- Reverend
Jesse Jackson
- "You
have to answer the question. It won’t go away."
-
The subject? George
W. Bush. The "question [that] won’t go away"? Bush’s alleged
cocaine use. Meet Reverend Jesse "Zero-Tolerance" Jackson,
born-again Drug Czar. Jackson feels that Bush should come clean and
directly respond to rumors about cocaine use. At first, Bush refused
to answer any such questions. But, after prodding, he essentially
denied using drugs within the last 25 years.
Does Reverend
Jackson recall the mayor of Washington, D.C., Marion Barry, caught
on videotape, smoking crack? After a jail stint, Barry brazenly announced
his candidacy to recapture his office. During that campaign, Jackson
taped messages on Barry’s behalf, "He knows hope! He knows fear!
He knows hardship! He knows championship! His spirit has never surrendered."
And where were
the "zero-tolerance" commentators when Clinton White House
staffers, because of previous drug use, failed to get permanent security
clearances?
In July, 1996,
the "Investors Business Daily" reported, "To grant
security passes to some recent drug users, the White House overruled
the Secret Service. Even when crack cocaine showed up in staffers’
FBI reports, the Clinton team issued passes." And, in
March 1994, the "Wall Street Journal" reported, "Last
week, Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, acknowledged that she and more
than 100 other White House staffers had failed to obtain permanent
White House passes," including, apparently, the White House personnel
chief. Why not? According to the "Washington Times," background
checks disclosed use of "illegal drugs, convictions of drug offenses,
alcoholism, and failure to pay federal or state income taxes."
Back then, drug
czar General Barry McCaffrey, said, "No Americans should be precluded
from serving their country in any position so long as they now reject
all illicit drug use." Presumably, then, Bush’s recent remarks
should satisfy the drug czar: "I have learned from the mistakes
I may or may not have made, and I’d like to share some wisdom with
you: Don’t do drugs."
Quite simply,
the media did not pursue the far stronger allegations of Clinton cocaine
use with the intensity shown in the case of George W. Bush. Several
people have claimed that Bill Clinton used cocaine, including Gennifer
Flowers, his former mistress. And, in 1984, an Arkansas police detective
recorded Clinton’s brother, Roger, doing coke, and saying, "I’ve
got to get some for my brother. He’s got a nose like a Hoover vacuum
cleaner." Unlike in Clinton’s case, no one, to date, claims to
have witnessed Bush doing coke.
Yet the first
direct question about Clinton’s prior drug use didn’t occur until
a television debate against former California Governor Jerry Brown.
After Clinton’s denial, Brown lashed into the questioner, "Why
don’t you lay off this stuff? What you did ten or twenty years ago
is not really relevant."
During the Clinton/Monica
Lewinsky scandal, polls consistently asked Americans their opinion
of Independent Counsel Ken Starr. Yet during Watergate, polls did
not ask public sentiment about Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, or
his successor, Leon Jaworski. When questioned why polls asked
about Ken Starr, Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll,
said, "As the situation unfolds, and as the story continues
to develop, we look at different aspects of public opinion. It’s how
the news cycle works. Our role is to measure public opinion based
on how the story unfolds."
But, a Fox News
poll found that only 17% of Americans felt that cocaine use disqualifies
a candidate, and 72% said they would forgive a candidate’s prior cocaine
use. How, then, does "public opinion" on Bush’s alleged
cocaine use become the "question that won’t go away"?
Consider this.
A Freedom Forum poll conducted a survey of 139 Washington, D.C., reporters
and bureau chiefs. In 1992, 89% of these journalists voted for Bill
Clinton vs. 43% of the nation’s voters. Only 7% voted for George Bush.
Ninety-one percent call themselves either liberal or moderate, with
only 2% as self-described "conservatives," and, only 4%
are registered Republicans.
Despite what many
think, reporters remain, at the end of the day, human beings. And
human nature and common sense suggests that reporters are likely softer
on people they like and agree with, and harder on people they don’t.
When, and under
what circumstances, should journalists ask a candidate about "private
matters"? Reporters must weigh the relevance, credibility, and
seriousness of any allegations against the public’s respect for a
candidate’s privacy. This is a difficult task. What is not difficult,
however, is to ask for a little consistency. Please.