Rush Limbaugh VS. Michael J. Fox: What Their Conflict Means for Both Political Parties

Many articles have been written on the Michael J. Fox/Rush Limbaugh controversy. This is a response and a new, non-biased view on the following AC articles: Tiffany Ranae's Take, Lucinda's Opinion, and Bhumika's Editorial.

As the time quickly ticks away on many key Senatorial and Congressional races, both Democrats and Republicans have clearly turne up the volume on their campaign advertisements. In fact, some political analysts on both side of the fence agree that these mid-term elections have seen the most controversial ads ever run in U.S. history.

Nestled in the Heartland of our great country has brewed a heated debate over stem cell research. In Missouri, Democrat Senatorial candidate Claire McCaskill is looking to unseat Republican incumbent Jim Talent. Talent, like many Republicans, is against stem cell research, while his opponent McCaskill supports the cause.

Candidate McCaskill has enlisted the help of actor and Parkinson's sufferer Michael J. Fox to appeal to the Missouri voters. Fox appears in a TV ad that supports McCaskill and stem cell research. The powerful ad features a touching personal plea to voters by Fox who shows outward visual signs of his illness during his monologue. This ad has been seen by an enormous amount of Missouri voters especially when it aired during a World Series Game in which the state's own St. Louis Cardinals were playing. However, stem cell research, the Missouri Senate race, and the Michael J. Fox ad have now become the centerpiece of the fight between the Democrats and Republicans for both the House and Senate majorities thanks to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh, the ultra-conservative talk radio host and Missouri native, came out on his show after seeing the ad made by Fox and accused the actor of exaggerating the symptoms of his illness or going off of his medication when taping the ad for dramatic effect. Rush's accusation is making him look like a bully, especially the way he mocked the physical symptoms of Fox. It has certainly angered many members of the Republican Party who don't want to lose voters because it seems insensitive to question the severity of someone's illness, even if it is for political gain. To the chagrin of the Republicans, Rush is now refusing to apologize leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth regardless of their stand on the issue. It has been a literal media-fest as well. The ad and Limbaugh's comments have now been featured on "The Today Show", as well as political shows such as "Scarborough Country". Rush's brutal statements are seeming to acomplish the exact opposite of his goal. More people in the state of Missouri are supporting McCaskill for whatever reason and stem cell research is gaining more supporters nationwide. In fact, McCaskill is shown to be beating incumbent Talent in every poll I have seen.

In a slight defense of Rush's comments, Michael J. Fox has admitted in his book that he has stopped taking medication at times to appear in front of Congress so that they may see the severity of his disease and it will have a more profound impact. However, Limbaugh, a veteran of media, should learn by now that it is not nice to pick on the ill and disadvantaged. One would think that with Rush Limbaugh's own drug addiction that he got treatment for only a few years ago, that he would be a little more sympathetic to being picked on by news media. However, no one made a fuss when both Jay Leno and David Letterman made fun of Limbaugh's ailment for the sake of comedy. So, I find it a little awkward at the very least that Limbaugh is being so severely berated for simply suggesting that Fox may be using some dramatic license. Perhaps, Rush's faux pas was not that he accused the actor, but simply the way he did it. He was his usual brash self and even imitated Fox's inabilities to stay motionless at times. The Republicans should urge Rush to do "sensitivity training", but I doubt that, as an entertainer, he is doing something that hasn't been done before, yet overlooked in the past. While I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, it can be argued that this whole situation has been blown up to make Limbaugh, a Republican figure-head, look bad by the media, the majority of which are liberal.

The minority of Rush supporters that have agreed with his comments now question whether it is just for a celebrity to use his or her status to sway a political race. Personally, I think it is hard to say it is unjust for someone famous not to have the same right as someone who isn't to speak their mind about whom they support and why, regardless of whom it influences. After all, I am positive that some famous political candidates certainly have received votes solely based on their notoriety (think Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura). It may provide an advantage, but without censoring political views (which would definitely be a violation of Freedom of Speech), it is impossible to do.

Whether you are for or against embryonic stem cell research for any reason (even moral or religious), it cannot be argue that this type of research is probably the best hope scientists have in finding cures or other advances in diseases like cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, and others. However, the ad wars waged by both parties in support of their convictions are both very clever, if not "dirty" in method. Come election day, it will be interesting to see who comes out in the wash.