As you may recall, on Sunday, the Seattle Times editorial page editor, James Vesely, said that you should not blame the candidates, for breaking a promise to use public financing for the general election, and other sins.  (I may be too suspicious, but I thought he really meant that we shouldn't blame the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Arugula Obama.)

Today, in an editorial, the Seattle Times tells us that we can blame the candidates; in fact, we can blame a candidate for what one of his aides says, even if the aide was speaking for himself.  First, some background:

But Charlie Black, one of McCain's most trusted political advisers, took the point too far, telling Fortune Magazine a new terrorist attack "would be a big advantage" to McCain.

The Times leaves out an important point.  Black did not bring the subject up; he was answering a question from a reporter from Fortune.  No doubt Black committed a Kinsley gaffe by saying what he actually thinks, even if it wasn't politically wise*.  But it is hard to quarrel with his conclusion.  I think that almost any decent political analyst would say the same thing.  And I'll go farther.  I think most political reporters would agree with Black.

But saying what Black thinks is true — and what almost every political analyst thinks — is very wrong according to the Seattle Times.  And the senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, can be blamed.

Some statements should be off-limits.  Using and abusing public fears of a fresh attack is a prime example.  Using fear to sway voters is too low.
. . .
McCain handled himself well, but he owns Black's mistake.  It is a blot on the McCain campaign.

This combination leaves me puzzled.  On Sunday, Vesely said that we can't blame a candidate for breaking a promise; today the editorial page (run by James Vesely) says that we can blame a candidate for what an aide said — even if what the aide said is true.

There may be some principle that would contain both this editorial and Vesely's column, but I can't think of one offhand**.  And I don't think Vesely changed his mind between Sunday and today.

The editorial is even more puzzling when you remember that most voters (and some journalists) generally prefer that candidates and their aides tell the truth.  (Exception: Some Obama supporters are convinced that Obama is lying to them — and are pleased by that.  But this is an unusual year.)  But the Times seem to be telling us that aides and candidates should not tell us the truth, at least on some issues.  Perhaps the Times can do a follow-up editorial and tell us on which issues candidates and their aides should tell the truth, and on which issues they shouldn't.  I doubt that I would agree with such an editorial, but I would like to see it, if only for the novelty.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(*What should Black have said?  He should have refused to answer the question, saying that Senator McCain would do everything he could to protect the country from attacks.  And then Black should have added that he would leave speculation about such matters to others.

**There is one possible explanation, but it is weird.  Vesely, because of his position, must have met many Democratic candidates.  Perhaps those meetings have led Vesely to conclude that most Democratic candidates are not responsible adults.  I wouldn't agree with that, but I have to admit that Vesely knows the Democratic candidates better than I do.)