Whatever inner need that decision served, it has made Neil Bush a political lightning rod. The blame game got so rough last week that an unnamed GOP operative declared that Bush “is going to become the Savings and Loan poster child.” Instead of closing the book on the Neil Bush case, the Office of Thrift Supervision pressed ahead. OTS officials released 1,000 pages of documents from the case last week and alleged that Neil Bush engaged in “one of the worst kinds” of conflicts of interest while serving as a director of Silverado. Ignoring the counsel of his father’s political advisers, Bush spent the week aggressively defending himself in media interviews, but only seemed to worsen matters by acknowledging he had gotten “an incredibly sweet deal.” In an emotional press conference, President Bush promised not to interfere with the legal system. But he insisted, “What father wouldn’t express a certain confidence in the honor of his son?”

The timing couldn’t be worse. In recent weeks, taxpayers have begun to fathom that the S&L crisis would cost $500 billion over 40 years–or more than $2,000 a person. Suddenly, the culprits included not just an anonymous group of fat cats and negligent politicians, but the president’s own son. A NEWSWEEK Poll found most Americans believe that George Bush has handled the S&L crisis “not so well or poorly” and that Neil’s involvement is at least somewhat damaging to his father.

After simmering for five years as a financial crisis, the S&L mess has exploded as a political issue. For months Democrats had avoided casting blame, fearing they would be skewered in return. But in recent trips home, legislators were startled by the vehemence of public reaction. “I can’t ride down the street, I can’t go down an elevator, I can’t walk into an airport without a citizen coming up to me [about] S&Ls,” says Sen. Howard Metzenbaum. Neil Bush’s involvement emboldened the Democrats to attack, providing a way to blame his father for the S&L crisis and hit a broader populist message at the same time. Neil Bush was “the embodiment of the ’80s, trying to make a fast buck,” says Democratic Party spokesman Mike McCurry. A GOP strategist conceded that “Neil Bush draws blood on our side for the first time.”

Democrats last week were busy trying to look like reformers. Lawmakers were practically bumping each other off the platform in the Senate TV studio to boast about a crime bill they passed giving life prison sentences to convicted S&L “kingpins.” Rep. Patricia Schroeder called for an independent counsel to investigate Neil Bush. House Democratic leaders quietly objected to the demand, recognizing that the prosecutor might turn on prominent Democrats.

The fact is, of course, that Congress helped cause the crisis by loosening financial laws and blocking regulators from seizing sick S&Ls early on. Democratic Rep. Frank Annunzio of Illinois, who now sports a six-inch “Put the S&L Crooks in Jail” button, demonstrated the risks of hypocrisy last week when he held a press conference to question whether regulators went easy on Silverado because of “a donation of hush money” to the Republican Party. Reporters promptly started grilling Annunzio about his role in the scandal. A recipient of $51,620 in campaign donations from the thrift industry from 1981 to 1990, Annunzio pushed regulators to ease up on S&Ls during the 1980s. Bluntly put, Annunzio was far more responsible for the S&L tab than Neil Bush.

In many ways, the intense focus on Neil Bush is unfair. Other events last week served as reminders that he was a bit player in the crisis. Prosecutors indicted Edwin T. McBirney of Dallas, a high roller who reportedly threw lavish parties featuring strippers and elephants as his Sunbelt Savings Association lurched toward insolvency. Party guests remember him holding aloft loan contracts at some galas, shouting, “Anybody want to borrow $100,000? We can make a deal right on the spot.” (McBirney’s lawyers say he’s an innocent man being made a “political football” by prosecutors.)

Politics aside, what exactly did Neil Bush do? His most embarrassing act was not one the OTS even considered a violation of its rules. Bush received a $100,000 “loan” in 1984 from business associate Kenneth Good–which he never paid back. That’s not quite as bad as it sounds. Bush never actually got a penny. Good loaned the money to Bush on the condition that he spend it on one of Good’s risky investments. If the investment had blossomed, Bush would have paid back the loan but kept the profit. As it happened, it fizzled so Bush didn’t get anything. That’s not to say it wasn’t an incredibly sweet deal; a no-risk investment doesn’t drop in everyone’s lap.

