ABC asks physicists: What was it like for Mitt’s mutt?

posted at 9:58 pm on June 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

Very clearly a hit piece, yet just goofy and tongue-in-cheek enough to qualify as ironic and “playful.” Jon Stewart has taught you well, young Skywalker.

Background here if you missed Muttgate when it first broke. Ann Romney answered the critics this morning, writing on the campaign blog that it’s no big deal, that in fact the little scrapper loved hurtling through space at 60 mph in his cozy kennel camper. Fair enough — but what do Nobel-prize-winning physicists have to say about this very important scientific story?

All kidding aside, what exactly would be the dangers of strapping the family pet to the roof of a speeding vehicle for 12 hours?…

Dr. Russell Cumming, a professor of aerospace engineering at California Polytechnic State University, got a little more technical.

“At that speed, assuming sea level conditions, the poor little dog would have about 10 pounds per square foot pressing against his head,” said Cumming.

And in layman’s terms?

“He would constantly feel a little less than 3 pounds pressing on his head for the entire trip,” he added. “The windshield would help, but boy that would get tired.”

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Douglas Osheroff of physics at Stanford University said the dog crate on top of the car would change the air flow around the vehicle.

“Beyond a certain velocity, the air flow becomes turbulent,” said Osheroff. “The airflow isn’t going to be laminar,” which means it won’t have a uniform distribution.

Cumming said that’s bad news for Seamus.

“Chances are the windshield would only protect the front of the dog, but the air flowing around the windshield would buffet the side of the dog — that would be tiring,” said Cummings. “My wife’s a vet, and she would be more worried by the dehydration of the dog’s eyes under those conditions.”

Coming next week: ABC’s Brian Ross convenes an expert panel of biologists to assess the long-term psychological damage inflicted by Rudy’s “weasel rant” on ferrets.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Ok, you get the last word tonight.

Peace and cheers.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 1:21 AM

If your dog loved it would you?

Dogs love drinking antifreeze too. Sometimes the human has to be the responsible one.

Tanya on July 1, 2007 at 1:46 AM

Ok let’s look at this again, and remember that at the time I would bet that has the Highway patrol drove past the Romney wagon, he waved… Attitudes were different. then if the car was full with people and no room for the dog then in ’83 tie the dog carrier to the roof was not out of the question, Now days we have different ideals. If you take it out of context then it is a really bad thing, the wonkett says that this may have been against the law but my guess that the law was not yet written. I’ll look it up latter :)

Found it
Prior to this law passing in 1998

Gwillie on July 1, 2007 at 2:03 AM

what do Nobel-prize-winning physicists have to say about this very important scientific story?

If we are to believe these guys then everyone who has ridden a motorcycle without eye protection/and or a helmet is blind with a deformed head.

So much for science.

infidel4life on July 1, 2007 at 3:24 AM

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 12:54 AM
(Which was the comment about your dogs)

In the Fred thread earlier you used the word “abuse”, but it sounds like in reference to your situation “discipline” would have been a better choice. Thanks for the clarifying remarks.

FloatingRock on July 1, 2007 at 3:30 AM

Oh no! A vehicle that doesn’t have laminar flow around it?!?!? How rare and horrible! Douglas Osheroff should be ashamed for even mentioning such a thing.

In other news, the ocean is often wet.

Kevin M on July 1, 2007 at 3:48 AM

Negativity, always negativity. Look at the good side of this. The dogs cage wasn’t strapped to the top of his campaign jet.

Helloyawl on July 1, 2007 at 5:31 AM

cant be much worse than riding a motorcycle.

triple on July 1, 2007 at 5:38 AM

Is this the same ABC that couldn’t track down one scientist to appear on The View to explain that fire can melt steel?

saint kansas on July 1, 2007 at 6:02 AM

FloatingRock on July 1, 2007 at 3:30 AM

My reference to beating my dogs was snark.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 8:02 AM

Dogs love drinking antifreeze too. Sometimes the human has to be the responsible one.

Tanya on July 1, 2007 at 1:46 AM

We aren’t talking about rocket science. The dogs knows if it loves riding in a car carrier.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 8:05 AM

I’m thinking the Dog was quite happy to have been able to spend the time with the family instead of locked in a kennel. And if the dog was suffering, I’m sure the family would have noticed and taken care of it. They thought enough of their pet to take him with them. Mitt even made the doggy a windshield. I think that’s sweet.
I can’t believe this is even being talked about. I’m convinced it takes a very low IQ and less studying to become a journalist these days.

bridgetown on July 1, 2007 at 8:05 AM

If fred? could say that the people who he was working against LOVED it and didn’t mind, then I’d agree.

Funny you should take that position given the position you insisted on here.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Many years ago! Windscreen! Nothing excuses strapping a live animal to the top or your car even for a short distance. The incident shows lack of good judgment and common sense. President?

jeanie on July 1, 2007 at 8:40 AM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 8:20 AM

It’s early and you’re gonna have to explain that.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Nothing excuses strapping a live animal to the top or your car even for a short distance. The incident shows lack of good judgment and common sense. President?

jeanie on July 1, 2007 at 8:40 AM

Then you are into animal cruelty? The dog loved it in it’s carrier. Putting the dog in the car, where you feel safe, would be cruel. I’m calling SPCA!

hahaha

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 8:57 AM

It’s early and you’re gonna have to explain that.

The opinions of the people involved trump everything else in Romney’s case, but the opinions of those women who have been involved with Fred! seem to be irrelevant to you. Which is odd since those in the Romney case are speaking to how another party (the dog) was treated, while in Thompson’s case they’re speaking about their first hand, personal experience.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:16 AM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:16 AM

Apples and oranges. My issue here revolves around Mitts! knowledge that the dog loved it in the carrier and I have never mentioned the likes or dislikes of freds? cavalcade of girlfriends.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Nothing excuses strapping a live animal to the top or your car even for a short distance.

According to who? I remember the dog I grew up with and how much he loved riding in the back of my father’s pickup. Pretty much anytime the tailgate went down, he was up in the back of the truck giving us that “Let’s go for a ride!” look with his tail wagging a hundred miles an hour.

Let me also echo BadgerHawk’s excellent point above:

Anyone else ride a motorcycle?

Yes, and the only problem with 70 MPH winds is that the bugs that come with them are like little tiny projectiles. Which is where a windshield comes in handy. However, the dog keeps falling off the back of the bike!

Does anyone know of any incident ever in which a dog has been harmed by wind, or is all of this objection based solely on your projections of the dog’s feelings/comfort level?

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:24 AM

My issue here revolves around Mitts! knowledge that the dog loved it in the carrier and I have never mentioned the likes or dislikes of freds? cavalcade of girlfriends.

My point exactly. Second hand knowledge trumps personal experience, based on F!DS.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:26 AM

Criminy, it is early. I see what your saying.

Mitt! had a responsibility to make his dog happy and he did so. fred? did not have a responsibility to make the throngs of single babes in the DC area happy. I know the groupies think he did and that’s what makes them groupies, but in reality, fred? was serving his own libido. And as far as the Christian conservative is concerned, that is clearly immoral.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 9:29 AM

OK. My question:

Would you rather ride on the outside of Mitt’s car or the inside of Teddy Kennedy’s?

oldleprechaun on July 1, 2007 at 9:33 AM

I don’t like Flip Romney ’cause he’s a suit, but this doggie style attack is awfully superfluous. Dogs LOVE to ride in the back of pick-ups and on motorcycles. I’ll bet Flip’s dog was in heaven up there. If this is the best attack that Flip’s opponents can muster then he’s doing alright.

Mojave Mark on July 1, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Mitt! had a responsibility to make his dog happy and he did so. fred? did not have a responsibility to make the throngs of single babes in the DC area happy.

No, just the ones he dated/married, which he seems to have accomplished. Mitt didn’t have a responsibility to make all the dogs in MA happy, right?

I know the groupies think he did and that’s what makes them groupies, but in reality, fred? was serving his own libido. And as far as the Christian conservative is concerned, that is clearly immoral.

How do you know what transpired between Fred! and anyone he’s been involved with? You almost sound like those trying to channel Mitt’s dog, except that Fred!’s former love interests can speak for themselves and they have. And what they’ve said is contrary to your projection.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Sure seems that csdeven has been turned down quite a few times by women. Since when was it bad to date women? Even lots of women?

Capitalist Infidel on July 1, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Mojave Mark on July 1, 2007 at 10:13 AM

he’s a suit,

If you mean an empty suit then you couldn’t possibly be more wrong about anything:

Governor Romney received his B.A., with Highest Honors, from Brigham Young University in 1971. In 1975, he was awarded an MBA from Harvard Business School, where he was named a Baker Scholar, and a J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

So he graduated tops in his class at HBS and Harvard Law at the same time!.

In 1984, Romney founded Bain Capital, one of the nation’s most successful venture capital and investment companies.

Mitt may be many things, but an empty suit he’s not.

TheBigOldDog on July 1, 2007 at 11:27 AM

I agree it’s a hit piece, but it’s totally indefensible. What kind of ass puts their dog on the roof of a car?

SouthernDem on July 1, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Does anyone know of any incident ever in which a dog has been harmed by wind, or is all of this objection based solely on your projections of the dog’s feelings/comfort level?
Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 9:24 AM

You can’t be serious. I haven’t read through all the comments but how can this be defended? Putting a dog in the back of a pickup is just a little different, in that the dog is in the back of a effing pickup, not strapped to the top of the car in a crate.
The dog may have loved it, but it’s simply not safe. My dog loves running in front of the UPS truck, but I don’t let him do it because he could be killed.

SouthernDem on July 1, 2007 at 11:56 AM

OK. My question:

Would you rather ride on the outside of Mitt’s car or the inside of Teddy Kennedy’s?

oldleprechaun on July 1, 2007 at 9:33 AM

Wow! That was good.

mikeyboss on July 1, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 10:24 AM

So is it your contention that people who look to the morals of the candidate that might run for president, are only looking to see if all the people he slept with still like him? You don’t believe that the multiple relationships are the main issue?

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Better to be a dog strapped onto the upper roof of Romney’s car than a date strapped into the front seat of Kennedy’s car.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 1, 2007 at 12:09 PM

If you mean an empty suit then you couldn’t possibly be more wrong about anything:

Oh I can be a lot more wrong than that. You should meet my ex-wife.

No, I meant “suit” ie. business guy. I know he’s smart but so what. Clinton and Carter were two of our smartest presidents ever. Flip Romney’s an opportunist and yet another poll-itician without a true center. He’s into whatever you’re into. Don’t get me wrong, I’d vote for him in a mad minute as opposed to a voting for the Dhemocrat nominee, but I’d like to not have to hold my nose when I vote in ’08.

Mojave Mark on July 1, 2007 at 12:11 PM

How do you know what transpired between Fred! and anyone he’s been involved with?
Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Google the phrase “fred thompson” and “swinger” or “playboy”. Everyone understands that his relationships with many of these women were very intimate in nature. That is why the term “playboy” “swinger” etc are used.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 12:18 PM

So is it your contention that people who look to the morals of the candidate that might run for president, are only looking to see if all the people he slept with still like him?

No, it’s my contention that you have no idea who or whether he slept with, and that this lack of knowledge doesn’t stop you from pretending you know the facts of the matter and are in a position to pass judgment on them.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Putting a dog in the back of a pickup is just a little different, in that the dog is in the back of a effing pickup, not strapped to the top of the car in a crate.

How is it different? The dog was in a secure crate, not tied by the legs to a roof rack.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Google the phrase “fred thompson” and “swinger” or “playboy”. Everyone understands that his relationships with many of these women were very intimate in nature.

Who is “everyone” and why don’t you provide some links to people in a position to know the nature of his relationships?

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 12:25 PM

You were just trying to change the meaning of the word “hot” to mean “class”.

Playboy, swinger, hot, etc are all words that are used to say something that people don’t want to say aloud. If freds? relationships were as you are trying to present them, the people relating these stories would have used different words to describe these relationships. Even fred? himself bragged on his exploits and didn’t bother to describe them as platonic.

If he wasn’t engaged in these intimate relationships, he sure did all he could to foster the image that he was.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 12:49 PM

How is it different? The dog was in a secure crate, not tied by the legs to a roof rack.

Uh, because I can look in the rearview mirror and check on the dog in the back of the truck. Plus, the dog’s back there for maybe 30 minutes as opposed to 12 hours.

SouthernDem on July 1, 2007 at 1:36 PM

You were just trying to change the meaning of the word “hot” to mean “class”.

Where did I do that? I noted that it is used to describe a beautiful woman, and that Jackie Kennedy circa 1960 would be considered “hot”.

Playboy, swinger, hot, etc are all words that are used to say something that people don’t want to say aloud.

And who’s saying them? Google seems to turn up nothing but crank commenters such as yourself.

If freds? relationships were as you are trying to present them, the people relating these stories would have used different words to describe these relationships.

Who, and how do they know any better than you do?

Even fred? himself bragged on his exploits and didn’t bother to describe them as platonic.

