Tag Archives: liberal

WaPo Devotes 60-Paragraph Front Page Story to Workaholic Kagan, Pays Little Attention to Her Philosophy

Borrowing a line from one of her Harvard colleagues, the Washington Post entitled its June 10 front-page profile of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, “Her work is her life is her work.”* But the 60-paragraph story by staff writers Ann Gerhart and Philip Rucker shed barely any light on the judicial philosophy that Kagan’s life work demonstrates. Instead, Gerhart and Rucker presented a gauzy profile that rehashed the usual trivia — Kagan loves poker and the opera — while painting Kagan as a workaholic who still has time to lend an ear or a shoulder to cry on to friends in distress: She has arrived at the age of 50 in a blaze of accomplishment. But her achievements can obscure how relatively narrow her world has been.  She made her life the law and became consumed by it — and happily so, by all accounts. Her parents are no longer living, and she sees her brothers, Marc and Irving, Yale University graduates who teach public school in New York City, usually at holidays. Most of the people in Kagan’s life are important people, bound to her in tightly drawn concentric circles. Her friends are elite lawyers of a certain set or Democratic operatives with staying power. She cultivates their company, holds their confidences, gives them the best presents and solicits their ideas, said several friends among the four dozen people interviewed for this article. Many high-energy super-achievers strive for a sanctuary of home or hobby or nature away from the relentless pressures of the workplace, even as they bang away on their BlackBerry and brag how little sleep they require. Kagan seems to be the rare person who has moved fluidly up and through the corridors of power with no apparent need for this separate sphere. “Her work is her life is her work,” says Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor. He credits her with grafting a sense of community onto the school’s prickly and insular culture in her six years as dean.  “To call her a bloodless organization person running her organization would be a terrible mistake,” Fried says of Kagan’s ceaseless entertaining, dinner-going and speech-giving while dean. “She did those things with real affection, not just for the institution but for the people.” Yet the friendship her intimates describe seems curiously one-sided; it is one in which Kagan gives freely of her support but seeks none in return. “I went through a very contentious divorce,” says Laurence Tribe, another Harvard Law professor who has known Kagan for more than 20 years, “and she was one of the very few people I could talk to about it. It’s because you could trust her. She made me feel that I would get through it. “She’s a great listener, and I think that will endear her to her fellow justices,” says Tribe, who is on leave from Harvard while working at the Justice Department. “She’s likely to make them feel that she cares what they think.” That’s great, but Kagan is not up for a marriage counselor gig, she’s nominated to the highest court of law in the land. It’s not wholly illegitimate for the media to devote some resources to exploring the personal and social dimensions of a Supreme Court nominee’s life, but ultimately these details are of little or no consequence to the job itself. Yet today, Post editors gave their front-page readers what essentially amounts to a Style section profile in lieu of a meatier profile that might examine the liberal leanings discernible in Kagan’s work product. *the headline for the online version reads, “Kagan has many achievements, but her world has been relatively narrow.”

Originally posted here:
WaPo Devotes 60-Paragraph Front Page Story to Workaholic Kagan, Pays Little Attention to Her Philosophy

