HA HA HA HA HA.

And he was obviously a knee-jerk a$$wipe back then as well as now.

For the details, see:
“Huckabee’s 1992 AIDS Bigotry Refuted by Ronald Reagan in 1987.”

he’s right. as i point out at my blogA, even tho gallo had isolated the virus in 1984, and azt had been approved in 87, we had a lot to learn.

1992 was the seminal year in which the fda approved ddc as the first nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor as an antiretroviral agent in the fight against the disease. it’s true we weren’t sure in 1992 if widespread use of ddc would lead to pancreatitis due to mitochondrial toxicity of nrtis on pancreatic cells, until the protocol included zero or minimal alcohol intake in patients taking zalcidabine. so, in effect, we were “still learning” about the disease.

that’s obviously what huckabee meant.

I agree people with money who care about this cause should do more than preach it they should back it up with funds but its insulting to attack Madonna who everyone knows funds millions into every cause she preaches about and always has.

We could have a true Christian Conservative like Romney or Huckabee against a true Progressive like Obama. Finally, we would get to see which way this country wants to go. No blurring of lines with candidates that are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, etc.

Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years. Recall that in 1991, Kimberly Bergalis testified in front of Congress after contracting HIV from her dentist, and that summer a study was published showing that HIV was transmitted through breastmilk more easily than had been thought. But the federal government provided some guidelines: Also in 1991 the Centers for Disease Control recommended restrictions on the practice of HIV-positive health care workers.

At the time, there was widespread concern over modes of transmission and the possibility of epidemic. In the absence of conclusive data, my focus was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus, following traditional medical practices developed from our public health experience and medical science in dealing with tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.

We now know that the virus that causes AIDS is spread differently, with a lower level of contact than with TB. But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population – if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last.

My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals. We must prevent new infections and provide more accessible care. We must do everything possible to transform the promise of a vaccine and a cure into reality.

Furthermore, I am proud that the United States has led the global battle against HIV/ AIDS. We have both a strategic interest as the world’s only superpower and a moral obligation as the world’s richest country to continue to do so until this scourge is a memory.

I supported the current Administration’s proposal to double our initial commitment from $15 billion to $30 billion over the next five years for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR has already done an extraordinary amount of good, by providing drugs for over a million people and care for four-and-a-half million people, but it expires in 2008 and must be reauthorized. I support an increase in our commitment to the Global Fund. Through PEPFAR and the Global Fund, we can do our fair share to meet the Millennium Development Goals we affirmed in 2000, which include universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care.

We have his view from 15 years ago. I’ve been looking for info about his views from last year, or 2 years ago or 5 or 10. You seem to be asserting that he made this change in this election cycle. Got any proof that he didn’t change them 5 or 10 years ago. Anyone know his record on this issue in Arkansas as governor?

It was bad enough that Chimpy got re-elected. If this nation is stupid enough to elect Huckabee…..

No one should fear he’d ever become Pres. – he should set his sights on a nice tele-ministry in TX, where he can while away his days “jamming” with the saved, and living off old people’s social security checks, the way the Lord intended.

He is one small step from Fred Phelps.

In 1992…..most intelligent people had educated themselves about this disease and became compassionate. Mikes view was….hell, more food for me.

Candidate positions.

Comment by Veritas — December 8, 2007 @ 2:00 pm

‘Splains why he’s moving rapidly up in the polls, huh?

[1995] Newt set strategy for Religious Right — 10 years ago!: House Speaker Newt Gingrich set the agenda for the Religious Right ten years ago at a politically important conference in the nation’s capital. On October 15-17, 1985, the Rev. Tim LaHaye’s American Coalition for Traditional Values (ACTV) held a “How to Win An Election” conference in Washington, DC. Under the banner of “Serve the Lord by running for public office,” the conference focused on the Christian’s “Biblical mandate” to run for political office. During the conference, LaHaye referred to Newt Gingrich, a fellow Southern Baptist, as “a minister of God.” “We need to challenge God’s people to run for office,” LaHaye said. “If every Bible-believing, Christ-loving church would trust God to raise up an average of just one person over the next 10 years who would get elected, we would have more Christian candidates than there are offices.” Gingrich, the keynote speaker on the final night, said, “I think what you’re doing is very, very important.” He said those “on the left forgot just how freedom is delivered. From their standpoint, the Declaration of Independence did not have a phrase that said, ‘We’re endowed by our creator,’ but rather said something like, ‘being gathered together as random protoplasm.’” Gingrich continued, “I think they misunderstood the whole underlying spiritual drive which was key to the American Revolution.” Continued here

No, this is a sign that he changes his view what ever way the winds blow. He knows that his former views would not play well, even in Peoria, so he is saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected.

But, I am rather puzzled by his stance. Does he think he has the religious right vote so locked up that he can now support something that tosese cretins probably will think disqualifies him from being president?