DON'T CRY OVER BUSH'S PLIGHT

People who come to The Star looking for jobs are given an application
form that asks, among other things, whether they have ever been
dismissed or suspended from a job "for cause."

Another question: "Have you ever been convicted or pled guilty to a
felony?"

Some applicants are even asked whether they have ever had their
driver's licenses revoked.

These questions may strike some applicants, especially convicted
felons, as too nosy.

But many employers think that such background information could be
relevant to figuring out whether a particular job applicant will work
out.

Similarly, American voters should review background information on the
politicians who apply to them for work as city council members,
senators and presidents.

In recent days, though, voters have been wrestling with a familiar
problem: One of these political applicants has balked at answering a
question that could have a direct bearing on his suitability for a
particular job.

Texas Gov. George W. Bush would like to be hired as the nation's
president and chief law enforcement officer. But he resisted saying
whether he had ever broken the law by taking illegal drugs.

The governor has not even been gracious in this refusal. He has
sanctimoniously denounced the questions, offered a few puzzling
half-answers and implied without presenting any evidence that the
honesty of his political rivals on such questions was suspect.

Bush has followed the usual damage-control routine for an embarrassed
political figure when it is discovered that his own life has failed to
meet the high standards he has proclaimed in public. The parallels
with Bill Clinton's damage control efforts are obvious.

Many Americans, however, are clucking once again over the
scandal-mongers in the media and suggesting that whatever someone like
Bush might have done in his private life is no one else's concern.

But there are legitimate reasons why the story of Bush and the cocaine
question deserved the attention they received.

A private matter?

Drug use in the U.S. is not considered to be a "private matter." If
that were true, why have American taxpayers spent countless sums of
money to arrest, prosecute and imprison drug users?

The GOP tends to hit crime issues, particularly drug crimes, hard.
Even some of Bush's supporters have acknowledged that voters have a
legitimate interest in knowing if what a presidential candidate calls
"past mistakes" were actually felonies.

The "youthful indiscretion" argument.

This is a staple of political spin control. But this defense isn't
very satisfying if a candidate is talking about criminal behavior.

Many criminals who made "youthful mistakes" years ago are still paying
for them. Some received lengthy prison sentences. Felons generally
can't vote or seek political office.

Presidential character and America's moral decline.

Republican activists and their supporters have spent years bemoaning
the country's moral decline and blaming much of it on Clinton's poor
character.

One can only imagine the indignation on the right if Clinton had
waffled for an instant over past use of hard drugs. Why, mere hanging
wouldn't be good enough for the cokehead.

But when Bush ducked the cocaine question, some stern moralists on the
right suddenly began talking about forgiveness and the complexities of
judging others.

The double standard.

Because of the responsibilities they seek or hold, political leaders
at a minimum should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

Ordinary people often face uncomfortable questions, particularly in
applying for jobs, about their distant pasts. Why should someone
seeking the presidency claim -- as Bush initially did -- that he
should be above similar scrutiny.

The double standard issue came into focus last week when Bush was
asked whether, as president, he would be able to pass the FBI
background checks that would face the people he would be hiring. That
eventually shook some partial answers out of the Bush camp, but his
credibility already had been damaged.

The blackmail problem.

Voters often overlook this issue but it involves a straightforward
calculation: The bigger the skeletons in a candidate's closet, the
greater the risks that he or she could be blackmailed into betraying
the public trust.

So American voters have no need to feel sorry for Bush in his current
predicament.

He made the decision to run for president, and the resulting
controversy over his past behavior has shed some helpful light on the
question of whether he might deserve our support.