Wash. Post uncritically reported Huckabee's false claim that "in 1992 there was much confusion about how AIDS was spread"
SUMMARY: Writing about reports that Mike Huckabee had suggested quarantining people with AIDS in 1992, Washington Post staff writer Perry Bacon Jr. uncritically reported: "As Huckabee's response to a questionnaire on AIDS began to circulate yesterday, his campaign issued a statement from him noting that in 1992 there was much confusion about how AIDS was spread." But an Associated Press article reported that "[w]hen Huckabee wrote his answers in 1992, it was common knowledge that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact."
An article in the December 9 edition of The Washington Post by staff writer Perry Bacon Jr. noted that "[t]he Associated Press reported yesterday that, as a Senate candidate in 1992, [former Arkansas Gov. Mike] Huckabee [R] suggested quarantining people with AIDS, opposed additional federal funding for seeking a cure and said homosexuality was 'an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.' " The Post article uncritically noted: "As Huckabee's response to a questionnaire on AIDS began to circulate yesterday, his campaign issued a statement from him noting that in 1992 there was much confusion about how AIDS was spread." However, Bacon did not report, as the December 8 AP article he cited did, that "[w]hen Huckabee wrote his answers in 1992, it was common knowledge that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact."
As the blog Think Progress reported, on the December 9 edition of Fox News Sunday, Huckabee told host Chris Wallace: "Chris, I didn't say that we should quarantine. I said it was the first time in public health protocols that when we had an infectious disease and we didn't really know just how extensive and how dramatic it could be and the impact of it, that we didn't isolate the carrier." He later added: "Now, would I say things a little differently in 2007? Probably so. But I'm not going to recant or retract from the statement that I did make because, again, the point was not saying we ought to lock people up who have HIV/AIDS."
Huckabee also stated on Fox News Sunday that "I had simply made the point, and I still believe this today, that in the late '80s and early '90s, when we didn't know as much as we do now about AIDS, we were acting more out of political correctness than we were about the normal public health protocols," to which Wallace responded: "All the way back in 1985, this wasn't political correctness. The Centers for Disease Control back in '85, seven years before you made your statement, said that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact." Huckabee then asserted "We didn't think that there was a casual transmission. There were studies that showed that. But there were other concerns being voiced by public health officials."
However, a December 11, 1991, USA Today article reported:
In 1985, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta declared that ''the kind of non-sexual person -to-person contact that generally occurs among workers in the workplace'' does not pose a risk of AIDS transmission.
The human immunodeficiency virus, which causes acquired immune-deficiency syndrome, is extremely fragile and dies easily once outside the body. It is not transmitted through telephones, toilets, machinery, clothing or work surfaces.
Nor is it transmitted by casual contact -- including touching, living in the same house, breathing the same air, being coughed on or eating food prepared by an infected person. Although a few virus particles have been found in saliva or tears, no cases of AIDS have been reported resulting from contact with those fluids. The CDC says the risk of getting HIV from sweat, tears or saliva is almost non-existent.
[...]
AIDS is spread through unprotected sexual contact (anal, oral or vaginal) with an infected person, hypodermic needles used by an infected person and blood or blood products contaminated with HIV. It also can be passed on by an infected woman to her child during pregnancy.
In contrast to the December 9 Washington Post article, a December 9 New York Times article by Michael Luo reported, "[B]y the time Mr. Huckabee answered the A.P. survey, it was well established that the virus could not be spread through casual contact." From the Times:
Fears of AIDS spreading widely in the United States were common in the mid-1980s, as doctors struggled to learn about how the virus that causes the disease was transmitted. But by the time Mr. Huckabee answered the A.P. survey, it was well established that the virus could not be spread through casual contact.
Mr. Huckabee said in a statement yesterday that there was still confusion at the time about transmission of the disease and that his "concern was safety first, political correctness last." Mr. Huckabee has been popular among Christian conservatives, who appreciate his stands on social issues and his unabashed professions of faith on the trail.
From Bacon's December 9 article in The Washington Post:
The Associated Press reported yesterday that, as a Senate candidate in 1992, Huckabee suggested quarantining people with AIDS, opposed additional federal funding for seeking a cure and said homosexuality was "an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."
[...]
As Huckabee's response to a questionnaire on AIDS began to circulate yesterday, his campaign issued a statement from him noting that in 1992 there was much confusion about how AIDS was spread. Huckabee pledged to make fighting AIDS a centerpiece of his presidency.
"We now know that the virus that causes AIDS is spread differently, with a lower level of contact than with TB," Huckabee's statement said. "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."
Huckleberry's real concern was the funding from zealots and other fools identifying themselves as "religious". Earning those funds condemned Huck to self-contradicition and contradiction by objective truth. He sure earned his share of the latter two, and I suspect (he is running for President, a fairly expensive undertaking) of the former as well.
The more this guy talks, the more he reveals himself to be a common huckster. His "aw shucks" charm may appeal to the Iowa Republican caucus participants, but the rest of the country has been taken down that road before and is not of a mind to get fooled again. If the GOP wants to set itself up for a November debacle, it will nominate the Huck. Goody!
The only "confusion" about how AIDS is spread was among the ignorant.
I agree with you 100% - and so this has to be my first "Why is this here?" post.
Huckabee's comments are not misinformation as much as it is him admitting his ignorance. I remember the era quite well, as my closest friend died of AIDS in 1994 - and it was just about this time that most of the country was finally coming out of denial.
In 1992, when my friend first got sick - I was in shock at how ignorant his family and many of my friends were - the assumptions they had - and the silly questions they asked. Most thought it as a "gay disease" and that it "couldn't affect them" - so until then, they didn't bother to educate themselves or follow developing news. How soon we forget just how difficult it was to convince America (escpecially Republican politicians or the religious right - i.e. Huckabee) that everyone was at risk. If not for the efforts of the gay community - it might have taken years longer to expose the severirty of the epidemic. Many will say that it wasn't until "straight" people started dying that politicians realized we had a problem.
These are the sad facts of history as I remember them.
Poor Bill - Ignorance is bliss.
It may well be that typical Americans didn't know the details of how AIDS spread in 1992.
But Huckabee wasn't and isn't a typical American. He was running for an office with a lot of responsibility. It was up to him to educate himself on the details of an important issue then, and now. The facts were available to those looking for them. Huckabee either didn't look for those facts, or chose not to believe or use them -- maybe for political reasons?
Our current president chooses politics over reason, and people die. Reagan didn't even mentiont AIDS until 1985 thought it was identified in 1981, and people died.
It's important that a President use facts to determine policy. Huckabee is demonstrating an apparent aversion toward doing so. And MMFA was right to point out a significant example of such.
Excellent post. That says it all.
PJ:
Pay closer attention. The "MISINFORMATION" is not Huckabee's ignorance, it is the MEDIA's making excuses for Huckabee by uncritically offering the "explanation" that there was "confusion" at the time of his comment, and so he cannot be held to a presidential standard on his comments.
There was no widespread confusion, except among evangelicals who hated and feared the "homosexual lifestyle" ... and STILL DO ... and Huckabee was pandering for their favor.
THAT is "why this is here". Get it?
First off, my "Poor Bill" should have been "Poor Mike" (I hate when that happens)
I agree BITTERMARV and TEX. My "why is this here?" was more tounge-in-cheek to such other posters' comments I've seen here in the past.
My only point was to highlight how conservatives tend to try to rewrite history to fit their agenda and argueing with them that they are wrong is fruitless. There's no room for "re-thinking" in the mind of true conservative - things are the way they are and there's simply no changing it!
Just examine a few of Huckabees quotes..."...we were acting more out of political correctness than we were about the normal public health protocols"
The keyword here is WE - meaning the religious right, for whom acknowledging a perceived "gay issue" WAS politically incorrect for THEM.
"We didn't think that there was a casual transmission. There were studies that showed that. But there were other concerns being voiced by public health officials."
Again WE is the keyword. Plug this into their 21st century ideology and you have, "WE didn't believe in Global Warming. There were studies that showed that. But there were other concerns being voiced by the rest of the scientific community."
You see a pattern here???
Are you saying that Liberals NEVER try and re-write history the way Conservatives do? That seems like a stretch.
I'd never say never - but by the very definition of conservatism, conservatists are much more unlikely to change anything - including their perception of history.
Hmm, that question seems like a Fox News developed style of attack. Do me a favor. When you ask a question, make sure it's legitimate. Attributing something that someone didn't say to make it fit a presupposed agenda is akin to outright lying.
Fox News does it every day, why should you?
Reference Rove saying that Congress pushed this president into invading Iraq. Or saying that no one could have imagined that planes would be flown into buildings, when that scenario had been considered for YEARS.
Or saying that the attorneys were fired due to performance issues.
This administration has even admitted that they control the message/history to fit their political desires.
Repubs live in a faith-based world. Libs prefer fact-based.
are you contrasting "repugs" and libs? You must know that there are liberal republicans as there are conservative democrats.
Let's check this logic out: "My guy does it... uh... so your guy must, as well."
That'll fly about as far as a lead brick. Provide documentation, or suck it up. Reality's a cold mistress.
Thank you for the honeyed words, but frankly AIDS is a quite avoidable "epidemic", thus it is a matter of choice, if you chose to engage in unprotected or indiscriminate intercourse, well then you are taking a risk but the choice is still yours. I think that the populace is by now educated enough about AIDS, thus we need to stop throwing so much money at the feet of the AIDS racketeers.
Yes, Ryan White would agree with your spew 100%.
And the cancer racketeers? And the <put your favorite incurable disease here> racketeers?
We all know where you're coming from. Your implied homophobia is shining through loud and clear.
Do not compare a non discriminatory ailment on par with one that can be avoided, it is unfair to all people with cancer.
What do you imply with this "homophobia"? are you saying that Aids is most prevalent in a certain community of a certain lifestyle? Well I'll be dammed.
So, assuming that we can somehow keep everyone who doesn't have AIDS and isn't HIV+ from getting the virus, what do we do with the millions of infected? Just let 'em die? Treatments that turn the disease into essentially a chronic illness are costly -- and they often eventually stop working. But we don't need to spend much money looking for a cure or even a better treatment because you think it's a choice.
Lemme guess: You claim to be a Christian.
The millions that where infected were infected for a reason, predominantly it was their decision to engage in unprotected indiscriminate intercourse and they should be held responsible for their choices actions and actions. Their example shows others not to engage in such reckless activities, and thus the rate of unprotected intercourse will go down, as a consequence other venereal diseases will also decrease.
You suggest we make a "cure"? well presumably this cure will be in the form of some sort of drug that eliminates the virus, but this will only spawn an eventual mega-virus that is resistant to the drug and probably much more powerful. If you know anything about epidemiology and general medical science you would agree that the best thing to do is to educate the public (a goal already accomplished in the U.S) and let the epidemic run it's course. We cannot get into a race with the virus as we are involved in a race with general diseases treated by drugs. eventually the viruses will get too powerful to overcome, and then we will be in a epidemical holocaust until our bodies overcome the virus, an unsure outcome in itself due to the increasing dependence people have on drugs.
You let him off too easily. There's no excuse for this ignorance. By this time, it was VERY clear to everybody with a brain that AIDS was not the sort of disease that was appropriate to use quarantines on. You couldn't lock people up that long. My friend was infected in 1983 and died in 2002. He infected no one else after he knew. If he had had a fatal acute disease that was transmissable by coughs and sneezes, you keep them in isolation a week or two, until the infection leaves their body or they die. And a blood-borne disease does not spread that way, either. The way to treat the population was to educate them. Huckabee resisted as he resists reason on evolution, on rapist's propensity to repeat, and on prisoner's propensity to snow their "pastors." His ignorance is something special, all right.
In 1992, AIDs was a scary disease and we do know significantly more today than we did 16 years ago. In fact, just a year earlier, everyone in the country was talking about a young woman who had come down with AIDs after visiting her dentist. The link to this story is below.
Gov. Huckabee's comments at the time do not seem as outlandish as some are trying to make out. He is a genuinely caring person who then, as well as now, is for funding outlays to further research for a cure or vaccine.
Personally, IF the "dirt" being "dug" is the BEST to be had on the good Gov., then it appears we can look forward to his swearing in ceremony.
For those who'd like to TRULY recall the "sound bites" of the early 90's in regards to AIDS, please visit this link and read this article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE1DD1739F931A15755C0A967958260
IIRC it turned out that girl you refered to didn't get it from her dentist. As I recall there was evidence of other STD's - so her claim of not being sexually active was malarky. My sincere apologies (to her family) if I'm mistaken, confused, or remembering a disreputable source.
But there was no confusion as to how AIDS spread in 1992. That's absurd. As early as 1985 I was being taught IN MIDDLE SCHOOL how AIDS was spread and I don't recall getting any information that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny today. Huckabee is an idiot (of the religious / anti-science type) and this is just more evindence of it. The only "confusion" was in people like him and his supporters. Just 'cuase right wing homophobes want to feed you bull doesn't make it legit. The "confusion" was manufactured, for political purposes and nothing more.
I graduated HS in 1990 I remember learning how AIDS was spread before '90.
And we keep repeating the word confusion. No sir. There was no such thing. This is a classic example of Republican demonization of anyone who is not a part of their holier than thou clique.
The media touted a false story, therefore we're still pretty ignorant about AIDS? Hardly.
