Doggone Campaign

Thursday, April 19, AD 2012

I’ve seen a look in dogs’ eyes, a quickly vanishing look of amazed contempt, and I am convinced that dogs think humans are nuts.

                                                                        John Steinbeck

Well, the burning issue of the day is that Obama admits in one of his autobiographies that as a child he ate dog.  Considering that he was living in a place where dog is often what is for supper, that is not surprising.  I bear him no ill will for this, although my dog Baby, our terrific terrapoo, may not be so forgiving, or Internet Hitler for that matter.


The Romney campaign launched this gem due to the fact that back in 1983 on a family trip, Romney had the family dog Seamus in a dog house secured to the top of his car for 12 hours.  All was well until Seamus decided to relieve himself on the front windshield to the vast amusement of the Romney boys.  This strikes me as a typical Dadism:  an attempt by a family man to solve a problem in logistics that sounded like a good idea at the time.  Of course, my dog Baby might well take a harsher view.

Scott Crider, who has founded an organization called Dogs Against Romney, has no problems with Obama’s dog chow:

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Doggone Campaign

  • Sorry for being silly, but I am not buying that some sort of double standard is being applied. Romney’s decision (as an adult) to travel with the family dog on the roof of the car — not just around the block, but cross-country — demonstrates exceedingly poor judgment. Obama’s consumption of a dog (as a child) does not demonstrate poor judgment. I agree with Scott Crider on this.

  • Seamus was unharmed Spambot which indicates that Romney did a good job securing the dog into the dog house on top of the car. Now if he had just tied him to the bumper on the other hand:

  • Perhaps a better example of a double standard would be the Malvinas gaffe by Obama, which would have been subject to endless ridicule if done by Romney, was largely dismissed by the press.

  • New slogan:


  • Still not seeing what’s inherently wrong about putting a dog on top of the vehicle; there are bad ways to do it, sure, but as long as there’s a way for the dog to get out of the wind, like in a pickup, not a problem. (Beats the heck out of stuffing them in a cargo-cage in the back of a car.) I remember seeing dog-cage-on-a-vehicle less than 15 years back, so it would be a pretty new sense of outrage about something that happened the year I was born. Yeah, trying to make political hay about something that caused no harm and that a middle-aged house wife barely predate is pretty silly– so the “dude, you ate dog!” response is perfect. (What next? “The boys weren’t in booster seats when they were under 13!”)

    Pretty sure they ran the dog when they ran the kids, too, and it’s been mentioned that the dog riding on top of the vehicle wasn’t that unusual, it only caused an issue because his…issue… was more liquid than usual. (Odd how they’re outraged about the assumption that the dog didn’t move for 12 hours, but not about a just as likely assumption that the KIDS didn’t move from their chairs for 12 hours, eh?)

    That said…. I LOVE the mental image of putting a Snoopy-style dog house on a station wagon.

  • Would these be the dog days of the campaigns? I think they’re having a ruff time. I also hear some liberals are getting howling mad, and some conservatives think that Romney’s tactic is barking up the wrong tree.

    (k, is that all the low-hanging fruit? No? Doggone it….)