What They Support
Tweet
In addition to the audio of Rush Limbaugh claiming that Michael J Fox was “faking” his Parkinsons, there is also video of Limbaugh, ridiculing Fox’s involuntarily movements. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are regular guests of Limbaugh, and often echo ideas and themes back and forth. Clearly, they approve.
26 Responses to “What They Support”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Limbaugh’s a scumbag? Gee, imagine that.
Regular guests? Wow.
That is the most McCarty like statement I’ve ever seen you write Oliver.
So do all the “regular” Democrat guests of Bill Mahr automatically agree and approve of everything Bill says and does?
Oh- and if you think being a guest twice in eight years on the number 1 radio talk show in America is being a regular guest, then I guess the President is also a regular guest of George Stephanopolous, and clearly approves of everything George says and does too.?
He didn’t say any of that. You’re filling in the blanks.
He didn’t say that? So exactly what was he saying Nimrod? Based on what Oliver wrote, what do you think the President and Vice President “approve” of in this sentence?
Guilt by Association 101. (Or should I say, Faulty Logic 101.)
“McCarty-like”?
Thanks Marty!, I was trying for years to prove Oliver was a Calgary Flames fan!
Now that was funny!
(Damned “h”)
Don’t take it the wrong way Marty. Anyone who so much as utters a peep in Rush’s defense needs to take a Karen-Silkwood-shower and STFU -ASAP.
OW’s point was that given Limbaugh’s history of distortion and vile remarks (RE: “White House Dog”), might make Bush / Cheney act a little wiser and avoid Big Pharma’s radio bunker.
But no. They come. The President and Vice President share the airwaves with a drug-addicted glandular train wreck who mocks someone for their affliction -so that they may speak to “their base”.
Base, indeed.
So PD- you’re saying that it also applies equally to people who appear on Bill Mahr’s show?
When did this ever become an issue about comparing Bill Maher?
For fuck’s sake!!
Who does Bill Maher mock for their physical disability (aside from Bush’s utter incuriosity or Dick Cheney’s lack of prowess with firearms)? Do his guests?
Do Bill Maher and George Stephanopoluos invite people of all political stripe on to their shows? Yes.
Does Limbaugh? Never. In fact, Limbaugh is terrfied of interviews. Ever see his sweat-soaked appearance on Oprah? Thats a classic. Limbaugh is so insular that he despises the idea of his vacuous intellect ever being questioned.
Par for the course in Wingnut debate.
Limbaugh’s behavior is true conservatism in action – anyone not of the right group should shut up and be ridiculed.
Marty -
Limbaugh is a true conservative. Bush and Cheney are also true conservatives, in that they also believe that anyone not of their approved group should sit down, shut up, and pay more just to be allowed to live. Bush and Cheney go on Limbaugh’s show, frequently. They tacitly endorse his behavior.
And now you’re endorsing limbaugh as well.
Now that I’ve called you a conservative, will you go apeshit on me like Jay and Doogie when I call them conservative?
Personally, I would like to see the term “conservative” be even more demonized that “liberal” has been. Your reaction indicates that it’s starting to work.
Marty -
Does Bill Maher make fun of traits conservatives have that they can’t control?
Limbaugh does that to his enemies. Maher doesn’t. Therein lies the difference.
That you are willfully ignorant about it makes you as much of a hateful bigot conservative as Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh is not merely a talk show hosts who has Bush/Cheney on like any other guest. Limbaugh is an idealogical leader of the right who is a part of the Republican party. It’s no coincidence that the GOP runs to him when their party is in trouble.
Regardless of what you think of Limbaugh, Oliver, this is a smokescreen for the real issue.
The MJF ads are misleading and intentionally false- a simple study of the issue of “stem cell research” would tell you that the research is being done on many different levels, and that the most promising research (you know- the research that has already produced cures) is being done with adult stem cells, and that the research with embryonic stem cells (which is still being done) has been less than promising. (Unless you would prefer tumors to Parkinson’s.)
Marty, the real issue in this thread is Limbaugh and the culture of nastiness prevalent on the Republican side of the aisle.
