A Late but Necessary Exit : Packwood saves the Senate, and himself, more embarrassment

The U.S. Senate’s tradition of clubby, look-the-other-way tolerance of its members’ foibles, eccentricities and even outright boorishness came to an emphatic end this week with the Ethics Committee’s unanimous recommendation that Bob Packwood lose the seat he has held for 26 years. The panel denounced the Oregon Republican for “offensive, degrading” sexual misbehavior and illegal conduct. Facing an almost certain two-thirds-majority floor vote for his expulsion, Packwood chose to resign, mercifully sparing the Senate, and himself, further embarrassment.

The end came quickly. The Ethics Committee, which took more than 10,000 pages of evidence during its 34 months of investigation, moved swiftly when faced with the prospect of additional weeks of hearings. Packwood, who just days ago changed tactics and asked for open hearings in which he could cross-examine his accusers, immediately cried foul when the committee’s three Republicans and three Democrats voted to recommend his ouster. He had a point. By denying him a chance to confront his accusers the committee did open itself to the charge of treating him with less than full fairness. But what’s fair and what the Senate’s rules allow aren’t necessarily identical.

Two reasons for the panel’s action seem apparent. First, it felt that the allegations against Packwood were not just credible but convincing, and that the senator had been given ample opportunity to respond and rebut.

The second was a tangle of political considerations. By asking at the eleventh hour for open hearings, Packwood committed the perceived sin of crossing up many colleagues who had stuck their necks out for him just a few weeks ago when the full Senate voted narrowly against opening up the hearings. Further, the televised and inevitably titillating spectacle of a parade of women describing how they were kissed and fondled against their will by a senator whose chief defense is that he was too drunk much of the time to know what he was doing was more than most senators were ready to face.

By resigning, Packwood is able to leave Washington with his pension assured. He still, however, faces possible criminal prosecution based on the Ethics Committee’s allegation that he obstructed its inquiry by altering portions of his subpoenaed personal diary, and on a charge that he sought to improve his financial position by using improper influence to get his estranged wife a job.

Packwood had a long and largely creditable legislative career, marked by a welcome moderation and a talent for conciliation. Sadly, on the evidence, he also behaved toward many women, most of them subordinates, with an inexcusable loutishness. There was no question he had to go. By resigning quickly, he went in the best way open to him.