CNDI - Elections DA

CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
ELECTIONS- OBAMA GOOD

elections- obama good.........................................................................................................1
**1nc**................................................................................................................................5
**1nc**................................................................................................................................7
**1nc**................................................................................................................................8
**uniqueness**..................................................................................................................10
obama- win -energy issues.................................................................................................11
obama- win—polls.............................................................................................................12
obama- win—polls.............................................................................................................13
Obama- win—polls............................................................................................................14
obama- win—money.........................................................................................................15
obama- win—money.........................................................................................................16
obama- win—gop weak.....................................................................................................17
obama- win—gop weak.....................................................................................................18
obama- win—bush.............................................................................................................19
obama- win—Bush............................................................................................................20
obama- win—campaign.....................................................................................................21
obama- win—Latinos and evangelicals.............................................................................22
obama- win—independents...............................................................................................23
obama- win—swing states.................................................................................................24
obama- win—key states.....................................................................................................25
obama- win—hillary..........................................................................................................26
obama- win—economy......................................................................................................27
obama- win—economy......................................................................................................28
obama- win—age...............................................................................................................29
obama- win—age...............................................................................................................30
Obama- win—80s election................................................................................................31
a2- obama- lose- inexperience...........................................................................................32
polls are wrong..................................................................................................................33
**links**............................................................................................................................34
link- alt energies.................................................................................................................35
link- alt energies- swing voters..........................................................................................38
link- alt energies- independents.........................................................................................42
link- alt energies- independents.........................................................................................43
link- alt energies- christian right........................................................................................44
link- alt energies- western states........................................................................................45
link- energy incentives- gop..............................................................................................46
link- environment- california.............................................................................................47
**internal links**..............................................................................................................48
energy issues- key to election............................................................................................49
energy issues- key to election............................................................................................50
1
environment issues- key to election...................................................................................51
economic issues- key to election.......................................................................................52
national security- key to gop..............................................................................................53
a2- national security key election......................................................................................54
christian right- key to election...........................................................................................55
christian right- key to election...........................................................................................56
independents- key to election............................................................................................57
independents- key to election............................................................................................58
a2- independents key to election........................................................................................59
hispanic vote- key to election............................................................................................60
western states- key to election...........................................................................................61
western states- key to election...........................................................................................62
Industrial states- key to election........................................................................................63
gop credibility- key to election..........................................................................................64
**impacts**.......................................................................................................................65
2NC SOLVES CASE- alt energy.......................................................................................66
SOLVES CASE – ALT ENERGY ...................................................................................67
impact- obama solves- cap and trade.................................................................................68
2NC TURNS CASE – CAP & TRADE/ALT ENERGY ..................................................69
IMPACT- IRAN- ENGAGEMENT IL EXT.....................................................................70
impact- iran- miscalc/ war.................................................................................................72
impact- iran- terrorism / regional war................................................................................73
IMPACT – IRAN – WAR ................................................................................................74
IMPACT – IRAN – STABILITY .....................................................................................75
2NC- IRAN- TURNS CASE.............................................................................................76
2NC SOUTH KOREA FTA MODULE (1/2)....................................................................77
2NC SOUTH KOREA FTA MODULE (2/2)....................................................................78
impact- skfta- econ ext.......................................................................................................79
impact- skfta bad- north korea...........................................................................................80
impact- skfta bad- north korea ext.....................................................................................81
2nc nmd module (1/1)........................................................................................................82
impact- nmd- russia war il ext...........................................................................................84
2nc prolif module (1/1)......................................................................................................85
impact- obama- prolif il ext...............................................................................................86
2nc terrorism module (1/1) ...............................................................................................87
IMPACT- TERRORISM il ext...........................................................................................88
IMPACT- TERRORISM- extinction.................................................................................89
impact- terrorism- nuclear war..........................................................................................90
2nc latin america module (1/1)..........................................................................................92
impact- obama- latin america il.........................................................................................93
impact- latin america- economy........................................................................................94
2nc trade module (1/2).......................................................................................................95
2nc trade module (2/2).......................................................................................................97
impact- nafta bad- employment.........................................................................................98
impact- nafta bad- Econ.....................................................................................................99
impact- nafta bad- econ...................................................................................................100
impact- nafta bad- environment.......................................................................................102
2
impact- nafta bad- food prices.........................................................................................103
2nc israel/palestine module (1/1).....................................................................................104
impact- israel palestine il ext...........................................................................................106
impact- peace process il ext- us key................................................................................107
2nc us-arab relations module (1/2)..................................................................................108
2nc us-arab relations module (1/2)..................................................................................109
2nc iraq pull out module (1/2).........................................................................................110
2nc iraq pull out module (1/2)..........................................................................................111
impact- iraq pull out il ext................................................................................................113
2nc- iraq stability module (1/2)........................................................................................115
2nc- iraq stability module (1/2)........................................................................................116
impact- iraq instability- laundry list ................................................................................117
impact- iraq instability- terrorism....................................................................................119
impact- iraq instability- heg.............................................................................................120
impact- iraq instability- oil..............................................................................................121
2nc soft power module (1/3)............................................................................................122
impact- obama key to us cred..........................................................................................126
impact- soft power key to hard power.............................................................................127
impact- no soft power = terrorist attacks.........................................................................129
impact- us heg key to international stability....................................................................130
2nc offshore drilling module (1/2)...................................................................................131
2nc offshore drilling module (2/2)...................................................................................132
impact- mccain offshore drilling- ext..........................................................................133
IMPACT- OFFSHORE DRILLING- environment..........................................................134
2nc nuke power module(1/1)...........................................................................................135
impact- nuke power il ext................................................................................................137
impact- mccain nuclear power-terrorism.....................................................................138
2nc tax cuts module (1/2)................................................................................................140
2nc tax cuts module (2/2)................................................................................................141
impact- mccain bad economy- ext...............................................................................142
**aff**.............................................................................................................................143
mccain- win- christian right.............................................................................................144
McCain- win- obama inexperience..................................................................................146
MCCAIN- win—policies.................................................................................................147
mccain- win—fisa............................................................................................................148
mccain- win- campaign strategy......................................................................................149
mccain- win- iraq.............................................................................................................150
link turn- pro drilling key to mccain................................................................................151
link turn- pro drilling key to mccain................................................................................152
link turn- green issues- mccain loss.................................................................................153
impact- mccain solves- lift ethanol tariff.........................................................................154
impact- mccain solves- cap and trade..............................................................................155
IMPACT- MISSLE DEFENSE GOOD...........................................................................156
impact- obama decline heg..........................................................................................157
impact- l- obama likes nafta............................................................................................158
3
impact- nafta helps mexican econ....................................................................................159
impact- nafta good...........................................................................................................161
impact- il- obama won’t solve israel/palestine................................................................162
impact- mccain good economy....................................................................................163
impact- mccain good economy....................................................................................164
4
**1NC**
A. UNIQUENESS- OBAMA PROJECTED TO WIN- ISSUES NOW WILL DETERMINE
NOVEMBER OUTCOME
FERNANDO- 7-3
Asia Tribune, http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/12040
Opinion polls, the heart beat of US politics came out kicking this week as Senator John McCain
and Senator Barrack Obama took to campaigning like ducks to water. Pollsters spared no pains to
look masters of everything they purveyed. There were half a dozen polls showing that
Obama was ahead in close races in many states-sometimes by double digits. However, the
week was dismal in many ways mainly due to the two candidates trying to dislodge each other in different spheres of influence. Obama defied odds and
opted not to go for public financing but to rely on individual donors. McCain was quick to ward off attacks about his wartime record.
McCain was outraged by General Leslie Clark’s comments that McCain’s war time imprisonment and torture were not necessary ingredients for being a
good president. Obama not using the public financing was also debated seriously as he had earlier praised the system. Those who avail themselves of
the guaranteed $ 85 million campaign funding by the government meant that they have to restrict expenditure to that level. Obama who is assured of
getting over $ 200 million from individual donors felt that he was free to let go public financing. McCain felt that Obama had flip-flopped on this
important funding position.
Obama's sure-footed campaign suffered a rare and unnecessary embarrassment, when he had to retire the pseudo-presidential seal it had trotted out a
few days earlier. The seal — complete with a Latin phrase for "Yes, we can" replacing "E Pluribus Unum" — was such a head-slapping example of
gratuitous hubris that you had to wonder whether the opposition had a hand in this decision. It was an invitation to ridicule that Republicans happily
accepted.
Obama's presidential seal gaffe was soon overtaken by the news that one of John McCain's top aides had been quoted saying that a new terrorist attack
on U.S. soil before the election "would be a big advantage to him." Charlie Black, a veteran GOP strategist and Washington power broker, expressed a bit
of conventional wisdom about American politics — that voters prefer Republicans over Democrats in times of national security crisis. But he made it
sound as though McCain were wishing for such a crisis to occur, which is why Black promptly apologized, McCain immediately distanced himself from the
remarks and Obama and his many surrogates spent the next 48 hours expressing deep outrage.
The polls clearly showed that Obama is the front runner but that he could lose the
race if he were to allow mistakes to hamper his campaign. The election in the views of
many polls was for Obama's to lose. The situation was almost identical in 2000 and 2004
when Al Gore and John Kerry had the lead in June against Gorge W. Bush. Both squandered their
leads and lost the races.
A series of recent national polls showed that Obama's lead over McCain was
expanding. Two of them — one by Newsweek, the other by the Los Angeles Times — showed
that Obama had a substantial lead. McCain campaign quickly criticized the polls' methodology,
claiming each over-sampled self-identified Democrats.
Other polls, like those by Gallup, Rasmussen and Time, suggest a narrower race. But Obama
used them to his advantage. He dispatched campaign manager David Plouffe to Washington,
where he gave a 12-slide PowerPoint presentation demonstrating just how confident they are.
Plouffe identified 18 "battleground" states, all but four of which (Pennsylvania, New Hampshire,
Michigan and Wisconsin) voted for Bush in 2004. It was obvious that Obama was on the offense.
Plouffe said "The point is, we have a lot of different scenarios to get to 270 vote" — the number
of electoral votes needed to win.
As Obama assumed the role of front-runner, his shift to the political center was
obvious. He was shunning his role as the liberal candidate and looking more like a centrist to
win over the independents. The Republicans have castigated Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. And in the primaries
Obama took routinely liberal positions on all the major issues of the day. But in tone as well as in substance, Obama is now trying to be a centrist.
Both McCain and Obama had biographical ads showing their contributions. McCain’s war time heroism got fair exposure. Obama’s first biographical Ad
was on his love of family and country, and highlighting his legislative efforts "to move people from welfare to work" and "cut taxes."
Surprisingly Obama and McCain agreed to support the bipartisan compromise worked out this week on so-called FISA legislation that allows the Bush
Administration to continue its wiretapping program. They also agreed with the recent Supreme Court decisions disallowing the death penalty in cases of
child rape, and the guaranteed right to own guns by all citizens as stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Hillary Clinton and Obama
capped the week in Unity, N.H., with a joint rally. Later Bill Clinton also expressed willingness to campaign for Obama.
There was some positive news for John McCain this week. As the price of oil keeps climbing, so too the public's support for new oil drilling. McCain's
combination of aggressively pushing for new drilling and making bold proposals for ways to encourage development of alternative energy was seen as a
strong and proactive move on an issue that might otherwise benefit Obama.
The disclosure of North Korea’s nuclear activities made headlines this week. It has the potential to give a boost to President George W. Bush's dismal poll
ratings, which weigh like an anchor on McCain's campaign.
Still, the pollsters gave the green light that Obama may continue to be the frontrunner
at least for the time being. The campaign has just started. We are in for some heavy
debates in the months to come.
5
6
**1NC**
B- LINK- PLAN ALLOWS MCCAIN TO CO-OPT OBAMA’S ADVANTAGE ON ALT ENERGY-
GREEN GOP IMPAGE LOCKS IN MCCAIN VICTORY
The Foreign Policy Association, May 25, 2008
(“The Greening of the GOP” http://election.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/05/25/the-greening-of-the-gop/)
Expensive oil is here to stay — and so are the effects of climate change. These two realities are
altering American economic choices and attitudes, and thus the views of candidates running for
office. Consider, for example, how the Bush Administration has evolved from trying to
defeat environmentalists to trying to co-opt their agenda. Last week, the Administration
let slip that it plans to declare a huge area of territorial waters an environmental preserve —
something unimaginable seven years ago. Bush himself has gone from obstructionist to agnostic
to near-activist on climate change issues in the course of the last two years.gg-tbr1160-1.jpg But
look also at John McCain. His platform on climate change is far more activist than that advocated
by most Republican candidates for President just a few months ago. The Republican National
Committee, as part of its support-McCain effort, invites Web users to not only donate money to
McCain’s campaign, but asks them to sign an “environmental pledge” to do some things not
usually associated with Republican behavior, such as pledging to “start a carpool” or “take mass
transit.” At McCain’s campaign Website, you can buy “eco-friendly items” such as green-colored
T-shirts (“bio-degradable and antibacterial”(!)). This is a remarkable change in tone and
message that will increasingly be linked by McCain to energy independence and
national security. This is how he put it in a speech on May 12 at a Vestas wind-power center in
Portland, Oregon: “Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels,
and so, in many ways, does our security. A large share of the world’s oil reserves is controlled by foreign powers that
do not have our interests at heart. And as our reliance on oil passes away, their power will vanish with it.” This is not an original
insight, but it does have more credibility coming from a Senator from oil-scarce Arizona than from a President whose family built its
fortune on oil drilling in Texas. McCain’s Senate record on environment and energy conservation is mixed: he was quick to
recognize the reality of global warming and opposes oil drilling in ANWR, but has gotten fairly low ratings from
environmental groups over the years. As Americans suddenly discard their SUVs when faced with $4 per gallon gasoline, the most
salient foreign policy-linked issue in the minds of American voters this summer is likely to be what can be done about high gas prices
Convince most Americans that you have a real plan to
and their impact throughout the economy.
bring down the price of energy — and not just punish Exxon/Mobil and Chevron for
their record profits — and you stand a good chance of being elected President. So
far in this campaign, McCain has been the candidate most sensitive to Americans’ worries about oil prices. His proposed federal gas
tax holiday was predictably copied by Hillary and properly condemned by Obama — but it did show that McCain knew what was on
the public’s mind.
Both Democrats and Republicans seem to understand that a laissez faire approach
to energy markets, conservation and environment is now untenable. On the other hand, just
reduce the cost of gasoline significantly and Americans will go back to driving SUVs that Detroit
will happily manufacture for them. The challenge is to find the right mix of market-based
incentives to innovation and more efficient energy use, while penalizing polluters and energy
wasters. This is the kind of activist approach that Democrats seem more comfortable with,
although both parties should be reproached for the relatively puny efforts by Washington over
the last thirty years to achieve the energy security. When McCain spoke about wind power facility
in Oregon he failed to mention that the company — Vestas — is actually Danish-owned, not
American. As Republicans turn green, both Obama and McCain will be running against
the “failed policies” — or lack of them — in the area of energy planning, conservation, and
environment in this and previous Administrations. However, since the solutions that McCain and
Obama offer may resemble each other quite a bit, the election could hinge on whether
voters, on this like other issues, decide to punish McCain for being a Republican or
reward him for leading his party in a new direction.
7
**1NC**
C. IMPACT- OBAMA WILL ENGAGE IN DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN
TIME 5/16
(Scott MacLeod, journalist for TIME magazine, May 16, 2008, “Obama: Appeasement, or Engagement?” http://time
blog.com/middle_east/2008/05/obama_appeasement_or_engagemen.html)
McCain sees the Middle East in the same black and white, with-us-or-against-us framework as
Bush does. The Middle East is a contest that American must "win." America and its ally Israel
selflessly stand for freedom, democracy and peace. The enemies of the U.S. and Israel must be
vanquished. They are evil promoters of hatred and practitioners of murder. McCain's emphasis is
on America's military power. Obama sees the Middle East in more complex terms. He has stated
his intention to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran's leaders to seek Iran's
cooperation on issues including Iraq, terrorism and Iran's nuclear ambitions. He's also said he
would negotiate with Syrian leaders. His combined willingness to negotiate with two
countries that support Hamas and Hizballah indicates that Obama is ready to initiate
a comprehensive diplomatic engagement rather than rely largely on American military
force to resolve the conflicts in the Middle East. That's the reason that Bush seemed to be
attacking Obama during his speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday. He ridiculed those who
would "negotiate with terrorists and radicals" as promoters of "the false comfort of appeasement,
which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
THIS PREVENTS PROLIFERATION

KISSINGER ‘6
(Henry A., May 16, Washington Post, “A Nuclear Test for Diplomacy”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2006/05/15/AR2006051501200_pf.html; Jacob)
The same considerations apply even more strongly to bilateral negotiations with Iran at this stage. Until
now formal negotiations have been prevented by the memory of the hostage crisis, Iranian support of
terrorist groups and the aggressive rhetoric of the Iranian president. Nor does the Iranian president's letter
remove these inhibitions. Nevertheless, on a matter so directly involving its security, the United States
should not negotiate through proxies, however closely allied. If America is prepared to negotiate with North
Korea over proliferation in the six-party forum, and with Iran in Baghdad over Iraqi security, it must be
possible to devise a multilateral venue for nuclear talks with Tehran that would permit the United States to
participate -- especially in light of what is at stake.
An indefinite continuation of the stalemate would amount to a de facto acquiescence by the international
community in letting new entrants into the nuclear club. In Asia, it would spell the near-certain addition of
South Korea and Japan; in the Middle East, countries such as Turkey, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia could
enter the field. In such a world, all significant industrial countries would consider nuclear weapons an
indispensable status symbol. Radical elements throughout the Islamic world and elsewhere would gain
strength from the successful defiance of the major nuclear powers.
REGIONAL PROLIFERATION RISKS GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR

CIRINCIONE ‘6
(Joseph-, Sr. Assoc. & Director @ the Non-Proliferation Project @ the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Summer, SAIS
Review, “A New Non-Proliferation Strategy”, Proquest; Jacob)
The danger posed by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran or North Korea is not that either country
would be liable to use these weapons to attack the United States, the nations of Europe, or other countries.
Iran, for example, would likely decide to build nuclear weapons only as a means to defend itself from the
aggression of other nations. Iranian leaders, like the leaders of other states, would be deterred from using
nuclear weapons in a first strike by the certainty of swift and massive retaliation.
The danger is that certain actions may be viewed by Iran as a defensive move, however they would trigger
dangerous reactions from other states in the region. A nuclear reaction chain could ripple through a region
8
and across the globe, triggering weapon decisions in several, perhaps many, other states. Such
developments could weaken Iran's security, not increase it. With these rapid developments and the
collapse of existing norms could come increased regional tensions, possibly leading to regional wars and to
nuclear catastrophe.3
Existing regional nuclear tensions already pose serious risks. The decades-long conflict between India and
Pakistan has made South Asia the region most likely to witness the first use of nuclear weapons since
World War II. An active missile race is under way between the two nations, even as India and China
continue their rivalry. In Northeast Asia, North Korea's nuclear capabilities remain shrouded in uncertainty
but presumably continue to advance. Miscalculation or misunderstanding could bring nuclear war to the
Korean peninsula.
In the Middle East, Iran's declared peaceful nuclear energy program, together with Israel's nuclear arsenal
and the chemical weapons of other Middle Eastern states, adds grave volatility to an already conflict-prone
region. If Iran were to decide at some later date to build nuclear weapons, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or others
might initiate or revive nuclear weapon programs. It is entirely possible that the Middle East could go from
a region with one nuclear weapon state, to one with two, three, or five such states within a decade-
compounded by the existing political and territorial disputes still unresolved.4
9
**UNIQUENESS**
10
OBAMA- WIN -ENERGY ISSUES

OBAMA WILL WIN BECAUSE OF ENERGY ISSUES
AP 6-23-08 [Tom Raum, reporter. “Gas at $4 brings promises, pandering”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isJU4OyzZglXxAWlzkvmnslNP3-wD91FUOI00]
Oil and gas prices that have doubled in the past year have squeezed aside the war in Iraq as the
No. 1 issue this election year and both parties are blaming each other for the price spike — and for
apparent congressional paralysis.
Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their campaigns and have offered
dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on Capitol
Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for
what President Bush once labeled the nation's addiction to foreign oil.
This debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches.
In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released Monday, nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be
very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the
economy as the top issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy
issues by 19 percentage points.
OBAMA WILL WIN-HIS ENERGY POLICY IS MUCH MORE POPULAR

SCHUMAN 6-17-08 [Joseph, columnist for the Wall Street Journal. “How Obama, McCain Square Off on Energy”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121368261519680447.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]
Energy policy has emerged as a key point of contrast between the proposals of John McCain and
Barack Obama, and one likely to stay in the headlines until November.
Some details of Mr. Obama's thinking on the subject come out in an interview he gives on economic issues with The
Wall Street Journal. His general ways-and-means philosophy, relying on "a heavy dose of government
spending to spur growth" and use of "the tax code to narrow the widening gap" between
economic winners and losers, sounds a lot like "an older-style big-government Democratic
platform skeptical of market forces," the Journal says. That's how McCain spokesman Douglas Holtz-Eakin
describes it as well. Still, many labor leaders who back Mr. Obama fear that if he's elected, such progressive ideas will
give way to the deficit-hawk preferences of the Clinton administration and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.
Asked about that, Mr. Obama said: "I've got Bob Rubin on one hand [as an adviser] and [former Labor Secretary] Bob
Reich on the other....I tend to be eclectic." This seems like a non-answer. But Mr. Obama appears to present a clearer
case on the energy-technology plan that the journal describes as the heart of his spending program.
OBAMA WILL WIN-ENERGY POLICY PROVES

