Katrina v. BP oil spill: a political strategy? The Obama administration has said a crisis is a terrible thing to waste

GULF OF MEXICO—It took a few days, but BP’s oil spill and the Obama administration’s response has been compared by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to Bush’s Katrina. The two are hardly analogous: Katrina was natural disaster with forewarning days in advance and there was a tremendous loss of life and property damage.

But one point Mr. Limbaugh has made is something that underlines an ever-present mentality within the administration of which, Rahm Emanuel put it best when he stated, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste.” So it would seem quite plausible the Obama administration’s delayed response and laissez faire approach may be another calculated strategy to allow the federal government a path into the oil industry—allow just enough time for BP to hang itself by its own sham damage control and inability to clean up the spill then ride in as a white knight.

This isn’t so far afield when one considers how the administration approached other crises: GM, AIG, Fannie and Freddie, and currently, Goldman Sachs. Though not extraordinarily popular, the country went along as these entities were “too large too fail” and poor economic conditions made them a crisis (as opposed to health care reform, where no crisis existed).

We wait with baited breath to see how these events play out in the coming days and wouldn’t be surprised to see the administration again champion the federal government as the answer to all ills.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Follow Owen…

Twitter

Facebook

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

The elephant in Massachusetts

Scott Brown has gone from an obscure state senator to US Senate seat could-win in a race, if held a year ago, would have replaced Senator Ted Kennedy with another liberal democrat. But in the latest polling, Mr. Brown is either within the margin of error or ahead of his opponent, the Bay State’s Attorney General, Martha Coakley.

Coakley’s campaign has been mismanaged from the beginning of the race, electing to rely on defacto support from the historical left-of-center electorate. But a little published fact is Massachusetts’ voters don’t have a majority of registered democrats, that belongs to independents (or non-affiliates)—51%, while democrats make up 37% and republicans a minute 11%—which dovetails precisely with national polling, showing independents’ falling support for President Obama.

Coakley seems to be suffering from Mr. Obama’s unpopularity. Her attacks on Mr. Brown as being a obstacle for the President’s health care reform has only led to more support for her opponent—apparently, the Bay State doesn’t much consider that a deficit. What’s more, Coakley has even gone so far as to attack Brown as being an appendage of Bush/Cheney. After fact checking, it appears Messrs. Bush and Cheney don’t hold any elected office currently, making the claim a bit difficult to believe.

Meanwhile, Mr. Brown hasn’t had to reach back to the past to find political affiliations—Deval Patrick, the democrat governor of Massachusetts is widely unpopular, as are the national party’s leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. That has translated into a seismic shift in the latest PJM/Cross Target poll, giving the conservative 10 point lead among likely voters, 52% to Coakley’s 42% and an out-of-margin-of-error lead in the latest PPP poll, 51% to 46%.

The special election is being viewed by conservatives as a referendum on the Obama Administration, but White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has state they “are not on the ballot” (even though the President has gone on a last minute push). Mr. Gibbs may technically be correct, but with GOP wins in both Virginia and New Jersey, the elephant in Massachusetts may stampede into the US Senate.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact