NY Times repeated falsehood about why Casey was denied speaking slot at 1992 Dem convention
SUMMARY: A New York Times article echoed the oft-repeated myth that Gov. Bob Casey Sr. was forbidden to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because he opposed abortion rights. In fact, other Democrats who oppose abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then. Moreover, the Times itself reported in 1996 that White House officials "have always said that had [Casey] not declined to endorse Mr. [Bill] Clinton in 1992, he would have been allowed to speak to the convention."
In an August 7 New York Times article, reporter John M. Broder echoed the oft-repeated myth that late Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey Sr. was forbidden to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because he opposed abortion rights. Broder wrote: "Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, other Democrats who oppose abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then. Further, the Times itself reported in an August 1, 1996, article that White House officials "have always said that had [Casey] not declined to endorse Mr. [Bill] Clinton in 1992, he would have been allowed to speak to the convention."
From the August 7 New York Times article:
Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies. Many Catholics, once a reliable Democratic voting bloc, never forgot what they considered a slight.
This year, the party is considering giving a speaking slot at the convention to Mr. Casey's son, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who like his late father is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion rights.
Many Catholics, once a reliable Democratic voting bloc, never forgot what they considered a slight.
I'm guessing they considered it a slight because they were lied to, and never forgot because that lie has been repeated so often.This is just the latest entry in that campaign to tell a group they've been slighted, and make sure they "never forget".
"Lies"? It is MM who is being flagrantly untruthful in this post.
It is a known FACT that Casey was denied a speaking spot because he wished to deliver a pro-life speech.
The Truth About Gov. Bob Casey and The 1992 DNC Convention
MM is simply flat-out WRONG on this one.
Bull. It's really this simple. Imagine if a prominent Republican was asked if he would endorse McCain's ticket and he refused. What are the chances he would be invited to address their convention?
None at all.
That is all we are looking at in the case of Casey. It doesn't matter what his views were on choice. He was not going to address the convention under those circumstances. No how, no way.
Gov. Bob Casey, NY Times, 7/19/1992 (only 3 days after the convention): "I support the ticket, period, end of quote."
MM is trying to revise history by rewriting one of the Democratic Party's most ugly episodes. They are wrong, and the facts bear this out.
The DNC did not want a pro-life speech defending the unborn at the convention. Period.
So you're going to answer my point by completely ignoring it and simply restating your line of bull?
Casey at that time had presidential ambitions. He knew that refusing to support the Democratic ticket would be political suicide. He had no choice but to support it, even if it was grudgingly given.
How about answering my hypothetical? Would the republicans allow a prominent republican who refused to endorse McCain to address the convention?
POV, this isn't the first I've heard of the issue. It's been around for a while, and covered many times. Some of it does come down to conflicting statements and each of us is going to decide which is credible.
The point of this item is that the NYT column is promoting one opinion as fact.
The point of this item is that the NYT column is promoting one opinion as fact.
Not quite, no. As noted elsewhere in this thread, even Casey's defenders now say that he was denied a speaking slot not because he was anti-choice but because he wanted to give an anti-choice speech.
So for the Times to report that Casey was kept off the podium "because his anti-abortion views ... clashed with the party's platform" is not a matter of opinion or something in dispute, it is simply false. Period.
Col
I think you put it much more reasonably and objectively then MMFA did.
POV,
Proof?
POV,
Proof?
I'd say around 86 proof. The way he's posting usless right-wing nonsense today, POV must be drunk again.....
WZ
You must not have gotten the cream you needed, as you are still inflamed and irratiable
Whether or not there is intent, that could be the result of continuing to put out that myth.
Intent and ulterior motives aren't necessary for conservative misinformation. Sometimes it can be accomplished with sloppy journalism.
But I didn't think that the Repubicans would have that much influence on a seemingly liberal newspaper such as the New York Times. I thought that the Republicans would use their tried and true method of having someone fiddle around on their radio dial (or browsing various radio stations on the internet) and stumbling across Hannity or Limbaugh and think, "You know, this guy makes sense!"
And then you call in on their respective shows and talk about that discovery.
But then again I've been out of touch with the GOP. Same for the DNP. Or it could be the other way around. At least I still know right from wrong, effective from ineffective, and smart from stupid.
Let's put it this way, Dawuss: The times article uses the assumption that Casey wasn't allowed to speak as a launch pad to assert that this year - some 16 years later with a different candidate - allowing Casey's son to speak is considered a "likely shift" in Dem's policy.
It's weak, it's stupid, and it's based on a falsehood. Frankly, if there's a conspiracy to drive voters to the republicans, I hope it's being led by people like Broder.
This fake "reason" was rebutted years ago, by Gov. Casey himself. Again, from his autobiography:
The official line from the convention publicity machine was that I was not permitted to speak because I hadn’t endorsed Clinton. But if that’s the case, why had Kathleen Brown, state treasurer of California and sister of presidential hopeful Jerry Brown, been permitted to address the convention? She hadn’t endorsed the nominee, either.
Unless you are a mind-numbed MMFA kool-aid drinker, you might want to read the parts of this story MMFA conveniently left out, check this link:
http://www.themediareport.com/special/casey-1992-dnc.htmHistory,
Apparently you did not read the link.
Ok, I've read the link and I'm unimpressed. There is no evidence presented that choice issues were the reason Casey didn't get to speak. It looks like a hodgepodge of disconnected facts and second- or third-hand statements that don't come together to support the author's contentions. As for Casey's comments, it looks like his judgment's being clouded by bitterness.
As for Kathleen Brown, she came as a delegate committed to vote for her brother on the first ballot. As a committed delegate, it would have been inappropriate for her to endorse Clinton before the first ballot was done. That wasn't the case with Casey. Casey had refused to endorse Clinton. Brown was not at that point able to endorse Clinton.
Casey had refused to endorse Clinton. Brown was not at that point able to endorse Clinton.
CRASH!
That was the sound of AA's argument being demolished.
Deez,
Grab your air pump. Bill's assertion is incorrect.
Who says Brown could not have endorsed Clinton while committed to cast her first vote to her brother? There is no rule that says you cannot. Hillary has given her endorsement to Obama even though her delegates are pledged to her.
Besides it was understood at the time that Casey was denied podium time because of his views.
Here is an excerpt from a March 6, 2005 opinion piece by Kevin Drum in the Washington Monthly
Here then is what we have:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.phpCasey had made it clear that he wanted to talk about abortion and he had formally requested a convention speaking slot. Normally, for the governor of a major state, this would be a no-brainer.
It also seems likely that if he had been given his speaking slot he would have endorsed the Clinton/Gore ticket. It's not as if he seriously expected them to change the party platform subsequent to losing a platform fight, after all.
Casey, other Democrats, and the entire press corps almost universally accepted the view that Casey had been denied a speaking slot because of his abortion stand.
[Ann]Richards and [Gov. Roy]Romer, given a chance, didn't even try to pretend that Casey's non-endorsement was the reason he was prevented from speaking. Instead they made up a "process" excuse that was transparently untrue.
There's only one quote in the entire record (Terzano's) that unambiguously offers up the non-endorsement theory, even though other people had plenty of additional chances to make that point.
So it seems to me that the real reason Casey was prevented from speaking was because....he wanted to give a pro-life speech. Clinton was keeping a tight lid on the convention and wanted no dissent on an issue that he considered important.
I wasn't suggesting that Brown was forbidden by any convention rules from endorsing Clinton. She was, however, abiding by custom in which the bound delegate exhibits loyalty to the pledged candidate. What is most significant in the contrast between the two is that Brown did not pointedly refuse to endorse the party ticket as Casey had chosen to do.
Why on earth would the DNC put up a speaker who, given the chance in advance, refused to endorse the ticket? That is a red flag warning that there is too much potential for that person to do or say something to embarrass the party. It would be ridiculous for the DNC to allow it, regardless of his anti-choice position.
Who says Brown could not have endorsed Clinton while committed ... There is no rule that says you cannot. Hillary has given her endorsement to Obama even though her delegates are pledged to her.
Huh? That's a total non sequitur. The first part has nothing to do with the second.
Hillary Clinton is not a pledged delegate. She can endorse whoever she dang well pleases and can at her discretion release her pledged delegates. On the other hand, if before she did so, one of her pledged delegates was to come out for Obama, that would be a serious breach of if not a rule, at least protocol.
(And no, so-called superdelegates do not count here as they are not "pledged" in the way delegates chosen in primaries or caucuses are.)
I did read the link and found the argument utterly vapid: It essentially claims to "prove" that Casey was denied a speaking role because of his views and intentions by assuming he was denied a speaking role because of his views and intentions and arguing from there.
One thing to note at the top is that the story has morphed from Casey being denied a place because he was anti-choice to Casey being denied a place because he intended to give a "fiery" anti-choice speech. A convenient shift seeing as how the first contention was utterly unsustainable.
As for the article, though, consider that there are 20 footnotes. Take away the three specifically intended to show the Democratic Party supporting the right to choose and one which was simply an aside, leaving 16. Of those, 13 are from either Casey's book or Nat Hentoff (who I do not regard as a reliable source on this issue) writing about what Casey told him. That is, the source for the entire story, essentially the only source, was Casey himself.
Oh, but the article insists "Eyewitness accounts also support Casey’s narrative." Except they don't: The linked source refers only to seeing Casey watch the convention's support of pro-choice speeches through "gritted teeth." Interestingly, it makes no reference to the supposed attempt at on-camera "humiliation" that Casey claimed happened immediately afterward.
Moreover, it repeats Casey's talking point about Kathleen Brown not having endorsed Clinton without noting that while Brown had not endorsed Clinton, Casey had refused to - which is, as the article says, "an important distinction."
"But oh wait!" the article cries again. "Casey did endorse Clinton!" Yeah, three days after the convention with the ringing cry "I support the ticket, period, end of quote." Could he have been any less enthusiastic?
(Sidebar: AA, how do you feel about the contention in your own link that, after claiming the right to choose was the issue, "the decision by the DNC is completely understandable" because to do otherwise would have presented an image of a convention and party in disarray?)
Bottom line is that this is a single-source story, it was one person's - Casey's - uncorroborated claim. Such stories can be true, but the demands on them are higher and we are entitled to great skepticism, especially when simpler explanations are available.
Footnote: It also seems to me that Casey was in no position to complain about "humiliation" since based on his own account, his intention was to bring humiliation to the entire party and its presidential candidate on national television.
Larry,
You can discount Nat Hentoff all you want. I read his columns for years. He was definitely liberal and an interesting read because he lets both sides have it.
You are trying to counter Casey's argument the same way others earlier tried, by attacking the messenger. It doesn't work in this case either.
Frankly, I think you put too much time into this. Rather than count footnotes you should go looking for other accounts from that same time period. However at this point I can save you some trouble. Check out the link to the Washington Times Kevin Drum column I provided above.
Briefly, the article shows at the time you have the Clinton sycophants in disarray as to the reasons Casey was not permitted to speak. Only later do the coalesce around the "endorsement" alibi. It very definitely rings hollow.
