a sign of desperation?

so the war in iraq isn't going well, the president sets criteria for leaving, and then doesn't follow them when his administration claims those conditions occur.* the deficit is growing, u.s. debt is increasingly held by a foreign government and the president can't seem to come up with any policies that won't make it worse, not better. the president's domestic programs--"no child left behind," social security reform, medicare part D--have all either failed or proven to be unpopular with the people they were supposed to appeal to. the president's poll ratings are in the toilet, and more and more people are predicting that his party will lose control of congress in next november's elections.

so the president has decided to ignore all of that and instead to throw his rapidly diminishing clout behind a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that has no chance of passing.

it looks like a punt to me.

-------
*the link is from a longish column that hides behind a nytimes firewall. here's the bit i was referring to:

The president reiterated his Plan for Victory in Iraq as recently as his appearance with Tony Blair on May 25: "As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." He said then that the Iraqis were "taking more of the fight" and "more territory" and "more missions." The State Department concurred: Iraqi security forces are participating in "more than 80 percent of operations."

So let's do the math. According to our own government, more Iraqis are standing up -- some 263,000 at latest count. But we are not standing down. We are, instead, sending in more American troops. Where have we seen this shell game before?