BUSH FLAP BRINGS MEMORIES AND AN APOLOGY

SOMETIMES in everyone's lives come those moments when things they have
pondered for years suddenly become as clear as if they were messages
delivered by a hand from above, smiting them across their foreheads.

Such has the recent hoopla about Republican George W. Bush and cocaine left
me reeling in understanding about myself and Ann Richards, Bush's
Democratic predecessor as Texas governor.

A good nine years ago, I did what I think is about the most unprofessional
thing I've ever done -- as a political writer, as a member of the news
trade, period. I stood on the floor of a Dallas television station in a
horde of reporters jammed around Richards, and I yelled at her.

I yelled at her to answer a question about whether she ever had used
cocaine. Her dogged refusal to answer the question dogging her frustrated
me beyond any reason. It wasn't as though I cared if she had or had not
used drugs. I didn't.

In truth, and on reflection, what I cared about was not being able to get
an answer to a question. And, to some extent, I was baffled by what I
thought bad, self-destructive politics on the part of Richards. I simply
could not understand why she, who had told folk far and wide about her
still successful war with alcohol, even would hesitate to discuss drugs --
especially if she could deny using them.

That I engaged in that awful assault on Richards, who then was seeking the
Democratic gubernatorial nomination, has haunted me for years. It was
wrong, and I needed to apologize -- at least as publicly as I attacked.

I never did because I felt I couldn't without dragging back up the whole
distasteful and pretty off-the-wall allegations made about Richards and
drugs. Had I, it might have made me feel better, but it would have been an
enormous disservice to her.

Since the weirdness of 1990 has, because of the Bush flap, been dredged up
for one more round of public consumption, I dare to openly, and humbly,
apologize to Ann Richards for my yells of so many years ago.

It hardly is something that will warm her heart, but I think I -- at long,
long last -- have understood something she said back then in explaining why
she wouldn't discuss any drug allegations and/or questions.

Undeniably, I may be misinterpreting the Richards of years ago or the Bush
of the quite recent past, but I believe one thing they have said is: No
matter what their responses to questions about drugs, their answers sure
could send bad messages to kids.

What if they say they did do drugs. Does that tell young types not to worry
about what that could mean to their lives? So, they use drugs, kids might
think. Why not, if you can run for gov or president -- and even win those
races -- after trying out drugs, what's the reason not to?

What if they were to forcefully declare they, after all, never even touched
drugs? Does that tell those who may already have tried 'em they never can
admit it if they want to succeed in life?

I'm sure it was -- and is -- no consolation for Richards, but, at least,
most folk, including even the general public, knew the allegations about
her and drugs primarily were coming from political foes, one in particular.
That guy could come up with more scenarios for where drugs could have been
used than even a Hollywood filmmaker of today. So, there were a lot of
rumors about her that were as goofy as the pol who created them.

Absolutely, some of Bush's opponents are trying to keep the press hot after
him with cocaine questions. Who knows if it's because his foes are limited
in imagination or for some other reason, but there never have been any real
rumors about GWB and cocaine.

No one has yet come forward with any claim to having seen the GOPer ever
use drugs. Though cocaine has become the specific drug of suggestion, there
have been no specific allegations about him and it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying candidates shouldn't be asked about drug
use. But, no matter how much it may pain many in my trade to ask a question
and not get an answer, there is no remote justification for hammering on it
- -- especially if there are no specifics to cite.

Has Bush botched his answer, as many claim, because he decided to respond
to questions about whether he could pass a background check and meet the
standards for White House security clearance? Clearly many in my trade
think so, and all his opponents hope so.

What I think about that is not the issue here. This has all been to say: I
apologize to Ann Richards.

And, yeah, I'm glad I won't have to apologize to Bush the Younger -- at
least not on this topic.

Ely is a Houston Chronicle columnist. (jane.ely@chron.com)