From the Washington Post: [link]
Kay Bailey Hutchison Last Sunday:
I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment . . . that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
Kay Bailey Hutchison in 1999:
What would we be telling Americans--and those worldwide who see in America what they can only hope for in their own countries--if the Senate of the United States were to conclude: The President lied under oath as an element of a scheme to obstruct the due process of law, but we chose to look the other way?
I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote "Guilty" on Article I, Perjury. I vote "Guilty" on Article II, Obstruction of Justice.
Go for it. The worst they can do is say no, and they can't say yes unless you ask.
Allyson, you should. Not at all insane or presumptuous.
It sounds like a great idea to me, Allyson.
Dear conservatives who keep spouting off about how Rosa Parks was a "pawn" or a "plant" and all part of some elaborate plan by the NAACP:
I think you have your Klan hood on a little too tight.
Toodles, dw
Allyson, TOTALLY do it!
dw, where and why do you keep coming across the crazy people?
Hmmm. Hello Ira, here's my story.
Now I just need to find some studio who will give me a bit of time so I can record it. Who won't charge me a fortune. Bleh.
all part of some elaborate plan by the NAACP:
Well, this part is true, though not NAACP, I think. I actually think a lot is lost in the story when it becomes "tired old grandma won't get up" rather than "courageous woman takes a big damn risk to spark a change in the world."
But otherwise, yeah. STFU.
Does this sound overly insane and presumptuous? My agent says to of course go for it, but I'm not sure if I'm being crazy. Is this crazy?
I can't imagine that it would be in your agent's interest to make you look insane or presumptuous. Plus, that sounds way cool.
