As I said above #24 and 26, he’s using his disease to imply that the other candidate must not be in favor of its cure. Of course no one would take that position. In short, that’s the problem I have with MJF’s commercial.

Fox does frame the issue well. Of course he doesn’t come right out and say support my guy, or you must support the disease I have. It’s much more subtle than that. But let’s face it, political ads are purposely slanted, and these days are purposely made to be outrageous. I will re-word my position to state, I was disappointed to see Mr. Fox’s use of his disease in a paid political commercial. I thought him above that sort of thing. In fact, I believe I read that he made several of these types of ads for different candidates around the country.

I am never surprised to see George Bush manipulate the political process. And, when I see him do it, I am truly “outraged.”

“The implication is that if you oppose his war, you must have been for 9/11, or you are for future 9/11’s, or that you support terrorists and terrorism and not our troops. I think this is “outrageous”, which is the term I used. I believe it was Ronan who actually used exploitive.”

I agree that when Bush invokes 9/11 to rally suuport for the war in Iraq he is being outrageous (and exploitative) as you describe. What I disagree with is that what Mr. Fox is doing is similar. 9/11 and Iraq have little/nothing to do with each other, whereas ESC research and Parkinson’s disease are (hopefully) intimately related. I think a more accurate comparison to a Bush war would be his use of 9/11 to muster support for the action in Afghanistan—rhetoric which justifiably smacked of political immediacy.

And I quoted you as saying “exploitative” because that was the term used by ECS, #19, to which you “absolutely agreed.” I’m not trying to quibble here, I just want you to know that I really am paying attention to what you write.

“It implies that the other candidate or anyone else with an opposing view point must be in favor of Parkinson’s disease–as outrageous as Mr. Bush’s political excess.”

I listened to the commercial again, just to be sure, but I don’t agree. I think Fox frames the issue well: “Look, you may oppose ESC research, but you need to know that there is a cost to your position that is paid by a lot of Americans.” This research isn’t about science for the sake of science, it is about helping severly disabled people. Somehow, you have to bring that into the debate—force your opponents to consider both the morals of destroying human embryos and of delaying cures.

Fox could have said (but didn’t), “Senator Talent doesn’t care if I get cured.” Instead, the message was (paraphrasing), “Senator Talent’s decision to oppose ESC research diminishes my hope for a cure.”

As for your “support [of] ECS research,” I think that the ECS who is commenting on this thread should feel duly warned. {smile}

1. I support ECS research. As Ronan has pointed out The Church has not taken any official position against the practice.

2. I believe the comparison to Bush is appropriate in that his aircraft stunt and his invoking of 9/11 to further his immoral war in the Middle East smack of political expediency. The implication is that if you oppose his war, you must have been for 9/11, or you are for future 9/11′s, or that you support terrorists and terrorism and not our troops. I think this is “outrageous” , which is the term I used. I believe it was Ronan who actually used exploitive.

3. I admire Michael J. Fox, and his fight against the horrible disease with which he is afflicted. My heart aches when I seem him on TV interviews these days. That said, I believe his use of that disease to help further a political candidate(s) is a stunt. It implies that the other candidate or anyone else with an opposing view point must be in favor of Parkinson’s disease–as outrageous as Mr. Bush’s political excess. People can and do have valid moral reasons to oppose the research–I just don’t share that view. It doesn’t mean they are for the disease, or live in the dark ages.

4. Rush Limbaugh, in my opinion, is one of the most despicable humans on the planet.

Limbaugh’s comments were laughable. I particularly enjoyed the irony of him criticizing Fox for not taking drugs. (See my comment above about ignorance, politics, and morality.)