Romney's Dog Not Looking Forward to Next Family Vacation
 

Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus's rather visceral protest.

Asked how the ride was, Romney's dog Seamus reportedly replied, "Ruff!"

Such cruelty is sure to earn him the Republican nomination.

Who'd call their kid "Mitt" ?!?! WTF.

"Mommy's calling, kids, time for supper. Come little Mitt, come little Bat, come little Ballpark Frank"

Cruelty begets cruelty

No offense, especially since I don't think it's right to do that to any animal, I find it rather amusing that it's coming out now, just after the evangelicals bashed him for being a Mormon, being of Satan, and otherwise not believing in Jesus. (For those not in the know, Mormons believe in Jesus. Up until recently (all that social-conservative pressure!) he was pro-choice - a surefire sign that he was totally a part of Satan's posse.)

I'm not saying I'd vote for the guy... I'm just saying that all the ignorance and digging up of dirt that happened 24 years ago is pretty much what keeps me disenchanted with the political system and many of the people voting within it.

I shouldn't even expect it to be any different, nor should I continue hoping it would be. As the political pendulum swings left and right, the only thing I'm assured of is that it's all a part of the same clock.

Did I miss the reference to the date that occurred in the article? Or did they fail to mention it? Because it sure seemed like this was something that just happened.

.

I think anyone that would strap a dog to the roof of a car is an asshole. I don't think you outgrow that sort of asshole either. I know nothing else about him, but I'm certain he's an asshole.

That's the thing, all the evangelicals are worried that he doesn't believe in Jesus and won't guide our country in the right way. Which only confirms how uneducated so many people are.

And sadly (to me), he's no longer pro-choice - pressured by the religious right. And I don't know whether it means he'd pick judges that would be fair when it came to Roe v. Wade or if it just means he's wishy-washy and goes against his own beliefs for a vote, which I believe most/all politicians do. You know... "for the greater good."

In terms of the date, I may have misread, simply because I forgot National Lampoon's Vacation being a 1983 release. This very well could have happened recently. No matter the date, it's a reprehensible action, no matter when, though it would have been incredibly foolhardy this close to the primaries. In which case, I'd have to question his intelligence, and lack of intelligent people around him. (While I question Bush's intelligence, he does have some smart people around him guiding him - even if I don't agree with them.)

How lazy, it would probably take all of 30 minutes to find out what the laws were in 1983 instead of talking about whether he broke the law then based on today's laws.

But, assuming some protection from wind I don't see how this is any different from putting the dog in the bed of a truck, and in 1983 most people wouldn't have tied up a dog in the bed of a truck.

I also don't take the fact that the dog pooped to be a sign of torture and losing control of its bowels. However, if the dog was up there for 12 straight hours and that is why it pooped in the box then that's not good.

But if the worst thing Romney's done in his life is this, then he's a pretty good person.

I take something like this to be representative of his character. I highly doubt it's the worst thing he's done. If a guy will tie a dog to a car, what else might he do?

I think next year when I vote in my first presidential election, I will choose a candidate to vote for based on random qualities and news fluff.

I wouldn't quite call this tying a dog to a car, he was in a pet carrier. Once in my life I saw a dog tied to a car and they just took off down the rode, it was horrific!

Way back then though they did many things we wouldn't consider safe now. Children didn't have to be seat belted in and dogs and kids could ride in the back. They'd even let you ride in a trailer being towed down the road.

I'm not saying he's a great guy because I have no clue but I don't think I will fault him for something he did 24 years ago that was the norm back then. If he did it today though, that would be different.

My parents neighbor trains show dogs and he uses a special cartop carrier to transport his fury friends all the time. No one who knows him would ever accuse him a being cruel to his pets....he loves them more than people.

I couldn't find the one he uses online but I did find a similar product:

http://www.discountramps.com/dog-carrier-motorcycle.htm

Like Cirquelover said, you can't hardly fault someone for such a relatively minor incident that was committed 24 years ago. As my sister used to like to relate with glee (until I got in her face about it), I used to clip clothes pins (the wooden ones with the spring in them) onto our cat's tail when I was young (maybe 10 or so). Yes, what I did was cruel. But I would hope that no one would judge my character by that event committed so long ago.

