Romney, The Hoser

Except Mormon Romney can't blame it on beer-drinking.



What Was It Like For Romney's Dog? Scientists weigh in on Mitt Romney's dog's experience of being on roof of car for 12-hour road trip. ABC News reports:

It may sound like a scene from Chevy Chase's "National Lampoon's Vacation." Mom and Dad pack their five boys into a white Chevy station wagon, load the luggage into the back, strap the dog to the top of the car and begin the annual family road trip from Boston to their summer home in Ontario.

Actually, it's not a movie. It's the true story of Mitt Romney's 1983 family vacation, according to an article in Wednesday's Boston Globe.

The article pegged Romney, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and former governor of Massachusetts, as a family man, father to five sons, adoring husband and dog's not-so best friend. Using a 1983 family vacation to talk about Romney's family values, a shocking paragraph caught the eye of animal rights groups and angered pet owners across the country.

"Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog," read the article.

Jordan Kaplan, the owner of Petaholics, a dog walking service in New York City, and a lifelong dog owner and dog lover, said Romney's actions were uncalled for.

"It would be one thing if someone put it down or forgot and then drove 50 feet and realized what they did," said Kaplan. "I don't know anyone who would purposefully do that to a dog."

Physicist Dr. W.J. Llope, a senior faculty fellow at Rice University in the department of physics and astronomy, has his theory about the Romney's decision to strap Seamus to the top of the car.

"Seeing the inside of the car is full, Romney absentmindedly says to himself, 'Where am I going to put ole Seamus here?' and hearing his name, the dog says, 'Roof, roof,'" said Llope.

What Happens to a Dog on a Roof Traveling 50 MPH?

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

Llope said putting a dog on top of a car is just like putting anything or anyone else on the roof.

"What happens to a dog in this situation is precisely what would happen to any of us in the same situation: Trapped in a box for 12 hours would be no one's idea of comfortable," said Llope.

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."

In addition to dehydration, fatigue and fright, Seamus was strapped on top of a car for 12 hours with limited or no bathroom breaks -- a condition that was highlighted in the Boston Globe article.

"A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours," the article said.

After his son noticed the liquid, Romney pulled the car over and hosed down Seamus at a gas station before putting him back into the crate on top of the car and continuing on with the drive.

Just a Sign of the Times?

The incident happened more than 20 years ago, at a time when Pet Palaces and Doggie Day Cares didn't exist, so were the Romneys just following a trend? Maybe, said Kaplan, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

"Certainly, a lot has changed as to how we view our dogs, our pets since 1983. The dogs would stay in the basement with just a bowl of food, and now we have products and services for dogs that didn't exist 20 years ago," said Kaplan. "But I just couldn't imagine anyone would ever do that to a pet. What if they got hit? I would never do that to any animal."

But Osheroff said the inside of a car may not be any safer for the family pooch in the case of an accident.

"In general, if you have a dog in a car, that dog is not wearing a seat belt. And I dare say there were no seat belts for dogs [in 1983], so I don't know if it makes any difference where the dog is," said Osheroff.

He equated it to a dog riding in the back of a pick up truck, a sight commonly seen on America's roadways.

Political Implications: Pet Lovers Protest Romney

Will this nearly quarter-century-old tale affect Romney's presidential bid in 2008? That remains to be seen, but for now pet owners across the country are speaking out in defense of dearly departed Seamus.

Dog lovers certainly aren't happy. Thousands of readers have posted comments on The New York Times Web site attached to a blog discussing the anecdote.

"This can't be real, this has to be a joke, right? Who, in their right mind straps their dog to the roof of the car? I don't care if he's got a windshield on this dog carrier," read one comment.

"I'm also amazed the story didn't end with the death of the dog," read another. "Did he make any trips where he strapped his wife or one of his children up there?"

Others related Romney's actions to the type of president he would be.

"The people who will vote for him are those who think torturing animals, making them suffer is OK. He's a disgusting man, presidential candidate, NOT," wrote one poster.

Yet others seem to think Romney's seemingly lack of concern for Seamus' well-being was a quality that will help him win over voters.

"Mitt Romney will be a great president, he can think dispassionately, with a clear head and objectively," one poster said.

This story didn't come to light through dogged-research by investigative journalists. Romney volunteered it as an example of his cool-headed management skills, "'emotion-free crisis management': Father deals with minor — but gross — incident during a 1983 family vacation, and saves the day."

It's more like, "When Romney's policies create shitstorms, he hoses them down."

Romney's response to the controversy:

Per WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh: "Romney answered questions about a Boston Globe feature story that mentions how he strapped his dog's cage, with the animal inside, to the top of his family's car during a 12-hour road trip 24 years ago. He said Thursday that the pet enjoyed the experience, and he took a shot at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a group that has labeled his actions as cruelty."

"You know, PETA has not been my fan over the years," Romney said. "PETA has been after me for having a rodeo at the Olympics and were very, very upset about that. PETA was after me when I went quail hunting in Georgia. And PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air."

After eight years of selfish, greedy sadists, Republicans want to saddle us with another clueless, insensitive ass. (Romney is the Bush family's choice in the 2008 elections.)

Mitt Romney's Wife Has Chronic, Degenerative Multiple Sclerosis

Why isn't FOXnews.com obsessing about the Romneys' decision to continue campaigning, as they are the Edwards's?

Living with a chronic, degenerative disease like multiple sclerosis is no day at the beach. There is no cure. Although not uncommon, multiple sclerosis by itself can be fatal (1% of the MS population). More frequently, about 10% of MS patients experience other life-threatening complications, such as:

Dehydration or Malnutrition as a result of difficulty swallowing or the inability to care for oneself.

Kidney failure. Urinary tract infections, urine retention and sphincter dysfunction are common in MS and of which could lead to kidney failure

Aspiration. Throat muscles not working can cause choking or inhalation of food or drink, which may cause pneumonia

Depression unaided or left without assistance can, and sadly often does, lead to suicide

Stress can make symptoms worse, trigger flare-ups, and hasten the disease's progression, so avoiding stress wherever possible becomes key to a patient's strategy for living with MS. For the other 90% of MS patients not in imminent danger of dying, achieving some success in living with this disease includes therapies which help in managing the normal physical and psychological stress of daily life. The rigors of a two-year campaign for the presidency mean constant stress that takes a toll on the healthiest candidates and their families. And make that a six-year campaign, should Romney actually win the general election, because every day of his first term will be in reelection mode for a second term.

I question the emotional fitness, judgment, values and commitment (to spouse and family) of any candidate who goes ahead with a bid for the presidency after his spouse has gotten an MS diagnosis.

I see this as a much more serious consideration for voters than Elizabeth and John Edwards' situation. While stress certainly plays a role in cancer's course, once cancer has progressed to stage 4 (metastasized to other parts of the body, which is what has happened to Mrs. Edwards; the cancer has spread to bones and organs, a lung), she's pretty much "Dead Woman Walking." That may sound harsh, but that's what's happening, absent the high-priced public relations' consultants' positive, "best case scenario" spin.

Edwards's campaign got out the pertinent facts regarding his wife's condition: The severity of her condition, and how his campaign will be affected by it. When Elizabeth Edwards needs him by her side, he'll be with her and not the campaign.

Elizabeth Edwards has decided that whatever time she has left, she's going to spend it as she sees fit, doing what she believes is important. With her family's blessings. John Edwards dropping out of the campaign isn't going to change Mrs. Edwards' prognosis or give her more time.

The same isn't true for Ann Romney, nor is the benefit that dropping out of the campaign would have on her health.

Yet the media allows the Romneys to avoid the questions that are dogging the Edwards. Today, FOXnews.com has begun anew the same story from 3 weeks ago - Wife of John Edwards Defends Decision to Stick With Campaign After Cancer Diagnosis:

Elizabeth Edwards wants to be clear: She made the choice to stick with her husband's campaign for president after learning her cancer was back.

"I think that people who are critical like to think that John dragged me kicking and fighting the whole way, that I'm somehow disappointed in this. I'm not disappointed in this," she said on Monday.

Speaking to reporters after her husband's town hall meeting at Concord High School, Edwards, 57, said at decision time, she went first.

"He let me make it first, I think, because he wanted to make certain it was mine and I wasn't just deferring to him," she said. "This is what I wanted to do."

As for criticism of their decision: "I don't worry for me because we've got tough skin. And, honestly, having been through the death of a child, it's just words. You want to hurt us, you're going to have to do a little better than that."

