Huckabee on HIV in 1992: "We need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by the Associated Press.

...

In 1992, Huckabee wrote: "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.

...

When asked about AIDS research in 1992, Huckabee said it received an unfair share of federal dollars compared to cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1&cset=true

[no name 1]

Also in the wide-ranging 1992 questionnaire, Huckabee said: "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

More recently, in 2003, Huckabee said that the U.S. Supreme Court was probably right to strike down anti-sodomy laws, but that states still should be able to restrict things such as same-sex marriage or domestic-partner benefits.

"What people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business," Huckabee said. "If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and discourse."

What a flip-flopping right winger!

[GaryC 7]

You guys are amazing. Do you remember what it was like in 92? We didn't know anything about AIDS. I think I will see if I can find some 15 year old statements made by the other candidates and see if you think they apply now.

[no name 1]

You guys are amazing. Do you remember what it was like in 92? We didn't know anything about AIDS. I think I will see if I can find some 15 year old statements made by the other candidates and see if you think they apply now.

but...........

I don't see him trying to create a theocracy. To take comments made to a group of pastors insert group name here 9 years ago and somehow translating that to a presidential platform is reaching.

[GaryC 7]

You guys are amazing. Do you remember what it was like in 92? We didn't know anything about AIDS. I think I will see if I can find some 15 year old statements made by the other candidates and see if you think they apply now.

but...........

I don't see him trying to create a theocracy. To take comments made to a group of pastors insert group name here 9 years ago and somehow translating that to a presidential platform is reaching.

Yeah, your proving my point. Something that long ago does not apply unless it helps your side it seems.

[no name 1]

You guys are amazing. Do you remember what it was like in 92? We didn't know anything about AIDS. I think I will see if I can find some 15 year old statements made by the other candidates and see if you think they apply now.

but...........

I don't see him trying to create a theocracy. To take comments made to a group of pastors insert group name here 9 years ago and somehow translating that to a presidential platform is reaching.

Yeah, your proving my point. Something that long ago does not apply unless it helps your side it seems.

You contradicted yourself so whatever!

Go ahead, I'm waiting to hear what Rudy said about AIDS, he prolly gave plenty of $$ towards it. And Hills too. Go on!

[mawilson 2,133]

You guys are amazing. Do you remember what it was like in 92? We didn't know anything about AIDS. I think I will see if I can find some 15 year old statements made by the other candidates and see if you think they apply now.

but...........

I don't see him trying to create a theocracy. To take comments made to a group of pastors insert group name here 9 years ago and somehow translating that to a presidential platform is reaching.

Yeah, your proving my point. Something that long ago does not apply unless it helps your side it seems.

You contradicted yourself so whatever!

He didn't contradict himself.

[no name 1]

I was wrong about Rudy....he gets slimier by the month.

New York City-based HIV/AIDS advocacy group Housing Works recently criticized former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, for his work on HIV/AIDS issues while in office, the Boston Globe reports. Giuliani "showed absolutely zero concern for people living with AIDS and HIV" during his eight years as mayor, Housing Works President Charles King said. He added, "We had to litigate against him from the beginning of his term to force his administration to follow New York law with regard to the provision of services and care to persons with AIDS and HIV."

Giuliani on World AIDS Day on Dec. 1 said that if he is elected president, he would "continue America's life-saving role as a leader in the global fight against HIV/AIDS until the day humanity can declare victory against this deadly disease." However, King said Giuliani's statements are "gross hypocrisy." According to King, Giuliani's administration withdrew the group's city contracts as punishment for its "frequent, very aggressive criticism" of Giuliani and his policies, the Globe reports.

In 2005, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration settled a lawsuit for $4.8 million that Housing Works had filed against Giuliani's administration over the contracts dispute, but the city did not acknowledge any misconduct in the case, the Globe reports. Maria Comella, Giuliani's campaign spokesperson, said funding levels for HIV/AIDS-related services remained consistent while Giuliani was in office. In addition, the Giuliani administration maintained at the time that Housing Works' contracts were terminated because of mismanagement.

source

[Alex+R 0]

Gary, we knew a lot about AIDS in 1992 -- enough to know about its transmission. We didn't know as much about treating it as we do now, but it had already been three years since Princess Diana shook an AIDS patient's hand at the opening of a treatment center. Treating it like a "plague" (as if the biblical word in this context isn't frightening enough) was not the norm in 1992 among educated people.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, we knew a lot about AIDS in 1992 -- enough to know about its transmission. We didn't know as much about treating it as we do now, but it had already been three years since Princess Diana shook an AIDS patient's hand at the opening of a treatment center. Treating it like a "plague" (as if the biblical word in this context isn't frightening enough) was not the norm in 1992 among educated people.

