Limbaugh likened Michael J. Fox to "Jersey Girls," declared stem cell ad part of "a script that they [Democrats] have written for years" in which "victims" are "infallible"
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh likened Michael J. Fox -- who has Parkinson's disease and appeared in a recent campaign advertisement for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill -- to the "Jersey Girls" group of 9-11 widows, claiming that Fox's ad is part of "a script that they [Democrats] have written for years" in which "victims of various diseases or social concerns or poverty" are "infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged."
On the October 24 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh claimed that actor Michael J. Fox -- who has Parkinson's disease and appeared in a recent campaign ad for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill -- is part of "a script that they [Democrats] have written for years" in which "Senate Democrats used to parade victims of various diseases or social concerns or poverty up before congressional committees and let them testify and they were infallible." Limbaugh also compared Fox to "the Jersey Girls ... in the period of time when the 9-11 Commission was meeting publicly. Victims -- infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged."
Limbaugh's remarks recall right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's accusation, in her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), that the Jersey Girls -- a group of widows of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were "using their grief" and "the fact that you lost a husband" to make "a political point while preventing anyone from responding," as Media Matters for America documented.
In the McCaskill ad, Fox endorses McCaskill for supporting embryonic stem cell research; by contrast, her opponent, incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent, has opposed a proposed Missouri constitutional amendment to legalize stem cell research in the state and voted against easing the restrictions President Bush imposed on federal funding for stem cell research.
As Media Matters for America noted, on the October 23 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh accused Fox of "exaggerating the effects of the disease." Noting that Fox is "moving all around and shaking" in the ad, Limbaugh declared: "And it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has." Limbaugh added that "this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."
From the October 24 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: This is a script that they have written for years. Senate Democrats used to parade victims of various diseases or social concerns or poverty up before congressional committees and let them testify, and they were infallible. You couldn't criticize them. Same thing with the Jersey Girls after the 9-11 -- and in the period of time when the 9-11 Commission was meeting publicly. Victims -- infallible, whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don't follow the script anymore.
Now, in terms of Michael J. Fox, I did some research today, and I found his book that was published. It's A Lucky Man, 2002 I think, but he admits in the book that before a Senate subcommittee on appropriations in, I think, 1999, September of 1999, he did not take his medication, for the purposes of having the ravages and the horrors of Parkinson's disease illustrated, which was what he has done in the commercials that he is running for Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent. So when you insert yourself into the political arena this way, to expect insulation and absolution and to expect yourself not to have what you say criticized in the manner in which you are trying to sway opinion is a little bit, I think, above the fray. I mean, to think that you're immune from any sort of criticism -- it's worked in the past for Democrats, but it doesn't work here.
...good god, how long until we have hear Coulter comment on this? I can just see it now.
As sick as he is, I hope Limbaugh keeps on this path - this can only help alienate more independents, which is good for democrats.
The fact is that Michael J. Fox has a point here, and any sane-minded person would have a difficult time poking holes in the stem-cell bill that passed. Limbaugh makes a horrid attempt to attack Fox "becuase he put himself in this arena, so he's open to criticism," but doesn't have the decency to attack his position. Instead he attacks the man who is ravaged by a horrible disease and then has the gumption to act like he (Limbaugh) is the victim.
Keep talking Rush, your days are numbered.
Mr. Limbaugh, Thank you so much for the brutal assault on Michael J. Fox. My wife heard it on your show and she is no longer undecided regarding the midterm elections due to your despicable attack on Mr. Fox. Thanks again for the boost to the Democrats. Keep up the good work.
The fact that your wife decides who she is going to vote for based on a talk show host talking about an actor is sad. Have you or your wife tried thinking about the issues before voting? This may be more usefull than basing your decision on a talk show host that is looking for ratings.
We know the majority of Americans are not reading about these issues, so where exactly do you think they are learning about them from?
The majority of Republicans I know do in fact get most of their information from Right Wing Radio/TV... Don't you think its a little naive to think that it doesn't influence the way that they actually vote?
...why don't you enlighten us about the 'issues'.
Maybe when decent people hear an outrageous attack like this and don't hear anyone in the GOP speak out against it, it exposes the right for what they are, hypocritical lying shills. People with no soul, no compassion for human suffering, and no sense of right and wrong. People who will do anything, say anything about anyone to protect their own turf. Maybe it's not so much a question of their stand on political issues as it is a question of human issues.