It was the couple's first campaign trip to New Hampshire since announcing last month that Elizabeth Edwards' breast cancer, diagnosed at the end of the 2004 campaign, had returned in her bones. John Edwards stayed in the race, drawing praise from cancer survivors. From others, he drew questions about whether that was the right choice.

In Concord, Elizabeth Edwards led the way into the gymnasium, followed by her husband, son Jack and daughters Cate and Emma Claire.

John Edwards was the headliner, speaking to a mostly high school-age audience on broad themes of unity and change and their importance in solving Iraq, health care, climate change and poverty.

"The country and the world has to change," he said. "Instead of taking small steps, we need big bold steps."

On Iraq, Edwards criticized President Bush's threat to veto a House-passed bill to set a timeline for withdrawing from Iraq.

"If the president chooses to veto it, it's the president of the United States who's decided 'I'm not going to provide the funding to the troops leaving Iraq," he said. "If he vetoes it they ought to send it back to him."

But Elizabeth Edwards was the show stealer. John Edwards got his first round of applause by mentioning his wife: "She's shown extraordinary courage and I'm very, very proud of her."

And when he left the room, she lingered, surrounded by autograph seekers, well-wishers and reporters jostling for quotes.

"I was here to see Elizabeth, really," said Ruth Ann Herbert.

Herbert wanted to speak to Edwards about their common loss — both had teenage sons who died. In introducing her husband, Edwards spoke of their son, Wade, who died at 16 in a car crash, and the high school learning lab created in his memory. Herbert, a reading tutor at Concord High, established a scholarship in her son's name.

"I just wanted to tell her that we're sisters. You have no idea unless you've lost a child, and I just wanted to let her know that she's very inspiring to me," Herbert said.

In Durham, after a packed town hall meeting at the University of New Hampshire, an elderly woman bustled through the crowd surrounding John Edwards, threw her arms around him in a hug and asked where his wife was.

"She's over there," he said. "She's got a big crowd around her."

Edwards spoke a day after announcing he had raised more than $14 million in campaign money. Sen. Hillary Clinton had raised a record $26 million.

"One thing is clear — there are at least two candidates, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, who are going to have plenty of money to run a serious campaign," Edwards said.

Where will Romney be when his wife can't make the campaign schedule, can't pull herself out of her bed, can't feed herself or speak?

Where is Bernadine Healy, informing the public about multiple sclerosis?

Where is Rush Limbaugh, and other "somebodies," accusing Mitt Romney of political opportunism?

Bush Family Lining Up Behind Mitt Romney's Campaign

With the Christian Right’s dream candidate, Jeb Bush, seemingly serious about not running, who is the Bush family putting their time and money on?

At Newsweek, Eleanor Clift reports:

Watching the Republican candidates elbowing each other for position on the right is a classic Washington spectator sport. Nobody quite measures up, and they all look a little craven trying. The prize they’re seeking: the evangelical vote, which is crucial to success in the GOP primaries. Republicans can’t win the White House without them, and social conservatives so far have been lukewarm toward everybody in the field.

There’s one politician the Christian right could get excited about: John Ellis (Jeb) Bush. But he’s not running—surely in part because the Bush brand has been so badly tarnished by the Iraq misadventure. A handoff from brother George would have been easy—if only the president had stayed focused on finding Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan rather than rushing off to invade Iraq. But for his brother’s mess, Jeb would be a formidable candidate.

He’s still a likely contender at some point—maybe even as a vice presidential pick in ’08. He can raise money, he has a Mexican-born wife who could help with California, and he can deliver Florida. The restoration is premised on the Republican nominee needing the credibility with the religious right that Jeb could bring. The Bush family seems to be moving its chips to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Several of Jeb’s gubernatorial staffers have signed on with Romney, and Jeb’s sister, Doro Bush Koch, is cohosting a fund-raiser for him. Mom and Dad are reportedly telling friends he’s a fine man and the class act in the race. With front runner John McCain faltering and Rudy Giuliani an unlikely fit with Republican primary voters, Romney looks like the Bush Dynasty’s best bet.

