E-Mail 'MJ Fox records another ad, this one for Michael Steele's opponent Ben Cardin' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'MJ Fox records another ad, this one for Michael Steele's opponent Ben Cardin' to a friend

Loading ...

22 Responses to "MJ Fox records another ad, this one for Michael Steele’s opponent Ben Cardin"

Severian says:

October 24, 2006 at 10:42 am

Well, I see the Democrats are up to their usual tricks again. When you don’t have any plans, and what ideals and plans you do have run contrary to what the average American really believes in, trot out the cripples to tug on the heartstrings of the electorate. They tried the same thing, shamelessly using Max Cleland and having him sit out in front of Bush’s Texas ranch for the cameras. Pretty pathetic and disgusting.
Michael says:

October 24, 2006 at 11:23 am

Severian –

You don’t think we should try to find cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s? Sometimes those ‘cripples’ are people we care about, and people that need our help. I can see both sides on most issues, but stem cell research is not one of them, can you fill me in on your position? I’m just curious.
Baklava says:

October 24, 2006 at 11:45 am

Michael, we are “try[ing] to find cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimers”. Your question contains a false implication that we aren’t or that people are opposed to it. That’s the unfortunate thing about these ads.

There are 2 big questions in my mind:
1) Do you recognize that the GOVERNMENT is funding stem cell research and including embryonic stem cell research but with limits excluding new lines of embryonic stem cells?
2) Do you recognize that the private sector can and HAS found 40+ uses for umbilical (but not embryonic and not for the lack of trying) stem cells? Given that the private sector meets the demand for a cure with research and development, what does it matter that you have to elect a Democrat over a Republican on one issue when an individual might be less inclined to have the government fund such research.
3) President Bush is the first president to have funding for stem cell research. Do you recognize that?

It seems to me that you and others in the stem cell debate are being a little loose with the truth.

For you to fall into the trap that Republicans don’t “care” about ‘cripples’ (your word) or any other person or topic is the typical liberal mindset based on what you’ve been fed by your leadership and the drive by legacy media. Welcome to an alternative source of information!!

I hope you learned
Michael says:

October 24, 2006 at 12:22 pm

Baklava,

Thanks for the well-structured response. I have some issues with it, though:

1. Use of the word ‘cripple’ was in quotes in my post, because I was quoting the previous poster. Please don’t accuse me of using a derogatory term.

2. “Do you recognize that the GOVERNMENT is funding stem cell research and including embryonic stem cell research but with limits excluding new lines of embryonic stem cells?” I do recognize this, I think that the government can do more.

3. “President Bush is the first president to have funding for stem cell research. Do you recognize that?” I do recognize this, he is also the second president to preside over a country in which stem-cell research exists. Bush recently vetoed a bill which would have allowed Federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of the embryo.

If my alternative source of information has to be conservative blogs, I guess I’ll stick to the MSM.
Severian says:

October 24, 2006 at 12:51 pm

Michael, you should take some time and do some research on the stem cell debate. Bak has it right. And just because the govt is not funding something does not mean it isn’t happening, it’s not the place of government to be everything to everbody. The whole stem cell debate is not about medicine or science and everything about big government and a pro-abortion battle. If embryonic stem cells are so wonderful, private industry will put forth the money and effort to develop them. And, embryonic stem cells have proven to be a far more mixed bag than adult stem cells, very often resulting in “cures” that are much worse than the disease, generating tumors and cancers and other maladies, but the supporters don’t want to discuss or admit to this. This is part and parcel of the Democratic and liberal approach, use junk science to attempt to cloud the issue at hand, and use the feeble and crippled to tug at heartstrings rather than use logic and reason. If your argument won’t stand up to careful scrutiny, the approach is usually to go emotional with it in an attempt to sway people anyway rather than change your position. That’s the liberal/Dem way of things.
Baklava says:

October 24, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Micheal wrote, “I do recognize this, I think that the government can do more.”

By lying and implying a ban on funding is in effect? Because that is what liberals are doing mostly on the issue. You recognize it’s a lie so I’d disseminate far and wide that it is a lie. A lie designed to tug at the heartstrings of the “well intentioned” “feeling” liberal to vote for the Democrat because of those rascally mean wepublicans.

Michael wrote, “I do recognize this, he is also the second president to preside over a country in which stem-cell research exists. Bush recently vetoed a bill which would have allowed Federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of the embryo.”

There in lies the meat of the argument. It wasn’t in your first post. I’m glad we are here. Do you Michael recognize that there are ethical and moral concerns with the destruction of new lines of embyos? Is it so black and white to you that Jim Talent must be defeated and Claire must have an ad not getting to the meat of the matter but basically tarnishing Jim Talent (and other Republicans) as non-caring like you did in your first post. It is precisely due to caring that the people who have their position have their position. They care about life and are looking at the fact that 40+ uses have been found for umbilical cord stem cells but ZERO (0) have been found for embryonic stem cells (because they are so immature and grow hair, teeth, everything) and don’t see the need to expand embryonic stem cell research with new lines of embyonic stem cells. Impugning people as not caring is not really debating and isn’t helpful.

Michael wrote, “If my alternative source of information has to be conservative blogs, I guess I’ll stick to the MSM.”

Not very nice to slap the face of hostess. Given the track record of the drive by legacy main stream media, I’d say Sister’s factual basis is a lot higher. I’ve been at this since before 1991 when I converted from liberalism to conservativism after visiting the library that year 3 times a week. While I’m giving and allow for liberals to be “well intentioned”, I’ll also point out that they don’t (you didn’t) return the favor and in fact impugned our ability to “care” or not.

That does nothing for the debate but degenerate the conversation. Is that what you learned from the MSM? :-w
Baklava says:

October 24, 2006 at 2:24 pm

Dean Barnett has cystic fybrosis and writes today again about Mr. Fox and stem cells. He’s right on in my opinion.

Does Dean Barnett not “care”? No.
Michael says:

October 24, 2006 at 2:25 pm

Well, what I learned from the right wing blogosphere is that ‘the liberal/Dem way of thinking’ is to reduce political races to a single issue, to ‘lie’ by ‘tugging on heart strings’, and to try to appear ‘well intentioned’ while smearing the right as ‘uncaring’. If I were a liberal, I might take offense to that, but I’m not, so I’ll thank you for your input, and move on to a more balanced arena of discussion. I apologize if I sound snarky, I do appreciate the discourse, just not the attempts to categorize everyone who supports one side of an issue as liberal or engaging in democratic trickery.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. My original point was in response to the original post, that claimed that the ads were contrary to what americans actually believe in (a blatant lie, 56% of americans support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research – USA Today/Gallup, Aug. 2005) and that it was Democrats up to their ‘usual tricks’.
Baklava says:

October 24, 2006 at 2:47 pm

What did you do with your first post Michael?

You impugned our desire to “find cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s”.

When I finally got to the jist of the issue – it isn’t about caring – you leave.

My question, “Do you Michael recognize that there are ethical and moral concerns with the destruction of new lines of embyos?“, remains on the table. It is the heart of the matter. Not all this superfluous stuff about whether we care or not. Because we do.

Micheal wrote, “56% of americans support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research”

I’m one of the 44% who doesn’t support federal funding of either embryonic or umbilical cord stem cell research. This bond in CA that passed and mortgages 3 BILLION dollars to pay companies to do stem cell research is such a crock and a lot of it is ending up in lawyers hands with lawsuits left and right about licensing fees that one company is trying to claim concerning a stem cell research process.

This country succeeds wonderfully when the PRIVATE sector supplys for the demand. There is a demand for a cure for diseases and companies want to be the one who find a breakthrough. The efficiency of the DMV will not be the reason for a breakthrough. Over 40+ uses have been found for umbilican cord stem cells and not due to federal funds. Uses for embryonic stem cells have been ZERO for a reason.

Did you hear any of this in your stint at other more balanced sources of information? Or did they continue to act like the drive by legacy media and boil it down to 44% bad 56% good? 44% religious nuts, 56% compassionate.

I hope you can get to my question. I bolded it for you…
Michael says:

October 24, 2006 at 3:51 pm

Yes, I do recognize that there are ethical and moral concerns with the destruction of new lines of embryos. This is the issue at hand, and I am aware that there is a controversy. I also think that there are ethical and moral concerns with not using every possible avenue, public or private, to try and find treatments for as-yet-untreatable, debilitative diseases. I believe that private pharmaceutical companies should pursue this goal as well as publicly funded academic and scientific institutions. That is the issue, you stand on one side, and I stand on the other. This doesn’t disqualify the issue from being used in campaign advertisements, as voters should be aware of the candidates’ positions on ethical dilemmas.

