Redstate

It's "lagniappe."  Didn't we have a similar issue with "schadenfreude" at one point?

Amusingly, I googled "legnappe" to make sure it wasn't a word I'd never heard of, and the only two hits were two other Redstate posts by you.  Under the three-strikes rule, I hereby sentence you to 30 consecutive posts without any gratuitous foreign terms.

Oh, and as a Democrat I fervently hope that the Republican party purges itself of moderates.  Don't think it'll happen, though.  

So that my post doesn't consist entirely of snideness, I'll offer some interesting information, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Lagniappe derives from New World Spanish la ñapa, "the gift," and ultimately from Quechua yapay, "to give more." The word came into the rich Creole dialect mixture of New Orleans and there acquired a French spelling. It is still used in the Gulf states, especially southern Louisiana, to denote a little bonus that a friendly shopkeeper might add to a purchase. By extension, it may mean "an extra or unexpected gift or benefit."

So the first half of the word comes from a Latin adjective ( illa,meaning "that") that became a Spanish article.  The second half of the word comes from a Quechua noun absorbed by Latin American Spanish.  And then the whole thing gets run through a Creole filter and makes its way into regional English.  

I love etymology.

Is that:

(1) I'm Cajun;

(2) That's how the entire extended family spells it; and

(3) (2) should have been a clue that it was wrong.

The correction is appreciated.

Is where the phrase "and a little for lagniappe" comes from. Unfortunately, it's devilishly difficult to get extra McChickens for lagniappe, even in New Iberia.

Chafee, Snow, Suzie Collins, Snarlin' Arlen -- oh, throw in DeWine and Voinovich.  Though they subbed Norm for Voinovich, the Senate GOP Mod[erate] Squad is back on the beat.

Firstly, I must join you in lamenting this loss.  Even in the midst of what to me seems like an astonishing string of victories for W, this is an unfortunate loss.

On the other hand, we are winning alot lately and the sky aint quite falling yet.  We may yet get private investment accounts in social security.  That would be monumental, bigger and more important in the grand scheme of things than even the most optimistic conservative could have hoped, not long ago.  

Might it be the beginning of a reversal of the poisonous, self-feeding and dangerous entitlement dependence culture that seems to automatically threaten all democracies?  So the sky is not falling, in fact things are going pretty well.  We have to have a little patience in the larger battle to control (if not end) massive federal entitlements.  Just think how much worse it would be to be a socialist er I mean democrat right about now.

And now to the moderates:  as one who has supported them here before, I feel the need to speak up a little:   Yea, the "moderates" sold us out on this and also on drilling in the arctic (which we won anyway).

But what is a "moderate" anyway?  Is it someone who is pro-choice maybe, and/or fears the wrath of a population denied entitlements?  Or maybe pro life and scared of medicare?  Strong on defense?  Weak?  All of the above?

Perhaps its not an all or nothing thing to be a moderate - maybe some are good for this, others good for that.

But lets bear in mind the overarching concern that we all share, the most core and most important thing that any government can do:  National Defense.

To the extent that we arent all dead from terrorist nuke combos (or, more likely, our children)  we have to thank the entire Republican coalition, moderates and all.

With our lives at stake, we cant afford to start drawing lines in the sand and creating republican litmus tests.  

And lets say we did -  when would it end?

wc

. . . was a lifelong Democrat (DFL) up through the 1996 elections when served as the Clinton-Gore's Minnesota campaign co-chair.  Prior to that he served as a moderate/business friendly DFL mayor of Saint Paul and the co-chair of Paul Wellstone's Senate race.  He switched parties after the 1996 race when he realized that there was no room for a pro-life Democrat to run for a higher office but ran as an independent in 1997 when he was reelcted as mayor of St Paul.  The first time he ran as a Republican for any office was for governor in 1998 (the year Jesse Ventura won) but he lost largely because he ticked off a lot of fiscal conservatives by coming out for taxpayer-funding of a sports stadium.  In 2000 he co-chaired the Bush-Cheney's Minnesota campaign and 2002 was elected to the Senate as a Republican - really the first time he's been elected to anything as a Republican.

Today's vote as much as it grates me is part of the 20 percent of the time when I'll seriously disagree with the Senator I helped elect and it's a day more than ever where I need to remember the other 80 percent.  Chances are the Medicaid cuts will be put back in during conference committee and I except one or more Republicans who voted against them now to switch their vote later.

