Quote:

Prometheus said:
Why you keep comparing Rush, a political commentator, to South Park, a cartoon on Comedy Central, I have no idea...



As noted earlier, Limbaugh has always been as much a satirist and provacteur as a legitimate commentator. He performs in skits, plays parody songs and tells jokes on a regular basis on the program.

He uses humor and exageration to make points, not unlike Stone and Parker.

Stone and Parker mocked Reeve for his stem cell "obsession", Limbaugh mocked Fox.

Quote:

Did [Fox use his illness to score political points]? Or, did he step in to try and promote political backing and awareness for a prominent disease?



He went beyond stem cell research advocacy. He specifically endorsed one candidate and attacked the other. That's "poliitcal"

Quote:

Does the very fact that his disease is visually evident mean that whenever he appears anywhere, at any time, he's trying to garner sympathy or emotion?



He specifically asked people to vote for his endorsed candidate. He did so at a time when, for whatever reason, his seizures were visibly more pronounced than when he, for example, films "Boston Legal."

Why did Fox do the ad, if not to stir sympathy and emotion?

Furthermore, as noted above, there is a real question whether Fox's statements against the Republican candidate were even accurate:

    "Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope."

    Talent's campaign called the ad a false attack.

    "Senator Talent supports medical research including stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo," said Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer.

    Earlier this year, Talent withdrew his support for a Senate bill that would ban all embryonic stem cell research and impose a million-dollar fine and jail sentence on violators. But he opposes the Missouri ballot initiative, claiming it would "make cloning human life at the earliest stage a constitutional right."


Granted, you may, for whatever reason, chose not to believe Talent. However, the mere fact that Fox, who "has been politically active for Democratic causes [and] campaigned for John Kerry" might suffer from a disease doesn't make him automatically more credible that Talent, or anyone else.

Finally, as noted on another thread, even Scientific American (hardly a "right wing" or "Catholic" magazine) has reported on some of the inherent dangers in embyonic stem cells, including cancer. Much of the Republicans opposition to federal funding has been based on those dangers. In contrast, many (if not most) Republicans support federal funding for non-embryonic stem cell research which, as noted in the other thread, may be even more promising.

Given that support, isn't a bit disingenuous for Fox to portray Talent, as wanting to criminalize stem cell research?

Finally, if we get right down to it. Fox, a millionaire, is attacking politicians for not spending other peoples' money, and engaging in perhaps scientifically risky research for his Fox's personal benefit.

Is that nobility...or self interest?

And, if so, why is Fox's self interest any more important than any other "special interest group"?