So? Did he say he was a swinger, a playboy, etc? Any romantic love interest is not a platonic relationship.

If he wasn’t engaged in these intimate relationships, he sure did all he could to foster the image that he was.

No, he could have said that he was involved in intimate relationships, which he did not, probably because as expressed by these women in his past, Fred! is a gentleman. You’re making stuff up again.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Uh, because I can look in the rearview mirror and check on the dog in the back of the truck.

Plus, the dog’s back there for maybe 30 minutes as opposed to 12 hours.

Is there a time limit on the back of pickup trucks that doesn’t apply to a kennel on the roof? And do you really think they drove for 12 hours nonstop?

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Gah! Bad HTML!

Uh, because I can look in the rearview mirror and check on the dog in the back of the truck.

You’d be better off looking in the side mirror, so you can see his head as it hangs over the side of the truck bed. Whereas you can take it for granted that a dog in a kennel secured to the roof isn’t going anywhere.

Plus, the dog’s back there for maybe 30 minutes as opposed to 12 hours.

Response above.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 1:37 PM

You need to wake up. Not only has fred? not done anything to dispel the stories of his swinging playboy days, he has done everything to encourage those rumors. The guy is so in love with his movie star image he forgot that a lot of people don’t think promiscuity is something to brag on or encourage.

Googling “fred thompson” and “playboy” gets this result.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 2:03 PM

After a quick rundown on the thread (I may have missed a few comments) one thing no one has mentioned is that I’ve seen women objecting to this. I’m a woman as well and I don’t like the way Mitt handled his dog. This was a 12 hour trip, not a quick run around town.

I’m usually the one in our family who takes the pets to the vet. I’m the one who has usually dosed them when they were ill. The kids would come along and help, but I’m the one responsible. I imagine this happens to a lot of moms–we end up mothering the pets as well.

Laugh at us or scorn us, it will still make us question Mitt’s judgment.

INC on July 1, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Let me add that Mitt comes across to me as a little slick and artificial. This just adds to the image.

INC on July 1, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Where would a pet ride on a flight from the US to Austrailia and how many hours does that take?

sonnyspats1 on July 1, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Not only has fred? not done anything to dispel the stories of his swinging playboy days, he has done everything to encourage those rumors

What stories? Told by whom? You? Do you think Fred! should be listening to you babble and then dispelling the nonsense you spout? Michael Moore, yes. You? Not so much.

Mental institution, csdeven. Might be something you ought to think about.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Have these idiots never seen a dog stick his head out the window of a car?

My God, the stupidity.

TallDave on July 1, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Have these idiots never seen a dog stick his head out the window of a car?
My God, the stupidity.

TallDave on July 1, 2007 at 3:38 PM

I don’t think these idiots have ever driven a car full of young kids, ever.
It is not possible to drive non-stop 12 hours with kids, doubtful a station wagon of that era could have made it on one tank of gas, either.

Who writes these lame pieces? Upper East Side Manhattanites who don’t drive and don’t have kids? Or is that the target audience, who’s ignorant of basic life on the road and thus who’ll believe this tripe?

naliaka on July 1, 2007 at 4:25 PM

I don’t think these idiots have ever driven a car full of young kids, ever.

I don’t think they’ve ever owned an Irish Setter either. You are NOT going to drive for 12 hours with a Setter IN the car.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Thank you INC.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Laugh at us or scorn us, it will still make us question Mitt’s judgment.

So, MSM hit jobs work. Lovely.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 4:53 PM

They do if there is truth in them.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 5:00 PM

They do if there is truth in them.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 5:00 PM

Don’t you find it an eensy-weensy bit peculiar that the mag presented a “Noble prize winning physicist” and a “professor of aerospace engineering” to comment about a dog crate on a car?
How did that call make it through the secretaries? “Sir, there’s a reporter on the line who wants to ask you a question about the wind resistance in connection with a dog crate on top of a car.”
“Oh, hold all calls! Tell them I’ll be late to the meeting. This is important!”
Guess what! The two esteemed scientists now look like idiots.

naliaka on July 1, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Change that to “look like idiot TOOLS.”

naliaka on July 1, 2007 at 5:25 PM

I don’t think they’ve ever owned an Irish Setter either. You are NOT going to drive for 12 hours with a Setter IN the car.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Haha!
Big, high-wired dog inside car stomping all over the kids in the back seat. Dog on crate on top of car. Brilliant solution. Probably cooler, too. Dogs and kids inside car = overheat, even vomiting. Our dog gets car sick every time – first minute and doesn’t stop until the trip is over. Needless to say, the “trips” are only the obligatory ones to the vet for annual shots. The dog absolutely needs fresh air, lots of it to make it without getting sick. That crate idea seems like a great idea to solve our pet transport problem.

naliaka on July 1, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 3:37 PM

You lose again. Thats two fer two.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 5:34 PM

I lose what? Your mind? Sorry, I’ve never seen it.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM

The dog was so comfortable that it got diarrhea and Mitt hosed it down and put it back in the crate. Sounds like the dog was having a blast.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Why are people defending this? Are you Mitt groupies?

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 5:40 PM

No, not at all and I don’t intend to vote for him unless he wins the nomination. But I know dogs and these complaints are ridiculous and overblown.

If the dog got to vote between a kennel on the roof of the car, or a couple of weeks in a boarding kennel away from his family, he wouldn’t think twice about it.

Ann Romney is entirely believable when she says:

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.

No harm, no foul.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 5:46 PM

These people sound odd to me. But to each their own.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 5:49 PM

The dog was so comfortable that it got diarrhea and Mitt hosed it down and put it back in the crate. Sounds like the dog was having a blast.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM

All we have to go on is your opinion, thousands of miles away and two decades past as to how the dog fared.
WHat’s wrong with this common sense: If the Romneys thought their dog, which they liked, was having real trouble, they would have changed the set-up, don’t you think? That’s what everyone does.
Look, if you want to argue the man’s politics, fine. Talk those issues. This article is a pathetic joke and should be hosed off like the political hit-crap it is, and sent down the drain where it belongs.

naliaka on July 1, 2007 at 5:53 PM

The story was posted. I have the right to an opinion. I think that Mitt showed a lack of common sense. My opinion. You think he didn’t. Your opinion. Don’t tell me what I can and cannot comment on.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 5:55 PM

I’ve been known to get the trots while traveling, and all I’ve done is to put myself in an aluminum tube that then hurtles through the air at hundreds of miles an hour. Still, I think it’s usually the food.

WHat’s wrong with this common sense: If the Romneys thought their dog, which they liked, was having real trouble, they would have changed the set-up, don’t you think?

If they didn’t love the dog, they wouldn’t have taken it with them. It’s not like they couldn’t afford boarding. And if they love the dog, why would they treat it badly?

Short answer: They didn’t. The dog was fine and eventually died old and well loved.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Common sense for some, poor judgment for others. I’m glad the dog was ok. But, it still was poor judgment.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Don’t tell me what I can and cannot comment on.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Is that what I said? Really?

You shift and switch. The article is the problem. The veracity of the article, the reporting of the article, the insinuations of the article, the motivations of the people writing the article and those who published it. It’s 1/10th true and rest of it was whipped up with deliberate hysteria for the purpose of developing the concept that the man might be cruel. Thus, it fully qualifies as a hit piece, not solid reporting and debate on Romney’s leadership, his political experience, or his vision. I happen to expect more than crap from the press, but am constantly disappointed.

I prefer the old fashioned way, debate the man’s policies and proposals, fair and square. The dog’s fine. The scientists look stupid. I still don’t know how Romney proposes to govern, because the press would rather fill up print space with politically motivated smears than a real background review and interview with the man.

naliaka on July 1, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Sorry I misunderstood you. If you were referring to the Press sticking to the issues, you definitely have a point. But the story was originally presented as evidence of Mitt’s problem solving skills. I just don’t think this is very good evidence of those skills.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 6:21 PM

But the story was originally presented as evidence of Mitt’s problem solving skills.

No, it was presented to paint him as cruel to animals. And I don’t see how you can paint it as poor judgment without some indication of what harm might have come from the decision, and you haven’t done that.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 6:41 PM

I think this is an attempt to raise the status of animals in legalistic terms and be able to prosecute animal cruelty cases. It also adds to the deminishing of the importance of the individual (men). Right out of the liberal playbook. We love to hate sometimes.

sonnyspats1 on July 1, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM

You’re slow aren’t you? You resort to personal attacks when you have nothing substantial left to add. I’ve been watching you slowly lose your cool as the debate has gone forth. And not just in this thread, but another one as well.

When you’re ready to grow up and use your adult mouth to discuss, you may try again.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Yes it was presented that way. http://kutv.com/local/local_story_180163033.html And you don’t have to be a liberal to care about animals. No one has proven it was a good idea either.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 7:00 PM

I’ve been watching you slowly lose your cool as the debate has gone forth. And not just in this thread, but another one as well.

Lose my cool? I think not. You don’t have the skillz to make me do that. Make me mock you, yes. Make me angry, no.

I’ve been asking you to provide something more substantial than your own personal attacks on Fred! and you’ve completely and totally failed to do so. One more time: Got any links to anyone in a position to know who says thompson is the man whore you insist he is? Anything?

“You lose” is simply pathetic.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Sorry, wrong article. http://kutv.com/local/local_story_180163033.html

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 7:04 PM

No one has proven it was a good idea either.

the Romney’s say the dog loved it, and there was no harm to him. What more would you like?

As for the NEW piece you linked:

Did Mitt Romney Abuse Family Dog 24-Years Ago?

That looks more like calling him an abuser than critiquing his judgment. Then, moving into the text:

An example of Mitt Romney’s crisis management skills has turned into something of a political problem for the Republican presidential contender.

Crisis management? You take that seriously? What crisis was being managed?

Seamus expressed his discomfort with a diarrhea attack.

That’s a leap of faith into dog diarrhea. Correlation is not causation.

“Massachusetts 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,’”

What danger? There is none.

But hey, if you want to fall for this stuff, be my guest.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I only linked the article because you stated that it was not originally presented as evidence of his management skills. I didn’t have the original article but this one referenced that fact. The rest of the article was in reference to the original one.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 7:16 PM

The original article was in the Boston Globe.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Again, look at the headline and tell me the point was to criticize his management skills. Romney has a long, extensive track record of successfully managing a number of things, some of which he took over in a shambles. Romney is an excellent executive, but that’s not what this piece is about. This is a hit job.

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 7:33 PM

You totally missed what I said. The original article which was a profile in the Boston Globe used this as an example of his management style. The abuse angle was not part of the original article. I didn’t have the original article to link so I linked an article that referenced it. Yes, the article I posted was about the abuse angle, but the original one was about the management angle.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Pablo on July 1, 2007 at 7:02 PM

That’s much better Pablo. Doesn’t it feel better to be welcome at the adult table again?

As I have explained to you, freddie boy himself has propagated the stories that he was a swinging playboy. You reject that because you choose different word definitions that suit your liking. That is your problem and you surely get to defend fred? according to your own understanding, but when the guy from CBN refers to freds? playboy reputation and conservative representatives grill him on his swinging bachelor reputation, there is more than one persons opinion driving that.

csdeven on July 1, 2007 at 8:04 PM

Sorry I misunderstood you. If you were referring to the Press sticking to the issues, you definitely have a point.

Excellent. So we both can write irate letters to the newspaper to demand better reporting and editorial judgment. And the papers wonder why they are losing circulation. If they continue to produce crap, serious people will go elsewhere for information.

But the story was originally presented as evidence of Mitt’s problem solving skills. I just don’t think this is very good evidence of those skills.
Rose on July 1, 2007 at 6:21 PM

This, no, and this is why: I will not base any judgment of Romney’s problem solving skills on THAT story. It was antedotal, 24 years ago and worse, posed hypothetical descriptions of what MAY have happened, with sly suppositions that can’t be determined either way to people with designed-to-impress/intimidate titles of “Officer with the Massachusetts Department of Animal Cruelty” and “Nobel Prize winning Physicist.”
Huh? Give me real meat – Romney’s administrative record, samples of how he governed, his platform etc. etc. Spare me the two-decade-old crated poochie pathos. It’s ridiculous. Perhaps, though, the press prefers that the public remain ignorant about Romney’s background and do not want to inform us, and thus fill their pages with decoys and mind-numbing inanities.
Waving “experts say” is a phony tactic of the Left, used daily – DAILY! Classic, irritating, and is a tool usually employed to promote a lie. Find it incredible that the scientists in question would want their names associated with the subject. Maybe they aren’t aware yet how they’ve been used?

naliaka on July 1, 2007 at 8:38 PM

The dog was so comfortable that it got diarrhea and Mitt hosed it down and put it back in the crate. Sounds like the dog was having a blast.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Note to self. The only known cause for doggy diarrhea is riding in a protected kennel on the roof of a car. O.K. Got it.

calirighty on July 1, 2007 at 10:10 PM

No one said it was the only known cause. Sheesh.

Rose on July 1, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2