Yeah, all good publicity for him.
Just quietly, but Tony Abbot wouldn't see it that way. For example, he's been involved in Aboriginal communities for years, frequently spending weeks at a time in remote areas. But how much do you know about that?
Not a lot, because he didn't publicise it, at the time or subsequently.
Since becoming the leader of the Liberal Party, his profile is higher, and it's impossible to do anything like that without the media finding out and coming along for the good stories with the interesting photographs etc.
What I'm saying is that not all people do things the same way. Some politicians, they do these community events for the photo opportunities and the publicity and as part of a wider program - for example every time there's any move on the Gonski thing, Julia Gillard is seen in a school. Not a university.
Others, they have different and deeper involvements.
Going wider, looking at the whole thread here, I'm reminded of fanbois pumping up their preferred airline or operating system or whatever. The side they support can do no wrong, be it Apple or Qantas or Collingwood, and the other guys are just pale imitations of the real thing with inferior products, full of lies and distortions.
Of course, people are entitled to pick sides and cheer their favorites, nothing wrong with that. It's just that it becomes a little tiresome when the bias runs 24/7, no let up, and it's presented as an objective viewpoint.
All politicians play games. They have to. But I think that to most people - those who aren't one-eyed supporters of one side or another - Tony Abbot comes across as a bit more genuine than Julia Gillard in the core belief area. You get a good feeling of what Abbott stands for, whether you support those things or not.
Julia Gillard, well, just what does she stand for?
She seems to be strongly supportive of whatever the latest focus group favours.