Governor Casey Sr, James Carville and the 1992 Convention

I heard part of Fred Honsberger's show today.

I am not sure how the discussion started but by the time I turned on the radio, a caller named "Dave" (though it was NOT me - I go by "David" exclusively) was trying to convince my friend Fred that; No, Governor Casey (our current Jr. Senator's father) was NOT denied a slot to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention on because he was pro-life.

Fred said that Governor Casey himself told him he was in 1992. That part may be true but it's irrelevant. As we'll see considering that an important source of the myth is Governor Casey himself it's hardly surprising that he'd tell Fred that.

In fact, Casey was denied an opportunity to speak because he refused to endorse then-Governor Clinton's candidacy for the presidency.

When caller "Dave" claimed that James Carville said so, Fred countered by saying that it was Paul Begala who made that claim, not James Carville. Fred went on to say that Carville actually corroborated Casey's story recently.

This is a zombie story - it just won't die.

Luckily Jamison Foser has good condensation of the story at mediamatters.org. Here's the primary reason Fred's Casey story is wrong:

The Hill reports this morning that in 1992 "Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey (D) was barred from speaking at the DNC because of his anti-abortion rights stance."

This is a common claim, but it's completely false.

There were no fewer than eight speakers at the 1992 convention who opposed abortion rights. Therefore, it cannot be the case that Casey was barred because of his stance on abortion. [emphasis added.]

Foser writes elsewhere at mediamatters:

People involved in planning the 1992 Democratic convention have long maintained that Casey was not given an opportunity to speak because he refused to endorse Bill Clinton, who was to be nominated at the convention. That's what they said at the time, too. The Washington Post's first report on Casey's request for speaking time included a quote from the Democratic National Committee's press secretary: "anyone who is speaking at the convention will have endorsed Governor Clinton by the time of the convention and Governor Casey has not."

It should be noted that it wasn't merely that Casey hadn't gotten around to endorsing Clinton. He was arguing that Clinton had only a "flyspeck" of support and that the party should consider nominating someone else at the convention.

Yea, that'll make you lots of friends at a political convention. Foser again:

It's also important to keep in mind that Casey didn't merely want to speak at the convention. He wanted to devote his entire speech to opposing the Democratic Party on a single issue. After the convention ended, Casey released the text of the speech he would have delivered had he been given the chance. The speech ran more than 1,000 words -- and not one of those words was "Clinton." Nor was the word "Gore" mentioned. Casey's speech did not include a single word of praise or support for the ticket being nominated at the convention he wanted to address. Instead, it accused the party of being "far out of the mainstream and on the extreme fringe" on abortion. That's what the entire speech was about: disagreeing with, and insulting, the Democratic Party on abortion.

See? Casey, by releasing the text of the speech, was at the very least an important early source for the story. Whether he believed the myth is irrelevant now. Casey can't be used to corroborate his own testimony, in a sense.

Let's do a thought experiment to show why. Let's ask George W Bush if he ever thought he was lying and when he says NO we'll KNOW he was always telling the truth.

Yea, right.

In 1996, the New Republic published this (text via mediamatters.org):

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." [emphasis added.]

Then there's this from the New York Times in 1996. Note that while continuing the myth they wrote:

They (The White House) have always said that had he not declined to endorse Mr. Clinton in 1992, he would have been allowed to speak to the convention.

If only he'd endorsed, this whole myth would be lost in time, like tears in the rain.

Can anyone find for me Carville's corroboration about the '92 Convention? I can't seem to find it. Anywhere.

By the way, I wrote about this some time ago.