While scanning the headlines earlier today, this one stopped me:
“Palin camp eyed Clinton alliance”
Now, on the surface, that headline screams of being a typo. I mean, it’s hard to imagine two more different women than Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, so an alliance between them is a dubious linkage, at best. Maybe, I thought, they meant an alliance with Bill Clinton, only of the type Bill is infamous for, as opposed to anything political.
So, needless to say, I opened the article, and sure enough, it outlines the suggestion of some “friend” of both the Palins and Clintons for them to not only get to know each other better, but also for some of Sarah Palin’s PAC money to be used to help retire Hillary’s campaign debt. That’s a pretty stunning suggestion, not only because of the obvious political implications, but also because I think it might not be legal. I’m no lawyer, and I certainly know almost nothing about the legalities surrounding campaign contributions, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the funds donated can only be used to further the campaign or career of the candidate in question. Using such money to pay off another candidate’s debt doesn’t strike me as appropriate in any way, particularly from the perspective of the people who donated the money. I daresay that not one soul who gave money to Sarah Palin ever imagined it would be used to assist Hillary Clinton out of a jam. Palin and her team saw the same obvious problems and declined the suggestion, as, in my opinion, they should have.
Still, I think it’s admirable on the part of the mutual friend, John Coale, to ask the two couples to develop a better association. (FYI – That’s not an endorsement of Coale, the person, who has had some rather unflattering things said about him online.) For too long, I’ve felt that the respective parties have been fostering divisiveness and nastiness that isn’t healthy for the country. It’s not productive to getting things done, and won’t be until the acrimony is turned down a few notches. I fully agree with Coale’s statement in the article:
“With these people from the opposite side, I’m trying to turn down the volume a bit on the attacks,” Coale said. “The more people meet each other and actually talk to each other, the volume will come down.”
A little bit of added socializing across party lines, or cooperative give and take on agreeable issues, is a good thing for the country. It fosters good, sensible legislation, like this bill. A little bit more of that would be a good thing.
Plus, I chuckle every time I think of any conversation between any combination of the four people in question.
The Everyman Blog 