Freak Show
June 28th, 2007What is it with the Republican Party and animal abuse? We have Doctor Frist Cat Killer, the Party Time Environment Wrecking Crew (led by the Western Senators who should know better), and now Romney Lampoon, criminal-at-large.
The reporter intended the anecdote that opened part four of the Boston Globe’s profile of Mitt Romney to illustrate, as the story said, “emotion-free crisis management”: Father deals with minor — but gross — incident during a 1983 family vacation, and saves the day. But the details of the event are more than unseemly — they may, in fact, be illegal. The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus’s rather visceral protest.
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.”
What kind of man thinks it a good idea to strap a dog to the top of a truck? And what kind of wife would allow such a cheap move?
Yesterday, John Edwards’ wife was sent to defend her husband’s manhood from Ann Coulter. The consequence? Edwards now has to answer stupid Ann Coulter-questions, like Should people buy her books? “No.” Should political candidates have to answer such questions? No. Should political spouses confront people like Ann Coulter? No. Should they respond to perpetual losers and nobodies like Bob Shrum? No, but Elizabeth Edwards has done that, too, and she’s proven herself a liar.
Elizabeth Edwards stepped into the spin room Sunday night to answer questions about her husband’s debate performance. While most questions focused on his performance, she also responded to claims in veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum’s new book, No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner. The Post’s Howard Kurtz recently reported that Shrum’s book claims that at the start of Edwards’s 1998 Senate campaign he asked the candidate about gay rights. Shrum alleges that John Edwards said: “I’m not comfortable around those people,” and that Elizabeth Edwards said, “John, you know that’s wrong.”
Mrs. Edwards referenced her book, Saving Graces in disputing Shrum’s claims. “I have a very good memory of the incidents that Bob makes general reference to. But his factual recitation of that, are simply inaccurate,” Mrs. Edwards said. She specifically called Shrum out for his recollection of the meeting on gay rights. “I remember it in intimate detail. I can even tell you where people were sitting in the room. Without casting aspersions on anyone — about where they were sititng, and how close to the doughnuts they were sitting. I even remember that,” she added.
Right, I’m sure that John Edwards has never had anything offensive to say about homosexuals, and Bob Shrum is trying to smear them. Listen: I don’t hold what Edwards probably said against him, because I’m not gay and I understand that older people are generally going to have a bumpier relationship with gays than younger people, simply because that’s what their generation was like.
They should’ve ignored the story and left it at that, but Elizabeth Edwards is trying to Teresa Kerry their campaign.
More disturbing than any of these stories, though, is this, and it comes, of course, from the White House.
President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers’ demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors. Bush’s attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Congressional panels want the documents for their investigations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ stewardship of the Justice Department, including complaints of undue political influence.
The Democratic chairmen of the two committees seeking the documents accused Bush of stonewalling and disdain for the law, and said they would press forward with enforcing the subpoenas. “With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation,” White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. “We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.”
“Mutual accomodation” for this Administration means, “We tell them it’s a matter of security and they just go away.” They’ve got to understand, though, that to get a concession they have to concede themselves, but it’s too late for that. For them.