Published October 13, 2009.

Some thoughts on the vice presidency. Vice presidents do not elect their running mates; if the opposite were true, Joseph Estrada would have been helping Danding Cojuangco measure the drapes in Malacañang in 1992. Presidents do not elect their running mates either; Estrada’s coattails in 1998 did not extend to Ed Angara.

The reason is separate voting, which puts a premium on the popularity of each candidate, rather than on political tandems.

As I have argued before, the best use of the vice presidency (in election politics) may be to remove a rival for the presidency from the race. In this argument, a Chiz-Loren or a Loren-Chiz teamup would make eminent sense.

But if even the most organizationally developed political party we have, the Liberal Party, left the decision of tandems and running mates to Noynoy Aquino and Mar Roxas, we should not be surprised that Cojuangco’s personal party, the Nationalist People’s Coalition, has left it to Chiz Escudero and Loren Legarda to decide who will run for what position.

In this balancing act, however, the weight is clearly on Escudero’s side, because Cojuangco is visibly, viscerally, for him.

This frees Legarda to run for the vice presidency, a position that many Filipinos (as reflected in survey after survey) think she is ready for.

I believe she will have a much better chance at winning the vice presidency (even if Vice President Noli de Castro runs for reelection) than Escudero has at making it to Malacañang. I do not mean to say that Escudero doesn’t have a chance; I’ve had a glimpse of his camp’s reading of the demographics, and he is in a good position indeed. I only mean to say she will have less formidable foes. (Which is one reason why I think Mar Roxas should run for the Senate again.)

About Escudero’s increasingly negative below-the-line campaigning, I will write more in the future. I will only point out that the source of the propagandistic text message Butch Dalisay denounced in his column yesterday was, in my reading, all of a piece with the text messages I’ve been receiving from Escudero’s camp. Waiter, hold the cheese!

* * *

Surveying the damage caused by the floods, I find myself turning a phrase of Rizal’s over and over in my head. In a letter he wrote Marcelo del Pilar, he spoke of the role the Filipino students in Europe must play in forming the nation. We must prove to those who presume to rule over us, he wrote, that we are “superior to our misfortune.”

* * *

The work after Ondoy. If all we do is to try to get back to where we were, before “Ondoy” (and “Pepeng”) struck us, then it would have all been in vain: the terrible loss of life and property and opportunity, the near-biblical scale of devastation.

The challenge is to rebuild, but to rebuild in the certainty that the same man-made catastrophe will not happen again. That certainty can be ours only if we dream big.

It seems almost perverse to think of ambitious initiatives, when the need of the hour is for relief operations in northern Luzon. (The Inquirer’s own relief drive has distributed almost 11,000 bags, each one with at least two days’ worth of relief goods for a good-sized family.) Many areas remain isolated, islanded by 10 days of unremitting rain.

But in the same way that Cory Aquino’s slow death and extraordinary funeral changed the political dynamic, the great floods of 2009 have changed the game too. Now, the public is ready to accept a bold exercise of political will.

Are our candidates ready for it?

A political agenda that will make sense of the tragedy, that will allow a wet, weary country to dream of high, dry ground, is waiting for its champion.

Leading architect Jun Palafox has tendered many sensible suggestions. A text message from him compresses billions of pesos’ worth of projects into a few hundred characters: “Dredge Laguna Lake, Pasig River, Marikina, San Juan & all the rivers and waterways draining onto the Manila Bay. Build Parañaque Spillway. Ban logging. Reforest upland Sierra Madre mountains, hillsides. Garbage, sewerage, drainage, flood control, 10-meter easement. Mud can be transformed to ‘green’ islands. Update 1905 Burnham Plan [and] 1977 MMETROPLAN.”

None of this will be easy. That’s precisely the point. The floods have given the next president the mandate to do whatever is necessary.

There is also colleague Neal Cruz’s trial balloon of an idea, floated yesterday, about turning bloated Laguna Lake [and the Marikina and Pasig Rivers] into the centerpiece of a massive reconstruction project.

“To resurrect these bodies of water, they have to be dredged, the mud and silt deposited around the shores of the lake. This reclaimed land can later be turned into a coastal highway around the lake, giving travelers a shorter route to and from the lakeshore towns instead of going the roundabout way through the inland towns of Laguna and Rizal.” The reclaimed land can then be used to spur the development of the coastal area.

All this will cost a lot of money, and is therefore an invitation to corruption. Is a country battered by big-scale corruption scandals prepared to undertake such a massive, long-term project?

I believe the answer is, “Yes, it depends.” Yes, because the devastation caused by the floods has made it necessary. It depends, because it truly does depend on the winning candidate. Test question: Assuming that the election creates a mandate for such an enormous, billion-dollar initiative, will the country entrust it to, say, Estrada, convicted of plundering the country’s resources?

The 2010 elections are now not only a test of democracy, but also of development.

Opposition Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero announced that he isn’t seeking for any higher office in the 2010 Elections, at a press conference held in the Club Filipino, Greenhills San Juan. “Napagpasyahan ko na hindi tumakbo bilang pangulo sa darating na halalan (I have decided not to run for President this coming elections),” he said. He later clarified, addressing a question by a reporter, that he would not seek to run for either the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency next year.

He asked for the Filipino people to be vigilant and critical in seeing past the sweet promises and actions of those who have declared themselves to run for the Presidency. It is important to see whether they have or have not been eaten by the system in their quest for the highest position of the land.

Chiz stated in black and white his plans of not running in the near future, but what is important to note is that he expressed his decision and desire to still lead and change this nation. He also hinted on his future plans. “I have decided that even though now is not the time for my dream and destiny for a presidency that won’t be beholden to anyone, I will continue to hold that dream and promise. If not now, in the near future.” (translated from his speech in Filipino)

““Kaisa ninyo ako, at kaisa ako ng kung sinumang pagtitiwalaan ng sambayanan sa mga darating na araw. At bilang botante, bilang Pilipino, bilang Senador patuloy akong mananalig sa kakayanan ng Pilipino at ng ating bansa na malampasan ang mga hamon at pagsubok na ito.”

Video also posted at Blogwatch.ph

"On the Threshold," illustration from Harper's Weekly, September 14, 1901

Teachers should be mining the “On This Day” feature at the New York Times, which usually features an historic cartoon or illustration from an antique Harper’s Weekly.  It is a favorite feature, to me.

Yesterday, it featured the illustration from Harper’s upon the death of President William McKinley, on September 14, 1901.

At the Threshold

Artist: William Allen Rogers

---

his post-dated cartoon was published as President William McKinley lay dying from an assassin’s bullet.  He had been shot on September 6, 1901, by anarchist Leon Czolgosz (pronounced chol-gosh) at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York.  The president died on September 14.  Here, McKinley is led to the Hall of Martyrs by grief-stricken personifications of the North and South.  Between pillars topped by busts of the two previously slain presidents, Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield, the angel of death prepares to place a laurel wreath of honor upon McKinley’s head.  (Images related to Garfield’s assassination also showed a reconciled North and South.)

There is much more at the Times site.

Robert Lincoln, the son of Abraham Lincoln, was present when McKinley was shot.  Accounts I have read but not confirmed say that Robert Lincoln had been invited to attend Ford’s Theatre with his father and mother, the night his father was shot.  As a member of President James Garfield’s cabinet, Robert Lincoln had been awaiting Garfield’s arrival at Union Station in Washington, D.C., when Garfield was shot.

And as a visitor in Buffalo, Robert Lincoln had as a matter of respect lined up to shake President William McKinley’s hand.

Astounding if true.  Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated.  Robert Lincoln was present for two of them, and close to the first assassination.  Where can we confirm or deny that story?

McKinley’s death catapulted the do-gooder, Theodore Roosevelt, into the presidency, probably to the great chagrin of corrupt Republican politicians who had hoped that by getting him nominated to the vice presidency they could get him out of New York politics.

The rest is history.

DICK CHENEY

The report in the New York Times that Vice President Cheney tried to convince President
Bush to use federal troops to round up suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in Buffalo, N.Y. gives me a chance to brush the dust off my perenniel proposal that the office of vice president be overhauled. I have argued as nauseam that the vice  president should head one of the cabinet departments — specifically that he or she should serve as secretary of state, secretary of defense, or secretary of the treasury. The advantages of this change would be as follows:

• It would discourage political parties from nominating non-entities like Spiro Agnew.
• It would avoid wasting the time of a valuable person like Hubert Humphrey.
• It would make it difficult for a president to deliberately ignore a vice president.
• It would keep the vice-president engaged in the legitimate, above-board daily business of the executive department — a particular advantage to a vice president whose background is principally legislative.
• It would give the vice president an opportunity to establish a track record as a top administrator.
• It would spare taxpayers from paying a salary for no work.
• It would keep people like Dick Cheney busy and obstruct them from behaving as though they had authority that the Constitution hasn’t given them.

Cheney had no understanding of — or respect for — the concept that government is at the service of the people, not the other way around. He established a pattern of operating in secrecy — again, without the authority to operate at all — that should outrage Americans of any political stripe. If the Times report is correct, it demonstrates Cheney’s disregard for well established principles of American governance — notably the broad constitutional prohibitions against using troops for what amount to police actions on domestic soil. Bush evidently listened to more responsible advisers in that instance. Incidentally, the Washington Post report on Cheney’s shadow “presidency” is still available at this link:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/?hpid=specialreports

Puno’s political acumen will come in handy for the next Chief Executive who will need to do, among so many other things at Malacañang, a lot of coalition- and consensus-building during the early part of his or her presidency to win popular backing for his or her initiatives

An if there are four things that best equip Ronnie Puno to be the country’s next vice poresidentg and chief political ally in the bureaucracy to whoever sits as president in the post-Arroyo government, these are his (1) renowned skills as political strategist-crisis manager, (2) low-key yet successful efforts in marshalling the PNP to become an effective partner of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in maintaining national peace and order, (3) expertise in local government development, and (4) advocacy of women and children protection.

He will also be a big help to the next President in dealing with whatever national crises comes along the way, considering his experience as a leading member of the National Security Council.