Conservative Pundits Strike a Chord as Nation Grows Wary of Liberalism

On February 19, 2009, Rick Santelli helped create a movement whose political impact has not yet been fully realized. The ” Rant Heard ‘Round the World ,” as it has become known, was a profound, if hardly isolated example of the power of conservative pundits to enact political change. That power has grown as Americans have become more sympathetic to the economic conservative argument–both the moral/spiritual element of it, and the strictly economic one. The American people have by and large come full circle in a short time, and the pundits that retain the most influence in our society have changed accordingly. Santelli is the perfect example, as he was certainly not the prominent name he is now before he let loose on the floor of the Chicago exchange. Michael Barone explains the essential appeal of the rant. He wrote Wednesday that it “was both an economic and a moral argument.” Economic, because subsidies to the improvident are an unproductive investment. We know now that very many of the beneficiaries of the administration’s mortgage modification programs ended up in foreclosure anyway. Subsidies just prolonged the agony. But it’s also a moral argument. Taking money away from those who made prudent decisions and giving it to people who made imprudent decisions is casting society’s vote for imprudence and self-indulgence. It mocks thrift and makes chumps out of those who pay their own way. We should, Santelli argued, “reward people that can carry the water rather than just drink the water.” Barone also notes the amazing speed at which tea party rallies were set up all over the nation. The country seemed predisposed to the sort of objections Santelli had raised. “We’re thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July,” Santelli said. As it turned out, thousands of previously uninvolved citizens flocked to tea parties all over America even sooner, and now they’re making their mark in primaries and special elections. New Deal historians can’t explain that. Rick Santelli’s rant does. A year and a half later, the tea party continues unabated. It has played large roles in electoral contests throughout the year–most notably in the election of Sen. Scott Brown–and will assuredly continue to do so through November. But more importantly, the spirit that made Santelli’s rant is still alive and well, as evinced by the continued influence of the same message of fiscal and personal restraint–a mishmash of conservatism, libertarianism, and populism. Earlier this week, Glenn Beck harnessed this same spirit when he promoted Friedrich Hayek’s monumental work “The Road to Serfdom,” on air. In about a day the book was number 1 on the Amazon and Barnes and Noble bestsellers lists. That’s a far cry from starting a political movement, but it is a power unrivaled except perhaps by Oprah. Beck’s wildly successful promotion of Hayek’s work demonstrates this point. Mediaite’s Frances Martel reported today on the tremendous success of “The Road to Serfdom” since Beck promoted it on air. Before Beck dedicated an entire program to it, The Road to Serfdom  was doing slightly better in the bestseller rankings than the average mid-20th century political science book, coming in at #295 on the Amazon list and #3,254 rank on Barnes and Noble’s site. The “slightly better” is partly due to the fact that Tuesday’s appearance wasn’t the first on a Fox network for the book: libertarian Fox Business host John Stossel started wearing a ball and chain to work to advertise the book (or at least the catchphrase) long before it landed on Beck’s radar. Now it’s topping both lists, and shortly after the program was over, the book title soared to the top of Google’s top search list. Beck and Santelli together demonstrated one fact: when conservative pundits speak, people listen. Why is that? Perhaps it has something to do with the message both Beck and Santelli offered: they both resonate with Americans in profound ways. The influence enjoyed by the likes of Santelli and Beck serve to counter the consistent pro-Obama reporting from the legacy media. But that influence is also born of a similar national mood to the one that made the media so influential in the run-up to the 2008 election. Voters unhappy with the Republican Party and President Bush were predisposed to the liberal messages being thrown at them daily by the liberal press. Now the nation’s mood has turned against liberalism–and hence against the mainstream media–and conservative commentators, though fewer in number, have the ability to enact political change.

View original post here:
Conservative Pundits Strike a Chord as Nation Grows Wary of Liberalism

Former NYT Editorialist Cohen Insists First Amendment Free Speech Protection Is ‘Vague’

In his June 9 “case study” feature for Time.com, Adam Cohen, formerly of the New York Times editorial board and Time magazine, tackled the question “Are Liberal Judges Really ‘Judicial Activists’?” Cohen’s short answer: yes, but so are conservative judges, and it’s the conservatives on the Supreme Court that have been on an activist kick lately. To bolster his argument, Cohen complained that judges must of necessity make judgment calls about vague elements of U.S. law and the Constitution. You know, vague stuff like, wait for it, the First Amendment (emphases mine): Roberts and the rest of the court’s five-member conservative majority have overturned congressional laws and second-guessed local elected officials as aggressively as any liberal judges. And they have been just as quick to rely on vague constitutional clauses. Earlier this year, in the Citizens United campaign-finance case, the court’s conservatives struck down a federal law that prohibited corporations from spending on federal elections. Once again, they relied on a vaguely worded constitutional guarantee. That “vaguely worded constitutional guarantee” reads as follows: Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. What part of that is vague? Congress has no business abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The amendment says nothing about whose freedom of speech, and congressional attempts to fence in that freedom of speech to individuals alone, and not corporate entities, is a pretty clear violation of the text of the amendment’s prohibition against speech abridgement. Indeed, as the majority in Citizen’s United made clear: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content….The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each. Cohen also considers “vague” the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause: In a 2007 case, the conservative majority overturned voluntary racial integration programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. Good idea or bad, the programs were adopted by local officials who had to answer to voters. But the conservative Justices had no problem invoking the vague words of the Equal Protection Clause to strike them down. In that controversy, the two school systems involved were purposefully engineering the racial demography of schools within their districts to correct what was perceived as racial imbalance. In other words, some schools were too white, others too black, in the eyes of policymakers. Whereas Brown v. Board ruled that de jure segregation was a violation of the 14th Amendment protections because segregation by law was inherently unequal, liberal proponents of the Seattle and Louisville plans defended the respective school districts’ obsession with the skin color of its school populations.  Here’s how Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes recorded the logic of Chief Justice Roberts in the Court’s opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. : “Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a plurality that included Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. “The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again — even for very different reasons.” He added: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  Those crazy conservative justices and their radical activism, upholding the implications of Brown v. Board of Education!

