A Rush to Judgment
Why Limbaugh is right about
Michael J. Fox
Like Michael Moore with all-you-can-eat buffets,
Rush Limbaugh is no stranger to controversy. During his illustrious
radio career, he’s angered many people with his musings
on the news of the day. But in spite of all the attempts to discredit
or silence him, Rush has thrived.
The latest Rush controversy involves TV ads done by Michael J.
Fox to support three Democrats running for reelection in their
respective states. For those of you more in the dark than Paris
Hilton during a rolling blackout, Fox was diagnosed with Parkinson’s
Disease and has been a vocal advocate for stem cell research.
Fox has starred in three TV ads for Democrats seeking elected
office where he not only touts the need for stem cell research,
but takes potshots at Republicans. Here’s a brief sample
from the commercial being run for Claire McCaskill in Missouri:
Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell
research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science
that gives us a chance for hope.
This got Limbaugh’s ire and on October 24th, he took to
the airwaves with his criticism of the ads. Not only did he outline
how the ads were at the very least misleading, he advanced the
notion that Fox was being used by Democrats to get votes. This
is where Rush got into trouble. During a section of his show,
Rush advanced the idea that Fox may have been acting or didn’t
take the medicine that would help his tremors.
And as predictably as Err America attacking Bush, Democrats went
after Rush, saying that he had attacked Fox. But Rush’s
suspicions were grounded in at least something substantial. Take
this portion of Rush’s October 24th show:
Now, in terms of Michael J. Fox, I did some research today,
and I found his book that was published.…Here is what he
writes regarding his appearance before a Senate appropriations
subcommittee hearing in Washington on September 28th, 1999: “I
had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee
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.”
Hmmm…maybe it’s me, but it sure sounds like Fox wasn’t
above a little dishonesty to get money for a pet cause. Maybe
the reason Democrats tried to discredit Rush is because he was
right to question their tactics with the ads. By bringing up Fox’s
condition, Democrats have done what they did with AIDS: turned
a medical issue into a political issue because it’s a sure
way to get money and votes merely by “caring” (i.e.
spending a ton of taxpayer dollars and leaving us to foot the
bill).
What this also does is divert attention away from the real issues,
such as the ethical concerns tied with stem cell research, and,
more important to folks like me, whether the federal government
has any business in the stem cell research industry. Of course,
with such great successes as the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs,
and Social Security, who wouldn’t want government involved?
(By the way, that was sarcasm.)
George W. Bush has gone on record as saying that he supports stem
cell research, but doesn’t think government funds should
be used to research some strings of these stem cells. Whether
it’s for scientific, moral, or personal reasons, what Bush
has said and done in no way prohibits private interests from picking
up the ball and running with it.
Frankly, I’m with the President on this one because more
often than not private innovation yields better results more quickly
than leaving it to the government because the private sector demands
results. And let’s face it, expecting results from the federal
government is like expecting supermodels to fall madly in love
with me. It might happen once in a while, but it’s unlikely.
Now, if I’d only known that before I got thrown out of Fashion
Week in New York City.
There is one other fact to consider. So far, stem cell research
has been somewhat of a bust when it comes to positive results,
and what success there has been is limited to the use of adult
stem cells. What of the promise of embryonic stem cells, the ones
that everybody was talking about as a miracle cure for everything
from spinal cord injuries to embarrassing acne? There are hints
at some possible cures, but no actual cures yet. Nothing for Parkinson’s.
Nothing for Alzheimer’s. Not even anything for the sniffles.
Nothing. Nada. Zero. Mark Foley’s sales figures for his
new book Sending Suggestive Emails and IMs to Congressional
Pages for Dummies.
Where Talent and others come down on this is that government shouldn't
fund embryonic stem cell research, mainly for moral reasons. But
that shouldn't be confused with wanting a ban on all
stem cell research, which is clearly what Fox has been implying
in his ads for Democrat candidates. Sure, it's easy to preach
to us about the moral need to conduct the research on the hope
that we can find a cure, but I would argue that it's also a moral
need to be honest, which Fox clearly isn't being. And what better
way for Democrats to divert attention away from this fact than
to go after Limbaugh for a completely unrelated reason, such as
the claims he "attacked" Fox or "made fun of him"?
With the Limbaugh/Fox controversy, Democrats offer us a false
choice: either believe Fox when we know he’s not telling
the truth, or get labeled as being hateful towards the infirm.
Well, kids, I’ve been labeled far worse, so consider me
a “hater” because I think Rush was right on the money
on this one. So, save me your self-righteous bullplop because
at the end of the day I’m never going to be accused of using
someone with Parkinson’s for political purposes. Now, mooning
Barbra Streisand? That’s a different story.
And that’s the Bottom Line.
|