POOR 6-23-08 [Jeff, staff writer. “Newsweek: Anti-Drilling Obama 'More in Touch with Voters' on
Energy” http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080623135039.aspx]
As gas prices continue to rise, more and more Americans are in favor of opening up areas now off-limits for oil
exploration and drilling, but a Newsweek magazine editor said on June 23 that Sen. Barack Obama is “more in
touch with the voters” on energy despite his anti-drilling stance.
11
OBAMA- WIN—POLLS
OBAMA IS WINNING-POLLS PROVE
CHICAGO TRIBUNE 6-24-08 [Mike Dorning, Washington Bureau. “Turnout Boost Could Favor Obama”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-turnout-web-jun25,0,327711.story]
WASHINGTON— Barack Obama could make major gains in at least nine states the Democratic ticket
lost in 2004 if he can achieve a relatively modest increase in turnout among young and African-
American voters, a Tribune analysis of voting data suggests.
That potential helps explain why the Obama campaign chose to forgo federal funding and also why it is engaged in a
massive voter registration drive. With its unprecedented resources, the campaign can fund an array of specific
targeting operations, and Obama exploited early versions of those to great success during the primary campaign.
If Obama could inspire just 10 percent more Democratic voters under 30 to go to the polls than
did four years ago, that alone could be enough to switch Iowa and New Mexico from red to blue,
the analysis suggests.
Just a 10 percent increase in turnout among blacks would make up more than 40 percent of George W. Bush's 2004
victory margin in Ohio and more than 20 percent of the Republicans' 2004 victory margin in Florida.
Turnout increases of 10 percent of both young voters and African-Americans could virtually
eliminate the Republicans' 2004 victory margin in Ohio and go a long way to closing the gap in
Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Virginia and—a bit more of a stretch—possibly North Carolina.
The campaign dispatched an advance guard to the likely battlefields of the November election more than a month
before Obama had even locked up the nomination. Its mission: to begin work on an ambitious national voter
registration drive that advisers say is a key part of the campaign's strategy.
Campaign volunteers have been registering voters at bars and nightclubs as well as visiting hip-hop parties and even
gas stations—where drivers irate over rising fuel prices are a target, said one organizer. More than 250 of the
campaign's "organizing fellows" arrived last week in Virginia, a state Democrats did not seriously contest in 2004, and
will spend much of the summer there on voter registration.
With the Illinois senator's enthusiastic following that regularly packs arena-sized venues for rallies, and unprecedented
organizational resources from his campaign's fundraising successes, his barrier-breaking campaign sees a chance to
re-shape the electorate this fall to the Democrats' advantage, possibly for several elections into the future.
"Honestly, it's the first chance the Democrats have had in a generation or two to expand a part of the electorate that
could help the Democratic Party for years to come," said Steve Hildebrand, Obama's deputy campaign manager.
There's still plenty of time between now and Election Day for the Obama hype to come crashing down. But the Obama
campaign sees reason for hope after a primary season in which at least 3.5 million new voters registered and young
people of voting age, typically apathetic, turned out as much as older voters in some states.
A projection by the Tribune based on the results of the 2004 election shows that a turnout increase of 10
percent among blacks and youths—two groups that have demonstrated considerable excitement
over the Obama candidacy—would offer a powerful potential lift to his campaign.
Two states that the Republicans narrowly won last time, Iowa and New Mexico, would switch to
the Democratic column. The Republican lead in Ohio would plummet from more than 118,000
votes to fewer than 6,000. A host of Republican states would come into play, while Democratic
leads would be substantially cushioned in major blue states that the presumed Republican
candidate John McCain has targeted: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
12
OBAMA- WIN—POLLS
OBAMA IS WINNING—POLLS PROVE
SARGENT 6-24-08 [Greg, editor of Election Central, “Poll: Obama Hold Huge Advantage Over McCain on Energy”.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/poll_obama_holds_huge_advantag.php]
A new Gallup poll finds that Obama holds a huge and striking advantage over McCain on which is
more trusted to handle energy issues.
And not only that, it also finds that energy policy, by one measure, has now become the number
one concern of voters.
The poll finds that Obama leads McCain by 19 points (47%-28%) on the question of who would do
a better job handling energy policy, including gas prices. It also finds that 51% say that energy and gas
prices are "extremely important" in determining their vote, higher than the economy (49%) or Iraq (44%).
It's worth pointing out that energy policy is central to McCain's strategy -- pushing an energy plan has emerged as one
of the key ways in which he's hoping to achieve separation from Bush and the GOP.
However effective that larger effort may prove, on the straight-up question of which candidate is
more trusted to handle the actual specifics of energy policy, Obama is simply crushing McCain.
OBAMA IS WINNING—POLLS
USA TODAY 6-22-08 [Susan Page, reporter. “Poll: Obama Has Edge Over McCain.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-22-poll-edge_N.htm]
WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama begins the presidential campaign with some overwhelming
advantages over Republican John McCain, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, but voters also express doubts about
the Illinois senator's experience and ability to handle the job of commander in chief.
A 54% majority of those surveyed are concerned Obama lacks the experience to be an effective president. A similar
number say he "may be too closely aligned with people who hold radical political views."
Still, the nationwide poll gives Obama an edge of six percentage points over McCain among likely
voters, 50%-44%. That's almost precisely where the race stood in the USA TODAY poll taken just
before Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. Among registered voters, Obama
leads McCain 48%-42%.
OBAMA IS WINNING—POLLS PROVE

PRESS TRUST OF INDIA 6-25-08 [“Obama takes double-digit lead over McCain in latest poll.”
Lexis.]
Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has taken a convincing
double-digit lead over his Republican rival John McCain among registered voters across the US,
according to a second opinion poll in four days. A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows
that Obama holds a 12-point lead over McCain in a head-to-head match up, 49 per cent to 37 per
cent. But when third party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added to the list, Obama's
lead over McCain extends to 15 points, 48 per cent to 33 per cent.
13
OBAMA- WIN—POLLS
OBAMA WILL WIN—POLLS PROVE
Lexis.]
The survey is the second in a matter of days to indicate McCain, 71, may face a sizable deficit as
the general election campaign kicks off. A Newsweek poll released four days ago showed the 47-
year-old Illinois Senator with a 15-point lead.
14
OBAMA- WIN—MONEY
OBAMA WILL WIN—HE HAS TWICE AS MUCH MONEY AS MCCAIN
SALTONSTALL 6-30-08 [Senior Correspondent, New York Daily News. “Barack Obama has collected nearly twice
as much money as John McCain” http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/30/2008-06-
30_barack_obama_has_collected_nearly_twice_.html
Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate
taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama than to GOP rival
John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.
"Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in spending. It wants someone who focuses
on the domestic economy," said Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."
Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s, when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in
history.
"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama."
For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their
portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far.
OBAMA WILL WIN—MONEY PROVES

O’REILLY 6-29-08 [Bill, talk show host on Fox News. “Obama’s got the cash, but is he too green?
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1103819&srvc=home&position=active]
Right now, the smart money is betting the next president of the United States will be named
Obama, and dollars are the primary reason why. As you may have heard, the senator has flip-flopped on
public campaign financing and now says he will not accept it, even though he once thought it was a swell idea.
The government set taxpayer-based funding for presidential candidates at $85 million because, the wisdom went, it
would prevent fat cats in the private sector from donating big dollars to influence a potential POTUS. But, like the
military, it’s voluntary - and Obama is no longer interested in signing up, even though John McCain says he will.
That’s because, in his defeat of Hillary Clinton, Obama raised about $300 million - and his campaign
believes he can raise another $300 million before the vote next November. Of course, that is an
astounding amount of cash and puts Obama light years ahead of McCain’s paltry $85 million.
Money might not be able to buy true love, but it can certainly buy TV and radio airtime, an army of mercenary
consultants and legions of staff members in every state. Add in the fact that the media generally love
Barack Obama, generously giving him positive news coverage, and you can see some dark
clouds on the horizon for McCain.
OBAMA IS WINNING—FUNDING PROVES

WALL STREET JOURNAL 6-30-08 [Chrostopher Cooper and Susan Davis, staff writers, “Obama Seeks to Add
Black Voters” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121477605938614115.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]
But money isn't a problem for Sen. Obama -- he has outraised Sen. McCain by nearly 3 to 1 so
far, and currently supports a ground staff exponentially larger than his Republican rival. "Most
campaigns don't have the time, the inclination or the resources to do voter registrations," says Shailen Bhatt, a paid
Obama organizer in North Carolina. "We have all three."
15
OBAMA- WIN—MONEY
OBAMA IS WINNING—FUNDING PROVES.
CLARK 7-1-08 [Jerry E., staff writer for the Rock Bridge Weekly. “5 Reasons Why John McCain's Going To Lose”
http://www.rockbridgeweekly.com/rw_article.php?ndx=11177]
Barack Obama appears to be vigorous, youthful and has a solid core of advisors with tons of
political experience - a team which already has proven that it can raise huge amounts of money
and then use it effectively. Since Mr. Obama flip-flopped on his promise to use public funding, the Obama
campaign will enjoy a 3-4 times greater funding advantage over McCain. In American elections, this is
a huge advantage.
16
OBAMA- WIN—GOP WEAK

MCCAIN WILL LOSE—THE GOP IS LOSING ITS BASE
NPR 6-19-08 [Mara Liasson, political correspondent. “Dissecting McCain's Vulnerabilities in the Fall”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91650141]
But McCain's biggest problem remains the political landscape: This is simply a lousy year to be a
Republican. Although there has been progress in Iraq, the war is still deeply unpopular, as is President George W.
Bush's tenure. The economy is sluggish. Gasoline is over $4 a gallon.
Then, there are the vulnerabilities unique to McCain. He is 71 years old, and Democrats are
constantly suggesting that is too old. They have said that he has lost his bearings, or that he is confused.
McCain jokes about it almost as much as the Democrats do. On Saturday Night Live, McCain joked, "I have the
courage, the wisdom, the experience, and most importantly, the oldness necessary."
Wooing Independent Voters
In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, McCain has improved his standing with independents. He is now even
with Obama with these key swing voters. But that is still not good enough for McCain, says Republican strategist Vin
Weber.
The GOP lost Congress because it lost independents, and this year that could be an even bigger
problem for McCain, because the Republican base is smaller than it was four years ago.
"He's got to get beyond the base and pick up a significant number of independents — and maybe even some
Democrats," Weber said. "John McCain's always done well with those groups, but this environment is tough for it. He
came out of the nominating process probably with a more partisan reputation than he's had throughout his career."
Primaries often push politicians to the edges of their party, left or right, and McCain has been having trouble
restoring his image as an independent straight shooter, says Democratic strategist Hank Scheinkopf.
Predictive U- McCain will lose- lack of agenda, funding and Bush’s approval rating
Fund, June 27, 2008
(John, “No, McCain Isn't 'Doomed”, The Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121452433272409083.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Republicans shouldn't panic, but they should be worried. The McCain campaign reflects the candidate's
impulsive nature and hasn't articulated a consistent reform agenda. President Bush's job rating has
collapsed. One recent survey found only 53% of Republicans now approve of his performance. Sen.
Obama will have so much money to spend he can microtarget millions of his supporters early and deliver
absentee ballots – which are prone to abuse – to them.
MCCAIN WILL LOSE- REPUBLICAN BRAND IS TOXIC WITH VOTERS

5. Republicanism - the term, is a strong negative this year, with many former party members
opting for the label now as independents, not wishing to be thought of a member of a group
which promoted out of control spending, foreign wars without appropriate planning or
administration and policies which have failed on both the energy and housing fronts. Most
conservative Republicans don't care for McCain and thus, aren't enthusiastic about his campaign. Those labeling
themselves as Republicans have dropped by 6-8 percentage points, at least according to one national
survey. That puts those in that category in the either low 30s or high 20s in terms of percentile, now far below those
claiming to be Democrats. It is clear then that independents will decide the election.
17
OBAMA- WIN—GOP WEAK

MCCAIN WILL LOSE—PEOLE WON'T VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN
MCARDLE 6-12-08 [Megan, associate editor at the Atlantic. "'John McCain (R)' — that's his
problem" http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-op-klein-mcardle12-
2008jun12,0,3728699.story]
More to the point, no job really qualifies you to run the world's only remaining superpower;
there's a vast amount that simply must be learned by doing. And in that, Obama actually has an
experience advantage -- or, at least, he will. McCain's age means there is a good chance that he
simply won't be healthy enough for a second term, meaning that we'll have to start over in 2012
with another round of on-the-job training. And Obama will probably come into office with a fairly
commanding lead from voters thoroughly disgusted with the current Republican administration,
which will give him quite a lot of breathing room while he masters the not-so-gentle art of
ramming bills through Congress. Indeed, in the end, McCain's biggest problem is not his
age; it's the "R" after his name.
18
OBAMA- WIN—BUSH
OBAMA WIN- MCCAIN ASSOCIATED WITH BUSH
MEET THE PRESS 6-29-08 [transcript, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25439733/]
GOV. FREUDENTHAL: Well, I think the transition that's occurred is that John McCain's not the John McCain of
2000 and 2002. In that time his appeal in this region was pretty real, because very independent.
At this stage he's really molded into a kind of Bush-Cheney look-alike, and that is not an
attractive thing to see continue in this country.
MCCAIN WILL LOSE- BUSH CREDIBILITY

POOR 6-23-08 [Jeff, staff writer. “Newsweek: Anti-Drilling Obama 'More in Touch with Voters' on Energy”
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080623135039.aspx]
But in his “Today” appearance Fineman warned McCain was “taking a risk” with his pro-drilling stance –
because President Bush has also taken that position.
“That’s the risk, because any time McCain lines up with George Bush on policy it’s bad politically
because Bush is so unpopular,” Fineman said. “Interestingly though, McCain is taking the risk of talking about
this strategy out in California where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is steadfast in opposition to offshore
drilling for oil. So this is the McCain strategy, they’re willing to take the risk.”
MCCAIN WILL LOSE—BUSH

FOX NEWS 7-1-08 [“Poll: Americans Concerned McCain Will Be Too Much Like Bush”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/01/poll-americans-concerned-mccain-will-be-too-much-like-
bush/]
As John McCain barnstorms from state to state making his case for the presidency, one obstacle
the Arizona senator will be forced to confront if he is to win the White House is voters’ concerns
that his policies are too similar to those of President Bush.
According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, two in three Americans are worried that McCain will pursue
policies that mirror those implemented by Bush. Just about half of those who participated in the survey —
49 percent — said they are “very concerned” that McCain will follow Bush’s initiatives.
McCain must walk a fine line in distancing himself from the president — whose approval ratings are at
an all time low — since Bush remains relatively popular among Republican voters. While only 28
percent of Americans approve of the job Bush has done as president, 60 percent of Republicans
do, the poll found.
19
OBAMA- WIN—BUSH
4) With economic conditions apparently worsening, the party of the White House is much more
vulnerable, despite the causes for that situation. With war troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan
continuing and a huge disapproval rate amongst foreign nations, President Bush's support is a
liability for McCain, not an asset. The Obama campaign, soon to make a foreign junket, will make the case for a
fresh start for American foreign policy worldwide, which will achieve huge positive press for him. At the same time,
McCain's foreign trip planned for Mexico and Columbia will promote free trade - a policy that many workers in
industrial states strongly oppose.

What's more, McCain is saddled with an unpopular president. Two-thirds of voters
say they are concerned
that McCain would pursue policies too similar to those of President Bush, whose job-approval rating is
28%.
20
OBAMA- WIN—CAMPAIGN
MCCAIN WILL LOSE—CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
LA TIMES 6-29-08 [Mark Z. Barbak, staff writer. “McCain's unorthodox campaign”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-mccain29-2008jun29,0,3957628.story]
This week, when Barack Obama campaigns in Ohio and Colorado, John McCain will be visiting Colombia and
Mexico. It's an unusual path for McCain to follow. But even more, it's a risky strategy for his presidential
campaign.
Not since Richard M. Nixon traveled to all 50 states in 1960, fulfilling a pledge he came to regret, has a presidential
candidate followed an itinerary that appears so at odds with his political needs.
For starters, and most obviously, there are no electoral votes to be had in Latin America or Canada,
another country McCain recently visited. Even more puzzling to observers is McCain's emphasis
on national security and foreign affairs -- Saturday he met with the leaders of Iraq and the Philippines -- at a
time when domestic matters have surged to the fore of voter concerns.
"You can't shoehorn in an issue the American people aren't focused on every day at their kitchen
table," said Matthew Dowd, who ran President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, which centered on fighting terrorism
at a time when Sept. 11 was far more resonant. "The danger is you miss being where people are at."
MCCAIN WILL LOSE- UNPOPULAR AGENDA

KLEIN 6-12-08 [Ezra, associate editor at the American Prospect. “McCain and Obama: products of different
generations” http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-op-klein-mcardle12-
2008jun12,0,3728699.story]
I basically agree with you, Megan. Being president isn't like being the world's most powerful
senator. It's a different job with its own learning curve. And though straight competency matters,
ideas matter even more. McCain frequently argues that he's damn near the world's most
experienced advocate of invading Iraq, but it's not clear whether that's the kind of experience we
really want in the White House.
This, in fact, is McCain's great weakness: his ideas. At a time when the majority of the country
wants the Iraq war brought to a swift close, he's repeatedly stated his comfort with its continued
prosecution. At a time when nearly 50 million Americans are without health insurance and
millions more are worried about keeping what they have, he's put forward a healthcare plan that
tries to control costs by shifting more medical risk and financial vulnerability to workers. This is a
misread of the current political moment, at best. We're not facing down towering tax rates or
fighting the Cold War. The problems have changed, but his solutions have remained stuck in
place. Thus, his speeches have a tendency to read like the political equivalent of leg warmers
and Rubik's cubes. You want to sit the poor guy down and explain that it's not the 1980s
anymore.
MCCAIN WILL LOSE—CAMPAIGN IS DISORGANIZED

2) The McCain campaign has no definition. There is no memorable theme to it and it
appears a bit disorganized. If anything, it has been successfully labeled by the Obama
campaign as one of running for a "3rd Bush Term," since there are some similarities
between the policies of McCain and President Bush. McCain hasn't successfully countered this with an
Obama seeking to duplicate the policies of "Jimmy Carter Two" or anything similar, despite the actual similarities of
such a moniker. Connecting McCain to Bush is a connection which means death, due to the
president's poor job ratings lately.
21
OBAMA- WIN—LATINOS AND EVANGELICALS

OBAMA WILL WIN-LATINOS AND EVANGELICALS WILL VOTE DEMOCRAT
SULLIVAN 6-29-08 [Andrew, staff writer, “Confident Obama maps out his landslide”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article4231204.ece?openComment=true
“We’re going in to win [these states],” Hildebrand insisted. And this may not be a total delusion. Two polls have
just put Obama a hefty 15 points ahead of McCain (although Gallup shows a resiliently close contest). Plus
a raft of new polls in key swing states show big Obama gains in recent weeks. In Minnesota his
lead is now an impressive 17 points; in Wisconsin 13 points; in Michigan six points; and in
Colorado five.
Moreover, Obama’s safe states appear much safer at this point in the election cycle than
McCain’s – and if you factor in recent trends, all of which show steady movement towards
Obama, you begin to hit landslide potential. One very reputable polling analyst, Nate Silver of the polling
blog FiveThirtyEight, is now inferring a potential Obama win, on current trending data, of 358 electoral college votes to
McCain’s 180. That’s a huge win.
Several big demographic factors help to explain this. One is the growing divide among
evangelicals between younger, more liberal types and the traditional fire-and-brimstone set.
Obama is the first Democrat since 1996 to be more comfortable talking about faith in public than
the Republican – and that’s appealing to younger evangelicals who are disenchanted with too
much proximity to the Republicans. And the growing Latino vote – which might be critical in the
Mountain West – has moved behind Obama in unexpectedly strong fashion. Obama is winning
Hispanics by a ratio of more than two to one. Not many expected that a few weeks ago.
Then there’s the self-reinforcing nature of the Obama phenomenon. If he can maintain the enthusiasm of his
core support among blacks and the young it could snowball. One analysis shows that just a 10%
increase in black or youth turnout, compared with 2004, could put Ohio, Florida, Colorado and
Nevada easily within reach.
Currently Obama is ahead in Pennsylvania and Ohio, the two states that the Clintons insisted he could never win. To
make matters worse for McCain, only 34% of Republicans have a “very favourable” view of him, compared with 56% of
Democrats for Obama. That enthusiasm gap could prove critical in November.
22
OBAMA- WIN—INDEPENDENTS
OBAMA WILL WIN—HE CAN SWAY INDEPENDENTS
WILSON 6-20-08 [Reid, associate editor and writer for RealClearPolitics. “Will There Be Coattails in November?”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080620/cm_rcp/will_there_be_coattails_in_nov
"What we've seen in the past ... is that coattails largely work through turnout," said Jim
Campbell, a political scientist and turnout expert at the University of Buffalo. "If you can boost
the turnout for a candidate at the top of the ticket, that carries along maybe six out of ten,
between six and eight out of ten additional votes below that." For Democrats, the reason to hope
for a coattail effect is obvious: Over the primary process, more people cast ballots for one of the party's
candidates than ever before. Obama is "a powerful partner for House Democrats heading into the fall election,"
Thornell said. "He has a proven ability to win independents. ... That's a voting bloc that Senator
Obama has done very well with, Democrats are making gains with, and I think that's going to be
something that I think helps the entire party out." Democrats won 8% more of the independent vote in
2006 than they did in 2004, a recent memo from DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen notes, and Obama's strength
among that bloc in states with big House races this year -- states like New Mexico, Ohio, Missouri and
Virginia -- bodes well for November.
DEMS WILL WIN—INDEPENDENTS

BRAZILE 6-30-08 [Donna, political commentator. “Brazile: Democrats' unity bodes ill for McCain”
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/opinion/x1816437866/Brazile-Democrats-unity-bodes-ill-for-McCain]
This is a new day in American politics, and the Democratic Party will lead the way forward by
unifying itself, expanding its base, reaching out to Independents and defining its brand during
the final months of this unconventional election season.
23
OBAMA- WIN—SWING STATES

OBAMA WILL WIN THE SWING STATES
3) Obama is gaining in the polls in key industrial or swing states, despite the fact that
nationwide, the two candidates appear to be polling nearly equal. Remember: the popular vote doesn't
decide an American presidential election, electoral votes do. Swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania appear to be leaning towards Obama. And, with a huge increase in voting
registration amongst blacks and labor, Obama could even carry such states as Georgia or
Mississippi, traditionally Republican strongholds. One state switching loyalties could determine the election:
even Virginia might be in play for the Democrats this time around.
24
OBAMA- WIN—KEY STATES

OBAMA WILL WIN- KEY STATES
AP 7-1-08 [Beth Fouhy, reporter, “McCain to Advocate Free Trade in Latin America”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hL4zfHXeyYm4oj1om5i3Ez81YCvgD91L87303]
Although Obama didn't mention McCain or his trip, a prominent Obama supporter criticized McCain's visit on a
conference call with reporters. "Today after he finishes his speech here in Indiana, he's hoping on a plane
and going to Colombia and Mexico to talk about how much our trade agreements are going to
help those countries, rather than taking about what we can do to help this country," United Auto
Workers vice president Terry Thurman said.
"Now I find it no surprise that he's going to go to Mexico to talk about how great NAFTA is
because he's certainly is not going to find much support for it here in the Hoosier state."
McCain conceded Monday he still has work to do to convince voters in industrial swing states in
the Midwest, where the presidential election could be decided, that his support for free trade will benefit
them, not just cost more jobs. He pledged to improve programs for displaced workers and unemployment insurance if
elected, but acknowledged that wouldn't be enough.
Obama will win- ahead in key industrial states

Ward, June 30, 2008
(Andrew, “McCain’s plan to woo Obama supporters backfires”, The Financial Times,
http://en.afrik.com/article13969.html)
Mr Niles, a white, working-class Democrat who wears a “Bubba’s Army” T-shirt, is exactly the kind of voter
Mr McCain was courting on his trip to northern Ohio on Friday. On the day Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
staged their first joint rally, Mr McCain was trying to undermine their reconciliation by wooing Mrs
Clinton’s blue-collar base. His efforts appeared wasted on many. “We’re a working-class factory,” said 49-
year-old Greg George. “McCain calls himself moderate, but his party has been a disaster for working people
over the past eight years.” For every person who pledged loyalty to Mr Obama, however, there were two or
more who refused to comment. Many could have been McCain backers – recent polls showed him winning a quarter of former
Clinton supporters in Ohio. Jim Pearson, 58, was one of the few willing to voice support for Mr McCain. “The UAW [the United Auto Workers’ Union, which endorsed
Mr Obama] doesn’t speak for me,” he said. “McCain has the experience. Obama doesn’t.” Attracting
“Reagan Democrats” – white, working-
class voters who switched party to support Ronald Reagan in the 1980s – is an important part of the McCain
strategy. He hopes to appeal by focusing on national security and exploiting doubts about Mr Obama’s
experience and values. If he could win Ohio and Pennsylvania – two big, mostly white, working-class swing
states – he would have a foot in the Oval Office. But the latest polls show him trailing Mr Obama, both in
those states and nationally.
25
OBAMA- WIN—HILLARY
OBAMA WILL WIN—CLINTON IS ONBOARD
BRAZILE 6-30-08 [Donna, political commentator. “Brazile: Democrats' unity bodes ill for McCain”
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/opinion/x1816437866/Brazile-Democrats-unity-bodes-ill-for-McCain]
Sen. John McCain cannot be happy with the prospect that Sen. Hillary Clinton returned to her day job with her suitcase
packed, ready to hit the road campaigning for her former Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton and
Obama have agreed to jointly campaign across the country to unite the Democratic Party and
energize voters, especially women and blue-collar workers.
Making matters even more interesting, McCain probably threw one of his famous hissy fits when he read the one-
sentence statement from the office of former President William Jefferson Clinton: "President Clinton is obviously
committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Sen. Obama is the next president of the United
States."
Unity, how sweet it is - especially after a grueling primary marathon that pitted the nation's most
powerful political couple against a newcomer on the national stage. With the differences between the
two candidates on issues is paper thin, it became a battle royale that, at times, pitted two superb candidates against
each other based on the differences in their age, gender, personality, race and connotations associated with their
names.
Highly regarded as a political maverick, McCain must now come to terms with his opponents
embracing each other symbolically and politically. The Obama-Clinton rapprochement is no
ordinary public relations stunt; it is a movement. And McCain better adjust his strategy to deal
with it or face the consequences
Based on my experience managing Al Gore's presidential campaign, we're in for some high-energy drama, which is
really saying something, since this political season has already proven to be like none other we have witnessed in a
generation. Now that Clinton and Obama are on the same page, what can be expected, and will this political marriage
have any offspring?
For starters, Obama must decide how to best use the Clintons to help unify the party and bring along their enthusiastic
backers, who comprise approximately half of all Democratic Party voters. He needs to lay it all out now and not leave
to chance a single detail of how to maximize the Clintons' tremendous power and force. The detailed do-and-don't list
in harnessing this power should be extensive, and efforts to keep the two former warring factions on the same page
will require the lines of communications between the two camps open 24/7. Note: Surrogates need not apply; the
communication should be one-on-one. However, should one be required, I highly recommend former Senate majority
leader Tom Daschle.
There's no question Sen. Clinton will campaign hard for both Obama and Democratic Party
candidates up and down the ballot. Her appeal is strong in crucial swing states like New
Hampshire, where she and Obama competed especially hard this past winter. Clinton is also
capable of helping Obama in states that were especially troublesome for him in the primaries,
including Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and California. To accomplish this,
the Obama campaign should be prepared to give Clinton the necessary resources she needs,
including money for mailings to her key supporters and campaign workers.
26
OBAMA- WIN—ECONOMY
OBAMA WILL WIN—ECONOMY
But that strategy has provoked consternation and confusion among some fellow Republicans. There
is, after all, the
cautionary lesson of 1992, when President George H.W. Bush lost his reelection bid. One big
reason was that voters believed Bush -- who was partial to foreign policy -- was less attuned to their
pocketbook pain than was his more domestic-minded opponent, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.
That campaign, not incidentally, was the last time the economy played such a large role in a
presidential election. In a worrisome sign for McCain, surveys show that economic issues again
top the political agenda, with most voters saying Obama would do a better job addressing
healthcare, record gas prices, even taxes -- usually a GOP strong suit -- than McCain.
OBAMA WILL WIN—DEMS AHEAD ON THE ECONOMY

Part of Obama's advantage may be Democrats' image as the more compassionate party. Some of it may be McCain's
clumsiness (or honesty); during the primary season he confessed to being less conversant on economic issues than on
defense and national security matters, words that Democrats have gleefully thrown back at him. The biggest part may
be guilt by association; many blame the current President Bush for the tough economic times and
assume that McCain will continue his policies, with the same results, for another four years.
Whatever the reason, those underlying attitudes make it all the more imperative for McCain to shift the debate over
the next four months of campaigning. "If people are voting on economics, they're going to vote
Democratic," said Floyd Ciruli, a nonpartisan pollster in Colorado, a state both candidates are targeting.
"To win, Republicans have to focus this election on national security."
OBAMA WILL WIN-POLLS PROVE VOTERS PREFER HIS ECONOMIC POLICY

POOR 6-23-08 [Jeff, staff writer. “Newsweek: Anti-Drilling Obama 'More in Touch with Voters' on Energy”
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080623135039.aspx]
“Obama is trusted more to handle what may prove the biggest issue of the 2008 election – the
economy and jobs – by a wide margin (54 percent to 29 percent),” Michael Hirsh wrote on June 20 for
Newsweek.com. “He also has a sizable advantage on energy policy, 48 percent to 34 percent, despite
McCain's attempts this week to turn voters his way by supporting some new oil drilling and
renewing his call for a gas-tax holiday.”
27
OBAMA- WIN—ECONOMY
OBAMA WILL WIN— AHEAD ON ECONOMIC ISSUES BY DOUBLE DIGITS
On issues, voters are most concerned about energy and the economy, and they prefer Obama by a
double-digit margin on each. He's favored on taxes, traditionally a Republican strength, and
essentially tied with McCain on handling illegal immigration.
On personal characteristics, McCain is rated more highly than Obama in just one of 10 categories
— as a "strong and decisive leader." Obama swamps his opponent as someone who is
empathetic and independent and "understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives."
28
OBAMA- WIN—AGE
MCCAIN WILL LOSE-AGE
KLEIN 6-29-08 [Ezra, Associate editor at the American Prospect. “The perils of honesty in politics”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-klein29-2008jun29,0,2312316.story]
The Obama campaign does not wish to make McCain's age an issue explicitly, but its officials
wouldn't mind if the electorate viscerally understood that he's a 71-year-old who laughingly
confesses that he's "illiterate" with computers. Because if the campaigns were being honest,
they'd confess that they're well aware of what we might as well call the Nixonian truth:
Sometimes it's the quiet, ugly stuff that helps you win.
MCCAIN WILL LOSE—HE’S TOO OLD

MCARDLE 6-12-08 [Megan, associate editor at the Atlantic. “’John McCain (R)’ — that's his problem”
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-op-klein-mcardle12-2008jun12,0,3728699.story]
On the other hand, Obama hardly needs to bring up McCain's age. Thanks to the high-definition
TV revolution, we can all see the ravages time has wrought on McCain: the wrinkles, the facial
scars from his battle with melanoma, and the arthritis that has crippled his arms and legs.
Watched on a regular station, McCain still looks vital and smooth. On my high-definition
channels, however, he looks like he has one foot in the grave. Polls show that voters do think
that age is a handicap in a president, and they are right to think this: The presidency is a
grueling position from which even relative young-uns such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
have emerged looking prematurely ancient. It's reasonable to wonder if McCain's body is up to
the task, particularly considering the abuse it took in Vietnam -- and the fact that his father died
of a heart attack at the age of 70.
MCCAIN CAN’T BE PRESIDENT—HE’S TOO OLD

COX 6-6-08 [David Glenn, columnist. “McCain’s Greatest Enemy.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/McCain-s-
Greatest-Enemy-by-David-Glenn-Cox-080606-924.html]
The average age of our Presidents at election is between 50 and 59 years of age, thus making
McCain between 12 to 21 years-of-age outside of that window. The two oldest Presidents ever
elected both suffered health problems while in office. Eisenhower had heart problems and
Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease during his second term. McCain is 9 years older
than Eisenhower and 2 years older than Ronald Reagan, this is gravity! We are all mortal. Time is
inescapable. These are not personal attacks, these are statements of fact.
MCCAIN IS TOO OLD TO BE PRESIDENT

John McCain, by any metric we choose to use, is too old for the job, and for the same reasons
that I’m too old to play short stop for the Chicago Cubs. Even if I were the most amazing 51-year-
old in history, with the eyes and speed of a man half my age, there are so many younger players
who have yet to reach their prime. So many with an opportunity to be great, to perform at that
higher level with the energy of youth rather than with the weight of time.
29
OBAMA- WIN—AGE
MCCAIN WILL LOSE—HE’S TOO OLD
McCain, even if the most perfect candidate, is too old. He is in the season of plucking not
planting and the process by which the Republican Party choose his Vice Presidential running
mate could be the most profound challenge the Republican party faces during this campaign.
Because McCain’s greatest opponent in this campaign won’t be Barack Obama but the grim
reaper. Life expectancy for white males in the United States is 75 years and statistics for white
males with five years in a prison camp aren’t available, but I seriously doubt that it would help
that number any
30
OBAMA- WIN—80S ELECTION

OBAMA WILL WIN-HE JUST NEEDS TO BE TESTED, 1980 ELECTION PROVES
FUND 6-27-08 [John, Wall Street Journal columnist. “No, McCain Isn’t ‘Doomed’”
This election reminds some of the 1980 race, when voters were clearly looking for a reason to
vote the incumbent party out of the White House. Even so, Jimmy Carter kept even with Ronald
Reagan well into October by painting him as risky and out of the mainstream. Then, in the home
stretch, Reagan finally convinced voters he was sensible and trustworthy, and wound up winning
by double digits.
Barack Obama is roughly in the same position as Reagan was back then. He is untested in
foreign policy. His record in office clearly leans left, with the nonpartisan National Journal rating him the
most liberal U.S. senator. When asked this month by ABC News when he had ever broken with liberal orthodoxy and
taken risks with his base – as Bill Clinton did on trade, culture and welfare – Mr. Obama had little to say. At a meeting of
Obama voters I attended this week, some bemoaned the fact that many of their friends backed him solely because of
his cool "name brand" and vague message of change.
31
A2- OBAMA- LOSE- INEXPERIENCE

History proves- symbol of change outweighs inexperience for voters
Harwood, 6/ 30, 2008
(John, “Traveling Overseas to Win Votes at Home”, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/p30caucus.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1215126017-
m7epeQyh/SaVoOyAk1Y2Bw)
The value of experience in presidential campaigns shifts with the political winds. In the 25 elections over the
past century, the older candidate has won roughly two-thirds of the time. In 9 of those 17 victories, the older
candidate was the incumbent. President Ronald Reagan disarmed skeptics about his age in 1984 with a joking
pledge during a debate not to “exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” a reference
to his opponent, Walter F. Mondale. But at key moments of national unease, voters have shunned the
familiar figure in the White House to embrace a lesser-known candidate who offers change. That dynamic
elected Jimmy Carter over President Gerald R. Ford in 1976, Mr. Reagan over President Carter four years later
and Bill Clinton over President George Bush in 1992.
32
POLLS ARE WRONG

ELECTION POLLS ARE FLAWED.
FUND 6-27-08 [John, Wall Street Journal columnist. “No, McCain Isn’t ‘Doomed’”
Some Democrats claim new polls by Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times showing Sen. McCain
trailing by 15 points in each seal the deal on an Obama presidency. But both polls appear to be
outliers. Other polls show the race to be close. Both surveys polled registered, not likely, voters.
Normally, only two-thirds of those end up casting ballots, and nonvoters lean Democratic. Second,
Democrats had a 14-point advantage in Newsweek's sample, and a 17-point advantage in the Times poll, with
Republicans making up only 22% of respondents. That's an unusually low number. Most other polls have the party ID
gap with a significantly smaller Democratic edge.
SUMMER LEADS WILL DRASTICALLY DROP

Lexis.]
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland says a substantial lead in June does not always lead to a
decisive victory the following November when US goes to poll. "Historically speaking, when June
polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through November. But when
June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead has often melted," Holland said.
"Bill Clinton was leading Bob Dole by up to 19 points in June, 1996; Clinton won by eight. Michael Dukakis
had a 14-point lead over George Bush the elder in June, 1988; Bush won by seven. Jimmy Carter was up
nearly 20 points in June, 1976 but in November eked out a two-point win. And Richard Nixon managed an
even smaller victory in 1968 even though he had a 16-point margin that June," Holland noted.
33
**LINKS**
34
LINK- ALT ENERGIES
Renewable energy incentives NOW shifts the energy debate in favor of McCain- causes GOP win
Raju, June 24, 2008
(Manu, “GOP going for green”, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-going-for-green-2008-06-24.html)
Senate Republicans aim to undercut Democrats’ claim to be the environmentally conscious party by
combining their own conservation message with a longstanding push for more oil drilling. The shift, to call
for increased energy production and less oil use, allows Republicans and their presidential candidate, Sen.
John McCain (Ariz.), to argue they will do whatever it takes to stop soaring gas prices. And it could throw cold
water on Democratic attempts to link McCain with President Bush and the oil companies reaping record
profits. Energy policy has become a flashpoint this campaign season, and both sides are jockeying over who
has the best plan to handle gas prices that top $4 per gallon. “Republicans will do BOTH — find more oil, use
less — Democrats won’t,” according to a presentation, obtained by The Hill, that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) gave at a closed-door lunch on
Tuesday. Democrats have long opposed expanded offshore drilling, highlighting environmental concerns and claims that there is enough land to drill and that more is an
unnecessary giveaway to oil and gas companies. Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief campaign strategist, called the GOP message a “defensive
Republicans
and sort of last-gasp effort.” “Two words: oil companies,” Schumer said. “They have for seven years done exactly what the oil companies wanted.”
are trying to debunk that claim with a greener message: more investment in plug-in electric cars and trucks, less
energy use by the federal government and increased oversight of market speculation on oil futures. The move
could be perceived as a shift toward McCain, who has been at odds with many in his party on cutting
greenhouse emissions and has used environmental issues to distinguish himself from Bush. McCain called for more
efficiency rules in a campaign stop Tuesday in Santa Barbara, Calif., arguing that energy could be conserved in the 3.3 billion square feet of federal office space nationwide. The
Republican proposal also calls for moving away from the party’s bedrock position of emphasizing oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and instead promoting oil-shale extraction
and offshore exploration. McCain has long opposed drilling in Alaska, but last week made a reversal to support a state’s right to allow exploration along the coastal United States.
Even though that reversal gives Democrats the opportunity to link McCain with Bush, it also allows the GOP to rally behind one party message
and unite in one attack against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the Democratic presidential candidate. In one slide of Tuesday’s presentation titled “No, we can’t” — a play on
Obama’s popular slogan, “Yes, we can” — Alexander tried to make the case that the presidential candidate has repeatedly voted against offshore drilling and expanding domestic
supplies of oil. He called the Democrat’s support for half of the energy solution “Obamanomics.” Following the lunch, Alexander, along with other members of the Republican
leadership, echoed the talking points. “Lamar likes to say, ‘What if President Kennedy said, “We’re not going to the moon. We’re going halfway to the moon”?’ ” said Senate
Republicans increasingly see an
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “That wouldn’t have been a very inspiring message, would it?”
advantage on the energy debate. With gas prices putting the economy in greater turmoil, public sentiment is
starting to shift towards offshore drilling and conservation measures. But the public is also skeptical that such a
move would effectively reduce gas prices. About 30 Senate Republicans huddled behind closed doors Tuesday
afternoon to craft an energy package they plan to unveil later this week. Items under consideration included the
drilling and conservation measures, as well as authorized funding on carbon sequestration technologies,
market-driven incentives for renewable energy and an expansion of nuclear power — all part of McCain’s
campaign platform. Republicans are urging their rank and file to take that message home during the
upcoming recess, saying that positive news coverage will emerge from events to talk about more efficiency
rules, like plug-in hybrid cars, along with calls for more supplies.
35
LINK- ALT ENERGIES
A GOP focus on energy policy will grant McCain the presidency

Caldwell, June 18, 2008
(Theo, “How McCain can grease the wheels of victory”, The National Post,
https://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T40938408
83&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T4093840886&cisb=22_T409384
0885&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=10882&docNo=26)
In 2008, with energy prices fixing to become the top election issue, combining foreign and domestic policy
concerns into a monstrous hybrid of a problem, an understandable and workable proposal could help the GOP
again. If every Republican running for office, from freshman House candidates to their presidential nominee,
Senator John McCain, spoke with a single, sensible voice on this issue, they could snatch victory from defeat. A
first draft might read: "We are Americans too, and we know that energy prices have gotten out of hand. We want
to reduce fuel costs for all of us, and cut the number of dollars we send to hostile, oil-producing countries in the
Middle East and South America. If you elect us, we will do the following three things: We will begin to tap
America's vast oil reserves, using technological drilling advances that protect the environment. We will also
promote alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power, to move us away from an oil-based economy.
Finally, we will eliminate barriers to the import of cheaper, more efficient automotive systems that have been
successful in other parts of the world." If the Republicans agree on such a platform, 2008 could be their
year after all.
McCain will steal environmental votes by aligning the GOP with clean energy
NICHOLS 2008 – ASSOCIATE EDITOR CAPITAL TIMES
JOHN MCCAIN: ECO-WARRIOR, CAPITAL TIMES, 5-13
Yikes, it's really true. John McCain is running for president as a tree-hugging liberal.
No, not an all-the-time environmentalist - rather, as a swing-state-savvy, targeted-message-peddling, murky-
shade-of-green Republican who's hoping to pick up the votes of lifestyle liberals who want to address
climate change on the cheap. So Tuesday in Oregon, which like Wisconsin is a battleground state where a
reverence for the outdoors requires that Republicans greenwash their appeals, McCain's campaign will begin
airing a new television commercial that essentially says: "Look, I'm not like George Bush and Dick Cheney. I
don't live in la-la land when it comes to global warming. I actually believe in something I like to call 'science.' "
The senator - who broke a little bit with Bush and Cheney on environmental issues, but who never really lined
up with the serious Republican environmentalists who were isolated by the administration - is reinforcing the
message with a major campaign swing through the Northwest. He hopes to put the sometimes swing states of
Oregon and Washington in play by presenting himself as John McCain: eco-warrior.
Plan solidifies the environment as a Republican issue- key to the election

NICHOLS 2008 – ASSOCIATE EDITOR CAPITAL TIMES
JOHN MCCAIN: ECO-WARRIOR, CAPITAL TIMES, 5-13
But, as McCain's ad establishes, he's not really serious about climate change. What he's serious about is
neutralizing the environment as an issue in a presidential campaign season that will see millions of
American voters - including a great many wavering Republicans - treat climate change as an exceptionally
serious election issue.
36
LINK- ALT ENERGIES
Voters shifting towards environmental friendly policy- plan scores votes for McCain
Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, June 24, 2008
(Julian, Meg Jacobs, associate professor of history at MIT, “Democrats need to learn to sell their Priorities”, The Washington Independent”
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/energy-talk)
But there is evidence that we are in a moment of change. In certain respects, public opinion has outpaced
political rhetoric. Even though Carter's speech was a flop, the environmental movement gradually influenced
the way the public thought about issues like conservation of energy. With energy prices at extremely high levels,
polls suggest that the public is more willing than ever to deal with environmental challenges.
Building on the work of the environmental movement, former Vice President Al Gore has helped to popularize
the issue of global warming through his Oscar-winning film and advocacy. More Republican politicians have
started to question the Bush approach to the energy crisis. National-security concerns have also
broadened electoral interest in reducing energy dependence on the Middle East. Even when the Republicans
controlled Congress, the Bush team has not been able to get through a measure to open up the Arctic National
Wildlife Reserve to drilling. Shifts in consumer attitudes and consumption have also helped citizens see
practical steps toward reducing oil use. According to several recent reports, the high cost of fuel is
persuading a large number of Americans to switch from Humvees and SUVs to smaller cars and even bicycles
for daily commute. Mass transportation is experiencing stunning rider increases.
Greening GOP Image key to voters

Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA) 4/20/2001
Still, it's a tough issue for Bush. Polls show that a clear majority of Americans (57 percent) say environmental protection should
take priority over economic growth. Before the recent economic downturn, that figure was even higher (67 percent). And Bush is
hearing from moderate Republicans in Congress - who could hold the balance of power in a closely divided House and Senate - that
he needs to green up his image. "I believe a lot of people care more about the environment than my Republican Party seems to care
about it," says Rep. Christopher Shays (R) of Connecticut. Pro- environment GOP lawmakers worry that their party could suffer
a green political backlash, much as it did when Newt Gingrich was House Speaker. Last November's elections showed that
women and suburbanites in particular are more likely to vote for Democrats than for Republicans, based on concern for the
environment. "Americans are at odds with many of [ Bush's ] specific environmental actions," the Gallup polling organization
reported this week. Among those actions: reversing a campaign pledge to regulate industrial emissions of carbon dioxide,
renouncing the Kyoto global-warming treaty, and advocating oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
37
LINK- ALT ENERGIES- SWING VOTERS

McCain frames the plan as a financial carrot to the alt energies sector- steals key swing states from
Obama
Sabar, June 30, 2008
(Ariel, The Christian Science Monitor, “McCain and Obama share energy goals not methods”, lexis)
With fuel topping $4 a gallon and oil at a record price, energy now ties the economy in polls as voters' top
concern, and the presidential candidates spent the past week trying to outflank each other on an issue that's
thinning billfolds from Maine to California. Their plans share key goals - less reliance on foreign oil, a push for
cleaner fuels - but their methods differ sharply. The presumptive GOP nominee, wants 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and an end to the
federal moratorium on new offshore drilling. He would use market lures - tax rebates for electric cars, a $300 million prize for a better car battery - to promote
alternative sources of energy. He would offer motorists immediate relief in the form of a hiatus in the federal gas tax. The presumptive Democratic nominee, opposes
new offshore drilling and is wary of nuclear power. He would double auto fuel-efficiency standards within 18 years, subsidize development of ethanol, and force power
companies to generate one- quarter of their energy from wind, solar, and other renewable sources by 2025. An opponent of the gas-tax holiday, Obama favors a
"windfall profits" tax on multinational oil companies. In many ways, their approaches square with party ideology. On
the Republican side, financial
carrots and a significant role for the private sector. On the Democratic side, subsidies, taxes, and
regulation. But in a departure from GOP predecessors, McCain has refused to cede the "green" label to his
Democratic rival. His aides say his plan strikes the right balance among short-term relief for consumers,
environmental stewardship, and long-term energy independence. They have taken to calling Obama "Dr. No,"
portraying him as an obstructionist with too narrow a view of the country's energy woes. In a speech in Las
Vegas Wednesday, McCain trumpeted his plan as a breakthrough after "three decades of partisan paralysis." He
vowed Wednesday to wean America of its dependence on foreign oil by 2025 and gave his proposal no less momentous a title than "The Lexington Project," after the
Revolutionary War site where "Americans asserted their independence once before." Obama last week called McCain's proposals a series of "cheap gimmicks" that
"will only increase our oil addiction for another four years."
Obama wants to reduce oil use 35 percent by 2030, pass a law to phase out all incandescent light bulbs, and spend $150 billion over the next decade to develop and
market clean-energy technology, from hybrid vehicles to biofuels like ethanol.
The campaigns are keen to the politics of their plans in
important swing states. Ethanol is an economic engine in corn-growing Iowa and Minnesota; offshore drilling
is a divisive issue in Florida; and nuclear power is a lightning rod in Nevada, home of the federal government's
proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. While Obama's plan is more in keeping with traditional
interests in those states, McCain frames his proposals as a boon for consumers and another example of his
"straight talk." "With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting
on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians," he said this month in a speech in Houston. With McCain
trailing Obama on most domestic issues in voter opinion polls, the Arizona senator has strived to link his
energy plan to national security, where his ratings are higher. "When we buy oil, we are enriching some of
our worst enemies," he said last week in Las Vegas, naming the Middle East, Venezuela, and Al Qaeda as beneficiaries of America's dependence on overseas
oil. Obama has said that new oil exploration would not lead to lower prices at the pump - not anytime soon, anyway. "We can't drill our way out of the problems we're
facing," he said this month in Florida.The war of words between the senators escalated throughout the week, with dueling conference calls for reporters and new
standalone websites devoted to energy. Both McCain and Obama support tougher government oversight of energy futures traders whose speculation has been blamed
for spikes in oil prices. They also agree that the federal government - with its giant fleet of cars and square miles of office space - should become a model of energy
efficiency. But where Obama sees stricter standards as key to a more energy independent and efficient America, McCain looks to domestic oil exploration and
entrepreneurialism. "I
won't support subsidizing every alternative, or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that
stimulates innovation and lowers costs," McCain said in a speech last year. "But I'll encourage the development
of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and then let consumers choose the
winners."
38
Green issues appeal to key swing voters in the election- sways important states towards McCain
CHICAGO TRIBUNE 5-13-2008
John McCain launched a green-tinted courtship of West Coast swing voters on Monday, with a call to action on global warming
and an indictment of the Bush administration's "failed" policies to combat it.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee visited the wind-power technology firm Vestas, near Portland International Airport,
to decry melting polar ice, vanishing glaciers, changes in animal migration and "rising temperatures and waters," all products, he said,
of a reliance on fossil fuels that threatens America's economy and security.
McCain championed nuclear power and warned that China and India must take steps to curb their own rising carbon emissions. "The
facts of global warming demand our urgent attention," McCain said, "particularly in Washington."
He endorsed a "cap and trade" system that would impose carbon-emission limits on industries and require businesses that exceeded
those caps to buy credits from businesses that pollute under their limits. Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton both support such a "cap and trade" system, with stricter limits than under McCain's plan.
Obama, Clinton and some environmental groups criticized the reach of McCain's proposals. And analysts and voter-registration
statistics suggest that even with his green appeal, McCain faces an uphill battle to put this increasingly blue state into play in the fall.
Democrat John Kerry won Oregon by 76,000 votes in 2004, a 4-percentage-point margin over President George W. Bush. McCain
advisers believe the Arizona senator's environmental stances could help push the state his way this fall.
Analysts note that Oregon's electorate has shifted over four years, with heated opposition to the Iraq War and Bush in general. Voter
registration reflects that: In November 2004, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by about 63,000. This month,
a registration surge in advance of the state's May 20 mail-ballot primary helped swell the Democrats' advantage to 190,000 voters.
The Portland speech expanded on an issue McCain has stressed throughout the campaign, before friendly and skeptical audiences
alike. In it, he laid out his targets for carbon emission reduction: 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, compared to the 80 percent
reduction proposed by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In a veiled shot at Bush, he promised to lead the world in the
effort.
"I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears," McCain said. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without
serious action on serious challenges."
Clinton and Obama both stressed energy policy in trips to Oregon last week, and both criticized McCain's remarks on
Monday for not going far enough.
"While Sen. McCain's proposals may be improvement on President Bush's, that's not saying much," Clinton said in a statement her
campaign released.
Obama ripped McCain for his vote on a 2005 bill that contained incentives for renewable energy development. "It is truly breathtaking
for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean
energy," Obama said in a statement.
McCain will keep up the environmental theme Tuesday with a round-table discussion in a suburb of Seattle. Pollster Tim Hibbitts said
the global warming pitch probably won't get him "on the green side" of Obama or Clinton among environment-first voters
but could help "take the edge off" among voters concerned with the environment but more focused on other issues.
39
Swing voters perceive the plan as a moderate move by the GOP- key to McCain victory
Vlahos, July 3, 2008
(Kelley Beaucar, “Moderates Could Find It Difficult to Ride McCain’s Coattails”,
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/03/mcmoderates-coattails/
For John McCain, a victory in November could come at a steep price. Throughout his campaign, the
presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been shifting to the right in an effort to woo the GOP’s
wobbly conservative base. But that shift could make it harder for Republicans to win or hang on to House and
Senate seats in key swing districts this fall.
McCain longtime image of a moderate “maverick” who championed campaign finance reform, the environment
and pork-barrel busting could be a big help in tight congressional races where independent and swing voters
could make or break the election.
But if he continues to shift right to appeal to those base voters who are skeptical of him, he may not be welcome in those districts where he has the strongest role to play. “He is right now being
groomed by many in the Republican Party to create his conservative bona fides, and in doing so he may be pushing away some of the moderate vote that made him so attractive in the primary
and caucus races,” said Matt Towery, who has worked in Republican campaigns and now runs the Insider Advantage polling company in Georgia. “If that’s beginning to develop,” Towery
warned, “the coattails may be far and few between.” McCain’s touch-and-go relationship with the GOP’s conservative base is no secret. In a FOXNews/Opinion Dynamics poll in June, only 54
percent of Republicans surveyed said they were satisfied with their choice for president this year, compared to 78 percent of Democrats who said they were satisfied with Barack Obama.
McCain’s recent turnaround on the issue of offshore oil drilling and his support for an amendment to California’s constitution barring same-sex marriages may appeal to conservative voters, but
And while McCain needs conservatives to turn out and vote for him on
those positions risk turning off moderate voters in swing districts.
Election Day, the Republicans most needing his help this year are moderates from mixed districts who rely
on crossover votes and independents to win. For instance, political analysts say McCain could potentially help former Pennsylvania Rep. Melissa
Hart, a Republican who was upset by Democrat Jason Altmire in 2006 in her Democratic-trending suburban Pittsburgh district.
The problem for McCain, said Larry Ceisler, a Democratic consultant in Pennsylvania, is he “really hasn’t
done anything to show these moderate and independents that he is one of them.” However, Ceisler noted,
“McCain is certainly an improvement over Bush and (former Sen. Rick) Santorum, so I think he will create a
somewhat better environment” for swing voters than in the 2006 midterm, when Republicans lost four seats in
Pennsylvania.
GREEN ISSUES WILL BE VITAL TO SWING THE ELECTION IN MCCAIN’S DIRECTION

