Friday, November 3, 2000 1:00 P.M. EST

Bush's DUI
After WPXT, a Portland, Maine, TV station, breaks the story, George W. Bush acknowledges he pleaded guilty in 1976 to a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence of alcohol in Kennebunkport. "I regret that it happened. But it did. I've learned my lesson. As many of you know that I quit drinking alcohol in 1986. And it was the right decision for me to make then." The arresting officer, Calvin Bridges, tells the Associated Press that Bush was "a picture of integrity" that night 24 years ago.

About the timing of the revelation, Bush says: "That's an interesting question--why now, four days before an election? . . . I got my suspicions." WPXT airs a story saying that the source of the report was Tom Connolly, a Portland lawyer who ran unsuccessfully for governor two years ago and was a Gore delegate to the 2000 Democratic convention. From the Drudge Report we learn that Connolly is the brains behind an anti-Bush Web site, wienerboy.org, which offers such elevated political commentary as this: "Wiener Boy Bush is 97% filler with 2% pigs lips and snout along with 1% pure bull coupled with .001% of rodent feces."

Whether the DUI revelation will affect the election is anyone's guess, but, as Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz points out, it has already transformed the coverage of the campaign. "You don't have to wait for the Saturday papers," Kurtz writes. "We can tell you right now the stories will question whether the incident will reinforce doubts about Bush's party-guy past, his lack of accomplishment before age 40 and his readiness for the White House." Political scientist Larry Sabato tells National Review online: "However the election turns out, this will be one of the explanations for it. If Bush wins, there was a backlash, Republicans and independents were furious at these last-minute smear charges that didn't matter, and they turned out in droves. If he loses, that explains for the pollsters why their polls were wrong."

For our part, we think Bush should have disclosed his drunk-driving arrest at the outset of the campaign, precisely to avoid such a "November surprise." But after eight years of finger-wagging denials, I-didn't-inhale evasions and no-controlling-legal-authority excuses, we find it refreshing to see a candidate for president candidly acknowledge a past wrong.

Perot Endorses Bush
Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live"--the same venue where he launched his 1992 presidential candidacy and lost a debate to Al Gore over Nafta--Ross Perot backs George W. Bush for president. Perot accuses Gore of "running, ducking and hiding and playing like he's Bill Clinton squared," and says "the whole time that Gov. Bush has been down in Austin, nobody's questioned his integrity."

Nader and Third Parties
The history of third parties in American politics suggests that rather than hurting the left by hurting Al Gore, a strong showing by Ralph Nader "will put progressive concerns back onto the table," writes John Kearney in Feed magazine. After Perot's strong showing in 1992, the Democrats and the Republicans got religion when it came to balanced budgets and deficit cutting. The Democrats, running William Jennings Bryan in 1896, took up elements of the platform the Populist Party had used in 1892. And Woodrow Wilson adopted a number of the issues the Progressive Party had pressed in 1912. We wonder, though, if Nader's candidacy might not be a sort of last gasp. After all, whatever happened to segregationist Democrats after George Wallace, or liberal Republicans after John Anderson?

On the Bus With Hillary
Michael Grunwald rides along with the first lady in New York, and finds that her agriculture policy boils down to "more money, more money, more money." He also recounts this exchange:

The first question refers to last week's debate, when Clinton was asked if she had ever taken an unpopular stand, and she cited her proposal to test teachers in Arkansas. So: Have you taken any unpopular stands during this campaign? "Well, after the election, I'll have to evaluate that."

'Hideous Moral Payback'
Even the Gore cheerleaders at The New Republic can't stomach Joe Lieberman's effort to cozy up to Louis Farrakhan. In an editorial, they ask: "Does the Gore campaign, fearful that having a Jew on the ticket will depress black turnout, think the solution is for that Jew to link himself to an anti-Semite? Is this some kind of hideous moral payback, whereby Lieberman's past colorblindness means he must now pay more, not less, homage to his party's worst instincts so as to prove his partisan bona fides? If so, the price is too high. . . . the Connecticut senator seems to have forgotten that pandering is pandering, with or without God."

Bob Jones II?
Salon complains of Bush's plan to speak at Cornerstone University, of Grand Rapids, Mich., which Salon describes as "an evangelical Christian school that has a policy of expelling students for being gay or lesbian." Salon quotes a gay-rights activist: "That he would appear at a school that discriminates against gays to this degree illustrates how phony his compassionate conservatism is." It strikes us, though, as neither compassionate nor tolerant to write people out of civilized society simply because they follow traditional religious teachings on sexual matters.

Make Ours Well Done
A small group of National Cancer Institute-affiliated researchers "has convinced itself--and now is trying to convince us--that well-done meat is a cancer risk. It's too bad their evidence isn't too well-done." Junk Science man Steven Milloy says you're better off cooking the meat well, killing the E. Coli bacteria and not worrying about the "make-believe cancer rsk."

Ready, Willing and Disabled
Foxnews.com reports on a recent study that found "hundreds of court records of people receiving federal aid for the disabled who, at the same time, sued their former employers under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act--in essence, telling the government they can't work, while bringing a lawsuit that claims they can."