a far cry from Aristotle's view of politicians

This is an aspect of politics that has less to do with affecting policy than using political power for personal gain.  Former MP Rahim Jeffer's actions since leaving Parliament have been relevant to the public largely because people are left questioning how much influence politicians from the governing party have in gaining access to public funds or providing their friends with lucrative contracts or posts.  On top of that, Jeffer's light sentence for a number of fairly serious offences left a bitter taste in the public's mouth, as he was seen as getting preferential treatment (and, on top of that, being from a political party that claims to be "tough on crime").  With his wife Helena Guergis, a member of the Cabinet, also getting into the newspapers for strange behaviour and some regrettable actions, the two have created a mess for the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party.

In the world of politics, what is perceived can be as important as what is actually the truth.  Whether Jeffer really had access to the Prime Minister's Office or was given special treatment by the courts is less important than that the idea being out there.  In the case of Guergis, there are two issues:  the first is that she is a Cabinet member and the face of the government, and is currently bringing too much negative news to the government; the second is that she may be involved in something illegal, which has brought in the RCMP to investigate.  No governing party wants to be openly associated with people involved in criminal activity, much less have one in their cabinet.

Why would the government want to distance themselves from these two?  It has already been stated that perception means a great deal in the world of politics, but there is another side to it.  It means that the government becomes occupied with defending themselves rather than moving forward and on to issues that it wants to bring to the media.  The government loses control of the message.  It also gives ammunition to the opposition parties as they question the government's credibility in Question Period, news talk shows, and any other venue they can find.  In politics, the governing party is always targeted by the opposition for one of two things:  policy or credibility.

Aristotle and early political thinkers would probably not have considered the credibility attacks a part of "politics."  Today, they seem to be an integral part.  Should poltiical discussion be solely about policy, or is there a place for political debate over the credibility of the governing party and the honesty of its members?