Obviously a candidate has to be held responsible for the words that come out of his mouth, regardless of where they came from.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If you took away publicists and things and people spoke for themselves, then they'd have to be responsible for their words.
It seems to me that politicians ought to use the same words as other people.
People in power have to be careful about what comes out of their mouth. They have to find exactly the right word that can't be attacked.
The trouble with words is that you never know whose mouths they have been in.
I just don't see anonymous sources as fair against a candidate. I think if someone has a real concern, they should come out and say it.
I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words.
I think we have a high responsibility to base any criticisms that we have on a fair and honest statement of the facts, and that nominees should not be subjected to distortions of their record, taking things they've done out of context.
Journalists have misquoted people for so long - and quoted them out of context that for many people like to have their words on record.
When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.
I don't think the candidate would be directly responsible for things that their supporters say, but when it gets to a certain level, they ought to say, 'Cut it out.'