Gov. Scott's public Facebook page
It's not unusual to find politicians who'll use props to convey carefully crafted campaign messages. Shortly before the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush bought a ranch in Texas, presumably to make him look more rugged. In 2010, Scott Brown used a pickup truck, largely for the same reason.
But Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) has offered the political world a valuable lesson: if you need a campaign prop, don't use a dog.
Shortly after winning the GOP nomination in 2010, Rick Scott announced to the world through Facebook that his family had rescued a Labrador Retriever.
And, with help from his Facebook friends, Scott gave it a name: Reagan.
It was just a few months before the gubernatorial election, and Scott seemed to think this was a smart idea. Adopting a dog -- a rescue dog, at that -- made the Republican look compassionate, and naming the dog "Reagan" helped him pander shamelessly to his base. It was a big p.r. win, which rewarded Scott with lots of positive attention that he sorely needed after a rough GOP primary.
So what's the problem? As it turns out, no one has seen Rick Scott with his dog since the day before he took the oath of office. Asked about the dog, the governor's aides initially refused to discuss the matter. Aides to the governor's wife also ignored requests for information.
You can probably guess where this is headed.
It took several days, but eventually, the governor conceded that he got rid of the dog about a month after taking office. Apparently, Reagan "barked like crazy'' around the governor's photographer and made people in the mansion uncomfortable, so the lab was sent back to All Pets Grooming and Boarding, a business in Naples.
Scott already has a painfully low approval rating; I don't imagine this will help.
And while it's safe to assume next year's gubernatorial race in Florida will focus on a wide variety of issues, I have a hunch we'll be hearing about Reagan's departure, too. Stories like these have a way of lingering -- and if you doubt that, consider whether you heard anything about Mitt Romney's Seamus over the last year.
Leave a Comment:
Did he put in a dog carrier, tie it to the roof of his car, and deliver it? These guys have as much compassion as tape worms and all the honesty of an investment banker.
Rick Scott aka MAX HEADROOM (without the fun) is a poor excuse for a human being. His agenda borders on criminal. This fool needs to go, along with the other Voter Suppression group. Bye.
Tapeworms at least manage not to kill their hosts. These "compassionate conservatives" aren't even good at being parasites.
And... I have adopted several animals over the years from shelters. I would NEVER do this. Inhuman? Saying the least. Scott needs to be put on a rowboat... out at sea during a hurricane. :) Oh, I know... that was really mean. Karma, Mr. Scott. Karma.
I was worried that the dog was sent to a farm upstate, if you know what I mean.
Big Gary, that's a fine point but parasites like tapeworms can kill when the host is sick and overloaded and other parasites and micropredators (fleas & mosquitoes) overwhelm. Like the homeless during a cold snap and a cut back in social services.
Healthy animals can tolerate a moderate parasite load.
I visited Florida's panhandle recently to pick up a rescued dog, she's just great by the way, and I ended up liking the place but I grew up in California and I doubt I could ever get used to the money in Florida gets away with murder while the poor get screwed.
His agenda borders on criminal? His agenda IS criminal! He is a criminal!
A big ole lift of the leg to this exploitative loser.
LOVE THIS!!!
With all the money he ripped off of Medicaid, couldn't he hire a dog trainer?
Actually, training a dog not to bark is fairly easy... but as my grandfather said, "the first thing about training a dog is you have to be smarter than the dog."
LOL-enough said
hoosierprof: You have a wise grandpa.
Rick Scott barks like crazy around the Governor's office and makes people in Florida nervous. So can they send him back to All Pets Grooming and Boarding? I mean, like before the next election?
KJ, CR, IA Wins the internets today!
He won't bark as much if you get him 'fixed'.
Best Comment Ever.
best comment! :D
People like this make me physically sick and that's not a politically based statement. I occasionally volunteer at the local shelter and we see all kinds of people come in to rescue animals. Most are wonderful people who want companions and will give them loving homes. Others are the worst sort of lowlife imaginable.
We have a dog fighting problem in our area and some of the people who want animals are just unimaginable and they can't understand why the dog warden won't adopt animals out to them. Some people should just never be allowed to own animals.
As one who has rescued a bunch (including Farley who serves as my avatar ) ,I know that all dogs have some issues. For the most part if you are patient and caring even the worst maladaptive behavior can be modified.
