Smearing the messenger
October 25th, 2006 by Wil Robinson
Michael J. Fox’s disease shouldn’t give him immunity in a political election where he willingly sticks his feet in the fire by appearing in an ad supporting Democratic candidates.
But rather than attacking Fox’s argument, Rush Limbaugh did what every good conservative does in a debate – attack the person. Limbaugh claimed that Fox was “acting†and making his Parkinson’s effects appear worse than they really are.
This is nothing new for Limbaugh and his conservative cadre of blind worshippers. Logical debate using facts and reason are often non-existent. Unable to reasonably combat the argument, conservatives frequently try to discredit the person or construct a smokescreen to distract the discerning voter.
Unhappy with the Democratic leadership in the 1990s, the conservative right attacked Clinton personally – alleging such horrible breaches of national security as adulterous sexual relations.
The Swift Boat affair in the 2004 election was yet another example. The right attacked Kerry’s personal character by making unsubstantiated allegations dating back 30 years.
Limbaugh uses personal attacks so frequently on his talk show that it is routine and his listeners have come to believe that his modus operandi is acceptable and even “intelligent.â€
Unfortunately, this political method is not limited to just the conservative right. Learning quickly that simplified accusations do more to smear a person’s credibility than a legitimate discussion of content, the Democratic Party and many left-leaning pundits engage in negative attacks as well.
Again, the 2004 election serves as a good example. Allegations about Bush’s past made their way into the political arena. There was talk about his “drinking†days, his drug-use in college, and even – dare I say it – a decades-old drunk driving episode! The horrors…
More recently, the Foley scandal was spun by the left that Republicans are “guilty by association.†The fact is pedophilia makes no distinction between parties, and Foley’s misdeeds are not a referendum on the Republican Party. (There are some leadership issues, but this is separate and has more to do with unquestioning support for the party line – something better addressed by discussing the wrongly placed support for the illegal invasion of Iraq.)
In the end, Fox can get involved in politics if he wishes – and he will face the same scrutiny that any non-Parkinson’s sufferer would. But accusing him of “faking†a disease for political purposes is simply a personal attack that attempts to negate the message.
The claims made by Limbaugh are symbolic of a bigger crisis in politics, one that has produced elections that sometimes never even address the real issues. Negative campaign ads and media sensationalism have brought about an era of scandal and character assassination. These tactics speak down to the American voter – and create a self-fulfilling prophecy where the voter expects less in the way of substantive debate.
As I write this, ABC News is reporting on the “Playboy†ad attacking Tennessee senatorial candidate Harold Ford, Jr. The ad has been removed, the damage already done. But ABC can’t let it go…instead they air the ad during the newscast one more time (free of charge), and then play the race card.
Anything but the issues…
Michael J Fox Rush Limbaugh campaign election ads media vote
I don’t really have anything to add to this. It’s pretty much perfect.
A couple of other points which make what Limbaugh did even more stark.
According to news reports, Limbaugh’s allegation that Fox went off his meds to make the shaking worse is medical nonsense — the shaking is a symptom OF the medicine.
Second, Fox taped a similar commercial when Arlen Specter (R-PA) faced (ultra wingnut conservative) Pat Toomey in a primary battle. Lumpberger kept his fat sloppy puss shut on that one.
[...] Wil in the comments here has a damn good site of his own, having a far more eloquent voice than I. While I’ve avoided talking about Limbaugh’s incredibly tasteless comments about Michael J Fox because, frankly, it pisses me off, Wil provides with excellent analysis on the situation. But rather than attacking Fox’s argument, Rush Limbaugh did what every good conservative does in a debate – attack the person. Limbaugh claimed that Fox was “acting†and making his Parkinson’s effects appear worse than they really are. [...]
Depo Provera is horrible stuff - patients usually go off and on it because sometimes it’s worse than the effects of the disease. Parkinson’s freezes you up, so you take the drug so you can move, but then the drug makes you feel horrible and shake and everything - no matter what you do, you are miserable pretty much all of the time,
On the other hand, I think you dismiss questions about Bush’s past too easily - it’s not just an ad hominem attack based on a petty “youthful indescretion” or something, it’s a lifelong lifestyle of drunkenness, recklessness, and general irresponsibility. Bush’s “youth” appears to have ended about 15 minutes before he decided to run for office, with the result that you have a middle-aged man with the emotional maturity of an eight-year-old. And it’s all true.
It’s not a good comparison with Republican tactics, since those are based on speculation at best and out-and-out lies at least as often. Perhaps even worse, when they can’t erase some virtue in a candidate, they twist it into a flaw - Gore’s willingness to do his homework and be attentive to the toil of being a public servant means he’s “not a regular guy”, for example. He wasn’t even allowed to campaign in any real sense, because the minute he is asked what he’s done for us in Washington and mentions that he did the legislative work that made the commercial internet come to life, he’s accused of claiming to be the engineer of the Internet - so it’s turned into both an untrue statement and a lot of unearned bragging.
The truly classic moments were in the 2000 presidential debates, when Bush denied his own policies and implied that Gore was lying merely by saying what they were. And, despite the fact that Bush falsely claimed (and it is impossible that he didn’t know he was lying) that Gore had taken twice as much campaign money from corporate donors as Bush had (the reverse of the truth), it was Gore who was called a liar for the rest of the campaign season.
There’s nothing wrong with questioning the character of a proven snake-oil salesman, and Bush has been that from the very beginning. What’s shameful is that the Democratic campaign spent so little time going after both his character and his political record. And the press - working from RNC talking points - spent their time going after Gore.
Same again in 2004 with Kerry.
And, yes, the Foley story is about the Republicans and not just Foley, because while what Foley did was creepy, what the party did was cover up for him. We’ve been hearing absolutely everyone attack the Catholic Church for years for doing it, and now we’re supposed to give the GOP a pass? They have institutionalized being simultaneously pious and licentious, as well as habitually criminal, and they just cover it up. And it’s part of their ideology, as well; as long as they keep accruing power to the powerful, nothing they do is wrong. That’s genuinely a fair point of attack.
Of course, it should be a minor story in the context of everything else the Republicans are doing. The Democrats have been too weak in fighting them, but in no way have they been equivalent in the nastiness of what they do.