On the campaign thing, de Quiros say...
The elections were incidental, the liberation was essential. That is the reason I kept saying what we had was an Edsa masquerading as an election. If the elections had not been around the corner, I was fully convinced the storm that gathered during Cory’s funeral march would have broken into a full-blown public uprising, like the last two Edsas.
Sure, gramps. It was all about the "Edsa spirit", right? Suuuurre.
On the vested interests thing, de Quiros say that he will not say "depends on what you mean by vested interest" as he did with the campaign thing, but then he offers his narrow definition anyway...
It means being paid by the campaign, handling money for the campaign, deriving financial gain from the campaign, holding a position in the party running the campaign, getting a position in government after the campaign, expecting to get a position in government after the campaign.
Indeed his answer to the question "Did I do any of those" (referring to the above) is quite clear: No.
Sniff snifffff.... The odour of sour grapes is quite palpable. Perhaps clues to the source of this aroma can be found in de Quiros's closing words:
I’ve always thought people in media who took partisan positions particularly in elections, masquerade or otherwise, should agree not to seek positions in government afterward. Because however you justify it, it will always look like deferred payment, in kind if not in cash, in ROI if not in COD. But that’s just me. I leave others to their sense of propriety.
Sayaw tatang, sayaw.