Jeb’s ambition, his intellect and his tenacity have not dimmed. Combine these personal characteristics with his ability to raise money and you’ve got a potent political force, says S.V. Dáte, the Tallahassee bureau chief for the Palm Beach Post and author of “Jeb: America’s Next Bush.” The book is not particularly flattering. Dáte says Bush governed with the openness and transparency of the Politburo; that his tax cuts went to the top 4.7 percent of Floridians and that he created the lowest number of jobs of any governor since 1970. Despite that record, polls show a consistent high regard for him, especially among social conservatives who remember his tireless efforts to sustain Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman whose survival in a vegetative state—in the face of her husband’s efforts to end life supports because of the grim prognosis—became a cause célèbre for the religious right.

The younger Bush was the one the family thought would become president, but that calculus went out the window when Jeb lost his initial bid for governor in Florida, and George was elected in Texas. Dáte says he wonders what would have happened if both brothers had won that year. George is seven years older but is otherwise out-classed by Jeb, the intellect of the family and, at 6 feet 4, a significant physical presence. Would they have run against each other in the primary? Would there have been a playoff game of horseshoes?

In Washington on a promotional tour, Dáte took questions at Politics & Prose, a bookstore in northwest Washington, where key chains counting down the hours, the minutes and the seconds left in Bush’s term sold out over the holidays. Dáte began with the top five e-mails he got in response to an article he wrote for The Washington Post speculating what a Jeb Bush presidency would be like in its seventh year, if the family plan had worked like it was supposed to. Many readers thought he was endorsing Jeb because he said that the younger brother wouldn’t have screwed up hurricane relief. Dáte believes Jeb would have followed the same siren song of the neocons into war. But once in Iraq, “Jeb would have been less prone to botch the job through inattention and cronyism,” Dáte says.

The thought of another Bush headed for the presidency struck most readers as preposterous. “The single most idiotic article I’ve read in The Washington Post,” said one. “Is this column a humiliating payback for a lost wager?” asked another. “The Bush family (expletive deleted) the world. I have a Colorado spruce in my front yard smarter than you.”

But the author is undeterred by the skepticism. He says it is “inevitable” Jeb will run for president, though he admits ’08 is problematic. Still, if the troops start to come home by the end of this year and the president’s approval ratings start climbing, who knows? Dáte states in The Washington Post piece that John McCain swung by Tallahassee in December 2005 to sound Jeb out about the prospect of running with him, and adds that any Republican candidate would be foolish not to put Jeb on the shortlist. Evangelicals make up a quarter of the country, according to some estimates—and as much as 35 to 45 percent of Republican voters in some states. If anybody has a lock on them, it’s Jeb.

The actual campaign doesn't begin for a long time.

But for an election cycle to have begun so early, and to overheat this quickly, tells me that there are going to be several major shake-outs before the campaigns seriously get off the ground and under way. And two years is a very long time for a vice-president with heart problems and clots in his leg to resist subpoenas and investigations. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Bush family has several contingency plans at the ready, one which calls for their hand-chosen heir (Romney) to replace an ailing (or deceased) Cheney just months before the election.



For that leg up, Romney might then turn around and tap Jeb Bush to run on the Republican ticket with him. It would be so typically 'Bush' to slide Jeb into national politics that way, given that he wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting into the oval office through the front door after the mess his brother has made of the world.

That's just one possibility out of many. Like I said, two years is an eternity in politics.

Romney's Pro-Life Conversion More Recent Than He Wants The Republican Base To Think

Either Romney had been holding out hope (as late as the November, 2002) that moderates would retake the Republican party in time for the 2008 presidential election, or, he had planned all along to make a sharp right turn as soon as got into the governor's office in Massachusetts, 2002.

Those are the only choices, because to believe that Romney, at age 57, rethought his beliefs on the defining issues of the American political scene for the last thirty years, particularly in light of his wife's precarious health, stretches credulity beyond all reason.


Jennifer Rubin writes in the Weekly Standard:

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is under fire as he pursues the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. A recent Internet video highlighted comments made during a 1994 debate against Sen. Edward Kennedy in which Romney declared that he supported a "woman's right to choose." Romney quickly distanced himself from those comments, winning praise from conservative pundits. But a look at Romney's second campaign, the 2002 race for Massachusetts governor, reveals that his pro-choice stance and support for embryonic stem cell research were clear and ardent less than five years ago.

In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:

Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES

Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES

In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES

Romney also completed the questionnaire of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America), with this statement:

I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate

in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let's end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain.

