The politics in Missouri are getting brutal, and now the big guns are being unleashed. There is a tight senate race between incumbent Jim Talent (GOP) and Claire McCaskill (DEM). Also on the ballot is a measure legalizing embryonic stem cell research, and polls show a majority favoring it. Now everything is merging into one big war.
Here is the ad from McCaskill supporting embryonic stem cell research:
Here is a response ad opposing the measure:
Election day can't get here fast enough!
And don’t forget Limbaugh’s mocking of Fox’s spasms…
Don’t know exactly what Rush said or did. Something about Fox exaggerating his symptoms. What I do know is that Fox choose to weigh in with one candidate vs another. He painted the target on himself. He is a big boy. He knows what he is doing.
Nothing goes unscrutinized in these ads and I read today that Fox says he had altered his medication prior to the ads. I also know that it is a time honored political strategy to trot out a victim in support of a cause and then demagogue all opponents on the issue as enemies of the victim. That gets really old.
For me, the issue is not Limbaugh, Fox or anyone else. The issue is the measure itself. The science I read shows very little hope for embryonic stem cells and I think it raises warning flags about engineered life. I will vote against the measure.
I just get wear of the manipulation from all sides and there are still several days to go.
Thanks for the comment back, Michael, and for posting both ads.
I concur that Fox put himself out there, like he did for Specter in 04. I’d be interested in a link to where Fox says he altered his meds; what I read is that the movement is a side effect of the meds themselves, rather than a reduction or an altering of taking them. And I’m not sure that, even if he did stop taking the meds, that ipso facto renders him less credible. The visible effects of the disease, the way that it affects the body, is a germane part of the debate.
For the record, though, I concur with this:
I also know that it is a time honored political strategy to trot out a victim in support of a cause and then demagogue all opponents on the issue as enemies of the victim. That gets really old.
I understand and respect your take; on the other hand, I don’t think he’s taking on the victim label. That’s been pushed upon him by his detractors. What I see him doing is advocating for something directly related to what he’s experienced. That plus his fame makes him an effective advocate. But just because he is a victim doesn’t mean he’s taking that label upon himself. People might see him and can’t do anything other than call him a victim, but there is something actually the opposite about taking one’s difficult experiences and working to make something better out of them.
So I don’t think that what you wrote here is what happened here, or at least wasn’t my point about Rush. Rush mocked Fox’s illness on his show. The video is out there, I think on youtube. He flailed about. It was inhumane; he was making fun of Fox.
Some of his critique is an acceptable part of the political discourse: is Fox a worthwhile advocate or not? should those who suffer a disorder not talk about it publicly to generate support for cures relating to it, or can they? was this a politically calculated exaggeration, or do you see here a portrayal of what the actual debate is about? All those are fine, and I think should be offered respectfully. Fox deserves respect (like anyone deserves respect), but not immunity. But Rush went way beyond the line, as he does often.
So what I get tired about is the taint that comes with campaign season. Again: that’s on both sides, but this ad really wasn’t part of that. At least, not as far as I can tell…
Ob2: For me, the issue is not Limbaugh, Fox or anyone else. The issue is the measure itself. The science I read shows very little hope for embryonic stem cells and I think it raises warning flags about engineered life. I will vote against the measure.
I respect all that. And I concur: this does not end up with going back and forth between fox and Rush, but really is about the science. I think the science is more promising than calling it ‘very little hope;’ but it is unproven and nascent right now. I too am concerned about ‘engineered life,’ but that’s a complex matter, isn’t it. In my judgment, that’s a matter for legislation to regulate, and in this case on the federal level. In other words, I think the science is important, and the ethics are important, and we need to find a way through the thicket. Is Amendment 2 the way. I don’t know. It bans cloning. It doesn’t prohibit regulation, but follows federal regulation and allows federally-lawful research to happen in Missouri. But I’m not a Missouri resident. Its not my call.
For me, the issue is not Limbaugh, Fox or anyone else. The issue is the measure itself. The science I read shows very little hope for embryonic stem cells and I think it raises warning flags about engineered life. I will vote against the measure.
