What happened a year ago? Let's look at the exit polls. Didn't something like 80% of those who supported Bush strongly support him. How many of those who voted for Kerry strongly supported Kerry? It was no where near 80%. Thus: Kerry's vote was as high as it was because people were voting against Bush. When Kerry was the best Democrats could do, there's great disappointment, but less surprise in my mind that Bush won. Perhaps someone with more search-engine savvy than I can find the exact exit poll numbers. They'll support my point though that Kerry was not a well-liked candidate - even by those of us that voted for him.

And today? The 6% that 'flip-floped?' I'll guess they decided that maybe that Kerry would have been better than "this guy we got." It still isn't a real meaningful number to me.

As far as impeachment and / or dumping Cheney: In polictial terms, the one, ONE thing going for Cheney (in my mind) is that he does not plan to run for President. Move either of these turkeys out of the office and suddenly we're giving the biggest political podium in the world to a potential Republican candidate. While world-wide it might restore our reputation somewhat, nothing will do more than putting a quality leader into the office in 2008. And some other Democrats into the house and senate in 2006 to restore our essential checks and balances. Consider mine another voice saying this is where our focus must lie.

Ian

Can't and shouldn't every (quoted by the WH) Democrats' response to this be: "Yes - we thought he was a threat to us at the time because we were only shown your cooked intelligence? The White House lied to Congress just as much as they did to the American people. We demand an accounting."

Ian

At what point do we go from typo to briliant Freudian slip? As posted at 8:24 am CST, Cheney's rider calls for "decaffeinated coffee in a carafe; BOTTLED WAR; ice," (emphasis mine).

Now what I really want to know is if Cheney's rider is actually calling for bottled war, which seems entirely believeable to me, what does the decalf do for him? Help with the war-jitters?

Ian

Stephen Colbert's Press Corps Dinner performance continutes to resonate across the land. Gene Weingarten, secretly wishing for an invite onto the Colbert Report, where he could, in fact, attempt to out-Colbert Colbert in person, instead demonstrates his wittiness at a graduation speech. Will his words rattle in the hallowed halls of the blogosphere with similar fervor? Have in fact Colbert, and by extension, Jon Stewart, become the leading lights of investigative and literary journalism into whose footsteps journalism graduates are called to strive as former luminaries like Woodward and Bernstein fade into the ancient past? These are the weighty thoughts that perhaps Weingarten may wish to ponder as he produces his next carefully crafted column. In the meanwhile, may all graduates of the classes of 2006 be so blessed with a speech so tongue-in-cheek while issuing such a call for change.

Ian

OK - I don't know anything about the legal accounting aspects of this and trusts (which does sound like a good idea) and all the rest.

But here's what I do know: The motivation ascribed to the younger brother is remarkably mature: The younger brother realizes part of his success is because of Mom's helping him while not helping the other brother. How much influence did Mom have in helping foster that realization or maturity? I don't know. But if it is a truly owned sense of maturity, it seems a good one. And the motivation is one of taking fair care of family and obligations, not a generous (manic) "I'm going to give my money away!"

Of course, we don't know what kind of money or loans or interest we're talking about, but it seems the less debt there is at an early age, the better.

There is a second level of potential obligation to be considered, thus my titling of this post. If younger sibling should indeed develop a bipolar disorder, or less drastically, have his budding entertainment star fall, whom will the younger brother have to support him? Statistically speaking, at some point Mom will be gone and the older brother will remain. In that sense, this also is an investment in the future of not just the older brother, but the future success of the family.

Perhaps it is ever so American and unhealthy of me to suggest that a gift carry obligation under it; or be given in the hope of future karma. Perhaps the older brother truly has no desire to have that kind of obligation, or money tied into that sense of obligation. However, if the older brother is as much the man as the younger brother seems to be (assuming this desire to share beneficence is indeed genuine and original to him) I suspect the older brother would feel the same sense of obligation in the future to the younger as is reversed here in the present, regardless of the finances involved.

If this is ture, an investment into the elder's future is perhaps as wise an investment as any financial one would be for the younger brother.

Ian