Probably through the end of the year. I’m working a proposal that’s going to require more time than I have. I may put something up occasionally, if I’m about to burst, but likely not much.

Andrew Sullivan writes today, among other things:

In retrospect, the president should have clearly said last week that Lott should step aside as SML, which would have sped events up. I can see why he didn’t. He doesn’t want to interfere with the Senate’s business, he said the right thing about the underlying issue, and anything more might have seemed over-kill.

There’s another reason, I suspect.

The President has no direct power to remove Lott–that can only be done by his colleagues in the Senate. If he came out and publicly demanded that he step down, and Lott refused to do so, and the Senate refused to remove him, the President would have appeared, in the public perception, to be weak and unable to control events. I don’t think that he wanted to risk that, and perhaps he still doesn’t.

Andrew Sullivan writes today, among other things:

In retrospect, the president should have clearly said last week that Lott should step aside as SML, which would have sped events up. I can see why he didn’t. He doesn’t want to interfere with the Senate’s business, he said the right thing about the underlying issue, and anything more might have seemed over-kill.

There’s another reason, I suspect.

The President has no direct power to remove Lott–that can only be done by his colleagues in the Senate. If he came out and publicly demanded that he step down, and Lott refused to do so, and the Senate refused to remove him, the President would have appeared, in the public perception, to be weak and unable to control events. I don’t think that he wanted to risk that, and perhaps he still doesn’t.

Andrew Sullivan writes today, among other things:

In retrospect, the president should have clearly said last week that Lott should step aside as SML, which would have sped events up. I can see why he didn’t. He doesn’t want to interfere with the Senate’s business, he said the right thing about the underlying issue, and anything more might have seemed over-kill.

There’s another reason, I suspect.

The President has no direct power to remove Lott–that can only be done by his colleagues in the Senate. If he came out and publicly demanded that he step down, and Lott refused to do so, and the Senate refused to remove him, the President would have appeared, in the public perception, to be weak and unable to control events. I don’t think that he wanted to risk that, and perhaps he still doesn’t.

If Lott had acted like this guy, it would probably be clear sailing for him by now. But he didn’t, because he was too dumb and arrogant.

Ninety nine years ago today, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, two bicycle mechanics and aeronautical engineers from Dayton, Ohio, made their first controlled, powered heavier-than-air flight, inaugurating an entirely new mode of transportation. They essentially invented the field of aeronautical engineering and the science of aerodynamics.

I suspect that they had a bigger impact on the twentieth century than any politician or academic intellectual.

Emailer David Mosier has the correct name for Trent Lott’s scandal.

In the spirit of the season, I’d like to say that this is just…wrong.

Michael Medved makes a number of good points on the Lott situation, and brings up one that hadn’t previously occurred to me, though it’s obvious once pointed out.

In the case of Trent Lott, there’s not even an impressive record of success to recommend him. His career in the national limelight has produced a long series of public embarrassments and in each election they faced with Lott as their majority leader, Republicans actually lost seats in the Senate.

That says it all.

The liberation of Afghanistan appears to have been good for China.