Our critics — and other Bush-haters on the gay left (and even a handful of self-described gay Republicans) refuse to acknowledge the president’s mixed record on gay issues. As I have said repeatedly on this blog, while he’s wrong on a constitutional amendment defining marriage, he’s far from the anti-gay demon (many of) his critics have made him out to be.
While you may not know this from reading the gay press, the president has shown a strong commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS. Even Patrick Guerriero, president of Log Cabin, a frequent critic of the president, acknowledged as much. Noting in February that his 2007 budget included “$70 million increase for lifesaving medications and $90 million in new money to provide testing for three million Americans” the Log Cabin leader praised “the President for providing more resources to meet the challenges in treating people with HIV/AIDS.” Guerriero also took note of the President’s plea in his State of the Union address this year for the reauthorization and renewal of the Ryan White CARE Act.
It’s not just the president’s gay critics who acknowledge his record on AIDS. Even a prominent Democrat has praised his efforts to combat this disease. Peter Hughes, one of our readers, e-mailed an article reporting that former President Clinton, speaking at the 16th International Conference on AIDS in Toronto “joined Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates in praising the “President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief.”
Clinton said “the United States is spending more to fight HIV than any other government.” And we’re spending that amount when Republicans, holding majorities in both House of Congress and the White House, have power over the federal purse. As long AIDS is a threat to public health remains, this is one area where Congress should not be cutting spending.
The former president said something else with which I strongly agree when he “joined the majority of experts who say abstinence-only programs do not work. Better, he said, are programs that include abstinence counseling as part of a range of options.” Including abstinence counseling, but not making it the be-all and end-all of AIDS prevention, seems the way to approach this touchy subject in our sexually charged culture. When we bring abstinence into a conversation on sexuality, we can better see sexuality as more than a mere longing for pleasure and perhaps begin to get at its deeper meaning.
“Gates, whose Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $500 million last week to the Global Fund to fight AIDS,” said, “The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has done a great deal of good, and President Bush and his team deserve a lot of credit for it.”
It’s too bad more Democrats and those on the gay left are not more like one of their heroes, having the good sense to acknowledge President Bush’s accomplishments, particularly on issues of concern to our community.
AIDS is not about gay and lesbian issues for Bush. It is great that he is attempting to fight AIDS in Africa… I couldn’t be happier… but that does not mean he has a mixed record on gay issues. All his political stances are against gay issues… he doesn’t deserve a high-five on gay issues just because he has enough decency to prevent people from dying.
#1 Jon –
So… You acknowledge Bush has enough decency to prevent people from dying.
That’s nice! Because it’s quite a bit more that the Left “nutroots” can manage these days. They seriously think 9-11 was an inside job, Bush is plotting to kill us all, etc.!
As for the rest of President Bush’s gay issue stands – please note they are basically identical to President Clinton’s – who gave us DADT and DOMA, and promised an FMA/MPA if court decisions should make it necessary during his time.
Indeed, if you take Bush and Clinton having the same stands, and then add Bush’s good AIDS record on top of that – it’s impossible to claim Clinton was better.
Also note that, in the 2004 Presidential debates, Kerry emphasized that his stands on gay issues were identical to Bush’s.
We have yet to see any President or nominee from either party who is gay-positive. Bush and the Republicans have been no worse than the Democrats. Even a little better – if you don’t like being lied to for political donations, as I don’t.
I don’t really have a horse in this race, as I am an Independent. But I do like to see the story told honestly. Democrats are nothing special (or even good) for us.
Well, if Bill Clinton said it, it must be true. 😉
I’m not exactly sure what to make of this post, except to conclude that you are sub silencio acknowleging–in accord with the religious rightwingers–that AIDs is a “gay” issue, notwithstanding the apparent fact that, worldwide, most HIV/AIDS invections are heterosexually-induced.
If you want to read an interesting story, read how Bono has been instrumental in helping bush see the garvity of the AIDS situtation
Well, raj, Bush is not the worldwide president, he’s President of the United States. In this country, a majority of those with the virus were infected through gay sex. Given that gay organizations and gay publications pay a good deal of attention to the disease, it seems that in the United States, the nation of which George W. Bush is president, it is a gay issue. So, sub not so silencio, I’m in accord with those gay groups who believe that HIV/AIDS is of concern to our community.
Or maybe sub silencio, those groups are in accord with the religious right.
Does anyone really for a minute think that George Bush cares about AIDS because it affects gay men? C’mon, really.
Clinton is right to defend the good work. But once again, someone divines the intentions of TGM and uses Clinton to make some kind of case that he is TGM for sure.
2: Last I checked, no Democrat had advocated/proposed a constitutional ammendment to deny equal right to gays and lesbians, so that make Republicans a tad bit worse in that department
And if Bush is great on gay issues, why is it that the only out gay person appointed in his administration has been to an AIDS commission (ie, linking gay people only to a disease)
Dan, when I first read this post, I had a feeling the GayLeft opiners here would try two approaches: 1) yeah, but Clinton was really pro-gay and your guy (Bush) really hates us; and 2) yeah, but the money is for mostly African AIDS and doesn’t help gay Americans.
It’s nice to see the GayLeft never disappoints. I think, despite DOMA and DADT, the GayLeft like Clinton because they see in him a sexual predator who mimics character traits some on the GayLeft still struggle with on a daily basis.
The problem of course is that we shouldn’t be spending anything on AIDS in Africa or the Asian sub-continent or anywhere else in the world but the US. This is a function the GayLeft’s esteemed United Nations organization ought to be doing –and leveraging the 1st & 2nd world nations’ resources. The UN can’t do much, but they really ought to focus on world health issues and leave the peace-keeping to armies like Israel and the US and the Brits.
Bush sold me on his decency toward all gays when he offered in response to a strange press question about an animus toward gays serving in his govt, that he wouldn’t bar anyone –including gays– from serving on his team. We said he would welcome gays into the Administration like anyone else.
This came during a photo-op at his Crawford ranch between the 1st victorious election and his ascension into office. He spoke sincerely and from the heart; the answer wasn’t scripted.
I would imagine that 7+ years of hearing from the GayLeftDemocrats that “all gays hate Bush” must be disheartening to Pres Bush and his leadership team.
Or maybe the President knows that those fringe voices on the GayLeft should be saying “all gays on the Democrat Plantation hate Bush”… as so many voices here prove day-in, day-out.
It’s a shame we still allow these GayLeft voices to dominate the debate on gay civil rights, direct our political agenda, and highjack gay issues for the short term benefit of the Democrat Party.
RajIan – I’m not exactly sure what to make of your posts on this blog except to conclude that, since you, the netroots and the leadership of the Democrat Party join the Iranian government in their hatred of the President, you are sub silencio acknowleging– in accord with the Mullahs, that all gays should be hanged.
2: Last I checked, no Democrat had advocated/proposed a constitutional ammendment to deny equal right to gays and lesbians, so that make Republicans a tad bit worse in that department
How about Robert Byrd abd Inez Tenenbaum (FMA) and John Kerry (state constitutional amendments, including the Massachusetts amendment to strip gays of rights)?
And if Bush is great on gay issues, why is it that the only out gay person appointed in his administration has been to an AIDS commission (ie, linking gay people only to a disease)
More ignorance.
To be fair, I don’t suppose we should expect Kevin et al. to be able to think very much; after years of life on the Democratic plantation, with your only information being a steady stream of talking points and swift punishment coming down on anyone who steps out of line, that tends to happen.
NDXXX, is the GayLeft still allowed to be on the Democrat Plantation? I thought ScreaminHowieDean kicked em out, closed down their offices at the DNC, took away their copier key, ended their reign because a worker’s partner dared disagree with the “Good Doctor of CrazyLand”.
Kevin-
Just because you assert something doesn’t mean it is true. As Raj would say… where’s your fact.
Point: You have conveniently neglected to mention that Bush has appointed TWO openly gay men to Ambassador-level positions. Yes, one was affiliated with AIDS, but one was the Ambassador to Romania.
Don’t let your spin get in the way of reality.
Nruce, I think actually the raj has said “Where are the cites. Why won’t you answer my questions first that I raised after you asked me a question. Please provide proof that 1) everyone said everything at some point or b) nobody has not said that yet.
And the circle gets tighter and tighter. Only atonement will loosen the noose for raj.
#6 GayPatriotWest — August 16, 2006 @ 2:28 am – August 16, 2006
Well, raj, Bush is not the worldwide president, he’s President of the United States.
Well, thank you for telling me that. Let me see. You used “gay” at least six times in the first two paragraphs. What were you intending by that? That Bush’s “fight” against HIV/AIDS, primarily in other countries, was supposed to benefit gay people, even if in some meager way? No, it couldn’t be that, could it?
Let’s get something straight, GPW. Some of us actually do know how you bois out in LaLaLand attempt to use language to try to persuade in your movies and other works. Because we use the same techniques in our briefs to the courts. And some of us are not persuaded by your attempts.
Gee, GPW, I didn’t know you did movies! At least according to you-know-who above.
Michelle Malkin was right. The term “unhinged” certainly does apply to the majority on the left, as inspired by the rant above.
Regards,
Peter H.
President Bush’s ‘record’ on gay rights is clearly horrible, which is not suprising given that he seems to be pro-terrorist and pro-theocracy.
Yes, he is spending a fair chunk of change on AIDS, but that is only because AIDS has cease to be seen as a ‘homosexual problem.’ His abstience only educational support is simply not going to work.
A little logic, Raj:
1. You insist that Bush hates gays and would never do anything that would help them in the least
2. You insist that Bush thinks AIDS is a gay disease.
Therefore, since Bush thinks AIDS is a gay disease, by logic, he would never do anything that would help prevent or fight it, because doing so would be helping gays.
Yet, as the facts show, Bush has systematically pumped far more money into HIV/AIDS prevention in the United States and worldwide than any other President.
Therefore, at least one, and quite probably both, of your premises are incorrect.
Because we use the same techniques in our briefs to the courts. And some of us are not persuaded by your attempts.
Given that Raj has never provided citation of his legal briefs, proof of his identity, or even proof that he is a lawyer, by his own standards, he is lying and has never done such a thing.
#17 – Bush is pro-terrorist? Please cite your proof of such an assertion.
Regards,
Peter H.
I stand corrected. 2 appointments out of the thousands of openly gay conservatives clamoring for positions in the Bush administration.
I stand corrected. 2 appointments out of the thousands of openly gay conservatives clamoring for positions in the Bush administration.
Why do I even bother making citations for liberals?
But President George Bush has quietly nominated six gay men for positions in his administration, including the recent appointment of another gay San Franciscan to a board that could play a key role in the war on terrorism — and the nominations have been approved with comparatively little opposition.
And that was four years ago, mind you — there’s been more since, as we see.
And I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m hardly “clamoring for a job” — I have one, and I rather like it. That’s a common problem in filling slots in conservative administrations — most of the people you would want already have good jobs in the private sector, and it would be a step down for them to work for the government.