With the holiday season in full swing I sometimes forget we’re just a couple of weeks away from the first Presidential primaries. And it’s getting hot out there. Celebrity endorsements are flying fast and furiously. (Hmmm…should I vote for Oprah’s candidate or Barbra Streisand’s?) And the debates are looking more like precursors to a yearlong knock-down drag-out fight. I can’t wait.
But what does all this mean for our pets? Superficially, that might seem like a silly question. Yet if we consider our household pets family, it makes sense to ponder our lawmakers’ positions on the issue of pets.
Unfortunately, none of them leave much of a legislative trail to follow on this issue. And few speak to it directly, preferring to let their websites list their pets and leave the public to decide whether that makes them warmer and fuzzier and more like us (which they never will be). As such, all we have is their word…and their occasional deeds (or misdeeds) when it comes to their own creatures.
While I promise you I won’t be making my choice based on any one issue, how a candidate approaches pets might could theoretically make the difference between two neck and neck candidates—and I’m still firmly undecided, so it could happen.
So in alphabetical order, here’s what I have to offer (forgive a couple of omissions—I’m sticking to the current frontrunners):
Brownback (R): I know next to nothing about this guy. But I do know he has two dogs and two cats—oh, and a fish. That can’t be bad.
Clinton (D): Let’s not kid ourselves. I may still find myself voting for her, but she’s no snuggle-bunny (not that I think the leader of the so called free world should be). She’s never been a die-hard pet person and even if she were it would hardly help chip ice off her public persona. Bill I can sort of see as a dog-loving Southern boy, but Hillary?
Though she may rest on her pet laurels with Seamus (the family Lab), not so long ago Hillary found herself taken down a rung with some bad press on Socks (remember our First Kitty?) when she gave him away to a staffer at the end of the Clinton Presidency. Was Socks just a political pawn? Gosh, we hope not. Maybe Socks just loved the staffer best.
Dodd (D): He opts out of this part of the race on the basis of “family allergies.” But still, he says he’d like a dog—in theory, that is.
Edwards (D): This guy’s a retriever man. He counts a Golden and a Lab among his pack.
Giuliani (R): He’s a petless, urban kind of a guy with an anti-pit streak, to boot. He’s proposed breed-specific legislation against pits, in particular, and you know how I feel about that. ‘Nuff said. Still, he may yet win my vote, too. (Why am I confessing this?)
Kucinich (D): Rescue beagles! This man reportedly takes in beagles from the pound. If he loses the nomination (which he will) he’ll be up for sainthood, next. (Beagles!?)
Huckabee (R): He’s got Black Lab and ShihTzu. That kind of a schizophrenic choice can’t be all bad—but perhaps it speaks to deeper-seated incongruencies. Hmmm…
McCain (R): Get this—22 pets! But do the 13 saltwater fish count? Either way, he’s leading the pack on his petdom-based warm fuzziness. With all those creatures it can’t be another political ploy. He’s got to be an animal man.
Obama (D): Says he’s getting his kids a dog first chance he gets. Read: White House mascot hopeful—but not a pet person. He still might pull ahead of the pack for me. No track record is sometimes a powerful thing. Here’s a good example to prove the point:
Romney (R): Forget it. This guy is never going to get past his track record when it comes to pets. He lost that privilege when he strapped a dog crate to the roof of his car and decided to take a short, tinternational road trip with the family's Irish setter eating wind the whole way. I don’t know about you, but it’s this kind of deed that makes me sure I won’t be voting for this candidate based on his family values.
I hope some of this helps you make up your mind on the Presidential Pet thing. None of this is terribly useful for me (except maybe the Giuliani and Romney thing) but perhaps there’s more you have to offer on this score…
Dolittler
Add Comment29 Comments
"Though she may rest on her pet laurels with Seamus (the family Lab), not so long ago Hillary found herself taken down a rung with some bad press on Socks (remember our First Kitty?) when she gave him away to a staffer at the end of the Clinton Presidency. Was Socks just a political pawn? Gosh, we hope not. Maybe Socks just loved the staffer best."
Socks was Chelsea's cat, not Hillary's or Bill's, and Bill is allergic to cats. When Chelsea started college, bringing a cat of relatively advanced years into college student living didn't seem like nearly as good an idea (for the cat) as sending him home with a staffer whom, yes, he had become very attached to. And what's more, all this was reported at the time (that Socks was Chelsea's cat, and that Bill was allergic, at the time he took office; that Socks was going home with his favorite staffer because college life didn't seem like a good choice for him, when Chelsea was going off to college). Didn't prevent it being immediately used as proof that the Clintons were phonies who had pets only for political purposes, of course.
Bill's dog, on the other hand, went with the Clintons to New York. And one weekend, when they were both away, and a staffer was walking the dog, he got loose and was killed by a car. This promptly became more proof that the Clintons are fakes who have pets only for political purposes, because of course people who really love their pets never, ever leave them for even one day with family, petsitters, friends, or staffers--they never leave their pets for so much as a moment. Right? At least, according to the Clinton-bashing stories in the "liberal" media.
*feh*
I'm by no means sure that I'm going to vote for Clinton--leaning towards Obama slightly, at the moment--but if I don't, it won't be for manufactured reasons straight out of the wingnut Clinton-bashing factories.
As for Obama--his kids are 6 and 9, just about what many people would consider a good age to get a first dog. Except that right now, Obama is traveling an awful lot--not home to help get a new pet settled in. Maybe not exactly the best time?
Of all the candidates, the only one you can learn anything useful and relevant to their fitness for office based on what we know about their pets, is Mitt Romney.
Lis December 16th, 2007 01:52:00 PM
Don't forget Rudy losing it over ferrets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL7Ma7XQxUA
:)
Gina Spadafori December 16th, 2007 01:54:00 PM
Dodd's story doesn't hold water. I can see being allergic to all furry pets (I am), I can even see being allergic to birds too (though I'm not), but allergic to lizards, turtles, and fish? Truth is he's just not a pet person.
As for McCain, I'd be more worried about hoarding than labeling him as an animal lover. At what point does it become insane hoarding ("Crazy Cat Lady") rather than loving the pets?
zandperl December 16th, 2007 03:14:00 PM
I'm not sure this is a voting issue for me, but what does it mean to say Socks was "Chelsea's" cat? Don't the parents take responsibility when they get a pet for their kids? Has any kid every really taken the pet to college? Is that a reasonable expectation?
Arlene December 16th, 2007 06:03:00 PM
Chelsea was the one that wanted the cat and that had a really close relationship with the cat. Obviously the adults took responsibility, especially when Chelsea was younger, but Socks was Chelsea's pet. Bill is a dog person; whether or not Hillary is a pet person or just a pet-tolerant person, I don't think we have any real idea.
Shockingly enough, although my parents took responsibility with regard to my first dog, especially when I was ten years old and Sunday was a three-month-old puppy, she was my pet and I was the one that had the closest relationship with her. My younger sister, at much the same age, acquired a Pekingese puppy who was her dog--she was the one who loved that dog and who was loved by it; the rest of us were, just about, most of the time, tolerated.
And no, young people usually don't take pets to college with them; it's usually not realistic. Which is why it made sense for the by then fairly old Socks to go spend his later years with another cat person that he knew and was fond of, rather than one dog person and another maybe-a-dog person.
As for Dodd--um, how can I put this. The fact that, if allergic to any furry pets, he hasn't instead acquired lizards, turtles or fish as pets--sorry, I don't see the problem. Fish are wallpaper. and no one has ever convinced me that you can have an actual affectionate relationship with lizards or turtles. Birds, sure, but birds aren't to everyone's taste, either.
Lis December 16th, 2007 09:02:00 PM
How about this strange story about Mike Huckabee's son hanging and stoning a dog at Boy Scout camp?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/16/huckabee-...
Megan December 16th, 2007 10:51:00 PM
dang liz, are you on Hillary's campaign team? You see to be taking a satirical blog posting a little too seriously.
Chip December 16th, 2007 11:26:00 PM
I wouldn't vote for a person who buys a dog for his kids. It's got to be the adult who relates to the dog and takes responsibility, in my opinion. I've seen people who buy a dog for the kids and when the kids lose their (temporary) interest the dog is lonely and uncared-for.
But I guess it doesn't make a difference what I think of the candidates, seeing I'm in Australia :-)
(I did email my candidate in our recent elections as to what her opinion was on the sale of puppies in pet shops but she - perhaps wisely - didn't reply.)
Catherine McArdle December 17th, 2007 12:07:00 AM
Not only does Dennis Kucinich have three rescue dogs, one's a cocker spaniel, and two beagles, but he has co-sponsored every piece of animal-friendly legislation. He is a true champion for all living things, people and animals. Can you even imagine the possibilities of having a compassionate, peaceful President.
Please don't believe the corporate0run mainstream media that tries to brainwash us into believing Kucinich doesn't have a chance. They are just scared to death of having a President that can't be bought (he's never taken a dime in corporate donations, so he is only obligated to the people.
As far as I'm concerned, he's the only one that has it right on health care, Peace instead of war, equal rights for all Americans, even if you're gay and want to get married, and I could go on all day. His love of animals is just a huge bonus because I find him to be an extremely superior choice. He's smart and conscientious and actually read what he votes for so that he can vote right the first time, when it counts, like before we send our troops into hell.
Sorry for my political rant, but there's only one choice for the animals, that's for sure.
STRENGTH THROUGH PEACE!
I even made a MySpace page dedicated to what a dream come true Kucinich is for animal lovers if anyone wants to check it out: http://www.myspace.com/animalloversforkucinich
p.s. Hillary Clinton was forced to sell her portfolio when becoming a candidate, and there were dozens of slaughterhouses, war profiteers, and vivisection stocks she had to dump, and she has voted to increase spending for vivisection, just for a few examples. Not only is this women callous towards animals, but people also. She would be another war President. No matter what she is saying now, you only need to look at her past voting, including the recent one that gives Bush plenty of ammo to invade Iran (with what $$ and what troops?, I'd like to know). I don't find Hillary that different from Bush, personally.
Pam Holt December 17th, 2007 05:35:00 AM
Chip, I"m not certain who thie "liz" might be that you're concerned about, but I'm leaning towards Obama, with a lot of interest in Edwards, too.
"I wouldn't vote for a person who buys a dog for his kids. It's got to be the adult who relates to the dog and takes responsibility, in my opinion. I've seen people who buy a dog for the kids and when the kids lose their (temporary) interest the dog is lonely and uncared-for."
I guess my parents must have been horrible people, then, because they bought me a dog when I was ten years old. And they gave me the amount and kinds of responsiibility for my puppy that I was able to handle. Sunday was a well-loved, well-trained, well-cared-for dog until she died of cancer when I was in college. And she was most definitely MY dog. You might try not setting "tests" for candidates that they're going to reliably fail because of the way normal human beings normally talk.
Lis December 17th, 2007 08:51:00 AM
So sorry Lis, but the difference between an s and z on this blog's 0.5 italicized font is imperceptible. I do apologize. I'll get it right from now on. While we obviously have different tastes when it comes to politics, we are in total agreement about the animals for kids. My parents must have been horrible too, because I had rabbits, hamsters, cats, fish, snakes, turtles, and dogs growing up. Somehow, they all managed to live relatively long fruitful lives despite my being unfit by virtue of age.
And Pam, you're right, Kucinich has not got a snowballs chance. But it has less to do with the "corporate run mainstream media" and more to do with the fact that he's a whack job. I'll give him credit for one thing, unlike most of the popular candidates he stands by his convictions so you know right away that he's a whack job. Oh that and he managed to score a seriously hot wife. He gives hope to uber dorks everywhere. But don't worry Pam, I'm supporting Ron Paul so we'll each cancel each other out.
Chip December 17th, 2007 09:47:00 AM
Dr. Patty, have you seen Mo Rocca's book on presidential pets? This entry reminds me of it, although I have not picked it up yet. It's fun to play pop psychologist and try to glean something from pet choice, isn't it?
I'm a Kucinich person, and I love that his animal history goes along with the rest of his image as a compassionate candidate. :)
Agnes December 17th, 2007 12:51:00 PM
Well, I guess if we go strictly on pets......I'd have to go Edwards.
