Today's apology has been written about by many. I too have a comment, but would like to take it a step further.
The apology was forced. That much was evident by the PMO gang standing over her as it was made. Fair enough. That's not the first time that's happened, but to me it's telling as it relates to this Minister.
Don't get me wrong. I think the emotion she displayed when referring to her personal experience was genuine, but that was the part of the apology that was completely superfluous. Oh, I have no doubt that the brain trust that forced the apology felt it would add empathy, but on the contrary, it made it, once again, all about her. I suspect she may even resent having had to bring it up.
That said, if you step back a bit and consider the new bit of tape that has come out, Raitt has a singular focus and that is Raitt.
Of course it could be argued that everyone, MP or otherwise, is concerned with career advancement, but if you listen to this woman and apparently there is 5 hours worth of her talking, what is evident thus far is, no matter the issue, it's all about her.
There is a sophomoric quality to her conversations and while based on some of my posts concerning this government you might consider that an upgrade. I don't. This is her, unplugged. Not playing to the camera, not participating in the antics of QP, just the person elected to put her constituents first and to consider the big picture, the country, as it relates to her portfolio.
Some may argue that she is not unique in this regard. Maybe, but she's the one that's been exposed and when you consider the tone of the government as a whole, I remain convinced that she is but an example of a bigger picture. We know that Harper incites division in the House, in the country and Raitt's comments lend credence to the fact that the feeling of 'get while the gettin is good' is also alive and well within the party.
I read a column this morning that dripped with contempt. Not directed at the Minister, but at anyone who would dare declare that they don't conduct themselves in private differently than they do in public.
I suppose there is an element of truth to that, but in the main, I and many people I know are pretty much the same no matter the environs.
I later heard this same reporter on the radio. Ironically, she loves to throw around the term, sanctimonious, while simultaneously judging the character of all beings by her standards. She literally screeched about the bloody Liberals and their supposed perpetual desire for power, while defending Raitt's so called 'normal', um...desire for power. It was bizarre. She finished her screed by saying something as profound as: 'if you want to get remotely human being types in the public service...'
Really? Is the bar really set that low now? Is it time to set aside the desire for vision, moral character, leadership and a sense of duty?
I'm not suggesting that every Liberal is lily white and possesses the aforementioned traits. I am suggesting that the Conservative party has set and given voice to a new standard in this country though and it's very low indeed. It's one that some seem willing to latch on to and we are poorer for it. Raitt however may have played a part in awakening those who expect better.
She may have achieved her coveted notoriety in a way that she never imagined. She may have been the icing on the cake that drew the attention and the cameras, without realising that the heat they would generate would not only melt said icing, but cause the cake to collapse as well.