Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:13:13 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?
              7 Jan 1993 15:16:14 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:16:14 PST Jonathan Fisher said:

>> I have to agree with Carl*.  Packwood did apologize.  His attitude
>> was NOT, "Gee, IF I did something wrong, THEN I apologize," rather
>> he clearly admitted that he was wrong and was sorry for it.

>That was not my impression.  I don't think that he said that he
>was sorry for sexually harrassing anyone.

I guess our impressions are different.    :-)

(Note that I did not ask for any citations/sources.   :-)

>> Now, I don't know if being sorry and admitting you have been wrong
>> is enough (but it is sure more than many people would do.)

>It sure was politically expedient.

But consider this, it was not politically expedient for
Inouye (sp?).

On the other hand, I admit that I don't know whether he
is sorry that he has done these things or he is sorry that
he is caught.

>> Additionally it seems to me that what Packwood has done is very bad but could
>> be worse.   Before some of you jump on me let me say that for example he
>> did not use his office and power to coerce women.

>That's not true.  He did not explicitly use the power of his office to coerce
>women, but it was definitely implicit.  He was/is the boss.  He is a
>powerful congressperson.  What does it mean to say 'no' to him?

I don't recall any woman claiming that she was reprimanded
or fired after they rejected his advances.

>I don't agree.  I think that he has shown that he is a poor representative.
>As proof of that, I would point to the people of Oregon who re-elected him
>by a slim majority.  If this had come out, he would have lost, perhaps
>decisively.  He is holding an office that he does not deserve to hold.

He got more vote (percentage-wise) than Clinton did (I am
assuming here :-), so THAT by itself does not mean anything.
But I did agree that he would have lost had he been forthcoming
a bit sooner.

Does his past record on women's issue count for anything?  Is
THAT any indication of what kind of representative he has been?

>> Ironically, *I* think it would serve the "women's movement" better if
>> he is forgiven and allowed to finish his term and let the people of
>> Oregon decide if he should be reappointed.  Letting him stay would
>> affirm that women are not for revenge but for equality and respect.

>No.  I don't agree. He sexually harrased at least 15 women.  He deserves
>to be in prison.

In prison?!  Don't you think that is kind of harsh?  I have
no problem with people losing their jobs if they misuse
their power, but prison?, for making advances??  Remember that
there is no charge of undue effect on hiring/firing/promotion of
these women -- at least none that I remember.

>> There is however one little problem here.  Packwood played loose with
>> facts so that he could get reelected.  That is a sin alright, but it
>> is not against women per se, bust against all voters.  The punishment
>> for THAT sin, I don't know.

>He shouldn't have been seated.  He should be recalled. That is the penalty.

I am sure you mean recall as in vote to recall not as an action
by a court, right?  If yes, then I have no problem with that.
But my point is that THAT sin was against all voters not just
women.

>Jonathan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU