Amidst all the lies and brouhaha, it is at least a chance to get a glimpse of the candidate and see them for who they really are, somewhat. That is, at least we'll be able to see if they can’t think on their feet, if they are sore losers, if they are the type to panic, if they don’t know much about certain issues, or if they don’t know the meaning of certain words (a certain ex-president comes to mind), etc.
We at least get something, albeit not particularly much, than just what their PR people would like us to see about them.
I must admit that I wasn't able to watch the full first debate last April 21, 2013 because I went home late. I was able to catch the end part where everyone was asked why the people should vote for them so I got to hear all of them speak at least once. I was able to catch more of the second debate last Sunday though. And, so what did I think?
Thoughts on the first debate (April 21, 2013):
 |
| Participants of the first debate (Picture from ABS-CBN website) |
- There are still a lot of clouded thoughts on pandering the people in terms of religious topics, unfortunately.
- At least, candidates like Bam Aquino and Risa Hontiveros actually talked about issues and sensible matters. These type of candidates are much welcome. I like that Hontiveros is firm on her stand on issues like the RH bill and divorce. Her stands on various issues are clear, she doesn’t flip flop and her reasons have actual logic, something that should be a basic requirement for any candidate or politician but, unfortunately, is quite rarely found
 |
| It has been said that Ser Cheif stole the show Picture, screen cap from the umagang kay ganda show |
- Magsaysay (Jr.) was insufferable and just unbelievable. Apparently, he preferred to highlight his endorser “Ser Chief” (Aka. “Papa Chen” or Richard Yap) rather than talk about any issues when asked why the people should vote for him. He wore a shirt bearing his and Ser Chief’s photo and opened up his vest (or “tsaleko”) like he was superman to show off this shirt of his. What passes as acceptable in this country will only be considered laughable if done in debates in first world countries! This stunt is a definite example.
Thoughts on the second debate (April 28, 2013):
 |
| Participants of the second debate (Picture from ABS-CBN website) |
1. The Death Penalty Question
- So, Bro Eddie is for the death penalty? It makes me wonder how one can be against the RH Bill but can be for death penalty. Isn't his group anti RH bill because they claim to be pro-life? I don't know about you but actively killing a live person (even if said person is a madman criminal) sounds more anti-life to me. I mean, I'm just confused. I just think that if you want to be a stickler for religious ideas and be ultra pro life advocates, I expect some form of consistency.
- I don't have very strong feelings about the death penalty with regards to the candidates. I only wish the candidates have decent explanations as to why they are pro or anti. Some of them were sensible enough but some, however, were citing religious reasons (again) or their weird preferences for the rehabilitation of heinous criminals.
2. The Super Hero Question
- Apparently, a lot of them wanted to be superman. I do find this answer corny but at least they answered the question correctly. I only wished their reasons for choosing Clark Kent’s alter ego were better, one of them (I forgot who) even said because it takes a superman, not a normal human, to save the country’s problems because there are just so many. So, why even vote for that guy? He doesn't even think he, as a human, can handle it.
- And, apparently, a lot of these senators decided to even be cheesier by choosing their parents/father as the super hero they want to be. It’s not really cute, it’s just pilosopo. The question was which super hero you would want to be so you can use your super powers to help the country. Your fathers don’t have actual super powers. Superman can so kick their asses.
- For that matter, there are so many other superheroes to choose from. Why can’t these people be more creative? They could have inserted some problem of the country they want to highlight in their platform and inject a super power that will be able to address it for fun.
- So, I will applaud those who didn't answer the corny “superman” or the equally corny “father” answers as their super hero choices. These 2 candidates are: Angara who chose Juan Dela Cruz -> Kind of smooth as Juan Dela Cruz is very up to date, very Filipino and, not to mention, Coco Martin is his endorser. And, Grace Poe who chose Panday –> Very smooth to insert her father (as well, but in context) in the picture while also picking a very Filipino defender of the masses type of superhero as her choice . Both candidates may have inserted their own slanted agenda in their respective answers but at least their answers were somewhat creative and original.
3. The Unknowns:
- I have nothing against these unknowns except that I had hoped (but not expected that) they would be more brilliant and standout. Unfortunately most of them just sounded disgruntled and worse, sounded mad, and much like typical nuisance candidates.
4. Grace Poe:
- I must say, I am very very impressed with Grace Poe’s answers.
- I must say, I have very low standards and expectations for Philippine debates but I would like to acknowledge that she truly gave snappy, smart, and appropriate answers. And, more notably, she talked about issues and not of random disgruntled rants. She didn't engage in personality politics (or obvious personality politics) and was able to say no or be firm against other candidates in a diplomatic manner. It’s the least I would expect from politicians, only, unfortunately, we almost never get it from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment