BUSH BUNGLES COCAINE TEST

AFTER weeks of flying high in the polls, George W Bush has fallen to Earth
with a bump, forced to address allegations that he once used cocaine. The
man who hopes to succeed Bill Clinton as President is suddenly exposed as a
political parvenu: his wings singed by an alliance of news-starved
reporters and resentful Clintonites out for some vengeance of their own.

Exactly one year after Mr Clinton was forced to admit that he had indeed
had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a suddenly defensive George W
found himself pursued by reporters interested in only one thing: had he
ever used cocaine? The directness of the question, and the reporters'
persistence, caught the early favourite for the Republican nomination with
his guard down.

Twice elected Governor of Texas without having to answer the "C" question,
he was spared it again this spring, when he took off into the wide world of
national politics to near universal acclaim. When he launched his
presidential campaign in earnest, he marked his private life off-limits.

In this, he was ably supported by his fiercely loyal team of advisers. His
campaign machine is more cohesive and professional than that of any other
candidate. Yet when the "C" question was finally raised last week, his
response was described by American campaign-watchers as "about as bad as it
could be".

His first error, said Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, among others,
was his decision to expose some aspects of his private life and not others.
He boasted, for instance, of his fidelity to his wife. He acknowledged a
drink problem in his thirties, which he solved by renouncing alcohol at 40.
But he banished other aspects, speaking of "mistakes" which should be
consigned to the past.

Last week, the US media finally seized on the inconsistency and said, in
effect, that he could not have it both ways. In one sense, said Gigot,
"it's refreshing to see a politician try to draw a line on personal
privacy. But then he has to be consistent about all private matters".

Having established this dual strategy, Mr Bush's second mistake -
identified by Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe - was to have deviated from
it even by a fraction. "At the first sign of heat," he said, "he wilts."
After trying to hold the line, Mr Bush selected one question put by his
local paper, the Dallas Morning News. Would he, as President, continue the
practice of background checks for White House employees, and would he pass?
"Yes", and "yes", Mr Bush replied - putting on the record that he had not
used drugs for at least seven years.

The next morning, Thursday, clearly perturbed by the impression this might
create (only seven years?), Mr Bush issued a statement - his first on the
subject - saying that he would have passed the White House background check
also "when my dad was President" (from 1989 to 1993), when the required
drug-free period was 15 years. Mr Bush left it to his office to clarify
that the 15 years should be counted back from his father's first year in
office, taking George W Bush's drug-free period back to 1974, when he was
28. As Oliphant put it: "This was not just a flip-flop, but a flip-flop on
a flip-flop."

By Friday, Mr Bush was again trying to hold the line. Asked what parents
should be telling their children about drugs, he said they should use the
benefit of their experience to say: "Don't use drugs. Don't use alcohol."
Drawing the public/private line again, however, he refused to say what he
had told his own two daughters.

By yesterday, few US political observers believed he would be allowed to
leave the cocaine question there, even though no one has any proof that he
took it. But any admission will only prompt more questions: such as when,
where, how and how much, and whether he brushed with the law. Several US
media watchers said that he should have come clean much earlier.

Unfortunately for Mr Bush, the question has now shifted from the fact, or
not, of an aspiring President's use of illegal drugs towards the way in
which he has dealt with the allegations. "I've told the American people all
I'm gonna tell them," Mr Bush told reporters on Friday, prompting one
analyst to remark: "He has violated just about every law of mature campaign
behaviour."

To British eyes, it might seem remarkable that Mr Bush is only now having
to face questioning. This tardiness matches the US media's non-reporting of
an affair between the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Newt Gingrich, and a young Congressional aide at the very time of Mr
Clinton's liaison with Ms Lewinsky. The affair has made its way into print
only now that he is out of office and seeking a divorce.

The mainstream US media fight shy of reporting such matters without prima
facie proof. They also say that in fact Mr Bush is being targeted early in
the election campaign; this, they say, is because he already seems a more
plausible candidate than most of his opponents.

Some see jealous rivals behind the offensive. Others suspect Democrats,
prompted by the Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, who compared what he
saw as the easy ride the media were giving Mr Bush with the criticism of
Hillary Clinton. A newspaper then asked each candidate if they had ever
used marijuana and cocaine. Mr Bush was the only one not to answer the
cocaine question. All the others answered "No".

This time last week, Mr Bush won the "straw poll" in Iowa. Seven days
later, he looks vulnerable for the first time. If a week is a long time in
politics, then the year between now and the nominating convention next
August, and the following election, is much, much longer.