June 28, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Ditto
I'm with Steven Bainbridge: I'll vote for Mitt Romney when they pry the ballot out of my cold, dead fingers. Strapping your dog to the roof of the car, and then coldly out the cage when the frightened dog's sphincter cuts loose, and then continuing to drive with the dog on the roof of the car, is sociopath territory.
Yes, yes, dogs aren't people. But they aren't chickens, either. Anyone who could treat a beloved family pet that way, and teach his children to do so, has some pretty scary emotional issues.
Posted by Jane Galt at June 28, 2007 8:33 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>Why didn't he carry the dog inside the car, strap himself to the roof, and get his wife to drive? Answer me that!
Posted by: dearieme on June 28, 2007 8:55 AMThe dog was in a crate and had a windshield. I don't see any inherent problem with that. Maybe more bathroom stops were needed.
Too bad he didn't strap the dog to the roof with no crate, because that's the kind of guy I want dealing with the Iranians.
Posted by: AT on June 28, 2007 9:09 AMI can not imagine. He strapped his dog to the roof of his car?!? That is something out of a bad Chevy Chase movie.
Who is the effing genius who thought that this story would look good in print? Someone in Mitt's family does not want him to be president!
And yes, the redundancy in the third sentence is duly noted...
Posted by: Reagan Fan on June 28, 2007 9:09 AMTo be so unemotional in the face of obvious distress is not a good sign. And people call Hilary Clinton a robot ;-).
Such people probably make good special forces soldiers (although to be fair, the SF types I know could shoot their own dog, but would never mistreat it so). I can't believe they make good political leaders.
This has troubling intimations of the Richard Cheney attitude to torture.
Posted by: Valuethinker on June 28, 2007 9:17 AMLook, I have no doubt that were it a short ride everything would be okay, but it wasn't, it was 12 hours. With a dog, in a crate, on the roof. That's just mean. You want to debate character, there it is. I'm much more likely to want to vote for someone who can't keep it in his pants then for someone who is cruel to helpless creatures.
Posted by: Kate on June 28, 2007 9:55 AM
I'll vote with AT on this one. I read the comments that went with the original article, and they're pretty hyperbolic. One commenter mentioned having seen it before, but no harm no foul (so to speak).
PETA-ists might get apoplectic, but there were a number of things that weren't stated in the article, and the readers took the worst possible interpretation. Maybe the dog did it at the beginning of the trip, maybe it got so excited to ride that it couldn't contain itself?
Dunno, but this isn't unheard of, where I have lived.
The mutt's named "Seamus"?? Oh my FSM! That's just plain cruel!
Posted by: Amy on June 28, 2007 10:08 AMI don't have a dog, and Jane only just bought a car, so someone explain: What is the proper way to transport a dog and a large family for 12 hours, and how is it so dramatically better than a windscreened crate on a roof? (and how is the crate worse than a pickup bed or letting the stupid thing run around loose in the car with the windows down far enough to jump out?)
People put dogs (and other animals) in aircraft cargo holds all the time. Admittedly, they aren't running for president.
This sounds really bad on first reading, but on reflection, I'm not so sure.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 28, 2007 10:08 AMWhen we take trips with our 2 dogs and 2 kids we put the dogs in their crates in the back of the SUV, the kids in the back seat, and the luggage in a rooftop carrier. We also get a sedative from our vet for the dogs. The pretty much sleep the entire trip.
If he didn't have space to safely transport the dog on the inside of the vehicle, they should have left the dog home at a kennel or with a pet sitter.
Posted by: COD on June 28, 2007 10:28 AMExactly. If you can't transport an animal humanely, leave him at home; and if you can't afford to leave him at home, you can't afford the trip. When you take on a helpless creature, there's an implicit promise not to abuse it.
And the cargo holds of airplanes have special pet areas that are checked by attendants. Moreover, you can't fly your pet unless the temperature is humane (over 40 degrees and under 70 degrees), since the holds aren't air conditioned while the plane is on the tarmac. The motion is slightly unpleasant, but no more so than travelling inside a car.
Would you strap your kid to a roof in a carrier? No, because it would be really fucking scary for the kid, and also dangerous if the carrier blew off the roof. This is not rocket science.
Believe me, if you had a dog, you wouldn't put him on the roof. The idea would sicken you.
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 10:46 AMI'm kind of with RL on this one. I'm not sure what a windshield on a dog crate would look like, but I'm not opposed to the idea on principal. Dogs ride in the back of pickups all the time, and many dogs will stick their head out the car window for trips. It probably beats the cramped conditions in horse trailers, although with an animal the size of a horse, you don't have a lot of options. I don't think that this story is winning Mr. Romney any votes (I know I still don't care about him), but I'm not going to throw things at him if I run into him on the street, either.
COD, do you also sedate your kids when you travel?
Posted by: d.cous. on June 28, 2007 10:57 AMThey make harnesses that can be attached to seat belts which is how I transport my dog.
Posted by: J on June 28, 2007 11:11 AMCOD, do you also sedate your kids when you travel?
I've had people recommend that to me (benedryl to make them sleep, for instance), but I've never done it because I find the idea of deliberately giving kids something for its psychoactive effect disturbing. Doubly so when it's for my convenience.
Would you strap your kid to a roof in a carrier?
Would I put my kid in any kind of crate at all, ever, for any conceivable purpose other than to smuggle him out of North Korea with a shipment of whatever it is North Korea exports? No. Would I drug my kid as COD does dogs? No. Would I send my kid to a special cargo hold, whether checked by attendants or not? No. Would I feed my kid dog food? No. Would I take him to a vet? No. Etc.
I love dogs, and, given how my son can't keep himself away from them, we hope to get one once we have settled a bit more permanently. This roof thing sounds like a bad idea, but to me, at least, it's not obviously worse than the quite common practice of dogs in pickups, nor is it obviously worse than a horse trailer.
Being crated and stuffed in a plane's hold also seems pretty bad to me, given the substantial noise of flying and the fact that 1) the motion certainly is worse than driving at takeoff and landing, at the very least, and there aren't windows for spatial reference, 2) the length of separation from the family and inability to get out of the crate is likely to be greater in an airplane than driving on the roof, and 3) the presence of other crated dogs and cats is probably disturbing.
Perhaps I could be brought around to the "horrified" point of view, but not until I clearly understand why this is worse than flying or a pickup bed.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 28, 2007 11:27 AMWell, at least his campaign didn't try to sell us on the notion that Romney was a sound fiscal manager by telling us he saved on mortuary transport expenses by bungee-cording his just- deceased mother-in-law to the luggage rack, for the trip back to Boston.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be great for the President's no-good brother-in-law (think Randy Quaid) to show up in front of the White House unannounced, in a beat-up Winnebago?
Posted by: Will Allen on June 28, 2007 11:37 AMI have to say I am horrified to see dogs in the back of pick-ups, and mostly not on account of concern for the dog's welfare. Untethered objects in the back of a pick up are potential projectiles, and are hazardous to other motorists. A forty pound object strking your windshield while your car is moving at 40 miles per hour has a very good chance of ruining your whole day, and maybe your whole life. Nitwits who don't secure what is in the back of their pickups should instead be made to drive mini Coopers like Megan.
Posted by: Will Allen on June 28, 2007 11:46 AMMuch as I love riding in the back of pickup trucks, they're no place for a dog, for the same two reasons: it's dangerous for the dog (and the cars behind you!), and a lot of dogs really don't like it. That said, I've never seen a dog with a pickup truck in the back on the interstate; it's strictly for low speed cruising in the areas I frequent.
As for horse trailers, they're designed to transport animals comfortably, by, for example, providing traction to keep the horse from rocketing back and forth inside the trailer. They're driven extremely slowly, which is why they're so annoying in the right lane, and they're sheltered from windshear by the vehicle in front of them. I've ridden in a horse trailer more than once, and while horses certainly don't like it as much as they like being still, it's not much worse than riding inside a car with open windows.
If you had to choose between a horse trailer and a box on the roof, which would you pick?
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 11:57 AMWould you strap your kid to a roof in a carrier?No but I wouldn’t put my kid in a carrier in the first place. Or outside in a dog house. Or make her eat dog food from a bowl on the floor. Or smack her with a rolled up newspaper if she made a mess on the floor. Or put a leash around her neck. Or throw a stick or ball and have her bring it back to me in her teeth. Or take her to the vet so she could get snipped and not have any children.
But I might (probably) would do all of these things to a dog.
At some point these comparisons between children and pet because as facile as comparisons between illegal aliens and the Amish.
Would you strap your kid to a roof in a carrier?No but I wouldn’t put my kid in a carrier in the first place. Or outside in a dog house. Or make her eat dog food from a bowl on the floor. Or smack her with a rolled up newspaper if she made a mess on the floor. Or put a leash around her neck. Or throw a stick or ball and have her bring it back to me in her teeth. Or take her to the vet so she could get snipped and not have any children.
But I might (probably) would do all of these things to a dog.
At some point these comparisons between children and pet because as facile as comparisons between illegal aliens and the Amish.
Would you strap your kid to a roof in a carrier?No but I wouldn’t put my kid in a carrier in the first place. Or outside in a dog house. Or make her eat dog food from a bowl on the floor. Or smack her with a rolled up newspaper if she made a mess on the floor. Or put a leash around her neck. Or throw a stick or ball and have her bring it back to me in her teeth. Or take her to the vet so she could get snipped and not have any children.
But I might (probably) would do all of these things to a dog.
At some point these comparisons between children and pet because as facile as comparisons between illegal aliens and the Amish.
If you had to choose between a horse trailer and a box on the roof, which would you pick?
Well, in fairness, a horse trailer is about the same size, to a horse, that a proper crate is to a dog. Possibly smaller; most horse trailers won't let a horse turn around but many dog crates will, especially for smaller dogs. So the question is, given that I'm going to be put in a box that essentially gives me little to no room to move around, would I prefer to be towed or strapped to a roof?
I don't have any solid basis for preferring one over the other.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 28, 2007 12:13 PMMegan, in my experience, most motorists aren't very good at maintaining "low speed cruising" discipline, and when it comes to untethered objects in the back of a pick-up, it isn't just the speed of the pick-up that matters, but also the speed of the other vehicles. To say nothing of the fact that people quite frequently drive fifty miles an hour in places that are posted at 25.
If you are on a public road, tie down anything of mass in the bed of the pick-up, or don't drive a pick-up. Just yesterday, I had a moron in front of me have a piece of metal junk fly out of his pickup bed, when he went over a speed bump at about 35 m.p.h., and I had to swerve to avoid it. Luckily, no body was in th adjoining lane.
Posted by: Will Allen on June 28, 2007 12:19 PMThere is also the element of control which affect perceptions. In some third world countries I've travelled in, I've purposely ridden on top of the transport busses, with the freight, and sometimes the soldiers, instead of inside with the rest of the passengers, because I'm too tall to fit in the seats of many busses designed for much shorter people, and the unobstructed views can be spectacular. Of course, on narrow mountainous roads, one must maintain vigilance, lest one be swept to an untimely end by a tree growing horizontally from the face of a cliff, and a couple of times it became readily apparent why there were soldiers sharing the space with me, but on the whole it was quite enjoyable, especially since I could choose to be inside if I so desired.
Posted by: Will Allen on June 28, 2007 12:29 PMBelieve me, if you had a dog, you wouldn't put him on the roof. The idea would sicken you.
I have had dogs, and the idea does not sicken me. I'm pretty sure you have other readers who have had dogs as well.
Posted by: AT on June 28, 2007 12:32 PMJust because people don't strap their kids to a carrier on the roof doesn't mean it'd be torture if they did.
Next time any of you see an 11 year old boy, ask him if like riding in a carrier on a car roof. Most are going to say yes.
And I'm not saying you wouldn't be a bad parent to allow it, but almost no typical boy wouldn't just at the change to take that ride at least once.
Posted by: Roy on June 28, 2007 12:48 PMCOD, do you also sedate your kids when you travel?
Yes, it's called an in-car DVD system with wireless headphones.
Sedating the dogs for trips was the vets idea. They both get worked up to the point of vomiting when they get in the car. A nice little nap is far better for them than the resulting dehydration from vomiting. They are not totally out - they get up for walks when we take rest stops. Unlike Romney, I don't plan out minimal stops in advance. Our stops usually coincide with the end of a movie.
Posted by: COD on June 28, 2007 12:55 PMRob, several points:
1) It was an Irish Setter, not a small dog.
2) An appropriately sized crate should never give the dog more than just enough room to turn around.
3) The reason that horses can't turn around is their physiology, not the size; their spines aren't as flexible.
4) If you would really be just as willing to be tied to a luggage rack in a box on a car going 70+, you must never have seen exploded luggage containers on the side of the road. The tethers are not as tight as a trailer hitch, the windshear is more powerful, and the dog crate is not meant to withstand it.
5) If there is that much room in the crate, that's not a good thing; the dog will tend to rocket back and forth when you brake or accelerate. My dog tends to hit the seat when we brake even inside my jeep, but that's a damn sight better than hitting a metal grate every time the car slows down.
6) The point was not that dogs are equivalent to children; the point is that they get frightened in the same way that small children do, because they don't know what the hell is going on. They *like* dog food and dog houses, and at the very least aren't afraid of (immobile) crates.
It's always a tradeoff with animals, how much you do to them in order to make them conform to your life. But scaring them so badly that they overcome the *very* powerful instinct not to shit on themselves is not within the acceptable limits. Nor is sticking them in a carrier with a decent chance of blowing off on the highway and killing them. Horses are put in horse trailers which are a) heavily safety regulated and b) made for the comfort and mental consideration of the horse because it is the only physical way of transporting them. They are not dragged along n family trips in a dangerous jury-rigged contraption because the family doesn't want to pay for boarding.
If you don't like dogs, and don't want to take care of them, great, don't get a dog. But don't take on a creature that's totally dependant on you, and then put its life in danger because you couldn't figure out that an Irish setter was going to be a tight squeeze in a station wagon with five kids.
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 1:09 PMI have dogs and cats and the idea doesn't sicken me. Before I was willing to strap my dog crate to the top of my car, I would also want to rig up a windscreen of some sort (like Mitt did) and make sure that it was firmly secured to the top of the car. Given the wide variety of crates available, it's hard to say if the dog on the roof was unhappy. Maybe the dog already had loose stools or was incontinent and it would have pooped all over the inside of the car. It's a lot easier to hose off the outside of the car than clean out the inside.
Telling this story was kind of stupid, but the story itself doesn't strike me as awful at all... just a bit odd.
EI
Posted by: Earnest Iconoclast on June 28, 2007 1:16 PMOh, good grief, if the dog was that incontinent, it has no business going on any sort of car trip, and the notion that there just wasn't enough room for the dog on the inside of a vehicle of that size is pretty laughable. No, this doesn't make Romney an awful person. It makes him a lame-brain about family travel. The fact that his staff would recount the story is indicative of professional incompetence.
Posted by: Will Allen on June 28, 2007 1:24 PMStrapping your dog to the roof of the car, and then coldly out the cage when the frightened dog's sphincter cuts loose, and then continuing to drive with the dog on the roof of the car, is sociopath territory.
You forgot to mention that Romney only did it because the dog was brown and barked with a Spanish accent.
I have to have my horse trailer inspected every year, just like with the cars.
I don't think anybody here is equating a dog's life and a child's life. I would bankrupt myself to pay the medical bills if one of my kids needed it. There is a limit to what I'll spend on the dogs or the horse.
That said, when you bring a domesticated animal into your life, you inherit a certain responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interest of the welfare of the animal, and that don't put the animal (or your family) at undue risk. Strapping a pet carrier to the top of the car crosses that threshold, by a lot.
Posted by: COD on June 28, 2007 1:28 PMIt's an Irish Setter. This is natures best source of high powered spastic adrenaline, and the sole reason why they were hunted in the wild by the Norwegians and the Japanese until limited by UN treaty. Now Irish Setters can only be hunted by aboriginal celtic tribes in the northern shetland islands as part of their historic place in tribal culture as a provider of pelts.
There is a reason why bomb squads and border guards never use the Irish Setter, but instead perfer dogs that are somewhat more discplined. There isnt enough ritalin in the world to get an Irish Setter to relax and concentrate on the job at hand. One minute youre on a nice walk with the dog bounding down the street and the next, you find yourself and a 70 pound dog all wrapped around a tree trunk, just because the dog senses the passing presence of another dog in the area. The area being defined as anywhere on the continent.
Irish Setters require a minimum of an acre of land just so they can turn around three times before they rest, which is never. Irish Setters rest like caffienated crack addicts drinking capucchinos at startbucks on 'columbia coffee bean demo days'.
Trust me, if they could talk, they would never,ever shut up. Be thankful for small miracles.
I know it sounds cruel to you and me to do this, but try to imagine what it would have been like if the dog and the kids had all been stuffed inside the car for a long road trip. Im not saying agree, I'm just saying as a father of multiple kids and a dog owner(and a one time irish setter owner), I understand.
Posted by: frank martin on June 28, 2007 1:38 PMOooooookay, and after the dog had shit himself in terror, would y'all hose down the dog and the car without taking it out of the crate and keep driving?
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 1:44 PMAnd ditto that, EI--if my dog was incontinent, I definitely didn't pack him up and drag him across the country on family trips. Both for his health, and my sanity.
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 1:47 PMRob Lyman knows absolutely nothing about animals. Anyone who does not think Romney's actions were idiotic and aberrant should not be allowed to make any decisions concerning an animals welfare. For Romney and others, animals are inconvenient aggravations. Or worse, fuzzy entertainment.
Posted by: judson on June 28, 2007 1:50 PMAs someone with two dogs, no kids, and a car with a backseat full of dog hair:
I can see the logic of "Let's strap the dog crate to the roof, rig it up a bit, and see how it works." It's not something I would do -- I wouldn't be able to drive for worrying about Sporty or Hope up on top -- but I can see it.
It's where Romney, upon discovering the dog is having diarrhea atop the car, stops, get out, hoses down the dog, and then leaves the dog in the carrier -- diarrheic and now wet -- that I lose all empathy.
Posted by: Jessica on June 28, 2007 1:52 PMGet a different dog, then, Frank, or pay to board it. It's not as if the Romney's lacked the means, and a dog with that sort of temperment is going to tolerate that sort of confinement as about as poorly as can be imagined.
Like I said, I won't go with Megan's "sociopath" characterization, probably because I've actually have had the interesting misfortune of being around real-life sociopaths, but it is a story that indeed reflects poorly on Romney.
Posted by: Will Allen on June 28, 2007 1:52 PMOooooookay, and after the dog had shit himself in terror, would y'all hose down the dog and the car without taking it out of the crate and keep driving?
Well the “in terror” part is you making up facts to fit your “sociopath” smear but I could imagine several scenarios in which it might make more sense just to clean the dog while its inside the dog carrier rather than let it out at that particular spot. For all we know they were almost at their next scheduled stop which was a park where the dog was going to be let out for an extended period of time. Or it was one of those service stations by a busy highway where you probably wouldn’t want the dog to be let out.
Posted by: Thorley Winston on June 28, 2007 2:03 PMAlso, I'm an Air Force brat and our family has driven many miles with animals when re-stationed. Dogs and cats aboard. Many stops and breaks for animals and humans. I've already thought of Romney as an inbred, max headroomish clod, who if by some twist of the universe is elected pres, me and my dogs are out of here.
Ps: Did you know Romney and his strapping litter of boys have never served a day in service to their country.
Posted by: judson on June 28, 2007 2:06 PMI don't have a dog in this fight [no pun intended] because I wouldn't vote for a major party candidate in any case, but to call this act "sociopathic" is ridiculous hyperbole.
At worst it was moderately bad judgement and at best it might have been perfectly OK, depending on the details such as the construction of the crate, the strength of the roof-rack, the dog's previous travel experiences, etc.
Out here in the West, one commonly sees dogs loose in the back of open pickup trucks on the Interstates, and in most (but not all) cases, the dog seems to be enjoying the experience.
I don't see where it says he didn't let the dog out of the crate to be hosed off. The comparison to horse trailers is a bit off; a better one would be to a dog *crated* in the bed of a pickup, which is a very common sight here in the deep South, and really the only way to safely transport a large dog in a pickup. A well-secured crate - and here, I think we have to be charitable enough to assume that it wasn't a bare metal cage - with a proper windscreen should not be an uncomfortable or unsafe way for a dog to travel. Neither should one episode of diarrhea be taken as anything special - is there any evidence that it was repeated? Finally, if it was warm outside, what would be wrong with a wet dog on the roof?
I understand the revulsion at this (my wife is an animal fanatic), but it's really not necessarily cruel. Far more worrisome, from a political perspective, is his severe regimentation of the family trip (no stops for bathroom breaks, boys!).
Posted by: Anon for now on June 28, 2007 2:06 PMActually Jane, where in the story does it say that Romney hosed down the dog without taking him out of the crate? It seems to me “washed down Seamus and the car” could just as easily mean that he took the dog out and washed him off with the hose.
"but I could imagine several scenarios in which it might make more sense just to clean the dog while its inside the dog carrier"
And I'm sure your imagination could come up with all sorts of justifications for just about any sort of treatment of non-humans and humans you blithering idiot. Spraying a dog down inside the crate? Are you nuts! You probably see yourself as some sort of no-nonsense pragmatist. You're not...you're just delusional.
Posted by: judson on June 28, 2007 2:15 PMAll the setter-sized plastic crates I've ever seen have a metal grate at the front of the cage, which I presume the setter smacked into repeatedly as Romney braked. Unless one of the many excuses offered for Mitt Romney's behaviour is that he violates the laws of physics.
I assume he didn't take the dog out, since it didn't mention Romney hosing himself and his boys off. If you have a way to get a shit-covered dog out of a crate, or the crate off the top of the car, without getting yourself dirty, I'd love to hear it. The one time my (suddenly ill) dog had an accident in the car, I got filthy trying to clean him and his bed off.
Thorley, you don't make any creature wet and then put it in high speed wind--and even with a windscreen, there would be lots of wind whistling through that crate--unless you also want it to get hypothermia.
As for a busy service station along the highway--that's why they invented leashes. I'm sorry, there's no excuse for treating a family pet like a piece of not-particularly-beloved furniture.
The "in terror" part is not me making stuff up. It takes a lot--A LOT--to get a dog to go to the bathroom in a crate. Of the two scenarios, "the dog was terrified of suddenly being in a scenario that would scertainly scare your five year old" is vastly more likely than "the dog chose exactly that minute to develop uncontrollable intestinal flu". Even *with* uncontrollable intestinal flu, dogs will often hold it in their crates; that's why you use them to housebreak puppies. Going to the bathroom in a crate is very, very, very unusual behaviour.
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 2:20 PMAnd as ms doyle says, even if the dog had suddenly developed diahrrea, it's pretty disgusting that you'd calmy get him wet and either leave him in, or shove him back into, the same carrier for the rest of the drive.
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 2:23 PMI agree that once the dog has made a mess of himself, it's time to rethink your actions. But that holds true regardless of whether your dog's in a crate on top of the roof or on a leashless walk in cougar country.
Exactly what to do at that point is not obvious, however; even if you decide the roof was a terrible idea, what do you do at a roadside gas station? COD has admitted that her unsedated dogs vomitted on at least one occasion--can I assume that COD's dogs were promptly sold to the nearest gas station owner to spare them the trauma of further travel? Or were they put back in the car with the resolution to, next time, try something different? Sometimes you do what you have to do, even when you realize now that it's a bad idea.
Re: physics. Your crated dogs in the back of your SUV are just as vulnerable to Newton's second law as one on top of the car. No demerits to Romney for that. Non-crated dogs would get the benefit of smacking a seat instead of a grate, but if that's your objection you need to yell at COD about crating, too.
I don't think I've ever seen exploded luggage (hard to say), but I have seen (been in a car, actually) seen a trailer (holding a boat) come loose from a hitch, swing wildly on its chains,and bash the hell out of a tailgate. And one of my Mother's friends had the bottom fall out of their horse trailer; fortunately they were going slowly enough that the horse was able to run and keep up until they stopped. At least, that's the story they told.
Rob Lyman knows absolutely nothing about animals
Well, that's possible. But I've never said I would do this, or that it is a great idea. I just said that it doesn't seem obviously different than numerous other animal-moving practices which we accept without batting an eyelash, including trailers, aircraft holds, pickup beds, and, as I was just remided up thread, crates in pickup beds (which btw are often oversized and contain numerous dogs here in Virginia).
The differences are apparently so self-evident to others that "sociopath" and "blithering idiot" are appropriate.
Just like, I guess, the differences between the current Mexican wave and previous waves of foreign immigration are self-evidently identical or self-evidently totally different, depending on your perspective, and justify similar insults.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 28, 2007 2:58 PM"Just like, I guess, the differences between the current Mexican wave and previous waves of foreign immigration are self-evidently identical"
That you bring this up in a discussion of animal cruelty is telling of your character.
Posted by: judson on June 28, 2007 3:02 PMWe had to declaw our cat when we moved to Chicago. I felt terrible about it simple because I didn't want to cause him any physical harm if I didn't need to. However it was either leave him in the woods at our current residence, have him put to sleep or take him with us to be declawed. No one would take him.
I think my cat would have preferred a one day trip "in terror" as you put it to being declawed.
Go a head and bash whoever you were already predisposed to bash simply because a new reason has popped up explaining why they are such terrible people.
The rest of us know that in the real world, sometimes things happen you'd prefer happen differenly but you move on.
I used to play fight with my dobberman when I was a teenager. He'd bite, I'd smack, etc. The dog was never what I'd call violent, but I guess to an outsider it might look like we were really going at it and I was cruel. Maybe it was just aggressive male tendencies (from both of us). I wouldn't behave that way now, but I don't think that my actions were sociopathic in anyway.
I suppose shooting a cow in the head right before you're about the skin them and hang them upside for weeks looks cruel.
I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, but I guess my point is, animals are indeed a lessor form of life and intelligence. To put them on the same plane as humans is a mistake and will lead you falsely down all manner of paths. It doesn't mean we act cruelly simply because we can or because we enjoy it.
What I can not understand is this hyper sensitive desire to pass judgement on every action that someone has made in the past to prove they are somehow unfit for X. Its like you people see anything a person does as a window into their soul rather than just one aspect (flaw) that makes up part of their character, something all of us have.
If you are indeed without sin, and have never done anything that an outside would disprove of, then feel free to cast the first stone.
Otherwise, how about you be content with, "That's probably not how I would have handled it".
Posted by: cdub on June 28, 2007 3:05 PMThat you bring this up in a discussion of animal cruelty is telling of your character.
How so?
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 28, 2007 3:08 PMNeither dogs, horses, nor people were designed to be propelled forward at 60 mph. The mere act of doing it involves risk. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a proper dog enclosure could be designed to sit on top of a car. However, jury rigging a dog crate to the roof simply isn't safe. It is simple common sense.
The crates in vehicle are as much for the humans protection as the dogs. The crates aren't going to go flying forward, there is nowhere to go. They are too big to come over the back seats. However, dogs that are loose could become a projectile.
The main reason to crate the dogs in car is to keep them from distracting the driver and potentially causing an accident. The point here is to get dog and driver from point a to point b safely. Dogs jumping into the driver's lap while passing a semi at 80 mph can be counterproductive to that goal.
Oh, and btw Rob, I'm a he.
"but I guess my point is, animals are indeed a lessor form of life"
And so what? They can be treated cruely. I've worked on farms. I know the difference. Putting a domestic dog in a crate on the roof of your car is...stupid. And based on his decision to do that, I can count him do do many other stupid things.
ps: I tend to treat animals as another form not lessor.
Posted by: judson on June 28, 2007 3:36 PMMy bad, COD, I was working very hard to avoid pronouns and apparently one slipped past my proofreading.
I have nothing against crates, mind you. But you can't say Romney was subjecting the dog to a beating every time he brakes (as our gracious hostess both said and implied with referece to the "traction" in horse trailers) as though that's a problem with a crate on the roof. It's a problem with any crate at all, anywhere.
And BTW, if you're hitting something hard enough to cause the dog to be a projectile, I wouldn't count on the crate or the back seats to be sturdy enough to stop the dog. Inertia can be an amazing thing.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that a proper dog enclosure could be designed to sit on top of a car.
Great, now you're on judson's "blithering idiot" list.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 28, 2007 3:38 PMRob,
Your wrong about the inertia. Those wooden panels stop it from occurring inside the car.
If you disagree with their policies say so. If you think their personal life is in such complete shambles that they'd be a terrible leader then fine, so be it.
But come on. Pull up an example about their dog on their family trip years ago as a reason why they are disqualified for a leadership position?
I'm really amazed (sad more appropriatley) at the extent people delve into others personal lives and look for any kind of mistake or flaw and extrapolate that to mean they are unfit for leadership.
Even if the guy drove dogs back and forth to work on the top of his car every day 10 years ago doesn't make him an unfit leader.
Clearly you value Dogs more than he does. Does this differing set of values make him unfit to be president? How about you write a post explaining why it's wrong, and more than likely if he read it he'd probably say, "you konw what you might have a point, I never looked at it that way at the time."
But to claim that the commander in chief must be so perfect, both right now and in their past that they are unallowed to ever make a mistake is foolish.
To suggest you'll never vote for them because of how they treated a dog on ONE day YEARS AGO, shows your lack of wisdom, not theirs. To extrapolate that one day from years ago to mean anything more than what it was, is completely foolish.
Posted by: cdub on June 28, 2007 3:54 PMUh, here is a quote from Time, via the Carpetbagger blog:
Time explained, “Massachusetts’s animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal ‘in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.’ An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying ‘it’s definitely something I’d want to check out.’”
So not only are his animal sensibilities on the same par as his hunting skills, but he has broken the law by putting Rover on the roof
As for pickup trucks, as any country boy will tell you, at speed a bubble of air is formed in the bed of a pickup (as long as the gate is up) that will protect the dog from high wind and as long as you put the crate close to the cab the dog will be OK. What is not OK is litting your dog loose in a bed or stick its nose out the window while you are driving. That is begging for a fatal canine injury.
Incidentally, the bubble of air makes the pickup truck more aerodynamic, such as it is. If you remove the gate as some "experts" tell you to do, you will lose this feature and gas milage will get worse.
Posted by: mikeyes on June 28, 2007 3:56 PM
All the setter-sized plastic crates I've ever seen have a metal grate at the front of the cage, which I presume the setter smacked into repeatedly as Romney braked. Unless one of the many excuses offered for Mitt Romney's behaviour is that he violates the laws of physics.
And as others have pointed out these same laws of physics will apply regardless of where the dog carrier is located. Judging by your reference to a dog carrier as a “crate” I get the impression you would disapprove of it no matter where it was located in or on the vehicle because the smacking would
I assume he didn't take the dog out, since it didn't mention Romney hosing himself and his boys off.
It also didn’t that say he stopped and got out of the car. Or that he turned the hose off when he was done. Presumably by “washed off” he meant that he cleaned off the areas of the dog that would be most likely to be covered in feces which would be the rear end. I’m assuming then that unless this carrier is basically just a wire cage he would have had to take the dog out to access those areas with the hose.
Thorley, you don't make any creature wet and then put it in high speed wind--and even with a windscreen, there would be lots of wind whistling through that crate--unless you also want it to get hypothermia.
If he just sprayed off the areas that had feces on them it may have resulted in a dog with a wet bottom which hardly puts the dog at risk for hypothermia. If this dog was located in a carrier that was basically a wire cage and hosed off while inside the carrier (as you assume), depending on the size of the carrier he could have shook himself dry as dogs usually do. As would have probably happened had he removed the dog from the carrier as he likely did.
"To suggest you'll never vote for them because of how they treated a dog on ONE day YEARS AGO, shows your lack of wisdom"
Considering the breadth and depth of our current crop, in both parties, the above is as valid a pre-condition as any. Once a prick, always a prick...
Have you actually ever listened to Romney? He's an idiot. A game show host at best.
Posted by: judson on June 28, 2007 4:12 PMThorley, it's obvious you've never had a dog, certainly not a big one. I called it a crate because that's what dog people call it; housebreaking a dog is called "crate training" if you use one. You certainly wouldn't call one for an Irish Setter a "dog carrier", unless you can carry a 100+ pound 5 X 3.5 X 5 object.
So I assume that you don't realize that if the dog was in a crate, and he shit in it, and the driver braked, it wouldn't be a little mess; it would be all over the dog. Crates are intentionally made to be just the size of the dog, for safety and because dogs like them that way.
Rob, yes, my dog hits the seat -- but not with his face. The way a dog crate is set up, that's likely how the Irish Setter hit it. I wouldn't put my dog in a car with a plastic carrier either, but at least then I'd hear it hitting the crate if I braked too fast, and know to slow down. As for trailers, dogs, unlike horses, are not willing or able to stand on their feet for hours on end, which is why dogs slide and horses don't. And the traction thing isn't some crazy thing I made up; trailers are designed to make it easier for horses to keep their feet. Dog crates are designed to be smooth and comfortable for the dog to sit on, which is why they don't make good horse trailers strapped to the top of your car.
And yes, trailer hitches do come undone--but not as frequently as the nylon straps or clotheslines knotted to the tops of cars. Would you tether your horse trailer to the car with nylon rope, or would you think that less safe than a metal trailer hitch? Moreover, trailers are designed to be hitched. Just at base, dog crates are not designed with appropriately spaced grommets for securing it to a luggage rack. Planes, IIRC, use cargo nets to hold the crate down--in an area of the hold that, unlike the top of your car, is designed to be safe for people, much less pets.
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 4:29 PMAnd the traction thing isn't some crazy thing I made up
I didn't say it was. I just said that it was a problem with crated dogs, not dogs on the roof. And LOTS of people crate their dogs to travel.
I'm not endorsing any of this. I just don't see it rising to "sociopath" or "emotional issues" unless a whole lot of other things do, too.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 28, 2007 4:41 PMThe "sticking your dog on the roof of the car" thing might just have been moronic and ill advised. The "hosing it down *without emotion* and continuing to drive" is what brings it to the incomprehensible level.
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 4:45 PMFrank Martin
Aboriginal tribes in the north Shetland islands?
Do tell. There's no way dog hunting is legal anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Nor AFAIK have there been 'aboriginal tribes' here since we civilised (and/or butchered) the Highlanders after 1745.
cdub
What you did to your cat (declawing) would be illegal in the UK. Illegal, and your neighbours really would report you. You can get away with a lot here, but not mistreating animals.
So I doubt anyone is hunting Irish Setters in the UK.
Posted by: Valuethinker on June 28, 2007 4:52 PMThe "hosing it down *without emotion* and continuing to drive" is what brings it to the incomprehensible level.The story actually said the dog was “washed off” rather than “hosing it down.” Again the assumption that he just hosed down the family pet inside the dog carrier was something you came up with rather than something that was actually in the news account.
As far as “without emotion” that’s what a dad is supposed to do – fix the problem rather than whine about it like the kids did. It doesn’t make him heartless; it just means he focused on what needed to be done.
As far as my having “never had a dog” you’re wrong about that. I’ve just never heard the term “crating” and it seemed in keeping with snide tone that permeated both your post and your subsequent invention of facts to justify your “sociopath” charge.
The "hosing it down *without emotion* and continuing to drive" is what brings it to the incomprehensible level.The story actually said the dog was “washed off” rather than “hosing it down.” Again the assumption that he just hosed down the family pet inside the dog carrier was something you came up with rather than something that was actually in the news account.
As far as “without emotion” that’s what a dad is supposed to do – fix the problem rather than whine about it like the kids did. It doesn’t make him heartless; it just means he focused on what needed to be done.
As far as my having “never had a dog” you’re wrong about that. I’ve just never heard the term “crating” and it seemed in keeping with snide tone that permeated both your post and your subsequent invention of facts to justify your “sociopath” charge.
Well, fair enough. It would upset me to know that my dog was freaking out really badly, so if it truly didn't bother him, that does suggest a problem.
Still, you do what you have to, and I don't think a histrionic reaction would have reflected too well on him, either. Maybe it's a guy thing.
I remember when my wife's water broke. She freaked out and asked me what to do (like I'm the expert, right?). My first reaction was "Stand in the bathtub, you're making a mess!" Then, naturally, I called the doctor. I don't know what they would have said about my tone, but I don't think I sounded particularly excited; I just asked them what the next step was (wait).
You'd have to be insane not to be excited about the birth of your first child; that doesn't mean you need to lose it, or flap your arms, or hyperventilate, or whatever. I'd hate to think that someday, somebody will call me a sociopath because my first reaction to quarts of amniotic fluid was to try to get them to go down the drain instead of on the carpet.
I'm not sure what Romney's options were, here, other than clean up the mess and try to figure out a different way to get the dog home.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 28, 2007 5:03 PMIt's also worth recalling that this story was cited by Romney's people as an example of his practical, problem-solving nature. In other words, we're supposed to think better of Romney for knowing this.
I beg to differ. It would simply never occur to me to strap a dog to the top of one's car. Nor would it occur to any dog owner I've ever known.
There are 1001 different reasons for not being impressed by any of the candidates running for President. This is little worse than any other.
Posted by: Alex on June 28, 2007 5:04 PMWould you put a dog in a carrier in the back seat of a convertible?
But not on the roof w/ a windshield?
I don't see any real difference. In both cases, he's in the elements, shielded by a windscreen. BFD.
As far as the "without emotion" part goes, I doubt he was without inward emotion. My fiance and I were taking care of the neighbor's dog. The dog had a seizure, quite scary.
My fiance, a CFO of a large commercial organization (tough as nails, don't mess with her) was so distraught that she couldn't do much. I've never seen her lose control like that. I remained outwardly calm, got the dog to the vet in short order.
Was I panicking also? You bet your ass -- not only do I love that dog, but that dog had a whole family that loved him, too, and we were responsible for him.
Afterwards, she asked me how I stayed so calm. *I wasn't, I just acted like I was.*
He simply realized that he has to take care of the unpleasantness and move forward. Nothing was to be gained from sitting at the gas station for hours empathizing with the dog. All that can be done is to get the poor guy cleaned up and to the destination as soon as possible.
No, I'm not a Romney fan, no I doubt I'll vote for him, but not because of this trivial episode.
Posted by: Anon E. Mouse on June 28, 2007 5:14 PMI dunno, but this looks pretty cool...
http://www.bikernewsonline.com/uploaded_images/road-hound-pet-carrier-700236.jpg
Posted by: cdub on June 28, 2007 5:16 PMSo you're upset because he didn't cry?
Yeah that kind of surprised me as well. Most people if they displayed any emotion in a situation like that would have either been disgusted at the mess or gotten angry at the dog. None of which would be helpful. Part of a dad’s job is to take care of the unpleasant business that needs to be taken care of without complaining or over-dramatizing the situation.
Posted by: Thorley Winston on June 28, 2007 5:19 PMWas the dog howling? Was it cowering in fear? Was the dogs emotional state addressed in this article? Was it hot outside when it was sprayed with the hose or washed?
You know none of these things yet you judge the persons character and emotional fitness. That says far more about YOU than it does him from this once instance in his life, which I am pretty certain Romney would place at the opposite end of accomplishments when he's tallying up his finest moments.
Posted by: cdub on June 28, 2007 5:20 PMoops
typo in last line: I meant "I doubt I'll vote for him,"
not "no doubt I'll vote for him."
The story actually said the dog was “washed off” rather than “hosing it down.” Again the assumption that he just hosed down the family pet inside the dog carrier was something you came up with rather than something that was actually in the news account.
No, no. Best to let Jane keep embellishing the story. In Jane's next version, not only will Romney have hosed the mutt down while still in the crate, but Romney will also have tied him to the back of the car and made him run alongside to dry off. ("Poor little guy, probably kept up with you for a mile or so...")
Anyway, Jane's idea that that the dog will continually smack into the crate ("All the setter-sized plastic crates I've ever seen have a metal grate at the front of the cage, which I presume the setter smacked into repeatedly as Romney braked"), even inside a car (which, as other posters point out, is subject to the same laws of physics as a crate strapped to the top), is clearly insane. Using a crate in a car is one of the preferred ways to travel with a dog. See, e.g., the following:
Car Safety: Helpful hints to ensure safe pet car travel ...
SECURED CRATE
Occasionally, all the seatbelts in the car are being used by human passengers. Luckily, this doesn’t mean that you have to keep your pet at home! If you have an SUV or a station wagon, a secure crate in the back of the vehicle is a great option. There are two “must-know” tips, however: First, make sure that the crate is secured in the back of the vehicle. If the crate is bouncing around, your pet will be uncomfortable and the experience will not be as enjoyable. Second, throw a couple of toys inside the crate and have some cool water available. This will ensure a comfortable trip, and you won’t have to worry about dehydration.
My only conclusion is that Jane has never had a dog...
Posted by: Al on June 28, 2007 5:31 PMGuys, the story says *he used a hose at the gas station to wash the dog*. "Hosed down" is not a crazy interpretation of that remark. I find it really frightening that a large number of my commenters seem to think that the correct response to a dog with liquid diarrhea running all over the car is to wash the dog off and put him back in the crate.
The description of the car indicates that it was one of those giant wood-sided station wagons we all grew up with, generally had room for 8 or 9 passengers. Romney put one kid in the far back, according to the story. So either he put the dog on the roof because he didn't want his kid to share the back with the dog, or more likely, so they could put luggage in the back seat. This is not normal behaviour. Neither is washing off a sick dog and sticking it in a crate on top of a car. I find it bizarre that I'm even having this conversation.
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 5:48 PMJane wrote:
"This is not normal behaviour. Neither is washing off a sick dog and sticking it in a crate on top of a car."
And the alternative would be?
Posted by: Anon E. Mouse on June 28, 2007 5:57 PMRegarding the diarrhea thing:
Two years ago, we moved from Texas to Montana with two large dogs, and the dogs were in properly sized plastic crates (or kennels, or whatever you want to call them) in a fully enclosed, but well-ventilated trailer. But, in spite of that, one of them got severe diarrhea on the second day. Apparently this is something that happens to dogs sometimes when they aren't accustomed to traveling.
So what do you do in the middle of nowhere? You clean up the mess as best as you can and try to get to your final destination as soon as possible.
" ...And the alternative would be? ..."
A Med-E-Vac helicopter, obviously. If you don't care enough about your dog to do that, then you are a deranged sociopath.
Okay:
1) I met Finn and he was a good pup who was approximately my sized. Jane has definately owned a dog.
2) I think the point is being missed here. Romney's people released this story as a way to demonstrate Romney's ability to problem solve and his coolness in a crisis. That's fine. But it also demonstrates that he may have questionable judgement to begin with as I can not imagine setting my dog on the roof of my car for 12 hours. Even with a wind screen and bathroom breaks every hour.
3) When one gets a pet, one take a responsibility for the animal in question. A dog becomes like a family member. I have a dog because I am willing to accept responsibility for it's well being. I try to make sure it is happy, healthy and safe.
4) There is no indication whether the dog had ridden in the crate on the roof before, whether the dog had bowel problems, whether the dog was normally fond of riding on the roof of the car.
5) The problem I find with the whole thing is that I can not imagine taking a living creature, for which I am responsible, placing it in a situation it is not acustom to on a daily basis, and then not have any way is okay or not.
6) In addition, even if the dog had taken a ride on the roof before presumably he hadn't done it for 12 hours, which is a long time.
7) As such, I question Mr. Romney's judgment and his humanity.
Posted by: Kate on June 28, 2007 6:08 PMOkay:
1) I met Finn and he was a good pup who was approximately my sized. Jane has definately owned a dog.
2) I think the point is being missed here. Romney's people released this story as a way to demonstrate Romney's ability to problem solve and his coolness in a crisis. That's fine. But it also demonstrates that he may have questionable judgement to begin with as I can not imagine setting my dog on the roof of my car for 12 hours. Even with a wind screen and bathroom breaks every hour.
3) When one gets a pet, one take a responsibility for the animal in question. A dog becomes like a family member. I have a dog because I am willing to accept responsibility for it's well being. I try to make sure it is happy, healthy and safe.
4) There is no indication whether the dog had ridden in the crate on the roof before, whether the dog had bowel problems, whether the dog was normally fond of riding on the roof of the car.
5) The problem I find with the whole thing is that I can not imagine taking a living creature, for which I am responsible, placing it in a situation it is not acustom to on a daily basis, and then not have any way to know if it is okay or not.
6) In addition, even if the dog had taken a ride on the roof before presumably he hadn't done it for 12 hours, which is a long time.
7) As such, I question Mr. Romney's judgment and his humanity.
Posted by: Kate on June 28, 2007 6:08 PMCall me crazy but . . . . wash the dog off and put him in the car, with the luggage on the roof?
Insane overprotectiveness, I know!!
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 6:10 PMAfter all, what kind of a nut thinks that dogs are just as important as luggage?
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 28, 2007 6:13 PMI've had dogs for years, and my wife works in animal welfare. We'd never imagine putting a dog in a crate on top of a car, especially for a planned 12-hour drive. It's simply cruel and inhumane. I can understand a short trip, or an emergency one, but it's not as though Romney couldn't own or rent a van for the summer trip. He had a lot of options, and this struck him as the best.
Regarding washing the car and dog and going on -- I don't know. It's possible that, in the circumstances, he didn't have any options.
The key for me, though, is that this is a story we're deliberately being told at the start of a major newspaper article about a presidential candidate, from his hometown paper. This is the single incident selected, out of his whole life, to best exemplify his take-charge, can-do, emotionally controlled response to an unexpected problem.
But he created the problem! This was an entirely predictable event when he boneheadedly stuck the dog up there. Being on the roof of a car on the freeway for hours on end will terrify any critter that doesn't understand what's going on, and even a grown human would find it pretty distressing. Terrified dogs get sick.
So, the BEST story about Romney is one that shows his terrible judgment? Maybe I'm wrong and the article's really a hit-job. If so, it's highly effective. I won't vote for someone foolish enough to (a) do what Romney did in 1983, and then (b) BRAG about it!
Posted by: Shelby on June 28, 2007 6:15 PMI'd hate to think that someday, somebody will call me a sociopath because my first reaction to quarts of amniotic fluid was to try to get them to go down the drain instead of on the carpet.
I just got this mental image of you sternly ordering your wife to please get her leaky vagina off your nice carpet. Yes, you are a total sociopath. Unless it was really nice, expensive carpet.
Re: Pet travel. Can't say anything about dogs, but it's been my experience that cats generally respond well to sedatives, so long as you get the proper dosage for your particular cat.
And Romney. Judson's absolutely right about him. He's a janus-faced goober who'll take any position to get elected, be it left, right, or doggy-style. And he DOES look like a goddamn gameshow host. I don't why I never made that connection.
Posted by: Immoralist on June 28, 2007 6:23 PMoh, my but we do have lots of very different ways of thinking about animals, don't we? I think what settles it for me is that this was held up as a story of what he does in a crisis... emotionless. Freaking out in a crisis, bad, lacking compassion in a crisis, bad. doing this to the dog was indeed pretty stupid, right on up there with the lady who I saw has her little "mop" dog in her lap while driving. She has an accident and her dog is killed by flying into something, or getting hit by an airbag deploying at 200 miles per hour. In a twist of fate for the lady driver, she might be killed by the dog hitting her. [I've seen guys do this as well, once with a black lab. idiot.]
In those cases though, I think it's safe to say that the dogs owner doesn't see this as being cruel, in fact when I mentioned it to a co-worker once, I got yelled at for thinking it was bad to have a dog on your lap. Without answering my question about what would happen to the dog in th accident of course...
The disturbing thing to me isn't that he did it. Travelling across the US in a family truckster shoved with kids an luggage seems kinda loopy as we look at it now, but years ago? How many of us have family legends about how we took that trip to Yellowstone once in the back of a '62 Ford Falcon, and when the muffler went, we smacked our heads on the roof. OK, so maybe it was just me... But I know many others have been stuck in a wagon, with their kid sister taking up their space, and that's what makes the story.
The thing about THIS story is that it involves Dad doing something really stupid to the dog, and then it being written up as a trait that makes him good material for president 25 years later.
"It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management." I know other guys that are famous for being emotion-free in busniess management. One of them pink-slips an entire department and gets a bonus for cost-savings. The crisis was that the stock was tanking.
The problem that matters to me is that a president has to know WHEN to be tough or emotionless, and WHEN to be compassionate. AND if we are really lucky the next time around, WHEN to say they are wrong. [not holding my breath on that]. There are a lot of different ways people treat animals, and that gives us the breadth of responses here. A lot of different people have reactions to Dad on the roadtrip who won't stop when the youngest "has to GO, RIGHT NOW".
But those Dads are not running for president, and are not showing off little slices of their life for the world to read about, and INDEED for the public to make their mind up about to elect said president.
Putting the dog carrier on the roof? Not wise. This isn't a farm dog, and Mitt isn't a farmer who might look at him as simply another animal, like a flatbed full of chicekn cages [as has been mentioned] This is the family dog, and you would think if it was afraid or sick enough to do that, that a compassionate person would figure out how to make it more comfortable, like putting the luggage on the roof, instead of the dog. Like covering the back area with plastic if it was sick, putting the dog in it and then knowing that the trip would take longer, because you had to stop a lot to clean up after the dog. Coming up with an answer rather than an emoution-free reaction.
I need a president that is going to know how to react to any disaster, but is also going to know how to answer the little old lady whose house was destroyed. Who knows how to prosecute war, but take care of his warriors. You can't tell these traits from listening to a speech, but you can find clues on what is said and what is unsaid. What I got from the piece that was written is cold-fish, control freak, with a side of obsessive planning, which MIGHT be useful for a CEO, though it depends on who you talk to. For a president, I need a more complete package. I think this is one of those revealing situations like don't ever marry a person who is rude and demanding to the waitstaff at a resturaunt, because eventually this is the way they will treat you too. We are looking at predictors of behavior, and I think it is completely reasonable to look at how a man treats his dog as a predictor, just as it is instructive to look at what stories about himself he finds important, and releases.
D
Ahem. I knew this about him already from the way he let the victims of the Amirault bizarre sexual abuse trial just stay in prison, he was governor and could have pardoned them, when it became obvious, after Dorothy Rabinowitz's reporting, that this trial was as bizarre as the Salem witch hunt trials. Gotta keep your eyes on the prize after all. Don't criticize his Mormonism though, criticze bad, got that, 'criticize bad.'
Posted by: Doggerel on June 28, 2007 6:50 PMGood on you Jane. I bet young Tagg wasn't wearing a seat belt either sitting in the way back of the stay-wag. And what a rotten piece of crap that son is, if I can chime in on him. As a pre-teen (a few years before Seamus' now famouse rooftop ride), I happily sat in the backseat of our family car with an overly large Alaskan Malamute 3/4 on my lap for 400 mile trips so she wouldn't have to stay at home. Tagg, you're shit.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings on June 28, 2007 6:59 PMre: sedating your children during a car trip.
Obviously none of you are children of the 40's or 50's or else you would know what one of the primary uses of peragoric was....
Damn, now I officially feel old. Time to pull my pants up under my armpits and retire to Florida.
Posted by: tolbert on June 28, 2007 7:04 PMThat's what gets me about the whole thing; his staff thinks we want to elect Chevy Chase (as Clark Griswold), except mean to dogs, to The White House!
Posted by: Will Allen on June 28, 2007 7:56 PMSo is it true that the Romney campaign actually released this as proof of how capable he is in a crisis? I really hope they are not that studid. The fact that we are talking about this story is stupid, but if someone would actually drudge up this story as proof that Romney can think quickly and get the job done, that's pathetic.
I'm guessing/hoping this was brought up in an interview with him or one of his kids about goofy/silly moments they remember from childhood with Dad, and the reportor oddly chose to spin it as crisis management.
Or perhaps some question like, "can you tell us about a time when you were a kid when you're dad responded well in a crisis." I don't think I could even come up with an answer to that about my dad, so if that's the case I can see how this got brought up.
But it's pretty much a pathetic non-story as is the reaction and complete overanalysis of it. Ask Romney if he thinks its a good idea to put a dog on top of a car and drive for 12 hours now. If he whole heartily recommends it then you can go to town on him.
Posted by: cdub on June 28, 2007 8:02 PMJane, (or anyone else)
Even if your right that the only time a dog would poop in its cage if its freaked out, why do you assume this is something Romney would know? I for one would have just assumed the dog had an accident.
I can agree that it shows a certain level of callousness, but why should I believe he absolutely knew that this would be traumatic for the dog?
Posted by: Roy on June 28, 2007 8:07 PMThere is a lot of making up facts here. I wouldn't want any of you who are doing so on a jury unless you are on my side. I know little about Romney but if you all dislike him so much there must be plenty of better reasons. Wouldn't being governor of Mass. derange anyone somewhat?
Posted by: Will C. on June 28, 2007 8:53 PMOMG, what a lot of caring going on here today. I don't think I've seen so many multiple posts by people, include the hostess, as i have in this short group.
Jane, a couple of items:
Rob, several points:
1) My dogs have been golden's and labradors.
2) A dog this size (see #1) usually is transported via a crate that doesn't really allow the dog to stand completely upright, comfortably, and it can't chase its tail with abandon. The airlines I've transported with charge by the volume and/or pound, but always try to limit the size to what is 'acceptable' by SPCA standards (admittedly the standards are a wee bit old).
3) The horses I've trailered weren't given lots of room on the side, in case they were to lose their balance the sides would hold them up, preventing the catastrophic result of a spill by a thousand pounder, or so.
4) Gotta say, going 70+ with a crate or item on top, no matter whether a dog is in it or not, is pretty poor judgement. Not sure of Romney's speeds, or even how effective the the wind screen was. It does matter.
5) Fer cryin out loud. If you have a metal crate, not a plastic one, and you don't have padding, then you are a bit daft. by the way, I always tether a dog in the pickup bed. There are excellent dog bridles that are built specifically for it. Not letting the pooch slop around in the interior of a vehicle and not being tethered is a bit of a chance, since yon mutt can become a projectile, as you noted, and getting smacked on the back of the head isn't much fun.
Note: A jeep? you have a gas guzzling jeep, not one of those miserly mini's, yet?
6) No dogs and kids aren't the same, and you shouldn't treat them the same, whether your Paris or one of those complete idiots that has the little ones sitting on their lap with the cute little paws draped over their arms while they drive, WITH THEIR HEADS OUT THE WINDOW.
Dogs are as much a responsibility as other things, but the devil is in the details, so I can't go 'tsk, tsk' at Herr Romney on the strength of the story starting this energetic little thread.
Jane mentioned a million relevant facts when explaining why the mexican wave isn't much different from previous waves - she wasn't pushing the self-evident axiomatic argument. if the story, as its written up doesn't make one feel uneasy about romney-i.e if he doesnt come off as cold-hearted if not cruel- i doubt if one could be persuaded to feel that way tho. but given how he wanted to double guantanamo maybe this trait isn't surprising?& inertia is th ethird law
Posted by: sri on June 28, 2007 10:42 PMMy word. It is rare for me to be left speechless (peple have wished that upon me, but that's a different matter) but those of you who are rationalising this are, bonkers. That ought to be obvious and enough and I'm baffled by why it might not be.
Can I really be alone in thinking this rather more indicative of who Mitt Romney is than any of the things he has said on abortion or national security?
Posted by: Alex on June 29, 2007 1:27 AMI love convertibles! I drive with the top down all of the time. I do have a windshield. I have the top down in the heat of the day and the cool of the night.
I've even been caught in the rain on a drive with my mother with the top down. My children, grandchildren and dog love to ride in the back seat. I've had many road trips with the top down all day and especially at night!
I have to say my dog has never messed in the back seat of our convertible with the top down, however I did have a dog mess all over my grandfather's shoe in the back seat of our car with the top up.
Gosh, I never thought a convertible was torture. I'll have to let the motorcycle drivers and convertible owners know this is a torturious way to travel.
I'm going to have to think about how I'll let my dog know the bad news.
Posted by: convertible lover on June 29, 2007 1:53 AMRob,
with a shipment of whatever it is North Korea exportsI think the word you're looking for is "nothing".
I'm am suddenly remembered how funny we all thought it that the Kerry daughters' example of their father's coolness under fire was when he performed the Heimlich Manoeuvre on their pet hamster.
