Skip to comments.CNN's Cooper and Gupta Bemoan Reagan's Indifference to AIDS(CNN's INDIFFERENCE to the FACTS)
Posted on 06/10/2004 5:37:15 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
On Tuesday night CNN devoted a segment of Anderson Cooper 360 to how, as CNN's Dr, Sanjay Gupta put it, throughout his presidency "many would accuse President Reagan of ignoring AIDS," as if Reagan talking about it would have done more to prevent it than those in the homosexual community modifying their unsafe sex practices. Leading into a Reagan clip from 1987, Gupta complained that "the first time President Reagan would utter the word AIDS in public would be well into his second term, six years after the virus was discovered." In fact, Reagan talked about AIDS in 1985 and cited it repeatedly in his 1986 State of the Union address. Gupta relayed how one "AIDS activist" believes "the administration avoided AIDS all those years because of homophobia."
Interviewing Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, Cooper pointed out how "the San Francisco Chronicle said that Ronald Reagan was guilty, and I quote, of a 'shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.'" When Fauci wasn't sufficiently anti-Reagan, Cooper reminded him: "The criticism is that earlier on in 1981 or '82, they had been more vocal they might have made a difference. I think part of the anger, too, is that Reagan's communication director, Pat Buchanan, you know, was quoted as saying in print that AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals."
Unmentioned by CNN, how, as Deroy Murdock conveyed on National Review Online: "In a Congressional Research Service study titled 'AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999,' author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan's proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed."
For Murdock's piece, which quotes Reagan's comments about AIDS in 1985 and 1986, as well as how Patti Davis denied her father was any kind of homophobe: http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/murdock200406081045.asp
(Cooper's segment on Reagan and AIDS aired the same night, MRC analyst Ken Shepherd noticed, that he devoted a story to the suddenly wise Nancy Reagan for opposing President Bush on stem cell research. He introduced that story: "Well, as President Bush remembers Ronald Reagan, he is also reminding America of his admiration of the Republican icon and of course, Reagan's wife Nancy, as well. But there is one sticky subject where the president and the wife of the former president part company, stem cell research. It is an anathema to many conservatives, but to a woman who just lost her beloved husband to Alzheimer's, it is a topic that transcends 'Raw Politics.'")
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaresearch.org ...
"According to the screenplay...my father is a homophobic Bible-thumper who loudly insisted that his son wasn't gay when Ron took up ballet, and who in a particularly scathing scene told my mother that AIDS patients deserved their fate," wrote Ronald and Nancy Reagan's daughter,Patti Davis, on Time magazine's website. "Not only did my father never say such a thing, he never would have."
In fact, she recalls "the clear, smooth, non-judgmental way" in which her dad discussed the topic of homosexuality with her when she was age eight or nine.
"My father and I were watching an old Rock Hudson and Doris Day movie. At the moment when Hudson and Doris Day kissed, I said to my father, "That looks weird."... All I knew was that something about this particular man and woman was, to me, strange. My father gently explained that Mr. Hudson didn't really have a lot of experience kissing women; in fact, he would much prefer to be kissing a man. This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes, and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn't reserved just for men and women."
Fact: Reagan publicly demonstrated this outlook when he opposed Proposition 6, a 1978 ballot measure that called for the dismissal of California teachers who "advocated" homosexuality, even outside of schools. Reagan used both a September 24, 1978, statement and a syndicated newspaper column to campaign against the initiative.
Fact:Precise budget requests are difficult to calculate, as online records from the 1980s are spotty. Nevertheless, New York University's archived, hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment. In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan's proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed.
Table 5 of Johnson's report shows annual federal AIDS spending during Ronald Reagan's watch. This is hardly the portrait of a do-nothing presidency chart
Charges that Showtime recently depicted in the controversial TV film "The Reagans". Nothing more than left-wing lies about an American legend.
The first time President Clinton would utter the name "Juanita Broaddrick" in public was well into his second term, as I recall...
Gupta was probably dedicated to Khali as a child.
That (Reagan didn't stop Aids) whine was the same one most of the CSPAN negative callers use.
The Libs found out few know anything about Iran Contra, so that flopped as mud to sling.
The only other issue they could seem to find to sling some mud at President Reagan was that he didn't stop Aids.
