To me, it makes no difference. At the very least, it is bad political judgment to even say it. But, he openly said it, true or false, and even if he didn't eat the pooch, he screwed it.
The only thing that saves him is if the Republicans don't use it. Which is entirely possible.
Why did the "dog wars" start anyway? The Democrats wanted to raise Romney's unfavorables, so they began to talk about the way Romney treated his dog. They opened the door. It is now fair game ( no pun intended). Why unilaterally disarm? Why not raise Obama's unfavorables in the same way that they were doing themselves? It would be poetic justice, if not anything else.
Why is it bad political judgment? I would think it to be obvious. Even if you had to eat dog meat to stay alive, the last thing you do is to talk about it. Americans love their dogs. The last thing that an American- a real American-would ever say is that he ate a dog. No matter what the reason was. Even if he was just a little kid, he still doesn't talk about it. It is not good politics. It's dumb politics. It should raise questions.
The failure to use it also raises questions. Is this a real campaign, or is it just a "dog and pony" show?
By the way, presidential politics isn't above this kind of thing. There was the log cabin campaign in the nineteenth century.
I can see where this would be a distraction, but it ain't a bad one. Besides, it may be pointing out something subtle that people should be thinking about, but aren't. That's this issue of eligibility. Should Obama even be President at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment