Political & Elections

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Political Rhetoric in the 80's


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 249
Date: Jan 20, 2011
RE: Political Rhetoric in the 80's
Permalink  
 


I'd say that both the articles posted by Donna and the CDC links posted by SL, lead to the inescapable conclusion that AIDs had only become a known quantity and therefore anything even resembling a political issue by 1984, at the earliest.

Yes, there were reports before that, and certainly there were deaths, but it would be a leap of logic to sugest that in 1981-83 this had risen to the level of being a national "political" issue. Further, to sugest that Reagan --in those years-- was heartless or homophobic in the face of a rising, deadly and, at first, mysterious disease would be pointless.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Jan 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

It is amazing to look back and see what was known, and when...and how much misinformation or rapidly evolving information changed what was known about AIDS. Even the CDC didn't have a handle on it. Not surprised at all about how the media reported it.

"The 20th Anniversary | The Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report Examines Early Media Reporting on AIDS, 20 Years Later

[Jun 04, 2001]
On June 5, 1981, the CDC introduced the world to the disease that eventually became known as AIDS. Although the disease had been present in the United States and elsewhere before this time, it was the first known mention of AIDS in a media report. Over the years, media coverage of AIDS has evolved from having an air of mystery to reports of panic, stigma and homophobia; from domestic epidemiology and policies to international crises and drug access. This week, the Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report will feature stories on different aspects of the media's coverage of the disease over the past 20 years, including treatment advances, federal legislation, public fear and stigma and AIDS in the arts. The following report, the first in our series, examines the first few years of media reports on the epidemic to the discovery of the causative agent of AIDS, the human immunodeficiency virus.

In The Beginning...
"In the period October 1980-May 1981, five young men, all active homosexuals, were treated for biopsy-confirmed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia at three different hospitals in Los Angeles, California. Two of the patients died."

-- Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 6/5/1981

With that statement, the CDC's MMWR published the first clinical reports of what would become known as acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS. The report documented five cases of young homosexual men who had developed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, a type of pneumonia that at that time was "almost exclusively limited to severely immunosuppressed patients," such as older patients or those receiving cancer chemotherapy. The CDC report stated, "All the above observations suggest the possibility of a cellular-immune dysfunction related to a common exposure that predisposes individuals to opportunistic infections such as pneumocystosis and candidiasis" (a fungal infection). Although the report noted that the "patients did not know each other and had no known common contacts or knowledge of sexual partners who had had similar illnesses," it stated, "The fact that these patients were all homosexuals suggests an association between some aspect of a homosexual lifestyle or disease acquired through sexual contact and Pneumocystis pneumonia in this population" ( MMWR, 6/5/1981). The Los Angeles Times picked up the story on the same day and ran a short article titled, "Outbreaks of Pneumonia Among Gay Males Studied" (New York Times, 6/3). In a second MMWR report appearing on July 4, 1981, the CDC still had no concrete answers pertaining to what was causing outbreaks of PCP and Kaposi's sarcoma, a form of skin cancer, among young, gay men. Although this report also drew a link between immune system depression and the opportunistic infections, it repeatedly tempered its findings with phrases such as "it is not yet clear" and "it is not certain" ( MMWR, 7/4/1981). A follow-up MMWR report published on Aug. 28, 1981, emphasized that the high number of occurrences of KS and PCP were "rare" and "highly unusual" in "persons without known predisposing underlying disease," such as cancer or organ transplant patients on immunosuppressive therapies. Since 40% of the infected men had died, the unknown condition was not yet seen as ultimately fatal ( MMWR, 8/28/1981). Although each of the CDC reports from 1981 mentioned immunosuppression as a common cause of opportunistic infections such as PCP and KS, no connection was made between the patients' depressed immune systems and an underlying viral infection. Therefore, no mention was made of a possible transmissible agent. Instead, all of the reports emphasized that the patients were young and homosexual.

'No Apparent Danger to Non-Homosexuals'
The unexplained outbreaks of KS and PCP generated some media coverage in 1981, though not much. A New York Times article published on July 3, 1981, covering the CDC's second report of the disease, described outbreaks of "a rare and often rapidly fatal form of cancer" that has made a "sudden appearance" among homosexual men. The Times stated that the KS outbreaks "prompted a medical investigation that experts say could have as much scientific as public health importance because of what it may teach about determining the causes of more common types of cancer." The end of the article stated that the researchers examining the outbreaks said that "some indirect evidence actually points away from contagion as a cause" and quoted CDC spokesperson Dr. James Curran as saying that there is "no apparent danger to non-homosexuals from contagion" (Altman, New York Times, 7/3/1981). The Washington Post on July 4, 1981, reported that the "rare form of cancer," which "primarily affects men over 50" and was believed to "progress slowly over about 10 years," had killed eight of the approximately 26 "victims" within two years of diagnosis (Washington Post, 7/4/1981). In an Aug. 30, 1981, article, the Post reported that the "two rare diseases" were a "medical mystery ... on the scale of the toxic shock syndrome or Legionnaire's disease" (Hilts, Washington Post, 8/30/1981). On Dec. 10, 1981, an AP/Toronto Globe and Mail article described the KS and PCP outbreaks as "a wave of pneumonia and cancer that is killing homosexual men across the United States." The article mentioned the link between the infections and a possible immune system disorder, but described the disorder as "mysterious" and "so new it does not have a name" (AP/Toronto Globe and Mail, 12/10/1981). The following day, the Post reported on a series of studies that appeared in that week's New England Journal of Medicine that provided the "first data showing that the defect is primarily a cellular immune deficiency," according to David Durack, then chief of infectious diseases at Duke University Medical Center. Durack continued, "That means that the lymphocytes, one of the important white blood cells, are not functioning normally and infections take the opportunity and cause serious disease" (Russell, Washington Post, 12/11/1981).

Sex and Sickness
On June 18, 1982, the CDC released its first report connecting a sexually transmitted agent with the outbreaks of KS, PCP and other opportunistic infections appearing among young, gay men. The report stated that one "hypothesis" pertaining to the outbreaks is that "infectious agents" responsible for the diseases are being "sexually transmitted among homosexually active males." Although the infectious agents were "not yet identified," CDC researchers believed that the agents "may cause the acquired cellular immunodeficiency that appears to underlie KS and/or PCP among homosexual males." Concurrent with these findings, the report stated, "If infectious agents cause these illnesses, sexual partners of patients may be at increased risk of developing KS and/or PCP" (MMWR, 6/18/1982). This report marked the first time a link was drawn between the outbreaks of opportunistic infections, acquired immunosuppression and sexual transmission, although homosexual males were still the only identified risk group, and the syndrome had come to be known as "gay-related immune deficiency." The New York Times subsequently described the syndrome as a "serious disease" that has "touched off anxiety among homosexuals," "engendered ... fear" and caused physicians to become "panic-stricken." Although researchers had by now named the condition acquired immune deficiency syndrome -- a name used by the Times in this article -- the paper stated that the condition "remains largely mysterious" (Herman, New York Times, 8/8/1982).

Not Just a 'Gay Disease'
In 1982, several CDC reports revealed AIDS' appearance in other populations, such as hemophiliacs, Haitians and intravenous drug users. On Dec. 10, 1982, the agency stated that although the etiology of AIDS was still "unknown," an infectious agent that caused the condition might be transmitted through blood. "This report and continuing reports of AIDS among persons with hemophilia A raise serious questions about the possible transmission of AIDS through blood and blood products," MMWR reported (MMWR, 12/10/1982). The Washington Post reported on the "alarming discovery" by health officials that a non-hemophiliac infant had developed AIDS after receiving a blood transfusion from a man who "unknowingly had the disease." Dr. Harold Jaffe, an AIDS researcher, said, "This is the first possible case of AIDS that can be linked with another case directly through a blood transfusion" (Russell, Washington Post, 12/10/1982). Although newspapers reported these findings, they continued to emphasize that the condition was mainly found in gay men. For example, a New York Times article on the infant case stated twice in the first two paragraphs that the condition "has been linked primarily to homosexual men" and "has principally afflicted homosexuals" (Schmeck, New York Times, 12/10/1982). The inclusion of more possible methods of transmission heightened fears of the disease, and a 1982 Globe and Mail article stated that AIDS "has reached epidemic proportions" (Globe and Mail, 3/13/1982).

