Peeved Catholics And The Democratic Convention

Gabe writes:

I thought you might like to see [this], because he is a Democrat like you (and he seems to really like Obama).

And what does this fellow write about?:

...[Y]ou might find a mention of Sen. Bob Casey’s address to the assembled Democrats, a speech that for many of us was even more overdue than Clinton’s.

Sen. Casey was aware of the historical import of the moment and he began his speech with these words: "I am honored to stand before you tonight as Gov. Casey’s son…"

In 1992, the Senator’s father was the Governor of Pennsylvania, the fifth largest state in the Union. He was a lifelong pro-life Democrat, one of the few who did not flip their position after Roe v. Wade. (Curiously, one of the other pro-life Democrats who did not abandon her defense of pre-natal life was Connecticut Governor Ella Grasso, the first woman elected governor of a state in her own right.) Gov. Casey wanted to address the convention on the issue of abortion. He was barred from the podium.

Some of the 1992 campaign officials have tried to re-write the history of that first class snub. Last night on CNN, former Clinton aide Paul Begala denied that abortion was the reason Gov. Casey was barred from speaking. He noted that Casey had not endorsed the ticket and "wanted to speak about abortion for thirty minutes" and "no one" wanted that. Well, Mr. Begala, many of us pro-life Democrats did want that. (Would twenty minutes have been okay?) We certainly did not want to see the most noted spokesman of our cause denied even the right to speak. Nor did we want to belong to a party that applied such a litmus test. The governor of a state you need to win can talk about whatever he or she wants when they address a national convention.

For many pro-life Democrats, the appearance of Gov. Casey’s son at the podium last night was the important unity speech. The pro-choice litmus test had been set aside. No one deleted Sen. Casey’s reference to abortion in his speech, nor his acknowledgement of an "honest disagreement" with this year’s nominee, Barack Obama, on that issue.

This fellow misconstrues the history a bit. Many people objected to having Gov. Casey speak, because of his abortion views, but they would not have prevailed if Casey had proceeded to endorse the Clinton/Gore ticket anyway. It is a rare occasion when any political party will allow someone to speak who ostentatiously does not endorse the ticket (some people, like 2004’s Dem. Zell Miller appearing at the Republican convention, likely weren’t even asked to formally support the Republican ticket). Casey refused to buckle, and he was punished for it – an unfortunate but not unexpected turn of events. If Gov. Casey’s son had ostentatiously refused to endorse Obama/Biden, it is likely he too would have been refused the opportunity to speak to this year’s convention.

(I endorse Obama/Biden, and my views regarding abortion are nothing if not malleable, but, sadly, I think it’s unlikely I will be permitted to speak to the convention).