Packwood, R

<div>=</div><div>Robert William "Bob" Packwood (born September 11, 1932) is a U.S. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician" title="Politician" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">politician</a> from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon" title="Oregon" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Oregon</a>and a member of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party(United_States)" title="Republican Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Republican Party</a>. He resigned from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate" title="United States Senate" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">United States Senate</a>, under threat of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress" title="Expulsion from the United States Congress" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">expulsion</a>, in 1995 after allegations of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment" title="Sexual harassment" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">sexual harassment</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse" title="Sexual abuse" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">abuse</a> and assault of women emerged.<div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249); padding: 7px; display: inline-block; zoom: 1; line-height: 19.2px;"><div id="toctitle" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;">
</div><ul style="line-height: 1.5em; list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#Early_life_and_career" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">1 Early life and career</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#Lawyer_turned_legislator" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">2 Lawyer turned legislator</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#U.S.Senator" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">3 U.S. Senator</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#Road_to_resignation" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">4 Road to resignation</a><ul style="line-height: 1.5em; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#Sexual_misconduct_allegations" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">4.1 Sexual misconduct allegations</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#Expulsion_recommendation_and_resignation" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">4.2 Expulsion recommendation and resignation</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#After_the_U.S.Senate" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">5 After the U.S. Senate</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#References" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">6 References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#External_links" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">7 External links</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: none; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 19.2px;">Early life and career<span class="mw-editsection mw-editsection-expanded" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; direction: ltr;">[</h2>Packwood was born in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,Oregon" title="Portland, Oregon" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Portland, Oregon</a>, graduated from Grant High School in 1950, and then in 1954 graduated from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_University" title="Willamette University" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Willamette University</a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem,Oregon" title="Salem, Oregon" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Salem</a>.Packwood is the great-grandson of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H.Packwood" title="William H. Packwood" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">William H. Packwood</a>, the youngest member of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Constitutional_Convention" title="Oregon Constitutional Convention" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Oregon Constitutional Convention</a> of 1857.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[1]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-kirschmeier-2" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[2]</a> Packwood had his great-grandfather’s political bent from his early years. During his undergraduate years, he participated in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Republican" title="Young Republican" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Young Republican</a> activities and worked on political campaigns, including later Governor and US Senator <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hatfield" title="Mark Hatfield" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Mark Hatfield</a>'s first run for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_House_of_Representatives" title="Oregon House of Representatives" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Oregon House of Representatives</a>. He received the prestigious <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root-Tilden_Scholarship" title="Root-Tilden Scholarship" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Root-Tilden Scholarship</a> to New York University Law School, where he earned national awards in moot court competition and was elected student body president.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-oe-3" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[3]</a> After graduating from the NYU Law School in 1957, he was admitted to the bar and practiced law in Portland.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: none; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 19.2px;">Lawyer turned legislator<span class="mw-editsection mw-editsection-expanded" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; direction: ltr;">[</h2>In 1960, he was elected Chairman of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multnomah_County,Oregon" title="Multnomah County, Oregon" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Multnomah County</a> Republican Central Committee, thus becoming the youngest party chairman of a major metropolitan area in the country.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[4]</a> In 1962, he became the youngest member of the Oregon Legislature<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[5]</a> when he was elected to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_House_of_Representatives" title="Oregon House of Representatives" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Oregon House of Representatives</a> after a campaign waged by what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregonian" title="The Oregonian" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">The Oregonian</a> called “one of the most effective working organizations in many an election moon in Oregon.” Hundreds of volunteers went door-to-door distributing leaflets throughout the district and put up lawn signs that became “literally a geographical feature” of the district.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[6]</a> Because of the effectiveness of his own campaigns, Packwood was selected to organize a political action committee that recruited attractive Republican candidates for the Oregon House throughout the state,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-oe-3" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[3]</a> and trained them in “Packwood-style” campaigning methods.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-Balmer.2C_Western_Political_Quarterly_1965-7" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[7]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[8]</a> The success of his candidates was credited with the Republican takeover of the Oregon House, thus making Oregon the only state in the Union in which the Republicans were able to score a significant victory in 1964.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-Balmer.2C_Western_Political_Quarterly_1965-7" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[7]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[9]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[10]</a>He was a member of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_House_of_Representatives" title="Oregon House of Representatives" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Oregon House of Representatives</a> from 1963 to 1968. In 1965, he founded the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorchester_Conference" title="Dorchester Conference" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Dorchester Conference</a>, an annual political conclave on the Oregon coast that “pointedly ignored state leadership in the Grand Old Party“<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[11]</a> to bring Republican officeholders and citizens together to discuss current issues and pass resolutions taking stands on those issues. Initially a forum for liberal politics, it has become an annual networking event for Oregon Republicans.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: none; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 19.2px;">U.S. Senator<span class="mw-editsection mw-editsection-expanded" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; direction: ltr;">[</h2>In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Oregon,1968" title="United States Senate election in Oregon, 1968" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">1968</a>, Packwood won the Republican nomination to run for the U.S. Senate against Democrat <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Morse" title="Wayne Morse" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Wayne Morse</a>. Morse had been elected to the Senate as a Republican in 1944 and 1950, then switched parties due to his liberal views, and was easily reelected as a Democrat in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Oregon,1956" title="United States Senate election in Oregon, 1956" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">1956</a> and<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Oregon,1962" title="United States Senate election in Oregon, 1962" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">1962</a>. The relatively unknown Packwood was given little chance, but after an 11th-hour debate with the incumbent, which Packwood was generally considered to have won,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[12]</a> and a statewide recount in which over 100,000 ballots were challenged by both parties,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[13]</a> Packwood was declared the winner by 3500 votes.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[14]</a> He then replaced Senator Ted Kennedy as the youngest senator.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-15" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[15]</a> Packwood was reelected in<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Oregon,1974" title="United States Senate election in Oregon, 1974" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">1974</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Oregon,1980" title="United States Senate election in Oregon, 1980" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">1980</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Oregon,1986" title="United States Senate election in Oregon, 1986" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">1986</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Oregon,1992" title="United States Senate election in Oregon, 1992" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">1992</a>. He became “one of the country’s most powerful elected officials”.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-16" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[16]</a> His voting record was moderate. He supported restrictions on gun owners and liberal civil rights legislation.Two years before Roe v. Wade he introduced the Senate's first abortion legalization bill, but he was unable to attract a cosponsor for either.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-17" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[17]</a>His <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice" title="Pro-choice" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">pro-choice</a> stance earned him the loyalty of many feminist groups<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-18" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[18]</a> and numerous awards including those from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood" title="Planned Parenthood" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Planned Parenthood</a>Federation of America (January 10, 1983) and the National Women’s Political Caucus (October 23, 1985). In 1987, Packwood crossed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line(politics)" title="Party line (politics)" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">party lines</a> to vote against the nomination of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork" title="Robert Bork" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Robert Bork</a> to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Supreme Court</a>, and he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the nomination of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas" title="Clarence Thomas" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Clarence Thomas</a> to the court.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-oe-3" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[3]</a> Both votes were based on the nominee's opposition to abortion rights.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-oe-3" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[3]</a>Packwood differed with President Richard M. Nixon on some prominent issues. He voted against Nixon’s Supreme Court nominees <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Haynsworth" title="Clement Haynsworth" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Clement Haynsworth</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.Harrold_Carswell" title="G. Harrold Carswell" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">G. Harrold Carswell</a>, “two of Nixon’s most embarrassing defeats,”<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-Kirschmeier.2C_p.124-19" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[19]</a> as well as Nixon’s proposals for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer" title="B-1 Lancer" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">B-1 bomber</a>, submarines capable of carrying the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident(missile)" title="Trident (missile)" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Trident missile</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transport" title="Supersonic transport" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">supersonic transport</a> (SST).<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-Kirschmeier.2C_p.124-19" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[19]</a> He became the first Senate Republican to support Nixon’s impeachment.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-kirschmeier-2" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[2]</a> In a White House meeting of November 15, 1973, he told President Nixon that the public no longer believed the President and no longer trusted the integrity of the administration.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-20" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[20]</a>He played a major role in the enactment of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hells_Canyon_National_Recreation_Area" title="Hells Canyon National Recreation Area" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Hells Canyon National Recreation Area</a> Act,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-21" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[21]</a> which protected scenic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hells_Canyon" title="Hells Canyon" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Hells Canyon</a>, the deepest river gorge in North America, by making it into a 652,488-acre (2,640.53 km2) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recreation_Area" title="National Recreation Area" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">National Recreation Area</a> on the borders of northeastern Oregon and western Idaho.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-22" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[22]</a> Packwood sponsored the bill, and was credited with becoming “a genuine leader in the preservation battle” in Congress and in the end, second only to the idea’s originator “the single most important individual in the history of Hells Canyon preservation”.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-23" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[23]</a> Environmentalists also praised his advocacy of solar energy, returnable bottles and bike paths.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-Kirschmeier.2C_p.124-19" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[19]</a>Deregulation was another interest. In the late 1970s he became a passionate supporter of trucking deregulation and a “persuasive spokesman for reform.” When deregulation became law, “newspaper editorials praised Packwood for his pivotal role in the deregulation battle.”<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-24" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[24]</a>He has been described as an ardent pro-Israel supporter. He, along with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Dine" title="Tom Dine" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Tom Dine</a>, opposed the F-15 sale to the Saudis under President Reagan.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[25]</a>He was most noted for his role in the 1986 “unlikely triumph of tax reform” while he was chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-26" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[26]</a>President <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan" title="Ronald Reagan" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Ronald Reagan</a> had proposed the idea of tax reform in 1984, but Packwood's initial response was indifference. However, he played a leading role in fashioning "a radically new tax code that will raise business taxes by some $120 billion over five years—and lower personal income taxes by roughly the same amount."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-oe-3" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[3]</a> Historians of the Act have written that his turnaround “revived the dying tax reform bill”,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-27" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[27]</a> and credited his “ingenuity and astonishing legislative skill” with passage of the law,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[28]</a> which “despite its warts and wrinkles…succeeded at the fundamental purpose of reform.”<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-29" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[29]</a> Packwood’s debating skills were rated A+ in USA Today, July 18, 1986. But his debating and legislative skills could kill bills as well as pass them. His “masterful” floor management has been credited with killing President Clinton’s 1993 health care bill.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[30]</a> And he could be stubborn; in 1988 he was carried feet-first into the Senate Chamber by Capitol Police for a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_call" title="Quorum call" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">quorum call</a> on campaign finance reform legislation.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[31]</a><h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: none; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 19.2px;">Road to resignation<span class="mw-editsection mw-editsection-expanded" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; direction: ltr;">[</h2><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 19.2px;">Sexual misconduct allegations<span class="mw-editsection mw-editsection-expanded" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; direction: ltr;">[</h3>Packwood's political career began to unravel in November 1992, when a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post" title="Washington Post" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Washington Post</a> story detailed the claims of sexual abuse and assault by ten women, chiefly former staffers and lobbyists.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-washingtonpost.com-32" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[32]</a> Publication of the story was delayed until after the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Oregon,1992" title="United States Senate election in Oregon, 1992" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">1992 election</a>, as Packwood had denied the allegations and the Post had not gathered enough of the story at the time.