Mitt Romney is unlikely to be the next president of the United States but he just might be. If he does make it, is he the sort of person who is good for cats and animals in general? The short answer is No.
I have a fairly strong feeling that he is not that keen on animals. He is an alpha male type, rich (about $250m USD) and pays about 14% tax on that which for a Brit looks like he runs a highly efficient tax avoidance scheme. He looks down on the poor and doesn’t pay all the tax he could or should. Although there nothing to suggest he is doing anything illegal. He doesn’t know much about foreign affairs and seems a bit stupid at times.
If he has a preference for a species of companion animal it would be a dog. That squares up with alpha male mentality.
The problem is that the only information we have about Mitt Romney’s attitude and behavior towards dogs is not good. There is the famous story, “The Mitt Romney Dog Incident”.
In short he took a family holiday to Lake Huron in Canada from their home in Belmont, Massachusetts with the dog (Seamus), a red setter, strapped to the roof rack in a dog carrier with a home made wind shield at the front. He was driving the family’s Chevrolet Caprice station wagon. The trip took 12 hours.
The Chevrolet Caprice station wagon is a large American car with tons of room in the back. They are called “estate cars” in Britain. I suppose he had lots of luggage and he decided that the luggage was more valuable than the dog. Or perhaps if it rained the luggage might get wet but a dog could get wet without being damaged. Who knows. It just seems like an odd decision and one that was made coldly and logically and without empathy for the dog or his wellbeing. Although in defense he did take Seamus with him. That said he would have been better off going to a dog hotel for the duration it seems.
I am sure that no true animal lover would even consider such an arrangement. In fact I can hardly believe that anyone has done that before. Also we are informed that once the Romney family got to Canada, the dog ran away. I don’t know if that is true. It is hearsay. But for sure he did give the dog to his sister some years after the holiday. The dog kept on running away from Mitt Romney’s home ending up in a dog pound.
I think we have to give Mitt Romney about 3 out of 10 on his caretaking skills of a companion animal that, by the way, he professed to love. God help us if he hated dogs.
And he certainly does not seem to be the type who would like a cat. My conclusion therefore is that the next potential president of the USA is not good for cats and there is little likelihood of anything sensible and radical happening to improve cat welfare such as a nationwide ban on the embarrassing occupation of mass cat declawing.
Now, if the next president was a true cat lover, wouldn’t that be great….
Yes, Ruth, you make a good point. Thanks for that. Although, are you saying the standard of care of companion animals was lower in 1983 than 2012? Perhaps if your husband had a Chevrolet Caprice at the time rather than a pick up truck he would have put the kids inside the car. I think there is something wrong about it at an absolute level and if he really cared about animals I think he would have put the luggage on top and the dog inside even if it was 1983. But that is just my opinion.
The whole strapping the dog to the car thing really bothered me, but my husband pointed out that back in the 1970’s and ’80’s what passed for vehicular safety was a lot different than today. My husband and his siblings would have to ride in the bed of the family pick up truck on long trips. If it was winter his parents put a refrigerator box back there, the kids climbed in it, the box was closed up and they sat in there, with blankets, for the duration of the trip. At the time, this seemed perfectly normal. None of us wore seat belts back then and riding in the back of a truck was done routinely, just not usually in winter. So although Romney’s actions appear really strange, for the time, it probably wasn’t a big deal. He claims the dog really liked it. I’m sure he did. We really liked riding in the back of the station wagon with the seats folded down, just sitting back there, no seat belts of course, six kids or so just crammed in the back, ready to become projectiles in the event of a crash, but no one thought of that. We loved to open the back window and chuck things out of it. I remember throwing pretzels out the window of my parents Rambler and giggling. Luckily, we didn’t end up falling out ourselves. I found our old infant car seat up in the attic at my parents– it didn’t really even strap the kid in. It just kind of helped you sit higher so you could see out and there was a padded bar that came across the front of the kid, but really would have been no protection in a crash. Doesn’t make it right, but I’d be a lot more upset if he were still strapping the dog carrier to the top of the car than that he did it in the 1970’s or ’80’s. He probably didn’t belt his kids in either, and no one would have even questioned that at the time.
Of the 2 he seems like the scary one. I dont know many details, I just know what he looks like and which side he’s on and I would hope he doesn’t get chosen. I’m sure the hunters and militants and gun people bla bla want him to win. And probably the more modern reasonable want Obama to win, but I dont know anything about it really. Thats just how it looks from a distance. When I look at Obama, he doesn’t look scary to me in any way. He looks like somebody who exists in the modern world and probably even knows how to use email, unlike Bush. I know it’s simplistic, but it’s painfully obvious the Romney winning can’t be good thing for the progressing of the US into the modern world with regard to the whole ‘we are the sheriff of the world’ thing, and animals, cats, are probably not going to be any better either way. Strapping a dog and windshield to the roof just shows that he has no connection with his dog beyond a very shallow point. But I think Dan is right. He’s not evil, he’s just stupid. He didn’t know any better. Probably if he spent some time with his dog and made a stronger bond he’s decide the dog deserved the same climate controlled interior as the rest of the familly. He doesn’t hate animals probably, just as long as they don’t get in his way? How do you put that to the test anyway? Make him sign an antideclawing bill against the will and money of a bunch of interested parties who profit from the process. Would he sign it? Animals or money? Who knows. But I would hold more hope that Obama would do the right thing if put on the spot and not take the money for the sake of the animals. I say that just because of my gut feeling and the way he looks.
Nice comment. It is great to have an American commenting! I don’t think Mitt hates dogs or cats either. I just think he is not interested. He is a bit cold in his relationship with animals and logical in his quest for money. He is more interested in the dollar. And as to the presidential election – pure madness. How many millions of dollars have been spent on this? Half a billion and more? Far better to spend the money on poor old widows who need it. The whole thing is so blotted and out of step with modern times. The presidential elections go on and on and on…for ever. Yawn. Please change the process and join the modern world.
Great article, by the way. Cheers.
I hate this. Not you or your article, just the elections as a whole. It’s grown to ludicrous proportions. With that said I wish to disclose I am LDS (Mormon) just like Mitt and I honestly can’t believe any sane Mormon would ever run for the Presidency. I serious question his reasons for running.
With that said, I don’t think Mitt hates animals. I think he has a big family and the kids wanted the dog to come along, so he improvised. He cared enough to put up a windscreen. I’ll be the first to denounce him if there was real evidence, but he was thinking like father when he did that. Was it foolhardy, yeah. But does he hate his dog? I don’t think so. If he did it would of stayed home.