Paul Krugman makes what may well be a significant connection: The premise that Bush lied about the economy to justify tax cuts just as he lied about the uranium (and maybe a couple other things) to justify the war in Iraq. Here's a couple of key sentences from Krugman…
There's no mystery about why the administration's budget projections have borne so little resemblance to reality: realistic budget numbers would have undermined the case for tax cuts. So budget analysts were pressured to high-ball estimates of future revenues and low-ball estimates of future expenditures. Any resemblance to the way the threat from Iraq was exaggerated is no coincidence at all. And just as some people argue that the war was justified even though it was sold on false pretenses, some say that the biggest budget deficit in history is justified even though the administration got us here with cooked numbers. Some point out that Ronald Reagan ran even bigger deficits as a share of G.D.P. But they hope people won't remember that in the face of those deficits, Mr. Reagan raised taxes, reversing part of his initial tax cut.
Now, I don't know that all that's quite true or quite fair. I mean, don't most government projections of deficits turn out to be way low? That doesn't make them all fibs. But if Democrats want to paint a negative image of G.W. Bush, there it is: He lies and unlike the previous White House occupant, lies about things that genuinely harm or even end lives. I mean, even a lot of folks who liked Clinton didn't think you could believe everything he said. But the majority of Bush supporters have this thing about his "character" and personal integrity, and if he takes a hit there, it could really do some damage. Right now, he can't really argue that deficits aren't out of control or that everything's going precisely the way he wants in Iraq. If Democrats make those into issues not just of competence but of deception, Bush could be in a lot of trouble.
I'm not necessarily looking forward to that. One of the political tricks I've often thought was underhanded was the selling of a so-called "Pattern of Deception." It usually translates to, "We're not going to be content to convince you that the opposition lied about A and B. We want to convince you that establishes a pattern so you should assume they're also lying about C, D, E and everything else." I don't think that's fair. Wasn't fair when Republicans did it to Clinton…won't be fair when Democrats do it to Bush…
But it does seem to work.