Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post
Newsgroups: americast.wpost
From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com
Organization: American Cybercasting
Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com
Subject: The Packwood Case=
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 04:42:49 EST
Message-ID: <10.1992Nov24.044249@AmeriCast.com>
Lines: 50

The Packwood Case=

 FIVE DAYS before the Nov. 3 election, Sen. Bob Packwood of Ore-
gon was confronted by reporters for this newspaper with accounts
that he had made uninvited sexualadvances to 10 women, including
former members of his staff. The senator denied the accounts and
later provided statements from others meant to cast doubt on his
accusers' credibility.

Now, however, having safely won another six-year term, he says
that maybe it was true after all. "I will not make an issue of
any specific allegation," he said Friday, and if he had "caused
any individual discomfort or embarrassment, for that I am sin-
cerely sorry. My intentions were never to pressure . . . and I
truly regret if that has occurred."

 A lawyer friend in Portland translates this to mean that he is
"accepting responsibility." It's a strange way of doing so.  Mr.
Packwood defeated his opponent, former representative Les AuCoin,
by a margin of 52 to 48 percent after outspending Mr. AuCoin by
about $6 million, much of it raised through the senator's posi-
tion as ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. We have no
idea if the result would have been otherwise had the acceptance
of responsibility preceded the vote, but that's at least a possi-
bility. The people of Oregon will have to sort it out - Sen.
Packwood's long and commendable record of support for women's
rights versus his apparent violation of them - and decide whether
they were cheated as well as misled.  Even then, it's not clear
what they can do about it.

 But they are not the senator's only possible judges. It will be
interesting to hear from his fellow senators as well. One of the
rules of the Senate is that no member should behave in such a way
as to reflect discredit on the institution. Did the senator, if
he did the things he is accused of and then lied about them until
he had won a fifth term, violate that rule? Or are the standards
of the Senate complaisant enough to accommodate such conduct? At
least some of the women on whom Mr. Packwood is accused of having
pressed his affections were younger employees; others were lobby-
ists. What if he had pressed them from his position of power for
money instead of sexual favors? No question there, of course;
that would be a serious offense. How differently does the Senate
regard the two abuses of power? 02:07 11-24C9999-----

Copyright 1992, The Washington Post.  This story is from the
Washington Post's Capitol Edition On-Line and is not to be ar-
chived or redistributed.

For more information, send-email to American Cybercasting Cor-
poration (usa@AmeriCast.COM)