Bob Casey - Stifling Of Dissent At 1992 Convention?

The notion that Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was denied a speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his pro-life views is oddly topical again.  Here is a post from Josh Patashnik of TNR, a response from The Corner, and the Bob Somerby post that seemed to have sparked this.

I puzzled over this back in 2005, when Atrios was fulminating about the fact that Peter Beinart, a noted member of the VRWC, was propagating that "myth".  (Nat Hentoff, writing for the June 2000 TNR, is another propagater). 

My quick response - the organizers of the 1992 Democratic Convention had a candidate with his back to the wall, and were looking for a unified, upbeat convention to get him back in the race.  Having a Governor deliver a controversial pro-life speech would have been hopelessly off-message, so Casey was shut out.  The alternative notion being peddled by Begala et al - that if Casey had endorsed Clinton he would have been granted a chance to get himself booed off the stage and create headlines such as "Dem Convention In Abortion Uproar" - is absurd.

The longer version is in my 2005 post:

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...

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.

...

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.

 

Comments

[DebinNC]

This recap of the 1992 nomination race doesn't even mention Gov. Casey being a contender. I think he ended up with only 10 delegates. Why did Casey believe he was due a speaking spot? Was he the only contender refused a spot?

[clarice]

If Casey couldn't endorse Clinton then because of his pro-life view, how is it that Casey is campaigning for Obama whose view on abortion seems far more extreme than the view Bill Clinton espoused?

[Jane]

Times change Clarice....(he thought no one would notice?)

[Barney Frank]

Times change Clarice

So do Caseys.
Bob Casey Sr. was denied a spot at the convention in '92.
Bob Casey Jr. is endorsing Obama in '08.
Sr. died several years ago.

[clarice]

Thanks, Barney..

Now I get it.

[Porchlight]

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.

Wow, I never thought of Begala and Carville as having existed, with actual jobs, before the Clinton campaign in 1992. I always sort of thought of them as having popped into existence at Clinton's side, fully grown, like Athena sprung from the head of Zeus.

[Rick Ballard]

Bob Casey Sr. had a visceral (and absolutely legitimate) dislike of Bubba.

Bob Casey Jr. has a deep dislike of Red Witch.

Obviously, the Caseys have always been very astute Democrat politicians. Could it be that Junior is angling for a speaking spot at this year's convention.

[GMax]

Father resolute in his beliefs, son not so much? It fits with my brother in law and Bucks County resident view of Junior as an empty suit trading on his father career and name.

[Cecil Turner]

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.

Yeah, I think that sums it up. On the specific question, my inclination is to read Sommerby (whom I normally find quite level-headed) and chase down his cites. Media Matters for America, citing Paul Begala's unsubstantiated firsthand knowledge? Coming from the guy who shepherded Clinton through the Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky denials, I'd say that the betting man's position is to assume anything coming out of his mouth is a lie. (And if it happened behind closed doors--so he thinks he can get away with it--it becomes an odds-on bet.) The somewhat legitimate assertion that Casey had no real claim to a speaking spot is weakened by Begala's admission (against interest) that it was considered. None are convincing. Further, Sommerby's pretense that pointing up Bill Clinton's commitment to political expediency is merely a talking point ("So familiar—so perfectly memorized!") is rather ridiculous. Of course he was (which a casual review of the Flowers and Lewinsky episodes--among many others--ought to establish beyond any real doubt).

In short, there's not enough here to call Casey a liar (especially after he's dead), nor to deride someone for claiming his version is fact (though a "disputed" disclaimer was probably in order). Claiming proof it was a "myth" is substantially overstating the case in the opposite direction (as is MMA's wont). But even so, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The point of Casey's claim was to highlight the Dem intolerance for pro-lifers . . . which I doubt is in serious dispute. Was Casey treated poorly by the Democratic elite because he was pro-life? Well, yeah. And apparently his son has learned the lesson. Not sure if the Democrats' leading lights want to claim they're equal opportunity on the subject . . . but if so, that ain't gonna wash.

[Rick Ballard]

Red Witch could put this to bed in a heartbeat by just providing the list of Democrat pro-life supporters within her inner (or outer) circle.

Or maybe just a list of pro-life Dems that she has met with recently.

Or maybe a name of a pro-life Dem that she's heard of from an acquaintance.

Or maybe Somersby is as full of carp as a Christmas goose?

[SteveMG]

Geez, I have to go with Atrios/Begala here.

It seems to me that whether it was abortion or any other controversial policy, Casey would be denied a speaking slot simply because the Clinton Campaign didn't want any disruption. Didn't matter substantively what it was about; it was all a public relations matter.

Abortion, affirmative action, taxes, defense spending, gay rights. Whatever. If Casey was going to give an address that was at odds with what the Clinton policy was, it was going to be, well, aborted.