I’ve been trying to figure out what it is exactly that doesn’t sit right about efforts by Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe and their apologists to center the upcoming Presidential campaign on the attendance policies of the 1972 Texas Air National Guard.

Two reasons are obvious. One, most obviously and most importantly, I think the charges against Mr. Bush distort the historical record and appear largely baseless (see here, here and here). Secondly, while I am critical of his policies on a number of fronts, supported his opponent in the 2000 primaries and think there is far more he should be doing, I support President Bush. Further, I believe he has a significant record of accomplishments and achievement to provide a sound basis for either supporting or opposing his re-election.

The third reason, though, is a little more subtle and took awhile to fully dawn on me. It has to do with the relevance of a candidate’s history in general and the relationship between the individual running for President and his or her behavior before ever entering political life. These questions are certainly neither always entirely relevant nor always entirely irrelevant. How does one differentiate?

The issue, to me, seems to be the relationship between the charge and the candidate’s current character. Except for extremely serious allegations (i.e. murder, treason, rape, etc…) which are always germane, the relevance of the allegation hinges on whether it tells us anything about the individual today.

It is a fact of life that most people change over time and that the way most of us behave at 15 is not how we behave at 22, which is not necessarily how we behave at 45, 55 or 65. Few of even President Bush’s staunchest supporters would argue that his qualifications for President are bolstered by his early years. Even a cursory knowledge of his biography reveals that Bush was nobody’s role model up until the time he gave up drinking and got serious about his future. He was a fairly harmless trouble-maker, cruising through life on his father’s money and support, doing what he had to do but not much more and living a rather care-free existence. I went to college with many such individuals – they are not necessarily bad people, but they are certainly not inspirational figures of leadership.

But Bush changed. He got married, gave up drinking and focused on business and politics. He became a much more serious, hard-working individual – the man we know from his years as two-term Governor of Texas, candidate for President and current Commander-in-Chief. Few today, though they may oppose his policies, could convincingly argue that Bush is fundamentally lazy or undisciplined. By all reports, he gets up consistently at the crack of dawn, works out diligently, manages his time and work schedule and goes to bed early to begin anew each day.

This is why the allegation, even if it were true, that Bush missed too many days in the National Guard doesn’t really tell us much – it is a swipe against a George Bush that no one thought was presidential material anyway. Though it isn’t supported by the facts, the image of a young man carelessly shirking his duties would be serious, but not entirely inconsistent with the picture of “pre-Laura” George Bush. Yet, it is entirely inconsistent with the diligent, focused man who currently occupies the White House. George Bush today, and since he has been a national figure, is not, in my view, the man he was in 1976 or 1972 or 1967 or 1963.

This is why I never held John McCain’s notoriously hard-partying Navy days against him. Though he has other faults, no one, to my knowledge, argues that McCain has these vices today or otherwise disparages his extra-curricular personal conduct since becoming a Senator. He is a different man today.

Similarly, though I understand why others might, I wouldn’t overly penalize John Kerry for coming home from Vietnam to join up with the Jane Fondas of the world, slander his fellow veterans and make a big show of throwing away someone else’s medals (see here). The disillusioned John Kerry of 1971 had been through a lot and was entitled to bitterness and even activism. It was a combative, polarizing time in American history. Though he sometimes gives the impression that he remains overly fixated on Vietnam, I do not believe that, 33 years later, he is completely the same man today.

Of course, there is more than enough in Kerry’s political record to oppose him, just as I would have thought ideological opponents of the President would feel that his record is sufficient to run against.

Finally, this brings the issue around, as so many divisive political disputes do, to Bill Clinton. The issues from Clinton’s early years (the philandering, the draft-dodging, his ridiculously-strained explanations of his drug use) were issues in 1992 because people had still had the same character-related concerns about him as he was running for President. (I also think such issues were far more relevant in 1992, than in 1996, when his character was still an issue, but by which time he had a record, and then-current ethical and legal lapses, to run against). Clinton’s philandering was not some distant echo from the past – it was an ongoing problem, which would turn into all of our problems later in his Presidency. The draft-dodging was an issue because it spoke to Clinton’s “loathing” of the military, which became a major problem when those feelings became reciprocal and interfered with America’s national security. The recreational use of marijuana was a fairly minor strike against Clinton, but his tortured explanations of it raised very legitimate concerns about Clinton’s truthfulness and ethics – again, issues which reared their ugly head during his presidency and which marred most of his accomplishments.

The list goes on. The point, God knows, is not to relive the Clinton years, but to illustrate that the types of issues from his early days were ongoing concerns. His character and ethical lapses were, and will always be, among his most prominent liabilities. The Bill Clinton of 1969 was an issue, because that was pretty much the same guy who ended up becoming President in 1992. Love him, hate him or somewhere in between, I don’t think the same is true of George W. Bush.

In the end, the issue of whether or not someone is essentially unchanged from their early years and whether character questions from their past are relevant to the future is, of course, a judgment call and personal matter for each voter. But I just think that relationship is important and that some issues, by consequence, are more relevant than others.