{"id":1022,"date":"2010-05-06T17:42:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-06T09:42:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nargalzius.com\/blog\/archives\/2010\/05\/06\/why-i-chose-the-candidate-i-chose\/"},"modified":"2010-05-06T17:42:00","modified_gmt":"2010-05-06T09:42:00","slug":"why-i-chose-the-candidate-i-chose","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/nargalzius.com\/blog\/archives\/2010\/05\/06\/why-i-chose-the-candidate-i-chose","title":{"rendered":"Why I chose the candidate I chose"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’ve been more active in “advocating” my support for Gordon in the recent days. It was prompted by some article of a person who’s “reasoning” kinda turned me off. Not because it was wrong<\/em> per se, but simply because it was a bit “shallow” (for lack of a better word) given the stakes.<\/p>\n

My thesis is pretty simple with regards to choosing a leader for the country: Get the most qualified person for the job. Now that may be easy to say and every camp has it’s own [legitimate] arguments as to why they claim their<\/em> candidate to be “qualified.” Given that all<\/strong> candidates seem to be “qualified,” it really leaves us with one delineating factor – and the funny thing is that it’s not really that different from an employer choosing a new employee.<\/p>\n

From my field of work, I can say with certainty that the things we read in resumes or CVs mean less and less as the world continues to modernize. What we really<\/em> pay attention to is an individual’s portfolio.<\/em> That is to say, what actual<\/em> things has he\/she done<\/strong> This is important especially<\/em> in our line of work as the real visionaries tend to be the people you least expect. That and most talented people in the tech industry have some form of “Aspergers”<\/p>\n

In politics, one’s “resume” is what we usually see: the candidate’s marketing of themselves. And all three candidates worth considering (Gibo, Gordon, Noy) have their respective “impressive” traits (for lack of a better term) on paper. It’s but natural to assume that all of them will oversell themselves in one way or the other – nothing wrong with that; after all, that’s how you get a job.<\/p>\n

That’s<\/em> the resume, but the portfolio<\/em> is another thing… it’s the actual tangible accomplishments – and that’s<\/em> where certain candidates clearly<\/em> start to set themselves apart from the rest.<\/p>\n

Talk is Cheap, Results Matter<\/h1>\n

Here’s a simple test you can do to determine the objective potential of any candidate. <\/p>\n

We have all<\/em> candidates claiming they’ll end corruption… now give me an example where your<\/em> candidate actually tried to do that. Then once you have found your legitimate “example”, compare it to how Gordon has tried to address it.<\/p>\n

Or say, how to deal with poverty; each candidate is full of platitudes and promises (it should come with the package, Gordon is no different) but apply the same test; what has your candidate done to alleviate poverty? Then once you find your example, compare it to Gordon’s efforts on that front as well.<\/p>\n

How about economics? If applicable, what has your candidate done to communities they were in charge of? Was it better than what Gordon was able to with his<\/em> projects? Hell, even his his running mate (Bayani) has probably done more than the other presidentiables.<\/p>\n

Same goes with crisis management. Has your candidate ever been tasked to handle something like that? If so, what have they done? How did it fare compared to how Gordon dealt with crises with communities he was in-charge of?<\/p>\n

On Gibo<\/h1>\n

If you would notice, I don’t really criticize Gibo supporters for choosing to vote Gibo. This is because, just like with Gordon, he also has something to show for all his talk. He’s relatively young but he has already done so much. If he keeps at it, he might just well be similar to Gordon as being a man of action.<\/p>\n

I’ll admit, just like any “non-supporter,” I am<\/em> concerned about his potential loyalty to the previous administration. However,<\/strong> I while I do factor this in, I do not use it as the<\/strong> tipping point for not<\/em> choosing him. Because I realize that that<\/em> concern is a subjective claim – the only way to really know if he has the backbone to know when to make the distinction between responsibilities vs. utang-na-loob<\/em> is if and when he takes office.<\/p>\n

My choosing of Gordon over him is not because of speculating about where the latter’s loyalties lie – I’m choosing Gordon simply because he’s more<\/strong> capable, more<\/strong> experienced… and most importantly, all these claims are not<\/em> speculation – there is<\/em> a track record that corroborates his perceived capablities (based on what he has done).<\/p>\n

My beef with [most] Noynoy supporters<\/h1>\n

Sadly, most of my beef really is with Noynoy supporters. But it’s worth saying that my main frustration isn’t<\/strong> because of the their choice per se, 1 <\/sup><\/a>like I said, all three are way better than the rest in the lineup – it would be a tragedy to have someone like Villar or Erap winning<\/span><\/span>