Politician visits to disaster areas are always, always photo-ops and nothing more. As is so often the case, President Calvin Coolidge had it right when he declined to visit the victims of the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, judging such a visit to be pure political grandstanding.
But in an election year, don't you need to do a little grandstanding?
Don't get me wrong, we all appreciate, as Ann Romney explained the other night, that Mitt sees helping others "as a privilege, not a political talking point."
Nevertheless, particularly in the wake of Katrina, and the ongoing hateful characterizations of Republicans as "uncaring," why would there be any debate whatsoever about whether Romney should visit the region ravaged by Hurricane Isaac? If it doesn't hurt rescue and clean-up efforts? If it maybe helps a few folks feel better? Why would he not do this? What's to consider?
I suspect Governors Jindal and Bryant would be glad to host. Might take two days, and it seems to me that sometime between September 4th and September 6th would be an ideal time to visit, so the cable channels have more than just Obama's "party" to report. They might even need to go split-screen.
A picture-in-picture is worth two thousand words.