Thats a description of the dollar democracy, in contrast to the one-person one-vote democracy, or the rational vs the rationalizing.

I think you are ignoring an IMPORTANT function of the electoral marketplace. You repeatedly pejoratively describe Jews' active participation in political discussion and donation.

I think you are GRAVELY mistaken about the moral importance of that. That is a GOOD, that a community cares.

I think you should be criticizing the populations that don't contribute, that don't speak up, as divested in American life.

It would be anti-semitic to say that Jewish involvement has kept non-Jewish participation out.

When you conflate Jewish participation to some conspiracy to deceive, rather than just to express, that is likely an example of anti-semitic comment.

I assume that a Jew is more sensitive to anti-semitic comment than a non-Jew. I assume that a black is more sensitive to racist comment than a white. I assume that a woman is more sensitive to mysoginist content than a man. I assume that a Palestinian is more sensitive to anti-Arab comment than an Israeli.

Its a good thing, best if they speak as witness rather than as resenter or as opportunist.

Thats a description of the dollar democracy, in contrast to the one-person one-vote democracy, or the rational vs the rationalizing.

I think you are ignoring an IMPORTANT function of the electoral marketplace. You repeatedly pejoratively describe Jews' active participation in political discussion and donation.

I think you are GRAVELY mistaken about the moral importance of that. That is a GOOD, that a community cares.

I think you should be criticizing the populations that don't contribute, that don't speak up, as divested in American life.

It would be anti-semitic to say that Jewish involvement has kept non-Jewish participation out.

When you conflate Jewish participation to some conspiracy to deceive, rather than just to express, that is likely an example of anti-semitic comment.

I assume that a Jew is more sensitive to anti-semitic comment than a non-Jew. I assume that a black is more sensitive to racist comment than a white. I assume that a woman is more sensitive to mysoginist content than a man. I assume that a Palestinian is more sensitive to anti-Arab comment than an Israeli.

Its a good thing, best if they speak as witness rather than as resenter or as opportunist.

Most Jews don't think the Christian America of Indiana, of Wisconsin, of Ohio notices this, and perhaps those mid-Western Christians largely don't notice it on a conscious level, but it still has an effect. And here is how.

Needless to say, those Jews who run the Democratic National Committee are largely from large urban centers, New York, LA, Philly, Baltimore, Chicago, and they feel contempt for people from the rural Midwest, whom they assume are anti-Semitic and racist and provincial. Thus, you have Mickey Kantor, chief strategist of Clinton's first campaign, saying that people in Indiana live like "shit," and perhaps elaborating by saying that they are "white niggers."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IzdWZCGEgs

God knows what the Mickey Kantors of the Democratic party say about the people of Indiana, when the cameras are not on.

It also affects the Democratic Party's main supporters in the entertainment industry, which portrays small town rural Americans as backwards Bubbas and religious fanatics and racist kooks.

Rural America may not understand how important Jews are in running the party, but they sure as heck perceive the contempt that the party and its main supporters have for them.

To tell you the truth, when things really hit the fan in this country, which they will (its just a matter of time, given the liquid fuel situation and the decrepit and inefficient infrastructure of the country), I sincerely doubt that the Democratic party is capable of representing those people. Which means that they will be represented by Pat Buchanan-type, Christian identity populists.

I don't quite understand how Jews did not see this coming. They are over-represented in the most important aspects of running the country at a time when much of the rest of the country, corporations, universities, religious organizations have all been emphasizing the importance of diversity.

For example, what must it be like at the New York Times, where of the editorial writers, Paul Krugman, William Kristol, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Herbert, Friedman, Gail Collins, Frank Rich, at least 5 out of 8 main writers are Jewish, and 4 of them, Kristol, Brooks, Friedman, and Rich, tout their Jewish identity regularly in their columns. Is this really the kind of diversity that my professors at the liberal college I went to said was necessary to make sure everyone was included? I can't find one practicing Christian among the Brain trust of the New York Times. Is that really representative of the country for an institution that touts itself as the national newspaper? How does the left in this country think that it can lead in a country that is still majority Christian, when it has so much contempt for those very people?

I predict that the response to this piece, like that of all Phil's other pieces on Jewish influence in the media, will confirm the rule.

The rabid response has something to do with the recognition that media manipulation, unlike say campaign contributions to a cause one believes in, is a flagrant betrayal of power. It goes beyond advocating for one's position, to denying others the very possibility of holding an alternative position by withholding from them the information they need. It reveals the fundamental mistrust of the host society that is at the core of Zionist thinking.

That recognition and revulsion for terror used as a means NEVER leaves the math of commentators on any issue regarding Israel.

I hope that you are in that group.

Beyond that, there is a very very wide range of proposals and reactions that "establishment" Jewish contributors and Jewish journalists very publicly convey.

You're making D's point, Richard.

It leaves the math of those that pretend to be only "objective" or only "realistic", but it never leaves the math of any rational policy-maker.

It shouldn't leave the math of a responsible journalist, however that dilutes the "truth" of their message.

It is the bone of a state, the obligation to defend its civilians, and that will never disappear.

And that revulsion started when? I mean revulsion against terrorism? With the War of Stones?

i appreciate the hell out of this piece. it's something everyone knows anyway. it creates huge anger among gentiles and the more it is outed the less the pressure builds up. the thinking behind the impulse to keep the "secret" because it feeds anti-semitism is 180 degrees off.

is there a political journalist of any reknown who is not jewish? i know there must be. at the moment i can't think of any, except those that are tools of the right.