-level machinery is extremely important in the polls’ aftermath. Garci tactics were done in the provinces, which are controlled by LGU execs, majority of which are Gloria minions.
Also, while it is important that we keep the heat Lakas-Kampi national ticket, it is also important to have a grassroots effort to field local candidates against PALAKA. This is especially true in the Lower House.
If ChaCha doesn’t push through, I’m sure this fake prez will buy her way to the Speakership, a position that will give her big leverage over the next prez. Which is why we need more decent members of the Lower House.
Realitycheck,
Tell me, do you still believe that GMA is honest?
I don’t. That’s why I say that anyone who supports her wholeheartedly is not even worthy of consideration.
So let’s not even look at her party or her candidates. Let’s just choose among those who have separated themselves from her because those are the ones who may bring about change.
I’m not even sure they will bring about positive change but one thing I’m sure of is keeping her party and her candidates in power will be a continuation of what’s going on today.
So thanks but I’m not buying anything that says we should not totally discard Lakas. They can talk about visions and plans until their faces are blue but I won’t believe them. They elected a crook as the leader of their merged party. How can anything good come out of that?
Thanks again. but I’ll take my chances with something different.
J,
I agree with you. Local elections are vital and we need to win those as well. But at the same time Palaka should not be allowed any presence in national offices. Now if the choice were either/or then I would say focus on keeping then out of the national offices because that’s where they can do the most harm – wholesale plunder instead of pork barrel kotong.
joe,
The polls where they indicate have become “push-polling circuits”. And those so-called respondents are probably “mere statistical creatures”.
I have yet to know of someone who had been interviewed by these surveys.
At the most extreme, parang ‘jueteng’ lang ang poll surveys – it can be rigged.
Primer, don’t be so dismissive of polls.
Pulse Asia and SWS are legitimate polling organizations and they are good at what they do. If they are what you say they are, then why do politicians pay them millions to conduct private surveys? Politicians go to them when they want to get a reading of the public pulse on any number of things that matter to their political careers.
No politician is going to spend millions on campaign propaganda without polls guiding their message, vefore and after the ads come out. Come on man, you are a pundit you know the value of polls.
that’s right, buencamino, you are all “pundits”, a/k/a propagandists, who make conclusions out of pure speculations, which are your stock in trade. why should anyone believe any of you?
MB,
You wrote:
A. “Let’s just choose among those who have separated themselves from her because those are the ones who may bring about change…I’m not even sure they will bring about positive change…”
B. “…one thing I’m sure of is keeping her party and her candidates in power will be a continuation of what’s going on today.”
So in other words:
=> vote for someone who will bring change — even though he might not bring change — so that we make sure that there is change even though there might not really be any change.
————-
Your recommended strategy is to discard vision, policy goals and to disregard Lakas’ presentation of its vision, goals and policies. Because you personally won’t believe Lakas and thus anyone else is better.
That is pure genius.
Problem is, if the opposition parties/players try to win in this fashion, they are screwed. They are going to have to come up with something better than your ideas, as much too much of the electorate doesn’t agree with your black and white demarcations.
Recall that Poe should have run away with the national vote. At one point, he had a big lead in the polls. But it all disolved as the elections neared and there was no message or beef in addition to his widely-recognized personality.
I hope the parties figure out something a little more compelling than what you suggest. That would be good for the country, no?
for almost 9 years, a PALAKA controlled government…never been better.
from 2001 to present
1) minimum wage, cannot sustain a quality life.
2) how many tonnage of sugar, rice, onions, and garlic’s that were imported by the govt from 2001 up to present.
3) rate of jobless graduates and undergraduates – increases or PALAKA were able to decrease this phenomena :)
4) rate of out of school youths.
5) before galunggong was the national food for the poor…ngayon instant noodles na lang :(
is this the vision, goals, and economic strategy of PALAKA leadership and her cohorts?…dapat lang i-discard…huh.
opposition personalities who made an expose to PALAKA leadership and its cohorts…was never been untamed and filed a legal suit against them…. Big question…BAKIT nga BA?
o eto lumang issue…
Imagine a missing PANAMAX cargo ship containing thousand tons of rice at Batangas Port. ikanga sa joke ni Manny Poohkiyaw…inisip na lang niya na na-misplaced lang daw niya ang refrigerator”
and why their expose never progressed…Big Question…BAKIT nga BA?
Mentioning about Poe… how many people were not able to cast their votes because they were already voted when they arrived to their corresponding precincts…how many people become dead meat or been abducted when they come out to speak about cheating and fraud…imagine…a battalion of Army was asked not to exercise their right to vote because they have to be assigned to guard the election, only to find out that someone voted for them. These are the few accusations, but never had a chance to scrutinized their evidence..because of one word…NOTED.
nosi,
This discusion between MB and me goes back to the “Just Do It” entry. So you might not have seen how we got to this juncture.
The key point has nothing to do with anyone’s view about Lakas (though MB keeps tripping over that). It has to do with the non-Lakas parties creating their own vision, goals and policies…as opposed to just yelling anti-GMA slogans.
The reason, I offer, for the parties to do that is because I expect a much more discerning and careful electorate this time around. People may well not to repeat the same mistakes made in the past — blindly reject one group full of bad guys and blindly accept a new group full of bad guys.
“Show me what you actually plan for us!” should be the voter’s cry…and I think it will be, figuratively speaking.
———
Meanwhile, about Poe — again, there was virtually zero question that Poe lost a huge lead and GMA had pulled even well before the actual elections. Within a week or so before those elections both Pulse and SWS showed GMA with a ~37%-30% lead.
Poe had blown his lead — that’s widely accepted fact. You can claim anything you want about the elections, but the situation leading up to the voting remains pretty clear.
The Political Organization of Gloria Arroyo may be large. So was
the NAZI Party of Hitler in Germany, and the Baathist Party of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Also was the Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL)
of Marcos. Political Parties come and go, like your computer upgrades. They work now, tomorrow they are just history.
The Filipino people determines who can be elected. Not those in power. However large their political machines are. However numerous
their “pekeng peryodistas or pekeng blogistas” are.
Realitycheck,
The 2004nelections don’t say anything unless you continue to believe GMA did not cheat.
Like I said I will take my chanves with someone other than your faborite party.
So you don’t think the thing is black and white, You think there are nuances. In the same way we can introduce a nuance to Celso de los Angeles and Legacy. It’s a fact that there are some people who actually made money with Legacy – depositors who for some reason or another cashed out before the thing crashed. So de los Angeles is not all that bad, right? And since he is not all that bad, maybe you should not completely discount investing your money with him, right? Who knows maybe this time he is on the level, right?
Look I wouldn’t trust your Lakas as far as I can throw them. Kust like I would never even consider investing in any business Celso de los Angeles is involved in.
I will listen to all the other candidates and parties and see what they have to offer. I will even listen to Gilberto Teodoro if he washes his hands off Gloria and her cohorts. But the issue of your favorite party and whatever comes out of their mouth is black and white. Nothing good will come out of a party led by a crook.
Doesn’t make much difference either when mainstream parties – admin and opposition – are full of crooks. – led by a crook or not
Sure it makes a difference. An honest leader will not cover up for the crooked things his party mates do. They are on their own if they are caught, Think ZTE NBN and all the other scandals and tell me that it does not make a difference whether the leader is honest or not.
MB,
Your manner of discussion is disheartening. This is now two blog threads wherein you put words in my mouth repeatedly and create strawmen arguments.
All the evidence (including from anti-GMA quarters) shows that Poe had a big lead and lost it. His inability to close the deal has been accepted by his own supporters. There are different interpretations as to why that happened. Nonetheless, it did…whether or not GMA cheated. That’s the point. Get it?
I did not mention my own views (if they are/aren’t black and white), I said that your recipe would probably fail because THE ELECTORATE doesn’t share your black and white lines. There will be an array of factors that will influence a person’s vote.
Anyway, you again miss my point. The non-Lakas parties better develop a better game plan, including having some specific policies and a firm platform. Fortunately, since you will not influence their decisions, those parties still have a chance to do so and win.
It’s interesting to note that I’ve repeatedly said that I WANT the other parties to step up a few notches…and you keep pretending that all I want is for Lakas to win. Is there a reason for this constant miscomprehension and misrepresentation???
Realutycheck,
Look. If you take the frogs out of the equation, we have no disagreement.
As to the 2004 election. You have no basis to say anything because your theory can only be verified by the results of that election. Unfortunately, because that election is tainted, we will never have independent verification of what you and others are saying about FPJ blowing his lead.
The other thing is “THE ELECTORATE does not share your black and white lines.” What qualifies you to speak for them?
Besides, let’s look at the 2007 national election. Did the Genuine Opposition offer “some specific policies and a firm platform” or did they simply run and win as an “anti” vote?
Anyway like I said. Take the frogs out of the conversation and we can have an intelligent discussion over who among the alternatives might deserve our support. Take the frogs out of the equation and we can look at the platforms and visions of the candidates within the context of their reputation and track record. Let’s see if Villar, Roxas, Legarda, Escudero, Teodoro, Fernando, Binay, Gordon and who knows who else are who they say they are.
its no use, realitycheck. it’s impossible to have an intelligent debate with these people. it’s like talking to a drunk or stoned addict.
MB,
Maybe Bencard is right. After about 20 back-and-forth posts with you, I am not sure if you are capable or willing to have a normal intellectual discussion. It seems you are only interested in repeatedly mouthing slogans without ever taking time to comprehend the other writer. It’s really frustrating.
