>Krauthammer is hardly impartial, but his ideas are Krauthammer's, not Bush's. He is more likely to influence Bush than Bush is to influence him. My point was that there was not only no impropriety in Kristol and K not touting their being 'consulted' on the themes of the innaugural speech but it would have been considered rude to have done so.
>
>Reviewing a speech (I've heard and read many reviews of Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy etc speeches by both of them) is a review of both form and content and while the latter is definitely a product of partisan perspective the former is always more dispassionate. Kristol particularly has given some great reviews to Obama and Clinton (him and her) speeches on effectiveness etc. Of course he is going to be critical of the ideas and I don't think either of them make any secret of their sympathies.

My point was to your comment that "Media Matters" is not an impartial web site and has its own agenda. Substitute Krauthammer for "Media Matters" and drop the website verbage, and the implications stay the same. Whether one agrees with Media Matters, or Krauthammer, it is not useful to imply that the other person is using a biased source, when in fact, both sides are.

>
>I've also heard both of them literally mock Bush on both form and content. These are hardly administration lap dogs, and are sometimes to the right of Bush. Both have egos (and actual accomplishment) that preclude sycophancy <s>
>
>Interesting people, actually. K is a psychiatrist as well as a pundit. Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb... imagine what the dinner table was like when he was growing up <bg>
>
>
>
>>>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>