Don Martin, Hypocrite

[August1991]

This is what Don Martin, columnist, says about Ruby Dhalla, Liberal MP:

"After dragging the Liberal MP into the national spotlight to be confronted by sobbing nannies alleging they’d been overworked, underpaid and perhaps illegally treated by the Dhalla family during their brief bouts of employment, a committee report to be released next week shrugs its collective shoulder.

"It’s up to federal and provincial agencies to do any follow-up investigations, the all-party immigration committee concludes in a report leaked to me Thursday. Left unsaid was the impropriety of having an MP’s personal life subjected to a public inquisition for obvious political reasons.

National Post

This is what Don Martin, columnist, said about Viic Toews, Conservative MP:

"But the 55-year-old Mr. Toews' public face of self-righteous morality is now clashing with his troubled private life. An MP dubbed the "minister of family values" by Liberals is embroiled in a messy divorce after fathering a child last fall with a much younger woman.

"That's his business, frankly, yet it might explain why Mr. Toews was demoted to the Treasury Board and immediately cloaked by invisibility, stewing in Question Period silence while his junior parliamentary secretary juggles tough questions on election financing irregularities."

Paulsstuff.blogspot.com

----

IMV, anyone who chooses to go into public life (and enjoys the celebrity it offers) accepts also to put their private life on display. Moreover, it seems legitimate to choose our political leaders according to criteria including how they organize their private lives.

In the case of Dhalla, how she treats her personal staff is legitimate news to voters.

-----

Is Don Martin a closet Liberal supporter? Is he biased? Or is he defending Dhalla but not Toews because Dhalla is a woman? God knows.

Maybe Martin is just a lazy journalist who can't remember what he wrote and just makes stuff up as he goes along.

Edited June 5, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

Ummm, he did say that the divorce was his own business, but that it did explain some things. Also, I didn't see a Parliamentary Committee investigating Vic Toews' divorce.

[waldo]

In the case of Dhalla, how she treats her personal staff is legitimate news to voters.

whaaat! you don't like Martin pointing out the Harper Conservative witch-hunt in targeting Dhalla... correction... the failed Harper Conservative witch-hunt?

as much as you'd like to deflect, it's not about Martin... it's about the parliamentary committees report due next week (leaked to Martin) that clears Dhalla of any wrong-doing - the report that Martin comments around.

[August1991]

Ummm, he did say that the divorce was his own business, but that it did explain some things. Also, I didn't see a Parliamentary Committee investigating Vic Toews' divorce.

Yes, Martin did say that Toew's divorce was a private matter - and he said so in a very public way.

whaaat! you don't like Martin pointing out the Harper Conservative witch-hunt in targeting Dhalla... correction... the failed Harper Conservative witch-hunt?

Huh? I thought the Toronto Star picked up this story after the nannies appeared before a commission at the Ontario Legislature.

Anyway, from what I can gather, the committee censured Dhalla but let's wait until the report is released to draw any conclusion.

-----

IMV, there are two points here.

1. There is no such thing as a private life if someone chooses to enter public life.

2. Don Martin at various times says different things. That's hardly bizarre - he's human. The point however is that Don Martin's claim to be an "opinion columnist" is undermined because that is supposed to be his one area of expertise.

In fact, Don Martin, Jeffrey Simpson and the others are little different to the commentators on this forum. When they bring some special expertise or knowledge, then their opinion is more interesting. Don Martin has no apparent expertise or even special insight.

[jdobbin]

This is what Don Martin, columnist, says about Ruby Dhalla, Liberal MP

How is he a hypocrite. He was endeavouring to explain why Toews appeared to be demoted. It is no different from the possible explanations that were given for Bruinooge's demotion.

IMV, anyone who chooses to go into public life (and enjoys the celebrity it offers) accepts also to put their private life on display. Moreover, it seems legitimate to choose our political leaders according to criteria including how they organize their private lives.

How many are brought before committee where other witnesses were forbidden to appear. Think that is the definition of smear campaign?

In the case of Dhalla, how she treats her personal staff is legitimate news to voters.

But the job for Parliament? Was Toews asked to appear before committee to explain what he thought marriage was about?

Is Don Martin a closet Liberal supporter? Is he biased? Or is he defending Dhalla but not Toews because Dhalla is a woman? God knows.

Maybe Martin is just a lazy journalist who can't remember what he wrote and just makes stuff up as he goes along.

Are you biased, a Conservative supporter or just lazy in that you want to make up stuff as you go along, show your repeated disdain for women and anger about media where you seem to prefer to get your news from anonymous bloggers.

[jdobbin]

Huh? I thought the Toronto Star picked up this story after the nannies appeared before a commission at the Ontario Legislature.

Think that was the other way around.

Anyway, from what I can gather, the committee censured Dhalla but let's wait until the report is released to draw any conclusion.

Think you got that all wrong too. It commented on the treatment of nannies but didn't or couldn't come to conclusions about what Dhalla did. In short, it was the wrong venue to assess what Dhalla did or did not do.

-----

IMV, there are two points here.

1. There is no such thing as a private life if someone chooses to enter public life.

Good, then you believe Toewes should have been brought before committee to explain his views on marriage.

2. Don Martin at various times says different things. That's hardly bizarre - he's human. The point however is that Don Martin's claim to be an "opinion columnist" is undermined because that is supposed to be his one area of expertise.

You say different things at different times. What is your expertise?

In fact, Don Martin, Jeffrey Simpson and the others are little different to the commentators on this forum. When they bring some special expertise or knowledge, then their opinion is more interesting. Don Martin has no apparent expertise or even special insight.

Then don't read him and stick to your anonymous bloggers for your insight.

[Smallc]

Yes, Martin did say that Toew's divorce was a private matter - and he said so in a very public way.

[fellowtraveller]

there was a time and not at all long ago when journalists and MPs stayed away from other MPs families, but those days are fading fast. For example, Chretiens son was involved in a few criminal activities and while the press did report on it, it was backpage stuff.

Not any more. Blame the media, it is their choice.

[jdobbin]

there was a time and not at all long ago when journalists and MPs stayed away from other MPs families, but those days are fading fast. For example, Chretiens son was involved in a few criminal activities and while the press did report on it, it was backpage stuff.

It wasn't. It was on the covers of the Globe and other local papers around.

[fellowtraveller]

It wasn't. It was on the covers of the Globe and other local papers around.

Baloney, as usual.

I recall several editorials written by editors at the time in praise of themselves and our system, and how that made us superior to the intense, relentless muckraking of journalists in the US.

Nobody was picking on your Godfather.

[jdobbin]

Baloney, as usual.

You're full of crap...as usual. Show me that the story was buried on the back pages because I distinctly remember it was on the cover as one might expect for any news story involving immediate family member of the prime minister.

I recall several editorials written by editors at the time in praise of themselves and our system, and how that made us superior to the intense, relentless muckraking of journalists in the US.

The story was on the covers. It wasn't buried. It was news.

It may not have been sensationalized to your likes but it wasn't on the back pages.

Edited June 5, 2009 by jdobbin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Mainstream media makes its own news. It is all about sensationalism. Its about what sells, or grabs the attention of the reader or viewer. The news people decide for us what is newsworthy.

[August1991]

Then don't read him and stick to your anonymous bloggers for your insight.

Whether I read Don Martin is largely irrelevant (as it is, I read his columns occasionally). It seems more relevant that he writes for Canwest and it is all but bankrupt. I doubt whether the National Post will exist next year. So, Don Martin might be wise to start sending out his CV.

When I read articles on the Internet, I pay attention to knowledgeable people with special expertise in a field. I particularly like people who can dumb their expertise down to someone at my level. The Internet has made apparent to me (what I once suspected) that many journalists are like actors - they have no expertise except the ability to mimic someone else. (Is it any wonder that teh only viable online newspapers bring specific expertise to events.)

I have a sneaking suspicion that the conventional, centre-left bias of the MSM has not helped it. They presume to be mainstream and they seek not only to inform but also to educate.

If I want opinion, this forum offers more than enough and the opinions here seem as well thought out or as valid as Don Martin's opinions. Some are even more absurd.

-----

As to Martin's basic point, I think the fact that Jean Chretien's adopted son was charged and convicted of rape should be in the public domain. Jean Chretien chose a career on the public stage. He could have resigned for family reasons at any time.

It is duplicitous to want all the "benefits" of celebrity but avoid all of the consequences. In addition, voters have to distinguish between candidates and a candidate's private life is a valid way to make distinctions. Lastly, this is going to happen any way. Don Martin might be paternalistic and patronising believing that he can keep a secret but with the Internet, the secret won't stay that way for long. And that includes Don Martin's various opinions.

No one gets in to politics to remain a private person. They enter political life with the desire to be known.

Edited June 6, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Whether I read Don Martin is largely irrelevant (as it is, I read his columns occasionally). It seems more relevant that he writes for Canwest and it is all but bankrupt. I doubt whether the National Post will exist next year. So, Don Martin might be wise to start sending out his CV.

Don Martin is actually employed by the Calgary Herald and does columns for the National Post. I suspect that if the National Post goes bankrupt, he would still have a job since the Herald does not too bad financially.

When I read articles on the Internet, I pay attention to knowledgeable people with special expertise in a field. I particularly like people who can dumb their expertise down to someone at my level. The Internet has made apparent to me (what I once suspected) that many journalists are like actors - they have no expertise except the ability to mimic someone else. (Is it any wonder that teh only viable online newspapers bring specific expertise to events.)

When I read articles on the Internet, I realize that most of it is sourced by paid journalists in print.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the conventional, centre-left bias of the MSM has not helped it. They presume to be mainstream and they seek not only to inform but also to educate.

I have a sneaking suspicion that mainstream journalism have suffered because of the debt incurred by mainstream media owners.

If I want opinion, this forum offers more than enough and the opinions here seem as well thought out or as valid as Don Martin's opinions. Some are even more absurd.

No argument there. It is obvious you dislike him and that it your right.

