There has been all sorts of drama with presidential campaign aides this year. Phil Gramm and his “nation of whiners” comment, Mark Penn and his lobbying for free trade, Geraldine Ferraro and her supposedly racist remarks. In all of these cases, the person ended up resigning from the campaign shortly after. Was it really necessary?
These little controversies always seem to blow over in a matter of days (except for Ferraro, who milked it), and it also seems that, for the most part, the average voter does not care about who is actually on campaign committees and what they have said or done. It’s my first year really trying to pay close attention to this stuff, so maybe I’m just ignorant of the actual effect these people have on campaigns or have had in the past, but even if the resignations are more of a gesture than anything, they still seem pointless to me. Opposing campaigns most likely won’t try to use it as ammo, and even if they did there are very few people who would be influenced.
I understand why people step down from their positions when these sorts of things happen, but my question is, would it really matter if they didn’t?
IMHO if they screw up badly, they need to offer their resignation. I don’t think that such offers should be accepted lightly. Indeed, their bosscould make something of it, “Yes, his comment was bad, and this morning he offered me his resignation. I have rejected it because …”
It depends on how they screwed up. Generally speaking, though, if it’s bad enough that it’s making the evening news, they probably should, because either the aide’s honesty, or his/her fundamental competence or world view has been compromised. Phil Gramm is a case in point of the latter. If McCain really got the issues concerning the middle class, he would have disassociated himself not only from Gramm himself, but far more importantly, from Gramm’s policies. Instead, he ostensibly fired Gramm while keeping his policies, and now a few weeks later has Gramm right back with him.
Of course, some of the firings are because a boss needs a scapegoat. But the OP postulated a screw-up on the part of the aide here.
Most of the time, firing aides is just a dumb and pointless way of trying to escape a potential controversy. And it’s dishonest, because it involves pretending the aide was shooting from the hip rather than trying to communicate something for the campaign. The OP is correct in saying that the formal resignations probably mean nothing. Mark Penn quit Hillary Clinton’s campaign but I believe he was invovled in the speech she gave at Democratic convention the other night.
Exactly. If they resign, the story can usually die quickly. If they didn’t resign, opposing campaigns could pick at the issue over and over for days. So the aides are asked to resign (or volunteer, but I suspect it’s the former) to make sure their remarks don’t become a liability. The controversy over Gramm died, or at least it did for now, but Ferraro’s lasted for days because she wouldn’t shut up.