I was going to write a whole tirade about what a douchebag Rush Limbaugh is for claiming that Michael J. Fox is acting to exaggerate the effects of his Parkinson's disease for political gain.
But, why bother? Everyone already knows that Rush Limbaugh is a hypocritical jackass.
Update: For more info, read CNN's take on the controversy.
12 comments:
Wait. Michael P. Keaton has political aspirations?? Haha. I didn't hear anything about this story..but as soon as I read the words "Rush Limbaugh"..I knew it was not going to be good. haha.
Did Rush really claim that is Michaal J. Fox's MO--to exaggerate his disease to further his career?? Well then, what is the excuse the other ass politicians use??
Actually, what Rush is saying is that Michael J. Fox is exaggerating the effects of his Parkinson's to further other people's political careers -- he campaigns for Democrats who support stem-cell research -- or against Republicans who oppose stem-cell research.
I couldn't agree more. Rush should overdose on his Viagra.
Let's not forget about his illegally-obtained prescription painkillers.
Even though I think Al Franken is a mean-spirited (though at times, hilarious) idiot himself, he definitely had a point titling his book “Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot and other observations.” But Rush is the original of all those controversial talking heads, and that’s what they get paid to do, though I can’t listen to any those guys for more than 15 seconds (especially Rush).
I just hope that politicians who are using the commercials really have convictions about stem-cell research (an issue which I have yet to reach a conclusion on, btw). Mainly, I mean Ben Cardin. But I digress, Michael Steele seems to be running the cleanest, classiest campaign of any one I have seen in a long time (while having his private finances hacked by Cardin’s team), yet people will still vote for Cardin based on politics – the same reason Virginians will still vote for George Allen.
Interestingly enough, there is a new commercial coming out in Missouri against stem-cell research (I think it is tonight) and Jeff Suppan is one of those people in the commercial. So, the bottom line is I don’t care what your view on stem-cell research is, as long as the Cardinals win tonight.
Rush should take a look at himself first. He's no prize. On the other hand look at all the prss He got because of this.
Bo: As you probably guessed, I'm pro-stem cell research. But let's be fair: I've had several relatives with Parkinson's.
I generally disagree with the federal government limiting scientific research -- I think it's a state issue. Then again, if the feds don't want to fund it, that's their call. But whatever. I respect your right to be undecided.
I don't think either Steele or Cardin are running particularly good campaigns. And if I see the garbage can ad one more time, I might scream. Thank god I'm a Virginia voter with a clear decision.
And, while I might disagree with Jeff Suppan's position on stem cell research, I respect your right to support him in tonight's ballgame.
Jill: Thanks for stopping by and entering the melee. I often wonder how much stuff the pundits actually believe, and how much is just to generate buzz -- "All publicity is good publicity," or whatever it is that they say.
I guess if you're a conservative, there's a grassy knoll on every grassy knoll these days.
I'm voting for Steele because I love puppies!
In other Maryland politics news, The Washington Post gave it's endorsement to REPUBLICAN Gov. Robert Ehrlich. It was such big news that the Post supported a Republican that they put a news article about supporting a republican on the front page of the online site (haven't seen the print edition today)
Clearly, The Post is losing it.
Dara: Bob is a good guy and if you read the endorsement it's like "We endorse him b/c although he's a Republican, he's probably more liberal than O'Malley."
Andy: Sorry, that was easy to misinterpret. What I meant was that, by endorsing an incumbent Republican, the Post is behaving uncharacteristically.
And, after reading the editorial, I think the point isn't really that Ehrlich is more liberal than O'Malley. I think what they're saying can be summed up as: (1) Ehrlich's performance thus far has been pretty good, especially for Metro DC; (2) O'Malley hasn't really given enough of a reason why Ehrlich shouldn't be reelected; (3) O'Malley caters to Baltimore and ignores the DC Metro region; and (4) separation of powers.
I can't really disagree with that. I especially agree with the last point -- I just hope it translates into a Democratic Congress.
Post a Comment