That may be the new line from the Palace, once the administration gets its hands on yesterday’s editorial ("Unimpeachable logic") in the Wall Street Journal. The Times had famously run a stinging editorial last April attacking President Arroyo for "undermining a hard-won democracy." (The Times version is here, but apparently it is now behind the online gates; the version in the IHT, however, is still accessible here.) The editorial got the President’s goat (but I must say Resty Odon’s curt, curmudgeonly take on the whole NYT-is-writing-about-the-Philippines issue was spot on).
Yesterday’s WSJ editorial, however, should erase a few creases from the Palace smile. (The article is behind a subscribers-only wall.) It isn’t one of the Journal’s better pieces: The second paragraph has a yawning grammatical lapse (a confusion in tenses) and, worse, a glaring factual error (a confusion in the number of impeachment complaints filed last year). The second-to-the-last paragraph also asserts a doubtful proposition. But that won’t stop the Palace from going to town and dining out for days on the WSJ’s vote of confidence.
Still, the opposition parties want more — although it’s unclear what, exactly, that is. All that they seem to advocate is Ms. Arroyo’s swift removal, which would imply that — in the short term, at least — Vice President Noli de Castro, a former television broadcaster, would assume the presidency. After that, who knows — the opposition parties don’t boast a strong leader, either.
The editorial’s entire thesis is summed up in its last sentence:
If Manila’s politicians could stop squabbling long enough, they’d realize that there are bigger things to worry about.