This exposes Limbaugh alone - if you agree with him, he's your hero. If you think he often goes over the line in his rhetoric to gin up publicity, as I do - then he is a very smart marketer of Rush Limbaugh.
The right has no obligation to comment on Limbaugh's almost daily diatribes. There are more important issues I would want my elected officials to work on than responding to talk show host's remarks.
in FACT these idiotic statements of druggiy Limpballs has been used by RW drones\fools\pundicks over and over since the Dr. shopper slured them out. Making it not just Oxy-boy, but the entire RW media noise-machine. Add in the silly 'response' add by the GOP, and yes it DOES give thinking people (unlike yourself) a snap-shot of the purile, obtuse and mean-spirited nature of the whole party.
As opposed to your cogent and thoughtful, reasonable opinions. But then I wouldn't want to be in the camp of those that spew the kind of nonsensical, insulting, confusing, although wildly entertaining, ranting and ravings of yours.
Only you can make Limbaugh look sensible and attractive, quite a gift.
You are a piece of work. I don't know why Tommy even responds to your silly post. I have seen flashes of intelligence in your posts at times, but the above was not one of your better examples.
Do you think every liberal should respond to any and all remarks made by other supposed liberals? That could be a never ending job on its own.
Limbaugh is responsible for what he says. His listeners are on their own. If they decide to tell you what they think, then it is on them. There is no obligation to reply on anyone's part.
BULLSH*T! Millions of Rush's listeners look to him for guidance as to what they are supposed to think and believe. Like it or not, Rush Limbaugh is a major force in shaping far right wing ideology. He is no ineffectual buffoon, but rather a major mouthpiece for Bush's administration. Bush, you may recall, in the only veto he has ever exrecised during his presidency, in deference to his far right supporters vetoed a stem cell research law passed by the House and Senate. I just hope that decent people everywhere, regardless of political affiliation are offended by Rush's comments which reflect the arrogant nastiness that the far right wing has come to symbolize. Nevertheless, you may be assured that millions of Rush's ditto heads are in total agreement with his comments.
Limbaugh's comments are indeed offensive and naive, to say the least. But I don't attribute them to anyone else, nor do I hang the "agreement" label on anyone else unless they agree with him.
You want to generalize and say that everyone that listens to him, agrees with everything he says. Of course you don't know that.
People are responsible for their own words, period.
the fact is that even though you may not agree with everything that this drug-addled clown says, millions and millions of listeners do. i, for one, find him quite amusing, but unfortunately, most listeners seem to mistake oxy-boy's entertaining patter as absolute god-given truth. obviously, this is horrifying as clowns like limbaugh exert a huge unaccountable influence on the electorate and there's little or nothing to counter it from the left.
many posts refer to limbaugh and his cohorts as being on the far right of the republican party. the fact is that these dangerous people are in the center of the party and represent the moderate members. this is how messed up the republicans are.
"the fact is that even though you may not agree with everything that this drug-addled clown says, millions and millions of listeners do." --Bebsc
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is not a "fact". There is nothing to back up such a claim. If you have polled a substantial enough sample to prove this "fact", please provide the data.
While Limbaugh is definitely (albeit unintentionally) pretty silly here, let's not pretend to read the minds of his listeners.
have you ever listed to the show? it's OBVIOUS even to a drug-addled clown like limbaugh that most of his audience agrees with him and votes the way he tells them to. this isn't rocket science. listen to the dildo-heads who call in!
You should realize if you are going to comment that Bush was vetoing a bill loosening governement funding restrictions to EMBRYONIC stem cell research.
The government already provides embryonic stem cells lines for government backed research.
the government also provides funding for adult stem cell and umbilical stem cell research.
like the FACT that the cell lines you are refering to are very few in number are largely either contaminated or played out and the 'funding' so-called is a joke. get some numbers then learn to use them
Are you intentionally obscurring the issue by leaving out the apparently inconvenient "fact" that no new lines (which some scientists have argued for) of embrionic stem-cell research will be federally funded under this administration?
>>>Limbaugh: "they [victims of diseases] were infallible. You couldn't criticize them."
What Limbaugh really means here, and what frustrates him so, is that he cannot rain down his tried-and-true, Limbaugh-esque contempt and ridicule upon these people as he would a relatively healthy person. He is faced with the fact that he might actually have to treat them as human beings. A really difficult proposition when you are the thick, odorous scum that is Rush Limbaugh.
the Jersey girls. She couldn't heap defamation and verbal abuse upon them with her trademark lack of conscience without everyone seeing her for the screeching harpy that she really is.
I do wonder how you can criticize Limbaugh when you have said much worse about him than he ever said about anyone.
Are you that unaware or do we chalk it up to typical liberal logic?
"I do wonder how you can criticize Limbaugh when you have said much worse about him than he ever said about anyone." --AA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You either have selective listening/reading comprehension abilities or you are just not paying attention. How on earth is anything Dave wrote comparable to Rush Limbaugh (among other things) comparing a shy young teenage Chelsea Clinton to a dog the way he did it on national television.
Dave's remarks were actually quite generous towards Rush considering what Rush deserves.
Who claimed Limbaugh appologized? Does this sound like someone who is sorry for what they said, or a shameless fool who is repeating a shameless and depraved accusation for partisan gain?
I don't get it. "I mean, to think that you're immune from any sort of criticism -- it's worked in the past for Democrats, but it doesn't work here."
What exactly is he upset about? Is it really so awful that Fox is trying to show people exactly what Parkinson's is, and that there are people who are against a particular kind of stem-cell research that could potentially lead to a cure, for no other reason than that they are also against abortions?
I still don't understand what it is Rush is so upset about. Can anyone enlighten me?
Fawlty,
Rush was criticizing Fox for exploiting his illness as a victim to support McCaskill in what Rush feels is a dishonest attack ad against Jim Talant.
Rush said he agrees that MJF has every right to advance his position. He also said that because MJF puts himself into the political arena to actively support McCaskill then it is perfectly justifiable for people like Rush to defend Talent and point out where Fox's ad is misleading, just as they would if anyone else were in Fox's position. (Rush today used Daffy Duck as an example.)
Rush's critique of Fox originally was that it looked to Rush like Fox was either not taking his meds, (which Fox has said he has done in the past to illustrate his disease,) or acting. When told by many, via email, that Fox probably isn't acting or off his meds, Rush said if this were true, he apologizes. (I don't know if it has been proven or disproven that Fox was taking his meds at the time.)
Of course this is only my interpretation but I see Rush's point.
Hope that helps.
in FACT Flush directed a personal attack against Mr Fox and in no way shape or form did he 'defend' talent. In fact there is no defense since every word Mr Fox used in that ad was true. I realize that that scares you, but grow-up and get used to it.
"He also said that because MJF puts himself into the political arena to actively support McCaskill then it is perfectly justifiable for people like Rush to defend Talent and point out where Fox's ad is misleading, just as they would if anyone else were in Fox's position. (Rush today used Daffy Duck as an example.)" --AA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is that some sort of weak attempt at justification for the largely ad hominem ways that Rush has chosen to "defend" Talent?
BTW, I don't think Rush ever "defends" anyone. Rush is all offense (which apparently consists largely of ad hominem attacks of all sorts). He doesn't know defense.
Democrats routinely trot out "victims" like Cindy Sheehan and Fox in apparent attempts to make rebuttals difficult due to emotions.
Here in Missouri, there is a ballot measure called the "Stem Cell Initiative" which is an attempt to limit what the politicians in Jefferson City can do. If enacted, it will establish cloning as an MO constitutional right. Yes, it involves many changes to the state constitution. It does include language restricting the implantation of clones in uteruses. So a "vote for this guy" thing for politicians running for office in Jefferson City who support embryonic stem cell activities would make some sense.
It also is logical that anyone (including celebrities) would try to get Missouri voters to vote for the Stem Cell Initiative if they think it is a good thingand do not care about the destruction of human embryos.
Now the MO senate race. It is close. Both candidates have different views on the Stem Cell Initiative, the Democrat in favor, the Republican against. However, Talent does support the other forms of stem cell research including adult and umbilical that do not destroy embryos.
Here's the faulty logic part: Fox is not asking us to vote for the Stem Cell Initiative!!!! He is asking us to vote for a candidate for the US Senate who says she is in favor of it instead of the incumbent who is against it. Whoever is elected, that person will be one of 100 US senators who may engage in voting about stem cells. JUST BECAUSE MISSOURI HAS AN INITIATIVE ON OUR BALLOT DOES NOT MAKE OUR SENATORS ANYTHING SPECIAL IN WASHINGTON STEM CELL DEBATES.
Logical: Fox supporting the Stem Cell Initiative.
Illogical: The emotional Michael J. Fox commercial for Claire McCaskill based on her approval of, but not much support of, the Stem Cell Initiative.
