|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 7:15:22 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhtYk5crxVYAfter hearing so much about it, I really assumed that viewing it would convince me that Limbaugh's characterization of it as not mocking, but merely demonstrating (for the webcam) what he meant by "moving all over the place" , was him trying to put a bandaid on a major hemorhage. Now I'm not really sure. Maybe the video thrice removed to youtube is just too bad to decide -- but I'm not sure I see mocking. What do you think? Does viewing this convince you that he was, indeed, mocking Fox's appearance?
|
|
|
Post by guitone on Oct 27, 2006 7:45:36 GMT -5
Rush is about as insensitive a human being as was ever created...mocking, well I think everything he does is mocking something, so I am a bad one to ask, but yes, I think he was inappropriate at best.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 27, 2006 7:47:39 GMT -5
It's too short a clip to know if his movements were mocking or demonstrative, but his words are hateful, and that is all that matters. He doesn't say he THINKS Fox was acting, or that IT LOOKS like he was acting, he says that Fox WAS acting and he condemns him for it.
This, remember, is the same man who loudly pontificated on how even small-time drug users should be put away for a long time, until he himself was so charged.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Oct 27, 2006 8:07:05 GMT -5
I could go either way, John.
I've seen the clip 3-4 times and I could call it "demonstrating" to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, or I could call it "mocking" because Limbaugh's history of mocking doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. I think I'll just call it "stupid" and bet that GOP strategists, candidates and supporters eveywhere really wish the guy had better judgement.
The closest thing to a decent defense I've heard of this was a talking head on Hardball, I think, who said this should prove, once and for all, that Limbaugh isn't speaking from GOP talking points.
Actually, I think Limbaugh often starts from GOP talking points. He just has no idea when to shut up. In any case, he did the Democrats a favor with this one. A very powerful local ad became national, and free, overnight. And this idiot, who is a poster child for everything that is wrong and nothing that is right about the right, dominated the news cycle and showed has ass for a couple of the latter days of mid-term campaign. With friends like Rush, the right doesn't need enemies.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 8:07:41 GMT -5
Even if it isn't mocking, Limbaugh's overall attitude & hubris stains everything he does. Well, that's how I see him anyway.
I'm not much of a talk radio kind of guy, but I've been tuning in to this n that over the past month or so. Some general impressions:
Limbaugh: I hadn't listened to him since the late 80's-early 90's. To me it seems his schtick has turned into hubris. He may be the most uniformly partisan of all I heard. Well, him & Hannity.
Hannity is way more human but so partisan. And he just shouts down the naysayers, blech.
Fraenken: Bad radio voice, not funny at all. I don't know why people think he's funny.
That guy from Oh-hi-yuh with the horrible TV show. Forgot his name. I hate his politics, but some of this is pretty good radio.
Somethinor-other Dyson: A mix. I don't care for it.
Glenn Beck: A genius. Very funny, warm, cool.
Rev. Al Sharpton: His race baiting is apalling. Very disappointing.
Focus on the Family: My perennial favorite. 2 out of 5 programs will bring a tear to my eye. Rarely political. Half-hour makes for a more focused program.
Dr. Laura: She has a good point. Anyone who can sit up & not droll will get her point in about 45 minutes. After that she's screechy.
Savage: Very smart, very crazy. He's entertaining because you never know when he's going to go stark raving mad.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 8:09:52 GMT -5
Sowwy for the Off Topic, millring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 8:15:13 GMT -5
Let me start by saying that I simply cannot believe that Rush Limbaugh isn't selling pencils on a street corner, but that's just my .02 worth. That said, I honestly think that he was simply physically conveying (albeit exaggerating) what he was trying to say on the radio. I do the same thing when I'm on the phone. Now, his words, they are inflammatory, inappropriate and insensitive.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Oct 27, 2006 8:16:48 GMT -5
This much I can tell you without hesitation: I have an uncle who died of complications from Parkinsons. I'm pretty familiar with Parkinsons. And nobody who has had that disease for 15 years, as Fox has, needs to fake it or get off of their meds to look like he looked in that spot. Hell, he looked pretty good. His body wouldn't settle, but his speech was clear. That's good for someone in the advanced stages of Parkinsons.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 27, 2006 8:17:04 GMT -5
And just when you thought that only Democrats could be their own worst enemy. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 8:24:43 GMT -5
I'd hate to have that man's karma. He's a hateful person. Asshole.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Oct 27, 2006 8:25:35 GMT -5
And just when you thought that only Democrats could be their own worst enemy. ;D I hear that. The GOP has been doing a fine job of shooting themselves in the foot lately. If the Dems had their act together, the GOP wouldn't stand a chance of holding either house. May lose them anyway, but if they do it will be a self-defeat. Tim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 8:26:29 GMT -5
Geez, wren said exactly what I was thinking in a lot fewer words! LOL
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 8:39:03 GMT -5
As a friend once said to me, don't you just hate it when the ONE time you yell at your kid for getting into the cookie jar is the one time he wasn't IN in the cookie jar.
