MM is attempting to revise history. It's sad, it's dishonest, and it's not based on facts.

"The Truth About Gov. Bob Casey and the 1992 DNC Convention"

1. Casey wanted to deliver a pro-life speech defending the dignity of the unborn. The DNC would have none of that, and the facts show this.

2. Gov. Bob Casey didn't support the ticket? Uh-uh. Here's Casey 3 days after the convention: "I support the ticket, period, end of quote." (NYT, 7/19/92)

Is that your website in the link, Shoes? That is a adorable. It almost looks like a real website!

Is that your website in the link, Shoes?

I don't think so, Watershed. Creating that website would have required an attention span of 3 or 4 minutes.

From the article MMFA highlights:

"Also speaking that [Wednesday] night will be Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), an antiabortion Democrat whose father was denied a speaking slot at Bill Clinton's nominating convention in 1992 because of his opposition to abortion,"...

Michael Crowley, 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."

----- 

Pro-life Democrats spoke in 1992.  They've spoken at subsequent conventions.  The story that Casey was prevented from speaking because of his anti-choice views is not credible on its face.

In addition, even if the site you linked to is truthful (which I don't concede), Casey saying something supportive of Clinton three days AFTER the 1992 convention has nothing to do with what happened BEFORE and DURING the convention.  Surely you understand the concept of linear time?

More importantly, the principals have consistently indicated that Casey didn't get to speak because he hadn't endorsed the ticket.  Unless someone can prove they're lying or even that they have a motive to lie, their recollections have to be given credence.

The article I posted above addressed BOTH of those points:

1. Kathleen Brown addressed the convention, and he didn't endorse the ticket!

2. None of the so-called pro-life Democrats who addressed the convention breached the topic of abortion at all. On the other hand, Gov. Casey wanted to deliver a pro-life speech that defended the dignity of the unborn and excoriated abortion. That's the reason Gov. Casey was banished.

Also:

1. Why did DNC members allow buttons to be sold with a picture of Casey dressed as the Pope?

2. Why did pro-choice DNC officials search out Casey with a camera crew to try to humiliate him?

3. Why did Al Gore call Gov. Casey the next day to apologize for the way Casey had been treated?

MM is attempting historical revisionism, and it's a shame.

Way to set up a straw man and then knock it down.

The lie about Casey has never been "he was denied a speaking spot in 1992 because he was going to talk about being anti-abortion."  The lie has been "he was denied the chance to speak because he was anti-abortion."

Both your straw man and the actual story that refuses to die are both false, as Begala and Carville and contemporary media accounts make clear.

1. You are right! The LIE, like you said, was "he was denied the chance to speak because he was anti-abortion." But the TRUTH is that he was denied because he wanted to deliver a pro-life (anti-abortion) speech. That's the difference, and that's what the article articulates.

2. "Contemporary media accounts" do NOT make clear Carville and Begala's positions.

July 15, 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."

July 15, Daily Oklahoman: Asked why Casey was not allowed to speak, [James] Carville said, "The convention schedule is set. The Democrats of the country have spoken as to the direction they want the country to go," he said in defending refusal to deviate from Clinton's agenda.

July 16, CNN, Gov. Roy Romer: "There's a process. We went through the process. Governor Casey had a full hearing. The majority of the Democrats didn't buy his position. I respect him very much, but there is no slight to Governor Casey."

Contemporaneous media reports support Casey as well.

The Media Matters weekly posting destroys your arguments. I'm not surprised in the least.

2. Gov. Bob Casey didn't support the ticket? Uh-uh. Here's Casey 3 days after the convention: "I support the ticket, period, end of quote." (NYT, 7/19/92)

Great. Three days AFTER.  What a zinger.  Now all he need to do is fill up his Delorean with Plutonium and hit 88 miles per hour...

Shoes,

If you're going to argue, don't make it so easy.  90% of the rest of that site are just claims that Casey himself makes.  Big deal.  The guy was bitter.  *Yawn*  Why you con's even bother with stuff like this is beyond me.

1992 is long gone. I would rather know what Cheney is planning/doing at this moment. The washington post could be of better service to this nation than ressurecting/revising  history.  The newspapers and the people that bring it to life have a duty to inform us of current events and how these events affect our everyday life. 

I would rather know what Cheney is planning/doing at this moment

Me too.  The problem is, no one knows what these cretins are doing behind closed doors.  Total secrecy, no oversight, and guess what - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the government gets more incompetent and corrupt, and soldiers continue to die.

What Mukasey said the other day about not proceeding further with the investigation of the Justice Dept. regarding politicized hiring would have made me aghast except I have been in that state perpetually for about the past 7.5 years.

Mukasey can now go to Crawford, Texas and pick up his new assignment.

Bomb Iran?

worsen the conflict between Russia and Georgia (Georgian President was dumber than ours, if possible, in my opinion)? 

Produce another low level alqueda operative and have the networks report as equivalent of bin laden?

sign some secret executive order that does who knows what and seal it to be opened 100 years later? 

 -- Casey's opposition to abortion rights alone could not have been the deciding factor -- mmfa

Ye gods...what is the fixation for mmfa to relive a convention that happened 16 years ago?

Stating that other pro-life democrats were given speaking slots is really pathetic. Casey Sr. proposed to give a pro-life speech in the slot that he was seeking...none of the others made the same proposal.

Casey did not endorse Clinton...a big factor in not getting a speaking slot. Casey also wanted to give a pro-life speech...just as big a factor in not getting a speaking slot.

mmfa's obsession with this topic is now beyond tedious...it's bordering psychotic. 

A lie, no matter how old, is still a lie.

On the contrary, I think MMFA's commitment to exposing media misinformation, no matter what the scope, quite commendable.

And it ws the Post that brought it up, Wesley. In case you forgot.

When information comes from the media that furthers the conservative agenda, then Media Matters covers it.

It matters not when that lie originated.

The lie, told today, furthers the conservative agenda by pretending that the Democrats aren't open to dissenting positions WRT abortion.

The truth is that their convention is not open to main speakers who have refused to endorse the nominee.

If Democrats weren't open to allowing other, anti-abortion Democrats to speak, that would be a thing to knock them on. The evidence shows that lie to be untrue though - they are willing to allow anti-abortion Democrats under the big tent.

The truth, that it was Casey's refusal to endorse the nominee before the convention that kept him from speaking, doesn't damn the Democrats at all. That's a reasonable decision to make.

It doesn't forward the conservative agenda to fairly portray the reason that Casey didn't get to speak.

Because it does forward their agenda to lie about it, Media Matters covers it!

what is the fixation for mmfa to relive a convention that happened 16 years ago?

If the media didn't have a fixation for continuing to push a conservative lie about a convention that happened 16 years ago, MMfA wouldn't have anything to be fixated over.

Maybe MMFA is still trying to knock down the false story told about the 1992 convention because people like the "journalists" at the Washington are still using this lie to illustrate current events?

if you would be more careful in reading this stuff

quote-Ye gods...what is the fixation for mmfa to relive a convention that happened 16 years ago?

you would notice MMFA is noting the Washington Post is the medium elevating this to a current events status.

Etal:

The term anal-retentive , commonly abbreviated to "anal", is used conversationally to describe a person with such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, and can be carried out to the detriment of the anal-retentive person. -- wikipedia

Yeah, but to be anal-retentive, Media Matters would need to be harping on a subject unnecessarily.

And it's not Media Matters that's harping on any subject unnecessarily. The subject Media Matters concentrates on is conservative misinformation. That's info in the media that's not reliable or accurate or credible that forwards the conservative agenda.

Saying that the Democrats weren't open to differing ideas from people who were anti-abortion (they were open to those people, because several people who were anti-abortion did get to speak at that convention) furthers the conservative agenda.

It's you who apparently is anal-retentive. You're the one who, despite numerous attempts to educate you as to the reason this story, and other stories, are covered here, still can't restrain yourself from the WITH argument.

Look in the mirror, Wesley. Look in the mirror and explain how your obsession with trying to say that Media Matters is posting about something they shouldn't be posting about isn't a perfect example of being anal-retentive about something!

 -- they were open to those people, because several people who were anti-abortion did get to speak at that convention -- bottleblonde

One little fly is doing a backstroke in your soup...they were invited to speak but didn't feature a pro-life agenda in their remarks. 

Wesley, you are full of babble. Reinforcing your babble with more babble "ain't" doing you any good in the credibility section of your credentials.

"Casey did not endorse Clinton...a big factor in not getting a speaking slot. Casey also wanted to give a pro-life speech...just as big a factor in not getting a speaking slot."

What a bizarre post.  You note two perfectly understandable reasons why Casey was denied that spot, which are directly relevant to the misinformation in question.  So you must realize that the "opposition to abortion" quote by the Post is utter bunk, yet MMfA is supposed to ignore it because if they address the continuing misinformation on this subject then they're borderline-psychotically obsessed.

I guess as long as some people are called out on a lie, others are free to spout the same lie without it being documented here. 

Brab, my only confusion is about what, exactly, I should be amazed at; That some people don't understand the concept here, or that they understand it, and think they're going to trick non-wingnuts into not understanding it.

BS is repeatedly spewed by the media. MMFA reports this repeated spewing.Is it that difficult to figure out who is not facing reality?

I guess in Wingnutville, the cops can only make one burglary arrest after the town is established.Any subsequent arrests of different burglars, or repeat offenders, is "obsession".

So, who is more irrelevant? The WP or MMFA? That indeed is a tough call.

Ed, I get the feeling that "eat the dog doo"r "don't eat the dog doo" is a tough call for you.