But what is a "moderate" anyway?  Is it someone who is pro-choice maybe, and/or fears the wrath of a population denied entitlements?  Or maybe pro life and scared of medicare?  Strong on defense?  Weak?  All of the above?

Fair questions, speaking from my own perspective as a Minnesotan who campaigned for and voted for Norm Coleman for two mayoral races, a close gubernatorial race, and a successful Senate race - he's consistently been pro-life, a staunch hawk and free trader, but he's got the same Nanny State/industrial policy mentality prevalent amongst so many moderate leftists and many who are called conservatives.

If you're a conservative who wants federally-funded vouchers/charter schools, rigorous standards, and abstinence education, Norm's your guy.  If you're the sort that wants to abolish the Department of Education and return everything to the States (and from there to the local level), not so much.

If you're the sort of conservative who favors taxpayer funding of the "family farm" because it's the "cornerstone of our rural values" including "alternative fuels" like ethanol, Norm's your guy.  If you think that agricultural subsidies are just another form of corporate welfare and are a misallocation of economic resources, not so much.

If you're for tax cuts and for slowing government spending in principle, Norm's your guy.  If you're for spending cuts particularly of popular programs for the folks back home, maybe not so much.

If you favor Personal Retirement Accounts for Social Security, Norm's probably your guy.  If you recognize that while they mitigate the insolvency problem they won't be enough to fix it alone and want someone willing to call for tougher choices like phasing in a higher retirement age, means testing, etc. . . . we'll have to wait and see but I'm not holding my breath.

If you're the sort of "conservative" who is against welfare in principle but doesn't really consider it "welfare" when it's a Medicare prescription drug benefit or entitlements for the middle class, Norm's you're guy.  If you think that since Middle Class entitlement programs (Medicare, Social Security, and K-12) make up the bulk of federal and State spending and are drastically in need of reform, probably not so much.

You all get the idea.  Just so there's no mistake while I would certainly prefer that Norm was all out for limiting government, I knew when I voted for him that he much like the POTUS was a "good government" type of Republican but one likely to support so-called "opportunity society" reforms.  He'll vote for the reforms most of us want like MSA's for health care and PSA for Social Security, he's support lower taxes and free markets, and he'll be reliable on foreign policy - but don't expect him to lead the charge for abolishing government programs or cutting popular ones back home (come to think of it, neither would Reagan and for some reason he never got tarred with the "moderate" label either).

The sad thing is for all of the things I'm criticizing him about; his approach is probably the one that is more likely to succeed.

on these gutless squishes can be found in my diary entry from yesterday.

Very depressing for those of us who believe in limited government.

Two things have to happen before these clueless wonders get another dime from me:

1. Frist needs to nuke the Demo filibusters of GWBs appellate court nominees
   
   
2. The GOP Senate needs to cut something, anything, that measures at least $10-billion, from an "entitlement" program

And not a single Democrat crossed-over on this one.  I say again, I cannot wait to hear the Demos' apologists on this board defend this as a sign of their renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Happy days are here again!

One little problem with this "Toss out the Moderates" compaign is that the result would be a Democrat Senate. Olympia Snowe is electable in Maine, rightwingers are not. Look what happened to the Dems when they alienated their conservative wing, the only type of Democrat that can be elected in the South. If the GOP wants to be nationally-based, governing party it needs to keep the tent big and open.

Given that the effect is basically Democrat fiscal policy.

proposing a 1% reduction in a program the size of Medicaid qualifies one as a "right-winger"?  News to me.

My complaint (perhaps distinct from others on this board) is that these squishy RINOs aren't even able to stay on the reservation for a largely symbolic 1% reduction in a program that everyone knows is loaded with fraud, waste and abuse.  They're not even willing to try to reform these programs - it's simply easier to throw around the left's talking points as gospel.

I for one am not saying "Throw the bumbs out".  What I'm saying is don't expect me to go out of my way for a party I was led to believe was serious about fiscal restraint who cannot even accomplish symbolic (and almost entirely pain-free) gestures to prove it.

1%.

Cheers.

it would be hard to overstate the importance of this point.

are we moving in the right direction?

yes or no

thats what its all about, right direction or wrong on these matters.

On the right direction side, we have tax cuts (no small effort from Bush and congress I might add).  We have social security reform, thats fantastic.  We got some tort reform.  (ok thats not an entitlement, but still its the same spirit)

On the negative side we lost the medicaid cuts, but that doesnt represent motion in any direction.  We also got the gigantic perscription drug law, and thats a legitimate problem.  I justify it to myself by saying that it would have been much worse coming from a democrat's pen, and our preemption of that gave us the best solution where there was no good solution coming.  It also hurt the dems politically, which allows us to continue affecting things, which is good.

oh yea and we all get to not die at the hands of terrorist nukers.

wc

On the right direction side, we have tax cuts

Granted, a clear net positive - rolling back the Clinton tax-hikes were a good start.  Now we can start rolling-back the Bush I tax hikes.

We have social security reform, thats fantastic.

Really?  When did that happen?  I must have missed what I would expect to be the story of a generation - that GWB got SS reform passed and implemented.

On the negative side we lost the medicaid cuts, but that doesnt represent motion in any direction.

"Entitlements" are 2/3 of the budget and currently growing at integer multiples of inflation - soon to potnetially be double-digit integer multiples of inflation.  Every year we fail to do something about that is a giant step backward.

We also got the gigantic perscription drug law, and thats a legitimate problem.  I justify it to myself by saying that it would have been much worse coming from a democrat's pen, and our preemption of that gave us the best solution where there was no good solution coming.  It also hurt the dems politically, which allows us to continue affecting things, which is good.

I can only agree to the extent that this is a "legitimate problem".  The Cialis for Geezers give-away has been, and will continue to be, a disaster and a net-loser for the GOP and should be repealed with all deliberate speed and substituted with the market-based, $174B proposal they originally shelved under the threat of a Demo filibuster.

oh yea and we all get to not die at the hands of terrorist nukers.

Granted - and the Senate has been largely unhelpful to GWBs efforts toward keeping nukes out of the hands of Jihadistan.

Cheers.

...Where Republicans should stand up for diversity.  I'm not saying the moderates should have their way, and certainly not that they should be the majority, but we must recognize that Republicans in places like Maine and Pennsylvania are not necessarily like Republicans from Texas or Kansas or Florida.

We do cross a risky (to a GOP majority) line when we propose to outright purge them from the party, or at least from having a voice.

Painful as it may be to hear, SOMETIMES (not now) they may be right!

I tolerate these folks on a host of issues that get under my skin much more, namely, abortion. But if they can't even hold up their end on the one thing on which we are nominally aligned, I'm at a loss why we tolerate them.

On the right direction side, we have tax cuts

Not really.  The huge spending of the last four years will be paid for.  The tax cuts are just deferred tax increases to pay for the spending.  

As for the Medicaid cuts, I can't really comment on the merits because I lack specifics.  If the cuts are just pretending that providing medical care for the poor will cost less this year, that's just passing more costs along to the states.  If it actually made structural changes to make delivery of medical care to the poor more efficient, that would be another story.

As a Democrat, I don't have a problem with other Democrats voting to cancel the cuts.  The party wants structural change to how medical care is delivered and payed for in this country to make it more efficient and humane, so I don't think the intent is to spend more money for the hell of it.  Indeed, my main issue with budgeting is that if they want to spend money, fine, but pay for it.  At least that way we are making an informed choice when it comes to deciding whether or not to spend money.  My problem with the moderates, then, is not that they voted to prevent the Medicaid cuts, but rather that some of them also voted for the overall budget with tax cuts.  Voting for higher spending with lower taxes is the worst policy of all.

Re: We also got the gigantic perscription drug law, and thats a legitimate problem.  

True, but let's forget where that came from and who twisted every arm in sight to get it passed.

First, I think you're generally correct in your assessment that you have to vote for the most conservative candidate possible and in a State like ME or MN that may be a Snow or a Coleman.  In which case you're not vote for a moderate Republican over a hypothetical more conservative Republican so much as you are voting for a moderate Republican over a more left-leaning Democrat not only because they're marginally more acceptable but because you're also voting for which party you want to control that House of Congress.

Second, it's a mistake to focus exclusively on areas where we disagree to the exclusion of those areas where we do agree.  Chances are these "moderate" Republicans will be right along side the more conservative ones on 80 percent of the issues.  A Democrat probably wouldn't be inclined to vote with conservatives that much of the time.  Not every "moderate" is a "Rino" and it's important to look at the entire picture, not just on a few high profile votes where they disagree and you think they're wrong.

