There is nothing to gain because the man has Parkinson's. That a definite. Judging one person's symptoms from day to day, especially from year to year is fruitless.
His meds can cause involuntary movement, just as easily as they can calm his tremors.
This issue can't get anybody anywhere, except the scorn of others who are ill themselves and know that conditions deteriorate over time.
Lay off the messenger...attack the message.
Bull! This is exactly what Ann Coulter was talking about when she commented on the Jersey girls. The Dems drag these people out and you cannot comment on them because they have a Parkinson's, they lost a loved one on 9/11, the lost a son in the war, blah, blah, blah. Again I say bull! Like Rush said, once you insert yourself into the political process, you are fair game. MJF has admitted to going off his meds to convey sympathy. He has admitted his guilt in manipulatioin of the voters. His behavior is fair game to question and comment on.
Fox has no right to lie to the American public and tug at heart strings for selfish purposes.
I have yet to hear MJF refute the speculation that he was off his meds. This is important, though. By (potentially) exaggerating or aggravating his symptoms, MJF veered into the same make-believe land where Hezbollah stages "body recovery" using already dead kids, but forgets to smear the blue pacifier with grime. The sparkling clean pacifier is a dead giveaway that something is amiss.
Having been subject to this kind of chicanery for years, it is decidedly NOT beyond the pale to consider whether or not the ads by MJF are lies in both form and substance, expecially since he has admitted in writing that he went off his meds to show congress how bad he had the disease.
The discussion right now IS about the message. MJF's tremors were a deliberate part of that message, and therefore are legitimate targets of debate. As I stated above, I have not heard MJF refute any of these claims. That, too, is telling.
It doesn't matter, the liberals will always accuse us of attacking the messenger, even when we only attack the message. Don't you know that to disagree with a liberal is to personally attack them?