Baklava – I commend your ability to engage in intellectual discourse, and apologize if I have offended you. I respect your beliefs, but I myself took offense to a comment by a previous poster that the campaign advertisement was “Democratic tricks” and characterization of disabled persons as “cripples”.
Severian says:

October 24, 2006 at 4:04 pm

I myself took offense to a comment by a previous poster that the campaign advertisement was “Democratic tricks” and characterization of disabled persons as “cripples”.

But you apparently seem to have no problem with people lying and misrepresenting the facts of the issue in order to sway people. Democrats an liberals deliberately implying that Bush and the evil Republicans are outlawing embryonic stem cell research, when the facts are that not only is it legal but that research using any of the existing lines that have been cloned from the originals is being government funded is apparently OK by you, but pointing out that the Dems parade the crippled and maimed just to generate sympathy and cloud the issue is offensive. Right, got it.

Sounds suspiciously like you believe that the ends justifies the means, and that has never worked out well. If you, or the Democrats, want to sell an idea, lying about it in such a transparent way right off the bat is a damned poor way of generating support.
Michael says:

October 24, 2006 at 4:29 pm

But you apparently seem to have no problem with people lying and misrepresenting the facts of the issue in order to sway people.

Severian – this is something that both parties do all the time, in the interest of politics. Can you honestly tell me that the Republicans have never lead a misleading campaign to try to attract votes? This is what politics in our country has been reduced to, and both parties are to blame.

However, saying that Republicans do not support stem-cell research as wholeheartedly as Democrats is not a lie, it is a fact.

Also, you decry embryonic stem cell research as ‘junk science’, then how do you classify Intelligent Design?

I’d probably be a Republican myself, if it weren’t for that party’s blatant disregard for science in general. Therefore I consider myself an independent (fiscal conservative, social progressive).
forest hunter says:

October 24, 2006 at 6:16 pm

…say the secrut woid and……LINK

LINK
Baklava says:

October 24, 2006 at 6:17 pm

Michael wrote, “This doesn’t disqualify the issue from being used in campaign advertisements, as voters should be aware of the candidates’ positions on ethical dilemmas.”

Certainly not. And it certainly would not “disqualify” conservatives from being able to point out what isn’t said in the ad or isn’t said by the drive-by legacy media and how things are being misrepresented. I love the fact that Claire might be turning people off to here style of politics because she isn’t debating or representing the issue very well. But if conservatives get BEAT because our views aren’t popular then we need to better tune or message, or figure out how to inform more people as to the complete stem cell issue or “let it go”. I certainly wouldn’t want to let an issue like this go because the money is BETTER spent by the private sector and it isn’t something the governments should spend money on because as with everything government spends money on there are so much administrative costs. The Welfare recipient receives 28 cents to the dollar for a reason. It is due to the inefficiencies of the government. Economics and private versus public spending efficiencies should be taught by the media with examples. Unfortunately, all should be accomplished by government to the media. We should de-privatize all media and see how efficient they become at disinforming us!!!

Michael wrote in response to Sev, “Can you honestly tell me that the Republicans have never lead a misleading campaign to try to attract votes?”

That isn’t the issue. That is classic diversion. It is not the matter that all people lie some of the time. It is the issue that generally Democrats and liberals are calling things a “ban” when yet governments ARE spending money on embryonic and umbilical stem cell research. Wouldn’t it be nice if on THIS ISSUE the left was honest (and yes I mean generally speaking)???

Michael wrote, “However, saying that Republicans do not support stem-cell research as wholeheartedly as Democrats is not a lie, it is a fact.

Yes. And libertarians who want an 80% cut in government probably don’t either generally. To me the issue is size of government. Total government spending and government spending on health as a category has gone up EVERY year for over 6 decades. There is a limit to what governments can spend and there must be set priorities. It’d be NICE to have UTOPIA where we didn’t have to worry about any disease could spend as much as we wanted on anything but to demagogue an issue as people not “caring” is mean in itself. May I call you mean if you continue on the Republicans don’t “care” meme?

Michael wrote, “Also, you decry embryonic stem cell research as â€˜junk science’, then how do you classify Intelligent Design?”

Classic diversion from the topic again. Embryonic stem cells are highly immature and produce just about anything from teeth to hair to nerve cells to skin with no ability for humans to control that action. There are ZERO (0) uses for embryonic stem cells and there are plenty of people studying the issue that do not see hope in embryonic stem cell research. Yet, you “FEEL” good and “CARING” I’m sure for pouring money down the black hole. It’s nice to feel superior as we all want to but basically keeping people misinformed is on THIS ISSUE the goal of liberals, Democrats and the drive-by legacy media (as in many issues).

