as a strategic political thinker (Rush) is a total flop. I honestly think following his advice would be disastrous, because he obviously has a political tin ear (hence the Michael J. Fox gaffe).
The "Michael J. Fox gaffe" was no such thing. I heard the entire rant that included the 5 second blurb that the DBM took out of context and turned into an "attack" on Fox. It was not an attack on Fox. It was devastating critique of the dishonest and deplorable tactics of the Dhimmicrats. The point he was making at the time was that Fox and people like Cindy Sheehan or the "Jersey Girls" were "victims" being used by the Dhimmicrats as the carriers of their message precisely so that no one was allowed to raise questions about them or their message. His point was that Fox might easily have been off his meds and exaggerating since he had already admitted doing that in Congressional testimony. And anyone who dared to question him about that would immediately be crucified.
It is pretty well documented that John Kerry has been trolling at funerals for service people from Massachusetts killed in Iraq looking for families willing to say hateful things about President Bush. They are slimes for doing this type of stuff and must not be allowed to get away with it.
Rush was proven correct in his analysis. Even good people like you have seemingly bought into the DBM spin that Rush was some heartless beast attacking poor innocent Micheal J. Fox and not understanding the pain and trauma of having Parkisons. Never mind that Fox was grotesquely lying about the position of Talent in Missouri and Steele in Maryland on this issue. Ignore the fact that he was saying that they opposed stem cell research when both of them support stem cell research, so long as it doesn't involve killing a human being to perform the experiments. Never mind that he implied that embryonic stem cell research (a word he refused to use) is the most promising area to find a cure for him while in reality it is so far a totally unpromising avenue of research for any helpful medical research while adult and cord blood stem cell research have both produced very positive results. No, Fox wants to clone and kill babies to provide him some sort of mummies elixir of eternal life, even if he has to have thousands of babies killed to achieve it.
I have thought a lot about the above question. I am the beneficiary of three transplants, donated tissue from dead people, which gives me a totally different view of Frankenstein. I am also the recipient of an artificial body part, which gives me insight into the notion of cyborgs. I have found that both of those areas of scientific research are innocent and morally allowable. The only area that would end up being a real question involves the donated tissue for transplants but all of that (in my case) came from volunteers (Chinese involuntary "parts" sales from political prisoners are another matter) Fox and company are more akin to Dracula, bent on sucking the life from other people involuntarily to fix their problems. It is, at the very least, a moral discussion that we must engage in as a society.
Rush has argued long and hard for the right things for our side. He has done what he thought necessary to support getting things done, not making statements or feeling good about being some sort of purist. He recently expressed his frustration for having to do what the elected Republicans, supposed conservatives, should be doing but either won't or can't (the "carrying the water" comment from the day or so after the election). He defines conservatism as inherently compassionate because it is about what works to make people's lives better. I agree with him. My own definition of my brand of conservatism is "cynical liberalism." I believe in the stated liberal ideals of equal treatment and helping those less fortunate. I just don't believe for an instant that Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, William Jefferson, Nancy Pelosi or any of the rest of them are out for anyone but themselves.
Oh, it is also important to note that Rush spent 3 to 4 times as much air time commiserating with Fox's condition during this rant along with qualifying his questions about Fox's appearance by saying he was not intimately familiar with how far it had progressed as well as emphasizing that Parkinsons is a horrible disease that has devastating effects. But that doesn't mean that Michael J. Fox is immune from criticism. Especially when he's wrong and most especially when he's being dishonest about the facts involved in the issue being debated.
It is a reprehensible stratagem to exploit people in his condition to advance a political agenda dishonestly. The Democrats got away with it again this time. We must not grant them this moral high ground when they are so very wrong on the issues. Our biggest mistake is when we buy their premise. Fox, the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan are not automatically correct in everything they say simply because they are victims. Pat them on the head and sympathize with them all you want, but don't listen to their drivel without first checking out the real facts and certainly don't accept the attacks on people who do point out their fallacies as being "mean" or as committing "gaffes."
Did what Rush said hurt our cause? Maybe. Is it his fault? Nope. Its ours. We let the DBM twist what he said and misrepresent the point he was making. We should have been marshalling our forces to challenge their dishonest premise with factual refutations of their argument. I have done a poor job of doing that here, but between us we could have assembled the facts and put together a rational and convincing argument to negate their artificial spin. That is the challenge that AB! has given us this week. Not just pontificating, as I have here, but carefully assembling the facts, putting together a convincing argument and then subjecting it to the ruthless peer review of the great people here, people like you. If we can get an argument through that gauntlet then the DBM doesn't have a chance.
Rush should enforce the opposite of the extract policy we face on FR. He should insist that no one is allowed to use clips or quotes from him unless they include the context. If he could do that he'd win every time.
I agree Phsstpok. This is the same issue as the 911 widows and Coulter got smacked for it too. Arguing as a victim is dishonest and it has to be met in appropriate terms. I am deeply, deeply concerned that an attractive hollywood celebrity can lie with impugnity about politicians positions during an election. We are in real trouble if Pam Anderson or Madonna gets some bad disease.
I too was listening to Rush the day he said the Michael J Fox things and Phsstpok is right, Rush's whole rant was about the DBM/Dems using people who are victims to attack conservative positions knowing that to fight back makes them look like the bad guys. Anne Coulter has also spoken of this in reference to the Jersey Girls, those very few WTC widows who are constantly blaming Bush for 9/11, and get a whole lot of press in doing so.
Still, Phsstpok, I knew the second Rush said that (perhaps MJF deliberately didn't take his meds in order to look more shaky) he'd get howls of outrage that would be taken out of context and make Rush look like the villian... Just like Anne Coulter got for calling the Jersey Girls harpies.
I've got to wonder about Rush, sometimes. The whole kerfufela may have helped his ratings. Not to say that was his objective.....
Rush could have illustrated the same information by deploring the Rats taking advantage of a sick person, explained why Mr. Fox was wrong, wished him well and said that we all were praying for a cure. In which case, the democrats could have been made to look like villains, rather than Rush, and by extension, the rest of the Republicans.
I am not saying he wasn't right about Fox's motives. He simply took a ham-handed approach to refuting him, and THAT is what I am angry about, and why I say he has a political tin ear. He should have known how that statement would be twisted and exceerpted.