As he had with Planned Parenthood, Romney answered "Yes" to questions asking whether he supported Roe v. Wade and opposed attempts to restrict abortion. After completing the questionnaire, Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help "sensible" Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.

That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.

At the Massachusetts GOP convention in April 2002, Romney articulated views entirely consistent with the pledges he had been giving the pro-choice groups. "Believing in people is protecting their freedom to make their own life choices, even if their choice is different from yours," Romney said. "Accordingly, I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose. That right is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government's." In much the same manner as he had done in the 1994 Senate debates, Romney repeated his pro-choice views later that year in the October 2002 gubernatorial debates, even invoking his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in Michigan in 1970.

Romney would later say that his views were evolving at this time and that when pressed he would say he was "personally" pro-life. However, he evidenced no such hesitation when he sought the endorsement of pro-choice groups. To the contrary, he repeatedly tried to reassure pro-choice advocates by stating that he would not alter the "status quo" with regard to abortion laws. He frequently dismissed claims that his pro-choice credentials were inferior to his opponent's. Attempting to dispel doubts about his pro-choice credentials at the 2002 GOP state convention, Romney repeated that any argument that said he was less supportive of a woman's right to choose than others was "cynical and divisive."

In their debate in October 2002, Romney's Democratic opponent Shannon O'Brien said, "It comes down to a matter of trust. I think Ted Kennedy said it best when he was running against Mitt Romney in 1994. His opponent wasn't pro-choice or anti-choice, he was multiple choice."

Whereupon Romney said: "Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." O'Brien noted Romney's 1994 endorsement by the pro-life Massachusetts Citizens for Life and mentioned that Romney had written a letter to a Salt Lake City newspaper in 2001 asking that he not be referred to as "pro-choice."

Romney responded that his opponent was "shamelessly trying to play on voter fears about abortion rights." He added that he "do[es] not take the position of a pro-life candidate." Romney's running mate, Kerry Healey, was quoted at the time

of the debates as saying: "There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and Shannon O'Brien['s]."

In addition to abortion rights, in 2002 Romney sang the praises of embryonic stem cell research, showing no concern that such research resulted in the destruction of embryos. On June 13, 2002, Romney spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning.

Romney won the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election by more than 100,000 votes, many from pro-choice supporters. Jennifer Blei Stockman, national co-chair of Republican Majority for Choice, recalls Romney personally calling to thank her group after the election, saying, "We made a difference."

Two years into his governorship, in February 2005, Romney announced his opposition to stem cell research. Then, to the dismay of his pro-choice supporters, he vetoed a July 2005 bill making available Plan B or "morning after" contraception. Also that year, in an op-ed for the Boston Globe, he declared himself pro-life.

Romney says he changed his mind in November 2004, when he met with a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Romney claimed in a June 2006 interview that the researcher had told him: "'Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.'" Romney went on to say that both he and his chief of staff had an epiphany, recognizing that embryonic stem cell research cheapened respect for human life. However, the scientist with whom Romney had met, Dr. Douglas Melton, disputed Romney's story. A spokesman for the institute confirmed Dr. Melton's account, saying, "The words 'kill' and 'killing' are not in Dr. Melton's professional vocabulary, a vocabulary used to discuss finding cures for diseases in order to save lives."

Was Romney an unseasoned politician who changed his views upon deep reflection?

Stockman, of Republican Majority for Choice, thinks not. "He was a grown man in 2002 and very thoughtful and introspective," Stockman says, "so the fact that he says he hadn't thought through these issues seems very odd." Melissa Kogut, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts's executive director, says, "It is conventional wisdom that candidates in Massachusetts need to be pro-choice to win. He ran as pro-choice. As he began exploring the run for president, he changed. No matter where you stand on this issue, you should question where he stands." Angus McQuilken of Planned Parenthood says, "When a candidate or elected official can move so easily from one position to the opposite overnight, it leaves voters wondering whether he has any core values."

Asked recently about Healey's not "a dime of difference" remark during the 2002 campaign, Romney's opponent Shannon O'Brien told me: "Apparently there was a lot more than a dime's worth. Probably enough to put my daughter through college."

So if Romney's newfound positions, against abortion and stem cell research, is calculated to get him the votes of the evangelical Christian base of the Republican party, how authentic are any of his beliefs?

This is beginning to look eerily like George W. Bush, circa 1998.