Oh it goes on:
[Gilgoff:] Did your father's experience color your own reaction to learning that you'd been accorded a speaking role during prime time?
[Casey:] Everybody remembers 1992, but I also have memories of the 1988 convention, when [my father] did speak about the economic struggles our state had. So I think about more than one convention. What happened in 1992 is something people are talking about, the subject of a lot of discussion, but it's important to look ahead and not just recollect about the past.
You'd think maybe Bob Casey Jr. would put the matter right since this whole incident is an utter falsehood, but I suppose he can't contradict dear old dad (who, if he didn't create the story, repeated it frequently.
Media Matters has been on the case:
Here's all you need to know in order to know with absolute certainty that Casey's views on abortion were not the reason he was not given a speaking role: that very same Democratic convention featured speeches by at least eight people who shared Casey's anti-choice position, including Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Sens. John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five governors.
See, it turns out that the Clinton campaign was actually a little more concerned with the little fact that Bob Casey Sr. had refused to endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket.
More MM:
BEGALA: I was there. It's a point of personal privilege. I was there. He was my client. We did not let him speak because he would not endorse the ticket. Nobody gets to speak at any convention unless they support the candidate for president. That's the only...
NOVAK: He wouldn't speak because he was pro-life.
BEGALA: That's not true, Bob. I was there. I helped make that decision. And you did not. This, I know firsthand.
Even more, in the New Republic (quoted in the Daily Howler):
Indeed, the more one examines the version offered by the Democratic hacks [sic], the more compelling it seems. Casey's claims to a speaking slot were tenuous from the outset. He was about to retire from politics, and convention speeches are usually allotted to those running for re-election. "It wasn't like he was going to be on there and they said, Well, you're off now,' or something," Carville says. Besides, Casey repeatedly bashed Clinton during the primaries, calling Clinton's success "very tragic." Less than three months before the '92 convention, he urged, "Convention rules provide for the selection of an alternative candidate. Let's pick a winner." Why would Clinton invite him to speak?
Now, I have commented to this effect at the Gilgoff's blog, but my comment was not published. Guess we can't have any facts getting in the way of a great narrative about Casey Jr's "redemption" speaking slot tonight.
All of this is just so convenient for lazy narrative-addicted journalists (including Time proper which also buys into this) since it allows for the perfect establishment myth: The Democrats moving right, softening on choice. Some may argue that is happening (or not) but the argument should not require appealing to some mythical time where the intolerant and dissent stifling Democrats of 1992 were censoring pro-life members of the party, when that wasn't the case. Casey wouldn't endorse the ticket, had frequently criticized it and had no other particular reason to expect a speaking slot anyway. There were lots of Democratic governors, did they all get prime-time slots?
Here's more from Gilgoff, enjoying his concocted story of Democrats shifting on choice:
[Gilgoff:] Does your inclusion on tonight's speakers' lineup send a message that the Democratic Party has changed on abortion?
[Casey:] The fact that I'm speaking is really a testament to Senator Obama's willingness to reach out to people who disagree with him even on important issues. It's emblematic of his ability to put coalitions together on an issue and to bring all sides together. He's not just talking about that, but acting.
See, Obama is unlike that well known rabid liberal Bill Clinton.
Look for Casey himself to repeat this myth tonight. He's 2 speakers back from the Warner Keynote, some time between 7 and 8PM Denver time.
Ironically, Wikipedia gets this one better than the Caseys and Gilgoff.
I know I, Atrios and Media Matters are just DFH's here, but damn it Time/Beliefnet: You just got beat by Wikipedia. Besides, I thought it didn't get more establishment than Carville and Begala, both of whom were actually there when this decision was made. Don't first hand reports mean anything to the media anymore?
More instances here. Please, let's have more lectures from the traditional media about blogger "disinhibitation."
Update:
An email says:
You are right that he was not denied a speaking slot because he was pro-life, but there's evidence he was denied a slot because he "wanted to give a pro-life speech."
Kevin Drum attempted to find out the truth of the matter some years back.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...
Ok, I read Drum's take and I don't think the quotes available are all that conclusive, but I agree you can make a case for this. However, being denied a slot for wanting to make a pro-life speech is of course very different from being denied a slot for being pro-life but talking about other stuff.
I'd even defend this reason as quite legitimate for any nominee of any party. Being a big-tent doesn't mean the nominee should let any prominent member of the party speak at odds with a major party position. If Casey had wanted to speak against gays in the military or to oppose universal health care should Clinton have let him speak? If a Governor today announced his intention to use his speech to oppose Obama's tax plan would anyone argue Obama should let him?
In any case, you can't ignore the stuff above of Casey being a big critic of Clinton either. If Bill Clinton personally made this call, we'll never know for sure. Even if, in the room he told Carville and Begala it was for failing to endorse him, it might have just been as simple as he pissed Clinton off.
No matter what none of this defends the myth that the media and Casey Jr seem to believe of the pro-life views per se being the sole reason Casey Sr. didn't speak. That's clearly not supported by the evidence, which is the main point of this entry. |