He can also help the next President on the peace and order front, given that the relatively stable situation during the latter part of the Arroyo presidency has cleared the way to a Philippine environment conducive to continued growth and development.

Hence, the next President will certainly need somebody like Puno during the transition phase and particularly at this time when experts like Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman predict the global downturn to last till 2014.

I’m watching the 5:30 news on TV3 right now, and they’ve just had a piece on the protests in Iran. The reporter commented that US Vice President Joe Biden stated he has doubts on the elections, which was followed by a soundbite from the Veep himself.

Only it wasn’t him. The on-screen caption clearly stated “US Vice President Joe Biden”, but it was John McCain telling us about his concerns over the disputed election results.

What are the chances of the same mistake being repeated on the 6:30 bulletin?

Sandy Levinson seems a little late is right on time, or even early, to the constitutional reform-game, which Yglesias has been pushing for a while now, but I’m glad he’s in agreement for the most part.

Personally, I care less about reforming the office of the vice presidency (although  I might change my mind if I think too hard about Dick Cheney) than I do about fixing life-terms for appointees to the Supreme Court.

Yglesias has been arguing for eighteen-year terms, staggered every two years, giving presidents a fairer chance at appointing ideologically similar justices and preventing justices from hanging on so long that they’re nearly on their death bed by the time they retire.  More on this another time, but wanted to point out Levinson’s post.

—

Update: I stand corrected. Sandy Levinson is the constitutional reform-maven, and it’s Matt Yglesias who has jumped onboard relatively recently.  If I may defend myself, though, I was more pointing out that Levinson seems surprised that Yglesias feels the way he does about consitutional reform, when it’s something Yglesias has been vocal about on his blog for a few years, Levinson’s support for reform notwithstanding.  Levinson seems late to Yglesias reform-game, if not to reform generally.

Sharon and Kiko Pangilinan

Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan announces that he will seek the Vice Presidency in 2010. In an ambush interview over ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol World, Pangilinan announced that he will run for the post independently and may do so without any running mate for the presidential post.

I heard the reporter say “…wala raw siyang [referring to Sen. Pangilinan] sasandalang partido..”

Then I hear my dad reply wittingly… “di naman niya kelangan eh, kay Sharon lang pwede siyang sumandal”

if the pun was intended. that I don’t know.. )

Pic taken from: http://www.abante.com.ph/issue/oct1608/pictures/16-sharon-kiko.jpg

It has not been since I was a little girl that I actually felt deep down pride in  this country. The swelling of the heart that makes tears come to the eyes. But, with the election of Barack Obama, I feel that sense of deep pride again. We are again the beacon of hope in the world. We have overcome the petty mean-spiritedness of politics as usual and created an election result that stunned the world!

I don’t believe ever in my adult life have I seen a single moment in time change the landscape of my perception of my own fellow citizens. They voted for progress. They ingnored, or were turned off by, the irrational attacks upon Obama: He is a Muslim, he was not born here, he has a strange name (Yeah, he doesn’t have a slave name like most American Blacks. Like wow…dopes!) The thinly veiled racism did not play well in America. It didn’t play well most anywhere here.

My fellow countrymen you have made me proud of YOU. I am proud to call you my fellow Americans. I am proud and hopeful that you are here to help rebuild this country in such tough times. I am proud and touched that I can trust the American people again. We have reached the promised land, at least for a moment, and we did it together.

      Well, the political grudges and paybacks have begun according to news reports.  It appears that there are those within the Democratic party who are holding a grudge against Sen. Joe Lieberman for publically supporting Sen. John McCain for president of the United States.

       Sen. Joe Lieberman was a Democrat when he ran for the Vice Presidency in 2000.  He is now an independent; but is still on the books, registered as a Democrat.  Senator Joe Lieberman spoke his mind about Barack Obama in September.  He was spoke on the subject during the Republican National Convention.  There was some outrage expressed and it appeared to shock the political world that he threw his opinion out there in support for John McCain; because, Sen. Joe Lieberman often sides with the Democrat party on issues. 

       The Democratic party has not forgotten that Lieberman went against the Democratic choice, Barack Obama.  My question is…if he was an Independent…why is it such an outrage that he would choose to support Sen. John McCain as his candidate of choice for the Presidency?  Doesn’t Sen. Lieberman have the same rights as you and I to choose who he thinks would make the best choice for the leadership of our great country?

       Today it was widely reported that Senator Lieberman had a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid…a Democrat from Nevada.  It appears that Reid is seriously considering removing Sen. Lieberman from his position of chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committe.  Majority Leader Reid allegedly offered Sen. Lieberman a lesser committee position on another committe; if he would continue to align himself with the Democrats to make policy decisions.

        It appears that Sen. Lieberman is taking some time to consider his options.  However, I ask you…since our new President ran his campaign on change…Is being an independent, free thinker against the winds of change?  Or is this a political grudge that has evolved into some sort of payback.  Or, is it business as usual in Washington, DC?  And, if it is true that it is payback time for going against the public party line…who’s going to pay the price next?  What does this say about the future leadership of our country; how will it be run during the next four years?