Ruth Graham and Slate Decide to Attack President Bush's Service Dog

Of all the stupid things to write, Slate naturally goes for it.

We've had New York Magazine and New Republic, both bastions of mainstream leftist thought, assail President George H. W. Bush's record, character, and courage. But leave it to Slate, already known for its idiotic "Slate takes," to take it to a new level. Their writer, Ruth Graham, decided to attack President Bush's service dog, Sully, and those who are fawning over the dog.

In a now famous photo, seen above, taken by President Bush's spokesman Jim McGrath, Sully is lying in front of President Bush's casket.

Graham decided the response to the photo was too much and took to Slate.

Is Sully “heroic” for learning to obey the human beings who taught him to perform certain tasks? Does the photo say anything special about this dog’s particular loyalty or judgment, or is he just … there? Also, if dogs are subject to praise for obeying their masters, what do we do about the pets who eat their owners’ dead (or even just passed-out) bodies? The photograph, in other words, is not proof that Sully is a particularly “good boy” or that “we don’t deserve dogs,” as countless swooning tweets put it on Monday. On its own, it says almost nothing other than the fact that Sully was, at one point in the same room as the casket of his former boss.

This is not only a stupid take, but an also completely unnecessary one that probably would not exist but for the need for click bait.

Comments
No. 1-25
cjmcd
cjmcd

Just remember, Dog is GOD spelled backwards. You may one day regret your words.

Veritasenvitas
Veritasenvitas

I liked GHW Bush, but certainly thought the service dog posed in front of the casket was a bit over the top and staged. Slate used to be just left of center. Now they have turned into another DailyKos.

centerright
centerright

That Slate article is a prime example of someone eating too much of their own dog food...

daveburton
daveburton

Why are modern liberals so heartless?

Whether it's a loyal Best Friend mourning his master, or the one-fourth of American babies who die by "choice," or the Kurds and Marsh Arabs massacred by Saddam Hussein, nothing moves the heart of a modern liberal, except, sometimes, hatred.

Liberals weren't always like this. What ever happened to the "bleeding-heart liberals" of yesteryear? I miss them.

TheTruth711
TheTruth711

@TheTruth711 and Also on A Different Subject, DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU HAVE UNLEASHED ON YOURSELF?! YOU JUST BROKE THE GATES OF SOCIAL MEDIA HELL!