More on the "credible alternative" question

I really am disturbed by this recommendation by Archbishop Lagdameo re finding a "credible alternative" first before removing Arroyo:

The CBCP has a number of recommendations, from electoral reform to poverty alleviation. But the moral imperative -- ferreting out the truth, discerning right and wrong -- is paramount. Does the relentless pursuit of truth apply to Arroyo’s legitimacy? “Of course,” says Lagdameo. But the people, he says, have to present “a credible alternative” to remove her. “We may not like the President, but what are the people offering? Who is a credible alternative?”

Tthe fact that Lagdameo is even asking such questions shows that he doesn't take the concept of elections seriously and is in fact indirectly approving of the election rigging done by the Arroyo admin because the CBCP itself thinks that the other presidential candidates like FPJ, Roco, Lacson, and Bro. Eddie Villanueva are "not credible alternatives" in their eyes.

It is this same attitude displayed by the arrogant arroyo admin and it's supporters that made GLORIAGATE possible. They needed to cheat raw because their opponents are "not credible alternatives." They cheated "for the good of the country."

And it is the same attitude that Marcos had, kaya he unilaterally decided to stay in power for 20 years because he thinks the anti-Marcos opposition are not "credible alternatives".

Marcos cheated Cory in the 1986 elections precisely because he thought Cory, like the rest, are "not credible" enough. It is that kind of mentality that convinced marcos that he is "indispensable". It is that kind of mentality that made him want to stay in power for 20 years (and more if edsa 1986 failed).

if the real winner FPJ were still alive, would he fit the Lagdameo's criteria of a "credible alternative"? If he does not pass Lagdameo's standards, then we might as scrap the elections and do a coronation of Arroyo- and Garci-approved candidates na lang.

Having said that though, it is nonsense to say na there are no credible alternatives to replace Arroyo. In fact, it is the easiest thing in the world to find a replacement for her, since finding a replacement for the most corrupt, incompetent and illegitimate person currently holding public office right now in the Philippines is not exactly a difficult thing to do. I know many officials from the opposition and the administration who are more deserving and qualified of the presidency than her.

We're starting at a low point here, peeps, AND ARROYO IS THAT LOW POINT.

I've already suggested guys like Franklin Drilon, Serge Osmena III, Richard Gordon, Ping Lacson and Mar Roxas. MLQ3 likes Pong Biazon and Sen. Jun Magsaysay. More here. Dean Jorge Bocobo thinks Ramon Magsaysay Jr., Rodolfo Biazon, Dick Gordon, Manuel Roxas III, Alfredo Lim and especially Frank Drilon are great candidates.

There are many great candidates, but the worst thing you could do right now is for the anti-Arroyo groups to limit the voters' choice to a single candidate or worse, install that said candidate to Malacanang without going thru an election. We already did that in Edsa Dos remember, where GMA was installed into power without any elections, and look what happened.

So to say that there are "no credible alternatives" to replace Arroyo is bunk. The problem is THERE ARE SO MANY QUALIFIED PEOPLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY, that it is difficult to choose who is the best. It's like a kid in a candy store, ang daming pagpipilian.

But that is not a problem IMO, because it is the voters who will decide the most worthy among Senators Biazon, Gordon, Roxas, Lim, Drilon, Osmena 3, Lacson and Magsaysay.

Imagine a special presidential election (once arroyo is removed) without Erap, FPJ or GMA. Now that's exciting and interesting.

UPDATE: More from Conrad de quiros:

But I part ways with the CBCP in some of its other propositions. Chief of them: Why do you have to restrict yourself to constitutional means to oust an unconstitutional government? As I said earlier, what has demolished this country’s natural aversion to coups is that its current government is the product of one. The Arroyo government is arguably a coup, wrought not by guns but by Garci, not by a cabal of soldiers but a gang of carpetbaggers. I myself have repeatedly called for civil disobedience, capped by not paying taxes. Why should I yield my hard-earned money to an illegitimate collector?

More importantly, I do not know why the people should present a “credible alternative” for the Catholic Church to ask a usurper to resign. At the very least, when we catch a thief who has stolen our cell phone, we get our cell phone back as a matter of course. We do not have to prove we have better uses for the cell phone than the thief before we can get it back. You catch someone stealing votes, you oust her as a matter of course. You do not have to prove another person can do a better job.

At the very most, as I’ve also kept saying, contrary to popular opinion, the question of who should replace Arroyo is not the hardest thing to answer, it is the easiest. Who should replace Arroyo is who the people want, which is expressed in the vote. What is the problem? The problem is that Arroyo stole the vote. What is the solution? The solution is to give back the vote to the voters. I do not particularly care if the voters vote for Noli de Castro or even Joseph Estrada again. I do not particularly care if the voters vote for a dog or a cat. In a democracy, the one who governs is the one the voters voted for.

The idea of the people offering an alternative, credible or not, doesn’t make things better, it makes things worse. It adds fuel to the fire. It contributes to a nasty turn in Philippine politics, which is that the vote has become irrelevant people now just think of decreeing what is good for the country, namely themselves. That was what Arroyo and her cabal did. Why should we want to do the same thing? Every time I get asked that question, “But whom do you want to replace Arroyo?” my answer has always been, “That is not for me to say, that is not for you to say, that is for the voters to say.”

But we’re getting there, with no small help from angels.