-----

As to Martin's basic point, I think the fact that Jean Chretien's adopted son was charged and convicted of rape should be in the public domain. Jean Chretien chose a career on the public stage. He could have resigned for family reasons at any time.

The story made the front pages because it was the prime minister's son.

Canadians as a whole though don't judge their politicians by what their family members do. We saw that with Trudeau, we saw that with Chretien and we saw that with Mulroney.

It is duplicitous to want all the "benefits" of celebrity but avoid all of the consequences. In addition, voters have to distinguish between candidates and a candidate's private life is a valid way to make distinctions. Lastly, this is going to happen any way. Don Martin might be paternalistic and patronising believing that he can keep a secret but with the Internet, the secret won't stay that way for long. And that includes Don Martin's various opinions.

You must have been reading a different article than I read.

No one gets in to politics to remain a private person. They enter political life with the desire to be known.

Still doesn't answer my question of whether you think that we should have Parliamentary committees looking into the private affairs of MPs. By my reckoning, you seem to think so.

[August1991]

Canadians as a whole though don't judge their politicians by what their family members do. We saw that with Trudeau, we saw that with Chretien and we saw that with Mulroney.

Dobbin, you're wrong.

God knows how Canadians judge their politicians but personal information probably matters more in the judgment. If the son of a PM is a convicted rapist, I think that matters when deciding how to vote.

Private life? The sons of Trudeau and Mulroney have both benefitted from the celebrity of their father's name. Justin Trudeau and Ben Mulroney would be ordinary people except for their fathers and their family name.

----

As I argued, anyone who goes into public life must accept both its positive and negative aspects. They cannot accept only the good side.

[Smallc]

Dobbin, you're wrong.

God knows how Canadians judge their politicians but personal information probably matters more in the judgment.

I disagree, I would say, like in most European countries, that matters very little outside of extraordinary cases.

[August1991]

I disagree, I would say, like in most European countries, that matters very little outside of extraordinary cases.

Then why are Justin Trudeau and Ben Mulroney famous?

---

European countries? Steph de Monac?

Edited June 6, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

Personal lives play a very small role in our politics. It's that simple.

[August1991]

Personal lives play a very small role in our politics. It's that simple.

You're wrong, small c (Small Clueless?). Personal lives play a large part in our politics,

Voters need a simple shibboleth to decide how to choose. Family details are an inevitable measure.

Democracy means popular choice.

Edited June 6, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, you're wrong.

Until you show me some evidence, I'd have to say you are wrong.

God knows how Canadians judge their politicians but personal information probably matters more in the judgment. If the son of a PM is a convicted rapist, I think that matters when deciding how to vote.

Did it matter to Chretien in the election? I think not.

Private life? The sons of Trudeau and Mulroney have both benefitted from the celebrity of their father's name. Justin Trudeau and Ben Mulroney would be ordinary people except for their fathers and their family name.

I don't doubt that they benefited from a famous family name.

Nevertheless, it is their own efforts that are ultimately judged.

As I argued, anyone who goes into public life must accept both its positive and negative aspects. They cannot accept only the good side.

So you think a Parliamentary committee should be looking into people for whatever reason they want?

[canfan]

It is duplicitous to want all the "benefits" of celebrity but avoid all of the consequences. In addition, voters have to distinguish between candidates and a candidate's private life is a valid way to make distinctions. Lastly, this is going to happen any way. Don Martin might be paternalistic and patronising believing that he can keep a secret but with the Internet, the secret won't stay that way for long. And that includes Don Martin's various opinions.

No one gets in to politics to remain a private person. They enter political life with the desire to be known.

And that's why noone smart or worth being in politics will step forward. Why would you want to enter public service if people are just going to snoop into your private life. Their private lives make no difference to the policies they introduce. Politics isn't the same as celebrity and public servants don't get any benefits of celebrity. Don't confuse Paris Hilton celebrity with a politician's public job.

[August1991]

And that's why noone smart or worth being in politics will step forward. Why would you want to enter public service if people are just going to snoop into your private life.

Canfan, your query explains why I admire America - and why I'm a democrat. Edited June 6, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

You're wrong, small c (Small Clueless?). Personal lives play a large part in our politics,

Really? How much does the average voter know about Harper's wife? Just because you seem fascinated with personal details, that doesn't mean that voters in general. From what I have seen and heard in the media and in life, personal lives matter very little in Canadian politics.

[August1991]

Really? How much does the average voter know about Harper's wife? Just because you seem fascinated with personal details, that doesn't mean that voters in general. From what I have seen and heard in the media and in life, personal lives matter very little in Canadian politics.

This government does not give money to private business who then gives money to the party in power.

SmallC, I think private deals matter. IMV, the federal Liberal Party is a corrupt organisation and I want to see proof otherwise.

[Smallc]

1 + 2 = .....Dinosaur?

You hate the Liberal party (what did that have to do with the conversation...?). We get it. You don't see that the Conservatives are liars and hypocrites, but that's ok, because you can still hate the Liberal party.

This government is no better...and slightly worse, than most others. You have to prove otherwise. See, I can have irrelevant opinions too.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Smallc