X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:52:17 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> > I've heard this story a while ago. Actually, it was so long ago that
> > presidents and the Pentagon would delay a potentially damaging story
> > because a senator leaned on them, which seems to be your point here.
> > I doubt that the Post set the story later because the senator needed
> > dirt. I just don't buy it.

> Well then you didn't read their article.  The specifically stated that
> they had the article ready before the election.  But they wanted to get
> a response from Packwood.  So Packwood goes through several delaying tactics.
> Several of which turn out to lies.  But the Post holds the article figuring
> that Packwood would come clean. Packwood didn't lean on the Post, he just
> said that the women were lying and that he had proof.

I don't read the Post. The mail out here is one step above the Pony
Express. (they use horse-drawn wagons. they hope that they can get
internal combustion engines issued in the next budget-year), so by
the time it gets here, it is no longer news.

> > So, who's your friend in Packwoods office? I have a list of senators w/
> > ph.# so I can ask. I'll pay the long distance, I'll listen to the bad
> > hold music while they forward me through the voice mail, if you just
> > tell me who told you this.

> Uh, I read it in the Post. I am likely to believe (especially since I
> can't remember the women who was quoted's name) that the Packwood assistant
> wanted to be unnamed.

OK. That's understandable. Having known journalists and having seen
stories built around things I'm very connected to be hacked to pieces
by journalists, I'm apt to doubt a fair amount of what I read in the
papers. Heck, I'm copy editor of my student paper and I still doubt
a fair amount. Not in the bare facts, but definately in the assessment
of importance of those facts.

> > I had not heard the actual "harrassment" technique. I just knew he was
> > a "HARRASSER." (or at least been charged)

> Not to flame, but wouldn't it be a good idea to read about the situation
> _before_ talking about it?

I was under the assumption that I was at least vaguely conversational
with the facts at hand. Most harrassment stories I've seen do not
mention the actual harrassment techniques, so it is easy to understand
why the definitions are argued over at times.

> > This is the first time I have been called "conservative," even in
> > implication. rufus would think that's hilarious!

> Sorry, I didn't mean to call you a conservative!  I have just heard the
> above argument from so many conservatives that I lashed out!

No problem.

> > OK, just because I think the line is fuzzy, that doesn't mean that I
> > don't think these actions, if they occured, are over the line.

> What does this mean?

I do not know that sexual harrassment is exactly what you say it
is, but there are surely some actions we would both call sexual
harrassment and therefore wrong.

> > THE DELETED PART TALKED ABOUT THE TACTICS OF GETTING PACKWOOD OUT.
> > > > > Yes, a recall as in a vote to recall.  I don't think waiting 6 years t
> > > > > kick him out is a good idea.

> > > > I don't know that Oregon has recall. I know Minnesota doesn't. I know
> > > > South Dakota does  B).

> > > I heard talk about petitions.

> > And petitions show up occasionally in Minnesota, according to a source.
> > And are thrown away. They have no legal force in Minn. unlike SD.

> Well, how about this, time will tell!

Does anyone know what the recall laws are in Oregon?

> > > > A senator with a great record on woman's rights votes. Even though
> > > > he is a pig (or was, depending on what you believe) he still is a
> > > > friend to women with his votes.

> > > So that gives him the right to grope?!

> > Well, as much as I'd like a strong precedent to throw people out
> > of Congress ("I have a little list of people who could be kicked
> > out and would never be missed." Apologies to Rogers & Hammerstein),
> > there isn't one. There have been worse things done and the perps
> > often still sat.

> So what??? That doesn't mean that once we find it out, he can't be kicked.

I think there are worse things going on in the halls of the Hill
that should have a higher "bounce-the-congresscritter" (BTCC) Index
than harrassment, and those high BTCC Index happenings should be
in the papers much more often than now.

> > You seem to be advocating a shiny, golden, squeaky-clean Congress.
> > I'm trying to say that you can't expect such a thing. THAT doesn't
> > mean I don't think Packwood is far from squeaky-clean.

> In an ideal world, yes that is what I am advocating.  However, I don't
> expect such a thing.  But that doesn't mean that we can't work toward
> a squeaky-clean Congress.  That doesn't mean that when we find one of
> our congresspeople going over the line, he/she shouldn't be kicked out.

I think we have bounced our ideas around enough that if we don't
agree, we at least know each others' thoughts on this subject,
and therefore I recommend we let this  "Re:" chain die.

> Jonathan

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU