3 ms·

"The real Reagan record on AIDS is different. AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 - when the media started blaring headli

"The real Reagan record on AIDS is different. AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 - when the media started blaring headlines - from $44 million to $103 million, $205 million, $508 million, $922 million, and then $1.6 billion in 1988. Reagan's secretary of Health and Human Services in 1983, Margaret Heckler, declared AIDS her department's "number one priority." While the House of Representatives was Democrat-dominated throughout the 1980s, which Democrats would quickly explain was the source of that skyrocketing AIDS funding, Reagan clearly signed the spending bills that funded the war on AIDS. It's also wrong that Reagan didn't utter the word "AIDS" until 1987. Any reporter who bothered to check facts would find that Reagan discussed AIDS funding in a 1985 press conference, just for starters. But let's turn that around on the rest of Washington. Does that mean no reporter asked Reagan about AIDS in the 1984 presidential debates? And that every interview President Reagan granted to a national or local media outlet failed to solicit Reagan's opinions on AIDS until 1985? Using this phony-baloney spin line - that federal policy hinges exclusively on the presidential bully pulpit - is an exercise in liberal hyperbole over hard data." http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/new-myths-reagans-record http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/new-myths-reagans-record

slightperturb 13y ago
MRC is hardly an unbiased source of information. Their news group's stated goal is to be the "Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias." From the wikipedia page: Journalist Brian Montopoli of Columbia Journalism Review in 2005 labeled MRC "just one part of a wider movement by the far right to demonize corporate media" rather than "make the media better." Additionally, Montpoli wrote that "false equivalence is at the very root of MRC’s beliefs."
mturmon 13y ago
It's too bad that you're replying to a comment on a deeply researched book (And the Band Played On) with a link to a shallow and slanted retrospective justification for lack of leadership. The original book criticizes then-president Reagan, but also the media (specifically including the NYT) and elements of the medical establishment. It also gets into controversies within the gay establishment, such as whether to make a fuss about the problem (which could attract attention and lead to "outing" of people), and whether to close bathhouses as health risks.
x0x0 13y ago
1 - nothing you said disproves my statements; that reagan had the word "aids" dragged from his lips during a press conference does nothing to change his record of disregard, contempt, and disregard of a crisis because he and his donors disapproved of gay people; nor does it change the fact that he didn't voluntarily mention it until 1987 2 - nor does a record of funding disprove reagan's intentional oversight; by 1992 aids was the #1 cause of death for US men ages 25-44 [1] and by 1994 the #1 cause of death for all americans age 25-44 [1]; the funding was wildly insufficient to mount a proper response. And were it not for reagan's homophobia and bigotry, a more vigorous response could reasonably have saved many more lives 3 - while it is true that federal policy doesn't hinge exclusively on what the president says, nice attempt to change the goals. The point was not that the federal government and medical establishment -- despite reagan -- did both their job and their moral duty, but that he intentionally hampered the response. I repeat: it's indisputable that if a disease affecting, well, reagan supporters had killed 20 thousand americans it would have garned a much more vigorous response, one which could be triggered and pushed by the president himself. For example, see the improvement in response under Clinton. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that AIDS was a priority under a president who isn't a homophobe. 4 - brent bozell is a proud homophobe; what a surprise that he manages to find supposed evidence -- though you shouldn't believe a thing he says without consulting a primary source -- finding that reagan didn't intentionally fail a group of americans reagan despised [1] http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/ http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/ edit because i forgot the link

slightperturb 13y ago

MRC is hardly an unbiased source of information. Their news group's stated goal is to be the "Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias." From the wikipedia page: Journalist Brian Montopoli of Columbia Journalism Review in 2005 labeled MRC "just one part of a wider movement by the far right to demonize corporate media" rather than "make the media better." Additionally, Montpoli wrote that "false equivalence is at the very root of MRC’s beliefs."

mturmon 13y ago

It's too bad that you're replying to a comment on a deeply researched book (And the Band Played On) with a link to a shallow and slanted retrospective justification for lack of leadership. The original book criticizes then-president Reagan, but also the media (specifically including the NYT) and elements of the medical establishment. It also gets into controversies within the gay establishment, such as whether to make a fuss about the problem (which could attract attention and lead to "outing" of people), and whether to close bathhouses as health risks.

x0x0 13y ago

1 - nothing you said disproves my statements; that reagan had the word "aids" dragged from his lips during a press conference does nothing to change his record of disregard, contempt, and disregard of a crisis because he and his donors disapproved of gay people; nor does it change the fact that he didn't voluntarily mention it until 1987 2 - nor does a record of funding disprove reagan's intentional oversight; by 1992 aids was the #1 cause of death for US men ages 25-44 [1] and by 1994 the #1 cause of death for all americans age 25-44 [1]; the funding was wildly insufficient to mount a proper response. And were it not for reagan's homophobia and bigotry, a more vigorous response could reasonably have saved many more lives 3 - while it is true that federal policy doesn't hinge exclusively on what the president says, nice attempt to change the goals. The point was not that the federal government and medical establishment -- despite reagan -- did both their job and their moral duty, but that he intentionally hampered the response. I repeat: it's indisputable that if a disease affecting, well, reagan supporters had killed 20 thousand americans it would have garned a much more vigorous response, one which could be triggered and pushed by the president himself. For example, see the improvement in response under Clinton. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that AIDS was a priority under a president who isn't a homophobe. 4 - brent bozell is a proud homophobe; what a surprise that he manages to find supposed evidence -- though you shouldn't believe a thing he says without consulting a primary source -- finding that reagan didn't intentionally fail a group of americans reagan despised [1] http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/ http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/ edit because i forgot the link