Actor Michael J. Fox has a series of political campaign ads circulating television networks in which he tries to persuade Americans to vote for Democrats who support embryonic stem cell research.
Fox, 45, suffers from Parkinson's, a chronic disease of the central nervous system, causing muscular tremors and physical weakness. Michael J. Fox is causing disputes in Missouri where in his attack ad he states, "Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope."
In a similar ad, Fox attacks Michael Steele, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland. The irony of this campaign ad is that Steele's opponent, Ben Cardin, voted against stem cell research.
Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh retaliated against Fox's campaign ads, causing a fury of attacks against him when claimed that Michael J. Fox may have exaggerated his condition. Fox was later interviewed by Katie Couric, in which he says he wasn't acting or off his medication.
Limbaugh defends his accusations on his website, stating: "They [Liberals, Fox, Couric] get personal, mocking every conservative illness, foible and failing (including my own) real, fake or forged, yet act outraged that we dare challencge one of them on politics..."
Michael J. Fox and Ben Cardin are misleading the public by playing on the hopes and fears of millions of Americans who are suffering from debilitating diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimers and Dimentia, as well as Parkinson's Disease. The ad campaign is repulsive because it's dishonest in promising cures to these diseases, cures that are uncertain and yet to be discovered.
Instead of arguing the facts and admitting the truth behind Limbaugh's statements, Democrats attack the radio host calling him cruel and hateful and continue to distort his words and statements he makes on his radio show.
The Passion of the Christ star Jim Caviezal, along with actress Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Cardinal's pitcher Jeff Suppan, have appeared in advertisements countering the claims of Michael J. Fox. In the ad Caviezal, Heaton and Suppan tell Missouri voters the facts about embryonic stem cell research and then state "Don't be tricked, Don' be deceived, and Don't be fooled."
Michael J. Fox came into my living room through my television a few nights ago. He showed me how badly his Parkinson's disease causes him to tremor, so that maybe I'd feel sorry for him and vote Democrat, or maybe I'd feel guilty if I responded to his exploitation of his condition.
Dymphna's Road writes: "I'm shedding no tears for Michael J. Fox. He's been, whether he realizes it or not, hightly blessed. He's rich, he has a wife who is apparently content to be his wife and who stays out of the tabloids. He has two children I think, and even with Parkinsons he lives a life of luxury that the average American can only dream about it. I'm sorry he's sick but so are a lot of people and they aren't advocating slaughtering innocents."
In his ad he said "Wisconsin holds a special place in my heart, because it's where stem cell research was born." What really caught my attention is that Fox didn't say "embryonic stem cell research." He clearly and deliberately left out the word "embryonic." I feel this advertisement is very misleading.
Democrats are fighting to allow government funding of embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of human embryos. Human embryos are human beings at the earliest stages of development. This is a scientific fact.
As a resident of Wisconsin, I'm very aware that Governor Jim Doyle forced the state to spend money on embryonic stem cell research. This research has yet to help a single patient. Doyle is running for re-election and his opponent Mark Green backs stem cell research of adult stem cells, which does not destroy the life of a human being.
Adult stem cell research has found many treatments such as rebuilding livers damaged by otherwise irreversible cirrhosis, repairing spinal cord injuries using adult stem cells from nasal passages and sinus regions, reversing Type 1 diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells, putting Crohn's disease into remission and repairing heart attack damage using the patient's own blood stem cells, as well as many other treatments that have been discovered by using adult stem cells.
Embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing, not one single cure or treatment.
Fallen Rogue writes: "MJF is speaking from a place that my previous article was coming from; science. Yes, he accepts that we need to discuss these scientific issues socially, but we need to talk about them and if we decide as a nation that the further of scientific thought is a priority then we need to step up and honor that and not hide behind the false truths of some policy makers. I, personally, don't believe some even have a clue as to the science involved in certain forms of stem cell research."