He keeps attacking a Man with Parkinson Disease. Racist, homophobic, sexist and disgusting. He is the lowest form of a human being.
Is the people on the other thread who came running to Mr. Limbaughs defense. My mother suffered from Parkinsons disease and there is absolutely no excuse for Mr. Limbaugh to pull this kind of stunt.
That liberals put forth victims who cannot be criticized.
unless the aim is to legitamize criminality or injustice?
This tactic seems to stem from the conservative monolith that everyone gets what they deserve because of their lack or abundance of discipline.
Do not forget the victim card conservatives will pull out in support of the mandatory minimum sentence or death penalty argument. You know the one: victims deserve the justice that only an eye for an eye can provide.
Limbaugh is a hypocrite on this.
If Rush had had the actual guts to attack the position that Mr. Fox took, that would be fine. I may disagree, but I would have no problem with taking that action. Instead Rush launches into a very personal attack, which is not only disgusting, but very typical of Rush and the people who come here to defend his terrible actions.
Funny how the idiot-cons just can't seem to grasp that point. Or refuse to. I am not 100% certain which is sadder...
AA. Bullfeathers to that. The Jersey Girls stood up on their own and forced the issue on the investigation. The fact is that Junior Bunnypants in the White and the Dark Lord down at the Blair House would have NEVER moved on an investigation on 9/11. (An aside to that is that any time the Rethugs thought they could gin up something on Clinton thought he was not being forthcoming they always said "If you act as if you're trying hide something people think you've got something to hide.) My conclusion is that too many trails go back to the Bushmeister. Same logic goes for Fox. he is using his profile as a citizen to help this Republic and those that suffer from the same disease as he does as well as others that could be helped by stem cell research. It's called "citizen politics" a concept totally lost on a Republican party that wants the men in this society walking around with handguns, over worked, over burdened with debt and scared to death of terrorits and women to be pregnant and shopping.
"That liberals put forth victims who cannot be criticized." --AA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They may not be "victims", but they are similarly uncriticizable figures (at least from ad hominem attacks) from the Republicans.
Republicans are countering with Jesus himself, James "pop goes the" Caveziel. I wonder if Dems will attack him ad hominem in even a slightly similar manner to the shameless way Limbaugh and others have attacked MJF? Now that would be a real difference between the parties.
To be fair, he's not really Jesus, but he plays him on TV.
What would Caveziel do?
P.S. and they trotted out the Cardinals star pitcher from game 4 -- Suppan, Patricia Heaton (maybe everybody loves her as much as Raymond) and the former Rams Superbowl QB, Kurt Warner as well.
Your claim that MJF cannot be criticized is bunk. You guys are apparently just too well-acquainted with attacking ad hominem to comprehend there are a myriad other ways to argue.
Stealing all your ideas from another documented plagarist?? Ann Coulter owes you a poke in the nose. THAT I'd like to see! The Scarecrow And the Cowardly Lion in a smack-down...LOL!!!! Sounds like a great YOU TUBE video moment....
Yes, that should get Rush an invite in 2007 to the Chrysler Classic PGA golf tournament as a celebrity (just as he's done in past years).
Why wouldn't Fox offer to support candidates who support stem cell research if their opponents have shown they do not? He's a credible voice - the man HAS Parkinsons - and believes embryonic stem cell research may hold a better treatment or even a cure.
Fox is not being used by the Democratic Party. He believes they may be of use to him.
As Al said, "Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot."
The more you say, the deeper you go.
Limbaugh apparently didn't do enough research, because he leaves out that in addition to illustrating the ravages of the disease, Fox also did not want to be hopped up on drugs and risk having hallucinations or other side effects when testifying.
A thick-headed moron may be able to do his radio show while he's high, but stand-up guy like Fox will make sure he has a clear mind when going before Congress.
Democrats are criticized every single time they try to use victims to make a message, yet Coulter and Rush's argument is Dems use these victims because they can't be criticized.
You can't both criticize Dems everytime they use a victim, and also claim that the Democrats keep using the victims because they can't be criticized.
And like they're one to talk .. 9/11 is their argument to backup every single thing Bush does. And you can't attack Bush for his actions because then you're attacking all the people that died in 9/11 and giving into the terrorists.
Like many other of his fellow riech wing propagandists, Limpbaugh is a complete sociopath, incapable of empathy with anyone who disagrees with him. Venom & hatred are virtually oozing from his pours when addresses dissenters to his beloved cause of fascism. I could only hope that my closest friends would have the self respect to kick my ass... & kick it with a hard, passionate intensity... if I were to ever utter such viciously ignorant comments in their presence.
On the plus side, this bloated, loathsome toad is helping to unmask the dark, cruel nature the far right.
I agree with Al Franken. Rush Limbaugh IS a big fat idiot.
I always thought Rush was crazy but I never thought he was stupid. Now I'm reconsidering. He's viciously attacking Michael J. Fox, one of the most universally-liked and respected people in America (though I believe he's Canadian), who is not only liked and respected but is also suffering from a horrible disease that many Americans have personal familiarity with. That is practically the definition of a no-win scenario, and Rush is rushing into it at full bellow.
Thanks Rush, I think this might be what finally shows regular Americans how dark your side's heart really is.
And let's campaign against purchasing any of their products.
i completely agree! here are a couple that i found on his web site. i'll post more if i can find them:
Quicken Loans: [link to www.quickenloans.com]
GoldCentral.com: [link to etools.ncol.com]
Geico: www.geico.com
Lumber Liquidators: [link to www.lumberliquidators.com]
NewsMax.com: [link to www.newsmax.com]
The really and truly sad thing about this, is the fact that the idiot Rush never criticized, or attacked the ad, and or why he might be against it. He just railed on Fox about faking his disease.
Look, Rush you big idiot, if you disagree with the ad, and disagree with what it supports why don't you make that argument instead of heaving personal attacks to and fro? Limbaugh's personal attack against Fox had nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with the content of the ad itself.
What a bloviated piece of crap Limbaugh is.
You might as well get your facts straight. Rush spent a at least a couple of hours and maybe more, over the past three days dissecting the Fox ad. I listened to him at lunch today and he spent an hour going over the ad and his reasoning for his criticism.
Go ahead and be critical if you want, but get the facts right before embarrassing yourself.
"I listened to him at lunch today and he spent an hour going over the ad and his reasoning for his criticism." --AA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
During lunch? You must have a pretty iron constitution. Can you provide a transcript to support your statement? It would be a refreshing change to see some reasoned criticism from Rush (if indeed it exists).
No one who does these spots be it Michael J. Fox, or the "Jersey Girls" have ever said that you're not allowed to challenge them. No one in the Democratic party has said that either. In fact the only ones I have ever heard say that is Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity. If you want to attack them, BRING IT ON!! but do it honesly, do it intellectually on the nerits without resorting to childishness. I might also point out to Limbaugh that if Michael Fox is now a "Jersey Girl" then so is Nancy Reagan who also advocated stem cell research when her husband was afflicted and so is Sarah Brady who came out in support of gun control (much to the dismay of the GOP and the NRA) when her husband was shot in 1980.
Yes...we all agree that Rush's statements about Fox are outrageous. But then, he's not really trying to pursuade you, is he. He's playing to the millions of listeners he has to entertain each and every day. ABC's 911 special was more perfidious, because it was trying very hard to be pursuasive.
The way to silence Rush to erode his base...which is not representative of most Americans any way. It isn't enough to just complain that they're liars and demogouges because they garner huge advertising revenues for each and every network and affiliate subscribers.
Libs need to build a market of their own to compete with the neocons...but are they culturally up to it...if Lamont's campaign in CT is any indication, the answer is a resounding NO
The best way to counter Limbaugh is to put up a serious anti-Limbaugh talker to compete. Challenge his ideas and put forth your own. Diffuse him with logical reasoning and throughtful debate.
Whining about him all the time only emboldens him more. And he laughs all the way to the bank.
How about a radio station with Al Franken and others.....what?...they have?.....they did?.....bankrupt???
never mind
did (cue evil laugh track for repuke dummies) George Soros 'pour millions' into AAR or not? So, either they are a real start-up going through real start-up problems or O'Lielly and Flush are lying to you and you are just to dammed stupid to see it.
Take your pick and then get back to us :)
1) If, as you seem to admit, that much of what Rush says is irrational, then how does one engage in rational debate?
2) How do you debate someone who would not even permit a response to follow him on CBS?
3) Unfortunately, immediate fear and greed often do more to influence voters than rational debate.
This Limbaugh story actually caused me to sign up for MediaMatters today.
Look, there are so many people that share Rush's and Annie's point of view - believe me, I've worked and socialized with plenty of them. As long as they draw huge audiences, MSM will give them the air - and advertising minutes - in proportion to their audience size and demographics.
