Maybe the Sky Isn't Falling

There has been a discernible shift in the economic news.

Wall Street rallied for several days. Developers are building homes again. Food prices have fallen. The New York Times is calling current economic data a "balm." This morning I even got a phone call from a political reporter who despite newspaper layoffs around the country, was lured by low interest rates into buying a new car.

The Federal Government is making confidence-boosting, citizen-regarding choices. The IRS is planning a tax break for those duped by Madoff. President Obama, like a smart quarterback, responded quickly and decisively to the AIG bonus scandal by dispatching Geithener to behave as a fullback, blocking the corporate executives from misspending taxpayer money.

Dark economic clouds still crowd our fiscal skies but there is undoubtedly a little hint of blue making itself visible. Hope may be more than a campaign slogan, it might just be spendable currency in tough times.

So I am wondering if there is still a market for cynicism. What will all the pundits (including me) do if America proves more resilient than any of us imagined? What if we bounce back in significant and meaningful ways in time for the 2010 midterm elections? What if this is not an economic crisis that rivals the Great Depression, but just the death rattle of wretched two-term presidential mismanagement? What will the pundits do with the good economic news?

Comments (71)

1. "President Obama, like a smart quarterback, responded quickly and decisively to the AIG bonus scandal by dispatching his Treasury Secretary to behave as a fullback, blocking the corporate executives from misspending taxpayers money."

   He can't be too smart a quarterback (based upon your analogy), because it seems he sent his fullback out to block after the play was over..

   personal foul, 15 yards for unneccesary roughness.

   Trying to block employees from receiving their contractual employee compensation is against the law and courts would never uphold it.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 11:44am

2. Don't be gulled so readily ... for a closer look at reality:

   nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/wiliam-black-savages-treasurys-conduct.html

   Posted by sloper at 03/17/2009 @ 11:48am

3. Don't be gulled so readily ... for a closer look at reality:

   nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/wiliam-black-savages-treasurys-conduct.html

   Posted by sloper at 03/17/2009 @ 11:48am

   Not being his claims. There is no one at the DOJ or even Obama who is charging that the insuring of derivatives was illegal.

   And while I said and continue to maintain that there should have been no bailouts, let them all go bankrupt, the govt, Dems and some Republicans and Bush did push the bailouts.

   No one, not the Bush Admin, not the Obama Admin, not the Democratic Congress ever tried to place any restrictions or limitations on AIG's business operations before or during the bailout. Only now, after these compensation agreements have been honored by AIG, does the Govt suddenly cry that they don't like it.

   this is pure political spin. the payouts are pennies on the dollar compared to the actual bailout money to AIG and all of the Banking institutions. This is Obama exercising good old Populist outrage as a political tool to keep his popularity up and the eyes of the populace on what's going on behind the curtain.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 11:57am

4. Maybe the sky was falling, but the Obamesiah saved us.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/17/2009 @ 11:59am

5. If so...good news for America...

   bad news for The Right and the Extreme Left!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 12:04pm

6. If so...good news for America...

   bad news for The Right and the Extreme Left!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 12:04pm

   Somehow I don't conceive of Trillion dollar deficits for the next 20 years plus as good news for America

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:14pm

7. Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 11:44am

   Looks like someone needs to fire the offensive coordinator.

   Posted by ACook at 03/17/2009 @ 12:29pm

8. Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:14pm

   But you had no problem with nearly a trillian on Iraq of course.

   Nor would you have had any problem with trillions more under a more neo-con'ish McCain if he had told you that we needed to go into Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or anywhere else...

   nor if he ordered such invasions as is his "right" as President with or without the Congress's approval....right?

   You're fine with trillions in debt for WAR...just nothing else.

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 12:30pm

9. Posted by ACook at 03/17/2009 @ 12:29pm

   One last question for you on Ms vanden Heuvel's "Afghanistan:Hearings" thread.

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 12:32pm

10. But you had no problem with nearly a trillian on Iraq of course.

    Nor would you have had any problem with trillions more under a more neo-con'ish McCain if he had told you that we needed to go into Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or anywhere else...

    nor if he ordered such invasions as is his "right" as President with or without the Congress's approval....right?

    You're fine with trillions in debt for WAR...just nothing else.

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 12:30pm

    1st of all, wars and national security are constitutional.

    2nd- you know that I have no problem with this if Obama makes those same decisions about launching war.

    3rd. All this multi-trillion dollar spending is doing nothing to improve our economic position. All it is doing is creating future debts we will never be able to pay.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:37pm

11. Good grief Ms Harris-Lacewell, do you have even a fundamental understanding of economics?

    You write, "What if this is not an economic crisis that rivals the Great Depression, but just the death rattle of wretched two-term presidential mismanagement? What will the pundits do with the good economic news?"

    Are you not smart enough to see that your unveiled effort to blame all of this on GW Bush actually reveals the fact that Obama's extraordinary redistribution of wealth may NOT be necessary?!

    Your post strikes as so naive, you probably think Obama has caused the "little hint of blue making itself visible".

    Pathetic.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 12:39pm

12. by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:14pm...

    Just filling the hole left by the economic 'trickstery' and planned mahem of the last ten years... that had little corelation with long reality... for anyone who wasn't inside the trader bubble.

    It is time to put the people first...

    Anyone who blames Obama for responding sensibly to the crisis laid on his doorstep... handed to him as an initiation rite... sluffed off like another crashed and abandoned fighter jet...

    ...is simply re-enacting a failed scenario.

    Posted by ttr at 03/17/2009 @ 12:40pm

13. Oops... I meant to say:

    Just filling the hole left by the economic 'trickstery' and planned mahem of the last ten years... that had little corelation with long term reality... for anyone who wasn't 'inside' the trader bubble.

    Posted by ttr at 03/17/2009 @ 12:45pm

14. No one with any clear understanding of basic economics could possibly write, "Dark economic clouds still crowd our fiscal skies but there is undoubtedly a little hint of blue making itself visible. [and here's the kicker] Hope may be more than a campaign slogan, it might just be spendable currency in tough times."

    Huh? "Spendable currency"? You're kidding, right?

    And Ms Harris-Lacewell also reveals her obvious contempt for the US by stating, "What will all the pundits (including me) do if America proves more resilient than any of us imagined?"

    I have some ideas what you could "do". Read Thomas Sowell's book "Basic Economics"

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 12:59pm

15. I have some ideas what you could "do". Read Thomas Sowell's book "Basic Economics"

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 12:59pm

    A hearty second to that. Sowell is outstanding.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 1:19pm

16. 3rd. All this multi-trillion dollar spending is doing nothing to improve our economic position. All it is doing is creating future debts we will never be able to pay.----Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:37pm

    Where as a war would "improve our economic position" and end up "paying for itself in oil revenues"?!??!???

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 1:20pm

17. Two weeks of less-than-miserable economic indicators is not the end of the crisis at hand. The housing crash will continue to siphon huge sums of money from the economy into oblivion until regionally prices stabilize at their inflation-adjusted historical trend levels. The vast sums of money the USG is pumping into the financial system and partially into a less-than-sufficient stimulus package still have to be financed. Economic indicators pertaining to industrial capacity utilization and employment augur crisis. Momentous crashes don't just go away with a slight gain in housing starts or a monthly job loss figure less than 1/2 million pre-adjustment.

    Posted by syfriendly at 03/17/2009 @ 1:24pm

18. Momentous crashes don't just go away with a slight gain in housing starts or a monthly job loss figure less than 1/2 million pre-adjustment.

    Posted by syfriendly at 03/17/2009 @ 1:24pm

    Apparently they do if a Democrat is in the White House. Didn't you get the memo?

    ;-)

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 1:29pm

19. Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 1:29pm

    Careful, FREI, you're slipping out of "Both parties are flawed" mode.