(he also did the same in the Congress, saving the life of a Republican Congressman who is still sitting).
Now *there* was a low reacter. I've met a few special forces/ war hero types, and they all have that trait.
I guess the moral of the story is politicians should avoid animals-in-distress stories ;-).
Posted by: Valuethinker on June 29, 2007 5:32 AMI wouldn't have strapped a dog to the top of a car, either, but her hysterical overreaction to this story says a lot more about Megan than it does about Romney.
Posted by: RMc on June 29, 2007 5:38 AMI'm with RMc. I'm also bemused by the vitriol provoked by anybody who dares guess that there might be any reason for Romney doing this. How dare we disagree?
Most telling is the hysterical reaction that "he broke the laws of Mass." Does any non-lawyer out there profess that they know all the laws of their state? Not me.
FWIW, Romney won't get the nomination. Find something productive to fret about.
Posted by: MarkD on June 29, 2007 8:40 AMI will concede this much: it's idiotic to put the dog on top and the luggage inside, windscreen or not. I hadn't considered exactly that angle, but it doesn't come out well for Romney.
It's also idiotic to call this an example of cool crisis managment, if for no other reason than because Romney caused the crisis himself. "As President, I will respond coolly and effectivly to all the problems my bad decisions create!"
Anon E. Mouse has it right when he distinguishes between being calm and acting calm. Like I said, it's kind of a guy thing. Society (not to mention our wives, kids and male friends) expect us to do what has to be done, and do it now, without agonizing over alternatives or flipping out. A man who cried under these circumstances would get funny looks.
Finally, two admissions of error:
I recalled an incident in which I saw luggage fly off a van, but it was unsecured in a roof rack with metal mesh walls.
Second, it's Newton's First Law. I got that one wrong.
But I intend to cite this incident 30 years from now in order to prove my ability to candidly admit it when I'm wrong.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 29, 2007 9:01 AMDoes any non-lawyer out there profess that they know all the laws of their state?
If you meet a lawyer who professes to know all the laws, find a new lawyer. Preferably one who isn't a liar.
Also, the Mass. law cited is deeply vague. It's tough to say if it was broken or not.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 29, 2007 9:03 AM"I find it bizarre that I'm even having this conversation."
Jane, I agree completely. A handful of the respondents on this topic should not be let anywhere near animals.
Posted by: judson on June 29, 2007 9:15 AMjust try putting these guys on the roof
http://ackackack.com/boomandniki.gif
A handful of the respondents on this topic should not be let anywhere near [polling stations].
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 29, 2007 9:55 AM"He scrambled up there every time we went on trips," Romney said at a campaign stop in Pittsburgh Thursday. "He got it all by himself and enjoyed it."
Now either Romney is a liar or perhaps you are completely overreacting and reading too much into the story. If the dog was cowering in fear and wimpering everytime Romney shoved him into the cage I don't think Romney or his family would have ever brought the story up in the first place.
It stands to reason that someone is reading far too much into this non-story story. It also stands to reason that just because you own and love a dog, or even owned 10 dogs that you are nevertheless 100% clueless has to how Romney's dog felt about riding in the car and to make an assumption about an event 25 years ago based on nothing other than your dislike of a candidate once again shows how truly misguided your thought process is.
Posted by: so... on June 29, 2007 11:40 AMI want a President who:
a.) Respects the Constitution.
b.) Reduces federal spending by 10% per year for the next 8 years.
c.) Shuts down the Dept. of Ed, BATF, DEA, DoE, HUD, Agriculture, OHSA, OEO, the Comsumer Protection Agency, and HEW.
d.) Fires a few hundred thousand federal bureaucrats (per year).
e.) Ends the War on [some] Drugs.
f.) Gets us out of Iraq and everywhere else that we have no business being.
g.) Defends our borders.
h.) Doesn't start any unnecessary wars.
If any candidate can do those things, or even half of them ... Heck!! even *one* of them ..., then I don't care if he roasts dogs on a barbeque on the White House lawn and eats them for Sunday Brunch. I also don't care if he [bleep]s every intern in the entire District of Columbia.
Call me crazy but . . . . wash the dog off and put him in the car, with the luggage on the roof?
The difference between "wash the dog off" (Jane's suggestion) and hosing the dog off is...? Has Jane never rinsed a dog with a hose?
And we know that there was room in the car for luggage but not for the dog... how?
Posted by: Al on June 29, 2007 12:01 PMMost telling is the hysterical reaction that "he broke the laws of Mass."
Apparently it's OK to break immigration laws, but not the dog-abuse laws. (What if a Mexican illegally drove across the Rio Grande with a dog on top of the car? What then?)
Posted by: RMc on June 29, 2007 12:17 PMJohn W.-
Though I echo your sentiments on the perfect President, Mitt Romney is nowhere close to that, with or without the gratuitous story of dog transport gone awry.
This story only cemented my dislike for the man. I doubt many people here were big fans of his before they read this story. Like me, this only served to confirm their bias.
Posted by: Christina on June 29, 2007 12:33 PM"Second, it's Newton's First Law. I got that one wrong."- me too! even more spectaculary than u(u were atleast only 1 off!)
Posted by: sri on June 29, 2007 12:52 PMOK,
A little perspective here. This was 1983 - few people I knew even bothered belting in the kids back then. I remember travelling four hours each way to a Boy Scout canoe trip in the Adirondacks in the back of a pickup right about '83. When I returned I caught grief from Mom for my sunburn - not a word about riding unsecured in a pickup bed.
Where I live now virtually every pickup has a dog riding free in the bed - yearround. Of course they are mostly of blue heeler and border collie stock so any one of them has more sense than all the setters in Ireland.
Now what I am interested in knowing is whether the Romneys owned any other Irish Setters. Buying one Irish Setter is understandable - they are very pretty dogs, but anyone unwise enough to have another is unfit to be president.
Posted by: Nordic on June 29, 2007 12:53 PMjohh w. The boldness!!! Standing up against the 'unnecessary wars' crowd. ooohaa! OoooHaa! ooohaa! I'll eat dog with that.
Posted by: Doggerel on June 29, 2007 1:11 PMYeah, I was a prospective Romney voter until I heard about that. Absolutely no excuses for that.
Posted by: TW Andrews on June 29, 2007 1:23 PMSome perspective might help (not that Megan and those who think Romney is a sociopath are open to new information):
My wife's family raises and shows dogs. It's not uncommon for dogs to be transported long distances from one dog show to another inside a crate on top of a car on in an open trailer. Most "Dog People" love their dogs and would never do anything that would harm the animals; yet they put them inside a crate and then strap that crate on top of a vehicle before driving days on the road. If people who are knowledgeable about dogs and whose livelihood depends on the dog's health treat dogs in this manner, why was it wrong for Romney? (Note, I'm not saying all or even most show dogs ride outside. Most "handlers" use motor homes to travel from one show to the next and there is room inside the motor home for the animals. I am saying that any large show, several of the dogs will have arrived riding inside a crate atop a car or in a crate lashed to a trailer towed behind a car or motor home.)
As for the observation that a dog is more important than luggage, I'll counter that the family's comfort is more important than is the comfort of the family pet. The dog was crapping all over himself and his crate. Would you want to ride inside a station wagon with such a smell? I know I wouldn't. Years ago, while on vacation, our dog developed a case of diarrhea. (The dog was riding in a crate in the back of our van). Sure stunk up the van. My wife, the dog lover who used to handle dogs at dog shows and was working at a vet when I met her, washed out the crate and washed off the dog. (It would be incorrect to say she hosed the dog off. She used our precious supply of bottled drinking water.) I put the crate, with the dog inside) on top of the van (and moved luggage off the van roof to make room for the dog). Did we do this because we valued the luggage more than the dog? No, we did it because our kids were about to throw up because of the smell! Or, we did it because we are sociopaths. Whatever.
'several of the dogs will have arrived riding inside a crate atop a car'
Bullshit. Prove it. A show dog transported on top of a car?
You really gotta have some documentaion on that.
Romney is an idiot.
If there was no room for the dog carrier due to the luggage inside the station wagon, put the luggage on top.
I've owned three of those big wagons, still have one. I've transported my dog in there. In fact, I transported my cat in a crate inside my car yesterday.
The difference in the comfort level of being inside the car versus outside the car for 12 hours is substancial.
If the dog crate is inside the car, the kids can talk to the side and scratch it through the grate.
Romney is an idiot.
Posted by: Michgander on June 29, 2007 2:25 PM"Romney is either an idiot or a sociopath."
Isn't that probably true of just about anybody who wants to be President? Why would anybody put themselves and their families through the Hell of a presidential campaign unless they either have a few screws loose and/or an insatiable lust for power?
Most dogs love riding in cars, and especially sticking their head out in the wind. However, any dog I know would be distressed at being stuck on the roof - because he's separated from the family. I wouldn't hesitate to tether a dog in the back of a pickup for a one or two hour trip, but I'd open the slide window in the back of my cab so he could hear my voice, not to mention sticking his head in and letting me know if he had a problem. A 12 hour trip? I'd have to think about exposure to weather and wind chill. Let alone exposing a wet and possibly sick dog to that...
I can see one excuse for putting the dog in a crate on the roof rather than carrying the dog inside the wagon - and that's if the dog is too excitable to travel uncaged. Driving with a 70 pound dog jumping around is obviously unsafe. (Living with a 70 pound dog that's apt to go to full speed ahead in your living room isn't so safe, either.) A crate for a 70 pound dog is huge. It might not even fit in the 3rd seat/cargo area of a station wagon, and if it did there wouldn't be any room for a passenger back there. With five kids and two adults, that leaves 3 in the front seat and 4 in the middle - and that's pretty crowded, especially on a 12 hour trip. It would be smarter to get a dog that would settle down and share the third seat with one or two kids, but people get attached to a particular dog...
And if I had the Romney's money, I'd get a vehicle big enough to carry everything - a van or something like the Chevy Suburban/GMC Carryall. (You might think of the Suburban/Carryall as SUV's, but they were around for decades before SUV's. My Dad bought a used Carryall in 1964.) Now, those aren't an expanded car like a station wagon, or a car/truck hybrid like many modern SUV's and minivans, they were trucks, and driving them was rather different than driving a car [1] - but if you're too attached to the dog to leave it in a kennel, you ought to be willing to work a bit harder at driving to keep your canine family member safe and happy.
[1] This is a matter of taste. Aside from the gas mieage, I'd rather drive a full-sized truck. Maybe it comes from first learning to drive on a 1952 Ferguson tractor...
Posted by: markm on June 29, 2007 3:29 PM"I find it really frightening that a large number of my commenters seem to think that the correct response to a dog with liquid diarrhea running all over the car is to wash the dog off and put him back in the crate."
What, precisely shout he have done? Put the squirting dog in with his family (so that they get sick also)? Stopped at the nearest town, found a vet, and camped out in the car until the dog was better? Wept like a baby by the side of the road?
I find you to be out of touch with your readers.
Uh, bristlecone...I'm guessing the ojbection was that the dog, after being hosed off, was not removed from the carrier, dried, and then given a little exercise -- seeing as it was obviously in distress at that time.
Posted by: anony-mouse on June 29, 2007 5:33 PMToo bad "back to the future" didnt come out until '85. Otherwise he could have activated the flux capacitor and driven back to the time he began the trip. I also remember the early 80's and riding unsecured in the back of a pickup truck. Or riding above the cab of the truck in the top of a camper that was secured to the bed of the truck by gravity. Neither of which anyone would do today, but 25 years ago it wasn't that big of a deal.
Posted by: buzz on June 29, 2007 5:49 PMI refuse to base my voting decision on anyting involving a dog. There is too much at stake to vote based on such trivialities.
Posted by: Blackadder on June 29, 2007 10:08 PMI refuse to base my voting decision on anyting involving a dog. There is too much at stake to vote based on such trivialities.
Posted by: Blackadder on June 29, 2007 10:08 PMI'll vote for Mitt Romney when they pry the ballot out of my cold, dead fingers.
Megan -- I think the line that should go here is: "I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney for dogcatcher."
Posted by: Stuart Buck on June 29, 2007 11:04 PMMegan is exactly right about this. Hearing some of the comments to the contrary makes me really glad the Republican party is, for lack of a better image, in a small crate covered by its own shit.
Posted by: pangea on June 30, 2007 8:34 PMFrom Ann Romney's blog:
Surprise, surprise, the media didn't get the dog story right. Our dog Seamus rode in an ENCLOSED kennel, not in the open air. And he loved it. Every time he saw it, he jumped up on the tailgate, walked in, and lay down. It was just like the kennel he curled up in at home.
http://fivebrothers.mittromney.com/blog/comments/151
Does the fact the dog seemed to like the arrangement change anyone's opinion about whether Romney is a sociopath or do facts not matter?
Posted by: David Walser on July 1, 2007 1:29 AMSure. If the kennel wasn't on the roof, as this implies (since he's walking in from the tailgate).
Posted by: Jane Galt on July 1, 2007 9:18 AMYeah, that sounded fishy to me too.
It's not uncommon for dogs to be transported long distances from one dog show to another inside a crate on top of a car on in an open trailer.
David, seriously? SERIOUSLY?
I have friends who are dog breaders and do the show dog circuit. People on this thread are debating whether dogs should be treated better than children? Those people who bread and show dogs generally have no problem answering that question. They treat their dogs BETTER than their children. I have met show dog mommies and daddies (which is what they call themselves) railing about how they won't fly with their dogs because being seperated and not being able to check on the dog for even a couple hours is too much.
Seriously, I question the truth of your statement.
Posted by: Kate on July 1, 2007 9:42 AMKate,
You're not the only one who questions the truth of my statement. I suppose I should feel insulted; instead I'll propose a simple test of the truthfulness of my statement. Go to a handful of dog shows and observe how the professional handlers transport their dogs. I have no doubt you'll learn the same thing I did -- it's not uncommon for dogs to be transported inside a kennel (what you or I would call a crate) that is secured to the OUTSIDE of the vehicle. The crates will be lashed securely and protected with a tarp or something else from wind and rain, but that's it.
Do professional handlers treat their dogs well? Of course. They love their dogs; the dogs are often worth thousands of dollars. However, I doubt most people reading this blog would find the typical treatment of a show dog (not a pet, a show dog) desirable or humane. While traveling (including time at shows), the typical show dog will spend most of its time in its crate. When my mother-in-law came to visit us (she's since retired from showing dogs), her dogs would leave the motor home for at most two hours a day (an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening). While inside the motor home, the dogs were confined to their crates. When we would visit her at her home, her kitchen wall was lined with stacks of crates that would often be filled with dogs she was collecting for her next show trip. Again, those dogs would only leave the crates for a bathroom break in the morning and evening. Before you think too ill of my mother-in-law, I've met enough show people to know that her treatment of her dogs was not atypical.
Why keep the dogs in crates for close to 22 hours a day? Because the dogs are not pets. They may not be completely house broken and are apt to chew up the furniture. In addition, while traveling, it far easier to control. What the dogs eat and what they are exposed to if the dogs are kept in a controlled environment. This helps keep the dogs healthy.
Posted by: David Walser on July 1, 2007 2:23 PM
Jane,
I DON'T read Ann Romney's account as implying the crate was anywhere but the roof of the station wagon. She was responding to criticism that the dog was exposed to the weather. In defense, she said the dog was in an ENCLOSED kennel -- it being the enclosed nature of the kennel that protected the dog from the elements. There was no need to mention the enclosed nature of the kennel if the kennel itself was enclosed within the car. As evidence the dog was comfortable riding atop the car, she then cited the dog's eagerness to get into the kennel as soon as the tailgate was let down. (It's not difficult for an Irish Setter to make it onto the roof of a station wagon from the lowered tailgate. Ann most likely assumed it was unnecessary to explain the exact route the dog took to get from the ground to its kennel.) Again, mentioning the dog's eagerness to get into the kennel whenever the tailgate was lowered would be pointless if the ONLY time the kennel was on the roof was the one time Seamus got sick.
Please help me understand your overwhelming concern with the kennel being on the roof of the station wagon. Is it that you cannot conceive the kennel could be so situated in a manner that is both safe and comfortable for the dog? I would have assumed that Ann Romney's account would have allayed any fears for the dog's comfort. Seamus LIKED the arrangement, so we should assume the dog was comfortable. Why should our opinion be given more weight than the opinion of Seamus?
As for safety, properly secured to the luggage rack, the dog was as safe in the crate on the roof as it would have been in the crate inside the vehicle. In either case, the dog would have been safer than it would have been if left loose inside the vehicle. (Dogs are not exempt from the laws of motion. Confining the dog to a secured crate -- inside or outside the vehicle -- is the best way to protect the dog from injury in the event of a sudden stop.)
Or is it that you, like many on this thread, have assumed that the dog's diarrhea was the result of the ride on the top of the car? Well, obviously, if the arrangement caused the dog to get sick, Romney shouldn't have done what he did. However, dogs become ill for a variety of reasons and we have no reason to assume that Seamus' illness was caused by the ride atop the car. Both Ann and Mitt Romney have said they took many trips with the dog atop the car. We have no reason to believe that it was on the first of these many trips that Seamus got sick (else the Romney's most likely would have assumed some connection with the mode of travel and the illness and stopped putting their dog on the roof of their station wagon). Instead, the most likely explanation is that Seamus got ill for some reason wholly unrelated to the trip. As already mentioned, we took our dog on several family vacations. On only one of those did the dog become ill. I've always thought our dog became ill because of something she got into while we let her get some exercise. Was I wrong to make this assumption, or should I have quit taking our dog on our vacations?
Jane, there are lots of rational reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would think this experience is one of them.
Posted by: David Walser on July 1, 2007 5:09 PMFrom a comment above:
"Most telling is the hysterical reaction that "he broke the laws of Mass." (earlier commenter 1)
Apparently it's OK to break immigration laws, but not the dog-abuse laws. (What if a Mexican illegally drove across the Rio Grande with a dog on top of the car? What then?)" from RMc
Very funny!! This thread is full of things that make me laugh, make me wonder, "What the hell is that person thinking?" and causes me to shrug my shoulders and believe this one may have run its thread (except for the virulent PETAists out there).
Thanks all!
I have to say, the objection that Romney hosed off the dog and returned the dog to the crate seems a bit bewildering to me -- given that they were in the middle of a car trip,what else was he supposed to do anyway? Let the dog fester in diarrhea? Put a diarrheic dog inside the car? [If the dog had been sitting inside the car when this happened, a lot more than the dog would need hosing off.]
Posted by: Stuart Buck on July 2, 2007 1:54 PMHe didn't strap is dog to the top of the car, he strapped his dog carrier to it. Usually you are precise in your language, but that sure is a big omission.
It was more like this:
than this:
It was more like this:
http://www.bikernewsonline.com/uploaded_images/road-hound-pet-carrier-700236.jpg
than this:
http://www.worldrider.com/blog/photos/llama_car-tm.jpg