Sorry, but I can't let this one skate by.

To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

Limbaugh, whose syndicated radio program has a weekly audience of about 10 million, was reacting to Fox's appearance in another one of the spots, for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent.

After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox.

"Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."

Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."

link

The Questions for debate:

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?

note: This is not a debate about the pros and cons of stem cell research.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

I doubt it. Rush gave himself a get-out by saying "Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." (my emphasis) but there is a huge difference. From my hazy recollections of my pharmacy degree (and I amdit that this is 20 year out of date now anyway) Parkinson's medication causes such severe side-effects that patients more or less have to take breaks from it anyway, so if this still holds true, Fox is not faking or even exaggerating - this is how he has to spend a significant amount of his time.

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

Yup, and it made me feel sympathy, and it made me support stem cell research (more than I already did i.e. I support it 111.95 % now and not 111.93% like I did before)

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?

Not really. Celebrities have been "shilling" for political parties that share their views on issues that are important to them for as long as there have been celebrities and political parties.

If Michael J Fox has to be doped up to the eyeballs so he doesn't have involuntary muscle contractions, before he can make any political points or comments, then Bruce Willis has to wear a wig so he isn't bald.

I was listening when Rush brought this up and it's unbelievable how the media ran with this. Rush said very clearly that either Fox wasn't taking his medication and/or he was acting to amplify the effects of his disease. Since then, he's pointed out several sources (Fox's book, interviews, etc) that reveal Fox DOES skip taking his medicine to amplify the effects when he is making a case for more research.

Moreover, Rush has never really criticized him for it doing his best to push for more research (stem cell, etc). The criticism was mainly for Fox's support of a democrat where it appears he is trying to get sympathy votes because of the stem cell issue. If you are going to jump into the political arena, be prepared to fight just like everybody else.

Rush is a partisan blowhard, but he is correct regarding this issue. Fox used his sickness as a tool to get a democrat elected (as opposed to lobbying for research) and he got called on it.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

I am sure there was some exageration on Michael's part, he is an actor and it was for a campaign add, but I don't care. Parkinson's is a horrible disease and it should be brought to light how it does or will impact a person.

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

It makes me feel uncomfortable that Michael did not tell the whole truth. He advocated that his candidates opponent was against stem cell research which is absolutely not the fact. The candidate totally supports adult stem cell research as well as umbilical cord stem cell research. He is though, apposed to fetal stem cell research.

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?

Has no impact on my decision what so ever. Telling parcel truths does impact my decision.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

The only thing right about Rush is his politics. No, I don’t believe Michael J. Fox “faked” his symptoms. I believe the disease is progressive, and its effects are well-known. And, in any circumstance, it takes a lot of stones to criticize someone with a terminal, degenerative disease. I don't believe it's anyone's business but his own what medications he takes, how much, and when he takes them, and to make some smart-alecky, smarmy, cheap shot comment just shows what an abhorrent human being Rush Limbaugh is.

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

I haven’t seen it, but from others I’ve seen of Michael, I find it just makes me sad. And I have a lot of admiration for him appearing in these ads despite how debilitated he may be in order to publicize the need for stem cell research.

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?

No, I would feel compassion for anyone suffering from Parkinson’s…well, there may be ONE exception…er, maybe TWO...

I want, for now, to address just this question. I had my say about Rush last night on the now closed thread Mo3 started. (see link below)

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=199387

I don't live in Missouri, so I can't address that directly. I do think, however, that this will have broader implications. It highlights another losing issue for Republicans less than two weeks before the election.

If Limbaugh had kept his overactive mouth shut, this would have been noticed only in Missouri, before passing into the night.

Now, thanks to Limbaugh, it is a national news. Republicans will have to spend time and money containing the damage. Ah, I just absolutely love it when Republicans are in damage control mode.

1. No. But, that's not all of what Limbaugh said. You left out the other half of his statement which was related to Fox intentionally stopping his treatment prior to public political appearances. This is something that Fox himself admitted in his autobiography that he stops taking his medication before he testifies in public on behalf of Parkinson's treatments so that his symptoms are more acute. That's not faking, but it's certainly drawing attention to himself to make a "dramatic" impression. Who could imagine that happening with an actor??

2. No.

3. Certainly not. The most accurate treatment of actors involved in political issues was done by the satirists Trey Parker and Matt Stone in their masterpiece "Team America World Police". These people use their celebrity status, combined with relative little to no education to promote ideas they barely comprehend. Whether it's "global warming", "stem cell research", or "alar on apples", these people do little more than "care" and "emote" rather than "comprehend". They are more often wrong than right. I would not trust a doctor or an electronics design engineer to explain to me the fine points of film acting. Yet, we look at actors as though they possess technical knowledge just because they can deliver a line.

Fox, of course, has a personal interest at stake. But, that doesn't change the fact that he's entered the political arena and as such, is subject to attacks if he gets the facts wrong, as he's done in the Missouri and Maryland cases. When you get right through the noise, the issue with embryonic stem cell research boils down to 2 factors; (1) huge amounts of government grant money and (2) abortion. Stem cell research is ongoing as we speak and throwing more money at it won't result in more "cures" anymore than throwing massive amounts of money at public education and/or welfare has "cured" those dysfunctional situations.

Stem cell research and global warming are the two most massively over-hyped "scientific" issues in the news today.

What damage? MJF has admitted to not taking his medication for political purposes.

I'm trying to see what the problem is. MJF jumps into the political arena and somehow is supposed to be immune to rebuttals.

Again, Michael J. Fox has admitted that he does not take his medication when he wants to amplify his condition for political purposes. This is a 100% fact. It is possible - even likely - he did the same for this ad. Rush said he either didn't take his meds OR is acting - something completely plausible given MJF's admitted history.

Rush vs MJ Fox?

I think Rush in 2 or three rounds. I mean I know he's a drug addict and all but I still think in a fair fight he can take him. He has the height, the weight and the reach. MJ Fox is crazy to get in the ring with him.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?
I don't listen the Limbaugh, but I did see the ad. Of course it's a ploy for sympathy.

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?
It does. Which is the whole idea. This is frankly becoming part of both sides of the political playbook. It's more pronounced among liberal causes, because I believe they are more emotionally-driven voters than conservatives. I've thought of starting a topic on this for a long time, but haven't gotten around to it.

Exhibit A - Michael J Fox appeals to a candidate. It makes you *feel* all icky about the mean-spirited Republican. Never mind that stem cell research is legal, it wouldn't help Michael anyway, blah blah blah. There is no argument, because the spokesmen himself is beyond criticism. Untouchable.

Ann Coulter is wrong about many, many things, and annoys me to no end. BUT, she has a sharp mind and pen and is spot on regarding this issue. Fox has "absolute moral authority" and cannot be questioned. Just like Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls. Men have no right to talk about abortion. It's sickening. I can't think of a Republican example, but maybe Terry Schiavo's parents have done a right to life ad somewhere, and that would be just as pathetic.

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?
Usually it tells me that I should vote the opposite way.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

Heard Keith Olbermann's take on this yesterday on the Dan Patrick show, discussing how Rush apparently transplanted Bill O'Reilly for a day at least as the Worst Person in the World. Olbermann stated that he had talked with several doctors, who all said that Fox's movements were typical of advanced Parkinson's disease, and further that one of the symptoms of the disease is muscle rigidity, which the medication is designed to reduce. Therefore, not taking the medication actually leads to less tremors, not more. This Georgetown University paper seems to indicates that this is in fact the case..


2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

Watched the link provided. I think I'm with Daffy on this...just makes me sad.

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?

I'm with Carlitoswhey--if it has an effect, it will be in the opposite direction. Too many celebrities I've heard discuss politics seem woefully uninformed on the issues. If one did indeed have an actual understanding of an issue I would listen--but not because they were a celebrity, but because of their apparent understanding of that issue.

I also agree with DaytonRocker's overall take on this issue. I'm sure Fox, as a passionate supporter of a cause, certainly wouldn't hesitate to take steps to amplify his impact on it.


As DaytonRocker points out, that's how politics works. You stump for your guy, other people stump for theirs. Too bad that none of the media attention being focused on this is actually discussing the pros/cons of the issue. But I guess THAT would be far too much to ask for.

Nail on HEAD, carlitoswhey! This is EXACTLY the tactic that the democrats are employing. They are exploiting victimhood because "victims" cannot be confronted without appearing "mean spirited".

Perhaps the republicans should take the clue and start parading out victims of criminals who were released on parole after liberal therapists bought into their "rehabilitation", business owners forced out of business by excess regulation, doctors forced to leave their practices due to frivolous litigation, and kids graduated from public schools who can't read. Nawww. Republicans aren't wired that way. Besides, the democrats would find a way to blame THEM for those victims as well.

Rush and Coulter are exposing a tired strategy and they should be commended for it. If Fox, Sheehan, The Dixie Chicks, and The Jersey Girls want to take a partisan political stance, then they better be prepared to stand on their own two feet.

If they can't stand the heat in the political kitchen, they shouldn't try to be chefs!

This story on MSNBC by David Montgomery of The Washington Post says differently.



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15408508/

DR, I did a Google search on the question of Fox’s alleged confession. I found some vague, unsubstantiated bits on conservative blogs, but nothing else.

In two posts you have not corroborated your allegations.

The burden is on you. Find a credible source.



Ah, Rush said. Not an unuaual sentence for someone who recently admitted listening to him 3 hours per day. Even if he went off his meds in the past, that doesn't mean he wasn't taking them this time. Plausible isn't a very strong word.

Wow...very impressive research. Maybe you should have tried Michael J. Fox's website:


My apologies if my 7 seconds of research did not come up with a credible enough source.

Again, there is no question Fox has used his illness for political gain. The political ad that started all this was not even truthful. And finally, Rush never even really criticized him for the ad. He just made the observation that became so controversial. This issue has flushed the partisans out of the cupboards like...well, nevermind. Rush is not the bad guy here no matter what the mainstream media is saying.

DR, your seven seconds of research turned up a six year old story about Fox's appearance before a congressional subcommittee.

Parkinsons is a degenerative disease, much change occurs in a period of that length. I understand, a bit of what Fox is going through. I have an ailment known as degenerative joint disease. Believe me, my mobility has changed drastically since 2000. The usual stuff, like anti-inflammatories, doesn't work. What keeps me going is an exercise bike, a Total Gym and a swmming pool at a local hospital health club to walk in.

There is a disconnect of time here. Do you or Rush have any evidence he was off the meds when he made the ad? All you can say is, Rush said, which isusually what gets people like Rush and those of his ilk in trouble.

I'm not sure what we're debating here. Rush made an observation and I'm pretty sure he didn't criticize MJF. In fact, Rush agreed it could be an effective tool. In a nutshell, that's the story.

It appeared MJF used a tactic he used before. Do you have evidence that he's only done it a couple times before, but this time he didn't? In other words, you're going to leave it up to me to prove he's stopped doing what has been verfied that he has done?

First, you left it up to me to prove a claim you believed to be unfounded. Upon doing that, you raised the bar to more demanding proof. What's next? Show a picture of MJF's medicine bottle?

There is way too much hatred for Rush Limbaugh to have an objective debate. This portion of the debate proves it.

And you chastise me for being brainwashed by listening to Limbaugh and Hannity everyday? Who's the objective one here?

No, DaytonRocker, I haven't raised the bar.

Before you linked us to six year old info on Fox's webpage, I said this in my first challenge to you.



Perhaps if Rush can't prove something he shouldn't say it. He, of course, must fill up 3 hours a day, five times a week with something. The thing I noticed about his 9 minute rant was that he kept repeating himself. He could have said the same thing in about two minutes. I don't call this "Excellene in Broadcsting."

Edited to add:

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

Michael J. Fox says he was taking his meds, Rush Limbaugh thinks he "might" not have been.

Who do I believe?

Let's just say that if I had to buy a used car from one of them it would be Fox.

Oh brother!!! Here comes the lib slam. BOF, do you ever even listen to his show? If ever there was a Hollywood used car salesman it's Fox. Rush usually hits what he aims at. He is seldom wrong. Fox did not take his medication for this political ad. I've seen him testify before Congress. He wants them to see how bad it can be. Rush contention is that if he makes a political ad, he is fair game for criticism if his statements are false. Fox was trying to imply that you have to vote for Dems to get funding for stem cell research....which is patently false. The Dems can't get past embryonic stem cells research, which has the least promise so far.

Oh, then watch this video. Did Rush hit his mark when he physically mocked Fox?

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&a...415763/&fg=

This is near the end of the video. Pathetic, cruel, inhumane - cheap-shot.

Plase excuse the advertisement before the video.

Well, after watching Scarborough Country tonight, I'm convinced it is not plausible that MJF made any effort to control his illness for his political ads. And no, I'm not Bill Frist. I'm just using common sense.

They showed the clip in 2002 where MJF verified he did not take his meds for theatrical effect and he looked much like he did in the latest ad. He was all over the place and although I'm not medically trained, the difference would have to be subtle.

Then they showed a couple clips of him in other places between 2002 and now - including his lengthy appearances in Boston Legal last year - and any shaking was subtle. He showed very little symptoms.

And here last week - in 3 different videos - he was shaking like a dog crapping razor blades.

Granted, his latest videos could have been before/after medications or whatever, but it is clear that when MJF chooses to mask his illness for a camera, he can. So when MJF goes in front of a camera and makes misleading claims while amplifying his illness, he's being a phoney for political purposes.

Limbaugh's gyrations on his webcam only shows how much of an idiot he is. But Rush nailed it with MJF and there is plenty evidence to support it. MJF is playing politics just like anybody else and he needs to be called on his spin just like anybody else.

FI I'm on the same side as you and I can tell you Rush is about 50/50. Lest we forget he's a drug addict and a liar.

Rush is an entertainer. A failed sportscaster turned pundit.

He's hardly a paragon of the Right. Frankly I'm embarassed by him.

MJF actually does suffer from something that has really impacted his life, I mean even if he is acting or not taking his medication he is not acting in movies anymore, or doing anything in life that he was doing prior to the onset of his condition really. I do pity people that have to live life like that, I mean if we lived in hunter gather lifestyle I do not think even the entire effort of the tribe could save his life, but we don’t live like that, but we are not willing to take the next step that could give MJF back his life maybe or at least mean it does not have to happen to other people, I don’t blame him for supporting such with the reality of his life. If rush does not like this, that’s American, and its even American to poke fun at him, I mean I make jokes about how bush can choke on a pretzel and I am sure I am not the only one. On that note though, people with other standards could of course not feel the same about it or makes jokes about bush choking on a pretzel.

Maybe MJF would be good for a republican candidate if they supported what his crusade is for, but of course we have the gravity of bushs rejection of stem cell research in some degrees and of course we have the right wing talk show star towing the line in full cinematic no holds bar tone, so what, I doubt MJF really cares, he is being picked on by a utter hypocrite, big deal.

Also, rush is not a doctor, and it was very cool that he could instantly tell about MJF's individual case along with the condition, not that I am implying preemptive, but maybe just maybe rush thinks about how to stay a big star in media.

Also, not to be boring but I feel this completely detracts from any form of a real argument, so MJF is playing the victim, bush played the Iraqi victim card to support his invasion or occupation, no calls on that by rush, how nice, and what do you get with bush and rush, brush, a nice hybrid, and pretty much the same, you could put it in some category of evolution.

That's the problem with this debate. Rush never said he didn't like it and as far as I can tell, never really faulted MJF for this. Yet people like you are all over Rush when in reality, you don't even know what the issue is. You just know you hate Rush and that's enough (not saying YOU specifically - but just in general).

Since of its location the quote would be a nice issue.

So, rush knows he is acting, and he is doing it on purpose to support a cause, that’s great. Why is rush then jumping on it, maybe because of this.



Is rush using MJF and his condition in an act of shilling for republicans?



Hey, you can read my posts, I hate partisan corruption of our government, something I can equally have disgust in this administration for. I am just playing on the card that rush does not really care about why MJF does this, only to keep it solid he supports the line, whatever that is, and even this means saying something that I think is rather low and way off topic.

1. I don't know if Michael J. Fox was "off his meds" or not when he filmed the commercials. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. It's fascinating in a repellent way that a man who is an admitted drug addict takes a poke at another man dealing with a chronic, debiliating disease, but compassionate and conservative have never been used in the same sentence about Limbaugh.

