Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post staff writers
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; 12:00 PM
A new Post-ABC poll shows that many Americans do not believe the insurgency in Iraq is weakening, and that a majority feel that the challenge to U.S. and Iraqi forces remain unchanged. Those polled were also split on whether or not defeating the insurgents in Iraq would have a positive effect on the fight against terrorism as a whole. The poll was released amidst controversy over Vice President Dick Cheney 's assertion that the insurgency is in its "last throes" and demonstrated partisan trends, with 35% of Republicans polled agreeing that the insurgency is growing weaker, as opposed to 13% of Democrats. Washington Post staff writers Richard Morin and Claudia Deane were online Tuesday, June 28, at Noon ET to discuss this new poll and what it shows about public support for the war. Survey Finds Most Support Staying in Iraq. A transcript follows. ____________________ Richard Morin: Hello, all. Thanks for joining us. We've already got lots of great questions, so let's get started. _______________________ Manassas, Va.: Richard, my question is about the accuracy of your initial story yesterday and the extent to which that version disappeared with rewrites later that day. Your 8:42 a.m. online version was posted for most of the day and ignored virtually every Bush-positive finding. Three subsequent versions including one at 6:24 p.m, another at 7:08 p.m. and today's hard-copy A1 version co-written with Dan Balz (and stat expert Claudia Deane) much more accurately report the pro- and anti-Bush findings. Yet all of these versions used the exact same URL/web address, sending your initial story down the memory hole as detailed at my blog, PostWatch. ( PostWatch ) What happened? And why did the initial version disappear without explanation? Do you agree that your first story was unbalanced, and that deleting it from public view raises questions about accountability? Richard Morin: First let me acknowledge that it's absolutely true that Dan, Claudia and I work hard to keep each of us on the straight-and-narrow. It should go without saying that our collaborative work is better than anything each of us could have produced by ourselves. That said, let me explain a bit about the preview story that is posted in the morning on the day that a poll is released and why it is different than the final version of the story that appears in the evening and, ultimately, in next morning's Washington Post. For the past two months, we and our colleagues at ABC have selected two or three questions-no more--from the poll to preview in short stories that run on washingtonpost.com and on Good Morning America. We try to restrict ourselves to questions that will not be the major news of our main stories that will run in the paper the next day or on the evening news that night. For obvious reasons, we do not want to scoop ourselves (though we sometimes do). The preview story is written immediately after we receive the survey results in the wee hours of the morning and filed to the Web site before I even start to think about the main story. We do this to generate traffic to our excellent web site and, frankly, to promote the full story that will be released later in the day. We currently are doing this early release as an experiment. We at the Post are not yet sure if it is worth it. For this poll, we decided on Friday to feature the questions testing claims made by Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. These three questions hung together well. They were, we thought, second-tier questions, and would not detract from the other Iraq questions that we intended to use in a major story to set up President Bush's major address on Iraq tonight. As it happened, such a large majority of Americans seemed to reject Cheney's claims that the insurgency was in its "last throes" that it became a key part of the main story, after the finding that few Americans favored immediate withdrawal. These three questions were, and this is important, the only questions that we agreed to release at 7 a.m. We could not use any other question, per our agreement. Nor would we have wanted to-my goal is getting the best story possible in the newspaper and not give it away on the web 24 hours before our readers see it in their paper. Also note that every early release story I've done for the web-I believe it's four and counting-has included a paragraph noting that the full survey results and complete story will be released at 5 p.m. We want people who read the preview story at 7 a.m. (okay, sometimes it's a few minutes late being posted)-then return at 5 p.m. for the complete story. Why did I write the early morning story by myself? I'm a morning person. Dan and Claudia like to sleep in. _______________________ Seattle, Wash.: I think it is very important for Bush to define the insurgency and what portion of it is composed of terrorists. One of the reasons his credibility has waned is that he sounds like he is disconnected from the military and the rest of the government when he talks solely about terrorists trying to defeat democracy in Iraq whereas the military has increasingly pointed to elements of the insurgency (i.e., the large Sunni minority population of Iraq) that clearly have roots beyond indiscriminate terrorism and might be willing to negotiate an end to hostilities. We all hate the Zarqawis of the world but it helps no one to paint the entire insurgency in a light that offers little room for negotiation (we're surely not going to have talks with undisputed terrorists like Zarqawi) while the military seems to see more differentiation within the opposition. That is why Bush appears to have a Tin Ear. It is also why statements like Cheney's of the "Last Throes" ring hollow because he as well seems to be ignoring the large and growing elements of the insurgency beyond Zarqawi. Claudia Deane: Interesting comment. About this time last year, we asked the public who they thought was behind most of the attacks on US soldiers in Iraq: they divided, four in ten saying terrorists and a similar proportion saying 'Iraqis who oppose the occupation'. Your comment suggests it would be a good time to ask this again. _______________________ Ashburn, Va.: Why are some questions in this poll listed as "(HALF SAMPLE)?" What does that mean exactly, and why does it show up on certain questions? Thanks very much for taking the time to respond. Richard Morin: Ah, you read the trend document closely. Excellent! "Half sample" means that this question was only asked of half the respondents, selected at random. We often do it so we can ask two slightly different versions of a question to two different random samples of 500. Sometimes we split the sample to allow us to ask more questions without affecting the time we keep people on the phone. Of course the margin of sampling error on the half sample is larger than the full sample (about plus or minus 5 percentage points for a 500 split half versus 3 percentage points for the full 1,000 sample.) _______________________ Ashland, Mo.: Although polls make an effort to reflect the public by sex, race, political party, etc., is there any effort to assure political philosophy is represented? For example, although a poll may have the correct proportion of Democrats/Republicans, do you account for conservative/liberal? This is a concern if a particular political philosophy is disproportionately unwilling to participate in polls. Claudia Deane: The major media polls are all composed of random samples of the public, so if all goes well, all major groups should be represented according to their share of the population. In this last poll, 44 percent of respondents said they were moderates, 33 percent conservatives and 21 percent liberals. We've started posting all this demographic information alongside our poll stories if you'd like to keep an eye on the distribution. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: A lot of the polls and the debate about, quite frankly, these stupid U.K. memos seem to be focused on history. I'm not really interested in history. Like many, I have misgivings, but we're there now and that changes the dynamic. Do you find a lot of the polls have people like me who are reluctantly in support of continued operations not because they believed WMD or the war on terror but because of the practical reality that are troops are on the ground and absent them, worse things would happen? Claudia Deane: Yep, your views seem to be widely shared. For example, an overwhelming majority of Democrats now say the Iraq war was "a mistake." But only one in five are calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. _______________________ Baltimore, Md.: What do you think of Dick Cheney's assertion that the insurgency is in its "last throes" when Donald Rumsfeld has said differently? Claudia Deane: Well we can tell you what the public thinks: most Americans (53 percent) see the insurgency as staying at about the same level of strength, while 24 percent say it's getting stronger and 22 percent believe it is getting weaker. _______________________ Alexandria, Va.: Interesting poll. Surprising presentation! I read the data (but not the story) online last night. What jumped out at me was that your data seem to show that for the first time more than half the country believes that "the Bush administration...intentionally misled the American public." Why isn't that in the headline and the first paragraph rather than in halfway down the page 10 continuation? You guys are the beacon of truly fair and balanced reporting. I don't understand! Richard Morin: Thank you. We also thought it was interesting that 52 percent now think the Bush administration deliberately misled about the reasons for going to war. One reason we did not lead with it was that the country had, in recent months, been divided on this question though a slight majority did not think the president misled the country (until this poll). I thought it more newsworthy that the public doubted more recent claims about the situation in Iraq, namely that the insurgency was in its last throes, and that so few wanted to withdraw immediately despite the rising criticism of the president on Iraq. _______________________ Bethesda, Md.: I note that the public is finally catching on that Bush lied about the pre-war intelligence (come on guys, turn off Survivor already), that figure at an all time high of 52%. I wonder where it would be if the American press had actually covered the Downing Street Memos as much as the Runaway Bride? I'd like to see a coupling analysis of that question with "have you heard about the so-called Downing Street memos?" Has anyone done that? Claudia Deane: Lots of comments about the Downing Street memo. We'll post a few. (And no, I haven't seen anyone ask the question you suggest, at least not yet.) _______________________ Portland, Maine: This morning The Post finally decided to report on the Downing Street Memos. Did you find something new or are you buckling under pressure from bloggers? Claudia Deane: I'd point you to our all-knowing media critic Howie Kurtz' reporting on this question. _______________________ Los Angeles, Calif.: Thank you both for taking questions. I was relieved to see the Downing Street Memos getting some serious front page coverage this morning. Does this mean the story is finally getting some traction in the main stream media? Also, I keep hearing that the U.S. was bombing Iraq 10 months prior to the official war starting, has there been any coverage of this? If it's true, I can't believe we were unaware of it when it was happening and would certainly like to see coverage of this story. Claudia Deane: more... _______________________ Arlington, Va.: Why is all of the original reporting and documentation relating to U.S. Iraq war planning, such as the Downing Street Memo, coming out of the foreign press? Why are publications such as The Washington Post not coming up with the real story behind the path to war with Iraq? We want to know the real story, not to read summaries of press conferences and press releases. Claudia Deane: more... _______________________ Charlotte, N.C. : How low can the numbers go on Iraq? If the media were to decide to start running more picture or video of the dead or injured on the battlefield, or if the Downing Street leak were to pick up traction, could we see another quick drop in support, or are we at bottom? It seems to me that there are probably 35% that will support the President's current position on Iraq no matter what. Richard Morin: That is a very important point: There seems to be a reservoir of support for the president on Iraq and, at the least, a grudging determination to stay the course. Whether it is 35 percent, higher or lower, is difficult to say. I doubt that the situation on the ground in Iraq would produce an immediate and precipitous drop in support, though I could be wrong. I suspect, however, that another major terrorist attack in the United States--God forbid-- could shift the debate and, with it, Bush's poll numbers. It was telling that in this poll, 52 percent said Iraq had made the U.S. safer--an improvement from earlier this month on a key question. _______________________ Confused in McLean: You wrote that "A narrow majority -- 52 percent -- believes that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States, a five-point increase from earlier this month." Do you have any idea what may have triggered this increase? I can't think of any event that would lead people to believe this? Do you think that perhaps the poll numbers are misleading? The margin of error might be larger than you assumed. Claudia Deane: Tough question. After months and months of leaning toward a belief that the war had indeed boosted the nation's long-term security, the majority tilted over to the other side at the beginning of this month, a seemingly important development. This month the switch toggled back. Could be the stepped up coverage of Iraq this past weekend due to the visit of the Iraqi prime minister. Don't know. Going to be watching this like hawks. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: Why don't you ask questions that could actually be used constructively as we try to figure out how to get out of there? Like: Do you feel you know what our exit strategy is? Or: Would you like a better sense of what our exit strategy is? Or: Would you support a timetable for pulling troops out? Or: Do you support negotiating with the insurgents? Or: Do you think the U.S. should pressure Saudi Arabia to stop sending its delinquents into Iraq to blow up American troops? Claudia Deane: Some suggestions. _______________________ Ellicott City, Md.: So when a poll finds that people do not feel the insurgency is waning, is this a problem of perception or is this actually the case? I would have to think the latter, though the White House wants to promote the former. Richard Morin: I think Dan Balz made an important point in our story this morning when he noted that the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen John P. Abizaid, testified to Congress last week that he felt resistance in Iraq had not changed, which is the position most Americans took in our poll. Just another example of the wisdom of the masses! _______________________ Washington, D.C.: Who conducts your polls? Why is the dispersion from one poll to another so high? You people need to get better pollsters. Claudia Deane: A survey research firm called TNS has conducted our polls for many a year now. We think they do an excellent job. Are you talking about differences from one of our polls to the next, or across different media polls? I would argue that the polls on Iraq are actually quite consistent. _______________________ Rockville, Md.: Given the new high for Bush's disapproval ratings, do you think that the talking heads on television will finally stop referring to Bush as a "popular" president? Claudia Deane: Can't speak for TV's talking heads. Bush does have near- unprecedented loyalty from folks in his own party. His approval rating among Republicans is 84% _______________________ Manassas, Va.: Richard, thank you for the detailed response. But among other things, I was very surprised to see subsequent versions of the story referenced by the identical URL. That means that unless somebody happens to print out a copy of your original story (ahem), there's no record of how you first portrayed the poll. Do you, or The Post institutionally, agree that this is a problem? Richard Morin: Argh! There should be a record of the posting. They promised me when the same goof occurred last time that it would be fixed. But please don't go crazy trying to interpret the changing time stamp. I see a typo or decide to add a paragraph (as I did yesterday to the preview story when I inadvertently left off the graph about the whole poll being released at 5 p.m.) and the time stamp changes. God bless you and your fellow bloggers, but you have 'way too much time on your hands! :) _______________________ Wheaton, Md.: Do most of those polled believe U.S. troops should just pack up and leave? How would they react if Iran invades and takes over? Richard Morin: No, absolutely not. One of the clear messages from our latest poll is that few people--about 13 percent--favor immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. Nearly six in 10--58 percent--say the U.S. should keep forces in Iraq until civil order is restored--even if it means continued American casualties. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: How do relate your sampling to other events? I'm sure people are upset with higher and higher gas prices. Wouldn't this translate to how people answer a question regarding Iraq? I mean if gas prices were cheap might not your poll numbers on Iraq be more favorable to Bush? Thanks... Richard Morin: Hmmm. We didn't ask a question about gas prices in this poll, but we have on previous surveys. As I recall, the price of gas has some impact on overall Bush's job approval rating, but none on attitudes toward Iraq or the war. So I doubt that cheap gas would produce much of a bump up for Bush. But I do hope that gas prices come down soon so we can test your theory. _______________________ Raleigh, N.C.: Has anyone with The Post looked back at the poll numbers of Americans during WWII and Korea and Vietnam, and compared those to the present conflict in Iraq? Print media was the major source of news during WWII and I suspect that there were never polls of negative support for that war, even though the newspapers printed pictures of the dead, dying and returning coffins daily (which our media refuse to print today). Richard Morin: We'll look into that. Your question does remind me of this interesting survey finding from immediately before World War II was one showing most Americans wanted us to stay out. Photos can impact both ways: they can remind people of the suffering and cost in human terms of the war, and they can remind people of the sacrifice our troops are making and prompt us to rally around our forces. The key is, do we think the war is justified. Currently, the country is split on Iraq, with the numbers trending against the president. Still, barely half--51 percent--are willing to say that Iraq was a mistake. _______________________ Palo Alto, Calif.: I'm interested in the uptick of respondents who believe the war in Iraq has made us safer. Seems to me that interesting additional information could be obtained with some questions about why? how? etc... Would you consider asking such questions in a near-future poll? Richard Morin: Excellent idea. I would be curious what people would say. My guess is that I would hear some version of the administration's assertion that it is better to be fighting terrorists in Iraq than in the United States. _______________________ Rockville, Md.: In your article, you say, "More than a third of all Republicans, 35 percent, agreed with the administration that the insurgents were growing weaker in Iraq." Would it perhaps be more striking if you wrote this as, "65 percent of all Republicans disagreed with the administration's assertion that the insurgents were growing weaker." It seems a strong statement when 2/3 of your own party thinks you are wrong. Richard Morin: Fair point. I was trying to highlight the partisan differences on key questions in that paragraph. The percentage who rejected Vice President Cheney's claim was so high that the overall result seemed to speak for itself. But perhaps not. _______________________ Wayzata, Minn.: Before the war the polls showed that 70% of Americans supported the war in Iraq. Now we are learning that 59% do not support the war. The idea that someone could be in support of something so strongly two years ago and now oppose it is a very powerful development. Do all these people who changed sides think they were fooled or lied to? Because it takes a lot for someone to admit to themselves they they were wrong about something so important. And I think it has to be something serious, because I don't think Americans are fickle about war. Claudia Deane: A very interesting observation, and one that public opinion scholars will be investigating long after the troops are home. Americans have been dubious about Saddam Hussein and his intentions toward the United States since the first Gulf War. So with the catalyst of 9/11, the country was primed to support this intervention. The major falloff in support has, not surprisingly, been among Democrats and independents, not the president's natural constituency, who have increasingly come to doubt his justifications for the war. Three in four Democrats in this current poll said they believe the administration 'intentionally misled' the public in making its case for war. Add to this the fact that half the public doesn't think things are going well there, that some Democratic leaders are becoming more vocal in their critique of the war, and that allies have become a bit scarce, and you begin to understand the major changes in opinion. _______________________ Boca Raton, Fla.: Claudia and Richard, At what level does President Bush start listening to the polls? Is it conceivable that if the polls went 80/20 against him on Iraq, he would do something? Or, as a lameduck, will he just sit it out? Thanks from sunny Florida! Richard Morin: Greeting from sunny and humid Washington, D.C. Reminds me of my 10 years in Miami. The White House, though not necessarily President Bush, closely monitor the polls and take their own samplings of public opinion, though their aim is largely to find the best way to promote a policy, not to set policy. If there will be dramatic movement on Iraq in response to public opinion, expect to see it in House races next year. _______________________ Astoria, N.Y.: I am a grad student at NYU studying psychology, so needless to say I find survey research very interesting. Often times politicians (usually for convenience) dismiss polls as being useless. Would it help to educate the public about polling? Could you write some general articles about how it is done and how to read the data? I have taken several statistics classes, research classes, etc., and my appreciation for polls have improved as a result. If you have already done these types of articles, I apologize. I am amazed about my own ignorance prior to learning about polling and statistical analysis. I do think if the public understood the process more, they might benefit. Also, I am talking about in-depth articles looking at things such as statistical significance, determining samples, etc. Thanks. Claudia Deane: Well it would certainly make life more pleasant in the polling unit if we could put all our critics through polling boot camp. Lots of the critiques we receive are well thought out and valid, but others are just based on misunderstandings about the methods. We've tried to answer basic questions on our site at: www.washingtonpost.com/polls There are also some helpful resources on the Web site of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (www.aapor.org) _______________________ Dale City, Va.: Did the low poll numbers prompt the speech tonight or was it already announced? Every time the polls go down we are treated to one of those heart-tugging 9/11 reviews to encourage us to feel good about killing someone, even if it isn't the people who attacked us. Do any of numbers tell us how many Americans are still convinced that Iraq was involved with 9/11? That false belief, generated deliberately by our own government through propaganda was the scariest poll number I ever saw. Richard Morin: One of the interesting findings of my friends in political science is that a president's job approval rating rises every time he is on television--even if he is delivering bad news. That's why presidents work so hard to get their press conferences and speeches on the networks in prime time, and why the networks resist--though it is hard to say no to the commander-in-chief. And yes, I do suspect the flood of bad poll numbers on Iraq in the past month is a reason for the speech tonight. _______________________ Manassas, Va.: Claudia, you noted here that "In this last poll, 44 percent of respondents said they were moderates, 33 percent conservatives and 21 percent liberals."--so more conservatives than liberals. But in a separate question the poll asks about party ID and goes 34/28/32 Dem/GOP/Independent, skewing more to the Democrats. Do pollsters look at those two sets as kind of a wash, as far as figuring how accurately the sample represents the country? And when you report the poll results, are percentages weighted at all to compensate for over- or under-representation of any group? Claudia Deane: Well the two questions measure different things. For example, 16 percent of Democrats consider themselves conservatives (with 49 percent saying they are moderates and 34 percent labeling themselves liberals.) The standard monthly polls are only weighted to demographics that we can check with "real life", as reported by the Census: age, race, sex and education. The problem with party ID and ideology is that no one objective source can tell us what the "right" distribution should be. During the heat of the presidential campaign season, we have occasionally done a modified version of a weight by party identification. It's a long story we've reported out before. But in any case, not relevant to recent polls. (Is this my buddy Gerry, by the way?) _______________________ Wilmington, N.C.: Any chance of starting to poll on attacking Iran? Now that the Secretary of Defense has stated it is a "last resort", we can assume it is inevitable. It will be interesting to track the effectiveness of the campaign for public support against the timing of particular claims and charges. That way, when we have the benefit of post attack hindsight, we can better understand the process by which we engage in war. I'm finding the current DSM discussion too easily muddled by lack of contemporaneous analysis. Claudia Deane: We asked some questions about Iran in March. At that time, about six in ten Americans said they viewed Iran as a threat, but only 26 percent favored invading the country with U.S. forces. _______________________ Fairfax, Va.: Did your polling ask how many people still believe that we went to war against Iraq because we were attacked on 9/11 by Iraqis as the President keeps implying (as in his June 18 national radio address)? Has the percentage of people who believe in an Iraq-Osama connection going up or down or staying the same? Richard Morin: Yes, Americans hold many false beliefs about Iraq/Saddam/Sept 11. But there is a key finding that emerged from polling throughout the '90's. Even before 9/11 a clear majority of Americans wanted Saddam overthrown, by force if necessary. I was looking at some numbers this morning on the percentage of Americans who thought, immediately after 9/11, that Saddam should be overthrown "even if he cannot be linked direction to the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington." Seven in 10 either said the U.S. "absolutely must do this" (39 percent) or "this would be a good to do, but not essential (33 percent). And though Karl Rove didn't ask, I'll tell: seven in 10 liberals and seven in 10 conservatives thought it would be just fine to overthrow Saddam, even without evidence of a 9/11 connection. _______________________ New York, N.Y.: There seems to be so much focus on what people feel to be true, but we never find out how much the person being polled actually knows or what their sources of information are. And so much depends on how the question is phrased. So why are these polls important? What does it mean that 52% no longer believe the war in Iraq was worth it? Have we any idea why the other 48% DO think it's worth it or what they think will be achieved, or whether they know anything about Iraq's history or our (U.S.) history of involvement there? Claudia Deane: I agree it's interesting to find out how much people know and where they get their information, and we do sometimes try to do this. But in an important respect, this doesn't really matter: no matter what it's based on, public support or opposition matters in a democracy. There are so many, perhaps (if such a thing is possible) too many, public polls on the subject of Iraq, that I think it's very possible to figure out "what it means" that half the public thinks the war was 'worth it.' For example, most people in the current survey said that they thought that Iraqis would be better off because of the U.S. intervention. That's one reason. Half said the war has 'contributed to long term peace and stability in the Mideast', and a similar proportion that it 'encouraged democracy in other Arab nations.' Two more reasons. _______________________ Fairfax, Va.: Your dismissive attitude toward the Downing Street memos (you print the questions but answer none) makes me wonder about the level of your journalistic curiosity. Would you consider doing some polling questions regarding the Memos like how many people have seen the text of the memos in a major newspaper? Or, how many people would like to see the assertions in the memos that the President lied America into war be investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee? Or how many people are aware that the Senate Intelligence Committee had promised to investigate (after the election) how the intelligence the President received was used or misused by him in making his case to the American people? Claudia Deane: Don't mean to be dismissive. Reporting on these memos just isn't my beat, and I don't want to pass myself off as an expert on them. _______________________ Anonymous: Re: Bush and polls, you stated "though their aim is largely to find the best way to promote a policy, not to set policy". How would you know that? Perhaps, all of their policy decisions are poll driven, with a particular calculation of target audience/impact assessment. It seems you have no way of knowing. Richard Morin: Actually, my buddies Larry Jacobson at the University of Minnesota and Bob Shapiro at Columbia have written a book about the way presidents use polls to promote, not make, policy. It's called "Politicians Don't Pander." They also have a web site. Check it out! _______________________ Bluffton, S.C.: If you decided on Friday to use Dick Cheney's "throes" comment to generate a response, then why not use Ted Kennedy's comment and ask "Do you think Iraq is a quagmire?" Claudia Deane: We asked whether respondents thought the U.S. "has gotten bogged down in Iraq" or "is making good progress in Iraq". 62 percent said 'bogged down'. 37 percent said 'good progress.' _______________________ San Francisco, Calif.: Why does the headline for this story say "Survey Finds Most Support Staying in Iraq," instead of the seemingly more newsworthy "Survey Finds Most Say Administration Deliberately Misled Public Before War" or "Survey Finds Most Disapprove of Bush's Job Performance"? Richard Morin: I don't write the headlines and we don't write history: As I indicated in an earlier answer, Bush's current credibility problems are news. And the fact that most Americans disapprove of Bush's overall job performance is not news. His approval rating first dropped below 50 percent in our polls a year ago and has been below 50 percent in our last three polls. _______________________ Claudia Deane: Time to go and still questions to answer. Sigh. Rich is finishing up one more reply. I gots to sign off. Thanks to all for the great questions. _______________________ Richard Morin: Hey, thanks for all of the good questions! See you again soon. And bloggers: Just kidding. Love 'ya all. _______________________ Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.