DUBYA'S DUI
Friday,November 3,2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE bombshell revelation that George W. Bush was arrested, convicted and fined for driving under the influence of alcohol could derail his candidacy five days before the election, or it could pass as a blip in the night. It all depends on how he handles it.
DWI is one of the most potent issues in American politics. In one survey I took five years ago, it ranked No. 1 among the 50 issues I tested. It is particularly important for mothers and other women, a key constituency that already views Bush with suspicion.
What impact will this disclosure have? The key lies with other facts and other questions that the report of his conviction raises.
The extenuating circumstances surrounding his arrest will likely shield the GOP nominee from the kind of initial damage which could kill him outright.
Nobody was hurt. There was no accident. He was still young. It never happened again. He gave up drinking and moved on with his life.
Most impressively, he didn't pull strings to avoid prosecution. His father was a famous man, particularly near his Maine home: He had already served as chairman of the Republican Party, head of the CIA and ambassador to China.
George W. could have tried to throw his weight around - as Ted Kennedy did at Chappaquidick, for example. Bush didn't.
He was arrested. He was convicted. He paid his fine. His license was suspended in Maine.
On the other hand, two key questions
loom. Bush better have good answers to them.
First: Did he ever lie about this arrest? In applying for everything from a bank loan to security clearance, one is always asked "have you ever been arrested?" The temptation to check "no" and avoid the whole mess must have loomed large in his mind. But if he lied about this unattractive episode in his life on any official form, his candidacy may be cooked.
Second: Why did Bush not disclose the arrest and conviction himself? He must have known it would come out. You don't keep secrets and run for president.
Why did he let his party nominate him and never tell about potentially damaging information which could impair his viability as a candidate? Does his failure to tell us about so important a fact reflect on his judgment, maturity and discretion?
Bush had better have a good answer.
On the other hand, one is driven to ask why this revelation surfaced on Nov. 1.
Who tipped off the Portland TV station? Did Gore's campaign unearth this fact? Did they hold onto it until five days before the election deliberately?
I smell a dirty trick. Did some of Bill Clinton's secret police - the detectives he hires to discredit political opponents - dig up this dirt on Bush and then hold it until it would do maximum damage?
This story isn't over. It will evolve in the coming days. Every reporter will dig to discover the answers to these questions.
Bush's success or failure may hinge on the answers.
nypost.com |