Speculation about something that can never be proven is futile. It doesn't matter if Fox has admitted to not taking his medicine in the past. For anyone that isn't a Dittohead, it just looks like a well-fed, oxycotin-free Rush Limbaugh is picking a fight with a former teen star who still has his boyish looks. This is not a fight that Limbaugh can win. He doesn't look like he's ferreting out a secret agenda by the Democrats and Fox to play on the sympathy of viewers. Rush just looks mean.

There is no way this makes Limbaugh looks good. Fox is clearly the victim here in the minds of most people. Limbaugh is reacting to the Fox ad. His "apology" was totally insincere and meaningless.

2. Sure, the ad makes the viewer feel uncomfortable. It's supposed to. Is it also a slice of shameless manipulation? Without question. Fox makes it seem as if stem cell research is an instant cure for Parkinson's Disease. Nobody knows that to be true. You have to be a pretty cold fish to blow off the fact that yes, Michael J. Fox can afford to pay the money to control his Parkinson's, but what about those inflicted with the disease who can't afford the medicine? What happens to them?

3. The endorsement of a politician by a celebrity doesn't move me all that much. It may raise a candidate's cool factor if somebody famous likes the suits they wear, but that doesn't mean they will be a good senator, mayor or governor.

But I think it does influence people quite a bit when a famous face comes forth with the disease or ailment they're fighting. People relate to a problem better when a celebrity admits they are suffering from AIDS or cancer or diabetes or what have you. It puts a face on an illness such as Ronald Reagan and Alzheimer's. It's certainly helped raise millions of dollars for the research and treatment of diseases.



Oh please. Cut the hyperbole, DaytonRocker. You don't have to hate Limbaugh to debate what he said. Limbaugh can be fairly accused of spreading a little hate in his time, so please don't whine about how unfairly the old addict is being treated.

Just as Michael J. Fox is subject to criticism for jumping into the political arena, Rush Limbaugh is hardly a babe-in-arms. HE is the one that sparked the controversy. I'm sure he's enjoying the return to newspapers , talk radio, television and debate boards by picking this fight.

Objectivity? This is a board where people debate issues. What's objectivity got to do with it? Everybody's got a axe to grind and a sacred cow they're trying to save from the axe.

Well, DR, I’m not a doctor either, but I don’t think you can make your case based just on Scarborough Country. Keith Olbermann had some of the same footage and came up with a different conclusion. Olbermann said that when Parkinson’s patients are off their med they get rigid, but when they are on them the rigidity is replaced by the kinds of movements Fox was making and the “idiot,” (your words, not mine) to describe Rush was trying to imitate.

I didn’t want to just take Olbermann’s word for it, so I did a little research. There is a term, “dyskinesia,” that refers to “distortion of voluntary movements" – the Fox video?

Fox not taking his meds? Maybe not.



http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11214

I next looked up medications used to treat Parkinson’s. The link below lists about 20 med in different classes. In eight of those “dyskinesis” is a side effect of the medication itself.

http://www.pdf.org/AboutPD/med_treatment.cfm

This is a pdf file. Check side effects in the tables.

So again, Rush, Scarborough and you haven’t made your cases.

Hopefully, there is someone on the board with more medical knowledge than either of us to give an opinion.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

Michael J. Fox was not faking anything. Rush is not correct in suggesting so. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh need to be over the top to be relevant. Rush and Ann accuse the Democrats of using the Logical Fallacy; appeal to sympathy or pity. Which I agree with them. The problem with the Republicans is that they base their arguments on character assasination. Example: Richard Clarke, an advisor to Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. was attacked because his book railed against the Bush Administration. The debate was not on what Richard Clarke was saying but why Richard Clarke was saying it. Unfortunately, the political tactics of the Republicans force the Democrats to use Appeal to Pity tactics. A Democrat puts out a message then the Republicans attack the messenger. So the Democrats respond by putting out a messenger that the Republicans cannot attack. This is simple strategy. It is also very annoying and what you get when you have a two party system, which is why I vote independent whenever I can.

You can expose a logical fallacy for what it is without shredding the person making the argument. Personal attacks add nothing to a debate. Rep. Foley's condemnation of child predators is not less valid because he made them. This is one of the many things that anger me about today's politics. The actions of politicians lead me to believe that they think the American people have to be tricked into a decision, that the average citizen is not intelligent enough to make decisions based on facts.

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

The video does make me feel uncomfortable. It also does not make stem cell research any more understandable. I saw a commercial in Missouri with a scientist in a lab coat explaining stem cells and why those opposed to stem cell research are missing the point. That was one of the most respected advertisements I can recall in the last five years. I have a problem with today's advertisements in general. Take for example, the Easy Button, Staples sells office supplies, but a commercial comes on where a guy needs something and presses the easy button then his co-worker winds up stuffed into a bookcase. These types of commercials are the standard and I am sick of them. Just my pet peeve, back to the point......

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?

Celebrity appeals have never carried any weight with me.

Yes, he hit the mark. Fox was trying to say that Republicans would not support stem cell research, so vote Democrat. That's a lie.

The Founders Intent,

This was not really the topic of the debate, but Fox was partially incorrect. Some Republicans, including Nancy Reagan, do support stem cell research, including the embryonic form. In fact, many of them from both houses joined the Democrats, in passing a bill. Unfortunately, there were not enough votes to override Bush's veto.

