Talk:Kay Bailey Hutchison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Graduation from UT Law School[edit]

Hutchison graduated from the University of Texas Law School w/ a JD in 1967. She was part of a accelerated law program, since discontinued, that combined undergraduate and law shool courses for six years and awarded a JD w/o a bachelor's degree. She took a few undergraduate courses while she was Texas Treasurer in the early 1990's and received her BA in 1992. I worked in her U.S. Senate press office and this alway's caused a lot of confusion. Everybody thinks 1992 was transposed and should be 1962. She was 19 years old in 1962. The years of graduation were later taken out of her official bio to limit the confusion. I tried to edit here on the Wikipedia, but it was changed back. I am sure it was found to be confusing. RSP

Pro-life?[edit]

So, was she a cheerleader or not? Is she pro-choice or pro-life? Or are some vandals having fun? sendmoreinfo 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is pro-Life, although she does not support overturning Roe v. Wade at this time. It is a distinction that is lost on some people, but the safest way to explain it is to say that she is much more moderate on abortion than other Republicans. She recently sponsored legislation to prevent minors from crossing state lines to avoid parental notification laws, which is hardly a pro-choice position.

There has been a lot of vandalism on this site in recent months. The segment on Ronnie Earle's charges, for example, has repeatedly been changed to mislead readers into implying that criminal activity took place, when in fact, Hutchison was acquitted. One must be careful because while facts may be right, the way those are presented can be misleading.

The comment about her allegedly hitting an employee was not a significant issue in the 1993 campaign.
JS 19:44 7 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.194.231 (talk • contribs)
One must be careful because while facts may be right, the way those are presented can be misleading. I would say perhaps the opposite: One must be careful to present the relevant facts, with the appropriate level of detail, and then trust the reader to decide what they mean. If you do that and readers draw a conclusion other than what you think is correct, then perhaps your conclusion is wrong." John Broughton 21:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between Perry and Hutchinson Rick Perry is more Pro-Life according to numerous sites, which is a big thing that KBH will have going against her in the 2010 Texas governor elections. Invmog (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks against Hutchison[edit]

I removed a link that someone had obviously put up about Hutchison's term-limits pledge. The link was to a very partisan blog called Capitol Annex that had the provocative title, "Broken promises of an aging prom queen" (which is the term her opponent uses against her). First of all, it is doubtful that the term limits issue was a factor, as all the Republicans stated their support of a term limits limit for the U.S. Congress. However, since the source used was a clearly political blog, that does not belong on Wikipedia. 20:26, 29 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalan (talk • contribs)

I replaced the link you deleted to a newspaper article, "Hutchison moving her children to suburban D.C. for school". In the future, please follow wikipedia policy by using edit summaries to explain your edits (see: Help:Edit summary); this makes it possible for others to understand that what you was for a good reason, rather than being an inadvertent mistake.
As for the term-limits pledge, you apparently missed that the blog was actually quoting newspaper articles, which are acceptable, and cited another website where the full articles appear. I've put the information back in. I do agree that the language that was previously there wasn't as NPOV as it should have been, and I have changed it. John Broughton 13:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs with a partisan bent have no credibility whatsoever. If a prime source exists, cite it. If not, then do not post partisan blogs, as they will be removed. Additionally, the fact that Sen. Hutchison owns a home in the Washington D.C. area is irrelevant, because ALL senators own homes in D.C. U.S. Senators do not sleep under a bridge. Hutchison has a Dallas home for which she pays taxes and takes an exemption as her homestead. The fact that her opponent is trying to make an issue out of having a home in D.C. should make anyone skeptical about the motivation for highlighting the D.C. residence. 20:38, 11 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalan (talk • contribs)

Angry Washingtonians and Pistol Ban Controversy[edit]

This entire section "appears" to violate NPOV. It is without citations, and needs them. The following sentence, especially, seems to be factually incorrect:

"Hutchison lives in an extremely wealthy and well-educated area of Northeast Washington, within spitting distance from the Capitol and Senate buildings."

At www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618447/posts, it seems that she no longer lives in Washington, but in Virginia:

"U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is buying a home in Virginia to give her two young children more stability as they enter school age, her staff said Wednesday."

The date of the above reference was April 20, 2006, so conceivably, she could still be living in her "spitting distance" home while she waits to close on the VA home ;-). --Redheaded dude 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the controversy in the pistol ban position? Seems like a strange header since there's nothing mentioned about a 'controversy'. The section should be renamed "Second Amendment position(s)" or "pro-gun positions" Sublium (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1986-92 -- Missing Info?[edit]

I was an attorney at Jenkens & Gilchrist, P.C. (Dallas, Texas) from 1986-92. Some time during that period, another law firm merged into mine -- I don't recall the exact name, but it was Ray Hutchison's firm, in which Kay was also employed as an attorney. She and Ray both became partners in Jenkens & Gilchrist. The merger was unwound within a year or few, as law firm mergers often are. I never heard of her being a "successful business executive" during that period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.138.98.253 (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Slap Incident[edit]

General George Patton lost his position for slapping a soldier. Well-sourced information about Kay Bailey Hutchison slapping an employee is appropriate for this encyclopedia article. — LisaSmall T/C 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biases in Ronnie Earle's Prosecution of KBH....[edit]

This article shows HEAVY bias with regard to the Ronnie Earle's prosecution of KBH. The author paints Ronnie Earle like a victim of a loose cannon judge. The judge had not even ruled on the admissablity of the evidence yet Ronnie Earle refuses to proceed with the trial of KBH. Yeah r-i-i-i-ght. Perhaps judges want to hear all the facts and hear both sides before making these types of decisions. The implication was KBH was guilty of corruption....BUT.... a loose cannon judge saved her from Ronnie Earle. R-i-i-i-ght....

Now, with the Tom DeLay indictments, Ronnie Earle is repeating history by ***RETIRING*** before proceeding with a trial against Tom DeLay. LOL! See a pattern here? Ronnie Earle is a attention hound that loves getting his name in the press and trashing his political enemies...BUT... when it comes to being a lawyer and going to trial, he avoids the hard work of a trial and heads str8 to the bar...

This article shows the primary weakness of wiki. People use wiki as a platform to smear their political opponents. Since wiki stomps overly biased accounts, partisans try to sneak under the radar by making less objectional comments. Felixnietzsche (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing the Names of Rape Victims?[edit]

In the article it states "Hutchison worked to protect rape victims from having their names published..." I am so confused. Who was proposing to publish the names of rape victims? Newspapers? Could someone please provide some clarification? Also, this bit seems out of place where it is. If someone makes it a bit more specific (and a source would be nice), I will try to clean it up (it's currently poorly worded). Thanks! 71.131.34.60 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Representation[edit]

Lawyer/law professor Michael Tigar represented Hutchison...most likely against the charges of using state equipment and personnel during her campaign. Additional information on this might be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.242.80 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE WASHINGTON ADDRESS OF THE SENATOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.8.194 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies home journal[edit]

I can't see any citation for the claim that she was named an influential woman by Ladies home journal. Could this be an unflattering smear by her political detractors? I mean, if you are looking for credibility outside of 1950's stay at home June Cleaver types, you probably wouldn't talk about being mentioned in a supermarket rag, maybe you want to talk about legislation that you have enacted or the boards that you are on. I'm thinking maybe someone added it to belittle her? If this was added in good faith, maybe someone should add a citation, and maybe move it out of the first paragraph, cause geez, I hope she's got more going for her than that. --208.125.68.211 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/100-Most-Important-Women-of-the-20th-Century/Ladies-Home-Journal/e/9780696208232 --rpogge, 4 Dec. 2009

 Done New to reading here, the Ladies Home Journal praise/note is in the article herein now -- FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"rick perry gay"?[edit]

What do you make of this? [1] [2] Stonemason89 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting earlier vandalism[edit]

The ENTIRE sections of Electoral history and External links were deleted over a year ago, and no one here even noticed. I can only assume you were too busy with the various other topics on this page. You must be very proud. Flatterworld (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose is this chastisement supposed to serve? Do you feel proud now you've scolded a bunch of people who did nothing more than fail to notice that two unimportant sections had been deleted? -Rrius (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I was tired and crabby when I wrote that. I withdraw it. -Rrius (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section heading[edit]

User:InaMaka seems to think that "1993–1994 prosecution" is somehow a deceptive way to describe the investigation, indictment, and abortive trial of Senator Hutchison. Though he professes to be a lawyer, he seems to think that "prosecution" equals "conviction". I disagree, and have the dictionary on my side. -Rrius (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let's get something clear from the get go. Rrius claims to be an attorney also. Check the edit summaries. Next, Rrius falsely claims that I believe that "prosecution" equals "conviction". That is as Mark Twain stated a damnable lie. I never stated that and I do not believe it. So you must take everything that Rrius states from here forward with a huge grain of salt. He has started the conversation with a damnable lie. I changed the title and I will change it again because Hutchinson was found not guilty of Ronnie Earle's lies. By definition, Ronnie Earle got his ass handed to him in court. He lost, but now there are Wikipedians that want to rewrite history and make it look like he was right, which wasn't, and that he somehow got the better of Hutchinson, which he didn't. Earle made some allegations and they did not stick. The whole section is written like it was written by one of Earle's law clerks. They were allegations and they did not stick. Period.--InaMaka (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, personal attacks right out of the gate. Good job. I am a lawyer, but my claim was only made after you unwisely presumed that I am not one. You actually thought you could somehow overawe me with your bar admission. You first say that you don't believe "prosecution" equals "conviction", but then you say you changed it because she wasn't convicted. You can't have it both ways. The fact is, she was prosecuted. That the prosecution failed and was politically motivated does not change the fact that it was a prosecution. Instead of engaging in personal attacks and baselessly accusing people of lies, why don't you go ahead and pick up that dictionary you said in one of your edit summaries you have. -Rrius (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did not respond to the base argument. Once again, you are flat out lying when you state that equated "prosecution" with "conviction". All edits in Wikipedia are kept. Show me where I stated that. I didn't and you know it that's why you did not show the edit. Once again, they are merely allegations. The title can use "prosecution". The title can use the word "acquittal". The title can use the word "allegation". The question is which one best represents what really happened. The word "prosecution" does not, in any manner, best explain in NPOV way what really happened. Hutchison was "prosecuted" by Earle who made "allegations", but Hutchison was "acquitted". How did it end up? Earle got his butt whipped and Hutchison came out smelling like a rose. To use the term, "prosecution" is to falsely describe the situation. It is a fraud. It is BS. It is plain old-fashioned POV pushing and it violates one of the basic rules of Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no base argument, so there was nothing to respond to. Anyway, you didn't say it, but your assertion that it is deceptive to describe the prosecution as a prosecution more or less requires the understanding that "prosecution" somehow also means "conviction". I would have no problem with using "acquittal", but your continuing assertion "prosecution" is deceptive is just wrong. The word "allegation" is simply not specific enough, so is far from being the best alternative. I will go ahead and change it to "acquittal". See how much progress can be made when you actually discuss the issue instead of lashing out with personal attacks. -Rrius (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you admit that I never said that. I never equated "conviction" with "prosection." Never. You jumped to the conclusion that I believe that. I still think that "prosecution" is deceptive because it only tells part of the story. I have no problem with using "acquittal" in the title. Also, the whole section does not provide Hutchison point of view, only Earle's point of view and that violates NPOV. Just so we don't get in another edit war, I'm not blaming you for the slanted version of the section. I'm just point that out. Don't read too much into it. I don't have time today to balance out the section with Hutchison's point of view and trim out the unnecessary verbiage about Earle's failed attempts to convict Hutchison.--InaMaka (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You never said it explicitly, but it was implicit in your argument. You did go on to say that you removed the word because she wasn't convicted, so the connection was somewhere in your brain, even if you aren't expressing each step of the argument. I'm not sure that the section really is slanted one way or the other, but to the extent it is, it is probably the result of being based on a single source rather than on any intent on the part of whomever wrote it. Thus, if you are going to try to balance it, I would suggest finding a new source to help you out. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look we agree on a title for the section. Let's just leave it at that. You don't know what I was thinking and it is disingenuous of you to assume that you know better than I do. Since we have reached the point in this discussion where you claim you know what I was thinking--and clearly you don't know better than me--and since what I was thinking is clearly mute at this point let's just move on. Best,--InaMaka (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summaries operated on an assumption, and I picked up on it; there is no question of thinking I know better than you what you think. When you don't make an argument, we can only rely on the one implicit in what you say. While the question is moot at this point, you should try to think more about why someone thinks you are saying a thing before lashing out and calling them liars. -Rrius (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for goodness sakes, do you really think you can read people's minds? Just the fact that I have to ask that question speaks volumes.--InaMaka (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can read what they've written and comprehend the assumptions behind it. Your deception argument makes no sense unless you think that "prosecution" includes a connotation of "conviction". If you don't believe it, your argument is just plain stupid or dishonest. You even said above that you changed the word because she wasn't convected. It's all in what you say, and if you don't see it, you aren't very self-aware. -Rrius (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You really believe that you are a mind reader. I never, ever stated--nor did I ever believe--that "prosecution" equates to "conviction." That is a figment of your imagination. Period.--InaMaka (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) the current heading, "Acquittal", seems rather strained. The heading should reflect in a neutral way the content of the section, which is not about her acquittal but the charges. We could say something simple, like "xxxx case" or "xxxx prosecution". The content itself is rather unhelpful as well. It goes into some tactical matters and what the players apparently thought of them, without much context. The key details seem to be that the DA filed charges, some people (who?) asserted that he had political motivations to do so (Wikipedia shouldn't cast aspersions by simply mentioning his party affiliation), a judge made some rulings that some people (who? what the DA thinks is not the issue) think was designed to halt the case for political purpose (?), the DA declined to prosecute once he felt he had lost the case, and the judge directed a verdict. Something like that. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inditement '93[edit]

The section labeled '1993' failed to disclose that the Senator was acquitted because judge threw out all the evidence on 4th Amendment grounds. Nor does the article disclose that the Democrat States Attorney failed to get a warrant before raiding the Texas Treasury's office. The article should clarify that since all the evidence was thrown out on a blatant anti-constitutional abuse of power, the Prosecutor rested his case before the trail even started. Therefore the Judge acquitted the Senator as the State of Texas failed to make its case against her. It should be noted that to further add to the injustice of the Democratic states attorneys office, elements of the secret grand jury testimony was published -- a crime in itself -- in the Austin Chronicle, in an article that could only be characterized as beyond any semblance of fairness to the sitting Senator. (Of course, no one could possibly know that I wrote a complaint to the Editor at the Austin Chronicle, complaining about the criminality of publishing the secret grand jury testimony. And I received a death threat from someone at the Austin Chronicle in direct response to my complaint.) Tjdadis (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kay Bailey Hutchison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kay Bailey Hutchison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Kay Bailey Hutchison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kay Bailey Hutchison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kay_Bailey_Hutchison&oldid=1207677529"