You can believe whom you like. But to say that direct quotes by Casey are not good enough while Clintonista quotes are, doesn't make you a very objective arbiter of the event.
I'll say at the top this will be my last on this because anyone who still uses the tired old sneering term "Clintonista" neither is interested in nor deserves futher response.
Nat Hentoff ... I read his columns for years. He was definitely liberal
So did I and he was actually more libertarian than liberal. Be that as it may, the fact remains that on the issue of abortion he was often totally unhinged.
trying to counter Casey's argument ... by attacking the messenger
Bull. My counter to the claims was that the only source for them was Casey's uncorroborated assertions of various sorts of villainy that went well beyond just not being allowed to speak to conscious attempts at "humiliation" and that the story has changed over time since it's original version proved nonsensical. My opinion of Hentoff was totally irrelevant to that argument.
And, again, anyone who uses the phrase "Clintonista quotes" is in no position to gripe about someone else supposedly "attacking the messenger."
Rather than count footnotes
I realize you want to dismiss that since it proved my point about Casey being the sole source, but it's a really feeble attempt.
Kevin Drum ... Only later do the coalesce around the "endorsement" alibi
Again, you fail to actually read your own sources. The references to non-endorsement as a reason for Casey not speaking which Drum cites predate those which he interprets - sometimes rather shakily - as indicating it was the speech that was the problem. That is, the opposite of what you claim.
believe whom you like
The last gasp of a dying argument: It's all just a matter of "belief." It harkens back to the business about "faith-based" versus "reality-based." In that context, it's interesting that it's now "Casey's argument" rather than an assertion of fact. In other words, "I don't have facts to back up my claims and my sources don't hold up to examination - but I don't need no stinking proof because it's just a matter of opinion anyway and I can believe whatever I want to believe."
Well, you surely can but some of us at least make the attempt to deal in logic and fact - and the issue before us, the one I addressed, was if your cited source proved what it claimed to prove. And the answer remains no.
To wrap up and getting back to that source, I asked you a direct question which you unsurprisingly ignored. I'm going to ask again because I actually want to know the answer. The article you cited asserted that Casey was denied a speaking slot because he wanted to make an anti-choice speech and that the decision was "completely understandable." Do you agree with both parts of that? Do you, as you claim the first part, accept the second? If not, why not?
AA:
I did read the link. I also responded to everything relevant and credible in it--which is why I ignored it.
AA,
Themediareport.com, that's just newsbusters in disguise.
How many times do you have to be told, only credible sources will support your claims.
How many times do you have to be told, only credible sources will support your claims.
But AA can't FIND any credible sources that support his claims - only the right-wing wacko sources. :-)
And again, you need to read what was written. The Clinton administration did not say Casey did not endorse Clinton, like Brown, but actually declined to endorse. He was asked to and said he would not. Why would they want someone who refused to endorse the candidate to speak?
Also are you saying that it is a lie that others who shared his stance on abortion were allowed to speak? If not, then how do you explain that? If that was the issue that kept him from speaking, how did the others slip through? To anyone with basic logic skills, it is clear that abortion was not the reason.
The Media Report (at Yahoo.com) is one of the cutest sources I've seen here yet.
A page full of flawed reasoning, wrapped up with "So now you know the truth about...".
I can't believe the Dems didn't let Casey deliver his powerful pro-life sermon at the convention. Just more of that bigotry and trying to suppress the free exercise of religion. :0(
I'm saying that there is more to the story than the "official" Clinton spin.
Casey was the Governor of the Pennsylvania and the convention was in Philadelphia. Traditionally the Governor of the host state speaks at some point in his party's convention. However Casey made it clear what he wanted to speak about and was denied.
The link I provided made it abundantly clear that it was Casey's outspoken pro-life position that kept him off the dais.
Of course the Clinton's will argue that it was some other reason, and we know how well they tell the truth.
The best that can be said about the issue is that the reason for his shutout is disputed by Casey and the Clintons.
OK, you concede it's disputed.
The NY Times reported it as undisputed.
Falsehood.
Sit down, Barney.
"the oft-repeated myth"
They certainly do AA, something in dispute cannot be a "myth".
'...something in dispute cannot be a "myth" '
Really? You may want to clarify that one.
"an unfounded or false notion"....merriamwebster.com
I guess the definition is in dispute.
The notion that Casey was denied a spot because he was pro-life is demonstrably false, since other pro-life Dems were able to speak. As I said elsewhere, the nature of his planned speech doesn't change that, as that goes beyond "views". So "falsehood" is perfectly justifiable.
It's an amusing effort from someone who talks about liberals "parsing" words, though.
So, in general, using your definition Tommy, this "unfounded" or "false" notion is obviously believed by somebody, at least one person, or it wouldn't exist.
If it's called a "myth", obviously somebody else doesn't believe it.
Myths are seemingly always disputed.
By your logic, a myth can not be a myth.
One of the most hilariously self-defeating arguments I've ever seen, but it's only an amusing side issue.The myth in the MMFA item is that Casey was kept off of his soapbox only because of his opinion on abortion. Others with like opinions were there. Myth.
Young-earth creationists claim the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. This is a myth. The issue is disputed. The YECs present what they claim is evidence. That doesn't make it less of a myth.
The contention that Casey was denied the podium because he was anti-choice is a myth. There are those who dispute it. They present what they claim is evidence. That doesn't make it less of a myth.
Bill,
Your stipulation that the Young Earth is a "myth" conveniently leads you to your preconceived conclusion. However your stipulation is not a fact so your conclusion is not certain.
You may not believe in the YE, and the majority of people may not believe it, but unless you can legitimately and scientifically dispel all their evidence, YE remains an alternative theory.
Take a look at this link and see if these critiques of evolution make that a myth too.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.htmlAA,
You have now shown your true ignorance to everyone.
Not that it was in question.
Also, next time, try to post a link that we can read.
I'll try again.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.htmlMy apologies.
I typed it below. Hope it works.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.htmlhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiq/aiq-c012.html
I think I see the problem here, AA. You and Tommy think a myth is something you don't agree with, and a fact is anything you agree with.
And please, go look up "stipulate", you're really abusing that word.
Your stipulation that the Young Earth is a "myth" conveniently leads you to your preconceived conclusion. However your stipulation is not a fact so your conclusion is not certain. - AA
No, it's not a preconceived conclusion. It's a recognition of indisputable scientific reality.
I thought I was using an example that everyone here could recognize as reality. I really didn't think any of the regulars here were so ignorant as to be YECs. I guess I was wrong.
I've seen the website you listed. I've participated in discussions on this topic for many, many years. I've seen the best that Answers in Genesis, ICR and several others have to offer. Their "evidences" are not scientifically supportable. There are REAL scientific answers to every case they pretend to make. They only fool the willfully ignorant (those who accept because they want very much to accept) and the truly ignorant.
The universe is over 13 billion years old. That's reality. Accept it.
Too f**ing funny, Bill. You deliberately choose the most absurd example you can think of, trying to establish common ground on absurdity,and the wingnut takes that position as a reasonable argument.
Common mistake around here, Overestimating your opponent.
Bill,
Forgive me, but you saying you have come to a certain conclusion does not mean others have come to that same conclusion. Nor does it mean that their conclusion is a myth. It is the height of arrogance to say you and those who agree with you are the arbiter of what is myth and what is fact. You simply choose to believe in the mythology of "something sprang from nothing".
I have worked my way back from the end of this thread today, and I already replied at what was the end of the thread in reply, but let me just repeat it.
Using your criteria, the Big Bang is a myth too. It says the whole universe was created out of nothing. The Universe out of nothing? Oh really? It is unsupportable but you believe it as fervently as any YE backer believes in intelligent design. But I ask you, where is the science you say is indisputable proving the "Universe sprang from nothing"?
Until then, spare me the condescension about what is myth and what is theory.
ps.
Bill, that link I provided offered up 10 problems with the theory of "the billions of years old" Universe. I noticed nobody actually pointing out where those ten points erred. As you have stated you have so much knowledge about the subject, perhaps you can answer scientifically one or two or maybe all ten of their questions?
It is the height of arrogance to say you and those who agree with you are the arbiter of what is myth and what is fact. - AA
If I contend that principles of aerodynamics describe what keeps an airplane airborne, am I arrogant if I don't give serious consideration to the person next to me who says it's kept in the air by sky pixies?
We are looking at the same level of equivalence between the theory of evolution and young earth creationism.
Using your criteria, the Big Bang is a myth too. It says the whole universe was created out of nothing. - AA
All you've demonstrated here is that you know nothing about the Big Bang theory. It does not claim the entire universe came from nothing. Do a little research if you want to discuss it and provide specific areas of contention. It's not hard to find on the net.
The Big Bang Theory is superbly supported by experimental evidence, fully backed up mathematically. It is a true scientific theory, unlike YEC.
I saw the list on your creationist web page. You can find the true scientific refutations on the web with very little effort. If you really want me to address it, tell me your favorite and I'll show its errors fairly quickly. The fact is, the same creationist canards keep floating around, being refuted and then regurgitated again in a slightly altered form over and over.
AA,
MMFA reported the facts. Name one thing they said that is in dispute?
So, what you posted could be completely wrong and may be a lie.
But that's okay, it's the other side of the story.
If you want to post something, post a quote from Casey!
Skeptic,
You missed it. I did.
I did. You saying it is bogus does not make it so.
Simply accusing links with sources and footnotes as being "bogus" only because you disagree with their viewpoint is laughable.
"Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies. Many Catholics, once a reliable Democratic voting bloc, never forgot what they considered a slight."
What you seem to be missing is that even if Casey's plan to talk about abortion was the only reason he was denied an opportunity to speak, this is still misleading. It suggests that he was discriminated against because of his views, not because he was going to make those views a focus of his speech.
And yes, it does make a difference, because there were other speakers whose views "clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies". Did those other speakers bring this topic up in their speeches? If not, then that sensible restraint is probably something that is sought out in speakers at such a high-profile event. Or it could be brought up in one manner, such as a demonstration of "room for disagreement", as opposed to a ten-minute spiel about how immoral abortion is and why it should be illegal on a national level. It's really not the time or place for that sort of thing.
Either way, that's about behavior and not mere beliefs, which would make the above quote misinformation.
Before any of you follow AA's link, beware!!!
I had never heard of The Media Report before, so I went to their web site and found their "Links" page. You can tell a lot about a web site by looking at the other sites it recommends. So here are the entries in The Media Report's "Links" page. Pay particular attention to the comments accompanying many of the links:
*****
The site that started it all! www.frankenlies.com ... As heard on radio and TV! The authoritative challenges to Al Franken's books, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and The Truth (With Jokes). Do you think Al and his 14 Harvard researchers got all their facts right? Think again!
frankenlies.com was the subject of an article on WorldNetDaily!! Check it out! "Is Al Franken a 'lying liar'? Website points out falsehoods in liberal humorist's latest book" ...
www.goofigure.com ... "Life's Logical Loonies" ...
www.lauraingraham.com ... she rocks the mornings ...
www.larryelder.com ... the Sage from South Central! ...
www.hughhewitt.com ... "Morning Glory, Evening Grace" ...
www.patterico.com ... If you know the Los Angeles Times is warped, this is the place for you.
www.peterkreeft.com ... a professor at Boston College ... author of The Journey and How to Win the Culture War plus 25+ other books!
www.lifedynamics.com ... Life Dynamics ... "Pro-life: without compromise, without exception, without apology."
