AFTER George Bush chose Dan Quayle to be his Vice-Presidential running mate, many questioned his judgment. Did the Republican nominee for president know what to look for in political appointees? Was he a competent judge of character?

The American people decided they could trust Bush anyway and elected him in a near-landslide. But now it appears that such questions concerning the president's judgement were right on target. Bush's nomination of John G. Tower for Secretary of Defense has raised serious doubts among the president's critics and supporters alike.

Before Tower could slip through the Senate confirmation process by relying on senatorial courtesy from his former colleagues, Senator Sam Nunn (D.-Ga) and the other Democrats on the Armed Services Committee showed they weren't too pleased with the nominee Bush had offered them. To the dismay of the nine Republicans on the committee who voted for Tower, all 11 Democrats voted against the former senator.

NUNN'S leadership of the committee was both laudable and courageous, as well as desperately needed. Though many leading Republicans claimed the committee was unfairly prolonging Tower's confirmation based on unsubstantiated rumors of drinking and womanizing, Nunn's lengthy delay was warranted and reflected well on the strengths of the Senate as a deliberative body.

The Republican accusations unfairly represent the problems that senators had with the Tower nomination. Many senators were concerned with the $750,000 which Tower, a former chair of the Armed Services Committee, received from defense contractors shortly after he stopped representing the United States in Geneva arms control negotiations.

Although Tower denies divulging any classified information about the negotiations, his use of this high government position for personal advantage seems incompatible with Bush's calls for avoiding even the "appearance" of wrongdoing in his administration.

The Democratic senators rightly questioned whether Tower's judgment would be similarly shaky if he became Secretary of Defense, a position from which he could easily favor his former employers. Tower said he would dismiss himself from some, but not all, the cases which would affect the contractors. Such ethical ambiguity alone was enough to cast doubt on Tower's worthiness for the office--even if the allegations about drinking and womanizing were largely untrue.

AND despite Bush's claims to the contrary, there was enough truth in these allegations to cause alarm. Even Senator John Warner (R.-Va.), the ranking Republican on the committee, admitted that the FBI investigation into Tower's personal life, which found that he indeed had had drinking problems, cast doubt on the nominee's fitness for such a high-level and sensitive post.

Nunn and the Democrats deserve credit for keeping the debate free of partisan considerations. Nunn did not publicly pass judgment on Tower before he knew all the facts. As a senator should, he weighed the evidence carefully and came to a thoughtful decision.

The Republicans, on the other hand, should be blamed for what were obviously highly partisan votes. Their block vote for Tower displayed a lack of concern about whether the nominee was appropriate for the Cabinet position. They seemed primarily concerned with salvaging Bush's rapidly disintegrating political clout rather than considering the case's merits.

Having stuck with Tower through the committee vote, Bush should not drop Tower now and risk looking like a wimp who is easily swayed by the prevailing political winds. He's already lost enough prestige among the top players in Washington and in public opinion.

But Tower should withdraw his own name from nomination and do a favor for both the President and the country. If Tower fails to do so, Nunn and his colleagues should make that decision for him when the full Senate debates the nomination this week.