Your rebuttal paragraph is a worthy debate tactic–calm in tone and with genuine points to make.
Limbaugh has no points to make. He only has an ugly attitude and insulting insinuations to make. He’s an empty-headed bully and should be marginalized by your side.
The point of this post is that he isn’t. He’s a respected leader of conservative thought. In this case, that means conservative thought involves making fun of people with debilitating diseases.
And BD- what Oliver tried to do here is make the statement that because the President and Vice President have appeared on Limbaugh’s show, ergo, they must “clearly” approve of this particular behavior or act concerning Michael J. Fox.
The logic is faulty. I tried to give you the example of Bill Mahr, who is also known for tasteless, and sometimes reprehensible comments against both the right (more often) and the left, including ridicule of people’s personal traits.
People who are guests on his show do not by default “clearly” approve of everything that Bill Mahr says and does.
And for Squid’s sake, making this point does not make me a “hateful bigot.”
I too made the point that Michael J. Fox himself has said that he purposefully goes off his medications that help him control the symptoms when he has testified before Congress. It has a dramatic effect. It is a tactic that insulates him from criticism over the substance of what he is saying, because nobody wants to debate the “victim” of a disease or disability.
I’m not happy that Rush Limbaugh has given Oliver, and you, and Squid, and others the opportunity to talk about your opinion of Rush, rather than the substance of the ads, which I think are clearly lacking, other than MJF, Parkinson’s sufferer, to use his unfortunate affliction to stump for Democrats in a misleading and dishonest way.
Dishonest? Holy shit, Marty, you’re serious.
Let’s take a step back for a moment.
Candidate “A” is for a type of research that may potentially cure a disease you have.
Candidate “B” umm..Does not.
Who does the person suffering from this disease endorse?
Marty. Do us all a favor and watch the Limbaugh video over and over until it sinks in. OK?
‘Misleading’?
‘Intentionally false’???
Wow. Just. Wow.
Let’s take another step back BD.
I agree that Rush Limbaugh was out of line with the suggestion that Michael J. Fox may have been faking. I grant you that. It doesn’t take watching the video over and over.
Rush Limbaugh is irrelvant to the debate over whether or not the ads an honest attempt to debate the issue of stem cell research.
I also remind you that I am in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research if the embryos are donated from in vitro procedures that would be discarded and not sold or produced specifically for research.
The ad is deceitful because it does the same thing Oliver does whenever he brings up this topic. 1) It purposely uses the term “stem cell research” in the generic sense vs. the only type of stem cell research that has been even remotely controversial- embryonic stem cell research. 2) If you can name one Republican that has opposed adult stem cell research or or cord blood stem cell research please let me know. 3) Embryonic stem cell research has not been banned and is still going on to this day. How else would they have recently found out that the procedures they have tested using embryonic stem cause tumors in the subjects. 4) The most promise has been shown in other types of stem cell research, mainly adult stem cell research (which nobody opposes) and in fact there are already dozens of of treatments being used because of that research. The properties of embryonic stem cells that cause it to be able to grow into many different kinds of cells has been the biggest obstacle to success. Thier volatility has created as many problems as promise.
So yes- the ad is intentionally misleading giving the impression that if only you elect this Democrat that “stem cell research” would begin again, and there would suddenly be miraculous discoveries that would cure Michael J. Fox. Stem cell research has never stopped (including the controversial kind) and any use for embryonic stem cells are a dozen or more years away.
But most people don’t pay attention to that. Most people just see a very likable actor having a difficult time with a very difficult disease saying something that they haven’t really paid too much attention to.
It’s kind of like when I said earlier that President Bush is the first President in the history of the United States to authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Some of you would cry foul because it’s not the way you wanted. And yet that statement is 100% true.
But then when an ad that claims certain Republicans are against “stem cell research” (which is false) comes up, you have a hard time understanding why it’s misleading.
Actually, Marty, Rush is HIGHLY relevant to the debate. He is a national figure and he inserted himself into it. There are now legions of little Rush wannabes across the nation parroting his statement, and major news outlets are debating it’s merits rather than the point Mr. Fox was trying to call attention to, that being that the Democrat’s record on stem cell research far outshines the GOP.
And there you go again, “Prez’nit Bush was the first prez to authorize stem cell research!” Ra ra. Perhaps if the technology existed in Carter’s day he would have done so. It’s embarrassing that you think that’s a point on your side, when the GOP has fought this issue on every front.
Your lengthy and self-serving diatribes do nothing to bolster your case. You’re fighting reality here, and it doesn’t budge.
Jody- you are obviously missing my point. Maybe it’s because you are supposing a hostile, “self-serving” intent on my part (which is false- I’d am truly trying to help you understand what I am saying and would like to see you make a clear rebuttal about the point I am making if you can.)
My point is that saying “President Bush is the first president…”, while true, is just as incomplete as the ads that Michael J. Fox has put together.
I hate to break this to you, but it’s not Rush Limbaugh that created the debate here.
Plenty of people were talking about the ads before Rush even began tasting his shoe. The controversy with him may have increased the discussion, but the ads themselves were immediately a huge topic of discussion, with or without Rush.
In fact- it was Oliver that decided to make a post about Rush. I want to talk about the merits of the ad.
Again- let’s look at what the ad says that is misleading-
The most promising type of stem cell research has been adult stem cell research, which has already produced cures and treatments for many different ailments. Neither the President nor Mr. Steele, nor any Republican has opposed any form of funding of adult stem cell research. In fact, Steele wants to increase funding for it.
The least promising stem cell research so far, despite the hype, has been embryonic stem cell research. (Does that mean that I oppose it. No. It’s just a fact that is completely lost in the ad.)
So exactly where does “the Democrat’s record on stem cell research far outshines the GOP?” Well- on wanting more federal funding of embyonic stem cell research. Great for them.
Of course, private and state funding of embryonic stem cell research continues unabated. But don’t let that fact get in the way either.
No, you are missing MY point. I’m not debating with you. I’m scolding you.
Limbaugh most assuredly did start the controversy over Michael J Fox’s condition. Nobody thought to question a man with a debilitating illness’s motives until Limbaugh opened his pill hole.
Rather than debate the merits of embryonic vs. adult stem cell research the right has decided they would rather discuss how much Fox should be shaking.
Your very first post in this thread was to defend Limbaugh by painting false equivalence between what he did and things Bill Maher has said. When that didn’t work you tried to change the subject. And that rankles my hide.
Your posts are getting longer and longer in an attempt to heap bullshit over the orginal point, which is that Limbaugh attacked Fox’s wasting disease and your side cheered him on.
Had you come in and said ‘I disagree with Limbaugh, but I also feel Michael is on the wrong side of the issue’, it would have been a different matter entirely (and still fallen under the category ‘concern troll’). I most likely wouldn’t have bothered posting.
But you didn’t.
So stop trolling.
Ah- there we have it in a nutshell. Your outrage that anyone would even think to “to question a man with a debilitating illness’s” is the problem here. You thought surely that Fox would be untouchable.
If you really read what I wrote about Bill Maher, you’d understand the point- being a guest on someone’s show doesn’t mean you agree with everything they do or say. (I also used George Stephanopolous as an example.) I wasn’t defending Limbaugh. I was pointing out Oliver’s faulty logic of saying that Bush and Cheney “clearly approve” of what Rush said.
And I hate to break this to you, but Rush was behind the curve on this one. People in the blogosphere were talking about the controversy and the substance of of the ad prior to Rush opening his mouth about it. I argued against the substance of the ad as well as mentioned that Fox must have discontinued his meds for filming it, like he says he does when he testifies before Congress, when he first came out with the ad for Claire McCaskille.
In fact, I didn’t even know Rush said anything about this until I read it here. I don’t listen to Rush.
And if you can find someone who “cheered him on” let me know. Rush usually doesn’t issue apologies when he’s being cheered on.
