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....
|
"no how to put their money where their mouths are" should be : know how to put their money where their mouths are.
I'll pile on with 60Gunner with a negative opinion about ESS. Much of the work done with ESS isn't about the science, but about the politics, money, and arrogance of scientists. ESS researchers, I think, are wildly overpromising the potential of the research. Sure, you never know where basic research will lead until you actually do it, but the resources to do science are limited and you make choices about what to fund or not to fund. ESS work often operates with a real strong PR element and a lot of advocacy and activism more like the Global Warming crowd. Who says that scientists aren't political and that there politics doesn't influence their scientific judgment?
On the main point of this thread, I think a lot of people have raised some great points both pro and con about Rush's effect or non-effect on the elections. That's what's great about Free Republic. Great arguments, well presented.
No, it was not a GOP debacle on November 7. It was an America and American debacle. The voters do not yet understand (and may never) what a sorry group of incompetent people they have put in power. So sad, but so true.
I ain't buying it. You give too much fault to Limbaugh. Of all the people I run into daily, I can count on one hand those that listen to Limbaugh.
You are attempting to equate stem cell research to euthanasia, which is utterly absurd.
Sorry. Too quick on the keyboard.
I have read this opinion elsewhere, but believe it is a fallacy to assume that the MT libertarian caused the R loss.
Are you telling me I should leave comments on Rush's website? If so, for what reason?
So now it's all Rush's fault. Boy, I've heard of denial running deep, but this is ridiculous.
When we focus of people instead of ideas, we lose the argument in the public's eye. Politics has become too much about attacking the person, instead of the message. True the Rats, by using MJF did make the person the message, and that was the trap they set.
Well okay -- I don't know who actually wrote this peice -- but he is an absolute IDIOT. Rush was right about Fox, DID NOT demean Fox, and proved his point that political correctness has made it a mortal sin to even QUESTION those who are "victims" of some sort -- like the "Jersey Girls" 9/11 widows, or the late Christopher Reeves, or Michael J. Fox.
Thank you Rush. Keep up the good work -- we'll need your voice in the dark days to come.
No, the guy who wrote the article.
http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/
I gave a response. There are advances in ESC research all the time. I see the religious nuts insisting that there has been NO achievements, and then equating it to euthanasia.
The position of the religious right is so weak on these points, they resort to lies.
While it is true that ESC research has resulted in tumors in rats, this point is irrelevant because it was a result of injecting embryonic stem cells directly into rats... which is not what the treatments will do!
You also say that the research cannot survive without taxpayer money... another falsehood. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the U.S. with billions more spent around the world. Federal funding would provide not only more money, but regulation of the research.
As for your incredible leap of logic that federal funding would result in the acceptance of euthanasia, your premise is based on the myth that there is some equivalence between a 3-day old test-tube embryo and a 60-year old man. "Gee, if we can snuff out embryos, how long before we're killing old people?!" It's one of those ridiculous slippery slope arguments that are not even worth acknowledging.
Thank you for the ping.
The guy is a real creep in real life
***********
http://user.pa.net/~ejjeff/christie.html
It's not worth the time.
Lunatic Fringe:
The link below is to a CNN article this year on the likelihood that any clinical value of embryonic stem cells is at least a decade away. I am not a religious nut. I am a political nut. Please read this when you have time:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/01/feature.stemcells/
<< And to some extent, I believe that Limbaugh's comments (taken out of context) may have marginally hurt the GOP at the polls. >>
Agree, but I also think Kerry's "freudian slip" would have counterbalanced this.
If Rush hurt the party at all, it was "carrying Bush's Water" and thus enabling a non-communicative President.
I didn't mean YOU were an idiot, but if you do post something like this, you have a perfect opportunity to state your disagreement with the first comment on the thread, or a barf alert. There is no reason for anyone to believe you didn't wholeheartedly agree with this nobody's opinion because you chose not to counter his argument.
You're very touchy about being accused of writing this piece, and you say you're just "passing it along." Well, what do YOU think of it, since you thought enough of it to share?
Which one of the comments on his site is yours, truthfinder?
<< Rush should have dropped the story after day one, but he wouldn't and helped keep the story alive. >>
Agree. It was Rush's defensiveness that made him look like the guilty one. A sincere apology (more than the conditional one he gave) and a single-segment synopsis would have been more appropriate.
Rush, call your sponsor.
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.