Michael J Fox - Human Shield

[red states rule]

Libs will always bring out their human shields to sprew their talking points to appeal to your emotions

However don't you dare question what they say or their motives

This is the case of Michael J Fox who admits not taking his meds prior to making a Democrat TV ad just to make himself look worse.

Rush Limbaugh had the gall to point out this fact and the liberal media went into full attack mode

Why do libs have a problem with the truth?


NBC Tries to Discredit GOP Ad as Racist, Condemns Limbaugh's Slap at Michael J. Fox
Posted by Brent Baker on October 24, 2006 - 21:38.
Another campaign, another opportunity for the mainstream media to discredit a Republican campaign ad as racist. On Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams declared: “Tonight some are saying that one commercial in particular in one very close Senate race has now crossed a racial line.” Andrea Mitchell proceeded to critique the RNC ad attacking Democratic Senate candidate Harold Ford and in offering a second example of how the “mid-year elections are getting rough,” Mitchell castigated Rush Limbaugh, ignoring the inaccurate Democratic ad he had criticized. The Tennessee ad made fun of how Ford once attended a Playboy party. In it, a white female recalls how “I met Harold at the Playboy party" and the ad ended with her whispering: "Harold, call me." Mitchell pounced: "The NAACP said the ad, quote, 'plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women'” and “advertising experts like Jerry Della Femina, a Republican, says it is a blatant racial appeal."

Mitchell moved to Limbaugh: "Take a look at what Rush Limbaugh is saying about Michael J. Fox, the actor who suffers from Parkinson's disease and is campaigning for Democrats who support stem cell research. Limbaugh said Fox was acting, exploiting his illness, when he taped this ad for the Democratic Senate candidate in Maryland." Viewers saw a clip of Limbaugh: "He is moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act." But Mitchell ignored how Fox was injecting politics into medical research funding policy, how Fox has admitted going off his meds in order to look worse and that Limbaugh was also criticizing Fox's anti-Talent ad in Missouri in which Fox made the distorted claim that “Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us the chance for hope." Plus, it's worth noting that Fox was a lot more steady in a clip of him responding to Limbaugh. (Transcripts from NBC and Limbaugh follow, as well as from ABC)

Video of Mitchell's hit on Limbaugh with two clips of Fox in different conditions -- see screen shots below (1:00): Real (1.7 MB) or Windows Media (2 MB), plus MP3 audio (350 KB)

In contrast, in a story on ABC's World News focusing on the Fox ads, Jake Tapper played the more insidious Fox ad (YouTube video) and noted how “the Talent campaign called the Fox ad 'false' since Senator Talent supports stem cell research that doesn't involve destroying a human embryo. Rush Limbaugh went much further, actually suggesting Fox was acting." Tapper played audio of Limbaugh: “In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act." Tapper clarified: "After listeners contacted Limbaugh to say it was no act, the radio host apologized.”

An excerpt from a transcript of Limbaugh's Tuesday's radio show as posted by Rush Limbaugh.com:


...[E]mbryonic stem cell research is currently legal and completely unrestricted in both Maryland and Missouri....They bring forth people who they think are victims for the purposes of exploiting them, and when you bring forth -- for example, if you're talking about embryonic stem cell research, and you want to convey the notion that the Republicans are opposed to it, and in effect they're for people having Parkinson's Disease. Make no mistake that's what the intent is.

Then you bring forth a person who's suffering the disease, and you illustrate the disease and the ravages and the suffering on TV to create sympathy and infallibility, because you're not supposed to be able to attack somebody or criticize somebody in any way or in any regard if they suffer from the disease. It's considered cold-hearted and cruel. What's happening here is that Michael Fox has entered the political arena with his attack, which includes false information about Senator Talent and Michael Steele in Maryland. That's fair game, and I am not going to follow the script that says we're not allowed to comment on the things said by participants, "victims," what have you, that the Democrats put forth as infallible in the middle of a political campaign.

I would argue that Mr. Fox is damaging what has traditionally been a bipartisan effort at addressing and curing illnesses, and that is the primary point here. Democrats are politicizing diseases and illnesses. The Breck Girl, John Edwards, promising, if John Kerry is elected, that Christopher Reeve and others with spinal paralysis would walk, when there's no such is evidence that any research into embryonic stem cells will create any immediate cure toward anything. It is irresponsible to mislead victims of people suffering from these horrible diseases in such a fashion. But that's exactly what has happened.

That's what the Democrats are doing, politicizing diseases and illnesses, damaging what has traditionally been a bipartisan effort at addressing and curing illnesses, and the same time they claim if you don't embrace their political and cultural agenda, then you're for Parkinson's disease, and you are for spinal paralysis....

I did some research today, and I found his book that was published. It's 'Lucky Man,' 2002, but he admits in the book that before Senate subcommittee on appropriations I think in 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 are running for Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent....

(On Monday's show, the day from which NBC and ABC lifted the Limbaugh soundbite, Limbaugh was clearly targeting the Missouri ad, so Mitchell had no excuse to ignore that one with its more inflamatory charge about Senator Talent wanting to "criminalize" effort to cure Parkinson's.)

Indeed, in his book Fox recalled:

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.
Taking on the ad for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, in which Fox declares that “Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us the chance for hope,” National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez observed that the ad “pulls on voters’ heartstrings and serves up an unfair and disingenuous message” about a Missouri ballot initiative which opponents believe will allow cloning. An excerpt from her October 23 posting:

In a commercial drowning in false hope and overhype, Michael J. Fox, Claire McCaskill, and their funders don’t mention that stem-cell research -- including embryo-destroying research -- is already legal and happening not just in Missouri but across the U.S. What they also don’t tell you is that in creating a constitutional right to human cloning, the Missouri amendment is more radical than anything even the United Nations is currently willing to do. The commercial also doesn’t mention that there are some real potential drawbacks to jumping into embryonic-stem-cell research for Parkinson’s patients. Embryonic-stem-cell research is not the panacea its advocates would have you believe.
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the October 24 NBC and ABC evening newscast stories:

NBC Nightly News.


Brian Williams: "And now to 'Decision 2006,' and with two weeks to go before this election, things are decidedly getting personal. Negative campaign ads on both sides are all over the airwaves if you haven't noticed already. Tonight some are saying that one commercial in particular in one very close Senate race has now crossed a racial line. We get the story from NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell."

Andrea Mitchell: "Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford could become the first African-American elected to the Senate from the South since Reconstruction. But crossing that color barrier may not be easy. Watch this Republican ad for his opponent."

Woman #1 in RNC ad: "I met Harold at the Playboy party."

Woman #2 in same ad: "I'd love to pay higher marriage taxes."

Man #1 in same ad: "Canada can take care of North Korea. They're not busy."

Man #2 in same ad: "So he took money from porn movie producers. I mean, who hasn't?"

Female voice in same ad: "The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising."

Woman #1 whispering in ad: "Harold, call me."

Mitchell: "The NAACP said the ad, quote, 'plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women.' A spokesman for Ford's Republican opponent, Bob Corker, said the ad was over the top and should be taken off the air. But on MSNBC today, party chairman Ken Mehlman defended it to Tim Russert."

Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman: "African-American folks, Hispanic folks and myself, we all looked at it, all of us, I think, are sensitive to that, and we did not have that same reaction to it. So I just think there's a disagreement about it."

Mitchell: "Advertising experts like Jerry Della Femina, a Republican, say it is a blatant racial appeal."

Jerry Della Femina, advertising executive: "This is clearly an attempt to attack Harold Ford in a racist way, and, you know, a blonde, a Playboy bunny. You know, it's just wrong."

Mitchell: "The Tennessee race isn't the only sign that the mid-year elections are getting rough. Take a look at what Rush Limbaugh is saying about Michael J. Fox, the actor who suffers from Parkinson's disease and is campaigning for Democrats who support stem cell research. Limbaugh said Fox was acting, exploiting his illness, when he taped this ad for the Democratic Senate candidate in Maryland."