You may want to go and really read what the right is saying. Instead of debating the merits and honesty of the ads, you and the rest of the left would rather be outraged and scold the right over what Rush Limbaugh said.
If you want evidence of Rush’s handiwork, go watch Katie Couric’s interview of MJF, where she hammers him on whether he manipulated his meds, while he’s sitting there shaking like a leaf.
…and you are still sitting there trying to divert the point. You’re STILL trying to pretend it’s about the ‘merits and honesty of the ad’ when all you want to do is gin up phony outrage. You pretend I thought he was untouchable when in fact I am completely outaged that your side is not attaking Fox’s point, but his illness. That denotes a real lack of character.
If we’re debating the merits of the ad, it’s entirely possible that Michael J. Fox might not support the party who’s president vetoed the stem cell research bill that was placed before him-the ONLY veto Bush has implemented during his entire term. Doing a little (‘he put more money into stem cell research than any other preznit in history!’) does not mean he’s done enough, certainly not in Fox’s eyes.
Your entire point is false and each new argument is made of flimsier straw then the last one. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I did watch the entire interview with Fox and stand corrected on the issue of whether he stopped taking his meds for effect, as he himself has written about doing in the past prior to congressional testimony. He defended himself quite well in the interview and it is very humbling to watch. (I watched my Aunt go through the same process and it was very hard. My grandmother went through it too, but it was much later in life and she passed away before the worst of it set in.)
And frankly, Ms. Couric did not hammer him. Hardly. She was very respectful as she usually is to people she agrees with.
Clearly though, you only want to talk about Rush and obviously haven’t read heard from anybody else on the right on this topic. I’ve tried at several turns here to move away from discussion on him because I too think he was wrong to say that MJF was acting. In fact, I’ve tried to talk about the substance of the actual ad- Whether embryonic stem cell research is actually the most promising of the various types. A point that you obviously want to avoid in this discussion because it’s the one thing that I have talked about that you seem to refuse to address. If you were really paying attention, you would have realized that my “President Bush is the first…” line was presented as an intentionally incomplete argument that doesn’t show the whole picture any better that the Michael J. Fox ads. I made that pretty clear if you would go back an actually read what I wrote.
I have never implied that Michael J. Fox wasn’t passionate about the subject of stem cell research. I said that ads were misleading and that I believe that the way the ads were presented is deceitful and dishonest. But again- I stand corrected on the part about the meds and the gyrations.
But I still believe the ads are misleading by lumping all types of stem cell research into one into a generic term and giving the impression that all stem cell research is the same and implying that by electing people in favor of “stem cell research” (meaning specifically embryonic stem cell research) that miracle cures will be imminent.
It’s great that Michael J. Fox has hope and inspires hope among those who believe that this one form of stem cell research will be ‘the one.” Stem cell research goes on. That’s why we already have cures and treatments that are being used today from the continued research on adult stem cells. That’s how we know that the problem with embryonic stem cells is that they have caused tumors. Perhaps scientists will someday find a way overcome that, but you would think that greater funding for the type of stem cell research that has had success (“the most promising type of stem cell research”) would be more pressing. But that doesn’t sound as dramatic when stumping for candidates, and you can’t say that the other candidate is against it. No candidate or politician has ever tried to ban “stem cell research.”
But it’s much more dramatic to say candidate A is for stem cell research, and candidate B would rather see people die than have a chance at a cure that hasn’t been discovered yet. I mean, that is kind of how you see it, isn’t it? I mean how could anyone be against a victim of a disease who is suffering so much?
That’s the type of argument these ads present. That’s is why I am critical of them. I have no reason to be ashamed of my opinion.
Indeed. A man bringing to attention the horrible wasting disease he is suffering from is the height of dishonesty.
And Fox was not about to sit there and go into nuance about something that could save his life or the lives of others, nor should he be required to do so.
He clearly believes not enough is being done about it, and has Bush’s veto as all the evidence he needs for where the GOP stands on the issue.
So you decided to attack his motives. Called him dishonest. And your posts get ever longer in an attempt to hide that fact from yourself.
You have every reason to be ashamed. You just lack the insight.