The government’s formal charges focused on Bush’s actions from 1985, when Silverado chairman Michael Wise made him a board member, to 1988, when Bush resigned. The OTS alleges that Bush acted in “a manner likely to cause abnormal risk to Silverado” when he voted to give loans to or buy property from Bill L. Walters, a major Denver developer. Walters ultimately caused $50 million in losses to Silverado–at the same time he was a business partner of Bush. OTS says Bush should have disclosed this business relationship. While acknowledging he didn’t fill out the proper forms, Bush says the other directors did know about his business ties to Walters and that Colorado law didn’t bar him from voting. Even so, the OTS says it was a breach of duty to vote on a deal involving a partner.

Bush also encouraged Silverado to authorize a $900,000 line of credit to Good. Bush notes that in this case he abstained from voting on the transaction and informed the board that he had a business relationship with Good. But, OTS says, Bush neglected to tell the board that his company was a partner in the very project the $900,000 was helping. Bush claims this again is a petty dispute over disclosure. Bush was only spared further charges because the venture never actually used the $900,000. Even with full disclosure, S&Ls aren’t supposed to give their own directors large loans.

The OTS charges that Bush didn’t set the record straight when Good told the board of directors that he was short of cash and would have to reschedule $11.5 million in loans. At the time Good was pleading poverty he was also promising Bush $3.1 million in another deal. Bush says the board fully understood Good’s finances.

Is Bush being singled out because he’s the president’s son? The OTS doesn’t usually bring complaints against suspects who have left the board of directors. But when regulators file lawsuits after taking over insolvent banks they generally do sue the outside directors. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is reportedly close to bringing a $200 million suit against Silverado. Experts in such litigation say it will very likely name Neil Bush, who could face personal bankruptcy if found negligent.

Going along: Bush seems emblematic of a type of secondary player in the scandal–the people who furthered the crisis through negligence, insider abuse or naive complicity. “It is appropriate [to scrutinize Bush] because he represents a major class of people who contributed to the disaster by going along with it,” says a key regulator who helped uncover the S&L scandal.

If President Bush isn’t tarred by his son’s troubles he may still be blamed for S&L cleanup problems. Democrats argue that the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), responsible for selling insolvent thrifts, has moved too slowly and allowed bonanzas to entrepreneurs taking over the failed institutions. Metzenbaum last week complained that in selling 15 thrifts to the Bluebonnet Savings Bank in Dallas back in 1988, regulators gave $1.8 billion in subsidies to James Fail–a man whose company had pleaded guilty to a securities-law felony and who is now under investigation by insurance regulators. Metzenbaum questioned whether the government helped Fail because they were lobbied by Robert Thompson, a former Bush aide representing Bluebonnet. A spokesman for Fail and Thompson said Bluebonnet offered the best bid and has run the thrifts efficiently.

The unfortunate truth is that the government may have to pump billions more to prop up sickly thrifts. It may also be that many S&L looters will get away with crimes that are too complicated for juries to understand. Voters will have to face up to the fact that much of the money is gone. Ironically, public outrage has moved lawmakers to toughen financial crime laws, yet it has not forced the most important reform of all: changing the campaign-finance system that helped fuel the scandal.

Although the S&L crisis is at least five years old, it is still in its infancy. Nearly every congressional district will soon have teams of muckrakers and political operatives searching for clues that link local officials or businessmen to the debacle. “There’s more new stuff in this than there was in Watergate,” says a GOP operative. “You’ve got stories coming from 50 states.” It may turn out that the gun-shy politicians who earlier warned colleagues away from this issue may have been right after all.

The figures on the S&L crisis continue to spiral upward as the political controversy grows.

Cost of Bailout: $500 billion over 40 years Thrifts: 454 taken over by the RTC[F*] $240 billion in assets Legal action since Oct. 1988. 183 indictments 307 defendants charged 202 convictions 381 cumulative years of punishment *AS OF JUNE 30

Most Americans see the S&L crisis–and Neil Bush’s role–as a liability to the president.

How damaging to President Bush is his son’s involvement with the Silverado S&L case?

19% Very damaging 51% Somewhat damaging 27% Not damaging

How well do you think President Bush is handling the S&L scandal?

56% Not so well/Poorly 29% Very well/Well

How important an issue will the scandal be in the next presidential election?

82% Very/Somewhat important 15% Not too important

Who is more to blame?

35% Republicans 19% Democrats