Choices

With just two months to go before Election Day, nastiness is seeping into the US presidential race.

But even with the furor over putting “lipstick on a pig” and accusations of using public office for personal vendetta, even foreign observers know where the two American presidential contenders stand on pressing issues.

The Republicans’ John McCain, who is leading in US surveys, is anti-abortion, wants no timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, wants tougher sanctions on Iran and no direct high-level talks with its president, and backs an unspecified troop increase in Afghanistan. McCain wants to cut corporate taxes and voted to shield gun dealers and manufacturers from civil suits. He accepts campaign donations from lobbyists.

The Democrats’ Barack Obama, who leads his rival in global popularity polls, is pro-choice, plans to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months, is waffling on direct talks with Iran’s president, and wants to shift 7,000 US troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama wants to raise corporate taxes and wants gun manufacturers and dealers to be open to civil suits. He does not accept campaign donations from lobbyists.

Both candidates support setting up a border fence in dealing with immigrants. Both are against amending their constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Neither is calling for the abolition of the death penalty. Both want to relax restrictions on financing for stem cell research.

And as we all know, both are laying claim to the promise of bringing change to America.

The two have more detailed proposals, with either dramatic or nuanced differences, in their plans for housing, social security, education, health care, free trade – gut issues that concern the average American voter.

Their backgrounds have been laid bare, in minute detail, scrutinized with a scalpel and psychoanalyzed (and spoofed) to death. It may seem like overkill, but the scrutiny and the clear positions of each candidate on gut issues help the American voter make an informed choice on who is the better candidate to lead the United States for the next four years.

*    *    *

In Manila, the race for the 2010 presidency is off to a typical ugly start. Senate President Manuel Villar, now a declared candidate, has expectedly taken the first hit, with the furor over the allocation of P400 million for a “road to nowhere” – the extension of C-5 in southern Metro Manila, as described by the naughty Sen. Panfilo Lacson, himself a potential presidential bet.

Dragged into Villar’s problems is Mike Velarde of El Shaddai, who reportedly received a princely sum for a right of way through his property in Parañaque for the extension of C-5. That property, where a strange pyramid is now rising, was developed shortly after Velarde received what critics have described as a behest loan of more than P100 million from the Arroyo administration.

Those with a malicious imagination (almost everyone in this country) think the exposé may be related to rumors that Velarde is seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2010. I guess the thinking is that if popularity can put Vice President Noli de Castro at the top of recent surveys on possible presidential bets, Brother Mike can top Kabayan.

Villar’s allies are sharpening their claws for Lacson, but the former national police chief doesn’t look like he’s seriously after the presidency in 2010, and any blow against him this early isn’t going to be fatal.

Peace and order, Lacson’s strong point, is not the overriding concern of Filipinos these days. The economy is, and so are the consequences of corruption on economic growth and national competitiveness.

After seven years of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Filipinos are tired of being Asia’s basket case. The candidate with the best credentials to address economic stagnation and corruption, the candidate who can give national pride the biggest boost, will win.

An early beneficiary of the brawl among potential presidential bets is Sen. Mar Roxas. If he plays his cards right and ditches certain unsavory characters in his camp, Roxas can present himself as 2010’s Mr. Clean, the antithesis of Gloria Labandera, laundress of… the nation.

Roxas stands for the abolition of the value-added tax on oil imports – not a good sign for voters wary of populism. But at least Roxas is ready to come out in the open with a position on a controversial issue. He has also taken on the powerful pharmaceutical lobby, campaigning for cheaper medicine for several years now.

*    *    *

Potential presidential candidates will do voters a big favor by doing something similar, telling the nation how they stand on raging issues.

They can tell us how they stand on the women’s reproductive health bill, the separation of church and state, dole-outs to the poor, free trade and the continued presence of US troops. What are their views on amending the Constitution, and which provisions do they want to see changed?

We await the potential candidates’ detailed plans on addressing the country’s energy and food needs, the provision of safe water and sanitation facilities, the modernization of agriculture. We want to know how the possible candidates intend to attract more foreign direct investments to create decent jobs that can bring home the millions of Filipinos working overseas. Our economy cannot depend forever on the departure of Filipinos from their own country.

We await a detailed plan on raising the quality of Philippine education and public health care, and making the improved services accessible to the majority of Filipinos.

And of course we await plans on cleaning up the government. We know corruption won’t disappear overnight, but the candidates can start by leading by example. They can also give indications of what they plan to do with the crooks in this administration who think they can get away with everything. Can we expect prosecution? Or will the 2010 winner forgive and forget, and it will be business as usual?

What voters don’t want in 2010 is to have their choices narrowed down merely to the lesser evil. Who can lie, cheat and steal less?