I recall that beginning in the primaries which resulted in a Bush -v- Kerry presidential election, leading Democrats adopted the suicidal policy of refusing to iterate their policies—they adopted an anti-policy policy. Jews in the media promoted a vile form of public discourse, which was apparently intended to discourage "average Americans" from taking an active interest in politics. Democrats did not enter the debate with a platform of innovative remedies or rational proposals to improve the lot of the American People, but instead made what appeared to be scripted mistakes, fell into obvious traps, and perpetually left the American People with the bitter taste of negative spin on the pressing issues of the day. In other words, it appeared that the Democrats intentionally left the American People without a reasonable alternative to the so-called "neo-Conservatives". And whose advice (read "orders") were they following? Anecdotally, I can say that I often heard far left Jews in the media telling Democrats that the wise move was to say nothing and allow the Republicans (read "neo-Cons") to self-destruct. However, I also heard concerned Democratic voters calling into to these supposedly Democratic talk show hosts and pleading with them to encourage Democrats to be creative, positive and innovative—to provide a viable alternative to the Republicans. It was obvious to Democratic voters that the Republican policies were easily defeated if only the Democratic leaders would try to defeat them. The Jewish talk show hosts would say, "Trust me! We are going to win this. If we fight back, the Republicans will spin what we say, so it is better to say and do nothing other than criticize." The callers knew better, and the callers also pleaded with supposedly Democratic talk show hosts to cool their mindless and hateful rhetoric and engage in reasonable discourse. The requests of the audience went unheeded. It was almost as if the Protocols had come to life and Jews in the media deliberately turned off Democratic voters with mindless, adolescent and pointless personal attacks, which led no where, and accomplished nothing. It appeared that Jewish leaders had taken over the Democratic Party in order to destroy it so that the warmongering neo-Conservative Jews could weaponize the Republican Party and use it to instigate World War III. Of course, if Zionist traitor George Bush gets cold feet, the Democratic Party will rise and with it new Zionist traitors will predominate. War is what is wanted. The loyalty of the majority of those Jews who are allowed to mold opinions in the American media is clearly first to Israel, lastly to Israel, and only to Israel. This behavior by leading Jews is not new. The Chicago Daily Tribune reported an accusation on 3 February 1873 on page 2, that the Rothschilds had gained control over a political party in America in order to sabotage it and secure victory for the Rothschilds' candidate,
"In a paper on Federalism, read before the Liberal Club last night by Mr. Delmar, the following remarkable passage made some sensation: 'The people have tacitly committed their entire interests and fortunes to the keeping of two political parties, whose leaders and managers, instead of Congress, as was intended, sway their destinies. It is charged that, knowing this, the Rothschilds, through their American agent, obtained control of one of these parties in the general election of 1868, and threw it into confusion by abandoning its Presidential candidate on the eve of election, so as to afford victory to its opponent, whose financial views more nearly accorded with the interests of that great house.'"
Henry Morgenthau reported that in 1919 the Zionist Jews in Poland used unscrupulous tactics to subvert Polish democracy and attain Jewish control over the Polish Government,
"They admitted that their fifty-six could sway legislation only in case of close divisions among the other parties. It became clear that their hope must be to encourage such divisions."—Henry Morgenthau, "The Jews in Poland", The World's Work, Volume 43, Number 5, (April, 1922), pp. 617-630, at 624.