Where is the strategy on anything other than "the Republicans suck?" Seriously. Can someone spell it out for me. I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment about the Dubai thing would work if this were Oct 2006. The lack of long term strategic thinking that allows for adaptability is a big concern. A bigger question than the gay issue that I would like to know, and it relates, but not just the gay issue, is how do they intend to experiment and adapt this cycle to make sure that they can do more than just run for this cycle, but future cycles after this one? What language works on people? What language does not? Are they going to experiment to find out? For that matter, what are our wedge issues against the Republicans? What experimentation are they planning to wedge Theocons from Paleos from Northeast Republicans from others? It's great to see the faultlines for a change in the other side- how do we intend to amplify them? How will we keep the other side off their game? Do they realize the media will get bored? That by the summer they, the media, will be looking for a new narrative. Are they concerned that the narrative maybe, Bush, the come back kid. Or Republicans, clean up their act. What do they intend to do to make sure this doesn't happen?

There is a very simple case to be made.  The candidate needs to say that marriage is a very important institution.  It has always promoted social stability.  Most (though not all) individuals are happier and healthier in committed marriages.  Children by and large do better in two-parent households.  For that reason, we ought to be encouraging people to form committed, legal relationships, not creating obstacles to that end.  The states should find a way for two people of the same sex to form such a legal relationship, perferably through marriage, or through a civil union that carries the same obligations and benefits as marriage.  Churches, of course, need not marry any couple they do not wish to marry, but the State should not discriminate on the basis of the sex of the participants any more than it would on the race of the participants.  Marriage is good for society, and good for couples and children.  I support marriage for this reason, and encourage the governments to make it available to any adult couple.

I assume there's been polling done about the effect of various policies/stands/emphases on the subject on various demos.

My guess - no more than that - would be that the Dems making a Federal case - as it were - would cost them votes net. It feeds into the Free Mumia, Dems as single-issue-group-junkies, what about us regular folks? vibe that would deter more swing voters than bring out otherwise stay-at-home Dems.

That guess may be wholly or partly wrong: I'd prefer to see some evidence.

Certainly, Dems should not take up the issue because it gives them lefty ya-yas, but because it will help them take one or both houses of Congress. (If, on the evidence, it will help. And not hinder.)

I asked Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer on a conference call what they are going to do about wedge issues, and their answer was basically 'the Dubai port deal'.  

The Dems' strategy might be lame but it is their strategy. Is it a good idea to divulge it on a web site?

The Dems don't have a strategy about this or anything else.

I continue to expect that while we will pick up a few seats the Dem power players will be amazed that we didn't do better next November.

If you don't believe in anything why should folks vote for you.  This goes for gays, immigrants or anything else.

If that's a strategy I'm Richard Nixon. Schumer et al. are a disaster. If the Dems don't win real, real big in 2006 he and the rest of his pathetic ilk will be removed. I met Ned Lamont this week and there's a guy who gets it. I have come to the conclusion that current Dem "leadership" is stupid. They just don't know what voters are concerned about.

It's up to us to let the Schumer's of the party know that defeat is unacceptable.

Totally unacceptable.

I'm firing up my keyboard to do that right now.

The Gay Marraige and Gay Adoption Level have been decided at the state level. It was voted based on Statewide Referendum/Initiatives. Voters are overwhelmingly opposed to Gay Marraige for Religious Regions.

What National Democrats need to do is convince the state Democratic Party in battleground states like
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinios
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Which will have competitive Governors,US Senate or US House Races- to propose a ballot intitiative or referendum calling for an increase in the minimum wage.
On Gay Issues- We should support Domestic Partnership Benifits or Civil Unions.-

If W 2004 "proved" something, it was that sounding definite was a plus.  

Hmmm... $3.50 a gallon for gas this summer.  I think that and the corruption are the Dems strategy.  Not much.  I'd rather we stood up and fought, for once, in what we believe.  Freedom and dignity at home (and in our homes).  Better wages and real concern for most folks not just the super rich and corporations.

Share your dreams, not your fears.  (Robert Louis Stevenson via the local KFC).

The Republicans pissed off a massive voting bloc on the immigration issue. We should get back over 90%+ with them - if we don't sit on our hands.

Same with gay issues. It's obvious where Bush stands. Just the Easter Egg Hunt crap shouldn've brought hackles.

Will we take advantage?

The current Dem strategy seems to be to minimize the party's support for the traditional interest groups (pro-choice, environment, labor, gays, etc) - and ignore those issues.

While I do agree that the Dem. party should not just be a collection of interest groups, and the interest groups must look to the larger good of getting the Dems back in power, ignoring these issues is likely to result in lots of stay at home Dems on election day.  In addition, independents are offered nothing but the negative-only 'Repubs are bad', because there is no positive Dem. message.

Fear of being Roved on issues has made the Dem. leadership and congressional members into silly putty.

The gays are going to be the sacrificial lambs again.  Total war by the Repubs against them.  Noone leading a fight to oppose this war.  In the bigger war (Iraq/Iran), the Dems are doing almost nothing in opposition, so it not surprising that the Dems will acually do nothing or give indications of support to the Repubs out of fear.

I'm disgusted - where's my liberal/progressive party?  

Why should there be a strategy on gays?

There are a few parties involved here:

1. People who hate gays

2. People who are essentially indifferent on the issue, and uncomfortable both with gays and with bashing them.

3. Straight people who support gay rights

4. Gay people

Then there are these assumptions:

2 is the biggest group
1 is the next largest
3 is next
4 is the smallest group

Guess what, groups 3 and 4 combined add up to less people than 1 and 2 combined.

And based on what we saw in 2004, it doesn't seem that 2 has a big problem with 1. They don't like the gay bashing, but not enough to vote against the GOP. And groups 3 and 4 will vote for the Dems anyway. So why support homosexuals?

Homosexuals aren't like hispanics -- they're not the fastest growing minority in the country. In fact, they're a small minority with essentiall no birth rate.

So again, what benefit is there to supporting gay rights?

Maybe to stand up for what is right? To take a principled stand and fight against intolerance?  

Not if your strategy is based around poll numbers and demographics. And that's why Dems are in danger of not making serious gains in a year that should be a landslide for them. Because fundamentally, their strategy hasn't changed -- it's not about taking a stand on what you believe, but on following polls and demographic trends.

First of all, I think you are completely wrong about what happened on immigration.  I think Frist and Reid cut a deal to not have a bill.  Republicans cannot afford to be branded nationally as the anti-Latino party.  Hurts 'em in too many districts.  Nor can the Democrats afford to be branded nationally as the pro-illegal alien party.  Hurts 'em in too many districts.  So they agreed to blow it up so each member candidate could play the issue as needed in his or her own district or state.

Welcome to my world.  Democrats want to suck up all the money and support they can from gay folks but they don't want to pay any bills. That's not working for us.   I started this when I was a young man 40 years ago and I'm close to being an old man now.  WE need change now not 40 years from now.

Ultimately, the only way out of this is through.  Because it isn't going away.  Think about it.  If Clinton and the Democratic congress had kept their promises on gays in the military 14 years ago, gay rights would have continued to evolve much more rapidly than it has and we'd be done now.  

So let's begin to formulate some guidelines for how we can deal with this.

1.  Nobody gets to denigrate gay rights.  That's a support killer.  Example:  Feinstine tries to blame gays for the election.  "Too much too soon," she says.  Boxer embraces homophobic Boy Scouts.  

2. At the same time, nobody needs to embrace gay marriage either. Not right now, anyway.  The issue just isn't ripe for that.  Let it play out in the states.  In 5 years we can claim that the sky didn't fall because of gay marriage in MA.  The appropriate rhetorical response might be to repeat Cheney's 'state matter' approach, talk up the states as the laboratories of Democracy, "let's see how things go."

3.  No more hypocrisy.  No more riding around in open cars at gay pride pretending to be supportive if you aren't going to be.  Listen up Dianne.  No more gay rights jibber jabber on the socalled lefty blogs followed by support for homophobic militarists.  There are lots of other candidates to support.  The big claim to fame of the blogs?  Stephanie Herseth who then votes for the anti gay marriage amendment.  You can have it one way or you cn have it another.  Stop trying to have it both ways.  It hurts blog credibility, because it sounds very very old school machine politics.

4.  Everyone is obliged to embrace the Constitution of the US, including it's promise of equal treatment.  That's really all we want right now is our right to equal treatment.  Everything else is a red herring.  I think it is a good guess that the majority of the public is so ignorant of the Bill of rights and other Constitutional provisions, that they are ignorant of the right to equal treatment.  And I think we should deal with this pedagogically, teaching the public about the issue of equal treatment and how it plays out in everyone's lives AND THE LIVES OF THEIR CHILDREN.  Because as society becomes ever more scientifically and rationally based, those who guide their lives by what I would call superstition (not saying we use that word) are going to be increasingly marginalized.  Because when I am hiring, I can't discriminate against you because of your religion, but I can discriminate against you if I think you are stupid or just not capable of dealing with reality, facts and reason.

Sorry to be so long winded.  But we need a rational approach which incorporates the long term nature of this process.

The issue is not about the Democratic Party suppoting marriage equality for gays and lesbians.  While I am for marriage equality, this is about defending the dignity of gays and lesbians as human beings.  It is about exposing the Republicans for using gays and lesbians as pawns in order to win elections.  This is about all progressives, whether for gay marriage or not, standing up and calling this what it really is--a tactic to win elections by polarizing the electorate and taking the spotlight off of a failed Republican agenda.  Republicans get it.  Why we dont mystifies me.

What can be done?  We need leadership and coordination from the Democrats.  We need to be developing, testing and implementing messages that move the debate off of gay marriage and onto the real reasons Republicans are obsessed with this issue.  The reasons are:

1.) They bring it up at predictable times because they think it helps them win elections.    
2.) It changes the focus from their horrific record of abuse and corruption.  
3.) They think it turns out certain segments of their base and suppresses segments of ours.
4.) Dem candidates and leaders look uncomfortable and inauthentic when they are asked about the issue.

Democrats message (or some argue lack of) has made us look uncomfortable, confused and at times complicit.  Some even say it looks as if we are lying and trying to have it both ways.  We wind up continually debating the merits of gay marriage rather than attacking the divisive and hateful tactics the Republicans employ.  We walk right into Karl Rove's playbook for winning elections.  

We can turn on its head the Republicans' mantra that the Dems are the Party of Gay Marriage.   In truth, its the Republicans that are the party of gay marriage.  They are obssessed with it. That is all they talk about.  Its all they can talk about since their agenda over the last six years has failed and their corrupt values are now being exposed.  They will do anything to change the subject.  Lets quit helping them.  

We are the party that opposes any tactics that unfairly single out individual Americans and communities and scapegoats them in order to win elections.  We are the party of real family values which embraces all American families, including gay and lesbian ones.   Democrats should not stand by and allow mean-spirited, unfair and divisive political tactics to go unchallenged.  You get the picture.

my guess is they'll do what they always do and blame the gays for wanting to be considered as equal.

I (the Democratic Party) believe in equal rights for all people.

period.

end of statement.

That immediately reframes any gay bashing as being against equal rights, which is a losing battle, no matter how much individual people may feel uncomfortable.

It's that easy.

-C.

I've been beating this drum on my own blog for a while now. I'm glad to see it's being discussed on some bigger blogs. As a gay man, my fear is that the success of candidates like Tim Kaine may lead some Democrats to run slightly more to the right on gay issues (and choice, too) in order to curry favor with more conservative voters that lean Democratic but are also more conservative on social issues.

The line I've heard on some progressive blogs is that traditionally Democratic constituencies like gays and women concerned about reproductive choice should set aside our issues and work to get Democrats elected (or at leas not oppose them) even when they're not exactly progressive on our issues. The logic is that once Democrats get back into power, they can make progress on issues like gay & lesbian equality and reproductive choice.

The problem I see with that is that if democrats return to power with the help of more conservative voters, those same voters may not let them stay in power and return to more progressive positions on those issues. So, if they want to stay in power, they may have to maintain some distance from those issues. I haven't had it explained to me -- not believably, anyway -- just how democrats will avoid that scenario, or much discussion of strategy beyond getting back into power.

If the above scenario plays out the way I fear it will, the ultimate result of the "republican revolution" will be a more conservative Democratic party. And groups that have traditionally been Democratic constituents -- like gays & lesbians (most of us, anyway) -- will be without a home in either major party. But at least the democrats will be back in power.

Seems to me, if asked about "gay issues" this election cycle, the wise answer by any candidate in a swing or red district is:

"I haven't thought much about that issue, since I believe the main problems demanding leadership today are the high price of gasoline, the availability of health insurance, job losses in our state, [insert local economic issue here]...it says a lot that the Republicans have done NOTHING to fix our economy because they spend all their time ranting about some imagined "gay menace" instead of doing what really needs to be done."

If said candidate is talking to the liberal base, it might help to add somewhere that the candidate will never vote for discriminatory legislation--that's just a given.  But don't let the Republicans get you off message by allowing them to focus the election on divisive "social issues." This is an election in which we we ought to get the whole electorate united behind the need for economic reform.

While there is discussion here about not trusting Democrats in Congress to advance gay rights legislation when they reach the majority because of conservative elements in the party, don't forget that last year John Conyers brought his Hate Crimes legislation to the House floor as an amendment to a child safety bill.  And it passed.  Under this Congress.  The issue in the House is, whoever is in the majority gets to choose the agenda and what we vote on.  Had Republicans seen this amendment coming, they would have blocked it.  Even so, they were able to strip in conference negotiations because they controlled the conference committee.  Yet this vote showed that there is enough support now in the House, in advance of changes in the 2006 elections, to pass meaningful legislation addressing gay rights.  It is just a matter of being in the majority so you can set the agenda and get it done.

There should be no strategy.  Stay on message, which is that the Bush administration is horrible on the economy for the working and middle class, horrible on national security, horrible on Iraq, impending horrible on Iran, a miserable failure on health care, etc.  

Gay issues are electorally unimportant for the Democrats and should be treated as such.  De-emphasize them do that Republicans can't use them as a wedge issue and focus the debate elsewhere.  If you want gay issues to be a central, salient issue, then let's just amend the Constitution to allow for amendments by national referendum and hold a coast-to-coast vote on legalizing gay marriage.

If there is a progressive position on gay issues, it will be advanced through the back door by appointing liberal judges who will make gay friendly rulings from the bench.  It won't be an issue for Democrats to campaign strongly on in the near future.  Talk about the Democratic Party in code as the party of equal rights, not the party of rights that are bought and paid for, so that wink-wink progressives know what you are talking about, but don't go out of your way to force an unnecessary battle that probably won't accomplish much.  It didn't work for Bush in Iraq and it won't work for the Democratic Party on gay issues in America.

If I add up all the comments here, it begins to make a good case for supporting democratic candidates on the state level who are willing to take a stand for what's right on the issue of gay & lesbian equality.  But it doesn't make much of a case for doing more than going to the polls and pulling a lever where candidates for congress, etc. are concerned. It sounds like the best I can expect is for them to stop something bad from happening if it comes to that. Maybe.

And it sounds like I can't expect much more on the issue of my family's equality except for it to be back-burnered in favor of "more important" issues (i.e. "the important shit") until or if such a time arrives as democratic leadership can safely do the right thing.

Boil it all down to gravy and you get: "Vote for us, but don't expect much."

I suppose an constituency as small as we are can't expect much. All things being equal, I don't think much should be expected from us either.

Matt's diary seems right on to me.  The Democrats will do worse than expected for exactly these reasons... unwillingness to stand on principle and take political risks.  The Democratic party is running on "we are not Republicans, assume we would do better."  

Not an inspiring message, and will not capitialize fully on the meltdown of the GOP.  

The problem is endemic.. all politicians want to tell everyone what they want to hear, and are so afraid of saying something that might be unpopular they say nothing inspiring, substantial, risky or visionary.  

I wonder if this is going on worldwide.  All the recent elections I have followed, from New Zealand to Italy, have been decided by razor thin margins.  Is there anything more to politics than marketing and strategy?

know how to begin.

#1) It has been clear since last fall that Rove's strategy for the 06 midterms is illegal immigration, illegal immigration, and illegal immigration. He said as much.

Listen to talk radio, or even just the station promos at the top and bottom of the hour. It is the issue du jour, and it is what has the otherwise demoralized Republican base worked into a lather. Gay marriage is - you know - like so 2004.

It has the potential to bring out not only core Republican voters in November but also right-leaning Independents (the Perotistas) - who are a strange, and fickle bunch.

#2) The idea that the immigration rallies helped Democrats is almost too crazy for words. The center of the electorate is mushy on this issue (they'll settle for an amnesty if it involves increased border security, but even they haven't fully come to terms with the changing ethnic face of America), but Democrats have no strategy for increasing turnout among them in November (or quite frankly even among the base), and in a climate where the likely voters are worked up about this issue it doesn't help Democrats.

Look at the polls. Even in blue California, which has come a long way toward coming to terms with the increasing Latino population, the public at large is fairly accepting of even illegal immigration, but registered and likely voters are not.

For once, can we be smart about a strategy for dealing with a wedge issue?  Most effective campaigners now realize that when a campaign is attacked, the campaign needs to rapidly respond by countering the attack and using the counter-attack (or defense) as an opportunity to quickly return back to the campaign's message(s).  Let's recognize these anti-gay ballot measures for what they really are, a not-so-subtle attack on the Democratic campaign to win back the Congress. Sooooo....

Let's take a page from Rovian tactics (granted we'll have to put it through the washer first!) and attack our opponents strongest feature or asset.  Republicans attacked Max Cleland's reputation as a veteran who supported national defense by linking him with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein because he opposed some of the Bush Homeland Security Department proposals.  They undermined Jean Carnahan's ability to attract female votes in Missouri by bringing in Republican women like Kay Bailey Hutchinson to encourage women to support her opponent Talent.  WE SHOULD COUNTER THESE BALLOT MEASURES BY ATTACKING THEIR STRONGEST FEATURE OR ASSET: THESE ARE WEDGE ISSUES MEANT TO DEFLECT FROM THE REAL ISSUES OF THE DAY AND INTENDED ONLY TO BRING OUT A PARTICULAR SEGMENT OF THE ELECTORATE WHO WOULDN'T TURN OUT OTHERWISE.  (Quite frankly, I think that such a campaign would produce some of the most entertaining ad campaigns ever seen in this country!)  And without skipping a beat, let's use such a campaign as an opportunity to return the political debate to the REAL issues.

In California, which has a reputation for ruling by referendum and initiative, the easiest way to defeat an initiative or referendum is to create doubt about it.  I have no reason to believe that the technique can't and doesn't work elsewhere.  So ATTACK THE REASONS FOR THESE BALLOT MEASURES.  Then attack the measure themselves.

An added bonus to this if done successfully would be to deflate the turnout of religious rightwingers.  Why turn out when a measure is going down to defeat?  But if they are turning out, use that to demonstrate the insidiously Machiavellian intention behind the measures.  After all, a vote for these measures is a vote for higher gas prices, gas and oil shortages, the destruction of social security, medicare (so-called) reform, out-of-control healthcare costs, Dubai port takeovers, a choice between draconian or no immigration control, etc., etc.  Why?  Because the measures are meant to turn out reliable rightwing Republican votes that will support Bush and the Rethugs.  A vote "no" will send a message to Bush and the Rethug establishment.

And as a gay man, I need to say that the LGBT community needs to stand up for itself and intelligently and EFFECTIVELY oppose these measures.  Quit whining that everybody else needs to stand up and defend us.  Acting and sounding helpless is the surest way for any group to ensure that it will not receive help.  You'd be surprised how others will stand with you if you at least demonstrate that you'll stand up for yourself no matter what.  And I say this as a gay man who has had to stand up for himself against harassment and discrimination (just a month ago, in fact).

Whew!  Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.