ABC Talk Radio host Sean Hannity spoke to Diane Sawyer about the recent controversey caused by Rush Limbaugh's comments about Michael J. Fox.
Posted on 10/25/2006 12:07:38 PM PDT by ajolympian2004
*** Just outstanding guest appearance by Sean Hannity on Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer, our 'Great American'!!! ***
Hannity: Michael J. Fox Can Be Criticized for Stem Cell Ad
Radio Show Host Says Ad Won't Affect Midterm Elections' Outcome
Video link -
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2604613
(opens ABC News video player)
ABC Talk Radio host Sean Hannity spoke to Diane Sawyer about the recent controversey caused by Rush Limbaugh's comments about Michael J. Fox.
Oct. 25, 2006 — Conservatives came to the defense of talk radio host Rush Limbaugh over his accusation that actor Michael J. Fox's appearance in a political ad about stem cell research was "purely an act."
ABC talk radio host Sean Hannity told "Good Morning America" that Fox deserved to be criticized.
"Michael J. Fox admits now that he stopped taking his medication prior to testifying before Congress," Hannity said. "You have a right to speak up, but he also has a right to be criticized."
Fox cut a highly emotional spot for several Democratic candidates, including Missouri's Senate candidate Claire McCaskill.
Limbaugh questioned whether Fox's very real physical tremors had been faked.
"In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act," Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh apologized after his listeners clued him in that Fox was not acting, but some Democrats say the conservative radio host didn't seem sincere.
"There are some inaccuracies in the ad that need to be debated," Hannity said. "Unfortunately he wants to create an impression where Republicans don't care about the health of people. This is only about the funding of federal stem cell issues."
"Bottom line: Did Rush Limbaugh go too far? My take is that he was referring to his own admission in his own book. He didn't talk about the congressional testimony. Everybody wants Michael J. Fox to get well. It is a difficult disease," Hannity said.
"What's unfortunate and deceiving about the ad is that this is about the federal funding of embryotic stem cells," he said, alleging that congressional candidates didn't have a say in those decisions.
As for the results of the midterm elections, Hannity wasn't sure what the outcome would be.
"If I could pick those, I think I would be a pretty wealthy guy," he said. "But, I sense being on radio talking to people three hours a day, that there's been a shift."
"I think this Michael J. Fox [ad controversy] is going to backfire," he said. "I think the race ultimately is going to be decided on issues: national security, immigration, taxes. And when people focus on that, I think it benefits the Republicans."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2604633
---
I don't see how.. often times the only way to get our point across is through political means.
That's no different that religious conservatives trying to push candiates that hold their values.
I think it just pisses you off because he's on the other side of the equation.
Actually that's not what he's saying. He's saying it's in "poor taste" meaning that he's not critizing Michael's opinion but the way he's going about using that opinion.
I'll give you an example.
In my state(Oregon) there is an ad for a prop #(I can't remember it right now) that's for not allowing girls under 18 to get an abortion without parental consent. They have a young girl in an ad that basically says how it ruined her life that she had an abortion and didn't tell her mom.
Now I don't disagree with the message.. I'm going to vote for parental consent. But using her life tragedy to get people to vote a certain way is not different than what Michael J Fox is doing. But I don't see anyone up in harms about that ad. It's because we don't agree with Michael J Fox that we attack his method.. and that's what I'm saying is not fair. I think it's totally fair game for him to use his disease to fight for what he believes in.
I think what scares people most is that it is a horrifying disease and you all think that people will vote for his measure simply because they can't stomach watching him.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726267/posts
The Wrong Tree Embryonic stem cells are not all that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/ ^ | May 13, 2004, 8:58 a.m. | Wesley J. Smith
Posted on 10/26/2006 7:32:20 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/smith200405130858.asp
May 13, 2004, 8:58 a.m. The Wrong Tree Embryonic stem cells are not all that.
By Wesley J. Smith
Once again the media are trumpeting the call among many in Congress, pushed by millions in Big Biotech lobbying money, for President Bush to reverse his decision to limit federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) to those lines already in existence on August 9, 2001. Fronted this time by the grief-stricken Nancy Reagan, and boosted by Hollywood celebrities such as Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and Mary Tyler Moore, we are warned darkly, as a recent New York Times editorial put it, that the existing federal-funding restrictions "are so potentially damaging to medicine" that the administration is encountering opposition to its policy even among its "own conservative supporters."
