Commandment Bites the Dust

Gee whiz, that’s some little donnybrook that the Republicans have going in Iowa, the site of the first real event of the 1988 presidential campaign, coming now in less than a month. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas wants Vice President George Bush to disclose what he advised President Reagan during the Iran-Contra affair. Returning fire, Bush wants Dole to make public all of his income-tax returns for the past 10 years. The idea, of course, is to blunt the image that Dole is trying to project of himself to his neighboring Iowans: that he grew up as a poor ol’ Kansas boy when in fact he now is a wealthy man.

So for the first time in years the GOP’s 11th Commandment declaring that Republicans shall not speak ill of each other is being trampled in the dust--or mud. In the process the focus on Bush and Dole is pushing the other four GOP candidates into the shadows. But the Bush-Dole one-on-one does not necessarily mean that the two of them will hog the bulk of support in Iowa on Feb. 8. This is not a simple primary in which all of the eligible voters can go to the polls and cast their ballots for their favorite candidates. Iowa is a caucus state, and a successful political campaign must get its supporters to the precinct caucus meetings where they must stand up and declare their loyalty. A campaign’s organizational ability thus is critical, and evangelist Pat Robertson for one is believed to have a vigorous operation under way with the potential for producing a surprise.

Still, Bush and Dole are considered the front-runners, and their personal feud is expected to continue to dominate the GOP nomination contest as it moves from Iowa to the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 16. A good showing in Iowa is important to Dole, however, since this is a neighboring state and his long-time interest in farm legislation is considered an edge.

Bush’s problem has been that he claims to have been the most active vice president ever, but he has refused to say what advice he has given the President and on what issues he might have differed with Reagan. But the bigger problem for Bush now may not be his refusal to answer his critics’ questions about the Iran-Contra affair, but that he did answer one in particular. Asked why he did not protest the arms deal, as did a few other high-ranking Reagan Administration officials, Bush was quite forthcoming. “I supported the policy,” Bush said during the Republican debate in Des Moines last Friday. It was good policy that went awry, he said.

Americans have nodded knowingly and winked when Reagan insisted that the deal never was meant to be an arms-for-hostage exchange but just transformed itself into one at some mysterious point. Iowans, skeptical of foreign adventurism in the first place, may find that same story hard to swallow from George Bush, the fellow who claims so much experience from so many jobs--including director of the Central Intelligence Agency.