Cynical Nation

"3. A Lamont win would signal the end of the Clintons' era as de facto party bosses. The new marching orders would come from the Kos/MoveOn wing of the party. This, of course, is Karl Rove's wet dream.

"I suppose I see their points with numbers 1 and 2, but I can't really get excited over number 3. Call me crazy, but I think the country would be better off with a viable, centrist Democratic Party than with a nonviable, moonbat party.

I too would like to see a more viable Democratic Party, but that seems a long way off, Barry.

The sad thing is, that even if a Leftist won, along with a hard Left's control over Congress, all that would do would be to hasten the return of a Carter-like economic disaster.

The Republicans have slid from being the Party of "Small government" and more open or Free Markets to a more Corporatist one. The Dems have and had two paths open since 2000 - to go hard Left and toward a more "government directed economy" with an emphasis on taking care of people, OR to embrace a more Libertarian agenda - smaller, not "better" government, closed and secured borders, cutting back BOTH the Welfare & Warfare state.

The latter is the only winning path...the former (more government) is the sure loser.

They've chosen the losing path and that's probably due to their being so beholden to so many special interests and that's too bad.

But #3 is certainly Karl Rove's or any GOP Strategist's "wet dream," because they're focus is and must be solely on winning elections for their Party, not what's best for the American political spectrum.

Besides, the likes of Karl Rove can't MAKE the Dems choose the best path (abandoning the more government, more social spending and higher tax agenda), that must eventually bubble up from within...and I believe it will, after a few more elction day poundings - "euphemmistically called disappointments."

Liberals are so thick, you have to pound them pretty damned hard for it to register with them.

In reality, of course, Lieberman is hardly a Bush sycophant. In fact, he's not even Zell Miller.

You are right. He is probably worse than Zell Miller. A person who gets strong endorsements from extremists like Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, and Tom DeLay can not be and is not a democrat. Thats the problem with Lieberman. He is in the wrong party and thats why he will lose today and he will be send to early retirement in Crawford, Texas.

I'm sorry to have to say this, and of course I say it in the nicest possible way, but here's where you're an idiot BW - politically, of course.

Lieberman voted with the Dems well over 90% of the time. in fact, about the same amount that Hillary Clinton does.

Lieberamn is NOT only a Democrat, he's a Liberal Democrat as well. He just has this quirky affinity for Israel's right to exist and thus strongly supports the current WoT...go figure.

Now, Zell Miller is an actual Conservative and he, like ME, feels that the Democratic Party MUST return to its Dixiecrat (and by Dixiecrat, I mean pro-Conservative, not necessarily pro-lynching)roots, if it is ever to be successful again...and the likes of Zell Miller (and me, I'm still a registered Democrat) "CAN BE and SHOULD BE Democrats," contrary to your pontifications to the contrary.

True confession, I have a cousin who is actually a NYS Assemblyman and a Democrat.

Zell Miller is actually lauded by folks like Hannity and other Conservatives (unlike Lieberman with whom they must always preface their remarks with "though I disagree with him about 90% of the time..."), because Miller IS a Conservative...just not a Republican Conservative.

I don't know why Hannity and Coulter, et al, would espouse Lieberman's candidacy. I wouldn't and don't...I actually enjoy seeing Democrats cannibalize each other, it's kind of...fun.

A Lamont win puts that seat back in play. Connecticut already has a Republican GOvernor, but Lieberman's cross-over appeal has made that seat a low priority for GOP funding, thereby reducing the number of strong challengers from the GOP side.

Lamont has no such cross-over support and will be a lot more vulnerable.

It's all very similar to the dilemma faced by Republicans in Rhode Island, where Conservative Steve Laffey is strongly challenging "the last Liberal Republican," Lincoln Chfee. The fear that many Republicans have is that Laffey will not attract any of the cross-over Democrats that Chaffee routinely does, thereby putting THAT seat in jeopardy in such a traditionally Liberal State.

I don't think that the Reps are corpratists in as much as pragmatic: pork = votes.

"Call me crazy, but I think the country would be better off with a viable, centrist Democratic Party than with a nonviable, moonbat party. "
ain't it the truth.
I don't think we'll be in Carter territory, however. Connecticut is not the South. So I doubt there will be a Democratic "tsunami" like the press is trying to sell. They may get a few seats, but inevitably all politics is local. The Hartford newspaper in CT supports Lieberman because of what he is doing for the citizens (jobs, liberal ideas) and condemn condemning bigL for 10% of his actions (Iraq) than looking at the other 90% (his job as a Senator for his state). Inevitably,it will be the same in the other states where votes are going on..."what have you done for me lately?"