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 1:31pm

20. Pretty silly. Of course the sky isn't falling: this author has decided it is made of fluff and cannot fall (fail? too big?). We should exercise caution in these times, not throw it to the wind. A few green sprouts do not mean that spring is here...yet. This is a premature e-proclamation.

    Posted by hivanh at 03/17/2009 @ 1:32pm

21. "wars and national security are constitutional"

    (quote of the week)

    Posted by darladoon at 03/17/2009 @ 1:33pm

22. "wars and national security are constitutional"

    (quote of the week)

    Posted by darladoon at 03/17/2009 @ 1:33pm

    Maybe if you ever read the constitution, you might learn a few facts like that.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 1:37pm

23. Unfortunately, whoever wrote this information about housing left out the important fact this the increase was in apartments, not single dwelling homes...as all of those who were forced out of their single dwelling homes are now living in apartments....but good try!

    Posted by afisher at 03/17/2009 @ 1:59pm

24. Well I hate to splash cold water on anyone but here is one incident that should keep the pollyannas at bay; May Lumber futures contract at the Chicago Mercantile closed today down $1.80 and this after a New-home construction rose by an unexpected 22.2 percent in February from a month earlier, the Commerce Department reported, largely because of an increase in condo construction. I hate to be a negative nelly but this "could" be a dead cat bounce, nothing more. Signed,

    I hope I'm wrong.

    Posted by ronmcAllister at 03/17/2009 @ 2:03pm

25. Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 1:29pm

    Careful, FREI, you're slipping out of "Both parties are flawed" mode.

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 1:31pm

    A more careful read, Mask, would reveal my quip is related to the media's cheerleading of the Obama Administration, not a republican vs democrat comparison.

    As you'll recall, one of my pre-election predictions was an Obama White House would receive significantly more support from the MSM. True, but not particularly prescient.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 2:05pm

26. Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 1:37pm

    Yes, DARLA, for instance, did you know that despite the Constitution SPECIFICALLY STATING that "Congress shall have the power to declare war"...

    that Presidents can START wars with no Congressional approval!

    And that "strict constructionalist" believers support that!

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 2:14pm

27. Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 2:05pm

    FREI, again, it just seems that your "both sides are equally bad" fades in and out.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 2:16pm

28. Does anyone remember the tremendous debt we had under Reagan? Somehow that all got wiped away under Clinton, didn't it or was I just dreaming?

    Posted by White Tiger at 03/17/2009 @ 2:26pm

29. Boy is the media coverage a bogus blanket. What truly has changed since Bush left? There are a few potential positives economically (maybe) but look at the sucker punch AIG pulled on Obama's advisors. How about the millions of home owner losers every week/month? Obama can do no wrong it seems, except for a few honest economic/political outspoken thinkers.

    As Al Jolson said, "You ain't seen nothing yet," and W.C. Fields said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

    A few updays in the market and everybody says, "good times coming."

    Wait until the other shoe falls in 3-4 months, and Bernie Madoff will look like a piker with his $50 billion scam.

    Posted by floridahank at 03/17/2009 @ 2:38pm

30. Preident Obama and his policies for recovery is secure on paper and I prey that they work, however if I could offer some advice to him i would tell him to spend less time on a pooch for his children and more time on getting the foxes out of the hen house. Translation; revisit the resumes of your recent appointees.

    Posted by Harry G. at 03/17/2009 @ 2:41pm

31. Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 2:16pm

    Mask, in countless cases both sides are equally bad. I think we can agree on that, no?

    Although I try to avoid hypocrisy, make no mistake I'm conservative, not a liberal.

    I am biased and I don't deny it. Please don't penalize me for having the guts to honestly criticize "my side". ANd when I say both sides are equally bad, I'm only criticizing the right side of the aisle. I expect the left side to be bad, and they never disappoint.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 2:48pm

32. Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 2:48pm

    Well, then you can admit that you TEND to drift towards slamming the Dems more than the Repubs, as they (the Ds) would tend to do more things that you would disagree with?

