X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:32:43 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject: Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> 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.    :-)
That's what makes for fun conversations! :-)
>
> (Note that I did not ask for any citations/sources.   :-)
'preciate it!  Of course, what I saw was on CNN.
>
> >> 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?).
Inouye has denied the accusations.  It was proving to be impossible
for Packwood to deny his accusers any longer.  15+ women have
accused him.
>
> 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.
You know what I think!  (thought police alert!)
>
> >> 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.
My point was that these women didn't know that when he was groping them.
Even if he had told them at that point (which I doubt he did), would you
have believed him?  He's the boss, a powerful Senator.
>
> >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.
That's not a fair comparision and you know it.  Clinton ran against
2 others.  Packwood was running against 1 other.
>
> Does his past record on women's issue count for anything?  Is
> THAT any indication of what kind of representative he has been?
Certainly, he has proved to be receptive to "women's issues".  But should
that allow a "sexual harrasser" stay in power?  I don't think so.  It's
not like, in this day and age, that politicians who are "receptive to
women's issues" are hard (oops) to find.
>
> >> 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??
No, I don't think that it's too harsh.  I think that this type of attitude
is too pervasive in our society.  That is, it's not such a bad thing to
grope women.  Let him off.  It's no big deal.  This attitude is a big
problem in congress.  And just think of the ramifications in our society
if a Senator gets kicked out of the Senate, gets prosecuted for harrassment,
and gets time in jail. Don't you think that the next boss who thought about
groping an employee would think twice?   Or how about the father that
makes degrading comments to women in front of his 10 year-old son who
thinks that this is OK and does the same thing in school?
> Remember that
> there is no charge of undue effect on hiring/firing/promotion of
> these women -- at least none that I remember.
I find this to be totally irrelevant.

> >> 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.
Yes, a recall as in a vote to recall.  I don't think waiting 6 years to
kick him out is a good idea.
I agree that his lying about his harrassments until after the election,
shows his attitude toward the voters.  And that is a 'sin' against all
voters.  But you know what KAT? I think that his harrassment of women is
a 'sin' against all voters.  Who does he think he is?
>
> >Jonathan
>
> --KAT
>

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU