If there’s one convincing argument against the issue of a Third Flank (I should have used this word as opposed to Plank), it is Manuel Buencamino’s Business Mirror column for this week.

However, the fact remains: the opposition will turn off some people if its slate turns out to be as how the administration “frames” it. The question now is this: how many of them will either vote for the administration slate or not vote at all? In either case, the administration benefits.

How big is this chunk of voters that might be alienated by the opposition slate due to framing? Regardless of the size, the opposition should exert effort to prove the framing wrong. It has already committed that error in 2004; it cannot afford to commit the same mistakes again.

The opposition must present a very credible slate. The administration only has to present an acceptable one.

Here’s what I think the opposition should do:

1. Turn the tables by making its own frame.
2. Deal on issues. Deal about the lies, not about the liars. Do not limit itself with pro-impeachment issues; think of a post-Arroyo platform.
3. Present a credible and understandable platform that is clearly different with the administration.
4. Convince the people that they have a choice and that the opposition is the better choice.
5. Present a VERY CREDIBLE senatorial AND local ticket. The war will be won if the local battles are won. Get at least 100 House seats, or more.

And address what MLQ3 thinks is a three-pronged strategy by the administration:

1. Bog down enemies by suspending them; pay back supporters who demand payback for past support by going along with such suspensions;
2. Bog down otherwise credible officials by having them attend to trouble areas;
3. Provide a smokescreen for cheating, intimidation, etc. by saying there are anti-insurgency operations underway.