LIR: Seriously, "drawing fire" is what VP candidates are for.
Posted by
con_carne
Feb 27 '11, 11:06
|
At the level of presidential campaigning, actual cash money from wealthy/influential supporters would be involved. it stands to reason that such supporters would want to see a return on their investment. Would campaign contributors be willing to throw millions into a presidential campaign just to have it as a diversion?
Diversionary/divisive issues in politics usually come at no charge because the media always need a story. And that's usually fine (in a politically scummy kind of way. In order for Newt Gingrich to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate in 2012, he will have to raise lots of money. If Newt is going to be a "draw fire" candidate, yet not b taken seriously by anyone in the party establishment, how long can that last from now until campaigning gets underway? Will people be willing to contribute millions to a campaign just for the purposes of it being a diversion from somebody like Sarah Palin, or whoever else runs? Doesn't seem a sustainable idea to me.
|
Responses:
|
