THE CANDIDATE AND THE COCAINE QUESTION

Hugo Gurdon, Washington Correspondent, Says George W Bush'S Present Triumphs
May Precede Future Problems

GEORGE W BUSH sometimes entertains workers at his campaign headquarters by
mimicking Dr Evil, the crook with dreams of world domination in the film The
Spy Who Shagged Me. When news of this merriment leaked out, Mr Bush's
po-faced public relations staff rushed to reassure us that their man was not
actually Dr Evil - it was a joke, you see, and Governor Bush is really very
nice.

What scares them much more, though, and what scares the rest of the
Republican Party, which is now betting the bank on Bush-for-President, is
that "W" might turn out to be Dr Evil's adversary, Austin Powers. The
cryogenically preserved 1960s' swinger is an apostle of guilt-free sex and
drugs, which is much more politically damaging in America than the
accumulation of power and loot. After eight years of Bill Clinton, the
Republicans dread the possibility that Austin Powers is in power in Austin,
Texas.

Mr Bush admits to a misspent youth, conceding he was a boozer. He could
hardly hide it; lots of friends saw him semi-sloshed and there is talk of a
photograph of him dancing naked on a bar. But questions are also being asked
about cocaine, and the candidate refuses to answer them.

Seven out of 10 Americans do not mind, saying they are satisfied with Mr
Bush's explanation that he must break the culture of destruction and
intrusion, and that the way to do so is by refusing to itemise his past for
a prurient press. But why, some wonder, is he candid about drink while
clamming up about cocaine? It makes people wonder if Mr Bush's zipped lip is
practical rather than principled.

The cocaine controversy is based on nothing so substantial as even the
shadow of a ghost of a rumour. No one has alleged anything and there is no
evidence to examine. But the flap is instructive, revealing the danger that
Republicans run by anointing Mr Bush without scrutiny. The party yearns so
desperately for a winner - and Mr Bush so looks like one - that the
hierarchy does not want to turn over stones on his path to the presidency
and check if there are any creepy-crawlies lurking underneath.

Bill Clinton is George W's greatest ally. Conservatives revile the current
incumbent of the Oval Office and are so aghast at the possibility of "eight
more years of Clinton-Gore, and another eight years of Hillary after that"
that they will speak, see and hear no evil about Mr Bush. Never before has
Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment - "Thou shalt not speak ill of other
Republicans" - been as strictly adhered to. In Iowa at the weekend,
aspersions were cast gently rather than hurled at Mr Bush. Even his rivals,
it seems, want him to win.

The point is not that something awful may be discovered in Mr Bush's
background, although that is a possibility. It is that the Republicans are
buying blind. The presidential primaries are crowded into next February and
March, so the parties will choose their nominees in record time. The men
with most money to pay for television advertisements nationwide are
hands-down favourites to win.

That should counsel extra early scrutiny, but Mr Bush is getting less, not
more. Vice-President Al Gore, his probable Democratic opponent, is being
hammered by the press and will be battle-hardened by next summer. Mr Bush,
by contrast, may only then begin to be tested. So the Republicans had better
hope they have judged him aright.

Some things about Mr Bush are clear. He is genuinely, but not
overwhelmingly, impressive. He is personable, loose-limbed, telegenic and
comfortable in crowds. He is a poor orator, but not embarrassingly so. He is
more Right-wing than his father, but to the Left of President Reagan. He is
conservative, although some people smell a liberal rat when he modifies his
political philosophy with the word "compassionate".

As governor of Texas, he signed legislation restricting abortions and would
do so at the federal level, but he openly doubts that a constitutional ban
could be passed. He cut state taxes by $1.8 billion this year, but the
booming economy meant he could raise spending at the same time, so his
fiscal conservatism is unclear.

He refused to endorse California's Proposition 209, banning appointments
based on race, but his opposition to quotas is strong enough to secure the
endorsement of the proposition's author. Mr Bush approves of school vouchers
for poor children to go to private schools, opposes "hate crime" legislation
and supports the death penalty. His record in Texas is that of a politician
who would rather compromise and get half a loaf than stand on principle and
get nothing.

On the stump, Mr Bush reminds listeners that, if Texas were a country, it
would have the 11th biggest economy in the world and claims that this has
been good training for the presidency. But his experience is more apparent
than real. Even his own staff in Austin concede what opponents proclaim,
that, in Texas, the governor's job is largely ceremonial.

He can use his "bully pulpit" to secure change, such as his tax cut, but the
lieutenant-governor, a post occupied by a Democrat for most of Mr Bush's
tenure, is arguably more powerful, having the right to block legislation,
whatever his boss thinks.

What the Republicans have in Mr Bush is a candidate who has proved one thing
- - that he is a winner - and that is what they crave to the exclusion, if
necessary, of all else. The trouble may be that America is not so desperate
to have a Republican president as the Republicans are. And the Washington
press, 89 per cent of whom voted for Mr Clinton, will dig for Democratic
victory into Mr Bush's past.

Between now and election day in November 2000, they will sniff beneath the
surface like pigs hunting truffles. Republicans know their man can run; they
will just have to hope he has nothing to hide.