Posted on 10/31/2006 5:27:11 AM PST by Clive
Exactly. It's called dragging a red herring across the trail so as to get the dogs off the trail and sniffing off in the direction they want them to go.
Change the subject from the message (the issue) and make the messenger the issue.
Of course this tactic always works with the easily distracted whose emotions overrule their heads as they allow themselves to be easily swayed into focusing on irrelevancies.
Because of Rush deliberately being willing to make himself a target when he blew the RAT'S cover (tax-payer-funded human cloning -disguised as something else- enshrined in the MO Constitution), support for this Missouri initiative is "sinking like a stone."
I don't agree with the statements made in the ad. That's where Rush would have been effective. Had he simply pointed that out instead of waltzing into the politics of destruction, he would have been fine. BTW, I've always enjoyed your scenery photography.
So what do you say about the likelyhood that Mike Fox PURPOSELY timed his medication for the maximum effect? Is that off limits too? Since he's "disabled" would that make it okay if he did time his meds to appear more pronounced?
I did not know that.
You're confusing the spin of the Democrat party with what actually happened. They're hardly ever the same.
Fox admitted in print that he went off his meds to heighten his symptoms when he testified before Congress. He did the same thing for the commercial. Rush didn't "mock" him, Rush caught him.
Rush didn't "mock" Fox, he caught him lying and cheating. Fox has admitted he skips his meds to exaggerate his symptoms. You are an ignorant fool.
Your comments regarding an issue about which you are uninformed (Rush's comments about M. Fox) show an appalling lack of judgement.
Baloney. It was a taped ad. Fox could have timed his medication and/or done multiple takes until he achieved a perfect delivery...just as he does in any theatrical performance. He deliberately chose to air a "disabled" appearance to leverage his celebrity and immunize himself from criticism with his "victimhood". In retrospect, he even admitted that he hadn't even read the "Amendment 2" that he was touting on behalf of a Democratic candidate.
On the other hand, it is always possible to time the takes to the condition.
And I, with some knowledge of the commercial video production business, would wager that is exactly how it was done.
Might I suggest that you reserve your ire for those who exploit people with disabilities, not those who reveal such exploitation?
Fox singled out a candidate and said he was against research to cure diseases and his election would destroy the hope of "people like me" -- meaning himself. The "people like me" reference was illustrated by his palsy movements onscreen as he talked.
That is how Fox made it personal, and a response on a personal level is appropriate.
Rush did not mock him or the disease. Rush explained the message and debunked it.
He also did something important by questioning the extent of the effects of Fox's disease and the control that can be attained through meds available now. Is Fox really without hope, or just without meds he likes to take? Let's understand the disease and the current treatments, and to do that we must ask questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.