Politics: Don't ask Dick Durbin why the DNC revoked God's credentials

Published by: Herman Cain on Wednesday September 5th, 2012

Herman Cain

By HERMAN CAIN - Unlike the previous three presidential years, God's name is not mentioned in the Democratic Party platform. Don't ask Sen. Dick Durbin why. He really doesn't like that.

It seems like a legitimate question to me. The Democrats acknowledged God in their 2000, 2004 and 2008 platforms. The 2012 Republican platform mentions God 16 times. Why the change? I think a lot of people would like to know, and would appreciate Fox News's Bret Baier asking.

Dick Durbin doesn't see it that way, though:

“Well, I can just basically tell you if the narrative that is being presented on your station and through your channel and your network is that the Democrats are godless people, they ought to know better,” Durbin fired back at Baier. “God is not a franchise of the Republican Party.”

Baier insisted that he was not drawing conclusions, but noted that the word God was mentioned in the 2008, 2004, and 2000 platform.

Durbin again refused to answer the question, demanding that if Baier was “trying to draw some conclusion that the Democrats are godless,” he need to present “evidence.”

“I’m just telling you, you are harping on a trifle,” Durbin said, adding that the Democratic Party platform was “the most unread document in the history of American politics.”

Serious question: Do Democrats appear on Fox News expressly for the purpose of throwing conniption fits when they get questions like this? Because if Fox News is really the right-wing cabal that people like Durbin think it is, they can't expect questions like, "Why do you think Mitt Romney hates the poor?"

Even so, Durbin's defensiveness on the God issue is much like the defensiveness Democrats often show when the question of their patriotism is brought up. Being asked about something is not the same as being accused of something. Maybe you infer the innuendo because you're on the eeeeeeevil Fox News, but if you're not feeling defensive about it, then why not just answer the question?

It may very well be true, by the way, that almost no one reads the party's platforms, which raises the question of why they're written in the first place. But as revealing as I find the omission of God to be, Durbin's freak-out over a perfectly innocuous question about it is far more revealing.

I would say defensiveness doesn't become him. But it does.