We have heard this mantra many times before but repetition does not make it true. A great deal has been learned about the potential of regenerative medicine since President Bush reached his "compromise" decision ending the stem-cell debate of 2001. And indeed, perhaps the time has come for us to revisit this issue, albeit from a different angle than suggested by ESCR boosters. Perhaps the problem with the Bush plan isn't that it provides too little federal money for ESCR, but too much — at least if our national goal is to find cures to diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, and Parkinson's in the shortest period of time.
The media is so excited about the supposed potential of embryonic stem cells that it gives far too little attention to the many and serious problems associated with this potential source of regenerative medicine. Listening to the hype, one might think that ESCR is on the verge of tremendous success. But the hard truth is that it does not appear likely that embryonic stem cells will soon become the panacea that fervid supporters of the research often claim. For example:
In animal studies, embryonic-stem-cell treatments have been found to cause tumors. In one mouse study involving an attempt to treat Parkinson's-type symptoms, more than 20 percent of the mice died from brain tumors — this despite researchers reducing the number of cells administered from the usual 100,000 to 1,000.
Tissue rejection is another major hurdle to the use of embryonic stem cells in medical treatments. This is why ESCR is known as the gateway to human cloning, since one proposed way out of this potential dilemma is to create cloned embryos of patients being treated as a source of stem cells, a process known as "therapeutic cloning." Not coincidentally, many of the same proponents who are now urging increased funding for ESCR also advocate that we legalize and publicly fund therapeutic-cloning research, which many find immoral because it creates cloned human life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.
Besides being immoral, therapeutic cloning also looks to be wildly impractical. For example, a recent report published by the National Academy of Sciences warned that it could cost in the neighborhood of $200,000 just to pay for the human eggs to derive one cloned human embryonic-stem-cell line.
The above is an excerpt. Please go to the full thread for an excellent rebuttal to Fox and the other lying liberals:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726267/posts
He is as free to discuss Parkinsons as I am to discuss cancer (which I had several years ago). However, he does not have the right to lie about embryonic stem cell research - which is what he is advocating - or to slander Jim Talent. I, for one, refuse to be "professional victim" which is what Fox has become. He is another political hack - who happens to have an illness - which he is exploiting to help the Demoncrats and the Culture of Death.
That's a stupid thing to say. My mother suffers from diabetes, for example. If I was raising money for a cure, the last thing I would do is try to do it by campaigning for a political candidate. I would rather try and raise money for the Joslin Clinic in Massachusetts or for the Juvenile Diabetes charity. Similarly, Mr. Fox could have raised plenty of money for Parkinsons research for charities - let's not forget, the ban is for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Rather than trying to hit up the taxpayer, he could have used his time and energy to get people to donate voluntarily to his cause.
That's no different that religious conservatives trying to push candiates that hold their values.
Again, a very stupid thing to say. Religious conservatives are not demanding millions of taxpayer money in research for something morally objectionable. If anything, religious conservatives want the inbuilt bias of the present system against them removed, not to instill a new set of biases.
I think it just pisses you off because he's on the other side of the equation.
No, I am irritated that he's not doing the right thing - if he wants people to donate to embryonic stem cell research, have the courtesy of getting people to volunteer, rather than forcing the taxpayer to do it.
Ivan
I guess I don't understand why you keep changing the discussion.
I'm merely talking about his ability to use his ability to fight whatever fight he wants.
I never once defended the actual words he used.
I think you are pushing your feelings about him into other issues of the commerical that we are not discussing.
Right back at you MadIvan.. what is stupid is that you are entering your conservative ideology into this conversation.
First off let's set each other straight. I am conservative and I don't believe that charity should come from the Government. So now that we are in agreement that we are on the same side of this issue since I don't think the feds need to be funding embryonic stem cell research can be please get back to focusing on your orginal point.
Now that you can't attack me anymore and avoid addressing my point here we go.....
First you are merely talking about what is and what is not approriate for Michael J Fox to say considering he has Parkinsons. I think you have not addressed why it's bad other than you disagree with him. Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him using his disease in "poor taste".
Actually Bush with his faith based initatives are doing exactly that. So you just retorted yourself.
And now with you mentioning your are irrated you have proven my point. You disagree with his opinions on the way government should be run. So instead of just saying that you restored to name calling and saying he was acting in "poor taste". Which I merely pointed out that he had every right to do what he was doing and that didn't make it in poor taste.
The "faith based" initiatives are an attempt to shed government responsibility, not increase it - Fox is trying to increase government responsibility for funding a particular research he likes.
See the difference - one idea is trying to decrease government responsibility - what Fox wants is to increase it.
You then pompously proclaim your conservatism by harping on about how Fox is beyond question. What intellectual contortions you achieve in order to arrive at your position is beyond me - it seems worthy of DU. I suggest you are a troll, and will be booted as such.
Ivan
Thanks, ajolympian2004.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Thanks for the ping!
First and foremost - faith based initiatives are absolutely about reducing the size of government. If charities are dispensing aid to the poor, then the bureaucracies required between point A and point B are no longer required. The cutting out of this bureaucracy and their budgets is a reduction in cost and bureaucrats, and therefore the size of government. It cannot be made any clearer.
Second, by whingeing as you have done about anyone attacking Fox's ad in being in poor taste, you are by implication saying that Fox has an unquestionable right to do this. You are wringing your hands and saying that no one can, or should talk about it. This is the stance of a liberal who puts certain minorities beyond question.
In light of these two items, I do question your conservatism and your presence on this board. I've never seen you before. I don't see anything particularly conservative in anything you say. I don't believe you are anything but a token leftist that Jim Rob allows on here for the purposes of having the crap kicked out of them.
Ivan
Actually I've proven your logic to be non-existent. The only way to reduce the size of government is to de-fund things. Not fund initatives in the hope that they will somehow help be less of a drag on other deparments and resources in the future.
Your second point is ridculous as I've said no such thing. I have already said Rush has every right and a good reason to suspect Michael J Fox may have been acting or off his meds or just allowing his convlusions to take place since he has shown that he can play the part on his show without acting the same way. You can question Michael J Fox's opinion, motives, or anything else you want. But you clearly said that it was in poor taste. You were making it out that no one in the world should ever use their misfortune for creating in their mind the greater good. You are wrong.. you are still wrong.. and you will always be wrong on this point and that's why you keep evading it.
Mad Ivan you can question me all you want but you sound like the leftist shrill. You can't handle someone having a different opinion then them so you lay out personal attacks because you can't back up your position.
I see, getting rid of unnecessary bureaucrats, and reducing government offices doesn't represent shrinkage in your mind. OK, let's move on to the next entirely counterintuitive, illogical and utterly bizarre point...
Your second point is ridculous as I've said no such thing.
People can read, you know. It is hardly I who look ridiculous (note the spelling, please) out of this - if you really believe that it's not out of order for me to say that Fox's broadcast was in poor taste, you would have said nothing as soon as I expressed that opinion. Rather, here we are, many boring posts later, with you continuing to blather on.
You were making it out that no one in the world should ever use their misfortune for creating in their mind the greater good.
I said nothing of the kind. I said there were appropriate ways of doing so - for example, by raising money directly for charity. I also stated that if Fox had used his condition to raise money for a Parkinson's charity, that would have been appropriate. People can read, scroll back, see the truth.
Mad Ivan you can question me all you want but you sound like the leftist shrill.
The word is "shill". Shrill is an adjective. Shill is a noun. So let's recap - you're full of bad ideas, can't separate your nouns from your adjectives and can't even discern a conservative idea from a liberal one.
Just a helpful hint - when in a hole, stop digging. The more you say, the more you enhance the idea that either you're a leftie troll, or you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The difference between the two is merely a matter of decibels.
Ivan
So you just said it... what I've been saying all along and many arugements later.
If FOX was using his disease for something you THINK is apprroiate then it wouldn't of been in bad taste.
You are such the hypocrite.
Well I already label you for what you are.. however the admins decided to delete my post and not yours.
In any case you have proven that true are a MadIvan. Clueless and bizarre.
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.