Talk:1992 Democratic National Convention
|WikiProject Elections and Referendums||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject United States / Government / Presidential elections||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
...a Republican from Pennslyvania who had worked for Casey's 1994 GOP opponent...
Something severly wrong with that statement.
Its written past tense in an article talking about an event that happened in 1992. No clue what it should be, if the date is wrong, or what - but just thought I would point it out.
Nat Hentoff TNR article as an inadequate source
I'm not convinced that the Hentoff article is a reliable source. If this text is accurate, which I assume it is, then it seems more like an op-ed piece than a news piece. We wouldn't use a newspaper editorial saying "the U.S. needs to invest in space travel technology" to support a POV statement to that effect. I'd appreciate another, more reliable source that recounts the camera crew story, or else I don't think it passes WP:V. Croctotheface 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Casey section is now about as long as the rest of the article combined. While this event deserves mention, featuring it this prominently gives it undue weight (per WP:NPOV) compared to the rest of the article. I will endeavor to reduce its size. Croctotheface 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should have its own article then - Bob Casey controversy at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. --Briancua 08:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is really something that a broad group of editors with varying points of view should weigh in on. My opinion is that this is a minor controversy that should not overshadow either the 1992 campaign or Casey's long career in government, both of which are of much greater importance than what we're talking about. I question whether the event is notable enough to merit an article unto itself: it strikes me more as a footnote in history that Republicans have recently started pushing heavily to paint Democrats as intolerant of pro-life viewpoints. The controversy is fundamentally "he said, she said." The only facts that we can really verify are that Casey did not speak, he said it was because of X, the party said it was because of Y. If we need to start digging in op-ed pieces and taking their assertions as fact in an attempt to paint a more complete picture, that's very troubling and fundamentally unencyclopedic. Croctotheface 09:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Did he or did he not endorse the ticket?
I have yet to see evidence that Casey endorsed the Clinton/Gore ticket before the convention began. All I've seen is the quote that's in the article, which he gave after the convention had ended in the context of refusing to campaign for Clinton. Croctotheface 23:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I once read that the speaking spot Casey would have had was given to a pair of Republicans because they (the two Republicans) were pro-choice. However, that does not appear to make sense, given the information in the article. Was there anything to that, or is it mis-information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Jerry Brown speaking at the convention
The strategy for Jerry Brown to second his own nomination came from myself. I represented Brown on the Democratic National Platform Committee, as well as assisting in opening the Brown convention offices in New York and participating in meetings both in Washington D.C. during the platform hearings and in New York. At one meeting the discussion focused on how to get Brown a speaker's spot at the convention, as he didn't want to endorse Bill Clinton. I came up with the idea of him seconding his own nomination, and that's what was decided upon. It was a very interesting month, both in D.C. and in New York. Randy Kryn 2:48 May 17, 2012 (UTC)