Panic Attack
In mid-1983, researchers reported that AIDS might be transmitted through heterosexual sex as well (Altman, New York Times, 5/19/1983). Subsequently, a number of news reports, opinion pieces and editorials appeared documenting the disease. On April 22, 1983, Kevin Cahill, then director of the tropical disease center at New York's Lenox Hill Hospital, wrote in a New York Times op-ed that as "the numbers afflicted [by AIDS] grew ... an insidious outbreak exploded into a frightening epidemic." He wrote that the "puzzling" condition "led to fear, then panic" as more groups of people were classified as at risk for the disease (Cahill, New York Times, 4/22/1983). In a New York Times magazine piece, author Robin Henig described AIDS as a condition "as relentless as leukemia" and "as contagious as hepatitis," which is spreading so quickly that "scientists simply cannot catch up with it." Henig noted that although AIDS was primarily spotted in homosexual men, it "has now struck so many different groups that its course cannot be predicted" (Henig, New York Times, 2/6/1983). A 1983 New York Times article noted: "In many parts of the world there is anxiety, bafflement, a sense that something has to be done -- although no one knows what -- about this fatal disease whose full name is Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and whose cause is still unknown" (Altman, New York Times, 5/24/1983).

Pulling it all Together
With the 1984 discovery of what would later be known as human immunodeficiency virus, scientists filled in one of the most significant missing pieces of the AIDS puzzle. However, some controversy surrounded the findings, as both French and American research teams claimed they had first discovered the virus that causes AIDS. In mid-April, CDC officials reported that Dr. Luc Montagnier and a group of scientists at Paris' Pasteur Institute in 1983 had isolated what they called LAV, or lymphadenopathy-associated virus, as the "leading candidate as the cause of AIDS" (Altman, New York Times, 4/22/1984). Montagnier and his colleagues had published its findings in the April 7, 1984, edition of The Lancet, but "international controversy" arose when Dr. Robert Gallo and a group of scientists from the National Cancer Institute made a "competing claim" stating that they had discovered the virus that caused AIDS. Gallo's team, which published their findings in the May 1, 1984, issue of the journal Science, called their virus HTLV-III because it represented the third member of the Human T-cell Leukemia Virus family (Chase, Wall Street Journal, 4/24/1984). In 1986, an international committee recommended that the newly identified virus be called the human immunodeficiency virus -- grouping HTLV-III, LAV and another AIDS-associated retrovirus called ARV under the term (Marx, Science, 5/9/1986). But the competition over who discovered the virus and who should receive patent rights for blood tests to screen for it led to three years of "scientific feuding" between France and the United States (Shilts, San Francisco Chronicle, 4/1/1987). The countries eventually agreed that each research team would equally share the credit for discovering the virus and the rights to develop a blood test (Specter, Washington Post, 4/1/1987).

Agent Uncovered
With the discovery of HIV, health officials knew how AIDS was transmitted and began educating the general public about how to avoid contracting the virus. However, the public's fear of the disease played a role in creating stigma surrounding the four groups the CDC continued to identify as "high risk": homosexuals, intravenous drug users, Haitian immigrants and hemophiliacs. In tomorrow's report, the Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report examines why those groups were tagged as high risk, and how the media contributed to the stigma surrounding them.

Full Series
The other parts of the Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report 20th anniversary series are available online:

The June 5 article examines the stigmas surrounding HIV/AIDS.
The June 6 article examines HIV/AIDS in the arts.
The June 7 article looks at 20 years of legislation and policies on the disease.
The June 8 article recaps advances in treatment."

From:

...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .....



About Us     Help



Kaisernetwork.org is a free service of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.


-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Thursday 20th of January 2011 11:30:43 AM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 224
Date: Jan 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

Winchester, I accept your apology and your explanation that your erroneous conclusion was inadvertent.  I'm sure you understand why I was so upset at being accused of such a thing.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 224
Date: Jan 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

In case anyone's curious, here is a sampling of articles about AIDS published in 1982, in newspapers and magazines including Time, the New York Times, the Philadelphia Daily News, the Boston Globe, New York Magazine, etc., etc.  -- confirming, I think, my point that nobody was calling it anything else by then, that the link to blood transfusions was already known, and that the disease had already entered the public consciousness to a limited extent.  A similar search for 1983 would show an exponentially larger number of articles.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949562,00.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=4xhJY6ZtyO4C&pg=PA713&dq=AIDS&hl=en&ei=8G04TcPPFISglAeNoqXMBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=AIDS&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=HugCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA92&dq=AIDS+gay&hl=en&ei=e244TfuEBsKBlAfCvsTNBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=AIDS%20gay&f=false

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/666911231.html?dids=666911231:666911231&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+11%2C+1982&author=Loretta+McLaughlin+Globe+Staff&pub=Boston+Globe+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=11+CASES+OF+AIDS+DISEASE+CONFIRMED+IN+MASS.&pqatl=google

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DN&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI|DN&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB294BE053305FC&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/10/us/infant-who-received-transfusion-dies-of-immune-deficiency-illness.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6yAvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZtwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2576,4123063&dq=aids+homosexual&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=imMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s1IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2787,8382362&dq=aids+homosexual&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PwQhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=a3UFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1250,4636648&dq=aids+homosexual&hl=en

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/666473251.html?dids=666473251:666473251&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+27%2C+1982&author=Loretta+McLaughlin+Globe+Staff&pub=Boston+Globe+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=NEW+ILLNESS+SPREADING%2C+OFFICIALS+SAY&pqatl=google

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=O6IrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hvwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3372,5253382&dq=aids+homosexual&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TGkeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7MgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2360,2974972&dq=aids+homosexual&hl=en




__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 249
Date: Jan 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

In the early 80's I was knee-deep into the philosophy of Michel Foucault, amongst other continental thinkers. He died in 1984. His death was being attributed to a disease I had never heard of before. It was what came to be known as AIDs. One of the first high-profile deaths of the disease.

Foucault was extravagant in his homosexuality. For speaking engagements he commonly appeared in a tight leather jumpsuit that bespoke of his interest in S&M. In the late 70's he was di rigueur in the conversations of edgy intellectuals.

Below is a quote that reflects what I recall at the time of his death, that bears on the public knowledge of AIDs in 1984:


Foucault died of an AIDS-related illness in Paris on 25 June 1984. He was the first high-profile French personality who was reported to have AIDS. Little was known about the disease at the time[24] and there has been some controversy since.[25] In the front-page article of Le Monde announcing his death, there was no mention of AIDS, although it was implied that he died from a massive infection. Prior to his death, Foucault had destroyed most of his manuscripts, and in his will had prohibited the publication of what he might have overlooked.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault[/quote]

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Jan 20, 2011
Permalink  
 

DonnaL

Profuse apologies for failing to notice the timing of your post. That was entirely my own dumb fault. I will be sure to be more careful in the future.  It was dumb oversight, but certainly not a lie.

I retract my statement and I deleted my original post because it would be unfair to you to leave it.


P.S. I did spell your name correctly, the last letter is an "L," the editor I used uncapitalized it. I did not mean anything by it.

-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 20th of January 2011 07:40:49 AM

-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 20th of January 2011 08:38:54 AM

__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

"I ascribe it to an unwillingness to say anything that would have been unpopular with his right-wing supporters."

Hmmm.  I don't know about that.  Reagan had a bunch of Democrats and Independents voting for him.  Not sure if you can say it's only about partisanship.

I simply don't think that Reagan thought it was his business to deal with issues like this - his job was to manage the country.  Perhaps in hindsight, he could have done a better job of communicating the scope of this epidemic - but it was a different era.  We didn't obsess over what our Presidents did or didn't do quite as much as we do now (for the worse, I believe).






__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 370
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

The Soviet Union, no big problem.

AIDS, huge problem.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

The term AIDS may have been in general use, but I was a teenager at the time and most of my knowledge about the world came from that bastion of public policy knowledge, Rolling Stone Magazine. (Hey, I was a kid, what can I say?) The first article I read about this disease that pointed to a public health crisis was indeed from that magazine, and it had to have been in 83 or 84. The term GRID was tossed around by the press, too, but that wasn't an accurate term since it wasn't always affecting only gays and lesbians.  At that time, HIV was called HTLV-1, 2 or 3, if memory serves.  They didn't call it HIV until a couple years later, I think. 

In the world before CNN and a 24 hour news cycle, I heard of several diseases that were part of the syndrome, Kaposi's Sarcoma, being one of the most prominent at the time. Many with AIDS were dying of a type of pneumonia.

Point being that it may have been a big and huge deal to some, it wasn't as well known to everyone in the general public and the facts kept changing as new developments were made.  1982 may have been a watershed year in terms of new cases, but at that time, there was not a definitive answer on how it was even transmitted.  It wasn't until 1983 that there was even thought to be a problem with blood transfusions in the spread of the disease.

Kids like Ryan White were still being banned from going to school in 1985...a full five years after this crisis began.

Not trying to nitpick - clearly you know more about this disease firsthand, than I do.  The friends that I knew that died of the disease weren't close when they were diagnosed, years later.  Perhaps more education would have prevented so many lost lives - but in those early years, information was still coming out.  Facts changed.  By then, the transmission already happened to too many people.

I just don't know if this was Reagan's fault.  He was President of the US, not the CDC. At the time, there were some pretty huge fish to fry. Nuclear escalation was a reality.  In fact, that year of my graduation I was far more concerned about dying in a nuclear war than dying of AIDS.

















__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 224
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

The main problem with Reagan and the AIDS crisis was that he ignored it for many years.  (By the way, the term "AIDS" was in general usage from 1982; I knew two people who died from it that year and it was no longer called anything else by then.)  He didn't say a single word about it in public until 1985, when he briefly responded to a question at a press conference, and didn't actually speak about it until 1987, after many thousands had already died.  Long after even Margaret Thatcher had addressed the subject.

http://www.heart-intl.net/HEART/100507/ReagansAIDS.htm

http://www.thebody.com/content/policy/art10338.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Reagan_administration#Response_to_AIDS

http://www.avert.org/aids-history-america.htm

Even if the effect of his speaking about it earlier would have been largely symbolic,  he should have done so. 

I don't ascribe his failure to do so to homophobia; as I said, he and Nancy were known to have gay friends.  I ascribe it to an unwillingness to say anything that would have been unpopular with his right-wing supporters. 



-- Edited by DonnaL on Wednesday 19th of January 2011 08:22:24 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

Clearly you have some strong ideas on Reagan, Donna.

With regards to Bitberg, I understand your outrage and yet can draw some parallels with President Obama's reaching out to leaders on the global stage who aren't so sympathetic, much to the chagrin of some groups of voters.

Diplomacy is a tough nut.  Not everyone is going to agree on the motives or intentions of those reaching out to mend fences.  Personally, I wasn't thrilled with a few of the "gestures" that President Obama has made.  It's politics.

In terms of the AID's crisis and Reagan, in the first term, it was a fairly new disease. I remember they were even calling it something else entirely when I was in high school (at the end of his first term).  Honestly, I don't recall his response on that issue.  I did some googling while waiting for dinner to cook, and found more positive about Reagan and his response to this new disease than negative.  Funding for AIDS research went from 0 to 6 billion dollars during his tenure and while his response wasn't as good as George H.W. Bush's later in responding to the crisis, so much was unknown about HIV/AIDs at the time.

Here's a link:


I never once got any impression that Reagan was a homophobe. Even his own daughter who had a difficult up and down ride with her dad denies that he was ever in any way, homophobic.  (there is a blurb in one of the posts that discusses this).

We all see history through different lenses, don't we?


-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Wednesday 19th of January 2011 07:10:10 PM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 224
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

winchester wrote:




Donnal’s reponse to the reminder that a republican was also shot by a lone gunman? Impugn the republican:



I'm amazed sometimes at the willingness of certain people to lie through their teeth even when the evidence that they're lying is right there for anyone to see.  The "reminder" that Reagan was shot was posted approximately 10 hours AFTER my comment.  I think you need to go back to school for some remedial reading lessons.  Either that, or you were deliberately being a creep.  One or the other.

No, I never did like Reagan.  For one, his attitude in the face of the AIDS crisis was unforgivable (especially since he supposedly had gay friends in his private life).   For two, Bitburg.   For three, the way Mr. Hypocrite cut and ran from Lebanon after 243 Marines died.   For four,  facilitating the sale of weapons to Iran.  For five, tripling the national debt with his "voodoo economics."  For six, remaining in office after he clearly had Alzheimer's already. (I know someone very well who spoke with him  many times during his second term.)  I could go on and on.

PS:  My name isn't "Donnal," thank you very much.  Just in case you meant something by that.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Wednesday 19th of January 2011 05:39:36 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Wednesday 19th of January 2011 05:43:41 PM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

^that's the problem though..the main stream media is biased. The average American only hears the left slant on every story....

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 728
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

I think if you look back over the course of time we tend to have short memories, because for 30 yrs or so this is the vitriol that the media thrives on.