I just get wear of the manipulation from all sides and there are still several days to go.
You and me both. And, we might disagree, I just don’t see much manipulation in Fox’s ad. Celebrity, sure. Advocation, sure. Misleading info? No. Exaggerated claims or wild speculation? No. But I see it in the other ad here (see Heaton’s comments as the most extreme example of this). Has it been there on the pro 2 side? Of course. But that’s not Fox’s fault.
I think the tipping point for me is that there is an amendment out there on the issue. Fox could have campaigned for the Amendment. Instead he came in on the side of particular candidate against another candidate. He charged Talent with wanting to criminalize work that gives a chance for hope. Adult stem cell research is showing some promise (from scientist friends I talk to) and embryonic has yet to render any breakthroughs.
As to meds, what I read was that there was a dosage increase and that would comport with your statement about the drugs causing movements. I can’t remember now what I was reading but I’ll see if I can google it later.
I don’t think Fox has to say he is victim. His physical presence says he is a victim of terrible disease (my grandfather died partly of this.) The issue is that ad experts knew the emotional impact this would have on viewers. I don’t fault him for making his case if so chooses. The bigger issue for me is McCaskill’s strategy. We will see if it works.
As to Rush … well Rush is Rush. I’ll have to see I can dig up his youtube spot.
(Is it election day yet? How long, oh Lord, how long!) *grin*
Peace
Mike,
As I understand it Fox admitted to not taking his meds to dramatize his case on capital hill in 2002. Rush then suggested he had done it again.
This experiment embryonic stem cells has shown: “Using human embryonic stem cells, researchers have cured a Parkinson’s-like disease in rats.” There was a catch though … they also caused cancer.
Still I think it is fair to suggest there is some hope that there is a chance this path could lead towards a cure.
Nate
Thanks for the reply, Michael. If you find a link to any information about Fox saying he changed, reduced, added, or modified his prescribed medication, I’d be interested. Again, from my view, I’m not sure that’d make a difference, but I think Rush made a wild speculation and pushed it as fact (not uncommon), and I’d like some more reliable source on the matter.
In a few weeks, the election will be over, and peace will once again blanket the earth… 🙂
Hey Nate. Been awhile.
Nate and Karios.
Okay. So while looking for the article I thought I read, I found this from a website talking about Fox’s work:
“Here is a quote One of Fox’s main strategies in his foundation is appearing before Congress on behalf of Parkinson’s patients, foregoing his medications that allow him some control over his muscles and providing a shocking eye-opener to the effects of the disease.”
Celebrity Values
After finding this I went to search for the Limbaugh clip and found this interview with Katie C. (It is long but interesting.)
Fox Is Latest Celebrity Advocate
In the interview Fox mentions in response to Limbaugh’s comments that the irony was that he had increased his medication that day. The medication was what casued the rocking movement. His point was that his movements were unpredictable and with a crew there to record they couldn’t keep people waiting around for a better moment.
I doubt his movements were induced but I am willing to bet there was no effort to minimize symptoms either. Being symtomatic is how he dramtizes his illness.
Fox doesn’t want to be called a victim. Fine. But he is symptomatic and he and everyone else knows that his symptoms draw sympathy to his cause. One media analysis source I saw said this ad tested second only to the swift boat ads in effectiveness over recent campaigns.
It is was one thing to dramtize your symptoms to raise awareness of a disease. It is another to us them as tool in partisan settings and expect kid gloves. Limbaugh was being a bonehead but that doesn’t make more sympathetic the cause Fox is promoting or McCaskill using this tactic.
Amd by the way, after listening to the interview I went back to search for the article again and found the Limbaugh clip. I never did find the original article but I suspect it was reporting on the interview.
So I never found what I was looking for while I was looking for it, but I did find some pretty good stuff! (There is a metahpor for my life in this little search episode.)
Thanks for the reply, Michael, and these links. I don’t want to belabor this, but I just want to comment on a point or two. I appreciate the space on your blog to have this conversation.
In the interview Fox mentions in response to Limbaugh’s comments that the irony was that he had increased his medication that day. The medication was what casued the rocking movement. His point was that his movements were unpredictable and with a crew there to record they couldn’t keep people waiting around for a better moment.
This tracks roughly with the comments of a physician friend of mine: that without the meds he likely wouldn’t be able to control himself at all, to the point of being immobile or rendered unable to speak. It is use of the meds that can amplify the shaking, not the discontinuation of them, and that the use of the meds is marked by symptoms. What you see here and on CBS is the daily life of someone with the disease who is on the meds, not an exageration, a dramatization, or a falsification.
So, that leads to this:
I doubt his movements were induced but I am willing to bet there was no effort to minimize symptoms either. Being symtomatic is how he dramtizes his illness.
I’m not sure why you ascribe that motive to him. It is true he makes himself public; that doesn’t mean he ‘dramitizes’ anything. And, not to be too repetitive (I hope), I’m not sure that there is anything wrong with that: the physical effects of his disease are a major component, and seeing that and understanding what people with the disease go through seems to me to be a valid datum for the discussion. Is it manipulative? Well, that depends on your POV, I guess. I don’t think it is.
It is another to us them as tool in partisan settings and expect kid gloves.
I’m not sure where this critique comes from. Who says that we should treat Fox or the subject with kid gloves? That he should be immune from criticism? His experience with the disease doesn’t make him infalible nor does it mean that his voice trumps science, logic, or other’s experience. I doubt he’d argue otherwise. His experience does make him more experienced than those without it, and makes him a credible spokesperson. Beyond that, this kid-gloves context is spuriously ascribed.
On a secondary note: I understand the critique about parading of ostensible victims. I do. But I think it is more helpful to talk about what experience brings to the table in public discourse. I’m not sure about your POV, Michael, but many of those who I speak with about this that raise this card (along with, say Cindy Sheehan, she’s a favorite) speak favorably of John Walsh and his activism work, or the like.
So, that’s my two cents. One last thing:
So I never found what I was looking for while I was looking for it, but I did find some pretty good stuff! (There is a metahpor for my life in this little search episode.)
That’s the best part about the internet. I’m also ready for this election cycle to be over…
Thanks Kairos.
“I’m not sure why you ascribe that motive to him. It is true he makes himself public; that doesn’t mean he ‘dramatizes’ anything. And, not to be too repetitive (I hope), I’m not sure that there is anything wrong with that.”
I am not expressing myself well. Sorry. Fox could write books and articles. He could contribute money for various causes and organize fundraisers. Instead he has chosen to make himself a very public figure who has the symptoms, even to the point, by his own admission, of stopping medications at times so his symptoms can be fully manifested. In that sense, he has made a choice. I agree that there is nothing particularly wrong with his strategy in educating about the disease.
But coming at this another way, I mentioned that the ad has a very effective impact. Is it because Fox is so influential? The crafting of his words are so exceptional? No. It is because of symptoms and the emotional impact that has on people.
The issue ceases to be about the validity of the science and its ethical impact and becomes about helping a glimpse of a hope of chance to help Michael J. Fox while we meanwhile make major bioethical decisions. If somehow conducting experiments on orphaned infants might have a slim hope to help Fox and Fox wanted us to vote for this would, that be good politics? (I am exaggerating to make my point to be belligerent.) But let us keep the context in mind. The ad is not about stem cells. It is about voting for Claire McCaskill against Jim Talent who didn’t vote for the legislation Fox wanted but has not opposed embryonic stem cell research that meet certain ethical standards. Fox is exploiting his condition to defeat a politician with whom he disagrees.
Emotion is an important part of a political ad but sensationalizing is something else. There is no clear line about where that is but this ad is at least in the gray zone in my estimation. I don’t consider it to be a healthy sign when the body politic can only be reached by “sound bite” reasoning and sensationalization. That points us in a dangerous direction. I think that is what I react to the most.
I always love the way you make my process, brother.
Peace!
Leave a Reply to Michael KruseCancel reply