Priorities

News that the President thinks that gay marriage is a "critical" issue facing the country got me to thinking that maybe the problem here isn't ideology, but that the President simply doesn't understand what a "critical" issue might look like.

First, I offer a definition of "critical":

Of or forming a crisis: crucial; characterized by acute, desparate or dire circumstances suggesting urgent response.

But I've heard that the President isn't a book learner, so let's try some examples, and see if we can't find a pattern of what's "critical" and what isn't:

Example: The steady pace of deaths in Iraq (American and Iraqi) makes it evident that the administration has no realistic plan to extricate ourselves and prevent the place from descending into anarachy when we do.

Example: The economy is still shaky, and hasn't begun to recover all of the lost jobs that existed when President Bush took office, let alone create new ones. Four months of 350,000 +/- job growth dents, but does not eliminate, the 3 million jobs lost since 2000; and what's more, it may not be a real trend -- according to recent reports, job growth slowed down again, significantly, in June. Also, as USA Today notes, as many as 300,000 of the million or so jobs added since April 2003 have been by temp firms, suggesting that the jobs being added don't really replace the jobs that were lost. [link].

Example: We continue to rack up staggering deficits that cause economists to talk about the "United States debt levels" and "banana republic" in the same sentence. For an example of this, consider an interview that Paul Krugman gave to Tim Russert, in which Krugman used the "banana republic" label and compared the U.S. economic policy to Argentina's. [link]

Example: The Medicare drug benefit "reform" was sold to Congress based on intentionally misleading numbers, with the result that it costs far more than Congress at the time estimated or understood. At the same time, as a result of the administration's tax cuts, there is less revenue, while other expenses are either mounting (homeland security, for example) or looming (the baby boomers will soon be in the 60s).

Example: "No Child Left Behind" continues to be underfunded, so students at failing schools continue to be shortchanged.

Example: Whom someone decides to marry has nothing to do with the stability or sanctity of my marriage; my wife and I aren't looking at Massachussetts and saying, well, that's it, I guess we ought to divorce. Moreover, I don't think I'm alone in that response.

Now, one of these things is not like the others...any trends coming clear here? Which makes me wonder -- what's so "critical" that we need to mess with the Constitution?