Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, June 01, 2014

I've never met Larry Kramer, but he and I have something in common: In the 1980s, we found Gary Bauer maddeningly obtuse on the question of whether Ronald Reagan should speak to Americans about the AIDS epidemic.

I was a reporter in the San Jose Mercury News Washington bureau covering the federal response to the epidemic. Bauer was a Reagan administration official aligned with other social conservatives resistant to having the president play a visible role on AIDS. Kramer was, and remains, a prominent gay rights activist.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

jeffj

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I know very little about this particular issue: Reagan and how he, as president, dealt with AIDS as a matter of public health concern.

He's clearly been inaccurately and caricatured and I would guess it has been done so much more out of malice and partisanship than ignorance.

I am hoping that someone who is knowledgeable about this issue will chime in.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-01 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

What does it matter?

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-01 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I won't pretend knowledge I don't possess but Reagan's interest and willingness to speak about the scourge of AIDS does require review. I won't prejudge but I would like to know the truth about it.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-01 08:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

but Reagan's interest and willingness to speak about the scourge of AIDS does require review. I won't prejudge but I would like to know the truth about it.

#3 | POSTED BY DANNI

Yes. I agree with you completely about this, which is why I created this thread.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-01 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration
8 Response to AIDS
en.wikipedia.org

It wasn't good.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-01 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

The fact is, due to "MR. Hollywood" Ronald Reagan's stupid in-action on AIDS ..the death toll was much higher,
Also never forget that in 1983 Reagan DISARMED the Marines, before sending them into Beirut Lebanon and 241 soldiers died needlessly

Or that Reagan sold some of our MOST sophisticated weapons to his conservative friends in Iran (Iran-Contra Scandal) then funneled the cash from the sales, to the right-wing conservative terrorist group the Contras who murdered thousands of innocent people

#6 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-01 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

George W. Bush was very good on AIDS, possibly the best. See PEPFAR en.wikipedia.org
Geroge H. W. Bush was also good on AIDS.
Reagan was a disaster.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-02 12:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy,

hattip, I agree Reagan was a disaster.

I feel for some reason Reagan is held up as a conservative icon, but I disagree with much of it.

I wish there was more we could do, if there is research here, I feel the government should be involved in funding heavily.

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-02 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

I feel for some reason Reagan is held up as a conservative icon

Perhaps the connection is that hating gays is also held up as a conservative value.

Of course they don't call it hate. They call it defending traditional marriage.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-02 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort