...the optics of leadership continue be more important than governing skills.

So nu?

It isn't like Jared actually owns Subway, or that their subs are any good, come to that -- everyone recognizes Jared.

I don't think anyone will be putting Hillary in a corner. I just don't see it.

Optics of leadership over governing skills is the modern Republican model.

Bush II, like Reagan, does the optics. Other people do the governing. It's president as spokes-creature.

Cf. Arnold in California.

It works better than putting a very smart, very capable, experienced person out front. See, e.g., Al Gore, John Kerry.

And, as Davis X. Machina alludes to above, the consumer capitalist culture has effectively trained the American public to accept this kind of thing as normal and good.

You're saying this person is wrong? If so, why is Bush Junior in the White House? How many elections do we have to lose before we stop wishing for the country we don't have, as Rummy might say? Fred will DESTROY Hillary, and if you can't see that, you are blind.

For the love of God, can we please establish a moratorium on the use of the O-word? There are already at least two perfectly good words that convey the same meaning: image and appearance.

It may seem edgy and hip to assign new meanings to words, but it's really just annoying.

Meh. I'm not worried about Fred Thompson seizing the GOP nomination; I'm worried that the GOP's going to bring in that Chinese-Mongolian guy, the tallest man in the world... who can *also* save dolphins with his proportionately long arms.

I can hear Sean Hannity already: "Take that, treehuggers! If you don't vote for this guy, you must hate dolphins!"

Obviously the GOP believes in image-is-all as a campaign theory, and the press eagerly echoes the theory; disturbingly, some Democrats buy in as well. Why can't people understand the fact that presidential performance matters? Gore still got more votes than Bush, despite a vilification campaign on the former and a deification of the latter -- because Gore was running in defense of a popular administration. Thompson or whoever can stand there looking manly as hell, compared to (I assume these will be the press memes) shrill Hillary, egghead Obama or limp-wristed Edwards -- the electorate will still be judging the administration performance from the last four years, and if they don't vote for change, it will be the first such irrational decision in living memory.

I swear, no one believes GOP propaganda as much as some Democrats.

All of which is to say that, for some Republicans, ideological correctness and the optics of leadership continue be more important than governing skills.

Some Republican'ts? Can you find any whose actions suggest some other school of thought?

I would also suggest that, because the Republican'ts have no governing skills, they tend to value it less. Hard to miss (or value) something you posess none of, that is diametrically opposed to your party platform, and that you would need some sort of intellectual competancy to evn know you're missing it.

I'm a Californian. I didn't vote for Arnold, but he has more going for him than just spokesperson. He's a pretty decent negotiator, too. He's pretty flexible too.

He was willing to change and try a new course, after the legislature called his bluff and his initiative package went down in flames.

Most of all, he's not a nutcase.

I gotta believe that it takes a peculiar cast of mind to be a Republican nowadays. For most of my life I've been hearing from Republican politicians that government is the problem, and is your enemy, and violence must be done to government to protect America (think drowning in the bathtub), because real Americans must be rescued from our country's enemies, especially internal ones.
And then those very same politicians spend incredible amounts of money to be elected to go to the very same place they apparently fear and loathe so very much. And their talking points are usually how better suited to govern they are than their opponents (okay, it's actually how much worse their opponents are, but it amounts to the same thing).
Um, is anyone ever going to call out the cognitive dissonance in this?

I would like to second Jumbo's plea regarding the use of the word "optics." A clearer, more plain-spoken form of English would do wonders for Democratic politicians and their trendoid functionaries. Stuff like promote clearer thinking and getting important points across to diverse audiences. Our tendency as a party to verbally waffle on the stump seems to be creeping into our activities off-stage. By the way, anyone know whether "lockbox" was ever successfully removed from Al Gore's wazoo following the theft of the 2000 Presidential election?

Points taken on optics, thanks for the feedback.

I don't care for Fred, but that wife of his-va-va-VOOM!

When Americas are given the choice between looking at Hillary and that sweet GO-Piece it's a no-brainer.

Freddy isn’t even going to make through the primaries. Why do you think he hasn’t announced yet. The other candidates are going to chew him up. He will implode just like McCain. There is no there there. Why do you think they are already calling it the Freddy Fizzle? Hillary won’t even get a chance at him. To bad.

The only thing more tiresome than words and phrases like "optics" and "thrown under the bus" is people complaining about them. Use any damn word you want.

That said, did this person (a leading figure in the Iowa Republican Party) actually talk about "stubby legs" and Madame Defarge? Is he someone who is, in general, a moron, or someone who is taken seriously? I guess in the Republican party, the two are not mutually exclusive.

And exactly how does Fred Thompson resemble Andrew Jackson?