{"id":12949,"date":"2013-03-15T17:39:22","date_gmt":"2013-03-15T17:39:22","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2013-03-15T17:39:22","modified_gmt":"2013-03-15T17:39:22","slug":"senator_cruz_offends_senator_difi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2013\/03\/15\/senator_cruz_offends_senator_difi\/","title":{"rendered":"Senator Cruz Offends Senator DiFi"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein and guns. I think what I want to do… Yeah, let\u2019s start with number three. We\u2019ve got three bites from yesterday morning in Washington. This is during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing marking up gun control legislation. Up first is Ted Cruz speaking to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.<\/p>\n

CRUZ: The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is: Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment\u2019s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?<\/p>\n

RUSH: Are you applauding, folks?<\/p>\n

Are you standing up and cheering here?<\/p>\n

This is just not done! These people are never called on this. Here\u2019s Dianne Feinstein with her list of approved guns. Dianne Feinstein, California senator, former mayor of San Francisco. Okay, fine. Great resume. You and you alone are gonna determine what kind of guns we can have all? So Cruz said, “Well, are you going to determine what books we can all read? Are you gonna determine what words can\u2019t be said and what words can?” and liberals are not used to this. This is effrontery. This is lecturing. This is disrespect, as far as the left is concerned.<\/p>\n

Dianne Feinstein was not happy with this, and she told Cruz not to lecture her.<\/p>\n

FEINSTEIN: I\u2019m not a sixth grader. Senator, I\u2019ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in and I saw people shot. I\u2019ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. After 20 years, I\u2019ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. It\u2019s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I\u2019ve been here for a long time. I passed on (sic) a number of bills. I study the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit — you used the word “prohibit.” It exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn\u2019t that enough for the people in the United States?<\/line><\/p>\n

RUSH: There you go. (summarized) “We\u2019re not prohibiting anything. We\u2019re exempting 2,271. Isn\u2019t that enough for the American people?” That encapsulates this arrogant condescension and this attitude that the American people don\u2019t know what\u2019s good for them, do not know how to run their lives, do not know which guns they should buy and shouldn\u2019t buy, do not know anything. “We have to do it for \u2019em. By the way, I\u2019ve been here all these years. Don\u2019t lecture me on the Constitution! I\u2019ve studied it.”<\/p>\n

(clapping)<\/p>\n

I\u2019m comforted Dianne Feinstein has studied the Constitution. She said she\u2019s even “reasonably well educated,” and she says she\u2019s been up close and personal to the Constitution. It doesn\u2019t matter if she doesn\u2019t know what\u2019s in it. If she doesn\u2019t agree with what\u2019s in it, if she doesn\u2019t respect what\u2019s in it, what does it matter how close she\u2019s been. She could sleep with it every night for all I care. If she doesn\u2019t like what\u2019s in it, what difference does that make? But notice she didn\u2019t dispute Cruz on the substance of anything. She turns this around. This is a personal attack, and how dare he?<\/p>\n

It wasn\u2019t a personal attack at all.<\/p>\n

He was simply talking about the Constitution.<\/p>\n

So Cruz wraps it up with this bite…<\/p>\n

CRUZ: I would note that she chose not to answer the question that I asked, which is: In her judgment, would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not and to use the specific number?<\/p>\n

FEINSTEIN: The answer is obvious. “No.”<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, then why didn\u2019t you say so at the get-go? Anyway, Dr. Krauthammer didn\u2019t like what Cruz did here. Krauthammer on Fox did not appreciate what Cruz did. Well, let\u2019s listen to Dr. Krauthammer. He was on Special Report with Bret Baier last night, and they were talking about this, and this is what Dr. Krauthammer, who\u2019s on Fox, said.<\/p>\n

KRAUTHAMMER: There was an interesting exchange and in the end Cruz overshot. The manner in which he asked it, I think it appeared a little bit offensive. I don\u2019t think Cruz helped himself.<\/line><\/p>\n

RUSH: So Dr. Krauthammer didn\u2019t like the tone. He didn\u2019t like the manner in which Cruz asked the question. So Cruz overshot, didn\u2019t do himself any favors. Might have offended the independents. That\u2019s right, might have offended the moderates. Folks, you know, we have all the respect in the world here for Dr. Krauthammer, but I think this is part and parcel of what Caddell actually was talking about at CPAC regarding the consultants. We let the left give us the behavioral rules under which we must operate, and then when we don\u2019t operate under the rules they give us, our own people chide us. But the Democrats never overshoot. Obama never overshoots. His tone is never bad. Anyway, Dianne Feinstein last night went on with Wolf Blitzer, and Wolf Blitzer said to Feinstein, “Senator, clearly you were insulted by what Senator Cruz said. Walk us through your thinking.”<\/p>\n

FEINSTEIN: Well, I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it. And, you know, when you\u2019ve come from where I\u2019ve come from and what you\u2019ve seen and when you found a dead body and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, you understand that kind of thinking? How would you ever justify war? She could say, you know, I\u2019ve been in foxholes. I\u2019ve seen people shot up. I don\u2019t think we should ever do it again. This is the way that she is attempting to anoint herself as qualified to ban certain guns, because she has seen wounds caused by guns. And that alone trumps the Constitution. She has seen the wounds. Therefore, she felt patronized and insulted. And Blitzer said, “Well, after you felt insulted, and after you felt patronized, did you have a chance to speak to Senator Cruz after that public exchange?”<\/p>\n

FEINSTEIN: No. I needed to cool down.<\/line><\/p>\n

BLITZER: Have you cooled down yet?<\/p>\n

FEINSTEIN: I\u2019ve cooled down.<\/p>\n

BLITZER: So when you see him the next time what will you say?<\/p>\n

FEINSTEIN: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Well, I did say, “Look, I\u2019m sorry, but, you know, this is one thing that I feel very passionately about, and I appreciate the lecture, but –” and that\u2019s all I\u2019m gonna say.<\/p>\n

RUSH: You know, she can look at it as a lecture. The problem here is that one side is dealing with this as a constitutional issue and the other side, Dianne Feinstein, is not. She\u2019s dealing with it purely as an emotional issue. You know what she\u2019s dealing with, Snerdley? As a female news editor on a TV newscast deciding what to show and what not to show. The chickification of the news. In fact, in the stack I have a story about that. Some guy, I think his name is Nolte, I have to find this. It\u2019s in the stack here and it\u2019s not a very big stack today, I\u2019ll get to it, about the chickification of television and how more and more women are determining what everybody watches on TV.<\/p>\n

This guy cites this rave show on HBO, starring Lena Dunham. Is that her name? The woman did the commercial for Obama saying, “Your first time is really important”? Yeah. First time. Don\u2019t just do it with any guy. You know, pick from five or six. And she was talking about your first vote. Well, she\u2019s got this show on HBO called Girls. That show. Now, if you knew nothing other — and let me do a test, Snerdley, you react. What do you know of that show? So you watched 20 minutes, fine. What is your impression of that show, as you listen to media buzz, Lena Dunham\u2019s all over the place. She\u2019s a guest on Letterman. She\u2019s apparently the architect for what young women ought to be today. What is the impression that you have? The show is huge, right? Is that the impression you get in the media?<\/p>\n

Everybody\u2019s watching, everybody. And that show\u2019s cutting edge. Only 600,000 viewers. That is this guy\u2019s point, not even a million. Fewer viewers than The Daily Show. This has been my point all along about media buzz, how they go out and create this notion that something\u2019s hotter and more popular than anything in the world, when it isn\u2019t. And his point is that you\u2019ve gotta be very careful in assessing what really is popular and what really isn\u2019t and how things that aren\u2019t popular are kept on the air by virtue of buzz or bias or what have you. And his point was that it\u2019s because women are making programming decisions on an emotional basis. I am just telling you what he said.<\/p>\n

Do not attach this to me. All I said was that DiFi is approaching this not as a senator, as a constitutionalist, but the same way a female editor of a nightly newscast would. “Well, we can\u2019t show too much gore and because there\u2019s gore we gotta get rid of what caused it. What Constitution? Doesn\u2019t matter. But I\u2019m an expert on it anyway.”<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Here\u2019s the thing, folks. You know, Dianne Feinstein got famous for being around when Harvey Milk was assassinated in San Francisco. That\u2019s how she became mayor, and she was on the scene when he was killed, and that\u2019s what she\u2019s talking about when she says that she\u2019s seen the gore and the bullet holes, and she\u2019s plugged her finger in there and all that. The thing is, nothing in her bill would have prevented Harvey Milk\u2019s murder. Which doesn\u2019t matter. You see, all that matters is that she is trying to eliminate suffering and she\u2019s exhibiting compassion.<\/p>\n

So she wants to exempt 2,200 weapons. The problem is the Constitution doesn\u2019t exempt, the Second Amendment doesn\u2019t exempt anything. And if I may be so bold, the Second Amendment is in the Constitution to help citizens protect themselves from people like Dianne Feinstein who would come along, and if they could determine what words you can and cannot say, where and where you can\u2019t say them. The Constitution is there to protect you from mayors like Mike Doomberg who wants to tell you how big your beverage can be. He\u2019s not a federal official, I understand. But the principle is the same.<\/p>\n