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 3:11pm

33. Mask, wouldn't the number of times I've been called a fascist here be proof of that without my having to say a word?

    But seriously, when I complained about McCain and Obama, for instance, joining hands in the middle of a supposedly contentious campaign and voting for the TARP, I was criticizing McCain. I expect the democrats to sell out the american taxpayer.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 3:21pm

34. I think it's ridiculous that some of you are bashing on Obama because he hasn't fixed the economy in just 60 days. GW and his band of robber-barons spent 8 years turning a major budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, and their purposeful lack of oversight of the financial industry resulted in the almost total collapse of the capital market. Let's lay blame where it belongs, and the Obama White House is not the place!

    Posted by woboyle at 03/17/2009 @ 3:33pm

35. I expect the democrats to sell out the american taxpayer.----Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 3:21pm

    Yet...(for the benefit of others)-

    "I have not ruled out a vote for Obama. I don't really know jack about Palin. None of us really do."-----Posted by freiheit1 at 09/12/2008 @ 11:18am

    Palin: "You Can't Blink!" And She Didn't posted by John Nichols on 09/11/2008 @ 8:42pm

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 3:35pm

36. I fail to see the pertinance Mask, of this quote you pull out on me now for the second or third time? I didn't like McCain, at that time Palin was an unknown... And Obama (basicaly as unknown to voters in substance as Palin) sold the hell out of his being a moderate.

    My commenting one time in September that I have not ruled out a vote for Obama undermines me how? It was the truth.

    Why not post the quotes where I've contended I was wrong and it was unconstitutional for the US to invade Iraq?

    Instead you sport wood over how clever you feel. You are one weird dude.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 4:01pm

37. "Maybe if you ever read the constitution, you might learn a few facts like that"

    oh, brother

    Posted by darladoon at 03/17/2009 @ 4:05pm

38. "Maybe if you ever read the constitution, you might learn a few facts like that"

    oh, brother

    Posted by darladoon at 03/17/2009 @ 4:05pm

    Well then enlighten me Darla. Show me where the constitution of the US doesn't provide for war or national security?

    I won't hold my breath.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 4:09pm

39. For those who think the last few days of stock market "recovery" is obviously a sign that things are over, take a look at The Four Bad Bears: http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-large.gif

    The "rally" over the last few days in S&P 500 exactly matches, percentage change- wise, the DJIA trajectory during the Great Depression at the exact same number of days into the GD.

    Posted by syfriendly at 03/17/2009 @ 4:38pm

40. Darla, here's a hint, it is a lot easier than finding abortion and gay marriage. You won't even have to make it up. Go ahead, look!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 4:39pm

41. Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009 @ 4:39pm

    Actually, it is. Called the "equal protection clause".

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 7:15pm

42. " I expect the left side to be bad, and they never disappoint."

    Posted by freiheit1 at 03/17/2009

    Not only in your country. In my country we also expect them to be economically incompetent as well as bad in most other policy areas as well. Except some times they exceed our expectations and the word mad can be used.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 03/17/2009 @ 7:40pm

43. <i>Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 7:15pm </i>

    First off, abortion has NOTHING to do with the equal protection clause. People have tried to make arguments otherwise, but those arguments are terrible.

    Gay marriage is a closer case, but I think it still fails. First of all, under current precedent, homosexuality is not a suspect classification. Second, the equal protection clause should not be interpreted that broadly anyway. The meaning it was meant to convey was a shield against racial discrimination; it was never meant to mean anything beyond that.

    The alternative is to argue that the equal protection clause was just meant to ensure that government discrimination of any kind was justified. However, that can't be the standard; since ALL law involves discrimination of some kind, between different individuals or behaviors, this would effectively give the court the broad authority to determine what classifications they thought were legitimate and what classifications were not. In the Court's own words, they "are not a super-legislature," and I would challenge you to find an argument that would require gay marriage under the equal protection clause without making the Court a surrogate legislature.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/17/2009 @ 8:01pm

44. Let me make a caveat, by the way. I think that legislatures should do one of two things:

    1) Expand marriage to include homosexuals, OR

    2) Get out of the marriage business altogether.

