Kerry Provides Unscripted Answer on AIDS

During a campaign speech by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry at Temple University in Pennsylvania on Friday, an audience member heckled Kerry, asking him to address the issue of AIDS. Kerry responded:

"This is not in my speech, but I'm going to answer that gentleman's question, because it's a perfect segue for where I find myself. Several years ago, three or four years ago, I joined with Sen. Bill Frist in a bipartisan effort and we cochaired the effort on AIDS, because AIDS is the great moral challenge and the great pandemic across this globe. We've got 4 million people, 5 million people have died of it. We've got 40 million people infected, and it's moving. It's not a question of Africa. It's a question of South Asia, India, China, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, all across the world--and it destroys human infrastructure. We laid out a comprehensive approach that dealt with treatment, dealt with prevention, dealt with retroantiviral drugs that can help prevent the passage from mother to child, dealt with creating the human infrastructure so we could stand up and lead. And we called and...we passed with Jesse Helms's support, who cosponsored it. We passed it in the Senate, but the ideological resistance of this administration has stopped it. The president has stood up and said he's going to provide $15 billion, and guess what--only a few hundred million have been released, only $200 million to the Global Fund. The Global Fund has no confidence in America. America is losing its moral authority because we don't step up on issues like AIDS. I will. I will lead America on these issues."

---

Matt, thanks for posting this. The backstory here is that Kerry was heckled by a protester to speak about AIDS. He stopped his prepared remarks, answered the heckler, who then gave him a standing ovation for this answer.

When Bush (or his henchmen) are heckled like this, the protesters get arrested, cuffed and detained.

---

I know exactly what you mean

mattio,
that si why he needs that big sign behind him that reminds him of the topic he is SUPPOSSED to be talking about.

If Bush had even responded, it would have been along the lines of:

Well...uh...ya know...AIDS--that's a very bad thing and...uh...we need to do stop it...uh...evil doers spread it...and we need to stop the evil doers. Uh...people keep seeing images on their TV screens...uh...and...uh...we need to stop it.

---

Check out this video of Bush being asked about something he obviously knows nothing about.
I so respect Kerry for answering the question. It shows that he is listening and responding to the people and not just spewing forth his pre-written rhetoric.
Bush Babble

---

Hahaha Sueleen that was great I watched it 4 times

---

Is that indeed true, papa, or was that just pulled out of thin air like most GOP criticism of Kerry?

---

Tell me something GOOD about George Bush's actions toward lesbians and gays and People with AIDS. Something that will make me want to vote for him.

Because as far as I'm concerned, his records on national security, the economy and civil liberties are abysmal

Maybe if you can tell me something GOOD about his attitude toward gays and lesbians, I'll change my vote from Kerry to Bush.

Oh, and I'll be sure to share your GOOD information with the Log Cabin Republicans, who in a rare display of backbone, voted to withhold their endorsement of Bush.

---

ahh, flitty, that's good, but why was he not there for the 4 votes on amendements to the bill that preceded that "voice vote" which as defined by the senate rules is: "a vote in which the presiding officer states the question, then asks those in favor and against to say 'yea' or 'nay,' respectively, and announces the result according to his or her judgment. the names or numbers of senators voting on each side are not recorded." he bagged on votes 00180-00183. did he leave and come back? or had he already left so as to be able to make it to iowa for the afscme democratic candidate forum on may 16th where he unveiled his health care proposal that morning, i.e. a few hours later?

---

Updated On: 9/25/04 at 05:33 PM

Tell me one good reason why a lesbian or gay voter should vote for George Bush. One. It can't be domestic security, civil liberties, the economy or the way he's conducted the war.

One good reason for a lesbian or gay man to vote for Bush.

One.

---

Updated On: 9/25/04 at 06:43 PM

It can't be those things because he's screwed them up so badly.

I don't wear ties. So I guess I'll stick with the better candiate: John Kerry.

---

Updated On: 9/25/04 at 07:07 PM

OK, I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

Papa, I'm sorry, what are you talking about? You are WAY out of your depth on this. And, your ignorance of the way the Senate works is huge. Passing a bill on unanimous consent -- or by voice -- means there are no recorded votes. You talk about votes on amendments to the bill -- do you even know what they were about? All were friendly amendments and the sponsors submitted them knowing they would not be passed: the bill had come out of the Foreign Relations Committee with the explicit understanding of all Senators that all amendments would be rejected in order to get the bill done. (That's why a Senate bill has a House number: they took the Hyde bill from the House and marked it up to get it done more quickly in the Senate.) On the floor, amendments had been filed by these great Kerry "foes": Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Durbin, Leahy, Lautenberg, Feingold, Feinstein, Boxer, Biden and Dodd. There was no battle, papa. But nice try.

More to the point, you seem to ignore this fact: a Durbin amendment was rejected by a vote of 48 - 52. Last time I checked that adds up to 100: Kerry was there. A Clinton amendment was rejected by a voice vote. A Dorgan amendment was ruled out of order by the chair. Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer and Dodd amendments were all rejected by lopsided margins and in each case, Kerry voted for them. A Biden amendment was the only one passed -- and it was accepted by voice. (Flit's right: no recorded vote.) The rest of the amendments were withdrawn. I love how you "know" that Kerry "didn't care enough" to stick around for the votes. Who the hell are you to put voice to his motivations? Did he call you and let you know?

But here's the kicker, which you don't seem to understand: Kerry's AIDS bill -- the one he refered to in his speech -- was passed in 2000. He wrote it and convinced Senator Frist and Senator HELMS to join him -- and it is the largest single response to the global AIDS epidemic in the history of our country. The 2003 bill was simply a reauthorization of that underlying legislation.

You really need to learn something before you open your mouth on this. All your little congressional record searches are nice and they might fool some of the people but they're not going to fool all the people.

So, criticize him all you want about his philosophy, but SHUT UP when you don't know what you're talking about.

Papa and his ilk always want to turn real issues around to make it seem that Kerry has not done enough in order to mask the fact that we lack leadership in the White House. That's the real issue here. This president has promised $15 billion to fight AIDS and so far has only come up with $300 million -- and tied all that aid to abstinence and faith-based approaches. This Administration denied 20 government researchers approval to attend the International AIDS conference in Bangkok because they worked on male-to-male HIV transmission. An undersecretary of Health in this administration called AIDS last year "the gay plague" and called homosexuality "a deathstyle" because of AIDS. Kerry was there, my friend, but where was George?

I would be happy to elaborate on Kerry's record on AIDS to anyone interested.

---

Updated On: 9/25/04 at 08:03 PM