You know what is interesting?

The site you referenced has the following information as of 0830 hrs PST:

United States Representative, 44th District

233/356 65.45%

                            Vote Count Percent

DEM - BILL HEDRICK 46,579 52.37%

REP - KEN CALVERT 42,363 47.63%

The Yahoo Political Dashboard (http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard) has the following:

United States Representative, 44th District

69% reporting

                            Vote Count Percent

REP - KEN CALVERT 64,599 53.3

DEM - BILL HEDRICK 56,616 46.7

It looks like it could either way right now. Also, I wonder on how they have different information.

Here's from the previous site:

United States Representative, 44th District

289/356 81.18%

DEM - BILL HEDRICK

52,434

52.09%

REP - KEN CALVERT

48,227

47.91%

You know.... I wonder if the above figures are not including absentee ballots, etc. The vote numbers are lower then the other sites. That's all I can think of why there's a discrepancy between sites.

Wow, I'm not missing living in the Orange County at all now. Don't get me wrong, I'm still frustrated with the Inland Empire, but, jeez, OC sucks.

Funny, their orders actually come from their commanding officer and not from the President.... I'm with ondelette, good riddance.

Wait, soldiers have the right to not follow a direct order because they don't agree with the President? Think about the implications of that argument.

Or, is it different between officers and enlisted when it comes to direct orders? I don't remember it that way when I was in the Army.

Regardless, I don't see any place for an officer that believes he or she cannot support and defend the Constitution.

Give them a nice pat on the butt and say, "Thanks for your service to our Country. Good-bye."

The policy differences argument again? You do know it's a sign of insanity to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

...I wonder why the Republicans didn't try to impeach Clinton on his possible war crimes....

Just a random thought. Hoping to learn something if there is a subsequent discussion. Being at work sometimes gets in the way of my being able to research stuff.

Can I just say that this could very well be a way to NOT have a bubble?

Also, having someone on your team that does things differently is actually a good thing.

Lastly, partisan Democrats could very well be just as destructive as (on a whole) Republicans when it comes to enacting changes to the Government. Why not have a very-partisan Dem in your inner circle and in a position of power? He should be very good at strong-arming the overly partisan over to Obama's 'side.'

I believe the correct answer would be snark?

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but what about getting the U.S. to join the ICC and then defend itself to the other (then) 108 members?

...that they need to start putting the author's moniker directly below the subject line instead of after the body?

Avoid?

No. Put a 'face' on the words.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I won't go into scan mode for some authors. The determination to do so would be after reading multiple entries and discovering an overabundance of trollish behavior.

Please note that 'scan' is not the same as 'ignore.'

It's hard to say what the Taliban knew or didn't know. They provided, at the minimum, refuge to Bin Laden from 1994 onward (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html as one source for this information).

However, the following "Taliban File Update - March 2004" from GWU might be enough to say that the Taliban had a reason to find out what Bin Laden was planning.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/index3.htm

Bipartisanship - meeting half way and compromising - is fine.

If that is something the Dems really want, I would think they would clearly define their 'side' and saying that is the point from which they will start to the middle. I don't see that happening. All I see is a call to drop the bickering. That, in itself, is relatively worthless when it isn't mutual. Just as bickering is worthless in itself as well.

Is the call for bipartisanship coming from both parties? Why isn't the party that lost clamoring louder for bipartisanship? Don't they want to do their best to keep their priorities in the forefront? To get things done they determine important? From what I read, the call for bipartisanship is coming pretty much from the Democrats.

But back to 'define the starting point' from which you will compromise. There is something else I don't really see being expressed by many. One of the tenets of our republic is that the majority will not deny the rights of the minority (part of the reason why Wyoming has two Senators just like California). Has anyone here come across an elected official stating that bipartisanship is fine and dandy as long as the middle doesn't trample the rights of the minority? That there is a Middle that isn't the really the middle? That there are unacceptable compromises?

I would find it rather disconcerting to have his choice of AG be a person who has a history of gaming the system - utilizing inside connections rather than purely legal means to secure favorable treatment of his clients.

-- Jebbie

One quick question. For someone to really 'game the system,' would you need to have multiple instances of influence being wielded inappropriately? Does one (possible) instance really qualify?

I hear you. I'm in paralysis by analysis myself right now.

You are, of course, assuming that no Democrats are guilty. Compliancy by Dem Senators, etc. would make them just as guilty. And, I have no problem seeing those individuals being tried.

That scale is with 1 being the most immediate and excruciating, yes?