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? | PAGE 1, 2
- - - - - - - - - -
Then, of course, there would be the evasions and obfuscations in President Packwood's federal grand jury testimony. What the meaning of "is" is. She aroused me, I didn't arouse her. What he and Lewinsky did together "did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined." And how sympathetic to President Packwood would we be after hearing the president's own counsel say to the House Judiciary Committee: "Reasonable people, and you maybe have reached this conclusion, could determine that he crossed over that line, and that what for him was truthful but misleading or nonresponsive and misleading or evasive, was in fact false." Or this, from "a longtime advisor" to the president: "For the president of the United States to lie before a grand jury is a big deal. I don't care if the lie is about a fender-bender or about sex. We always knew that perjury before a grand jury was a dastardly, very serious act that most people would not tolerate."
Would we be so tolerant of President Packwood's perjury? And what would we be thinking as members of his own party got up during the House impeachment debate and, one by one, called his behavior "inexcusable," "deplorable," "indefensible"? "He broke the law? Probably so." Would we not be looking increasingly askance as we read the actual text of the censure motion offered by President Packwood's party, which states that the president "egregiously failed" the obligations implicit in his oath of office, to "set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth." Further, his actions "violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of the President and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him." What more would it take to get people marching in the streets with placards demanding, "Packwood must go!"
Would Toni Morrison have risen up to lionize President Packwood had he so "egregiously failed?" Would she and other literary lions have affixed their signatures to various anti-impeachment petitions had it been President Packwood who, according to loyal aide Sidney Blumenthal's grand jury testimony, compared himself to "a character in the novel 'Darkness at Noon' ... I feel like a character in an oppressive farce that is creating a lie about me and I can't get the truth out." Rather than defending President Packwood, Morrison might have pointed out that the book's author, Arthur Koestler -- not to mention the real victims about whom Koestler so eloquently wrote -- would be appalled by the way President Packwood cynically exploited literary truth in the service of the big lie he was telling to all around him.
And before the rest of us get too misty-eyed about ending the politics of character assassination, we might want to take a closer look at our own record in this area. There's Packwood himself, of course, run out of town by California Sen. Barbara Boxer and assorted feminists in full-throated roar for copping smooches with female staffers. Then there's former Texas Sen. John Tower, whose crime was that he enjoyed a drink or two, and failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, whose video rental receipts were paraded in front of the world. And of course Clarence Thomas, pitted against Anita Hill -- the liberals' equivalent of Paula Jones -- with a sex harassment smear every bit as bogus as the one used to bring down Clinton.
As for Clinton, perhaps he meant it when he called, in his post-impeachment Rose Garden speech Saturday afternoon, for an "end to the politics of personal destruction." But in his own case, that heartfelt call is beside the point. If in the end the forces arrayed in his defense prove insufficient, nobody will have brought down Clinton except himself. Richard Mellon Scaife didn't tell him to avail himself of Monica Lewinsky's charms; Kenneth Starr didn't tell him to lie about it for seven months. Henry Hyde didn't tell the president to hand a gun to his sworn enemies and suggest they shoot him at point-blank range. In Clinton's case, a call for an end to the politics of self-destruction might be more apropos. And it would suit the rest of us to apportion responsibility accordingly.
SALON | Dec. 22, 1998

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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? \| PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - Then, of course, there would be the evasions and obfuscations in President Packwood's federal grand jury testimony. What the meaning of "is" is. She aroused me, I didn't arouse her. What he and Lewinsky did together "did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined." And how sympathetic to President Packwood would we be after hearing the president's own counsel say to the House Judiciary Committee: "Reasonable people, and you maybe have reached this conclusion, could determine that he crossed over that line, and that what for him was truthful but misleading or nonresponsive and misleading or evasive, was in fact false." Or this, from "a longtime advisor" to the president: "For the president of the United States to lie before a grand jury is a big deal. I don't care if the lie is about a fender-bender or about sex. We always knew that perjury before a grand jury was a dastardly, very serious act that most people would not tolerate." Would we be so tolerant of President Packwood's perjury? And what would we be thinking as members of his own party got up during the House impeachment debate and, one by one, called his behavior "inexcusable," "deplorable," "indefensible"? "He broke the law? Probably so." Would we not be looking increasingly askance as we read the actual text of the censure motion offered by President Packwood's party, which states that the president "egregiously failed" the obligations implicit in his oath of office, to "set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth." Further, his actions "violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of the President and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him." What more would it take to get people marching in the streets with placards demanding, "Packwood must go!" Would Toni Morrison have risen up to lionize President Packwood had he so "egregiously failed?" Would she and other literary lions have affixed their signatures to various anti-impeachment petitions had it been President Packwood who, according to loyal aide Sidney Blumenthal's grand jury testimony, compared himself to "a character in the novel 'Darkness at Noon' ... I feel like a character in an oppressive farce that is creating a lie about me and I can't get the truth out." Rather than defending President Packwood, Morrison might have pointed out that the book's author, Arthur Koestler -- not to mention the real victims about whom Koestler so eloquently wrote -- would be appalled by the way President Packwood cynically exploited literary truth in the service of the big lie he was telling to all around him. And before the rest of us get too misty-eyed about ending the politics of character assassination, we might want to take a closer look at our own record in this area. There's Packwood himself, of course, run out of town by California Sen. Barbara Boxer and assorted feminists in full-throated roar for copping smooches with female staffers. Then there's former Texas Sen. John Tower, whose crime was that he enjoyed a drink or two, and failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, whose video rental receipts were paraded in front of the world. And of course Clarence Thomas, pitted against Anita Hill -- the liberals' equivalent of Paula Jones -- with a sex harassment smear every bit as bogus as the one used to bring down Clinton. As for Clinton, perhaps he meant it when he called, in his post-impeachment Rose Garden speech Saturday afternoon, for an "end to the politics of personal destruction." But in his own case, that heartfelt call is beside the point. If in the end the forces arrayed in his defense prove insufficient, nobody will have brought down Clinton except himself. Richard Mellon Scaife didn't tell him to avail himself of Monica Lewinsky's charms; Kenneth Starr didn't tell him to lie about it for seven months. Henry Hyde didn't tell the president to hand a gun to his sworn enemies and suggest they shoot him at point-blank range. In Clinton's case, a call for an end to the politics of self-destruction might be more apropos. And it would suit the rest of us to apportion responsibility accordingly. SALON \| Dec. 22, 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.