It's the Failed Conservative Policies, Stupid

Living in DC and spending a disproportionate amount of time paying attention to news, I sometimes find myself getting sucked into an insider mindset. On the Republican side, insiders use the language of morality and governance. On the Democratic side, insiders talk only about tactics and strategy. I imagine that this is because Democratic insiders do not conceive of Democrats as a force for governance, whereas Republican insiders think of themselves as the natural governing party. You can read this in the strong yearning the need for 'big ideas', or the desire on the part of many Democrats during the Social Security fight to offer an alternative to the President's plan. Remember the pundits during that fight? The Democrats run a risk of seeming obstructionist because they don't have an alternative to Bush's plan to fix Social Security? Or something like that.
Anyway, what I'm seeing right now in Connecticut is that voters want progressive governance and an end to failed conservative policies. You see, it turns out that people like Social Security. They think it's good policy. And it turns out that Americans don't like the Iraq War, and don't like failed conservative policies that are bankrupting the country, giving away the store to big oil, and distracting us with hate and cries of liberal treachery. People support freedom of the press, they support international alliances, they support checks on executive power. Americans support a moral government, and they support a new progressive path for the country. They will even pay more in taxes for a real health care system. Zut alor!
In other words, voters aren't interested in a politician's insider strategy, which is why much of the commentary on the Lieberman-Lamont race just sounds off-key. Read these five pundits prognosticating on the Lamont-Lieberman race. Not one of them mentions governance. Imagine that. Not one of them mentions the fact that Lieberman is failing at the job that he has been hired to do by the voters of Connecticut. Not one of them mentions the fact that voters care about governance and don't like failed conservative policies. This is also how right-wing blogs and the right-wing press approach the primary. The right is intently interested in defending Lieberman, not because they value him. They don't, and they would replace him with a Republican if they could. The right is advocating for Lieberman because they are defending the status quo and Bush's failed conservative governance. Lieberman is a defender of that status quo, and the fight over that status quo is in Connecticut, so that's where they are.
The pundits are obsessive about strategy talk, and that's just not real public discourse. Simon Rosenberg, a Lieberman supporter and a man I respect, gets this, with obvious mixed feelings. You should read his post on Lieberman and what Lieberman needs to do to win. Simply put, Rosenberg says that Lieberman needs to acknowledge that Bush's policies have failed the country, and that he will work to find a better and different path. Lieberman does not think this, of course, he thinks that the problem with the country is that both sides are too partisan. This may or may not be true, but it's not where the voters are and it's not a particuliarly salient moral point. Voters didn't hire Lieberman to make Washington a more pleasant place. And in moving against him, the voters are rejecting Bush's failed conservative policies, which is why Lieberman's attacks on Lamont as a single-issue candidate are falling flat.
Calling someone a 'single issue candidate' is strategy talk, and it doesn't make any sense. When Lieberman says that Lamont is a single issue candidate, Lamont can powerfully respond with 'I am against failed conservative policies and believe in holding President Bush accountable for his failures. If that makes me a single issue candidate, then there are a lot of single issue voters in Connecticut.' That's where the voters are right now.
Democrats running in November should well remember that it is the underlying governance failure that they should speak to, and they should be derisive and mocking towards those who want to focus on tactics at the expense of a real conversation with the voters. It's also not a matter of incompetent government, it's a matter of failed conservative policies. Saying that you will fix the incompetence simply means that you will stay on the same path, but drive a little better and a little faster. That's NOT what voters are looking for. Conservative President George Bush is a failure. The conservative Republican Congress is a failure. Supporters of this failed path, like Senator Lieberman, are going to be rejected by voters.
It's very simple. It's not about political tactics; that is simply political argumentation dressed up in strategy talk for and by insiders. It's about voters rejecting the failed conservative policies of President Bush, Senator Lieberman, and the Republican Congress. These are weak vicious men who can't admit error or acknowledge truth and this is reflected in their governance. The voters should and will punish them at the polls, if they have the opportunity.