If it looks like a lame duck, and it quacks like a lame duck…

October 6, 2006

By all indications, Bush is having trouble catapulting the propaganda.

Through disappointing polls and bad news in Iraq, intraparty squabbling over immigration and bipartisan broadsides on port security, President Bush has been able to use the megaphone of his office to shout above the din and shape the national debate.

But the Mark Foley scandal is rendering that megaphone practically useless, just as the president is trying to turn up the volume to help his party beat back Democratic efforts to take control of Congress this November.

During his three-day campaign swing out West this week, Mr. Bush’s carefully honed attacks on Democrats as soft on terrorism have been drowned out by the Foley case and its political repercussions.

The attacks were definitely “carefully honed,” they just weren’t carefully heard. On Monday, Bush delivered a blistering attack on Democrats, saying the party believes “the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we’re attacked again.” On Wednesday, Bush said “the safety of the United States of America” is dependent on voters backing Republicans.

Ordinarily, these fairly ridiculous attacks would be big news. There’d be all kind of analysis about the president’s unhinged rhetoric and blatant demagoguery, but this week, Dems barely lifted an eyebrow, and reporters practically shrugged their shoulders.

How bad is it? The president has taken to acting like a small child, desperately in need of attention.

For a guy who’s never had much use for reporters, President Bush sure seems to crave their attention. After he wrapped up a fund-raising event for GOP Rep. Dick Pombo in California, Bush bounded off stage and headed toward the audience to shake hands with supporters. But as he came down the stairs, he paused and shot a disappointed look toward the area where the White House press was corralled. Most of the scribes were buried nose deep in their laptops and didn’t notice the president was on the move. “Hello!” Bush called to them. No response. “Hello, reporters!” he shouted again, leaning in and spreading his arms. Still, nothing. “Hellllo!” Bush bellowed, waving his arms in the air and laughing.

Finally, a Reuters reporter, who had been playing back a tape of Bush’s remarks through her headphones, looked up and noticed the president standing a few feet away. “Oh!” she said, and waved back. Satisfied, The Leader of the Free World went back to the nation’s business.

How very, very sad.

He got some well earned attention from Keith Olbermann last night. In the off chance anyone missed, Crooks&Liars has the video

  • The self-proclaimed “daddy” party is revealing itself to be the spoiled brat party. Their simplistic, self-centered view of the world, playground bully tactics, blaming of others, did-so/did not rationalizations, transparent falsehoods, whining about perceived slights, monsters under the bed — it would all be quite sad except these guys have the power to dismantle democracy here and unleash havoc of biblical proportions everywhere.

  • I will add that the Olbermann comments clearly demonstrate that Bush’s blunt partisan and slanderous attacks on Democrats were far from “carefully honed.” What is carefully honed about using false charges as a club?

  • I have to agree about Olbermann. Thank God for one sane voice in the MSM.

    Boy George II, he is getting more and more pathetic, isn’t he.

    I just hope that his “I’m still relevant” moment doesn’t involved starting a war with Iran. Maybe we ought to be giving him a little attention. He does have all those nukes after all.

  • Reviewing the definition of hone, the second and clearly not intended version is more apt.

    hone2 (hn) Pronunciation Key
    intr.v. Informa. honed, hon·ing, hones
    1. To whine or moan.

  • “the party believes “the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we’re attacked again.”

    Kinda describes the GOP in power from Jan through Sept 10, 2001. There’s that pesky projection again.

    Two word George: “Port Security”

  • I like Olbermann and admire his courage but thought last night’s commentary was over the top. Too long, too rambling. I don’t disagree with anything he said, but I think he’d be more effective with shorter, more focused comments than rants. Just my opinion.

  • “There’d be all kind of analysis about the president’s unhinged rhetoric and blatant demagoguery…”

    You mean “forceful message” and “steely resolve” don’t you?

  • “Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve.

    It is not our freedom, nor our country — your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.

    You want to preserve a political party’s power. And obviously you’ll sell this country out, to do it.” – Keith Olberman last night.

    Pretty much sums things up. The fact that Bush is spouting these lies at fundraisers exposes plain as day that W is selling this country out … at about a $1,000 a plate.

  • “Pretty much sums things up. The fact that Bush is spouting these lies at fundraisers exposes plain as day that W is selling this country out … at about a $1,000 a plate.”

    Yes. We are allegedly fighting a war that is far worse and more dangerous than WWI, WWII and every other war of the 19th and 20th centuries combined, against a foe that is the most nefarious ever, yet Bush spends all his time at these fundraisers making his speeches.

  • I think Democrats blow off Bush’s attacks at their own peril. The Mark Foley scandal isn’t going last the remaining four weeks to the election. In fact I’d be surprised if it didn’t disappear by early next week. Short of new revelations about congressmen other than Foley, the story just doesn’t have legs.

    Bush is mouthing the GOP’s election year talking points. As soon as they can, Republicans will be joining in the “Democrats are weak on national security” chorus with outrageous claims. Bush has shown the GOP’s hand, and Democrats ought to be preparing to punch back hard. I have a feeling they’ll be caught flat-footed.

    Fair warning.

  • I agree somewhat with Beep52 (#8) — not that Olbermann’s comments were “over the top” but that they were overly long and lost focus. Strange observation, though: As I was waiting for the video to download, I read the transcript and it read much more succinct than it sounded. But inasmuch as nobody else is expressing this sort of sharp edged opinion in the MSM (though I’m not sure if MSNBC is mainstream or not) all I can say is “preach, brother.”

  • W needs Karl Rove to hurry up with that October surprise. The reason he can;t get the attention he wants is that every American who cares to pay attention could give his speech if asked to. They have played the same song over and over. It was great at first but now the people are just sick of it.

    The problem is that the deeds do not match the rhetoric. He should go cut some brush.

  • “Hellllo!” Bush bellowed, waving his arms in the air and laughing.

    Oh Georgie, you coy little minx. If those reporters had asked you a question you would have scampered into your limo.

    Gad, being an American becomes more embarassing by the pico-second.

  • This morning I was communicating with friends, one of whom had compared Bush to Nero. For what it’s worth, I wrote back: I don’t know which Roman emperor I’d equate with Bush. Nero had musical talent, and redesigned the city he burned down. Julius Caesar was a highly skilled general and wrote a tract on the Gallic wars which nearly every Latin student has since had to translate. Augustus wasn’t a bad administrator and perfected the Twelve Tables of Roman law for governing far-flung colonies. Caligula was disgusting but he did have a lot of imagination (entertaining himself by, e.g., beheading every tenth dinner guest and naming his horse Incitatus a Senator). Tiberius got a little weird later on (very weird, indeed, while on Capri) but he at least trained to be a good soldier. Claudius wrote a history of his family while overcoming many physical infirmities. Marcus Aurelius wrote philosophy and poetry. Hadrian loved architecture. Nope, I don’t think there’s a AWOL, horse-less rancher, addict, spoiled frat rat with delusions of grandeur — i.e., Shrub — among them.

  • JoeW,

    your link to the transcript isn’t working. Can you repost please? (my corporate firewall prevents my from seeing video on Crooks and Liars).

  • Braniac (Re#13)
    I disagree that blowing him off (need a new term for that) imperils the Dems. The key is to attack when attacked, not defend. And all the Dems need to say is:
    Republicans can’t even protect House Pages. How can they be be trusted with national security?
    Then laugh.
    Dismissal is better than defence in this case.

  • Sorry Edo, I’ll post the raw link, which you my have to paste into your browser

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/

    I agree with Jim Strain in #14 – The read is better than the watch, There were a couple edits in the broadcast that I found to be distracting. But the material itself is a home run

  • I have to agree with Braniac (#13) that the Dems are in trouble if they think Foley/Hastert alone will carry them to a majority. (Though I agree with BuzzMon #19 that perhaps Dems shouldn’t be “blowing” anyone off right now.)

    Is anyone thinking about “Wag the Dog” right about now? Wondering what Rove’s surpise might be? How about another staged terrorist attack like 9/11? I mean the stakes are even higher now. Then it was simply invading Iraq, solving the dilemma of what to do with a couple of asbestos laced buildings, oh, yeh, and the PATRIOT Act of course. Now we’re talking political survival. And if you think our leaders couldn’t possibly do something so horrible…try looking at Dafur. Power corrupts folks. Why would anyone think American leaders are immune?

  • Buzzmon (#19),

    That’s a fair point, and maybe a flip remark will work in the short term.

    However, sometime between now and election day, I think we might expect the release of a new Osama Bin Laden tape, news of a foiled “terrorist plot,” a well-timed “warning,” or the terrorism-related “October surprise.” At which, the media goes bananas over that story and Republicans seize the opportunity to bully Democrats and boast about protecting the country.

    In that event, what kind of response is “Republicans can’t even protect House Pages. How can they be be trusted with national security?” It strikes me as deeply unserious and divorced from the national mood.

    Bush has a great influence on this election one way or another. He’s wasting no time on the campaign trail slandering Democrats on national security. It’s past time to respond forcefully and hit back hard.

  • Doug #21 – There’s been a number of posts on other blogs about how two carrier groups are steaming towards the Strait of Hormuz. A naval blockade of Iran or a few tomahawks flying toward potential uranium enrichment sites may be in the offing. Just a guess.

  • Petorado #24…Fascinating, but ahh so 1990’s (Clintonesque) I’m thinking a little closer to home. You know, put a real scare in the “Merican” people.

    Just heard CNN has coverage of a huge fire raging through a 22-story building in Memphis, TN. Wonder if it’ll collapse in it’s footprint?

  • Hey, Brainiac (btw, great handle) – I see what you mean. My take is that this has legs. The press is on this like the Monica thing (not, for instance like the Gannon/Guckert thing), and even an UBL tape isn’t going to derail it.
    What would derail it would be a serious attack. one that would darken America’s mood approaching 5 years ago. I would not put that past the Bush/Cheney crime cabal, but would something like that help or hurt the present Admin? I think that it would hurt it more than help, and also, it is too horrible to contemplate.
    Also, to refer to predatory behavior, and a cover up of that same behavior as unserious is misreading the US taste in outrage. Yeah the servicemen are dying in Iraq, ane we know that is more important. But I think that the change will come from the “American Idol/Survivor/700 Club folks.
    Just my take, and the “Can’t protect the Pages…,” that’s not flip, that’s angry.

  • Foley will not carry us to the election. We should attack the Bushite’s supposed strength, the war on terror (I hate that name).

    Woodward’s book shows us that before 9/11/01 they could care less about al Qaeda. Iraq shows us after 2002 they could care less about al Qaeda. Osama lives and breathes. What more do Democrats need?

    Pound away!

  • Lance, it’s not Foley. Yes, that’s where it starts, but Hastert chose Foley’s seat (no pun intended) over the Page’s safety. The attack theme is that the Repub won’t protect the kids (Pages), they won’t protect us.
    My opinion is that this will keep the real Fundies away in disgust.
    Repeat, my opinion, we will see in November, disregarding the Diebold factor.

  • BuzzMon, I don’t really know how much that buys. Yes, we should make the connection that Republican’ts can’t protect children directly under their care, and they can’t protect a country under their care.

    And point out that Hastert claims that it takes Democrats to protect children (that’s the sum of his accusation that the Democrats got Foley out while he couldn’t). And clearly, it will take Democrats to protect America again like they did against the Millenium plot.

    But in the next few weeks we should go back to attacking the Bushites and their rubber-stamp Congress on their incompetence in the war against al Qaeda, ignoring it, being distracted from it, even willing to surrender it (Frist and recognizing the Taliban anyone?). That is how we win.

    • Comments are closed.