[Peace-discuss] Permanent government

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Did Obama/McCain Choice Matter?
	By David Swanson

There appear to be two teams in Washington playing under the banners of 
elephants and donkeys. They have different platforms, use different rhetoric, 
call each other bad names, and (in the case of the elephants) filibuster bills 
and impeach and prosecute abuses and crimes by the other side. One team wants to 
provide us with more healthcare, maybe, sort of, and the other does not. One 
side is hesitant about or even resistant to demonizing or discriminating against 
foreigners and immigrants and gays and racial minorities, and the other is not. 
One side wants to protect the right to unionize, maybe, sort of, and the other 
does not.

But both teams favor Wall Street bailouts, corporate trade agreements, an ever 
larger military, corporate contributions, bi-partisan gerrymandering, an ever 
greater presence of military bases abroad, restrictions on ballot access, the 
continuation and escalation of illegal wars, and extension of the powers to spy 
without warrants, detain without charges, rendition, torture (yes, torture), 
make laws by signing-statement or executive order or secret memo, and -- of 
course -- the assurance of immunity for high officials' war crimes.

President Obama is called a liar and a socialist and a foreigner by the other 
side, but his Justice Department is fighting tooth and nail, making absolutely 
unprecedented claims of secrecy, to protect the crimes of Bush and Cheney. Obama 
is appealing and re-appealing rulings that could mean exposure or accountability 
for torturers and warrantless spyers or for a former vice president who leaked 
the name of an undercover agent. Obama's White House has threatened to cut off 
intelligence sharing with Britain and declared phone companies to be part of the 
government. All to protect the shouters of "liar!" and "Muslim!"

Back in November, Steve Clemons reported a story that the corporate media 
studiously ignored. I don't have any second source for it, but I suspect it's 
true and have some theories about additional details. This was Clemons' report:

     "A senior Obama campaign official shared with The Washington Note that in 
July 2008, the McCain and Obama camps began to work secretly behind the scenes 
to assemble large rosters of potential personnel for the administration that 
only one of the candidates would lead. Lists comprised of Democrats and 
Republicans were assembled, sorted into areas of policy expertise, so that the 
roster could be called on after the election by either the Obama or McCain 
transition teams. This kind of out-of-sight coordination is rare between 
battling presidential camps and provides some indication that both Obama and 
McCain intended to draw expertise into their governments from both sides of the 
aisle -- or at least they wanted to appear interested in doing so if the 
information leaked out about the list development process."



Now, Washington (and the Pentagon and CIA, DIA and NSA, and various other 
agencies spread around the greater DC metropolitan area) is home to a large 
permanent government of bureaucrats who work for elephants and donkeys alike. 
Eric Holder could have become attorney general under a president of either 
flavor. Robert Gates was in charge of the Pentagon before and after Bush left 
town. From the highest to the lowest of positions, there are people who just 
never leave. Or, if they leave, they go to work for lobbying firms and large 
government contractors for a while, before returning to what we euphemistically 
call public service. And many of the lobbying firms are bipartisan, or they 
mutate from one partisan leaning to the other with the shifts in government 
power. If a lobbying firm arranged for the joint appointees list development, it 
would have just been hedging its bets. I offer the following more as an example 
than as a discovery of the one true secret seat of permanent power or any thing 
of the sort. But here's my theory. I encourage reporters (remember those?) to 
look into it.

Ogilvy Government Relations (formerly known as the Federalist Group) is a 
lobbying firm in Washington that employs nine Republicans and nine rightward 
tilting Democrats, including some top officials in the McCain and Obama 
campaigns. The Democrats include:

Matthew Nugen. He was Obama for America National Political Director and a 
courter of super delegates for Obama. He was in charge of the 2008 Democratic 
National Convention. He had previously been Deputy Executive Director of the 
Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Director of the Office of the Chairman 
(Howard Dean). Prior to that, he was Deputy Political Director/Director of 
Delegate Operations for Senator Joe Lieberman's Presidential campaign (Now 
there's a name that embodies the merger of the two political animals!).

Moses Mercado. He also worked for Obama and Dean, and other top Democrats.

Andrew M. Rosenberg. He was a co-founder and Senior Advisor to Draft Obama and a 
consultant to the Democratic National Committee. "Mr. Rosenberg," his bio brags, 
"is an occasional political commentator on Fox News Channel."

Joe Lapia. He worked for the U.S. Senate’s Democratic cloakroom including under 
Majority Leader Harry Reid, and previously interned for Senator Joe Biden.

Dean Aguillen. He was a senior advisor and Director of Member Services in the 
Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The Republicans include:

John Green. He was Director of Congressional Affairs for Senator John McCain 
during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Wayne Berman. He was, according to his Ogilvy bio, "a senior advisor to the 
Bush/Cheney transition in 2001, the vice presidential campaign director for 
Dole/Kemp and deputy director of the Republican National Convention in 1996, 
director of congressional relations during the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988 and 
a deputy director of the Bush/Reagan transition team in 1981. He has served in a 
variety of fundraising capacities in every Republican presidential race since 
1992." That would include the McCain campaign, for which he was national finance 
co-chairman, despite not admitted to it in his bio. McCain earned some bad press 
for employing lobbyists, including Berman, who was openly also employed by 
Ogilvy at the time.

G. Stewart Hall. He was Legislative Director to Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL).

Julie Dammann. She was Chief of Staff to Senator Christopher S. Bond (R-MO).

Drew Maloney. He was "Administrative Assistant and Legislative Director for the 
Republican House Majority Whip" (who goes unnamed but whose name is Tom Delay). 
"Drew Maloney," his bio brags, "helped conduct the interview of Monica Lewinsky 
and managed the impeachment proceedings."

Now, how many of the top officials now running our government were recommended 
for consideration by this gang of unelected power brokers, themselves raking in 
the bigger bucks? I don't know. Maybe none.

But it is at least interesting that a man who worked as their lawyer, Greg 
Craig, now serves as White House Counsel, and that -- as a very old friend of 
Karl Rove's, as are Wayne Berman and Stewart Hall -- Craig, although closer to 
Obama, could conceivably have served in a McCain White House as well. All of 
which makes it even more interesting that White House Counsel Craig earlier this 
year negotiated with the House Judiciary Committee to allow Rove to testify 
off-camera and out from under oath. Craig has advised President Obama on the 
closing of Guantanamo, and his law firm advised Vice President Cheney on the 
opening of it. Williams and Connolly, in which Craig served as a partner, 
defended President Clinton in his impeachment trial and Vice President Cheney in 
the Valerie Plame investigation that the White House is still fighting to keep 
secret. It also represented Karl Rove in his book deal.

Karl Rove and Howard Dean, both with close ties to Ogilvy, have been engaging in 
public debates for speaking fees, and the debates depict two warring camps. But 
are they really warring camps? Or are they only warring camps on some issues or 
outside some broad range of agreement?

The fact that lobbyists serve both teams and broker power does not suggest, as 
many believe, that our public elected officials are mere figure heads for the 
real powers behind the throne. Our public officials have real power and have a 
moral responsibility to use it legally and democratically regardless of what 
hidden pressures threaten them.

Nor does anything I've said suggest that the two parties are identical or that 
Americans shouldn't vote for the better of the two lousy candidates presented to 
them in any election.

Nor should the naming of personal relationships dramatically alter one's 
understanding of what our government is doing. But if it helps to open our eyes, 
that may not be a bad thing. Opinion polls on just about every political issue 
show a majority of Americans on one side, and our government on another. This 
suggests to me that in many instances, we would be better served by thinking of 
the two sides, not as Democrats and Republicans, but as those in power and the 
rest of us, those living above the law and making it versus those of us living 
under the law and not, in any major consistent way, making it. If those are the 
two teams, then it becomes fairly easy for almost all of us to answer the 
traditional demand: Which side are you on?

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial 
Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press.

http://davidswanson.org/book.