In a Defensive Crouch

By Laurence I. Barrett/ Washington

When news stories in October suggested ties between George Bush's office and the supply line to the contras, the Vice President denied any involvement. Still, a few of his campaign advisers considered the rumor a political plus. A suggestion that the Vice President stands tall behind the "freedom fighters," they reasoned, might improve his standing with Republican hawks who doubt Bush's grit. An aide recalled this judgment with a rueful chuckle last week as Bush labored to free himself from one of Iranscam's many tentacles. With his presidential prospects damaged by the broader scandal, Bush had to plead ignorance of what two of his assistants were doing and at the same time deny they had done anything improper. A defensive crouch is a disabling posture.

Bush's office last week issued a new account of dealings between two of his assistants and a former CIA agent working in Central America that revealed more extensive communications about the contras than were previously known. Donald Gregg, the Vice President's national security adviser, kept in touch % for years with his Viet Nam comrade Felix Rodriguez, who uses the nom de guerre Max Gomez. After helping Rodriguez in 1985 get a post advising the Salvadoran air force, Gregg talked periodically with him. Last August, Rodriguez informed Gregg that the efforts of the private groups supplying munitions to the rebels were failing. In October, Bush's office was the first to learn that a cargo plane involved -- the one that carried Eugene Hasenfus -- was missing. The information came from Rodriguez.

Although Bush had met Rodriguez three times, he claimed to be unaware of any connection between the operative and the resupply efforts. Gregg told TIME that he had neglected to inform Bush of Rodriguez's discussion about the contras because "it was not something the Vice President or I was interested in."

The Rodriguez connection is only one aspect of Bush's political difficulties. His strongest claim to the 1988 nomination is his bond with the Reagan record. But Iranscam has devastated Reagan's prestige and shattered the mood of political calm that could help Bush, who represents serene continuity. Last week the annual Louis Harris survey on "confidence in institutions" reported a sharp drop in those expressing a "great deal of confidence" in the White House, from 30% in 1985 to 19% -- only 1 point higher than in Jimmy Carter's last year. Said Harris: "To be successful, a Republican may have to be able to say, 'I represent a different part of the Republican Party.' " Howard Baker, a potential candidate who could make that claim, observed last week with studied understatement that although Bush "is still the front runner," the scandal "probably gives others of us an enhanced opportunity."

The Republican making the most of that opportunity is Bob Dole, Baker's successor as G.O.P. Senate leader. Well before Iranscam altered the political landscape, Dole was emerging as Bush's strongest rival. In the past seven weeks, Dole has prodded the Administration to confront the crisis with full, prompt disclosure and tried to get congressional inquiries to move quickly. Defying Congress, even to help the contras, "was just plain stupid," he said in a speech in -- where else? -- New Hampshire.

Bush addressed the Iran issue last Friday in Iowa. In a speech reviewed by the White House, he urged that instead of invoking the Fifth Amendment, "Admiral Poindexter and Colonel North should now step forward and tell us the whole truth." A Des Moines Register poll released that day showed how badly the scandal has hurt Bush: Dole, who six months ago trailed Bush 2 to 1, is now ahead, 28% to 25%, among Iowa Republicans. In a hypothetical matchup against Democrat Gary Hart, Bush lost by 65% to 29%.

As Dole was distancing himself from the White House, Jack Kemp was making a calculated appeal to staunch conservatives, who vote heavily in G.O.P. primaries. In a series of newspaper articles, the New York Congressman inveighed against liberals, whose "interest is in keeping the fires of a Watergate-style scandal well stoked, leaving them free to push their own feeble and dangerous agenda."

The scandal has emboldened the Democrats to go on the offensive. Reagan is now fair game. Even Charles Robb, head of the Democratic Leadership Council and normally a model of judiciousness, tossed darts at the wounded President. Sample: "The most oft-asked question is what did he know and when did he forget it?"

The longer the controversy dominates attention, the greater the chance of its shaking the entire political chessboard. Candidates with only scant association with Washington -- a successful Governor, for instance -- could benefit from this effect. Disenchantment with Reagan's loose administrative style and his heavy reliance on symbolism could put a premium on experienced national figures who emphasize concrete policies. Several Democrats fit that description, including Hart and others who barely rate an asterisk now. Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, a moderate who says he will decide early next year whether to enter the race, could benefit: his reputation for being hard working and thoughtful provides a stark contrast to Reagan's disastrous detachment, and Nunn's membership on the Senate's select committee investigating the affair could provide him with national visibility.

"We Democrats need to use this period to build a message for 1988," says Pollster Peter Hart. "My concern is that the Democrats will do what we do best: go for election by default, appeal for votes by saying, 'We're not Republicans.' " While that is a danger, the present poisonous atmosphere makes not being a Republican at least a temporary advantage.