Demagogue

The list of right-wing pundits who are secretly on the government payroll to help promote Bush's policies and agenda is slowly growing.

Add Maggie Gallagher to the list. The conservative marriage advocate is revealed to have received $21,500 from the Department of Health and Human Services. Why? To write about and help shape and promote Bush's "pro-marriage" policies.

Like Armstrong Williams, she didn't disclose this fact until it was disclosed for her. Unlike Williams she did not receive such an aggregious sum and it appears to be a short-term deal instead of a blanket salary like Williams received.

However, in an interview with the Washington Post, she asked "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?...I don't know. You tell me."

In a half-assed apology for her lack of disclosure on her www.marriagedebate.com blog, she writes "But the real truth is that it never occurred to me. On reflection, I think Howard [Kurtz of the Washington Post] is right. I should have disclosed a government contract, when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers."

So, who else will be added to the list? What about Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol? Their story is that they both publicly gushed about the stunning brilliance of Bush's inuagural address, meanwhile it turns out they were both consultants who worked on it, something they did not disclose at the time. Hmmm.

Frankly, it's pretty simple concept to understand-- if you help promote/shape/write or are involved in the design or development of a government policy you can't "pretend" that you just think it's great, based on your own personal observations and beliefs, when you actually had a hand in it or have been paid by the government to sing its praises. At the very least, it makes you appear to be a slimy tool of the government, a propagandist whose opinions and influence can be bought and paid for by the state. At the worst, it undermines the very thing conservatives claim that they have but liberals don't-- high moral and ethical standards that aren't situational or subjective.