Clinton had sex with an intern and the left defends saying it was just sex...a republican does it and it is criminal. Let me be clear, the R's were out for blood too regarding Clinton.

Bush had pictures of him with a Hitler mustache and the left was fine with it. Obama had the same picture and they were up in arms and the right said "where was that outrage over Bush?"

Bush played golf and the world was ending. Obama plays all the time and it is A-OK.

We can play these games all day long. The reason our society is so entrenched in their beliefs is because for the most part we believe what is being spoon fed to us through the media.

For me, his affair was a personal matter, I was disgusted with the details, but I never believed it lessened his ability to lead. Now, if you feel that way, you must say the same for any R.

I was disgusted when both Bush and Obama had the Hitler mustaches because it showed the intolerance and ignorance within our society.

They play golf....I don't care, does anyone believe that as he plays 18 holes over 4 hours that he is out of contact in case something bad goes down? A rational person who understands the system knows that is not true. Let them play golf, if it means that they get to clear their head for a few hours, that is great!

We need to stop pointing fingers at the opposing political side and demand more from out media.

To me the media is like the middle child...they egg on the older and younger sibling just to watch them fight and make sure that when the kids are punished they walk away free!


__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 249
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

In the context of all these urgent calls for civility, due to the tragic shooting in Tucson, I thought it would be instructive to look back on the climate of political rhetoric prevailing when another lone gunman tried to shoot then President, Ronald Reagan --an icon to conservatives then as now.

One can only imagine the outcry, these days, if any major politician were to say anything even comparable to what the Speaker of the House said of Reagan about the current liberal icon and President, Barack Obama.

In fact, I cannot recall anything said of President Obama or of any current politician of even middling stature as wicked as what Tip O'Neal said of President Reagan...not even a political entertainer like Rush Limbaugh, or a former office holder like Sarah Palin has approached that sort of rhetoric. Yet, we hear nothing but the caterwaul of outrage and accusations of racism and hate speech.

Find a current analogue to this:

"The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water for blood." And that by the then Speaker of the House.

Moreover, after Reagan was shot, I do not recall anyone's demanding more civil rhetoric or political discourse. No one blamed any Democrats for inciting violence. In fact, there was not a word about it.

What we have now, to my mind, is the political equivalent of Little Red Riding Hood crying "Wolf!" In so doing they have exhausted the public's patience and turned a sincere emotion into a political affectation. That is the pity.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Jan 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

Same here Donna. I was never and never will be a Reagan fan. I agreed with what O'Neill said.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 224
Date: Jan 18, 2011
Permalink  
 

I certainly never said Reagan was a wonderful guy, not then, not now, and not ever.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 370
Date: Jan 18, 2011
Permalink  
 

Free speech rules all. We shouldn't even be concerned with rhetoric, in my opinion.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 249
Date: Jan 18, 2011
Permalink  
 

There's something more than a little ironic to see Chris Matthews, given his neck-bulging, vein-popping anger displayed every night on MSNBC, in today's Washington Post looking back with nostalgia on the wonderful comity between Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s.  There's something to this, of course; Reagan could get along with anyone if they gave him a chance.  Just ask Gorbachev; first he smiled at Reagan, and before you knew it, his country went poof.

Matthews seems to forget or gloss over the fact that the "tone" of public discourse in the 1980s was just as bad as today.  For example, here's a public comment from O'Neill about Reagan that seems not to be in Matthews's archive: 

"The evil is in the White House at the present time.  And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold.  He's mean. He's got ice water for blood."

That's just a warm up. Democratic Congressman William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was "trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf."  Who can forget the desperate Jimmy Carter charging that Reagan was engaging in "stirrings of hate" in the 1980s campaign.  Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall.   Harry Stein (nowadays a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the "good Germans" in "Hitler's Germany."  In The Nation, Alan Wolfe wrote: "[T]he United States has embarked on a course so deeply reactionary, so negative and mean-spirited, so chauvinistic and self-deceptive that our times may soon rival the McCarthy era." 

As Reagan's 100th birthday approaches next month, don't be taken in by all the liberals who now say what a wonderful guy he was or how much more civil things were then compared to that dreadful woman from the northern territories today.  Funny how liberals always seem to discern the virtues of conservatives only after they're dead and gone.




http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2011/01/i-want-to-wallow-in-the-hate.php


__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard