That was one of the best episodes of America I've seen

#DemConvention #DemsInPhilly

Forgive Us, O Lord, For This Dreadful Toadying

Our good friend Brad Bumstead over at the Trib included this in his reporting yesterday:

WHAT ABOUT GOD?: Critics took issue with Democrats’ decision to remove the only use of the word “God” from the 2008 version of their platform, comparing it to the GOP platform approved last week, which made 10 mentions of the word. GOP Chairman Reince Priebus linked to a blog mentioning the omission with the simple commentary, “WOW. Disgraceful.”

The blog linked to by Priebus is this one from David Brody at CBN.

The implication from Bumstead, of course, is that the Democratic Party is simply godless while the GOP is more fully washed in the blood of the lamb.

Brody, however, is a bit fairer (if only a bit) in that he includes the text from the Democratic Platform that mentions faith.  Here it is:

Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.

Those damned faithless apostates!  Hey, but what about those numbers?  Is there any context that can be used to better understand what they mean?

Of course there is.

Our good friends at Media Matters have an interesting take on this "story."  Take a look:

Fox News has fixated on the fact that the Democratic platform for 2012 does not mention the word "God," and used a misleading graphic that points out that the Republican platform for 2012 references "God" more often than the Democratic platform has in any of the last four election years. The graphic ignores that in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic platform contained the word "God" more times than the Republican platform in those years; moreover, the 2012 Democratic platform has a section on faith. [emphasis added]

You knew that was coming, right?  That must mean that Gore's Democrat Party in 2000 (or Kerry's in 2004) loved Gawd more than Bush's GOP, right?  Doesn't it?

Thanks, Brad.  Gave us a chuckle this morning.

Post-Gazette repeats old myth (Updated)

UPDATE: Daniel Malloy of the Post-Gazette responds here.
_____________________________________________


When can we finally retire the urban legend repeated in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today? Namely this:

The debate puts the first-term senator in an uncomfortable place. His father, former Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, challenged Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court and was infamously denied a chance to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his anti-abortion views.

The only thing infamous is how often folks in the MSM parrot this inaccurate recounting of history. A small sample of which includes:

Bill O'Reilly in 2004

Chris Matthews in 2004

USA Today in 2005

Hardball in 2005

Robert Novak in 2007

The New York Times in 2008

With so many august bodies repeating this claim should the P-G be given a pass?

NO.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own version of the facts and repeating the wrong information over and over and over again does not make it true.

For the hundredth time: Gov. Robert P. Casey Sr. was not denied a chance to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his anti-abortion views.

How do we know this? We know this because as Media Matters has noted (time and again):

Yet here's The New York Times, just last week: "Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies."

No. That is not true. That cannot be true. It cannot be the case that he was not allowed to speak because of his views -- other people with the same views were allowed to speak. Forgive the repetition, but reporters at nearly every significant news organization in the country are inexplicably incapable of grasping this extraordinarily simple concept. And when Media Matters pointed out the error, did the Times run a correction? No. The Times apparently stands by its transparent falsehood. That is not a sign of a newspaper that gives a damn about the truth. [Emphasis added]

Here are some folk with anti abortion views who have spoken at Democratic conventions:

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Sens. John Breaux (D-LA) and Howell Heflin (D-AL), and five other governors who opposed abortion rights did address the convention in 1992, as detailed in a September 16, 1996, article in The New Republic on the Casey myth. In addition, anti-abortion speakers have spoken at every Democratic convention since 1992, including Breaux in 1996 and 2000, former House Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-MI) in 1996 and 2000, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2000 and 2004.

So why was Casey Sr. denied a speaking spot?

First of all, there's no reason to assume that he should have been guaranteed a prized speaking spot. Second, his entire speech was about criticizing the Democratic party at their own convention about being out of touch (yes, about abortion) without any mention of the party's candidates. Third -- and most important -- HE REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE PARTY'S CANDIDATES (Clinton/Gore).