Third, as you said they may be right about something when the majority is wrong.  An example to me would be Senator Chuck Hagel who has been widely chastised by many conservatives for some of his comments on foreign policy but was clearly right (while the majority our party was wrong) in opposing the $849 Billion Medicare entitlement program something that most of the "conservatives" in our caucus did in fact vote for.  He's also been the front man not only on Social Security reform but in making the case that Medicare and Medicaid are bigger problems.  Former EPA director and governor Christie Todd Whitman was wrong IMO about a lot of things but she was an outspoken advocate of more free-market oriented reforms to air pollution regulations, something that not enough Republicans are willing to do anything about.

Fourth, not everything is about ideology and a lot of it is about what you think will make the folks back home happy.  My own Senator, Norm Coleman, probably voted against the Medicaid cuts because it's been a common complaint in Minnesota that we're already screwed over by the Medicaid reimbursement formula because we're relatively efficient in delivering health services.  No doubt that Coleman (as well as Snow or Chaffee) probably thought that the Medicaid cuts (which IIRC were changes in the reimbursement rather than just off the top cuts) would be disproportionately bad for their States and voted accordingly.  It's no different IMO than a lot of Southern "conservatives" who vote to protect a particular project for their district or State.  Both are wrong and their wrongness is a reflection more of parochial interests back home than some ideological leanings.

I'm very conservative, but I disagree.  I don't want to get rid of the moderates.

The moderates allow for control.

YES, they do cause us headaches sometimes, but enough of them are going to vote with us on Judges to remove filibusters and even if that's all they do for us this entire congressional session, then it will be worth it.

We should spend more of our time lamenting what Bush did with the budget in the first four years.

If we "get rid of all our moderates" then we'll be the Democrats.  And you see where they are.

What I would LIKE to see is that in conservative states we replace moderates with conseravatives, but where we can't (Rhode Island, Maine, etc), I much prefer a moderate Republican to a liberal Democrat.

I wish we could elect a couple of moderate California, GOP senators.

Oz

tax cuts do not wash because of a deficit.

deficits can be handled in any number of ways, but to be honest you arent talking about paying for the deficit you are talking about paying down the debt, which increases more when there is a large deficit.

paying down the debt (i.e. generating a surplus and using it for same) can be acheived in any number of ways which do not involve putting cut taxes back in place.  Among them would be cutting spending to the bone, the natural increase in revenue from a larger and more vibrant economy, tariffs, whatever.

this sort of thing reminds me of when the democrats call a tax cut "spending" and "giving money to the rich".  

you spent our surplus on tax cuts!!

eh?

wc

ok, ok so SS is not fixed yet and most of the polls are negative but some of the generic polls on the subject are really positive and I think Bush is gonna stealth this thing in.  Anyway, a serious amount of positive effort is being spent in the SS department and that has to count for something

As for your characterization of entitlements, I could not agree more.  

But whatever we do has to be politically viable.  If its not, we fail and we lose power and we start steamrolling back down the welfare state entitlements path.

know what im sayin?

wc

that I neither share your optimism that SS reform will be passed nor the likelihood that said reform will stop the impending collapse of the system, probably about 2-months before I'm about to draw benefits - such is life.

Viability:  sure, I'm with you.  That said, if a 1% cut in Medicare isn't viable, then there's not point in even continuing the Kabuki Dance around entitlement spending reductions and we may as well get comfortable with Old Europe's tax and unemployment rates because our pensioners are going to crush us.

Cheers.

A lot of being a moderate is about attitude more than belief. It's about being the kind of person who will go along with just about anything, and who can be easily influenced by various forms of wheedling.

I mean, there are people who are mixed bags on issues (Specter comes to mind, though there's a lot more bad than good in that one), and who hold very strong views on all of them, but they're a lot rarer than the squishes who just want everyone to like them, even at the expense of good policy.

The term "good policy" is invariably used to avoid acknowledgement that you might be wrong on a given issue. There are a variety of issues prevalent in today's political environment where Democratic politicans are wrong. However, it is important to keep in mind the number of Republican agendas that are equally untenable.

In addition, what might be of sound policy for one group may not be that of another. As the United States is made of a vast array of citizens, no policy should be held as uniformly applicable. It is not only disengenuous, but unhealthy to the growth of that society and the respect of each person within it.

I don't portend that laws and policies never be accepted, but that entire sets of such should be considered with greater scrutiny than currently exhibited by most politicians and/or their constituents. That most politicians consider an opposing viewpoint as an opportunity for argument rather than intelligent discussion is unfortunate, indeed.