|
|
October 27, 2006Clarifying myself on Rush and MJ Fox - UPDATEDYesterday I wrote this post and crossposted it at Captains Quarters Blog where Ed Morrissey (showing precisely the sort of questionable judgement we’re all capable of when we’re feeling a little rundown) allowed me to drop my pearls. In short order I heard from many people, via email, comments sections, etc, castigating me for essentially saying that Rush Limbaugh deserved a thwacking for his radio commentary. I also called him “foolish.” Rush heap big radio bloviator of huge influence. Me anemic anonymous suburban housewife who barely influences her 17-year old. I know I’m supposed to bow before the king, and I do respect much of Limbaugh’s work, but I am going to stand by my criticism while offering some clarification. Here’s part of what I believed to be a thoughtful post: Read what I wrote carefully. Based on what I had read (at Betsy’s place and elsewhere), Limbaugh had been “foolish,” and that he had “bloviated.” That was taken by many to mean that I was jumping on the “Rush is being mean to poor Michael J. Fox” bandwagon while ill-informed as to his actual remarks. Regular readers know I’m no bandwagon jumper, and I wasn’t this time. Having already posted this piece and this one on the matter, I had established - way before I knew anything about Limbaugh - that I was moved-and-sympathetic-but-unpersuaded by Fox’s physical condition, and resentful of his rhetorical dishonesty and his willingness to use emotional manipulation to achieve an end. So, when I read about the Limbaugh brouhaha (and later read his transcripts for myself) I had no problem at all with the substance of his monologue. I had a problem with his going on and on about Fox’s tremors and speculating on whether or not he, “an actor” was in any way (either through art or dosage) enhancing his difficulties. To my way of thinking, all of that should have been, if mentioned at all, an afterthought - a throw-away line or two, not a huge oration, and this is what I found to be foolish on Limbaugh’s part. It was foolish because in focusing so deeply on Fox’s uncontrollable shaking Limbaugh took the focus off of the facts concerning Embryonic Stem Cell Research. As I think I demonstrated in my own piece, Limbaugh (or anyone) could have completely discredited Fox by just citing “the facts of the case,” so to speak. Rush is a smart man and he had to know - he had to know - that questioning Fox’s tremorous bona fides would be red meat for the left, that it would immediately be seized upon as evidence that conservatives were indeed “heartless bastards” and used against Limbaugh and anyone else who dared question Fox’s pronouncments. The left is full of people who live for the chance to swing from one “moral outrage” to the next, yelping like ADHD-afflicted Tarzans in a fetid jungle. To them it does not matter whether the day’s “outrage” is genuine or not, as long as it get them where they are going. All Rush did, when he gabbed on about tremors and meds was give them another day’s swinging vine and a new call-out. It helped create too much noise, and did nothing to advance real understanding of the issues surrounding ESCR or to convince the campaign ad’s emotional captives that its content was nonsense. Yes, the visual image of Fox swaying about was affecting but that could have been addressed as an afterthought, to much better effect. I do understand why Rush got fed up. I too am sick of the Democrats parading “unassailable” victims chock full of “absolute moral authority” that play on hearts and shut down thoughts, allowing folks to frolick in the emotional porn of empathetic (and therefore “compassionate and noble”) feeeeeelings. But Rush is supposed to know better. He’s supposed to know the left the way he knows “every inch” of his so-called “glorious naked body,” and so he should have monologued a bit more strategically. He muddied things up and gave the other side ammunition. Whether the ammunition was fair or not is beside the point. As we see daily, this is an era in which a thing need not be true to be used against someone. With the co-operation of the mainstream press anything that looks like political poison will be distributed through the public arena with deliberate speed and constant repetition until either the public’s brains have spasmed into shutdown (thus accelerating their acquiesence) or projectile vomiting has ensued. The reaction to my having dared criticise Rush was a little surprising. It seems that many readers never actually made it beyond my scant lines of dissent. Once I was perceived as dissing the MahaRushie many of them went into a sort of auto-Rush-defense mode. I read some of their emails and comments and thought, “wait a sec, I wrote something substantial here, and all you’re focusing on is two words about Rush…” And that is actually the point - it validates my sense of Rush having blown it. Limbaugh was indiscreet in his criticism. Where he should have pummeled Fox with a some hard right hooks of facts, facts and more facts - which would have done the whole nation a service and elevated the entire debate - he went in with a weaker left jab that - whether below the belt or not - raised eyebrows and called the fight way too soon. Sheesh, me and my boxing metaphors. And I don’t even like the sport. Meanwhile AJ Strata says some good is coming out of this brouhaha in Missouri, so maybe we should be thankful. We are on the same side, here. I wonder if some of you who had stopped reading my posts at the point where you perceived me to be “hating” Limbaugh will go back and do me the courtesy of reading them, and you will see that I have been hammering Mr. Fox and the ads since they played. I just do it differently than Mr. Limbaugh. Related posts on Michael J. Fox’s Ads: And on a different subject, but sort of related: UPDATE: Good Lord, people, I do not HATE Rush! I’m impressed as all get-out to see how loyal his listeners are, but after perusing my email, I feel I really must make it clear that I am not a “Rush-hater,” by any stretch of the imagination, and I offer as evidence my defense of him in the Great Big Viagra Debacle and here (sort of) as well! I’m fine with folks disagreeing with me - that’s part of a good dialogue - but geez louise, save some energy for his real enemies…I’m not one of ‘em! What was it Disraeli said, “never complain, never explain…” I’ve learned my lesson. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/10/27/clarifying-myself-on-rush-and-mj-fox/trackback/ 17 Responses to “Clarifying myself on Rush and MJ Fox - UPDATED” |
October 27th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
So, first you diss Rush and now you disdain boxing? So, what kind of conservative are you, hmmmmmm?
j/k!
October 28th, 2006 at 12:12 am
I felt the same way about Ann Coulter’s comments about the Jersey girls, her comments were so over the top that the substance of her comments was easily for the left to overlook and for the media to condemn her, making her the issue. These victims should be challenged but carefully.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:02 am
Michael J. Fox is not misinforming anyone. What he said in the commercial is true. Sen. Talent is opposed to expanding research on embryonic stem cells. He supports President Bush’s ban on federal funding for it. This is the same as opposing expanding research on embryonic stem cells because that is what federal funding would do. Banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research places severe limitations on the research. It is also true that Sen. Talent wanted to criminalize embryonic stem cell research. At one time he supported a bill that would ban all embryonic stem cell research and impose a million-dollar fine and jail sentence on violators.
The reason why many Christian conservatives are so angry about the Michael J. Fox commercial isn’t because there is anything dishonest in it, which there isn’t. The real reason they are so angry about the commercial is because it is putting a human face on the people suffering from Parkinson’s Disease and other diseases that could potentially be cured by embryonic stem cell research. It is much easier to defend the position of many Christian conservatives, that it is wrong to destroy embryonic stem cells to potentially cure diseases such as Parkinson’s Disease, when the people suffering from the disease are nameless, faceless people. When you see a real person, such as Michael J. Fox, who really is suffering from the disease, it is much more difficult to defend this position.
What you seem to be saying is that it is unfair of Michael J Fox to publicly advocate his position because of his visible illness. The fact is, Michael J. Fox’s, visible suffering is very relevant to the issue. Sen. Talent and others supporting his position are opposed to funding research that could potentially cure the disease he is suffering from. People should be shown the suffering that occurs as a result of diseases, such as Parkinson’s Disease, that could potentially be cured by embryonic stem cell research. No matter how much conservatives dispute the potential of embryonic stem cells to cure diseases, the only way to determine whether or not it is possible, is to do the research. Limiting this type of research will only prolong the time or maybe even prevent finding out if embryonic stem cells really do hold the cure to Parkinson’s Disease and many other diseases.
October 28th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Michael J. Fox is not misinforming anyone. What he said in the commercial is true. Sen. Talent is opposed to expanding research on embryonic stem cells.
Go back, Brian, and watch it again. Do you hear Fox saying anything about EMBRYONIC stem cells? He is quite dishonestly making it sound like Talent is against ALL stem cell research.
‘
And in point of fact, Fox made the same sort of ad for Cardin in Maryland, WHO HAS ALSO VOTED AGAINST ESCR BUT IS A DEM.
‘
Btw, Christians see the HUMAN face of Parkinsons all the time in Rev. Billy Graham, and we got to see it all over the place in Pope John Paul II. I’m pretty sure they’re not “nameless faceless people,right?” Both of those men would not want a cure on the backs of an embryo, and neither would we. But that doesn’t change the fact that Fox was DISTORTIVE in his meaning in the ad.
‘
Limiting this type of research will only prolong the time or maybe even prevent finding out if embryonic stem cells really do hold the cure to Parkinson’s Disease and many other diseases.
‘
I don’t feel the least bit guilty about it, either, not when there are already 72 successful therapies coming out of ADULT stem cell research (and that number is growing all the time) that are never talked about by you folks who act like unless the embryo can be destroyed, no other therapies are worth talking about.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I don’t know you, but several times now I have come across a post that gave me the feeling of smug self righteousness. Obviously you didn’t hear this whole segment. Rush was astounded at the physical movements of MJF. He had just seen him on some program and he was not making those movements. Therefore, his comments were NOT inappropriate! Turns out MJF had fooled with his medicine so his illness was rather exaggerated. Then the lies and distortions (Republicans don’t want sick people to get well) were the fuse that blew the bomb. The moment MJF stepped onto the political stage, exaggerating his symptoms and lying, it was open season.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
The Anchoress Clarifies
Earlier this week, The Anchoress wrote two provocative and intelligent posts here at CQ (lucky me!), including one that criticized Rush Limbaugh on a particular point for the Michael J. Fox brouhaha. She has clarified her remarks but stands her…
October 28th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Honestly, I was listening to Rush as he made his first comments and I winced. He then started to get more information relayed to him and he started spinning himself out of his initial ill thought comments. I’ve listened as this whole thing played out, but I still think it all goes back to his first few sentences which were things we may say or do among friends, but he is now on record and the MSN loves it. That being said I believe wholeheartedly with what he said. I was glad to see Patricia Heaton and company get the facts out there about what the vote is really about.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Rush is vilified regardless of what he says.
I saw nothing wrong Rush him questioning Michael J. Fox’s appearance in that ad. I listened to him when he first talked about it. He was making an observation, pure and simple. The MSM, as usual, put it in a totally different context to make him look like he was making fun of Fox. He never did that.
From my point of view, when it was established that Fox had admitted to manipulating his meds, that made him fair game for that question. So, I’m afraid I have to disagree that he was foolish, and, “indiscreet,” in his criticism. His critcism was right on.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Anchoress,
You may want to go to Rush’s website and see several video clips of MJ Fox. There are two clips that show very pronounced spastic body movements. They occur when he is making a “propaganda” point about Parkinson’s disease. The other clips show him speaking normally and in apparent full control of his body.
I am very sympathetic to people suffering from these types of diseases. My closest boyhood friend just died as the result of MS. But the attempt by people who would demonize those who oppose embryonic stem cell research by suggesting that they oppose all stem cell research is simply lying. They are modern day Mengeles.
Of course animal testing of drugs is off limits as are profits for drug companies and aids testing. But they say consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
One final point. Would there be any focus on the MJ Fox ads if Rush had been more circumspect? In fact, would Rush have practically invented talk radio if he had just wanted to get along? His approach to controversy may not be yours, but I venture to say, with all due respect, that his is more effective. That last comment is not meant to be snarky. It’s just a fact that Rush got where he is, king of the hill, be being willing to take the arrows that pioneers gather … sometimes in the front but just as frequently in the back. It’s also what makes people go to his defense.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Anchoress, I don’t believe you needed to clarify anything regarding your post. Rush maybe the most listened to radio commentator but he has made a fool out of himself before with stupid and careless remarks. Does anyone remember his remarks about the quarterback for the Philedelphia Eagles? Rush pontificates and he is fallible, in this case he went on the air and stated that Michael Fox was basically exaggerating the effects of the disease. He had no proof but by making that remark he opened himself up for criticsm. The Anchoress pointed out that he should have attacked Fox with facts not glib and fallacious comments that could not be proved. Measured and thoughful commentary is always good but sad to say Rush is the one that comes across as smug and self righteous. As a conservative I really don’t listen to Rush anymore and for that matter Ann Coulter is in the same league with Rush. I realize that Rush’s fans will take this as an attack but really his over the top smug voice turns me off. I would rather listen to thoughful commentators like Dennis Prager who rarely make faux pas like Rush’s.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Moneyrunner, I’ve seen the videos - I never said Rush should NOT have made his point, I said he should not (IMHO) gone ON and ON about it, knowing it would be one more hammer for the left to bang. That’s my opinion, and I can see some people seem to think I’m not entitled to it!
‘
As I wrote toward the end of this piece, if good has come out of all of this, in bringing closer examination to bear on proposed legislation, etc, that’s great.
‘
Perhaps Limbaugh and I are simply work very differently. Perhaps he is simply someone who doesn’t mind using a rather extreme method of effecting movement, and (as I believe he himself would say) being willing to work that way and suffer the slings and arrows (rather than from my “mushy moderate stance”) is what makes him “King of the Hill.”
‘
I take no umbrage at your characterization and saw no snark, but I appreciated your spelling it out to me. I’ve taken quite a beating (email-wise) from Limbaughians who do not like me at all for daring to think differently from their man. That makes me a little sad since I have written, just this week, about 4 pieces on Fox and Stem Cell Research, and I’ve written before on SCR as well. I’ve tried to write persuasively and have put forth clear and well-documented information meant to help combat the distortion by the left, and I’ve found that most people - upon arriving at what they percieved to be my “Limbaugh hating” - have never gone on to actually read any of that stuff. We’re on the same side, we’re fighting the same battle. I just choose to fight it without handing the other side weapons they can turn around and use on me. Limbaugh, clearly, doesn’t mind doing exactly that, and more power to him.
‘
Thanks for your excellent commentary, and I hope you’ll come back again.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
“Michael J. Fox is not misinforming anyone. What he said in the commercial is true. Sen. Talent is opposed to expanding research on embryonic stem cells. He supports President Bush’s ban on federal funding for it. This is the same as opposing expanding research on embryonic stem cells because that is what federal funding would do. Banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research places severe limitations on the research.”
