Saturday, December 08, 2007

Huckabee called for AIDS Quarantines in '92


By 1992, after Magic Johnson announced he was HIV positive, people with brains understood that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact.
"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."
...
"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."
Huckabee also opposed federal funding for AIDS research and "suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies..."

And this guy's apparently surged into second place, behind Mayor 9/11.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not one to say this, but what is the point of telling us what we know. Evangelical Americans represent 60 million people and that is the largest group of voters in this country. There is no political science theory to explian in why he is in second, but there is "Morality" and since "Morality" and Christianity have become so comfortable with each other, Evangelicals feel they have to vote for a man of both "Moral" and Christian ideals. So since he is a Pastor among a group of politicians they will support him. When it comes to AIDs and Homosexuality his views represent a large group of voters and that may be a problem, but it is a problem that is too obvious to keep pointing out. The key to change and the real problem to point out is in the libertarian voter, they will be the difference in this election. Will they vote for a big spending Pastor or a big spending but not as big of a spender political science believer? That is a difficult question to answer, because libertarians haven't had to make such decisions since the late 19th century.

red rabbit said...

White evangelicals represent 23% of the electoral. Where are you getting your statistics from? Evangelicals are NOT the largest group of voters in this country. Libertarians will not be THE deciding factor.

Anonymous said...

That is funny how you spun that. I am pointing out the change Nixon and later Reagan created when they made Evangelicals so powerful in politics. Before Nixon many Evangelicals or WASPs had voted Democrat, but after attending Duke, Nixon recognized that they were only voting that way out of tradition. Nixon believed that race and religion would make them change their vote for him. That is one of the reasons Kennedy had to make a speech on Catholicism. Nixon created a new tradition and Reagan continued it with far more lasting implications, now the Religious Right have become so radical that they are willing to vote for a guy who would tax everyone in order to bring prayer to school. Their power has grown to the point where religion has become the test of whether you are a fit Republican or not. That is why they are the largest group of voters in America, there influence being larger than there vote, they make it an argument of either for God or against God. In this country that argument is unfair because for God wins almost every time. What is for God? Huckabee represents most of what "for God" is. This is a bad way for me to explain my argument, I wish I could have a better place to debate this subject. But I like to say this country votes with Christianity on its mind and that is even stronger now than ever. With Huckabee as my proof, how a Jennings Bryan type is able to stay in the race this long is amazing. That proves the strength that the Religious Right have in this country.

Libertarians aren't all Ron Paul like, but they are being grouped pretty terribly by me. I will admit wrong and just say the centrist conservatives that vote with money on there mind and not religion. They are A key to this race. I admit my wrong on that and I am sorry for that. I am just angry that this country has two parties to represent four groups of people.

Anonymous said...

Wait I found my argument and I am shocked it came so easily. Frank Rich's Article on the New York Times website, he puts it in better words than my tired mind can right now.

the professor said...

The most significant comment in the Rich columm is, "the press pack has proved an unreliable guide to election 2008. What the Beltway calls unthinkable today keeps turning out to be front-page news tomorrow"--which I take to mean that trying to slice and dice the electorate in light of the last poll showing who's leading the media horse race hardly counts as change--it's just old James Carville/Mary Matalin politics, which does nothing but spell defeat for democratic political values. If the dems start angling for centrist republicans on economic i,ssues I can't, for the life of me figure out what would be the point of having a democratic party. Moreover, I can't see the virtue in not reiterating the reprehensible stances taken by this whole Republican lot. By treating their various sins as nothing but old news we let them skate by as moderates and move the entire political spectrum further to the right.