Just Call Me Michael Moore

Through Matt Drudge, I learned of a piece in the New York Times on Senator Clinton's new circle of friends in New York's GOP. What I thought interesting about the story was not the fact that the former First Lady has been making political allies. She is, after all, a major politician.

The article is more instructive for what it shows us about the Republican party in New York and, probably, elsewhere. When a prominent Republican family recently threw a fundraiser for the New York senator, it was the first time the family had done such a thing for a Democrat since 1812. This is just one example of Hillary Clinton's fashionability among Republicans in the Empire State.

In the four years since taking office, Mrs. Clinton has managed to cultivate a bipartisan, above-the-fray image that has made her a surprisingly welcome figure in some New York Republican circles, even as she remains exceedingly popular with her liberal base.

But does this popularity say more about Hillary or about her Republican buddies? One gauge might be the changing opinion of one congressman from Buffalo.

Only five years ago, for example, Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of Buffalo mocked Mrs. Clinton as a "a [sic] tourist who has lost her way," alluding to the fact that she had not lived in New York before deciding to run for the Senate.

But these days, Mr. Reynolds, a Republican who is frequently mentioned as a possible candidate for speaker of the House, says he considers Ms. Clinton an ally in his effort to deliver aid to western New York.

In fact, he said that his work with Mrs. Clinton had prompted the local newspaper in his district to call them the "odd couple."

"I like Senator Clinton," said Mr. Reynolds, a friend and adviser to Gov. George E. Pataki. "I've found that when she says she will take on a job with me, she does it."

Perhaps Reynolds could have just said, "she brings home the pork." But one quote to remember is his last compliment about taking on "jobs". It's important.

After reading this, I will say that I would find myself agreeing with the second half of the following, were it not for the fact that both parties are looking remarkably similar in their appetite for government favors these days.

Political analysts say that Mrs. Clinton's improved standing reflects her meticulous efforts to win over critics - as well as the tendency among politicians to look past party differences and find common interests once in office.

But these strategists also say that the unusually open support she is enjoying among Republicans highlights a lack of party discipline that has been plaguing the New York Republican Party in recent years.

What substantive "party differences" are there for these money-grubbers to "look past?" A "lack of party discipline"? This criticism of the Republicans is about as silly as chiding Tweedledee for looking like the mirror image of Tweedledum, as far as I can tell.

But the Grey Lady saves the best quote for last.

[Republican, Representative Peter T.] King [of Nassau County] also said that Mrs. Clinton had been anything but the liberal extremist that her conservative critics accused her of being. "I'm not going to vote for her and probably disagree with her on 70 percent of the issues," he said. "But I think that too many Republicans who criticize Hillary Clinton sound like Michael Moore criticizing George Bush."

I could rightly criticize the Times here for showing its editorial bias, ending this article on the note it does. But everyone knows that the paper is liberal save Dan Rather. What's more damning is the fact that a Republican said this. Remember the GOP? That was the party of capitalism. I believe they once fought tooth and nail awhile back to stop a certain unelected, unaccountable individual from shoving socialized medicine down our throats. If I remember correctly, her name was, oh, something like Hillary Clinton. Remember that compliment Thomas Reynolds gave her for "taking on jobs?" I remember how she "took on the job" of "health care." I for one don't think that a few years of passing out bennies to a few Republican areas in New York changes anything -- or differs in substance -- from what she nearly did then. Please spare me from seeing Hillary "take on" any more "jobs" like that again!

King was one breath short of calling those of us who disagree with and oppose Hillary Clinton "extremists" only he had a better insult: Tar those crazy capitalists with the same brush as Michael Moore! It's very disturbing that members of the "party of small government" can be bought off so easily. Perhaps my earlier posts about the enmity mainline conservatives such as James Taranto and Andrew Stuttaford have shown towards Ayn Rand as a capitalist reflect a deeper problem within the Republican party: the growing marginalization of fiscal conservatism. If this article is any indication, the GOP is quite a different party now than it was a decade ago.

And if that's true, Hillary Clinton will be able to win the presidency in '08, because she will be the more consistent presidential candidate. She will set the terms of the debate. Her Republican opponent, who will not differ from her in any substantive way, will either (a) offer an unconvincing alternative or (b) offer Hillary Lite.

Some Republicans might call people like me "Michael Moore," but I'm in no more of a position to throw an election than he was. Unlike Moore's animus towards Bush, my opposition to Clinton is based on historical fact and a principled stand. And if my prediction comes true, it will have ironically been the Republicans, conjuring up the ghost of Michael Moore, who will have handed the party of Clinton the next presidential election.

-- CAV