• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Political Ad

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Fox: I Wasn't Off Meds in Political Ads

Last Edited: Thursday, 26 Oct 2006, 6:44 PM MDT
Created: Thursday, 26 Oct 2006, 6:44 PM MDT

By FRAZIER MOORE
Associated Press TV Writer


NEW YORK -- In a response to charges by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in recent political campaign ads, saying he was neither acting nor off his medication for Parkinson's disease.

On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an interview aired on Thursday's "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric."

"The irony of it is that I was too medicated," Fox told Couric, adding that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected "a dearth of medication -- not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it kicks in."

"That's funny -- the notion that you could calculate it for effect," he said. "Would that we could."

The 7 1/2-minute interview with Fox, whose shaking at one point dislodged the microphone clipped to his jacket lapel, aired in two segments taped Thursday afternoon on the "Evening News" set.

Fox drew some conservative criticism after an ad began running in Missouri during the World Series. It showed Fox visibly shaking while urging fans to vote yes for stem-cell research and Democratic Senate challenger Claire McCaskill -- and no to the Republican incumbent Jim Talent.

"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans -- Americans like me."

Fox, who supports research on embryonic stem cell for a potential cure for Parkinson's, also has lent his celebrity to Democrats Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, running for the Senate in Maryland, and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, who is seeking re-election. Both politicians also back stem-cell research.

The ads triggered a backlash, with radio commentator Limbaugh claiming during his broadcast that Fox was "either off his medication or acting." Limbaugh called Fox "really shameless" in his effort to stir up sympathy. Limbaugh apologized later in the broadcast.

Fox told Couric that he did the ads only to advance his cause, and that he doesn't care about politics.

"Disease is a nonpartisan problem that requires a bipartisan solution," he said.

"Would you support a Republican candidate?" Couric asked.

"I have," Fox replied. "I've campaigned for Arlen Specter," describing the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania as a "fantastic champion of stem-cell research."

"We have a right if there's answers out there, to pursue those answers with the full support of our politicians," he said.

Fox, 45, who starred on TV's "Family Ties" and "Spin City" as well as the "Back to the Future" films, was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1991 and revealed his condition publicly in 1998. In 2000, he quit full-time acting because of his symptoms and founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, which has raised millions of dollars.
 

Tap

Well-known member
But wait a minute. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the candidate that he endorsed vote against stem cell research?

And this is non-political?
 

mrj

Well-known member
I believe that Fox is endorsing/using that ad for several candidates.

The amendment in MO (correct?) which he said prevents stem cell research actually does not, but DOES support sommatic cell transfer, commonly known as cloning.

Fox did indicate that he manipulates his medication for effect in public appearances soliciting support for Parkinsons disease.

Some Limbaugh "comments" have been manipulated in this situation, also.

It is not right to lie about what either Limbaugh or Fox did or said.....and in this situation, I believe Limbaugh, whom I happened to hear making his original comments re. Fox, is the more mis-represented since the comments were made. Limbaugh ONLY repeated what Fox had in his book, and demonstrated how Fox was moving in the ad for his audience. He did not make fun of, nor denigrate Fox. In fact, he made many comments that people with Parkinsons disease deserve all the best help they can get.

I would add that taking either too much, or too little medication is not wise for someone with such an illness, if that is what he does, and does not serve others well, either.

Many are clearly mis-representing the facts of stem cell research. Even embryonic stem cell research is progressing, without federal tax money in the USA, and in other nations. Other sources of stem cells seem at present to be providing better results.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ:
I would add that taking either too much, or too little medication is not wise for someone with such an illness, if that is what he does, and does not serve others well, either.

Rush should know about that!!!
 

TSR

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ:
I would add that taking either too much, or too little medication is not wise for someone with such an illness, if that is what he does, and does not serve others well, either.

Rush should know about that!!!

Good reply Econ! Also, as I watched O'Reilly, one of the Republican Party representatives said what Rush did was terribly wrong. O'Reilly agreed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I thought Nancy Reagan had come out supporting stem cell research as a possible cure for Altzheimers and other nerve afflicting diseases....

Just another one of those radical Liberals I suppose :wink:

_______________________________________
 

Steve

Well-known member
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

-- George W. Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html

yep that sounds like he is dead set against the research......

why is it that when given money, funds, and backing, it is still not enough for liberals?

to date the number of cell lines has grown to 78,...so why lie to voters?

the issue in Mo is cloning......not stem cell research.....
 

mrj

Well-known member
Thanks for posting that information, Steve.

Does anyone understand the difference between embryonic stem cell research, and stem cells harvested from other tissues, placenta, bone marrow, and other sources?

I've seem comments that those other sources appear more valuable and promising than do the embryonic cells.

Also that bill in MO is for sommatic cell transfer, aka cloning and NOT stem cell research.

Again today, Limbaugh re-iterated that he DID NOT demean, or make fun of Fox, and that he offered evidence of that to Katie couric for one, and it was not used.

Fox did choose to play in the dirty leagues when he made that deceptive ad to be used against several Republican candidates.

MRJ
 

Silver

Well-known member
Fox is one of those durned socialist Cannucks OT hates so much.... of course he'd come out against a republican! :roll: :shock: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Silver said:
Fox is one of those durned socialist Cannucks OT hates so much.... of course he'd come out against a republican! :roll: :shock: :lol:

I just think that anyone that has watched a relative die from Parkinsons- MS- or Altzheimers or any of the other nerve related diseases would not/could not oppose any type research that offered a possible cure.... Losing muscle control, memory, and dementia are not pleasant to watch....And criticizing Fox for wanting to try anything reasonable to save his life is wrong, to me.....

Personally I have the Libertarian attitude- its not something the government should be sticking its nose into...It should be left to Doctors and Scientists and the decision on if what they are doing is right or wrong should be left to the much higher Judge on Judgement Day....
 

Silver

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Silver said:
Fox is one of those durned socialist Cannucks OT hates so much.... of course he'd come out against a republican! :roll: :shock: :lol:

I just think that anyone that has watched a relative die from Parkinsons- MS- or Altzheimers or any of the other nerve related diseases would not/could not oppose any type research that offered a possible cure.... Losing muscle control, memory, and dementia are not pleasant to watch....And criticizing Fox for wanting to try anything reasonable to save his life is wrong, to me.....

Personally I have the Libertarian attitude- its not something the government should be sticking its nose into...It should be left to Doctors and Scientists and the decision on if what they are doing is right or wrong should be left to the much higher Judge on Judgement Day....


HOORAY!!!!! We finally agree on something!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock:
Actually... that frightens me..... I may have to reassess my outlook... hmmm... :???: :wink:
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I just think that anyone that has watched a relative die from Parkinsons- MS- or Altzheimers or any of the other nerve related diseases would not/could not oppose any type research that offered a possible cure....
That's easily proven false OT. You don't believe that ANY type research is beneficial. You just have your limits place in a different place than I do. You for example wouldn't be for research conducted on 1Year old children if it endangered them would you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Oldtimer said:
I just think that anyone that has watched a relative die from Parkinsons- MS- or Altzheimers or any of the other nerve related diseases would not/could not oppose any type research that offered a possible cure....
That's easily proven false OT. You don't believe that ANY type research is beneficial. You just have your limits place in a different place than I do. You for example wouldn't be for research conducted on 1Year old children if it endangered them would you?


I believe this is happening already-- many of the programs set up to treat fatal and acute diseases in children is experimental- many times with no idea of what the results will be...

Much of it would depend on the action and the results it will produce...

If a group of scientists said that running hazardous tests on 100 1 year old children would find the cure for all cancer and Aids in the world- would it be worth it ?

Its not a decision I would want to make- but it should be left available...

And the Bible already apparently approves this- as God and Moses struck down all the "first born in Egypt" including the Pharoahs son, to gain the bigger result of Pharoah letting the Israelites go.....
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I believe this is happening already-- many of the programs set up to treat fatal and acute diseases in children is experimental- many times with no idea of what the results will be...

Much of it would depend on the action and the results it will produce...

If a group of scientists said that running hazardous tests on 100 1 year old children would find the cure for all cancer and Aids in the world- would it be worth it ?

Its not a decision I would want to make- but it should be left available...

And the Bible already apparently approves this- as God and Moses struck down all the "first born in Egypt" including the Pharoahs son, to gain the bigger result of Pharoah letting the Israelites go.....
OT , what if they wanted to use your grandson or daughter to experiment on? Your logic is very flawed.

The end never justifies the means. You know better than that.

As far as the Bible goes, I didn't broach that subject but since you did , you , nor I , are God. The Bible is clear it is governments and our responsibility to protect the least able. Widows , orphans, children, etc. It's also clear we have a responsibility to those with diseases to try to find cures. Again , the end doesn't justify the means.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Silver said:
Oldtimer said:
Silver said:
Fox is one of those durned socialist Cannucks OT hates so much.... of course he'd come out against a republican! :roll: :shock: :lol:

I just think that anyone that has watched a relative die from Parkinsons- MS- or Altzheimers or any of the other nerve related diseases would not/could not oppose any type research that offered a possible cure.... Losing muscle control, memory, and dementia are not pleasant to watch....And criticizing Fox for wanting to try anything reasonable to save his life is wrong, to me.....

Personally I have the Libertarian attitude- its not something the government should be sticking its nose into...It should be left to Doctors and Scientists and the decision on if what they are doing is right or wrong should be left to the much higher Judge on Judgement Day....


HOORAY!!!!! We finally agree on something!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock:
Actually... that frightens me..... I may have to reassess my outlook... hmmm... :???: :wink:
Whoa,that makes two of us Silver :shock:
Anyone that knows anything about Parkinsons knows you do not play with your meds. Lots of things can make the symptoms more predominant,being over tired,stress,excitement.This is a subject close to Micheals heart,I'm pretty darn sure he was not playing a game with his health. I totally support stem cell,like OT said until you've had to deal with people and family going through these totally devastating dieaseses you have no idea the pain it causes everyone in this situation.Any new reasearch that may help is sooo important.Also like OT said...it shouldn't be a political issue it should be left up to those who know what they're talking about.

Sorry OT,hate to agree with you but sometimes your on the right side :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
If you get into the abortion/stem cell controversy you have to ask yourself if God supports abortions because he allows miscarriages.

My aunt had something like 13 of them (miscarraiges, not abortions) and I only have one good cousin from that family branch. Really traumatic for my aunt.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
If you get into the abortion/stem cell controversy you have to ask yourself if God supports abortions because he allows miscarriages.

My aunt had something like 13 of them (miscarraiges, not abortions) and I only have one good cousin from that family branch. Really traumatic for my aunt.
No,No,NO God does not support abortions :!: Because they are happening whether he likes them or not,Did you ever think maybe stem cell research is Gods way of making a wrong into a right :!: :!: Miscarriage is a health issue.Makes me laugh people think God allows bad things to happen,good excuse to explain why a persons belief system isn't strong enough.
 
Top