The point is this: taking a 15 year old statement and trying to apply it to today is reaching. Like I said, I could find statements made by the other candidates on many subjects that would make your eyebrows raise. This is just reaching. If someones stand on gays or AIDS is important then by all means judge your support on that basis but at least make it applicable to today and not something said 15 years ago.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gary, we knew a lot about AIDS in 1992 -- enough to know about its transmission. We didn't know as much about treating it as we do now, but it had already been three years since Princess Diana shook an AIDS patient's hand at the opening of a treatment center. Treating it like a "plague" (as if the biblical word in this context isn't frightening enough) was not the norm in 1992 among educated people.

The point is this: taking a 15 year old statement and trying to apply it to today is reaching. Like I said, I could find statements made by the other candidates on many subjects that would make your eyebrows raise. This is just reaching. If someones stand on gays or AIDS is important then by all means judge your support on that basis but at least make it applicable to today and not something said 15 years ago.

Of course, when asked about the statements, he said he would not recant them. That's in the last few days.

[Alex+R 0]

Gary, we knew a lot about AIDS in 1992 -- enough to know about its transmission. We didn't know as much about treating it as we do now, but it had already been three years since Princess Diana shook an AIDS patient's hand at the opening of a treatment center. Treating it like a "plague" (as if the biblical word in this context isn't frightening enough) was not the norm in 1992 among educated people.

The point is this: taking a 15 year old statement and trying to apply it to today is reaching. Like I said, I could find statements made by the other candidates on many subjects that would make your eyebrows raise. This is just reaching. If someones stand on gays or AIDS is important then by all means judge your support on that basis but at least make it applicable to today and not something said 15 years ago.

Some things change in 15 years. Some things don't. 15 years ago, we already knew that AIDS was not a "plague" and we knew about the spread of it. If he said that in 1982, I might understand and I would agree with the point you're trying to make, but this was 92.

Gary, we knew a lot about AIDS in 1992 -- enough to know about its transmission. We didn't know as much about treating it as we do now, but it had already been three years since Princess Diana shook an AIDS patient's hand at the opening of a treatment center. Treating it like a "plague" (as if the biblical word in this context isn't frightening enough) was not the norm in 1992 among educated people.

The point is this: taking a 15 year old statement and trying to apply it to today is reaching. Like I said, I could find statements made by the other candidates on many subjects that would make your eyebrows raise. This is just reaching. If someones stand on gays or AIDS is important then by all means judge your support on that basis but at least make it applicable to today and not something said 15 years ago.

Of course, when asked about the statements, he said he would not recant them. That's in the last few days.

WHOA.

[Peikko 1,575]

Agreed with Alex, there wasn't much ignorance about the transmission of AIDS in the 90's.

I do also think that digging up opinions from more say more than a year ago is a pretty pointless exercise. If any candidate is running on any policy that aims to deliberately target homosexuals, well that's a whole different story.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Some things change in 15 years. Some things don't. 15 years ago, we already knew that AIDS was not a "plague" and we knew about the spread of it. If he said that in 1982, I might understand and I would agree with the point you're trying to make, but this was 92.

Yes. The CDC said in 1985 that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, we knew a lot about AIDS in 1992 -- enough to know about its transmission. We didn't know as much about treating it as we do now, but it had already been three years since Princess Diana shook an AIDS patient's hand at the opening of a treatment center. Treating it like a "plague" (as if the biblical word in this context isn't frightening enough) was not the norm in 1992 among educated people.

The point is this: taking a 15 year old statement and trying to apply it to today is reaching. Like I said, I could find statements made by the other candidates on many subjects that would make your eyebrows raise. This is just reaching. If someones stand on gays or AIDS is important then by all means judge your support on that basis but at least make it applicable to today and not something said 15 years ago.

Some things change in 15 years. Some things don't. 15 years ago, we already knew that AIDS was not a "plague" and we knew about the spread of it. If he said that in 1982, I might understand and I would agree with the point you're trying to make, but this was 92.

Gary, we knew a lot about AIDS in 1992 -- enough to know about its transmission. We didn't know as much about treating it as we do now, but it had already been three years since Princess Diana shook an AIDS patient's hand at the opening of a treatment center. Treating it like a "plague" (as if the biblical word in this context isn't frightening enough) was not the norm in 1992 among educated people.

The point is this: taking a 15 year old statement and trying to apply it to today is reaching. Like I said, I could find statements made by the other candidates on many subjects that would make your eyebrows raise. This is just reaching. If someones stand on gays or AIDS is important then by all means judge your support on that basis but at least make it applicable to today and not something said 15 years ago.

Of course, when asked about the statements, he said he would not recant them. That's in the last few days.

WHOA.

If gays and AIDS is important to you then don't vote for him. I think you will find the constituency that cares about that is pretty narrow. They will find a cure for AIDS soon and it will no longer be a issue for the gays.