Bush cranks up the lies. The problem is... no-one is listening.

I think I've caught the gist of what's going on. Rove has sent Bush out on the campaign trail and told him to say as many offensive things about the Democrats as he can in the hope of setting off some kind of reaction that will take the Republican's troubles off the front pages.

This is surely the reason for Bush's comments that Democrats are voting to stop him being able to listen to terrorists. A comment as crass as it is untrue.

But what else does Bush have to campaign on? What else can he say in the hope of turning media attention away from the scandal that is causing his party to implode?

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush ratcheted up his campaign offensive against Democrats on Tuesday with perhaps his bluntest rhetoric yet as he accused them of being 'softer' on terrorists and willing to allow attacks on Americans rather than interrogate or spy on the nation's enemies.

"With his party in serious trouble five weeks before Election Day, Bush shifted into full campaign mode this week, kicking off a month of frenetic barnstorming aimed at drawing disgruntled Republicans back into the fold. As part of the effort, he has escalated the intensity of his attacks with each passing day, culminating with what aides called a 'very aggressive' series of speeches Tuesday."

Here's the text of his morning speech: "If you don't think we should be listening in on the terrorist, then you ought to vote for the Democrats. If you want your government to continue listening in when al-Qaeda planners are making phone calls into the United States, then you vote Republican."

He's almost begging for the Democrats to react to this reactionary nonsense. However, the biggest problem for Bush is that people have stopped listening to him.

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush is turning up the volume on his charge that Democrats are soft on terror, but his campaign message is competing against a noisy Capitol Hill scandal tailing Republicans as the election nears.

Support for Bush has plummeted, once again, to 39% and a majority of Americans are now opposed to the war in Iraq and feel that Bush has misled them by constantly giving a rosy picture of events on the ground that did not accord with reality. More importantly, they do not feel that he is making them any safer.

It seems that Bush has run out of cards to play and is now left with nothing in the tank other than loud, untrue, partisan attacks.

Roger Runnigen writes for Bloomberg: "A majority of U.S. adults say President George W. Bush has deliberately misled the public about progress in Iraq and opposition to the war matches an all- time high, according to a poll conducted for CNN. . . .

"In the Sept. 29-Oct. 2 poll, 58 percent said the administration misled the public about how the war is going. In addition, 57 percent said the conflict has made the U.S. less safe from terrorism, indicating that Bush's central argument in defense of his policy isn't gaining traction with voters. . . .

"Sixty-one percent said they oppose the war, up from 58 percent at the beginning of September. It matches the high mark for opposition hit in mid-August, following a spike of insurgent and sectarian violence in Iraq. Sixty-six percent said they disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, up from 62 percent at the beginning of August. . . .

"The survey showed that Bush's job-approval rating declined to 39 percent from 42 percent a week earlier. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of Bush's handling his job as president."

John Harwood writes in the Wall Street Journal: "In a hailstorm of unfavorable publicity over a House sex scandal and the war in Iraq, President Bush and his party have lost the political initiative at a critical point in the midterm election campaign, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. . . .

In fact, it would appear that the public do not buy Bush's main argument about the centrality of Iraq in the wider war on terror:

"Do you think that America's safety from terrorism depends upon our success in the war in Iraq, or does it NOT depend upon our success in the war in Iraq?": 57 percent say it does not depend on success in Iraq.

"Do you think Iraq is in a civil war, or do you think Iraq is NOT in a civil war?": 61 percent think it is in a civil war.

Indeed, when The Washington Post say the following about a Republican administration the writing is on the wall:

"The reconstruction of Iraq could not have been simple, short or entirely peaceful. It nevertheless seems clear that U.S. chances for success would have been far better than they are today were it not for the overwhelming and shocking incompetence with which the administration has managed the war."

Bush continues to hit the same buttons on security that he has always relied upon to see him through elections, but it would appear that he has, at last, been rumbled.

I expect the outrageous lies he has been peddling over the past few days are but the tip of an iceberg. We can expect to hear many more as November approaches.

But will anyone listen?

Click title for full article.

UPDATE:

Glenn Greenwald has a wonderful article regarding why the usual Republican dirty tricks aren't working in the case of the Foley scandal:

There are, as Matt Yglesias pointed out the other day, huge numbers of people in this country -- clearly the majority of the electorate -- who are not at all stupid but simply do not have the time or inclination to pay close attention to political events. In that regard, people who spend substantial time in the blogosphere are aberrational; it is not the norm to monitor political developments on a daily basis. Most people rely upon journalists and pundits, as Yglesias said, "to let them know if something goes dramatically wrong with the governance of the country." But journalists have failed in that duty and the conservative pundits on whom many people (particularly conservatives) rely have purposely obscured what has been happening.

But for so many reasons -- its relative simplicity, its crystal clarity, the involvement of emotionally-charged issues, the salacious sex aspects -- this Foley scandal circumvents that whole dynamic. People are paying attention on their own. They don't need pundits or journalists to tell them what to think about it because they are able to form deeply held opinions on their own. None of the standard obfuscation tactics used for so long by Bush followers are working here. To the contrary, their attempted use of those tactics is making things much worse for them, because people can see that Bush followers are attempting -- through the use of patently dishonest and corrupt tactics -- to excuse the inexcusable. And seeing that, it gives great credence to all of the accusations voiced over the last five years that this is how the Bush movement operates in every area, because people can now see it for themselves.

Read Glenn's article here.

tag: Bush, Republican, Party, mid-term, elections, lies, war on terror