A Rush to Judgment
By Thomas Lindaman (11/03/06)
Like Michael Moore with all-you-can-eat buffets, Rush Limbaugh is no stranger to controversy. During his illustrious radio career, he’s angered many people with his musings on the news of the day. But in spite of all the attempts to discredit or silence him, Rush has thrived.
The latest Rush controversy involves TV ads done by Michael J. Fox to support three Democrats running for reelection in their respective states. For those of you more in the dark than Paris Hilton during a rolling blackout, Fox was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease and has been a vocal advocate for stem cell research. Fox has starred in three TV ads for Democrats seeking elected office where he not only touts the need for stem cell research, but takes potshots at Republicans. Here’s a brief sample from the commercial being run for Claire McCaskill in Missouri:
Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.
This got Limbaugh’s ire and on October 24th, he took to the airwaves with his criticism of the ads. Not only did he outline how the ads were at the very least misleading, he advanced the notion that Fox was being used by Democrats to get votes. This is where Rush got into trouble. During a section of his show, Rush advanced the idea that Fox may have been acting or didn’t take the medicine that would help his tremors.
And as predictably as Err America attacking Bush, Democrats went after Rush, saying that he had attacked Fox. But Rush’s suspicions were grounded in at least something substantial. Take this portion of Rush’s October 24th show:
Now, in terms of Michael J. Fox, I did some research today, and I found his book that was published.…Here is what he writes regarding his appearance before a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing in Washington on September 28th, 1999: “I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee about the effects of the disease and the urgency we as a community were feeling be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling.”
Hmmm…maybe it’s me, but it sure sounds like Fox wasn’t above a little dishonesty to get money for a pet cause. Maybe the reason Democrats tried to discredit Rush is because he was right to question their tactics with the ads. By bringing up Fox’s condition, Democrats have done what they did with AIDS: turned a medical issue into a political issue because it’s a sure way to get money and votes merely by “caring” (i.e. spending a ton of taxpayer dollars and leaving us to foot the bill).
What this also does is divert attention away from the real issues, such as the ethical concerns tied with stem cell research, and, more important to folks like me, whether the federal government has any business in the stem cell research industry. Of course, with such great successes as the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and Social Security, who wouldn’t want government involved? (By the way, that was sarcasm.)
George W. Bush has gone on record as saying that he supports stem cell research, but doesn’t think government funds should be used to research some strings of these stem cells. Whether it’s for scientific, moral, or personal reasons, what Bush has said and done in no way prohibits private interests from picking up the ball and running with it.
Frankly, I’m with the President on this one because more often than not private innovation yields better results more quickly than leaving it to the government because the private sector demands results. And let’s face it, expecting results from the federal government is like expecting supermodels to fall madly in love with me. It might happen once in a while, but it’s unlikely. Now, if I’d only known that before I got thrown out of Fashion Week in New York City.
There is one other fact to consider. So far, stem cell research has yet to yield much in the way of positive results. There are hints at some possible cures, but no actual cures yet. Nothing for Parkinson’s. Nothing for Alzheimer’s. Not even anything for the sniffles. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Mark Foley’s sales figures for his new book Sending Suggestive Emails and IMs to Congressional Pages for Dummies. So, why should we spend taxpayer money on something that may not yield anything? Isn’t that like believing the rusted out Yugo you bought last month will someday become a Ferrari if you just threw money at it?
With the Limbaugh/Fox controversy, Democrats offer us a false choice: either believe Fox when we know he’s not telling the truth, or get labeled as being hateful towards the infirm. Well, kids, I’ve been labeled far worse, so consider me a “hater” because I think Rush was right on the money on this one. So, save me your self-righteous bullplop because at the end of the day I’m never going to be accused of using someone with Parkinson’s for political purposes. Now, mooning Barbra Streisand? That’s a different story.
Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. and NewsBull.com. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com
(Printer friendly version) Email: Thomas Lindaman
