Romney strapped dog carrier to top of his car

[lilithu]

I did read that in another article, actually.

Yeah, but what does it mean? Did he strap a piece of plastic to the front of the carrying cage? Or was it something more elaborate? Does he have the knowledge to construct a proper windshield?

Windshields aren't just physical barriers. They're specifically shaped to lead the wind away from the car, thereby reducing friction and NOISE.

I won't fault Romney for perhaps not understanding this. But I highly doubt that what he did was sufficient for the safety and comfort of the poor dog. In fact, we know this because the dog crapped itself.

It's driving me bonkers that people here think that just meant the dog needed to go potty, or even thinking that justified not letting the dog in the car in the first place. Voiding of the bowels is a fear response! If you don't believe me, GOOGLE it!

 

[jonny]

Can you provide proof for that? That's not in the article listed.

Perhaps because that tidbit of information didn't help advance the author's agenda. The windshield information was in the original article:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/part4/

 

[jonny]

Let us also hope that people don't disregard the possibility of questionable character or affiliations in order to further some agenda.

I've already done my research. Have you done yours?

What wouldn't you be willing to overlook in your desire to see an LDS president?

What kind of question is that? My support of Romney has little to do with his religious affiliation and more to do with the leadership skills that impressed me while he was leading the Olympics in Salt Lake. He impressed a lot of people here, and it had nothing to do with his religion.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but your signature pretty much says it all.

My signature is the logo for a website that searches only Mormon related websites. That's all it says.

I would have probably been willing to acknowledge you as a bit unbiased if you hadn't been so adamant about the dog issue being 'no big deal'. Obviously it is a very big deal to the other posters of this thread. If you had instead said "yeah the guy did something really stupid and unthinking and it was wrong", then I would be more apt to accept that possibility and just move on. But the more you wrote the more upset I got. If the guy is smart he won't hire you as a campaigner, you really know how to rub people the wrong way.

I still don't think it's a big deal. I'm sorry if this rubs you the wrong way, but you're going to have to get over it. The reason you're upset is because you made yourself out to be an expert on Romney's character and I called you out on it. You never responded, so I'm assuming that it must have hurt your pride.

Don't worry about me campaigning for Romney. I'm not going to do it. I'm personally good friends with someone who used to date one of his sons and she said that she'd never vote for Romney because he's comprimised on too many of his values in order to aspise to leadership positions. I tend to agree with her and have expressed these feelings on these forums in the past. I haven't made up my mind to vote for Romney, but he's on my list of possible candidates. The only candidate that I have contributed any money to is Bill Richardson.

Romney is one of two Republican candidates that I could stand as president. That's it.

 

[jonny]

So I suppose it means nothing to to you that the Mass SPCA and the ASPCA both objected to what Mitt did. I suppose you think it's all a vast anti-Mormon conspiracy. :sarcastic

I really doubt that either organization would have said anything on the subject if the blogger hadn't called them and asked for their opinion.

I guess what really bothers me about this isn't the situation with the dog. It isn't something that I'd ever do, but we really don't know how uncomfortable it was for the dog. I don't think that the purpose of this blog was to promote animal rights. It was politically motivated. I see it as a pretty childish attack on Romney - about at the level of what the Swift Boat Vets were doing to Kerry.

 

[jonny]

Romney's wife responded to this in campaign blog:

http://fivebrothers.mittromney.com/blog/comments/151

Romney also responded in these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzROK6s1KE8

 

[lilithu]

Romney's wife responded to this in campaign blog:

http://fivebrothers.mittromney.com/blog/comments/151

Romney also responded in these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzROK6s1KE8

Fascinating.

I still believe that what Romney did was wrong.

But in reading the comments to the blog, it further confirms what I was starting to suspect in this thread. There is a huge "cultural" difference between what we believe to be acceptable in terms of how we treat our dogs. I believe now that for you this really was no big deal. And because you think it's no big deal, I can see why it seems like we're making a fuss for no reason. And why you might suspect that that there are ulterior motives.

All I can say is that from my side of the fence, strapping a dog to a car roof for 12 hours really is a no-no. I would have found it appalling no matter who did it. And I think the writer and publishers at the L.A. Times really did think it was a big deal. And PETA really thought it was a big deal. And they would have thought so no matter who did it. In my circles, you don't do that to a dog. You just don't.

You can believe that this is political mud-slinging if you want. I think it's a clash of values and culture.

 

[Callmepaul]

Actually I am posting again just to apologize to jonny. I have to admit that I did have an agenda in posting negatively about this presidential candidate. If he had simply been observed picking his nose and eating it I would have jumped on the anti-booger consumption bandwagon. The truth is that I am so worn down by the politics of the"moral majority" and their attacks on the gay community that I don't want to see another Republican president. One Bush is quite enough, thank you. Sorry jonny. My feelings about this candidate really have little to do with the dog issue - and I hope the kids gave it lots of cuddles afterwards.

 

[jonny]

Actually I am posting again just to apologize to jonny. I have to admit that I did have an agenda in posting negatively about this presidential candidate. If he had simply been observed picking his nose and eating it I would have jumped on the anti-booger consumption bandwagon. The truth is that I am so worn down by the politics of the"moral majority" and their attacks on the gay community that I don't want to see another Republican president. One Bush is quite enough, thank you. Sorry jonny. My feelings about this candidate really have little to do with the dog issue - and I hope the kids gave it lots of cuddles afterwards.

Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry also and hope I didn't come off as too harsh.

This is off the subject, but I'm sick of the "moral majority" also. I know Romney is trying to appeal to it since he has to in order to be a viable republican presidential candidate, but one reason I support only him and Guilinani on the republican side is because I don't think they'll feel obligated to take orders from this wing of the party (like the current presidential administration does). I believe that both Romney and Guillini will be more moderate on social issues than Bush has been.

I think that the majority of the country is sick of our government right now, which is clear from the approval ratings of both the President and the Congress. We need a big change. I'm not sure who that should be.

 

[jonny]

You can believe that this is political mud-slinging if you want. I think it's a clash of values and culture.

I'm not going to guess your motivations, but I do believe that the PETA and LA Times stuff is political mud-slinging. Neither of these organizations are known for their love of Republicans.

 

[lilithu]

I'm not going to guess your motivations, but I do believe that the PETA and LA Times stuff is political mud-slinging. Neither of these organizations are known for their love of Republicans.

I'm not disputing that there is a liberal bias at the Times. What I'm saying is that it's our liberal views that cause us to tend to support Dems (and/or the Greens) over Repubs AND its our liberal views that says that strapping a dog in a carrier to the roof of a car for 12 hours is wrong. It's not because it was a Repub who strapped a dog in a carrier to the roof of a car for 12 hours that we think it's wrong. (well...ok, maybe for some people it's like that but generally that makes no sense.)

And PETA is not a Dem group, or even a "liberal" group. They are an animal rights group. They only care about their one particular issue. They are ideologues. If there were a GOP candidate that was conservative on all other issues but said that he wanted to ban animal testing, PETA would love him.

 

[Ciscokid]

I don't think this is a big deal. In fact if this is the worst they have on him then he should feel good.

 

[Mister_T]

Perhaps because that tidbit of information didn't help advance the author's agenda. The windshield information was in the original article:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/part4/

My concern is for the animal, not people's agenda's.

And I don't care if he strapped pillows to all sides of the dog carrier. My point is that an animal is not a piece of luggage.

 

[Booko]

The same reason you don't strap your kid to the roof of a car is the same reason you don't do it to animals.

I'm sorry if this question has already been addressed in this thread (I'm desparately trying to get caught up here after weeks offline), but...

...uh...where was the Romney's luggage?

(Our minivan is sometimes jammed with us, the kids, and musical instruments, and one or more cats or other critters. It can get a bit dicey sometimes, as the critters have to stay in the car if we go in to eat, and if it's summer that presents problems. But if I had to choose between my suitcase and an animal on top of a car, you can, I hope, guess which one would be in the car and which would be on top.)

 

[gnomon]

Okay.

So far we have evidence that Romney is not highly intelligent but that there is not a pattern of abuse. Reading commentary across the web over this incident you would be led to believe that the man gleefully shoved a hot poker in the dogs rectum.

I still find it incredible that this incredibly obvious politically motivated release of the story stirs more anger in people than the absolute fact that the man associates, receives funding from and hires on a man whose organization engages in tactics of removing a teenage citizen from their home, shipping them overseas and employing disciplinarian methods that would most likely get a parent charged with child abuse. Now it may turn out that someone can present contrary evidence to the claims of the numerous individuals who filed suit against Straight, Inc. in the past and current WWASP programs today. However, in light of the fact that Straight was shut down by the government over allegations of child abuse, various overseas WWASP and domestic programs have been shut down and at least one former director indicted on charges of abuse.

Of course, combine both the stories and you get...an outright disturbing individual.

But I'm still amazed, just from googling both news stories, which one receives the greatest attention. The dog story. I understand that it's more direct in relation but the seriousness of the allegations against programs run by two financial members of Romney's campaign and his hard line stance on torture should be alarming people far more than an old story which does not even provide credible evidence of a pattern of personal abuse.

 

[Booko]

But I'm still amazed, just from googling both news stories, which one receives the greatest attention. The dog story. I understand that it's more direct in relation but the seriousness of the allegations against programs run by two financial members of Romney's campaign and his hard line stance on torture should be alarming people far more than an old story which does not even provide credible evidence of a pattern of personal abuse.

Well, you know what time and effort the media generally spends on news stories these days. There's a lot of space and time to fill up, and it's just cheaper and easier on the bottom line if you show pix of "Fred's Barn Burned Down" as if that were a story of national interest.

Speaking of which, I see that SUV in Glasgow is still on fire today.

My, the Scots firemen must be really incompetent or something.

(Have you, by chance, read "Amusing Ourselves to Death"? It's an easy read for media criticism, and well worth the time for anyone looking for an introductory work.)

 

[lilithu]

I still find it incredible that this incredibly obvious politically motivated release of the story stirs more anger in people than the absolute fact that the man associates, receives funding from and hires on a man whose organization engages in tactics of removing a teenage citizen from their home, shipping them overseas and employing disciplinarian methods that would most likely get a parent charged with child abuse.

One is emotional and the other is intellectual. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be emotional about teen abuse. I'm just saying that it requires a connecting of the dots, whereas hurting fido is an instantaneous, visceral response.

Actually, it doesn't even have to do with dogs. If you have two stories, one where someone is indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands and one where someone is directly responsible for the death of one person, which one does the public get incensed over? Why is it so hard to get people riled about the Bush's administration's policy in Guantanamo and Abu Gharib? Why are we so quiescent about Darfur?

I have been frustrated myself at times with the apparent apathy of the public about these things. But actually, I think I understand this a little better now. People react to things that they can IMMEDIATELY relate to. The more dots you have to connect, the less the reaction, no matter how compelling the proof.

That's my take on it anyway. Intellectually, I understand your frustration, but emotionally, I'm still more upset about the dog.

 

[jonny]

I'm sorry if this question has already been addressed in this thread (I'm desparately trying to get caught up here after weeks offline), but...

...uh...where was the Romney's luggage?

(Our minivan is sometimes jammed with us, the kids, and musical instruments, and one or more cats or other critters. It can get a bit dicey sometimes, as the critters have to stay in the car if we go in to eat, and if it's summer that presents problems. But if I had to choose between my suitcase and an animal on top of a car, you can, I hope, guess which one would be in the car and which would be on top.)

I don't know where the luggage was, but my understanding is that at least one of the five sons were in the back of the station wagon (probably one of those rear facing seats. I would guess that the luggage was on top of the car also, but I can't say that for sure. When we went on trips in our station wagon while I was growing up, that's where our luggage was.

I've done 12 hour car trips with seven people in a station wagon. There wasn't room for luggage in the car and there certainly wouldn't have been room for a large dog.

 

[jonny]

Okay.

So far we have evidence that Romney is not highly intelligent but that there is not a pattern of abuse. Reading commentary across the web over this incident you would be led to believe that the man gleefully shoved a hot poker in the dogs rectum.

I still find it incredible that this incredibly obvious politically motivated release of the story stirs more anger in people than the absolute fact that the man associates, receives funding from and hires on a man whose organization engages in tactics of removing a teenage citizen from their home, shipping them overseas and employing disciplinarian methods that would most likely get a parent charged with child abuse. Now it may turn out that someone can present contrary evidence to the claims of the numerous individuals who filed suit against Straight, Inc. in the past and current WWASP programs today. However, in light of the fact that Straight was shut down by the government over allegations of child abuse, various overseas WWASP and domestic programs have been shut down and at least one former director indicted on charges of abuse.

Of course, combine both the stories and you get...an outright disturbing individual.

But I'm still amazed, just from googling both news stories, which one receives the greatest attention. The dog story. I understand that it's more direct in relation but the seriousness of the allegations against programs run by two financial members of Romney's campaign and his hard line stance on torture should be alarming people far more than an old story which does not even provide credible evidence of a pattern of personal abuse.

I just did some quick reading, but I don't think that the story you're describing can be tied very closely to Romney. The guy in question is one of a bunch of fundraisers in one state and I believe the civil case is still being tried. Perhaps you should start another thread on the subject so that we can all dive into the details and see what's going on.

These campaigns employ thousands of people and I'm sure that you could find skeletons in closets all over the place. I would guess that there are probably some legal questions that arise for firing someone because of a pending civil case, but I'm not a legal expert so I'm not sure. I was a manager at a company that did background checks for a few years, so I am familiar with the FCRA regulations, and I do know that they are very specific on what civil and criminal proceedings can be used against a person in regards to employment.

The other option might be that the media is saving the story for the right time. If it is really as damning as you say it it, it would be the perfect story to release the week before the first primary.

 

[Booko]

I don't know where the luggage was, but my understanding is that at least one of the five sons were in the back of the station wagon (probably one of those rear facing seats. I would guess that the luggage was on top of the car also, but I can't say that for sure. When we went on trips in our station wagon while I was growing up, that's where our luggage was.

I've done 12 hour car trips with seven people in a station wagon. There wasn't room for luggage in the car and there certainly wouldn't have been room for a large dog.

Yeah, my reaction to the story was "poor doggie" but along with "Ah, I remember jamming the entire family in the old Chevy Bel Air station wagon."