Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Dog running away

Dog Running Away

How does everything think we should handle the issue reported by the New York Observer that Seamus actually ran away when the Romneys reached their vacation home in Ontario? This claim contradicts the official story that the dog went on to live with Mitt Romney's sister Jane. http://www.politicker.com/2012/01/31/did-mitt-romneys-dog-seek-asylum-in-canada/ Debbie W. 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL kinda sounds like the story my Dad told my sisters when he took our dog to the shelter and told them it "ran away". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no real evidence, so I don't think that we should include it in the article. Debbie W. 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there's no real evidence that the dog ran away in Canada. However, there's this:

She [Jane] says he was such a social dog that he often left Mitt Romney's Belmont home to visit his "dog friends" around town. "He kept ending up at the pound," she says. "They were worried about him getting hit crossing the street." So a few years after Seamus's ride to Canada, Mitt sent Seamus to live for a time with Jane and her family in California. "We had more space, so he could roam more freely," she says.

It should be pointed out that allowing a dog to wander near traffic is itself an indication of significant neglect. Get a fence. Also, a dog that "often left" the owner's home could be an indication that the animal is being abused and is trying to escape. The one documented instance of abuse probably indicates that there were other incidents (of this form of abuse, or other forms of abuse) that are undocumented (especially since they cheerfully admit that this wasn't the only time they did this).

Also, in the normal course of events a family doesn't give their beloved dog away (especially to someone who lives thousands of miles away). Giving a dog away usually indicates that for one reason or another the family was incapable of caring for it properly, or just didn't like the animal. Trouble is, it's irresponsible to own a dog if you're not committed to caring for it properly and forever. Sending Seamus away is another indication that something is wrong with this picture. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit more about this. Jane said "a few years after" 1983, Seamus was sent away to live with her. She said "we had more space, so he could roam more freely."

I can't find out exactly where in Belmont Romney lived in 1983. I also don't know how to translate "a few years" into an exact number. But it's known that in 1989 Romney bought 171 Marsh St in Belmont, a property with 2.44 acres, for $1.25 million. 2.44 acres is plenty of room for a dog to "roam … freely." So the idea that the Romneys couldn't afford a proper yard for their dog to "roam … freely" is quite dubious.

I also notice this: "Mitt sent Seamus to live for a time with Jane and her family in California." I highlighted some peculiar words. They are peculiar because they seem intended to suggest that the move was temporary. However, there is no indication they ever tried to get the dog back. Therefore the words "for a time" seem to be there for the purpose of obscuring the fact that they were intentionally and permanently giving away their dog. Something a normal dog owner would never do, unless they are under great duress of some kind. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This all happened over 25 years ago. Seriously, GET OVER IT. WP is not the place to propose your wild theories and accuse Romney of being a bad dog owner. Odds are, he was a far better dog owner than most self-described dog lovers. They brought their dog with them everywhere, and from all measures the dog loved it. Arzel (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This last claim should not go unchallenged -- any RS for that? Politicians and their wives don't count. While User:Arzel's point against OR/Synth may be legitimate, he's making the same stretch to determine whether the dog "loved" those trips or not. El duderino ^(abides) 06:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

However, the point should be well taken that this happened nearly 30 years ago and we don't have any other tales of the evil Romney dog hell. It stands alone as one incident, and it falls under WP:GOSSIP and WP:ADVOCACY. It doesn't belong as a standalone article. -- Avanu (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"this happened nearly 30 years ago"

As I have explained elsewhere on this page, that doesn't matter, because the story isn't just about what happened in 1983. It's also about what Romney is doing now: refusing to admit his mistake. It's not OK to communicate what he's currently communicating: that doing this to a dog is perfectly OK. Both what he did then and what he did now are relevant character issues. It would be a quite different situation if he simply said this: 'for various reasons it seemed like a good idea at the time, but later I realized that it was a youthful error.'

"we don't have any other tales of the evil Romney dog hell. It stands alone as one incident"

No, it doesn't stand alone as one incident, because they have proudly declared that they did this sort of thing frequently. We also know that the dog ran away often, which is an indication of neglect. The fact that they gave the dog away a few years later is another indication that the dog wasn't too important to them. So this is about more than "one incident." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)