Get a life, Slate, and learn to love dogs

Following the viral photo, news outlets and social media, left, right, and center, gushed about Sully, almost in unison.

Graham was not amused. Somehow even Slate, that bastion of progressive extremism and emotional outbursts guised as liberal ideology, published her opinion. First, she knocks the fact that Sully wasn’t with the family long and is therefore undeserving of gratitude or sentiment. “But Sully is not a longtime Bush family pet, letting go of the only master he has known. He is an employee who served for less than six months.”

A few paragraphs later Graham writes:

Good heavens, Graham, do you even intuitively understand the relationship between pets and humans?

For starters, dunking on a Republican president’s dedicated service dog is not only a new low in terms of pure decency, but a really asinine idea. If she wanted to hate Bush, she should have just done so — although this take still would not have gone over well. Second, dogs are known for being loyal, warm, friendly, and extremely helpful, especially once trained. This is not just any dog who greets a human at the door — this is a dog who accompanied Bush 24/7 for six months. That’s a decent amount of time in dog years, and the only reason it wasn’t longer is because Bush died.

I’m so sorry, Graham, that Bush did not live long enough so Sully could accompany him longer and thus fulfill your requirements for proper acknowledgment following death.

According to news reports, America’s VetDogs was the organization responsible for training Sully. He was named after the American Airline pilot, Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who had to make an emergency landing on the Hudson River in 2009, saving hundreds of lives.

Sully was specifically tasked with opening doors, picking up dropped items (especially since Bush was wheelchair-bound), and seeking help in an emergency. Sully will return back to America’s VetDogs and then go on to Walter Reed Hospital to help other veterans in need of companionship and aid. All of these things are normal for service dogs, and, whether offered to a human for a day, a year, or 10 years, are enough to elicit gratitude and affection from any human.

(Nicole Russell)

Several months ago my kids and I adopted a small dachshund mix from a local animal shelter. I grew up with dogs and have always enjoyed their warmth and company. They’re different from cats who, in my opinion, are somewhat selfish and stand-offish. A cat will never greet you at the door, lick your face, overwhelmed with joy and relief that you did not decide to abandon them that day.

For dogs, every day is a surprise: My humans are home! They love me!

In short time, my children and I all became smitten with our little dog, who follows us everywhere, snuggles with all my kids, and acts completely repentant when he’s naughty (which is good because he almost went back to the pound after he bit one of my kids). Even when they behave in ways that are frustrating or wrong we keep them, love them, and provide for them (not to mention pick up their messes and take them to the vet), because we love the fun and companionship a dog brings. Imagine how much more someone who utilizes them for specific duties must feel this incredible bond.

For Graham to essentially pen a hit piece on a dog because he didn’t work for a Republican president longer or because she found the dog’s loyalty contrived — either because she hates dogs, Republicans, or the people who loved both — is a nasty, immature, stupid thing to do. Her kind of discourse is shallow, bitter, and unwelcome in the public sphere, particularly following the death of a flawed but beloved president.

Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.