Hey Barry,
Here is the first exit poll . The case of beers is up on the air :)

Well, Rachel, the Republicans have been a huge disappointment in turning away from their Reagan/Gingrichian SMALLER government agenda, in favor of the "big government Conservativism" espoused by the likes of G W Bush & Rudy Guiliani.

In turn they've turned away from policies that focused on growing smaller, newer upstarts seeking to enter the marketplace.

Corporatism is an oft confused term, but all it really means is a "highly regulated economy." America has tended toward that, so has Europe since the early part of the 20th Century, at least in America to escape the chronic "Boom & Bust" cycles indemic to Laissez Fairre Free Markets.

At this point the Democrats have alienated musch of the South and West. The northeast and pockets of California (LA & SF) and other larger cities in the Pacific Northwest (ie. Portland, OR & Seattle, WA) tend to be Liberal...with increasing divide between traditional Liberals and the more radical MoveOn, Kos, Soros, Moore extreme-Leftists.

If there's any reason to for a Conservative, like me, to hope for a Lieberman victory today, it's to see the likes of Kos & MoveOn grossly disappointed, although it would be sweeter to see them get a pyrrhic victory now, only to get a HUGE and even more grotesque pounding in November as that "increased influence" over Democratic strategies puts them on a collision course with most of America.

> Here is the first exit poll.

Lol, that's great!! Gotta give him credit for getting out there first.

We have to be careful, though. If Lieberman ekes out a win tonight in spite of this early 13-10 Lamont lead in the exit polls, Jill will be convinced that Diebold queered the election. ;-)

Dont worry. I will convince Jill that it was not a conspiracy :)

Ironically enough, the Lieberman campaign offers proof of that "increasing divide between traditional Liberals and the more radical MoveOn, Kos, Soros, Moore extreme-Leftists."

Check out Lanny Davis' piece in today's WSJ:
Liberal McCarthyism

Bigotry and hate aren't just for right-wingers anymore.

BY LANNY J. DAVIS
Wall Street Journal Opinion
Tuesday, August 8, 2006

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763

WASHINGTON--My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman.

This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing--in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against "communists and their fellow travelers."

The word "McCarthyism" became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right's fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a "communist" or "socialist" who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field.

I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us. And in recent years - with the deadly combination of sanctimony and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage - I held on to the view that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right.

Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony. Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more anyone with a search engine can find) of the type of thing the liberal blog sites have been posting about Joe Lieberman:

• "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

• "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

• On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005)...
"who favor an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field" are NOT socialists at heart, this is an interesting article, because it chronicles a now occuring sea-change in Democratic politics, one which threatens to alienate traditional Liberals..and perhaps (I hope...I hope...I hope) fragment their traditional base.

Evening Edition did one of numerous stories on this last week? And they also talked about Rhode Island and Lincoln Chafee and how the GOP is(was?) pushing hard for his challenger because the party there thinks Chafee is too moderate. If that's really what's happening there? I'm amazed, because I think there's a much stronger chance of the party holding the seat losing it in Rhode Island if the incumbent loses the primary than in Connecticut. But maybe that's just a wrong assumption on my part?

and the more radical MoveOn, Kos, Soros, Moore extreme-Leftists."

Hey JMK,
Thanks for calling me a "Kos-Soros extreme leftist." Somehow I find the title cool :) I am honored.

P.S. By the way, isn't interesting that defense of Lieberman and attacks on real democrats originate from republican newspapers? Like the Wall Street Journal?

On the other hand, THE most serious democratic newspaper, the NY Times, has endorsed Ned Lamont.

> THE most serious democratic newspaper, the NY Times....

At least someone on their side finally admits it.

But it's interesting, Blue, that every time you set out to "prove" that Lieberman is some kind of closet Republican, you always do so by pointing out who has endorsed him or whose radio show he appeared on and so forth, while you assiduously avoid looking at his actual voting record. Why is that?

while you assiduously avoid looking at his actual voting recor

I dont. His voting record is obviously part of the equation. He voted 90% with the democrats, BUT the 10% is a real bad one.

The reasons democrats can not stand Lieberman are actually 3:

1. Not only he supported the Iraq war, but he continues to do so and he keeps insisting that things are getting better in Iraq. He is either a liar or he has lost touch with reality.

2. He has been completely obedient to Bush (worst president in the history of the country).

3. He has been willing to attack and criticize other democrats for not supporting Bush.

These reasons are enough for him to lose his job and he will, later toda :)

> He has been completely obedient to Bush...

How can he be "completley obedient to Bush" and still vote with the Dems 90% of the time?

How can he be "completley obedient to Bush" and still vote with the Dems 90% of the time?

Ok, not "completely", but "almost completely". Dont tell me that you have not noticed all these years the Bush-Lieberman affair. I even posted a link to a video on that affair in the past :)

"Hey JMK,
Thanks for calling me a "Kos-Soros extreme leftist." Somehow I find the title cool :) I am honored." (BW)
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/2536-Emboldened-Democrats-Court-Partys-Left-Wing.html

Only 16% of the U.S. population self-identifes as liberal, while 36% self-identifies as conservative, and 47% as moderate.
Battleground Poll 2006
(Few Real Moderates)

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be

Very conservative 18%
Somewhat conservative 41%
Moderate 2%
Somewhat liberal 28%
Very liberal 8%
Unsure/refused 3%

Again, let’s conflate those categories:

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be
Conservative 59%
Moderate 2%
Liberal 36%
Unsure/refuse 3%

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be

Very conservative 18%
Somewhat conservative 41%
Moderate 2%
Somewhat liberal 28%
Very liberal 8%
Unsure/refused 3%

Again, let’s conflate those categories:

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be
Conservative 59%
Moderate 2%
Liberal 36%
Unsure/refuse 3%



Lieberman isn'T "almost completely" nor even somewhat obedient to Bush. In fact the one area he agrees with Bush is the WoT and that's because Lieberman gets it, while the radicals in that Party, DON'T.

Hey JMK,
Among the ones you mentioned, Ted Kennedy is my favorite. However, I also like a lot and support MoveOn and I think Kos and Soros are cool. I dont like Michael Moore. Does that change my classification? Give me an update. Oh, and I like Lincoln Chaffee.

There's a huge difference between the likes of Ted Kennedy (who I DON'T like), Hillary Clinton, Link Chafee, even Howard Dean (he supports gun rights and was a tax cutter in Vermont) and the MoveOn, Kos, Soros, Moore-Sheehan radicals.

The latter are about as outside the mainstream of American thought as are all those kooks who buy into those insane "The American government was behind the 9/11 attacks," conspiracy theories.

In general I believe your a, more or less, traditional Liberal, but somehow feel compelled to defend the likes of the aforementioned radicals because they're generally attacked form the Conservative side of the political spectrum.

the thing that scares me is how Lamont-Lieberman "fight" (it's a primary for pete's sake) has become international. Great. If big L loses, everyone will assume we will be retreating in 6 months after Nov.
I think little L is an a$$ running off of a one trick pony, even if it is Iraq. What if the Dems determine that no, we can't get the troops home en masse before 2008, 2009? Lamont had better make CT the best state in the nation or people may regret they lost big L (should he lose as an Indep.)
Also, what if the insurgents see this? They'll figure out we are weak, bomb a couple of troops to push for a democratic victory, and we may leave soon, only to have to come back 2-5 years later because not only did we not finish the job, but left it in bloodier tatters than we did before?

Here's a clearer example of the difference between a Liberal and a radical, radicals support things like this;

"Jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

"Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

Imagine a world without Israel

By grswave
Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:41:50 PM PDT

Grswave’s diary
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/12/214150/522

"Or is that not allowed?

Muslims, Jews, and Christians could live in peace without fear of mutual destruction.

There would be no more need for US AID or justification for Dimona.

We could bring down the Wall, send prisoners home, and families could be reunited.

We could dismantle checkpoints, open crossings, and pull down barbed wire fences.

There would be no more settlements or armed settlers because the people would be united.

We could replant trees and olive groves and rebuild battered cities.

No more suicide bombers or sniper fire, and no more dead civilians.

No more targeted killings and hell-fire missiles, or systematic demolitions.

Palestinians and Jews could live together and the world could address other issues.

What a simpler place this world would be
if there was no need for a Jewish majority - where there would otherwise be none.

Is it so hard to imagine?

"Israel killed at least 23 Palestinians in Gaza on Wednesday, including nine members of one family . . .

"The air strike killed a local Hamas leader, Nabil Abu Selmeya, his wife and seven sons and daughters aged 7 to 19, medics said. His eldest son, who was not at home, survived.

"A later Israeli air strike using two missiles killed at least five other Palestinians, aged 15 to 20, in central Gaza.",/i>

Evidently, yes. And I'll be branded a terrorist for trying."

Or THIS from a recent anti-war rally;
http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2003/04/04/peace-love-anti-semitism

Is that somethig you support?

You make a good point Rachel, one of the things that emboldened OBL was America's retreat from Somalia in the wake of the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu and our subsequent retreat from Port au Prince Harbor. OBL believed that those two incident sproved that "Americans can't stand the sight of their own blood."

This fight is ON and there's no way to negotiate our way out if it.

It's pan-Islamicism against the West and the only countries standing up for the West right are America, Britain, Australia, Japan, Poland and a few other Balkan nations.

No matter who gets in, America ain't walking away from this fight. The enemy isn't about to allow that.

Hey JMK,
Lamont wins big time!!! Check the results. MoveOn, Kos and all the "radicals" did a great job. Hehe!

Patience, Blue. Think about baseball. ;-)

It looks like Lieberman has a chance. Hartford is supposed to go for Lieberman and has not reported yet. Now is about 51-49%

Barry,
Check that one. Drudge report just called it for Lamont.

Yeah, I don't see how he can pull it out at this point. With only 17% of the districts left to report, Joe would have to lead the remaining districts by double digits to catch up.

So Blue, you got a Paypal account? You guys won this one fair and square.

Barry,
Thanks. I dont have a paypal account, but you dont need to get the case of beers :) I am in such a great mood that Lamont won, that I will leave the case of beers for you to drink and celebrate in honor of us, the ultra- liberals ! Cheers.

Like I said, I don't know why the likes of Hannity, Coulter, Maitlin, etc worried so much about Lieberman.

He was an entrenched Liberal.

Connecticut has a Republican Governor, but the GOP put little money into financing Lieberman's opponents because of his cross-over appeal.

Lamont doesn't have that cross-over appeal and that'll make things interesting there.

Perhaps Don Surber put it best;

Right should weep not for Lieberman

Don Surber

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2006/08/right-should-weep-not-for-lieberman.html

Note to America's left:

Thanks for getting Connecticut to dump Joe Lieberman. As a conservative, I feel no affinity for him. His record is typical New England liberal.

100% rating by NARAL.
Rated 15% by NTU.
Voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment.
Voted against a supermajority for tax increases.
Voted to keep the marriage penalty in July 2000; voted to reduce it in May 2001; voted against it again in May 2003.
Voted against repealing 55 mph limit.
For a moratorium on the death penalty.
Against school prayer but for handing out condoms in school.
Opposes ANWR.
Opposed medical malpractice reform.
With Gambling Bill Bennett in censoring video games.
Pork barreler.

He is no more a conservative than Madonna is.

That just about sums it up.

ego means nothing if he can't get the job done, BW. What if Lamont can't fullfill his promise?

A sad day for Democrats, as they are well on their way to all drinking the Kool-aid yet again.

Lamont liberals will not put Democrats back and power and curb the out-of-control Corporatism destroying America. They will lose.

America is not liberal.

"A sad day for Democrats, as they are well on their way to all drinking the Kool-aid yet again.

Lamont liberals will not put Democrats back and power and curb the out-of-control Corporatism destroying America..." (Barely Hanging)
"Yippee! The Liberal Dems have shot themselves in the foot yet again and their pyrrhic Connecticut Primary victory will only ensure more GOP victories in both 2006 & 200 by projecting themselves as the Party of weakness and capitulation. Long live America's regulated economy!"

How'd I get that translation?

I know that in Barely's world, up = down, and black = white and "cave-dwelling terrorists" actually means "well-financed, well-disciplined and well-trained Jihadist guerilla fighters," so "Good day Madam," in Barely speak is really, "Bad night Mister."

I'm pretty sure I have that about right, though I don't necessarily ageee with the above assessment.

I mean, idiot, that America will continue on the downward spiral that started with Bush and the neocons.

We do not have a regulated nor a free market economy. We have an economy of unrestrained corporate greed, criminality, and short-sightedness.

This always ends the same way: a Depression.

Again, you don't seem to know a single thing about economics, so I'm glad I'm around.

We have a "gently regulated" economy.

OK, sure, it's regulated to a point where large corporations can easily regulate new upstarts out of the market, but that's precisely what a regulated economy is.

Second, there is no such animal as "greed," Corporate or otherwise.

A company, be it a partnership, corporation, sole proprietorship or multi-national conglomerate, is charged with one thing and one thing only - to maximize profits.

That can only be done by pleasing the consumer and getting the most productivity (the most work, for the least amount of pay) from your workers.

There's nothing at all nefarious about that BH, unless it's taken to a criminal level the way Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia nd some others did under Clinton's watch.

Your last inane sentence really troubles me....you seem genuinely depressed.

Try laying off the sugar for awhile. I think you'll feel a lot better if you do. Try substituting Gatorade for soda, it might just help!

That corn syrup crap is a real killer.

Ooooh!

