Reading this post made me think of how conservatives reacted when the shoe was on the other foot. Consider the tone of the Right's reaction when organizers of the 1992 Democratic National Convention denied a speaking role to Pennsylvania's pro-life governor, Bob Casey:
Bob Novak: "... while serving his second term as governor, (Casey) was refused permission to address the 1992 Democratic National Convention, because he would have spoken against abortion ... it is an outrage that the world's oldest political party imposes support for abortion as a litmus test."This is just a small sample of what conservative pundits were saying in the months and years that followed the Casey controversy.
John Leo: "Casey was a great governor, liberal on every issue of interest to Democrats except abortion. So he was pointedly banned from speaking at the 1992 convention. To rub it in, one of his most bitter opponents in Pennsylvania, a pro-abortion Republican, was given a speaking role."
Paul Gigot: "Al Gore has ... even tried to make amends for the outrage of 1992, when two-term Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was kept off the Democratic stage for his pro-life views."
Pat Buchanan: "When ... Robert Casey asked to say a few words on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v. Wade, he was told there was no place for him at the podium of Bill Clinton's convention, no room at the inn. Yet a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that convention and [speak] ..."
So if it's wrong for Dems to maintain an ideological straightjacket on abortion, I guess these and other conservative writers are probably tapping away on their keyboards right now, busily writing columns that defend Davidson's nomination as co-chair of the RNC.
Or could it be that their post-Casey slamfest was simply a convenient way to repackage their partisan views?
0 comments in When the Shoe's on the Other Foot
Post a Comment