The Ugly Reason For Durbin’s Claim of Trump’s “Sh**hole” Comment

Lost in the ongoing poopy-storm surrounding what President Trump may or may not have said regarding the relative sanitary conditions of certain third-world countries, is this perhaps larger question:

Why did Sen. Dick Durbin do it? Why did the Illinois Democrat, with only a passing relationship with the truth, run to the media to claim Trump called some awful third-world countries poopy-holes?

Whether Trump said it or not, and whether this is more evidence that he is racist, has been debated and analyzed ad nauseum for what feels like an eternity in this era of a new news cycle every few hours. For a possibly fictional story about the President using a bad word in a meeting, it sure is hanging on. And for good reason — the same reason Durbin sprinted to the cameras with his tale.

Democrats don’t want an immigration deal. They do not want any immigration solution short of 100 percent of what they are asking for across the board.  What do they want?

The issue. Specifically, a galvanizing issue to inflame the Latino vote. In the same way they continually stoke racial tensions (and in this case, it’s a two-fer) to gin up black voter turnout and support, they need Hispanics angry and frightened to obtain their voter turnout and support. They believe that making Republicans look intransigent against “brown” people, and forcing “dreamers” out of the country will accomplish that. Based on how the media is guaranteed to dishonestly cover such an issue, they are probably right in their calculations.

Consider: If we seriously began solving race relations and immigration issues, how could Democrats drum up 70 percent of the Latino vote and 90 percent of the black vote? If those minorities did not feel the need for Democrats to alternately protect them from Republicans and give them other Americans’ stuff, why would they need the Democrats? Electorally speaking, without those margins, Democrats could not expect any chance of winning.

If this analysis is true — and it is for Democratic leadership based on all past and current actions, including Obama’s endless race-baiting when he had a chance to lead the nation in real reconciliation — that says something truly cold and ugly about Democratic leadership. (Democratic leadership as opposed to many rank-and-file Democratic voters we may know personally who follow the sound bites and spin and actually may want the best for minorities and not just electoral leverage. They just believe the spin on Republicans because they trust the media. Not their first mistake.)

What this says is that it appears Democratic leadership would rather Americans suffer, even Americans that make up their loyal voting base, than risk losing electoral advantage. It’s not like there are not Republicans who act this way, too. Of course there are. But this is just on marching display in front of us for Democrats.

Dick Durbin either saw or made up the chance to tank the negotiations. It’s hard to see any other motive. Making Trump personally look bad could have waited until the following day, or that afternoon, as that is pretty much all the media does now.

This was a different motive than simple anti-Trumpism. Far more cold-hearted and cynical. Sorry, loyal minority Democratic voters. Your party seems to be just using and abusing you.

EDITORS NOTE: In answering the charges made against the Obama administration’s targeting and seizing of private phone records of AP reporters and employees, and intimidation of Fox News reporter James Rosen by Obama’s Justice Department, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) defended Obama’s actions by in-essence stating the Constitution is out of date in regards to journalism.  He suggested to Chris Wallace of Fox News’ that he believes certain people should not have First Amendment Rights, and then went on to say that the Constitution is out of date in 2013.  He asks if the Constitution applies to Bloggers and Twitter Users;  “Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.””

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Check out The Revolutionary Act’s Youtube Channel.

---