    I just don't think that this should be enacted as constitutional law because I do not believe there is any constitutional foundation for doing so.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/17/2009 @ 8:02pm

45. The meaning it was meant to convey was a shield against racial discrimination; it was never meant to mean anything beyond that.-----Posted by Thrawn at 03/17/2009 @ 8:01pm

    Was "freedom of speech" MEANT by the Founders to cover ...broadcast radio and TV?

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 9:09pm

46. <i>Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 9:09pm </i>

    You're confusing a major premise with a minor premise. A major premise of the First Amendment is that communicative expression of individuals ought be protected. The minor premise is where the major premise is applied to a specific case (i.e. broadcast radio).

    The major premise underlying the Fourteenth Amendment was the understanding that racial discrimination was to be made unconstitutional. That major premise would be applied to specific situations.

    Sex discrimination was hardly unheard-of at the time (another reason your analogy falls apart) anyway, so that doesn't work either.

    Finally, though, the view you seemed to be driving towards is deeply problematic. If you don't understand the Equal Protection Clause to give the Court effective legislative power, then what principled standard would you suggest that has any basis in the Constitution?

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/17/2009 @ 9:47pm

47. Thrawn,

    Taking your two caveats, then what of the third option, which is the reality, that marriage is at the least treated as a legislated item? The courts must way in on the legislation, or at least weigh in on it (he said to his secretary).

    Relating to how you see the 14th amendment--historically accurate, for sure--if the Consitution is amended, at the least that implies that the founders did not get it right the first time (which they implicitly acknowledged would be the case since they allowed for amending, however difficult it has become), so where does that weird, gray area between the conservative look at the amendment (never mind the not getting it right the first time idea), and your two caveats fit? How do you reconcile that space? Do you even see a space?

    Thanks.

    Posted by onthehelm at 03/17/2009 @ 11:04pm

48. Not until I see Glass-Steagall renacted, regulation of whacked out derivatives, and some perp walks.

    Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    First you blame BUSH, then you want to reinact legislation that Billy bob Clinton SIGNED into law! You are confused still about who actually passed all the banking and financial legislation that led to this economic debacle. Try looking at the Demoncrats for a change they are the ones the insisted upon and passed the legislation!!!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 01:06am

49. Hmmm if the ground collapses from under ones feet, the sky can stay where it is ... and hope has to be re-coupled with human creativity, for it to be spendable.

    Prophecy: Geithener will become Obama's "Rumsfield," beyond, the situational metaphor of his appointment.

    Posted by V at 03/18/2009 @ 01:24am

50. Posted by snowball666 at 03/18/2009 @ 06:55am

    He'll disappear now....or change the subject.

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 08:42am

51. Maybe the sky was falling, but the Obamesiah saved us. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll

    Thanks for the laugh!

    Posted by abell12ct at 03/18/2009 @ 09:07am

52. Posted by abell12ct at 03/18/2009 @ 09:07am

    (nervous desperate laugh, that is)

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 09:45am

53. Posted by snowball666 at 03/18/2009 @ 10:15am

    All RIO/comanche knows is, he hates the Democratic Party.

    And I mean that literally....it's ALL he knows.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 10:53am

54. He never does tell you what his escape plan is. Why is that?---Posted by snowball666 at 03/18/2009 @ 11:50am

    Because even HE doesn't believe his own "liberal/Demoncrat Armageddon" bulls**t.

    Try it yourself sometime after one of his "Doom! DOOM! Obama will institute a totalitarian socialist state" posts...and then ask him "Okay, so when are you leaving Tulsa for Aruba or El Salvador, comanche?"...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 12:02pm

55. You should read it! Good stuff in there. Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 5:25pm

    Right on snowy.

    It needs to be brought to a clear focus how many committed conservatives think books on economics, even 'Basic Economics' trump what the constitution says, or at the very least they give it greater importance in many ways.

    I'm not saying that 'basic Economics' isn't a meaningful book - you cons better read the whole post, it surely is - but when we get into a war where we spend trillions of dollars in a totally unjustifiable conflict, well, it seems that someone put a bookmark in their economics book and went bowling.