Rush's comments are as reprehesable as a drunken Mel Gibson's. So what? Celebrities get in the news every day with their over-the-top publicity stuff, but seldom as a lead article on page one of WAPO.
So why don't the papers treat this like entertainment news? Answer: since it's "political" faux news, it's cheaper to report it like it was news, rather than actually pay for some meaningful journalistic report. Appologies and retractions appear on page 20 (getting the WAPO editor off the hook with out the cost of providing a balanced report, which should've been done in the first place).
So economics and free enterprise are the problems (and opportunities) here...one's that liberals haven't been able to exploit so far.
And another question: why do Rush, Annie, etc. garner such wide audiences? Why aren't people clamoring for more Entertainment Tonight or other lifesyle shows? I don't think that MSM is stonewalling liberals for primarily political reasons. If there were really compelling commentators from the Left, if they had sufficient drawing power, they'd be on the air competing for some of O'Reilly's air time...because it's all about the money in media. Apparently no one sees a buck in becomming a liberal firebrand in the media, and let's face it, the center is as boring as whale dung. So are liberals are perhaps to old-school and academic in their mind-set to sully themselves in shameless marketing. Do liberals hate necons as much as they hate us?
And another ponderable: why do all these millions listen to this negative hate speech every day? Who really has that much time to spend on it - doesn't Rush get 4 hours per day?? There are a lot of weak, incurious, frightened, disillusioned, failed Baby Boomers and Gen-X'ers out their looking to Jesus for deliverance and for someone to blame. No need to think about issues or taking personal responsibility, just a good strong voice who'll tell them who's dumping on them daily...people who think they're being victimized by the rest of the world...a watered-down version of lame white-power groups' manifestos...and what white person hasn't heard their rhetoric and at least momentarily thought it made a little sense, but was just a little too extreme?
I think it's really a reflection of just how badly disenfranchised and people have become over the past 25 years going all the way back to Evil Dick Nixon and Regan era and "Trickle Down Economics" and "worker productivity gains". Prosperous voters will support a "liberal" agenda (see Kennedy/Johnson era). The more disenfranchised the population becomes, the more comforting hate and blame become. And media pundits are cashing in on this market.
So how do you create a market for liberal demogouges to compete with their neocon counter-parts...and how do you make it financially attractive for MSM?
No immediate answers from me...I'm not a marketing guy...but career politicians and their consultants certainly are...they need to get into the hurly-burly market place and compete...or get beaten like a gong. It's the only way to level the playing field, because this is the new business model for MSM as traditional newpapers become more and more irrelevant and unprofitable.
Crab,
Nice rant! :-)
Perhaps one day we can discuss some of the many issues you brought up.
This is one conservative who doesn't hate anyone, let alone liberals.
Welcome to MMFA. You will find MOST of the posters here very reasonable on the left and right. You'll learn quickly those who aren't.
There was actually a local conservative talk radio host in my area who was defending him. Some idiot named Mark Levin. He wrote that joke of a book called "Men in Black" about the Supreme Court. He was also saying that people should not vote Democratic because Charles Schumer would become Chairman of some committee in the U.S. Senate. He was calling him "Chucky Schmucky" and saying that he was a moron. And there were actually people calling in and agreeing with him in his defense of Limbaugh. Not surprising, really. There will probably always some sliver of troglodytes. It still is sad, though. The desperation is unbelievable. You could hear it in his voice. What a loser. Him and Limbaugh.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
and despite what Rush has said and people (mostly innocently and mistakenly) keep repeating......Michael Fox WAS taking his medication. The motions that are seen in the ads are from well known side effects of the drugs that he has to take. IF he had NOT taken his meds, what we would have seen would have been a person who was stiff, with a "mask like" expression and barely able to speak.
Still, these ads and an interview that he did in St. Loius (and is on youtube) are heartbreaking and difficult to watch.........but we all SHOULD watch, because this is what millions go through every day, just to be able to talk, to be somewhat normal.......and what about the ones that can't afford those meds? All STR holds out hope for so many people, perhaps even some day, one of us.
(And Limbaugh is an arrogant,stupid, bigoted assclown......but we all knew that already. All he has to do is open his mouth to prove it.)
that Flush was trying to imply Mr Fox needs to take medication for a MENTAL disorder as opposed to a PHYSICAL disease(or syndrom or whatever the technical terminology is) . And his weak-minded defenders like tommy-boy are wailing and gnashing their teeth to try to deflect the blame and outrage this brings on the entire GOP seeing how quickly they have jumped on the slimewagon.
Now, I'll admit that there is a shred of truth to his claim that "victims are infallible." Any guy who has been in an arguement with his lady friend knows that as soon as the first tear is shed, he has lost the arguement.
But if victims are infallible, and cannot be challenged, how is Limbaugh able to challenge the Michael J. Fox ad? He challenged it, and his challenging of it gained national recognition. It doesn't mean Limbaugh is right. It doesn't mean McKaskill's campaign is right. But the right to challenge the ad is certainly still there and is now in the hands of the public to decide.
Limbaugh and Coulter will be forever moaning about the infallibility of the victim status all the while bashing them. So ironic (sic). And I guess in the meantime, THEY are victims themselves because of this grossly unfair advanatge.
It's just so unfair that most people do have a degree of compassion and empathy. There is no defending these scumbags. That must cause major chagrin for the empathy challenged neocon barkers.
Has MR. Fox ever called himself a victim?? Did the Jersey Girls call themselves victims? Don't think so. Rush, Annie C. and some posters here refer to these people as victims to pidgeon-hole them so that THEY can demonize these people. If someone really digs back to the Arlen Spector campaign, you may find that someone, maybe even Mr. Fox, was on Arlen's side concern stem-cell. Where was the bemoaning then?
This is not an issue about stem-cell research, this posting is about the lack of respect that Mr. Limbaugh paid to someone who is ill. Simple. And this line about Liberals always trotting out victims is just another Con Job. As posted elsewhere, Cons do the same thing but Rush does not condemn them. For example, babies being removed from incubators in Iraq...con job..never a word for the true believers. A pass was given. Keep looking you'll find more...if and when you open your eyes.
Also recall the signing of the stem cell legislation. Georgie was there with all of his snowflake babies.
..and replying to a few of them, one point has stood out to me.
Nobody criticizing Rush actually illustrates what Rush said.
All of this scorn heaped about is based on what?
That Rush thought MJF was exagerating the symptoms of his illness to push an attack ad?
As you can read in the MMFA account above, Rush said he had never seen MJF shake like this. He then surmized that either Fox was acting or not taking his meds.
When it came to his attention that it is most likely that MJF was not acting nor off his meds, Rush said if he were wrong, he apologized.
Now so many here want to flail and crucify Rush because of what? For Rush not believing an actor making an attack ad? For having an opinion that might be in error?
What I find laughable is that so many of you write much much worse regarding conservatives and think nothing of it. I am constantly amazed of how unaware so many of you are about your own biases. How so many of you use vitriol and name calling in sophomoric diatribes against Bush, the right, and anyone who might have an alternate point of view. What is most amazing to me is you see nothing wrong with it. You can get mad at Rush all you want but many of you express your sentiments in far more hateful ways.
So who is worse? Rush or you?
You defend Rush Limbaugh for smearing Michael J. Fox, then get on your high horse and preach to us about what shameful people we are for calling Rush names?
Since you are so chock-full of self-awareness, surely you realize how foolish THAT looks.
If you actually took the time to read what I wrote, you would see that I am only trying to clarify for the rest of you what Rush actually did say as opposed to all the ranting by those who are using this occasion to say things much worse than that which they ascribe to Rush.
So next time please respond to what I write instead of what fits your agenda. Rather than try to come up with a snarky response, why don't you consider the criticism I offer.
I did read what Rush actually said. The transcript was posted here on Monday. It seemed clear to me that he was bashing Michael J. Fox because Fox had the temerity to make an ad for a Democrat. Ironically, Rush combined this Fox-bashing with a world-class whine about how he's not allowed to criticize people like Fox. It's the kind of cheap, slimy, bob-and-weave rhetoric Rush is an expert at. Buy it if you want, but don't expect the people here, of all places, to do likewise.
you are free to interpret the quote as you wish.
However I think Rush's criticism was based on the misleading verbage of the ad and the heavy handed visual of Mr. Foxs' disease to imply that Mr. Talant wants to keep Mr. Fox from getting better.
His so called "whine" as you put it, has been proven true, at least here, as so many people forget the crux of what Rush was criticizing and instead go off on their own vitriolic diatribe castigating Rush in derogatory terms far worse than Rush, simply because he was critical of Mr. Fox.
If that is not liberals putting "victims" above reproach, I don't know what is.
Oh well. I've stated my feelings on this issue and defended them enough in other threads. Time for me to move.on. :-)
Even though we may disagree, I appreciate people taking their time discussing this with me. cya
why only "acting or off his medication?" Aren't there any other reasons for Mr. Fox's reactions, like his disease. Of course, Rush narrowed it down to only two (2) choices both of which make Mr. Fox look like the bad guy. C'mon AA, Rush had other options than the two he threw out. Do you agree?
Well, it goes without saying he had other options. After all, he could have said anything.
So forgive me, but I don't get your point?
that Rush is trying to..and has not yet succeeded in throwing a Wedge-Issue into this election to get the Religious Bible Right to get out and vote. And he is using the Fox commercial as bait. He is not stupid, just a hypocrite.
...when Michael J. Fox made an ad for Arlen Specter, wasn't he?
MJF's ad is an attack ad if you feel conflicted about your position on embryonic stem cell research. Otherwise, it is either factual or nonfactual.
I think one can characterize an attack ad as an attack ad no matter whether one is in agrees or disagrees.
:-)
FOX: "As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research. In Missouri, you can elect Claire McCaskill, who shares my hope for cures. Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us the chance for hope. They say all politics is local, but that's not always the case. What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans, Americans like me."
Did MJF go after Talent on any basis other than his position on the issue?
Why is it acceptable, Mr. Civility, to characterize a disagreement as an attack? Isn't that attacking the messenger?
one last comment.
The misleading part is that Fox does not differentiate between stem cell research and EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Please see my other posts in the other threads regarding the legality of embryonic stem cell research.
To say Talant wants to criminalize the science is disengenuous and deceitful on many levels.
McCaskill's campaign by using a celebrity victim of Parkinsons like Fox, who is in turn, using misleading with his comments, plays into the attack. It has the visual effect of implying that Mr. Talant does not want Fox to get better.
Now I am not saying they can't run the ad. I just don't see all the hubub over Rush criticizing it. Especially saying that he apologizes if Mr. Fox isn't acting and/or not off his meds.
So I do not accept the ad as simply a disagreement, I think it is justifiable to call it an attack ad. Secondly I do not say McCaskill cannot emply MJF in her ads. Nor do I object to her having attack ads. I would guess Talant has some too.
On a side note, I am weary of attack ads altogther. It would be nice if the candidates would advertise what they are for and not what the other person is against. But that will never happen. Oh well.
Thats it. I'm really done. If others have responded to my earlier posts with questions and challenges, I'm afraid I'll just have to catch you next time. You and/or anyone else is welcome to the last word.
Take care everyone.
The misleading part is that Fox does not differentiate between stem cell research and EMBRYONIC stem cell research.
So Fox is being "disingenuous and deceitful" because, you say, he's leaving out part of the story. Well then, in order to abide by your own standards of absolute straightforwardness, you should stop saying things like this:
The government already provides embryonic stem cells lines for government backed research...the government also provides funding for adult stem cell and umbilical stem cell research.
without including the fact that, as Open_Mind pointed out far upthread, the government will not allow any federal funding of NEW LINES of embryonic stem cells. Otherwise you're being just as "disingenuous" and "deceitful" as Fox is.
So who is worse? Rush or you?
- anotheramerican
I'm just laughing too hard.
Another "American" loyalist is crying because of the supposed "vitriol" on this board. I'm crying now because our democracy is going down the tubes because of unimformed lemmings and authoritarian follower loyalists.
Which is worse? Warranted dismay on this board or our lost democracy to the fascist lemmings?
I've posted several comments up to an hour and a half before some other posters and seem to always get my posts placed after those posts. On this thread I'm now dead last.
Is there something I need to do so that my post can be linked chronologically with the post I'm responding to? This has happened more than once.
If you post by going to POST A NEW COMMENT at the bottom of the page, your post will appear at the end of the thread. If you post by clicking on "Reply to this comment" your post will appear immediately below the post you're replying to (and below any other replies to that post, and replies to those replies, etc.).
Yet today on ABC Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer interviewed Hannity about Limbaugh's comments. Now what do you think one twit would say about another twit. Next, will she have Coulter critique comments by Beck. Why does the so called liberal media give time to these idiots? Afterall, they have their own platform. But then again Couric had Hannity on her "Free Speech" segment the other night. Why these networks are called "liberal." is beyond me.
While cigarface spews babble about a mystery script... We will now see the Grand Old Playbook unfold with every Hail Mary pass possible and the team roster fully revealed. Take notes.
And exactly what did Rush have to say about the Republicans who so crassly attempted to use Terri Schiavo as a poster child for their purported "culture of life?"