Novak repeated myth about Casey at 1992 Dem convention
In his January 4 nationally syndicated column about how Democrats who oppose abortion rights might vote on upcoming stem cell research legislation, Robert D. Novak echoed the oft-repeated myth that "the late [Pennsylvania] Gov. Robert Casey" was "[d]enied the podium at the 1992 Democratic national convention because of his anti-abortion views."
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, several Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every subsequent convention. Moreover, in a 1996 article in The New Republic, Michael Crowley wrote that, "[a]ccording to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots," Casey was denied a speaking slot at the 1992 convention because he refused to endorse the Clinton-Gore presidential ticket, not because of his stance on abortion, as Media Matters has also noted.
From Crowley's 1996 article in The New Republic:
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. "It's [Casey's claim that he was denied a convention speech because of his pro-life views] just not factual!" stammers James Carville, apoplectic over Casey's claims. "You'd have to be idiotic to give a speaking role to a person who hadn't even endorsed you." "Why are you doing this to me?" moans Paul Begala, who, with Carville, managed two Casey campaigns before joining Clinton's team in 1992. "I love Bob Casey, but my understanding was that the dispute was not about his right-to-life views, it was about the Clinton-Gore ticket."
[...]
Furthermore, a slew of pro-life Democrats, including Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five governors, did address the delegates in 1992. Though the speakers didn't dwell on abortion, party officials say they weren't barred from mentioning the issue.
From Novak's January 4 nationally syndicated column:
Near the top of the new Democratic congressional majority's agenda is passage of federal embryonic stem cell research legislation vetoed last year by President Bush, a measure that will answer a major question. There is no doubt the new bill will pass both houses of Congress. What remains in doubt are the votes to be cast by newly elected Democrats who campaigned as pro-life advocates, particularly Sen. Bob Casey Jr.
Outside the boundaries of his state of Pennsylvania, Casey is best known as the son of the Democrat most revered in the pro-life movement: the late Gov. Robert Casey. Denied the podium at the 1992 Democratic national convention because of anti-abortion views, the elder Casey planned a serious independent campaign for president before being stopped by poor health. But will the son, less ardent a pro-lifer than the father, vote against the stem cell research bill as he once promised during the campaign? Will seven self-described pro-life Democrats newly elected to the House do the same?
why does he get airtime again?
quit stealing my jokes!
you decide, some else reports..
Hey, check out this video of Novak freaking out. [link to www.youtube.com]
And this one. [link to www.youtube.com]
Damn it. I kind find that other video, where Robert Novak said the Daily Show takes "delusions of grandeur," and then later said he never saw it. And then Jon Stewart says, "Really? I heard my show was very popular among 140-year-old vampire demons."
... glad there are some people out there who can call out these jokers (Novak is a freakin' traitor in my mind). Good stuff.
MMFA: "Casey was denied a speaking slot at the 1992 convention because he refused to endorse the Clinton-Gore presidential ticket, not because of his stance on abortion ..."
Both MMFA and Novak are wrong here! Casey was denied a slot to speak because he wanted to deliver a fervent pro-life speech, essentially denouncing the party's alliance with the pro-choice lobby, which had thrown its powerful support behind Gov. Clinton.
The facts and solid research show this:
The Truth About Gov. Bob Casey and The 1992 DNC Convention
Check it out.
My two cents. Thank you.
>>"The facts and solid research show...Both MMFA and Novak are wrong here!"
Don't bother wasting your time on the link the thrice-banned, Franken-obsessed, fact-ignorant "Shoes89" (current moniker) provides. It goes to the daily-pablum-for-right-wingnuts, the (discredited, disreputable) Newsbusters spinoff, the so-called "Media Report".
Short version of the linked article: Casey wasn't allowed to speak because of his abortion views. Why?? Because Casey & Media Report SAY SO!
That proves that!!
Well, not exactly (to use Shoes own words)....
You won't find any "solid research" directly related to the point-at-hand. Interestingly, the FACT that other, pro-life people DID speak at the convention, isn't addressed in the article. Conveniently.
dave_chicago: "Interestingly, the FACT that other, pro-life people DID speak at the convention, isn't addressed in the article. Conveniently."
Yes, it is!: "In fact, a number of pro-life Democrats did address the DNC convention, but no one stirred the abortion issue ."
Not cool, d_c. The fact is there.
Thank you.
Obviously, Mr. Shoes (or do you prefer "infoguy", your pre-banning moniker?) you do not understand the meaning of the word "addressed". (Just as you don't understand or, more likely, ignore, the terms of use of this site.)
