Could you mean Sherrod Brown? The same Sherrod Brown who is running for the Senate in Ohio? (I don't know of a representative Sherwood Brown, from Ohio) The same Sherrod Brown who was featured recently in The Nation ( What can Sherrod Brown do for the Democrats?, Oct. 2 2006 issue)? Say it ain't so! Why in the world would this man vote for a bill that tramples our most cherished values, just because he's in a close race? Does he not feel capable of communicating to his potential constituents why a bill granting the president of the US the rights of a despot is incompatible with our most basic values? Unbelievable.

"If overall wealth is expanding, but some are getting less, and some are getting more, telling those who are getting the smaller slice of the pie that they are richer than their forebears seems remarkably insensitive."

Not only insensitive, but unctuously patronizing. In fact, it's pretty much in the same league as Jean -Jaques Rousseau's princess' "Let them eat cake" (which presumably can now be made cheaper than ever).

What makes it even more insulting is that the argument works both ways, Since the obscenely rich are so unbelievably well off, compared to our ancestors, why do they need additional tax-cuts? Why do they need to bust unions, kill Social Security, depress the minimum wage, out-source our jobs, all to obtain even more obscene profits? Isn't there enough cheap cake to go around?

Here is Paul Craig Roberts' take on Counterpunch.org, in which he directly tackles, in great detail, the conventional line that outsourcing is good for us:

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09302006.html

"Perhaps overestimating their own political courage, some moderate Republicans insisted privately that they would have lined up behind him if he had only given them a sign."

Let us take a more recent example to test the courage of these so-called moderates. Mr. Powell has given ample signs that he is opposed to the junking of the Geneva Conventions. In a letter to perhaps the most influential of the Republican moderates Powell makes clear his opposition to brutal interrogation techniques that Geneva bans: "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he wrote to Sen. John McCain. And yet, every one of these craven moderates caved in to the administration on that one. These people would never have backed Powell in a dispute with a popular president belonging to their own party.

From the context, it appears that Webb was paraphrasing how a Hollywood exec may be thinking. I don't think he was using those terms in his own thoughts.

Regrettably, what he was saying is right. Hollywood has quite often cast despised minorities as its villains. I guess it sells tickets.

That said, this incident shows a remarkable lack of political acumen on Mr. Webb's part.

joe writes:

"He's the only leader in the dem party right now."

This is the problem in a nutshell, isn't it? Lieberman and other political office-holders are not supposed to be our leaders. Rather, they are supposed to be our representatives in government.

We The People have the right to chose representatives that, you know, represent our views. Now I know that is a radical concept for some, but it's true! This is actually how a democracy is supposed to work, and America is a democracy, is it not? And when a representative no longer represents the views of those he is supposed to serve, then those people have a right to choose another one. This is not "purging."

So, joe, (and George,) why do you hate America?

"Mr. Rankin misrepresented Mrs. Cubin's positions and insulted her integrity during the debate."

It's only fair when the Republicans do this to their opponents, don't you see. Just ask Max Cleland. Or any of the current Dems, such as Ted Strickland, accused by Republicans of being friendly with paedophiles. (Now that is brazen.)

John Kerry inadvertently hurts his party with a botched delivery.

Hillary Clinton deliberately hurts her party to help herself.

I know which one I'd vote for if I had to choose between the two.

BTW, Kerry is right: Bush is not a man of great parts. His fundamental lack of intellect and of education has indeed hurt us. Poorly put though. But to those Bush supporters who wish to make a tempest out of this, I would suggest you reflect on the misstatements and negligence Bush is guilty of. "Mission Accomplished," anyone? "Bring 'em on!"? Iraq was an imminent threat? "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"? Real people have died unnecessarily thanks to George W. Bush. Have the decency to leave Mr. Kerry, a decorated combat veteran who had the guts to serve his country, alone.

"I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,'" Perle says.

What angers me the most about these people is their wilful blindness to views contrary to their own. One did not need to be "Delphic." Plenty of people foresaw where we would be today. Hundreds of thousands marched in the streets to try to stop this unmitigated catastrophe. Did Perle and his allies listen? Did they engage in honest debate? Right. Instead came the insults and personal attacks. Opponents of the war were "unpatriotic," "terrorist sympathizers," "surrender monkeys," "moonbats," etc. ad nauseum. There ought to be a special place in hell for Richard Perle and all like him.

According to the Federal Communications Commission Web site, automated calls must state the identity of the business, individual, or other entity making the call at the beginning of the message.

From an AP wire story on robo-calls in New Hampshire. Based on this, these calls violate federal law by not mentioning the NRCC at the top of the call.