    I don't have to be a heartless financier to realize that we could have put all that money to much better use. It would have paid us out of the current debacle 20 times over, with change.

    p.s. Let's not worry about Rio too much... even his fellow cons have to step away from the drool pool.

    Posted by ficheye at 03/18/2009 @ 1:30pm

56. Until we figure out where jobs will come from, there can be no meaningful recovery.

    The stock market is not the economy.

    Posted by VEH at 03/18/2009 @ 2:41pm

57. Partisan prattle aside, here's a daily column I found on StumbleUpon that may be worth reading. It's on the news site findingDulcinea.com and talks about positive news in the recession.

    <a href=http://is.gd/nVvN>http://is.gd/nVvN</a>

    Posted by DaniDB at 03/18/2009 @ 4:40pm

58. UUUuuhhmmmmm:

    CBS News Poll. March 12-16, 2009. N=1,142 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?"

    Date___Right Direction__Wrong Track__Unsure

    3/12-16/09 ____35________57________8

    2/2-4/09 _____ 23 _______ 68________9

    1/11-15/09_____15________79________6

    12/4-8/08_____12________83________5

    10/25-29/08___ 11________85________4

    10/19-22/08___ 11________85________4

    10/10-13/08____7________89________4

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/18/2009 @ 5:22pm

59. Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. March 5-9, 2009. N=1,070 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"

    Date__Right Direction__Wrong Track__Unsure

    3/5-9/09 ____ 44_______48_________8

    2/6-9/09 ____ 42_______50_________8

    11/6-9/08____ 32_______64_________4

    10/2-6/08____21_______ 73_________6

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/18/2009 @ 5:27pm

60. Dow Jones Industrial Average 03/18/09

    7,486.58______________+90.88 / +1.23%

    52-Week Range (Low - High): 6,469.95 - 13,136.69

    So considering it dropped below 8000 for the 1st time back in October... from a previous high of 14000 a year and a half ago, (a la unregulated derivatives), one can safely conclude that 95% of the drop had already happened before Obama admin stepped in. Plus-- close to '1000' point recovery so far, cannot be construed in any way as going in the wrong direction.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/18/2009 @ 5:44pm

61. <i>Posted by onthehelm at 03/17/2009 @ 11:04pm </i>

    If marriage is legislated on, then the courts naturally have to weigh in, but the only basis on which they can strike down existing distinctions in marriage law is unconstitutionality.

    I also don't think amendments have quite the implication you think they do; in fact, I think they support my philosophy rather than challenging it. They do say, as you point out, that the Founders didn't get everything right, or that what they thought then won't work so well now. The key question is this: who gets to make that call? Because THEY knew they wouldn't get everything right, the Constitution provides for an amendment process to fix mistakes. Amendments are hard to get, but that was intentional because you don't want sea changes in the structure or limitations of government to be easy.

    They also, in order to get the consent of the governed behind any such sea change, specifically ensured that the amendment process would be done by LEGISLATIVE means, NOT by judicial means. That, plus other democratic theory argument, is why I tend to think that judicial decisions which effectively amend the Constitution are beyond the bounds of what the Court should be doing.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2009 @ 6:28pm

62. Well said Thrawn. I guess while I wish we lived in a world where there was a vehicle for stable, committed hetero or homo couples, we don't. We live in a world where this institution is co-opted by some strange blend of Hollywood and fundamentalism, for the most part, with huge amounts of dysfunction, cheating, fighting, abuse, molestation, volatility and divorce. So the institution is too broken to take on the sort of mix of stable and crazy gays that would occur. Said better, marriage in this country is already enough of an illusion. Very sad for the millions of loving, ethical, committed and fabulous gay couples.

    Posted by winyahn at 03/18/2009 @ 9:30pm

63. <i>Posted by winyahn at 03/18/2009 @ 9:30pm </i>

    First, though I hope this does not trivialize your post, I am slightly amused by your (deliberate?) use of the word "fabulous" there.

