Best defense, good offense: The Romney camp does not disappoint.
This really isn't a long, or complicated, story: Once upon a time, Ann and Mitt Romney put their Irish Setter, Seamus, in a cage, which was then strapped to the roof of their family car for a long car trip. Ann Romney claims it was less cruel than leaving him in a kennel.
Of course, given their vast wealth, it would seem there would be other options, such as taking an additional car, having someone drive the dog along with them, or simply renting a big RV for the trip. Given all that, can we just agree on one thing: That strapping an Irish Setter to the roof of a car for a long trip on a highway is cruel to the animal?
Particularly -- despite what Ann Romney likes to insist -- when the dog clearly didn't "love it," evidenced by the fact that the poor dog had diarrhea all over the cage and car during the trip (which Mitt Romney calmly hosed off before resuming the trip, with Seamus still strapped to the car's roof).
A few emotions would be appropriate here, from the Romneys: Shame, mixed with regret; an acknowledgement that their judgment on the decision to treat their dog as luggage was severely flawed; a sincere statement that it's not something they'd ever repeat -- and not just because Mitt Romney is running for president and because of "the attention it's received." Most of us would be good with any of these responses, at least a token of humanity from this couple who is largely viewed as out of touch elitists.
No such integrity is forthcoming from the Romneys or their election camp. In fact, their sole defense has been to point to President Obama's admission that, as a boy in Indonesia, he ate dog meat (as well as snake meat and grasshoppers) which, in right-wing thought processes, is exactly the same as strapping a family pet to the roof of a car and driving 70 m.p.h. down the highway for hours and hours.
Shame on the Romneys, shame on the campaign, shame on right-wingers who eagerly embrace this defense as an offense, and shame on the hypocritical oafs who decided that it would play well to the low-level thinkers on the right that a grade school age boy's diet in Indonesia (which he had no choice about) smacks of some form of equal cruelty.
The gun nuts have to be squeamishly embracing this tit-for-tat. After all, it's the gun nuts (which is the vast majority on the right, evidenced by the right's defense of Palin's moose-hunting and shooting beautiful wolves from helicopters) who defend hunters' rights to kill deer, squirrels, bears, moose, coyotes, wolves, chipmunks, or whatever other living creatures they deem either a nuisance to be destroyed, or necessary for the night's supper.
Thinking people will realize, of course, that the right-wingnuts' hypocrisy over condemning the killing of animals to eat the meat - whether it's dog meat, squirrel meat, moose meat, deer meat or antelope meat - and their ginned-up horror at a child in a foreign country eating the meat that's indiginous there, is simply an attempt to distract us from the fact that the Romneys are heartless, cruel, careless, consciousless and - as it turns out - remorseless.
The best defense is not necessarily a good offense, and in the case of the beautiful dog known as Seamus who suffered at the hands of the Romneys, the "good offense" is no defense at all.