Do you think his refusal to endorse the party's candidates at the party's own convention had -- oh, I don't know -- something to do with him being excluded from getting a prized speaking role?

Seriously.

Yet somehow that little fact is never mentioned. NEVER. MENTIONED. And so the myth lives on another day.

[sigh]

.

Governor Casey Sr, James Carville and the 1992 Convention

I heard part of Fred Honsberger's show today.

I am not sure how the discussion started but by the time I turned on the radio, a caller named "Dave" (though it was NOT me - I go by "David" exclusively) was trying to convince my friend Fred that; No, Governor Casey (our current Jr. Senator's father) was NOT denied a slot to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention on because he was pro-life.

Fred said that Governor Casey himself told him he was in 1992. That part may be true but it's irrelevant. As we'll see considering that an important source of the myth is Governor Casey himself it's hardly surprising that he'd tell Fred that.

In fact, Casey was denied an opportunity to speak because he refused to endorse then-Governor Clinton's candidacy for the presidency.

When caller "Dave" claimed that James Carville said so, Fred countered by saying that it was Paul Begala who made that claim, not James Carville. Fred went on to say that Carville actually corroborated Casey's story recently.

This is a zombie story - it just won't die.

Luckily Jamison Foser has good condensation of the story at mediamatters.org. Here's the primary reason Fred's Casey story is wrong:

The Hill reports this morning that in 1992 "Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey (D) was barred from speaking at the DNC because of his anti-abortion rights stance."

This is a common claim, but it's completely false.

There were no fewer than eight speakers at the 1992 convention who opposed abortion rights. Therefore, it cannot be the case that Casey was barred because of his stance on abortion. [emphasis added.]

Foser writes elsewhere at mediamatters:

People involved in planning the 1992 Democratic convention have long maintained that Casey was not given an opportunity to speak because he refused to endorse Bill Clinton, who was to be nominated at the convention. That's what they said at the time, too. The Washington Post's first report on Casey's request for speaking time included a quote from the Democratic National Committee's press secretary: "anyone who is speaking at the convention will have endorsed Governor Clinton by the time of the convention and Governor Casey has not."

It should be noted that it wasn't merely that Casey hadn't gotten around to endorsing Clinton. He was arguing that Clinton had only a "flyspeck" of support and that the party should consider nominating someone else at the convention.

Yea, that'll make you lots of friends at a political convention. Foser again:

It's also important to keep in mind that Casey didn't merely want to speak at the convention. He wanted to devote his entire speech to opposing the Democratic Party on a single issue. After the convention ended, Casey released the text of the speech he would have delivered had he been given the chance. The speech ran more than 1,000 words -- and not one of those words was "Clinton." Nor was the word "Gore" mentioned. Casey's speech did not include a single word of praise or support for the ticket being nominated at the convention he wanted to address. Instead, it accused the party of being "far out of the mainstream and on the extreme fringe" on abortion. That's what the entire speech was about: disagreeing with, and insulting, the Democratic Party on abortion.

See? Casey, by releasing the text of the speech, was at the very least an important early source for the story. Whether he believed the myth is irrelevant now. Casey can't be used to corroborate his own testimony, in a sense.

Let's do a thought experiment to show why. Let's ask George W Bush if he ever thought he was lying and when he says NO we'll KNOW he was always telling the truth.

Yea, right.

In 1996, the New Republic published this (text via mediamatters.org):

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." [emphasis added.]

Then there's this from the New York Times in 1996. Note that while continuing the myth they wrote:

They (The White House) have always said that had he not declined to endorse Mr. Clinton in 1992, he would have been allowed to speak to the convention.

If only he'd endorsed, this whole myth would be lost in time, like tears in the rain.

Can anyone find for me Carville's corroboration about the '92 Convention? I can't seem to find it. Anywhere.

By the way, I wrote about this some time ago.