I'd bet most 'callers' couldn't even carry on a real discussion about how many $$$ Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2 provided, etc., because it is just the talking point for them to spew if they got on air.
Why should ANYBODY care about AIDS more than those who are too self-indulgent to STOP the behavior that transmits it?
They're lambasting Reagan on AIDS because he didn't accept/embrace the gay agenda. Period.
I remember when AIDs first broke the public conciousness,
we were told over and over, it was a civil rights issue
NOT a health emergency.
Now they're sniveling.
Republicans wanted to curtail the actvities which spread AIDS; liberals opposed any action to curtail such activities. So the Republicans are at fault for the fact that the disease was spread by people participating in such activities?
What about those who prevented any action to clamp down on the bathhouses where the disease was spread?
AIDs was identified in the late 70's. Wouldn't that really make it Carter's fault?
It amazes me that it's become virtually a capital crime to even suggest that people behave themselves. We are a nation of toddlers who want what we want NOW with no restrictions or responsibilities, only rights.
<<<< crickets >>>>
Every president after Reagan has talked about AIDS and it has not made the problem a faint memory.....so what gives???????????
And here we are, some 20+ years later, and there still isn't a cure for AIDS, despite 8 wondrous years of Bill Clinton, despite billions of dollars spent by many countries to the detriment of research into the cure of other less "fashionable" diseases.
They do have a point, however; Reagan could have stopped AIDS in America by quarantining carriers early and shutting down businesses that promoted the spread of the disease, but we all know how that would have gone over. In the end, everyone knew that (a) the odds of getting AIDS if you lead a clean life were extremely small, and (b) if those that were at risk of getting AIDS wouldn't do anything to help themselves then there really wasn't a moral obligation to help them.
AIDS virus was not identified until 1982.
Having never participated in that 'scene' I can only conjecture, but something tells me that the promiscuity rates among bathhouse patrons were probably higher than among those who went home for their 'relationships'.
I also have a feeling that there were and are many 'homosexual activists' who wanted and still want AIDS to spread so they can portray homosexuals as 'victims'.
The homosexual lobby has fought tooth and nail every step of the way for the right to spread AIDS unfettered. They didn't really want anybody stopping it; they only wanted their treatment paid for with OPM.
I remember reading about it as the 'gay plague' in the early 80's when I had a subscription to Rolling Stone. A friend's husband who was a hemophiliac contracted it either from his meds or a blood transfusion in 83 or 84.
It still doesn't make it Reagan's fault, he wasn't the one spreading it and there's still not a cure.
Nancy Reagan chooses who will speak. This is not a political rally like Wellstone's service.
The rumor was also that Clinton was pissed off as this deflected interest of his book coming out. Again not verified at this time..only rumor.
One rather interesting facet of liberalism is that it imparts nobility to victimhood. If someone is harmed by something, one should be entitled to benefit from it; one should not try to mitigate harm, because reducing the harm one suffers would reduce the amount of 'relief' to which one was entitled.
The notion that it is better to have problems and blame someone else for them, than not to have the problems in the first place, seems bizarre, but it seems to have infected a lot of people in a lot of ways. I don't know what the best way to counter this infectious notion, but perhaps forcing it into the open will help.
Probably, but it still comes down to a disease that is spread not by airborne germs, not by water, not by tainted food but by personal behavior.
I also have a feeling that there were and are many 'homosexual activists' who wanted and still want AIDS to spread so they can portray homosexuals as 'victims'.
Completely agree with you here. Why would AIDS activists want AIDS to go away? Look at the meal ticket they've been given. Along the same lines why would social workers or welfare case workers want their 'clients' to actually become self-sufficient and/or mentally stable? Their job would disappear overnight. Victims produce a lot of jobs for others.
I think we're on the same page, supercat.
Wasn't it called G.R.I.D. for the first few years (until political correctness took over?)
"The former British and Canadian leaders were joining Bush and his father Friday in eulogizing Reagan to close the curtain on the capital's elaborate state funeral Washington's last goodbye before Reagan's sunset burial on the grounds of his presidential library outside Los Angeles. Besides the first President Bush, the other living former presidents were expected, too: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton." - http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040610-1737-ronaldreagan.html
Now, let me get this straight. It's the responsibility of the POTUS to , let's say, make a public service commercal reminding a homosexual man to be sure to "wrap that rascal" before having anal intercourse with another man???
Sorry, but perpetual victimhood is getting old, real old.
"Republicans wanted to curtail the actvities which spread AIDS; liberals opposed any action to curtail such activities. So the Republicans are at fault for the fact that the disease was spread by people participating in such activities?"
Bingo, you got it.
Lets not confuse CNN with the facts.
The first AIDS cases were reported in the June 5, 1981 weekly morbidity and mortality report of the CDC.
So about half the audience numbers watching FOX actually might have seen this so-predictable CNN hatchet job. And everyday fewer and fewer will watch.
I channel sufered yesterday and crossed CNN to hear O'l Judy Woodruffd somehow trash both Bush and Regan in the same sentence no less. She must have stayed up have the night trying to get that sentence constructed.
Their agenda is sooo obvious.
..Pass her this note next time you see her. Source posted above.
This thread goes on my links page. Great information!
And they don't want to address the fight that these young gay men put up to prevent the bathhouses in SF from being closed or the reporting of this nasty STD to public health...Hell why doesn't any one of these guys admit that it is their own behaviour that is killing them
LOL! I like this post.
The virus was identified in April of 1984, three years after the disease was identified (June of 1981). The cause was not clear in 1981-82, but the epidemiology was clear -- it was sexually transmitted.
Arthalion: We have spent over 15 BILLION dollars
The funding for AIDS was relatively small before 1985, several million per year. Public health people were well aware that the situation was ominous -- the case load was small (a few thousand) before 1985, but growing exponentially. There were scientists urgently calling for more funding but for several years they were not heeded.
Reagan apparently wasn't clued in on this issue early on. I heard the historian Haynes Johnson claim on NPR that Reagan didn't know about AIDS until his friend Rock Hudson died of it -- he had to ask his personal physician what AIDS was.
I don't worry as much about a foreign born terrorist attack as much as an assassination attempt by some young misguided media brainwashed liberal thinking Bush-hating extremist!
You might want to read this source.
Should we take a guess as to how she's performing in a class that relies on logic? Another question, can not these screeching leftists stay focused long enough to get through even a programming class without erupting into their usual ranting selves?
Yes, Gay Related Immune Deficiency. But drug users were getting it, and it was appearing in Haitians. People started to refer to the 4-H club: Homosexuals, Haitians, Hemophiliacs and Heroin users.
Reminds me of the old joke: What's the worst part of getting AIDS? Trying to convince your mother that you're Haitian.
Thanks a bunch!! Terrific article.
True, true. I couldn't decide if Haynes Johnson was full of it or not. His take was, don't blame Reagan, he didn't know about it until Hudson passed away. But Johnson wrote the book "Sleepwalking Through History", which I suppose is not the most positive take on the Reagan years <grin>.
Didn't the gays and the ACLU block early screening of the blood supply on "right to privacy" grounds?
Merv Giffin has been best friends of the Reagans for decades, and will be a pallbearer. It is well-known in Hollywood that he is homosexual.
Gay activists did far more to encourage the spread of disease than any amount of funding could have done to stop it.
The homosexual movement wants America to believe that Reagan, not homosexual sodomy - an unnatural, unsanitary sex act - is responsible for the spread of AIDS. Homosexuals want to have their cake and eat it, too; they want to engage in unnatural, unsanitary sex acts, then plunder the federal treasury when they get infected.
It is also well known that CNN's Anderson Cooper is gay.
Ahem, I'm sure I wasn't the only doctor that suspected it was a virus, and knew there was no "antibiotic" for viral diseases, and that we didn't even have the basic scientific knowledge to figure out how to kill viruses without killing the host, as viruses are about as close to naked DNA as a "living" thing can get.
Also, many of us even knew that viruses and prions may not really fit the criteria for "life," that they may just be organic chemicals that can replicate and cause infection.
I specifically remember warning people that we would need a once in a century type genius to make the mental breakthrough to even begin to fight the disease. I was very much in favor of controlling it by making it a reportable disease and having the public health department confidentially track down all exposed people, like they have discretely done for decades with TB, venereal diseases, and other communicable diseases.
But the gay community made that illegal, and the millions of deaths and disability extra will always be on the heads of the gay activists would put their politics ahead of the lives and well-being of millions.
My husband and I don't live in Hollywood any more, so we are out of touch now.
Ron jr was doing the PSA's with the banana and condom. How far back was that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.