- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2
_______________WHAT IF IT WERE PRESIDENT PACKWOOD? BY ANDREW ROSS (12/22/98)
	Andrew Ross enhances the level of political discourse by challenging liberals to imagine how they might feel if former Sen. Robert Packwood were president, rather than Bill Clinton. Would we rise to Packwood's defense, as many are rising to the defend the president? For me, the answer is no. My efforts to thwart the impeachment process do not arise out of a belief that the fate of the republic depends on Clinton's political survival. In fact, I would be relieved if Al Gore stepped into the breach. What is more important, and I'm hoping that many others share this view, is that the cultural fundamentalists in the GOP must not be allowed to win. Monicagate/impeachment looks to me like the focal point for a cultural civil war that begin in the '80s with the Reagan/Gingrich juggernaut. Clinton's public approval rating is hovering around 70 percent, but I'd bet that a substantial share of that barometer can be interpreted as voter revulsion at what the Republican Party has become. -- Peter Jung I'd like to say that I truly appreciated Andrew Ross' "What if it were President Packwood?" story. It put into clear terms the hypocrisy flowing forth from the Democrats on Capitol Hill that are blindly supporting Clinton. The Republicans may be going too far with impeachment, but it seems as though nothing short of the "political death penalty" will faze Clinton. To this day, he doesn't seem to understand that this entire mess is of his own making. I have great respect for Democrats such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman and others who have taken a stand on principle rather than party. However, Democrats such as Rep. Maxine Waters absolutely amaze me. It seems as though Clinton could commit murder on videotape and they could excuse it. Thanks for presenting the other side. -- Phil Bridges Raleigh, N.C. I just read the "President Packwood" article, and think it's one of the best pieces of work to come out of this whole, sorry impeachment spectacle. It's making me re-examine my own ideas on this issue, and, hopefully, it will help me to be a bit more understanding toward those who happen not to agree with me on this. For this I thank you greatly. -- Ivan Maddox Emory University While Andrew Ross made several interesting points in his recent column, the fact remains that the Democratic Party does not have a history of being obsessed with personal issues like marital infidelity or sexual promiscuity. Ross surely does not mean to suggest that a cast of Democrats would have spent millions trying to entrap President Packwood; the idea of disorganized Democrats plotting to undo a sitting president boggles the imagination. The real story of Clinton's impeachment continues to be how the hard right successfully won the day despite Kenneth Starr's failure to find impeachable offenses. Without Starr's staff colluding with Paula Jones' attorneys, there never would have been a case against Clinton. Kudos to the right-wingers for pulling off a bloodless coup d'état. Ross can theorize all he likes but the left that I know and love is incapable of such levels of deception and intrigue. -- Mark Gisleson St. Paul, Minn. Andrew Ross' article about Clinton getting better treatment than Robert Packwood was an interesting idea for a story, but it probably wouldn't have played as well if Ross had included any facts about Packwood's fall. For example, Packwood was not hounded for sex but sexual harassment -- his antics were not in any way consensual. The only actual case of harassment suggested against Clinton is the Paula Jones case, which was thrown out of court and only settled because Clinton knew the Whitehead Institute would have appealed it to the World Court in the Hague just to keep it in the newspapers. Packwood was also guilty of falsifying actual evidence in the form of his forged diaries. You can quibble about perjury with Clinton until the cows come home, but making a few mistakes while trying to remember past events on the fly is nothing compared to seating yourself before a keyboard and hammering out a document whose very existence is a lie. Ross also got an actual fact wrong -- Robert Bork's video rental history was never at issue, it was Clarence Thomas who was accused of renting things like "On Golden Blonde" and "Sex Trek, The Next Penetration." By the way, if you want to start a conversation about liars, let's talk about Clarence Thomas telling a Senate committee and a television audience that he had never in his life formed an opinion about the Roe vs. Wade decision. Thomas may be the only person in history to perjure his way onto the Supreme Court. -- Francis Volpe Carlisle, Pa. As an Oregon Democrat and feminist who has been active on behalf of various "progressive" issues since the 1970s, I take exception to Andrew Ross' fuzzy thinking and omission of facts. First, Sen. Packwood had a long history of unwanted sexual behaviors toward many, many women. In case Ross didn't read the Starr Report, Monica Lewinsky sought out a sexual relationship with the president and willingly acknowledged that. Second, I long supported Packwood, despite his being a Republican, because he was a staunch and unwavering voice for choice. We knew we could always write his office about abortion issues and be heard. His loss to us was a great one. The Oregonian newspaper did a mea culpa after the fact, admitting that they had information about his behavior for a long time and suppressed the information. Be assured that many Democrats and feminists, including some of his victims, also suppressed the incidents and did not out him for years, just because he was such a good friend on another important matter. -- Holly Thau Pendleton, Oreg. SALON | Jan. 4, 1999

R E C E N T L Y+| "HUNDRED DOLLAR HOLIDAY" BY BILL MCKIBBEN REVIEWED BY NORAH VINCENT

Do you want to respond to a letter to the editor? Join the ongoing discussion in the Welcome area of Table Talk If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at letters@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.