Posted on 10/26/2006 2:29:53 PM PDT by Daniel T. Zanoza
Recently, I lost a great deal of respect for celebrity Michael J. Fox after watching a commercial where he criticizes Republicans for not supporting stem cell research. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, was either ill-informed or disingenuous while making this ad.
What makes matters even worse is when conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh questioned Fox's sincerity in making the commercials, but was pilloried in the media. Limbaugh said Fox did not take his medication--thereby worsening his symptoms--in order to garner sympathy during the filming of the spot. The truth is Fox has admitted to using this technique in the past. He once testified before Congress and, in more than one source, including his book, Fox brags about the added impact the Parkinson's symptoms had on his audience.
Writing in her book, titled, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," conservative author Ann Coulter says Democrats often use the sympathy strategy. Coulter believes Dems use handicapped, elderly and people with debilitating illnesses to advance their message knowing their political foes would not have the nerve to criticize them--even if they are mistaken on the issues. To an extent, I believe this is true and the Michael J. Fox television ad proves it. When individuals, like Fox, appear in such ads, opponents are reluctant to counter their arguments because they are in fear of being labeled insensitive. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh can attest to that fact.
Fox took things a step further when he misspoke about the positions regarding stem cell research of five Republicans in important races across the country.
During the last year, after five operations, I recently lost the battle to save my eyesight. I would also be critical of individuals who stood in the way of me possibly seeing again. Contrary to Fox's claims, Republicans are not against stem cell research. Unanimously, they all agree adult stem cell research is the most promising science for people like myself and Fox. However, Republicans do have a moral and ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, Fox makes no distinction between the two, seemingly for political gain.
I personally believe it is immoral and unethical to sacrifice the potential life of another for my personal benefit and I know no one has the right to do so.
Perhaps Fox's greatest sin is giving people false hope and this may be the cruelest act of all. I spoke to one of the leading eye surgeons at perhaps the foremost teaching university in the world regarding stem cell research and its possible impact on the regeneration of nerve tissue in the human eye and other parts of the body. I was told practical advances in this technology are at least ten years down the road and those stating otherwise are promoting another agenda.
Perhaps Fox himself has been lied to regarding stem cell research. Maybe some political operatives have told him Republicans are against it. But, by far, the most promising work being done in the field of stem cell research involves adult stem cells. And, to be accurate, there are already hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in the private sector to study the use of embryonic stem cells.
To get across my point, perhaps I should put down my cane and attempt to walk down a hallway without assistance. I would literally be bouncing off the walls. But I'm sure this would garner sympathy for my cause and portray my political enemies in the darkest light. This, in a way, would be similar to Mr. Fox not taking his medication before testifying in front of Congress and, more recently, doing the partisan political commercial criticizing the five Republicans. But, fortunately, I have scruples.
So, is it naiveté on Fox's part or is it a lack of character? That's a question only Fox can answer truthfully.
Thank you!
Please don't take offense, but...how did you watch the commercial? I heard it audio-only at first, and you really need the video to see what Rush was talking about...
This morning, I heard the sound bytes with Whoopi Goldberg going off on Rush, and thought, "Ann Coulter must be howling with laughter," because despite her sometimes brutal rhetoric, she nevertheless had been proven right once again!
I think the point that both Coulter and Rush want to make is that people can no longer play the Victim Game. Both the Jersey Girls and Fox assumed this role -- THEY are TOO sacrosanct and untouchable because of personal misfortunes. They are beyond criticism!
But guess what? When you engage in partisan politics and voluntarliy enter the political arena -- you're fair game.
Both the Jersey Girls and Fox have been part of Democratic campaign tactics that have endorsed Democrats and rejected Republicans.
Thanks Daniel. I myself am "disabled" and I for one am tired of people thinking they should be untouchable because of their disease or disability.
Excellent analysis, Daniel.
Gosh, we do have imaginations and I haven't been blind my whole life. I knew what Michael J. Fox looked like when he testified before Congress. All because I'm blind doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I'm sorry if it sounds like I took this the wrong way, but...
I also have a wife and friends who can describe things to me. But thanks for your thoughts.
Dan
Hillary's playing the victim card again claiming her opponent called her ugly and said she had millions in plastic surgery. And on camera she's acting innocent saying, "I don't even know why they would SAY these things" which haven't been established to HAVE been said.
This is a great post. Thanks for writing it. My father passed away from Parkinson's in March, I know what the disease can do, and what it did to him. A lot of people have an interest in cures, but I would not want a child to lose its life for a reason like this.
Please know that I grieve for anyone suffering a debilitating ailment. Our oldest child has Stargardt's disease which has caused her to be legally blind since she was eight years old. She's now 44 and I continue to pray for a cure.
My mother and my husband's aunt both were crippled with rheumatoid arthritis, and my younger brother lost his fight against myelodysplasia this past March.
At my age, I could recount endless instances of the pain people endure.
Not the least are those unborn who are killed in late-term abortions. I don't know what babies suffer who are aborted in the first to sixth month of their pre-natal existence. Who does? Some people really don't give a d_mn!
I watched Michael Foxx on TV on the subject of stem-cell research and his shaking was extreme. Yet in another setting right after that, his symptoms had greatly lessened.
Whether he exaggerated his condition to promote stem-cell research, or whether he deliberately skipped some meds, I don't know. But I do believe some dishonesty was going on here.
Lastly, I appreciate your post immensely. Despite your suffering you insist that reason prevails, that aborted children should not be used to solve the problems of those who were not aborted.
I admire your courage and your honesty.
Rush pointed that out early in the week and added "I have no problem with that." How can you be more fair than that?
He's a national spokesman for the cause, a sufferer of PD and is the head of a foundation for PD research. Few lay persons are in a better position to know what's what about PD research. Do those facts help answer the question above?
Whoopi claims to be getting advice and wisdom from her bush. Having heard her ranting myself I think the voice she hears is in that direction but coming from a different orifice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.