BOOMERS PURSUING HIGHER OFFICE SHOULD COME CLEAN ON DRUGS

Beating Around The Bush

Whatever happened to the "tried it and didn't like it" dodge?

That was the original defense for baby boomers who were confronted with the
drug question. I'm talking about those first boomers who had to appear in
front of a Senate committee to get confirmed to some kind of high-level
government job.

"Did you ever smoke marijuana?"

The boomer couldn't say no. For all he knew, a hostile senator could have a
secret witness hiding in the cloak room, someone with whom the boomer had
once shared a joint.

"I tried marijuana, Senator, but I didn't like it."

That would usually suffice. Sometimes, though, the questioner would be
persistent.

"Can you tell us where you tried it?"

Aha! It was a trick question. The boomer would have to cover his bases.

"Let's see, Senator. It was a long time ago. I tried it and didn't like it
in high school. Then I may have tried it again in the Army -- same result,
I'm happy to say -- and I believe I tried it and didn't like it in college.
I also tried it and didn't like it in law school."

Generally, that worked. Not always, of course. I still remember the fuss in
1987 when President Ronald Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg for the
Supreme Court. Ginsburg admitted having tried marijuana -- it goes without
saying he didn't like it -- and the Democrats were scandalized. A doper on
the Supreme Court? Somebody interpreting the law of the land while
listening to Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention? No way!

Then Bill Clinton came along. He took the tried-it-and-didn't-like-it dodge
to the next level. He tried to try it but couldn't inhale.

Now George W. Bush has come up with a different strategy entirely. He seems
to be suggesting that we not answer these questions directly. He seems to
think that we can finesse our way through difficult personal questions.
Maybe that will work for him, but I have some acquaintances who would look
downright silly.

"Have you ever used heroin?"

"Absolutely not, Senator."

"How about cocaine?"

"I have never injected cocaine, Senator, if that's what you're asking."

"It's not. I'm asking if you have ever used cocaine."

"I'm not going to answer these personal questions, Senator. I'll only say
that I could pass a background test if the question had to do with the last
18 years and six months."

"Have you ever used marijuana?"

"I told you, Senator, I'm not going to play that game. Again, I'll only say
that I could pass a background test if the question had to do with the last
14 years."

"Fourteen years?"

"Almost 14 years, Senator. Thirteen years and nine months is probably more
precise."

"That sounds almost like an admission."

"If people want to read something into my answers, that's up to them. I'm
going to keep my private life private. I'm making a stand on this."

"How about alcohol?"

"I'd love some, Senator. Thanks."

"I'm not asking if you'd like a drink. I'm wondering if you've ever had a
drinking problem. Have you, for instance, ever run out of booze and drank
cologne?"

"What flavor, Senator?"

"English Leather."

"Absolutely not. Anybody who says otherwise is lying."

"British Sterling?"

"I'm not going to answer personal questions, Senator."

You can see the problem. If you answer some questions -- we know, for
instance, that Bush has never cheated on his wife -- and then refuse to
answer others, or answer them with some kind of time limit, people will
draw their own conclusions. It's better to tell the truth. We tried
everything and didn't like it.