Texas's Bush the Second:
'Fess Up Now, Spare Us Later

It's tough to find a politician who sees excursions through their past as a welcome component of the business they're in, even if it relates to mere rumors.

True, the Issues should not center on Mr. George W. Bush's rumored past cocaine use, so we can all lament the sorry state of politics on the national level.

But. Mr. Bush's self-serving stand on cocaine-use rumors-evocative of comic Dana Carvey's "not gonna do it" satire of George Bush The First-is about as genuine as the First's "Read My Lips" campaign ads. And because of this selfish position, he could wound both his party and our nation.

It is fairly straightforward. If GWB is rumored to have used the white powder decades ago and is asked about it, he denies it or he admits it. Period. He tells the unvarnished truth. Moves on. Did we not try the slick Arkansas man? Did it not go badly? Do we need another dodger from neighboring Texas?

If President Bush the Second answers questions about the affairs of state the way he does now as Candidate "Dub ya", might we be safe to expect another four years of Presidential Linguistic Jujitsu, or as we say here in Connecticut, "more B. S."?

Remember this. Once elected, the coke issue may well return to burn GB2 with greater intensity. Do Americans want to go through the now ritualized tawdry scandal story yet again? If we say we have had enough, then Bush must put this one behind him one way or another.

Coke: The Bet Here, This Issue Won't Die

As president, he will have real political enemies who will revive this thing until they nail him. As a citizen, as a decent human being, he owes us truth right now, if only to spare us grim news coverage certain to follow. Why do I believe it is certain to follow?

Two principal reasons:

One: We hear the hope that the press will cease its "gotcha" reporting. That is,...well, Pollyanna Sunshine ain't the editor at the Post or the Times. And the competitive TV people need ratings to make a buck, let's remember. It is a blood sport. Vicious. .A business that can only get nastier as we are now witnessing firsthand.

Where's the Quick Denial?

Two. Drugs: in the USA it's an issue to be tough on, not personally experienced with. If George 2 never got coked-up, this question would get a firm denial quick as a snake bite, as blunt as any ol' boy Texas straight-shooter, pardner.

Why? Because its political science 101 that you quickly deny the deniable, and change the subject. Which they'd have done on this matter if they felt they could.

If this guy's past injures his reputation and he sinks in the polls, so be it. If he still sails on with ease, then that will teach us something, too. We have already been told the man did party exceptionally well way back then. Hasn't hurt, may have helped this candidate.

But American voters are unpredictable. Alas, a primary knock-out of the current Pennsylvania Avenue occupant would have spared the entire world last year's ugly spectacle. The GOP has other candidates who can probably win and do the job, some of whom are all too willing to tell us-please stop!--their backgrounds including past follies. Bush is not the only game in town, despite what the press would have us believe.

The two parties are playing fait accompli politics as usual: Bush...the sure thing.

With all the campaign cash and the support of the governors, blah blah. Gore the successor to the president. Etc.

It's pure blather, unless we buy it.

Would I personally vote for a man or woman who has used but now does not?. Sure. Would I vote for a now-clean or a I-never-used Mr. Bush? Maybe. Would Texans? Seems so. Would the rest of the nation? The pro-Bush people apparently don't think this one gonna wash, as they say down Austin way.

This necessitates a lowering of the honesty bar. That's good for politicians. Poor for us. Voters need this vetting process, the primaries, to check out who the boys are foisting on us. If watered down primaries continue as they are now, it's costly to the nation. If we let the standard slide further, democracy takes another hit.

Bring Back Straight Talk

This whole contretemps is not about G. W. Bush's past drug use or non-use. Even his Momma should have learned that by now. Rather, the question is honesty.

It is simple: We need a president who can answer the questions with the right responses. Without "B. S. ing" us.

If Bush's honest answer doesn't win him the Republican primary, that's OK too. Texans like him just fine as Governor.