Wasmatter Rick , not enough time ? can't afford a dog trainer?
Just a prop . You have no shame.
Yeah, I rescued my dog, too, SNET. That's Johnny Cash as my avatar, when he was 10 weeks old. He's half pit bull and the funniest, nicest dog you'll ever meet. I'm always teasing him that he's giving pit bulls a bad name, because he is a terrible watch dog, half licking everyone to death.
He and his littermates and the mother were brought to a shelter three days before Christmas because the first shelter the mother's owner tried was going to euthanize all of them. After all, they were pits, and who'd want them? He's my constant companion. Sweet, sweet boy.
But be sure and read my comment, #21 below. I think you'll see something interesting about Herr Scott and his pooch.
Off topic (sort of) Pit bulls rule. Sweet, sweet lap dogs by nature.
Farley and Johnny Cash are adorable. Thanks to all rescuers for adopting those lovable dogs.
Even dogs hate this governor! Did he drug test the dog before he adopted him???
Is that why Governor Rick Scott is removing-funding from planned pet-hood?
Oh, please , please , let a Florida paper run the headline "Gov. Scott rejects Reagan!"
He won the nomination in August 2010 and took office in January 2011. That means he had Reagan a good 6 months, and no one ever noticed the dog's supposed behavioral problems until they all moved into the governor's mansion? Yeah, right.
I'd wager the dog was barking at the pasty, googly eyed, highly disturbing image of Rick Scott. Clearly, his character matches his unfortunate visage. Dogs are pretty intuitive. He probably ran away at the earliest opportunity.
Rick Scott = ARF! (A Real Fraud).
it may have been frau scott
Frau Blucher? (Insert Horse Whinny Noise Here)
I have 11 1/2 old TRUCKS and I store 4 of them on a RANCH, and and I have a rescued short legged overbiting jack russel DOG, and and I have a lot of HAIR even on my back, and I drink BEER, and and I read BOOKS,,, or not,, I'm forgetting whom I'm catering too,, but ah I think I've got what it takes to run for office.
and I find the testosterone adds on this page agreeable..
.
but I want to be politically correct and qualify this statement by clarifying that the tata's are too big..
...no one has seen Rick Scott with his dog since the day before he took the oath of office
Turns out, Scott and his dog are ACTUALLY THE SAME PERSON!!!!!
The dog actually would make a much better human being than Rick Scott.
The dog as governor would have been an improvement over Rick Scott.
For Republicans, dogs, like women, are necessary campaign props, and are disposable when no longer needed.
He probably has a notebook full of dogs.
Proof that republicans will both adopt AND abandon Reagan when it's convenient.
FTW
I think it was Rachel Maddow and the Democrats that used the Romney's dog as a campaign prop.
Go back to the original incident: The Romney's were taking a trip in the family station wagon and wanted to take the family dog along with them. The dog got sick but was taken care of. Back in those days of the old station wagons, a rooftop kennel was used when needed. Nowadays most dog owners who cart their dogs around get a pickup and let them run around in the back, relying on the dog's own sensibilities not to jump out of the truck bed when traveling down the highway.
Romney? Who's that?
No, we used the STORY of Romney and his dog for a campaign prop. We did not use Romney's actual dog.
Someone should've told Scott you can't fake liking pets.
What an assclown.
UFO Pilot. Letting dogs run around in the back of a pick-up is not any better than strapping a kennel to the roof of the car , and most responsible owners do not do this.
The example of Seamus was given to question the sensitivity of the candidate and his family who told this 'anecdote' as a funny incident....which was absolutely not funny or sensitive to the dog!
For me, the story of Romney taking the dog along on the family vacation illustrated poor judgement on the part of Mr. Romney.
Think about it -- a long summer car trip in a station wagon with the wife and five young boys AND you agree to bring a large dog? Anything else you want to do to improve the chance of a road trip from Hell?
Ever hear of boarding an animal in a kennel or hiring a house sitter? It is not as though Mr. Romney ever had to pinch the pennies, having received a big gift of stock from his parents as a young man.
Correct, Eileen. I live in a place where there are many pick-ups and dogs and many dogs running around the back of the pick-up trucks. Interestingly, the drivers are mostly of the Republican stripe. I, too, own a dog and a pick-up. My dog rides on a blanket in the rear seat, though. ;-)
Romney said he put the dog in an air tight container, you know, no air in no air out.
