That permanent unelected, and largely democrat, government both exists and is at odds with our elected government is really not in dispute. The question is do you favor the elected or unelected government.
The Washington Post provides a article which establshs the fact of the unelected government, while cleverly disquising it as an anti Bush hit piece, “Prosecutor Says Bush Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Case [1]:”
The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government’s racketeering case.
Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s office began micromanaging the team’s strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government’s claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.
Cry me a river. Eubanks is complaining that she had to take orders from an official appointed by our elected president. Is it just me or Eubanks using the term “Bush loyalists” as if it were some sort of ad hominem? Onlly in the world of the MSM, does being loyal to your elected president become an insult. As Barbara Boxer would say, “Elections have consequences.”
More, Ed Whelan, Bench Memos, says Eubanks is ‘blowing smoke [2].” I might suggest of different gas and different bodily oriface.