True, many Americans do not know the science involved with embryonic stem cell research, or adult stem cell research for that matter. Because so many people are uninformed, it is very important for politicians to be truthful with their ad campaigns, rather than try to trick the intelligence of their voters. Aren't we all getting tired of attack ads that candidates are displaying, desperately trying to sway us their direction in the Election Day zero hour?
Viva La Blog writes: "I like Michael J. Fox. He is what I call a John Wayne type of actor. Instead of becoming the part like many great actors, the part becomes him. In the movies, Teen Wolf and Back to the Future, Fox acted as himself. This is not to say Fox is not a good actor, he is just a different type of actor. But like so many of those in Hollywood, he has gotten mixed up in politics and then believes because he is a victim no one will challenge his motives. Note to Fox: being a victim does not insulate you from the right of others to question your motives."
Yes, Michael J. Fox is a victim of Parkinson's disease. Yes, I am sorry he suffers from this condition. I can't say that I understand what he goes through every day. What I do know is that suffering from an illness with no known cure is devasting. My grandfather had Alzheimer's and my family watched him deteriorate every single day of his last years of life. But never did we hope and pray for a cure that was discovered through the destruction of human lives.
Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files and Watch Blog.
Comments
It's still despicable for
It's still despicable for Limbaugh to accuse Fox of "acting", no matter where you stand on the issue. And Fox didn't say cure, he said hope, to suggest there is no potential for ESCR to lead to a cure someday is preposterous. I do not support ESCR because I believe an embryo is the first stage of humanity.
Insinuations
Michael J. Fox insinuated that ESCR will produce cures for these diseases with his attack ads. A cure or treatment has not been discovered by ESCR in 15 years and it may take 15 more years before politicians and MJF realize this. I don't believe we should stand by and watch as scientists destroy more human embryos, just because an actor and select politicians want to hang on to "hope" that has not produced any benefits.
Adult stem cell research has in fact produced treatments. Scientists are making progress in that field of research. But I don't see any ad campaigns stating this information or promoting this truth.
In no way do I defend Limbaugh's accusations that Fox was acting, what I do defend is Rush's point that because Fox suffers from Parkinson's disease, we should feel sorry for him and not respond against him.
We must respond, especially when there is misleading information presented.
Dana J. Tuszke
The Dana Files
Get your facts
You don't have many facts straight.
"Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated eight years ago. Federally funded researchers have had access to the cells for about four years. Those cells are ineligible for human clinical trials."
Where is your 15 years? Do you really think that research is a matter of a few years when it comes to serious illness? That we can pop out a cure in 2 or less years, and anything that takes more than that is hogwash?
Adult stem cell research is only focused on blood marrow transplants. The types of cells present in this effort is too differentiated for any other types of research. That's why embryonic stem cell research is important.
Also, the reason why we have this vote in Missouri is that state legislators tried to criminalize this research in this state, which meant if someone left the state to take part in a cure or trial in another state, they would be arrested as criminals once they returned home.
So not only would Missouri lose out on research money and jobs, possible cures, but we'd also be made into criminals.
That's we have our amendment, and that's what Fox is helping to prevent by support for McCaskill.
University of Wisconsin
University of Wisconsin researchers first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998, however their research began in 1991. 1991 to 2006 equals 15 years.
Facts facts facts
I would suggest you strongly read this article.
"Derived eight years ago by Wisconsin developmental biologist James Thomson, in whose lab I work, the human embryonic stem cells in front of me are happy, dividing with ease in their cocktail of nutrients and growth factors.
Cared for properly, these cells will divide in culture endlessly. They are the Energizer Bunnies of cells. They never stop dividing.
Coaxed with different growth factors, the cells can migrate down any of scores of developmental pathways to become nerve cells, heart cells, bone, blood - any of the 220 types of cells or tissues in the human body.
Their abilities to replicate endlessly and become any type of human cell are the two features that make human embryonic stem cells unique. No other cells have these qualities."
Also this:
"The policy that limits our work is based on the fact that isolating embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a human embryo.
One recent study suggests there may be ways to obtain stem cells without destroying the embryo, and that's exciting news. But that research is in its earliest stages, has yet to be replicated and may not, in fact, be the solution to our ethical dilemma.
