Mitt Romney ties dog to roof of car for 12 hour road trip

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by Britster

An unrestrained pet that weighs 35 pounds can create 1,500 pounds of force in a car accident that occurs at 35 miles per hour.

I suppose the same could be said for a crate on the top of a car - if it were to go flying, but then at least the dog would still be in a crate, and not flying through a windshield, or into a person.

I agree, if I were to see a dog in a crate on top of a car, I would be at a loss for words. But I've seen dogs in crates in back of pick-up trucks, dogs loose in back of pick-up trucks. Not as often as, say, 10 years ago maybe, but it still happens and it DOES make me sad because I would NEVER want my family member to be anywhere other than inside of the vehicle. But in regards to safety, I really don't feel that it's anymore unsafe for a dog than being loose inside of a vehicle.



I do completely agree with all of this!

Yes, if you are in an ACCIDENT - then your unrestrained passengers are in danger. However, this dog was in danger even if the driver (and the other drivers) did everything right.

Oh well, I'm tired of beating this dead horse. I just can't understand how a future world leader could think this is ok. Not now and not then. I was just a few years away of buying my Casper when he thought it was ok to travel with the dog on the roof. Give me a break.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

But he can't even come out say he was wrong. Which may be what makes me think he's a complete idiot. When you make a mistake - own up to it and move on. Don't hem-haw around about how you weren't familiar with the laws - as if a law would be needed to regulate such stupidity.

Exactly.

I don't think anyone is trying to imply that they don't have things they've done wrong in their own past. But the bottom line is -- what the person does *after* they do something wrong, how they handle it, and whether they learned from it.

Mitt chuckled about it, and did not seem to think it was wrong (meaning, in the PRESENT; not 1983). So to me, this is a sign he still has the same attitude toward vulnerable creatures as he did 30 years ago. In my book, that's not okay.

[Lisa and Pic]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Exactly.

I don't think anyone is trying to imply that they don't have things they've done wrong in their own past. But the bottom line is -- what the person does *after* they do something wrong, how they handle it, and whether they learned from it.

Mitt chuckled about it, and did not seem to think it was wrong (meaning, in the PRESENT; not 1983). So to me, this is a sign he still has the same attitude toward vulnerable creatures as he did 30 years ago. In my book, that's not okay.

I agree Ann. Also to me, he seemed to smirk about it which bothered me too.

[ladyjane]

OMG has anyone seen this? I hate what Romney did, but this tickled the daylights out of me:

New Web Video Shows Mitt Romney Hounded by Dog Problem - Yahoo! News

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

OMG has anyone seen this? I hate what Romney did, but this tickled the daylights out of me:

New Web Video Shows Mitt Romney Hounded by Dog Problem - Yahoo! News

I'm really glad it's still being discussed. It'd be different had Romney shown humility and remorse - but there was none of that. Instead, he is cavalier about it.

Here is another good one, I guess the "Dogs Against Romney" group were at Westminster ! http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ash-the-hound/

The Dogs Against Romney group claims that 31 Million dog owners vote.

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

OMG has anyone seen this? I hate what Romney did, but this tickled the daylights out of me:

New Web Video Shows Mitt Romney Hounded by Dog Problem - Yahoo! News

The video was funny. I don't doubt that he would do that if he could fashion such a contraption!