Posted on 11/13/2006 7:13:48 AM PST by truthfinder9
Now that Republican senatorial candidate George Allen has conceded defeat in Virginia, the U.S. Senate, like the House before it, has been delivered to the Democrats. Pundits are poking through the entrails of the exit polls in search of reasons for the GOP debacle, and many are obvious: the fact of the seemingly intractable Iraq war; the fact that, for the past decade, Republican congressmen have allowed themselves to be seduced by the Dark Side of politics, and have thus abandoned their principles for perks and pork; the fact that, even with total control of all three branches of the federal government for years, the Republicans have failed utterly to accomplish much of anything -- except to balloon the size and power of the state to proportions not seen in Karl Marx's wildest wet dreams; etc.
But did the congressional Republicans have to lose everything to the Democrats (not a single one of whose incumbents was unseated)? For instance, did they have to lose the U.S. Senate -- and therefore, vitally important control over the appointment of federal judges? The Dems now run that body by virtue of a single vote, 51-49. This means that had the GOP held onto only one seat in any of several very close senatorial races -- e.g., Virginia, Montana, Missouri -- the balance would have tipped the other way. There is plenty of blame to go around for this sorry mess. But let me single out a previously uncited person to blame for the loss of the Senate: Rush Limbaugh. Yes. Rush Limbaugh. Let me explain. By now, just about everyone knows of Limbaugh's self-indulgent, mocking tirades against actor Michael J. Fox on the issue of federally-funded embryonic stem cell research. Fox suffers from advanced Parkinson's disease, and exhibits obvious tremors and shaking that have ended his acting career. For Fox and people like him, a cure is possible only through medical research; embryonic stem cell research is one promising area that scientists are probing for a medical breakthrough. However, many conservative Republicans (including Limbaugh) took a stand of blanket opposition to all embryonic stem cell research as such, on religious grounds that the embryo is a person. This viewpoint, also reflected in general conservative "right-to-life" opposition to abortion, is justifiably rejected by most Americans. For example, in South Dakota, a ballot measure this November that would have banned all abortions except to save the life of the mother went down to defeat by a comfortable 56-44 percent margin. This vote is consistent with national polls on the subject. Most Americans believe (sensibly) that we should not sacrifice actual human lives to potential human lives. For that same reason, they tend to support embryonic stem cell research. In any case, the issue prompted Fox to hit the campaign trail on behalf of government-funded research and candidates who support it. A pivotal state in this regard was Missouri, where Democrat senatorial candidate Claire McCaskill endorsed a state ballot measure promoting such research, while GOP candidate Jim Talent did not. The actor, shaking uncontrollably, appeared in TV ads on behalf of McCaskill and the ballot measure. Enter Limbaugh, who draws a bigger audience than any radio talk show host in America. On his national radio show -- portions of which are also available online as video downloads from his website -- Limbaugh decided to attack not Fox's views, but his sincerity. "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh claimed concerning Fox's tremors in TV ads. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act." Not only did Limbaugh claim that the hugely popular and tragically afflicted actor was faking his tremors, he actually stooped to lampooning and imitating Fox's uncontrollable spasms. This caused a justifiable national uproar against Limbaugh -- and, in my humble estimation, a measurable political backlash against Republicans. The Missouri ballot measure favoring stem cell research won by a narrow margin. Even some Catholic voters supported the measure, tipping the vote toward its margin of victory:
Much more significantly, however, Democrat Claire McCaskill beat Republican Jim Talent, who had publicly opposed embryonic research, by a very narrow 49-47 percent margin. That single, razor-thin victory gave control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats. Would anyone care to dispute the likelihood that Talent's defeat -- and the consequent GOP loss of the Senate -- hinged on a one-percent swing of voters toward the Democrats because of Rush Limbaugh's highly publicized and grossly offensive personal attack on Michael J. Fox? Not only was Limbaugh's mockery of a sick man disgusting, it was incredibly stupid. Rather than focus the debate on the narrower question of whether such research should be government-funded, he and other conservative Republicans chose instead to mock Fox, and to hinge their case on faith-based "right to life" premises that every poll shows that most voters reject. As columnist Ilana Mercer points out today in a scathing column:
