Pubdate: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 Source: Star-Ledger (NJ) Copyright: 1999 Star-Ledger Contact: 1 Star-Ledger Plaza, Newark, N.J., 07102-1200 Website: http://www.nj.com/starledger/ Forum: http://forums.nj.com/ THIS IS A TEST Many of Texas Gov. George W. Bush Jr.'s defenders argue that Democratic enemies, GOP rivals and a press corps hell-bent on the "politics of destruction" are fueling the recent controversy over questions of past illegal drug use. That is only partly true. The person most responsible for the fracas is Gov. Bush himself, who is learning a harsh lesson about presidential campaign politics: Non-answers only give way to larger, more troubling questions. By first stonewalling and then giving limited, confusing replies to questions, the Republican front-runner has given the public an incomplete record on this issue. The cloud over his campaign will not dissipate until he sets the record straight. One thing voters do not like is a politician who evades tough questions. The sensible question most average American voters ask is this: If he didn't do it, then what does he have to hide? Refusing to directly answer the question only feeds a reasonable suspicion that he is hiding something far worse than experimentation or occasional social use. Without firm, convincing answers, voters will inevitably ask: Was he addicted to cocaine? Did he require extensive treatment to kick the habit? Bush argues that what he did in his youth is not relevant to what he has accomplished as an adult. That's reasonable enough, but in a series of statements last week, Gov. Bush created more confusion than clarity. He told the Dallas Morning News that he had not used illegal drugs in the past seven years -- the time frame used in normal FBI background checks of certain federal appointees. But in a news conference the following day, Bush said he would have been able to pass the more stringent clearance rules imposed by his father when he became president in 1989. Under that standard, the FBI asked employees whether they had used drugs in the past 15 years. That means Bush has been drug-free since 1974, when he was 28 and a graduate student at Harvard University. He has refused to say whether he took drugs before 1974. An easy way to put an end to this tortuous process is to simply fess up or flatly deny it. If Gov. Bush does admit to taking drugs, he would most likely find a tolerant electorate, filled with millions of aging baby boomers who once experimented with illegal drugs in their youth. Telling the truth should not disqualify him from higher office. In fact, candor could actually turn this incident into a positive windfall for his sputtering campaign. He would likely encounter more sympathy than disgust. The public should have a complete accounting on this issue, for several reasons. As governor, for example, Bush has taken a hard line on drugs, slashing prison drug-treatment programs and repealing a law providing automatic probation for those possessing small amounts of hard drugs. Is he a hypocrite, a child of power and privilege who had the connections to avoid the harsh punishments that he now espouses? Or is he just a mature politician whose policy is forged from his own experience? Voters should be able to judge for themselves. Millions of people are now screened for illegal drug use before they are hired for a job. Millions take those tests without fear, although many consider the process an indignity. Gov. Bush is now being tested. He should answer the questions. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart