>I don't think you understand the difference between being consulted as an outside expert ( as was Hanson ) and being in the pay of the politician giving the speech.
>
>In this case even mentioning they'd been consulted would have been seen as basking in reflected glory or taking credit where non was due (Gerson certainly needed no help in the actualy writing of the speech.)
>
>Consider Schliesinger in the Kennedy administration or the people Clinton consulted at Renaissance weekend.
>
>This is neither improper nor unusual. I am sure they would never have denied being consulted - as many media figures are by all presidents when deciding how to communicate policy - but it really is the norm and it is not considered good form to brag about your "influence" on an innaugeral speech.
>
>(and I assume you know Media Matters is not exactly an impartial website and has it's own agenda in trying to make an issue of what was a very minor point in the WP article)

I hope you aren't going to try to imply that Krauthammer is just an impartial observer. Observer he may be, but impartial? Hardly. I'd have to say that for the most part, those writers we find most enlightening and fascinating to read are usually those with whose opinions we already agree. Nothing like preaching to the choir if you want good reviews on your sermon.

>
>
>>>Krauthammer :
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701839.html?wpisrc=newsletter
>>
>>Sure thing
>>
>>http://mediamatters.org/items/200501240006
>>
>>He seem to be professional admirer <g>