The Big Question: Will the oil spill be an issue for Obama in 2012?

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said:
If the Republican nominee is Sarah Palin, the Democrats’ slogan will be “spill baby, spill.” The Democrats absolutely should make the oil spill a central issue. The Republicans’ willingness to push forward with drilling without adequate safeguards had the predictable disastrous results.

If liberal Democrats had pushed a policy with such disastrous results, they would be sent into political exile for decades. The Republicans should pay a huge price for the BP spill.

David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, said:
The underwater oil gusher disaster will certainly be an issue, we just don’t know how it will play out yet. Regardless of fault, disasters that occur on a president’s watch are attributed to him by the public. The lingering nature of this one and the government’s impotence – again, not Obama’s fault, but it doesn’t matter – will put a drag on Obama’s numbers and therefore make him less effective politically. This impact can be mitigated by vigorous action by the administration on efforts to protect the coast, clean up the polluted waters and beaches, and get compensation to injured parties from BP. On the other hand, what occurred here – where all evidence points to a large, profitable multinational corporation cutting corners on safety and environmental protection for the sake of profits and taking advantage of a lax regulatory regime, fits much more closely with the Democrats’ narrative about the proper role of government than the Republicans’. If Obama and the Democrats can weave together a narrative about the banks, oil and coal companies, and health insurance companies running amok, and the government standing up to protect normal everyday citizens from these powerful forces, then Democrats could be advantaged. Calls for FEMA to intervene to run the claims system so fisherman don’t have to deal with BP directly is early evidence that this theme could have some resonance. (And if fishermen need FEMA to help against BP, why don’t people who get their health bills denied by United Healthcare need government help too? Or citizens being gouged by credit card companies or mortgage lenders…)

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of antiwar.com, said:
The spill will be a regional issue, not a national one: In spite of the wall-to-wall coverge, I think most Americans are concerned with other, bigger issues, i.e. the economy, and by the time we get around to election time there might be another “event” like the “flash meltdown,” albeit a bit more prolonged…

Dick Morris, Pundits Blog Contributor, said:
The issue, per se, will be long forgotten. But the impression of presidential incompetence and dithering will remain. Obama, until now, has been hit with ideological negatives by conservatives and, on Afghanistan and the public option for health care, by liberals. But this is the first time he is being tarred with the brush of incompetence and it will be a key element in his loss of Democratic support

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:   
The Gulf oil spill should indeed be an issue in the 2012 presidential election. But it should also be an issue in the 2010 congressional elections. Reasons why follow: 
 
If the federal government’s bans on drilling for and collecting oil in many close-to-land, shallow-water offshore areas hadn’t been in existence, there would likely have no need to seek oil one mile deep in the waters off Louisiana.
 
If the federal government would remove bans on collecting the known resources available in Alaska’s northern coastal area (ANWR), there would likely be no need to drill in the deep waters off Louisiana.
 
If federal impediments blocking production of oil from Rocky Mountain shale were removed, plenty of oil could be gathered and put to use with no need to pump oil from the truly deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
 
When Congress and the Carter administration created the Department of Energy in the late 1970s, our nation was importing one-third of the oil we consume. Now, after decades of federal regulatory mandates that impede domestic oil production, we are importing close to 70 percent of the oil we use.
 
One result sees America’s wealth going overseas for oil we wouldn’t have to import if government regulations were out of the way. Another is a distinct threat to America’s independence because of dependence on foreign suppliers, many of whom hate our country and would like to see all Americans suffer.
 
In the 1980s, promises emanating from Washington called for abolishing several federal departments including the Department of Energy. Those promises were not only not kept, no attempts were made to keep them. The consequences of various federal blockage to oil independence include massive transfer of wealth abroad (economic), a growing threat to national independence (political), and a horrendous oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (ecological).
 
Hold BP accountable for what is happening in the Gulf? Of course. But blame our own federal government for forcing oil companies to take risks that invited this tragedy.
 
The Obama administration’s immediate response to this disaster has included widening the already counterproductive ban on offshore drilling as well as no relaxation of curbs preventing exploitation of known and accessible resources.
 
These are the issues that should be on the minds of voters in subsequent elections.