Gay Patriot Header Image

Karma’s A Bitch (No Wonder Obama’s been eating it)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:18 am - April 23, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Dogs

As chief Obama strategist David Axelrod tries to brush aside speculation that he would make an issue of the GSA, Solyndra, and Secret Service scandals had they taken place when a Republican was in the White House, Ed Morrissey asks, “Isn’t this the same guy who attacked Romney for the way he traveled with his dog in 1983?

Recall that Axelrod tweeted “a photo of Obama with his Portuguese water dog Bo in the back seat of the presidential limousine“, writing, “How loving owners transport their dogs”.  Had the Obama campaign not made an issue of this, had the president’s supporters not made jokes about this 30-year-old story on Facebook or mocked the Republican on bumper stickers, we wouldn’t be having so much fun with the president’s eating habits.

The Obama Eats Dogs theme is silly,” writes Powerline’s John Hinderaker,

. . .  but as many others have said, it is silliness with a purpose. The Obama campaign seriously intended to make an issue of the fact that decades ago, Mitt Romney put the family dog on the roof of his car, in some sort of kennel or container, because there was no room inside. The dog was fine, but the Democrats crowed that focus group testing showed that the incident would make voters dislike Romney. I think that claim was sheer fantasy, but in any event, the Democrats won’t be able to talk about Seamus now that everyone knows that Obama used to eat dogs.

Would this Obama dog story still be ricocheting around” asks Brit Hume, “if the left had let go of Romney 28-year-old dog-on-car episode? Paybacks a bitch?”  (Via Instapundit.)  Well, actually, karma’s a female dog.  And she’s come around to bite him.  And given his appetite, he so wants to bite back.

And Mr. President, just as long as your supporters mock Mitt Romney for once transporting his dog on the roof of his car, so long shall we mock you for writing about your Indonesian eating habits.

RElATED: Jim Treacher proposes a campaign slogan:  Obama 2012: Please Don’t Make Him Go Back to Eating Fido.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  V the K quips that, “Only an idiot would vote against Romney based on that dog crate story. The fact that Democrats are flogging it shows how little they respect the intellect of their voters.”

UPDATE:  “Funny“, quips Jim Treacher, “how an issue the Democrats brought up over and over for years suddenly stops being important when it starts making them look bad.”  (Via Instapundit.)

Share

37 Comments

  1. It’s not like the fact that Obama ate a dog is new information (since it was included in one of his autobiographies). I would think that it would have already been brought up at some point if it were an issue by itself.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 23, 2012 @ 4:46 am - April 23, 2012

  2. The really sweet part of this is it’s probably not even true. Obama’s stepfather, an observant Muslim, would never have fed his son dog, which is haram. But when Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s “autobiography,” he threw that snippet in. Now, Obama can’t disavow it without admitting that ‘Dreams From My Father’ was actually written by Bill Ayers.

    Karma indeed.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 5:51 am - April 23, 2012

  3. BTW: Only an idiot would vote against Romney based on that dog crate story. The fact that Democrats are flogging it shows how little they respect the intellect of their voters.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 7:27 am - April 23, 2012

  4. @ V the K,

    The really rich part? If it isn’t true and his terrorist buddy put that in there, it means that Obama read that section of the book for the audio book w/o even noticing it was there. President Teleprompter indeed.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 23, 2012 @ 7:56 am - April 23, 2012

  5. @V the K: There is considerable disagreement within Islam about whether dog are haram.

    Also the prime source for “Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?” stuff seems to be American Thinker, which is never a good sign. The article is mostly an appeal to incredulity, on the same level as people who think William Shakespeare’s plays were ghostwritten by whoever. I don’t buy either idea and blithely stating it as fact is disingenuous at best.

    Comment by Serenity — April 23, 2012 @ 8:36 am - April 23, 2012

  6. Heh. “American Thinker” is being derided by someone who is neither American nor much of a thinker.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 8:54 am - April 23, 2012

  7. Another campaign slogan: “Better in a crate than on a plate.”

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 10:01 am - April 23, 2012

  8. President Bark Obama doesn’t want to be talked about like a dog. :)

    Comment by Louise B — April 23, 2012 @ 10:24 am - April 23, 2012

  9. OK, Serenity,

    Your talking points link to haram specifically addresses tigers. Since Obama’s Muslim step father is cited by Obama as looking to get some tiger meat for him to eat, your little cherry picked “dog” distraction goes awry.

    As to Obama’s authorship of Dreams From My Father, you have only your belief that he is telling the truth. Such works by politicians are nearly always ghost written, except for the rare few who are written by accomplished politicians who are also fine writers with much collateral work to prove the case.

    Naturally, one could compare Dreams From My Father to the other extraordinarily scant writing of Obama. Unfortunately, Obama’s past is swept clean of nearly all evidence that he even existed.

    But, wait, Dreams From My Father was put through a rigorous test against the works of the talented and well published Bill Ayres and the match in theme, syntax, meter, metaphor, structure, etc. was “uncanny.”

    So, I guess, your little shift the issue is actually yours to prove. Show proof that Indonesians (Muslim or not) at the time of Obama’s residency commonly ate dog. Prove that tiger is not haram. Prove that Obama was not Muslim, so what difference does haram make? Prove that Obama wrote Dreams From My Father. Prove anything whatsoever you come here to float.

    Your attack on American Thinker is actually an attack on Jack Cashill who did impressive research on Dreams From My Father. Here you will find an example of Cashill’s analysis. No leftist I have found has debunked the analysis. The “rebuttals” were all aimed at destroying Cashill.

    You Obamanauts have very thin ice upon which to skate. But darned if you don’t show up will all the detours, splits, spins, leaps, avoidance, wobbles and pratfalls that go along with the pretense.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 23, 2012 @ 10:41 am - April 23, 2012

  10. As to Obama’s authorship of Dreams From My Father, you have only your belief that he is telling the truth.

    Meanwhile, you have your belief that he’s lying. I don’t particularly care either way, this is yet another conspiracy theory and as every other conspiracy theory ever in the world has demonstrated (though Moon landing hoax, 9/11 Truthers, and Obama birth certificate denalists come to mind especially), believers in the conspiracy simply won’t be convinced out of it no matter the evidence brought to the debate. For you, Bill Ayers wrote the book (though you’ll probably deny that and say you merely ‘have doubts’ or something similar) and that’s it. I have no interest in changing your opinion, as your opinion does not matter to me.

    So, I guess, your little shift the issue is actually yours to prove. Show proof that Indonesians (Muslim or not) at the time of Obama’s residency commonly ate dog. Prove that tiger is not haram. Prove that Obama was not Muslim, so what difference does haram make? Prove that Obama wrote Dreams From My Father. Prove anything whatsoever you come here to float.

    No. There’s no point and I can’t be bothered trying to prove something I know from experience that you won’t believe me on anyway (your doubling, tripling, and quadrupling-down on the Nazi comparisons earlier has stripped away some of my faith in humanity and all of my faith in you). My gripe was in stating “when Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s “autobiography,”” as settled fact when it’s a fringe hypothesis. I’ve stated that and I intend to go no further.

    Comment by Serenity — April 23, 2012 @ 11:41 am - April 23, 2012

  11. There’s no point and I can’t be bothered trying to prove something I know from experience that you won’t believe me on anyway

    Also, by your own admission, your only purpose in commenting in this forum is to antagonize people. So, why should would anyone care what you post anyway?

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 12:11 pm - April 23, 2012

  12. Also, by your own admission, your only purpose in commenting in this forum is to antagonize people. So, why should would anyone care what you post anyway?

    How the hell should I know? Ask heliotrope, he seems to be on a one-man mission to filibuster me to death.

    Comment by Serenity — April 23, 2012 @ 12:20 pm - April 23, 2012

  13. Heliotrope is the one person in this forum who treats her comments as though they are worthy of response, and she whines about it.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 12:51 pm - April 23, 2012

  14. “Only an idiot would vote against Romney based on that dog crate story.”

    Exactly. The Dems are just trying to break the Republican monopoly on the idiot vote!

    Comment by rt — April 23, 2012 @ 3:35 pm - April 23, 2012

  15. Meanwhile, you have your belief that he’s lying.

    There’s not a damn thing he’s said yet, about anything, that was the truth. Oh, and PolitiFalse saying so doesn’t make it true either. They have a knack for writing, essentially, that he’s full of shit and then giving it a grade of Half-True.

    So, there it is.

    Comment by TGC — April 23, 2012 @ 4:35 pm - April 23, 2012

  16. Serenity @ #10:

    Meanwhile, you have your belief that he’s lying. I don’t particularly care either way, this is yet another conspiracy theory and as every other conspiracy theory ever in the world has demonstrated (though Moon landing hoax, 9/11 Truthers, and Obama birth certificate denalists come to mind especially), believers in the conspiracy simply won’t be convinced out of it no matter the evidence brought to the debate.

    Oh…my….goodness.

    Serenity, pay attention. Had Clinton been awake to the actual threat of bin Laden and al Qaeda and pushed the various security agencies to connect the dots …… he might well have unraveled the 9/11 conspiracy and prevented it from happening.

    Serenity, pay attention. Security agencies operate on conspiracy theories. Sometimes the theory pans out and the bad guys are caught. Sometimes they lead to nothing.

    Apparently, you only see “conspiracy” from the Three Stooges angle. Because there are “flat-earthers” there will always be those who cleave to such theories and the moon-landing hoax, the 9/11 truthers, the Hitler is alive and well in Paraguay, etc. But those examples are just one side of yin and yang of the whole sphere of what makes up the realm of conspiracy theories.

    You refer to Obama birth certificate “denalists” as conspiracy theory crazies. But, your terminology is very slippery. You see, there are those (like me) who are concerned with the very credible evidence that the long form birth certificate was manipulated in layers by current computer technology. If I were the honest and concerned President, I would insist that this issue be resolved immediately. There are those who believe that the reasons behind not resolving this confusion over a valid birth certificate are because of all manner of educated and fairly uneducated guesses.

    So, where does Serenity stand? Apparently here:

    There’s no point and I can’t be bothered trying to prove something I know from experience that you won’t believe me on anyway….

    Please make an ass of me. Even if I throw a tantrum and take your incontrovertible evidence and claim that I am right and the facts are wrong, at least everyone else here will admire your brilliance.

    Is it a fact that Bill Ayres wrote Dreams From My Father? According to Bill Ayres, the answer is yes. Is he joshing? Who knows. Did Obama write it? Not if you line up all the books he has “authored” and forensically compare them: Dreams Fom My Father; Of Thee I Sing; The Audacity of Hope; Change We Can Believe In; The Plan; Words That Changed a Nation; Barack Obama; The Promise of America; Barack Obama on Civil Rights; After Osama Bin Laden; Barack Obama’s Speech on Race; Yes, We Can.

    Now, perhaps, some of these “by Barack Obama” books were ghostwritten. Which ones and how do you know?

    Comment by heliotrope — April 23, 2012 @ 4:58 pm - April 23, 2012

  17. Why does it make you a “conspiracy nut” if you look at all the stuff Obama has resisted releasing to the public and wondering if it is possible that somewhere in that pile of records is information he does not want to see disclosed.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 6:21 pm - April 23, 2012

  18. V the K, I am guessing you know this already, but I am going to say it anyway. Accusations of conspiracy theories are among the most common method I have seen of shutting people up, and that is all they are. When faced with actual conspiracy theories, people should be able to provide evidence to back up their assertion that some theory is a conspiracy theory. Otherwise, they have nothing unless you give it to them.

    Exactly. The Dems are just trying to break the Republican monopoly on the idiot vote!

    This is a good example of an Alinsky tactic; some irrational accusation that might put someone on defense even though it has no factual basis.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 23, 2012 @ 6:27 pm - April 23, 2012

  19. You refer to Obama birth certificate “denalists” as conspiracy theory crazies. But, your terminology is very slippery. You see, there are those (like me) who are concerned with the very credible evidence that the long form birth certificate was manipulated in layers by current computer technology.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Yes, I am laughing at you (and I really did laugh in real life too). I don’t care if I get a post edited or deleted or whatever, you deserve to be ridiculed.

    Please make an ass of me. Even if I throw a tantrum and take your incontrovertible evidence and claim that I am right and the facts are wrong, at least everyone else here will admire your brilliance.

    No they won’t. Sonicfrog might be mildly impressed, but I doubt even that. Everyone else would take your side, because that’s the tribal mentality we have here. You’re not going to be able to ‘shame’ or ‘embarrass’ me into doing anything other than waste your time, and Bruce’s time because he’s kind of pissing me off today.

    Comment by Serenity — April 23, 2012 @ 6:28 pm - April 23, 2012

  20. Shorter Amy,

    My mind is made up, stop trying to confuse me with facts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 23, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - April 23, 2012

  21. Once again, The Trans-Atlantic Twat holds true to form; it runs its mouth, makes cheap assertions, then refuses to stand by them, cackling crap about ‘conspiracy theories’ and stating flatly that it doesn’t “…particularly care either way” and “There’s no point and I can’t be bothered trying to prove something …….”.
    There’s always some rationale that it gives (“I’m not feeling well”, “you won’t believe me anyway”,”I’m tired of all this”). In short, it’s a coward and a liar.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 23, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - April 23, 2012

  22. Even shorter Amy: “Derp!”

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - April 23, 2012

  23. “There’s no point and I can’t be bothered trying to prove something …….” “you won’t believe me anyway”,”I’m tired of all this”

    I have to be amused that someone who comes here confident in her ability to antagonize is reduced to defensive sputtering.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 7:30 pm - April 23, 2012

  24. Aw, Serenity, chin up, girl!

    With all the effort you put in to following the US political process, you should have something more than talking points and pomposity to share.

    Why not defend socialism with facts and extol the virtues of wealth transfer and do some honest retail conversion?

    Show the quality and necessity of statism. Look at Sweden, The Third Reich, Mussolini’s Italy, Stalin, Mao, Franco, Salazar, Chavez, Castro, the films of Michael of Moore and James Cameron and Oliver Stone and demonstrate the evil corruption of representative democracy. Sell your program. Get past the hope and change and demagoguery and hone your pitch and your product. Later, when statism is established, you can simply ban and censor opposition. Until then, you have to win your war.

    Defend the as yet unwritten manifestos of Occupy Wall Street, the Greens and crowd that is forever busting windows at economic summits.

    Your people need an articulate spokesman. You seem to have enormous time on your hands and a taste for promoting revolution. Why not hone your craft on the useful idiots you believe you find here?

    This theme you have adopted of not being listened to is depressing. I read your stuff carefully and I point out my differences with you and ask questions. Then you wail about how I won’t convert to your theology.

    Perhaps you need to do a little less pomposity and a little more persuasion. Perhaps you need to better understand the product you are trying to sell. Perhaps you should sit down and discover what your immutable principles are and discover why they don’t automatically stick when thrown at others. Perhaps you are very lonely and crave attention. Who knows?

    Comment by heliotrope — April 23, 2012 @ 7:30 pm - April 23, 2012

  25. With all the effort you put in to following the US political process, you should have something more than talking points and pomposity to share.

    Garbage in, garbage out. That’s why I’m trying to move myself towards retirement from this hobby.

    Why not defend socialism with facts and extol the virtues of wealth transfer and do some honest retail conversion?

    I really had a go at this, once upon a time. It’s hard enough on a forum with varying political viewpoints and people with an appetite for new ideas. Here, it’s a lost cause before you even begin.

    Later, when statism is established, you can simply ban and censor opposition.

    That headache’s back again. I wonder why?

    Why not hone your craft on the useful idiots you believe you find here?

    The type of honing you describe is for another time and another place. I hone a useful craft here, but a very different one.

    This theme you have adopted of not being listened to is depressing.

    Well it was depressing when I dwelled on it, but I’ve since passed that point and made it to acceptance.

    I read your stuff carefully and I point out my differences with you and ask questions.

    No. No you don’t. You accuse both myself and every political enemy you have of every crime and misdemeanour under the sun while pretending to ask questions. I’ve seen it so much from so many people that it’s not funny, it’s not even sad any more. It just fails to move me at all.

    Then you wail about how I won’t convert to your theology.

    No. Even more no. You disagree with me, I don’t care. Lots of people disagree with me, lots of people will never come over to my way of thinking. I’ve long since learned to live with that fact. I wail about how you make increasingly vile and even libellous accusations in the form of ‘asking questions’ and respond at being called out on your behaviour by trying to turn things around and turn the person calling you out into a villain for not getting on board with your lunacy.

    Honest disagreement is fine, it has and will always exist in politics. Hell, I’d be scared if it ever appeared to go away, because that would be a sign that something has gone very wrong and the need for an armed coup has regretfully arrived. But it seems the internet has done something to us. Honest disagreement has given way to a very personal, very ugly style of institutionalized slander on a scale never before possible. It’s probably the worst political development ever seen, and I wish each day that it would end.

    Perhaps you should sit down and discover what your immutable principles are and discover why they don’t automatically stick when thrown at others.

    I should discover that no matter how good the political philosophy, there will always be a large contingent of people who will not be convinced? Because that’s the lesson to be learned. I can (and will) improve upon my current philosophy, but I’ve long since learned to stop aiming for perfection and recognize when difference are irreconcilable. This I think is one of those situations.

    Someone who throws around names like Stalin and Mao when thinking about my political stance and refer to “you can simply ban and censor opposition” as if it’s actually an end-goal for me is clearly not going to even consider coming over to my side. The images in your head when you picture my politics are some of the most evil and reprehensible in the history of humanity, and nothing I could ever say could get past that. You may read my words, but you still see those images and associate them with every viewpoint I throw out there, and what the hell am I supposed to do about that? I can’t change what’s going on in your head, you have to choose to do that.

    Comment by Serenity — April 23, 2012 @ 8:42 pm - April 23, 2012

  26. The images in your head when you picture my politics are some of the most evil and reprehensible in the history of humanity, and nothing I could ever say could get past that.

    You are a statist. You believe in a government elite deciding problems. Government elites who have too much power always end up in dictatorship. Some of those dictatorships of the past hundred years had enormous support from the government hand-out class.

    The Dutch government all but dissolved today because it can not face its crisis in socialism. Spain is on the ropes. Italy is on the ropes. Portugal is on the ropes. Greece is on the ropes. France may well go further leftist.

    You had best find a successful example of a fiscally sound and practical socialist state to emulate, or, you had best rewrite Marx and correct his errors or you had best think carefully about your relationship to the ones who seize power.

    Perhaps you would like something along the lines of Singapore. But I don’t think your libertarian streak would be adequately coddled there.

    Your own country is in the dire financial circumstances we are speeding toward. Hopefully, we can get our statist system fiddler out before he crashes us.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 23, 2012 @ 8:59 pm - April 23, 2012

  27. “Garbage in, garbage out. That’s why I’m trying to move myself towards retirement from this hobby.”

    Here’s your gold watch. Now get lost.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 23, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - April 23, 2012

  28. “That’s why I’m trying to move myself towards retirement from this hobby.”

    Well, that and the fact that all your attempts to “antagonize” us are met with dismissive snickering.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 9:13 pm - April 23, 2012

  29. Me: Exactly. The Dems are just trying to break the Republican monopoly on the idiot vote!

    Rattlesnake: This is a good example of an Alinsky tactic; some irrational accusation that might put someone on defense even though it has no factual basis.

    Or, you know, someone’s making a joke and you’re too humorless to see it.

    Comment by rt — April 23, 2012 @ 10:26 pm - April 23, 2012

  30. I thought jokes were supposed to be, you know, funny.

    Comment by V the K — April 23, 2012 @ 11:22 pm - April 23, 2012

  31. I don’t get the joke. Jokes are only funny if they some basis in reality.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 24, 2012 @ 12:10 am - April 24, 2012

  32. That should be, “if they have some basis in reality.”

    In case what I said wasn’t clear, you said that Republicans have a “monopoly on the idiot vote” (that is, you impugned the intelligence of Republicans). Maybe you were attempting to make a joke, I don’t know, but it seems more to me like you were using the Alinsky tactic of a completely baseless ad hominem that is designed nothing more than to irk your opponents and to shift the debate away from the area in which you are uncomfortable (i.e. dealing with facts and logic) or to do so for whatever reason, such as obfuscating Axelrod’s tactical error (in mentioning Romney’s dog in the first place).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 24, 2012 @ 12:17 am - April 24, 2012

  33. Sorry, that should be “you were trying to distract from Axelrod’s tactical error, which was to mention Romney’s dog (which backfired),” not obfuscate it, really.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 24, 2012 @ 12:21 am - April 24, 2012

  34. Rattlesnake, the leftist definition of a joke may well be “a snotty, insulting, humorless remark.” After all, they consider Bill Maher a “comedian.”

    Comment by V the K — April 24, 2012 @ 5:42 am - April 24, 2012

  35. “Republicans have a monopoly on the idiot vote.”

    um….. :-)

    Comment by The Livewire — April 24, 2012 @ 10:57 am - April 24, 2012

  36. The images in your head when you picture my politics are some of the most evil and reprehensible in the history of humanity, and nothing I could ever say could get past that.

    Why is it that, when dealing with Pomposity, the phrases both “karma’s a bitch” and “Facts are a bitch” spring to mind so often?

    You are a statist. You believe in a government elite deciding problems. Government elites who have too much power always end up in dictatorship. Some of those dictatorships of the past hundred years had enormous support from the government hand-out class.

    Well said, heliotrope.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 11:04 am - April 24, 2012

  37. But back on dogs… The Treacher update link that Dan posted is interesting.

    Keith mentioned the dog issue many times on his now-cancelled TV show. Here’s his thesis statement, from March 15.
    ”…there’s two words to remember, in terms of Mitt Romney — Michael Vick. I’m not saying it’s akin to what Michael Vick did, with dog fighting and killing dogs in the fighting preparations… [but] this could be extraordinarily important.”

    I had no idea Olby had been flogging the dog story so much. Thought it started more recently, with Axelrod’s tweet. Then again, I only read economic & financial news these days.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 11:09 am - April 24, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.