Thursday, October 26, 2006

Who's The Victim Now?

I just did a Google search for "limbaugh michael fox", because I wanted to see how the situation was being reported in the media. It's pretty unfair. Not one article (synopsis, at least) takes seriously Rush's criticism. They all say he "attacked" Fox and basically say he was criticizing his personal character. But Fox has admitted that he doesn't take his meds sometimes when he's making an appearance.

That's not even the problem. It's understandable that he would do that, because everyone should be aware how bad the tremors can get, because that's what the disease is. The pills help, but not everyone has access all the time. But the real problem is something else.

Fox says that Jim Talent, Michael Steele, and a couple of other Republican politicians oppose stem cell research, and want to make it illegal. But that's not even true. Stem Cell research is legal in all of the states his ad is showing in. In fact, the only person involved who has voted against it is Ben Cardin, a Dem that Fox runs an ad for. But, at least in Mizzou, this is about a constitutional amendment, that will do all sorts of stuff, other than secure stem cell research.

For example: it outlaws human cloning, if you plan to put the fertilized egg inside a woman. But if you plan to incubate it in a lab, you can grow all the babies you want (that's a paraphrase). It also allows for "reimbursement" to women who donate eggs to research. It say they can't be paid for them, but they can apparently be paid back for them. Finally, it says that stem cell researchers have to follow all current scientific laws and ethical standards, unless they impede or discourage stem cell research. I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like they can do whatever they want in the name of stem cell research.

Luckily Rush doesn't have to do all the talking. Jim Caviezel, Kurt Warner, Patricia Heaton and some other celebrities have put together their own ad about Amendment 2. They don't involve the names of candidates, like Fox's ad does (supporting Claire McCaskill), they just give the facts about the amendment. Unfortunately, their ad won't get the national attention that it deserves, and it will be characterized as a response to Fox's ad, though it isn't.

And is it fair that everyone is running to Fox's defense? Is he really incapable of responding himself? Well, he certainly makes enough capaign appearances and pithy jokes to be considered a big boy. All Rush did was pose some questions. Diane Sawyer asked Sean Hannity, "If you have Parkinson’s disease, and you believe embryonic stem cell research is the, is the answer, a possible answer, a possible cure, don't you have a right to speak up?"

Hannity responds: "You have a right to speak up, but he also has a right to be criticized. He’s a guy that is very political...He’s supporting a guy in Maryland, Ben Cardin and Ben Cardin voted the opposite way of which he wanted. Why isn’t he running ads against the Democrat?"

Well said. I finally found an article that considers the other it is.

It also hits on this ad against Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee that liberal are saying is racist because it dramatizes a white woman who is attracted to Ford, a black man. Apparently this is supposed to rile up the country white-folk and make them hate this black guy because a white woman is attracted to him. I've seen it all over the place. But, as Hannity says, Steel, along with black Republican gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swan (go Steelers!), have been called "token" by Democrats repeatedly. That's just this year. In the past the term has been given to Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice...pretty much any black Republican. I guess "conservative" is now synonymous with "racist". Somebody should do a Wikipedia update. Why can't black people be real Republicans? Why must we assume they're all Manchurian candidates? We don't all live on welfare and government housing, you know.

Until I hear a major news outlet other than Fox add outrage at the term "token" being assigned to black Republicans to their news cycle, I'll probably never even respect their political commentary. One story won't cut it. it will have to get big attention for 3 or 4 days and have some investigative reporting and "hard-hitting" questions at the Democrats who said it.


At 9:56 PM, Anonymous Brittany said...

The way the discussion went in the media concerning Fox, particularly Hannity's comment that he could still be criticized, reminded me of the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter's latest book, Godless, which I have yet to read. Her point in the chapter that caused so much controversy, is that just because someone suffered an "injustice", does not mean that they are beyond criticism in other areas of their lives. And again, no one mocked Fox, they just asked some questions.
I didn't know about that other ad campaign that those other celebs signed on to. Very interesting.

Good read. If I could give you kudos on here, I would ;)

At 10:41 AM, Blogger Matt W. said...

You said:

"And again, no one mocked Fox, they just asked some questions."

Sorry, that is either a lie or ignorance. Rush Limbaugh mocked him by mimicking his physical reactions on his show, picked up by a webcam. And the questions weren't benign anyway. They were political and suggestive in that they were design to imply he was either faking it or deliberately went off his medication for effect. If you can't see that as dishonest then I there's nothing more I can say to you.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home