Since you're obviously very preoccupied with stalking Al Franken's every utterance on your discredited "frankenlies" joke of a web site to look-up the meaning, here it is for you:
Addressing: Thinking about, or DEALING WITH, an issue.
What's the "issue?", you may tax your right-wing, lizard brain asking. The issue is that IF Casey was not allowed to speak due to his pro-life views, then why were other pro-life people allowed to speak?
If you are inferring that other pro-lifers were allowed to speak with a condition that they were PROHIBITED from mentioning the dread word "abortion", then you will need to provide some proof of your claim (a novelty for you wingnuts, I know...) other than simply saying, "'cuz I or newsbusters say so.".
Also, in your non-Franken-stalking moments, perhaps you can ADDRESS how it can possibly be your claimed "solid research" (your words) that Casey couldn't speak due to being pro-life, when the only "research" you provide is that Casey and the right-wing Media Report say it's so. And even Casey doesn't really say, "it's so" for that matter.
"Solid research" would be that mined from several, varied sources--not from Casey himself, who obviously has his own defensive, self-promoting interests in mind, or from the wingnut-agenda-driven, laughably-biased Media Report.
In fact, in the article you linked to, Casey does not even unequivocally state he was banned from speaking because of his views. He, in fact, only asks a question. In the quote, Casey doesn't flat-out say, 'I was banned from speaking because I'm pro-life".
I wonder if there are any pro-choice advocates on the Republican side of things that were denied the podium because like Casey they weren't supportive of the nominated tandem, perhaps Bush-Cheney. We'll never know, and you know why we'll never know. Because liberals aren't frothing mad about non-issues like the Bob Casey "story". Liberals don't fabricate controversies out of whole cloth for the sake of roiling the waters. We prefer to rely on FACTS vs. weak assertions shrouded with the mantle of ostensible fact that is actually just a fervently stated opinion.
Enthusiasm for a point of view does not transmogrify it to fact, nor does a website or a hundred websites eagerly bleating to the same monotone drum.
that he is the author of. do i know that for sure? no, but when you read the link through to the bottom he mentions both franken and media matters.
Say otherwise. THEY say it is because he didnt support the ticket. We have been over this before. Your take isnt as outrageous as NoFacts but I still dont believe it and unless you can PROVE you have amazing mind reading powers and KNOW that Carville and Begala are lying when the say what their reason is then I am not going to be convinced PS I dont belive in amazing mind reading powers no matter how often you guys on the right trot them out.
still gets microphone time ????
Casey was most likely not denied speaking because of his views. But maybe he WAS denied speaking because he wished to deliver a speech about those views. Is that so strange? Do you think John McCain would have been allowed to speak at the Bush/Cheney GOP convention, if he wanted to deliver a speech about the importance of reigning in presidential powers regarding torture?
Any party would be foolish (from the point of campaigning) to allow people with a radically different view than what the core of their voters and the party officials have on a significant issue to speak about that issue on a national stage. That doesn't mean they are barring those people from the party, or from expressing those views in a different setting.
From Bob Casey's autobiography "Fighting for Life" pg 191:
"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."
Why do the Democratic party get the blame for abortion. Abortion was a Republican agenda of the wealthy elit of the eastern elite of our nation. Congressman George Bush of Texas made it his goal in life when he was on the Ways and Means committee that was reserved for him by his father Senator Prescott Bush, to make abortion on demand, sterilazation, and birth control available to all the poor women in the world. It was because of Congressman Bush's congressioanal hearings on the threat of over-population in America combined with the Blue Ribbion Rockefellar commission on the same issue who demanded President Nixion make Abortion on demand for all the women in the United State; the kaw of the land. It was just after the commission handed in their bias attack, on the poor and non-whites on welfare, reported to the President that Roe vrs Wade became the law of the land. History does not record of the Bush's personel influence being used on the Supreme Court, who knew many of the Justices, including Justice Potter, a Yale graduate. History does not record that Yale was the home of Americas Eugenics program that was greatly blessed with the monies of this nation Wealthy families who believed in race purification. The Wealthy who had a close relationship with the Supreme Court, who, themselves believed in Yale's Eugenics program used their personal influence on the Supreme Court, to make Abortion on demand ,the law of the land. Population control was apart of the Wealthy Republicans Elit Eastern establishment war on social spending to remove non-whites off the welfare role because they had to many children. This is an ongoing war to defeat FDR's administrations efforts to help the american people when Wall Street took their wealth out of this nation while hurting the american economy, only to rebuild the German economy and its war machine. This nation needs to get its history correct. Abortion would not be an issue if it was not for the efforts of the Republican party and the influence of the Bush clan. Get it right!