I began looking at Huckabee seriously as a candidate about a month ago when his numbers started to move up in Iowa. Yes he’s changed his mind or so he says since then but I botheres me that he thinks it was a justifiable comment when it was made. That says something about what he would or could do as President in a similar situation. A little more calm and rationale as opposed to Hyperbole and paranoia…
Too much blood-splatter. The cost savings would be offset by liability in case one of the “doctors” catches the disease.
A better approach is to just smother them.
Keep in mind that had he been president at that time, one would assume (or at least hope) that he would have a whole bunch of advisers telling him stuff he clearly wasn’t aware of then. I wonder, though, if he has a record (like Bush) of appointing incompetent advisers. The answer to that, I do not know.
I would be a lot more OK with Huckabee’s comment if it he had made it back in the early 1980’s. Heck, I thought at that time it might have been a reasonable move- along with the private-place marking of HIV+ persons, an idea suggested by William F. Buckley IIRC.
BUT by the early 1990’s, it was well established that AIDS was not a casual contact disease. So that still counts as a cause of concern about Huckabee- not that I think he still believes that, but that it shows a lack of self-education.
But…what if you’re exclusively a top!
It was always a silly statement. For instance, most people here are more at risk from resistant TB than HIV (despite what you’ve heard about SA), yet we don’t see serious suggestions of having TB patients segregated. Crackpot suggestions, sure, but then, the more I hear and see of this Huckabee guy, the more crackpot he seems of all your current candidates.
1992 was far too late for his comment. Deb was providing home care (effectively, but not named, hospice care) for AIDS victims in 1984 and 1985 and the only concern she had regarding entering their homes and dressing their wounds on a regular basis was the possibility of a needle stick. Even that concern later turned out to be somewhat exaggerated, but there was clearly no reason to believe in casual contagion eight years prior to Huckabee’s statement.
Maybe we’re talking about different things, but in the US and I assume elsewhere, people with TB are segregated until they are not infectious.
It was in 1987 that there was a 25% increase in HIV cases. The figures were closely watched until they began to subside between 1989 and 1990. It was in 1991 that the Centers for Disease Control commissioned a task force, which developed the concept of universal precautions (UC), which they advocated to Congress in 1992. These covered all sorts of contingencies from nuclear medicine to correctional systems. On March 6, 1992, new regulations from OSHA became statutory and covered everyone from laboratory scientists to municipal union workers.
Although a call to quarantine might have been a medical overreaction, it wasn’t necessarily a political one. There were enormous pressures on politicians to “do something”. People in a panic don’t care how lucky your aunt Matilda was when she did not contract the disease after caring for someone. They care about their families. The events above barely antedated Huckabee’s response, and so it seems to me that even people who disagree with him now can understand why he reacted as he did then. His job was to protect people, and these people were not very patient about getting it done.
By the mid 90s, things had begun to settle down considerably, but the legacy regulations remained, and still do.
The politically responsible thing to do would have been to eliminate ignorance and reassure people that AIDS could not be casually transmitted. That was already well known at the time, so Huckabee has no excuse. Pandering to hysteria and bigotry is not made forgivable or acceptable just because it’s politically useful.
And what do universal precautions have to do with anything? They were not developed out of any fear of causal transmission.
I’m not a doctor, but it occurs to me that since HIV/AIDS is an immune disorder, AIDS patients are a lot more likely to be carrying around other diseases besides AIDS.
I’ve shaken hands with with HIV+ people many times, but I’m an adult in good health. If my father-in-law were in the hospital, I would be happier if he were away from AIDS patients.
I can forgive a conservative Republican for thinking that. After all, they seem strangely drawn to casual homosexual activity with anoymous strangers.
Isn’t it? Don’t forget, the president gets to appoint the surgeon general.
Don’t you mean: “If my father-in-law were in the hospital, I would be happier if he were away from patients suffering from the flu/cold/other easily transmittable diseases”?
I can see where you’re coming from, but remember that not all diseases are spread as easily as through a simple handshake.
LilShieste
Well, a cold I could probably live with. But I wouldn’t want him near anyone who was suffering from (or likely to be carrying) anything that can be transmitted through the air or from casual contact.
I agree that you can’t get AIDS through the air or by casual contact. (Otherwise, we’d all have AIDS by now.)
I think we need to cut Huckabee some slack here. I know I’ve said some pretty stupid things in the past 5 years (well, even more stupid things 20 years ago… but I was just a kid) - but people generally learn things as time goes on, and correct their erroneous views/stances.
LilShieste
We’re in agreement on that. I just wanted to clarify that this is a little different (perhaps only semantically) from not wanting him around AIDS patients, in general.
LilShieste
Don’t be ridiculous. Every machination of government is driven by politcal expediency and jusified by voters. One cannot praise a democracy when it suits one and then condemn it when one’s own issue has been railroaded by the mob.
It’s perception, of course. The CDC were testifying before Congress. The news media were sensationalizing the problem and exacerbating it. When people believe the plague is upon them, they are a mite peckish when a hurricane hits the outhouse. You can’t blame politicians for responding to voters. It’s the system you defend all the time.
If course you can – so long as you’re talking about a democracy, as opposed to democracy as a system.
I didn’t mean a metaphysical inability. I meant an ethical one, as in one ought to be ashamed.
There is a tendency in the current election machinations to dig back a decade or so (or longer in some cases) for statements to incriminate a current candidate. These efforts will often backfire.
Huckabee states that he does not now believe that, that he regrets having said it, but that he does not apologize for having believed that at that time. He has also argued that he has no problems with gays in the military, only problem behaviors whether those are among gays or heterosexuals. And that said to his base. Most in the middle will dismiss his '92 statement as a current non-issue and merely see the dredging of it as mean-spirited. Meanwhile the base will love the reminder that he is hewn of the same beliefs as they are and is unapologetic for it. They will love his strongly stated position against gay marriage or unions and that God provides the standard of what is right and what is wrong.
Bringing up old statements like that helps energize his base without hurting him significantly elsewhere. A great tactic for his people to use.