*****
My conclusion? "The Media Report" can hardly be considered an unbiased source. It's as slanted to the right and intellectually dishonest as the guy who recommended it to us - our own AA.
Wz,
Hahaha... Your warning is laughable. You write like you are afraid someone might go look and make up their own mind.
How silly. When you can't argue the facts, attack the messenger. It is an old ploy that skeptic tried to use earlier. It means nothing.
If you don't like the link that's fine. However it is very weak to try to dismiss it out of hand rather than show where it is in error. Since you have some time on your hands, why not take that challenge?
Anyway, glad I was able to keep you busy. Thanks for the links. :-)
Hahaha... Your warning is laughable. You write like you are afraid someone might go look and make up their own mind.
No, AA. I just didn't want some unsuspecting person to follow your link and get their mind poisoned like your is.
How silly. When you can't argue the facts, attack the messenger. It is an old ploy that skeptic tried to use earlier. It means nothing.
You conservatives have been doing that for years - "never mind where the story came from - let's discuss the 'facts' in the story". Well, if a soouce is not credible, its stories HAVE NO FACTS. The Media Report is like a sewer, with similar content.
If you don't like the link that's fine. However it is very weak to try to dismiss it out of hand rather than show where it is in error. Since you have some time on your hands, why not take that challenge?
I don't have enough time to dispute what's on that cybersewer web site. I work a full-time job and take care of my disabled wife. Tell ya what, AA - I'll decide for myself what the best use of my time is, and spending any more time at "The Media Report" ain't it.
Anyway, glad I was able to keep you busy. Thanks for the links. :-)
No, AA - thank YOU for showing how people like you have been duped into believing that conservative misinformation is "facts". You're the reason MMFA is needed.
POW, I think you've been confused by AA's "unique" posting style. The Copy & Paste from a wingnut source, all tangled up with his own comments. No quotation marks or italics, no indication that the plagiarism is beginning or ending,just a big hodgepodge of nonsense with a micro-font link at the end as plausible deniability against one more bust.
It's pretty cute once you figure out that it's the panicky postings of a convicted liar with no capacity for original thought.
This fake "reason" was rebutted years ago, by Gov. Casey himself. Again, from his autobiography
AA, more of your black/white thinking.
Gov. Casey was angry at the Democratic party. According to Nate Hentoff. a pro-life liberal, "Casey told him he expected, in light of his policy accomplishments and political loyalty, to be a speaker, maybe even the keynote speaker." When told he would not be a speaker, Casey was angry and bitter. He thought his pro-life stance was the reason but that can't be true in light of other pro life Democrats who spoke at the convention, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five governors. .
The Clinton take was Casey had refused to endorse Bill Clinton there for Casey would not be allowed to speak.
While you think Gov. Casey's version is truthful I'm afraid the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Bob Casey refused to endorse Bill Clinton due to Clinton pro-choice stance and Bill Clinton couldn't allow Bob Casey to speak at the convention because he would not endorse him for president.
Pearlene,
Thank you for proving my point. The fact that there is a Casey side to the story shows that MMFA's headline is misleading and false.
Thank you for proving my point. The fact that there is a Casey side to the story shows that MMFA's headline is misleading and false.
AA, it STILL doesn't make "Casey's side" more truthful than the Clinton side. It STILL doesn't mean that Casey was denied a speaking spot on the ticket due to his pro-life stance. There were other pro-life Democrats speaking at the convention. Using common sense it seems that Casey's refusal to endorse Bill Clinton, Casey's speaking against the party platform (haven't heard a single Republican speak again the party platform at their convention) were the reasons for his denial of a speaking spot.
The NY times claims it was Casey's views on abortion which caused him not to speak. THAT cannot be true since their were other anti-abortion speakers at the convention. The NY Times repeated something that is not factual, Bob Casey was not denied a speaking spot just because of his anti-abortion views.
NY Times repeated falsehood about why Casey was denied speaking slot at 1992 Dem convention
Pearlene,
The falsehood in the title above is not a falsehood. You and most people here recognize that Casey felt he was denied the podium because he would speak out in favor of pro-life.
So that part isn't false.
Had MMFA said "NYTimes repeated disputed claim...." that would have been accurate.
For MMFA to say it is a falsehood is itself a falsehood.
Again, you are wrong.
"...the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies."
There were other speakers who shared his views, therefore he was not disallowed because of his views. That sentence makes it sound as if there was some prejudice involving beliefs, where you are clearly talking about a behavioral issue. So even taking all you're saying as true, the above quote is still a falsehood.
You and most people here recognize that Casey felt he was denied the podium because he would speak out in favor of pro-life. So that part isn't false.
FALSE
Bob Casey would not endorsed the Democratic party's nominee. THAT alone would not allow him a speaking spot at EITHER a Democrat or Republican convention. The fact that Casey held pro-life views was not the reason he wasn't asked to speak, there were other pro-life speakers at the Democratic convention. Since the party's platform was pro-choice, the pro-life speakers choice to follow the party rules and did not speak about their own pro-life position. Bob Casey not only wouldn't endorse the party's candidate, he wanted to speak out against the party platform. Neither Republicans or Democrats would EVER allow that to happen at their convention.