Looks like I struck a nerve.

Was it the "Bad night Mister?"

I've got you translated but good. Hell, I know what yir sayin' better than you do yaself.

Bad day Madam!!!

You couldn't hit a nerve with a dentist's drill, Hubert.

Regulations exist to protect Big Corporations from Small Business. Our government works against us, like organized crime, helping the rich get richer and interfering with competition.

Why do they whistle and look the other way while Big Business rapes the average taxpayer with phoney offshore tax shelters? We pick up the tab.

The day we start abusing the same loophole, it will be closed, just like bankruptcy.

Wake up, dimwit.

You finally got something right!

Yes, regulations largely exist to help Large, established corporations fend off competition from smaller, newer, more innovative upstarts.

And more people seem to prefer that rather than not.

WHY?

Because without it, the market would be a much more chaotic place, with almost zero security for workers. As Exxon-Mobil loses market share in various regions to smaller, more innovative upstarts, the economic dislocation for workers could be staggering.

As a result, early in the last century people like J P Morgan and Bernard Baruch set about trying to "normalize" the markets and control the wild Boom & Bust cycles endemic to completely Free (unregulated) Markets.

The result was modern-day Corporatism and it's worked just fine for nearly a hundred years.

Would a Free Market be better?

Well sure, it would be more open to innovation, new ideas and advances would be far more easily brought to market, but the downside would be workers changing jobs (without any job security) every few years...a five year hitch at the same company would probably be a long time.

With pensions and health care traditionally tied to jobs, it wasn't a very appealing prosepect for most workers....nor for the very rich investors and the people who had huge stakes in all those established companies.

The irony here is that YOU, assail the current administration, which like the last, has been trying to move the nation toward a new economy - more free, and open markets, less security and more independence (self-responsibility for things like health care and pensions) for the workforce.

It's a difficult transition and apparently you completely misread it, just as you misread the H-1B Visa dilemma;

(*) There were less than 50,000 in 1992 and that ballooned up to over 900,000 by 2000.

(*) Congress set the quotas and Congress raised those quotas in 1996 (to 135,000/year) and 2000 (to 195,000/year) and a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) signed off on those increased quotas.

(*) When the quotas next came up for review in 2004, they were reduced back down to 65,000/year.

(*) The reason that during the years the quota was 195,000, it was never reached, and the availability of high-tech jobs in the USA plummetted because of the Tech Bubble bust that began in the Spring of 2000, when the NASDAQ began to implode.

Stop basing your views on a complete misunderstanding of the facts and look at things as they are.

We are now in the final stages of leaving behind the 19th century styled central plant or office (the factory model) in favor of a more independent-agent styled form of employment that is more compatible with a more open or freer market.

JMK: Defender and Apologist of the Robber Baron Corporatists!

Yes, they did a wonderful job setting up their dynasties, leading the world into the Great Depression, and then getting richer while hundreds of millions of people died in WWII.

Those are some real heroes you worship there, JMK!

At first I was wondering what you were babbling about and then realized that you mistakenly consider J P Morgan and Bernard Baruch - "Robber Barons!"

Yeah, like Henry Ford (the father of higher wages for quality workmanship) was.

At any rate, Morgan & Baruch weren't "Robber Barons," they were bankers and they actually championed things like the abolition of child labor and the forty hour work week. You really didn't think poor people moved that particular mountain, did you?

They moved the economy AWAY from its pure Capitalist roots toward a more Corporatist one.

One with more security for American workers.

That model held sway for three quarters of a century.

It's now changing because the world is changing and we're, for better or worse (according to most economists, it's for the better) we're moving into a global, free trade, market-based economy and that's happening as we're also transitioning away from the old 19th century styled factory workplace.

New age workers are increasingly "free agents" and "independent contractors" for the enterprises they work for.

Moreover, you've got to improve your reading comp (no wonder you're always complaining about not being able to find work)...I never lauded Morgan & Baruch, merely acknowledged they set up a workable system, steeped in concern for the worker, as well as the established business owner and/or investor.

In fact, I said; "Would a Free Market be better?

"Well sure, it would be more open to innovation, new ideas and advances would be far more easily brought to market, but the downside would be workers changing jobs (without any job security) every few years...a five year hitch at the same company would probably be a long time.

"With pensions and health care traditionally tied to jobs, it wasn't a very appealing prosepect for most workers....nor for the very rich investors and the people who had huge stakes in all those established companies.

"The irony here is that YOU, assail the current administration, which like the last, has been trying to move the nation toward a new economy - more free, and open markets, less security and more independence (self-responsibility for things like health care and pensions) for the workforce."