In Defense of Clinton - Part II

I wasn't interested in politics around the time that this famous commercial was aired. Most of what I remember in terms of significant public events from the 1990s was the OJ Simpson trial and the emergence of Pokemon.

Yet as national politics begins to slowly and methodically become America's favorite pastime I am becoming more and more interested in the discourse of the Clinton era. French philosopher Henry Bergson once said "the present contains nothing more than the past." And Hillary Clinton is a shining example of that.

Arguably the most aggravating thing about following politics is the general public's complete inability to recall any history past the last episode of Lost. That goes for us conservatives as well as our liberal counterparts. Those of us who pride ourselves in digging through campaign contributions and reading up on past policy implosions often see our hours of painstaking research and analysis go unheeded, as people inevitably flock towards the candidate who will whisper sweet nothings in their ear.

This has also been the case with me. While many in the Republican party are disenchanted with the prospect of running a McCain ticket, most if not all will, without a doubt in my mind, bow down and vote for him regardless. Even the Dobsons of the world, despite their bawling and moaning, will fill in the bubble next to the Mad Dog when November rolls around.

But I am here to offer up a different path, perhaps one thought of as unorthodox to some. For a staunch conservative to toss his support behind a Democrat seems unreasonable, but I have devoted myself to explaining just why this is a step in the right direction for our nation. It is important that Americans, especially conservatives who are seeing their party wane and begin to crumble, vote for the candidate who shares their ideology, regardless of what party they affiliate themselves with.

A letter is a letter, and there are many prominent examples of people for whom the letter "D" means absolutely nothing.

Am I suggesting that Clinton is equitable to Lieberman? Certainly not. We can't wish for the impossible. But she is certainly not someone deserving of the vilification she is often exposed to. Especially on issues such as health care.


The American Health Choices Plan (in pdf format here) is about as moderate and pro-corporation as any platform you'll find. And that pleases me in ways I'm not allowed to describe on this page. What we have here is a reconfiguring of the insurance industry, though fundamentally nothing drastic is being done, certainly nothing on the Conyers/Kucinich level. It's a lot like turning the living room couch to face the other direction, then calling up your friends and telling them you bought a new house.

Easily the most appealing part of this whole plan is the portion entitled Shared Responsibility. Essentially what happens under a Clinton health care system is that everyone is ordered, for fear of punishment, to purchase health insurance, while insurance and pharmaceutical companies have to compete to to provide high-quality, affordable health care.

In short: companies do what they're doing now, but now everyone is required by law to do business with them. If that's not capitalism at its finest, someone tell me what is!

As you read on, you also see some very comforting statistical information from our friends at the RAND Corporation. And let me tell you, nothing woos me quite like an endorsement from the RAND Corporation. This research group has a board of trustees that exemplifies what it means to be "pro-business". Nothing says, "I'm here to provide independent research" quite like a board of trustees that boasts the President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, the former Senior VP of Dow Jones, a former Secretary of the USAF, and a number of former White House secretaries.

That's not to mention my main man, Mr. Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan, who has been a signatory on a number of pro-Iraq war statements made by Project for a New American Century, or PNAC. If you don't know who they are by now, you watch too much MTV.

Some of you will undoubtedly ask, "But Matt, you Irish stallion, this is nothing like what the Republicans are offering. And we all know that big business is in bed with the Republicans." At which point I will flash a devilishly-handsome smile and hand you a copy of a NY Times article by Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear entitled "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton". I will leave you with this excerpt, and remind you that for the good of American conservatism and American business interests, I urge you to support Senator Hillary Clinton for President.

As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.

Some of the same interests that tried to derail Mrs. Clinton’s health care overhaul are providing support for her Senate re-election bid. The Health Insurance Association of America ran the famous “Harry and Louise” commercials mocking the Clinton health care plan as impenetrably complex. Some companies that were members of that group are now donating to Mrs. Clinton.

Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, now works with the senator on some issues as president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobby for hospital companies like HCA and Tenet. He describes his battles with the first lady as “ancient history,” and he said health care executives were contributing to her now because “she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue.”

Senator Clinton has received $150,600 in contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which she accused in 1993 of “price gouging” and “unconscionable profiteering.”

(Author's note: Senator Rick Santorum lost his seat in 2006 to Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. This makes Senator Clinton the No. 1 recipient of health insurance donations.)