Bush: Answers and Trust

The problem with Pandora’s Box is you can’t open it just a little to see what might come out, and slam it shut to keep any goblins from escaping. Alas, Texas Gov. George W. Bush made the mistake of lifting the lid partway on a seemingly dark corner of his past. Now, he’s trying to clamp the lid back on. Sorry, governor, that won’t work.

We expressed support last spring for Bush’s attempt to avoid an endless battle with critics and the media over every last detail of his personal life. At some point, there has to be a limit to the attack-dog politics and tabloid-mongering that has marred recent campaigns. A person running for president is not running for sainthood.

Essentially, a presidential campaign should be about issues and national needs. Bush acknowledged that he committed youthful indiscretions, but that there was no hidden incident that might doom his candidacy if revealed.

Bush knew he would be assaulted with questions about long-standing, unsubstantiated rumors that he had used cocaine in the past. The questions came, of course. All spring and most of the summer, Bush refused to comment on any aspect of drug use.

As the questions persisted, Bush felt the sand running out from under his feet. Last Wednesday, Bush said he would respond to a newspaper’s question because it was relevant: whether he could pass the current rule for White House employees of not having used illegal drugs for the past seven years. Bush said yes. Oops. Pandora’s Box opened just a crack. The next day, Bush declared that he could have passed the 10-year standard in effect when his father was president. That was interpreted as meaning he had not used any illegal drugs at least since 1975 when George W. was 28.

Now the lid is off. By saying anything, Bush has undermined any blanket right to refuse to discuss his personal behavior. It’s incumbent on Bush now to comment candidly and specifically on any past drug use.

Part of Bush’s problem is he’s trying to have it both ways. He has openly discussed his troubles with alcohol and his decision to stop drinking at age 40. And he has volunteered that he has been faithful to his wife, a stance obviously designed to contrast with President Clinton’s dreary record with other women.

But Bush is less than candid on the most important point. Did he use drugs, including cocaine? When? If he was as old as 28, was that just a “youthful indiscretion”? After all, cocaine use is a felony in every state. And Bush supported Texas legislation to jail persons for possession of a single gram of cocaine or less.

Most Americans will tolerate a candidate’s occasional or experimental use of drugs as a youth. But they are beyond the point of accepting partial answers that seem contrived to cloak the real truth. Bush has only one choice now: To tell all and trust the voters to judge him fairly.