l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 March 21, 2012 Posted by Shawn Mallow
By now, most all of us who follow politics have heard the collective barking
over Mitt Romney and his dog, Seamus.
Seems in 1983, Mitt saw fit to attach Seamus’ kennel to the top of his car
while driving to a family vacation.
I adore animals, including our clunky, slobbering, faithful doggies. And
while I can’t understand why anyone would pop a pup on the roof of their
car, the way this tail (excuse me, tale) has played out in the current
political realm is just re-dog-gone-ridiculous.
I don’t remember the venue, but I saw Rick Santorum commenting on this
during one of his latest interviews, attempting to question the character
and decision-making qualities of Romney.
After watching and listening to this serious condemnation, I didn’t feel
disgust or dislike toward Romney. I felt embarrassed. Embarrassed at the
fact that an ‘issue’ like this would actually be used in a serious manner,
in a supposedly sincere attempt to discredit a political rival.
“Well, you know, the family dog is one [that] resonates with some
people,” Santorum spokeswoman Alice Stewart said on MSNBC today. “If you
can’t be nice to your dog, who are you going to be nice to?”
[...]
“As far as Seamus the dog, look, all I would say is, you know, the
issues of character are important in this election,” Santorum told ABC’s
Jonathan Karl Sunday on “This Week.” “We need to look at all those issues
and make a determination as to whether that’s the kind of person you want
to be president of the United States.”
Good grief, Charlie Brown.
I’m not sure where this ranks in true importance, or just how much mileage
a rival candidate would get interjecting this into a campaign for the most
powerful position in the world, but, as much as I love dogs, I just can’t
believe this would be taken so seriously by any voter that it would be a
factor in their decision. (Though I’ve learned never to underestimate the
shallowness of certain voters.)
This incident occurred about 30 years ago. Seamus has since bounded off this
mortal coil. But I’m willing to bet, despite this ride of hellish
proportions, he probably lived a healthy, comfy, happy life in the care of
his financially secure owner’s home.
Be that as it may, the left-leaning polling company Public Policy Polling
has now actually seen fit to ask potential voters how they feel about this,
specifically “about what that decision says about the candidate.”
“Asked whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of both
Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s treatment of dogs, 20% of the 900 voters
polled last week said they have a favorable opinion of Mr. Romney’s
treatment of dogs, compared with 29% who hold an unfavorable opinion. “
These numbers suggest that the Seamus story has gotten around enough for
people to have a negative view of Romney on dogs, but 51% with no opinion
indicates the story hasn’t penetrated that deeply yet,” the polling firm
said in a statement. Mr. Obama, whose Portuguese Water Dog, Bo, has gotten
plenty of good press, was ranked favorably on his treatment of dogs by 44%
of voters, compared with 14% who hold an unfavorable opinion.
Asked “who do you think would be a better president for dogs?” 37% of
voters choose Mr. Obama with 14%. Only 21% of voters believe a President
Romney would be good for the dogs of America, and 42% had no opinion,
perhaps because dogs are not typically considered to be part of the
electorate, or simply because the question is silly.
But then came the critical question: for the first time in the survey,
the pollsters described what Mitt Romney did to Seamus. Predictably, voters
objected: 68% said it is “inhumane to put your dog in a kennel on the roof
of your car.” Only 14% found such an action humane. That opinion was pretty
much the same no matter which party the respondent identified with.
The pollsters found, however, that people who think that strapping his
dog’s kennel to the roof of his car disqualifies Mitt Romney to be
president wouldn’t have voted for him anyway. Only 17% of likely Romney
voters say the incident makes them less likely to choose him, 75% say it
makes no difference and 6% actually think it makes them MORE inclined to
vote Mitt for president.
Overall, more than half of voters, 55%, said they won’t base their
choice for president on whether or not a candidate has strapped his dog’s
kennel to his car roof. Which sit-up-and-begs the question: Is the Seamus
incident a political red herring?”
I am stunned that this is even an issue. (I am, however, not stunned that
this is already viewed by Team Obama as a viable line of attack.)
Alright, Romney made a strange decsion about how to travel with a dog. Who
knows? Perhaps the dog loved riding atop the car. How many times have you
seen someone elses dog (or maybe your own), cruising down the road, head
poked out of the window, wind blowing in its face, sniffing at the thousands
of smells swirling around?
Perhaps if Romney had exhibited some kind of pattern which jeopardised the
saftey of his four-legged companions, it could, in some way, validate
questioning his responsibilty and decision making prowess. MAYBE.
But this is just not the case.
Juxtapose this against the many truly questionable decisions made by Obama
regarding his numerous bizarre associations.
Delving into the realm of his past personal relationships, Obama has spent
decades in a ‘church’ pew, listening to the lunatic, anti-semetic, anti-
American rantings of Jeremiah Wright. In such high regard did Obama hold the
good Reverend, Wright not only married Barack and Michelle, but baptized
both daughters Sasha and Malia.
Obama was/is friends with Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist, who bombed the
Pentagon and the main headquarters of the New York City Police Department.
So close is he to this freak-a-zoid of a man, he announced his presidental
run in the guy’s house. He’s been friends with and received financial
personal/campaign support from Tony Rezko, a slimy real-estate huckster,
convicted of numerous crimes. (Rezko helped the Obamas with the purchase of
their $1.65 million Chicago home). He’s been a staunch supporter of the
late Harvard Law School professor Derrick Bell, an individual who had some
down-right kooky and radical views regarding race .
Yes, many of those examples could be considered as decisions made during
Obama’s younger days. And while some may suggest that the passage of time
may have tempered his willing penchant for associating with people of ill-
repute, it is precisely these kinds of decisions and associations which help
to shape a person’s attitudes and beliefs which define the whole of that
person’s life.
It also helps to illustrate the transparent hypocrisy of the Democrats and
their left-wing media water carriers who have a rich tradition of playing
hide-and-seek with their side’s history.
Teddy Kennedy abandoned Mary-Jo Kopechne to drown in a Massachusetts pond.
What’d he get? A lifetime of Senatorial fame and riches, the adoration of
millions of democrats and the media, who proudly and consistently described
Kennedy as the ”Liberal Lion” of the Senate, as he spiritedly lived off of
his crooked family’s storied name.
Bill Clinton, a living democrat legend, cheated on his wife with numerous
women, including one in which he treated a White House intern’s private
parts like his own personal human humidor.
J.F.K., the ‘king’ of America’s ‘Camelot’, repeatedly cheated on his
beloved wife, proving not even the Presidency could keep a good serial
womanizer down.
Personal character? These guys? Nah… Has NOTHING at all to do with their
capacity to lead and make responsible decisions.
But now… A 30 year old story about Mitt Romney and Seamus the dog?
It’s all about character, I tells ya!!! CHARACTER!!! |
|