The dog did not get sick but was terrified by the ordeal of being tied to a car's roof for many hours in a tiny crate. This was a natural reaction, diarrhea, to stress. The owner was the sick one.
Obviously he just misspoke. There is no "airtight" dog carrier and no one would place the family dog in an airtight carrier for any reason.
Knowing that, when I heard Romney make that comment, I knew it was just a verbal slip -- that what he meant to say was that the carrier was watertight (ie. protective from the elements in the direction of travel).
Yeah, don't leave a dog in the back of a pick-up. I was driving down the highway going 65-70 and a guy's dog jumped out of the back and slid down the road. When I stopped along with a few others to rescue the poor guy I almost wouldn't give this douche his dog back and cussed him out for being so stupid and we all insisted that the dog go up front and probably to a vet to make sure he was alright!
That's not even the worst story. My ignorant ass brother-in-law was bringing us a mate for our Siberian Husky and attached a chain to her collar in the back of his truck. Sadly, there was enough chain for her to stand on the ground and she jumped out and was dragged to death. It was so horrendous that I still cannot talk about it without getting emotional and I nearly committed a homicide that day. It goes to prove that some people are so egregiously stupid that they should never be allowed to breed and pass on their stupid genes to another generation.
Please don't ever put a dog in the back of a truck! I wouldn't care if the dog was covered in manure I'd still have him up front with me and would just clean the damned truck!.
It's illegal in the state of California to have a dag in the back of an open pick-up truck just for that reason.
Maybe I have just never spent enough time in redneck parts of the country, but I've honestly never seen a dog in the back of a pickup truck on the highway... and we took an 18 day family roadtrip this summer traveling through 10 states, and I've lived in three states all hundreds of miles apart from each other (Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia) and never seen this. Plenty of dogs left in hot cars in parking lots that shouldn't be, but not dogs in the back of a pickup truck traveling at freeway speeds. It's not just a danger to the animal, if the truck hits a pothole and sends the dog flying, that could be as bad for a vehicle behind the truck as hitting a deer, possibly worse since the deer wouldn't be up as high as the dog potentially would be, depending where in the arch of flight it hit the vehicle behind the truck and the size of the dog (tho the type of person who WOULD put a dog in the back of a pickup truck generally seems to also be the type who goes for larger breeds). It's just all around stupid to do that, for so many reasons, and kinda shocking if it ISN'T illegal in more areas. It's not about how sensible the dog is, this may well be a case where the dog is smarter than the person behind the wheel.
I live in Tennessee and I see it all the time. It scares me.
Um, our smelly, barkosaurous doggie rides in the car when we go on trips. He also hides under our covers during thunderstorms, and always gets plenty of snuggles and treats.
He's the very first dog I've ever owned in my life, and no one had to tell me not to deliberately put him in distressing situations, nor did anyone have to tell me to love him and treat him like one of the family. Because he just is part of the family. It's what you sign up for when you make a commitment to adopt an animal. And our beloved, loyal animals deserve no less. After all, they put up with our nonsensical quirks.
And not for nothin', but if my dog doesn't like you, neither do I. He has a sixth sense and has never been wrong. I learned that the hard way.
Of course a dog is a campaign prop! That's been the case as long as there have been campaigns. Dogs, candidates' children, horses, local clergy, etc. ALL are used as campaign props.
I'm not saying I like it that way. A title like "A dog is not a proper campaign prop" or "A dog shouldn't be a campaign prop" would make perfect sense. Or how about "A dog isn't merely a campaign prop"?
But simply denying a practice exists won't fix it.
Sadly, this is the face of the politicians within the republican party. I have a friend who is a staunch right-winger, but he loves his dogs deeply. What I see in their politicians, however, is a deep seated hatred for life and the living. They claim they want all babies born, but provide no avenue to take care of those children once they're born. I think we all know how this works. Look at their addressing of gun control after the tragedy of Sandy Hook. They care so much about children's safety they want teachers to carry guns, but expect them to pay for the training out of their own pockets.
We are seeing the republican political machine for what they are now. They only care about their rich political donors and corporations. They don't care about their own constituency, because most of those people are the very citizens they try to avoid. The poor, uninformed voters who continually elect these sociopathic people to power, are the very people they hate. The republicans have increasingly separated the masses in America into two side, not liberal and conservative, but us and them.
Republican politicians don't care about the poor, children (both living and unborn), nor dogs. They only care about being re-elected and about power. The enjoy displaying that power by taking out their own sick fantasies on the American public. It's time for a change.
"They claim they want all babies born, but provide no avenue to take care of those children once they're born."
They don't really care about them before they are born either. They have no desire to provide them with prenatal care or proper (maternal) nutrition.
I don't think they give two @!$%#es about the unborn either. That whole shebang is about controlling us sneaky, tricksy, bewitching women.
You all are the same people that would have barked up a storm if Rick Scott would have used a shock collar to train that dog. Dogs wouldn't need to be rescued if Liberals wouldn't buy puppies for their kids then not train them and let them run wild over everyone they see. Then the dog bites a kid or the mailman and they send it to the pound.
Something tells me there's a sad story involving a shock collar in inspector12's past.
And in fact, I used a shock collar on my beloved dog to train him not to chase my horses. Used correctly, it sends just the right message. He's now calm and respectful of them, which is a whole lot better than being kicked in the head or running the horses through a fence.
Wow, I'm amazed you were able to jump to so many ridiculous conclusions using so few words. Bravo, sir!
Oh, that's right, inspector. No lib ever trained a dog properly. And certainly no good dog trainers are liberal. And you couldn't possibly train a dog without shocking the heck out of it. Or hitting or yelling. Not possible.
In case you were wondering, that's sarcasm.
Liberal here. I own 3 dogs, including a rottweiler and a pit bull cross. All are shelter dogs. All adopted as adults. All given up due to behavioral problems, which my liberal self chose to TRAIN OUT OF THEM. Neither I nor any of my liberal friends would ever be so stupid as to buy a puppy for any of our children. We adopt adult dogs because those are the ones who need homes, and we go out of our way to spay/neuter so no other needy dogs are created. In fact, some of us, myself included, are willing to adopt across state lines just to give dogs homes. Oddly enough, the states with the most unwanted animals are the southern Red states... you know, the ones with all the supposedly intelligent animal-savvy conservatives who don't buy puppies for their kids. So that being the case... who in the name of God are you yammering about?
Wait, what party is Scott in? Huh. Weird, a Republican dog dumper. Who'd a thunk it?
I'll have you know we adopted our dog. Showed him unconditional love and he has become a great dog. I would never dream of sending him to the pound.
On top of that, I work in a neighborhood with poor drainage. Every time it rains, doggies kept in backyards easily dig out while people are at work. I have a package of dog treats in my car and have stopped on busy highways to get escaped pets out of danger.
I also kept a mail carrier from an escaped pet golden retriever, who was barking at her (as dogs almost always do to protect your/their property!), from having to pepper spray a dog, and likewise the dog from being pepper sprayed by getting out of my car and offering the dog treats to go back home while the mail carrier went on her way.
Any real dog trainer will tell you treats are for tricks not obedience. Dogs are pack animals and they need to know who is the leader. If no one steps up they will believe that they are the boss. Giving the dog treats did not save the mail carrier. Your presence and the fact that you told the dog what to do is what deterred the animal.
Wow - you don't know anything about people OR dog training. Your parents must be so proud.
Just goes to show. I think there may be a connection here.
I heard a bit on NPR recently about "psychopaths who run the world." It's not some kind of Dr. No crazy paranoia, but rather a demonstration of how high-functioning businessmen (and politicians?) match the list of characteristics of being a psychopath: manipulative, glib, charming, deceitful, remorseless. I think the GOP is rife with them. Yikes!
Go to this link and listen to the story or read the transcript, and then think about it.
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/21/136462824/a-psychopath-walks-into-a-room-can-you-tell
As I've said above, I have a dog (border collie/pit bull mix, 15 months old) and four horses. One thing I've noticed is that humans without empathy are incapable of training animals except by brute force, and that's an ugly thing to watch.
I can believe that high-powered businessmen and politicians are often lacking true empathy (certain Progressives excepted), a quality that might have also sidetracked their successes. And the people who idolize the rich and don't see anything wrong with how they got that way are never going to understand those with different goals.
Rick Scott is just showing us that there is nothing new in the world of politics. But, failing to provide a loving home, the least he could have done is make a large donation to the rescue society and make sure the dog was relocated to a loving home.
