By “Romney family member,” I mean the Romeny’s former family dog, an Irish Setter named Seamus.
Seamus achieved fame and glory during the 2008 presidential campaign cycle after one of Romney’s sons told a treasured family story:
In June 2007 the Boston Globe reported that in 1983, current Republican presidential hopeful (and former Massachusetts governor) Mitt Romney had placed his Irish setter in a dog carrier on the roof of his station wagon for a 12-hour trip to his parents’ cottage on the Canadian shores of Lake Huron. He’d built a windshield for the carrier to make the ride more comfortable for the dog. He’d also made it clear to his five sons that bathroom breaks would be taken only during predetermined stops to gas up the car.
The dog spoiled this plan by letting loose with a bout of diarrhea during its rooftop sojourn, necessitating an unplanned gas station visit for the purpose of hosing down the pooch, its carrier, and the back of the car.
There are now two competing theories on the fate of Seamus. The orthodox theory is that Seamus was eventually given to Mitt’s sister:
The Romneys eventually dealt with Seamus’s apostasy, and nervous stomach, by fobbing him off on Mitt’s sister, Jane, who lived in California and was said to have space for the dog to roam freely, unfettered by straps, crates or station wagons.
And now we have a competing theory:
Mitt Romney may not have told the whole truth about the scandalous tale of his Irish Setter, Seamus, being strapped to the roof of his car during a 12-hour family road trip to Canada. According to a trusted Politicker tipster, two of Mr. Romney’s sons had an off-record conversation with reporters where they revealed the dog ran away when they reached their destination on that infamous journey in 1983.
That’s right…Seamus became a “draft” dodger by running away in Canada.
The Obama campaign uses the incident to draw a distinction between the two men.
And Romney continues to step in it, telling an interviewer on Monday that his campaign is for the middle class, and that “he’s not concerned about the poor”, which he dismisses as saying they are covered by the (social) safety net.
You can bet that an ad has already been created in the Obama re-election camp, using Romney’s freudian slip of the tounge.
I would link to it, but I don’t have to because by the end of the day it will be the headlines in most major news sites.
Of course, Romney will say it’s being taken out of context, because he also said that “if” the safety net isn’t working, he will “fix it”, and that he’s not protecting the wealthy, either, who can look out for themselves. But his policies say differently, so even his defense puts him deeper into the quicksand.
Pundits point out that it’s not merely the slip of the tounge – we all do that, from time to time. Bob Dole once mistook Pearl Harbor day, while he was speaking to a group of WWII veterans. But we all knew that Bob Dole, a disabled WWII veteran himself, had just made a mistake. The difference with Romney is, as pundits point out, that it reinfoces our beliefs about him. Especially when taken together with his “Corporations are people, too, my friend” comment; his effective tax rate of less than 15%; and his unbelievable claim that he was worried about getting a pink slip once or twice.
Really? A thread about they guys dog?
The gehy.
Nothing better to do today on the states dime?
I’ve always wondered what it is about Romney that makes people think of him as lacking authenticity. He’s rich, sure, but so have been many presidential candidates. He pretends to care and really doesn’t, but so do most politicians. What is it about Romney that has 75% of the Republicans looking for ANY candidate other than him?
Then it hit me. Romney, and his family, are in almost every picture frame you’s seen in the store. You know the picture, the handsome and prosperous Dad, the adoring wife, and the big brood of (almost) grown children. But you know it’s a fake picture, it’s just inserted to make you think that if you buy that picture frame, your family photo will appear to be just as prosperous and handsome as the ones in the photo.
Kind of like his promises for a prosperous America – appealing, until you realize it’s just a marketing gimmick.
I posted this a week ago or so but it’s definitely worth repeating and spreading (pun intended):
# 2:
What is it about the wingnuts who insist on telling HA what to write about?
Feel free to get your own blog and write about whatever you want. You might even get your mother to read it, once in a while.
Once you reach the readership and influence of HA, THEN we can talk about your “expertise”. Until then – not so much.
Did you know that Romney tried to run away to Canada to avoid the draft? He intended to go to Quebec, ended up on France, instead.
(It’s just a joke, fellas. No need to get excited).
RE: # 3: In searching for a picture of the Romney family, I realized I wasn’t the first to bring up this picture-frame photo issue. Here’s an article:
Mitt Romney: The Picture Frame Candidate
Hey, I’ve got a lot of respect for missionaries. Some good friends of ours just left for the mission field in Uraguay, they previously spent some twenty years in other S. American countries. Some missionaries live among the population in the poorest conditions.
But I don’t really equate Perry’s comparison of the conditions he faced in France with those of similar age serving in Vietnam. He talked about how bad his first quarters were in France, but most of us know such conditions as “our first apartment”. Later he moved to Paris to lead the Mormon missions efforts there, and was quartered in a house on the same street as homes of many amabassadors, some who have seen it refer to it as “palatial”.
So, when he talks as if he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, remember that he was living in France while other Americans his age were sleeping in a foxhole in the rain in Vietnam. And remember that the best way to become a billionaire is to start off as a millionaire.
This story will not help Romney with the canine vote.
Romney’s probably lost Jane Balogh’s vote!
@5
you idiotic fool – apparently they didnt teach you reading comprehension in that $1.99 online college you got your “degree” from.
I didnt tell darryl what to write – I was commenting on the subject he posted. I have come to expect better from darryl, even though I may not agree with him all the time and bust his chops now and then.
you on the other hand, are a real piece of work. how much are you charging your clients for posting at HA?….all damn day:
-spend 5 mins telling an LA what to write and run some errands
– spend another 45 mins posting on HA about Teh Romneey and evul reepublikan cunspeeracees
– 10 mins for coffee and a shit.
then charge some hapless schmoe going through a divorce for 1 hour of work.
asshole.
Please help our nation’s dogs stop Mitt Romney!
http://www.dogsagainstromney.com/
Steve,
Throw down some engineering love for us…..this place is getting staler than 10-day old loaf of french bread.
cmon brotha, keep it exciting!
@2 The whole dog thing started with this:
http://www.google.com/imgres?i.....38;dur=204
The reasoning is a politician who mistreats dogs will treat people like dogs.
“He who Talks from his Nether Regions” @ # 11 clearly doesn’t have the slightest clue what he is talking about.
He tries to complain about Darryl’s choice of subject matter about what to post, and then when called on it he claims I didn’t “comprehend” his intent to merely “comment” on the post. Yea, nice “distinction”.
Secondly, he clearly has no idea what I do for a living. He’s going to keep guessing, but I’m not going to help him – other than to say I work for a company, I don’t have individual clients. I’m salaried and on call 24/7, and sometimes I have down time during the day while waiting for actions by others over which I have no control. I had just shy of three weeks of unused vacation time by the end of 2011, and I usually put in ten to twelve hour days (not counting commuting).
Third, he has nothing to contribute other than ad hominem attacks. If he had anything approaching a classical education, he would understand that this has been considered a logical falacy since, well, the time of Plato. One who uses it is typically trying to direct attention away from a strong argument for which there is no adequate defense.
So – it appears I got more out of my “$1.99 degree” than you did.