    Second, I really like the phrase "strange blend of Hollywood and fundamentalism." I think there's also a strange blend of the old property understanding and the relatively newer romance understanding that makes things even more interesting.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2009 @ 10:35pm

64. I think it's ridiculous that some of you are bashing on Obama because he hasn't fixed the economy in just 60 days. GW and his band of robber-barons spent 8 years turning a major budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, and their purposeful lack of oversight of the financial industry resulted in the almost total collapse of the capital market. Let's lay blame where it belongs, and the Obama White House is not the place! Posted by woboyle at 03/17/2009 @ 3:33pm |

    Not until I see Glass-Steagall renacted, regulation of whacked out derivatives, and some perp walks.

    Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person ----------------------------------------- You bash BUSH, mention a bill Clinton signed when he could have VETOED it after passing a republican majority congress; then 6 hrs later you and "ASK" feel somehow vindicated!

    You NEGLECTED to mention the final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

    This must be a game for complete fools who exist merely to HATE BUSH to the exclusion of all other subjects?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 10:37pm

65. Since the International Monetery Fund has rated Canadas' banking system #1 for stability and early recovery and the United States #44 I take this with a pinch of salt. They rated China #13, Germany #38 and Japan #41 so it looks like our corrupt system is paying off for AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives and to hell with the rest of the country. Maybe we should all head North to Canada..if thy will have us!

    Posted by esthermem at 03/19/2009 @ 03:05am

66. This must be a game for complete fools who exist merely to HATE BUSH to the exclusion of all other subjects?----Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 10:37pm

    Ironic or the most massively hypocritical statement on the "TN" blog in years?

    heheh...sub "BUSH" for "Obama and Democrats" and isn't that RIO?

    Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 07:55am

67. I'm a fairly new reader here. Why are there so many crack-brained comments by right wingers on these blogs? Is this all they have to do?

    Posted by SK9 at 03/19/2009 @ 09:11am

68. Posted by SK9 at 03/19/2009 @ 09:11am

    Not much point in working on a "road back"....with an incompetent, even self-immolating RNC Chair....Gingrich and Mark Sanford attacking Limbaugh...Beauty Queen Granny and an exorcist as their "new faces"....and 40% of a "wasteful socialist spending bill" sponsored by THEIR House Repubs...

    it's not like they're going to be needed at any campaign headquarters anytime soon.

    Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 10:00am

69. I'm a fairly new reader here. Why are there so many crack-brained comments by right wingers on these blogs? Is this all they have to do?

    Posted by SK9 at 03/19/2009 @ 09:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Whatcha got there, SK, is a party with a split-personality disorder, in full oscillation mode right now, in a crescendo of conflict about whether to recall the old hands to the helm, or to "move on" with new talent.

    Whatever that may be.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/19/2009 @ 10:40am

70. ...Is this all they have to do? Posted by SK9

    Imagine a whole troupe of people in an institution with Hannibal Lecter masks on. Listening to podcasts of Rush Limbaugh, they type madly, ranting about 'those on the left'. These are the sad victims of the financial crisis, and they seek out small animals to torture. They shout about socialism, they thumb through a thesaurus while they admonish other bloggers about their lame opinions. Obamanation, Demoncrats! Members of the drool pool!

    While it does seem like they might have other more pressing issues to attend to, the truth is that they really don't. They lie in wait for the mention of 'hope' and 'change', then in they come, yelling about how they soon plan to leave this country, to take all of their savings, which have been converted to gold, or francs, or whatever, and spend the rest of their days in luxurious comfort on some tropical Isle, while the rest of us languish in our misery.

    But they're still here. A fun group!

    Posted by ficheye at 03/20/2009 @ 12:02am

71. This must be a game for complete fools who exist merely to HATE BUSH to the exclusion of all other subjects? Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 10:37pm

    Oh, good lord, no! I hate Cheney too! And Rumsfield, There's so much hate and so little time!

    Posted by ficheye at 03/20/2009 @ 12:30am