quasi in rem

Saturday, June 26, 2004

Media Matter Recycles Revisionist History

Media Matters is trying to assert that Bob Casey was not banned from the Democratic conventions in 1992 and 1996 due to his pr-life views. Their evidence? An article from the always honest New Republic.

This is what O'reilly said:

O'REILLY: I think the Democratic Party has developed its own counterpart in the so-called secular left, as [New York Times op-ed columnist David] Brooks called it, which -- especially on the abortion issue, but on other issues -- which you know, exercises a kind of veto power. Which I think led to the, I think, a very serious mistake that the Democrats made at a recent convention in denying the right of the -- the president and the governor -- the current governor of the time of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, from even addressing the convention because of his pro-life position.


Which is correct.

MM then quotes a TNR article which states:

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." "Why are you doing this to me?" moans Paul Begala, who, with Carville, managed two Casey campaigns before joining Clinton's team in 1992. "I love Bob Casey, but my understanding was that the dispute was not about his right-to-life views, it was about the Clinton-Gore ticket."

[...]

Furthermore, a slew of pro-life Democrats, including Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five governors, did address the delegates in 1992. Though the speakers didn't dwell on abortion, party officials say they weren't barred from mentioning the issue.


Which is pure revisionist history.

Remember, Kathleen Brown did not endorse Clinton and she was allowed to speak at the convention. Bob Casey was not allowed to speak, unlike the other pro-lifers, because he was a pro-lifer who chose to speak on the subject. At the May 1992 platform hearing he urged the platform to drop the plank committed to aboriton rights.

He lost his fight. And he was snubbed ever since. The truth is that Casey asked to speak and he was denied and it was because of his pro-life views. He was also snubbed at the '96 Democratic convention in Chicago."

For more truth about the convention plaease go here.

And you may remember that Bob Casey was honored at the 2000 convention:

"The convention's tribute to the late Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey raised a few eyebrows, and rightly so.

In both 1992 and 1996, Democratic Party officials refused to let Casey speak at conventions because of his pro-life stance.

Plain and simple, Casey was considered by his own party to be little more than a pariah.

And still to this day, his son, Robert Casey Jr., the state's auditor general, says the treatment his father received underscores the Democrats' "real bitter intolerance" toward opposing views."

For better or worse the Democratic Party has become the political hand maiden of NARAL. No amount of revisionims will change that truth.
The problem for the Democrats was that Casey was snubbed despite the fact that he was a great Democrat and a very successful governor.

He created Democrats from non-voters and Republicans. The reason why it is relevant today is that the same forces that prevented Casey from speaking at the convention are at play today.

Breaux, for example would be a great VP candidate. As would Bayh. Both are weak on the choice/life issue from NARAL's perspective and that might be enough on its own to keep them off the ticket.

1 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home