Andrew, thanks for telling us about these upcoming films, but some of your discussion is frustratingly superficial.

First, there have been no satisfying adaptations of Alice in Wonderland? What about Jan Svankmajer's "Alice", one of the best films of the '80s? I'm afraid Burton's version looks like some candyland extravaganza in comparison to Svankmajer's creepy, barren, Eastern-bloc version, which brought across the essentially Kafkaesque nature of Alice.

Second, although I'm not of a fan of most of Mamet's recent work, and therefore don't hold out much hope for his Anne Frank adaptation either, it's totally unfair to parody him as if the only thing he ever wrote was American Buffalo. Does no one recall his delightful G-RATED adaptation of The Winslow Boy? Mamet can hold his potty mouth in check when necessary. Furthermore, Mamet's best film, "Homicide", is centered around the theme of Jewish identity and persecution. So he might actually have something to say here...

The only logical explanation for someone being a self-proclaimed Republican these days is insanity, so it's good to see that the numbers back that up: at least half of Republicans are (by their own admission) bonkers.

You know you've touched a nerve when the president of NBC bothers to respond to the taunts of a comedian! Jon Stewart is at least as sharp a critic now as he was when he had Bush to kick around.

I was generally disappointed in this film in comparison to the previous one, but there were indeed some nice touches (I particularly liked the Tosca scene), and I agree that Craig is the best Bond so far.

But what was the emotionally moving "Pieta" scene of which you speak? I don't recall any. Feel free to merely hint at it without actually spoiling it for the others.

Isn't "the kind of change that brought the Soviet Union to collapse" supposed to be a good thing? Why don't we want to "usher" that in?

Perhaps Ms. Porter is just trying to get us in the Halloween spirit.

Mr. Schaller, you should remove this post asap. As AncientAssyrian pointed out, it is factually false. It's one thing to pass on a link to a factually incorrect article, it's another to pass on a link to a factually correct article and then to completely mischaracterize what it is saying.

I nearly forwarded your post to someone, but I'm glad I read the linked LATimes post first. I'm also glad to hear that an October surprise is not, apparently, in the works after all. For a few minutes I was furious at Wright, but now I'm mad at Salon.

Where does it say you have to donate to get the e-mail alert? I clicked on the URL, put my info in, and clicked "Submit Form", and that was it. (I didn't even notice there was a Donate button on the e-mail.)

Forgive my stupidity, but what is sexist about the Roomba ad? It seems quite reasonable.

As it happens, my wife and I just sent away for one of those things because my effect on a household is indeed animalistic.

It's worth noting that these "Rovian" tactics are as old as the hills. In fact, Richard Hofstadter's classic "Anti-intellectualism in American Life" tracks the use of such tactics since before the founding of our nation (up until Stevenson's campaigns), in particular the perennial characterization of the liberal or intellectual as an effeminate pointy-headed academic out of touch with the values of manly, God-fearing, hard-working Americans.

Not being an expert on such matters, I wonder if the media was as docile in Hofstadter's day as it is now. I don't remember Hofstadter focusing so much on the media.

Glenn, you've written many posts like this, exposing the media's apparent willingness to serve as enablers in shallow personality-based politics.

I appreciate your continued highlighting of the media's stupidity, but since the media isn't showing any signs of changing course, is there anything the Dems (or anyone) can do about it? What's the best way to fight back without lowering ourselves to the level of the Republicans?

I think both Glenn and Ed Kilgore agree that we want the Blue Dogs out of the government, and let me start by noting that I have contributed to Blue America PAC, and believe in its core principles.

But Kilgore's main argument (it seems to me) is that right now, the only thing the Dems can really do is prevent bills from getting passed. They cannot, however, get anything accomplished that way. The only way for the Dems to be able to *do* anything is for the president to be Democratic. Once that happens, one can imagine a whole rash of legislation being passed that the Dems wouldn't even bother to propose now. Thus, the poor performance of the Dems in the last 2 years does not *necessarily* reflect poorly on their future performance under a Democratic leadership. (Of course, it does not bode well either.) So perhaps we ought to wait and see what the Democratic congress is capable of under a Democratic president, if we are so lucky.

I'm not saying I agree with this argument, but it is the most persuasive one that Kilgore puts forth, and I would like to see Glenn address this argument more clearly.

From my perspective, it seems like the Blue Dogs are essentially Republicans. The main reason to focus on kicking them out of office (instead of actual Republicans) is that the Blue Dogs seem to wield a disproportionate amount of power in the Democratic leadership. Thus, *calling attention* to the Republicanness of the Blue Dogs seems critical, but it is not so obvious that trying to get them kicked out of office (at least in the cases where they are likely to be replaced by another Republican) is the best possible use of resources.

It's Ernst Krenek, not Ernest Krenek.

Your comment sums up my feeling exactly.