Basically, he will only run head-to-head vs GMA on a “No GMA!” basis. He talked about making every contested seat a national — rather than local — contest by bonding against the 170 signatories of 1109. Unfortunately, “all politics are local”.

I still don’t think that message will fly high and far. It would have been great if he had rattled off some new policies or touched on something new and exciting.

Anyway, at least he is not the same old, same old trapo.

Wait! There’s an idea: All the non-trapo types, mostly local guys, should make a new party and come out with a captivating platform. No existing politician can join…nor donate cash. Funding can come from friends and supporters…via the internet, even.

Why doesn’t anyone do that?

This is a new development and it would be best to defer to candidate David.

However, here are some indicators – http://books.google.com/books?id=lnyynEeornkC&lpg=PA37&ots=xLPIGtNVCY&dq=randy%20david%20platform&pg=PA37

I think David’s position is more than just anti-GMA. Personally, imho, David is a pragmatic ideologue who is left-of-center.

The job involves legislation and yet, by the graces of democracy, we have people like Jalosjos, Triallanes, and Pichay in the legislative body. I will go out on a limb and say Randy David can handle the job better than Jalosjos, Trillanes or Pichay .David’s sociology background is also an asset that he brings to the table.

As to better chance of winning, my take is aren’t we falling into the winnability trap if we take that route?

Shouldn’t we be identifying the candidate who can do the job best and support him to the best of our abilities so that his chances of winning are increased? Isn’t that what passion and commitment to principles entails?

I don’t know if he is ready for the down and dirty world of politics, but who knows? I remember how appalled he was at the conditions at the police station and the holding cells. I had the impression that he is pretty soft.

Anyway, why run for this specific seat? It must be purely anti-GMA and nothing else, eh? But why not get behind someone who has a better chance of winning AND a better chance of handling the job? (Though I see the argument that ANYBODY can handle this job)

But really…why not back someone “stronger”?