BUSH DRUG USE QUERY HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED

Is the big drug question haunting Gov. George W. Bush's presidential
campaign worth all the sound and fury? Probably not.

Bush's partial answer to whether or not he has used cocaine speaks
volumes enough already and leaves sufficient ambiguity for friend and
foe alike to make what they wish of it. If Bush is content with the
ambiguity and controversy, that in itself is telling.

Bush's backers doubtless will applaud his stand in refusing to wallow
in what he portrays as the game of political innuendo that surrounds
the question.

Bush opponents doubtless will continue to fan the flames of innuendo
and conclude that the governor may have something to hide and that his
stubborn refusal to just say no is an example of why he's unfit to
lead the country.

The ones in between likely will take the answer as it is, put it in
the context of Bush's qualifications and record on all the other
issues and draw their conclusions.

Should the cocaine question be asked? Should it be answered? It has
been both asked and answered, though obviously not to universal
satisfaction.

New revelations or continued pressure to answer more fully might force
the governor's hand. It remains to be seen whether Bush has painted
himself into a political corner by drawing the line so brightly
between his personal and political pronouncements on issues such as
strengthening drug laws.

The controversy eerily mirrors the experience of former Gov. Ann
Richards during her 1990 election campaign. Richards' Democratic
primary opponents, former Gov. Mark White and former Attorney General
Jim Mattox, and others made an issue of Richards' refusal to answer a
similar drug-use question.

Richards refused to completely answer, citing her fear that it would
discourage drug and alcohol abusers from seeking the help they needed.
She went only so far as to say that she had not used a "mood-altering
chemical" since she received treatment for alcoholism 10 years before,
in 1980.

Bush this week went from refusing to answer at all to saying he could
pass White House anti-drug standards set by President Clinton and his
father, former President George Bush.

"Not only could I pass the background check and the standards applied
to today's White House, but I could have passed the background check
and the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad
was the president of the United States -- a 15-year period," he said.

Spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said Bush had effectively denied drug usage
in a period beginning 15 years before his father took office in 1989
- -- or since 1974, when the 53-year-old Bush was 28.

The national spotlight on the race for the presidency is, of course, a
far harsher one than shines on Texas gubernatorial contests. But
neither Richards' nor Bush's refusal to go beyond such answers
prevented either of them from serving competently in the Texas
governor's chair, with no directly attributable loss of respect for
the drug laws.

As a practical political matter for the Bush campaign, the issue is
unlikely to go away. How Bush and his team weather the storm will
speak volumes to potential voters. As a matter of practical
governance, past drug use -- especially in the distant past -- doesn't
seem to be a decisive issue for most voters, especially those of
Bush's age and younger.

In the end, Bush's specificity, or lack thereof, on other larger
issues is likely to be more decisive than this. It would be helpful if
we could now move on to some of them.