All of the embryos used in our field are "spares," donated by the patients who created them for treating infertility. It has been reported that there are some 400,000 such embryos in cryogenic preservation in the United States.
Even if there is a way to extract stem cells without harming an embryo, what is the fate of that embryo? Will it be refrozen? To what end?
The sad fact is that the vast majority of those embryos will be destroyed anyway. Therein resides the great moral inconsistency and flaw of current policy.
The reality of IVF treatment is that it often results in the creation of more embryos than a couple is interested in using themselves.
There are several options available for the disposition of these "spare" embryos: a couple can choose to continue to freeze them indefinitely (an expensive proposition), donate them for use by another couple, discard them or donate them for scientific research.
While President Bush has stated that these embryos should be donated to other couples, the reality is couples very rarely choose that option. Most IVF patients are uncomfortable giving spare embryos to other couples, and the government is not currently in a position to compel them to do so.
Unfortunately, the favored alternate disposition is the trash can. A busy IVF clinic, I would wager, disposes of more embryos in a year than have been used to date in all of stem cell science.
On moral grounds, is that the preferred outcome? Is throwing the entire embryo into the trash a better option than using a part of it for research to improve human health?"
Human life!
University of Wisconsin researchers first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998, however their research began in 1991. 1991 to 2006 equals 15 years.
That would mean embryonic stem cell research began in 1998 since according to you they didn't even isolate stem cells until that date. That would be 8 years, not 16 . I guess if this is the extent of your critical thinking skills, you may be in trouble!
The research began in 1991.
The research began in 1991. They didn't start killing babies in 1998 - that's what you are trying to tell me, isn't it? Who's thinking skills are in trouble? Certainly not mine. I know the difference between right and wrong. Do you?
Prove it
You claim that "... Ben Cardin, voted against stem cell research."
I'd be curious to see some proof of that comment, other than citing Rush.
As far as I know, Ben Cardin voted IN FAVOR of stem cell research, as did Arlen Specter, another left-leaning candidate for whom Fox made a commercial (in 2004).
Absolute bias and lack of accuracy
I didn't know that Blogher was having Rush L weblog, because this is nothing more than almost a verbatim copy of many right to life organizations.
As the previous commenter said: where did Ben Cardin vote against stem cell research?
Where is the 'attack' in Michael J. Fox's ad? He said in it--and I live in Missouri--that Talent does not support stem cell research and McCaskill does, and that's true: Talent does not support Amendment 2 that's coming up for election and that would ensure a legal standing of embryonic stem cell research in this state. Talent originally didn't even support adult stem cell research until somebody told him he was being an idiot.
You talk about Americans being uninformed, but this is about the most uninformed biased post I have read at Blogher.
PS
How many people have to suffer and die before those obsessed with 'right to life' are satisfied that 'life' is being preserved?
Dana's TALKING POINTS
Dana,
Are these TALKING POINTS from FOX News or the Republican National Committee?.
Please spare us the self serving propaganda that is destroying the country we all love and want to protect.
Independant American
Proof
Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods – Passage. “Barton, R-Texas, motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would require the National Institutes of Health to conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation and production of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy human embryos. It would require the Health and Human Services secretary to issue final guidelines for additional stem cell research, with priority for research with the greatest potential to yield benefits in the near future, within 90 days of the bill's enactment.†(S. 2754, CQ Vote #380: Motion rejected. July 18, 2006, Cardin voted Nay)
Deliberately misleading
I was waiting for this one...
He voted against the funding for the so-called 'alternative' stem cell research, which also had wording that could be effectively used to kill true embryonic stem cell research.
"Cardin Voted with the majority of Democrats on that bill. The bill was introduced by Rick Santorum and from what I could tell would have been a sham of a bill and would have diverted more federal dollars to less promising research that would "not do harm to embryos"
Here's the nuts and bolts of the bill:
Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but that are not derived from a human embryo.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required for additional research; (2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for near-term clinical benefit; and (3) take into account techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics and any other appropriate techniques and research.
In other words it would have taken the US farther away from the most effective methods of research, relying on Bush's "bioethics" standards which we all know have set us back years in technology and research.
Ben Cardin voted FOR the bill that bush vetoed."
Facts. Pesky things, aren't they?
Facts. Pesky things, aren't
Ben Cardin voted for which bill? I don't see the vote number in your comment.
This was famous: here
This was famous: here
Shelley, what is
Shelley, what is inaccurate?
Yes, if respecting life means I'm biased, then I'm guilty.
You don't respect life
But you don't respect life...you respect your religious beliefs to the exclusion of respecting that others may differ from you--in this regard and others.
Like Limbaugh, who is also unfortunately from Missouri, you use pop terms, unsubstantiated facts, and then when questioned you fall back on "I respect life", as if we don't because we disagree with you.
We have given you facts, refute them. Don't fall back on platitudes.
Let me understand what
Let me understand what you're accusing me of. Because I don't support the destruction of embryos I don't respect life? I'm afraid I'll need you to be more specific.
refute facts, Dana Facts
refute facts, Dana
Facts
But you don't respect
You're asking me to refute facts but yet you make personal attacks on me.
Where is your fact that I don't respect life? Don't beat around the bush. Tell me why you feel that way. Tell me where you get this idea.
I'm against the destruction of human embryos. I think this shows my great respect for life.
based on your beliefs
But this is based on your religious beliefs. Mine differ. Which is why arguments based on belief aren't arguments, and why we should stick to facts.
Facts, Dana. Facts.
Let's set up a situation here
A clinic bursts into flames.
Sitting next to you a 12 year old girl in a wheel chair, and in the other chair, a cooler with 1,000 frozen embryos. Which do you grab and run out the door with before the place burns down?
You're comparing a fire with
You're comparing a fire with the deliberate destruction of human embryos?
These embryos should not be cultivated for research in the first place. Did you miss that point?
I just thought I'd jump in
I just thought I'd jump in right quick and tell you, this is one of those issues I sit on the fence about; and only because I have other things on my mind. But I do admire you, Dana, for taking a stand on the issue. I admire that you will not back down from your position and are ready to defend it.
Let me also respond to the fire scenario. I don't believe for one minute that it has anything to do with the issue, Dana is speaking of. In fact your scenario is a bit absurd, to say the least...in my opinion. And we are all entitled to one.
Much Love.
"yet act outraged that we
I couldn't see where he debated politics and policy when he attacked Fox's integrity.
Priya Ramachandran
Blogher Contributing Editor - South East Asia
Words on Water
That's true, Priya, Limbaugh
That's true, Priya, Limbaugh should not be excused for his attack on the integrity of Michael J. Fox. However, Limbaugh also stated the inaccuracies portrayed in these advertisements and I think we should address those inaccuracies.
Address them she did...
Address them?
I believe that shelleyp did:
Comment by shelleyp posted Sat, 2006/10/28 - 10:29am
I think it is you that needs to address the intellectual dishonesty that allows you and Mr. Limbaugh to claim that the vote in question was actually a vote against ESCR. It was NOT, and you have NOT addressed the substantive content of shelleyp's post.
Dana, which category are you covering as a
Contributing Editor?
Just curious...
Blog: Multidimensional.Me
Covering BlogHer's political beat....
Hi Koan,
I just updated our list of editors (http://www.blogher.com/node/1077) to reflect the following line-up in Politics and News:
As you know, we're an omnipartisan site. Since LaShawn Barber felt she didn't have time to continue this spring, we've been looking for an editor who could join us to cover politics from the conservative side.
Dana is going to cover politics from the right. Morra Aarons will continue to cover politics from the left and l regularly weigh in on politics too -- more as a voter than as a partisan. Erin Kotecki Vest covers news.
Hope this helps!
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
Thanks, Lisa
I checked both of the categories listed for Dana's post, when she first posted it, and she wasn't listed as a CE for either (at that point) so I felt it was worth asking.
Blog: Multidimensional.Me