Once upon a time, it wasn’t okay to smear your political opponent with something like “racist” or “bigot” without first showing some evidence. Sadly, in today’s America these words get thrown around as if they have no meaning and as if everyone can agree to their usage.
The latest example comes to us through the immigration debate where the left and the media continue to attack the President for supposedly calling some 3rd world nation(s) “sh**holes,” something the President denies ever saying (and several of the people in the meeting have backed him up on this point).
Here’s the problem, while the President’s language may be vulgar and his word choice poor, it’s a sentiment that most Americans agree with, and it’s at the heart of a larger debate about how we choose migrants to accept into our nation.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made a similar argument, while defending the President from his detractors, on NBC’s Meet the Press when he asked how the President is supposed to negotiate on DACA and illegal immigration if his opponents are all calling him a “racist.” It’s as if the left doesn’t actually want to negotiate a compromise, they simply want to smear the President and make compromise impossible.
Rand Paul: I don’t think the comments were constructive at all. But I also think that to be fair, we shouldn’t draw conclusions that he didn’t intend. I know personally about his feelings towards Haiti and towards Central America because when I was not a candidate for president and he wasn’t a candidate for president, I went down there on a medical mission trip.
I did about 200 cataract surgeries with a group of surgeons in Haiti and the same in Central America. And when we asked Donald J. Trump as a private citizen to support those trips, he was a large financial backer of both medical mission trips. So I think it’s unfair to sort of draw conclusions from a remark that I think wasn’t constructive, is the least we can say.
And I think it’s unfair then to sort of all of a sudden paint him, “Oh well, he’s a racist,” when I know, for a fact, that he cares very deeply about the people in Haiti because he helped finance a trip where we were able to get vision back for 200 people in Haiti.
Chuck Todd: I guess, though, are you more disturbed though by the comment? It’s less about the vulgarity and more that he seemed to say, “Why can’t we have immigrants from Norway as opposed from African countries?” Look, I’ll tell you this, many non-white Americans hear, “Oh, so he wants white people, not black people.”
Rand Paul: Right. But I think people jumped a little bit to a conclusion. Let’s take the whole scenario and put different words in there and let’s say, “We’d rather have people from economically-prosperous countries than economically-deprived countries.” Or, “We realize that there are more problems in economically-deprived countries, therefore there’s a bigger impetus for them to want to come.” Then it wouldn’t have been so controversial.
There still might have been some controversy, but it wouldn’t have been so much. What I can say is, is that if you do a poll, and one of the worldwide polling companies did this, and they asked people in 50 countries, “Would you like to come to America,” it’s about 700 million would come next year. We would double our population.
So practically, we’re a great place, and practically, we do have to eliminate. And if you look at where they’d rather come from, if you live in a very, very poor, economically-distressed country, you’re more likely to want to come than if you live in England or Norway…
It is the story of our country. But what I’m saying is, you can see why there are more people wanting to come from economically-distressed areas, and they can’t all come. So it gets into the valid, legitimate debate over immigration as to how do we choose. Do we have a diversity lottery and take people from everywhere, do we base it more on merit?
So there are a lot of questions that this ultimately intersects with policy. And the only thing I regret from all of this, other than I think some people in the media have gone completely bonkers with, you know, just ad hominem on the president, but what I regret is I do want to see an immigration compromise. And you can’t have an immigration compromise if everybody’s out there calling the president a racist. They’re actually destroying the setting. And he’s a little bit of it, but both sides now are destroying the setting in which anything meaningful can happen on immigration.
Here’s the full interview:
The President is not a racist. He’s not a bigot. He’s a capitalist and a pragmatist. His life is full of examples of his interaction and concern for people of different races, ethnicities, religious beliefs, sexual preferences, political affiliations, and more. He is the opposite of a bigot, he’s an equal opportunity offender and he’s never been painted with any of these vile brushes in the past… only now that he’s involved in politics as a conservative are these epithets being used against him. The same epithet that is often used against other conservatives, also unfairly.
The reason the left and their friends in the media resort to such heinous name calling is simple, they have no argument for their side of the debate. So as the GOP’s plans seem logical and also seem to be working, the only response that the left can muster is… RACIST!
It’s par for the course, but sadly the media continues to allow them to use the tired old attack at every turn.