Michael J. Fox in ad: "Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research."

Rush Limbaugh, from Web video: "He is moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act."

Mitchell: "In Illinois today, Fox responded."

Fox: "What I love is, we're close to an election and we're talking about stem cells, and, you know, that's the idea."

Mitchell: "With so much at stake, there's every indication this year's campaign could get even uglier. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News."


ABC's World News.

Charles Gibson: "There is a highly emotional issue being raised in a few hotly-contested races across the country, being raised by a high-profile entertainer. The celebrity is Michael J. Fox. The issue is stem cell research. Fox is appearing in a series of ads targeting specific candidates with a very personal message. Here's ABC's Jake Tapper."

Jake Tapper: "Michael J. Fox has been an impassioned advocate for years-"

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): "This is Michael J. Fox's third appearance before this subcommittee."

Tapper: "-lobbying for embryonic stem cell research, which he argues can help people who suffer as he does from Parkinson's disease. But Fox has never injected himself so directly and so emotionally on the campaign trail and on TV until now."

Michael J. Fox in TV ad: "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 a chance for hope."

Tapper: "That's one of three TV ads so far Fox has recorded for candidates this season. This one goes after Republican Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, where embryonic stem cell research is also on the ballot as a referendum. Today, the Talent campaign called the Fox ad 'false' since Senator Talent supports stem cell research that doesn't involve destroying a human embryo. Rush Limbaugh went much further, actually suggesting Fox was acting."

Audio of Rush Limbaugh: "In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act."

Tapper: "After listeners contacted Limbaugh to say it was no act, the radio host apologized. Roughly 60 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, though it's unclear how many will cast votes based on the issue. Regardless, politicians across the spectrum are trying to use it to their advantage. A Democratic group is running this ad which vilifies Republicans who oppose this research."

Unidentified girl in ad: "How come he thinks he gets to decide who lives and who dies? Who is he?"

Tapper: "An anti-abortion activist who opposed the destruction of embryos used the issue to target and rally troops to the polls through fliers, letters to churches and radio ads against the research."

Clip of ad: "Which ballot amendment seems family-friendly but would let scientists buy and sell human eggs?"

Tapper: "A debate about life, science and faith, distilled to raw and passionate politics. Jake Tapper, ABC News, Washington."

http://newsbusters.org/node/8576

 

[theHawk]

This is exactly what Ann Coulter pointed out in her book.

And the Dems just keep proving her points are 100% correct.

Republicans should probably use the same tactic, but oh yea.....dead fetuses can't talk.

 

[red states rule]

This is exactly what Ann Coulter pointed out in her book.

And the Dems just keep proving her points are 100% correct.

Republicans should probably use the same tactic, but oh yea.....dead fetuses can't talk.

Dems are desperate and this proves it

The Dems are in for another shock on Nov 7th and more meds on Nov 8th

 

[Eightball]

Have you all forgotten? Victims have far more wisdom, than the rest of us.

They are truly shielded, if they are liberal, but if "said" victim of disease, or handicap is "thumping" for a conservative, they are "fresh meat" to be devoured by the "drive-by" media.
*
In some ways, I really see the blame coming down hardest on the voters who just "suck" up this media drivel, as though it all is gospel. These blue state voters, seem to let their emotions rule logic. Emotions are a good thing, but emotions are supposed to support objective thinking, not the other way around.
*

 

[onedomino]

Dems are desperate and this proves it

The Dems are in for another shock on Nov 7th and more meds on Nov 8th

I am a Republican conservative and I think that the President's policy on stem cell research is wrong. I wonder what your attitude would be if you, or one of your loved ones, was stricken with debilitating diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or a paralyzing spinal injury. Do you think that Nancy Reagan does not know what she is talking about? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm. The President’s idea to block stem cell research with tissue that already exists is not productive and panders to religious extremists in the Republican Party. It is views like this that will make Republican victory in November more difficult. His policy will only ensure that stem cell associated research developments take place in other countries, thereby knocking America out of its leadership role at the forefront of medical research.

 

[insein]

I am a Republican conservative and I think that the President's policy on stem cell research is wrong. I wonder what your attitude would be if you, or one of your loved ones, was stricken with debilitating diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or a paralyzing spinal injury. Do you think that Nancy Reagan does not know what she is talking about? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm. The President’s idea to block stem cell research with tissue that already exists is not productive and panders to religious extremists in the Republican Party. It is views like this that will make Republican victory in November more difficult. His policy will only ensure that stem cell associated research developments take place in other countries, thereby knocking America out of its leadership role at the forefront of medical research.

But he hasnt blocked any stem cell research. He has said that he would block any research on fetus' from abortions. Personally, i feel the government should not interfere in this kind of research and let private groups invest the time and money into discovering the cures and then reaping the rewards. So many people though say that stem cells are just a political football. No one knows what research is being done and whether it will lead to any cures but politicians make it seem like some people are for killing those with disease while others are for making "Christopher Reeves walk again."

Thats where we get into a dangerous area. We let emotions rule rational judgement. No one wants people to die. No one is impeding stem cell research. Yet we let politicians act like electing them will cure their cancer because the other guy is opposed to vague research. Its dispicable.

 

[jillian]

But he hasnt blocked any stem cell research. He has said that he would block any research on fetus' from abortions. Personally, i feel the government should not interfere in this kind of research and let private groups invest the time and money into discovering the cures and then reaping the rewards. So many people though say that stem cells are just a political football. No one knows what research is being done and whether it will lead to any cures but politicians make it seem like some people are for killing those with disease while others are for making "Christopher Reeves walk again."

Thats where we get into a dangerous area. We let emotions rule rational judgement. No one wants people to die. No one is impeding stem cell research. Yet we let politicians act like electing them will cure their cancer because the other guy is opposed to vague research. Its dispicable.

You mean he blocked research on tissue remaining from abortions, even though it could save lives. But even leaving that out of the equation, what about research on pre-embryos remaining from in vitro fertilization?

The only emotions ruling rational thought are those which persist in saying it is somehow immoral to save lives and pursue research like every other westernized nation. You think South Korea should be beating us to the patents when the discoveries start coming along?

 

[onedomino]

But he hasnt blocked any stem cell research. He has said that he would block any research on fetus' from abortions. Personally, i feel the government should not interfere in this kind of research and let private groups invest the time and money into discovering the cures and then reaping the rewards. So many people though say that stem cells are just a political football. No one knows what research is being done and whether it will lead to any cures but politicians make it seem like some people are for killing those with disease while others are for making "Christopher Reeves walk again."

Thats where we get into a dangerous area. We let emotions rule rational judgement. No one wants people to die. No one is impeding stem cell research. Yet we let politicians act like electing them will cure their cancer because the other guy is opposed to vague research. Its dispicable.

You need to read up on this topic:

Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush's First Veto

Complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071900524.html

President Bush issued the first veto of his five-year-old administration yesterday, rejecting Congress's bid to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and underscoring his party's split on an emotional issue in this fall's elections.

At a White House ceremony where he was joined by children produced from what he called "adopted" frozen embryos, Bush said taxpayers should not support research on surplus embryos at fertility clinics, even if they offer possible medical breakthroughs and are slated for disposal.

 

[theHawk]

So all of you are wrong, Bush didn't block any kind of research. He simply blocked taxypayer money to fund that type of research. The research can and is being done by private organizations is it not?

 

[Dr Grump]

Why shouldn't tax payer money go towards funding stem-cell research? People who are in support of this idea are tax payers, too. Hell, you can all do a little deal - when you do you tax return they can add a question to the form: Do you support your tax paying money going towards stem -cell research, yes or no. The IRS can then earmark your money so that it doesn't go towards any research. However, they will also earmark your name so that you cannot be treated by any breakthroughs in treating diseases that are made. Fair enough?

 

[jillian]

So all of you are wrong, Bush didn't block any kind of research. He simply blocked taxypayer money to fund that type of research. The research can and is being done by private organizations is it not?

