Is the oil spill a turning point or can it even „sink a presidency?“ as The Times writes on June 12?
The Times argues that a Obama has blamed BP relentlessly and made several trips to the Gulf of Mexiko partly because of the forthcoming midterm elections in November.
Was Obama´s Oval Office speech a success? He was specific calling for a fund to pay Gulf residents that would not be controlled by BP and talked about deploying the National Guard and putting the secretary of the Navy in charge of restoring the wetlands. He charged BP with recklessness and promised that the company would pay. He promised that he would not forget the Golf.
Obama might use the power of speech to make a push for climate change legislation. He talked a lot about it. But do his words add to what he said in Pittsburgh, when Obama was more forcefull calling for a legislative response? It was also in Pittsburgh he said he would fight to find votes to pass a bill that put a price on carbon.
Crisis presents opportunities for presidents to exert leaderschip as well as the risk of failure.
Is Obama himself concerned about what the spill response has done to him or is he more likely concerned about the challenge it poses for the future?
No comments:
Post a Comment