Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:55 PM Apr 2012

Mitt Romney’s roof-riding dog Seamus will be focus of new super PAC



By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff

Seamus the Irish Setter is getting his own super PAC.

Politico reported today Democrat Bob McDevitt has filed paperwork to launch the super PAC Animal Lovers Against Romney.

It will tell the tale, first publicized by the Globe, of Mitt Romney’s decision to put his dog in a kennel attached to his station wagon roof for a family trip from Massachusetts to Canada.

McDevitt told Politico his goal is to “get the message out just how callous in temperament Mitt Romney is.”

<snip>

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/03/mitt-romney-roof-riding-dog-seamus-will-focus-new-super-pac/GidORb37pO83N4vgo54COL/index.html
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
1. Our friend of 13yrs passed, I could never imagine her on top of the car vs inside with us...
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:58 PM
Apr 2012

...laying on someones lap or chilling in her own space in the car.

murielm99

(30,733 posts)
3. I am sorry.
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:06 PM
Apr 2012

It is hard to lose them. We have had several good dogs. They all loved to ride in the car -- IN the car.

Hepburn

(21,054 posts)
2. Even if I agree with Mitten's on issues and thought he was super keen...
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:05 PM
Apr 2012

...the bastard would not get my vote because of what he did to Seamus.

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
5. I wonder if Romney's behavior is now against the law in any jurisdiction
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:40 PM
Apr 2012

I think in California it's now against the law to have an animal ride in the open bed of a pick up. I wonder about riding on the roof. There must statistics on this about animal deaths each year that fall off car roofs or out of the beds of pick ups. I once picked up and carried off a dying dog on a Los Angeles freeway that had fallen from someone's vehicle close to the center divider, It was a pitiful sight.

And even if the animal is restrained or in a cage, it can still face danger. The speed of rocks propelled backwards by truck tires added to the forward speed of the car could be coming at more than 100 mph, enough to go through the wire of an enclosed cage and kill.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
10. The ASPCA has questioned the legality of Romney's action
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 07:12 AM
Apr 2012

From a Time magazine story on the incident:

Massachusetts's 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." An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying "it's definitely something I'd want to check out." The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and "if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal." And while it appears that the statute of limitations has probably passed, Stacey Wolf, attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA, said "even if it turns out to not be against the law at the time, in the district, we'd hope that people would use common sense...Any manner of transporting a dog that places the animal in serious danger is something that we'd think is inappropriate...I can't speak to the accuracy of the case, but it raises concerns about the judgment used in this particular situation."


Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html#ixzz1qsbAIWd1
 

BOHICA12

(471 posts)
6. Elevator for the Caddies ..... roof rack for the Dog!
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:35 PM
Apr 2012

Hard not to throw darts at that one. Good aim to ya!

sad sally

(2,627 posts)
7. Putting their beloved pet on the roof for a 12 hour car trip is unthinkable for almost everyone
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:52 PM
Apr 2012

Where they were headed that day also is at the least interesting.
#####

The final destination of the Mitt Romney clan that summer of “83 with Seamus strapped to the car roof was his parents’ cottage on the Canadian shores of Lake Huron in a private gated community called Beach O’ Pines — which was the focus of one of the most important civil rights cases in Canadian history. Up until 1949, the bylaws of the exclusive community, which was located near Grand Bend, Ontario, restricted who could live there. The “covenant” stipulated that the land “could never be sold, used, occupied or rented by any person of the Jewish, Hebrew, Semitic, Negro or coloured race or blood.” The document provided a legal justification that only “persons of the white or Caucasian race” could live within the cottage community.

In April, 1948, Bernard Wolf, a successful London, Ontario, Jewish, businessman, signed a buyer’s agreement to buy a cottage property in Beach O’ Pines for $6,800. But he later found out that the transaction was voided due to the real estate restriction. So with the help of a hot shot attorney by the name of John J. Robinette, they sued Beach O’ Pines.

They lost at the first trial. But as the case made its way through the Canadian judicial system, it was clearly obvious that there was a don’t-rock-the-boat mentality, according to Bob Aaron, a lawyer and columnist for the Star: “Barely disguising the anti-Semitism that was so prevalent at the time, five justices of the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the trial decision, and noted that the restriction against those of ‘Jewish, Negro or coloured’ race or blood was just to assure that the residents were “of a class who will get along together. This was merely an ‘innocent and modest’ attempt to establish a place suitable for a pleasant summer residence, according to the Chief Justice.”
-----
....As Aaron writes, lawmakers “passed a law voiding restrictive covenants entered into after March 24, 1950, but it did not cancel older ones.”

Three or four years later, Mitt’s father, George Romney, who was president of American Motors, bought a cottage in Beach O’ Pines. It was here, that George, who later became governor of Michigan, took his family every July Fourth (why not celebrate American Independence Day on Canadian soil?). And keeping the Romney summer vacation tradition intact, Mitt annually shlepped his family to the beachfront cottage on the shores of Lake Huron despite the long 12-hour drive from Massachusetts. (It was only a two-hour drive from Detroit).

http://seamus2012.com/?p=176#more-176

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Mitt Romney’s roof-riding...