Stop trying to make Casey out to be the victim because he was pro-life, he wasn't. His CHOICES are the reason for him not speaking and anyone who continues to repeat the falsehood that the Democratic party or Bill Clinton are at fault, are lying.
Yah if B. Hussain O is elected it'll son be illegal to take you religeon on those long runs anymore. You might be able to sneak in a few windsprints if your very careful.
I see their busting a few hospitals in your area over impropieties regarding charges of giving cash and up to three day stays to the homeless.
More wonderful free market policies at work.
Above badly aimed at der Kernel.
Nothing so righteous. Just my inner Goofy overcoming my inner Frenchman.
<:0\
-- I believe that the protection of life is a principle which follows from my party's historic core mission dedicated to protecting the powerless, a mission which also finds rich affirmation in the American experience. A mission which follows inexorably from the bedrock guarantees of the Declaration of Independence of Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic Party.
I requested the opportunity to deliver this message from the podium of the Democratic National Convention. For the second time in just four years, my request fell on deaf ears. I would surely prefer to speak to these profound issues in the convention hall. -- Bob Casey Sr.
Disallowing Casey to speak had nothing...nothing at all...to do with his non-endorsement of Clinton...regardless of another one of Bill Clinton's finger wagging denials.
It had every thing to do with his outspoken position of support for prolife democrats and republicans.
Us liberals have plenty of tolerance
After the last 7+ years, I've got enough "tolerance" to last me the rest of my life!
After the last 7+ years, I've got enough "tolerance" to last me the rest of my life!
AMEN!
Tommy,
Bob Casey on tolerance by democrats:
-- My first plea to the leaders of my party is for tolerance toward those Democrats who hold the pro-life view.
There is a new intolerance which will not abide doubt or dissent, which claims it stands for freedom of choice, but stifles freedom of speech. And so a movement which began by saying let every person decide, has ended up by silencing anyone who disagrees.
Are we now to tolerate in great political conventions only those who agree to say abortion is right? --
Pretty good stuff!
Oh, that is just a crock. Go somewhere else and spread that garbage...
Wesley, as wonderful as Casey's embittered thoughts are, he's not a very unbiased source on this topic. You know what would be helpful in supporting your (and Casey's) accusations of intolerance for pro-life views? An example of a prominent* Democrat trying to force a pro-life Dem to have an abortion.
*"prominent" not a necessary requirement, I was just letting my inner Hannity out for a spin.
"An example of a prominent* Democrat trying to force a pro-life Dem to have an abortion"
How about a Democratic stronghold? NARAL, Planned Parenthood. Force is to strong of a word, admittedly, suggest with a smile may be better. (teasing.......)
;)
It's from the website "Pro-Life Democrats in Michigan"
http://prolifedemocratsinmichigan.110mb.com/
I think I may have found something that answers this issue on Wikipedia's discussion of the 1992 Convention:
Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey wanted to speak at the convention, but did not speak. Casey maintained that he was denied a speaking spot because he intended to give a speech about his opposition to abortion, while the Clinton camp said that Casey did not speak because he had not endorsed the Clinton/Gore ticket. After the convention was over, Casey told the New York Times, "I support the ticket. Period." Other Democrats opposing abortions such as Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five anti-abortion Democratic governors did speak. While Democratic officials said that these speakers were not barred from discussing their opposition to abortion, they nonetheless did not focus on the issue in their speeches. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_National_Convention#Casey_Controversy)
So there you have it. Pro-lifers who did not focus on abortion in their speeches were allowed to speak, while Bob Casey was not allowed to speak because he INTENDED to make abortion the main topic of his speech and he declined to endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket. I believe that both were factors in teh decision not to allow him to speak.
Both parties take great pains to make sure their conventions show their respective parties in the best possible light. Recognizing there are issues with which their members do not all agree, they concentrate on those issues that most of their members DO agree. Which is why Bob Casey was not allowed to speak at the Democratic Convention in 1992 and why you will never hear a speaker talking in favor of gay rights and same-sex marriage at a Republican Convention.
Which is why Bob Casey was not allowed to speak at the Democratic Convention in 1992 and why you will never hear a speaker talking in favor of gay rights and same-sex marriage at a Republican Convention.- wzwriter
That's a really nice contrast, WZ. The dems don't want their convention filibustered by somebody trying to get the government to infringe on the privacy and rights of Americans, and The Repubs don't want somebody promoting more freedom and less government restriction.
That's a really nice contrast, WZ. The dems don't want their convention filibustered by somebody trying to get the government to infringe on the privacy and rights of Americans, and The Repubs don't want somebody promoting more freedom and less government restriction.
Which is why I've been a Registered Democrat since 1972, when I became eligible to vote.
wz,
Like Pearlene above, you proved my point. The MMFA title is false and misleading. Casey was denied the right to speak, (at least in part, according to you,) because of his outspoken pro-life position.
MMFA says that is false. You say it is true. Thanks for your help.
You're still missing the boat, AA. re-read this part from his post;
Pro-lifers who did not focus on abortion in their speeches were allowed to speak, while Bob Casey was not allowed to speak because he INTENDED to make abortion the main topic of his speech and he declined to endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket.
Hey, I'm a governor in favor of abortion rights who happens to be a Republican. Think I'll be able to speak at their convention? It should make for some great water cooler talk - all abortion debate, all the time!
Hey, I'm a governor in favor of abortion rights who happens to be a Republican. Think I'll be able to speak at their convention? It should make for some great water cooler talk - all abortion debate, all the time!
Actually, FL, there have been pro-choice Republicans (Giuliani and Schwarzenegger come to mind, and I'm pretty sure there are others) who have been featured speakers at the Republican conventions... but while there they never mentioned a single word about their views on abortion. I rather doubt the RNC would have given them a platform otherwise.
In fact, if Bush really thinks that abortion is the evil that he says it is, then he should have refused the endorsement of all pro-choicers, Republican or not. Not that we needed more evidence of GW's lack of character.
Actually, FL, there have been pro-choice Republicans (Giuliani and Schwarzenegger come to mind, and I'm pretty sure there are others) who have been featured speakers at the Republican conventions...
Republicans want to win either New York or electoral rich California so their willing to make a few exceptions. The desire to win trumps any principals when it comes to winning.
Wes,
You know this for a fact? Someone told you this?
Here's a question for YOU, Wesley:
How many openly gay people (such as members of the Log Cable Republicans) have been given the opportunity to address the Republican Convention during prime time?
I'm waiting for the answer.....
"Log Cable Republicans"
Yes, it is the much understood gay conservative cable installers constituency that is consistently shut out by those satellite-dish loving Republicans.
:) Just kidding Wz, couldn't resist......
WZ
finally something we can agree on....spell check would be great, be we would lose so many chances to attack one another.........but back to the topic.........what about gay direct tv installers.....they need a voice to
It had every thing to do with his outspoken position of support for prolife democrats and republicans.
Common sense says when you refuse to endorse your party's candidate for president, you don't get to speak at the convention to nominate your party's candidate, period.
The only reason Arnold Schwarzenegger is given a speaking spot at the Republican convention is Republicans desperately want to win California and it's electoral votes. They can't stand Arnold's pro-choice position but are willing to kiss his butt to try and get those electoral votes.
The only reason Arnold Schwarzenegger is given a speaking spot at the Republican convention is Republicans desperately want to win California and it's electoral votes. They can't stand Arnold's pro-choice position but are willing to kiss his butt to try and get those electoral votes.
Either that, or they're afraid that Ahnold will beat the crap out of them...
:-)
What is also not mentioned is that RP Casey Sr was a major-league jerk. He wasn't given a speaking slot because he was a big-time jerk who refused to endorse Clinton before the convention and because he was a sanctimonious jerk when it came to abortion.
The truth is always more complicated. If he were not a jerk, he would have spoken, in spite of the other two problems.
Well time to shed my "lurker" status and take part in the discussion. Going to take the easy road for my first comment by endorsing Wz's comment. I do indeed believe the reason Gov. Casey was denied the privilege to speak at the Democratic National Convention was his desire to deliver a speech supporting those in the Democratic Party who were pro-life. To deny this I believe is intellectually dishonest. Yes as Media Matters notes there were other "pro-life" speakers at the convention but, Media Matters also notes that none of them chose to speak about their "pro-life" views. Now granted it's only my opinion but I sincerely believe had any of these pro-life speakers voiced intention to speak about their pro-life views at the convention Media Matters would not be able to "note" that they had. Again just my opinion.
Now according to his biography Gov. Casey's letter to DNC Chairman Rob Brown voiced his (Gov. Casey's) displeasure with the Democratic Party's platform committee draft. http://www.themediareport.com/special/casey-1992-dnc.htm Add to this the fact that Gov. Casey was obviously a person who acted on his pro-life convictions as evinced by U.S. Supreme Court case # 505 U.S. 833. I think it's safe to say Governor Robert P. Casey did not go with the flow, did not follow the party line when the party line clashed with his beliefs, and most certainly would have spoken fervently and eloquently for those in the Democratic Party who were/are pro-life had he been given the chance at the convention in 1992.
So...what do we have here?. A pro-choice Democratic Presidential nominee Bill Clinton. A pro-choice Democratic Platform. A huge Democratic National Convention. A huge "live as it happens" media presence. And, now the proverbial "monkey wrench". An outspokenly pro-life and not afraid to voice his opinion Governor Robert P. Casey, who by the way would like to be a keynote speaker at the convention if you please.
Lets be honest here people. Had Gov. Casey been allowed to speak...well you do the math. In my opinion it has not been proven that Gov. Casey did not support the "Clinton-Gore" ticket. However, I do believe it has been proven that Gov. Casey did not support the entire Democratic Party Platform...the part of the Platform that wholly supported the idea of pro-choice. Therefore if the "ticket" supports the "platform" and those chosen to speak at the convention damn well better support the platform.
Come on people we're all pretty savvy when it comes to politics. Do the math. And please believe I say this with all the respect in the world for everyone here, and apologize ahead of time if anyone feels I am being purposefully antagonistic.
Sky
Sky, I don't think anybody's denying that Casey's intent to deliver a speech at odds with the dems platform of freedom in regards to reproductive choice could very well be one of the factors in deciding to not have him speak.
But that's irrelevant, and complicating things. This item is about an article saying that Casey was not allowed to speak simply because of his opinions.That's false, regardless of any other points that are disputed.
A QUESTION FOR CONSERVATIVES
I've made this point a couple of times in here, but no one has addressed it. I'm really curious if any will.
Let's say there is a prominent republican who is asked if he will endorse McCain's ticket. Let's say he refuses. Let's say he has shown antipathy toward McCain and is known to be occasionally beligerent.
Who here actually believes that that person would be invited to address the convention? It wouldn't happen.
That's the situation the Democrats were looking at with Clinton and Casey. It doesn't matter what his opinion was on the issue of choice. Under those circumstances he was not going to be invited to address the convention. It simply wasn't going to happen.
All of those conditions are ignored by those who really want to believe the main issue was Casey's anti-choice position. The fact is, the factors I listed were going to keep Casey off the podium, and the responsibility rests squarely on Casey's shoulders.
Very true. Here we are almost a full day since the topic came up, and only a little less than that since the hypothetical was raised, and no one has attempted to challenge the logic of it. They just keep on insisting that Casey's anti-choice position was the issue because that's what they want the answer to be.
Shoes replied to one of those posts, but all he did was ignore my point and restate his position.
At least AA gave us a good laugh by defending young-earth creationism.
Bill,
I only checked back in now and jumped to the end, so I don't know what fun you had with my reply. I only pointed out that YE is not a myth as it may have been you who said so. As I said earlier, it is a theory like Evolution or the the Big Bang. It is not a popular theory, but it does have rationale other than mythology.
By your line of reasoning the Big Bang is also a myth based on the idea that something springs from nothing. Uh.. okay.
As for Casey, I did not notice where in the timeline of events, it was established when Casey "refused" to endorse Clinton? Do you happen to know? That might go a long way toward helping your argument.
ps. I see the goalpost moving when the argument is lost. Skyzyx chronicled it very well. The argument I have been making all along is that MMFA guilty itself of promulgating a false headline by saying that Casey's own account of events is a false account. In fact that was Casey's position so it is a true account even if Clintonistas disagree with it. MMFA is (again) the one who is spreading false information.
No, young earth creationism is NOT a theory like evolution and the big bang. The theory of evolution and the big bang theory are SCIENTIFIC theories. In science, the word theory has a very specific meaning and is not applicable without a very high level of evidence support.
You are using the word in the more colloquial manner in which it can mean guess or wishful thinking. Young earth creationism has no scientific support, so it doesn't meet the first definition. It can meet the second, but there is no equivalence between the two.
I don't know when Casey refused to endorse the Clinton ticket, but it would have certainly been before the convention. If it were a factor, don't you think Casey would have pointed that out, given the level of petty whining he engaged in with regard to the entire episode?
There was no goalpost moving. Others argued a different angle than I did, but they were all legitimate. No one has yet been able to show where MMFA was dishonest. You all just seem to believe that repetition of the charge makes it true.
This is the second time someone has replied to my hypothetical republican scenario and completely ignored it. Tell me, AA, do you think the republicans would let that individual address their convention?
With all due respect to Col. and Bill. Ask yourself this question. And let me preface this by saying that I believe his (Gov. Casey's) support for the Clinton-Gore ticket was irrelevent to the powers that be when it came to making the decision to allow him to speak. Do you believe Gov. Casey would have been allowed to speak if he had gone on record prior to the convention supporting the Clinton-Gore ticket?
In my mind the argument over Gov. Casey's supposed lack of support for the Clinton-Gore ticket is a convenient smokescreen/scapegoat. In my opinion for what it's worth, and with todays inflation it's not too damn much I assure you, had Gov. Casey proclaimed his support for the Clinton-Gore ticket from day one he still would have been absent from the speakers podium at the Democratic National Convention. Gov. Casey's topic of choice and his views on that topic of choice would have kept him from that podium support/non-support for the ticket not withstanding.
If he really didn't support the Clinton-Gore ticket Gov. Casey gave the powers that be a convenient "out". And, if he did as he says support the ticket can anyone here honestly say the powers that be would have let him speak?
Do you believe Gov. Casey would have been allowed to speak if he had gone on record prior to the convention supporting the Clinton-Gore ticket? - AA
I believe he might have, yes. Possibly not, but it's hard to say either way. It's a pointless item for speculation for any purpose other than for attacking the party. The fact is, he removed himself from consideration for a convention speech. Once he did so, the other factors become irrelevant and useful only for "what if" speculation.
I might also point out that once again my hypothetical republican still hasn't been put up on that podium by any of our resident conservatives.
But, Gov. Casey's support or lack thereof for the ticket is a canard, a red herring. I respectfully submit you could not sit in front of me with a straight face and say Gov. Casey would have been allowed to speak had his support for the Clinton-Gore ticket been proclaimed from sea to shining sea prior to the convention. This is the important question Bill. In my mind it is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Whether Gov. Casey supported the Clinton-Gore ticket or not he was not going to be allowed to talk about his views (and the views of many other Democrats I might add) on abortion. Remember, prior to the convention Clinton was trailing Perot and Bush in the polls, and I seriously doubt that Begala, Carville, or Brown were of a mind to allow anything or anyone to detract from their plans for a successful convention. And, I'm sure their vision of a successful convention did not include TV and newspaper headlines screaming the likes of "Knockdown Dragout over Abortion issue at the Democratic National Convention...Popcorn optional".
I'm thinking Gov. Casey's vision of the purpose of the Democratic Convenion differed significantly from the collective vision of Begala, Carville, and Brown. I'm thinking Gov. Casey believed those within the party whose ideology may differ from the "chosen" platform might have a chance to voice their ideologies in the public forum that is the convention and thus have some influence on the platform.
Gov. Casey was denied his forum. Dissent was not tolerated.
P.S. With regard to your hypothetical Republican...were the shoe reversed, i.e. if we were talking about the Republican party instead of the Democratic Party my argument would be the same. And, I do agree with you...the Republicans would have done the same thing. In no way do they hold the moral or historical high ground here.
P.S.S You take it you seem to think I am a gentleman that post here going by the name of AnotherAmerican. I say this because of the AA you appended to my quote. Just want to say...I am not AA ;o)
Sky
"Gov. Casey's topic of choice and his views on that topic of choice would have kept him from that podium support/non-support for the ticket not withstanding."
I think they're both disqualifying factors. Mitt Romney could endorse McCain, but if he insisted on giving his speech on magic underwear and other wonders of Mormonism, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't get anywhere near the stage.