What Is To Be Done With Durbin?

Hugh Hewitt is making the case that Durbin should be censured for his remarks on the senate floor. It's hard to argue with. It would certainly put the Dem's on the spot with their vote, but would also allow them a chance to mealy-mouth their way out, explaining their vote as one for free speech or other nonsense. Just enough to get a ten-second platitude slot on the networks.

By all means pursue censure, but Bill Kristol thinks the eunice should be on the Democrats to clean up their own litterbox, and uses Trent Lott as an example.

When Sen. Trent Lott made a far less damaging, but still deplorable, statement two and a half years ago, his fellow Republicans insisted he step down as their leader. Shouldn't Democrats insist that Sen. Durbin step down as their whip, the number two man in their leadership? Shouldn't conservatives (and liberals) legitimately ask Democrats to hold their leader to account, especially given the precedent of Lott?

Of course, if the Democrats set this as a precedent, the axe would have to fall all over the place. No...they'll protect Dick Durbin to the last because they see themselves in him; essentially running scared from their own rhetoric. And, in protecting Durbin, they will be attempting to create legitimacy for themselves.

The only thing we can expect from the Democratic Party on Durbin is absolute silence.