The context doesn’t help Cubin

Just to follow up on the Cubin controversy, I’ve reviewed the transcript of the Cubin-Watt debate from the floor yesterday, wondering if the context of her remarks might be helpful in elucidating her intentions. After reading the actual recorded text, Cubin still looks pathetic.

In case you’re interested, here’s exactly what was said:

Cubin: I appreciate all of the scenarios the other side is throwing out about why we need this amendment, because I agree, there are too many deaths due to gunshot wounds in this country. Too many children are dying because they are getting a hold of weapons that were legally owned, but were not taken care of correctly and were not separated from the ammunition. That is happening, and that is a problem. But these folks have entirely the wrong answer. We need a common-sense, balanced answer to treating problems like this, and it does not involve taking away our Second Amendment, our right to own and defend ourselves. We not only deserve to be defended from terrorists home and abroad, but we also deserve to be able to buy guns to defend ourselves in our own home. My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my…

Watt: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words of the gentlewoman from Wyoming be taken down.

Chairman: The gentlewoman from Wyoming will suspend and will be seated. The Clerk will report the words. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Wyoming rise?

Cubin: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out that I did not break any rulings of the House, but I also want to point out just as a fellow Member that I certainly would never say anything or even think anything that would offend my neighbors on the other side, and well, obviously it did happen. So I would like to apologize to my colleague for his sensitivities, but certainly I would never do that. So I would like to continue on with my remarks. But the next question I wanted to ask is, does that amendment mean…

Chairman: The gentlewoman will suspend. Did the Chair correctly understand the gentlewoman’s statement to say that the gentlewoman would withdraw the words?

Cubin: No, I will not withdraw the words.

Chairman: Did the Chair understand the gentlewoman to say that the gentlewoman apologized if the words were of offense to any Member of the House?

Cubin: Yes. Yes, I did apologize if the words were offensive to anyone in the House. But I will not say I broke rules of the House. I did not. I apologized because as a person I want to do that.

Chairman: The gentlewoman will suspend. The Chair would ask the gentleman from North Carolina, the gentlewoman has apologized to anyone in the House to whom her words would have been offensive, and the gentleman has asked those words to be taken down. Does the gentleman insist on his position, or does the gentleman withdraw his demand?

Watt: Mr. Chairman, I do not need the gentlewoman to apologize for my sensibilities. She needs to be apologizing for using words that are insulting to the entire African American race. And if that is what she is doing, then I gracefully accept her apology. But if she is saying that this is somehow because I am sensitive to those words, then I will not.

Cubin: Mr. Chairman, I do not withdraw my words.

At this point, there was a vote on whether to strike Cubin’s remarks from the record. The House 227 to 195, largely along party lines, to leave the remarks in the record.