Kucinich is a whacko????? Guys like Ron Paul mystify me.....how can one be so radically ANTI-government (in every form), ANTI-federal agency, ANTI-IRS, ANTI-Federal Reserve, ANTI- Gun control......but be Pro Life and believe the Government (which, according to him, should be smaller and have little to no control in this country) has a right to enforce any laws that affect what happens between a woman and her doctor? Or, in the privacy of one's own home? That is the part that's weird. I mean, if you're going to be that radically anti-Government, go all the way! Full on Ted Kaczinski, ya know? Wild West! Otherwise, it's just more hypocritical politicking *rolls eyes*.
Amy in Somerville December 17th, 2007 01:46:00 PM
I guarantee Edwards didn't rescue his dogs. They're probably from pet stores or breeders. Edwards voted for the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which protects those that profit from animal suffering, and makes "terrorists" out of those that speak for those that can't speak for themselves.
This is from John Edwards' website about hunting: He believes that law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms to protect themselves and their families, enjoy sport shooting and take part in the time-honored tradition of hunting.
And I have been unable to find even one piece of legislation that protects animals that John Edwards has ever co-sponsored or spoken out in favor of. I don't see anything animal-friendly about him at all.
And Chip, I don't think it's true that Kucinich doesn't have a chance, I think you may have misunderstood me. I live in CA where Kucinich is the darling of the progressive democrats. Primary elections generally have a low voter turnout, but you can guarantee the Kucinich supporters will make it to the polls. Dennis Kucinich won the Progressive Democrats poll (http://www.pdamerica.org/), he won the Democracy for America poll (http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results),
and he came in a close second in the California Straw Poll (http://sanmateodemocrats.org/).
He is polling fourth in New Hampshire right now, and at this point four years ago John Kerry was in FIFTH! So like I said earlier, PLEASE don't allow yourself to be brainwashed, and do not allow the corporate-owned mainstream media pick our next President! Vote for who you agree with the most. Take this quick survey on the issues to see which candidate comes closest to sharing your views:
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/
Pam Holt December 17th, 2007 03:46:00 PM
Amy, you're so right about Ron Paul. He doesn't believe the federal government should have regulations on industry, like oil companies shouldn't be told where they can and cannot drill for oil, which is why he has consistently voted against environment protection, and doesn't support things like the Endangered Species Act. He thinks these corrupt, polluting corporations, like oil companies, should police themselves, but I think we all realize that would not work out well for our Mother Earth.
He believes things should be left up to the states, but there'd probably still be slavery in some states if this was the case. Federal regulations are necessary to protect the Earth, the animals, and the citizens of our country.
Pam Holt December 17th, 2007 03:51:00 PM
In case there's anyone interested in reading my op-ed submission on "Why Dennis Kucinich is my Choice for President" which explains how he will pay for his true Universal, not-for-profit health care plan, I posted it here:
http://yourthreecents.com/blog/yourthreecents.php?...
We deserve a President like him people!
Pam Holt December 17th, 2007 04:21:00 PM
"I guarantee Edwards didn't rescue his dogs. They're probably from pet stores or breeders. Edwards voted for the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which protects those that profit from animal suffering, and makes "terrorists" out of those that speak for those that can't speak for themselves."
Pam, I'd love for you to define your terms a little more clearly, here. Who are you describing as "those that speak for those that can't speak for themselves" ? Maddie's Fund? The No Kill Advocacy Center? Ally Cat Allies? Animal welfare workers and activists?
Or PETA and ALF?
Lis December 17th, 2007 04:40:00 PM
Lis,
Any and all of the above that speak out for animals against vivisection labs, factory farms, fur farms, puppy mills, circuses, rodeos, etc. Animal activists have been labeled the "Number 1 domestic terrorist threat" though there's no evidence that anyone has ever been physically hurt by them. The AETA gives super protection to anyone that makes money from using animals, and limits free speech, violating the First Amendment. The law is so broadly written and inhibits activites such as undercover investigations, whistle-blowing and non-violent civil disobedience. Those who use these tactics could now be imprisoned as "terrorists" not for physically harming anyone or damaging property but for causing a business to lose money. By the language of the law even organizing boycotts and leafleting outsides stores could be charged under AETA with economically damaging animal enterprises.
Dennis Kucinich was the ONLY member of Congress that voted against it, recognizing that our civil liberties are being taken away, and also that animals need someone to speak for them.
Pam Holt December 17th, 2007 05:43:00 PM
Eeesh - I was just basing my 2 pennies on Dr. Patty's 'pets' list....I have not looked into any in depth animal legislation.
Is it just me or is anyone else already experiencing 'election fatigue'? I live in about THE FURTHEST thing from a 'battle ground' state (most republicans won't even bother with this fluorescent-blue little state), so we barely see a single campaign ad until the month before the election (which is so, SO nice). But the radio is incessant with its coverage. I mean, it's so far away and I'm exhausted.
Amy in Somerville December 17th, 2007 05:48:00 PM
Pam, the difficulty I'm having is that ALF actually is a terrorist organization, and PETA is their public face. And, PETA is opposed to the existence of domestic animals; they are not a friend to your pets, or to anyone that has pets that they love. If you don't distinguish between them and real animal welfare organizations, I have to doubt the complete accuracy and objectivity of your description of AETA, too.
Lis December 17th, 2007 06:34:00 PM
Pam - It's obvious that you and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum of political philosophy so I'm just not gonna touch most of that stuff lest this devolve into an insult-laced diatribe. But as for this,
"This is from John Edwards' website about hunting: He believes that law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms to protect themselves and their families, enjoy sport shooting and take part in the time-honored tradition of hunting."
The chances of me voting for Edwards are only marginally better than Kicinich, but I agree 110% with this position. Every word of it. Solid. You know, not all hunters are mindless killers who participate in canned hunts over baited fields. The vast majority are conservationists at heart. The fees paid by hunters & fishermen pay for conservation and restoration projects all over the country.
Furthermore, if it weren't for the tactics used by groups such as PETA and ALF, there would be a lot more people receptive to the plight of animal abuse in this country. They do a great disservice to the mission they purport to be striving for by the methods they choose to employ. Lis is completely right. PeTA is no friend of pet owners/animal lovers. Ingrid Newkirk's stated goal is "total animal liberation". She's a hypocrite, a moonbat, and a supporter of domestic terrorism.
Chip December 17th, 2007 07:51:00 PM
I am very interested in Bill Richardson, although I hadn't looked into his pet viewpoints. I did find that he endorsed "dangerous dog legislation" that was not breed-specific, http://governor.state.nm.us/press/2004/dec/120904_... and was pro-introduction of the Mexican Wolf.
Seems like he's a cat man, though: he owns two, named Sparky and Jake. So our marmalade Maine Coon mix gives him a paws-up.
lin December 17th, 2007 09:19:00 PM
The animal anti-terrorism legislation referenced above (AETA) is a thorn in my side, too, Pam. With this kind of law I can be held liable for any economic damage done to a pet shop as a result of my investigative reporting of their facilities. How's that for broad and sweeping? Imagine me--a terrorist--for exposing sick pups in the back room of a retail cesspit. Nice to hear someone voted against it.
Dr. Patty Khuly December 18th, 2007 08:31:00 AM
Dr. Patty, perhaps you could do a post on AETA that would be more informative and helpful than Pam's sweeping assertions that convey more heat than light.
Lis December 18th, 2007 10:09:00 AM
The information already given on what the AETA is does accurately represent the reality. Here's a list of 240 organizations that have come out against it: http://noaeta.org/allies.htm Alley Cat Allies is indeed on that list, as are many other very mainstream animal welfare (and civil liberties) organizations. Just because groups like PETA and ALF are against it as well doesn't mean the rest of us should be for it. Things aren't always black and white like that. AETA is a piece of legislation that is basically attempting brain surgery with a sledge hammer and a lot of other good people could get bludgeoned in the process.
cressida December 18th, 2007 02:36:00 PM
Here's a link to my post on AETA (from last year). It's a tad tongue in cheek and it's a POV pieve, but I think it's got the references you need to get more fully informed. Let me know if you need more info.
http://www.dolittler.com/index.cfm/2006/12/30/pet....
Dr. Patty Khuly December 19th, 2007 12:29:00 PM
Thanks for referencing your earlier informative post about AETA Doc. It really is disturbing. I wish these legislators would actually read what they vote for (like Kucinich) and realize the flaws. I'm heartbroken that my own Dianne Feinstein co-sponsored or even co-authored it.
Pam Holt December 19th, 2007 03:19:00 PM
I was sent this article today at http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman171207.htm called "Police State", and it talks about different pieces of legislation that have been passing lately affecting our liberties, and how the Constitution has been compromised. It included a section on AETA that I'll share (it's incredible that there was only one "no" vote on this, and it's sad that the animals weren't considered):
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA)
On November 27, 2006, George Bush signed AETA into law to amend the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992. The new Act has broad and vague language to criminalize First Amendment activities advocating for animal rights like peaceful protests, leafleting, undercover investigations, whisleblowing and boycotts. It shows how out of hand things have gotten with animal protection advocacy now a crime.
Under the old law, anyone convicted of a physical disruption causing $10,000 in damages to an animal enterprise was subject to a $10,000 fine or 10 years to life imprisonment. The new AETA is even harsher with penalties far exceeding comparable offenses under other laws. It expands the original Act by changing activity "for the purpose of causing physical disruption" to actions "for the purpose of damaging or disrupting" an animal enterprise. In this case, "disruptive" means any activity that results in "losses and increased losses" over $10,000 by peaceful protests for consumers boycotts, advocating harmful practice reforms, or a whisleblower doing the same things.
The Act also goes further. It allows for expanded surveillance of animal rights organizations to include criminal wiretapping and makes it easier for a court to find probable cause for the vague crime of economic damage or disruption than for one requiring hard evidence a person or group plans to commit these acts.
The bill exempts "lawful public, governmental or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise," but that provision only applies to economic disruption claims, not damage and makes it hard to distinguish between the two. In addition, AETA:
-- expands the kinds of facilities covered by adding ones that use or sell animals or animal products;
-- it covers any person, entity or organization with a connection to an animal enterprise;
-- it applies to any form of advocacy;
-- it criminalizes threatening conduct and protected speech as well as communication with individuals who engage in these practices; and
-- it potentially includes any form of communication such as emailing across state lines to boycott abusive animal activities;
-- it protects corporate animal abusers with a vested interest in silencing dissent; and
-- it effectively singles out any form of civil disobedience or protest activity and brands animal advocates as terrorists even when nothing they do causes physical harm; even worse, the bill's language is so broad and vague it's hard to know the difference between legal and illegal behavior; this Act is another nail in the coffin of free expression, the rule of law in a free society, and the right of everyone to be protected by law, not targeted by it.
Pam Holt December 20th, 2007 05:39:00 AM
Just saw this at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/261770/ku...
from an article written by Ardeth Baxter entitled "Kucinich Watch: Why He's the Best Political Animal for President" (this is just an excerpt about all the candidates... the article goes in-depth on why Kucinich is the superior candidate on animal issues):
The Humane Society Legislative Fund publishes the Humane Scorecard, a report on how individual Congressional members have voted on animal protection bills during each session. The animal bills considered in the first half of the 109th Congress dealt with prohibiting the slaughter of horses and wild burros, the welfare of commercially sold pets, a ban on the slaughter of downed livestock, and animal fighting prohibition enforcement. Presidential candidates Christopher Dodd, Hillary Clinton, and Dennis Kucinich all scored an impressive 100% in support of these bills. Joseph Biden ranked second at 60%, and Barack Obama scored a dismal 17%.
What about the other candidates? John Edwards, a former Senator, scored only 60% on the Humane Scorecard in his last term as a Senator. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson recently helped pass a statewide cockfighting ban and has consistently backed animal shelter-related and spay/neuter legislation. Unfortunately, he's a supporter of animal-cruel rodeos and horse racing. Mike Gravel makes no reference to animal protection on his campaign website, which suggests to me that he has no interest in this issue.
Pam Holt December 24th, 2007 04:48:00 PM
Add Commment