Denials — dime and dozen

EDITORIAL

Click to enlarge

03/13/2010

Denials — as far as candidates, through their emissaries seeking the withdrawal of another candidates go —cannot be taken as truth, simply because this is not only the usual practice in the country among election bets but also because the withdrawal of one candidate from the race, along with his endorsement, can spell victory for one candidate over his rival.

Say presidential candidate A and candidate B are in a tight race and can’t seem to get more votes, since the two have more or less hit a plateau by way of getting more votes, or are on the downswing.

As insurance, either candidate would naturally try to deal with say, candidate C, or D, in a bid to get C or D’s votes, especially if C or D has a strong endorsement power and could translate his endorsement into votes for candidate A or B.

It is also usual practice for a candidate, say A or B, to offer to reimburse candidate C or D the campaign expenses incurred by the candidate who is being asked to withdraw from the race, plus plus, which can mean either a Cabinet position or some such appointment under his presidency.

Such a practice is not limited to national candidates such as the presidential and vice presidential candidates but also on the congressional level, rather than the senatorial level.

A congressional bet who wants to run unapposed in his district, to cite an example, may want to buy off another who is also running in the same district. Congressman A, to save himself the hassle and more campaign expenses, plus the usual campaigning problems, could offer to buy out his rival and be assured of a seat in Congress. It would cost congressman A less to pay off his rival to withdraw than to mount an expensive campaign.

Naturally, if congressman A’s political foe is a very strong bet, it is more likely that his foe will not bite the offer, in which case, he cannot run unopposed and has to go through the rigors of an all-out fight for a seat in Congress. This is of course assuming that there are only two congressional candidates slugging it out for the same seat. If there are more than two, then candidate A follows the same route as the presidential candidate, in that he makes an offer to a third candidate to withdraw in candidate A’s favor.

This is why denials from politicians that they have not offered other candidates to withdraw in their favor never ring true. Of course there are always offers.

Former President Joseph Estrada was first to expose a presidential candidate’s offer for him to withdraw from the race.

Although he says that he will not identify the candidate or his emissary, his campaign manager, in a media interview, identified the emissary as El Shaddai leader Bro. Mike Velarde, who has not made any bones about who is his preferred presidential candidate — Sen. Manuel Villar Jr.

Both Villar and Velarde have denied it, but it is more likely that they did try to buy off Estrada, for him to withdraw from the race and endorse Villar.

In much the same way, another presidential bet, early on, sought the withdrawal of Estrada and his endorsement of his candidacy, but this didn’t pan out either.

But while this is the usual practice — and acceptable to most — politicians and supporters alike — what is not acceptable is when say, candidate A or B comes up with the dirty trick of telling local executives that candidate C had offered to withdraw, in exchange for not just a reimbursement of campaign expenses, but a lot of money besides, and that candidate C was asking for too much for his race withdrawal, when no such incident occurred.

This brings on the bad blood, which can boomerang on the candidate that had engaged in such a dirty trick.

The irony of it all is that there could just be a scenario where candidates A and B continue to slug it out while candidate C get the plum prize in an electoral upset, proving all those silly surveys wrong.

Back to top

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2006