I'm inclined to think, like kook, that he was merely demonstrating (not mocking), given...
1. At the time of Limbaugh's "demo" only a local audience had seen the MJFox ad. Rush's audience, being national, had probably not seen the ad.
2. Fox regularly appeared on Boston Legal with not nearly the symptoms displayed on the ad.
3. Probably not one in 100,000 people would know how Parkinson's meds work. It's not unreasonable to assume that, as with most meds .... on the meds=diminished symptoms; off the meds=increased symptoms.
That said, Limbaugh has become a very useful Democrat tool.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 27, 2006 8:41:49 GMT -5
On a related topic:
By Michael Grunwald
Rep. Ron Kind pays for sex!
Well, that's what the Republican challenger for his Wisconsin congressional seat, Paul R. Nelson, claims in new ads, the ones with "XXX" stamped across Kind's face.
It turns out that Kind -- along with more than 200 of his fellow hedonists in the House -- opposed an unsuccessful effort to stop the National Institutes of Health from pursuing peer-reviewed sex studies. According to Nelson's ads, the Democrat also wants to "let illegal aliens burn the American flag" and "allow convicted child molesters to enter this country."
To Nelson, that doesn't even qualify as negative campaigning.
"Negative campaigning is vicious personal attacks," he said in an interview. "This isn't personal at all."
By 2006 standards, maybe it isn't.
On the brink of what could be a power-shifting election, it is kitchen-sink time: Desperate candidates are throwing everything. While negative campaigning is a tradition in American politics, this year's version in many races has an eccentric shade, filled with allegations of moral bankruptcy and sexual perversion.
At the same time, the growth of "independent expenditures" by national parties and other groups has allowed candidates to distance themselves from distasteful attacks on their opponents, while blogs and YouTube have provided free distribution networks for eye-catching hatchet jobs.
‘Big incentive’
"When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative," said Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political advertising. "And the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there's a big incentive to go to the extremes."
The result has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters. The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit. A few examples of the "character issues" taking center stage two weeks before Election Day:
In New York, the NRCC ran an ad accusing Democratic House candidate Michael A. Arcuri, a district attorney, of using taxpayer dollars for phone sex. "Hi, sexy," a dancing woman purrs. "You've reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line." It turns out that one of Arcuri's aides had tried to call the state Division of Criminal Justice, which had a number that was almost identical to a porn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25.
In Ohio, GOP gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell, trailing by more than 20 points in polls, has accused front-running Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland of protecting a former aide who was convicted in 1994 on a misdemeanor indecency charge. Blackwell's campaign is also warning voters through suggestive "push polls" that Strickland failed to support a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Strickland, a psychiatrist, objected to a line suggesting that sexually abused children could not have healthy relationships when they grew up.
The Republican Party of Wisconsin distributed a mailing linking Democratic House candidate Steve Kagen to a convicted serial killer and child rapist. The supposed connection: The "bloodthirsty" attorney for the killer had also done legal work for Kagen.
In two dozen congressional districts, a political action committee supported by a white Indianapolis businessman, J. Patrick Rooney, is running ads saying Democrats want to abort black babies. A voice says, "If you make a little mistake with one of your hos, you'll want to dispose of that problem tout de suite, no questions asked."
In the most controversial recent ad, the Republican National Committee slammed Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) for attending a Playboy-sponsored Super Bowl party. In the ad, a scantily clad white actress winks as she reminisces about good times with Ford, who is black. That ad has been pulled, but the RNC has a new one saying Ford "wants to give the abortion pill to schoolchildren."
Some Democrats are playing rough, too. House candidate Chris Carney is running ads slamming the "family values" of Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.), whose former mistress accused him of choking her. And House candidate Kirsten Gillibrand has an ad online ridiculing Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) for attending a late-night fraternity party. "What's a 50-year-old man doing at a frat party anyway?" one young woman asks, as a faux Sweeney boogies behind her to the Beastie Boys. "Totally creeping me out!" another responds.
But most harsh Democratic attacks have focused on the policies and performance of the GOP majority, trying to link Republicans to Bush, the unpopular war in Iraq and the scandals involving former representative Mark Foley and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. That is not surprising, given that polls show two-thirds of the electorate thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. And studies show that negative ads can reduce turnout; Democrats hope a constant drumbeat of scandal, Iraq and "stay the course" will persuade conservatives to stay home on Nov. 7.
‘Homosexual agenda’
It is harder for Republicans to blame out-of-power Democrats for the current state of Washington, but they are equally eager to depress Democratic turnout and fire up their own conservative base. One GOP strategy has been raising the specter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, becoming speaker; for example, Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.) is airing radio ads warning that a Democratic victory would allow Pelosi to "put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda." Then again, Hostettler's opponent, Democrat Brad Ellsworth, has accused him of promoting the sale of guns to criminals, "including child-rapists."
Some of this year's negative ads are more substantive, reprising a successful Republican strategy from 2002 and 2004: portraying Democrats as soft on terrorism. For example, Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.) has an ad lambasting her opponent for opposing Bush's efforts to conduct wiretaps without search warrants. A host of Democrats have been accused of trying to "cut and run" in Iraq -- including House candidate Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who lost both legs in Iraq.
The RNC has raised eyebrows with an ad consisting almost entirely of al-Qaeda videos starring Osama bin Laden and his top deputies. There is no sound except a ticking bomb before the final warning: "These are the stakes. Vote November 7th." John G. Geer, a Vanderbilt professor who has written a book defending negative political ads, says he told a well-connected Republican friend in Washington that the ticking-bomb ploy seemed like a desperation move. The friend e-mailed back: "John, we're desperate!"
"Look, the electorate is polarized, the stakes are large, and neither party has much to run on right now," Geer said. "You can expect to see some pretty outlandish ads."
The "pays for sex" ad against Kind in Wisconsin -- along with a similar one aired against Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) -- may be the most extreme. It says Kind spent tax dollars to study "the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes" and "the masturbation habits of old men" and "to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia." Cue the punch line: "Ron Kind pays for sex, but not for soldiers." The Wisconsin Republican Party denounced the ad, and several TV stations refused to air it, but that only got it more attention. It is the centerpiece of Nelson's Web site: "This ad is so powerful, a sitting U.S. Congressman threatened TV stations with legal action if they dared to play it."
Kind joked in an interview that he has been paying for sex ever since he said "I do." But on a more serious note, he said Nelson's attack ad was typical of modern politics, in which desperate candidates can attract media coverage and rally their base with distortion. He opposed the amendment in question -- along with many Republicans -- because he did not think Congress should interfere in peer-reviewed NIH studies, not because of any interest in teenage genitalia. That particular study, incidentally, had nothing to do with teenagers.
‘A crazy system’
"Man, it's a crazy system, and it's getting worse every year," Kind said. "We rip each other to shreds, and then we're all supposed to come back to Washington and try to work together. It's a hell of a way to elect representatives."
At least it is clear who is responsible for Nelson's ad: Nelson. The Playboy ad bashing Ford, on the other hand, is a typical product of the attack politics of 2006. Its beneficiary, GOP Senate candidate Robert Corker, calls it "tacky" but says he cannot do anything about an RNC ad. Even RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said he is powerless to stop it; it is an "independent expenditure" of the RNC, out of the committee's control. He doesn't seem too upset about it, though. Corker has been rising in the polls ever since it started airing.
Experts say that in the past, negative ads were usually more accurate, better documented and more informative than positive ads; there was a higher burden of proof. Stanford's Iyengar thinks that is still true for candidate-funded messages, which now require candidates to say they approved them. But it is not true when the messages are produced by political parties, shadowy independent groups or partisans posting on YouTube.
"You're going to see more of this sensational, off-the-wall stuff," Iyengar said. "If you get people disgusted, they might withdraw from politics, and that's the real goal these days."
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 27, 2006 8:41:50 GMT -5
I'd hate to have that man's karma. He's a hateful person. Asshole. Ha. I like that Wren. See ! Wouldn't it be nice to smite somebody like that ? ! ? I have to say in the subsequent Fox appearances, he wasn't moving anywhere near as much as in the commercial. Could be a bit of acting. But then that's all he ever did. I do support embryonic stem cell research. The Dems probably got a good issue for once on that one. They ought to hammer it. The Rs all seem to have to give lip service to the party line on this one. But they're not in line with the public on that one.
|
|
|
Post by chicagobob on Oct 27, 2006 8:49:57 GMT -5
I actually like Rush. He may be rude, and wrong at times, but overall, I agree with his politics.
One thing is clear, the Fox interview does not distinguish between embryonic stem cell (unborn babies) and adult stem cell research. The destruction of unborn human life is what is at stake in the great debate. That is what should be debated, not the virtues of an actor or a talk radio personality.
|
|
|
Post by j on Oct 27, 2006 8:55:17 GMT -5
I read on th Post online that in order to film Boston Legal Fox had to go through extensive efforts to control his spasms. Even then the filming had to be scheduled around the days when the disease would be on the quiet side.
I can't believe we're even talking about this. The only person who's either acting or off his meds is obviously Rush.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 9:09:53 GMT -5
interesting, J, but your two points actually help make Rush's --
1) that Fox regularly appeared on Boston Legal with considerably less symptoms, and
2) to be off meds is to be symptomatic.
|
|
|
Post by j on Oct 27, 2006 9:24:01 GMT -5
You're right John. Let's have Rush explain his point to Ali (and/or his daughter) since he was so well-meaning after all.
Was Ali acting when he couldn't freaking light up the Olympic torch? Is Parkinson's really not that big of a deal?
This is not about political correctness but basic dignity. And I'm not outraged by what Rush DID (he was on the radio and nobody could see him) or the dynamics of his implications (off/on his meds=more or less shaking) but rather by what he really said, like Bill stated - that Michael J Fox was faking and/or exaggerating his disease (forget about humbling himself by appearing in front of people in that state) to promote a REGIONAL campaign. I am just disgusted that such a poison-ebbing cunt as Rush gets to share his views on national radio.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Oct 27, 2006 9:26:50 GMT -5
From The Explainer on Slate (emphasis added): On Monday, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Michael J. Fox had exaggerated the symptoms of his Parkinson's disease in a series of campaign ads. "Either he didn't take his medication, or he's acting," said Limbaugh. The next day, Fox pointed out that the medications have different effects on different days: "It's ironic," he said, "my pills are working really well right now." And on Wednesday, Slate's Timothy Noah pointed out that the medications for Parkinson's can actually cause their own symptoms. How do Parkinson's meds work?
They beef up your brain's supply of dopamine. Parkinson's disease results from the death of dopamine-producing neurons in a part of the brain called the substantia nigra, which helps to control the motor system. When enough of these cells die off, patients can develop the three classic symptoms of Parkinson's: tremors, rigidity, and slowness of movement. (James Parkinson's paper from 1817 described an "involuntary tremulous motion, with lessened muscular power, in parts not in action and even when supported; with a propensity to bend the trunk forwards, and to pass from a walking to a running pace: the senses being uninjured.")
To treat the disease, doctors most often prescribe levodopa—a precursor to dopamine that can make its way from the bloodstream to the substantia nigra. (Regular dopamine would get blocked by the blood-brain barrier.) Once there, the levodopa gets converted into dopamine and reverses the classic symptoms. About three-quarters of all treated Parkinson's patients get the drug; most also use additional treatments that make levodopa more effective. For example, COMT inhibitors help to keep levodopa from being converted into dopamine before it can reach the brain.
Not everyone responds to levodopa in the same way, and not every dose has the same effect. (Thus Fox's observation that "my pills are working really well right now.") The effects of levodopa also change over time. Repeated doses of the drug change the properties of the cells that respond to dopamine—they get accustomed to short bursts, rather than a steady supply, and they start to become hypersensitive. As a result, the levodopa begins to push a patient who can't move too much in the other direction; he'll start making large, involuntary movements. This condition—called dyskinesia—occurs in about a third of the people who take the drug and generally kicks in after a few years' worth of treatment.
The swaying and head-rolling on display in the Fox campaign ads could be standard "peak-dose" dyskinesia. (Click here to watch the ad.) That means the symptoms kick in as levodopa reaches its highest levels in the blood—starting about 45 minutes after it's taken—and then subsides before the next dose. Fox has had Parkinson's for more than a decade, and according to Dr. Eric Molho of Albany Medical Center's Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Center, he appears to suffer from drug-induced dyskinesia of moderate intensity.
In late stages of Parkinson's, the levodopa can also produce an "on/off" response. As more cells in the substantia nigra die off, the brain becomes less able to store dopamine, and each dose of the drug lasts for a shorter time. In some cases, the effects can disappear within a matter of minutes.
Long-term patients often have to manipulate the size and schedule of their doses so as to minimize both the dyskinesia and the on/off response.
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.
Explainer thanks Dr. Eric Molho of Albany Medical Center.
|
|