| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Missouri’s Jim Talent: Your typical heartless and cruel conservative
Well at least that’s what you’d think if you saw actor Michael J. Fox’s campaign ad for Talent’s opponent Claire McCaskill, where he pushes for government funded stem cell research.
I’ve no issue with Fox. He suffers from Parkinson’s disease (which is very apparent when you watch the video as he apparently didn’t take his medication for a day [or more?] to show what Parkinson’s is doing to him) and feels extensive stem cell research, funded by the government, might cure others who suffer fro Parkinson’s and other diseases. He’s gone to Capitol Hill several times to lobby for government funding of stem cell research. I also don’t believe, as some do, that Fox was “exploited” – he knew what he was doing when he signed on to do the ad. My issue is with McCaskill, who is once again demagoguing an issue by shamlessly toying with the emotions of voters in Missouri.
She did it before using a tactic Democrats are infamous for using: the race baiting tactic. Here’s what she said before a group of St. Louis elected Democrats back in September:
“George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black.”
The Senate race in Missouri is a tight one right now, with Talent and McCaskill nearly tied as per the latest Rasmussen poll, so I guess she’s pulling out all the stops in an effort to defeat Talent, and doing what desperate Democrats do when they want to win elections: paint Republicans as a bunch of heartless, selfish (and racist) thugs who don’t care about helping the sick and the needy. It’s disgusting, and just one more on a long list of reasons why Claire McCaskill shouldn’t be elected to serve in the US Senate.
Update: John Amato at Crooks and Liars posts an email from a reader who alerted him to some comments Rush made on his program today about Fox:
“I stated when I saw the ad, I was commenting to you about it, that he was either off the medication or he was acting. He is an actor, after all.”
The emailer (named Doug) wrote:
Rush Limbaugh today accused Michael J. Fox, actor and Parkinson’s Disease victim, of deliberately going off of his meds to appear on camera with exaggerated symptoms of his disease for dramatic effect. Fox appeared in a recent Clair McHaskill (D-MO) Senate campaign ad, touting the need for stem cell research. Limbaugh even goes so far as to accuse Fox of faking his symptoms all together.
These emails claim Fox has admitted in interviews that he goes off his medication.” A tireless search of the Internet produces no such record of any interview, or any statement in which Fox has ever admitted or even suggested that he ever goes off his Parkinson’s treatment at all, let alone for the purposes of shaking it up for the television audience.
He conducted a “tireless search” and couldn’t find anything? It took me all of five minutes to find a quote from Michael J. Fox from his 2002 memoir Lucky Man, where he admits to making a “deliberate choice” to appear before a Senate subcommittee back in 1999 without medication. Via an excerpt from the book posted on the MJF Foundation for Parkinson’s website (emphasis added):
Snippets of my testimony were featured on several of the nightly news broadcasts. One line in particular from my prepared statement got a lot of play: “In my forties, I can expect challenges most people wouldn’t face until their seventies and eighties, if ever. But with your help, if we all do everything we can to eradicate this disease, when I’m in my fifties I’ll be dancing at my children’s weddings.” I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling.
I’ve no problem with this, as you can talk about the effects a disease has on someone all day long – seeing the effect it has on sufferers of it is more powerful, and I can understand why Fox would do this. So it wasn’t wrong of Rush to speculate that Fox was off his medication, because Fox has admitted to doing that before. I watched a documentary about Fox several weeks ago where either he or a friend of his (can’t remember which) talked about (him) appearing before that Congressional subcommittee without his medication. I was moved to tears seeing what he was going through.
As far as Rush’s suggestion that Fox may have been “acting”, well, that’s a quote I want to see in context, but I’m not sure even in context that that part of his quote couldn’t be labelled disgraceful. I’ll check the transcript later this evening.
Update II: Just checked Rush’s site. Here’s what he said in context (emphasis added):
Now, people are telling me that they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. All right, then I stand corrected. I’ve seen him on Boston Legal. I’ve seen him on a number of stand-up appearances. I know he’s got it; it’s pitiable that he has the disease. It is a debilitating disease, and I understand that fully. Just stick with me on this.
All I’m saying is I’ve never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. 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, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances.
[...]
I must share this. I have gotten a plethora of e-mails from people saying Michael J. Fox has admitted in interviews that he goes off his medication for Parkinson’s disease when he appears before Congress or other groups as a means of illustrating the ravages of the disease. So lest there be any misunderstanding, we talked about a half hour ago of the commercial that’s running for Claire McCaskill featuring Michael J. Fox on what appears to be when he’s off his meds. I have never seen him this way and I stated when I was commenting to you about it that he was either off his medication or acting. He is an actor after all, and started hearing from people, “Oh, no, I’ve seen him on TV this way, this is how the disease has affected him when he’s not on his medications.” Then the e-mails started coming in saying he’s admitted not to taking them in certain circumstances so as to illustrate how the disease affects people. All of which I understand, and I’m not even critical of that. Parkinson’s disease is hideous.
[...]
So let there be no misunderstanding about this. I stand corrected, did not know and had never seen Michael J. Fox in the way I saw him in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. But people have and have seen him say in interviews that he doesn’t take his medications when he wants to make an impression to show people just how horrible the disease is. And it’s true of all Parkinson’s patients. At some point the medication will not work, and the condition will become permanent, and there’s nothing pleasant about it. It’s one of the most frustrating diseases one can have. Pope had it. It’s not pleasant in any way, shape, manner, or form, nor did I mean to implicate that one could easily act it out for the purposes of a commercial.
Better.
BTW, here’s the ad:
Others blogging about this: Dean Barnett, Lorie Byrd, Anchoress
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
46 Responses to “Missouri’s Jim Talent: Your typical heartless and cruel conservative”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
BTW Jim, the things that come shining thru from your latest rant are that you are a bigot who hates religious people, particularly Christians, and that you believe everything should be done by government not by the private sector. I’m an atheist, and I don’t even begin to approach your level of vitriol or hatred for Christians, you’ve got a real bigoted intolerance problem there. And don’t go breaking your arm patting yourself on the back for being sensitive and caring enough to spend every last dollar that’s not your own to solve a problem. There’s no limit to the amount of other people’s money you’re willing to spend in order to feel good about yourself.
Got it, understand, thanks for the glimpse into the mind of the left.
Jim wrote an opinion, “Just because something that has been being researched for 40 years has results that aren’t matched by something that has only been being researched for 8 years it does not prove anything about the long term potential of the one that hasn’t been being studied as long.
Jim. That is your opinion. There is NO WAY to claim that Sev lied. Sev wrote an opinion. I agree with him and so do people in the field. The condescension and accusation of lying isn’t necessary and doesn’t help the debate.
Jim accused, “You and Severian are both lying through your little teeth and you both know it. ”
No. We are stating an opinion just like you are.
Jim cast aspersions writing, “Severian isn’t bright enough to …”
Is that necessary Jim? I’m thinking you are not very nice.
Jim asserted, “The fact that the majority of people opposing ESC oppose it because of their religiously based opposition to abortion is one that everyone knows,”
That’s what the press (drive-by legacy media) says. Sev and I are two examples of people and there are other people I know who aren’t basing their opposition on religious reasons. But it isn’t a strong argument for you to dismiss religious people either.
Jim wrote, “I haven’t seen anything posted by you or Bakky that indicates any thoughts”
Well….. are you deserving of more? You have repeated your 8 year versus 40 year message. But mostly called people liars and made disparaging remarks.
Jim without looking in the mirror wrote, “Prove me wrong by keeping a civil discourse instead of lying about people who point out your logical fallacies.”
My post was more civil than yours I believe.
Jim is doing the tried and true debating tactic of attempting to move the argument sideways Bak. Deflect away from the topic at hand, so you don’t have to justify or provide a rational explanation of your opinion, but rather try and make the debate about the tone of your opponents, how mean they are, etc. It’s part and parcel of what our beloved ST has just blogged about with respect to the MJF “controversy.” It’s common, but it doesn’t play well here, we have seen it too many times, and I think it’s getting less and less effective as more and more people are getting fed up with it. Jim is, at the heart of it, upset that we can parse his arguments to get to the kernel and don’t get blinded by the chaff.
Rather than provide a rationale as to why government should fund a less than promising technology (liberals are always willing to spend other people’s money), or why valid ethical concerns (valid to more than just religious zealots) should be ignored, he instead tries to make this about how mean his opponents in the argument are.
