Re: Wappel goes to the head of the classless -- Archives

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: May 12, 12:28:pm GMT-5
Author: Jim Coyle : Toronto Star Columnist
Subject:

Re: Wappel goes to the head of the classless
In reply to: Mister Eeeeeeee....... 's message, "MP faces fresh trouble for second letter" on May 12, 12:22:pm GMT-5

IT'S UNFASHIONABLE to say so, but I like politicians.

I like the courage it takes to put a name and reputation on the line to run, to offer one's self to the scrutiny of peers. I like the faith many bring to seeking office (and which some even retain after having held it a spell) that they can do something to improve their community. Frankly, for the hours they put in and responsibility they bear, I think most politicians are considerably underpaid and, in the last decade or so, vastly under appreciated.

But who has been more worthy in recent memory of dismissal than the extraordinary Tom Wappel?

Still, something good may have come from the Liberal MP's scandalous treatment of an elderly constituent and the brouhaha that followed.

For has there ever been a more winning character than 81-year-old war vet Jim Baxter, the man who wrote Wappel asking for help with a pension problem and was, instead, scolded for having voted for another candidate?

The contrast between the two, as the piece played out, could hardly have been more stark - the MP all sputtering and angry and defiant; the war vet all bemusement and calm and decency.

Wappel's initial reaction, when first questioned as to why he so abused a constituent, was to refuse comment, muttering warnings to The Star about being ``careful what you write,'' expressing outrage that Mr. Baxter had gone to the media for help.

He went on to say that his snotty letter to Mr. Baxter was not unusual, that it wasn't the first time he'd questioned constituents about why they hadn't voted for him, that ``I can decide who to help or not to help.''

As other news outlets joined the story, we were treated to two images of utter contrast.

On the one hand, there was Wappel, a man with some experience handling the media, in flight from pursuing TV cameras, whirling now and again to snarl something at them. His anger and indignation were palpable; his denials of wrongdoing manifold.

On the other, there was Mr. Baxter, his first time in the spotlight, reclining in an easy chair in his modest Toronto flat, utterly relaxed, showing reporters his war medals, joshing about how puzzled he was that Wappel knew who he voted for since it wasn't even his practice to tell his wife Mary.

Consider again the contrast: Wappel sufficiently resentful that he's kept records on how constituents voted and evidently seethes still at those who didn't back him. Mr. Baxter saying, as an avalanche of public and political condemnation thundered down on Wappel, ``I kind of feel sorry for the guy.''

Finally, someone or something manages to persuade the MP that he might not be on the right track here. He decides to apologize.

But, classless and clueless to the end, he does not call Mr. Baxter directly to admit his mistake and undertake to make amends. No, that would be too obvious. Instead, one of his assistants reads a statement of apology on to the couple's answering machine.

How truly, truly touching.

``With the benefit of hindsight,'' the statement said, ``I accept the criticism levelled against me that the letter showed lack of judgment. I should not have sent it.''

No.

Any more than he should have pawned off on a subordinate the uncomfortable job of delivering the apology - especially an aide who seems to have concluded that the wrong to Mr. Baxter would be adequately righted by apologizing to a recording device.

How truly, truly bizarre.

But Jim and Mary Baxter haven't spent all those years on the planet without learning a little something about how decent folks deal with one another.

Mary figures Wappel's true feelings were those he expressed spontaneously, not the apology to her answering machine. Jim figures he's got along for 81 years without Tom Wappel's help and, after this kind of treatment, will be able to do so for the next 81, thanks very much.

On reflection, I still don't think much of recall.

But I wouldn't mind at all if Tom Wappel and Jim Baxter swapped places.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

demo-crazy... -- Cat, May 13, 07:33:pm GMT-5