Last June, Ann Coulter made a good point badly when she excoriated liberals for exploiting victims to further their political fortunes. The one-size-fits all advertisements featuring a Parkinson's-stricken Michael J. Fox endorsing a Democratic candidate provide a belated example to buttress the point Coulter made. Instead of making an intellectual point, Democrats make an emotional one--and one that sets up charges of cruelty should anyone even attempt to rebut it. Who would argue with a paralyzed actor, or a mother whose son died fighting in Iraq, or 9/11 widows? Should someone dare take on the victim/spokesman, that brave (foolish?) advocate then becomes the villain. But it's really the other way around. Anyone who takes a victim and inserts them into a hot political debate not only knowingly puts the victim into the middle of controversy where the victim is bound to wind up in the crossfire, but attempts to stifle debate as well. Faced with a victim as spokesman, the opposition's choices are a). shut up, or b). argue against the victim's point, which makes one appear to victimize the victim a second time over. This trick may have worked the first hundred times, but it has grown stale and moldy. Its expiration date is way past due. I prefer Michael J. Fox playing Alex P. Keaton and Teen Wolf, not Christopher Reeve and Ryan White.

Right and that Repub ad in 2004 with Bush hugging the little girl whose Dad died in the WTC was what?

Not exploiting victims?

Please. This is politics.

Ought to lay off the Starbucks.

As a response in kind, can it finally be permissable to show images of aborted children? Images of babies being torn limb from limb are more compelling than images of Fox suffering from Parkinson's.

Ann Coulter's point -- as I understood it -- was that liberals use "victims" to make political points hoping their "victimhood" will immunize them from any criticism. As a political tactic this works well, because who wants to disagree with a dying actor or a grieving mother? However if you disagree with the politics a "victim" is supporting then you should attack the politics not the person. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh didn't do this. Ann Coulter called the widows "witches" who were relishing in their husbands deaths, or some rubbish. Why didn't Ann just stick to politics and say why she thought the 9/11 Commission was a bad idea? She didn't do this because she has no political message to convey; she's simply a Bush cultist who is angered anytime anyone does something that casts President Bush in a negative light.

I can't decide which is worse. This ad, or Jim Caveziel's recent retort which he begins in ARAMAIC!

It's proof that those who rule us think we're all retards.

Saying "The Son of Man, with a kiss" (what he said in the ad) in aramaic is a not-unusual greeting among Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

But I don't know what rite of Catholicism Caveziel hails from.

Did Coulter make a good point badly if people keep referring to it?

who says the "victims" dont want to be part of the debate. Mr. Fox i am certain could defend the position of stem cell very well. How come when people defend a position its okay to critize, but it seems Limbaugh and Coulter dont believe the "victims" are capable of joining the debate, let alone being a valid part of the debate.

If Michael J. Fox wants to be part of the debate, thats fine.

This ad is not taking part in the debate. Its using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion, to try to stir votes.

Fox has held up his position somewhat well. The clips of his response, seems to speak reasonably well.

However, when he says he didn't come because he was a victim, I think he is wrong. It's not in specific words, it's in the way that he is used. Of course, he is an interested party. Interested parties like to do what they can, so of course, he wants to help. Same thing was true of Reeve. Still their presence in commercials (as opposed to debates) are in a arena where simple things need to be communicated quickly, and often over-the-top just to be sure the point is made.

So we're not talking about a sufferer involved in the debate. Heck, we're even talking about ELECTION spots!! We've gone beyond the pale if we want to equate election spots with substantive debate involving the afflicted.

It's not a PSA for an organization called the Stem Cell Research Foundation asking you to support stem cell research directly, it's asking you to elect somebody because they might fund it with everybody's dollars.

I have to agree with Joe that overgeneralizing Fox's case simply because the left has introduced us with so many you are incapable of debating, is a blunder. But, I mostly agree with Dan that Ann's has a point somewhere. And just like with Rush, it's just too broadly made. It's a subtle point, and needs to be made more diplomatically, IMO.