Rush was basically saying “Oh come ON!!! Parkinson’s disease doesn’t really look like that, MJF was either acting or off his meds”
If Rush had just said “I think MJF was deliberately off his meds and its dirty pool to show the untreated effects of Parkinson’s when he would have virtually no symptoms if he took his medication” (I’m not sure if this is true or not). Then I would say, Rush you don’t understand Parkinson’s disease and I hope you never have to find out first hand. But no, he said MJF is lying and he called MJF a liar not because he knew he was lying but because it served his political purposes to do so. THAT’s what makes him a douchebag, not because he took a swing at some sacred cow.
I personally don’t think it would have been dishonest to go off his meds for the commercial to show the full effects of Parkinson’s disease but it hasn’t even been established that is what happened and it has been established that MJF wasn’t “acting” YET Limbaugh basically calls MJF a liar and by implication calls the democratic candidates he supports a bunch of liars. As Rush Limbaugh says: Make no mistake about it. That is what he was doing.
I mean we don’t know if he was on his meds or not, do we? But you are coming from the presumption (and its an understandable presumption) that he was off his meds. But you caveat your statements by saying that “if he was off his meds” then he was being dishonest. I disagree with your conclusion but I can see how you got there. Rush was saying “MJF is a liar, he isn’t that bad off, he is either acting or he is off his meds”
Coincidentally (or perhaps not), just before a report on this spot and Limbaugh’s reaction to it last night on Scarborough Country on MSNBC, my local cable company inserted a version of the ad that Mr. Fox made for Maryland senatorial candidate Ben Cardin and against his opponent, Michael Steele. I thought it was pretty effective.
During the 2004 campaign, Limbaugh revealed on-air that he was a campaign consultant to the Republican National Committee. Whatever blather you see or hear him blither from his desk of judgement, it is coming from the party. He is not just an independant hateful wacko, out there spewing on his own. He is a campaign consultant to the Republican National Committee. What he says is okay with the party. GWB approves of his message.
I’m not sure this has been established. In reading his book, Fox’s own descriptions of his symptoms contradict this. In television and public appearances in the last few years, he seems to be able to medicate to extent that he has fairly good control for at least short periods.
But it has been four years or so since the book was written, and it’s been a couple since I saw him on television. It may well be that his symptoms are now worse, and even with the medication, that is the best he gets. I don’t know. But I don’t think it’s firmly established that the shaking he exhibited in the add was from the absence or the presence of medication.
But even assuming that it is true that he can control the symptoms for a time via the meds, I do know that in his book he wrote about not being able to always control them. For years, he hid away during those times so no one would know. After going public, he felt free to use the medication as he, his family, and his physicians thought best not just to hide the symptoms when he was in public, but to give him the best overall quality of life, even if that meant being in public and “looking like a drunken sailor”.
So the way he appears in the add is a normal part of his life, even with the medication. Just because he may choose not to always display that in public doesn’t mean he doesn’t live with it on a daily basis. And my understanding is that almost everyone who had PD gets to the point that with or without medication they “looked like Michael J Fox without meds” on a regular basis.
That’s the point.
I couldn’t agree more. Rush doesn’t speak his conscience, you squeeze him and he burps the party line.
My uncle has an almost identical chorea to Fox’s when he takes his meds. Occasionally, he looks like he’s doing snaps from the "Men On… " In Living Color sketches.
I have to admit that I don’t see the relevance in what effect his meds have because I don’t see what’s wrong with him going OFF his meds to demonstrate the effect the disease has. The point to the ad was that Parkinson’s is a bad thing to have and that Fox supports legislators who he thinks will do things that might help find a cure. What better way to illustrate why it’s bad to have Parkinson’s than to, you know, show what it does to you?
If you want to motivate people to contribute money to help starving African children, doesn’t it make sense to run pictures of African kids who need help? If you’re creating ads designed to call for action against drunk driving, isn’t it just smart to show a few car wrecks? Why would Michael J. Fox be wrong to show the truth of Parkinson’s in an ad which directly addresses the need to fight the disease?
Tucker Carlson was just on TV and interviewed the candidate Fox was shilling for. He quickly dealt with the Limbaugh issue with something to the effect of “what he said was horrible and stupid and that’s all there is to it” and then engaged the candidate in a surprisingly (for Tucker Carlson) intelligent questioning as to whether it was okay to basically guilt the voter, with an ad that sort of says “If you don’t vote for me, you want Michael J. Fox to die.” The candidate - whose name I admit I cannot recall - did a remarkably bad job defending herself and the interview quickly fizzled because she didn’t seem to know what to say and Carlson couldn’t follow up with anything, since she said basically nothing.
To be honest, it’s a good question, but I have to say my first reaction - and it’s still my reaction - was, yes, it’s quite okay to do that. If you think the other candidate supports something that will hurt people I see nothing wrong in putting that front and centre and saying “My opponent’s agenda will hurt and kill people.” It’s openly manipulative, but
If advertising ISN’T manipulative then, um, why’re you doing it? It’s supposed to be manipulative.
Most importantly,** it’s honest in its intent and states a clear policy position that can be debated on its merits.** You may agree or disagree with stem cell research but at least you now know where this candidate stands and can investigate the veracity of their claims. It sure as shit beats the vague character-based attacks featured in far too many elections.
I never had a strong opinion about you until right now: it’s like discovering a long-lost sister. I still have the Michael J. Fox scrapbook that I created in high school, 20 years ago! I didn’t see the E! True Hollywood Story on him, but I have the episode of Inside the Actor’s Studio that he was on last year – I downloaded it from iTunes.
Was that filmed last year? I ask because he asked to leave the set for a few minutes “to take a pill” which seems to contradict the effects of the medication above.
In which case, perhaps he should have kept his pie hole shut.
The difference between “criticism” and “personal attack” can be illustrated by examples (e.g. a typical thread here and a factual explanation of the state of adult vs. embryonic stem cell applications are examples of the former; a typical thread in the Pit and Limbaugh’s comments are examples of the latter).
He did, indeed, leave the set to let a pill take effect (I just finished watching it again), but I’m not sure what you find contradictory. What “medication above?”
A physician is quoted somewhere in the thread as saying that without medication, patients are stiff; with medication they are shaky. I’m too lazy to look for it. Mr. Fox seemed normal during the interview, the latter which at least was under medication.
Do you know what medication if any he was taking during the Larry King interview some time ago. He was twitching horribly, jerking spasmodically and seemed unaware of it when King mentioned it. He literally sat on his hands for the remainder of the interview.
I loved the Back to the Future movies; dislike all situation comedies including his.
That was a statement made by a doctor who has probably never even met Fox, let alone examined him, and who may well have been exaggerating for effect (he admits that a researcher in his center recently received a grant from the Fox Foundation). Everything else in this thread has indicated that in Fox’s case, the medication helps control his symptoms.