The paradox of being a fiscal conservative but social progressive is you aren’t a fiscal conservative by definition. You want government spending for many a crisis I’m thinking………….. many a crisis……
Severian says:

October 24, 2006 at 6:55 pm

The Welfare recipient receives 28 cents to the dollar for a reason. It is due to the inefficiencies of the government.

There is a great story about Peter the Great of Russia relating to this. Peter was at a banquet one night, and he asked his treasurer how it was that the people were complaining that taxes were too high but he had no money. The treasurer (who was embezzeling big time) took a handful of snow (this being Russia after all) and handed it to the person next to him and said “pass this to the Czar.” After being passed down the long table thru dozens of hands, by the time Peter got it all he had was a damp palm. “That is what happens to the taxes” the treasurer was noted to remark. It’s the same today.

Nice diversion attempt Michael, why not bring in ouija boards too. Embryonic stem cell use may or may not be junk science, we have no idea as yet, but as of now it has proven to offer unpredictable and mostly catastrophic results, as opposed to other types of stem cells (adult from bone marrow, or umbilical cord cells) that are far more promising. What is junk science about it is the assumption and trumpeting that it absolutely will solve this problem and that problem, it’s using the scientific ignorance of the general populace in order to push an agenda instead of trying to really help them make informed decisions. When Edwards said that they’d make people rise up and walk in a few years because they’d push embryonic stem cell research, that’s using junk science to push an agenda. When global warming proponents like Gore deliberately use thoroughly discredited “science” like the hockey stick as “proof” of human induced global warming in order to get elected and push a socialist agenda, that’s junk science. When people continue to prevent the use of DDT, despite the proven fact that DDT is safer than any known effective pesticide (Rachel Carson was a hack), to the detriment of millions of Africans who have died of malaria, that’s an inexcusable use of junk science.

Once again, you seem to do the same thing I so often see out of liberals and Democrats, you pull the “The Republicans do it too” to excuse bad behavior and lies. So what? Didn’t your mother ever tell you that if everyone else jumped off a cliff you shouldn’t too? Using other people’s failings and dishonesty as an excuse is not compelling. I also note that you said you were insulted by calling someone crippled, but you didn’t seem to object to their being cynically used for partisan purposes. Telling, very telling.

Besides, if I’d said: trot out the alternatively enabled lifestyle challenged people to tug on the heartstrings, it wouldn’t have had nearly the impact. 😉
Keith says:

October 24, 2006 at 7:56 pm

Keith, you are officially banned from this blog, for spamming and for repeatedly posting things in the wrong threads. I’m tired of moving your posts for you when you should pay more attention to what you write and where you post it. Buhbye. –ST
Severian says:

October 24, 2006 at 8:06 pm

Aufwiedersehn Keith…remember, only 14 window smashing days left till the election. Zerr schnell buddy.
NC Cop says:

October 24, 2006 at 8:06 pm

Oh, man, Keith was a gold mine. We were having such fun with him………
Severian says:

October 24, 2006 at 8:19 pm

Well, if gray is the new black, Keith was the new steve. 😉
Jeanette says:

October 29, 2006 at 5:37 am

My father had Alzheimer’s, my niece died of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma not quite a year ago, my daughter in law is fighting the same disease and is hopefully in remission but we can’t say that yet. I guess that qualifies me to speak on this topic a little bit.

We wanted cures for all of them but not once did we even think about embryonic stem cells, even in our most desperate times when we were grabbing at straws. Why? Because they don’t work and of course weren’t available, but if they had been it would have been out of the question.

We don’t want our loved ones to suffer from these diseases any more than you do, but we also don’t want the cure to be worse than the disease.

I read someplace a couple of weeks ago that experiments with embryonic stem cells on mice injected with them in the brain had caused brain tumors. With non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma my niece and daughter in law each had brain tumors. As a matter of fact, a brain tumor is ultimately what killed my niece at the age of 39 last November.

It’s time for the democrats to quit pulling at our heartstrings with people like Christopher Reed and Michael J. Fox. I just wonder how interested in embryonic stem cell research either of them would have been had they not been grabbing at straws for themselves.
Jeanette says:

October 29, 2006 at 5:38 am

Correction: Christopher Reeve, not Reed. Sorry. :”>
Sister Toldjah says:

October 29, 2006 at 11:54 am

Jeanette, thanks so much for sharing that. It is voices like yours that have, unfortunately, been drowned out in the national debate on this issue.

Comments are closed.