There is an irony here, one that I hope conveys a lesson for "conservatives." Rush Limbaugh's influence was widely credited with inspiring the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, leading to the GOP takeover of Congress. But at that time his message -- and that of the GOP conservative candidates -- had focused on limiting government intervention into our lives. By abandoning its core principles of individualism and limited government in the decade since, the Republicans in Congress have been fired by American voters. Likewise, by focusing stupidly on the alleged "rights" of embryos rather than the actual rights of living citizens -- and by substituting cruel personal attacks for principled arguments -- Rush Limbaugh has now helped engineer his party's crushing defeat. My further thoughts about the philosophical collapse of the Republicans can be found here. UPDATE -- While we're spreading around blame, we can equally blame the Libertarian Party for throwing the U.S. Senate to the Dems by siphoning off enough votes to defeat the GOP candidate in Montana. Hope you idiots enjoy the next few years under the Socialist Party. UPDATE #2 -- One of my favorite pundits, Charles Krauthammer, carefully studies the cloud formations after the election and finds several silver linings. I feel better. Well, for the moment....
|
""right to life" premises that every poll shows that most voters reject"
I don't believe that's even close to the truth.
I don't know what I'd want to do if I had Parkinson's, and God help those who do. But I don't think I'd want kids slaughtered to try to heal me.
If you morons actually believe Rush lost the election for you in the face of Demoncrat lies, you are pathetic! It's just another example of the liberal entropy which is degrading our society.
Try trading in your moderate testicles for a set of hard as steel conservative ones! Rush Limbaugh the reason!! You guys are complete and total morons!
Disagree with me??? --- Okay....Answer this: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE US TO GET OUR REPRESENTATIVES TO LISTEN TO US ABOUT IMMIGRATION???
---I believe this to be THE unspoken, underlying secret that fueled MOST Republican losses.
It doesn't much matter what Rush did or did not say. What is important is how it was PERCEIVED by liberals and how it was REPORTED by the liberal press.
That's all that matters.
This election was totally and completely manipulated by the MSM for anyone who was of the mind to be deceived.
Certainly was not Rush that made it a law to give to the MSM its campaign advantage of complete power, 60 days before an election, thank you John McCain.
Just think how much these liberals would need to spend if all MSM 'news' flashes, or properly stated, campaign ads had to be purchased by liberal campaigns. So much of freedom has been perverted by these control freaks hard to know where to begin.
In the case of George Allen, I agree that "Macaca" was a misstep.
In the case of Rush's comment's regarding Michael J. Fox: The dems set up a straw man, misrepresenting what Rush DID say, and beat up the straw man. The drive-by media spent hours analyzing each other's analysis of what each of them said that Rush had said. And spent seconds covering what Rush really said. And the video I watched on drive-by media programs was obviously looped and played at a faster speed than the original video.
If we blame Rush for this loss, we're in serious trouble if that 2 second comment was the tipping point. The simple fact was that Michael J. Fox was disingenuous and the media lied even more.
Rush did blow the argument.
Instead of focusing on the evils of embryonic experimentation, Rush sidetracked the discussion to focus on the medical condition of Fox. This played right into the hands of pro-abortion, embryo vampires' agenda.
Rush allowed his irritation with the strategy of putting up sympathetic spokesmen to divert attention from the real ethical and political issues. He fell right into the trap.
Maybe Rush should stop tying half his brain behind his back. The stakes are too high for him to grandstand his "wit" when crucial moral and survival questions are facing us.
Yeah, you're right - it was all Rush...
Not the failure to approve judges, the calls for amnesty for illegals, the defense of corrupt Democratic leaders (like William Jefferson), etc. You can blame it all on one guy...