I think that sums it up quite nicely

Yeah, but you were a child. He was the father on a family vacation. Kids often lack empathy, it's simply a characteristic that develops with age. Adults really should have some.

I knew that the age differential would come into it. I almost addressed it up front.

Yes, the choice of a 10-year-old cannot be compared to the choice of a 36-year-old (remember, this incident took place in 1983). Yes, as a 36YO, he would presumably have more wisdom. But at worst I call this a lapse in judgment. 24 years ago! It is not as if he dragged the dog (a la "Vacation" as the linked story compares this incident to). I wouldn't even call the action "cruel" - just bad judgment.

To call him an asshole because of one incident (that has nothing to do with his ability to be President) 24 years ago is a stretch. The act may have been idiotic, but it does not make him an asshole. Further, was it Mitt's decision to put the dog on the roof - could it have been say a touchy MIL (pure illustrative speculation on my part) refusing to ride in the car with the dog?

Let me ask this: does this act of 24 years ago have an impact on
his ability to be president in 2009?

Is there an expiration date on cruelty? I'm dumbfounded as to how the date matters. Either you empathize with other living creatures or you don't. This guy owned the dog - obviously lived with it - and still, could not think "I wouldn't want to be tied to the roof of the car for such a long trip". Like Traci said, kids have problems empathizing - a person over 16 should have no problem at all.

He will continue to be guilty of cruelty to an animal to the day he dies.

The dog was not "tied to the roof". The dog was IN A CARRIER that was tied to the roof. Was there also a blanket wrapped around the carrier? Was there something to block the wind? I do not automatically judge the action as cruelty - stupidity yes, but not necessarily cruelty.

And without a non-slanted article (sorry, but the linked article is slanted), there is not enough information to make a better determination of the situation.

I am wondering if some here would be as up in arms had this person been a Democratic candidate?



ETA: From the article linked in the article:

Is there any evidence in that story that the dog was treated cruelly? If there was elsewhere then I'll revise my view.

Putting a dog in a carrier and then tying it to the roof of a car does not strike me (assuming sufficient wind protection which isn't mentioned one way or another in the linked story) as any more cruel than putting the carrier in the bed of a pickup truck, which is legal and done all of the time.

Plus, the social standards for what is "cruel" treatment of pets has changed a lot over the last 25 years. In many placing trimming tails is now cruel but was once common. Declawing cats is now illegal in quite a few places but is still commonly done. In another 25 years if the societal consensus is that declawing is cruel will the people who do it now be ineligible for the presidency on grounds of animal cruelty?

Hell, 25 years ago none of the kids were likely buckled in. Is that a knock against him too? Was he an unfit parent?

No, there isn't necessarily an expiration date on cruelty but there are certainly broad and sometimes rapid shifts in what is considered cruel. (And I haven't yet seen anything that would necessarily fall into that category by a current standard, let alone the standards of 1982.)

The link in the the OP is to a Time Magazine/CNN article which is actually a follow-up to a Boston Globe article. While I was able to link right into the Boston Globe article, it is now asking me to register to see the article. It is from the Boston Globe article that I secured this quote from my post above:

Windshield or not, I'm sure it was a horrific journey for that pet.
You know me, I'm no Dem.I really don't care about social standards (though I know I am affected by them as everyone else is). I have my own standards on this, and I am not a fan of the truck bed thing either.

On a somewhat related note - a lady came into the library today pushing a dog in a stroller. And not a regular stroller, no, a strollerdesigned to carry dogs. She was told not to bring the pet in and she pitched a fit, calling the librarian prejudiced (and, reportedly, a slut - I wasn't there for this). I personally think this lady is insane. I think only a disabled dog should be pushed around like a baby, and even so, should not be brought into a public building unless it's a helper dog.

I also never said anything about being eligible for the presidency. Hell, I come from another planet where being a liar would disqualify you, but in this world, that just ain't the case. I don't pretend to understand what flies and what doesn't in our political system.

Is it cruelty, though?