In 1992, I was in a health class in high school, and we specifically did not use the portion of the textbook about AIDS, because it specifically said it was a gay disease. The instructor had to go out to get ACCURATE information because everyone (including the students) knew that AIDS was not a gay disease. When this story broke last year, how many educated people believed it? I certainly didn't. What's more likely - over a decade of research is COMPLETELY wrong, or one person lied about their sex life?
What Huckabee said was deplorable and disgraceful. Those statements suggest to me this is a bad man.
Thanks for the illustration of "dividing" as useful: dividing all those "bad" people from the rest of us, allows us to determine for whom we should NOT vote, at least!
Just what America needs, another homophoibic loon, similar to Reagan.
Similarity to Reagan can be only seen as a good thing, What Reagan did to this country was great, and I can only hope that someone will be able to do half of what he accomplished in office. You libs just do not like it because his term exemplified everything conservative and your communist goals were set back as a consequence.
Irrational, magical, mystical thought -- the one true curse of mankind -- is exemplified in public life by the likes of Huckabee.
New-Agers -- do not consider yourselves superior. Magical, mystical thought is fully as destructive and anti-human as plutocratic greed. Wise the f**k up. Supernaturalism and magical, mystical thought equate to tyranny -- always have, always will. Think it through.
You guys beat me to it. WITH? NO misinformation, Huckleberry is just telling the American public that he's a few years behind the curve on major issues, and, to use his own word, has no problem excusing his statements because of "confusion".
"I'm slow, uninformed and confused. Vote for me!"
"I'm slow, uninformed and confused. Vote for me!"
That seemed to work for George W. Bush....
If you have internalized a "BELIEF" that a disease is divine "punishment" for sinful ways, then science and reason cannot phase you.
The LAST thing we need is yet ANOTHER President who believes being "born again" is all the direction he needs for monumental decision making.
AMEN.
"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."
---Mike Huckabee, June 7, 1998
This is why I can't vote republican or conservative. If science ctradics religion, or some superstitious pseudo-religious belief then they claim there's "confusion" or "controversy" in the scientific community regarding the science. And they're taken seriously because their audience is mostly under-eductaed, superstitious, pseudo-religious morons. And in fact the only "controversy" is that there own (very few) pseudo-scientists are going against the overwhelming consensus in the legitimate (read: peer-reviewed) scientific community for the sake of religon or poitics. It's an entirely manuffacture controversy. This is true whether the issue is Aids, COntraception, Stem-Cells, Global Warming, Tobacco & Cancer (an older issue, but the same phenomenon)... it's ridiculous. They think marketing can trump science. It can, but only with the ignorant.
I've said it before, but conservatives have been standing in the way of scientific progress since the invention of the telescope.
Perry Bacon Jr.... sounds like a new burger at Wendy's.... I have come to realize that the Wash. Post hires morons, and, thusly, is a moronic *news* paper...
And Ah-shucks-a-lot is either really stupid, or masquerading his stupidity under the guise of his *religion*...
I remember when my 7th grade class was asked to debate this issue in 1990. Huckabee probably had the position of quarantining people with AIDS. What he is probably doing now is just backtracking since he took a controversial stance.
As much as any reasonable person would find Huckabee's statement back in 1992 deplorable, and I cut him no slack for it then, nor his pathetic response yesterday to Chris Wallace - this is just another weak attempt by MMFA to get this story in a thread, in any way they can worm it in here.
The WaPo article clearly states his campaign issued a statement noting confusion about AIDS back in 1992, and the author's article most likely understands that it's practically a given that people know that by 1992 there was no risk of infeciton through casual contact. Give the reader some credit, not every bit of information needs to spoon fed.
The article is fair and accurate, and hardly an endorsement or praise for Huckabee.
Hey Tommy, if you think that most every post is just "another weak attempt by MMFA," then why do you stay on this site almost religiously? (no pun intended.)
If you only want to read rubberstamp endorsements of every thread here, then I'd suggest you just skip over my posts and catch the dozens of others that fulfill that role for you. You won't be disappointed.
You know what? I was only asking.
And to answer your question, in my opinion, some threads offer definite misinformation and offer a valuable correction to that misinformation - some threads highlight talk show host's opinions and hyperbole for venting purposes - and some threads are placed here because MMFA isn't too crazy about the opinion offered within.
Thank you. Wasn't so hard, was it?
Read all about 'ol Huck:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=24887
I'm tellin' ya... THIS GUY'S DANGEROUS.
This is the guy who freely admits he thinks that Noah herded the dinosaurs onto the ark two-by-two.
"As Huckabee's response to a questionnaire on AIDS began to circulate yesterday, his campaign issued a statement from him noting that in 1992 there was much confusion about how AIDS was spread."
