This week, we are starting a series on each presidential candidate, leading up to the May 9 elections. We start with Miriam Defensor-Santiago. We talk about her campaign and whether or not we have the duty to vote at all.
You may also download the podcast file here.
A very poor analysis, in my opinion.
Miriam was the first to speak out against the Pork Barrel scam! Remember how she aggressively grilled Napoles in the Senate. She never accepted any kind of money. Being implicated in a list by a political rival with absolutely no evidentiary value should not mean anything! Why does a group that promotes empiricism and rationalism use this as grounds against her?
And why do you judge a candidate’s qualifications as a president based on her VP choice? (I also disagree with her on this.) It’s possible to vote one and not the other. In fact, very rarely have candidates won as a tandem (the last time was in 1969).
Poll numbers change, and various polls have been called out for omitting certain candidates’ names. Polls do not decide elections. Votes do– and the youth vote (Miriam’s audience) is 20 million strong. We cannot underplay that number.
She is visibly getting stronger, as we can see from her previous appearances in UP Visayas and Baguio. I don’t see her passing away during her term, and even if she does, she dies serving her country! Ronald Reagan is notable for having had skin and colon cancer while in office.
Did you mention her numerous achievements, her unparalleled experience in government? Did you at least tackle her platforms, her plans on ending contractualization?
No. You say you are neither for nor against any one candidate yet you shed an unfair impression on the senator.
I am disappointed, FFT.
please, present your sources concerning the issues of Miriam Defensor Santiago being among the proponents of the Pork Barrel scam. Also, please present the articles that supports the statement made by Miriam that disfranchise the poor in Voting in Elections. I only know that Miriam is a Constitutional expert, she defends it at all cost so why would she made statements like that to weaken the rule of the constitution?