Poor U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin — the vultures are circling.
For starters, there’s Father Time. Still undefeated, this ravenous super senior is swinging his scythe closer and closer to the octogenarian Democrat from Springfield.
Then, there are the virulently anti-Trump Democrats who remain enraged that Durbin, following the lead of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, recently voted in favor of a Republican budget bill that averted a federal government shutdown.
Finally, there are his two fellow Illinois Democrats — Gov. J.B. Pritzker and U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth — who favored shutting down the government. Driven by the opposition bordering on personal rage against President Donald Trump, they’ve made no secret of their unhappiness that Schumer and Durbin caved.
Pritzker characterized Durbin’s vote as an “enormous mistake.” Durbin, who has no love for Pritzker and vice versa, tepidly responded.
“I respect (the governor’s right) to make the decisions that are part of his office. I hope he respects mine as well,” he told reporters.
All that is enough to make a fellow contemplate retirement, which is exactly what Durbin is doing with the enthusiastic encouragement of all those self-interested Democrats who drool at the thought of succeeding him.
Still, Durbin has spent a lifetime holding or running for pubic office. He clearly loves political life and candidly admits he isn’t sure he’s ready to give it up.
Durbin recently told Lee Enterprises that “I love this job” and “feel like I could do it for another term.” But he said he understands the challenges of running for and winning another six-year term.
Actually, it’s the serving, not the running, that is Durbin’s real challenge.
In a solid Democratic state like Illinois, a Durbin re-election effort should be a cakewalk. No Democrat will challenge him in a primary, and no Republican could seriously challenge him in a general election.
That’s where Father Time steps in — if Durbin wins re-election next year, he would be 82 when his next term starts and 88 by the end.
Given the ravages of time inflicted on former President Joe Biden — ravages that help cost Democrats the presidency in 2024 — it would be no great surprise if Durbin pulled the plug. He said he’ll decide “soon” — whenever that is — if he’ll run for his sixth term.
In the meantime, Durbin is paying a price for his budget apostasy with party members who embraced a government shutdown to demonstrate their anger over Trump’s election.
That’s why Durbin has been trying to explain his nuanced decision to critics who aren’t fluent in nuance.
For starters, he said a government shutdown “would have been far worse” for Democrats than the budget agreement.
Although Durbin said he is unhappy with the spending plan, he emphasized that he has “never voted for a shutdown.” Of course, he hasn’t had to do so because it’s mostly been Republicans, flailing blindly at Democratic presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, who were foolishly pushing them.
The irony is that Republicans drew public condemnation when they backed shutdowns. That has prompted political analysts to argue Democrats would have drawn similar scorn this time.
Further, Durbin said a government shutdown would have played into the hands of Trump because all non-essential federal employees would have been out of work.
That would have been a useful premise for a president looking to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. After all, if employees are “non-essential,” who needs them?
Rabid Trump foes aren’t buying that line. But that’s Durbin’s story, and he’s sticking with it despite the rhetorical brickbats that keep coming his way while he mulls his political future.