Well, Jim, here’s a free bit of advice for you. Stop sitting there with a runny nose complaining about how the evil Republicans won’t pay for government to wipe it for you, and get off your butt and wipe it yourself. Take some time and money, do some research, and find out which universities are leading the way in ESC research. Give them some money, create a non-profit (only please, don’t take 80% of the till for “administration” as so many “charities” do), setup a dot org web site, push it, get the blogs (if you’re serious and sincere about it, both right and left blogs will support it), collect donations, manage them, find a couple or three researchers and support them, and above all monitor their progress to make sure they aren’t just blowing your money, look for results. In other words, take responsibility for it yourself if you want it done, that’s the beauty of this country, self-starters are respected here, and no one will try and stop you, remember, ESC research is not illegal.
I suspect that Jim prefers the “liberal” way, show you care by spending other people’s money, but wouldn’t raise a finger to do it on his own. You can surprise us Jim, and earn our respect, by doing something other than complaining.
This is my last post because frankly, neither one of you are worth wasting any more of my time. Is ESC illegal now? No. Has the Republican party attempted to make it illegal at both the federal and state levels? Yes. In fact the main reason for Missouri Amendment 2 which Talent opposes is that his Republican allies in the state legislature have tried every year for the last six years to make it illegal. There are private research institutions who won’t invest any more money in Missouri to expand their facilities because of the threat of those facilities suddenly becoming illegal. There are researchers who will not come to these facilities to work because they could move, get established and suddenly not be able to do their work. The constant threat of it being rendered illegal at the federal level has caused more development to take place overseas instead of the U.S.
Bakky, what I said is not simply an opinion. This is the debating tactic of the ignorant right, to claim that if a fact or basic logical argument is put forth, claim it’s just an opinion. It’s not simply my opinion. Refute it logically or admit that you’re wrong, one or the other. Don’t just claim it’s only one person’s opinion. But that would require logic, something neither you nor Severian are capable of comprehending as you’ve both proven over and over again.
Ok, everyone, debate the ISSUES not each other’s personalities or this thread will be closed.
Jim S,
Don’t let the hit you where the good Lord split you on your way out.
Amendment 2 writes into the Missouri Constitution the right to clone humans. Be honest for a change. You haven’t been here and liars are found out quickly here.
When you manage to come up with something other than opinion stated as fact, and back that up with references Jim, then you will be worth paying attention to. Until then, all your complaints are just more liberal whining and obsfucation. When you address the fact that the amendment in Missouri is a back door run around that guarantees the right to perform human cloning, not guarantee the ability to do ESC, they you may be worth debating. When you address the fact that you seem to see no problem in government continuing to increase the amount of money it spends regardless of ethical issues or practical things like potential for progress in a reasonable timeframe, instead of hiding behind insults, then perhaps there will be some room for discussion. When you decide to not call anyone who doesn’t automatically want to spend tons of taxpayers money on dubious research (both ethically and benefit wise) a Bible thumper, that is, decide to debate the issues honestly and not mischaracterize your opponents as stereotypes, then you might be worth paying attention to. These are the issues you’re dodging.
Oh my PCD! You said “good Lord!” You must be one of those hideous right wing Bible thumpers! How dhast you say such a thing!
English 101 teaches how to distinguish opinion versus fact. Just because you believe it to be true doesn’t make it fact.
Judgment calls no matter how much evidence you have are always opinion. We stated 0 (zero) versus 72 as our evidence on what we are basing our opinion on. Jim stated 8 versus 40 years (leaving out the fact that the last decade has been the most advances in the field and technology thereby equalizing some of the 40 versus 8. Jim repeats it more adamantly and ignores our statements of fact on which we base our opinion and then calls us “liars”. Nice.
Thank you ST for letting us address what opinion versus fact is and the basis for all of our opinions.
We are here through your gracious patience and efforts.
In the end this comes down to the basic liberal vs conservative debate – spending. We’re already pumping money into this here in CA and how much would you like to bet that 10 years from now the results of that spending will be nil? And then the liberal arguments will be along the lines of, “Well, we just aren’t spending enough of your money on this. If we put x billions more into it, why, then we’ll get results!”