Skip to content
Categories:

Maybe now we can retire the Casey myth

Post date:
Author:

I’m relatively indifferent to Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) speaking at the Democratic National Convention, but given the historical parallels

, I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of stories like this one.

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Arnab Datta report: Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., an abortion rights opponent who endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY prior to the Pennsylvania primary, will address the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, Aug. 26.

Casey’s father, the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey D-Pa., was denied a prime speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights.

The 1992 snub has become a symbol over the years of the Democratic Party making support for abortion rights a litmus test. In 2004, Republicans contrasted the Casey snub with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-NY., two Republicans who support abortion rights, speaking to their convention.

The decision to give Sen. Casey a featured speaking spot is part of a broader effort on the part of the Democrats to broaden the party’s appeal on abortion.

A couple of things. First, maybe Casey is getting a featured speaking spot at the convention to broaden Dems’ appeal on abortion, and maybe he’s getting a featured spot because he’s a young senator from a key battleground state who endorsed the party’s presidential nominee early on. ABC assumes it’s the prior, but it’s just as easy to think the latter.

Second, Casey’s father was not “denied a prime speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights,” was not “snubbed,” and there’s been no “litmus test.”

This is a myth, that’s been repeated ad nauseum, but is nevertheless false and has been debunked many times. The truth is, Casey Sr. was denied a speaking spot because he refused to endorse the party’s nominee (Bill Clinton). At the same ’92 convention, five governors, two senators, and a mayor — all of whom are pro-life — did get speaking spots, disproving the notion that there was a “litmus test.” (What’s more, pro-life speakers have been featured at every Democratic convention since.)

Nevertheless, if inviting Casey (Jr.) to speak this year helps bury the nonsense that reporters keep repeating, I’ll be thrilled.

Comments

  • Racer X

    says:

    What? “Conservatives” lied about something, over and over and over, until it became “common knowledge”???

    And the press fell for it???

    You don’t say.

  • Dale

    says:

    are pro-life

    Yuch, I hate that term. I’m anti-pro-life to describe these people.

    I tell you what is presumptuous. To be anti-abortion rights is presumptuous.

  • joey

    says:

    The above quote mentioned “abortion rights” 5 times instead of reproduction rights. They continually try to frame the issue in a negative light and pointing out that pro-life speakers were allowed to speak so there was no litmus test is just completely ignored.

    They continue to lie at will without any accountability. A correction or a redaction should be demanded.

    Operation Mockingbird has been so successful that a liberal MSM news source is extremely difficult to find.

  • Crissa

    says:

    Should reporters who fail to mention key facts or make mistakes by mis-reporting false things be fired?

    I think the answer is YES.

  • Scott H

    says:

    Nevertheless, if inviting Casey (Jr.) to speak this year helps bury the nonsense that reporters keep repeating, I’ll be thrilled.

    But it won’t. As the story you quoted exemplifies, they’ll just repeating the ‘common knowledge’ about 92 and further pound the meme.

  • lib4

    says:

    Dont waste your breath…us Libs can debunk Conservaitve lies til were blue in the face…

    It wont change the fact that its their lie and their stickin to it

  • DavidB

    says:

    The biggest non-sense from this story and all of its comments is that people expect the media to accurately report on stories. There was a time not so long ago when papers came out once daily, and the news was broadcast once daily, and that was it. Reporters were expected to check their stories for plausability and factual accuracy, and had the time to do so.

    Now, we live in the era of 24 hr news broadcasting and always-on internet, so reporters do not check stories to see if the “facts” are accurate, or if the story passes the smell test. What comes in is just immediately vomited back out under the masthead/logo, with no editorial input or control. The era of investigative journalism, or journalism at all, is over.