This does not, however, make Rush right. That wasn't the issue he was addressing.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Edited to add to remarks to TFI

You know, strike that phrase “partially incorrect.” I've done some more research. Here’s the ad:

http://www.bencardin.com/multimedia/video102306

Fox didn’t even mention Republicans, just George W. Bush and Michael Steele. Bush’ veto speaks for itself.

The case is not so clear on Steele.

He is a social conservative, who is against abortion, but I’m not sure about the embryonic stem cell question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102500543.html

Steele does not mention abortion or stem cell on his webpage.

http://www.steeleformaryland.com/issues.htm

_____________________________________________________________________________


Edited to add comments to DR:



DaytonRocker, I missed this.

You know, I kind of mentioned this in passing. Where did I use the term “brainwashed”? What I wrote was:

Rush certainly knows something about Meds AND Acting, but he's being really foolish on this one.

Lets talk about some Facts about Parkinsons. The disease is fairly fast in debilitation and over time the meds just dont work as well. You are on a timer, about ever 4 hours you swallow 6 or 8 pills that allow you to keep some control, still, shaking and hand tremors are common as well as rolling of the head and confusion, hot flashes and insomnia. Under stress the pills dont work as effectively and patients often double up too soon to stave off the mental state of insanity of being in public or something as simple as a dinner with friends. Its a very difficult situation to live with year after year, (imagine not being able to control your body but fully understanding as a coherant human are jerking around all the time) You eventually lose all mental and physical ability to care for yourself. Lifespan is shortened considerably, the brain and body just cannot take the neurological disconnect and neither can the patient, they lose the will to live.

I think its fair to present the disease in all its hell, not pretending that with a 24/7 series of meds everything is fine, because its just not. Parkinsons patients also have to limit protein intake to a few ounces a day because it exagerates the disease. Quality of life is so diminished. The treatment is not a cure, even halfway close- and that is what is trying to be communicated.

See, we do find the ad disturbing and thats the point. The point is to reach people who will elect representatives who are not hypocrites. Fertility clinics are killing unused embryonic cells everyday yet noone has seen to make a case of this. Embryonic stem cell research could make use of these discarded cells, a cluster of about 30 cells, nothing more, to save lives. The people who made the commercial about poor women possibly being exploited in harmful surgery for their eggs are clearly ignorant.

I can sympathize that this is a bit of Science the US is not particularily ready for nor educated about and with our overt psuedo-religious/political polarity becomes a contentious subject. More education is needed. Also, it IS cutting edge to human cloning and genetic design, which opens up huge ramifications, so within reason this President is wane to approve Federal funding for such a cause during his administration, but it will happen.

However that doesnt change the obvious, that Rush is just a stupid jerk, always has been, always will be and he's proven his ingnorance once again. Im sure his ratings among the barbarians/ evangelicals/ and hate mongers, ie: his crowd, are soaring, which was HIS ONLY objective, acting, himself.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?
I can't believe that MJF would 'fake' his disease. But, to withhold his meds for effect is probably more plausible. But, I have to ask, if you were suffering from a chronic, debilitating disease, and one party over another is supporting the science that could find a cure for you or for those who have yet to be diagnosed, wouldn't you pull out all the stops to show how bad the disease is? If the answer is no, then you are lying to yourself. Unless you (those who would criticize his efforts) have experienced what he is going through, and the hell in which the remainder of his life is promised to be (lest we forget all those who also suffer from this disease), then I would expect some semblance of sympathy. I couldn't wish what he is facing on my worst enemy.
MJF is not exagerating the effect of this disease, anymore than he is exaggerating that the far right is against embryonic stem cell research.

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?
Yes, mostly because we have the potential to find the means to help, while short sighted politicians, primarily belonging to one specific party, are pandering to an extreme religious right, instead of working towards the greater good.

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?
Personally, no, not really. I think in this circumstance a nobody would probably have gotten my attention more effectively. But then, I am not everyone. And the masses do associate the gravity of the situation better with a name and a face they are familiar with. Which explains why celebrities are used so frequently in commericals to sell everything from pain medication to airplanes.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

I don't know, nor does RL. RL did mock MJF, and so is in the wrong no matter what. I saw this on the news, a video of RL doing the infamous broadcast. It was mockery and I wanted to slap the big fat idiot silly.

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

Naw, Steven Hawkins makes me feel uncomfortable. The profoundly deaf make me feel uncomfortable. Quadrapalegics, sever stutterers (live with one), young women in leg braces -- that makes me feel uncomfortable, and I've hung around with all of these types of people for that very reason.
We need to feel more uncomfortable. MJF made me feel something, but it wasn't discomfort. It made me angry with those who loft themselves up on questionable morals and work hard to defeat progress only to further their own political careers.

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?

Nope.

But let me explain the bottom line here: Mocking people who are having a tough time in life is NEVER acceptable. I don't care if RL is right and MJF is faking it (which is beyond all reasoning). He is wrong to mock people in the first place, and very wrong in this situation.

What, is he going to demand that the quadrapalegic gets up and walk? Shout loudly at the profoundly deaf? Laugh and point at leg braces? Imitate severe stutters? Hey, do that here and you'd better run like the dickens for higher ground.

Some things are just too stupid for words. A slap across the face is more appropriate. There is no justification for what RL did, and it is in the category of being inhuman.

So the political score is MJF +100, RL -1,000,000 (along with those pundits trying to justify him).

In Back to The Future III, MJF had the line that fits RL: "Why, you're just an [rhymes with Bass Shoal]."

Rush is not being foolish on this, he is absolutely correct. He even had a Parkinson's victim call and tell him that he wished Fox hadn't done the ad. Republicans are not against curing diseases, taking food out of the mouths of school children, or making seniors chose between dog food or medicine. This is all and always has been a Democrat ploy to scare the "victim" into thinking that Republicans are hateful gulag officers who will rip away their last breath of life. It is a lie, and Rush nailed Fox right between the eyes. If Fox wants to promote stem cell research, wonderful; but if he comes on pointing fingers in a political ad, he is fair game. All liberals ever talking about on this is embryonic stem cell research as the Holy Grail. Show me where experts (real experts) say there is great promise in THOSE types of stem cells. More than likely they will say adult stem cells are better. I'm not surprised that libs have their heads up and locked on embryonic stem cells. It fits right in with their abortion mentality. BTW, I didn't know Fox was from Missouri.

Okay, show me the proof that MJF is faking his disease.

Show me that Republicans are in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

Show me. My mind is in Missouri at this point.

Mrs. Reagan is in favor of embryonic stem cell research. I think this has something to do with the way President Reagan left this world.

Anyway, Rush may not think he is being foolish on this, but he's wrong. MJF has the upper hand no matter what, even if he is faking his disease, which if that can be shown, I'll be glad to eat my hat. I'll eat all my hats, and without soy sauce too.

The allegation is that MJF went without meds to exaggerate his symptoms.

Uh, no, those are the actual symptoms that get masked by drugs. Of all people, RL should understand how this works.

And, if embryonic stem cell research is forbidden, then there can't be any way to prove that meds from the research will cure anything. That one's pretty simple, even for RL.

Firstly, Rush is a contemptible fool. When faced with Fox and this commercial, he did not seek to engage in a debate on the merits of foetal stem cells, nor did he discuss the merits of adult vs. pre-adult stem cells. Instead he attacked Michal J Fox personally, accusing him of 'faking' his symptoms. That was (and always is) his first reaction: mock, abuse and humiliate, the actual issues are secondary.

Just like how his first reaction to the Foley scandal was to insist the whole event was entirely set up and coordinated by the democrats.



Not generally, no. Though mind you, on that LAST point about forcing seniors to choose between dog food and medicine, I am reminded of a quote by someone you may have heard of:



So as long as the seniors can AFFORD both dog food and medicine, then they don't HAVE to choose?


Regardless, your somewhat strained rant aside, Michael J Fox said NONE of these things. Not one. He didsay that the opposition of the Right wing in the US against embrionic stem cells is unreasonable and stands in the way of scientific development. I don't know where the rest of your accusations came from.




Well thats just plain factually wrong.

(Professor Tom Kirkwood - Newcastle University)
"The trouble is that we already have some evidence that stem cells, particularly adult cells, can pick up DNA faults similar to those that occur with ageing. The quality of the cells' genetic information - and the risk posed by damaged cells - is something to be considered very seriously before arriving at effective medical treatments."

(Professor Richard Gardner, Department of Zoology at Oxford University and Chair of the Royal Society committee on Stem Cell Research)
"The concern raised by recent work is that adult stem cells acquire their versatility through fusion with other cells, which could make them too dangerous for grafting into patients."

Then there is the simple fact that Embryonic stem cells are easily obtained, and can grow and multiply their numbers in the lab--while adult stem cells are rare, and good methods for growing them have not been found. To assert that from a medical or biological standpoint adult stem cells are 'better' us utter rubbish unsubstantiated by a shred of evidence. BEST case opinions say they are the same, more common opinion are that they are not as useful.

This is not to say Adult stem cells are not valuable and useful, of course they are, they have already proven useful in many experiments. But so have embrionic stem cells, in MANY tests, allmost all conducted outside of the US.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/10...stem-cells.html




That's an odd statement to make, I would have thought it applies FAR more to the right-wing's psudo-religious abortion mentality, since that (and not actual scientific or medical reasons) is the source of most of the opposition to embrionic stem cells....

I had an opportunity to see the video today, and I have to say I absolutely do not see any "acting" like his symptoms are worse. It looks like typical Parkinson's to me (and to several neurosurgeons who have weighed in on the issue). Last night, I also saw video of Rush Limbaugh making fun of Fox's tremors, which to me is far more offensive and contemptible than Fox's political ad could ever have hoped to be.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

No, Rush is seldom right about anything- you can easily tell when he is wrong or lying- you see, his lips move - of course MJF is not lying, anyone that has been around someone with parkinsons know's the reality of the disease, and how it comes and goes, the med regimes etc- Artemise did a perfect job of explaining it- thanks my fellow state's woman LOL -

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

No- I typically deal with the disease in far more advanced stages. The video is tasteful, accurate and ethical. Something Rush wouldn't know if it punched him in his fat lying face.


3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?

Depends on thier background, education and knowledge for the subject manner. I would say Jeanine Garafalo isn't a very good leader, and biased on a great deal many subjects, and I don't really like her- but she would be a far more competant leader than anyone in the GW regime today. When you set the bar so low, everyone's opinion is better than those in charge. I love it when conservatives talk about celebrity not being qualified for political comments, but they elected that tree stump with eyes back in 1980

I am by far no fan of Rush, but how can you find the advertisement ethical by any standard when MJF did not tell the truth? He absolutely misstated the truth about the opponents stance on stem cell research.

I will repeat what I said yesterday. Embryonic stem cell is now a issue thanks to Rush Limbaugh.

Cardin and Steele will debate Sunday on Meet the Press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Prediction:

1. This will be a major issue.

2. Michael Steele, if he's smart, and I have no reason to think he isn't, will put as much space as possible between himself and Rush Limbaugh.

Are there any Rush fans here brave enough to call my bet?

I don't think he did, as author pointed out. This is your value judgement- it interesting though- if this is unethical- to be consistant- do you hold your right wing leaders to the same standard of ethics?

While not directly answering the question I would like to add the following sources to the debate as I think they may shed some extra light on the discussions at hand.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
Is the initiative that is being voted upon at this time. It directly ensures that stem cell research and cures are available to all Missouri patients and furthermore allows stem cell research for exactly those purposes.

The stem cell research issue has been one that the DSCC has been keen to utilise in some areas, as it is seen as a "clear blue water" issue against some candidates. http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20060213_tipsheet/

It is also an issue that Steele has drawn substantial criticism on before - http://www.forward.com/articles/stem-cell-...or-republicans/

Under these circumstances I can see solid reasons why Michael J. Fox would feel a need to be involved in this debate.

Let's think this through:
If a world reknowned scientist were asked to support a pro-science candidate would you be outraged if he acted intelligent during his interview? Should he act "stupid" so as not to make the dumb, average American feel inferior?

Well, in case any of you are unsure about this, The Michael J. Fox who shakes and quivers IS the real Michael J. Fox. It is nothing but sheer ignorance and prejudice that would lead someone to assume he is "acting" or otherwise playing for pity when he is actually showing you his true self. I say this as honestly as I can: If you think that a handicapped man is playing you for pity when he lets you see the effects of his handicap, well, then you are prejudiced or, at least, ill-informed. It's a sad state when the only way you are willing to accept a person is if they hide who they are.

Michael Fox's appeal for the support of stem cell research is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy.
This fallacy requires that the "authority" being appealed to is not an authority in the area in question. (Michael Jordan selling underwear is a perfect example). MJF, on the other hand, is the perfect authority for the situation he is addressing. He is the perfect example of the life-destroying effects of the disease. All his wealth and fame could do nothing to stop the disease that will kill him. He is an authority on suffering, tragic irony and the effects of Parkinson's disease. His message to the public is that this disease, if no cure is found, can do to anyone what it has done to him. It is easily for people posting here to insist that Fox is playing on pity for votes. It is equally easy for me to insist that they feel that way because they simply don't like (or can't deal with) the effectiveness of his message.

It is NOT an appeal to pity fallacy either:
His certain death at the hands of this disease is without question. The effects he suffers...undeniable. His desire to have a cure found before he dies....who wouldn't? Just because YOU are uncomfortable with the effects of Parkinson's does not mean that MJF is trying to take advantage of your discomfort. People who suffer from debilitating diseases struggle to become comfortable with themselves and their new lives. When one of them manages to get past the insecurity and the stares from strangers and appears "as they truly are" in public they are WAY past pity. Reality is much more their style.
The only way a person can imagine that MJF is worried about pity is because they have never known someone even close to his position. It is like a cancer survivor who proudly displays their bald head - they are so happy for what they have that they don't care what you think of their appearance.


Michael Fox's commercials are effective because they are a concrete example for all of America of what can happen when we ignore possible cures to a horrible disease. If it can happen to the rich and famous then the rest of us are in real trouble. Conservatives' visceral response to these ads happen only because the ads are effective, realistic and poignant AND they don't enjoy seeing their platform dismantled. (How's that for having your motives outlined FOR you)

I'd like to point out that besides deserving an all expenses paid extended stay at Abu Ghraib, Rush is a hypocrite.

A few years ago, Michael J. Fox did an ad to support another politician---Republican Senator Arlen Specter.

Speaking to Katie Couric he said:

At Capitol Hill, Michael is the big shot. Or you might say "King of the Hill." Back in 2001, the National Institutes of Health estimated it would cost one billion dollars to find a cure for Parkinson's disease. The only person Michael knows with that kind of capital is Uncle Sam. So he's testified twice before Congress for increased federal funding. And he's rallied support from both sides of the aisle, namely Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, and Republican senator (and cancer survivor) Arlen Specter.

Couric: You, Tom Harkin, and Arlen Specter. You're like tight.

Michael J. Fox: Yeah. Strange bedfellows. But he's been an amazing champion of medical science.

couric interview

I haven't found the link I'm looking for yet, but on Ed Schultz's radio show he played the commercial Fox made supporting Specter complete with the standard, "I'm Arlen Specter and I approved of this message."

But you didn't find Limbaugh smacking Fox around for endorsing a Republican. Guess Fox must have been on his meds that day.

How do you defend a drug addict accusing another man diagnosed with a debilitating illness of faking? I guess Rush would have accused Christopher Reeve of faking his paralysis and Nancy Reagan of exaggerating her husband's Alzheimer's.

What a pathetically sick, sad sociopath of a man. He will probably spend his Halloween setting homeless people on fire and stuffing razor blades in apples for kids. Following all that fun, he'll probably tell his limo driver to go park in a handicapped zone and kick a few cripples when they complain.

Someone should spike Limbaugh's Viagra with chili powder.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic for Rush Limbaugh to criticize Michael J. Fox for taking partisan stances? It's my favorite oddball tactic--when talk show pundits condemn other people for speaking out. Very odd. I criticize Rush Limbaugh over his political points all the time, but I don't have a nationally syndicated radio show. Furthermore, why is this even an issue? How is it any different from Republicans saying Democrats will cut-and-run? Both aren't true.

Incidentally, I would love to know if Rush was off his meds when he made these statements. What gives him the right to be a shrill spokesperson for the Republican Party if Fox can not? This is a completely pointless argument brought on by Limbaugh's own stupidity.

No, you're not the only one to see this irony. However, that's just bidness as usual for the druglord of the airwaves. It's kind of like saying that RL supports Republicans no matter what, and I bet it's in his contract.

We oldtimer computer systems types used to say that the jerk opened a vein and bled all over the contract, regarding sales guys who tried to come off as techies.

RL has displayed his untrustworthiness in a way that goes so far over the top that he's in orbit now, around the failed policies of Wrong Republicans nationwide, not just in Missouri.

It is cool that embryonic steam cell research got a big boost in attention nationwide. Even being very wrong can have its unintended positive outcomes. As ironies go, this one trumps the usual RL rant.

You can send flowers if you want, but if Cardin debates Steele on MTP, it's a win for Steele, not Cardin. Maybe you haven't seen their debates, but Steele appears to have Cardin outgunned, and he's waaaaaaay better on TV. Just sayin'

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?
Contrary to TFI and other's protests, no Fox isn't faking, and yes, Rush is wrong...again.

What upsets me about it is not that Fox used his disease to advance a cause or a candidate that supports him. Everyone is free to do that. My anger is directed at Rush for advancing the same ridiculous argument that Coulter did at the alleged Jersey Girls. Its a wonderful talking point to try and reverse a victim mentality that fails on face if you take more than 1 second to look at it.

There is not a single soul saying you can't debate these people because of their experience. You absolutely can. You want to debate the 9/11 widows regarding the war on terror? Go for it. Do they have an initial advantage of pathos because their spouses died in that tragedy? Sure, but it doesn't mute any ability to discuss or engage them. The same with Michael J. Fox. If Rush wanted to invite him on and actually debate the merits of embryotic stem cell research, and not the noise Rush brought up, I bet Fox might accept the invite.

But doing so requires that you discard the talking points from trash books like Coulter's and actually debate the issue. Granted, that's not as dramatic as the crap that Rush pulled, but I bet more people would watch it, and Fox would hand Rush his hat on the matter.

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?
Somewhat, much like when I see Muhammad Ali in public. But that's by design.

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?
Not really. But others may be more swayed than I, I suppose.

I didn't say which one I thought would "win" the MTP debate.

I will stick with the prediction that Russert will steer the conversation to embryonic stem cell research.

If the Fox/Limbaugh controversy comes up, I think Steele will distance himself from Limbaugh. That was my point.

The question is not whether or not he is like this sometimes. The question is whether or not he deliberately showed himself this way to garner sympathy or to make his message more effective.

Since MJF (who I personally like) was in control of when the filming of this ad was done, he certainly could have picked a "better moment". This wasn't a spontaneous man on the street interview. It was a political ad. He projected exactly the image he wanted to project, of that I have no doubt. If he wasn't happy with it, they would have re-shot it.



Being a victim of a disease does not make you an expert in the cure of that disease. How could you possibly draw the conclusion that MJF is an expert in this field?



MJF retained control of the image he projected. It is absolutely an appeal to pity. Yes he has this disease. Yes, the treatment of it causes the symptoms that he displayed in this ad. But YES he had control over the projection of that image.


The response is because this is an appeal to emotion and not an appeal to fact. Fox does not mention the backdoor cloning issue which is much more important to conservatives than keeping MJF as a permanent victim of Parkinson's as he's implying.

Listen, I have a condition that might be cured via stem cell research. It does not make me an expert on the cure to my condition nor does it change my position on the embryonic stem cell research issue.

Appeals to emotion simply stifle debate. And this ad was a simple appeal to emotion.

That's an excellent suggestion, Doclotus and if I were a Dittohead I'd call Rush and tell him the same.

Of course, that would require Rush to share the mic with someone offering a (blasphemy!) opposing viewpoint. That would require Rush to actually do some research about Parkinson's Disease instead of falling back on his usual diarrhea of the mouth. That would require Rush to actually be "fair and balanced" and conduct himself like a professional, impartial journalist instead of bloviating talking head.

Aw, forget it. Sounds like too much trouble.



Which is probably why Michael J. Fox made the commercial?

An appeal to emotion does not stifle debate, Amlord. As a Moderator of this board, you've certainly seen your share of debates that appealed to emotion. Or are you saying that only appeals to logic should be taken seriously?

You think Fox didn't know how much of an impact his shaking and jerking would have on people? Of course he did. It's supposed to hit you where you live. Why do cute little kids ring your doorbell and ask you to buy the candy they're selling? Not because you really want the lousy candy but because they're so gosh-darned cute and that works better than some grizzled old slob making the exact same sales pitch.

If Stevie Wonder did an advertisement to raise money for the prevention of blindness and he did it without wearing his black sunglasses would that make you feel like he was trying to make you uncomfortable and play on your sympathy? Christopher Reeve did a Superbowl commercial where through computer generated imaging he "walked." Was that shameless manipulation?

I submit society prefers the sick, the terminally ill, the disabled to conduct themselves as if they were not afflicted at all. We've come to expect the cancer patient who is undergoing chemo and lost their hair to wear a wig when they go out in public. Is that to make them feel better or for the rest of us not to feel like voyeurs by gawking at them or looking away in discomfort?

Appeals to emotion work. That's why politicians use them to scare people terrorists will come and kill them or homosexuals will get married and move in next door to them.

Fox says he was not off his meds when he did the commercial. Unless proven otherwise, I believe he should get the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he shouldn't be considered an "expert" on the disease but as someone living with it, he's sure as hell more experienced in dealing with it than any of the naysayers ripping into him.