<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for brucebartlett</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/brucebartlett/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/brucebartlett/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:32:01 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Matt Lauer&amp;#8217;s Speech-Less, Round Two</title><link>http://www.podiumpundits.com/2009/09/24/matt-lauers-speech-less-round-two/#comment-17295455</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Complaining about speechwriters betraying the trust of the president they write for is about as banal a criticism one can imagine, right up there with "Why can't we all just get along." If presidents really wanted to ensure the silence of their speechwriters and other staff they would make them sign a nondisclosure agreement as a condition of employment. The truth is that many speechwriters these days, perhaps Latimer among them, take these jobs in part so they can write a book about it. Since these people usually don't have any reason to burn their bridges, they mostly write positive things about the presidents they wrote for. It ends up being a win-win for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brucebartlett</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:32:01 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>