Go here to see the original:
Former NYT Editorialist Cohen Insists First Amendment Free Speech Protection Is ‘Vague’

CNN’s Gupta: Womb is a ‘Sacred Space’ and a ‘Safe Refuge’ for ‘Babies’?

CNN anchor Dr. Sanjay Gupta refreshingly made an implicitly pro-life argument during a report about how toxic chemicals possibly affect the unborn children: “Here in the womb, enveloped in darkness and warmth, a baby’s life begins in earnest. It is a sacred space: pristine, insulated, more than nine months of safe refuge from the world outside ” . Dr. Gupta made that statement as he gave a voice-over for the first segment of his “Toxic Childhood” special, which first aired on Thursday evening at 8 pm Eastern. CGI of a baby in the womb played as he described the “sacred space.” The anchor continued on this note in his first question to Dr. Frederica Perera of Columbia University: ” We imagine a baby sort of nice and safe and tucked away in the womb , impervious to all the assaults that occur on the body. You say, not so fast?” So Gupta twice referred to the unborn human as a “baby.” Despite this pro-life language, the CNN anchor failed to mention the liberal affiliation of the Environmental Working Group, an organization whose study he cited during the report, and how they are a project of the Tides Foundation . On two earlier occasions as well, Gupta leaned towards the pro-abortion side. During a December 19, 2008 segment , he included only one pro-life voice among several statements and clips from pro-abortion groups opposed to the expansion of health care workers’ right not to participate in controversial procedures such as abortion and in-vitro fertilization. The doctor also failed to correct former President Clinton after he repeatedly referred to human embryos as not being fertilized during a March 11, 2009 interview. Over the past year, CNN has slanted several times towards the pro-abortion position. Correspondent Carol Costello’s June 2, 2009 report highlighted a prediction by former Washington Post reporter Cynthia Gorney that there would be a “huge backlash” against pro-lifers after the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller. CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin fretted in a November 23, 2009 column that “abortion, as the academics like to say, is being marginalized.” Earlier in 2010, CNN.com attacked black pro-lifers and anchor Kyra Phillips conducted a softball interview of a woman who Tweeted her abortion as it took place. On the other hand, CNN’s Anderson Cooper spotlighted a woman who decided not to abort her infant daughter despite her severe genetic defects during a June 2, 2009 interview .

View post:
CNN’s Gupta: Womb is a ‘Sacred Space’ and a ‘Safe Refuge’ for ‘Babies’?

