Article content continued

“Now that I am a candidate for political office, my role is different,” he continued. “The comments in question are wholly inappropriate from a candidate for political office and, while I did make them in a different role, they are nevertheless mine. I apologize for them now, unreservedly.”

The comments weren’t remotely “thought-provoking,” “disquieting” or “difficult,” though. They’re a dime a gross on Facebook and Twitter. They are to political debate as a late-night 7-11 hot dog is to hunger.

If Alex Johnstone and her ilk are among the best and brightest politics can attract …then it can’t be any surprise what an unedifying spectacle politics tends to be

So, there’s a smart, well-known guy making a fool out of himself on two fronts, all for the sake of politics (though many in St. Paul’s would no doubt agree with him).

Now look at some of the formerly unknown candidates’ excuses: I was an alcoholic when I said those horrible things about women, but I’m much better now. “It was my truth at the time” when I said 9/11 was an inside job. I was a teenager when I told that guy on Twitter to kill himself a couple of years ago. When I told the Pope to go fornicate himself, it did not “reflect my views.” The latter was a communications officer for Thomas Mulcair!

I have some sympathy for some recently defenestrated candidates: Comparing Haredim to the Taliban is an imperfect analogy, but well within the bounds of civilized debate. If believing that gays can be “cured” disqualifies you from politics, a whole lot of people have recently been disqualified from politics. It would certainly be preferable to allow the voters to decide on each riding’s duly chosen candidate, rather than face the party’s Monty Python boot.