While accepting Huckabee's current response to the release of his questionnaire on AIDS the reporter does not report the facts.
Huckabee along with the evangelical community did not want to know facts regarding AIDS in 1992. Their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality blinded them to the fact that AIDS was not a gay disease. That should have been part of his report rather than accepting Huckabee's lie that there was much confusion. June 1991 was the 10 year anniversary of the appearance of AIDS and the names of Ryan White, Magic Johnson, Arthur Ashe just to name a few. March 1992 the government sponsored advertising to Americans that AIDS reaches beyond urban drug addicts and gays.
The fact that this reporter accepted Huckabee's statement instead of pointing out facts that contradicted him was sloppy reporting. The report did not have to be a hit job on Huckabee but it should have been truthful.
Huckabee's explanation is a bunch of hooey. EVERYBODY knew in '92 that you couldn't get AIDS through casual contact. If you'll remember, Magic Johnson was diagnosed with HIV in late '91 and retired because of the chance of him getting cut and bleeding during a game. That was the only reason that he retired, and he later came back and was the MVP of the NBA All-Star Game on February 9, 1992. So for anyone to claim that they were confused about the transmission of HIV/AIDS at anytime during 1992 is at best disingenuous. Even if you weren't a sports fan you'd have to be living under a rock to not hear about Magic Johnson.
I wonder if Governor Huckabee's campaign will also claim some "confusion" over his 1992 statement that homosexuality was "an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."
LOL. It is the same story every presidential election. The Democrats get so excited over losers only to end up losing the election. They were so excited about Gore; there was no way he could lose. Bill Clinton set him up in good position, Strong economy at election time and the stock market in high gear, the dot com bubble was still strong. Gore was part of the incumbency as vice president giving him an advantage but yet he lost. He lost because you democrats supported a loser. Gore was and is a loser for turning down Bill Clinton’s campaign help.
Democrats were so excited about Kerry; there was no way he could lose. In your mine he was a military hero with lots and lots of money to beat the Bush political machine. The country was at War with Bush’s Iraq war and surely everyone was going to vote against Bush because Bush was Vietnam War dodger hiding in the Air National Guard when Kerry was brave fighting in Vietnam. Democrats were wrong again and Bush won the election with 62 million popular votes. Did you know that the 62,040,610 votes Bush received in the 2004 election was the most votes that anyone has every received in any election in any country in the history of the world, I repeat in the millions of year that mankind has been on earth he received that record number of votes while he was fighting two wars simultaneously Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you are a democrat you must ask yourself a question how George Bush got the record number of votes in world history when we democrats had such exciting and attractive presidential candidates Gore and Kerry. The answer is you always find a way to pick weak candidates with lots of flaws. The reason is you live in a bubble and can not see the flaws of the candidates you choose. I remember seeing a news story when a democrat was ask why they lost the presidency and her replay was I do not know because everyone I know voted for Kerry. She lived in the democrat bubble and did not have a clue why.
At this point in the 2008 election I have no worry or fear of the top democrat presidential candidates. You are putting all your hope on the unknown; the first female president or the first black president. There is no history or track record for such candidates and we all know that it is in people nature to resist change. You are fools to take such a gamble when this election is set up for a democrat victory. The 2008 election is the first time in many years that the race is wide open without an incumbency and you are willing to waste it away on the unknown (first female or first black president) and there will be something that happens unexpected and the democrats will blow it again you just wait and see.
>>If you are a democrat you must ask yourself a question how George Bush got the record number of votes in world history when we democrats had such exciting and attractive presidential candidates Gore and Kerry.
Wow! Bush got that many votes?
What candidate got the second most number of votes in history?
Why, it was Kerry!
In fact, Bush won by the narrowest margin of any war-time president in history. The implication that Bush won a resounding victory is simply factually false. The reason he won more votes than anyone in history is because there are more voters. If we use your logic, we can say that Washington was an unpopular president because he only won a fraction of what Bush did.
>>Did you know that the 62,040,610 votes Bush received in the 2004 election was the most votes that anyone has every received in any election in any country in the history of the world, I repeat in the millions of year that mankind has been on earth he received that record number of votes while he was fighting two wars simultaneously Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh, good grief! Where do you people come from? Man has not been on earth millions of years. Not even close. At most, man has been on earth 4 million years, and elections are only as old as the Greeks, about 3,000 years old.
Okay, I see that you wrote that man has been on earth for millions of years, not milions and millions. So if man had been on earth for 4 million years, that makes your statement technically correct, but still completely asinine, considering that for 99% of those millions of years man didn't even have a written language, let alone a political system. Or maybe you have uncovered cave drawings of humans voting?