I thought it was a fairly big deal when Rush Limbaugh targeted Michael J. Fox for criticism on Monday, but this seems to have captured quite a bit of the political world’s attention.
The plea is as disturbing — and arresting — as a hostage video from Iraq. In a navy blazer and preppy Oxford shirt, the actor Michael J. Fox calmly asks viewers to support stem cell research by voting for several Democratic candidates in Maryland, Missouri and Wisconsin, while his body sways back and forth uncontrollably like a sailor being tossed around in a full-force gale.
In short, Mr. Fox’s display of the toll Parkinson’s disease has taken on him turned into one of the most powerful and talked about political advertisements in years.
Republican strategists who saw how quickly the commercial was downloaded, e-mailed and reshown on news broadcasts certainly thought so. Rush Limbaugh rushed in to discredit Mr. Fox, though he mostly hurt himself. Mr. Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, told his listeners that the actor either “didn’t take his medication or was acting.” Mr. Limbaugh later apologized for accusing Mr. Fox of exaggerating his symptoms, but said that “Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democrat politician.”
At this point, I think there are two important facets to the uproar over the ad and Limbaugh’s attack — the political/media angle and the substance.
On the first point, it seemed, at least at first, that the media was anxious to characterize Limbaugh’s criticism as a legitimate point of discussion, even before the half-hearted apology. ABC juxtaposed the Fox ad with RNC’s vote-GOP-or-die commercial, which seems like a bizarre comparison. The WaPo article characterized Limbaugh’s remarks as an entirely legitimate point of concern.
But, like Billmon, I think the winds have shifted and are blowing in Limbaugh’s face.
If you’re Claire McCaskill (Missouri) or Ben Cardin (Maryland) this is the best thing since the invention of the teleprompter. Both are running against anti-abortion, anti-stem cell Republicans; both badly need a big turnout among pro-choice, pro-stem cell voters to win. But both are also running in Border South states with large Catholic voting blocks — i.e. states where the anti-abortion movement is strong and a pro-choice stand can alienate a lot of voters who might otherwise be willing to pull the Democratic lever.
But Rush, in his infinite wisdom, has now ensured that the issue isn’t abortion. It isn’t even stem cells. Now it’s all about Michael J. Fox and his battle with Parkinson’s Disease — which is exactly how you don’t want it framed if you’re the GOP candidates in those races (or a supporter of Missouri’s proposed constitutional ban on stem cell research.)
I don’t know where Limbaugh got the idea that telling scurrilous lies about one of America’s favorite celebrities — and someone who enjoys a huge amount of public sympathy to boot — was a shrewd political move. But the Dems should be damned glad he did.
Indeed, this was more than offensive; it was foolish. Dems have been hoping to remind voters about stem-cell policy all year, but have had struggled to break through with the message. Now, thanks to Limbaugh, the issue is now big news again, and it’s being characterized in a way that helps Democrats.
As for the substance, as Nico noted, Limbaugh doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
[I]n an interview in Ladies Home Journal’s September edition, Fox said he was taking a medication that causes jerking, fidgeting and other abnormal involuntary movements, known as dyskinesia. Fox said he was taking another medication to lessen those side affects.
An official of the National Parkinson Foundation said movements like those exhibited by Fox are the result of taking medication to treat the disease, which would otherwise result in rigidity.
“When you see someone with those movements, it’s not because they have not taken medication but because they probably have taken medication for some time,” the official said. “If you don’t take the medication, then you freeze.”
In summary, a blowhard right-winger has attacked a widely-liked actor over a deadly disease; an issue important to Democrats is now gaining prominence before an election; far-right criticism is being debunked as completely wrong; and voters are seeing more of an effective and honest ad about potentially life-saving research which far too many Republicans oppose.
The Note suggested Dems don’t benefit at all from the “controversy” over the Fox ads, but it looks to me like a win-win situation.