Mitt Romney answers THE Question: NO, I Wouldn't Put Dog On The Roof Again

[kpete]

DIANE SAWYER: As we move away from this primary campaign into the next phase -- again, on Yahoo, we got two questions most often, first about Seamus -- which as you know is out there forever -- would you do it again?

MITT ROMNEY: Certainly not with the attention it's received.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/mitt-romney-seamus_n_1429925.html?ref=politics

[newfie11]

1. But would he Bar-B-Que one again???

Or I should say join in the eating of one.

[denem]

2. Same 'ol, 'Im running for Office for pete's sake'

Scumbag

[FSogol]

3. Mitt shows his asshole nature: Not because it is wrong, but because it gandered negative attention

"Certainly not with the attention it's received. "

[gordianot]

4. Typical Romney answer worried about attention and perception not if it is right or wrong!

Absolutely NO core values.

[madokie]

5. "Certainly not with the attention it's received. "

what a scumbag

[Autumn]

6. Of course not, he would probably put it under the tires.

What a fucking ass he is.

[Bake]

7. So if it weren't going to get attention, yes he'd do it again.

What a putz.

Bake

[mulsh]

8. "Certainly not with the attention it's received." Not the same as

'No, I wouldn't". No remorse or empathy for the dog.

this implies that the only reason he wouldn't do it again is due to the negative response some one must have told him about.

Both he and that wife have now given answers in the same interview that confirm what I suspect; they're run of the mill sociopaths. Certainly they're not the sort of people I want in positions of relative authority.

Neither of them have ever made one statement demostrating remorse or showing empathy for the dog. this speaks volumes.

[NJCher]

9. Seamus did his job

It's always interesting to look at the name: Seamus, Shame-Us.

He certainly has shamed R-Money and his wife.


Cher

[spanone]

10. so, he would do it if it received no attention....