There is some justice in the world.

“We could end up with nothing for transportation, but I believe doing nothing is better than doing too little and making it appear for political purposes that we have done something significant,” [Sen. Ken] Stolle said.

A few months ago, a leader of the Northern Virginia transportation forces told me the exact same thing: that any new money that falls short of $1 billion a year is worse than no money at all. Looks like he may have gotten his wish, with the Senate caving to the anti-tax ideologues in the House.

There’s a provision for $339 million if the House eventually agrees to a sustainable source of revenue. Who determines what’s sustainable is anybody’s guess. I suspect the House will push for a higher figure though based principally on the surplus, meaning it’s not sustainable. The House leaders will hope to claim victory and seek to solidify their power.

But politically, this could be the best thing for Virginia Democrats. If a comprehensive plan had passed, it’s doubtful that by Nov. 2007 there would be tangible results that voters could touch and feel and drive on. Many wouldn’t have been convinced that such a plan really improved their commute. But as they sit in traffic a year and a half hence, Dems should now be able to claim every single Republican House member at fault for the traffic mess.

This gives Dems time to do what they heretofore haven’t done. Outline precisely what a sustainable revenue stream could do for traffic. There must be plenty of models to employ that can show if we have x amount of dollars, we can build this project which can reduce commute time on this artery by x number of minutes. If they can’t, the state of transportation planning is in a sorrier state than I realized.

They also need to engage those who say the idea that we can pave our way out of traffic congestion is wrong-headed. Those who say land use planning is key need to be engaged to the point they need to tell us when we can expect relief.

The fact is neither side has outlined a compelling argument. Yes, I think we need to wean folks from the idea that they can drive whenever and wherever they please without significant consequence. It would be nice to live in a European type city where mass transit can take you everywhere and all but the poorest live in center city apartments, not exurbia McMansions. But how do you realistically get there? And how many years must we suffer gridlock before we arrive in Nirvana? It seems to me that such an existence could easily take two to three generations. Is that really politically feasible? And if it isn’t, then it’s no solution at all.

It seems to me we need both better land use planning and a lot more money to expand our transportation systems. It would behoove Dems to discuss, cogitate and develop such a vision. By Nov. 2007 would be nice.

This weekend The Washington Post carried a story headlined “Democrats to Focus on Fuel.” The real story is not about their energy plans. In fact, the real headline was the first three words.

Their marching orders even include instructions for how to select locations, recruit participants and set up camera shots.

The story concluded with:

House and Senate Republicans also have energy proposals, although they have yet to coalesce around a single package.

My how times have changed. All of a sudden the Dems are rallying around a message and the Republicans are stumbling. The keys here are that Dems are beginning to think about having any message and then giving their troops directions on how to implement it.

Let’s hope this is only the beginning.

In light of the continuing GOP meltdown, Democrats all over are being forced to confront “The Big Question” about their chances of winning in November. The question that must keep rolling over in their heads and which remains largely unasked, or asked only in jest, is: “How are we going to mess this up?”

For now, the fairest answer may be that nothing the Democrats do or say can make any difference in halting the Republican self-immolation that has been proceeding apace. But there is a real nervousness — and not just in Washington — that the Democratic Party will find a way to turn the good news into bad by the time Election Day rolls around.

Many have reasonably surmised that Republicans, in light of their poor poll numbers, will at some point start playing hardball. They worry that when that happens Democrats will not be prepared to adequately respond. Defeat has a long, bitter aftertaste, and defeatism is a hard habit to kick.

In fact, the idea that Dems don’t have a message is the first hurdle they must overcome, and it will take more than a weekend of talk about gas prices. As reported this morning, the GOP . is developing its November strategy.

Aides point to the president’s last spike in the polls, which came late last year after Iraqi elections and a series of Iraq speeches by Bush. A top adviser said Rove and White House political director Sara M. Taylor are advising candidates not to duck the issue of Iraq but rather to make it a centerpiece of their campaigns.

The Rove-Taylor view is that one-third of Americans agree with liberal Democrats calling for immediate withdrawal and another third support staying the course. The middle third wants a new strategy, but would be leery of pulling out and leaving behind a volatile Iraq, a position strategists believe leaves those voters open to persuasion.

… Perhaps the most important element of the emerging strategy will be to “move from a referendum to a choice,” as Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman put it. Instead of a verdict on Bush, Republicans want to frame the election as a contest with Democrats, confident that voters unhappy with the president will find the opposition even more distasteful.

“We’re moving from a period where the public looks at things and says thumbs-up or thumbs-down, to a time when they have a choice between one side or the other,” Mehlman said.

Much of this is perception. It matters less what the Dems actually propose, but that they hammer home a vision, any vision. Doing so will make it seem there is a choice. If that is the case, the vote will not come done to a choice of visions but competence. The question to ask voters is “Do you have confidence that the GOPers have the competence to make things happen?” And that answer will surely be “No.”

Virginia Democrats must do the same thing if they are to regain the House and Senate in Richmond. At a breakfast meeting this morning with a Democrat thinking of running against an entrenched right-wing Senator, a House member was asked if the Democratic lawmakers have a transportation plan of their own. The answer was no because the leadership was following the old advice about just standing by when your opponent is self-destructing.

That’s a cop out that will hurt in the long run. I look not to just the next election but to the next redistricting. If we are to gain enough seats in ’07 and ’09 to regain control — and control of the redistricting process — then Dems need to develop a message now, test it in many forums, refine it and then implement it through many months of neighborhood meetings, speeches to interest groups, op-eds, letters to the editor, editorial board meetings, speeches on the Assembly floor, etc.

So far, we don’t have the advantage that Warner had. First of all, he had to spend two years cutting the budget. That gave him credibility and an accomplishment that moderates and conservatives appreciated. Right now, Gov. Tim Kaine doesn’t have a lot he can point to as accomplishments. Unless this transportation debates ends with a clear win for him, what will the party have to crow about? And how do you keep the momentum going until ’09?

Dems need to develop messages that will resonate and counter the rather narrow drumbeat of conservative — low taxes and restrictive social policies. Now is the time to start developing them.

I was surprised and pleased (and responsive) when I recently received a solicitation from a religious group from the left. I have often wondered where they were.

The Washington Post has a round-up story this morning. These three ‘graphs caught my eye.

Conservative Christian activist Gary L. Bauer said the religious left “is getting more media attention” but “it’s not clear” that it is getting more organized.

“My reaction is ‘Come on in, the water’s fine’ . . . but I think that when you look at frequent church attenders in America, they tend to be pro-life and support marriage as one man and one woman, and so I think the religious left is going to have a hard time making any significant progress” with those voters, he said.

…Liberal evangelicals are ” leaping out of the closet and they are saying ‘Enough is enough,’ ” said Jack Pannell, spokesman for Sojourners, a Washington-based evangelical social justice ministry. “Evangelical Christians are not all white people living in the suburbs and only concerned with abortion and same-sex marriage.”

Without some research I can’t disprove what my neighbor Gary Bauer says. But I’ll leave you with this from “The Politics of Definition”:

In reality, emerging suburban voters are tax-sensitive and concerned about government waste, but not ideologically antigovernment. They tend to be religious and family-oriented, but socially moderate (emphasis added) in comparison to rural residents. They are not anti-business, but they do hold populist attitudes toward corporate abuse and people who game the system. And they worry as much or more about public education as they do about moral values. (Teixeira, “The Next Frontier: A New Study of Exurbia”)

Kudos to the Virginia lawmakers willing to participate in a press conference denouncing the marriage amendment question that will be on the ballot this November. But the amendment is likely to be approved unless an effective campaign can be waged by opponents. Do they have the strategy?

Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, Equality Virginia campaign chair, said that despite the odds, she believes the fight against the amendment can be won. She said that when volunteers are able to engage people in conversation and help them to understand that the amendment is not just about marriage, their views are swayed.

That strategy seemed plausible and opponents received a welcomed boost when the General Assembly voted to put the wording of the entire amendment on the ballot. It seemed too easy a victory at the time, and it has proved so when earlier this month the Assembly approved an explanation that many feel is inaccurate.

“marriage in the Commonwealth creates specific legal rights, benefits, and obligations for a man and a woman. There are other legal rights, benefits, and obligations which will continue to be available to unmarried persons, including the naming of an agent to make end-of-life decisions . . . protections afforded under Domestic Violence laws . . . ownership of real property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship . . . or disposition of property by will.”

That explanation will be given to voters at polling places and used in brochures that local registrars will distribute. There’s little question that it’s a political document that contradicts what many believe will be the consequences of the amendment’s passage.

But Marc Fisher of The Washington Post suggests that arguing that the amendment is a legal catastrophe may not be the most potent argument.

[A]lmost never do amendment opponents come right out and say that homosexuality exists, and most Americans know and love someone who is gay, and the country should figure out what it wants to do about that.

… There is, of course, an emotional appeal to be made for gay unions — after all, most Americans know someone in a committed gay relationship — but Democratic candidates generally won’t go there.

Whatever your beliefs about sexuality and the state’s role in marriage, one thing is certain: When one side goes straight to voters’ emotions while the other asks them to examine the legalities, the outcome is all but assured.

Fisher elaborates in his online discussion yesterday.

What I find so curious is the reluctance on the part of the gay advocates who are working on the anti-amendment campaign to make the case for the social good that is represented by any stable, committed relationships. My own personal view is that government should play no role in marriage of any kind, but even with that perspective, I see social merit in long-term, stable families of any stripe.

Amendment proponents argue that marriage is under attack and that gay unions threaten the institution of marriage. Too often, they are allowed to make that argument without being asked “How so?” It seems that if every pol in such discussions would ask that question and repeatedly press for an answer, the absurdity of the argument would be more apparent to voters.

Fisher also nicely debunks the argument that gay marriages will somehow lead to strange unions, bestiality and polygamy.

I’m not sure there’s good grounds for the state getting involved there, either. Most religions have very strong taboos against polygamy, for good reason. Doesn’t that really serve the necessary purpose? Wouldn’t you agree that the main reason most people steer clear of polygamy is because they are raised to believe it is morally wrong? Does the law against polygamy really have an impact on people’s overwhelming decision to stick to one on one marriage? There are many aspects of life that are best governed by ethical and moral codes that have nothing to do with law.

Twenty years from now, there will be a quietly effective campaign to overturn all these marriage amendments. If opponents were wiling to make the emotional argument, instead of the legalistic one, we might find the day will come sooner when our children will wonder “what were they thinking?”

Two stories about the Pennsylvania elections Tuesday. One in The New York Times says the ouster of more than a dozen state lawmakers in the primaries was caused by the revolt of Club for Growth style conservatives. But The Washington Post story makes no mention of the right-wing group’s claims of victory. But both articles seem to agree it proves the vulnerability of incumbents in general and GOP incumbents in particular. Either way, it suggests the implosion of the GOP. Note in the Times story:

While conservatives were cheering, G. Terry Madonna, an election analyst at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said the results could cheer Democrats, as well.

Dr. Madonna pointed to a special election in Chester County, outside Philadelphia, where a Democrat, Andrew Dinniman, won a Senate seat in a district dominated by Republicans. As the party moves right, Dr. Madonna said, “the moderate Republicans may vote for Democrats now.”

On blogs and talk radio shows, conservatives have been engaged in an intramural debate about whether to work hard in the November Congressional elections or sit them out to punish Republican Party leaders.

Chester County is nothing like Loudoun County. It’s established and it is growing slowly and older. But it’s another example where suburbanites might be turning blue.

Democrats may have swelled chests this morning after reading the latest poll results from The Washington Post. I wished I had saved the version that appeared online last night at about 5:30. If I recall correctly, this morning’s story was re-edited to bring higher into the story two warning to Democrats:

One is a growing disaffection with incumbents generally. When asked whether they were inclined to reelect their current representative to Congress or look around for someone new, 55 percent said they were open to someone else, the highest since just before Republicans captured control of Congress in 1994. That suggests that some Democratic incumbents could feel the voters’ wrath, although as the party in power Republicans have more at risk.

The second warning for Democrats is that their improved prospects for November appear driven primarily by dissatisfaction with Republicans rather than by positive impressions of their own party. Congressional Democrats are rating only slightly more favorably than congressional Republicans, and 52 percent of those surveyed said the Democrats have not offered a sharp contrast to Bush and the Republicans.

If I’m correct, the edits were probably an attempt to be more “balanced.” Whatever the reason, I’m glad the editors made the changes. It’s now less likely that readers might not have gotten to the these two paragraphs that were much farther down in the online story.

Reading the data, there is more cause for caution. The number of voters who say they prefer a Democratic candidate hasn’t changed since last November. All this bad news and declining support for Bush hasn’t made Democrats any more appealing. They were at the same 52% last November. And they have made no progress (still at 44% since November) in convincing the majority of Americans that they have a clear agenda. (Granted, those who say their vote for Congress will be to show opposition to Bush is much higher today than it was in 1998 against President Clinton just before the November elections that swept the GOP into power in Congress.)

As I’ve said before, in the long run being the other guy doesn’t get you very far. If the Dems win control, Republicans then become the other guys.

But the Dems still seemed paralyzed, afraid to make a mistake. They’re afraid to outline an agenda. Yet, what we’ve learned over the past five years is that having an agenda and fighting for it gives you a lot of traction with voters. It wasn’t until the Iraq War clearly turned south and other problems piled on that voters became disenchanted with Bush and his cronies. What Dems should have learned from this is that they need to stake out some territory, outline some policies and promote the hell out of them. They’ll win a lot of votes just for having positions. Once they win and try to implement them, the other thing I hope they learned is that if those policies don’t pan out, they quickly change course, modify them and try to make them better.

