so close to a flag burning amendment, why?

The Senate fell one vote shy of moving a potential constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the American flag to the states for ratification. Several years ago this issue came before the Supreme Court which ruled that burning the flag is protected political speech. Democrats voted with the majority of Republicans yesterday and Diane Feinstein spoke saying that the flag is, in essence, a national monument which deserves protection like all other national monuments (e.g. the Lincoln Memorial, or something). I would think that since the flag and its images are manufactured for private profit and become the sole property of whoever chooses to buy one, that they are unlike all other national monuments in at least this respect. It has always been illegal to burn someone else's flag. It should be rather obvious that the Republican strategy is to pursue these sorts of irrelevant, but highly emotional issues as a means of distracting the public from it's failed, relevant policies of the past 6 years. It should also be obvious that one cannot champion free speech and disallow non-violent forms of expressing dissent. Democrats, as usual, have taken little more than a diluted "me too" approach to responding to these divisive issues--gay marriage, immigration, and now, again, flag burning. Why not take an approach that is more direct? Why not make Republican divide and conquer tactics a political issue? Why not repeatedly point out their implementation, and their cynicism? Why not ask what happened to the president who once claimed to be a 'uniter'? Why not some courage?