INTOLERANCE???

Maybe if the puppet Republicans were just a little INTOLERANT of this administration, they would have held the House and the Senate...and some lives would have been spared in Iraq and Afghanistan.

P.S. I hope your book tanks...

Media Matters is wrong ...

on this one. Sure, Casey wasn't banned "because he was pro-life," but he WAS banned because he wanted to deliver a fervent pro-life speech against abortion to the convention. To avoid an image of disunity, the Dems wanted to avoid this.

Research/facts: The Truth about Gov. Bob Casey and the 1992 DNC Convention.

Thank you.

MMFA is not wrong.

Media Matters is wrong on this one. Sure, Casey wasn't banned "because he was pro-life," --Shoes89

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I disagree. Lanny Davis made a factually incorrect statement that you even seem to acknowledge above: "His father, the governor of Pennsylvania, in 1992 was refused the microphone at the Democratic National Convention because he was pro-life."

That is demonstratably false. Other pro-life speakers were present, therefore that reason is wrong.

As to your point that Casey was going to make what can only be regarded as a divisive pro-life speech, I agree with you. It is however purely speculative as to whether that was the main reason he wasn't asked to speak. MMFA does not offer alternate explanations why Casey was not asked to speak in this article so I don't know how you can claim they are wrong here. It simply notes how Davis' statement is undeniably false.

When will this stop

Will we ever get to the point where we can stop this nonsense of trying to change history and change perceptions for political gain and just get to discussing what needs to be done to put this country back on the right course. For crying out loud it is this BS tactics that have created an atmosphere that has made it impossible for our democracy to funtion in any meaninful and constructive way.

as long as we have the Tommies of the world...

suggesting that market share is a sufficient method of measuring "truth" we will never get back the fairness doctrine. Capitalists will never bend to truth unless you force it down their bloody throats.

The Free Press is in its final throes, if you will...

Do they bother to question anything coming out of Karl Rove's mouth any more?

??????

Hey Nerzog, I'm not a huge fan of Karl Rove's, BUT what does he have to do with THIS thread. The words came out of LANNY DAVIS'S mouth not Roves.

Lanny, as you [might] recall was [and still is?] a VERY close F.O.B. [friend of Bill]

IF anyone would have the INSIDE SCOOP on this, I would think he would.

There are TWO different versions of WHY, Casey wasn't allowed to speak. One, he hadn't endorsed the Clinton-Gore ticket, or TWO, he wanted to give a PRO-life speech.

I would think an insider like Lanny Davis would know the truth.

Any reason why you think he'd lie?

JETER:

Davis has a book to sell.

To sell the MOST books, he has to make it appear as non-partisan as possible. So, he must claim that "both sides do it" equally, whatever "it" is.

In this case, it's INTOLERANCE that has to be spread around. The Republicans are PROUD of their lock-step "principled" stands on issues of intolerance, i.e. anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-union, anti-environmentalist, etc, etc. Republicans THRIVE on being intolerant to the different and those with overt populist ideas.

But Lanny has to sell his book, so he reaches for an example of Democratic Intolerance that will illustrate his "everybody does it" thesis. Problem is, his example is BOGUS. It may serve to say Casey was refused a spot on the podium because he was "Pro-Life" (on the abortion issue). But in reality, MANY "pro-life" Democrats spoke. Ooops. That couldn't happen if the Dems were intolerant, at Lanny seeks to demonstrate. Also, in reality, Casey refused to endorse the Dem's presidential nominations. Did any OTHER speakers refuse to endorse? Nope. THAT was the distinguishing characteristic, supportable by the record.

It may be that there are other examples of Democrats being intolerant, but Lanny Davis didn't find any other. He placed his "evidence" on an example that did not prove his point. If his book is similarly researched, he cannot expect it to be taken seriously.

JETER ERROR

I would think an insider like Lanny Davis would know the truth.

You might want to check a out another link at MMFA before you bluster bomb your opinion

[link to mediamatters.org]

Casey CLAIMED differently...

He CLAIMED he not only wanted to give a speech, BUT a speech on the subject of PRO-life. Other PRO-lifers who spoke at the convention did NOT touch on that particular subject.

BTW Mike, I hardly "blustered"....unless of course even questioning something here is considered "blustering" ;-)

This particular topic has SEVERAL different versions [depending on who tells it]. Casey claimed he was not allowed to speak because he wanted to address the subject of PRO-life. Davis says it was because Casey was PRO-life. Others have said it [the subject matter] had nothing to do with his being passed over. He refused to endorse Clinton-Gore.

Note, I did INCLUDE [in my previous post] the version that says he was not allowed to speak because he had not endorsed the ticket. See I'm fair & balanced...

How about you?

Seems Paul Begala and his client[Bob Casey] had DIFFERENT versions of what happen.

You AUTOMATICALLY believe the version that suits your bias. I question it BECAUSE there are too many differing opinions about what actually took place.

BOTH Begala & Davis are Democrats. So was Bob Casey...

And we all know no one ever fibs in politics... LOL

I automatically believe

The version that MAKES SENSE. He didnt support the ticket, that is not in dispute. The only reason to beleive any other reason was necessary to deny him a speaking spot is to further propaganda. Its as if I were a republican that didnt support the Bush/Cheney ticket and said I wanted to speak about supporting the people of Iowa then when denied a speaking spot went out and told people Bush/Cheny obviously dont support the people of Iowa since they didnt let me speak, a self serving statement. He didnt support the ticket nominated in the convention no party would give a speaking spot to someone who didnt support the ticket. Perhaps you can cough up a SINGLE EXAMPLE OF IT EVER HAPPENING. I dont care if he wanted to give a speech about how cute puppies are if you dont support the ticket you dont speak at a convention.

My answer...

"Perhaps you can cough up a SINGLE EXAMPLE OF IT EVER HAPPENING."...by solon

=====

How about I if just clear my throat instead and ask you to go READ open_mind's post:

- open_mind / Monday November 27, 2006 02:56:18 PM EST

Doesnt do it

There is a difference between not endorsing a candidate and not supporting the ticket. In 04 I would have supported SPONGEBOB against Bush, that doesnt mean I would go out and endorse spongebob putting my name behind him and saying what a great president he would make that is the difference between not endorsing a candidate and not supporting a candidate so I am still waiting show me a speaker who DIDNT SUPPORT the ticket

A fine point.

You make a good point and I do believe there is a subtle distinction. However Begala seems to use the two words synonymously:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"BEGALA: I was there. It's a point of personal privilege. I was there. He was my client. [The Clinton Campaign] did not let [Casey] speak because he would not endorse the ticket. Nobody gets to speak at any convention unless they support the candidate for president. That's the only..." --MMFA (all emphasis mine)

All endorsing is supporting

While not all supporting is endorsing in the same way that all insects are bugs but not all bugs are insects. If that distinction is not THE difference than I would agree your take is pretty much on the mark. Obviously they wouldnt want the sort of dischord an attack on pro choice dems would create at a convention. They dont have to appologize for that. Regardless the claim made in THIS thread is he was denied a speaking spot because he was pro life not based on what he was going to say, that is patently false. It is THIS talking point that I think needs a stake driven through its heart.

Okay.

Thanks for straightening me out. I understand what you are saying.

I was originally agreeing with Jeter2 (and still do) that it was likely the divisive content of the speech was the most logical and justifiable reason Casey wasn't asked to speak.

I will agree with you as well that it wasn't necessarily that Casey was personally pro-life that he wasn't asked to speak (as Lanny Davis falsely put it). That is demonstrably false as you said.

I agree.

Jeter,

I agree mostly with your take. It is the most logical.

I do have a problem with others who seem to point to this example as some form of "intolerance". Nominating Conventions are supposed to be a time when the party comes together (which previous Democratic Nominating Conventions had failed disastrously). I believe Casey was seen as a divisive force. I don't think there was anything wrong with not asking him to speak in any way.

No

The claim made in this thread, the one Caseys son made was NOT that he was going to give a devisive speech. It was that he was denied a spot because he was pro life and that shows intolerance. That claim is clearly false. No spinning possible can make it an accurate statement. Other pro life politicians DID speak. Casey did not support the ticket, not didnt endorse them but didnt support the ticket, THAT is obviously the most logical reason to deny him a speaking spot.

Hey open_mind,

Great points. Of course *the powers that be* want their Conventions to go smoothly with as little [if any] controversy as possible. That's just common sense.

Each party has their party platform. Everyone is supposed to stick to the script. Not only is that expected, it makes sense.

IF the Democratic Party did not want Bob Casey to speak, I'm sure they had good reason. And I AGREE with you 100% on this one, there was nothing wrong in asking him not to speak. Nor is it a good example of *intolerance*. Conventions are a time for UNITY, not debates OR in-fighting.

Nitpicking

I'm am going to be a little nitpicky with one phrase.

"there was nothing wrong in asking him not to speak." --jeter2

According to what I have read, Casey wrote a letter requesting to give a speech against the "abortion on demand" association with the Democrats. Ron Brown (as head of the DNC at the time) apparently did not respond to the letter.

No one asked Casey "not to speak". I am really not trying to be argumentative with you, but I think it is an important, but subtle distinction.

Rove is the source of most of these lies...

Or people who work for him. Why is Davis repeating the lie? As others have pointed out, maybe to sell the book...maybe he bought into the lie himself. He should know better, and the person interviewing him should know better, but they let it slide. That's how Rove has succeeded in building his house of cards on the foundation that the Republicans are the party of "moral values" and a "strong defense". It's all bullsh*t, of course, but the press just won't call him on it.

Hey Nerzog,

Yup you can blame Rove 99% of the time. HOWEVER in THIS instance Bob Casey was the one who CLAIMED he wasn't allowed to speak. No doubt Rove & Co. took THAT ball and ran with it. But Rove did not INVENT this one.

Now, PLEASE don't make me ever stick up for Rove again. It feels dirty ;-)

Well it isnt in dispute

That he was denied a speaking spot the question is WHY? So Casey said it was because he was pro life. That is the claim his son made, not that he was going to give a pro life speech, that is clearly false and is shown to be false. Has Casey ever made the CLAIM he was TOLD it was because he was pro life or wanted to make a pro life speech or is that a foray into mind reading. The reason given, a rationale that not only makes perfect sense but is itself indisputable is that he didnt support the ticket. That is what those who MADE THE DECISION said. There is no reason whatsoever to believe this is not true. Since Casey makes the claim it is his burden of proof to show it is accurate. That clearly has not been done. Anyway you look at it this claim should go away. It is NOT demonstrably true and other than being self serving propaganda there is no reason to give it credence

SOLON:

This is just another variation of the cowardly rightwing tactic of claiming evil motives of their enemies.

Let's say you support the CONSTITUTION, and although you are a devout Christian, you believe that the government shouldn't sponsor/display the Ten Commandments in front of the Courthouse. You believe that STATE adoption of religious trappings CHEAPENS religion, and you wish to defend your religious FREEDOM.

The Rightwing will accuses you of being ANTI-Christian.

Let's say you're a 4th generation member of a strongly military family, in which every male family member has served with distinction, but you believe the Iraq war ... started as it was on false premises, conducted incompetently, and with no exit strategy planned ... is a BAD war, and we should exit ASAP.

The Rightwing will accuse you of "hating the troops".

It's a Rightwing tactic to pervert the actual reasoning behind a policy stance, and instead accuse their political foes of the worst motives. The old standby is to accuse the ACLU of being "Pro-NAMBLA". The fact the the ACLU fights to protect Constitutional rights FOR ALL doesn't enter the reasoning. The fact that a RIGHT is meaningless if it can arbitrarily be denied to SOME citizens doesn't even scratch the brain surface of the Rightwinger. No, it's the basic, simplistic "FOR us or AGAINST us" reasoning.

This thread topic is but another example of the intellectual vapidity of the rightwing in America, combined with their deathless mean spirit.

Good point Tex

The assigning of venal motives based, basically, on nothing is a tactic of the rightwing. Though of neither of the two posters arguing with us today( I just want to make clear Jeter and Open Mind that this isnt about your well argued points today) It has been effective it IS dispicable. Your examples are perfect examples. Along with blurring the distinction between what is done and who we are. I cant believe people still fall for it., but it is right out of propaganda 101

True.

"It is NOT demonstrably true and other than being self serving propaganda there is no reason to give it credence" --solon

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To that, I can agree entirely. This whole thing appears to be pointless speculation. It would be better for Davis to avoid making speculative or argumentative points like this.

Lanny apparently wasn't in the loop.

Although Lanny's bio states he was a member of the DNC during that time period, I haven't seen where Davis was directly involved with the 1992 Democratic Nominating Convention. I don't think he would be a good source for info on it.

However, my take is that Casey was not asked to speak because Casey made his intentions to attack the pro-choice part of the Democratic Party quite clear. Democrats may claim the real reason is Casey didn't support the ticket, but there was another speaker, Kathleen Brown, who didn't support the ticket, but was asked to speak seemingly disproving that idea.

The other pro-life speakers (Breaux and Daley) were apparently not as divisive as Casey had intended to be.

I don't know what any "controversy" is about. I would presume that the only thing that would have satisfied these disingenuous critics would be for open civil war to erupt amongst Democrats at their own convention.

I would think the very last thing Democrats would want at a nominating convention is for political infighting to erupt. Would anyone expect Pat Buchanan (incidentally the 1992 Republican Nominating Convention Keynote speaker) to rail against the Iraq War and/or the President/other neocons at the 2004 Republican Nominating Convention? Of course not.

These are entirely PR driven events. The parties have the right to pick and chose the content of what they want to present to the people. Informed people know this and know what to expect. Anyone who expects an open forum of sorts is either being disingenuous or quite possibly a moron.

There is a distinction that is missing

While I see in the article that Kathleen Brown had not ENDORSED the ticket that is not the same as NOT supporting the ticket, which is what is said about Casey. I would not have ENDORSED Kerry for president on the other hand I did SUPPORT him as the candidate once he got the nomination so NO I would not agree that Kathleen disproves the contention that Casey was denied a speaking spot because he did not support the ticket.

Another rightwing

Undead talking point. Truth doesnt matter, reality is irrelvant, nothing will stop them from repeating it.

Lanny Davis

Is NOT a right-winger.

That is irrelvant

There are many examples of the conventional wisdom being repeated by those not rightwingers once it has been repeated enough. It doesnt CHANGE the fact it IS an undead rightwing talking point. Bottom line is Casey did NOT support the ticket. This is NOT in dispute. NO ONE in their right minds would expect a party to give time at their convention to ANYONE who didnt support the ticket. I dont care WHAT sort of speech he WANTED to make he didnt support the ticket and that alone disqualifiies him from any reasonable expectation of speaking. This spin is nonsense

Did anyone else notice

That a person writing a book criticizing "Gotcha" politics is practicing what he's supposedly preaching against?

BLR:

Good catch.

You can't keep a good lie down

Get ready to hear this old standby repeated in 2008, along side the air traffic diverted for Bill Clinton's haircut lie and the obligatory listing of all the people the Clintons have had rubbed out, and how Kerry insulted the troops and pretended to throw his medals over a fence, yada, yada, yada.

Of course, nobody will bring up that McCain's 5 years as a POW basically disqualifies him as a viable presidential candidate, since he's liable to have a Hanoi flashback and order a nuclear strike on Lichtenstein. That is, unless Rove is running Jeb's campaign.

Hat tip to Al...

That you know all these things is of course due to Al Gore having invented the Internets.

Look who's "intolerant".

>>>Davis: "We Democrats have been intolerant."<<<

Lanny Davis was a major supporter and advisor to the pro-Bush, pro-Iraq Fiasco Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, of course, is the former Democrat turncoat who couldn't "tolerate" having decisively lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont, and so cut-and-ran from his party to run as a so-called independent.

claim:

casey did not get to speak "because he was pro life". fact: others who were pro life spoke. therefore the claim is false. [by the way senator howell heflin later switched to republican.]

my error

it was senator richard shelby who switched.

This may be slightly off the main topic, but I couldn't help it -

" . . . and Bill Clinton was in control of that convention . . ." - Davis

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but since Clinton was, at the time, neither the incumbent president nor the official Democratic presidential candidate {until the moment the convention delegates formally nominated him}, how was he "in charge of the convention"? I assume the DNC was in charge of the convention - and thus in charge of who got to speak at that convention. This sounds to me like another "blame Cliinton" episode.

Joe Lieberman

This is just more of the same junk that the MSM pushes about Joe Lieberman. Democrats are intolerant look just look at Joe Lieberman. All the while they ignore Republicans pushing moderates out of office claiming they are RINO's (Republicans in name only). If a Democratic Congress wants to do itself a favor they should clamp down on the Media and Communications arm of the Republican party with a "new fairness doctrine" and refuse to meet with lobbyists from the companies engage in this openly hostile misinformation.