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.
|
