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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.