ShareThis Page
Tom Purcell: Doggone discourse better focused on real problems | TribLIVE.com
Tom Purcell, Columnist

Tom Purcell: Doggone discourse better focused on real problems

Tom Purcell
1088149_web1_gtr-cmns-Purcell-043019
Pixabay
President Barack Obama and his dog Bo play in 2009.

Boy, is our political discourse going to the dogs.

The Washington Post reports Donald Trump is the first U.S. president in 100-plus years not to have a dog — though others, including Ronald Reagan, didn’t have dogs until their second terms.

During a February rally, reports The Post, Trump said “he doesn’t have a dog because the idea of getting one seems ‘phony’ to him.”

Using presidential pets to score political points is not without precedent. The Hill says “avid dog lover” Herbert Hoover was among the first to do so, while running for the nation’s highest office.

“Following campaign advice, with hopes of shaping his image into something warmer and more charismatic, he released a photograph of himself with his German Shepherd, King Tut,” says The Hill.

King Tut helped Hoover win the White House, but after he presided over the 1929 stock-market crash, Hoover was routed by FDR in the 1932 presidential election.

According to The Hill, some suggested Bill Clinton got Buddy, his beloved chocolate Labrador, to help his image at the peak of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Maybe so, but photos clearly show Clinton enjoyed Buddy’s company.

George H.W. and Barbara Bush had Millie, an English springer spaniel who famously birthed six White House puppies. Millie’s book was a huge seller. Their presidential son had a dog, too.

“President George W. Bush’s Scottish terrier, Barney, became a celebrity in his own right, appearing in more than 10 films while he was at the White House,” says The Hill.

The Obama family chose Portuguese water dogs Bo and Sunny, in part because Malia Obama required a hypoallergenic breed. The canines brought joy to the Obama family and were a delight at various White House events.

But no dog for the Trumps?

“Ever since President William McKinley’s administration — which began in 1897 — every single occupant of the White House, save for Trump, has had a dog at some point,” reports The Post.

Trump said he’d feel odd walking a dog on the White House lawn and just doesn’t have the time to do so.

And that resulted in a loud negative response in some quarters that the current occupant of the White House loathes all things canine.

“WHY DOES PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HATE DOGS?” asks Newsweek.

“Instead of having dogs, which tend to crave attention and often are scene stealers where photography is involved,” Newsday columnist Anne McFeatters tells us, “Trump frequently calls women he disdains ‘a dog.’ ”

In a New York Times column, Timothy Egan writes: “We know that Donald Trump, the first president without a pet since James K. Polk, appears to hate dogs.”

The “Trump hates dogs” narrative got to such a point, it prompted fact-checking website Snopes to investigate whether Trump’s critics are barking up the wrong tree.

Snopes’ conclusion?

“The claim that he ‘hates dogs’ appears to be based on shaky logic … and relatively scant evidence. … It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump’s cheerful demeanor around dogs.”

Like or dislike Trump — goodness knows he evokes powerful passions among supporters and opponents alike — it’s troubling to me that so much ink and bandwidth would be spent on so trivial a subject, when so many matters of larger importance are begging for our attention.

Just another sign that our political discourse is going to the dogs.

Freelance writer Tom Purcell of Library is author of “Misadventures of a 1970s Childhood.” Visit him on the web at TomPurcell.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.