LA Times suggested Casey did not speak at 1992 convention because he was an "outspoken abortion opponent"
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times suggested that then-Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey was denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic convention because he opposed abortion rights. In fact, other Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then, so Casey's opposition to abortion rights could not have been the sole reason he was not given a speaking role.
In an August 18 Los Angeles Times article, staff writer Michael Finnegan reported that the Democratic Party was "trying to widen its base" by giving Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr., who opposes abortion rights, a speaking slot at the 2008 Democratic convention. Finnegan wrote: "For a party trying to widen its base, the move's symbolism was clear. In 1992, the Democrats denied a speaking role at their convention to the senator's father, the late Gov. Robert Casey, who was also an outspoken abortion opponent." In writing that "the move's symbolism was clear," Finnegan suggested that then-Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey was denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic convention because he opposed abortion rights -- an old, oft-repeated myth that, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, is false. Other Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then, so Casey's opposition to abortion rights could not have been the sole reason. Additionally, Michael Crowley of The New Republic reported in 1996: "According to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots, Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket."
Moreover, Finnegan reported that Sen. John McCain "branded televangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as 'agents of intolerance.' " Finnegan did not note, however, that in April 2006, McCain said he no longer believed Falwell was an "agent of intolerance" and delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University a month later.
From Finnegan's August 18 Los Angeles Times article:
In another nod to antiabortion voters, Obama has given a prime-time speaking slot at the convention to Sen. Bob Casey Jr., a Pennsylvania Democrat known for his opposition to abortion. For a party trying to widen its base, the move's symbolism was clear. In 1992, the Democrats denied a speaking role at their convention to the senator's father, the late Gov. Robert Casey, who was also an outspoken abortion opponent.
[...]
At least one justice will probably retire during the next president's term. A replacement named by the president could determine whether the court, which has been closely divided on abortion cases, overturns the ruling.
As a result, the Republican candidate's remark about Ridge in an interview with the Weekly Standard alarmed religious conservatives who have long been wary of McCain, who once branded televangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance."
The state of conservative media misinformation must be in dire straits lately. The two headlining stories around here lately are the 24/7 monitoring of a discredited author's whereabouts, and a 16 year old yawner of a story about a person who isn't even alive anymore.
I agree, Tommy.
And the facts from 1992 go against what MM is claiming:
"The Truth About Gov. Bob Casey and The 1992 DNC Convention"
July 15, 1992: CBS This Morning, Bob Beckel: "It's going to do a — take a lot to repair the damage there, I think. So they could have treated Casey better but don't underestimate — the Democrats are not going to try to fudge it on this issue. You've got to be choice on this issue."
Gov. Casey didn't support the ticket? That's untrue also.
July 19, 1992, New York Times, Gov. Bob Casey: "I support the ticket, period, end of quote."
Soon the news will consist entirely of people grunting.
Exactly.
The liberal mainstream media have nothing else to report about, so they are reporting on discredited authors and yawning stories. Is it MMFA's fault to bring it to notice?
OK, Tommy, you're a bright guy, and I know you understand this, but I guess we have to play the " give Tommy some attention" game.
This item is about an article in the L.A. Times today, August 18, 2008.It is not dragging up something that happened 16 years ago, it's mentioning something that happened today that dragged up something that didn't happen 16 years ago.
Happy, Baby? ;0)
On the plus side, this must be about the 10th MMFA item related to the Casey/Convention issue, and there don't seem to be any wingnuts still insisting that Casey was excluded for having anti-abortion views.
Tommy, you can whine all you want about the repetition of items indirectly related to certain topics here, but when the slow learners on your side show that it takes that long for them to figure it out, you may want to aim your complaints at them rather than MM.
Tell you what, harl, I'll answer you so you don't have to continue talking to yourself.
"For a party trying to widen its base, the move's symbolism was clear. In 1992, the Democrats denied a speaking role at their convention to the senator's father, the late Gov. Robert Casey, who was also an outspoken abortion opponent." In writing that "the move's symbolism was clear," Finnegan suggested that then-Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey was denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic convention because he opposed abortion rights [ ... ] that [ ... ] is false. Other Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then, so Casey's opposition to abortion rights could not have been the sole reason."
Mmfa claims intimate and ultimate knowledge on this subject. Yet they STILL have NOT provided any proof of their claims. Only conjecture. They still can only say "could not have been the sole reason" as their defense of their arguement. Is that pleading or is it a statement? Tommy is right, mmfa is whining about stale bread and you lefties are gobbling it up like fresh from the bakery bread. Simpletons are easy to please and mmfa proves it daily. It could not have been his distaste for slick willey, even SW said he would have allowed Casey to speak. Oh man, now I sound like mmfa-- pleading for a reason to convince all the minions.
Good job, harl, you seem to be one of the key simpletons, keep up the good work.
Good job, harl, you seem to be one of the key simpletons, keep up the good work.
I had a good laugh over you calling someone else a simpleton, Philib. Someday you'll be able to look up "simpleton" in the dictionary, and it will say "See 'Philib'."
"Someday you'll be able to look up "simpleton" in the dictionary"
I looked it up, as you suggested (I used your spelling of the word, just in case mine was incorrect). I found that I used it correctly. For a minute there, I thought I hadn't. You are usually accurate when you correct my grammar. After all, you are a professional writer, are you not?
What would you call a group of people who clammor for a reason to believe other than the commonly accepted one given by the top professionals in a given profession?
'They still can only say "could not have been the sole reason" as their defense of their arguement. Is that pleading or is it a statement?'(philib)
It's a statement. A true statement. Congratulations, King of the Simpletons.You're in a class of your own.
A true statement! You are so correct. What other reasons are you using today to go along with the accepted reason?
Sounds a lot like the arguement for global warming; most experts agree with the accepted reason, a few don't agree with the accepted reason. Therefore 'most experts' must be correct.
"so Casey's opposition to abortion rights could not have been the sole reason." and "Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket."
Well, mmfa, how you going to prove that one? On one hand you insists their must be more than one reason. On the other hand you insist there is only one reason. That's one way to cover all the bases at the same time, huh? I wonder which reason you want your simpletons to respect more, the 'not the sole reason' or the 'one simple reason'. After this thread times out, we'll count how many support one reason over the other and post the results on the next thread about this same subject. Which will be Tuesday or Wednesday.
The simple fact (that the simpletons don't understand) is that you don't know the real reason and are just upset that the media has chosen a reason you don't like and you want your simpletons to agree with your reason. And, you will whine about an unknown until all your minions agree with you.
We know the reason it's not. It's not because he was anti-abortion.
Media types have been saying that it's because he was anti-abortion. It's not. So Media Matters points out that misinformation that forwards the conservative agenda by falsely portraying the Democratic Party as not being open to people who are anti-abortion!
It's the import of the false meme that causes Media Matters to cover this.
The fact that they cannot determine with 100% accuracy what the exact reason or combination of reasons was that he was denied the right to speak matters not. The lie that he was denied because he was anti-abortion (and we know it was a lie) furthers the conservative agenda and therefore gets covered here.
"The fact that they cannot determine with 100% accuracy what the exact reason or combination of reasons was that he was denied the right to speak matters not. The lie that he was denied because he was anti-abortion (and we know it was a lie) "
Your opinion is it's a lie. The fact you point out "that they cannot determine with 100% accuracy" only supports my statement that mmfa is merely expressing their opinion with nothing to support it other than they 'think' that's the reason. When you can say with 100% accuracy of the reason, you have a point. Otherwise, merely a strawman arguement....along with the rest of them.
"The fact that they cannot determine with 100% accuracy what the exact reason or combination of reasons was that he was denied the right to speak matters not. The lie that he was denied because he was anti-abortion (and we know it was a lie) "
Your opinion is it's a lie. The fact you point out "that they cannot determine with 100% accuracy" only supports my statement that mmfa is merely expressing their opinion with nothing to support it other than they 'think' that's the reason. When you can say with 100% accuracy of the reason, you have a point. Otherwise, merely a strawman arguement....along with the rest of them.
It's not my opinion. The facts are that other anti-abortion Democrats spoke at the convention. So it's a lie that he was denied a speech because he was anti-abortion.
You're the liar. You've proven that countless times.
"The facts are that other anti-abortion Democrats spoke at the convention. So it's a lie that he was denied a speech because he was anti-abortion."
You don't know that. Perhaps the 'deciders' had enough pro-life speakers and they didn't want any more. After all, it was the democratic convention. Why would they load their speaker schedule up with all pro-lifers? Which, if they did decide there was enough pro-life speakers and didn't want any more, would make the 'he wasn't allowed because he was pro-life' a correct statement. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is certainly a possibility.
You can use any excuse you want, but until you can say definitevly(sp?) it is no more a "lie" than saying he was rejected because of his distaste for Clinton.
After being accused of "navel gazing" by a member of this forum I seriously wondered if posting here was worth it. This topic begs for something more then cash register honesty from all of us.
All one has to do is a bit of research. Casey was an avid pro-life Democrat. And, as a pro-life Democrat he disagreed with the Democratic Party Platform's whole hearted embrace of the pro-abortion faction of the party. Much is made of the fact that "Other Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then..." However, nowhere do I see where these "pro-life" speakers actually spoke about their pro-life views. Sorry, but that doesn't sound very "pro" to me. Sounds a bit like tokenism to me...you know...see see we allow opposing viewpoints here...(yeah as long as those opposing viewpoints aren't actually voiced). Conjecture on my part ?. Nah.
Conjecture this. Casey wanted to speak for the pro-life faction of the Democratic Party at the convention. He didn't hide his intentions. The convention organizers knew what Casey was going to talk about if he was given the chance to speak. Casey wasn't allowed to speak. A Democratic Governor who won his last election by over 1 million votes, expanded health care services for women, introduced reforms to the state's welfare system, and introduced an insurance program for uninsured children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Casey#Governor) was not allowed to speak. The reason given. Casey didn't endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket. Just what exactly does "not endorse the ticket" mean. Do we equate not wholly supporting the Democratic Platform as not "endorsing" the ticket ?. So "lock-step" is the word of the day here. Let's delve further. Where is the proof that Casey didn't "endorse" the ticket. As far as I can tell we have a they said/he said standoff here. Begalla and Carville say the reason Casey wasn't granted a speaking spot was because he failed to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket. Casey begs to differ and says he was denied the speaking spot because he wanted to talk about his views on abortion. Where's the myth ?. Dispute perhaps. But myth ?.
Add one more thing to the mix. If the Democrats didn't screw the pooch on this one why did Gore call Casey to apologize after the convention. Not, only did Gore apologize but he denied that either Clinton or him (Gore) were responsible for what happened. Seems to me one doesn't apologize for a mistake unless a mistake was made.
Sky
There's a huge difference between he was denied because he was anti-abortion and he was denied because he demanded to be allowed to have his entire speech be about his issues with the Democratic Party and abortion.
Sorry that you're so blinded by your own prejudices that you can't see those huge differences.
National Presidential Nominating Conventions are not the place for people who don't vocally support the nominee before the convention to rail against the party's chosen platform in a one-note speech.
Ms. Blonde,
I certainly beg to differ with your assertion that I am "blinded by my prejudices". I fail to see where you see "prejudice" in my response. With all due respect please be kind enough to point out to me exactly what part of my response was dictated by "blind prejudice" on my part.
You stated the following in your response..." There's a huge difference between he was denied because he was anti-abortion and he was denied because he demanded to be allowed to have his entire speech be about his issues with the Democratic Party and abortion." So maybe I'm dense but in order for one to talk against abortion wouldn't one have to be anti-abortion ?. And, please don't chant the tired mantra "Other Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then..." Again, none of these "anti-abortion" Democrats talked about their views on the subject. I'm sorry but anti or pro...given the forum wouldn't a person of conviction voice their opinion given the chance to do so ?. I'm sorry but saying your anti or pro anything means nothing. You walk the walk else you're a poser plain and simple. You want proof. Lets look at the records of the "anti-abortion" speakers allowed at the convention versus Bob Casey's record. How many of them actually acted on there stated convictions ?. Casey went all the way to the highest court in the land in support of his convictions. Please find something that any of those "anti-abortion" speakers did as a Democratic politician to promote the cause of the anti-abortion Democrats. So yes he was denied a spot on the podium because he was an anti-abortionist...a true anti-abortionist. Not someone who gives lip service to the phrase.
As far as your statement regarding the convention not being the place for someone to voice an opinion that goes against the party platform. Are you telling me all Democrats are pro-abortion ?. Are you telling me the minority hasn't a right to have a voice at their party's convention ?. Wow, where did those rules come from ?. Sounds kind of Orwellian if you ask me.
Sky