Limitations how? If those on the left are so gung ho, why not make donations to those doing the worthless research on ESC’s?
Medical research is not the point of the Federal gov’t. I just read through the constitution, and failed to find a reference.
The bigger picture is that Talent is dead right on not wanting to even continue with ESC research. So far, it is a bust. You want to do stem cell research, do it on adult and placental, where the research is promising and showing signs of actual cures, without the baseball sized tumors so prevelant with ESC research.
But, we all know that the Left wants to perform ESC research because it is linked with abortion on demand, their #1 platform. Amazing how a Party can make the killing of unborn children their top priority.
October 28th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
“Go back, Brian, and watch it again. Do you hear Fox saying anything about EMBRYONIC stem cells? He is quite dishonestly making it sound like Talent is against ALL stem cell research.”
You sure do have that right! What Fox has done in these commercials, and what the Left pro-embryonic stem-cell proponents are doing in general is excising the word “embryonic” from all their arguments. It’s making all us pro-lifers appear to be against ALL forms of stem-cell research — which is an out-&-out lie.
The LA Times’ Tim Rutten did the same in his Sat. piece, which I wrote about on my blog, “Okie on the Lam.”
October 29th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Anchoress,
Michael J. Fox said Sen. Talent is against expanding stem cell research, not against all stem cell research, which is true, since funding embryonic stem cell research would be expanding stem cell research. I did incorrectly quote Michael J. Fox. As you said, Michael J. Fox did not include “embryonic” in his statement but he did say Sen. Talent is “against expanding stem cell research”, not “against stem cell research” or “against all stem cell research”. The facts still remains that Sen. Talent is opposed to research that could potentially cure this disease. I ‘m not sure whether this is accurate or not and I have not researched this, but I think this may be the first time the federal government has ever banned funding for research that could potentially cure serious diseases.
Michael J. Fox made an ad for Cardin because Cardin supports ESCR without the limitations that Steele wants placed on it and without the limitations that bill he voted against places on it. This has nothing to do with Cardin being a Democrat. It is based on his position on ESCR. Michael J. Fox said he was willing to do endorsements for Orrin Hatch or any other Republican who supports ESCR.
When I said that Christian conservatives were angry because Michael J. Fox putting a human face on the issue, it’s not because Christian Conservatives like you will see him suffering. It’s because millions of people who are not Christian conservatives will see him suffering. That’s why Rush Limbaugh was so infuriated, and accused him of not taking his meds and possibly faking his symptoms.
I don’t feel the least bit guilty about it, either, not when there are already 72 successful therapies coming out of ADULT stem cell research (and that number is growing all the time) that are never talked about by you folks who act like unless the embryo can be destroyed, no other therapies are worth talking about.
The embryonic stem cell issue has nothing to do with adult stem cell research. Nobody is saying we should stop doing research with adult stem cells. The two have nothing to do with each other. Embryonic stem cells are not the same as adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure diseases that adult stem cells may not. The issue is whether or not the government should fund ESCR, not whether or not adult stem cell research should be replaced by ESCR. Nobody is advocating this. Conservatives often misrepresent the issue by saying that more applications have been found for adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells. They never mention that scientists have been doing research with embryonic stem cells for less than ten years while adult stem cell research has been going on since the early 1960’s. The scientists doing the research believe embryonic stem cells have much greater potential for curing disease than adult stem cells. The ones who are being dishonest are the conservatives who completely distort the other side’s position by saying that we’re only interested in ESCR because it destroys the embryo. This is NOT true. We support ESCR for one reason and one reason only, and that is because we want to see diseases cured. The embryonic stem cells ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED anyway whether research is done on them or not. Every year fertility clinics destroy thousands of embryos. For some reason, religious conservatives don’t have a problem with this, but they are against using these very same embryos for scientific research that could potential cure many diseases and stop or prevent much suffering.
October 29th, 2006 at 3:53 am
William,
The federal government IS responsible for medical research. Over one third of the medical research taking place in this country is funded by the federal government. To not allow any of this funding to be used for embryonic stem cell research does limit it. Any lab receiving funding from the federal government cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research. Any equipment bought with federal funding cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research. In California they are building duplicates of already existing labs just so researchers have a place where they can do embryonic stem cell research.
October 29th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Anchoress - I completely agree with you. I had the same reaction, why did Rush have to insinuate that MJFox was acting? Geez - it gives the left everything they want - I tried to point this fact out to my husband - but he became apoplectic (sp?) - thanks for writing it up so cogently!
October 29th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Michael J. Fox Admits He Has Not Read Missouri’s Stem Cell Amendment
Thanks to Flopping Aces for the video.
Via ABC:
Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, “You betray me with a kiss.” And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Misso…