In the course of the couple of hours since my post below, I learned that I made a mistake: Supporters of the marriage amendment actually had one less vote this time than in 2004. At least, I think that’s right. I relied on a report by Catholic web site that I either read wrong or it was wrong. Problem is the link isn’t working. In any case, here is the 2004 vote.

Meanwhile, the AP must have checked the facts, as they have completely re-written the story, reframing it has a definite loss for amendment supporters. But in versions written by the same reporter apparently within minutes of one another, amendment backers either lost or gained one vote since ‘04. Here’s the lead of the AP story as it appeared on the Forbes web site. Emphasis mine.

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hoped to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.

Supporters knew they wouldn’t achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a majority of votes. Instead, they fell one short, 49-48.

That was one vote more than they got last time the Senate voted on the matter, in 2004.

“We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn’t happen today,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment’s supporters. “Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better.”

“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

Wednesday’s vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally in the Senate. The 2004 vote was 48-50.

Here’s how it appeared on the Yahoo news site.

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing an embarrassing defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hoped to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.

Supporters knew they wouldn’t achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a gain in votes over the last time the issue came up, in 2004. Instead, they lost one vote for the amendment in a procedural test tally that ended up 49-48.

“We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn’t happen today,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment’s supporters. “Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better.”

“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan.

Wednesday’s vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally in the Senate. The 2004 vote was 50-48.

Washington Post Fred Barbash says it was one vote less than last time.

Let’s see how the cable shows & MSM frame it throughout the rest of the day. And let’s hope a Democrat other than Sen. Kennedy gets quoted.

The U.S. Senate failed to pass the marriage amendment this morning. Meanwhile, the Dems shot themselves in the foot.

Often, the first story, most likely an AP wire story, on a breaking issue helps define the argument for the echo chamber that is the evening cable gabfests. Which is why it’s so important to have your message ready when the news breaks. Especially in this case, where the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

The amendment backers got some help from the AP writer, Laurie Kellman. She led with an arguably inaccurate framing of the issue.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but supporters said new votes for the measure represent progress that gives conservative Republicans reason to vote on Election Day.

The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate. The amendment’s failure was no surprise, but supporters said the vote reflected growing support among senators and Americans.

“We’re building votes,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is among supporters of the ban who were not in the Senate when the amendment was last voted on in 2004. “That’s often what’s required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote.”

In fact, they got only one more vote than they did in 2004. That’s hardly represents progress for an issue that conservatives says is steamrolling in their favor.

Much farther down in the story is the Democrats’ self-inflicted wound. The trigger was pulled by the Dems’ resident hothead.

“The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. “A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.”

Se. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) had the perfect comeback.

In response, Hatch fumed: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?”

Again, defining supporters of the amendment as bigots–whether or not they are–is not they way to change their minds. A much better reply would have been:

“Those who wanted to restrict the rights of American citizens could muster no more votes than they essentially did last time. Marriage in America can indeed be strengthened. But we do it by building stronger families and stronger communities that help all Americans deal with the stresses of everyday life. We don’t do it by preventing gay people from being a part of that process. The American constitution has always been about inclusion, not exclusion. The Senate, today, agreed.”

Building resonant themes, and articulating them confidently, is what I believe helps win elections, whether they be for president or the House of Delegates. Sure you need the ground troops to get out your voter. In a House race you can actually reach out and touch a sizable portion of your electorate. But to get people, especially independent voters and the moderates from the other party, you need to create an impression that you’re a good person who will work for what you can confidently articulate are the voters’ best interests.

Building that message takes time. Most folks know what Republicans stand for: smaller government, strict moral values, less taxes. But Democrats can’t put what they believe into simple themes, partly because they’re spending their time trying not to offend specific interest groups. Even if that weren’t true, it is a given in the media and, consequently, in the minds of the voters. To overcome it, they need a campaign to build themes, not wonkish policy ideas, that people can embrace.

This, from Joe Klein’s Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized by People Who Think You’re Stupid.

[Karl] Rove’s assumption [in planning the Bush 2000 campaign] was that voters had three basic questions about a candidate: Is he a strong leader? Can I trust him? Doe he care about people me?

…Everything flowed from that; every paragraph in the stump speech, every radio spot and direct mail piece was vetted on its relevance to those questions. The last of these three–Does he care about people like me?–was always toughest for a Republican, and Karl Rove had spent the past fifteen years learning how to convince dyed-in-the-wool Texas Democrats, especially suburban women, that Republicans really did care about them. Yes, Bush would run on the same themes that every Republican had run on since Reagan: Military Strength, Lower Taxes, Traditional Values. Beneath these, however, was a Bush-Rove addendum to Traditional Values: “compassionate conservative.” Specific issues were adopted by the campaign only as they illuminated that theme–and this was the big difference from the Democrats.

[Bush friend and media consultant Mark] McKinnon could easily imagine his old [Democratic] colleagues hunkered down and sweaty, arguing over the precise details of Gore’s position on global warming–labor needed this, the tree huggers wanted that. Democrats had trouble seeing the forest for the tree huggers: Republicans didn’t sweat the details. Oh, the Republican business interests would get their wish list agenda–especially tort reform, a Bush-Rove favorite. And the religious right would get a nod–funding for faith-based social programs–and a wink on hotter issues like abortion and gay rights. And the National Rifle association just knew that Bush was with them all the way. But the essence of the campaign was the presentation of personality, not policy. Indeed policy was often merely a tactical reaction to Democratic initiatives. Gore had had an elaborate prescription-drug plan for the elderly; Bush was for that, too, and arguably with a better general principle–take care of the poorest old people first–but with none of Gore’s heavy sluggish details. Two or three national reporters might sift through the entrails of the competing drug plans and declare Gore more comprehensive. But there wasn’t a single, breathing swing voter in the fifty United States who would make his or her presidential decision on the basis of which candidate had the better prescription plan for the elderly.

McKinnon was amazed that Democrats had never quite figured this out. In fact, they had it ass-backwards. A guy like {Democratic consultant] Stan Greenburg would take a poll to learn which issues people cared about–inevitably, jobs, healthcare, education–and then the Dems would try to figure out the best ways to talk about those policies. They would use these abstractions–government initiatives!–to sell their candidate to the public that no longer trusted government. The character of the candidate, they believed, would be inferred from the quality of his policies. How quaint. In the television era, fleeting impression counted for far more than cogent policies. Fleeting impressions were all most people had time for. Presidential politics was all about character…or rather, the appearance of character. Did he (or she) seem strong? Trustworthy? Car about people like me? The utter simplicity of it was astonishing: it wasn’t about the economy, stupid.

It was about the appearance of caring about the economy, stupid.

Some may argue that the appearance of caring has been shattered by breathtaking incompetence. But the question still remains: How do Democrats deliver the appearance of competence?

For Virginia Democrats, the House GOP leadership has certainly demonstrated its willingness to let the state infrastructure crumble to hold fast to their principles. But what are the Democrats principles, other than we’re willing to spend taxpayer money to fix things?

Apropos of my post this morning, Frameshop has good post about framing the gay marriage debate. I can’t get the permalink to work, but it’s the only post yesterday.

Incompetence! Let’s not talk about “simply breathtaking and overwhelming.” That’s Shania Twain in the buff. This is incompetence.

It always mystifies me that the Dems can’t seem to string together themes among issues.

NPR apparently had a story recently where a reporter asked an Army Corps of Engineer representative, “You hear people who are really pissed at the Corps. What do you say to those people?”
Some listeners were outraged. (Scroll to “Getting Angry At the Army Corps of Engineers.”)

I’m not, but I do think it’s an example of impolite language that shouldn’t be part of a public discussion. Of course, I use it all the time. So do my late-teen and early-20 children. I used to correct them when they were younger. Now, I suggest they not use it in a job interview or in a paper they’re writing.

It’s all about the coarsening of public debate, and yes, it is a “morals” issue or a “value” issue, Dems ought to accept, rather than suggest people who complain about such language are prudes.

I like Klein’s new book, but Media Matters has little stomach for the guy.

Thanks to Political Animal for pointing this one out.

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

First of all, kudos to the guests on today’s Diane Rehm Show on WAMU radio. The debate was civil between Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution and author of Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, and Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and editor of www.MarriageDebate.com.

He is gay and author of a recent and thoughtful op-ed piece in the New York Times about why marriage has become important to the gay community.

I often wonder why, in such interviews, more reporters don’t ask the simple question: What is the threat to traditional marriage if we allow gay marriages? Well, Susan Paige, the USA Today reporter sitting in for Rehm, didn’t quite articulate it clearly, but Gallagher did respond with what I assume for her was the reason.

I think it would make enormous difference for our understanding of what marriage is. Marriage is a great cross-cultural, historic, inter-faith, idea [that] has been rooted in the fact that sex between men and women makes babies. You need to make the next generation, and those children need a father as much as a mother. And to say that two men in a loving union, two men in a union, a loving union, are a marriage is to say that marriage is not about this thing anymore. We won’t have a word that means bringing together the two halves of humanity to make and raise the next generation.

So this marriage amendment fight is to preserve a word? Well, let’s call gay marriage something else! Let’s call it Cockamony or Vagimony. Hell, I’m open to suggestions.

Seriously, if we’re worried that children need fathers and mothers, let’s focus on the marriages that produce a sizable majority of them. That would be the heterosexual ones. They are the ones that are failing our children. If Gallagher, who seemed sincere and not bigoted at all, can’t come up with a better answer, let’s keep asking the question.

Her second point was that if gay marriage is accepted, people who believe in only heterosexual marriages will be branded bigots, with “enormous social consequences.” You know, white folks who opposed integration, seemed to get over being branded bigots. I mean, they didn’t get ostracized from society. In fact, many of them ran for office and won prominent positions in our government. It’s like saying we’ve got to stop Italians from marrying because if we don’t, people who hate Italians will be called bigots. We wouldn’t want that to happen.

Gallagher has gotten a lot of mileage in the last couple of months promoting a study that shows in Massachusetts, few gay couples are getting married. There are many reasons only about 16% have. Rauch say that’s the case in Europe because marriage has been devalued. I’ve known a number of young European women who lived with our family when my kids were young, and indeed they can’t understand why we’re so hung up about sex outside of marriage and why marriage is so necessary for commitment. (Get your mind out of the gutter; that’s not what I meant.) One young woman’s mother, widowed when she was young, lived with a man for decades afterwards. Her daughter has built a home with her partner. They haven’t married and really haven’t thought about it.

As Rauch points out, in the U.S., it’s very different. He also points out that saying only 16% of gays have married in Massachusetts is misleading. They’ve only been able to for a couple of years, and they don’t have a lot of role models to choose from. But more important, since legalization, gays are apparently marrying at the same rate as heterosexuals.

Gary Gates, a specialist in gay demography at the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, was given an advance look at the study. He disagreed with Gallagher’s suggestion that relatively few gays and lesbians were opting for marriage.

Looking specifically at the Massachusetts data, and noting the limited time period of 20 months, he contended that a sharply higher percentage of gays and lesbians were deciding to marry than heterosexuals of marrying age.

We know why the marriage amendment is important. It’s politically important. But how will it harm traditional marriage? I’ve yet to hear an even plausible, let alone good, answer.

In a post yesterday, I pointed out that Gov. Kaine won at least nine Virginia House of Delegates districts where the Democrats didn’t even put up an opponent.  That’s inexcusable.  Do you think the GOP won back the House by not putting up candidates?

Those unopposed candidates raised about $1.6 million last cycle that they didn’t have to spend to defend themselves and instead could give to other candidates.  In all, 33 GOP delegates were unopposed in ’05.  They raised $4.37 million dollars.

Here’s the data:

Those highlighted in green are the districts Kaine won.  (I ignored Potts’ votes in determining percentages and didn’t include absentee votes.)  The five districts in beige are those where Kaine came within 5 points of beating Kilgore; those in yellow are where the governor came within 10 points.  And yet, the Democrats did not challenge any of these Republicans.  I’m not saying that Dems could have won any of these districts.  But they’ll never get to a majority if they don’t put up candidates!

The first candidate may be sacrificial, or they could become delegates the second time around, but in any case, these GOP members need to be softened for the kill.  Does the caucus have the capability to recruit candidates.  The will, perhaps, but clearly it’s not doing the job it should be. 

There were about a dozen new Democratic delegates elected in ’05.  Perhaps they need to be tasked with the recruitment responsibility.  They have the most current and realistic experience, not to mention credibility, to make them effective recruiters.

Why? Several things:

1. Leadership. The Democrats in the Assembly — at least in the House — are deferential to the governor’s office.  But by one of his senior aide’s own admission, Tim Kaine did not use this past election to build the party.  Maybe he will now, but he’s gone in four years.  Delegates can be there for decades.  Shouldn’t they take the lead?

2. Recruitment. Party officials haven’t been successful in recruiting candidates.  There’s new blood there now.  Maybe they can do a better job.  However, the reason there’s new blood is because there’s a new governor.  Which means in four years, they’ll be another new team to start over again.  And because the party doesn’t pay great salaries, it’s hard to get seasoned individuals who will stick around. 

3. Myopia of money.  There seems to be a sense that all it takes to win an election is money.  And the only way to spend that money is during the actual delegate campaign, 90% of it in October and November and most of it on mailers, robo calls and polls.  There is little investment upfront in seeding the ground for Democratic candidates by developing messages, policies and positions that resonate with voters.  Sure it’s true that most voters don’t start thinking about the campaigns until a few weeks before the election, but they think about issues for a long time.  Shouldn’t some of the money be spent in developing them?

4. “Consensunitis.” Best I can tell, the Democrats are so fearful of upsetting certain interest groups, they can’t do anything unless they have consensus.  Having talked privately with several Republican delegates, I can tell you they don’t have consensus, but they have solidarity.  Granted, the GOP has the power of retribution on its caucus that Democrats really don’t, being in the minority.  But other than Johnny Joannou, where are those who lose on an issue going to go if they don’t get their way.  Someone needs to step up and lead.

5. Fear of Failure.  Democrats don’t seem to want to rock the GOP boat that is listing badly.  The adage that when you’re opponent is self-destructing, the best offense is to get out of the way seems to drive them to distraction.  But to unseat an incumbent, you’ve got to more than just wound him, you’ve got to destroy him and paint yourself as a hero.  But in 33 races last year, the Dems didn’t even have a warm body, much less a hero.