Anyone who votes for the office of president of the United States based on his/her treatment of dogs should have the privilege of voting revoked. Considering all the problems that face the nation the fact that this gets newspaper space is ludicrous !

I fail to see how mistreating a dog cannot offer a window into the character of a political candidate. Isn't that important, or am I missing something?

Millions of people are passionate about their dogs and will go to great lengths to protect them. The issue here is not Mitt Romney's politics; the issue is the ethical treatment of animals. But maybe it would be a better idea to discuss it in some other part of the paper, instead of turning it into a political football.

Cesar Milan is an abusive and ignorant self-promoting "dog trainer" who has done a lot of harm promoting his notion of how to treat dogs. Why on earth would you quote HIM? And I can't believe that you think that what Romney did to his dog was anything but abusive. It was very cruel to put that dog on top of his car in a crate and drive for hours with the poor dog stuck up there, car going at least 60 miles an hour. Never in a million years would my husband and I do that to any animal. I have had a number of dogs and think that a lot of trainers don't really even know some of the most basic things about how to treat a dog with kindness. You should be roundly condemning what Romney did to his dog.

Anyone who does not judge a candidate for president partly on his private behavior towards animals should become educated about the relationship of how people treat animals towards how they treat humans. There IS a relationship - we know that children who abuse animals grow up quite often to be cruel to humans and lack compassion.

I totally agree with you.

Without making a judgement on Romney or other candidates, cruel treatment of animals is often a symptom or precursor of sociopathy. Thrill killers, such as mass murders and serial killers, often have a history of torturing and killing animals. Beyond that my personal opinion is that the way people treat their pets and their children says a lot about their character.

Everything about a candidate is fair game. Anyone who votes for a candidate on the basis of a single issue is usually an uninformed voter. Small items add up and become especially important when you think neither candidate has a solution for major problems. Unlike you, however, I don't believe there should be some kind of issue-based litmus test for who can vote. Would that be democracy?

How many people drive with their dog's head out the window? How many people lock their dog in a small room while they go to work? Do you know what type of transport the dog was in?

Tony7586: How many people drive with their dog's head out the window? I think its the dog that sticks its head out the window and the dog is free to pull its head back in. The comparison in invalid.

It's not hatred. Islam's approach to dogs in complicated. Mohammed considered dogs unclean (similar to the Jewish view of pigs). Muslims are not supposed to keep dogs for pets, but they're allowed to keep them as work animals for hunting and herding. Muslims are also required to treat dogs well. In fact, cruelty to all animals is proscribed, as is hunting for sport. Knives must be sharpened just prior to using them to slaughter an animal for food. Islam, like Christianity, is a complex religion that can't be summed up in a few phrases.