If you intresting in sport buy steroids you find place where you can find information about steroids

Of Political Butterflies, Defections, and Condemnation

There’s no shortage of defections these days from one party to the other. And today, another one bites the dust. It is not a sign of the integrity of these politicians but rather it is a sign of selfishness and weakness, and opportunism. The great act of courageous political action would be to defect because of party ideology and dysfunction, not because the party has not coddled you or you have no more to gain personally. The great political act of defecting should be made seriously for reasons of principle, ideology, and current actions of the party — not because of any personal and political gain.

There can be no moral victory for such defections, only a clear sign of opportunism at its worst. I do not rejoice in any such defection unless it is made a day no later when the ideologies, direction, and principles of one party has changed. Were there defections during times of great pork barrel giveaways and project awarding? Defections during times of great moral bankruptcy and corruption? Defection during times of neverending cheating allegations? Only a handful that I know of. The rest chose to stay.

There can be no rejoicing in such moves by political butterflies, they move where the good political wind blows, where the atmosphere is better, not because of principle, but because of survival and opportunity. I cannot respect any of these defectors, no matter which party they move to.

Instead of singing praises of halleluiah, condemnations are in order. For staying with a tyrant, and a corrupt leader one second too long, that should be the criteria for which we judge many of the current defections. Reasons for defections must be held up for scrutiny for they are telling of the character of those who defect.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Comments

  1. thenashman says:

    They are classmates, both students of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, bayaan mo na.

    Further proof that Noynoy Aquino can throw away his pretensions of ‘reform’ and ‘change’ because he is spineless.

    • Mike H says:

      Wasn’t it Noynoy initiative? Didn’t Noynoy invite Salceda to turncoat?

      “Last Monday evening, I accepted the challenge of my Ateneo classmate Noynoy to become the Bicol regional chairman of LP. My task is to make him win in Bicol on May 10, 2010,” Salceda said in an e-mailed statement.

      • thenashman says:

        Noynoy blinked and saw that Bicol had >2M voters.

        Gamitan lang yan. Quid pro quo.

        (Anyway, I want to ask those in the know what Salceda’s majority was in his last election. Was it a landslide win for Salceda? Is he the regional king maker?)

      • Bert says:

        Yes. He’s running for reelection for governor unopposed in the province of Albay. No, he’s not a regional king maker, Bicol politicians are pretty much independent.

  2. Manuel Buencamino manuelbuencamino says:

    Nick,

    Nick,

    Another way of looking at “political butterflies” is from the point of view of conversion.

    You can’t judge the convert by when it happened.

    You can only judge him based on whether he converted to the side of light or to the dark side.

    Granted that politics is more gray than black and white still one can recognize which side of the gray spectrum is closer to white and which is closer to black.

    • thenashman says:

      ..or it’s just plain opportunism. He may have moved to the ‘light’ side but his intentions are entirely driven by his ‘dark’ side.

      • Manuel Buencamino manuelbuencamino says:

        Nash,

        a brief background on Salceda.

        He made his pile in the stock market.
        He used to be one of the top advisers of Raul Roco.
        He is the kingpin of his province. He is on his first term as governor after serving congress for three terms. He can go back to congress in 2013 or 2016 should he decide he wants to be alegislator again.

        In short, Salceda’s political future is secure, with or without Malacanan. That’s why even when he was an unofficial economic adviser of Gloria he could do things like call her a lucky bitch.

        He said he joined Aquino because he thinks Aquino will be better for the economy than the other candidates. So he’s saying either one of two things: what’s good for the economy is good for me or what’s good for me is good for the economy.

        He has said that GMA did more for the economy than previous presidents and she could have done more if only there were no questions about her legitimacy.

        If at all, I see him as one of those “let’s move on” types. He overlooked GMA’s flaws as long as he could see some kind of forwards movement. BTW, I don’t buy the let’s move on philosophy. I think we have to set things right first.

        But to go back to your point, “He may have moved to the ‘light’ side but his intentions are entirely driven by his ‘dark’ side.”

        You mean he was driven by his dark side to leave the dark side? Or to put it another way, his evil side drove him to the good side?

      • tranquil says:

        Salceda is famous for the “evil bitch” attribution.

        Why it took him so long to bolt the evil camp is anybody’s guess.

      • cvj says:

        I remember Salceda saying *lucky* bitch, not *evil* bitch. (It was Romulo Neri who is said to have called GMA evil.)

        I share manuelbuencamino’s assessment that Salceda is one of those “Let’s Move On” types.

  3. The Equalizer says:

    Politicians and most of their Supporters are loyal to only one thing: their STOMACHS. Most of our Politicians are amoral. They dont have priciples; no ideologies; no programs to do good for the people; etc…They are like Opportunistic GOATS. If the grass is Greener on the other side of their Fences. They will Jump out of their Fences. Opportunism is the call for our day.

    • macapili says:

      We all know that. But we need solutions.

      • The Equalizer says:

        Begin with yourself. PAGBABAGO does not start with the Politicians. They start with us…

      • macapili says:

        Be more specific, what PAGBABAGO do you expect of me?

      • thenashman says:

        Mga truisms na corny.

      • Mike H says:

        macapili: everyone should take business courses and learn
        from the ethics of making money.

        if the alliance of you with your enemies-enemies
        and your enemies with your friends and your friends
        with your friends and you with your best friend’s wife
        and your wife with your best friend’s high school best
        friend and the CBCP honcho with an atheist…

        if the mishmash of alliances results in money for all
        the members of the alliance PLUS maybe ten thousand new
        jobs created for Pinoys in Pinas…

        look closely…if Honasan made money but Lozada’s uncle
        did not make money…. that’s not fair!!!!

      • Joe America says:

        Mac,

        I suggest you visit my blog site. There are two articles that may be of interest to you on the Pages section, not the blog rants. One is on Admiral Dewey, taken in large part from your fine history, and the other on a specific form of action, “A New Force for Progress”. I would very much value your insights. The articles are at http://thesocietyofhonor.blogspot.com/

        Regards,

        Joe

    • The Equalizer says:

      HONASAN and ENRILE who are related by Affinity. Made a lot of MONEY out of the EDSA Revolution…Opportunism can makr you rich!

  4. karl garcia says:

    from [quezon.ph]

    Kasuya argues that “the shortened presidential term limit from two terms to one under the new Constitution was the major factor that destabilized the party system in the post-Marcos era.” The nature of the president’s term means that parties have no reason to stick together to support the re-election of a president; that, furthermore, presidents keep their focus on simply keeping their coalitions together during their time in office, but loss much of their ability to influence who would replace them.

    And a longer presidential term also means a longer period in the wilderness for politicians, who could be attracted to join each president’s temporary coalition, depriving opposition parties of leaders to wait in the wings.

    So should we go for having two 4 year terms and having a two party system?

    • lourdes says:

      For me, more important for Pilipinas is run-off for presidential elections. If in the first voting, the most-popular gets 49% or less, then a second elections gets held within 45 days. Only 2 candidates for the run-off — voters choose between top-two only and the winner of the run-off goes to Malacanang.

      But I agree also to 4-year terms, 8-years maximum for president.

  5. Vic Sison says:

    In the U.S. the current structure and composition of the electorate is
    Republicans 55 million registered members
    Democrats 72 million registered members
    Independents 42 million

    Check me if I’m wrong, but I think in the Philippines the bulk of the electorate is composed of the mini version of political butterflies {balimbings}. I rest my case.

Speak Your Mind

*