Ben Cardin Uses Michael J Fox, Shows Desperation
by Big Dog on Oct 24, 2006 at 12:12 Political
I wrote a recent post about Michael J Fox in a commercial for a Missouri Democratic candidate for Senate. I noted that Fox neglected to inform people that he was interested in embryonic stem cell research and yet he used the broad category of stem cell research to make it appear as if no research is sought by Republicans. I also wrote that they brought him out so he could shake all over. This got me one accusation of being cavalier.
One might assume that Fox was stumping for one candidate but it seems he is making commericals all over. There is one now for Ben Cardin, the Democrat from Maryland who swears he will get things done in the Senate though he never got those things done all the years he served in the house. Michael J Fox has one issue that concerns him and that is embryonic stem cell research. He does not care how candidates stand on any other issue because this one issue means the most to him. I feel badly that he got the disease and it is terrible that it struck him so early in life but it is pathetic for the Democrats to bring him out so people can see him shake all over the place in order to garner sympathy and gain votes. Fox wants the people who support killing babies in order to save other lives to run this country. He fails to mention that part because it raises moral issues and they really don’t want to do that as long as we can see him shake all over and feel sorry for him.
Bringing Fox to Maryland is an act of desperation. Maryland is a 2-1 Democratic state and usually no one pays much attention because the Democrats always put their leaders back in office. This year though, Michael Steele is giving Cardin a run for his money. It is obvious that the race is not a Democratic rout because the donks are bringing in the big guns to campaign. Last week they had bubba Clinton and this week Cardin has Fox in a misleading commercial trying to gain the sympathy vote. He also misleads in that the Bush administration has allowed already harvested murdered babies to be used for this research.
Perhaps America should have elected John Kerry because if he were president Christopher Reeve would walk again, even if John Had to bring him back from the dead. No, instead, we elected people who have moral values and who realize that any scientific gains from research will be years away. They also realize that adult stem cells have, so far, shown the greatest promise. Perhaps, most of all, they are leaders who will not kill another human to beneift someone else. I guess once we allow all of Michael’s candidates in office and they start killing off babies for stem cells it will not be long before we start harvesting organs from the elderly.
The Democratic party is a culture of death. They don’t mind killing (unless it is a murderer, then they want to save them) in order to achieve an agenda. Unfortunately, they also do not mind parading a man with an illness out to exploit his disease.
If this country puts them in office, we deserve what we get.
Tags: Political
[…] [Read more and discuss…] […]
Or possibly he fails to mention it because he doesn’t believe that embryonic research involves killing babies. I understand being opposed to the research if you believe that an embryo fertilized outside of the womb is a life- but claiming that he’s being exploitive just doesn’t make sense. How is Fox’s playing on emotion any different than showing ultrasounds as a means of disuading people from abortion? He believes there is indeed a moral issue at stake- and that that issue is letting people who could be cured suffer needlessly. Why is having one of those people speak “pathetic”?
Still waiting for the evidence on this. Adult stem cells have shown the most surprising gains, but still less promise than embryonic.
Once again, if you believe that a life is at stake than it obviously isn’t justified to use embryonic stem cells. And claiming it is a life, calling scientists murderers, and in general playing on the emotions that surround people’s feelings about life seems to be the same tactic MJF is taking here just on the other side. He believes there is a moral imperative to stop disease and he is showing people the disease is real. Make your point by emotionally persuading people it is a life and you win. If the type of emotional persuasion Fox engages in is out the window, then wouldn’t that apply to your side’s argument as well?
Further, if an embryo is a life and we have an obligation to stop funding (or even ban) embryonic research, wouldn’t we also have an obligation to stop invitro fertilization as well as anything else which resulted in fertilizing an egg but not in development and birth of that embryo?
Mike,
No, the emotion part of it does not really come into play for me. The fact is, MJF wants the government to fund ESCR. It is not the government’s position to do that and a large number of people who believe that it is murder do not want tax money spent on it. If MJF wants this so badly, why does he not spend his time pushing for the private research that is going on? They are not using government money and they have embryonic stem cells.
