Reduced to its essence, he won 2008 by tapping into people's disgust against "politics as usual". Now he can't do that. Nothing has changed. So he comes off either as being disturbingly naive (for believing that he could change things) or as being a false prophet. Neither of these tags are very appealing.
Read an article in The New Yorker and I quote "It is an article of faith among some Democrats that liberals give money to politicians for altruistic reasons, whereas Republicans make campaign contributions as self-serving investments, in order to protect future profits."
Jeez! Talk about self-serving crap. Anyone who contributes anything more than $1K definitely wants at least a photo-op and usually wants to be taken seriously by the administration. Everyone has their own ideas for what is wrong with the government or the economy. Whether it is Democrats or Republicans, they want to influence decision-making with their inputs. Of course, some might look at direct benefits such as a specific legislation while others might just want to be heard out about a general policy direction. But either way, there is no such thing as an expensive lunch for free (that is a pun on campaign fund-raising dinners which cost $20-50K depending on how few people are expected to share the space).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment