Surrogates, Candidates, and Advisors, oh my!

[Mutanatia]

(This is a note entry I did on facebook. This is drawing from NPR's "It's all Politics," using it as a brief outline as to what I want to talk about for a given week. But I don't particularly agree with them all of the time.)

This week in politics! (The link is found on NPR)…

Romney’s advisor’s Etch-a-Sketch remark seems to have backfired on him. While I do believe that all of the candidates will have to run as more “moderate,” and yes, that includes Santorum (who will have to couch his religious values as though they are legal/popular matters if he were to win the nomination), saying that you will reboot and redo everything you’ve said sounds very fake and superficial to me. What I believe his have said is, “What we’ve talked about so far will have to be rebranded and rewrapped, but the substance will remain the same.”

Another thing that I don’t like is that people attribute this remark to Romney as if he has said it. Though an advisor is closer to knowing a candidates views and strategies than, say, a surrogate… it is still NOT a quote that should be attributed as though Romney himself as said this. I often find this attribution fallacy to be quite a problem in the mainstream media to the point that you’re not sure what a given person said any more.

Here’s the question: Should advisors, when attributing a quote to him/her, be given “special status” as if to say, “hey, this person is closer to the candidate,” should they be treated as if they are “just” surrogates, or should an advisor’s quote be directly attributed to a candidate?

[Calanria]

I don't think it should be directly attributed to the candidate, but it must be noted that the advisor is within the "inner circle" and, therefore, this sort of material may have come up in talks with the candidate or talks about the future of the campaign. Advisors do hold a sort of lofty spot in the campaign, so their words should be noted to some extent in weighing the candidates. It's entirely possible (and perhaps probable) that the advisor was just running his gums again, but the deep connection that the advisor has to the candidate makes the attribution a little more valid than would be otherwise.

It's out of bounds to say that Romney is the one who said this, and the way the media and Romney's opponents have run off with it is ridiculous. But it's also ridiculous that Romney and Co. keep putting themselves in this situation. It seems like every victory they have is followed up by some sort of gaff that dulls the earlier accomplishment. (Sorry, just a little side rant.)

It should also be noted that this is the campaign strategy that every candidate from the beginnings of popular election has run: appeal to the party base to get nominated, then move more to the center in the general election. Romney's the unfortunate victim of the oration of that strategy to the casual voter.

[Heraldic Alliance]

We all know who the surrogates are, so when they open their big mouths the candidate takes the hit. These people were carefully chosen to go do interviews and debates and get the desired message out there. The are part of political machine, and one bag cog can damage the entire machine.