agoodcartoon:

The response from the left is just odd because they’re trying to equate him being a naive child in another country just following their customs as a defense, ok, at best that’s disengenuous, he was an American 10 yr old, what 10 yr old kid would knowingly eat a dog? And if he was truly against it then or perhaps didn’t know why did he not mention that he wouldn’t ever do it again, in his book? He had the chance to explain that he wouldn’t do that now as an adult but he chose not to. To me that means he was and is okay with what he did or he nor the dem operatives just didn’t realize this would have blown back in their faces…sorry for your loss in the narrative dept dems but as they say, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

-Political cartoonist Eric Allie

A good cartoon(s).

I’m probably in the minority here, but I don’t see any great transgression in eating dog. The only real issue is our cultural standards. Take away the idea of dogs as companions and all you’re left with is a potential source of meat, no different than cows or pigs (which, as someone has pointed out, are just as smart as dogs).

Sure, there’s the ethical question of eating meat, which I have no compunction with, and with inflicting pain on the animal, which is almost absolutely immoral. But if the dog is killed quickly and painlessly enough, I see no problem.

In comparison, Romney exposed his dog to at best a harrowing experience and at worst great injury or death (if the cage had fallen off the car). And what was his reason for doing? Apparently just convenience.

But that’s not what bothers me about this story. I’ve pretty much ignored the Romney half of this story all this time because it’s the kind of stupid, one-off mistake that anyone can make (not that specific decision, of course) and I don’t see it as being any great sign of Romney’s character or leadership qualities.

The post facto attempt to wave it off as something other than a stupid mistake, however, just makes it worse for him. But really, I see no value in the story other than that it’s the kind of ready-made metaphor political cartoonists love. It can be used for a variety of issues; it’s a versatile image and has become familiar enough that it can be used without any explanation or set-up.

So between the two Romney looks worse, yes, but I really don’t care either way.

What actually bothers me is that people like Allie are engaging in the usual false equivalency. They see that someone on their side is being attacked for something, and so they reach for something similar to attack the other side with.

“Romney strapped a dog to the roof of his car!”

“Oh yeah, well Obama ate a dog!”

I’d be surprised if anyone trumpeting the ‘Obama ate dog’ story will concede that what Romney did was foolish and wrong, because they’re not making an argument from the perspective of animal cruelty (in any form) being wrong. They’re coming from the view that they are rooting for a team and they need to support their team against the other team no matter what. They’ll try to claim that what Obama did was worse than what Romney did, circumstances be damned, logic be damned.

So it’s really ridiculous (but not surprising) to see Allie above get on his high horse about 10-year old Obama eating dog and *gasp* not refusing to do so or not saying that he’ll never do it again.

“What 10-year old kid would knowingly eat a dog?” Well, there’s plenty of starving children in the world. Offer them meat, offer them any food, and they probably won’t even think to ask where it came from. They won’t care, because all they’ll know is they’re no longer hungry. But in Obama’s case there is the respect for other cultures that Allie writes off as ‘disingenuous.’

And a final note: Allie thinks the dog issue has ‘blown back in [the Dems’] faces.’ Yawn. It’s blown up about as much as the Hilary Rosen comments did- Oh wait, everyone has already moved on from that.

Any takers on whether ‘Obama ate dog’ will even be remembered in a month?