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-33" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[33]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-34" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[34]</a> Packwood defeated Democrat <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_AuCoin" title="Les AuCoin" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Les AuCoin</a>52.1% to 46.5%.As the situation developed, Packwood's diary became an issue. Wrangling over whether the diary could be subpoenaed and whether it was protected by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Fifth Amendment</a>'s protection against self-incrimination ensued. He did turn over 5000 pages to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Ethics" title="United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Senate Ethics Committee</a>but balked when a further 3200 pages were demanded by the committee. It was discovered that he had edited the diary, removing what were allegedly references to sexual encounters and the sexual abuse allegations made against him. Packwood then made what some of his colleagues interpreted as a threat to expose wrongdoing by other members of Congress. The diary allegedly detailed some of his abusive behavior toward women and, according to a press statement made by former Nevada Senator <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bryan" title="Richard Bryan" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Richard Bryan</a>, “raised questions about possible violations of one or more laws, including criminal laws."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-35" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[35]</a><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 19.2px;">Expulsion recommendation and resignation<span class="mw-editsection mw-editsection-expanded" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; direction: ltr;">[</h3>Despite public pressure for open hearings, the Senate ultimately decided against them. With pressure mounting against him, Packwood announced his resignation from the Senate on September 7, 1995,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-washingtonpost.com-32" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[32]</a> after the Senate Ethics Committee unanimously recommended that he be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_expelled_or_censured" title="List of United States senators expelled or censured" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">expelled from the Senate</a> for ethical misconduct. (The Ethics Committee membership is evenly divided between both parties.) Democratic Congressman <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden" title="Ron Wyden" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Ron Wyden</a> won the seat in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Oregon,1996" title="United States Senate special election in Oregon, 1996" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">special election</a>.Two years later, during debate on Clinton's impeachment, fellow Republican <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell" title="Mitch McConnell" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">Mitch McConnell</a>, a close friend of Packwood's, said that the Republicans knew that it was very likely Packwood's seat would fall to the Democrats if Packwood were forced out. However, McConnell said, he and his fellow Republicans felt that it came down to a choice of "retain(ing) the Senate seat or retain(ing) our honor".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-36" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[36]</a><h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: none; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 19.2px;">After the U.S. Senate<span class="mw-editsection mw-editsection-expanded" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; direction: ltr;">[</h2>Soon after leaving the Senate, Packwood founded the lobbying firm Sunrise Research Corporation. Even while still in the Senate, he saw his career there as a stepping stone to a more lucrative career on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street(street)" title="K Street (street)" class="mw-redirect" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">K Street</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-37" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[37]</a> The former senator used his expertise in taxes and trade and his status as a former Senate Finance Committee chairman to land lucrative contracts with numerous clients, among them Northwest Airlines, Freightliner Corp. and Marriott International Inc.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood#cite_note-38" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; white-space: nowrap;">[38]</a> Among other projects, he played a key role in the 2001 fight to repeal the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax" title="Estate tax" class="mw-redirect" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; background-image: none;">estate tax</a>.[</div><div>=</div><div>=<div><a href="https://truthout.org/articles/the-not-so-independent-women-s-forum-was-born-in-defense-of-clarence-thomas-and-the-far-right/">https://truthout.org/articles/the-not-so-independent-women-s-forum-was-born-in-defense-of-clarence-thomas-and-the-far-right/</a></div><div>
</div><div>hBO’s new film on demand, <a href="https://www.hbo.com/movies/confirmation" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Confirmation</a>, revisits the painful battle over the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court in spite of the testimony of Anita Hill that he sexually harassed her.</div>Some pundits have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/arts/television/hbos-confirmation-revisits-anita-hill-clarence-thomas-and-drama-in-the-senate.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">attempted</a> to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llfrAg207KU" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">disparage</a> the film, even though it has several scenes that portray Thomas and his wife Ginny as quiet, sympathetic figures and not as the outspoken right-wing political activists that they were and are.One of the harshest critics of the film is a group that calls itself the “Independent Women’s Forum” (IWF).<div>IWF is hardly independent though, despite its name.</div>It is deeply imbedded in the right-wing political infrastructure.In fact, IWF began as part of the coordinated effort to get Thomas confirmed so he could advance the right-wing’s legal agenda on the courts, in the face of deep fears by many that he would limit individual rights as a judge—fears later validated by his rulings and extreme dissents as a Justice.As Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson wrote in their book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Justice-Selling-Clarence-Thomas/dp/0395633184" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Strange Justice</a>: “the falsehoods and distortions involved in the selling of Clarence Thomas to the American people neither started nor ended with the treatment of Anita Hill’s accusations. From the beginning, the placement of Thomas on the high court was seen as a political end justifying almost any means.”Central to the efforts to get Thomas confirmed were not only the attacks on Hill by GOP Senators but also <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?21511-1/thomas-confirmation-hearing-reaction" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">press</a> <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?19896-1/support-judge-thomas-nomination" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">outreach</a> used to discredit her that was orchestrated by a small group of powerful right-wing women.That confirmation battle put one of the most reactionary judges in modern history on the Court, and it also led to the creation of IWF, an ultra reactionary women’s group opposing women’s rights in numerous ways.IWF’s creators defended Thomas, despite the detailed evidence against him, and the organization they founded has defended him and continued to attack Hill since 1991.The Thomas hearings also led to a backlash from voters to a US Senate that had 98 men and only two women as Senators.In spite of a temporary majority supporting the confirmation of Thomas based on the incomplete information provided in the Senate hearings, American voters resoundingly rejected the idea of an all-white male Senate Judiciary Committee examining a woman’s testimony about sexual harassment.The 1992 election that followed swept out President George H.W. Bush and swept in four women as new Senators and more women in other offices, making that election “the Year of the Woman.”Today, 20 US Senators are women; and IWF leaders and alums have regularly attacked the most powerful woman elected Senator since the Thomas hearings, Hillary Clinton.IWF — which has had close ties to the billionaire Koch Brothers, before they were infamous, and to other rightwing donors — has used its well-funded platform to secure numerous press appearances without much scrutiny of its record and sometimes because of its reactionary positions.That’s in part because media outlets have defaulted to point-counterpoint “reporting” that gives equal weight both to facts IWF opposes and to outlier claims that are IWF’s stock in trade.Part of the playbook was set as IWF came into being, as its founders deployed women in the press to counter a fellow woman whose testimony threatened their political agenda and ally.Much of that claim boiled down to denying her experience as inauthentic and deceitful because Thomas had not sexually harassed them. It was a brutally effective tactic.This is the story of IWF’s roots.IWF: Born to Give a Woman’s Voice to Defending Clarence ThomasOn June 28, 1991, the first black man to serve on the US Supreme Court, Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall — an icon to the civil rights community — announced his retirement.Ten days later, President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a 43-year old African American judge who had a controversial tenure as President Reagan’s Chairman of the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where he challenged core ideas about equal economic opportunity for women, such as equal pay and comparable worth.Although it was only 16 months before the next presidential election and even though the choice of a young right-winger like Thomas to fill the beloved Justice Marshall’s seat was a lightening rod for controversy, the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled hearings on his nomination for September.As the controversy over Thomas’ nomination grew, a small group of right-wing women began meeting for lunch to discuss the nomination at the offices of Ted Olson in the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.One of the women at those lunch meetings was Barbara Kay Bracher, a lawyer who married Olson in 1996.Following the Thomas confirmation, she would go on to staff investigations of the Clinton Administration as a congressional aide and to write a diatribe called “Hell to Pay: the Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” which was published by the right-wing bookseller Regnery shortly before Olson perished on a plane in the 9/11 attacks on her way to a taping for Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect” TV show.(Ted Olson became famous for taking the Bush v. Gore case to the US Supreme Court, where Justice Clarence Thomas sided with him and four other GOP Justices in stopping the Florida recount in 2000, making Republican George W. Bush president despite Democrat Al Gore winning the popular vote. Bush then named Ted Olson Solicitor General of the United States.)The driving force at those pro-Thomas strategy sessions in Olson’s office back in 1991 was Rosalie “Ricky” Silberman, who had worked with Thomas as Vice-Chair of the EEOC and was one of his confidantes.Before that, Silberman had worked as the press secretary for GOP Senator Bob Packwood, who later resigned in 1995 in the wake allegations that he harassed and assaulted numerous women he worked with.(Ricky Silberman was also married to Thomas’ mentor from Thomas’ brief time as a judge on the DC Circuit: Judge Laurence Silberman, a very political judge who among other things later tried to clear George W. Bush of culpability for lying about Iraq’s weapons and was later given the Presidential Medal of Freedom, by Bush.)The third major figure in these lunches was Anita K. Blair, who was a lawyer who became General Counsel for IWF. President George W. Bush made her Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and in 2011 she was hired as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department on human resources in the Obama Administration.In the later 1990s during the Republican effort to impeach Democratic President Bill Clinton, Blair <a href="https://www.iwf.org/news/2432467/Playing-Trivia-with-Sexual-Harassment/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">claimed</a> on behalf of IWF that:<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2rem 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 3rem; border-left: 0.5rem solid rgb(159, 161, 164); line-height: 2;">“nothing ever did more to trivialize sexual harassment than the sorry spectacle surrounding Anita Hill … Given prime-time exposure on national television Hill told a bizarre, uncorroborated story about Thomas, her boss at two federal agencies. Hearing her belated complaints about off-color jokes allegedly told about 10 years before, millions of Americans wondered, ‘What on earth does this have to do with sexual harassment?’ Americans learned the answer from Hill and her supporters: ‘Sexual harassment isn’t about sex, it’s about power.’ The Anita Hill spectacle wasn’t about sexual harassment; it was about the exercise of pure partisan political power. The media circus surrounding Hill and Thomas was produced and directed by liberal operatives, including fifth-columnists like NPR’s Nina Totenberg.” [jewish?]</blockquote>Those three right-wing politicos—Silberman, Olson, and Blair—formed an ad hoc committee called “Women for Judge Thomas,” which ultimately became a non-profit group dubbed the “Independent Women’s Forum.”The Clarence Thomas Nomination Begins and IWF’s Founders Step ForwardBut even before Anita Hill was in the picture — discovered by Senate Judiciary Committee staffers vetting the Bush nominee — allies of Thomas knew his controversial record as President Reagan’s chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) could play poorly with many women and others concerned about equality.The Women for Judge Thomas committee began holding press conferences the month President Bush announced Thomas’ nomination to a lifetime position on the Court in July.Thomas was in his early 40s and had never argued a case before the US Supreme Court, and he had only had 16 months of experience as a sitting judge on any court.His selection was considered a tactical masterstroke by C. Boyden Gray, President Bush’s White House Counsel, who had been criticized for letting the first vacancy in Bush’s term go to New Hampshire Justice David Souter, who was considered by the far right to be not “conservative” or activist enough to deliver judicial votes to change the law in the ways they wanted.By putting forward an African American with right-wing bona fides, at Gray’s urging the Bush White House sought to mute Democratic objections for fear of offending a major constituency over fighting a nominee with a rags-to-riches life story.(Gray is the grandson and also the nephew of three presidents of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. After President George H.W. Bush lost his bid for another term in the 1992 “Year of the Woman” election, Gray became chairman of David Koch’s Citizens for a Sound Economy, which would later officially join forces with IWF.)But Thomas’ limited judicial experience and the hearings on his nomination deepened concerns of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.As the New York Times reported: “‘Judge Thomas lacks the experience and qualifications that a Supreme Court Justice ought to have,’ said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. ‘He fled from his record and he refused to answer legitimate questions.'”Leahy also noted: “‘Nothing in Judge Thomas’s record or testimony suggests the level of professional distinction or constitutional grounding appropriate for a Supreme Court nominee. His legal and judicial experiences are limited. His speeches and writings have shown little in the way of analysis or scholarship.'”So, when his nomination was considered, the Committee deadlocked 7-7 on his nomination but then voted to send the nomination to the full Senate for a vote without a recommendation for or against confirmation. Although the Democrats had a 57-43 majority, a number of Southern Democrats had already pledged to vote for Thomas to be confirmed.Hill Comes Forward and IWF’s Founders Step Up to Counter Her in the PressBefore the Senate vote could be held, however, National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg broke the story that the Senate investigation had uncovered allegations that Thomas had made unwanted advances toward some of his subordinates in his leadership positions in the Reagan Administration.Totenberg received a tip that Professor Anita Hill, a conservative black law professor, had told the Senate that Thomas had made sexual comments to her when he was her supervisor when they both worked for the Reagan Administration.This shocking development increased the volume of concern about confirming Thomas to a lifetime job on the highest court in the land, and the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled another round of hearings to examine the allegations.Under the guidance of Ricky Silberman, the Women for Judge Thomas Committee identified women who worked with Thomas who said they had not been sexually harassed by him and that he had behaved professionally toward them.Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigators—including a Democrat named Ricki Seidman—identified another staffer who said she had been subject to sexual advances in the workplace by Thomas and also interviewed colleagues of Professor Hill, whom she confided in about the inappropriate things she said Thomas said.As Steve Kornacki noted in <a href="https://www.salon.com/2010/10/27/anita_hill_clarence_thomas/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">Salon</a>:<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2rem 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 3rem; border-left: 0.5rem solid rgb(159, 161, 164); line-height: 2;">“Three Hill friends — Susan Hoerchner, Ellen Wells and John Carr — testified under oath that she had told them about Thomas’ conduct as it happened between 1981 and 1983. ‘Anita said that Clarence Thomas had repeatedly asked her out … that he wouldn’t seem to take ‘no’ for an answer,’ Hoerchner told senators. ‘The thing Anita told me that struck me particularly and that I remember almost verbatim was that Mr. Thomas had said to her, “You know, if you had witnesses, you’d have a perfect case against me.”‘”</blockquote>On October 11, 1991, in nationally televised hearings, Hill testified in detail about things Thomas had said to her when she worked for him. While many observers were shocked by the graphic details, the Republicans on the Committee and other Thomas proxies strongly attacked Hill’s character and her decision to continue working for Thomas rather than file a legal complaint, despite her concerns that doing so would destroy her career and her future.Hill had explained on NPR that her decision to testify was a difficult one, and was made on moral grounds because Thomas, as Chair of the EEOC, the agency that enforces federal workplace discrimination laws, had been “in charge of protecting rights of women and other groups in the workplace” but instead was “using his position of power for personal gain.”Simply put, by sexually harassing her as she described, Thomas was alleged to be engaging in the kind of workplace discrimination that his agency was tasked with stopping.Many women believed that such behavior demonstrated that Thomas was unfit for a position of power and a lifetime position on the nation’s highest court.But the Senate’s hearing about her allegations morphed into an inquisition of her, much like how criminal defense attorneys attempt to discredit rape victims in order to prevent the conviction of their clients.What people saw on TV was an all-white Senate Judiciary Committee filled with several men who impugned Hill’s character, doubted her intelligence, and attacked her motives — despite her conservative credentials — instead of treating her with respect and giving any credit to her eye-witness accounts of Thomas’ behavior. The attack on Hill was led by Republican Senators Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, and Alan Simpson on the Committee, and by Missouri’s John Danforth, Thomas’ champion in the Senate.More than 20 million American households tuned in to watch Hill testify at hearings chaired by then-Senator Joe Biden, who is now Vice President.As Politico noted last fall when Vice President Biden was considering running for president: “Biden’s done a lot over the past 24 years, including authoring the landmark Violence Against Women Act … But that hasn’t erased the memories of how Biden presided over those hearings … blamed for doing little to stop the attacks on Hill.”He has also been criticized for opting not to call Angela Wright, an African American who worked in the press office at the EEOC, whose testimony would have echoed Hill’s charges of sexual harassment.Wright had “detailed a pattern of harassing behavior, including an instance in which Thomas asked her what her bra size was.” Wright had also told her colleague, Rose Jourdain, at the time that Thomas made comments about “her figure, her body, her breasts, her legs, how she looked in certain suits and dresses.”Wright’s statement was allowed to go into the official hearing record but she was not allowed to testify to help rebut Thomas’ denial.In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, another Thomas aide “Sukari Hardnett wrote that many black women at the agency felt they were ‘an object of special interest’ to their boss. ‘If you were young, black, female and reasonably attractive,’ her letter read, ‘you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female,'” as noted by Kornacke.But the Senate and the country did not get to hear from these women.When Mayer and Abrahamson conducted a full investigation for their book, rather than the rushed examination that occurred in the Senate, they also discovered that classmates of Thomas reported:<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 2rem 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 3rem; border-left: 0.5rem solid rgb(159, 161, 164); line-height: 2; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">“that he often recounted sexually explicit films in lurid detail. Kaye Savage, a former colleague, reports that the walls of his bachelor apartment were covered with Playboy nude centerfolds. The owner of a video store near the EEOC [called Graffiti] said Thomas was a regular customer for pornographic movies.”</blockquote>This evidence would have corroborated Hill's testimony and refuted Thomas’ denial, but none of this was part of the Senate’s hearings.Years later, another woman “Lillian McEwen, who had dated Thomas in the 1980s and who was promoted by Thomas backers as something of an alibi during his confirmation hearings, spoke publicly about her relationship with him for the first time [in 2010]. Now retired, McEwen said that ‘Hill’s allegations that Thomas had pressed her for dates and made lurid sexual references rang familiar,’ as the [Washington] Post put it—as detailed by Kornacke in Salon.Kornacke added: “McEwen said that Thomas had been ‘obsessed with porn’ and ‘would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting.’ She also said that Thomas would tell her about the women he worked with — even commenting to her about one’s bra size. ‘He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners,’ McEwen told the Post. ‘It was a hobby of his.'”That information was not known to the Senate at the time Clarence Thomas’ nomination was being considered, but none of that has changed IWF’s line of attack against Hill.Thomas Fires BackIn response to Hill’s testimony, Thomas attacked the Senate for what he flamboyantly described as a “high-tech lynching” of an “uppity” black man who dared to be conservative.He used the televised broadcast of the hearings to portray the Senate’s consideration of Hill’s allegations against him as racist and as promoting racial stereotypes—even though his accuser was also a conservative African American.GOP senators like Arlen Specter were given wide leeway to attack Hill with incredibly derogatory and personal claims such as suggesting she had “fantasies about sexual interest in her” and that she “was having a problem being rejected by men she was attracted to.”Hill took and passed a lie detector test, but Republican Senators smeared her further claiming she passed because she believed her “fantasies” about Thomas pursuing her.Many women were disgusted by the way the Senate treated Hill and by the words and actions of Thomas, but not Silberman and her committee of Women for Judge Thomas, which held press conferences and other outreach buttressing the Republican attacks on Hill.The IWF predecessor did so by pressing the claim that because he had not harassed the women they assembled he could not have harassed Hill and by arguing that she had “other” motives, which fueled the right-wing narrative that she had made up the allegations supposedly because she wanted to be with Thomas.Meanwhile, the Judiciary Committee hearings ended by effectively giving Clarence Thomas the last word, as Hill did not testify again to rebut Thomas’ denial of her allegations.Thomas Was Confirmed in One of the Closest Votes in HistoryGiven how forcefully the GOP Senators sought to discredit Hill and the deployment of women in defense of Thomas, perhaps it should come as no surprise that the public remained divided over Thomas’ confirmation. Several <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/15/us/the-thomas-nomination-most-in-national-survey-say-judge-is-the-more-believable.html/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">polls</a> indicated that a majority favored his confirmation, while the remainder were split between opposing and being undecided.In a contest of he-said-she-said, it appeared that a majority of those polled believed Thomas, who had so evocatively taken umbrage at the allegations against him. Having other women, like Ricky Silberman, defend him certainly helped his case.And, at the same time, the public was denied the chance to hear from another woman willing to testify that she had also been sexually harassed by Thomas.Also lost in the hot-button national conversation was the message that no one is entitled to a lifelong job on the US Supreme Court.So, on October 15, 1991, the Senate handed Thomas a lifetime job on the Court, with narrow 52-48 vote (with 11 Democrats joining 41 Republicans and 2 Republicans — Senator Jeffords (R-VT) and Senator Packwood (R-OR) — joining the Democrats).Hill was home in Oklahoma, and Thomas, after he was confirmed for the lifetime post at the youthful age of 43, reportedly swore he would stay on the Court for 43 years to get his <a href="https://articles.baltimoresun.com/2001-07-01/news/0106300203_1_clarence-thomas-anita-hill-david-brock/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">revenge</a> on his enemies.It was out of the ugliness of the Clarence Thomas nomination fight that the “Independent Women’s Forum” was born.IWF Continued to Fight Hill Even After Thomas Was ConfirmedIf the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee had sought to incapacitate Anita Hill with an array of punches at her reputation, Ricky Silberman seemed determined to throw the knockout blow.A year to the day after her senate testimony, Hill returned to Washington DC to recount her experience. At a conference at Georgetown Law, she spoke in academic terms while analyzing the structures that had colluded against her, and received a standing ovation for her bravery.Across the city on that same day, Ricky Silberman held a counter-conference at the Federalist Society.Speaking to that audience, Silberman accused Hill of being a liar, labeled the assembled group of academics at Georgetown “the extreminists,” and proclaimed that Hill’s “unsubstantiated charge of sexual harassment launched the mother of all gender wars.”Later that year, in 1992, Silberman formally founded IWF with Barbara Bracher (Olson), Anita Blair and Lynn Cheney to fight that so-called “gender war.”However neither Silberman nor IWF would let the Anita Hill testimony rest.In 1993, David Brock published the book “The Real Anita Hill,” an alleged investigation into the “true motives” of Hill’s testimony.Silberman helped Brock edit, assemble, and advertise the book, which by all accounts was an orchestrated hit piece.Brock, who had repeatedly referred to Hill in the media as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty,” would later apologize for his actions, and label himself as a “witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine.” (Brock has disavowed his past as a political hit man for the right-wing and now leads groups challenging the right-wing and is also now aligned with Hillary Clinton.)Silberman, who passed away in 2007, never apologized. The IWF tribute to her included a tribute from her memorial by Clarence Thomas.Beyond Attacking Anita Hill, IWF Routinely Peddles Reactionary ClaimsAs <a href="https://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/04/clarence_thomas_female_supporters_in_the_iwf.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">documented</a> by Barbara Spindel in Slate, five years after Hill’s testimony, IWF ran a cover-story in its 1996 “Women’s Quarterly” magazine where Elizabeth Larson, an IWF staffer, speculated that women were “spurred on by Anita Hill’s example” and now found “it more profitable to litigate than to work.”In that article, Larson also suggested that women should simply “deal with” sexual harassment, a position the organization would advocate for in the 1990s time and again.As <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=t7ucdUw7iKQC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=" lee="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">detailed</a> by researcher Lee Cokorinos in his book, “The Assault on Diversity: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice,” IWF received substantial financial underwriting by right-wing funders like the Scaife Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation to focus many of its efforts on Silberman’s “gender war.”In the words of Anita Blair, who served as an IWF leader from 1992 until 2000, “it was in 1977 or 1978 that feminism should have declared victory and gone home… All that was needing to be done had been done.”In keeping with this fictitious worldview, IWF opposed a host of women equality initiatives throughout the 1990s using misleading data and taking some extreme positions:<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1rem 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style-position: outside; line-height: 2;"><li style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">when lobbying against the Senator Biden’s “Violence Against Women Act,” IWF claimed “wives instigate violence, including severe violence, against husbands more often than husbands do against wives.”</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">IWF argued that gender integration of the Virginia Military Institute would cripple national defense,</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">IWF asserted that the problem of sexual assault on college campuses was overblown, since it is “inherently incredible” that female college students “are unable to report assaults to authorities,”</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">and much more, including assailing key Title IX protections for female athletes.</li></ul>Like every GOP-aligned group in the 1990s, IWF also supported efforts to impeach President Clinton, reaching out to Kenneth Starr for legal assistance as early as 1994. Barbara Olson and other IWF-ers helped carry the torch against Bill and Hillary Clinton.IWF also provided Republicans in Congress with women’s voices to testify against affirmative action, social safety net programs, and gun violence mitigation measures.As a whole, IWF was focused on combatting a caricature of what it described as “radical feminism.” [strict fr vs nurture mo?]Over the past 25 years since the Clarence Thomas hearings, IWF has given a female face and voice to opposing almost every mainstream and common sense protection for equality that’s been advanced — opposing equal pay, paid sick leave, increasing the minimum wage, and protecting women’s reproductive privacy and freedom, and much more — many of which Thomas has also sought to weaken or strike down from the Supreme Court.Over the years, IWF has not lost its interest in attacking Hill, even though its latest spin is about its supposedly “family-friendly” policies that put Wall Street in the driver’s seat and would take away responsibilities from employers regarding maternity leave, despite overwhelming business <a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/03/13072/chamber-commerce" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">support</a> for expanding employer-paid maternity and family leave, as the Center for Media and Democracy recently <a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/03/13074/luntz-poll-american-ceos-shows-deep-support-progressive-policies" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">documented</a> in a story broken by Lydia DiPillis in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/04/leaked-documents-show-strong-business-support-for-raising-the-minimum-wage/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">The Washington Post</a>.IWF’s kind of outlier, free-market fundamentalist approach should come as no surprise since IWF and David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity have been close partners—even sharing space and leadership for a number of years—and because the Koch network of billionaires uses an array of vehicles to push an anti-government, anti-science, anti-worker agenda.But the claim that IWF is merely a “right-leaning think tank,” given its legacy and extreme positions, ignores the history of a group that began with efforts to discredit Anita Hill and that continues to traffic in denial and disdain, despite the evidence that has mounted against so many of its claims.<div>
</div><div>=</div></div><div></div><div>SEE CLETA</div><div>
</div><a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/packwood-congress-tax-code/2013/07/12/id/514805">http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/packwood-congress-tax-code/2013/07/12/id/514805</a><div>
</div><div>former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bob Packwood tells Newsmax that in the wake of the scandal surrounding the IRS' targeting of conservative groups, Congress could enact an entirely new tax code this year. The Oregon Republican also says the Obama administration should delay

</div><div>
</div><div>Packwood was first elected to the Senate in 1968 and served until 1995. He chaired the Finance Committee from 1985 to 1987 and again in 1995. He also served as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation from 1981 to 1985. He is now a member of the Fix the Debt Congressional Fiscal Leadership Council, a bipartisan group of more than 85 former federal lawmakers from across the country. Packwood rewrote the tax code in 1986. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, he was asked how he would write the tax code today. "Here's what I would do to start," he says. "I would eliminate all deductions, everything, no deductions of any kind, and then tax as income everyt...

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/packwood-congress-tax-code/2013/07/12/id/514805#ixzz2cjtohSa6" style="font-weight: bold;">http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/packwood-congress-tax-code/2013/07/12/id/514805#ixzz2cjtohSa6</a> 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed?<a href="http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Obama-Policies/Should-Congress-Repeal--Obama-s-Health-Plan-and-Ot/id/13/kw/default?PROMO_CODE=10EFE-1%22target=%22_blank%22" style="font-weight: bold;"> Vote Here Now!</a></div>