Abstaining Voter # 2

So, what have we learned from this week's edition of the Philippine electoral circus?

The current administration's best bets are opposition candidates. In this case, Villar and Escudero.

Of course, they'll still field two lifeless dummies in Gibo and Puno (sounds like a comedy troupe), just for the sake of fielding anybody. Of course, only an abject moron expects the two stooges to put up a fight, much less win. They're like Bambi in the award-winning "Godzilla vs. Bambi".

All this means is that the administration has likely already secured the loyalties of Villar and Escudero, with poor Gibo acting as as a smokescreen.

In essence, all candidates in this mess are "opposition". Gibo is no more a candidate than a show pony is a race horse.

Looks like the Inquirer's wet dream. A one party system composed of nothing but opposition. It's like if China decided to lose its mind.

***

Of course, the media hype machine is in full celebration of the gay wedding political teaming of Noynoy "Mama's Boy" Aquino and Mar "Pedicab" Roxas II. (Nothing reveals pretensions to entitlement more than the use of "II". It also sounds like a sequel. Mar Roxas II: This Time, It's Personal...)

But what I'd like to focus on is the funny notion, fielded by number 2 above, that this next election is about "good" and "evil". What makes it even funnier is that Roxas believes that his side is the one that is "good"! Oh, Mar, you joker, you! But then again, he may be serious. This sort of comic book logic, in the nuthouse environment of Philippine politics, may symbolize the apotheosis of Mar Roxas' reasoning skills.

What makes all this a big joke?

First, since when is any party in this clusterfuck of an election "good"?

Second, what does he mean by "good"?

One gets the sense that he mostly means "anybody on our side" is good. But even that is unspecific.

Does he mean, only Liberal Party members are good?

Evil baby! Where's your Liberal Party membership card?

Or, does he mean that those who don't vote for opposition candidates are evil?

He was opposition too. So he must be okay.

Maybe "good" is a question of "good governance"? "Efficiency"?

Kept the trains running on time. Never took a bribe. Perfect.

Or does he simply mean that the "good" are those that are not corrupt, like a certain outgoing President...

Umm...where are these "good guys" again? Oh, it's just an empty void...

You see, there seems to be a screw loose in the understanding of "good" and "evil" held by the good Senator.

Let me demonstrate via comparison:

Churchill calling the war between the Allies and the Nazis "good vs. evil"? Yes.

Roxas calling an election contested by sleazy, posturing oligarchs "good vs. evil"? No.

Look, Senator, just because your future wife's "hot" (I guess...) does not make you Han Solo. Just ask Anakin Skywalker.

Nobody's clean here. Not even you.