Obama Offends the Catholic Left

[SpeakInSilence]

This is a couple of days old, but it’s a good read. Hope you can see it.

"When Barack Obama secured his party’s nomination for president in 2008, one group of Democrats had special reason to cheer.

These were Democrats who were reliably liberal on policy but horrified by the party’s sometimes knee-jerk animosity to faith. The low point may have been the 1992 Democratic convention. There the liberal but pro-life governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Sr., was humiliated when he was denied a speaking slot while a pro-choice Republican activist from his home state was allowed."

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577179110264196498.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

 

[ConcernedApathy]

This is a couple of days old, but it’s a good read. Hope you can see it.

"When Barack Obama secured his party’s nomination for president in 2008, one group of Democrats had special reason to cheer.

These were Democrats who were reliably liberal on policy but horrified by the party’s sometimes knee-jerk animosity to faith. The low point may have been the 1992 Democratic convention. There the liberal but pro-life governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Sr., was humiliated when he was denied a speaking slot while a pro-choice Republican activist from his home state was allowed."

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577179110264196498.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

This idea that Casey was not allowed to speak because he was anti-choice is pure mythology mostly purported by Casey himself and now continued by his son. He was not allowed to speak at the convention because he wouldn’t endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket. That’s all. Why on earth would you let someone speak at the convention who didn’t support the chosen candidates? Poking more holes in this claim is the fact that at least 8 anti-choice people did speak at the '92 convention.

There is no “knee-jerk animosity to faith” in the Democratic party but the idea remains a convenient rallying point for the Right.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Wow, well I guess that’s strange.

It’s about time they joined the club.

 

[puzzleannie]

Pelosi and Sibelius don’t act or sound offended.

 

[KevinAK]

This idea that Casey was not allowed to speak because he was anti-choice is pure mythology mostly purported by Casey himself and now continued by his son. He was not allowed to speak at the convention because he wouldn’t endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket. That’s all. Why on earth would you let someone speak at the convention who didn’t support the chosen candidates? Poking more holes in this claim is the fact that at least 8 anti-choice people did speak at the '92 convention.

There is no “knee-jerk animosity to faith” in the Democratic party but the idea remains a convenient rallying point for the Right.

Barrack Hussein Obama and Kathleen Sibelius try to force Catholic health care workers to accept a provision of Obama care that contradicts Catholic teaching. Nancy Pelosi is offended by Catholics because they have a conscience.

Why would I think there is a “knee-jerk animosity to faith” in the Democrat party?

It’s not a convenient rallying point for the right – it is the truth.

I look forward to seeing the dictator Obama thrown out of office.

 

[Ancient1]

Not “pro-life” but “anti-choice”?!? Those two expressions do not equate to the same thing, linguistically or politically.

Irrespective of Obama, Casey, et al… “anti-choice” sounds like pretty knee-jerk leftist terminology to me.

 

[ishii]

This idea that Casey was not allowed to speak because he was anti-choice is pure mythology mostly purported by Casey himself and now continued by his son. He was not allowed to speak at the convention because he wouldn't endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket.

Source?

the fact that at least 8 anti-choice people did speak at the '92 convention.

Who were the 8? Source?

There is no “knee-jerk animosity to faith” in the Democratic party but the idea remains a convenient rallying point for the Right.

So using the phrase" they cling to their religion" is not a rallying cry to the secular left which controls the Democrat party?

Ishii

 

[Gift_from_God]

Here we go again with the Obama’s non-existent anti-Catholicism

 

[dmelosi]

This idea that Casey was not allowed to speak because he was anti-choice is pure mythology mostly purported by Casey himself and now continued by his son. He was not allowed to speak at the convention because he wouldn’t endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket. That’s all. Why on earth would you let someone speak at the convention who didn’t support the chosen candidates? Poking more holes in this claim is the fact that at least 8 anti-choice people did speak at the '92 convention.

There is no “knee-jerk animosity to faith” in the Democratic party but the idea remains a convenient rallying point for the Right.

You misspelled pro-life

 

[estesbob]

This idea that Casey was not allowed to speak because he was anti-choice is pure mythology mostly purported by Casey himself and now continued by his son. He was not allowed to speak at the convention because he wouldn’t endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket. That’s all. Why on earth would you let someone speak at the convention who didn’t support the chosen candidates? Poking more holes in this claim is the fact that at least 8 anti-choice people did speak at the '92 convention.

There is no “knee-jerk animosity to faith” in the Democratic party but the idea remains a convenient rallying point for the Right.

Simply not true. Kathleen Brown spoke and she had not endorsed the ticket. Casey did in fact endorse the ticket.

themediareport.com/special/casey-1992-dnc.htm

Rumors spread about why Casey was not allowed to speak. Some said that Casey did not fully endorse the candidates, while others said that he it was a matter of timing and there was not enough time for everyone to speak who wanted to. However, the main consensus as to why Casey was not allowed to speak was because of the fact that he wished to deliver a pro-life speech. This was not a welcomed thing from pro-choice supporters Clinton and Gore. Casey noted in his autobiography that the Democratic National Convention was supposed to be about unity, inclusion, and even friendship. He stated, “I merely wanted a chance to speak, to offer a strong dissent based on the party’s historical commitment to protecting the powerless.” On the second day of the DNC, Casey took out a full-page ad in the New York Times, which was signed by pro-life Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives. The ad was entitled The New American Compact: Caring about Women, Caring for the Unborn. Also another blow to Casey at the DNC was the selling of pins that had Casey dressed as the pope. Casey said that these were a case of “anti-Catholic bigotry.” Despite the humiliation from his own party, Casey remained a loyal Democrat



pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Casey__Robert_Sr.html

 

[SteveGC]

You misspelled pro-life

lol

 

[Trigonometric]

Here we go again with the Obama’s non-existent anti-Catholicism

His admnistration has mandated that Catholic hospitals provide contraception. Contraception is mortally sinful. He might not dislike Catholics for being Catholic, but he obviously dislikes Catholic morality to the point of using the force of law against it.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

Source?

Who were the 8? Source?

So using the phrase" they cling to their religion" is not a rallying cry to the secular left which controls the Democrat party?

Ishii

One from '08
mediamatters.org/columns/200808150014

One from '04
mediamatters.org/research/200406290002?f=s_search

Since its a very old lie the 1996 article by Michael Crowley called “Casey Closed” from which a good chunk of the Media Matters article derives and which quotes James Carville and Paul Begala both of whom were there and especially Begala who was involved in the decision doesn’t seem to be available online. If you can dig it up, be my guest.

“Meanwhile, television commentators linked the controversy to the grousing that Casey was being denied a speaking spot, reportedly because he would not agree to muffle his anti-abortion stand (as other “pro-life” Democrats had agreed to do from the lectern).“I was told that Casey was not to be on the platform, was not to give a speech, and that was the end of it,” said Mike Berman, the longtime convention scheduler who controlled access to the lectern.”
scrippsnews.com/node/35501

As for the speakers:
“Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin and at least 5 others.” Again, if you can dig up records from 20 years ago about who the other 5 were, be my guest.

Regarding the quote, he later clarified; “But the underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so. People feel like Washington’s not listening to them, and as a consequence, they find that they can only rely on the traditions and the things that have been important to them for generation after generation. Faith. Family. Traditions like hunting. And they get frustrated.”

I don’t see a problem with that.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

Simply not true. Kathleen Brown spoke and she had not endorsed the ticket. Casey did in fact endorse the ticket.

themediareport.com/special/casey-1992-dnc.htm

Rumors spread about why Casey was not allowed to speak. Some said that Casey did not fully endorse the candidates, while others said that he it was a matter of timing and there was not enough time for everyone to speak who wanted to. However, the main consensus as to why Casey was not allowed to speak was because of the fact that he wished to deliver a pro-life speech. This was not a welcomed thing from pro-choice supporters Clinton and Gore. Casey noted in his autobiography that the Democratic National Convention was supposed to be about unity, inclusion, and even friendship. He stated, “I merely wanted a chance to speak, to offer a strong dissent based on the party’s historical commitment to protecting the powerless.” On the second day of the DNC, Casey took out a full-page ad in the New York Times, which was signed by pro-life Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives. The ad was entitled The New American Compact: Caring about Women, Caring for the Unborn. Also another blow to Casey at the DNC was the selling of pins that had Casey dressed as the pope. Casey said that these were a case of “anti-Catholic bigotry.” Despite the humiliation from his own party, Casey remained a loyal Democrat

http://bp3.blogger.com/_XrQfuoanXAc/R2CGvDPRDUI/AAAAAAAAA2o/WQ0EnOxYQnM/s400/PopeGovernorCasey.jpg

pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Casey__Robert_Sr.html

Brown was a committed delegate for her brother Jerry who was still a candidate at the time. It wouldn’t have been appropriate for her to endorse Clinton before the initial ballot.

Casey endorsed Clinton days after the convention with a less than enthusiastic statement, up until then he had refused. Brown couldn’t endorse. That’s the difference.

 

[ishii]

]

As for the speakers:
“Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin and at least 5 others.” Again, if you can dig up records from 20 years ago about who the other 5 were, be my guest.

Regarding the quote, he later clarified; “But the underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so. People feel like Washington’s not listening to them, and as a consequence, they find that they can only rely on the traditions and the things that have been important to them for generation after generation. Faith. Family. Traditions like hunting. And they get frustrated.”

I don’t see a problem with that.

Ha. Your examples of three pro-life politicians (and “five others”!) didn’t even mention abortion in their speeches, did they? But by golly, they were pro-life! But Casey, the prominent governor - more prominent than a mayor of Chicago - the only Democrat with the courage to speak about his convictions on abortion - was denied the opportunity. With the denial of Casey, the transformation of the Democrat party from the party of the working man to the party of abortion was complete. Your article is merely, “Paul Begala says…” Of course the party hacks like Begala and Carville are going to tell a different story to protect their party. Most objective people can see right through that. The Democrat party tolerates pro-life views like North Korea tolerates political dissent. And where is this mysterious text of the Casey speech that supposedly was entirely about abortion. Casey was a warrior for the truth. Too bad there aren’t any more like him in the Democrat party. The Republican party could use the competition, but there isn’t any.

Ishii

 

[ConcernedApathy]

Ha. Your examples of three pro-life politicians (and “five others”!) didn’t even mention abortion in their speeches, did they? But by golly, they were pro-life! But Casey, the prominent governor - more prominent than a mayor of Chicago - the only Democrat with the courage to speak about his convictions on abortion - was denied the opportunity. With the denial of Casey, the transformation of the Democrat party from the party of the working man to the party of abortion was complete. Your article is merely, “Paul Begala says…” Of course the party hacks like Begala and Carville are going to tell a different story to protect their party. Most objective people can see right through that. The Democrat party tolerates pro-life views like North Korea tolerates political dissent. And where is this mysterious text of the Casey speech that supposedly was entirely about abortion. Casey was a warrior for the truth. Too bad there aren’t any more like him in the Democrat party. The Republican party could use the competition, but there isn’t any.

Ishii

I’m sure the other 8 politicians didn’t speak about abortion which is precisely my point. Casey contended that he was kept off the stage simply because of his anti choice views which wasn’t true. At least 8 others with those views were quite welcome to speak. He was kept off stage because he refused to support his party at a crucial time. The fact is he didn’t want to endorse Clinton and that was certainly enough of a reason not to allow him on stage. But in addition to that if he planned some sort of firebomb anti abortion speech contrary to the rights of women that Democrats support than he should have been doubly snubbed. But that still wouldn’t have been the main reason. After the convention he went on vacation instead of bothering to campaign for Clinton. He behaved like a petulant child because he didn’t get his way.

As for being party hacks Begala served as a strategist for Casey’s 1986 gubernatorial campaign and Carville who consulted for the same bid and ran his campaign in 1990. To the best of my knowledge they liked the guy…at least back then. Being involved first hand I’m inclined to believe them.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here. A political party should allow someone to speak at a national convention who doesn’t support the chosen candidate and is withholding his endorsement unless he gets his way? Or should they allow someone to take the stage and give a speech that goes specifically against the party’s platform?

He did say one thing I liked though in regards to why he didn’t switch over to the Republican party after his “humiliation”; “The pro-life Republicans drop the children at birth and do nothing for them after that.”

…quite a “warrior for the truth”.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Here we go again with the Obama’s non-existent anti-Catholicism

His administration also recently argued before the Supreme Court that they have the authority to impose the women priests onto the Catholic Church, if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Nevermind that it’s impossible.

We can’t judge the President’s heart any more than we can any one else’s, but his policies most clearly and dangerously are vehemently anti-Catholic.

It’s nothing new in American history though. Being founded on the principles of Protestantism and largely influenced by Freemasonry, there has alwasy been a very strong anti-Catholic power base in the United States. The antagonism against the Church isn’t new, but it is intensifying.

Pax Christi

 

[scipio337]

I’m sure the other 8 politicians didn’t speak about abortion which is precisely my point. .

Silencing dissenting view at a national convention? Heck of a way to run a party!

 

[bexdad]

Wouldn’t the word “mandate” be considered “anti-choice”?..seems like the loaded language is a double edged sword in this case.

 

[estesbob]

Brown was a committed delegate for her brother Jerry who was still a candidate at the time. It wouldn’t have been appropriate for her to endorse Clinton before the initial ballot.

Casey endorsed Clinton days after the convention with a less than enthusiastic statement, up until then he had refused. Brown couldn’t endorse. That’s the difference.

The difference was Browm was pro-abortion, Casey was not. And of course there were no buttons being sold on the floor of the convention mocking Brown.