Bush had a DUI conviction and never admitted to it

Nov 3 05:16 UTC 2000

It came out today that George W. Bush, back in his drinking days 25 years
ago, had a DWI conviction up in Maine.  He was pulled over for drunk
driving and paid a $150 fine.  

On the face of it, this shouldnt be a big deal, it was 25 years ago, and
who among us hasnt driven home after drinking a glass or two of wine 
at a dinner and not run some sort of risk.

But the issue being raised seems to be that Bush has run on the argument
that he has more honesty and integrity than Gore.  So why didnt he come
out and admit to this?  Why did he keep it a secret and let it end up
coming out this way?  He admits to having partied pretty hard in his
younger days...if he kept this a secret what other secrets might he be
hiding?  When you run for President, shouldnt you ethically be upfront and
open with any arrests you've had in the past.

On nightline tonight, Bill Kristol, the conservative American Spectator
columnist, called this the decisive moment of the campaign.  We'll have to
wait and see.

response 2 of 50:

Nov 3 05:53 UTC 2000

The Washington Post is reporting, that in 1996, down in Texas, Bush drew
jury duty.  The trial was a dui case.  As required, the judge asked all
prospective jurors if they had ever had a dui arrest.  Bush did not tell
the judge of this arrest.  

Bush's main argument for his candidacy is that he has more honesty and
integrity than Gore.  Now the question is, does he?

response 4 of 50:

Nov 3 06:40 UTC 2000

<rolls her eyes and forgets the item>

response 6 of 50:

Nov 3 13:32 UTC 2000

sorry about bush's and cheney's clay feet surfacing.  it kinda messes up their
holier-than-thou stance.  shame.

response 8 of 50:

Nov 3 15:10 UTC 2000

Re the "glass or two of wine at a dinner" thing: I recently had to 
renew my MI driver's license.  One of the questions on the test was 
something like "Drinking two glasses of wine and then driving home is 
a) okay, b) illegal, c) a matter for individual judgment, d) 
dangerous."  I answered "b" but the correct answer was "c".  The woman 
who scored the test explained that a couple of glasses of wine isn't 
going to put anyone over the legal limit, but that you should decide 
for yourself if you're up to driving.  I don't know what the standards 
were in Maine 25 years ago, but I'm guessing you had to be fuckin' 
*blind* to be convicted.

response 10 of 50:

Nov 3 15:33 UTC 2000

I was thinking a few days ago that GWB spends a lot of time talking 
about "honesty" and "accountability" while refusing to own up to his 
past (the coke and booze usage of a couple of decades ago doesn't 
particularly bother me, but the lack of forthrightness about it 
does--is he just trying to hide his past so he can be more palatable 
as a candidate, or is he still in denial about his problems, and 
which is worse?).  Now more of the same.  He claims that he didn't 
mention the arrest before now because he wanted to set a good example 
for his daughters (they know that he was a drunk and probably a 
cokehead, but god forbid they should know that he was arrested for 
DUI.  What's the message--it's okay to get drunk as long as you don't 
get caught?).  Also, he's still minimizing the nature of the incident, 
questioning "the timing" of the story (that is, blaming Gore&Co.) 
instead of fully owning up to it, and claiming that he was originally 
pulled over because he was driving too slow (ie "I wasn't that drunk"), 
when in actuality the arresting officer says he pulled GW over because 
he had run off the road and into some bushes (no pun intended) and was 
trying to back out and get away.

Please note as well how the Bush supporters write such things off as 
"youthful indiscretions", but pillory Clinton&Co for similar incidents. 
Bill admits to smoking pot in college and he's a pothead (and a draft 
dodger); GW does coke and gets arrested when he's about 30 and it's a 
youthful indiscretion...

response 12 of 50:

Nov 3 16:36 UTC 2000

Copyright 1996 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
Wednesday, October 9, 1996, page A-19

Prospective juror Bush dismissed from DWI case
By Kathy Walt, Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Gov. George W. Bush was struck from a list of potential 
jurors in a DWI case Tuesday, a development that allowed him to avoid 
potentially embarrassing questions about whether he had ever climbed 
behind the wheel after drinking.

Alcohol had nothing to do with the reason for Bush's dismissal, 
however.  Nor did Bush attempt to avoid jury duty.

Before Bush or any other prospective jurors were called into the 
courtroom, defense attorney David Wahlberg asked that Bush be struck 
as a juror because of the governor's clemency powers - his ability to 
grant pardons to those convicted of crimes.

Later, Wahlberg and the prosecutor in the misdemeanor 
driving-while-intoxicated case asked potential jurors questions about 
their own experiences related to drinking and driving.

Outside the courtroom, Bush was asked by reporters if he had ever been 
arrested for driving while intoxicated.

"I do not have a perfect record as a youth," Bush said.

When prodded for more detail, he said, "When I was young, I did a lot 
of foolish things.  But I will tell you this, I urge people not to 
drink and drive.  It's an important message for all people to hear.  I 
don't drink, and I hope others don't drink and drive as well."

Karen Hughes, Bush's spokeswoman, said later that the governor would 
have had to answer the DWI question had he undergone voir dire as did 
other prospective jurors.  Voir dire is the process in which potential 
jurors are questioned by lawyers in an attempt to root out any bias.

"Gov. Bush has consistently answered all such questions by saying that 
he does not drink," Hughes said.  "He has not had a drink in more than 
10 years.  He has always acknowledged, as he did in his 1994 campaign, 
that in the past he did drink and on occasion as a younger man drank 
too much."

In his campaign two years ago, Bush admitted that he used to drink too 
much and was not pleasant to be around.  He gave it up as part of a 
maturing process, he said.

Hughes said that Bush now feels an "obligation as the governor
of Texas and as a father to send a strong and clear message that 
Texans should not drink and drive."

Last week, Bush had made it through the first round of jury selection 
in the local DWI case, winding up as one of 18 potential jurors; six 
were to be impaneled.

"I am glad to do my duty," Bush said.

response 14 of 50:

Nov 3 17:42 UTC 2000

Re #5: bru wrote:

"He may not have disclosed it publicly, which is what he was aiming for. 
He never lied, ( no one ever asked him if he had ever been convicted of
drunk driving, afterall) so he never had to.  He did keep it personal, as
most of us would who had a youthful indiscretion."

Sound *exactly* like Clinton avoiding questions about some more recent
indiscretions. 

response 16 of 50:

Nov 3 19:00 UTC 2000

Didn't you love Clinton?

response 18 of 50:

Nov 3 20:50 UTC 2000

If he calls his actions in his early 30's "mistakes from his youth," he
is being deliberately misleading in his statements. It's no better than
"I have never broken the drug laws of the United States."

response 20 of 50:

Nov 3 21:37 UTC 2000

The word "arrest" had been defined in a legal briefing, and it was
sufficiently constrained to make it an honest statement.
(Well, that defense worked for Clinton...)

response 22 of 50:

Nov 4 00:04 UTC 2000

resp:14  (not to toot bru's horn, but what part of "youthful" did you miss
        by trying to compare it to Clinton's *recent* indiscretions?
        sure, Clinton's younger than you, but still...)

response 24 of 50:

Nov 4 00:46 UTC 2000

I'm with the analyst this morning who said that it would be a shame for this to
distract attention from all of other Bush's shortcomings.