The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger

Tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, have begun to dismantle the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment. They are creating a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and shutting out all those they define as the enemy. This movement, veering closer and closer to traditional fascism, seeks to force a recalcitrant world to submit before an imperial America. It champions the eradication of social deviants, beginning with homosexuals, and moving on to immigrants, secular humanists, feminists, Jews, Muslims and those they dismiss as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace their perverted and heretical interpretation of the Bible. Those who defy the mass movement are condemned as posing a threat to the health and hygiene of the country and the family. All will be purged. The followers of deviant faiths, from Judaism to Islam, must be converted or repressed. The deviant media, the deviant public schools, the deviant entertainment industry, the deviant secular humanist government and judiciary and the deviant churches will be reformed or closed. There will be a relentless promotion of Christian “values,” already under way on Christian radio and television and in Christian schools, as information and facts are replaced with overt forms of indoctrination. The march toward this terrifying dystopia has begun. It is taking place on the streets of Arizona, on cable news channels, at tea party rallies, in the Texas public schools, among militia members and within a Republican Party that is being hijacked by this lunatic fringe. Elizabeth Dilling, who wrote “The Red Network” and was a Nazi sympathizer, is touted as required reading by trash-talk television hosts like Glenn Beck. Thomas Jefferson, who favored separation of church and state, is ignored in Christian schools and soon will be ignored in Texas public school textbooks. The Christian right hails the “significant contributions” of the Confederacy. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who led the anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950s, has been rehabilitated, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is defined as part of the worldwide battle against Islamic terror. Legislation like the new Jim Crow laws of Arizona is being considered by 17 other states. The rise of this Christian fascism, a rise we ignore at our peril, is being fueled by an ineffectual and bankrupt liberal class that has proved to be unable to roll back surging unemployment, protect us from speculators on Wall Street, or save our dispossessed working class from foreclosures, bankruptcies and misery. The liberal class has proved useless in combating the largest environmental disaster in our history, ending costly and futile imperial wars or stopping the corporate plundering of the nation. And the gutlessness of the liberal class has left it, and the values it represents, reviled and hated. The Democrats have refused to repeal the gross violations of international and domestic law codified by the Bush administration. This means that Christian fascists who achieve power will have the “legal” tools to spy on, arrest, deny habeas corpus to, and torture or assassinate American citizens—as does the Obama administration. Those who remain in a reality-based world often dismiss these malcontents as buffoons and simpletons. They do not take seriously those, like Beck, who pander to the primitive yearnings for vengeance, new glory and moral renewal. Critics of the movement continue to employ the tools of reason, research and fact to challenge the absurdities propagated by creationists who think they will float naked into the heavens when Jesus returns to Earth. The magical thinking, the flagrant distortion in interpreting the Bible, the contradictions that abound within the movement’s belief system and the laughable pseudoscience, however, are impervious to reason. We cannot convince those in the movement to wake up. It is we who are asleep. Those who embrace this movement see life as an epic battle against forces of evil and Satanism. The world is black and white. They need to feel, even if they are not, that they are victims surrounded by dark and sinister groups bent on their destruction. They need to believe they know the will of God and can fulfill it, especially through violence. They need to sanctify their rage, a rage that lies at the core of the ideology. They seek total cultural and political domination. They are using the space within the open society to destroy it. These movements work within the confining rules of the secular state because they have no choice. The intolerance they promote is muted in the public assurances of their slickest operators. Given enough power, and they are working hard to get it, any such cooperation will vanish. The demand for total control and for a Christian nation and the refusal to permit any dissent are on display within their inner sanctums. These pastors have established within their churches tiny, despotic fiefdoms, and they seek to replicate these little tyrannies on a larger scale. Many of the tens of millions within the Christian right live on the edge of poverty. The Bible, interpreted for them by pastors whose connection with God means they cannot be questioned, is their handbook for daily life. The rigidity and simplicity of their belief are potent weapons in the fight against their own demons and the struggle to keep their lives on track. The reality-based world, one where Satan, miracles, destiny, angels and magic did not exist, battered them like driftwood. It took their jobs and destroyed their future. It rotted their communities. It flooded their lives with alcohol, drugs, physical violence, deprivation and despair. And then they discovered that God has a plan for them. God will save them. God intervenes in their lives to promote and protect them. The emotional distance they have traveled from the real world to the world of Christian fantasy is immense. And the rational, secular forces, those that speak in the language of fact and evidence, are hated and ultimately feared, for they seek to pull believers back into “the culture of death” that nearly destroyed them. There are wild contradictions within this belief system. Personal independence is celebrated alongside an abject subservience to leaders who claim to speak for God. The movement says it defends the sanctity of life and advocates the death penalty, militarism, war and righteous genocide. It speaks of love and promotes fear of damnation and hate. There is a terrifying cognitive dissonance in every word they utter. The movement is, for many, an emotional life raft. It is all that holds them together. But the ideology, while it regiments and orders lives, is merciless. Those who deviate from the ideology, including “backsliders” who leave these church organizations, are branded as heretics and subjected to little inquisitions, which are the natural outgrowth of messianic movements. If the Christian right seizes the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, these little inquisitions will become big inquisitions. by Chris Hedges more on link http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/07-4 added by: Stoneyroad

Save Tigers with Leonardo DiCaprio, Ask Jennifer Aniston to Kick Her Plastic Habit, and More

Photo via Examiner Leonardo DiCaprio — who has his own environmental foundation, lends his voice to multiple documentaries, donates to the NRDC and other charities, and is developing his own eco-hotel in Belize — has one more commitment to add to his already-full list: … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more here:
Save Tigers with Leonardo DiCaprio, Ask Jennifer Aniston to Kick Her Plastic Habit, and More

Bill O’Reilly Tells Black Guest He Looks Like a Drug Dealer [That’s Racist]

Marc Lamont Hill is the black Liberal Columbia professor who for some reason is always on The O’Reilly Factor . Tonight’s episode made Hill’s presence even more puzzling, because Bill O’Reilly told him that he looks like someone who sells drugs. More

Latest Update: Philippines Election Partial and Unofficial Results: Philippines Elections 2010 Results May 12, 9:40 PM (Philippines Time)

Partial Unofficial Tally as of May 12, 9:40 PM – 89.02% of Election Returns. It is about 89.02% of the Election Returns, the Liberal Party standard-bearer Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Aquino III continued to widen his lead over his rivals in the presidential race. Asn in Vice President race Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay is maintaining his advantage over LP’s Mar Roxas in what is turning out to be an interesting and very awaiting results of the first automated voting in Philippines Election 2010. Presidentiables 1 AQUINO, Benigno Simeon III C. 13,662,266 2 ESTRADA EJERCITO, Joseph M. 8,647,997 3 VILLAR, Manuel Jr B. 4,940,402 4 TEODORO, Gilberto Jr. C. 3,640,409 5 VILLANUEVA, Eduardo C. 1,014,781 6 GORDON, Richard J. 463,280 7 ACOSTA, Vetellano S. 162,000 8 PERLAS, Jesus Nicanor P. 48,500 9 MADRIGAL, Jamby A. 41,697 10 DE LOS REYES, John Carlos G. 39,708 Vice Presidentiables 1 BINAY, Jejomar C. 13,320,372 2 ROXAS, Manuel A. 12,531,093 3 LEGARDA, Loren B. 3,744,850 4 FERNANDO, Bayani F. 929,006 5 MANZANO, Eduardo B. 700,040 6 YASAY, Perfecto R. 327,748 7 SONZA, Jose Y. 57,117 8 CHIPECO, Dominador Jr F. 46,929 Senatoriables (Top 25) 1 BONG REVILLA, Ramon, Jr. B. 17,587,693 2 ESTRADA, Jinggoy E. 17,188,205 3 DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, Miriam P. 15,738,214 4 DRILON, Franklin M. 14,432,438 5 ENRILE, Juan Ponce -. 14,220,331 6 CAYETANO, Pilar Juliana S. 12,457,176 7 MARCOS, Ferdinand, Jr. R. 11,984,117 8 RECTO, Ralph G. 11,259,228 9 SOTTO , Vicente III C. 10,802,808 10 OSMEÑA, Sergio III D. 10,587,435 11 LAPID, Manuel M. 9,917,944 12 GUINGONA , Teofisto III D. 9,369,627 13 HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, Ana 8,330,316 14 BIAZON, Rozzano Rufino B. 7,866,116 15 DE VENECIA, Jose III P. 7,593,246 16 REMULLA, Gilbert Cesar C. 6,828,047 17 LIM, Danilo D. 6,670,793 18 ROCO, Sonia M. 6,175,905 19 QUERUBIN, Ariel O. 5,964,803 20 PIMENTEL, Gwendolyn D. 5,787,164 21 ACOSTA, Jr. Nereus O. 5,395,690 22 LACSON, Alexander L. 4,753,131 23 TAMANO, Adel A. 3,672,119 24 OSMEÑA, Emilio Mario R. 3,566,391 25 MAZA, Liza L. 3,524,515 Latest Update: Philippines Election Partial and Unofficial Results: Philippines Elections 2010 Results May 12, 9:40 PM (Philippines Time) is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

Manny Pacquiao Declares Congressional Win in 2010 Philippine Elections

WBO Welterweight Boxing Champion “Manny Pacquiao” is now one of the Congressman in the Republic of the Philippines. Manny Pacquiao who is the Seven-Time Title holder scored the most personally satisfying win of his life in his birthplace in the country’s national elections early Tuesday morning, soundly defeating a heavily favored candidate, Roy Chiongbian, from an entrenched billionaire clan to win a seat in the Philippines Congress representing the province of Sarangani on the island of Mindanao. He becomes the first professional boxer “Manny Pacquiao”, 31-year old to hold national public office while still active in the ring. After his victory in the Philippines’ first fully electronic national elections was deemed largely official by early Tuesday morning, Pacquiao felt confident enough to declare victory over Chiongbian, 61. Philippines great boxer figther and famous athlete at all time has a result of election came earlier into his campaign office. Manny Pacquiao’s votes counts is approximately 90,000 votes out of 125,000 registered voters made it mathematically impossible for the boxing hero to lose even tthough the final vote tallies are not yet completed. According to Manny Pacquiao’s adviser Michael Koncz “This is the biggest achievement of Manny’s life. More than any boxing match,” he added that Manny “Pacman Pacquiao” will make an official proclamation of victory on Tuesday. “It’s a landslide!” from a very delighted Pacquiao wearing clad in jeans, sneakers and a Lacoste polo shirt, which he said excitedly 90 minutes after the polls closed nationwide Monday at 7 p.m. Read Latest Updates of Philipplines Election 2010 Results. According to Wikipedia, his political career before the Philippines Election 2010: In July 2006, Pacquiao went to the Commission on Elections office to file for official transfer of his residency from General Santos City to Manila, where he owns a condominium unit.Pacquiao was accompanied by Ali Atienza, son of Manila Mayor Lito Atienza, fueling speculation that he planned to run for vice mayor of Manila. When asked about his political plans, he said he was still undecided, and was concentrating on his boxing career. On February 12, 2007, Pacquiao officially announced that he would be running for a seat in the House of Representatives in the May 2007 legislative election as a candidate of the Liberal Party, aiming to represent the 1st District of South Cotabato. Pacquiao, who has been known to be supportive of the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, said that he was persuaded to run by local officials of General Santos City, who hoped he would act as a bridge between their interests and the national government. Pacquiao was defeated in the election by incumbent Rep. Darlene Antonino-Custodio, who said “More than anything, I think, people weren’t prepared to lose him as their boxing icon”. Image Credit: Robert Hughes of Fightnews.com Manny Pacquiao Declares Congressional Win in 2010 Philippine Elections is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

Philippines Presidential Bet Manny Villar Concede: Defeat In Philippine Presidential Election 2010

After partial results showed Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III leading on presidential, Philippine Nacionalista Party standard bearer Manuel Villar Jr. conceded on Tuesday morning to Benigno Aquino III, Liberal Party’s presidential candidate. Manny Villar says in a news conference in Metrol Manila, “It was a fight well fought. My fellowmen, the Filipino people have already decided. It’s now clear that despite our efforts, we were not blessed to win on Monday’s elections.” Philippine Nacionalista Party standard bearer Manuel Villar Jr. added “I congratulate Senator Noynoy Aquino on his victory. The challenges he and our country faces are enormous and we should all work together.” On unofficial canvass of Philippines’ Commission on Elections results, Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III is leading the presidential race with 12.3 million votes followed by former Philippine president Joseph Estrada who garnered 7.75 million votes as of 6:15 a.m., Villar was far third with 4.33 million votes. Read Latest Updates Philippines Election 2010 Results. A businessman-turned-politician and one of Philippines Senator when she runs for President said taht he was saddened by all the black propaganda hurled against him and expressed hope that he would be given the chance to clean his name. Manny Villar has been accused of using his political influences to forward his own business interest. Read More Philippines Presidential Bet Manny Villar Concede: Defeat In Philippine Presidential Election 2010 is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading