JDG wrote:
1) You supplied several pages of hagiography on Clinton's AIDS policy - i.e. almost all positive, hardly a negative word to be found.
2) You then submitted the same group's AIDS reportcord of the Bush Presidency, which included 100% below-average to failing marks.
It seems nearly impossible on the basis of the facts to hold that Bush has devoted substantially less attention and funding to AIDS than Clinton.
The only possible explanation is rank partisanship.
If it's nearly impossible then there should be plenty of data to refute what they are saying.
At any rate, do you seriously deny that this effect exists? That activist groups soft-peddle criticisms of the same policies when implemented by Democrats that they criticize from the rooftops under Republican Presidents?
Did Clinton make funding dependent on the amount spent on abstinence only programs? Did he repeatedly promise x dollars and then only authorize x/2? Did he impose or threaten to impose an international gag rule? Was it a Democratic president that apologized in 1990 for his miserable efforts in combating the AIDS epidemic? Which party has a consistently homophobic platform? I could go on but the point is; what would you expect? Of course they are harder on the people that have shown callous disregard for their cause in the past.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
