Article content continued

It was this guilt-by-association routine that seemed to inform Scheer’s “explain, apologize and move on” policy most, and understandably so. As Christie Blatchford argued on Sunday, it cannot be desirable that political candidates be forced to renounce friendships with or any sympathy toward troubled or wayward people in their lives. And that’s not even what McCaffrey was doing. She has essentially thrown Goldy under the bus — haven’t seen her in ages! — and now everyone is demanding she hire a bigger bus to finish the job.

All that said, the “explain” part of the “explain, apologize and move on” policy is letting the Conservative side down. One might argue it was silly for reporters to pursue McCaffrey, but it was certainly silly for McCaffrey to flee. Whatever case she has to make that said relationship doesn’t matter, surely it can’t be too complicated for her to stand in front of a camera and make it.

On the trajectory we’re on, it’s not hard to imagine that religious affiliation itself could disqualify people from political life

Nor is Scheer’s refusal to explain the evolution of his thinking on same-sex marriage in keeping with this policy. In 2005 he stood up in the House of Commons and made an explicitly religious defence of civil marriage. Yadda yadda yadda, now he totally supports same-sex couples’ right to get married.

It’s not clear what changed. But a good explanation would do double duty. First, a passionate defence of conservatives whose minds have changed over the years would be very apropos in a political and media environment that is skeptical it can even happen. (Liberals never even get asked about it, naturally.) And second, such a defence coming from a proud and committed Catholic could strike a blow for religious freedom, which is one of Scheer’s professed preoccupations.