Democracy Has Prevailed.

December 7, 2009

Post-Gazette repeats old myth (Updated)

UPDATE: Daniel Malloy of the Post-Gazette responds here.
_____________________________________________


When can we finally retire the urban legend repeated in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today? Namely this:
The debate puts the first-term senator in an uncomfortable place. His father, former Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, challenged Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court and was infamously denied a chance to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his anti-abortion views.
The only thing infamous is how often folks in the MSM parrot this inaccurate recounting of history. A small sample of which includes:

  • Bill O'Reilly in 2004
  • Chris Matthews in 2004
  • USA Today in 2005
  • Hardball in 2005
  • Robert Novak in 2007
  • The New York Times in 2008
  • With so many august bodies repeating this claim should the P-G be given a pass?

    NO.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own version of the facts and repeating the wrong information over and over and over again does not make it true.

    For the hundredth time: Gov. Robert P. Casey Sr. was not denied a chance to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his anti-abortion views.

    How do we know this? We know this because as Media Matters has noted (time and again):

    Yet here's The New York Times, just last week: "Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies."

    No. That is not true. That cannot be true. It cannot be the case that he was not allowed to speak because of his views -- other people with the same views were allowed to speak. Forgive the repetition, but reporters at nearly every significant news organization in the country are inexplicably incapable of grasping this extraordinarily simple concept. And when Media Matters pointed out the error, did the Times run a correction? No. The Times apparently stands by its transparent falsehood. That is not a sign of a newspaper that gives a damn about the truth.
    [Emphasis added]
    Here are some folk with anti abortion views who have spoken at Democratic conventions:

    Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Sens. John Breaux (D-LA) and Howell Heflin (D-AL), and five other governors who opposed abortion rights did address the convention in 1992, as detailed in a September 16, 1996, article in The New Republic on the Casey myth. In addition, anti-abortion speakers have spoken at every Democratic convention since 1992, including Breaux in 1996 and 2000, former House Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-MI) in 1996 and 2000, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2000 and 2004.
    So why was Casey Sr. denied a speaking spot?

    First of all, there's no reason to assume that he should have been guaranteed a prized speaking spot. Second, his entire speech was about criticizing the Democratic party at their own convention about being out of touch (yes, about abortion) without any mention of the party's candidates. Third -- and most important -- HE REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE PARTY'S CANDIDATES (Clinton/Gore).

    Do you think his refusal to endorse the party's candidates at the party's own convention had -- oh, I don't know -- something to do with him being excluded from getting a prized speaking role?

    Seriously.

    Yet somehow that little fact is never mentioned. NEVER. MENTIONED. And so the myth lives on another day.

    [sigh]

    .

    2 comments:

    Daniel Malloy said...

    Thanks for pointing the controversy out -- I'd always sort of accepted the pro-life snub as fact given the numerous mainstream media reports you cited. After extensive research today, I've concluded that both sides are half right here, and I blogged about it a few minutes ago: http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/earlyreturns/archive/2009/12/07/so-what-exactly-happened-to-bob-casey-sr-in-1992.aspx
    -Daniel

    Joy said...

    Unless someone can read minds, it makes more sense to go with the actual quotes of people who were involved in the decision. Those quotes state that being anti-abortion was not a litmus test. As you show, not yet having endorsed Clinton was also not a litmus test. However, being so riled up at the party that you want to call them out on an issue, and make a point of not supporting the candidates on that basis...that's a whole other level of "not having endorsed."

    As to the women who were chosen to speak, is the inclusion of a Hafer aide necessarily a calculated slap in Casey's face? Was it a demographic choice? Or was it simply following the rules and goals of the party's bylaws?

    Bringing progressive republican women into the Democratic fold was a big goal at the time, I presume--at least, this seems to have happened, if Mt. Lebo is any indication. Keeping CA women as Democrats, rather than losing them to the Greens, Naderites, or other non-mainstream groups was also a big goal. But above all, having ~50% female delegates, and a lot of female speakers has been a major part of the Democratic Party bylaws and process for a while.

    In that light, it's not surprising that some of the female delegates and some of the female speakers therefore were not embedded as deeply within the party as Bob Casey. And in turn, it's not surprising that young, female democratic activists tend to trend to the pro-choice end of the spectrum.