First it was the hyperbolic “War on Women.” Now it’s the “War on Dogs.” The fundamental problem is that the Democratic Party cannot invent enough non-issues to distract voters’ attention from the reality of an anemic economic recovery. Moreover, they seem remarkably flat-footed when Republicans point out their hypocrisy or respond with equally absurd attacks.
I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Two weeks ago, it was Hilary Rosen’s barely veiled contempt for stay-at-home moms. This past week, Republicans pointed out that President Obama ate dog during his youth in the wake of criticism on Romney’s transport choices for his family dog several decades ago.
At some point one would think that the Democratic Party would stop engaging in these ridiculous lines of attack. Instead, they defend them even further until the logic of their arguments no longer makes any coherent sense.
In the world of cruelty to dogs, most rational people would agree that eating dogs is more morally objectionable (in the American culture) than putting a dog in a crate for transportation. In fact, if you want to travel with your pet on any modern airliner, you are required to put your beloved pet in a crate and stow him in the stifling bowels of an airliner’s cargo hold. According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of animals who died on airplanes in 2010 “jumped 70% to 39 from 23, injuries doubled, and five animals were lost, compared to three in 2009.” And there’s more:
“But death reports on animals filed by airlines with the Department of Transportation show a host of dangers. The stress of the experience can cause dogs and cats to injure themselves by trying to claw or chew through plastic containers and metal bars. Improper handling by airlines can leave a pet sitting too long on an airport tarmac or in a poorly ventilated space. And escapes – sometimes when a well-meaning worker is just try to open a container door to help the animal – can lead to tragic loss.”
Why has President Obama allowed this animal oppression to rise on his watch? It seems a bit picayune then to criticize Mitt Romney for long ago putting his dog in much more comfortable conditions than those mandated by modern airliners. So why is it an issue, particularly when the president himself has feasted upon dog flesh? In hindsight, Mr. Axelrod’s tweeted picture above seems downright creepy.
As such, the best strategy for the Democrats would simply be to ignore this stupid non-issue and focus on more consequential ones like jobs and the economy.
Oh wait, they can’t.
Instead, they double down on their inane attack, arguing in effect that President Obama was only six years old, while Romney was an adult.
Are they listening to themselves?
Their argument is that feeding a dog to your six-year old is less morally objectionable than transporting that same dog in a crate on the top of your car. Never mind that your pet has an infinitely higher chance of surviving a road trip than being eaten.
This campaign has officially entered the surreal phase. Can’t we just focus on what’s actually important?