—————-
Yes, we still do have a disagreement. I kept saying that the non-Lakas parties needed to put together a good platform and you said that to be anti-GMA is enough of a strategy. You also kept saying how you would never listen to “my” Lakas…which, of course, had no relation to the issue.
Finally, after going in circles, you finally say you’ll listen to non-Lakas parties’ platforms. Gee, great. You still don’t get my point — I believe those parties need to have good platforms with a vision, clear goals and specific policies (and not just a “down with GMA” slogan)…otherwise they run the risk of getting trampled by Lakas…which is huge and has had consistent platforms and policies since FVR’s campaign in the early ’90s. I base this on the perception that voters will be more discerning then ever in 2010.
———-
Now you want to argue about other issues which, again, miss the point. Oh well…..OK.
The polls — which you say are valid and accurate — clearly showed Poe losing his big lead over the last handfuls of weeks. These same polls had GMA ahead by approximately 37~30% in the last week. Exit polls had GMA winning. Post-election bodies — including anti-GMA ones — declared the elections clean.
The SC (PET) independently looked at the actual ballots and CoCs and saw that there was no meaningful cheating in the favor of the VP. We all know that the VP and Prez votes were cast on the same paperwork and we know everyone was also eyeballing the Prez votes when looking at the VP ones. The PET said there was no was the results could realistically be overturned by a complete recount.
Now, my only point was that Poe blew his lead (bringing the race to a very close one) by never offering much meat to his candidacy. The key is that being “Anti-GMA” and not much else will probably not be enough for parties to overcome Lakas et al.
Meanwhile, I don’t speak for the electorate, nor do you. According to the polls you believe in, about 20~25% of the voting public has been consistently pro-GMA, about 20~25% has been vehemently anti-GMA. There are huge pockets that can swing in any direction. Certainly, the fervent anti-GMA types have NOT been able to corral much support on the street (or on the internet) for a couple of years. Those are the facts to which I alluded.
————–
Finally you offered a good point, though (took long enough) — that UNO won Senate seats on a basically anti-GMA only “platform”. True. But then that’s for the Senate only. And that group broke appart into little factions and mixed in with admin Senators. My original point, starting in the other thread, was that the non-Lakas parties needed to mount a wider campaign in order to capture the Presidency and a big chunk of the Congress. They need grassroots support for an entire slate…which will require a real platform. The voting public may look more closely and more carefully than ever in 2010…parties better step up their game.
Realitycheck,
At least you convinced Bencard.
and you convinced j ( and joe, the “american”, who needs no convincing)- two beans of the same pod. why can’t you guys accept that gma is not a candidate in 2010 presidential election? whoever she supports must stand on his/her own merit. she just cannot have anything to do with one’s fitness for the presidency.
this is one bad trait of some filipino voters. they vote through emotion, not logic and reason. bakit iitsa-pwera ang isang partido dahil lamang ito ang partido ng kasalukuyang presidente? malaking kagaguhan!
btw, the last senatorial election, in which more “opposition” than “administration” candidates won, is not a reliable gauge of the possible result of the 2010 election. evidently, the 40% solid gma support went all-out for the administration candidates, while the other 60% favored the opposition but NOT solidly. in a six-cornered presidential contest, it is safe to assume that the solid pro-gma supporter would go for her anointed candidate, whereas the remaining 60% would go their separate ways and divide their support to the other 5 or more “opposition” wannabees. result? another plurality victory for the lakas-kampi.
and that’s why the “hate-gloria” club is worried, mortally scared.
the “hate gloria” club either gets its act together or it winds up dividing the 60% into fiefdoms which will have a dismal time standing up against a solid 40%.
it ain’t gloria – it’s the opposition – too many chiefs, too few indians :lol:
Ben,
Excellent point, re the 60% divided against 40% unified. As long as the divided stay divided, they lose. A problem with personality based party structure, I suppose. Problem if you are with some part of the 60%, that is.
By the way, I do respect your view that you are loyal to GMA in part because she is the President of the Philippines, and you are loyal to the Philippines. It is a statement of responsibility, actually. Something missing from the “throw-her-out” crowd.
Joe
hi guys,
I agree with RealityCheck. Being just “anti-Gloria”, for me, does not qualify as a very good indication for winning. I mean, a person who, even with the vilest intention or the worst philosophy, would win on an anti-Gloria platform. yet, that would surely not be good for the country.
RealityCheck is right—for us to win this fight against the devil enfant, we have the responsibility of making the discussion more than just propaganda or more relevant to the Filipino People.
People expect the opposition to be different insofar as putting forth a better platform of governance than the administration. That the people nowadays are sick and tired of listening to complaints are evident in the low turnout of rallies.
They want men of action. They want to hear solutions, not just anti-gloria or what’s wrong arguments.
And again, as a rejoinder, I share the view of RealityCheck that in a four or even a five corner fight for the presidency, the possibility of an administration candidate winning is there. I wrote that some few months ago in NPR and the analysis still stick.
the challenge for the opposition really is maintain coherence and unity. that’s the first order of the day which anti-glorias and true change agents should be concerned with.
you got it, bongv.
Seems like Realitycheck convinced Bencard and Bencard convinced Bongv and Bongv said something that Bencard endorsed.
Three peas in a pod!
Surely that beats “two beans of the same pod” eh Bencard?
What?
Beans aren’t found in pods?
Well, in the Enchanted Kingdom anything is possible, right guys?
“Two beans of the same pod”…bwaahahahaha
MCB:
Bencard need not convince me. As he was already articulating the matter, prudence dictates that I give Bencard the leeway.
I have taken the same position for quite sometime. It is a numbers game that the opposition wishes to go away, but it will not. The earlier they slap themselves into waking up, the better.
The lessons from FVR’s win – 7 way race (backed by Cory admin)
The lessons from Erap’s win – 10 way race (backed by populist vote)
The lessons from Arroyo’s win are glaring – 5 way race (de facto incumbent running for “re-election”)
What that shows is the presidency is won by a minority (40%) – not by a majority.
Whoever wins as President – will have the other 60% protesting or not complying for obvious reasons – he/she might still be president, but he/she does not have the support of the majority.
Now, if democracy will indeed the rule of the majority, the Philippine presidency is a perversion of the principle given that the presidency is elected by a minority.
But we digress, what’s being said in this case does not have anything to do with political positions – it is all about the numbers.
that was my analysis a few months back. and i still believe that an admin candidate would win if the opposition allows chiz or loren or ping to run as president.
let the lakas-kampi have two candidates and the opposition limit theirs to one or two. in that vein, that would probably be the key to victory in the long run.
i will repost my comment which is “awaiting moderation”:
darkening the waters like an octopus, huh, buencamino? har, har, har… evidently, you haven’t heard of lima beans, huh? btw, either stick to the issues or just quit. afterall, this is your blogpost.
the saying is peas in a pod not beans of the same pod. an analogy is supposed to make things clearer not murkier so get your sayings straight
can’t i not make my own original “saying” that is based on fact, i.e. lima beans? fyi, this kind of beans are contained in a pod and may be cooked in it like sitaw. don’t you have that in pinas? anyway, its neither here nor there. huwag mo kaming libangin, pare.
The lessons from Arroyo’s win are glaring – 5 way race (de facto incumbent running for “re-election”)
What no Garci in the lesson? His presence was not glaring enough?
On one side, substantiated and corroborated evidence…on the other side, a repeatedly “sliced” copy of a copy of a tape — with no original copy and no original wiretapper.
The “Garci argument” flies in the face of hard facts and is a last resort when unable to present credible arguments. It is easily disproved…why would anyone use it? Nothing better to think of?
amen to that, realitycheck. exactly my position since i began commenting at mlq3′s personal blog. these never-say-die opposition keeps relying on repudiated haka-hakas, and then wonder why they’re not working while gma keeps on winning.
Uh….I think I heard that one before,,,from two CDs Bunye himself, right?
But wait…Mike Defensor had an even better line…It was her voice but she was not the one doing the talking….
O sige na nga she didn’t cheat…the recordings were uh…what was the term Defensor used?,,,oh yes, he said the tapes were “digitally altered”…
O sige na nga FPJ cheated himself kasi despite doing his best to blow his lead, it was not enough to make him lose so he mimicked Gloria’s voice and called Garci…and made sure their dozen or so conversations were taped… just so people would not accuse him of taking a dive… and for good measure he filed an election protest…but that was all a part of the plan because he knew he was going to die from a stroke so the protest was going to go nowhere…
MCB:
Hard evidence that supports the speculation will do the trick.
Otherwise, I will use my 24 hours preventing a repeat instead of speculating.
Garci’s lesson is not unique to GMA -that’s a constant.
MCB:
i know where you are coming from, and I am no fan of GMA either.
but we play from the same rule book. we can’t junk the rule book every time we lose, and retain it when we win.
your tricks ain’t workin’, buencamino. just quit and stop making a fool of yourself any further, man.
tricks? why naman accuse me of tricks? Because pointing out the absurd does not amount to a hill of beans or, to use your wonderful way of putting things, a hill of peas perhaps?
Gloria is not a cheat. She is not a crook either. As a matter of fact she will never tolerate cheats, thieves, and liars.
As Gloria once said, I cancelled the broadband deal as soon as I found out there was an anomaly…but there was nothing anomalous naman with that deal, right Bencard?
Lozada, Neri, and Joey were lying, right Bencard? And so was Gloria because she said she cancelled the deal as soon as she found out about the anomaly…And there was nothing anomalous about that deal….Aren’t you in the least bit curious why she cancelled a perfectly good deal?
She canceled an economically good deal because it was a political bad deal.
looks like you really are quitting the issue you postulated in this thread, i.e., that lakas-kampi will lose the presidential election in 2010 since more opposition senatorial candidates won in 2007. now you are convinced this position to be untenable, so you have to resurrect dead issues like the “broadband deal”. i’m not sure if lozada, neri and joey were lying but i know it was not proven that they were telling the truth.
in any event, if you want to re-visit the alleged garci-affair and the broadband deal, why not post them on separate threads so maybe we can “debate” them ad nauseam? just don’t open old can of worms just to wiggle out of a hole you put yourself into.
“She canceled an economically good deal because it was a political bad deal.”
This is why I am so angry at the “antis”; it’s why I am anti-anti — the unsupported accusations and run-around and screaming and yelling helped no one and hurt everyone.
Economic progress was stunted by a loud minority and their supporting media. What a waste.
BongV,
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say….are you telling me that the deal was still economically good despite the anomaly but she had to cancel it because…well what made it politically untenable?
from her perspective, yes. technically, the other parties were already outside the kulambo. the budget was available. so on all counts okay na.
collusion lang naman ang usapan nyan e – di lang nagkaintindihan sa hatian.
kaso, ang isang magnanakaw na galit sa kapwa magnanakaw, di matanggap na di niya maaangkin ang transaksyon. i would bet, the de Venecias wanted “in” – but other quarters wanted them “out.
eh di ginawang politically untenable para “kung di ko sya maaangkin, walang ibang makakaangkin sa kanya, sabay tayong lahat sa impyerno”.
yun yun.
nandun na ako…ang hindi ko maintindihan eh kung bakit kinansela ni gloria kung wala naman pala siyang sabit dun…kung problema sa hatian eh wala naman siya dun…at saka dapat pinaimbestigahan niya ng lubusan lahat ng involved di ba? Para hindi naman sana sumagi sa icip ng tao na may kinalaman siya at may pinagtatakpan
eh kasi nga, andaming kyawkyaw. maraming naghahanap ng butas at lagay.
because of the political noise, the project no longer becomes economically sound.
the costs will increase dahil mas marami nang kahati, damage control, ika nga – bubusbusan mo na si de Venecia, yung press pa, at kung sino-sino pa.
Bencard,
Hay naku …I said nothing good can come out of a party led by a crook.so let’s not even include palaka among those worthy of our consideration…that’s why I told realitycheck that if he took palaka out of the equation we had no disagreement…
now the 2007 thing was brought up in the context of realitycheck’s argument that the opposition had better produce good policies and platforms other than an anti approach to get the votes and so my reply was to ask him – in 2007 did the GO offer anything other than an anti-Gloria campaign? GO ran on anti-Gloria and didn’t present any program or policies and they still routed the TU ticket.
I brought up the Garci issue it was because realitycheck brought up the issue of FPJ blowing his lead. He even cited polls. Well polls are good, excellent indicators even, but at the end of the day, a poll predicting an election can only be verified by the election results and since the 2004 elections were tainted realitycheck had no basis for saying what he said about FPJ blowing his lead. Unverifiable kasi, sa madaling salita.
You can defend Gloria all you want. The problem is you will be contradicting her. You say alleged Garci affair, she said I am sorry. You say Neri Lozada and Joey’s allegations were not proven to be true, she said she cancelled the deal as soon as she found out about the anomaly. So please explain to her that she has done nothing wrong. Don’t tell me, tell her!
7 to 3 is a defeat but not exactly a “rout”. your hyperbole weakens your point.
the 2004 election is “tainted” only because of your garci speculations. gma may have said “sorry” on national tv for talking to an election official but i don’t think she ever admitted “cheating” or “stealing” votes. on the contrary the independent official agencies (i.e., comelec and pet, not to mention sc that heard and dismissed legarda’s election protest), charged with validating presidential election results found no cheating that was substantial enough and that could have changed the outcome.
as to the “broadband deal” gma may have said “she found out about the anomaly” after the fact, that’s why she cancelled the transaction, but that doesn’t make every word that came from the mouth of lozada, neri and joey true. what they did was to make the transaction controversial leading to the decision to scrap it. anomaly simply means irregularity or abnormality, not necessarily an act of wrongdoing. but, apparently, not to a rabid partisan pinoy who is always ahead of himself.
“yung dagdag yung dagdag”
Come on, must we all put blinders on when we try to defend that nothing anomalous happened during the 2004 elections to tilt it in Arroyo’s favor??
no, nick, nobody has to put binders on, just eyes wide open to the presence of credible admissible evidence or the lack of it, before we jump to conclusions.
Nick and MB,
You guys act as if the boxes were not opened and the votes looked at. The SC looked at the ballot boxes from the most hotly contested (per Poe, then per Legarda) precincts. What more do you want?
Every scrap of evidence available (from before, during and after the elections) says there was no massive cheating.
Except for the Garci tapes.
The tapes provided by the opposition were copies. They were copies of a copy provided by Sam Ong. Ong’s copy was like a highlight film — it had pieces of converstaions…it was edited. The original tapes (many required) would have covered untold hours of wiretapping.
That’s why the background noise is so variable. The problem is that, on many occasions, the ambient noise is different during the same speaker’s conversation. Don’t believe me? Ask a friend in the movie industry (which deals with this issue all the time).
I mean…didn’t you ever think about why the conversations were so choppy? Or why the calls kept getting (supposedly) dropped? What…do you have a better cellphone (and service) than GMA?
The Garci Tapes was the beginning of the distortions. The fact that the media (ok, some of the media) never even raised a question about all of this is condemning and damning.
MB relying on Garci is all one needs to know about the quality of journalism these days.
Nick,
This is for you.
Who do you think made the call to Virgilio Garcillano?
I have full copies of the Garci recordings. The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism has extensive reports on the scandal while VeraFiles has documented reports on the 2004 electoral fraud.
My view is there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
I’ll just wait for history t eventually help us reckon what happened.
Many people called Garci, who’s phone was wiretapped. That’s why different voices were heard on the tapes. GMA definitely called Garci.
But that doesn’t mean that other taped voices or conversations weren’t spliced in. That’s why even legally wiretapped tapes are inadmissible unless one has the original tapes themselves — it is simply much too easy to edit the tapes to say anything the editor wants.
One of the easiest ways to recognize if a particular conversation has been doctored is to listen to the anmbient background noise. It should stay consistent. Now, if it keeps changing…and the variances are seperated by “clicks” (I forget both the nickname and the technical jargon) then it is almost assuredly a conversation which never occured. This is clearly evident in the Garci tapes. Don’t believe me? Listen again. Better yet, ask an audio techie friend to help.
By the way, that was Defensor’s (poorly said) explanation: “That’s her voice, but not her words.”
——–
Anyway, none of this has to do with MB’s inability to quickly comprehend the point that the non-Lakas parties better come up with more of a platform than “down with GMA”.
RC,
You main argument thread is with MB. You’ll appreciate this is why I’ve really just been following your exchanges.
I am also fine with the focus on correct vision and platform.
I just have a problem about unresolved questions about the scandals cited.
I also wonder if you’ve personally observed how elections are ‘managed’ in Mindanao’s warlord/command vote areas of Maguindanao,Lanao,and the Cotabato provinces.
I’ve been to those corridors and seen quite voluminous documents including tampered provincial electoral canvasses from 2004.
But if you say that in your heart you believe to be simply works of fiction, then I will simply accept your perception even though I don’t agree with it.
I’ll wait for 2010, and the judgment of history.
Ding:
ARMM is the equalizer. The results of voting are deliberately delayed while waiting for the trends and massaging the results.
Tumbok mo.
RealityCheck,
Hahaha, And now your true colors are revealed.
From the very beginning when you posted a comment about the opposition needing to this and that before they can get the sympathy of the voters, I said that what you were saying was a trick of those who liked the status quo.
You accused me of putting words in your mouth and putting up strawmen.
Well, what do you know…Mr Realitycheck, the man who claims he wants to see changes for the better and who is not a partisan for the frogs, is now the furiously debunking what we heard on the Garci tapes.
I read you right from your start. I knew that sooner or later you would reveal your hand. You kept saying you weren’t for the palaka and all you wanted was to see something better in the 2010 campaign and all that so I said let’s take the frogs out of the equation and our disagreements are gone. You blew your cover when you side-stepped my challenge. But you continued to pretend. And then Garci came up. And all because of you. You opened it when you brought uo the 2004 election and FPJ blowing his lead. I knew I had you then. Thank you for giving me the chance to bring up Garci!
And look at you now attacking those who question the 2004 election and who bring up Garci’s name.
Now you’re mouthing Palace talking points about spliced tapes and all that.
Bistado ka boy! Pa substantive substantive intellectual discussion pa ang gusto mo kuno!
I told you then and I tell you again, that line of yours is an old trick. People are complaining, and for good reason, and your reply is “well you better come up with an alternative or shut up.” Luma na yan.
We want your frogs out of our pond. You are the ones who have to justify to us why we shouldn’t throw you out. We don’t have to go beyond wanting you out. Anything beyond that is for us, not you and your frogs, to decide.
Don’t turn the tables on us, don’t tell us how we should respond to the shenanigans of your frogs.
Realitycheck, get yourself a new playbook. Reread our back and forth so you can see how you ended up hoisted on your own petard. You’re as smart as bunye, dureza, remonde, fajardo, and golez.
buencamino, whatever! whether you like it or not, the “frogs” stay and you’re gonna lose unless your “opposition” unites and comes up with real good formula for governance that’s guaranteed to work.
Realitycheck change your handle to Defender of the faith because your reality has been checked.
MB,
You certainly are crass and rude.
———
1. “a comment about the opposition needing to this and that before they can get the sympathy of the voters”
Did you notice that anti-GMA posters agreed with me?
———
2. “And look at you now attacking those who question the 2004 election and who bring up Garci’s name.”
Dude, you don’t have to be pro or anti to comprehend facts. I have listed pure facts — Poe’s lead, his lost lead, his trailing at election time by 37%-30%, the exit polls, CBCP/Namfrel’s approval, and most importantly, PET’s recount.
Attack those points, not me.
————-
3. “Now you’re mouthing Palace talking points about spliced tapes and all that.”
Talking about relevant issues is not mouthing anyone’s talking points. Adults often do this. Sorry, so which of the facts I presented are you contending? You forgot to specify.
————-
Sorry, MB…but not everyone is a red-eyed fanatical. Most of this population is not. It’s not cool that you point your hate at those who aren’t as rabidly anti-GMA as you. Not being anti-GMA doesn’t make one pro-GMA…but that’s how you treat people.
And you can’t figure out why I am saying that the anti-GMA hate ALONE won’t carry enough votes, eh?
1. Hindi ba sinabi ko sa iyo na kung aalisin mo ang mga palaka sa equation wala tayong pagtataluhan?
Nagumpisa lahat ito nung sinabi ko na your statement was a trick of those who are happy with the status quo. Sabi ko maka Gloria/palaka ka. Hindi Ba? Tapos padeny deny ka pa. Eh tignan mo ang sinasabi mo tungkol sa Garci tapes, na spliced lang sila atp.
2. “Dude, you don’t have to be pro or anti to comprehend facts. I have listed pure facts — Poe’s lead, his lost lead, his trailing at election time by 37%-30%, the exit polls, CBCP/Namfrel’s approval, and most importantly, PET’s recount.
Attack those points, not me.”
Dude, PET completed it’s recount? PET stopped counting when Loren ran for senator,
Second, there was a break-in at the Batasan remember? Oh eh di ano papano mo pa malalaman kung ano ang tunay at ano ang peke?
“Poe’s lead, his lost lead, his trailing at election time by 37%-30%, the exit polls, CBCP/Namfrel’s approval,”
Those are not facts. They are not validated, not verifiable, because the only validation of election related polls are the election results themselves. Eh nagkadayaan! So ano ngayon ang pagbabasehan mo “facts” mo?
3. Relevant issues ba ang Palace talking points? Inuulit mo lang ang sinabi ng Palasyo tungkol sa Garci tapes at sa ZTE.
Man up Dude! There’s no need to hide your true colors. You love Gloria, you hate the opposition.
Goodnight. I have an early golf game tomorrow.
ang hindi ko maintindihan sayo, buencamino, e kung bakit pinipilit mon’g iitsa pwera ang lakas-kampi. sino ka ba? ano ba ito, paligsahan ng mga fantasy?
. “a comment about the opposition needing to this and that before they can get the sympathy of the voters”
Did you notice that anti-GMA posters agreed with me?
Akala ko nagwala na sila nung nagsalita ka na tungkol kay Garci. You fooled people until you started mouthing off about Garci.
MB,
Do you realize that writing with more vicious passion (just like screaming louder) doesn’t improve the argument one is making? Attacking the opponent also just makes one look crass, crude and bereft of good arguments.
Once again, you mistake realism for extremism…which is typical for an extremist. “If you are not with us, you are against us” simply alienates those who might even agree with you to an extent. It is this extremism which makes you label someone with facts as a GMA lover. Rejecting facts that belie your argument doesn’t make the facts go away.
————
OK, so to the facts…
1. The actual words from the SC/PET:
“dismissed for lack of legal and FACTUAL basis.”
“revision of ballots or re-tabulation of the certificates of canvass would not affect the winning margin of the protestee in the final canvass of the returns”
“To say that the protestant had shown enough evidence to prove that the whole or even half (440,862)[44] of the lead of the protestee over the protestant is spurious, would go against the grain of the EVIDENCE ON HAND.”
2. Batasan break-in? No evidence whatsoever. Just because one says the moon is made of cheese doesn’t make it so. Meanwhile, the ballots and CoCs PET looked at were inspected and only valid ones were used (btw, the spurious/fake ones were in favor of Legarda!). No, the baseless accusation of a break-in had no real world effect on the SC’s determination of the FACTS.
3. The FACTS are that those polls showed those results. The FACTS are that Namfrel, CBCP, and all the various party and independent poll-watchers agreed that the elections were mostly fair and accurate. Each and every bishop, one-by-one, reported on their district’s voting and there were but a few pockets of perceived cheating, but in their own words:
“there were some instances of cheating and violations of election law by political parties in their areas but these did not affect the voting in general. It is the view of the bishops that the results of the elections reflected the will of the Filipino people.”
BTW, you wrote elsewhere about the accuracy of Pulse and SWS’ polls. Now you cast doubt on them. Choose a position, please…right now you are arguing polar opposite positions.
4. Making accusations, piling them up on top of each other and claiming the entire pile thus demonstrates a “smoking gun” is a foolish argument. It’s one reason the vast majority of the population rejects the calls to go to the streets. Especially when whatever actual facts are available don’t support the accusations and osten contradict the assertions.
Scream Garci, ZTE, Northrail or whatever as much as you want. But stop pointing fingers at those who choose to remain calm and look at the facts. And it is this very trait that, if the political parties stick exclusively to (as you advised), might well make them lose. Again, other anti-GMA posters agreed without any stated caveats.
——–
“Man up”, you say? Grow up, says I. Debate like an intelligent, well-educated adult.
Realitycheck,
You live in your reality. Fine with me.
By the way what I said about election related polls is that the only way to validate them is by the election results themselves. That statement does not cast doubt on SWS and Pulse Asia. To put it simply, the election results validate the poll prediction.
To Man up is to stand behind your words to have the balls to say I am pro Gloria so what! Come out of the closet!
To grow up is to stop believing in those fairy tales about an enchanted kingdom.
Magpakalalake ka! Bakit ba hindi mo maamin na maka Gloria ka? Nakakahiya ba?
MB,
“You live in your reality” is a weakling’s method of avoiding responding to the facts. You can’t dispute the facts and you can’t show any which substantiate your contention. Man up, dudette.
Wait…here’s the retort…
“To put it simply, the election results validate the poll prediction.”
Duh. And when the SC actually looked at the votes, the votes said the same thing that all the other evidence said — GMA won. Face the facts; don’t run or resort to hominems…it’s unmanly.
I’ve given my story before, MB…I was an FVR-Lakas man, not a Kampi-GMA one. I am anti-anti because I think you people are debasing the quality of public discourse. You are causing economic damage. You are wont to resort to lazy name-calling rather than doing the hard work required to get something accomplished. You are insulting all the people who you condemn simply because they don’t want to join you.
My loyalty is not to GMA, pal. It’s to the future. And you are walking in the opposite direction. Keep pounding your head against the wall, I’m done with you. (Tsk, tsk…the quality of “journalists” these days…tsk, tsk, tsk…..)
Facts in your fairyland. You need a reality check.
Bencard,
Eh ikaw sino ka ba? Dakdak ka ng dakdak dyan hindi ka naman nakatira sa Pilipinas. Kung gusto mo makialam umuwi ka dito. Iniwan mo na ang Pilipinas, nagpasaibang bayan ka na, dyan ka sa iyong bagong tahanan makialam.
Bwisit!
sigue na nga, iho. lusot ka na, har, haR, HAR…
PALAKA camp knows that the opposition are not united…yes…it will never be…PALAKA have lobbyist and bigger machinery…pera pera na…kung isa kang walang pera na nasa opposition…madali ka nila makuha…kung ikaw ay local official na nasa opposition at corrupt pa, at mahina ang winnability mo na sa local…madali ka nila makukuha…pera pera lang yan…ang kandidato need ng pera, para manalo ng sigurado…ano ang maii-offer ng opposition?…yung mga nananalong congressman na hardcore ng opposition…meron silang sariling makinarya to withstand the wind…si darlene custodio, guingona, biazon, etc… PAPAANO NANALO SI PANLILIO…walang pera yun pero nanalo…ang dami kaya nakabantay sa mga presinto pati media nandoon, CBCP, NGO’s, and other civic groups…aba…pag ginawa nila yung force na madalas nilang ginagamit…ayun…huli sila sa akto…at alam nila ang kasunod nun.
at kaya gusto ng PALAKA ng charter change…kasi nga di nila ma-control ang national positions (the senate itself)…yun ang sagabal sa kanila…nandoon ang bukingan…madali malaman ng public ang anomalya…at kung wala nga ang senate…wala nang expose…sana naman makonsensya na yung mga mahal si GMA…o yung may monthly ni GMA. brasuhan na itong nagaganap sa bansa natin…