By the generally-used modern definition, a liberal is someone who supports the use of taxpayer funds for things not found in the Constitution. In this instance, the position that taxpayer money should be diverted to Africa to fight AIDs is a liberal position.
That doesn't mean those who support it are liberals - it just means they've taken a liberal stance on THIS issue.
That statement is quite laughable given its context. A decent human being would teach these people: how to appreciate and fight for their own freedom, how to support themselves, and how to educate women from spreading their legs/having children they cannot support/and getting AIDS in the first place. If, we are to be decent human beings...we should do that. The problem is, thats not happening. The governemnt is stealing yours and my money to throw money and expensinve drugs at the problem in order to save a few lives and give good face to the center-left. The root of the problem will continue and opportunities will be there for other politicians to show how nice they are by throwing yours and my money at the problem in the future too. How verrrrrrrrrry decent.
I'm not so much against Bush using an ineffective political strategy against the Democrats, although I think that black Americans will continue to vote 90% Democrat pretty much until the sun burns out.
What stuns me is the number of people who don't understand that "AIDS" is an industry. It's like TV watchers who don't realize that Joe Millionaire and The Bachelorette are as scripted as WWF wrestling. This is 2003. The "epidemic" that Oprah and Donna Shalala said was going to devastate America hasn't happened and isn't going to happen. Since nobody who isn't leading a drug-abusing fast-lane lifestyle is sick, most Americans have tuned out. The fund-raising efforts of the AIDS lobby have hence turned to Africa.
It's hard to know what can change the minds of people at this late date, but I'm going to suggest a few sources. In AIDS in Africa: In Search of the Truth the South African writer Rian Malan, commissioned by the homosexual owner of Rolling Stone, travels to South Africa to research AIDS. He learns that there has been no change in the death rate or in the statistical profile of the recently deceased, and comes to doubt the entire AIDS construct.
In Out of Africa the New York science journalist Celia Farber travels to Ivory Coast, Uganda, and Kenya. The closer she tries to get to African AIDS, the less of it there seems to be.
In Inventing an Epidemic: The Traditional Diseases of Africa are Called AIDS from the April 2000 American Spectator, Tom Bethell discusses the health problems of Africa and the meaningless nature of HIV testing. There's lots more where those came from, but I think those three realitvely short and non-technical pieces are a good start for anyone who wants to understand this issue better.