http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_o...kabee_aids

Quote:"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," Huckabee wrote.

"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."

Now, that was in 1992. It will be interesting to see how he does a mea culpa on this.

Surely, this was a different time back then, and a lot of people held these misguided views, and espoused a kind of hatred towards "particularly gay" victims of HIV/AIDS.

If Huckabee is smart he can give a big speech on the evolution of his ideas on this issue, and how being wrong on it has been one of the things that has humbled him in his life, etc. It can be used to demonstrate that he has the ability to learn and evolve -- something that people want in their candidates, as long as it seems genuine.

Either way, its something that is going to have to be dealt with.

More. God, this is bad:

Quote:"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote, according to the AP.

"An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."

Again, This was a different time back then. So he can spin this stuff if he wants, he can turn it into an "I have seen the light" speech. But if he doesn't do that, he's in for a world of hurt. And even if he does, he may be irreparably damaged in the general.

Do you really think his view in your first post is going to scare off voters in the primaries? Maybe in the general election, but not in the primary. Most of those who will be voting for him like his views on religious issues and there isn't a lot of sympathy for a disease that is spread almost entirely by unprotected sex and sharing needles. I'm sure this is a huge issue on "Air America", but in conservative America, this sounds like an idea that just might work....

OUGwave Wrote:More. God, this is bad:

Quote:"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote, according to the AP.

"An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."

Again, This was a different time back then. So he can spin this stuff if he wants, he can turn it into an "I have seen the light" speech. But if he doesn't do that, he's in for a world of hurt. And even if he does, he may be irreparably damaged in the general.

why are these statements bad? we should severely cut our funding of AIDS research.

I guarantee you he will attempt to distance himself from this. I guarantee you HE doesn't think it helps him in the primary. Where do you think this research comes from? It is oppo research from other GOP campaigns that is dumped on the media through Drudge because THEY KNOW it will hurt him in the primary. Don't be naive. This stuff doesn't come from nowhere, these stories are fed by rival campaigns who know their electorate, know the microtrends among primary voters, and know what they are doing.

He has largely risen in the polls based off of three things: Fawning media coverage, the perception that he is a compassionate conservative that is likable, and the idea that he is a strong General Election candidate.

This erodes all three. Hostility towards HIV/AIDS sufferers and saying that we need to stop investing money into research and hinting that we need to isolate them and put them on an island does not play well in any group aside from the most strident of the GOP base. And they aren't going to vote for him anyway.

This is the end of the Huckabee honeymoon, about 4 weeks too early for him. Romney will eat his lunch over this with a very subtle comment, I would think. You watch.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:More. God, this is bad:

Quote:"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote, according to the AP.

"An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."

Again, This was a different time back then. So he can spin this stuff if he wants, he can turn it into an "I have seen the light" speech. But if he doesn't do that, he's in for a world of hurt. And even if he does, he may be irreparably damaged in the general.

why are these statements bad? we should severely cut our funding of AIDS research.

Try running for national electoral office on that platform and see how many votes -- Democrat or Republican -- it gets you.

There is a reason Bush launched his global aids initiative to the tune of $15B. It is that rare issue that plays well with liberals and most evangelicals, thats why it was such a good issue for him and Rove knew it.

OUGwave Wrote:I guarantee you he will attempt to distance himself from this. I guarantee you HE doesn't think it helps him in the primary. Where do you think this research comes from? It is oppo research from other GOP campaigns that is dumped on the media through Drudge because THEY KNOW it will hurt him in the primary. Don't be naive. This stuff doesn't come from nowhere, these stories are fed by rival campaigns who know their electorate, know the microtrends among primary voters, and know what they are doing.

He has largely risen in the polls based off of three things: Fawning media coverage, the perception that he is a compassionate conservative that is likable, and the idea that he is a strong General Election candidate.

This erodes all three. Hostility towards HIV/AIDS sufferers and saying that we need to stop investing money into research and hinting that we need to isolate them and put them on an island does not play well in any group aside from the most strident of the GOP base. And they aren't going to vote for him anyway.

This is the end of the Huckabee honeymoon, about 4 weeks too early for him. Romney will eat his lunch over this with a very subtle comment, I would think. You watch.

What do you know about conservatives? I'd say absolutely nothing. The main reason Huckabee has risen in the last couple months is that he appears to be a viable conservative with socially conservative values.

Billary should have held on to this info until after the Huckabee wins the primary as this will have absolutely no effect on the people who are going to vote for him in the primary (social conservatives).

Who exactly do you think the most conservative Republicans are going to vote for, if not Huckabee? Paul (don't even start), Guiliani (A guy who supports abortion and cheated on his wife?), Romney (Christians voting for Mormons, when there is a Baptist preacher on the ticket?), Thompson (has even decided if he is running yet?), McCain (is he even a Republican?)

Listen, "Billary" is too busy worrying about getting her clock cleaned by Obama to give two sh*ts about what is going on on the other side. I guarantee you that this oppo dump came from the Romney camp.

You don't think Huckabee feels HIV/AIDS funding his popular in the Republican Party?

Why is THIS his official position:

Quote:I support reauthorization of PEPFAR and President Bush’s proposal to double our commitment from $15 billion to $30 over the next five years. 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, including universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care.

I think I apparently know more about the GOP primary electorate than you do. You show me the conservative candidate that says he wants to isolate HIV sufferers from the rest of society and runs on that, and I'll maybe agree with you. If it was such a benefit in front of that audience, they'd all be saying that.

You know, I shouldn't have to explain that social conservatives are not all a caricature to a self-proclaimed conservative who has video from friggin porno films all over his sig.

blah Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:I guarantee you he will attempt to distance himself from this. I guarantee you HE doesn't think it helps him in the primary. Where do you think this research comes from? It is oppo research from other GOP campaigns that is dumped on the media through Drudge because THEY KNOW it will hurt him in the primary. Don't be naive. This stuff doesn't come from nowhere, these stories are fed by rival campaigns who know their electorate, know the microtrends among primary voters, and know what they are doing.

He has largely risen in the polls based off of three things: Fawning media coverage, the perception that he is a compassionate conservative that is likable, and the idea that he is a strong General Election candidate.

This erodes all three. Hostility towards HIV/AIDS sufferers and saying that we need to stop investing money into research and hinting that we need to isolate them and put them on an island does not play well in any group aside from the most strident of the GOP base. And they aren't going to vote for him anyway.

This is the end of the Huckabee honeymoon, about 4 weeks too early for him. Romney will eat his lunch over this with a very subtle comment, I would think. You watch.

Who exactly do you think the most conservative Republicans are going to vote for, if not Huckabee? Paul (don't even start), Guiliani (A guy who supports abortion and cheated on his wife?), Romney (Christians voting for Mormons, when there is a Baptist preacher on the ticket?), Thompson (has even decided if he is running yet?), McCain (is he even a Republican?)

Doesn't matter. The conservative vote is going to be split six ways from Sunday. All Romney has to do is show himself to be more credible among the widest base of people, which he is doing. Romney's money advantage gives him the best shot when the field is this divided. Thats why Giuliani fears him more than Huckabee.

More evidence from Huckabee that he thinks that cutting HIV funding is not a popular stand in the Republican party:

Quote: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.

But I'm sure he's really ignorant about the republican electorate

I don't disagree that he would come out against his previous stance, as no one wants to alienate any potential voters, my argument was that his previous stance wouldn't alienate any of his current staunchest supporters.

blah Wrote:I don't disagree that he would come out against his previous stance, as no one wants to alienate any potential voters, my argument was that his previous stance wouldn't alienate any of his current staunchest supporters.

I agree...and his statement of his current position should calm down the uproar....Hell...Romney has done the same thing with previous statement...This is all just politics as usual...Thats why I wont vote for any one of these jokers.

OUGwave Wrote:Listen, "Billary" is too busy worrying about getting her clock cleaned by Obama to give two sh*ts about what is going on on the other side.

Hillary has a 2 to 1 lead over Obama nationally. Iowa is hardly representative of the rest of the country.

Once Iowa goes................ Then NH................ Then SC.... we'll see where Obama is nationally.

Knowing what we know now compared to 1992 is like night and day. There was a time in the early 90s that people were worried about spreading aids through hair clippers and scissors, not to mention a ton of other ways.

I'm not condoning what he did, but he certainly wasn't the only person worried about the spread of AIDS through ways other than sex and shared needles.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Listen, "Billary" is too busy worrying about getting her clock cleaned by Obama to give two sh*ts about what is going on on the other side.

Hillary has a 2 to 1 lead over Obama nationally. Iowa is hardly representative of the rest of the country.

You don't think Hillary is more concerned with Obama's surge right now than the GOP?

She has moved all her top HQ staff to Iowa full time and brought in another 100 paid staff. She's up all over the airwaves in Iowa. She's got Bill Clinton in Iowa near every day. She brought out Chelsea and her mother yesterday in a (sad) attempt to counterprogram Obama and Oprah with women voters.

Trust me, they know they need Iowa.

Latest polls from MSNBC:

IA– Clinton 27, Obama 25, Edwards 21
NH– Clinton 30, Obama 27, Edwards 10
SC– Clinton 28, Obama 25, Edwards 18
NV– Clinton 34, Obama 26, Edwards 9

That's all within the margin of error, except for NV, which is just outside of it.

In the places where voters are paying attention, Obama is running even with her. It doesn't matter what voters in Pennsylvania and Texas and the like think right now because by the time they get to vote the race will be dramatically different than it is right now.

Most Hillary voters have Obama as their second choice and vice-versa... and also most indicate an openness to changing their mind, which means whoever shows strength in the early states, particularly Iowa and NH, will probably coast through.

I'm not saying Obama is going to win for sure, but I would say that Hillary's camp is very concerned right now, and thats why they are attacking him.

You're right that Iowa is not representative of the rest of the country. Its far more white and low-income than the rest of the country and therefore Hillary should by CW be dominating there. But its also different in another way -- people are paying attention there.

I've been to Iowa several times this year already. I've been to Cedar Rapids four times, Council Bluffs once, and just got back from a trip last week to Des Moines. Iowa was always a problem state for Hillary. The state went red in 2004, and a lot of people just don't like her there.

Obama, from the neighboring state of Illinois, has been more popular there for a while. I saw lots of cars with Obama stickers. Probably more supporting him than any other candidate.

Outside of Iowa, it's not even a race. She's leading by quite a bit.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...aries.html

She's got double-digit leads on Obama in Michigan, Nevada, Florida, California, and New Jersey.

She's ramping up in Iowa because it's his last chance. If she beats him there, she will coast to the nomination. That would allow her to save some of her primary money for the general election.


The problem for the Republicans is that there are still no clear-cut favorites. Guiliani, Huckabee, and Romney are close to each other while Thompson and McCain are drawing votes away from them. If Thompson dropped out, it might give Huckabee a boost.

First it was 1992. And back then one gripe lots of people had about AIDS was that public health authorities were not treating like an old fashioned STD where you mapped who had it and then who they'd slept with and who they slept with, in order to try and get a fix on who had it and how widespread it was. I think by 1992, I had already seen about four death certificates with AIDS as the secondary cause of death. Considering that was by far the leader of young deaths ahead of even car accidents by my straw poll, that was a very scary time. And unlike syphillis and gonorrhea, there was no cure, it acted quickly and it was presumed fatal, that people thought that perhaps those with the disease ought to be quarrantined was not totally unreasonable.

OUGwave Wrote:You know, I shouldn't have to explain that social conservatives are not all a caricature to a self-proclaimed conservative who has video from friggin porno films all over his sig.

In the classic definition, a Republican and his moral views need not be in sync. A TRUE Republican believes that the government is involved in WAY too many aspects of our lives, including the definition of porn, or what constitutes a marriage. If you believe in small federal government, you are more likely a Republican, no matter your social or moral arguments.

There's a difference between supporting (as an example) abortion, and thinking that the government should be involved in it. If you don't invite me into your home or bedroom by making me pay for whatever you do in it, then I don't really care WHAT you do, as long as all parties are consenting.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I've been to Iowa several times this year already. I've been to Cedar Rapids four times, Council Bluffs once, and just got back from a trip last week to Des Moines. Iowa was always a problem state for Hillary. The state went red in 2004, and a lot of people just don't like her there.

Obama, from the neighboring state of Illinois, has been more popular there for a while. I saw lots of cars with Obama stickers. Probably more supporting him than any other candidate.

Outside of Iowa, it's not even a race. She's leading by quite a bit.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...aries.html

She's got double-digit leads on Obama in Michigan, Nevada, Florida, California, and New Jersey.

She's ramping up in Iowa because it's his last chance. If she beats him there, she will coast to the nomination. That would allow her to save some of her primary money for the general election.


The problem for the Republicans is that there are still no clear-cut favorites. Guiliani, Huckabee, and Romney are close to each other while Thompson and McCain are drawing votes away from them. If Thompson dropped out, it might give Huckabee a boost.

Those polls are all shifting rapidly. She's lost almost 20 points off of her NH lead in a month.

Her Nevada lead has been cut in half.

In South Carolina, she's drowning in Obama's tidal wave. Obama by 6 in a poll out there today.

Michigan's delegates are irrelevant because they won't be seated at the convention except by the candidate who has already won the nomination (and the delegates will then be released by the candidate who won to vote for the overall winner). Same with Florida.

NJ, CA, don't vote for another few months. The main concern with Obama is whether or not he can win. If Obama's won the first few contests up until that point, the percieved strength/experience gap will be turned on its head.

Its not a national primary.

But if it was, her leads been cut in half, down to ten points, by Rasmussen and CNN in the past 3 weeks.

Bottom line: Obama has all the momentum. You're crazy if you think Clinton's camp is not freaking out right now.

They are tactically brilliant but strategically tone deaf.