Remember Richard Nixon walking on the beach with his faithful hound, Checkers?
(For those too young, it was one of the worst photo ops ever. The apparent idea was to show Nixon as a normal guy, relaxing by strolling along the beach with his dog. What everyone saw was a stiff in a suit and patent leather shoes awkwardly trudging through the sand being annoyed by a playful dog that he did everything but kick to keep away. Oh, the memories.)
The idea of using the dog as a prop isn't all that honorable, agreed, but seriously, adopting a dog doesn't always work. The sad part is that he didn't have the sense to do the research and find the right kind of dog that his family's lifestyle would fit.
But I don't think we should be criticizing him all that much for trying to adopt a dog and it not working out. Maybe we should be trying to clue him in on responsible dog ownership and how to pick out a quieter dog (or hiring some neighborhood kid to walk the dog a couple times a day).
he adopted a dog for one reason and one reason only: to use as a prop "look at me and how normal I am". There is no problem with criticizing a man who never wanted a dog in the first place and made NO effort to train the dog. It didn't "work out" and Scott didn't even try and tried to hide the fact.
Velkyn seems to have alot of inside info . He must be the butler in the governor's mansion.
It appears that another dog named Tallee now belongs to the governor. All the Facebook time given before his election on "Reagan" and zero media attention on "Tallee" seems to suggest that Reagan was a prop, and that is sad, because the governor's motives for getting Reagan are suspect. Well, at least Reagan might be better off in another home rather than in one that didn't have the 'heart' to keep him.
Well, if it was an honest mistake you would think he'd have learned from the Romney debacle. Yes, people make mistakes and not every dog is a good fit for any old family. So you admit the mistake and speak honestly to the public. I think people would be far more understanding of that (and a donation) than they would the apparent reluctance to admit what happened and the attempt to just make the dog quietly disappear.
Oh, get real, Kevin. The guy's a Tea Party puppet and a crook. The dog story is just one in a long line of despicable things this governor has done, not the least of which is extreme voter suppression.
Ok, here is an ethical query for y'all.
Rick Scott adopted a dog, used it as a campaign prop, then sent it back to the rescue society. While he did not physically abuse the animal, causing a dog to bond to people and a location only to ship it off after six months is a form of animal cruelty.
Paul Ryan used the kitchen of an empty homeless shelter (or was it a stand alone soup kitchen... no matter) as a campaign prop while vilifying government support for such institutions and denigrating people in need of such assistance (i.e. the 'makers and takers' statements).
I believe both actions show the politicians involved to be morally and ethically challenged. The question is, which action was more reprehensible? Harming a specific innocent animal, or using 'the least among us' to hide your contempt for 'the least among us'?
Honestly, as a dog owner and one raised on The Sermon on the Mount, I am torn.
"Rick Scott adopted a dog, used it as a campaign prop, then sent it back to the rescue society."
What makes you think that? The article said that he simply sent the dog to a grooming/boarding place, "All Pets Grooming and Boarding", a business in Naples, FLA. I looked it up - it's NOT a shelter. He didn't let it get adopted by another family that might actually love it and give it a real home. Presumably he retains ownership and simply banished the unfortunate dog to doggie jail. I feel sorry for any dog whose fate is in Scott's hands. And any State.
Onlyjoined...,
You convinced me. Mr. Scott wins the callous (*explicative deleted*) award.
For the Paul Ryan fans, there is always next election cycle.
This isn't quite as bad as using one's spouse and/or children as campaign props, and I can name several politicians who did that.
That said, I have very little sympathy for people who get pets and then ditch them because the pets turn out to need care, or to act like animals.
"I am shocked, shocked, to find that the dog I adopted barks!"
Disagree. This is much worse. A politician's family becomes a prop almost by nature. At least the politician doesn't send them away afterward.
Using a defenseless (and nonconsenting) animal and then getting rid of it once its usefulness as a campaign prop is done shows an almost sociopathic insensitivity and lack of compassion. Scott ought to be ashamed of himself. That is, if he knows what shame is.
mpguy, I refer not to politicians who simply pose with their families for pictures, but those whose marriages and/or children are for no other purpose but to enhance their political process. When they decide their families are no longer necessary, they shed them. As I said, I have some specific examples in mind.
They include, but are by no means limited to, closeted gay politicians and hetero philanderers who use spouses, and in some cases children, for cover.