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