Unnamed lady: You can disagree with the evangelicals but they're great friends of the Jews. They believe Israel is the holy land.

Hesh: Just wait. (As seen on an episode of the Sopranos...)

What Hesh Said: I 'm also praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the one true god and you must believe this as well or I'll have to kill you and liberate your oil or something) that Tony strangles that Christian fundamentalist with his bare hands. 6000 years. Jesus Christ.

I'm still working on a bigger Jewish conspiracy piece (short version: Jewish dems have traded the party for what they think will protect Israel: War with Iraq (and possibly other countries to be named later.) Biden (editor's note: I made a mistake. He's a tool of AIPAC and the credit industry but he's not Jewish.) and Leiberman and Feinstein love the war. That's why the filibuster hasn't been used once, according to my crazy conspiracy theory. You can't sustain it without Jewish senators. There are about 44 dems, one independent. There are 10 Jewish senators. You need 40 for the filibuster. Do the math. They think they have to kill to protect Israel. (I don't entirely blame them. If you had been through a Holocaust wouldn't you be more prone to overreact? But it does mean, unfortunately, that I can't trust them. ). Right now, I don't fully trust Jewish Democrats, especially the ones who are "running" our efforts to take back both the House and the Senate. If my theory is true, then Rendell and Schumer (both Jewish and I used to not care) really don't want to unseat Rick Santorum, and if they do unseat Rick then they want a candidate who will stick out the war, and possibly favor other invasions in places like Iran and Syria. Casey sounds like their guy. They think that's good for Israel. I don't trust the Alan Sandals candidacy for the same reasons. I think he's running to split the pro choice vote, or better yet, get another senate vote for Israel. That means more war. Infinitely.

I might add that when you strengthen the hand of the Christian right in this country--which you're doing when you pay Satan's price and roll over on court nominees and policy issues--then you're not working for the safety and inclusion of the Jewish people, anywhere. Or as Hesh said: "Just wait."

Update:

First, more info about our good friend Rahm, the completely impartial man behind our efforts to retake the US House. This is from Andrew Cockburn:

At a recent meeting of House Republicans, members ruminating on the disastrous state of their party reportedly murmured with gloomy jocularity about the administration of "President Hastert". A CounterPuncher familiar with the proceedings reports "they were only half joking".

Yet, as they contemplate political ruin in next year's election, these Republicans can take solace in the fact that, if defeated, their replacements may not differ in any meaningful way on important issues of the day. That at least is the hope and dream of Democratic apparatchik Rahm Emmanuel and the corporate toadies he represents. Ominously, Emmanuel, a relict of the Clinton White House, heads the Democratic National Campaign Committee.

As such, he decides which candidates for the House should get money and other support from the national party. At a time when any fool can see that the public hates the war more this month than last, and will hate it even more next month and the month after that, Emmanuel is doing his best to recruit candidates, preferably rich ones, guaranteed to eschew vocal opposition to the war.

Clear evidence for this proclivity is evident in the race to succeed Henry Hyde, in Chicago's 6th District.

Read the whole thing here. I guess if I were to point out that Rahm volunteered for the Israeli army and may have other motives in his house selections I would be called "anti-semitic". Well fine.

From the comments:

What arguments? Your belief you can read another's mind by knowing their religious/cultural/ethnic identity? I thought we had moved past the stage when pseudo-scientific, racist wankery like The Bell Curve had to be logically refuted, rather than simply thrown in the trash with other tabloid crap.But since you likely don't believe what I am telling you, allow me to offer this example:"A couple black people I saw on TV think gangs are OK. That's why I don't really trust any black person I see."That is not only racist, it's also not worth legitimizing with a "debate". It's prejudice, draped in rationalization, masquerading as a logical argument.

First, I'm not engaging in telepathy, I'm looking at their actions in terms of who they pick to "win" house and senate seats. I'm also trying to figure out why there hasn't been a meaningful filibuster in the US Senate. Not a one. Why doesn't the Democratic Party act like an opposition party? By the way, it's not just ethnicity. Perhaps they hate the policies of the Republicans but they love Israel more. They're blood. "Never again." (Except for that asshole Leiberman...)

But let's try another tack. I actually think it would be interesting if African Americans had the power of Jewish Americans. Would be quite swell actually.

Of course, Jews can pass for "white" while African Americans can't. But let's take a look at this situation from a racial what if position.

Let's just say for a moment that we have 10 or 11 African Americans in the US Senate. Say that we have a dozen or more African Americans in the US House, plus we run several state governments. Furthermore, African Americans run Hollywood, and have major stakes in both the Washington Post and the New York Times. I'm sure that's a wet dream for most black people right, but wait: There's more. Only 1 percent of our males are incarcerated, as opposed to a third being groomed for the prison industrial complex. And, just as an added wondrous touch: We have Black Pac, which terrorizes every one on the Hill who doesn't fall in line with African American interests. Sounds cool, huh? Let's add one more element: African Americans are tied historically and emotionally to one country: South Africa. Unfortunately, the black majority in South Africa treats the white minority quite horribly. There is a very little news about this and when someone, even on the Internets, even mentions that perhaps black legislators put the interests of Black Ruled South Africa not just above the party's interest (most African Americans are in the Democratic Party) but above US interests as well, they're called an anti semitic racist asshole, delinked and the discussion stops. The corporate media doesn't even mention the issue because those Goddamned niggers control everything! (I wish.) I might note that African Americans are the big money donors of the party.

In other words, its not like they have one senator from Illinois in this alternate reality. They have real power and real influence.

Furthermore, the country has been in a very brutal war with, say, my parallel reality's Nigeria. Its a war for oil but Nigeria also happens to be an enemy of South Africa. African Americans, stung by the loss of 20 million during the slave trade, have vowed "never again." Its rumored that other countries are on the hit list, all of them have oil and happen to be avowed enemies of South Africa. One could make the point that there's a deal in place in the US Congress. The African American senate delegation, particularly Obama Leiberman, clearly supports the war and are administration boosters. Obama Leiberman also leads the effort to retake the senate. Blacks are in control of retaking both the house and senate. Coincidently enough, even though the public hates the war they pick pro war, pro South African candidates. Even if control switches, the war machines rocks on. Meanwhile, nothing happens for the Sudan. Sudan even gets screwed in alternate realities.

Okay, do you see the point now?

Let's go back to this reality now. I'll try to summarize the question in several lines: If the Jewish American delegation in congress, combined with the Democratic Leadership Council (evil in all dimensions)likes the Republican agenda, then do they really want the Democratic Party to win? Or even be an effective opposition party?

By the way, here's what real opposition parties do: they use the filibuster until its illegal to do so. They talk like James Galloway and not like Joe Leiberman. They pay attention to the work of Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Greg Pallast, Bradblog and Robert Kennedy when they say the last several national elections were probably stolen. They do this not to recount elections--although that should be on the table--but to make sure the same caging techniques aren't used again in 2006 and 2008. (The Dem party isn't doing this by the way...Of course, if you wanted the other side to win you would ignore this story.) They push real democrats in blue states that don't support the war and Bush nominees. Well you can answer these questions yourself.

Okay, you've answered those questions in two seconds and you're horrified. I'm not sure what the answers are. but it probably means taking closer looks at any and all third party efforts out there and recognising that we're running out of things you can do legally or nonviolently to change the US. I mean, if the vote is rigged, and the parties are indistinguishable and in a lot of states third party efforts are impossible...you might also start learning about terms like "systems disruptions" and "open source warfare" and not just as academic exercises.