11/03/00 3:35 p.m.
Boomer Follies
Bush’s blunder was in not coming forward.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

his column was originally going to be about how this election represents the culmination of the "Gingrich-Clinton" era of politics. This is the final chapter of how two baby-boomer individuals — each with personal and political quirks that helped undermine him — sought to redefine their respective parties after lengthy periods "in the wilderness."

Then DUI-gate broke.

A conservative activist friend said last night, as the Bush story was breaking, "Well, this proves that Gore really has learned nothing from Clinton. If this had been a Bill Clinton operation this close to Election Day, he would have been dropping bombs on a Third World country and a nuclear device on the Bush campaign. This [DUI charge] is pretty weak."

And she's right. If this was leaked by a Gore operative, it's pretty stupid. After eight years of a philandering, lying accused rapist in the White House, "outing" a presidential candidate for a 24-year-old drunken-driving conviction is pretty tame. If Slick Willie & Co. were running the show, you'd figure the charge would be something like Bush cheating on his wife or getting the media to follow up on whatever the latest sleaze was that Larry Flynt was pumping out. DUI? Oh please. This isn't even in the same ballpark as Lawrence Walsh's leak of the indictment of Cap Weinberger days before the 1992 election.

Besides, the weakness and lateness of the charge creates every possibility of the news backfiring on the Gore campaign — whether the Gore campaign was involved with it or not! Gore seemed to have gotten a little bit of traction in some key states lately. Ironically, as this story throws Bush "off-message," it does the same for Gore. The media is not talking about "issues" — Gore's strength. Instead, the cycle is about Bush's "character." It's not exactly an obvious win-win for Gore. In fact, as Bill Clinton has trained the entire country to be more suspicious of any political event, already conspiracy theories are being passed around the Net that Bush actually leaked the story himself to make him look more "human"!

And the madness goes on.

The GOP is already saying, "After eight years it's time to say enough of the politics of personal destruction" and this is a "last desperate act" from the Gore camp. If there was any doubt that Slick Willie's shadow still completely dominates the political landscape, that should evaporate as the Republican party responds to a Clintonite dirty trick with a favorite Clinton catch-phrase.

Those observations aside, this should still be a disturbing development for Bush supporters. Is this a "dirty trick" coming from the Democrats? Yep. Is the timing "suspicious"? Of course.

Why are we only hearing about this now? Good question.

Why are George W. Bush's supporters hearing four days before the election that he was arrested for drunk driving 24 years ago? Yes, the Democrats have put this out there.

But in this media-insane world, it's more than a bit naive to think that something that is a matter of public record would never come out. This should have been put out by Bush or his campaign long before this. Yes, Bush looked appropriately apologetic and contrite in his press conference Thursday night. Being a baby boomer, he talked about the need to protect his children from this information. For the boomer politician, "the children" are the first and last reason for both public policy and private alibi.

It's all well and good to want to keep one's private life private. It's nobody's business who Bush — or any politician — dated before they took the wedding vows (or possibly after, for that matter!). However, the "privacy" excuse tends to end when the public authorities get involved. "Private" is private. "Public" is public. When an individual is asking to be judged as worthy for office, actions of a legal nature should be out there, so they can be judged accordingly.

There is no evidence yet that Bush has lied about this incident. And, of course, for the boomer media, the actions matter little; the chief question is, Did the individual lie or dissemble? In truth, it seems that Bush was pretty aboveboard in his handling of it. In this post-Clinton moment, the principal lesson we are asked to accept is that Dubya was "straightforward" about his past. This columnist would have preferred hearing about this incident a year ago — and coming from the Republican candidate himself. "Selectively straightforward" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

At this point, conservatives and liberals will go into their respective corners. Liberals will call Bush a hypocrite or worse. Conservatives will rush to decry the timing of Gore "slash-and-burn" politics.

Yet anyone who has been paying close attention for the last eight years knows what the Clinton-Gore operation is capable of. If the flaw exists, it will be found. If a weakness exists, it will be exploited. For this group, the truth isn't "out there" — but the dirt certainly is.

George W. Bush's failure to understand that simple fact during the nearly 24 months leading up to this moment — and pre-empt it himself — is profoundly disappointing.