I want my taxpayer money blocked from funding Iraq. Can I get my way on that one? I think private supporters should have to put up the money there, too.

 

[theHawk]

Why shouldn't tax payer money go towards funding stem-cell research? People who are in support of this idea are tax payers, too. Hell, you can all do a little deal - when you do you tax return they can add a question to the form: Do you support your tax paying money going towards stem -cell research, yes or no. The IRS can then earmark your money so that it doesn't go towards any research. However, they will also earmark your name so that you cannot be treated by any breakthroughs in treating diseases that are made. Fair enough?

Why bother the IRS, if you want money to go to stem cell research, bust out your checkbook and write a check out to it. There is ZERO reason the government needs to be involved.

But my gut feeling is that as a typical liberal hypocrit, you don't really believe in it so much that you'll give your own money to it. You just want everyone else to pay for it.

 

[theHawk]

I want my taxpayer money blocked from funding Iraq. Can I get my way on that one? I think private supporters should have to put up the money there, too.

Wow so you're even more tasteless than most Dems, at least they support our troops to some degree by funding them, you don't even want that. How nice. Seeing that you don't even want to pay the troops that are over there or help buy them ammo/armor, I hope I don't see you pretending that you care about them when they die.

 

[CSM]

I want my taxpayer money blocked from funding Iraq. Can I get my way on that one? I think private supporters should have to put up the money there, too.

I'm with you Jillian! While we are at it, I am against my taxpayer money being spent on welfare, public education and grants for pseudo-artists. I also don't want ANY of MY taxpayer money spent in supporting any politician (let them work for free and we shall soon see how dedicated they are to public service!) nor supporting the UN. Keep my dollars away from disaster relief too (if you are dumb enough to live in a flood zone, then by golly, you should suffer the consequences!) and any and all government handouts including farm subsidies, corporation bail outs, HUD, IRS, and EPA activities.


Dang we are united in our cause Jillian! NO TAXPAYER MONEY FER NUTTIN WE DON'T ALL .. AND I DO MEAN ALL... AGREE ON!!!!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Wow so you're even more tasteless than most Dems, at least they support our troops to some degree by funding them, you don't even want that. How nice. Seeing that you don't even want to pay the troops that are over there or help buy them ammo/armor, I hope I don't see you pretending that you care about them when they die.

Oh please. The equivalent to that argument would be to say anyone who doesn't want tax payer money to fund stem cell research wants michael J Fox and others who could benefit to die of their disease.

 

[Dr Grump]

Wow so you're even more tasteless than most Dems, at least they support our troops to some degree by funding them, you don't even want that. How nice. Seeing that you don't even want to pay the troops that are over there or help buy them ammo/armor, I hope I don't see you pretending that you care about them when they die.

Ah, so if you don't support the War in Iraq, you're not a "patriot"...Up against the wall and put a blindfold on 'em!!

 

[jillian]

Wow so you're even more tasteless than most Dems, at least they support our troops to some degree by funding them, you don't even want that. How nice. Seeing that you don't even want to pay the troops that are over there or help buy them ammo/armor, I hope I don't see you pretending that you care about them when they die.

Oh... I care. Which is why I don't think they should be there. Fund them in Afghanistan.

But you guys are all so full of it.

So,, again, what sacrifices have you made?

 

[CSM]

Ah, so if you don't support the War in Iraq, you're not a "patriot"...Up against the wall and put a blindfold on 'em!!

Sounds like an awesome plan to me....I like the way you think!

 

[Dr Grump]

Sounds like an awesome plan to me....I like the way you think!

heh..:

 

[theHawk]

Oh please. The equivalent to that argument would be to say anyone who doesn't want tax payer money to fund stem cell research wants michael J Fox and others who could benefit to die of their disease.

No, its not equivlant. Because one of the few things the Federal government is responisble for funding is our military. Or are you suggesting that private companies be responsible for fighting our wars? The Federal government is not responsible for medical research, unless of course I missed that somewhere in the US Constitution.