Virginia Democrats are hoping for the same voter discontent to help them regain the GA, at least by 2009. And some GOPers are worried, too.

Republicans in Virginia’s General Assembly are growing fearful that voters could become frustrated with their party’s recent failures to complete state budgets on time and take out their anger at the polls.

Many worry that Democrats are poised to use the Virginia GOP’s years-long intraparty feud over taxes and spending as a potent political tool to argue that Republicans are too divided to govern.

But Virginia Democrats so far have offered little as alternatives. The tax hike of ’04 and the proposal this year would not have happened without Republican support.

“Republicans are in control, and this battle in leadership is within the Republican Party,” Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr. (R-Augusta) said. “The Democrats, even though they may see some political opportunity in it, are basically bystanders, onlookers. It’s something we need to sort out as Republicans. Ultimately, if we don’t sort it out in a timely manner, we won’t remain the majority party.”

Bystanders, indeed. Even the Governor has seemed to become a bystander lately. He and fellow Dems seem to be following that old (and worn out) advice:

“When you don’t have the power, you can’t really be blamed for anything,” said Stephen J. Farnsworth, an associate professor of political science at Mary Washington University. “It’s the first rule of politics: When the other party is shooting itself in the foot, get out of the way.”

But when you “get out of the way,” the best place to go is into the back office to plot an alternative you can offer voters in the next election. Strong communities is one theme. Bi-artisan redistricting is another. “Level playing field” and a “legacy to our grandchildren” is another. But now is the time to test these themes and create policies behind them, not two months before the election.

In the national picture, we hear that we’ll get some themes, but not before late summer. Let’s hope it’s not to late. But I can assure you that the national Dems have been hammering out those themes for months. Are the Virginia Dems doing the same?

Raising Kaine points out Bush’s Va. numbers. Three things jump out:

1. Hispanics still like the guy.
2. The less education, the less the general population likes him [clarified from earlier version].
3. His lowest numbers are the central Va., not NOVA.

The Roanoke Times cites the Mallaby op-ed I alluded to Monday to argue that tax cuts don’t boost the economy. The editors add:

There’s no way of knowing what federal revenues would be doing right now if the Bush tax cuts had never passed. But it is possible to compare this recovery to past recoveries, and the current one pales in comparison.

A study by the liberal Economic Policy Institute compared several measures of recovery since the peak of the last business cycle to the previous four recoveries. In every measure, the current recovery is falling short.

Gross domestic product and gross domestic income are rebounding more slowly than average. Job creation and the employment rates are far below average for a typical recovery.

All those measures increased faster after the 1991 recession, even as President Clinton raised taxes.

As the EPI study concluded, “Although the tax cuts have failed to boost economic performance, they have not failed to reduce revenues substantially. In the recently completed fiscal year 2005, the combined effect of the tax cuts passed since 2001 was $225 billion without interest.”

With interest costs included, the tax cuts reduced federal revenue by $260 billion. Thus four-fifths of the $317 billion deficit in 2005 can be attributed to tax cuts Republicans insist pay for themselves.

Sebastian Mallaby has a good column this morning about the canard that tax cuts increase revenues. He debunks it using conservative economists. David Broder effectively made the same point by quoting Republican Senator George Voinovich in yesterday’s column. The senator several times refers to our children or grandchildren. That’s an effective image that must be repeated ad nauseum.

While the national debt, of course, was not an issue in David Poisson’s campaign for the House of Delegates last year, he very effectively would often say that his campaign was “about the children.” People responded, if for no other reason than he effectively delivered the message that it wasn’t about what he wanted, but what the children needed. The campaign wasn’t about what was in it for him.

I was surprised in a campaign I was part of a few years back to renovate our old high school, how many of the older folks wanted to make sure the school remained vibrant for the kids, not theirs, now in the neighborhood. (I also think they realized how much good schools impact real estate prices.)

Mallaby’s column has all the facts we need to support a more compelling message that tax cuts will burden the lives of our children and grandchildren. The trick is to translate the arcane concept of national debt into a compelling narrative. It seems to me that using a closer to home story about how personal debt affects an individual is one way. My kids, late stage teenagers and early 20s, can easily understand that message. Many kids who have college loans can understand what debt can mean — and what they can’t do when they have debt. And if we can get the younger generation, especially since they became a little more engaged in national politics in 2004, to appreciate the looming crisis, they will understand the need for a different approach to taxes and spending.

Whether at a national or state level, the story of the burdens we’re fostering on the next generation should be delivered in forums with audiences with a lot of gray hair and a lot of baggy pants and $5 flip-flops.