Does it strike anyone else as more than a little coincidental that the media keeps hyping the Casey story as if millions of Americans really and truly cared about who spoke at what convention 16 years ago at the same time that the wingnut brigade has decided to try to use abortion as their latest wedge issue?

I know i could care less what happened in 1992.

I know i could care less what happened in 1992.

Two things happened in 1992 that were very important to me:

1 - I started dating the woman who has been my wife for 15 years now.

2 - Bill Clinton was elected, ending 12 years of GOP mismanagement at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (the Reagan/Bush disasters).

But can you remember with perfect clarity the shock and horror that went through you the moment you discovered that Casey wouldn't be speaking?  Do you remember the long vigils of the protestors over this horrible injustice, the hours spent writing letters to newspapers across the country to get the attention of a populace that just had to know what crimes were being perpetrated and the despair at losing this hugely significant battle for free speech everywhere?

Yeah, I don't remember it either.  But that couldn't possibly be because this story is trivial and unimportant at all.  If that were the case the media would never devote so much time to it when there are stories about pantsuits and orange juice and some kid somewhere missing and hey they got a new judge on Idol..............

Moon, it is a bit strange in a conspiracy sense. It seems that any piece of trivia that will show the Dems to be disingenuous is harped, harped, harped upon. 

MM is not being upfront, folks.

The truth is that Casey was not denied a speaking spot because of his "pro-life views" per se. He was denied because he specifically wanted to deliver a speech that defended the dignity of the unborn and oppose the Democratic Party's stance on abortion.

Such a speech would have thrown any image of "unity" at the convention into chaos, so Casey was denied. It's that simple. Read for yourself.

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

MM is trying to revise history. Not cool, IMHO.

And again, so what if that's true?  He still wouldn't have been rejected for "his views" in and of themselves, and it's hard to blame anyone for wanting to maintain a sense of unity.  It hardly makes him a victim of anything but his own actions.

It's hard to take anything seriously from someone who claims that Casey's grudging endorsement three days after the convention proves that Casey was supportive of the ticket before the convention.

"And again, so what if that's true?  He still wouldn't have been rejected for "his views" in and of themselves, and it's hard to blame anyone for wanting to maintain a sense of unity."

   'So what if that's true?' ?!?  If it's true then mmfa IS trying to change facts. If that's true mmfa is hawking misinformation and lies. If that's true mmfa has wasted a lot of time trying to convince themselves of another reason. If that's true mmfa is the guilty party in whining about truth and trying to change it into a liberally acceptable idea. But, considering that IS there mission, I wouldn't doubt it is happening. What's the old story about the boy who cried wolf too many times? Similar situation with mmfa...when they try to change truth into lies too many times people just naturally figure they are doing it each and every time.

   It's nice to see some liberals haven't lost their ability to think for themselves. Congrats barbie.

No, because there's justifiable reason to believe what MMfA is saying.  Casey had an ax to grind, so his account is suspect, and his own words three days after the convention show that he didn't support the ticket.  MMfA isn't "guilty" of anything just because they're not taking Casey's account as unblemished gospel. 

You're conflating "facts", which are accepted truths, with ultimate truth.  It's a fact that we landed on the moon in 1969, while there's some possibility that it never happened (not that I believe that).  Even if it was actually faked, you wouldn't be "changing facts" to say that we landed on the moon in 1969 just because someone claims it was faked.  You have a good faith argument that it actually happened, even if the ultimate truth is that it didn't.

So what I'm saying is that even if the ultimate truth is that Casey was denied a spot because he was going to give a rabid pro-life speech, then quotes about how he was denied simply for "his views" are still misinformation, and it doesn't make Casey a victim of any sort of unjust discrimination.  It would still be entirely reasonable to refuse him a speaking role, even by Casey's own account.

"MMfA isn't "guilty" of anything just because they're not taking Casey's account as unblemished gospel." 

   They are guilty of something when they take information they don't know is true and telling people it is true and the only possible truth.

"So what I'm saying is that even if the ultimate truth is that Casey was denied a spot because he was going to give a rabid pro-life speech, then quotes about how he was denied simply for "his views" are still misinformation, and it doesn't make Casey a victim of any sort of unjust discrimination."

   That's what I'm saying also. Casey isn't a victim of anything in mmfa's agenda to smear history. He is merely a pawn in the liberal agenda to change truths into something they demand it to be. Mmfa is the guilty party. And, I notice they don't even talk about this until the guy is dead and buried. That way the man can't defend himself. Typical liberal theatrics.

"They are guilty of something when they take information they don't know is true and telling people it is true and the only possible truth."

There's no reason for anyone in the media to believe otherwise.  It's obvious that he didn't support the ticket, and there's no reason to believe Casey's version.  Therefore it should be accepted as fact. 

"That's what I'm saying also. Casey isn't a victim of anything in mmfa's agenda to smear history. He is merely a pawn in the liberal agenda to change truths into something they demand it to be. Mmfa is the guilty party. And, I notice they don't even talk about this until the guy is dead and buried. That way the man can't defend himself. Typical liberal theatrics."

So he's not a victim of their agenda to smear history, but you're complaining that he can't defend himself.  Interesting.

You're inconsistent.  You chide MMfA for stating something not absolutely certain to be true, yet you feel comfortable in saying that they're changing truths.  So you're asserting something to be absolutely true, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say it was changed.  This was talked about any number of times before he died, and it's ridiculous to say that misinformation can't be addressed because the subject of it is dead.  Besides, he already wrote about it, so what else do you expect him to say on top of that? 

"It's obvious that he didn't support the ticket, and there's no reason to believe Casey's version." 

"This was talked about any number of times before he died, and it's ridiculous to say that misinformation can't be addressed because the subject of it is dead.  Besides, he already wrote about it, so what else do you expect him to say on top of that?"

   You mean where he gives 'his' version? The reason you discount because he gave it? Also, I don't remember mmfa talking about this subject until just recently.

"You mean where he gives 'his' version? The reason you discount because he gave it? Also, I don't remember mmfa talking about this subject until just recently."

Look, everyone knows that what Casey wanted to do is inappropriate.  It's not a partisan thing.  If someone wanted to give a long, impassioned speech in favor of gay marriage at the RNC, that would be wildly inappropriate.  Anyone who insists on doing that can be accurately described as a fanatic in that regard, and so they lack credibility when they say that was the sole reason they were denied a speaking role.

I didn't really mean to imply that it was brought up on MMfA before he died, since he died in 2000 and MMfA started in 2004.  The story has been forwarded since the convention itself, and I've heard it rebutted since well before 2000.

"Look, everyone knows that what Casey wanted to do is inappropriate.  It's not a partisan thing.  If someone wanted to give a long, impassioned speech in favor of gay marriage at the RNC, that would be wildly inappropriate. "

  So, what you're saying is that the reason he was not allowed to speak was, in fact, because of his views on abortion. Well done, barb! 

   If someone wanted to make an impassioned speech on gay marraige and was denied that opportunity, I'm sure the media will tell the truth that the reason was because of the passion about gay marriage the person had. Although, mmfa may try to change that fact/truth by repeating itself over and over again until ALL it's minion believe what they are told to believe. Another good anology by the parrots of mmfa.

No, I'm saying that at least part of the reason was that he wanted to give a long speech about abortion.  That is not the same thing as "his views" on abortion.  Behavior is not the same as belief.

If someone wanted to give a long, impassioned speech about gay marriage at the RNC and was refused, it would be wrong for the media to say that they were denied a spot because of their "views" on the issue.  It would create the impression that it was prejudicial, when it wasn't. 

When you find the guts to defend your positions you might be taken seriously.  Until then, eff off you annoying insect.

Keep inking to that great site, Shoes. A big pile of hearsay, and reviews of newspaper reports of the event, on a lovely yellowish background with red underlining at the "important" parts. It gets funnier every time you do it.

   Yeah, I like the way they 'red underlined' that picture of Clinton with the "pro life president" banner in the background. If there ever was a president who needed abortion being legal, it was Clinton. I wonder how many he secretly paid for?

*snort*

You lose.

Tonight, Wolf Blitzer FINALLY corrected the story on CNN, after Paul Begala spoke up to refute this old chestnut. He thanked him for the real story....

Let's see if it sticks. 

The thing is, this doesn't show the Democrats to be any thing at all. So they didn't let someone speak at their Convention. So what. I'm sure you could find cases of people not being allowed to speak at the Repugnants Convention as well. Probably for being too "moderate". I don't understand how this is any kind of story. I heard Casey's son being interviewed on NPR today and they repeated it yet again. Yawn.

That's what I keep thinking. Why do they keep bringing this back up? Why is this an issue now? It was, yes, 16 years ago that this happened. I know why they keep bringing it up, because the republicans this time around don't have much to run on, they're moving back to their base of operations. Gays. God. Guns. Abortion. I haven't seen much about God and Guns, but I'm sure that's coming soon. Something about how Obama is going to take your guns away, or something like that, which is of course, silly and ridiculous, just like they're trying to gin up controversy about abortion again.

OK, republicans, and or right wingers, take a breath. Guess what? It's not going to be illegal, ever again. Especially when Obama gets 2 terms in the White House, he'll have plenty of time to put some decent jurists into the Supreme Court who recognize settled law.

That's what I keep thinking. Why do they keep bringing this back up? Why is this an issue now?

It's "get out the vote" drive for Republicans. ANYTHING that mentions abortion will be used, even if it's not relevant and 16 years old.

Stay tuned, the "defense of marriage" will be the next get out the vote drive. Gay's are holding a gun to marriage and Republicans have to stop it. <sarcasm>

It must also be noted that other speakers who did not endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket, such as Kathleen Brown, California State Treasurer. Indeed, Casey's lack of endorsement before the convention must be taken into account into why he did not receive a speaking slot, but his anti-abortion stance cannot be ignored. No other anti-abortion speakers at the 1992 or later conventions spoke on the issue of abortion in a way or with such conviction as Casey intended. His pro-life stance definitely played a strong role in his being snubbed, and that fact cannot be ignored.

His pro-life stance definitely played a strong role in his being snubbed

Congratulations, you're the 500th poster to assert that. Care to try for "first to support it with some evidence"?

But this is NOT a falsehood.  I love this site, and it totally bugs me that this keeps cropping up.  No doubt the knee-jerk brigade here that haunts these comments will take me to task, but I'm sorry, nothing will change that Media Matters is wrong, at least in this one key aspect.  And I don't understand why it's so important.  Pro-life Democrats know their place, we know the party doesn't use reproductive rights as a cynical election ploy...the GOP has done little but issue rhetoric in spite of their opposition to abortion.  The Democratic Party has done so much more to reduce the need for abortions, which is why I'm a proud member.  Still...

Put it in context.  Yes, other pro-life speakers spoke, but none of them were nearly as vociferous as Governor Casey.  He was going to deliver a speech that was highly critical of the Clinton-Gore ticket with regard to abortion.  Consider, too, the mishegas that ensued thanks to his Pennsylvania legislation, the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, enacted in 1989.  Many Democrats were seething after <i>Planned Parenthood v. Casey</i>, which everyone believed at the time was the most serious threat to <i>Roe v. Wade</i>.  Casey was lambasted by his own party here in Pennsylvania for his positions.

At the end of the day, the reason he did not support the Clinton-Gore ticket was because of conflicting positions on abortion, ergo he was not allowed to speak because of his position on abortion.  The DNC platform of 1992 was also the first that opted for a full paragraph on a woman's right to choose.  Look at every platform from 1976, 3 years after <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, the language of the platform, if it went beyond mere bylines about financial access, largely included inclusivist language that spoke of respect for those with ethical and religious objections to abortion.  The Clintons and the party both wanted to be the pro-choice party, and allowing a high-profile Democrat like Governor Casey to speak to that was obviously not going to be helpful.

Even as a pro-life Democrat, I don't understand why the party should have to be ashamed of the honest reasons why Casey was denied a speaking opportunity.  Is it because we want to create this narrative that the Democratic Party has been the unequivocal champion of reproductive rights from 1973 forward, when it has not been?  It is now, that should be all that is important, and it helps make the case that the big tent of the DNC allows for us to find internal compromise on this most vexing issue.

"At the end of the day, the reason he did not support the Clinton-Gore ticket was because of conflicting positions on abortion, ergo he was not allowed to speak because of his position on abortion."

No, that doesn't follow.  There is no way to infer "opposed the ticket because of his position on abortion" from "was not allowed to speak because of his opposition to abortion rights".  There's nothing to indicate that meaning whatsoever.  It comes off as prejudicial, having nothing to do with behavior, and that's a major difference.

"Is it because we want to create this narrative that the Democratic Party has been the unequivocal champion of reproductive rights from 1973 forward, when it has not been?  It is now, that should be all that is important, and it helps make the case that the big tent of the DNC allows for us to find internal compromise on this most vexing issue."

There's also a major difference between accepting alternative points of view and accepting fiery speeches condemning part of the platform and the candidates themselves.  If there needs to be a gathering to hammer out a compromise, then that can be arranged.  A nationally televised event that is supposed to sell the public on the unity and vision of the party is simply not the place for it. 

The bad thing about this meme is PBS has done it too on both nights so far. Monday night Mark Shields the supposed "liberal" analyst brought it up then Tuesday night Jim Lehrer brought it up and David Brooks agreed with Lehrer. I expected Brooks to spout this but certainly Mark Shields and especially Jim Lehrer since he is the anchor and supposed to be impartial. I'm still sure PBS is doing a better job of keeping things impartial than the other talking heads.

Oops add not to "certainly Mark Shields....." I forgot it.     :O

Chris Matthews pushed this meme as well on MSNBC, as they went to Casey's speech live Monday.

MMfA eds, please update this item.