Salon Newsreal | What if it were President Packwood?

A L S O+T O D A Y

Portrait of a political "pit bull"
By Russ Baker
Rep. Dan Burton, the powerful Indiana congressman who called President Clinton a "scumbag," has a few questions to answer about his own history of womanizing and alleged campaign finance irregularities.
(12/22/98)

T A B L E+T A L K
Do you agree or disagree with President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq? Join the debate in Table Talk's International Issues area

___________________
Read more about Robert Packwood at barnesandnoble.com
___________________

R E C E N T L Y
Life of the party?
By Joshua Micah Marshall
With Livingston gone, Tom DeLay runs the party
(12/19/98)
On to the Senate
By Harry Jaffe
With impeachment behind him, the president carries on. And on (12/19/98)
A plague on all their houses
By Murray Waas
On Capitol Hill, partisan hard-liners have damaged the constitutional democracy they claim to hold so dear
(12/18/98)
And now, back to impeachment
By Bruce Shapiro
Republican skeptic Christopher Shays tries to explain why fence-sitting Republicans suddenly rushed to oppose the president
(12/18/98)
House of adulterers
By David Weir
Unless the GOP is able to convince voters the impeachment proceedings are based on more than disapproval of his private sexual affairs, revelations like Bob Livingston's will continue.
(12/18/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

What if it were President Packwood?
Liberals must face up to their hypocrisy in backing a president who lied under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

BY ANDREW ROSS | After the impeachment vote, President Clinton said he hoped that the legacy of his trials and tribulations would be to suck the poison, once and for all, out of American politics.
It was a noble thought, and if achieved, it would be a wondrous legacy of his presidency. At this point, it is hard to see how the threshing cycle of political murder and revenge eating away at the vitals of American democracy will be slowed. The grotesque impeachment proceedings, the cynical Republican rhetoric about "the rule of law," the rank abuses of prosecutorial power exercised by the independent counsel, the vindictiveness, the trampling of rights, the blatant coup in broad daylight -- these will long be angrily remembered.
Testifying on behalf of the coup's opponents, historian Sean Wilentz told the House Judiciary Committee that history would "hunt down" those who voted for impeachment. In faint echoes of the civil rights and anti-war days, celebrity teach-ins are springing up and protesters are taking to the streets. A veritable crusade is shaping up on behalf of a president whom writer Mary Gordon, in the pages of Salon, likened to the martyred Billy Budd.
But before we throw on the chain mail of righteousness, let us imagine that it is not President Clinton on whose behalf we are fighting the good fight, but George W. Bush III, who has overcome his own rather colorful past, or Robert Packwood, who instead of being bundled out of the Senate for sexual matters, has acceded to the highest office in the land.
Let us suppose it was President Packwood who had testified under oath in a sexual harassment deposition and in a federal grand jury proceeding, understanding that failure to tell the truth ("the whole truth") could result in charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Question: Have you ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?
Packwood: I don't recall.
We would know that President Packwood, under oath, had told a flat-out lie. Would we -- good liberals and feminists who have been in the forefront of virtually criminalizing, under the guise of "sexual harassment," any sexual contact between men and women in the workplace -- have been so easily forgiving of this lie? Would it really have been OK with us had it been President Packwood, rather than President Clinton, who also knew that Lewinsky, an intern young enough to be his daughter, was filing a blatantly false affidavit in which she swore she had no sexual relations with President Clinton. Are we so sure we would have dismissed this president's callous indifference to Lewinsky's putting herself in criminal harm's way as "private behavior" or merely "lying about sex"?
N E X T+P A G E+| President Packwood lied to the grand jury? The scoundrel!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Become a Salon member. Click here.

A L S O+T O D A Y Portrait of a political "pit bull" By Russ Baker Rep. Dan Burton, the powerful Indiana congressman who called President Clinton a "scumbag," has a few questions to answer about his own history of womanizing and alleged campaign finance irregularities. (12/22/98) T A B L E+T A L K Do you agree or disagree with President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq? Join the debate in Table Talk's International Issues area ___________________ Read more about Robert Packwood at barnesandnoble.com ___________________ R E C E N T L Y Life of the party? By Joshua Micah Marshall With Livingston gone, Tom DeLay runs the party (12/19/98) On to the Senate By Harry Jaffe With impeachment behind him, the president carries on. And on (12/19/98) A plague on all their houses By Murray Waas On Capitol Hill, partisan hard-liners have damaged the constitutional democracy they claim to hold so dear (12/18/98) And now, back to impeachment By Bruce Shapiro Republican skeptic Christopher Shays tries to explain why fence-sitting Republicans suddenly rushed to oppose the president (12/18/98) House of adulterers By David Weir Unless the GOP is able to convince voters the impeachment proceedings are based on more than disapproval of his private sexual affairs, revelations like Bob Livingston's will continue. (12/18/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		What if it were President Packwood? Liberals must face up to their hypocrisy in backing a president who lied under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit. BY ANDREW ROSS \| After the impeachment vote, President Clinton said he hoped that the legacy of his trials and tribulations would be to suck the poison, once and for all, out of American politics. It was a noble thought, and if achieved, it would be a wondrous legacy of his presidency. At this point, it is hard to see how the threshing cycle of political murder and revenge eating away at the vitals of American democracy will be slowed. The grotesque impeachment proceedings, the cynical Republican rhetoric about "the rule of law," the rank abuses of prosecutorial power exercised by the independent counsel, the vindictiveness, the trampling of rights, the blatant coup in broad daylight -- these will long be angrily remembered. Testifying on behalf of the coup's opponents, historian Sean Wilentz told the House Judiciary Committee that history would "hunt down" those who voted for impeachment. In faint echoes of the civil rights and anti-war days, celebrity teach-ins are springing up and protesters are taking to the streets. A veritable crusade is shaping up on behalf of a president whom writer Mary Gordon, in the pages of Salon, likened to the martyred Billy Budd. But before we throw on the chain mail of righteousness, let us imagine that it is not President Clinton on whose behalf we are fighting the good fight, but George W. Bush III, who has overcome his own rather colorful past, or Robert Packwood, who instead of being bundled out of the Senate for sexual matters, has acceded to the highest office in the land. Let us suppose it was President Packwood who had testified under oath in a sexual harassment deposition and in a federal grand jury proceeding, understanding that failure to tell the truth ("the whole truth") could result in charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Question: Have you ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky? Packwood: I don't recall. We would know that President Packwood, under oath, had told a flat-out lie. Would we -- good liberals and feminists who have been in the forefront of virtually criminalizing, under the guise of "sexual harassment," any sexual contact between men and women in the workplace -- have been so easily forgiving of this lie? Would it really have been OK with us had it been President Packwood, rather than President Clinton, who also knew that Lewinsky, an intern young enough to be his daughter, was filing a blatantly false affidavit in which she swore she had no sexual relations with President Clinton. Are we so sure we would have dismissed this president's callous indifference to Lewinsky's putting herself in criminal harm's way as "private behavior" or merely "lying about sex"? N E X T+P A G E+\| President Packwood lied to the grand jury? The scoundrel! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.