Pubdate: Thu, 12 Aug 1999
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 1999 San Francisco Chronicle
Contact:  http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/
Section: page A28

THE WHISPERS ABOUT BUSH

GEORGE W. BUSH, the front-runner for the Republican presidential
nomination, prefers to brush off questions about his wild past with one
broad sweep. "When I was young and irresponsible, I behaved that way. I'm
not going to inventory what I did." Fair enough.

Then the New York Daily News forced the issue by asking the 12 major
presidential candidates whether they had ever used cocaine. Eleven answered
"no." Bush declined to answer.

The rumor mill instantly went wild -- and public. The "Bush/cocaine rumor"
became a hot topic on many of the TV pundit shows that feed off speculation
and scandal. The Texas governor's refusal to answer the question was widely
interpreted as an admission of guilt, however unfairly.

Has it really come to this in American politics? Are voters ready to
disqualify every Baby Boomer politician who once experimented with drugs?
Are candidates going to be expected to volunteer information about every
wrongdoing -- every affair, every last sordid mistake -- as the price of
admission to the campaign?

We sure hope not.

If candidates want to tout their moral superiority as a qualification for
office, so be it. Those who never drank too much, philandered, took drugs,
cheated on their taxes or exceeded the speed limit are welcome to make a
campaign issue of each and every virtue. In doing so, they will endure the
public's wrath if their claims are found to be fraudulent, as
"follow-me-you'll-be-bored" Democratic front-runner Gary Hart discovered
after denying rumors of womanizing in 1988.

The whispers against Bush are unfair in two respects. For starters, no one
has confronted him with anything approaching concrete evidence of illegal
drug use.

No candidate, no American, should be put in the position of having to deny
a baseless allegation.

Bush should be given the latitude to answer, as he has, that he will not be
lured into an endless game of denying rumors.

Second, even if there were evidence of cocaine use by a candidate, it would
not necessarily reflect on his or her fitness for the White House. The
allegation would need to be viewed in context. Was it long ago or recent?
Was it once or twice, a pattern of abuse or an addiction? Were there other
circumstances about the drug use that added to the illegality or the
untowardness of the situation?

In many ways, Bush's refusal to volunteer the dark details of his younger
days is far more refreshing than Bill Clinton's 1992 attempt to parse and
parry questions about his marijuana experimentation. "I didn't inhale" came
to define Clinton's slippery response to personal scandal.

Until someone produces a specific allegation that is relevant to his
ability to serve as president, Bush has every right to withhold the
particulars of what he now regards as painful life lessons. 

- ---
MAP posted-by: Thunder