Sadly, the Democrats have been able to count on a significant Catholic vote since JFK... regardless of their opposition to the Church. Without this voting block, they would win nothing. This twit epitomizes the selfishness of the clueless American voter.
The GOP has no one to blame but themselves.
NO ONE!
Absolutely! Even if things like Rush and Foley effected things, if Bush and the GOP were able to communicate the success in and the need for the Iraq war, none of this piddle crap would have mattered.
Of course voting for Democrats isn't going to help any of that, but I'm sure that in some cases, Webb being one of them, folks saw the Democrat in a particular race as a better choice for military members. Of course it was not a good thing overall, since voting for your local Democrat, who might indeed be better on the issue than your local Republican, means voting for the far left, military loathing, leadership of the Democrat party. Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, and others of the Party of Treason.
Levin, likely incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is on Fox now, saying we are obviously losing the war in Iraq. He wants to force the Iraqi government to compromise with the terrorists. Just as Kissinger and Nixon forced the South Vietnamese to "compromise" with the NV and VC, allowing communist troops to remain in South Vietnam, after the USAF and Navy took the NVs to one step above the stone age in the Linebacker II campaign
Oh, and he said he's looking forward to working with the new "ranking member"(meaning the ranking *minority* member), John McCain.
We, the members of the Military Industrial Complex, formerly known as the Arsenal of Democracy, are screwed, blued and tattooed. Along with the Republic and The People it was created to protect.
This is bull-hockey.
I actually listen to Rush, and was listening on the day he addressed the Fox issue.
He did NOT disrespect Mr. Fox. This has been a total mischaracterization by the media against an easy target. Rush is contreversial, egotistical, and not always right.
But he did not make fun of Michael J. Fox.
Foley probably did have an effect...but it was also the way the Dems played it to the hilt to implicate Hastert.
That race wasn't won/lost on the issues but on a brillian ploy by the dems that worked. And the fact that Foley's BS was tolerated for years.
Sandra Day O'Connor is on the Iraq Study Group?
Lords and Saints Preserve Us, cause the ISG isn't going to manage it.
Just the Membership of the Group indicates that's it's purpose is not to determine how to win the war, but how to "lose with honor".
Makes me physically ill.
Precisely.
"Just this morning, a story was published showing that ESS-based vaccines prevented lung cancer in mice with an 80-100% success rate. "Researchers believe that it will be possible to produce cancer vaccines in humans from embryonic stem cells."
Here I would beg to disagree with your premise, and I invite the reader to step back and think critically about this information. It's one thing to claim that embryonic stem cell therapy can prevent cancer in rats in a laboratory under controlled conditions. It's entirely another to infer from limited data that cancer can be prevented in humans.
John Eaton has left an awful lot to the imagination here. Going to the press before presenting your findings to your peers for scrutiny and review is very poor science. It's meant to get the public behind a practice that has not been peer-reviewed yet in order to put pressure on agencies who are responsible for approving therapies for human use.
Now, if my memory serves me correctly, this is the exact practice for which Merck was hammered, wasn't it? Why is it now suddenly acceptable for stem cell researchers to practice the same sensationalism?
Think about it: why else would this person go to the press? To offer hope? Why not wait until his peers have reviewed his data and given their agreement that the results are valid? Having the added weight of successful peer review would have given teeth to Eaton's claims. Right now, Eaton's claim has no validity.
And then you have to acknowledge that stem cell researchers have not practiced scientific methods, and one of their most notable figures turned out to be a fraud.
Do not allow your desire for something to be possible override your ability to think critically. We all want answers to the problems. But junk science will not get us there. Neither will politicization of the research. There is a lot of pressure from activist groups to sway scientific opinion, and any time that happens, research sails swiftly into torpedo water.
Notice how quick so many people here jump on the Bash Rush bandwagon without all the facts? Easy to see why we lost.
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.