Now It's The AP Mocking 'Atrios'

Yesterday, it was Peter Beinart that failed to parrot the party line, thereby earning a "Wanker du Jour" from Atrios (I am not sure what that is, but he has one every day).

Here is what Beinart said at a NY Times round table discussion:

BEINART. I think one of the great problems in the debates about abortion and gay rights is the perception that liberals are illiberal and nondemocratic. It's remarkable to me how many people still mention the fact that [the anti-abortion Pennsylvania governor] Bob Casey was denied the right to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention. That was an illiberal thing the party did. And there is an important debate for liberals to have about the role of the courts in pushing social change. Finally, I don't think you can separate these questions from people's larger concerns about the culture. Liberals should believe in free speech, of course, but there is no reason that liberals need to believe that everything that comes out of an unregulated free market is good culturally.

The calm and measured response from Atrios:

The people who still "mention the fact" are Republican hacks who like to perpetuate the myth that liberals are "illiberal and non-democratic." Casey wasn't denied the opportunity to speak because he was anti-choice, he was denied the opportunity to speak because he refused to endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket. 

The link leads to a Media Matters spin effort.  And do remember, in their world, their spin is correct; your spin is vicious hackery.

Anyway, the AP compounds the offense, in a story on Sunday's NY Times website:

State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., the son of a former governor, entered the race for the Democratic nomination to oppose Sen. Rick Santorum, the Senate's No. 3 leader and a rising Republican star.

National Democratic leaders had recruited Casey, whose father, the late governor Robert P. Casey, had clashed with the national party over his anti-abortion views. The younger Casey also opposes abortion.

...Casey's father, who died in 2000, made headlines when Democratic leaders prevented him from speaking on his anti-abortion views at the party's national conventions in 1992 and 1996.

Here is a 1996 article from TNR's Michael Crowley giving the Casey story the endorsement spin; here is a 2000 article from TNR's Nat Hentoff saying it was about abortion.

So what do we make of this?

The Dem defense is offered by the always credible and engaging Paul Begala who, with James Carville, became geniuses by working with Gov. Casey in Pennsylvania to help elect Wofford Harris to the Senate in 1991.  By 1992, they were both working for Bill Clinton, and were intent on having a "successful" convention.

But what is a "successful" convention?  This seems to be the nub of the dispute.  Prior to the convention, Clinton trailed both Bush and Perot in the polls and his campaign was on life support.  The convention organizers, including Paul Begala, James Carville, and Ron Brown, wanted a unified, upbeat convention that could re-launch their candidate for the fall campaign.

Gov. Casey, on the other hand, was an ardent pro-lifer holding out against the national pro-choice direction of the Democratic Party. 

Beyond that, Casey himself was in the news - a 1992 Supreme Court ruling (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey) upheld legislative restrictions on abortion led by Casey in Pennsylvania.  Casey had hoped to use the 1992 convention to urge the Democratic Party to support his position at the national level; James Zogby, in a July 6, 1992 column, brings us the scene:

This past week when the Democratic Party's Platform Committee met to finalize their platform, Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey issued an appeal to fellow Democrats to join what he called the mainstream, and to support limits on abortion. 

The "reasonable regulations" he called for included:

·  not permitting abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy;

· the requirement that a woman notify her husband if she is considering an abortion;

·  the requirement that a child notify her parents about an abortion;

·  that doctors be required to give women alternatives to abortion, and that there be a 24-hour waiting period after the initial doctor's visit before an abortion can be performed.

So divisive and intense is this question that, when these measures were introduced, the motion received loud boos and hisses and only received the support of two of the committee's 186 members.

This issue, which has been simmering under the surface of the national debate for some time, erupted in a fury this week after a the announcement of a Supreme Court decision which upheld many of the Pennsylvania Governor's suggestions (all of which are part of state law in Pennsylvania).  The Supreme Court decided to uphold the Pennsylvania law, thus declaring that abortion was a right which states may restrict.  But the decision was reached on a 5-4 vote, with the four being total opponents of abortion rights.

Well.  Here we have the conflict of visions: Casey apparently believed that a national convention was an opportunity for different factions within the party to air their differences and attempt to influence the platform.

The slightly-ahead of their time organizers of the Democratic Convention, on the other hand, quite sensibly viewed the convention as a wonderful four day media extravaganza which should be used to promote the candidate.  Having Casey give an ardent pro-life speech that might lead to headlines reading "Democrats Divided On Abortion; Governor Booed" apparently did not strike them as consistent with their media strategy. 

[Sidebar - those clever Reps gave a prominent speaking spot to Pat Buchanan - how did that work out?  Jonah Goldberg gives a hint, calling it the "(now somewhat undeservedly) infamous speech".  Somewhat?  Per the right-leaning Zogby, we also see that Reps heard from both sides of the abortion question in Houston.  Color me surprised.]

OK, enough background, and on to the Big Finish.

Was Casey denied a speaking spot because of his pro-life views, or his failure to endorse Clinton?  It's a trick question - he was not inclined to endorse Clinton, in part because of the abortion question.

If Casey had endorsed Clinton, would he have been allowed to deliver a plea for moderation on abortion rights, and risk causing an uproar at the convention?  Ahh!  Casey's spin on this is that dissent was not being tolerated; his reception by the platform committee supports this; the absence of other speakers advocating a pro-life position (as distinct from a pro-lifer talking about, e.g, education or taxes) also supports this; and the general media strategy in place supports this.

I am going to surprise everyone and come down on the side of Beinart and the AP.  The Begala/Atrios spin amounts to saying "Casey was denied a spot because he was off-message"; well, that is what Beinart is saying as well.

However, I will give Begala this - it is not clear that denying "off-message" speakers a  prominent convention spot is evidence of intolerance.  Especially since the Dem convention was a success, it seems fair to say that staying on-message is just smart politics. 

However, the platform committee process is not a prime time drama, and even there, per Crowley and Zogby, Casey was treated shabbily.

So, there it is - dissent was stifled.  There may have been good reasons, but, as Beinart said, it was "illiberal".

MORE:  OK, who is Beinart kidding?  He should ask Larry Summers how well liberals tolerates dissent.  C'mon, silencing the opposition is totally liberal.

UPDATE:  In my zeal for parallelism, I conflated "liberal" and leftist" above.  Ed Driscoll does not chide me, but he might have.  Anyway, silencing the opposition is totally leftist.

Comments

[creepy irish dude]

Well, the Democrats have chosen the pro-life Harry Reid as their Senate minority leader...

Nevertheless, your point that liberals do not tolerate dissent is a rare breath of unadulterated truth into the great morass of baseless partisan hackery that is the blogosphere.

[BumperStickerist]

Pennsylvanian here - voted Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton(!), Dole, W, W.

The take at the time was that Casey was being denied a spot primarily for his views on abortion - Duncan's a bit young to actually remember any of this, but I'm sure that won't actually matter.

Afterwards Casey played up the fact that he was muzzled by the Democrats, probably to a larger extent than he actually was. The fact that Casey had subsequent health problems may have given sympathy to his claim to have been shut out solely because of his views on abortion.

iirc, a non-endorser of Clinton was given a speaking slot at the Convention. I don't remember her name - but that gives lie to Duncan's claim that non-endorsers of the candidate were shut out.

fwiw I agree with your analysis regarding Dem's being early adopters of "Let's Manage The Message" and conventions in '92 were still thought to be reasonably important things

... I don't recall if the Dems mastered the balloon drop. My guess is 'no'.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"Go balloons!"

heh

[Jay Levitt]

So the Democrats are bad guys because they didn't give Casey a speaker slot at the convention, due to disagreements on either (a) core party platform or (b) candidate support. Meanwhile, Republicans this election didn't even *let you in the gate* at rallies unless you signed a loyalty oath, and that's ok?

[J_Crater]

Another Pennsylvanian here.

As a sidenote, this shabby treatment still gets many GOPers to cross the line to vote for Casey, Jr. I wonder if the party will manage this feeling well for a senate campaign or spoil it for Casey, Jr. My money is that they will spoil it by embracing Casey Jr in some over the top way that will sent the GOPers and other pro-lifer in PA back to Santorium.

Casey Jr. should have run for Governor, not Senate.

[TM]

I wonder if the party will manage this feeling well for a senate campaign or spoil it for Casey, Jr.

I ought to pipe down and let the Atrios version carry the day. "Casey wasn't a proud, pro-life maverick - he just wasn't a team player". Yeah, that'll boost Casey Jr.

the Democrats are bad guys because they didn't give Casey a speaker slot at the convention

...Republicans this election didn't even *let you in the gate* at rallies unless you signed a loyalty oath, and that's ok?

I expect Beinart would also consider Republican behavior to be "illiberal".

a rare breath of unadulterated truth...

I am considering the source. And my guess is, you think it was gas from a different... oh, never mind.

[kevin]

Casey ran for governor last time, I believe he got walloped by the Rendell Machine. Bob Casey Jr is a nice man who happens to be kind, boring beyond belief. I am no big Santorum fan but I am voting him over any Dem, since dems seem to believe the judicial nominees are fair game, any dem, even a pro life dem, is beyond the pale for me