There is no ban to stop ESCR, just a ban on using federal money (read ours) to do it.
Yes, I believe it was pathetic for them to exploit him just as it was pathetic to exploit Christopher Reeve. Why didn’t they bring some other, non-famous person with Parkinson’s out? They picked him because of name recognition and his symptoms.
Fox says in the commercial that Bush and Steele will not fund the most promising. Where is his evidence. Why did he not mention what the most promising was if it is OK with him? He was vague because he knows that it is an emotional issue for many people who are morally opposed to this kind of thing. MJF has a right to look out for his interests but others have just as much right, whether they are sick or not.
I like Fox. I think he is a fine actor. He would be more credible to me if I saw him in between elections supporting the candidates he is springing up for now.
And to be clear, i would be opposed if they had trotted Ronald Reagan out in his condition and he was telling people not to do it. I think it is pathetic. Of course, the comments I have gotten shows that Ann Coulter was right about victims and how they are used by the left.
Great point. I would add that if you have no fixed principles, everything is going to boil down to your own feelings or desires.
People on both sides bring victims out all the time. Why is it pathetic for them to be famous? The party isn’t exploiting a person when that person is volunteering to be there. That person may be exploiting their own fame to push issues they believe in. Kind of like you “exploit” the fact that you have a blog to write on it.
Once again, there is and always has been overwhelming evidnence that embryonic stem cells can do much more. Those who believe in them feel that government funding is extremely important. Why is it pathetic for them to speak out about that? Can’t the right simply respond by either actually presenting evidence that embryonic cells aren’t worthwile and/or present a (clear, persuasive, emotional, celebrity endorsed, etc) argument that embryonic cells are a life and it isn’t right to force people to spend their money ending a life.
I don’t really get whether the fact that they are victims (people who strenghten the emotionality of an argument) or that they are famous people (who we somehow like or trust more than other people for some strange reason) that you have a problem with.
Was it pathetic for Nancy Reagan to be speaking in favor of embryonic research? Is it pathetic for pro-lifers to show signs with pictures of ultrasounds? Was it pathetic for victims’ families in the OKC bombing to be interviewed saying they hoped McVey and Nichols got the death penalty? Was it pathetic for displaced Iraqi’s in the US to push for regime change?
Coulter was part right- and that is why both the right and the left use victims to move their causes forward. Victims led credibility and emotional appeal and attacking a victim for being a victim certainly pisses people off. But Coulter had no problem with exploitation of victims to encourage the war in the first place. It seems there’s only a problem when the victims disagree. And then instead of just arguing the point she attacks the victims as being awful people for then going on to publicly speak about how they feel. What happened to Coulter being so smart and witty, can’t she just win the argument without trying to discredit those making it? Her problem seems to be she can’t “win” the argument by simply making fun of people or calling them names in this case because it makes her a bad person. Hey Ann, it always made you a bad person, people just notice it when they are victims. Why not just win the argument on the fact and policy end of it? I certainly believe that the Right is on the factually correct side often enough that y’all should be able to do that and win as often as not.
Mike, your comment was in moderation.
I have no problem with Fox doing what he did but there is more than one agenda at play. You can read my new post for the details. If MJF is going to go on the air then he is going to get criticism from some. I happen to think it was a pathetic display. The guy admits that he does not take his medication so his appearance is more dramatic. His agenda will be suspect.
I don’t have to justify why I think it is pathetic, it just looked that way to me. Nancy Reagan was not placed on TV in a debilitated state to garner sympathy. Victims can and will be subject to criticism, it is a tough world.
BTW, the right supports ESCR so long as the embryo is not destroyed. People are entitled to have a moral objection to something and they do.
As for it being better, reports say it has caused cancer in lab rats. I need to see hard data. WHen they come up with it, from using research that does not destroy embryos or from private research, then we can debate whether it is better or not.