Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The Crate Gate Fakeroversy


For God's sake, could everyone please just pipe down about Mitt Romney's freaking dog?! The dog is long dead. How is it that I keep hearing about this dog and what may or may not have been inappropriate travel conditions for the beast? Aren't there more important issues to discuss? We have an unstable economy, outrageous gas prices, a couple of wars and unemployment that is still a bit too high. And all these yahoos want to talk about are birth control and Seamus! See how doomed we are?!

If you haven't heard the story, here it is: This happened back in the eighties. (Yes, the eighties. Yes, when Reagan was President. Yes, those eighties.) Apparently, Mitt Romney and his large family were taking a road trip somewhere. Along with the family traveled the family dog, Seamus. Seamus appears to have been some sort of Irish setter. He was definitely a dog. That I know. Anyway, for some reason, Mitt decided that the best way to go traveling with a bunch of kids and a dog would be to put the kids in the car and to put the dog on top of the car.

Now, when I first heard about this, I pictured a dog just strapped to the top of a station wagon. (You know the kind. The ones with the faux wood paneling on the outside. Whose idea were those, anyway? Why is it that someone out there wanted us to think that a car was carved out of a tree? I've never understood the reasoning behind wood paneling on things that would never be made out of wood. But I digress. Where was I? Right! The dog.) But it turns out that ol' Seamus was inside of a pet carrier crate that was strapped to the top of the family vehicle. But the way that everyone has reacted to this, you'd have thought that it was my original scenario that actually occurred.

I suppose that I should mention that the little trip that they went on was a twelve hour drive. That's pretty long. I should also mention that at some point, ol' Seamus apparently had a violent bout of diarrhea whilst he was up there. This was evidenced and noticed by the passengers of the vehicle when said diarrhea began dripping down the car windows. So gross. But why am I the only one who is thinking that it was good that the dog wasn't inside of the car when his bowels exploded? You want that IN your vehicle? While you're driving for twelve hours? When you already have five boys all under the age of thirteen in there with you? I don't think that you do.

At some point, they stopped at a gas station or a rest stop and Mitt cleaned up Seamus and hosed out his crate. Then it was back to driving with the dog on top and the people inside. Normally, this is where someone would type "The End". But it hasn't ended. It won't end. I'm afraid it may never end. People keep bringing this up as if Mitt had put one of his kids in that crate. (And let me tell you, having been a child, that would have been awesome. I would have donned a cape (aka, a pillowcase) and crawled in there for what would have been sure to be the adventure of a lifetime for a six year old!) And for some reason, the
North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling decided to ask American voters questions that referenced this incident about a dog (who wasn't killed or anything) from 1983.


The Wall Street Journal had a story yesterday (almost thirty years after the freaking fact) about said poll. (How this has anything to do with Wall Street is beyond me. And people wonder why newspapers are struggling. I can't imagine.) They asked people "... whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of both Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s treatment of dogs". Because...that's important? It says that "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." The good thing about this particular result is that the percentages only total to 49%. That leaves me some hope that the other 51% said, "Are you effing kidding me?" (By the way, President Barry managed to get 44% of the people polled to see his treatment of dogs favorably, compared with only 14% who saw his dog treatment as unfavorable. How do you see President Barry as having unfavorable treatment toward dogs. Does Bo seem particularly unhappy to those folks? He's a dog who lives in the White House. I'm pretty sure that his life is rather luxurious for any animal.

But get this: They actually asked "Who do you think would be a better president for dogs? What the crap does that even mean?! A better president for dogs? Dogs don't have presidents! They're dogs! Isn't that the sort of question that you would expect to be asked of first graders or something? How is that a polling agency's question? If you didn't think that we've totally come off the rails before now, are you thinking right about now that might be a little too optimistic? If you weren't, you should be. A better president for dogs?! Good Lord...


There is even a website called Dogs Against Romney. Now, while that's a catchy name (I suppose), I highly doubt that there are any actual dogs involved in that website. Why is this even an issue? I don't get it. How is having your dog in a dog crate on top of the car any different than having your dog in the back of your pickup truck? I'm not seeing this as a problem. The dog wasn't hurt. The dog was just fine. Probably because it's a dog. I don't know that I would recommend this as a way to travel with your animal, but I'm not seeing it as being particularly cruel or harmful. I realize that the dog has evolved into a rather domesticated beast, but it's still an animal. I think it would be OK. But the real point here is that everyone has lost their minds. Keep your eye on the ball, people! FOCUS! This is not, I repeat, NOT important! Also, let me reiterate that there is NO SUCH THING as a "president for dogs". That's NOT a thing! FOCUS, people! Keep your eye on the ball! A president for dogs?! We're so doomed.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

4 comments:

Rusty said...

You mean its not important to YOU. The poll showed 17 of Republicans are less likely to support him after learning this. Thats gonna hurt in some close swing states.
Woof!

Mare said...

Hey, Rusty.

Really? 17% of Republicans give a crap about something this insignificant that happened in 1983? Huh. So from that, can I conclude that at least 17% of Republicans are complete softheads who worry about idiotic issues? 'Cause I'm gonna. Oh, look. I just did! =)

Thanks for reading, Rusty. I really appreciate it!

~ Mare

Mare said...

Hey, Anonymous.

THAT'S what I was thinking! It coulda been worse! And didn't Clark Griswold also put the aunt on the top of the station wagon?! All his kids were inside. What's the problem?

Thanks for reading, Anonymous. I really appreciate it.

~ Mare

Juliana said...

Nice work there, Mare! This whole birth control/dog thing are total red herrings to get the publics attention away from the actual issues! Wake up people!!!