Turgeon 10 [Evan N, Legal Associate at the Cato Institute, Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law, 30 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 145, Lexis] KLS
The option of emphasizing imminent harm depends on government actors increasing the public's perception of the risk climate change poses because only severe, readily identifiable risks prompt changes in behavior. "Public officials could heighten the salience and hence the level of concern about the risks associated with climate change, and hence magnify the public demand for a regulatory response." n197 The media would play an important role in this. n198 Media portrayal of public health crises, acts of terrorism, or domestic natural disasters (such as flooding and drought) as resulting from volatile petroleum prices might drive the public to demand comprehensive transportation energy reforms that could include Pigovian fuel taxes. Representatives of regions made especially vulnerable to climate change effects could push such policies through the legislative process.
Presidents receive blame for legislation rather than gain credit
Segura and Woods, 2 [Presidential Approval and the Mixed Blessing of Divided Government Stephen P. Nicholson, Gary M. Segura & Nathan D. Woods, The Journal of Politics, Volume 64 Issue 3 Page 701-720, August 2002]
research on presidential approval shows that negative information has a greater effect than positive information. For instance, finding that economic downturns hurt approval ratings while upswings do not have the opposite effect, Mueller (1973) concludes that for presidents "there is punishment but never reward." Similarly, Goidel and Langley (1995) found that media coverage of negative economic conditions had a discernibly negative effect on public evaluations. Coupled with the routinely unfavorable media coverage of presidents (Brody 1991; Groeling and Kernell 1998; Gross- man and Kumar 1981; Patterson 1996), negative evaluations should figure prominently in judgments of presidential performance. From our standpoint, we are agnostic as to the basis for the asymmetry between credit and blame in evaluating presidents.5 Rather, we proceed from the assumption, well established in the literature, that such a negativity bias exists. Thus, we believe that the information implications of divided government for the president have a greater effect on assigning blame than credit. President can’t avoid blame – unitary nature
Fitts 96 [Michael A., Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, January, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827, Lexis]
Centralized and visible power, however, becomes a double-edged sword, once one explores the different ways in which unitariness and visibility can undermine an institution's informal influence, especially its ability to mediate conflict and appear competent. In this context, the visibility and centralization of the presidency can have mixed effects. As a single visible actor in an increasingly complex world, the unitary president can be prone to an overassessment of responsibility and error. He also may be exposed to a normative standard of personal assessment that may conflict with his institutional duties. At the same time, the modern president often does not have at his disposal those bureaucratic institutions that can help mediate or deflect many conflicts. Unlike members of Congress or the agencies, he often must be clear about the tradeoffs he makes. Furthermore, a president who will be held personally accountable for government policy cannot pursue or hold inconsistent positions and values over a long period of time without suffering political repercussions. In short, the centralization and individualization of the presidency can be a source ofits power, as its chief proponents and critics accurately have suggested, as well as its political illegitimacy and ultimate weakness
I/L – AT: Winners Win
Obama’s political capital waning without positive returns
Halperin 6/14 [Mark, Staff Writer, 2010, Time Magazine, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1996350,00.html] KLS
Like Bill Clinton in 1992, candidate Obama had stronger-than-usual support as a Democrat from both Wall Street and Main Street business leaders. Now, amid both the endgame of the struggle for financial regulation and the Gulf oil crisis, the President's alienation from the top level of the private sector leaves him weakened with Congress and the public, and as a political force.
I/L – AT: Winners Win
Winners –Lose – Bush’s past success prove
Weidenhof 7 [Jeremy, Staff Writer, Lone Star Times, http://lonestartimes.com/2007/05/03/president-george-w-bush-failure/]
The economy is probably one of the President’s strongest suits. Despite terrorist attacks on the nation and a resulting recession, the American economy has rebounded and remains strong years later. Mainstream liberal media may attempt to say otherwise, but very low unemployment and strong stock markets indicate a generally healthy economic picture. There have been stumbles along the way, but Bush’s tax reductions remain a shining conservative accomplishment. This initiative of the President must be regarded as a failure. Whatever the initial reasons for the attempt, Bush’s plan to sell conservatism as “mean” and needing his brand of fiscal “compassion” largely flopped. His efforts such as “No child left behind” and extensive reaching out to Congressional Democrats only resulted in more and more spending and no political capital gained with his opponents. Some Republicans, and the President must be numbered among them, continue under the delusion that hard-left Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi can be gotten along with, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.