You’d think in the post-Monica era that people may not want to know so much about their elected officials.

However, the clear front-runner in the Republican race for a presidential nomination has been dogged by questions about whether he’s used illegal drugs in his lifetime.

And he’s answered them — in possibly the most inane way since Bill Clinton’s admission of not inhaling.

George W. Bush, the governor of Texas and the man with the fund-raising plan, has been hounded with questions of his rumored wild, youthful indiscretions since he entered the race.

The 53-year-old Bush has never publicly admitted to taking drugs (cocaine is the word most often used) or having an alcohol problem.

Last Thursday, Bush declared that he has not used illegal drugs in the past 25 years. He also said he could pass current White House anti-drug standards set by Clinton and his father, former President George Bush.

Many columnists and pundits have taken the younger Bush to task for his “statute of limitations” denial.

And whether Bush did take drugs in his wild-and-crazy-guy days may be of interest to some people who want to vote for him, the political pundits seem much more interested in his past than voters do.

So, why did Bush choose to partially talk about his past now? And why, when despite the rumors he has been gaining a lot of support and backing, did he feel it was appropriate to hedge instead of being open?

Bush’s half-assed denial certainly isn’t surprising; he’s a politician. The surprising part is that politicians never seem to learn from each other’s mistakes.

When a question such as drug abuse comes up, why do politicians revert to waffling?

The answer may seem obvious; of course, Bush doesn’t want to lie, and he doesn’t want to admit there was a time that he snorted lines.

He doesn’t want to lose his cushy lead because of things that may or may not have occurred before Richard Nixon resigned from office. So what’s the other option?

Tell people it’s none of their business, that the past is over and if they want to vote for him, they should focus on the good things he’s accomplished while in office, not the skeletons in his closet.

Bush took one step toward doing that — shortly after his non-admission he said that if his current explanation isn’t good enough for voters, they simply shouldn’t vote for him.

This statement is good; it takes guts. How many politicians have the chutzpah to simply say, “If you can’t agree with my past, don’t vote for me?”

Bill Clinton never would have said that, and many of the Republicans and Democrats vying for the presidency would never say that.

But isn’t that statement kind of ridiculous now?

“I’m saying I haven’t done drugs in at least 25 years, I’m not talking about what I did or didn’t do before that, so take that as you please.”

Acting as a politician cannot be that hard.

Anybody can tell people what they want to hear, and although the scrutiny of their personal lives may be more intense than ever, more people would have been placated if Bush had just drawn the line and answered the questions definitively.

Acting as a leader is much more difficult, and Bush had the opportunity to show strength by addressing the rumors fully — or just choosing not to talk about the issue at all. It’s this in-between stuff that makes people uneasy and makes fellow Beltway-dwellers cringe.

Since the drug question has been a topic of speculation for so long, why did Bush choose to make his big revelation a non-revelation?

By taking a stand on the issue, whether he would disclose any drug use or not, he could have showed more character.

The drug issue is in the past, but the way Bush handles these types of situations is indicative of what type of leader he is, and what type of leader he will be.

I personally could care less about whether Bush did drugs, or who he slept with or anything else that is his personal businesses, but I don’t intend to vote for him. But the people who want to vote for him deserve a better explanation than this.

---

Kate Kompas is a sophomore in journalism and mass communication from LeClaire. She is head news editor of the Daily.