Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clinton apologizes for calling Nancy Reagan a 'very effective, low-key' AIDS advocate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Clinton apologizes for calling Nancy Reagan a 'very effective, low-key' AIDS advocate

    She's back tracking again....the left really exploded when she said something nice about Nancy.

    Hillary Clinton apologized on Friday for calling the late Nancy Reagan a "very effective, low-key" advocate on AIDS/HIV, saying she "misspoke" in an interview with MSNBC.

    Clinton said the former first lady, who died on Sunday, "started a national conversation" on AIDS that "penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this, too,'" during an interview with the network at Reagan's funeral.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politi...y-reagan-aids/
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

  • #2
    Except that 'the left' did no such thing. Many people were angered by Clinton's lying about the Reagans supposed positive contributions to changing the climate around the AIDs health crisis. She specifically singled out Nancy Reagan as someone who started a national dialogue about it and changed the national approach.

    People were angered because this did not happen and is the exact opposite of what they did. This is not about people being pissed off because something nice was said about Reagan.

    "It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/Aids in the 1980s," Mrs Clinton said. "And because of both President and Mrs Reagan - in particular Mrs Reagan - we started a national conversation."

    Many historians and Aids activists responded by pointing out that the Reagan administration was famous for being too slow to respond to the Aids crisis, and too callous when it did.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35758163
    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
    G.B Shaw

    "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
    Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sergio View Post
      Except that 'the left' did no such thing.
      Sergio, the left clearly exploded over this

      https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=clinton+reagan


      Originally posted by Sergio View Post
      Many people were angered by Clinton's lying about the Reagans supposed positive contributions to changing the climate around the AIDs health crisis. She specifically singled out Nancy Reagan as someone who started a national dialogue about it and changed the national approach.
      Many people are getting their history from Left leaning Hollywood revisionist:

      "You're president of the United States," Nancy Reagan, reminded Ronald Reagan as he sat up in bed in 1983. She begged him to do something about the growing scourge of AIDS. "If you don't talk about it, nobody will talk about it. Nobody will do anything, and all these people - these children, these young boys - they're all going to die. And the blame will be on our heads, Ronnie."

      President Reagan quietly kept reading through his half glasses. He seemed very cozy, clad in his bathrobe, beneath his blankets.

      "Ronnie, say something," Nancy pleaded. The president coolly maintained his silence. He never even looked at his beloved First Lady.

      That's how Showtime depicted a scene from the White House residence in The Reagans, the controversial TV movie about the conservative chief executive and his devoted wife. Reagan's alleged homophobia and indifference to AIDS patients are among the reasons Reaganites attacked the program, leading CBS to cancel its broadcast premiere and shift it instead to Showtime, the network's sister pay-cable channel.

      The original script was far worse.

      "Those who live in sin will die in sin," says President Reagan, as portrayed by actor James Brolin. Teleplaywright Elizabeth Egloff eventually admitted she had no evidence on which to base this scandalous comment. "We know he ducked the issue over and over again," she told the New York Times in self-defense.



      Originally posted by Sergio View Post
      People were angered because this did not happen and is the exact opposite of what they did. This is not about people being pissed off because something nice was said about Reagan.
      Here is reality:

      Before he became President;

      "I remember Reagan telling us that in Hollywood he knew a lot of gays, and he never had any problem with them," says Martin Anderson, a high-level Reagan adviser since 1975, co-editor of Reagan: A Life in Letters, the latest collection of material that Ronald Reagan wrote in his own hand. "I think a number of people who were gay worked for the Reagans," Anderson told me. "We never kept track. But he never said anything even remotely like that comment in the movie. His basic attitude was 'Leave them alone.'"

      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.

      "Whatever else it is," Reagan wrote, "homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." He also argued: "Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher's personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes 'advocacy' of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Proposition 6 by a teacher - should it pass - be considered advocacy?"

      That November 7, Proposition 6 lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan's opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat.

      While President;

      "As I recall, from 1984 onward - and bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982 - every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS," says Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter and author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. "Now, people will argue that it wasn't enough," Robinson adds. "But, of course, that's the kind of argument that takes place over every item in the federal budget. Nevertheless, the notion that he was somehow callous or had a cruel or cynical attitude towards homosexuals or AIDS victims is just ridiculous."

      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:

      This history comes from:

      IGF CultureWatch is a blog that originated with the Independent Gay Forum, a group of writers and activists who focused on advancing LGBT legal equality and social inclusion beyond ideological rigidity and leftwing orthodoxy

      Sergio, I recommend that you read the whole article.

      https://igfculturewatch.com/2003/12/...agan-and-aids/
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #4
        An apology from Shrillary is like getting a compliment from BoBo....not worth a damn to anyone and a waste of good air.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post
          Sergio, the left clearly exploded over this

          https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=clinton+reagan




          Many people are getting their history from Left leaning Hollywood revisionist:

          "You're president of the United States," Nancy Reagan, reminded Ronald Reagan as he sat up in bed in 1983. She begged him to do something about the growing scourge of AIDS. "If you don't talk about it, nobody will talk about it. Nobody will do anything, and all these people - these children, these young boys - they're all going to die. And the blame will be on our heads, Ronnie."

          President Reagan quietly kept reading through his half glasses. He seemed very cozy, clad in his bathrobe, beneath his blankets.

          "Ronnie, say something," Nancy pleaded. The president coolly maintained his silence. He never even looked at his beloved First Lady.

          That's how Showtime depicted a scene from the White House residence in The Reagans, the controversial TV movie about the conservative chief executive and his devoted wife. Reagan's alleged homophobia and indifference to AIDS patients are among the reasons Reaganites attacked the program, leading CBS to cancel its broadcast premiere and shift it instead to Showtime, the network's sister pay-cable channel.

          The original script was far worse.

          "Those who live in sin will die in sin," says President Reagan, as portrayed by actor James Brolin. Teleplaywright Elizabeth Egloff eventually admitted she had no evidence on which to base this scandalous comment. "We know he ducked the issue over and over again," she told the New York Times in self-defense.





          Here is reality:

          Before he became President;

          "I remember Reagan telling us that in Hollywood he knew a lot of gays, and he never had any problem with them," says Martin Anderson, a high-level Reagan adviser since 1975, co-editor of Reagan: A Life in Letters, the latest collection of material that Ronald Reagan wrote in his own hand. "I think a number of people who were gay worked for the Reagans," Anderson told me. "We never kept track. But he never said anything even remotely like that comment in the movie. His basic attitude was 'Leave them alone.'"

          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.

          "Whatever else it is," Reagan wrote, "homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." He also argued: "Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher's personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes 'advocacy' of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Proposition 6 by a teacher - should it pass - be considered advocacy?"

          That November 7, Proposition 6 lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan's opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat.

          While President;

          "As I recall, from 1984 onward - and bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982 - every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS," says Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter and author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. "Now, people will argue that it wasn't enough," Robinson adds. "But, of course, that's the kind of argument that takes place over every item in the federal budget. Nevertheless, the notion that he was somehow callous or had a cruel or cynical attitude towards homosexuals or AIDS victims is just ridiculous."

          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:

          This history comes from:

          IGF CultureWatch is a blog that originated with the Independent Gay Forum, a group of writers and activists who focused on advancing LGBT legal equality and social inclusion beyond ideological rigidity and leftwing orthodoxy

          Sergio, I recommend that you read the whole article.

          https://igfculturewatch.com/2003/12/...agan-and-aids/
          Hi Paul - I did read it and thanks for the link.

          The thing still is that 'the left', as you put it did not go nuts just because something nice was said. There was anger over a very specific point - that is the context.

          Secondly it is worth bearing in mind that what that article does is set up a serious of points that no one here has made concerning whether Reagan hated gay people. In many respects what he did was far worse than being a simple homophobic person, he acted out of political expediency because of his moral majority base. When it comes to the financing that again is a far more nuanced picture, the real drive for funding and publicity came from a number of politicians who kept the pressure on. Congress also always gave far more than the Reagan administration asked for - and there was a point in 1987 when Reagan actually wanted to cut the funds and it was Congress who gave more cash. The picture is far more nuanced than just what that website and article (which says it wants to redress this slur on a lgendary American).

          But the ideas that Ronald Reagan did nothing, or worse, about AIDS and hated gays, to boot, are both tired, left-wing lies about an American legend.
          https://igfculturewatch.com/2003/12/...agan-and-aids/


          To suggest that Nancy Reagan - which was the point of the angry response - was responsible for a national change in how people saw AIDs and those with it is ridiculous. There was a lot more that could have been done in terms of speaking out and they chose not to for a long time. Even Koop's report on the issue - check out Reagan's response.

          Was Reagan an out and out homophobe - no and I also dislike those kind of films that totally misquote or make up a person's beliefs or statements. However, he and many of those in his administration for many years did all they could to not talk about it. Furthermore when you have a spokesman (Speakes) openly cracking jokes as thousands of Americans were getting ill and dying that about sums it up.
          Last edited by Sergio; 14 Mar 16, 15:33.
          "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
          G.B Shaw

          "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
          Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sergio View Post
            Hi Paul - I did read it and thanks for the link.

            The thing still is that 'the left', as you put it did not go nuts just because something nice was said. There was anger over a very specific point - that is the context.
            Sergio, thanks for the input. I wanted to wait and think a little before I replied.

            Valid point about the left not going nuts because something nice was said about Nancy Reagan. I will throw out here that the anger is misplaced, hopefully I can articulate this....

            Originally posted by Sergio View Post
            Secondly it is worth bearing in mind that what that article does is set up a serious of points that no one here has made concerning whether Reagan hated gay people.
            My response was more of a rebuttal to what was being said about President Reagan by those that were going after Hillary. It wasn't intended to answer someone here at ACG.

            Originally posted by Sergio View Post
            In many respects what he did was far worse than being a simple homophobic person, he acted out of political expediency because of his moral majority base. When it comes to the financing that again is a far more nuanced picture, the real drive for funding and publicity came from a number of politicians who kept the pressure on.
            I don't agree with that assessment. The article mentions observations from his daughter when they talked about Rock Hudson & Doris Day. It also mentions his stand on Proposition 6. While his attitude of "leave them alone" can be seen as not caring, I honestly believe it was opposite.

            Remember the ideas that he believed in, primarily limited government. He believed in an America where the private sector came up with the answers, not the government taking control of the answers.

            Also keep in mind America in the 80's. From the article:

            There also were questions about the extent to which public warnings should be sent out. It was a question of how the public would respond to fairly explicit warnings about fairly explicit things. Ultimately, warnings were sent out."

            Food for thought; It wasn't until 1998 that oral sex was discussed in the news.


            Originally posted by Sergio View Post
            To suggest that Nancy Reagan - which was the point of the angry response - was responsible for a national change in how people saw AIDs and those with it is ridiculous.
            Something to think about; Hillary's initial response was in line with the movie....... Could see be getting her understanding of history via Hollywood?

            Originally posted by Sergio View Post
            There was a lot more that could have been done in terms of speaking out and they chose not to for a long time. Even Koop's report on the issue - check out Reagan's response.
            No doubt there could have been a lot more done...but what? At that point in history we really didn't know what we were dealing with. Today, we can look back and find things that should have or could have been done. Back then, unless they could see into the future....the only thing that they could do was trail & error.

            Originally posted by Sergio View Post
            However, he and many of those in his administration for many years did all they could to not talk about it. Furthermore when you have a spokesman (Speakes) openly cracking jokes as thousands of Americans were getting ill and dying that about sums it up.
            Not talking about it in that time period but applying funding kind of cancel each other out?

            No excuse for Speakes but keeping in context of the times it isn't acceptable but it is understandable.

            On a side note; my son's doctor really likes President Reagan.
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X