NPR 5-13-2008
HORSLEY: By wrapping himself in the fleece vest of environmentalism, McCain hopes to reach out to that constituency. Today, he
repeated his pledge to combat greenhouse gases with a cap-and-trade system. His plan is similar to those proposed by Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton, albeit with less stringent limits on carbon pollution. McCain's green campaign this week is aimed squarely at
the moderate voters that University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato says he needs. Mr. LARRY SABATO (University
of Virginia): McCain simply cannot win in November if he can't consolidate the center and win the swing independents who
determine every presidential election. His task is tough enough because of President Bush's unpopularity, the unpopularity of the
Iraq war, and the tanking of the economy. If he gets too identified with the right wing of his own party, then he's going to alienate
those swing independents and he'll lose the election. HORSLEY: McCain is closely identified with President Bush, in his support for
the Iraq war and an economic policy built on tax cuts. But Sabato says so far that hasn't been the drag on his campaign that it might
be. Mr. SABATO: Right now he has that maverick image and he's running about 20 to 25 points better than the Republican brand. He's
also running 20 to 25 points better than George W. Bush. The Democrats job is to make sure that doesn't continue. McCain's job is to
make sure that it does. HORSLEY: The environment is one area where McCain can put some daylight between his views and
President Bush's. Speaking in Portland, Oregon yesterday, McCain subtly criticized the president for not doing more to combat
global warming.
40

McCain’s environmental record allows him to capitalize on the plan- win over swing voters
FRONTRUNNER 4-7-2008
The New York Post (4/7, Campanile, 648K) reports that some observers say that Sen. John McCain "could be
the strongest GOP presidential candidate in decades on so-called green issues," and "once quipped: 'Nature is
not a liberal plot.' But critics claim McCain's environmental record is worse than his rhetoric. They charge he
sabotaged his own Climate Change bill by inserting a provision promoting nuclear power. The League of
Conservation Voters gave McCain a zero rating for missing votes on 15 key environmental tallies while
campaigning last year. His lifetime rating since entering Congress is 24 - a big, fat F. ... Still, McCain's
environmental record is good enough to win over moderate, eco-friendly swing voters, said campaign adviser
Charlie Black."
Plan changes the perception of the Republican brand- key to McCain victory
NPR, june 24, 2008
(“ Mccain advisor: GOP must address climate change”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91850623)
The Republican brand needs some "freshening up" if the party is going to appeal to voters in swing
states, says Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. "We now have a candidate in John McCain who is viewed as
independent-minded and taking different approaches, who is a little on the leading edge of some of the
emerging issues, like energy issues and climate change," Pawlenty, the national co-chairman of McCain's
presidential campaign, tells NPR's Michele Norris. Pawlenty says creative thinking on such issues will help
the Republican Party seem more modern.
Plan allows McCain to undercut Democrats as the green party- key to election
WHITE HOUSE BULLETIN 4-7-2008
McCain Could Undercut Democrats' Advantage On The Environment The White House Bulletin April 7, 2008 Monday
Newsweek (4/14, Adler, 3.12M), in its cover story, reports, "The environment, which typically ranks somewhere around 'regulatory
reform' among voters' concerns, has emerged as a leading issue in this election cycle; last year more than three voters in 10 said they
would take a candidate's green credentials into account, according to pollster John Zogby, up from just 11 percent in 2005." According
to Newsweek, many environmentalists "breathed a sigh of relief when McCain locked up his party's nomination, but he was widely
viewed as the most acceptable of the major GOP contenders." McCain "is an appealing figure to some environmentalists. ... So,
ironically, McCain -- with a voting record that would put him at the bottom of the heap among Democrats -- is sometimes perceived as
more passionate about the environment than his Democratic opponents, whose objectively much stronger records are viewed as a
matter of party orthodoxy."
41
LINK- ALT ENERGIES- INDEPENDENTS
Plan boosts McCain’s popularity with independents

Meckler, May 12, 2008
(Laura, Stephen Power, “McCain Woos Democrats on Environment”, The Wall Street Journal,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1476903241&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQ
D&TS=1215292309&clientId=1566)
After spending several weeks staking out positions on taxes, Iraq and judges designed to appeal to
conservatives, John McCain is shifting his attention to independents and Democrats, with proposals on
climate change. The Republican presidential candidate also is using his stance on energy and the
environment to draw distinctions between himself and President Bush, whose popularity is at a near-record
low. Sen. McCain's support of regulating global-warming gases like carbon dioxide -- the biggest environmental
issue before Congress -- more closely resembles the stance of his Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton, though he disagrees with them on how such regulations should be structured. Besides
championing legislation to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, Sen. McCain has opposed the administration's
call to open parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, citing the refuge as a natural
treasure on par with the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon in his home state of Arizona. In a campaign
appearance last week, Sen. McCain said he "was once honored" that former Interior secretary and Arizona Gov.
Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, "said that I was the Grand Canyon's best friend. I don't know if he still believes that,
but he said it once." Sen. McCain also has supported California's efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions,
in contrast to the Bush administration, which in December blocked the state's bid to regulate such emissions
from cars. The McCain campaign believes his position will make him competitive in California, a Democratic
stronghold, and with independent voters across the country. In a sign of Sen. McCain's potential appeal to
environmentally conscious voters, a top official at the Sierra Club, one of the nation's most influential
environmental groups, said the group might not endorse any candidate for president. The group endorsed
Democrats in six of the past seven presidential elections; it declined to endorse a candidate in 1988. As for
greenhouse gases, Sen. McCain and many Democrats believe the U.S. should force industry to reduce
emissions through binding caps. President Bush and many Republicans warn that binding targets could
put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage against fast-growing countries, such as China, that haven't
committed to emissions reductions. Sen. McCain has co-sponsored legislation that seeks to reduce global-
warming gases by creating a "cap and trade" system in which companies would buy and sell what amount to
permits to emit greenhouse gases.
42
LINK- ALT ENERGIES- INDEPENDENTS
Climate change legislation sways independents towards McCain

The Associated Press, July 3, 2008
(“Candidates courting the center”, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmQEONZ9sodACWl8gD-8P_fRAxyAD91MAA000)
MCCAIN The four-term Arizona senator is trying to distance himself from the unpopular President Bush and,
seemingly, the Republican Party itself. He emphasizes bipartisanship — and his record of reaching across the
aisle to work with Democrats — while talking up two subjects that resonate strongly with voters of all stripes.
Those are efforts to curb global warming and the need to free the country from its dependence on foreign oil.
At the same time, he's also emphasizing some of his policies that appeal to independents and moderates.
For example, speaking to Hispanic leaders last week, McCain focused largely on comprehensive immigration
reform, pledging to make a broad overhaul of the immigration system his "top priority." He wants a temporary
worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants; he mentioned secure
borders largely in passing and rejected the enforcement-only approach the far right advocates.
His television advertisements don't mention that he's a Republican. Two of his commercials emphasize fighting
global warming and achieving energy security. One says: "A comprehensive bipartisan plan to lower prices at
the pump, reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic drilling, and champion energy alternatives for
better choices and lower costs." Another says: "McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on
global warming, five years ago" and praises "a plan that will help grow our economy and protect our
environment."
43
LINK- ALT ENERGIES- CHRISTIAN RIGHT
Plan restores the GOP’s credibility over energy policy- boosts Christian right turn out
Kuhnhenn, June 17, 2008
(Jim, “McCain ad puts distance with Bush on environment”, The Associated Press, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYpS6G-fl1u-
yS2zifc0FsveuPGwD91C36MG0)
SCRIPT: Announcer: "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming, five years ago. Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions. A
plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment. Reform. Prosperity. Peace. John McCain." McCain: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message."
KEY IMAGES: Jarring music and a quick black and white succession of video images — heavy traffic, smokestacks belching smoke, glaciers collapsing into the ocean, capped by a color clip
"McCain climate views clash with GOP."
of the sun setting. McCain then appears on screen behind a microphone above a superimposed newspaper headline:
The music softens amid images of windmills, water turbines and solar panels. The ad concludes with McCain
outdoors, pines and mountains behind him as a breeze ruffles his untucked shirt.
ANALYSIS: The ad is built on a foundation of five central words: " ... stood up to the president." Democrats
have been trying to portray the Republican presidential candidate as an extension of President Bush. McCain
and the Bush administration have clashed over how to control greenhouse emissions. And with McCain
embracing Bush's current policies on the Iraq war and tax cuts, the issue of climate change gives him a chance
to distance himself from the unpopular president. McCain has favored a plan that would see greenhouse
gas emissions cut by 60 percent by 2050 and supports more nuclear power.
But the ad aired a day after McCain's announcement Monday that, like Bush, he favors lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. The announcement, a reversal from his position in his
first presidential campaign in 2000, when he said he favored the ban, upset environmental groups.
McCain also had indicated he was open to a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, but on Tuesday criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for demanding the same thing. The Democratic
National Committee criticized McCain's environmental record, noting his policy changes and some votes against tax credits for alternate energy sources.This is the second ad in McCain's
expanded general election media campaign. The first described his family's tradition of military service and his more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. If there is a narrative in the
ads it is to establish his biography as a war hero and independent politician.
McCain currently has the airwaves to himself. Obama has yet to begin broadcasting his general election themes. McCain is spending at least $2 million a week on the ads, a modest expenditure
McCain often has said he aspires to be as great a conservationist as his role model and
that focuses on key battleground states.
fellow Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. While the ad sought to assure independent and environmentally
conscious voters, global warming also stands as an important issue with the evangelical and Christian
conservative voters McCain is trying to court.
44
LINK- ALT ENERGIES- WESTERN STATES
Plan steals key Western states from Obama- guarantees McCain win
Kiely, June 25, 2008
(Kathy, “Obama aims to wrest West from GOP”, USA TODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-24-Obama_N.htm)
To deliver messages on the need for energy savings, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain
this week are choosing the same unlikely backdrop — this 24/7 playground of air-conditioned casinos and
neon-lit desert skies. On Tuesday, Obama promised "a very different vision of what this country can and should
achieve on energy." McCain arrives Wednesday to discuss his plans for renewable fuels at the University of
Nevada-Las Vegas campus. Why preach conservation in a city that celebrates excess? The decision may have
had less to do with the candidates' messages than with their electoral strategies. "It's a sign that the electoral
map is very competitive," said Brian Krolicki, Nevada's lieutenant governor and a McCain supporter. "Every
state counts." Obama's visit is part of a strategy to score upset victories in the traditionally Republican
but independent-minded region that lies between California and the Rocky Mountains. "The winning-
the-West strategy," as Danny Thompson, head of the Nevada AFL-CIO, called it, could help Obama win
overall even if he falls short in some of the industrial battleground states. In Pennsylvania, for example, Hillary Rodham
Clinton beat Obama decisively during the primaries. Clinton won, but much more narrowly, in Nevada and New Mexico — both of which Obama visited this week.
Together with Colorado, the states represent a combined 19 electoral votes, just one fewer than Ohio, the state that decided the 2004 presidential election. President
Bush won all three Western states that year, but by close margins. Since then, Democrats have scored gains in gubernatorial, congressional and state legislative races.
"These states are becoming more and more Democratic," says Joel Kotkin, a California-based scholar who
studies the nation's demographic trends. On paper, this should be McCain country. The Republican has represented
neighboring Arizona for more than 25 years in Congress and, as Obama himself acknowledged Monday, "can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party
in the past."
45
LINK- ENERGY INCENTIVES- GOP
Market based energy incentives unify the GOP- key to turnout

Kady, May 27, 2008
(Martin, “On global warming, it’s McCain v. GOP”, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10637.html)
John McCain’s tempestuous relationship with his own party will be on full display when the Senate dives into a
major global warming debate next week.The question facing Senate Republicans: Are they ready to embrace
their presidential nominee’s more liberal ideas for climate change ideas like a cap-and-trade system, or will they
stick to the conservative, hands-off approach to global warming backed by President Bush?It’s a debate that
may very well divide Senate Republicans and show voters yet another fissure in an already beleaguered party.
Democrats don’t seem eager to offer a smooth path toward any bipartisan compromise that would give McCain
political cover on the issue, and a key procedural vote has already been scheduled for June 2.On global warming
and other issues, McCain’s office is engaged in an intensive behind-the-scenes message coordination effort with
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), whose press office holds daily phone calls to map out the message of the day. Every Tuesday, McCain’s senior advisers
meet with GOP senators at the National Republican Senatorial Committee to chart their agenda. And about once a week, McCain himself chats with McConnell.
Republicans say the task of unifying GOP senators with McCain is akin to herding cats — and it points to the party’s larger national problem with presenting a unified
message. “Have you noticed it’s hard to coordinate anything with Sen. McCain?” asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I don’t know if we can ever sing off the same
sheet of music, but in terms of subject matter, we are trying to coordinate and do some of the Greek chorus stuff with him.”Last week, a significant number of Senate
Republicans bucked Bush by voting both to override his veto of the Farm Bill and to support a GI Bill introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). McCain didn’t vote, but he
made it clear that he agreed with Bush’s positions on both measures.
the debate on a bipartisan climate change bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and
By contrast,
John Warner (R-Va.) offers McCain a chance to stake out a position different from the president’s and see if his
party will follow. The catch is that many Republicans are uncomfortable with McCain’s talk of a cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon
emissions. “John McCain was into climate change before it was cool,” Graham said. “But that’s the one issue where the majority of the conference
may go the other way.” Conservatives hope that McCain will back a more market-based approach rather than the
government mandates on carbon emissions that are part of the central Senate proposal. “We’re
starting to see a coming together on
energy,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “Hopefully, he can help us find a position between Warner-Lieberman
and where we are as conservatives.” But in this internal debate, one can already see a distinct change in the
Republican outlook — conservatives are trying to figure out legislative options on global warming rather
than simply playing defense and mocking environmentalists on the topic. The global warming deniers have
taken a back seat. “You’ve already seen the shift on energy and climate change,” said one GOP Senate aide.
“You’re not going to see tax breaks for oil companies. You’ll see us talking more about climate change,
where we didn’t before.” If the votes on the GI Bill and the Farm Bill were setbacks for both McCain and Bush, there have been other
areas where McCain’s campaign has clearly been able to influence Senate Republican actions. In a separately choreographed effort, McCain’s
campaign coordinated a Republican Senate assault on Barack Obama’s proposal to raise capital gains taxes.
46
LINK- ENVIRONMENT- CALIFORNIA
McCain’s environmental policies have cost him California- plan steals these votes and the election from
Obama
Murdock, June 24, 2008
(Paul, “McCain’s Energy Plan Could Cost Him California But Help Elsewhere”, http://blogs.forbes.com/trailwatch/2008/06/mccains-energy.html)
It has been twenty years since George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in California, the last time that the
Golden State supported a Republican in the general election. Nevertheless, John McCain has claimed that
California’s 55 electoral votes could be in play this November. If last week is a clue, he’s wrong. On Tuesday,
the candidate advanced a proposal rooted in his argument for states’ rights (similar to his gay marriage
rationale), that calls for an end to the moratorium on the construction of offshore oil platforms. While McCain is
opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, he has cited the production shortage in the United States as justification for new drilling projects
That move may have cost McCain California,
along America’s coastline, including the 1,100-mile stretch of Pacific Ocean along California.
by alienating independents, environmentalists and, perhaps, uncommitted supporters of Hillary Clinton.
McCain’s proposal is also a break from policies preferred by his biggest political asset in the state, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. While California drivers—who
are accustomed to paying the highest gas prices in the continental U.S.—may be ready for a break at the pumps, the idea of a coastline littered with oil derricks is a
tough one for Californians to like. Their spectacular coastline is not only a refuge for the state’s residents; it is also a draw to millions of tourists. In contrast, Barack
Obama’s plan to tax windfall oil profits and use the money on renewable energy may appeal to coastal
residents. Neither plan, however, is likely to last beyond November, nor would they make much of a difference
in gas prices, according to Forbes’ Robert Lenzner. Were McCain to win California, the Forbes Interactive
Electoral Map shows that he would almost certainly win the White House, even if Barack Obama managed
to take several key swing states. McCain has used his green credentials to distance himself from the
unpopular (and oil-friendly) Bush administration. Despite the inclusion of some green proposals in McCain’s
policy statement—including “clean” coal, wind, solar and nuclear power—an extended campaign battle over
drilling in pristine places could make it easy for Obama to draw comparisons between McCain and Bush. Such
comparisons could imperil McCain’s relationship with the 17% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters who have said
they will vote for him in the fall.
47
**INTERNAL LINKS**
48
ENERGY ISSUES- KEY TO ELECTION

GREEN ENERGY IS A VITAL ISSUE FOR ALL VOTERS AND KEY SWING VOTES – DEMOCRATS HOLD
MOMENTUM ON THE ISSUE NOW
US NEWSWIRE 11-27-2007
With everyone paying attention to environmental issues -- even BP and WalMart are in the act -- it's no surprise that people plan to
take the planet into consideration when choosing their president. Over 30,000 adults across the US were recently surveyed in the
new Earthsense Eco-Insights Survey that profiles attitudes about global and national issues, candidates, green products, eco-friendly
companies and purchase intent. Concern about energy prices and the environment resonates with more than half of all voters who
indicate that it will have an extremely or strong impact on their vote in the upcoming presidential primaries. The issue is
particularly salient among Democrats, especially likely John Edwards and Bill Richardson voters. More so than most other issues, the
environment is politicized across party lines. Swing voters place a level of importance on the issue more similar to registered
Democrats whose voting intentions are more firm; the importance of the issue for Republican voters lags by comparison.
Energy issues key to the election- number one issue for voters
Raum, June 23, 2008
(Tom, “Gas at $4 brings promises, pandering” , The Associated Press, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isJU4OyzZglXxAWlzkvmnslNP3-
wD91FUOI00)
two rival filling-station owners across the highway in long-bygone price wars, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama
and Republican Sen. John McCain keep putting up flashy signs and offering new incentives in hopes of
attracting customers battered by $4 gas prices. McCain is offering a summer break from the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax, and holding out the
promise of more offshore drilling to help you drive more cheaply to the beach. He wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors to generate electricity. On Monday, he
proposed a $300 million government prize to anyone who can develop a superior battery to power cars of the future. He may even wash your windows. If you pull into
the Obama station, he'll promise you cash back from the windfall-profits tax he plans to slap on Big Oil. Check the tires? How about promises to go after oil-market
speculators who help drive up prices as well as big subsidies for solar, wind, ethanol and other alternative-energy projects? The Illinois senator likens his energy
Oil and gas prices that have doubled in the past year have squeezed aside the war
package to the Kennedy-era space program.
in Iraq as the No. 1 issue this election year and both parties are blaming each other for the price spike — and
for apparent congressional paralysis. Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their
campaigns and have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on
Capitol Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the
nation's addiction to foreign oil. This
debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches. In a USA Today-
Gallup Poll released Monday, nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or
extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the economy as the top
issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points.
Yet energy experts and economists — and even some of the candidates' own advisers — say none of their signature proposals will have any impact on $4 gasoline or
$130 a barrel oil in the near term, or even the intermediate term. Is it open season for pandering?
49
ENERGY ISSUES- KEY TO ELECTION
Energy key to election

Adler, professor of law, Case Western Law, June 18, 2008
(Jonathan H., “Running on Half a Tank McCain outlines an inconsistent energy policy”, The National Review Online,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjhhMTA4NzQ2YTQ4YjZkNzI0YzYyNmVhOThlM2I3ODA)
As gasoline prices rise above $4 per gallon, with the potential to go even higher, energy policy should be a
major focus in the 2008 campaign. Seeking to capture the issue, John McCain went to Houston, America’s
“oil capital,” to deliver the first in a series of speeches outlining his energy agenda. Calling for more domestic
development and energy conservation, McCain sought to distance himself from both Barrack Obama and the
Bush administration. In this he may have been successful, but he failed to outline a coherent and non-
contradictory approach to energy.
50
ENVIRONMENT ISSUES- KEY TO ELECTION
Environment vital issue in close race

Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA) 3/25/2K4
As George Bush and John Kerry circle each other warily in the early days of the presidential campaign,
focusing mainly on war and economic recovery, there's another issue that could make the key difference in a
close race.
It's the environment. There are dramatic differences in tone and approach between the presumptive candidates here. As a result, the issue is more
politically significant than it has been since former Interior Secretary James Watt's pyrotechnic presence early in the Reagan administration 20 years ago.
While the environment is seldom at the top of voters' concerns, it can significantly change the balance
in a tight race - as Ralph Nader and the Green Party showed four years ago. And while national security
and the economy are twin gorillas in the campaign, both sides know that environmental protection ranks high
among American values from the grass roots on up - including among most Republicans, according to public opinion
surveys.
In a confidential memo to elected Republican leaders last year, GOP pollster Frank Luntz warned that
environmental issues are the Republicans' weak spot.As a result, wrote Mr. Luntz, "Not only do we risk
losing the swing vote, but our suburban female base could abandon us as well." That Mr. Bush and Vice president Dick
Cheney are both former oilmen does not help the administration's image here.
51
ECONOMIC ISSUES- KEY TO ELECTION
Voters are deciding on economic issues- not national security concerns

Kohut, June 1, 2008
(Andrew, “The Iraq Challenge” The New York Times, http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/the-iraq-challenge/?th&emc=th)
It turns out that Iraq is not the pivotal campaign issue that it seemed to be less than a year ago. Indeed, the war
is no longer the top concern among voters. A lot has changed with respect to Iraq in a relatively short period
of time period. Voters have come to feel better about the way the war is going, and with American casualties
declining, there is more optimism about our efforts there. While most Americans still believe the war was a
mistake, the percentages of people who think the war is going badly or believe that the United States is losing
ground against the insurgents has decreased compared with a year ago. In short, while no less important, Iraq is
a somewhat less pressing issue. At the same time concerns about the economy — and prices specifically —
have soared. In almost all rankings of issues in national opinion polls, the economy is No. 1 and Iraq is No.
2.
52
NATIONAL SECURITY- KEY TO GOP
National security k GOP win

Barabak, June 30, 2008
(Mark, “In travels, McCain attempts to frame campaign issues. Itinerary at odds with his political needs, analysts say”,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/30/in_travels_mccain_attempts_to_frame_campaign_issues?mode=PF)
The biggest part might be guilt by association. Many blame President Bush for the tough economic times and
assume McCain will continue his policies, with the same results. Whatever the reason, analysts say, those
underlying attitudes make it all the more important for McCain to shift the debate. "If people are voting on
economics, they're going to vote Democratic," said Floyd Ciruli, a nonpartisan pollster in Colorado, a state both
candidates are targeting. "To win, Republicans have to focus this election on national security."
McCain's greatest political strength has always been his reputation as someone willing to go his own way when
principle demands. He started running for president in 2008 as a conventional candidate and faltered. He
reverted to a more freewheeling form and rallied to win the GOP nomination.
53
A2- NATIONAL SECURITY KEY ELECTION
National security isn’t key to the election- energy issues are

CBS News June 25, 2008
(“Voters split over candidates’ Iraq views”, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/25/politics/main4209511.shtml?source=related_story
"He's more experienced militarily," said Ann Burkes, a registered Democrat and retired third-grade teacher from
Broken Arrow, Okla. "And I don't know if I agree with stay-the-course (policy), but I think the good probably
outweighs the bad with him, experience-wise." Burkes illustrates the conflicted voter, one who is as likely to be
influenced by McCain's policy positions as by his personal biography as a former Navy pilot who spent more
than five years in a North Vietnamese prison. For McCain, there is a major complication. Not all those
voters who perceive him as stronger on Iraq say they will vote for him for president. Unlike the 2004
presidential contest, this is not shaping up as a national security election. Neither the war nor terrorism is
foremost in the public's mind. The economy and energy prices are the pre-eminent issues of the day. And on
those, Obama has the edge.
54
CHRISTIAN RIGHT- KEY TO ELECTION
Christian right key to McCain victory

Elliott, June 26, 2008
(Philip, “Faithful in pews might not be voters in November”, The Associated Press,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/26/faithful_in_pews_might_not_be_voters_in_november?mode=PF)
If Christian conservatives stay on the sidelines during the fall campaign, presidential hopeful John
McCain probably stays in the Senate. Christian conservatives provided much of the on-the-ground, door-to-
door activity for President Bush's 2004 re-election in Ohio and in other swing states. Without them, the less
organized and lower-profile McCain campaign is likely to struggle to replicate Bush's success. And so far,
there's been scant sign that the Republican nominee-in-waiting is making inroads among these fervent believers.
"I don't know that McCain's campaign realizes they cannot win without evangelicals," said David Domke, a
professor of communication at the University of Washington who studies religion and politics. "What you see
with McCain is just a real struggle to find his footing with evangelicals." Family groups in Ohio outlined their doubts about the
Arizona senator in a meeting with McCain's advisers last weekend. They're concerned about his record on abortion rights and on campaign finance laws that they
believe limited their ability to criticize candidates who are pro-choice on abortion. "There's certainly a little reservation about Mr. McCain. I think the VP choice is
going to be important," said Chris Long, president of the Ohio Christian Alliance. "If they choose a conservative for the VP, that will help his campaign. It would go a
long way of sending a positive message to evangelicals." McCain was in Ohio Thursday for a public town hall meeting with undecided voters, and for a private
fundraiser. While in the Cincinnati area, he also met behind closed doors with conservative activists, some of whom also attended the private session last weekend.
Marlys Popma, McCain's director of evangelical outreach, was one of two aides who met with the forum last weekend and reminded them of McCain's record
supporting school choice while opposing abortion rights and Internet pornography. She said the campaign understands the interest in the vice presidential nominee, but
she noted that McCain "is the one who is going to be nominating judges. He's going to be the one who is signing or not signing bills." "John McCain is their guy,"
Popma said. "John McCain's record is what will bring individuals to him. I think there are some people out there who do not know John McCain's record."
McCain's senior aides try to downplay the fissure with this part of the GOP's base. They say their internal polling data
suggests McCain has the support of three-quarters of white evangelicals in swing states, slightly less than Bush finished with. They also stress that McCain is against
abortion rights, even if it's not the centerpiece of his campaign.
55
CHRISTIAN RIGHT- KEY TO ELECTION

Turnout of Christian voters will determine the election
Sanner, June 30, 2008
(Ann, The Associated Press, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD91HK8FO0)
Christian leaders, key to President Bush in 2004, might turn away from McCain in 2008 ... Obama, McCain say
they disagree with Supreme Court decision outlawing death penalty for child rapists Faithful might not be
voters in November. If Christian conservatives stay on the sidelines during the fall campaign, presidential
hopeful John McCain probably stays in the Senate. Christian conservatives provided much of the on-the-
ground, door-to-door activity for President Bush's 2004 re-election in Ohio and in other swing states. Without
them, the less-organized and lower-profile McCain campaign is likely to struggle to replicate Bush's
success. And so far, there's been scant sign that the Republican nominee-in-waiting is making inroads among
these fervent believers. "I don't know that McCain's campaign realizes they cannot win without
evangelicals," said David Domke, a professor of communication at the University of Washington who studies
religion and politics. "What you see with McCain is just a real struggle to find his footing with
evangelicals." Family groups in Ohio outlined their doubts about the Arizona senator in a meeting with McCain's advisers last weekend. They're concerned
about his record on abortion rights and on campaign finance laws that they believe limited their ability to criticize candidates who are pro-choice on abortion.
"There's certainly a little reservation about Mr. McCain. I think the VP choice is going to be important," said Chris Long, president of
the Ohio Christian Alliance. "If they choose a conservative for the VP, that will help his campaign. It would go a long way of sending a positive message to
evangelicals." Marlys Popma, McCain's director of evangelical outreach, was one of two aides who met with the forum and reminded them of McCain's record
supporting school choice while opposing abortion rights and Internet pornography. She said the campaign understands the interest in the vice presidential nominee, but
she noted that McCain "is the one who is going to be nominating judges. He's going to be the one who is signing or not signing bills."
56
INDEPENDENTS- KEY TO ELECTION

Independent voters can swing the election
Jacobs, May 17, 2008
(Jeremy P., “Year of the Independent Voter”, The Washington Independent, http://washingtonindependent.com/view/year-of-the)
When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination last week, the focus of both
his and Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential campaigns shifted to general election strategies.
Unsurprisingly, both are targeting independent voters, which these candidates appealed to this primary season --
McCain, with his almost trademarked maverick persona, and Obama, with his post-partisan message of unity
and hope. Independent voters could be pivotal in November. While membership in traditional parties has
weakened in recent decades, independent voters increased -- the number of people registering as "unaffiliated" or "other" since 1987
jumped from 16 percent to 24 percent. For example, in Florida, an important battleground state, the number of "other" voters has more than quadrupled, surpassing 20
percent of the electorate. In another key state, California, since 1988 the percentage of voters "declin[ing] to state" a party preference rose nearly 8 percentage points --
to almost 18 percent. (Matt
Mahurin) The looming battle between McCain and Obama for independent voters is
evident in polling. On Wednesday, Gallup released a poll that showed McCain and Obama share nearly equal
support among independents -- 44 percent for Obama and 42 percent for McCain. So this election would
ultimately be about who attracts the most independent voters. Polling also reveals that McCain and Obama both
satisfy what independents are looking for in a candidate - personal values, military judgment, willingness to
work with the opposing party and managerial competence. So while the national environment may favor
Democrats, this suggests that McCain still has a fighting chance to win over these important voters. "The vital
political center is back this year after it was on sabbatical in 2004,” said John Zogby, the eponymous
pollster. "The middle, mostly represented by independents, is up for grabs. And it will be the swing vote in
the election."
Independents will determine the election- swamp base turnout

(Jeremy P., “Year of the Independent Voter”, The Washington Independent,
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/year-of-the)
This also suggests that even in a political environment where Democratic voter turnout is soaring and the GOP
is losing congressional seats in districts it has held for years, if McCain can prove he is a competent manager, he
could win over independents crucial in a close election.
57
INDEPENDENTS- KEY TO ELECTION
Independent voters key to McCain victory

Feldmann, June 19, 2008
(Linda, “Battle for independent voters begins”, Christian Science Monitor,
https://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4093840883&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1
&resultsUrlKey=29_T4093840886&cisb=22_T4093840885&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7945&docNo=19)
The independent vote is especially important for McCain in the fall, because self-identified Democrats now
outnumber Republicans. So far, both Obama and McCain have faced challenges in consolidating their party
bases behind them, but if Obama succeeds in winning over most Clinton supporters, then McCain will have to
take the lion's share of the independents. The new Quinnipiac polls add to McCain's challenge. His deficit in
Florida, at least in the Quinnipiac poll, despite a healthy lead there in other major polls, shows that he cannot
take Republican-leaning Florida for granted in November. And it demonstrates the potentially risky nature of his
changed position toward opposing the federal ban on off-shore drilling. In Florida, it has been an article of faith
that a politician could not be elected statewide if he or she supported drilling, which is seen as a potential
environmental hazard. The question is whether the soaring price of gas now outweighs the environmental
concerns of Floridians. "This is a pro-environment state, but it's also a state with a lot of people on fixed
incomes," says Susan MacManus, a political scientist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. "The problem
with gas prices is that every day it's reinforced in voter's minds. Every gas station sign they pass, they look up
and get mad."
58
A2- INDEPENDENTS KEY TO ELECTION
Independents not key- won’t turn out

(Jeremy P., “Year of the Independent Voter”, The Washington Independent, http://washingtonindependent.com/view/year-of-the)
In addition, the influence of independent voters can be minimal. Experts say independent voters are often the
least politically active and, consequently, tend not to vote. Most of the uninformed independent voters tend
not to make a rational, personal decision on which candidate to vote for, but are instead swept up into national
trends. A growing yet still small class of informed independent voters, it appears, behaves the same way. One problem that often arises in discussing independents is
how large a percentage they are of the electorate. The American National Election Studies (ANES), a group that surveys voters across the country every election year,
measures voter partisanship by asking if voters to rank their partisanship on a seven-point scale from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. On this scale, 26
percent said they were "moderates" in 2004, a four point jump from 2002. But this doesn't accurately identify independent voters, said Candice Nelson, a political
scientist at American University and co-author of "The Myth of the Independent Voter." Two questions must be used to determined partisanship, Nelson said. First,
respondents should be asked if they consider themselves a Democrat, Republican or independent. Nelson has found that roughly 30 percent will say they are
independents. But then a second question asks if the respondent considers him or herself an independent, does he or she lean toward one party. This greatly reduces the
number of independents, for Nelson has found that "leaners toward a political party act in practice just like party members."
True or "hard" independents typically make up just 10 percent of the electorate, according to ANES. They tend
to be the "least interested in politics," Nelson said, "and the least likely to vote."
59
HISPANIC VOTE- KEY TO ELECTION
Hispanic vote will determine the election

Bunis, june 25, 2008
(Dena, “Both prsidential candidates have work to do to win Latino Vote”, http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hispanic-mccain-obama-2077306-latino-
vote)
Barack Obama and John McCain are coveting the ever-growing Latino vote and both have obstacles to
overcome to win over these communities. Orange County Hispanics have some advice for the presumptive presidential candidates — talk to us up
close and personal and resist the urge to pander. McCain's California Latino Chairman Mario Rodriquez of San Clemente says he knows his candidate has to appeal to
Hispanics one-on-one and that the candidate has to get beyond the intense anti-immigrant rhetoric that he concedes some in the GOP have engaged in. And Norma
Garcia Guillen, a Santa Ana lawyer who is president of the Hispanic Bar Association, believes once Latinos learn about Barack Obama's support for driver's licenses for
all regardless of their immigration status and that he's supported making it easier for children of illegal immigrants to get a college education that they'll be in his corner.
Both camps say they are ramping up their efforts to win the Latino vote with more Hispanic staff, Spanish-language ads and Web
sites. But why? For years, political experts have talked about the promise of the Latino vote. So far low Hispanic turnout has belied those predictions. But this year,
the Latino vote could make a difference, especially in some key Western and Southwestern states
experts insist,
that up to now haven't been considered battlegrounds. "Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico will be critical
states,'' says Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials. Both
candidates will speak on Saturday at NALEO's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. Vargas said McCain won
the Florida primary because of the Hispanic vote and that vote could make the difference in November in that
battleground state. President Clinton carried Arizona in 1996, he said, because he had 80 percent of the Hispanic
vote. It's calculus like that that has both campaigns determined to win over this segment of the electorate.
60
WESTERN STATES- KEY TO ELECTION
Plan swings key Western states towards McCain

Hamby, May 12, 2008
(Peter, “McCain appeals to independent voters with environment pitch”, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/12/mccain.climate/index.html)
Kicking off a week-long push seen as outreach to independent and Democratic voters in crucial swing states,
John McCain on Monday delivered a speech outlining his vision for combating global warming. Sen. John McCain's
stance on global warming has put him at odds with some members of his party. "We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short
and the dangers are great," McCain said in Portland, Oregon. "The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."
McCain's commitment to fight global warming puts him at odds with some Republicans in Congress and with
the Bush administration, which has not made climate change a top priority. McCain's stance on carbon emissions places him closer
on the environmental spectrum to Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In his speech, the Arizona senator proposed capping carbon emissions incrementally, with
the goal of returning to 1990 emission levels by the year 2020 using a cap-and-trade program.
Such a program would cap greenhouse gas emissions at certain levels, and allow more efficient energy producers to sell off emissions permits to other, less efficient
companies, thereby creating market-wide incentives to reduce carbon output. McCain believes this system will encourage companies to seek out more efficient means
of production.
"As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. McCain has
McCain
also released a television ad in Oregon connecting climate change to increased destructive weather phenomena like hurricanes. The spot features a
voiceover saying, "It's not just a greenhouse gas issue, it's a national security issue." Video Watch the ad »
McCain will also speak about the environment on Tuesday in the neighboring state of Washington. Oregon and
Washington are among several potential battleground states in the West, including California, Colorado,
New Mexico and Nevada, where voters count the environment as a top issue.
61
WESTERN STATES- KEY TO ELECTION
Western states will determine the election

Crummy, June 30, 2008
(Karen E., “Western States May Swing”, The Denver Post, http://www.wfmj.com/Global/story.asp?S=8578011&nav=menu491_2_2)
One-third of Colorado registered voters are not affiliated with a political party. In New Mexico, Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly
200,000, yet the state routinely votes for the GOP presidential candidate. Montana voters don't even register with a party. Brimming with
individualistic, self-reliant, libertarian-leaning voters, the Rocky Mountain West will play a pivotal role in a
year when independent voters are expected to make or break John McCain's and Barack Obama's
presidential bids. Voters here in recent elections have backed individual candidates regardless of political
affiliation and have responded to messages emphasizing economic populism, fiscal discipline and the balance between individual rights and governmental
protections. Already, McCain is emphasizing his 22 years as a Western senator sensitive to the region's issues and personality, and touting his record of standing up to
both political parties. Obama is portraying himself as a reformer, someone who won't engage in Washington-style politics and is committed to taking the country in a
better direction. While voters have elected Democrats for state and federal offices in these states, those candidates have been moderates or conservatives, many of them
more comfortable in cowboy boots and a bolo tie than a Washington, D.C.-style suit. With the exception of former President Bill Clinton's election in 1992 (largely due
to the impact of third-party candidate Ross Perot) and re-election four years later, a Democratic candidate has won only one state in the eight-state region since Lyndon
"The question is whether the national Democrats are finally in a position to appeal to
Johnson nearly swept it in 1964.
Western voters," said Dan Kemmis, former speaker and minority leader of the Montana House of
Representatives and director of the O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West. "Can they address and be
sensitive to Western issues?" The stakes couldn't be higher. If just Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico had
62
INDUSTRIAL STATES- KEY TO ELECTION
Industrial states key to McCain win

Ward, June 30, 2008
(Andrew, “McCain’s plan to woo Obama supporters backfires”, The Financial Times,
http://en.afrik.com/article13969.html)
Mr Niles, a white, working-class Democrat who wears a “Bubba’s Army” T-shirt, is exactly the kind of voter
Mr McCain was courting on his trip to northern Ohio on Friday. On the day Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
staged their first joint rally, Mr McCain was trying to undermine their reconciliation by wooing Mrs
Clinton’s blue-collar base. His efforts appeared wasted on many. “We’re a working-class factory,” said 49-
year-old Greg George. “McCain calls himself moderate, but his party has been a disaster for working people
over the past eight years.” For every person who pledged loyalty to Mr Obama, however, there were two or
more who refused to comment. Many could have been McCain backers – recent polls showed him winning a
quarter of former Clinton supporters in Ohio. Jim Pearson, 58, was one of the few willing to voice support for
Mr McCain. “The UAW [the United Auto Workers’ Union, which endorsed Mr Obama] doesn’t speak for me,”
he said. “McCain has the experience. Obama doesn’t.” Attracting “Reagan Democrats” – white, working-class
voters who switched party to support Ronald Reagan in the 1980s – is an important part of the McCain strategy.
He hopes to appeal by focusing on national security and exploiting doubts about Mr Obama’s experience and
values. If he could win Ohio and Pennsylvania – two big, mostly white, working-class swing states – he
would have a foot in the Oval Office. But the latest polls show him trailing Mr Obama, both in those
states and nationally.
63
GOP CREDIBILITY- KEY TO ELECTION
GOP credibility is key to McCain win

Condon, July 3, 2008
(Scott, “Ideas Fest prognosticators say Bush could ruin GOP’s chances”, The Aspen Times,
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080703/NEWS/361189573/1077/COLUMN&parentprofile=-1)
George Bush could be as big a hurdle to John McCain’s presidential aspirations this year as he was in
2000, two political experts speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival said Wednesday. The unpopular Bush could
make it tough for McCain and other Republicans to attract votes from disgruntled voters in November, Stuart
Rothenberg and Ron Brownstein told an audience of about 50 political junkies. “The environment for the
Republicans is horrendous,” said Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report, a
renowned non-partisan newsletter. “The McCain brand is in good shape. The Republican brand stinks.”
Rothenberg and Brownstein were featured in a session called, “The Prognosticator’s View: What is Going To
Happen in November?” Brownstein agreed with the view that McCain, the likely Republican presidential
nominee, faces a tougher time in the race than Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee. About 65
percent of the U.S. public disapproves of Bush’s performance, Brownstein said. And there are few
examples in U.S. history where the party of such an unpopular sitting president wins the next presidential
election. “Disapprovers” simply don’t see voting for that party as a way to change direction, said
Brownstein, the political director of Atlantic Media Co. and a former national political correspondent for the
Los Angles Times. Exit polls show that only about 10 percent of voters who disapprove of a president’s
performance will vote for that party in the next presidential election, Brownstein said. McCain needs
about 30 percent of the voters who disapprove of Bush to win the election, according to the analyst. “He is
starting in a very deep hole,” Brownstein said.
64
**IMPACTS**
65
2NC SOLVES CASE- ALT ENERGY

SOLVES CASE – OBAMA HAS A MULTI-BILLION PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Wall Street Journal 6/17
(“How Obama, McCain Square Off on Energy” June 17, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121368261519680447.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
He would pay for that $15 billion-a-year plan with revenue collected from a separate proposal to
limit the emissions of greenhouse gases through a system of trading pollution permits that are
auctioned off to utilities and other producers of carbon dioxide. Mr. Obama, who compares his
energy ambitions to the Kennedy-era space program, would invest that $150 billion over 10
years in solar, wind and possibly nuclear alternatives to fossil fuels. Mr. Obama sees a better
chance now of pushing through the kind of major infrastructure programs that failed to make it in
the Clinton years. "The difference I would suggest is that there is a strong recognition in the
public mind that we can't continue on our current energy path," he tells the Journal. That's where
he may be right, in counting on support from a shift in public opinion in recent years toward
belief in dangers posed by human-induced global warning, and from the sharp pain caused by
high oil prices.
SOLVES CASE – OBAMA WILL PROMOTE BILLIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INVESTMENT
NEW YORK TIMES 5-19-2008
Senator Barack Obama's proposal that the federal government spend $150 billion over 10 years to
promote alternative energy and create several million jobs has found receptive ears in Silcon Valley.
Mr. Obama reiterated the investment plan on Wednesday in a speech in Michigan, but his words
reverberated in Silicon Valley, where the plan is being interpreted as a boon for the local economy.
As part of his proposal, Mr. Obama pledges that, if president, he will invest $10 billion a year in a
''Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund'' that would help finance companies
involved in alternative energy.
''This is great news,'' said Josh Green, an alternative energy investor at Mohr Davidow Ventures, a venture
firm. ''It would be an incredibly helpful thing for clean tech.''
Daniel M. Kammen, an adviser to Mr. Obama on energy issues and the director of the Renewable and
Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, has said alternative energy
investments could use support from the government if they are going to make a dent in the $3 trillion
global energy market. Alternative energy solutions now represent a tiny fraction of that market.
66
SOLVES CASE – ALT ENERGY

IMPACT – OBAMA – SOLVES ACTIVIST ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
KIPLINGER LETTER 5-23-2008
Regulation. Obama clearly favors a more activist approach, especially on workplace regs, food and drug
safety and the environment. McCain would be more cautious but not as hands-off as Bush has been.
OBAMA WILL CUT CARBON EMISSIONS

Kansas City 6/28
(“Key energy issues charge up presidential debate”
http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/683516.html)
On balance, Obama has put forward a more complete package of plans to meet the
nation’s energy-related challenges. He backs bigger improvements in fuel efficiency for
vehicles, for instance, and wants to encourage utilities to help customers reduce their
use of electricity and natural gas.
67
IMPACT- OBAMA SOLVES- CAP AND TRADE

OBAMA WILL PASS CAP AND TRADE
KLONSKY 6-3-08 [Joanna, Council on Foreign Relations. “A new series from the Council on Foreign Relations
profiles the main foreign policy advisers for Barack Obama.” http://www.newsweek.com/id/139894/]
If Obama wins the general election in November, his foreign policy and economic agendas will
surely break with the legacies of the Bush administration, experts say. "Whether it's our approach
to torture, or climate change, or how we're dealing with Iran, to Iraq, to the Middle East peace
process you're going to see significant changes," says Chollet, who is not connected to the
Obama campaign. Obama advocates a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon
emissions, and has said the United States should invest $150 billion over ten years to advance
clean-energy technology. Obama has also been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, which he opposed from its
outset in 2002. He has said he will withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus U.S. military efforts against al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
68
2NC TURNS CASE – CAP & TRADE/ALT ENERGY

MCCAIN’S ENERGY PLANS FOCUS TOO MUCH ON NUCLEAR POWER AND IGNORE EFFECTIVE CAP
AND TRADE AS WELL AS REAL ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOLUTIONS
POPE 2008 – DIRECTOR SIERRA CLUB
STATES NEWS SERVICE, MCCAIN GLOBAL WARMING PLAN, 5-12
Like President Bush, McCain's policies on global warming offer more of the same, by putting the
interests of polluters over the people and failing to invest in building a clean energy economy
that will create new jobs and opportunities at a time when an economic boost is sorely
needed. Americans want real change--investment in clean, renewable energy instead of Big Oil, Nuclear
power and other polluting industries. We need more windmills not windfalls. Unfortunately Senator
McCain's plan is designed to fail."
Any credible global warming plan, including Senator McCain's, should adhere to these basic principles:
First, the targets and timetables must be sufficient to do what the science demands in both the near and
long terms to reduce the negative impacts of climate change to the maximum extent possible. This will
require reductions in total emissions on the order of 80 percent by 2050 and 20 percent by 2020.
Next, permits to emit carbon must be used for public benefit, not private windfalls. Pollution allowances are
a public trust. All allowances should be auctioned or otherwise used to benefit the public, not to generate
windfall profits for polluting industries. Free allocations, if any, must be limited in size and restricted to a
short transition period.
Revenue raised by the bill should be used to promote a clean energy future by investing in the highest-
value solutions for emissions reductions first. These funds should not be used to perpetuate dirty,
expensive, outdated technologies like coal and nuclear energy. Allowances and auction revenues
should be used to accelerate deployment of the clean energy technologies we have today and to develop
the ones we need for tomorrow. Funds should be invested only in the cleanest, cheapest, safest, and
fastest means of reducing emissions.
Finally, the bill must ensure a just transition for workers, protect vulnerable groups, and help induce world
action. Allowances and auction revenues should be used to protect low- and moderate-income citizens
from rising energy costs and other negative economic impacts, create new jobs, ensure fair treatment for
affected workers and their communities, and drive technology transfer to help achieve emissions
reductions around the world. We must also take care of communities that suffer the impacts of global
warming we were too late to avoid.
Numerous studies have shown that we can achieve these goals and meet our energy needs with the
cleanest energy sources and efficiency and without relying on dirty power. If Senator McCain wants to have
a credible and feasible plan for addressing global warming, he must demonstrate a commitment to these
principles and have a plan that adds up to what science tells us the world needs. Senator McCain should
also join other Senators to end outrageous subsidies to polluters like Big Oil as they continue to rake in
record profits. Unfortunately, even as Senator McCain urges America to shower the nuclear energy industry
with billions in subsidies, he has criticized money for biofuels and failed to support incentives for clean
renewable energy like wind and solar power.
69
IMPACT- IRAN- ENGAGEMENT IL EXT

OBAMA WILL ADOPT A DIPLOMATIC APPROACH TO IRAN
Isaacs 4/1 (John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “In a Nutshell:
McCain vs. Obama on National Security” July 1, 2008,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/070108_mccain_obama_national_security/)
President Bush has displayed unremitting hostility toward the radical regime dominating Iran, a
country that U.S. intelligence sources report had previously been pursuing a nuclear weapons
program. He branded Iran part of the "axis of evil" and promoted regime change as the preferred
U.S. policy. With a few limited exceptions, the United States under Bush has refused to talk
directly with Iran. McCain has been clear about his position on Iran. In February 2008, he told an
audience: "I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that
espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to
the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions." He also
rejects "unconditional dialogues" with Iran. Obama has delivered messages on Iran that were
more mixed. He has said "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to
eliminate this threat." In a June 2008 speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, he
refused to take the military option against Iran off the table: "I will always keep the threat of
military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no
alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use
military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and
abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts." In the same speech, however, Obama
promised: "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a
clear-eyed understanding of our interests." He has said also that it "would be a profound mistake
for us to initiate a war with Iran" and condemned the administration's "saber-rattling" on Iran.
Obama missed a vote on a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and
Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Obama called the amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he had
cosponsored an earlier bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
OBAMA WILL PURSUE CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH IRAN

BROOKS 2008 – NEW YORK TIMES
OBAMA’S REALISM, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 5-20
He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve"), but "if they decide to shift,
we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."
Mr. Obama being Mr. Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Mr. Obama is
smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he's seasoned and tough enough to deal with
implacable enemies.
"The debate we're going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that
we are going to undertake," he said. "I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or
indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder
after blunder."
Mr. Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: "The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They
are trying to get the job done rather than look tough."
I asked if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that's primarily pursuing
material interests. He acknowledged that "If your opponents are looking for your destruction it's hard to sit across the table from
them," but: "There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not
ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations."
OBAMA IS MORE WILLING TO ENGAGE IRAN
70
Dealing with foreign foes. Campaign rhetoric has been heated, and it has made the two
candidates seem further apart on their approaches than they are. Obama would be more
willing to talk with Iran and others, and with fewer preconditions, but McCain would be open to
talks, too.
71
IMPACT- IRAN- MISCALC/ WAR

CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH IRAN IS CRITICAL TO PREVENTING
MISCALCULATION AND WAR
Tirman 2007 (John, executive director and principal research scientist at MIT's Center for International
Studies, “A new Cold War with Iran?” August 14, 2007
www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/14/a_new_cold_war_with_iran)
Most important, the US-Soviet competition was a highly formalized affair, with a large number
and variety of institutions and norms to keep it from spinning out of control -- treaties,
multilateral and bilateral organizations, commerce and trade, cultural and scientific exchanges,
and so on. These institutions and norms were nested in many parts of each government's official
institutions (e.g., foreign office, defense establishment, executive offices), as well as academic
institutions, party institutions, the news media, and civil society. All these players acted to
moderate the conflict, in effect, and to counterbalance the occasional incendiary incident or bad
actor. The effect of this thick web of political, scientific, and social relationships was robust. Even
on human rights, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics felt compelled to moderate its behavior
after the 1975 Helsinki Accords came into force. The Soviet commitment to international norms
and institutions due to their need for legitimacy and to satisfy other national interests, such as
trade, made them reasonable and predictable, if nonetheless opposed to US policies. When the
end of the Soviet Union came, it came swiftly and peacefully largely because these institutions
and norms had long been accepted. No such system of institutions and norms govern or guide
the US-Iran competition. There's no buffer, hotline, embassies, or ongoing talks. We have
purposefully excluded Iran from the international community and its normative framework and
processes, labeling Iran a pariah, rogue, or terrorist regime. The absence of formal ties,
commerce, and other kinds of exchange has rendered Iran opaque to Americans, and
that opacity is reciprocal. This is a perilous situation. One misstep can lead to war. So
while it seems improbable war is on the agenda of US decision makers, events can
take over, not least events engineered in Iran by those who wish to see the United States
further humiliated in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actual Cold War had its dangers, to be sure --
massive nuclear arsenals and colossal waste in military expenditures -- but it was stable, and
was contained. What is truly worrisome about the Iran-US rivalry is how the lack of stability and
communication might lead to war. And, as we've discovered in Iraq, a real war is both
catastrophic for its millions of victims, and unpredictably damaging for those who start it. Lulling
ourselves into thinking this is a manageable mini-Cold War -- like we were seduced to think Iraq
would be a "cakewalk" -- could be America's next big error of arrogance.
72
IMPACT- IRAN- TERRORISM / REGIONAL WAR

US IRANIAN CONFLICT CAUSES REGIONAL WAR AND TERRORISM
Kelly 7/02 (Paul Kelly, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, “All must lean on Iran” July 02, 2008, The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,239548177583,00.html)
GEORGE W. Bush leaves the White House in six months having destroyed the power balance in
the Middle East by launching a war that empowered Iran and having failed to devise any solution
to halt Iran's quest to acquire a nuclear capability. It is a humiliating legacy. The trajectory of
confrontation between the US and Iran, originating in its 1979 revolution, draws upon more than
a generation of antagonism and ignorance. It will reach its climax during the presidency of Bush's
successor, John McCain or Barack Obama. Every sign is that Bush will shun the option of a
military strike against Iran in the twilight of his term. This is the assessment of Americans close
to the Bush administration and the view of US allies such as Australia. The Rudd Government
would face a horrific shock as alliance partner if Bush ordered the bombing as a farewell
operation. The Iranian issue was a highlight of the recent Australian-American Leadership
Dialogue in Washington that put the crisis under examination. The debate revealed a divided
administration, the different nature of Bush's second term compared with his first and a
persuasive case for avoiding immediate military action. There is, however, no denying that the
US and Iran are on a collision trajectory. Former US diplomat Nicholas Burns, who was number
three at the State Department under Bush, told The Australian: "I think for President Bush and for
the next president, Iran is the most serious foreign policy challenge because the consequences of
an altercation with Iran are incalculable for our interests and for the fate of the larger Middle
East. We have been right to keep the military option on the table but I do not believe there is an
inevitability about war with Iran." The arguments against hostilities by either the US or Israel are
far greater than recognised. First, any strike will prejudice the pivotal US strategic goals
in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would expose 150,000 US forces in Iraq to Iranian
retaliation. It would threaten progress in Iraq and vastly complicate US force
withdrawal. It would trigger Iranian terrorist activity across the region and provoke
Shi'ite militia group Hezbollah into strikes. It would represent a complete refusal to absorb
the lesson from the 2003 invasion of Iraq: that resort to massive military action unleashes forces
beyond the control of the US.
73
IMPACT – IRAN – WAR

THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO PEACEFULLY ENGAGE IRAN BEFORE IT GOES
NUCLEAR
Kelly 7/02 (Paul Kelly, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, “All must lean on Iran” July 02, 2008,
The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23954817-7583,00.html)
This highlights the reason for delay: Iran is still several years away from acquiring a nuclear
capability. The ultimate decision point for military action will come but that point arrives under
Bush's successor. At that stage the US must either accept a nuclear armed Iran or move to
thwart it. There can be no gainsaying the imperative to halt the Iranian program. Speaking in
the corridors of the dialogue, Burns told The Australian: "I believe President Bush has been right
to say it should be our policy to deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability. A nuclear armed Iran
would be a game-changer strategically in the Middle East, contrary to all our interests, the
interests of Israel and the interests of the moderate Arab states. Given the present make-up of
the Iranian Government, with President Ahmadinejad in power, that government could not be
trusted with nuclear weapons." Another dialogue participant, former ALP leader Kim Beazley,
says: "There are only two possible outcomes from a nuclear weapon coming into Iran's hands.
One is a strike by either Israel or the US to prevent it happening. The other is an arms race in the
Middle East that sees four or five nuclear powers all operating on hair-trigger situations. We are
talking here, with absolute certainty, of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, with a high probability of
some of the Gulf states as well." In this situation there would be serious risks that proper
command and control of nuclear systems would not exist. "You must appreciate this problem
arises not because of Israel's strategic strength but its weakness," Beazley says. "Israel has the
strategic depth of a beach suburb. It is not capable of fighting a nuclear war. It would get at best
10 minutes warning of a strike from Iran." The costs would be crippling for Israel to develop an
effective second strike capability and it could not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Beazley and Burns
say there is an urgent need to deepen the diplomatic effort with Iran. "The US has got
to share this burden," Beazley says. "The actual economic interest at stake here for China, Japan,
Korea and the Europeans is greater than that of the US. China wants to be regarded as a great
power, well, it's time for China to behave like a great power and begin to pressure the Iranians.
The rest of the world needs to grasp the seriousness of this and do something about it." Burns
says the US "has been effectively estranged from the Iranians for three decades". Now it is vital
to "find a way to talk with them". America's aim must be a peaceful solution, despite the
difficulty of dealing with Iran. He advocates broadening the range of nations involved in the
process. If Iran refuses to negotiate then far stronger sanctions must be applied and that means
that China must accept its responsibilities. Burns says: "We need the leading states of the world
to say to the Iranians, 'No business' if you keep developing nuclear weapons. There is still room
and time for diplomacy."
74
IMPACT – IRAN – STABILITY

TALKING TO IRAN IS KEY TO MODERATE THE REGIME AND PROMOTE STABILITY
Kagan 12-5
(Robert-, Senior Associate @ the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Time to Talk to Iran”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401146.html; Jacob)
Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its
nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are
indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in
office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. A
military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush
administration, that option is gone. Neither, however, will the administration make further progress in
winning international support for tighter sanctions on Iran. Fear of American military action was always the
primary reason Europeans pressured Tehran. Fear of an imminent Iranian bomb was secondary. Bringing
Europeans together in support of serious sanctions was difficult before the NIE. Now it is impossible. With
its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year. Or it can seize the
initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran. Negotiating will
appear at first to be a sign of weakness. The Iranians could use talks to exploit fissures between the United
States and its allies, and within the U.S. political system. But there is a good case for negotiations. Many
around the world and in the United States have imagined that the obstacle to improved Iranian behavior
has been America's unwillingness to talk. This is a myth, but it will hamper American efforts now and for
years to come. Eventually, the United States will have to take the plunge, as it has with so many
adversaries throughout its history. This is as good a time as any. The United States is not in a position of
weakness. The embarrassment of the NIE will be fleeting. Strategic realities are more durable. America
remains powerful in the world and in the Middle East. The success of the surge policy in Iraq means that
the United States may be establishing a sustainable position in the region -- a far cry from a year ago,
when it seemed about to be driven out. If Iraq is on the road to recovery, this shifts the balance against
Iran, which was already isolated. There are other reasons to move now. Even if the NIE forecasts that Iran
cannot build a nuclear bomb before 2010, the time is still finite. The next administration, especially if it is
Democratic, will probably want to try to talk to Tehran. But it couldn't begin talks before the summer of
2009, at which point, if the NIE is right, Iran could be moving into the final stages of developing a bomb.
Better to get negotiations started so that by the time the next administration settles in, it will be able to
assess the progress, or lack thereof, after a year of talks. If it decides it must take strong action, it will have
an easier time showing that all other options were exhausted. Better, too, if talks are launched by this
administration. Although trust between the parties has broken down, American policy toward Iran needs
broad support in both parties. Bush could even name a hard-nosed Democrat to lead the talks. Initiating
the talks now would give the United States a better chance to frame the discussion, at home and abroad.
Any negotiations should aim at getting the Iranians to finally answer all of the International Atomic Energy
Agency's outstanding questions about the country's programs, agree to intrusive inspections and
monitoring of its facilities, and address the U.N. Security Council's requirement that it suspend its
enrichment of uranium. The talks should go beyond the nuclear issue and include Iran's support for
terrorism, its harboring of al-Qaeda leaders, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and its supplying of
weapons to violent extremists in Iraq. They should also address the Iranian government's violation of
human rights and its tightening political repression. Some argue that you can't talk to a country while
seeking political change within it. This is nonsense. The United States simultaneously contained the Soviet
Union, negotiated with the Soviet Union and pressed for political change in the Soviet Union -- supporting
dissidents, communicating directly to the Russian people through radio and other media, and holding the
Soviet government to account under such international human rights agreements as the Helsinki Accords.
There's no reason the United States cannot talk to Iran while beefing up containment in the region and
pressing for change within Iran. As for what's in it for Iran: If Tehran complies with its nuclear obligations;
ceases its support for terrorist violence; and treats its people with justice, humanity and liberalism, it will
be welcomed into the international community, with all the enormous economic, political and security
benefits this brings. That offer has always been on the table, and the United States gives away nothing by
making it explicit.
75
2NC- IRAN- TURNS CASE

TURNS CASE – CONFLICT WITH IRAN WILL CAUSE OIL PRICES TO SKYROCKET
Kelly 7/02
(Paul Kelly, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, “All must lean on Iran” July 02, 2008, The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,239548177583,00.html)
Second, the global economic consequences would be grave. Iranian retaliation would see
the world oil price skyrocket from its present high level. Commander-in-chief of Iran's
revolutionary guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, has warned that Iran "will definitely act to
impose controls on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz". This will take inflation and
recession threats to new peaks in the industrialised world. The resentment towards Bush would
be even greater.
76
2NC SOUTH KOREA FTA MODULE (1/2)

A. OBAMA WILL NOT RATIFY SOUTH KOREA FTA IT IF HE’S ELECTED
The Korea Times 6/4
(“Obama, McCain Differ on Korea Policy”
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/06/116_25327.html)
Obama has said the current Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) should not be ratified and has
suggested that the deal be renegotiated. He has said the accord does not do enough to address concerns of
American autoworkers. Organized labor unions, including the autoworkers' unions, are some of the biggest
supporters of the Democratic Party. In an open letter to U.S. President George W. Bush last month, Obama said
there would be `à major fight over a free trade agreement with South Korea'' if President Bush sends the trade
agreement to the U.S. Congress.
B. South Korean FTA would collapse the South Korean economy

Chris Kerr. International News, Green Left Weekly. “SOUTH KOREA: Social movements fight free trade
agreement” 2006 www.greenleft.org.au/2006/667/6694
Jung Tae-In, a former presidential secretary for economic policies, has come out against the FTA, arguing
President Roh Moo-hyun is being too “hasty”, pushing through the FTA in order to show a concrete
accomplishment by his regime. He has argued that the president is committing a “grave blunder”, which could
not only hurt the entire Korean economy but could cause a crisis “even 10 times severer than the financial crisis
it experienced from 1997 to 1998”.
77
2NC SOUTH KOREA FTA MODULE (2/2)
C. Collapse of the South Korean economy would cause global nuclear war
Corey Richardson, a Washington-based analyst who covered East Asian security issues as a presidential
management fellow with the US Department of Defense, and is a co-founder of The Korea Liberator. “South
Korea must choose sides” Asia Times 2006
www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html
A Korea faced with an economic dilemma of such magnitude would find maintaining its conventional military
forces at current levels impossible. At the same time, it would feel more vulnerable than ever, even with US
security assurances.
For a nation paranoid about the possibility of outside influence or military intervention, strapped for cash, and
obsessed about its position in the international hierarchy, the
obvious route might be to either incorporate North Korean nuclear devices (if they actually exist), or build their
own, something South Korean technicians could easily accomplish. North Korea, after all, has set the example
for economically challenged nations looking for the ultimate in deterrence.
One might argue that clear and firm US security guarantees for a reunified Korea would be able to dissuade any
government from choosing the nuclear option. If making decisions based purely on logic the answer would be
probably yes.
Unfortunately, the recent Korean leadership has established a record of being motivated more by emotional and
nationalistic factors than logical or realistic ones. Antics over Dokdo and the Yasukuni Shrine and alienating the
US serve as examples. But the continuation of the "Sunshine Policy" tops those.
Instead of admitting they've been sold a dead horse, the Roh administration continued riding the rotting and
bloated beast known as the Sunshine Policy, until all that are left today are a pile of bones, a bit of dried skin,
and a few tufts of dirty hair. Roh, however, is still in the saddle, if not as firmly after North Korea's recent
missile tests.
Japan must then consider its options in countering an openly nuclear, reunified Korea without USFK. Already
building momentum to change its constitution to clarify its military, it's not inconceivable that Japan would
ultimately consider going nuclear to deter Korea. As in South Korea, there is no technological barrier preventing
Japan from building nuclear weapons.
While the details of the race and escalation of tensions can vary in any number of ways and are not inevitable,
that an arms race would occur is probable. Only the perception of threat and vulnerability need be present for
this to occur.
East Asia could become a nuclear powder keg ready to explode over something as childish as the
Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Korea and Japan, a Diaoyu/Senkakus dispute between China and Japan, or
the Koguryo dispute between Korea and China.
78
IMPACT- SKFTA- ECON EXT

A. SK FTA COLLAPSES THE RICE MARKET
MILLS 06
Caneisha Mills, national organizer with the antiwar group International ANSWER. "Free trade' for the capitalist class Fighting the U.S.-South Korea
Free Trade Agreement". Socialism and Liberation Magazine 2006 socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=647
The FTA is particularly menacing to South Korean farmers. The United States wants to open up South Korea’s
rice market so that U.S. corporate agribusiness can export cheap rice into the country and make it impossible for
Korean farmers to compete. Many of South Korea’s 3.5 million rice farmers are likely to be driven off the land
if confronted with competition from U.S. agribusiness.
B. THIS SPILLS OVER TO ALL SECTORS

KOREA TIMES 2007
"FTA to Force 210,000 to Stop Rice Farming" times.hankooki.com/lpage/200701/kt2007011817590210160.htm
The report said some 20,000 farmers who grow vegetables and fruits would lose their jobs if the rice market
opening were included in the FTA. Reps. Kim Tae-hong, left, and Im Jong-in, second from right, of the governing Uri Party hold balloons with
lawmakers of the minor opposition Democratic Labor Party in front of the Shilla Hotel in Seoul, Thursday. The DLP lawmakers, including Kwon Young-gil, second
from left, continued their hunger strike for the fourth consecutive day yesterday, urging the government to stop negotiations on a South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement
But the industries the report linked to
(FTA). / Yonhap Some 116,700 people in other primary products industries would face unemployment, it said.
the opening of the rice market were not limited to agriculture. It indicated that about 6,500 South Koreans in the
automobile industry would also be forced to leave their workplaces. The FTA would also force some 46,600
people in the electronic equipment industry to quit their jobs, according to the report.
79
IMPACT- SKFTA BAD- NORTH KOREA

SOUTH KOREAN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE SPILLS OVER TO NORTH KOREA, CAUSING
CONFLICT
EJAZ '98
(Dr. Manzur, Prof Philosophy – U Punjab, Columnist For BBC, The Nation, and The News, "Pakistan Can
Learn From South Korea's Economic Woes", 1-5, http://users.erols.com/ziqbal/jan_5.htm)
The South Korean economy has to be propped up because North Korea is still conceived to be a
potential threat to American interests. Commenting on this aspect US Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin
argued, "If you have economic instability [in South Korea], you run the risk of political and social instability
there, and that can have all kinds of national security implications."
THAT CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR AND EXTINCTION

AFRICA NEWS '99 (10-25, LEXIS)
Lusaka - If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and probably
reduce earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Ever since the end of the savage
three-year Korean war in the early 1950s, military tension between the hard-line communist north and the American backed South Korea has remained dangerously
high. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. A foreign visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided
country is always on maximum alert for any eventuality. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for coming to
the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for the non-reunification of the
The DPRK is one of the
country. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its "running dog" South Korea.
most secretive countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that the people's hatred for the US
is absolute while the love for their government is total. Whether this is really so, it is extremely difficult to
conclude. In the DPRK, a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of
their country. No visitor moves around alone without government escort. The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was
because of the constant danger of an invasion from the north. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. She points out that the north has dug numerous
tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. She also accuses the north of violating South Korean territorial waters. Early this year, a small North
Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in fishing nets. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a
military spying mission. However, the intension of the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot
wounds to their heads in what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. The US mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is no secret
that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than anywhere else in the World, apart from America
itself. Some of the armada that was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait
was from the fleet permanently stationed on the Korean Peninsula. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world.
The border line is littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air
missiles and is constantly patrolled by warplanes from both sides. It is common knowledge that America also
keeps an eye on any military movement or build-up in the north through spy satellites. The DPRK is said to
have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. Although the DPRK
regards herself as a developing country, she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of
military might. The DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles. Last year, for example,
she test-fired a medium range missile over Japan, an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US, Japan and
South Korea. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. There have also been fears that she was planning to
test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. Naturally, the world is anxious that military
tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse on earth. It is therefore significant that
the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with
North Korea.
80
IMPACT- SKFTA BAD- NORTH KOREA EXT

DESPERATE KOREA COULD GO NUCLEAR
RICHARDSON 06
Corey Richardson, a Washington-based analyst who covered East Asian security issues as a presidential management fellow with the US Department
of Defense, and is a co-founder of The Korea Liberator. "South Korea must choose sides" Asia Times 2006
www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html
North Korea is the wildcard. If in the next few years reunification were to occur - through a North Korean collapse, the
death of Kim Jong-il, or a possible but unlikely mutual agreement - South Korea would suddenly find itself straddled with
the enormous cost of integrating North Korea. These costs would dwarf the already massive increase South Korea would
have been undertaking in defense spending, something it would clearly be unprepared and unable to accomplish while
maintaining its defense investment. A Korea faced with an economic dilemma of such magnitude would find maintaining
its conventional military forces at current levels impossible. At the same time, it would feel more vulnerable than ever,
even with US security assurances. For a nation paranoid about the possibility of outside influence or military
intervention, strapped for cash, and obsessed about its position in the international hierarchy, the obvious route might be to
either incorporate North Korean nuclear devices (if they actually exist), or build their own, something South Korean
technicians could easily accomplish. North Korea, after all, has set the example for economically challenged nations
looking for the ultimate in deterrence. One might argue that clear and firm US security guarantees for a reunified Korea
would be able to dissuade any government from choosing the nuclear option. If making decisions based purely on logic
the answer would be probably yes. Unfortunately, the recent Korean leadership has established a record of being
motivated more by emotional and nationalistic factors than logical or realistic ones. Antics over Dokdo and the Yasukuni
Shrine and alienating the US serve as examples. But the continuation of the "Sunshine Policy" tops those.
EAST ASIA CONFLICT NUCLEAR WAR

Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 10/11/00,
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SR_01/SR_Japan.htm
Major war in Europe is inconceivable for at least a generation, but the prospects for conflict in Asia are far from
remote. The region features some of the world’s largest and most modern armies, nuclear-armed major powers,
and several nuclear-capable states. Hostilities that could directly involve the United States in a major conflict
could occur at a moment’s notice on the Korean peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait. The Indian subcontinent is a
major flashpoint. In each area, war has the potential of nuclear escalation. In addition, lingering turmoil in
Indonesia, the world’s fourth-largest nation, threatens stability in Southeast Asia. The United States is tied to the
region by a series of bilateral security alliances that remain the region’s de facto security architecture.
81
2NC NMD MODULE (1/1)

MCCAIN WILL DEVELOP AN INTERNATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM
Isaacs 4/1
(John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation, “In a Nutshell: McCain vs. Obama on National Security”
July 1, 2008, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/070108_mccain_obama_national_security/)
McCain has declared that he "strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and
national missile defenses." His votes in the Senate back up that claim: he opposed all three
amendments to cut the program in 2004. In a 2001 speech to the Munich Conference on Security
Policy, he advocated abandoning the ABM Treaty. Obama has been critical of the Bush missile
defense plans: "The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities
and rushed deployments for political purposes." Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen.
Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed the vote. Obama
has not indicated plans for missile defense upon assuming the presidency. Missile defense site in
Europe: McCain has also been clear in his support for a third missile defense site in Europe that is
bitterly opposed by Russia. Congress cut a portion of the funding for the program in 2007 in
advance of approval from the two Central European countries. In an October 2007 debate,
McCain said: "I don't care what [President Vladimir Putin's] objections are to it." He has also
described the system as a "hedge against potential threats" from Russia and China.
Missile defense system risks US-Russian war

Podvig 2007
(Pavel, research associate at Stanford University's Center for International Security and
Cooperation, “Missile defense: The Russian reaction” 25 February 2007
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/missile-defense-the-
russian-reaction)
The row over U.S. intentions to deploy elements of its missile defense system in Poland
and the Czech Republic has the potential of bringing U.S.-Russian relations--not to
mention bilateral arms control--to a new low. Russia has disapproved of the scheme ever
since the United States first went public with the system about two years ago. But
despite sounding angry, Russia remained calm, arguing that it already possessed the
technology to deal with the interceptors the United States planned to place in Eastern
Europe. Recently, however, Moscow decided to up the ante. Clearly inspired by the
assertive and rather confrontational presentation given by President Vladimir Putin at a
conference in Munich on February 10, Russian generals started painting a picture of a
much harsher response to the possible deployment. The commander of the Strategic
Rocket Forces bluntly stated that his missiles could target U.S. missile defense
installations in Poland and the Czech Republic if the political leadership ordered him to
do so.
War with Russia would wipe out the human race.

Bostrom 2k2 Professor of Philosophy, Yale University
Nick, “Existential Risks,” http://www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear
war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to
qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the
time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human
civilization. Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either
82
accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note
however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would
not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities
most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere
preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
83
IMPACT- NMD- RUSSIA WAR IL EXT

RUSSIA WILL ATTACK THE MISSILE DEFENSE BASES
ASSOCIATED PRESS 2007
(“Russian general warns Poland, Czech Republic over U.S. missile defense system” February 19, 2007
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003579491_webmissiles19.html)
MOSCOW — In a statement reflecting the growing distrust between Moscow and the
West, a top Russian general on Monday warned that Poland and the Czech Republic risk
being targeted by Russian missiles if they agree to host U.S. missile defense bases. The
stark threat, by missile forces chief Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, was one of the most bellicose
comments yet by Russian officials on the issue, which 10 days ago led President Vladimir
Putin to warn of a "new Cold War" in a speech in Munich that shocked Western
governments. "If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take such a step ...
the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of targeting these facilities if a relevant
decision is made," Solovtsov told reporters in Moscow, asserting the U.S. plan could
upset strategic balance of power in the region.
US MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM IN EUROPE WILL INCITE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION

ASSOCIATED PRESS 2007
(“Russian general warns Poland, Czech Republic over U.S. missile defense system” February 19, 2007
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003579491_webmissiles19.html)
Putin has said he does not trust U.S. claims that the missile defense system was
intended to counter threats from Iran. He has warned that Russia could take
retaliatory action. Solovtsov, speaking before the announcement in Warsaw, voiced
concern that Washington could in the future expand and upgrade the anti-missile
system. That could, at least in theory, limit Russia's ability to retaliate to a nuclear
missile strike against its territory.
84
2NC PROLIF MODULE (1/1)

OBAMA WILL TAKE INITIATIVE FOR NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Isaacs 4/1
(John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “In a Nutshell: McCain vs. Obama
on National Security” July 1, 2008,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/070108_mccain_obama_national_security/)
Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT): One of the longest sought goals of the
nuclear age has been a global ban on all nuclear test explosions as an important step to
advance nuclear nonproliferation. In 1996, after 50 years of work, the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty was signed and opened for ratification. However, three years later, the
Senate decisively rejected the treaty. Although the United States has not conducted a
nuclear test explosion since 1992, the Bush administration has not put the treaty forward
for a new vote. McCain voted against the treaty, stating at the time: "The viability of our
nuclear deterrent is too central to our national security to rush approval of a treaty that
cannot be verified and that will facilitate the decline of that deterrent." More recently,
McCain has committed to continuing the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing that
has existed since 1992, and promised to take "another look" at the test ban treaty.
Although Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the 1999 vote, he has promised to
make the test ban treaty a priority of his first term in office and pledged to work to
rebuild bipartisan support for the treaty.
Proliferation causes massively destructive nuclear wars

Utgoff, survival v. 44 no 2 summer 2002, p. 90
Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear
weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the
maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is
stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the
late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the
world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will
all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
85
IMPACT- OBAMA- PROLIF IL EXT
Obama will prevent nuclear proliferation

Isaacs 4/1
(John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “In
a Nutshell: McCain vs. Obama on National Security” July 1, 2008,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/070108_mccain_obama_national_se
curity/)
Obama has committed to securing all vulnerable nuclear weapons materials around the
world within four years of taking office: "I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear
materials during my first term in office." He has also promised to seek a global ban on
the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and "dramatic reductions" in
nuclear weapons stockpiles and a strengthened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
86
2NC TERRORISM MODULE (1/1)

OBAMA WILL DIPLOMATICALLY ENGAGE THE MIDDLE EAST – PREVENTS TERRORIST
RECRUITMENT
Turkish Daily News 6/27
(Yasser Khalil, researcher for Common Ground News Service, “MUSLIM WORLD SPEAKS OUT ON OBAMA” 6/27, lexis)
This level of support for an American presidential candidate is unprecedented in the Muslim
world. The fact that it comes amidst an almost unanimous feeling of indignation and rage
towards US foreign policy particularly in Iraq and Palestine makes it even more noteworthy. A
reason for hope: The simple explanation is that many Muslims see new reason for hope in the
political approach of Obama and his advisors. His apparent eagerness to rally more international
support for US policy, and even talk to America's "enemies", is cause for optimism. Imagine what
global politics might look like in Iraq, or Sudan, or Afghanistan, if Obama-like vision had
influenced US leadership earlier. As an Arab Muslim in Egypt who is affected by US foreign policy,
I believe an Obama approach may help solve the accumulated problems between Muslims and
the United States that have become more aggravated since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
New and more creative techniques for dealing with extremists instead of the
controversial methods used by the current US administration could also stop giving Al
Qaeda and other such groups the pretext for recruiting new members. Then, perhaps,
extremists would lose the arguments that fuel their criminal machine and lead them to destroy
innocent people There are, of course, those in the Muslim world who oppose Barack Obama.
They argue that US policy will not change with a new president. To them I say that Obama has
already proven there's room to rock the boat; he opposed the decision to invade Iraq and is
making concrete, logical recommendations for withdrawing US troops
Terrorism risks extinction

Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 8/28/03 (Washington
Times)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that
the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the
terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism
as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11,
2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military
powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began
almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked
cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism
surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion,
such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the
media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms
of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we
have entered
an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious
implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.
87
IMPACT- TERRORISM IL EXT

IMPACT – OBAMA – HARDER AND MORE REALISTIC IN DEALING WITH TERRORISTS
BROOKS 2008 – NEW YORK TIMES
OBAMA’S REALISM, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 5-20
Mr. Obama doesn't broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he'd be tougher than the
Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. "This is not an
argument between Democrats and Republicans," he concluded. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have
enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm.
I don't have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
88
IMPACT- TERRORISM- EXTINCTION
TERRORISM SPARKS RETALIATION- CAUSING EXTINCTION

SidAhmed 04
[Mohamed, internationally renowned reporter and columnist in Al Ahram, "Extinction!" Al-Ahram Weekly,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm]
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate
the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on
themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations
and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and
develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still
more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will
emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be
without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
89
IMPACT- TERRORISM- NUCLEAR WAR

Terrorists can easily acquire nuclear weapons- an attack would trigger full scale nuclear war
Speice ‘6
(Patrick F. Jr.-, J.D. Candidate @ Marshall-Wythe School of Law, B.A. @ Wake, Feb., William & Mary Law
Review, “Negligence and Nuclear Nonproliferation: Eliminating the Current Liability Barrier to Bilateral U.S.-
Russian Nonproliferation Assistance Programs”, Lexis; Jacob)
Although no terrorist acts directed against the population or interests of the United States or other states
have been launched with nuclear weapons yet, this failure "must be assumed to be due to lack of means
rather than lack of motivation." Attempts by al-Qaeda to acquire nuclear material are well documented,
and several other attempted thefts of nuclear material indicates that there is a demand for nuclear
material among terrorist groups, many of which are hostile to the United States. The collapse of the Soviet Union
dramatically increased the risk that terrorist organizations will succeed in acquiring fissile material from Russia for
several reasons. First, the end of the Soviet state marked the end of state control over every aspect of life in the Soviet
Union. 34 One by-product of stringent centralized control was heavy regulation and intense security measures for
military facilities and nuclear installations. 35 Second, the economic decline that accompanied the transition to a
market economy 36 exacerbated the problem, as the fiscal situation in the former Soviet states, most notably [*1437]
Russia, made security programs impossible to fund. 37 Graham Allison summarizes the implications of post-Soviet
disorder in Russia: The dramatic changes ... have produced political uncertainty, economic distress, and social
dislocation. For tens of millions of Russians, hardship and deprivation are inescapable facts of life... [H]arsh economic
conditions can create incentives for nuclear theft and smuggling. For people who are poorly housed, poorly fed,
and poorly paid (when paid at all), there will be a temptation to do what they can to improve their lives
and secure their futures. Russia's nuclear custodians face these pressures as they preside over weapons
and materials that are immensely valuable to any state or group that covets nuclear weapons. It is not
hard to imagine that people leading bleak, uncertain, and difficult lives might find irresistible the prospect
of wealth and security via the nuclear black market... Organizations such as the Russian military and
Minatom are now operating in circumstances of great stress. Money is in short supply, paychecks are
irregular, living conditions unpleasant ... [D]isorder within Russia and the resulting strains within the
military could easily cause a lapse or a breakdown in the Russian military's guardianship of nuclear
weapons. 38 Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device
or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent
Soviet-era nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods,
including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given
one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one
of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and
construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear
weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a
workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to
deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully
employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing
terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of
nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-
industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists
becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there
are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, raising
the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to
sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked
spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States
are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate
human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States
to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of
casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by
terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with
nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation
will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52
as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the
90
use of nuclear weapons. 53
91
2NC LATIN AMERICA MODULE (1/1)

OBAMA WILL REACH A RAPPROACHMENT WITH CHAVEZ
BAKER 3/8
(Dean, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “What Will President Obama Do?”
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/what-will-president-obama-do/)
Obama will have to make important decisions with regard to the growth of the left in Latin
America. The Bush administration has been largely hostile to the left-wing governments that
have been elected in response to a quarter century of economic stagnation. Obama will
approach the region with a more open mind. He will almost certainly try to find common ground
with the region’s new leaders, such as Cristina Kirchner in Argentina and Rafael Correa in
Ecudaor. It is also likely that he will try to reach an accommodation with Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela. How far that goes remains to be seen, but he is likely to abandon the policy of
unmitigated hostility if for no other reason that it is alienating the United States from the other
countries in the region.
UNCHECKED CHAVEZ’S AGGRESSION WILL SPARK REGIONAL CONFLICT AND RAISE

GLOBAL OIL PRICES- TURNS CASE
Investor's Business Daily 08 (May 12, NATIONAL EDITION, ISSUES & INSIGHTS; EDITORIALS; Pg. A16
http://w3.nexis.com/new/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4059328103&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1
&resultsUrlKey=29_T4059321699&cisb=22_T4059321698&treeMax=false&treeWidth=0&csi=8204&docNo=22)
The Hemisphere: Oil spiked $4 Friday on new evidence of Venezuela's deep involvement in terrorism. There's no glossing over such news: Hugo
Chavez intends to destabilize the region. The U.S. will need to take action. After poring over some of the 10,000 documents
captured from the computer of dead FARC terrorist Raul Reyes, killed in a raid on March 1, U.S. intelligence officials are
convinced that Chavez's involvement is deeper than anyone realized, according to a front-page story by the Wall Street Journal.
"There is complete agreement in the intelligence community that these documents are what they purport to be," a U.S. official
told the Journal. The oil market understood the implications of this: The U.S. probably would be forced to declare Venezuela a
state sponsor of terror and then end Venezuela's role as a top oil supplier, as required for other rogue states such as Iran. With
global oil supplies scarce, and Venezuela accounting for 12% of U.S. oil imports, the U.S. economy would feel the effects. Yet
the alternative of doing nothing probably is worse. The new documents show Venezuelan complicity in the FARC's war on
Colombia well beyond any past estimates. Chavez offered the drug-dealing Marxist terrorists rocket-propelled grenades and
ground-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. and Colombian aircraft. Such rockets, remember, enabled ragtag Afghan tribesmen to chase
out invading Soviet troops in 1989. Chavez also offered port access for Russian arms shipments in Maracaibo to FARC's jungle bases.
He offered FARC rest and recreational bases, along with state medical care. To cap it, he offered the terrorists a $250 million
"loan," payable upon the overthrow of Colombia's government. This is astonishing support for some of the worst terrorists on
Earth. FARC is reviled by average Colombians. It should be dead or disarmed at this point because President Alvaro Uribe's
courageous efforts to confront FARC have been relentless. Yet he hasn't won yet, thanks to FARC's clandestine support from
Venezuela. It's hard enough to win an asymmetrical war like this, harder still if the insurgents are stoked from other states. Chavez not
only supports these jungle thugs, he's urging the West to take these killers off international terror lists, so they can openly raise
more funds. So long as America buys Venezuelan oil, Chavez will have the money to help FARC eventually destroy Colombia.
He won't stop on his own, and the clandestine nature of his aid suggests he'll seek new ways to do it on the sly. It's part of Chavez's
strategy to use his petrodollars to take over the hemisphere -- or at least become its main power broker. Thus far, the open side
of Chavez's quest is clear. Using democratic elections, Chavez seeks to get Latin leaders elected who will be his vassals. He does so
by secretly buying off leftist political parties, and manipulating elections and the minds of poor voters. He has helped put socialist
cronies in power in Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. Now, he has his eyes on his next prize: U.S. ally El Salvador. Bad as that is,
the new FARC computer documents show an even darker side: Any nation that resists his charms, anti-U.S. rhetoric and oil
cash, gets destabilized. Colombia may be the scariest example of Chavez's destabilization efforts, but others are threatened,
too -- including Mexico and Peru, two stalwarts who have no interest in being Chavez's puppet states. It's significant that
Mexico's and Peru's ambassadors were recently seen with President Bush at the Council of the Americas Wednesday pleading
to Congress for free trade for their neighbor Colombia, whose economic success is as vital to them as their own. All three
nations are under fire from Chavez, and need vibrant economies to withstand him. Peru is fighting Chavista infiltration through the
dictator's newly formed "Houses of Alba" and has seen a resurgence of the Shining Path Marxist guerrillas it stomped out a decade
ago. Mexico's fighting a terrible war against drug-dealing criminals whose prime support from abroad is FARC terrorists. Last
92
Thursday the chief of Mexico's national police was gunned down by these thugs in Mexico City, striking into the heart of the Mexican
state. Meanwhile, the raid that killed Reyes also revealed the presence of Mexican operatives in Colombia believed to be in training to
destroy Mexico's oil pipelines, which supply much of America's oil. It's an ugly picture for the U.S. We must either de-fang
Chavez soon, or watch democratic neighbors collapse to his vast dictatorship. If that happens, oil prices will rise as high as his
ambition.
IMPACT- OBAMA- LATIN AMERICA IL

OBAMA WILL NEGOTIATE WITH CHAVEZ- IMPROVES RELATIONS
SHAH 2008
(Monica Shah, COHA Research Associate, March 3, 2008 “U.S. Presidential Candidates’ Rhetoric on Latin America”
http://www.coha.org/2008/03/us-presidential-candidates-rhetoric-on-latin-america/)
In a February 2008 campaign rally in Alexandria, VA, U.S. Democratic presidential candidate
Barack Obama was applauded as he declared “Our Latin American policy can not just be ‘I
oppose Castro’ and ‘I oppose Chavez.’” Even more applause was registered when he lamented
the United States’ past neglect towards Latin America because, “We have been so obsessed with
Iraq and the Middle East.” In his campaign strategy driven by ‘change’, Obama has strived for a
different foreign policy towards Latin America in contrast to past presidents, and especially the
catastrophic regional policies that were followed under the Bush administration’s Otto Reich and
Roger Noriega, both of whom served as assistant secretary of state to Latin America, as well as a
distempered John Bolton, a senior officer under Collin Powell. In a 2007 statement to the Senate,
Obama claimed, “As has been the case throughout the world, our standing in the Americas has
suffered as a result of the misguided policies and actions of the Bush Administration. It will take
significant work to repair the damage wrought by six years of neglect and mismanagement of
relations,”—work that Obama has now pledged to engage in, including the matter of political
prisoners in Cuba. The Illinois Senator and presidential contender also has a special interest in
helping to revive stagnant aspects of the Mexican economy, which is among the primary causes
of the influx of illegal immigrants to the United States. Barack Obama believes that, “we ignore
Latin America at our own peril”, and insists that Latin American countries are deserving of
“mutual respect and dignity.” In contrast to President Bush and Hilary Clinton, Obama has stated
that he would not need any “preconditions” before meeting with U.S.’s most bitter foes like
Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, and Cuba’s Raul Castro.
93
IMPACT- LATIN AMERICA- ECONOMY
LATIN AMERICAN STABILITY IS KEY THE U.S. ECONOMY

Ponce, Department of the Army Civilian- US Army War College, 2005 (http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA432711&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
To defuse regional conflicts and ignite economic growth, as presented in the U.S. NSS, stability is essential.
The Andean Region in Latin America and especially the countries of Colombia and Peru are sources of
instability in the region.2 This instability is the result of drug production and trafficking, insurgency, and poor
economy. The Andean Region is unquestionably fertile ground for terrorist threats against U.S. security
due to the insurgency groups from Colombia and Peru that still operate in the area.3 Continuing turmoil in
this region threatens the peace and security of not just South America but security in the U.S. as well.4
Although other countries comprise the Andean Region, Colombia and Peru are the center of regional instability. Homeland security and defense is the most important
challenge that the U.S. faces today. After the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, the U.S. realized that security and survival
depends not just on being a strong military power, but also on implementing firm and effective policies to safeguard the borders, timely and effective intelligence
gathering and analysis, situational awareness, and strong relationships with the countries that surround us. Homeland security is not a new concept. Over twenty years
ago the late President Ronald Reagan stated: If we lose freedom here [in America], there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. - President Ronald
Reagan October 27, 1984 The U.S. needs to protect the homeland from every corner of the earth beginning in its neighborhood, which includes Latin America. Eighteen
years after President Reagan's statement, President George W. Bush said: But there is an overriding and urgent mission here in America today, and that is to protect our
homeland. We have been called into action, and we've got to act. - President George W. Bush July 10, 2002 Homeland security and defense begins at home but extends
beyond our borders. Latin American countries are the closest U.S. neighbors besides Canada. It is essential for the U.S. to strengthen its ties to Latin American countries
Latin America is strategically important to the U.S. since U.S. security
and create solid relationships with their governments.
and defense depends also on the neighbors to the South and South East. Besides security, Latin America
trade, culture, and its $2 trillion economy are essential to the U.S. market.
IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR

LEWIS 98
Chris H. Lewis in his book "The Coming Age of Scarcity" p. 56 1998
Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw
from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States, Europe, and
Japan and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global
economy. These neocolonial wars will result in mass death, suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If first
world countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy, then we
may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in
comparison. However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and
political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage
the complex economic and trading networks and squander material, biological and energy resources that they
will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the
worst case scenario for the collapse of global civilization
94
2NC TRADE MODULE (1/2)

A. MCCAIN SUPPORTS EXPANDING FREE TRADE
AP 7-1-08 [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hL4zfHXeyYm4oj1om5i3Ez81YCvgD91LDQ500]
CARTAGENA, Colombia (AP) — John McCain portrayed free trade Tuesday as a win-win proposition
for the U.S. and its Latin American economic partners, but labor leaders said it's been a big loser for Rust
Belt voters. The Republican presidential hopeful began a three-day visit to Colombia and Mexico
after a campaign swing through Indiana and Pennsylvania, two states hit hard by the loss of
manufacturing jobs partly due to trade agreements like the North American Free Trade
Agreement between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, which McCain strongly supports.
B. THIS WILL COLLAPSE THE WORLD ECONOMY

OAKLEY 7-4-08 [Marti, Former columnist for the St. Cloud Times. “While Congress Fiddles and Hums...”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/While-Congress-Fiddles-and-by-Marti-Oakley-080704-721.html]
While MSM sings the tale of woe about how those damned enviromentalists are the cause of high
gas prices, and clueless right wing hacks sing the praises of globalism and free trade, American
consumers whether left or right are paying the price. Maybe at some future date when gas prices
approach $5.00 per gallon, and food is unaffordable it will dawn on those remaining individuals
out here that free trade amounts to a free ride for corporations and the wealthy. For you and me,
free trade is a one way ticket to economic hell. With another 450,000 jobs lost just in June due to
outsourcing, offshoring, business downsizing or closings......and rising gas and food prices along
with almost every other item that affects our daily lives......do you still think that unregulated
free trade is a good deal? How many of us have to lose our homes, our jobs, our health coverage
and everything WE have worked for before it occurs to us that this method of operation is killing
us off?Free trade has one objective; the economic destruction of virtually every economy in the
world. The current inflated price of oil, even as supplies have remained steady should have been
the proverbial slap to the head for those who still cling to the idea that somehow, regulating
trade to protect our economy and our future as a nation is a bad idea. How badly do you have to
be squeezed before you can admit supply side economics is a national disaster?Just today on MSM
there were reports of test programs that allow people to "lock in" gas prices at the current level by paying in advance.
IF the prices go up which I can assure you they will, this could be a good deal. If they go down...not so much. Here's
the clinker in this which seemed to pass by the reporters altogether: If gas prices can be locked in at a specific
price......why can't gas be capped at a certain price? After all, if the oil companies can afford to allow advanced
purchasing of gas at what might be a price lower than that at the pump...wouldn't that indicate that all the price hikes
are actually cases of price rigging? And not necessarily due to whether or not they can drill in someplace other than
the 68 million acres they already have access to, known to have deposits? It's bad enough that there are still
people out here who, even when faced with the impending economic collapse of our country, still
beat the free trader drum. The incessant ramblings of paid political hacks who masquerade as
"broadcasters" while pumping the public full of misinformation and propaganda seems to never
end, most likely because they still find people gullible enough to buy into the false notion that
free trade is benefiting anyone other than the elite.Congress, while voting to fund the bailout of corrupt
mortgage companies, voting to give immunity to telecoms and the Bush administration, voting time after time to pass
amnesty against the wishes of the majority of Americans, voting to continue funding the war in Iraq, voting for
anything and everything except protecting what is left of the middle class and taxpayers, doesn't seem to realize that
if we go down, we will have no use for them. There won't be a congress.
Frankly, I believe we have reached the point where congress has become such an enemy of the people that it should
be done away with altogether. It no longer functions as it was intended, and no longer represents the American people.
We have to realize that if we are to survive as a nation, as a viable economic force in the world, we cannot continue to allow corporate free trade to
pillage our country. Many corporate spinners disparage "protectionism" but it seems to me that if we do not engage in protectionism we will cease to
exist as a nation. At some point we have to circle the wagons and decide to protect ourselves. We can't allow trade deficits, or the artificial creation of
windfall profits for multinational corporations just because so many of us have been suckered into thinking that regulation is not conducive to
capitalism. With all the free trading that has gone on in the last seven years and the devastation it has brought nationwide, including the growing
recession, how can anyone still support this malignant line of thinking? Think about that when you pull up to another gas pump and pay through the
95
nose for enough gas to get you to work while subsidizing the oil cartels and while congress fiddles and hums.
96
2NC TRADE MODULE (2/2)
C. The impact is nuclear war.

Mead 1998 – Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations
LA Times, 8-23
Even with stock markets tottering around the world, the president and the Congress seem determined to spend the next six months
arguing about dress stains. Too bad. The United States and the world are facing what could grow into the greatest threat to world peace
in 60 years. Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the financial markets, not the terrorist training camps that pose the
biggest immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that
started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October, staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the
Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plummeted, thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt,
millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United
States--and on world history--wasn't money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in
Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the
country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. That's the thing about
depressions. They aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing
"The Price is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan."
97
IMPACT- NAFTA BAD- EMPLOYMENT

NAFTA ALLOWS JOBS TO BE OUTSOURCED TO MEXICO
CEVALLOS 4-9-08 [Diego, writer for upsidedownworld.org,
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1216/68/]
Unions in the United States, on the other hand, claim that employment in their country has fallen
because factory owners have preferred to move their industries to Mexico, where wages are
lower and labour and environmental laws less stringent.
"The free trade agreement must be revised. Millions of people are clamouring for this," said
Villamar.
In early March, RMALC sponsored the creation of a working group of lawmakers from Canada, the
United States and Mexico, to lobby for the renegotiation of NAFTA.
NAFTA HAS LOST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS, EXPLODED THE DEFICIT AND
DEPRESSED PAY FOR FACTORY WORKERS
NICHOLS 2004 [John, The Capital Times, “NAFTA now 10 years of bad policy”
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:WD1aPxvq4PoJ:www.citizenstrade.org/pdf/capitaltimes_nafta.pdf+NAFTA+bad&
hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us&client=firefox-a]
Instead of the trade surplus that was supposed to swell the U.S.
economy, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has grown from $9
billion in 1993 to almost $90 billion in 2003.
Instead of creating new jobs in the United States, NAFTA has been a job
killer. Under the strict requirements of the NAFTA Trade Adjustment
System, more than 525,000 U.S. workers have been officially certified as
having lost their jobs as a result of the agreement. And that is just
the tip of the job-loss iceberg; hundreds of thousands of additional
positions have been eliminated in NAFTA-related factory cutbacks and
closures.
Instead of raising U.S. wages, NAFTA has been used to depress pay.
According to the Institute for Policy Studies, threats by U.S.
corporations to move manufacturing operations overseas if workers join
unions were heard in around 50 percent of union organizing drives before
NAFTA went into effect. After its implementation, the threats were heard
in close to 70 percent of organizing drives.
98
IMPACT- NAFTA BAD- ECON

NAFTA IS AWFUL FOR THE ECONOMY
NICHOLS 2004 [John, The Capital Times, “NAFTA now 10 years of bad policy”
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:WD1aPxvq4PoJ:www.citizenstrade.org/pdf/capitaltimes_nafta.pdf+NAFTA+bad&
hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us&client=firefox-a]
The North American Free Trade Agreement was implemented 10 years ago
today. But it can safely be said that it has done 100 years of damage.
Sold to the people of the United States, Canada and Mexico as a
border-opening panacea that would provide millions of jobs, send farm
prices soaring and foster unprecedented prosperity and cooperation,
NAFTA has done untold damage to the livelihoods and the communities of
workers and farmers in all three countries.
"Had (the promises made by NAFTA backers at its inception) come true,
NAFTA would have been an enormous boom and we would all be cracking
champagne corks," says Lori Wallach, a Wisconsinite who directs Public
Citizen's Washington-based Global Trade Watch program. "But, instead, we
have got the 10-year record and it's pretty damn grim."
How grim? Since NAFTA's rules went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994,
hundreds of U.S. manufacturers have shuttered assembly lines and
factories in the United States and moved operations to Mexico, seeking
not to develop that country's economy but to take advantage of its low
wages. Despite all the claims that NAFTA would raise Mexico out of
poverty, pressure from the multinational companies that have set up
factories south of the border has made wage rates in many sectors of the
Mexico's economy more depressed today than they were a decade ago.
Thus, as NAFTA has eliminated high-wage jobs in the United States and
Canada, it has depressed the economy of Mexico. Now, as China lures the
multinationals to move factories there from Mexico, officials south of
the border are increasingly frantic about the future, and rightly so.
"Spin from the Bush administration cannot drown out the chants of 'Down
with NAFTA' being heard in Mexico," says Wallach. One of the world's
leading specialists on trade policy, the Wausau native explains,
"NAFTA's 10-year record demonstrates that under the NAFTA model most
people in the three countries were losers, while only a few of the
largest corporations who helped write NAFTA were the major winners."
99
IMPACT- NAFTA BAD- ECON

NAFTA HAS LOST ALMOST A MILLION JOBS, CREATED MORE POVERTY, AND WORSENED
THE DEFICIT AND LABOR CONDITIONS.
SWEENEY 05 [John J. president of the AFL-CIO. “A Bad Deal on Free Trade”
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0321-31.htm]
CAFTA's big brother, NAFTA, offers evidence of how unbalanced trade deals fail workers in both
rich and poor countries. NAFTA has cost US workers close to 900,000 jobs and job opportunities.
NAFTA was supposed to open markets for American goods and services, creating high-paying
jobs at home and prosperity abroad. But the opposite has occurred. In 11 years under NAFTA, the
US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size, reaching $111
billion in 2004.
Nor has NAFTA delivered the promised reductions in poverty in Mexico. Mexico's workers still
struggle for basic human rights, decent wages, and safe workplaces. NAFTA's failure to protect
workers' rights has allowed employers to continue thwarting independent union organizing in
Mexico's export industries.
While exports and investment boomed, real wages fell and poverty rose in Mexico in the past 11
years, according to the Carnegie Endowment. More than a million Mexican farmers lost their land
to low-priced agriculture imports and were forced to search for work in factories or as migrant
laborers in the United States. Now investors in Mexico's export assembly plants are moving to
China, where labor costs are even lower.
NAFTA CREATES POVERTY

POLAR INSTITUTE 3-14-08 [“we should all support NAFTA renegotiation”
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/we_should_all_support_nafta_renegotiation]
Canadians and Mexicans and Americans should all support the NAFTA renegotiation proposed by
Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The U.S. senators want to
strengthen NAFTA’s labour and environmental standards. But most importantly, they want to
abolish NAFTA’s nefarious Chapter 11 which allows private capital to trump democratic
government.
Before NAFTA, private investors’ grievances were adjudicated on a government-to-government basis. But NAFTA allows foreign
capital to sue government directly. And sue they have — for tens of millions of dollars — challenging the public’s right to regulate
the environment, culture, agriculture, natural resources, jobs and health and safety. As of Jan. 1, 2008, there have been 49 investor-
state claims under NAFTA: 18 against Canada, 17 against Mexico and 14 against the U.S. So far, Canada has paid $27 million in
damages and Mexico, $18.7 million. To date, investor claims against the U.S. have been dismissed. Two cases provide a flavour. An
Exxon-Mobil subsidiary is suing Newfoundland and Labrador for $40 million because the province demanded a fixed amount of local
research and development. Chemtura Corp. is suing Canada for $100 million over the ban on its pesticide Lindane, a neurotoxin and
suspected carcinogen. NAFTA is “very much a relic of the Roaring Nineties,” says Scott Sinclair, director of the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives’ trade and investment research project. “That’s another era now and it’s just not an appropriate framework for
managing the problems of the early 21st century. There is a growing recognition we need active democratic governments to protect the
environment on issues like climate change and to deal with the growing inequality which again is a consequence of the patterns of
trade that have developed under NAFTA and other trade agreements.” Sinclair points out Chapter 11 not only costs taxpayers but
chills government from regulating in the first place. NAFTA also plays an even greater — but disguised — role in this and other U.S.
election campaigns. Illegal immigration, primarily from Mexico, is a major flashpoint in American politics. But Obama and Clinton
have not connected illegal immigration to NAFTA’s Mexican agricultural “clearances.” NAFTA forced Mexico to liberalize and
corporatize its agriculture. U.S. agribusiness giants like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland effectively pushed millions of small
farmers off the land into the slums of Mexico City and finally to the U.S. border. A Mexican government study reports the number of
agricultural households plunged from 2.3 million in 1992 to 575,000 in 2002. Those woRandall King in the primary sector (forestry,
hunting and fishing as well as agriculture) represented 26.8 per cent of the total woRandall King population of Mexico in 1991 but
100
only 14.6 per cent in 2006. “NAFTA negotiations took place without taking into consideration the views of Mexico’s civil society,”
writes Americas Policy Program researcher Ana de Ita in Fourteen Years Of Nafta And The Tortilla Crisis. Mexico now imports most
of its corn from the U.S. because its agricultural land grows fruit and vegetables for North American tables. “So while
agricultural and food exports from Mexico are concentrated in a small number of lavish products
for the U.S. elites, Mexico has lost its ability to feed its population and has increased its
dependency on the import of basic goods,” de Ita continues.
101
IMPACT- NAFTA BAD- ENVIRONMENT

NAFTA HURTS THE ENVIRONMENT AND BYPASSES US SAFETY LAWS
HARDY 3-2-08 [Frank W, Writer for suite101.com“NAFTA-A Bad Trade Agreement”
http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/nafta_is_a_bad_agreement]
US presidential candidates are arguing about the destruction caused by the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Make it fair or get rid of it, is their claim.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a much bigger problem than the loss of
jobs in certain sectors. The Economic Policy Institute, Common Dreams and marketing professors around the
continent agree it fails Mexicans, Americans and Canadians with flawed data, flawed assumptions and partial
interpretation.
However, NAFTA has become a tool for US presidential candidate Barack Obama. Pointing out his rivals' short-comings
on the issue, he is doing as well among manufacturing workers in Ohio as he did with garment workers in South
Carolina and farmers in Iowa. His stalwartness has revived Ross Perot’s argument of a “giant sucking sound” of jobs
heading to Mexico. Furthermore, the media is now focusing on key areas of the agreement.
* Environment – A 2000 CRS report for congress states the agreement: “…only obligates parties to enforce their
own environmental laws.” It continues that “lax enforcement of environmental laws in Mexico would
provide an added incentive for U.S. industries to relocate.” This is not an abstract hypothesis: according
to the Economic Policy Institute on July 13th 2001, “10.9% of foreign exports [since 1993] were designated as
‘environmental release’ imports…”
* Safety – this has become a large concern by many NAFTA watchers. The agreement has
allowed corporations to by-pass USA laws. An example is the Trucking Domicile Laws. In 2001, a NAFTA
tribunal ordered the U.S. to fully open its border to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies. According to Public Citizen
(who has filed suit over expansion of the program): “…the system designed to ensure that Mexico-domiciled carriers
comply with U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing safety standards is incomplete, and it is not clear whether the drug and
alcohol testing program is functional, the inspector general found.”
102
IMPACT- NAFTA BAD- FOOD PRICES

FREE TRADE WILL RISE PRICES OF FOOD AND COLLAPSE AGRICULTURE
MITTAL 07 [Anuradha, internationally renowned expert on trade, development, human rights, democracy, and
agriculture issues. February 22, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4021]
First we need to dismantle one of the great myths that free trade helps farmers and the poor. It
does not! Attempts to leave farmers at the mercy of the free market only hasten their demise.
The focus on export crops for trade has meant increasing yields, with farmers becoming
dependent on chemical inputs. Many have stopped rotating their crops, instead devoting every
acre to corn, wheat, or some other commodity crop and creating vast monocultures that require
still more chemicals to be sustained. This has destroyed our biodiversity. Vast industrial farms
require costly equipment for planting and harvesting, increasing the capital intensity of
agriculture. As costs rise, prices fall in markets flush with surplus. As prices fall, farmers need
subsidies, which are available to big growers and agribusiness only. Land values and cash rents
increase. This encourages heavy borrowing. Rich landowners get richer and young farmers
cannot afford to get started. An agricultural bubble economy is created. Inevitably it crashes as
subsidies fail to keep pace with falling crop prices. Farms go bankrupt. Free trade in agriculture
starves our farmers.
103
2NC ISRAEL/PALESTINE MODULE (1/1)

A. OBAMA WILL BROKER AN ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE AGREEMENT
AFP 7-4-08 [“Palestinian minister praises Obama”
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+
Africa&month=July2008&file=World_News2008070421131.xml]
TOKYO • A senior Palestinian minister said yesterday that he was pinning his hopes on US presidential candidate
Barack Obama, believing he would seal an elusive deal on creating a Palestinian state. The Palestinian
Authority's planning minister Samir Abdullah told reporters on a visit to Tokyo he expected Obama to win the election
in November and “look at the Palestinian question and try to do something about it.” “He promised that he will
not wait until the end of his term to launch negotiations and he will make it happen from day
one. I hope that he will fulfil his promise,” he said.
B. ARAB ISRAELI AGREEMENT PREVENTS NUCLEAR WAR

EISENSTADT 98, [Michael Senior Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/meria/meria98_eim01.html]
The end of the Cold War greatly reduced the likelihood that a superpower confrontation in the Middle East could spark
a global nuclear war. In this respect, the world today is a much safer place than it was during the Cold War. However,
the end of the Cold War also set loose forces that had previously been kept in check—such as
aggressive nationalism in the Balkans and the jihad-oriented Islam of Muslim Afghan veterans
(which was formerly directed at the Soviet Union), and loosed constraints on the transfers of sensitive
technologies that had previously been carefully controlled. As a result, American decisionmakers
face a security environment that is more complex and unpredictable than during the Cold War,
but with dangers of its own, including the proliferation of WMD, terrorism, and the horrible
possibility of terrorist use of WMD.
Russian, Chinese, and North Korean involvement in the proliferation of WMD and missiles has emerged as a major
concern in the post-Cold War era. The Russian case is particularly alarming, because the Soviet Union had an excellent
record of restraint regarding the transfer of WMD technologies during the Cold War (when private firms in the West
were the source of much of the problem) and because the massive scale of the infrastructure devoted to WMD
production in the former Soviet Union makes the leakage of material and/or know-how almost inevitable. The United
States still has not found a solution to this problem; Russia, China, and North Korea have repeatedly demonstrated a
disturbing tendency to continue the transfer of sensitive arms and technology to countries such as Iran—contrary to
commitments made to the United States—if they believe they can get away with it.
The United States also faces problems with its European allies. The end of the Cold War led to a loss of U.S. leverage
and influence over European allies who previously relied on the U.S. security umbrella to protect them from Soviet
aggression. This translates to an increased willingness by traditional allies such as France and Germany to part ways
with the United States on issues such as policy toward Iraq or Iran.
In the coming years, the United States is likely to enjoy a large and growing conventional military
edge over potential adversaries such as Iraq and Iran—thanks largely to its technological edge
and the impact of sanctions which prevent these countries from modernizing their armed forces.
However, the United States may not be able to exploit fully this advantage in many
circumstances. Moreover, in light of America’s conventional military advantage, challenges to the
United States are increasingly likely to come from the two extremes of the threat spectrum:
terrorism on one end, and WMD on the other. The United States will find both of these threats
particularly difficult to counter—in part, because its military force structure still reflects Cold War
requirements rather than post-Cold War realities.
While the possibility that an Arab–Israeli war could spark a superpower confrontation no longer exists, the
proliferation of WMD in the Middle East means that a future Arab–Israeli war could involve the
use of these weapons on the battlefield or against civilian population centers. Averting this
possibility will be a key U.S. interest in the Middle East in the coming years.
The most likely scenario for conflict in the Arab–Israeli arena is the possibility of protracted
Israeli–Palestinian violence as a result of the breakdown of the peace process. Other possible, though
less likely scenarios, include a Syrian–Israeli clash in Lebanon, acts of terrorism sponsored by Iraq or Iran that might
104
prompt Israeli retaliation, and perhaps even an Israeli preventive strike on WMD-related sites in Iraq or Iran.
There are few situations, however, that would require direct and massive U.S. military intervention or air- and sea-lifts
to resupply depleted Israeli equipment inventories. U.S. forces and personnel could be indirectly involved in future
conflicts or be targeted by hostile groups or states (personnel at risk might include CIA officers involved in monitoring
implementation of the Israeli–Palestinian Wye agreement). As a result, the United States will need to enhance
its ability to deal with terrorism and WMD, the threats that pose the greatest danger to its
personnel and interests in the Arab–Israeli arena.
In a future Arab–Israeli war, Israel would depend on the United States for both information and
materiel. In a conventional scenario (such as war with Syria, which is at present unlikely), this might include target
intelligence for counter-Scud operations and strikes on WMD-related facilities, information to aid interdiction of enemy
expeditionary forces from outer-ring states (though the abilities of Libya, Iraq, and Iran have been greatly diminished
by sanctions and/or war), specialized munitions to deal with hardened or underground facilities, anti-missile systems to
supplement Israel’s capabilities, and a resupply of tanks and aircraft if combat losses are substantial (which seems
unlikely).
105
IMPACT- ISRAEL PALESTINE IL EXT

OBAMA WILL LAUNCH NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
AFP 7-4-08 [“Palestinian minister praises Obama”
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+
Africa&month=July2008&file=World_News2008070421131.xml]
TOKYO • A senior Palestinian minister said yesterday that he was pinning his hopes on US presidential candidate
Barack Obama, believing he would seal an elusive deal on creating a Palestinian state.
The Palestinian Authority's planning minister Samir Abdullah told reporters on a visit to Tokyo he expected Obama to
win the election in November and “look at the Palestinian question and try to do something about it.”
“He promised that he will not wait until the end of his term to launch negotiations and he will
make it happen from day one. I hope that he will fulfil his promise,” he said.
OBAMA IS COMMITTED TO PEACE IN THE ISRAEL/PALESTINE CONFLICT

RIGHT SIDE NEWS.COM 6-27-08 [Limor Simhoni and Roni Bart, writers “John McCain and Barack Obama:
The Middle East and Israel Strategic Assessment” http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806271287/editorial/john-mccain-
and-barack-obama-the-middle-east-and-israel-strategic-assessment.html]
Since Obama was elected to the Senate and through his presidential campaign, he has also expressed his support for
Israel in its struggle against terror. He defines Israel as “the United States’ strongest ally in the region, and the only
democracy there”; he is committed to Israel’s security, including by maintaining its military superiority; he sees Hamas
as “a terror organization devoted to the idea of destroying the State of Israel,”[17] and therefore does not comprise a
legitimate partner to negotiations until it changes its attitude. Obama supports a two-state solution and is
“committed to making every effort to help Israel achieve peace,” but will not force a settlement on it; he
opposes a Palestinian right of return.[18]
These positions and his voting history in the Senate place Obama at the heart of the traditional
pro-Israeli consensus in America. However, his overall record offers a less rosy picture from
Israel’s point of view. In all matters relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Obama expresses an
evenhanded position, which is striking in its contrast with the American political landscape. After the failure of the
Camp David summit he criticized the Clinton administration for its unconditional and unilateral support of Israel. He
used the expression “cycle of violence" instead of the expression generally used among supporters of Israel,
“Palestinian violence and Israeli response.”[19] In the past, he has said that “no one is suffering more than
the Palestinian people.” (He later excused the remark as said in the context of the Palestinians suffering from the
failure of their leaders to recognize Israel). He promised to apply pressure to both sides in order to
achieve tangible progress in the political process. He outlined that his administration will ask
Israel to shoulder part of the responsibility to change the status quo and he will help “Israelis to
identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace.”[20] Obama is the only
candidate who has not expressed support for the security fence, which he described as “another example of the
neglect of this administration in brokering peace.”[21]
106
IMPACT- PEACE PROCESS IL EXT- US KEY

THE US IS VITAL TO THE ISRAEL PALESTINE PEACE PROCESS
BEN-MEIR 2007 [PROF MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES NYU AND NEW SCHOOL. “ONE LAST SHOT”, 1-22,
WWW.ALONBEN-MEIR.COM]
After more than six years of tragic neglect, Washington might have one last chance to push for
an end to
the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. As Alon Ben-Meir writes, whether there is a direct or indirect
link
between this century-old struggle and the violence in region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
remains, for Arabs, an emotionally charged issue that fuels extremists throughout the Middle East.
The Bush Administration’s preoccupation with Iraq, however compelling, offers no excuse for its near-paralysis on the
Israeli-Palestinian front. While it cannot go it alone, the United States still has the greatest sway in the
region. Thus, it can mobilize the resources necessary to orchestrate a multilateral approach that leads
to a peace agreement. It can do so by applying simultaneously five principles: Appoint a serious representative
The Bush Administration must demonstrate its seriousness about finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by
appointing a permanent presidential envoy to the region. During the past six years, more than a dozen emissaries,
from General Zinni to former Senator Robert Mitchell, have scurried back and forth. Their peacemaking attempts were
punctuated, in times of heightened tension, by an occasional visit by the Secretary of State. What is really
needed is a highly skilled professional with a presidential mandate, someone sensitive to both
Israel's and Palestine’s unique situation — a relentless, ruthless negotiator, with the authority to cajole or
coerce, who will coordinate the entire negotiating process until both parties agree on a viable peace.
Urge Israel to make the first move Since it has consistently supported Israel’s policies in general and been its ultimate
ally, the Bush Administration can exert tremendous influence on Israel to moderate its policies in the occupied
territories. To change the dynamic of the conflict, Israel must undertake unilateral confidence-building measures
aimed at the Palestinians that do not compromise its own national security. These measures will clearly signal its
commitment to ending the occupation — a signal that Palestinians must see and hear. Such measures include: a)
forbidding construction of illegal outposts and dismantling all existing ones, b) ending the expansion of existing
settlements with only minor exceptions, c) providing economic incentives and sustainable development projects to
peaceful Palestinian communities, d) removing all roadblocks that do not threaten Israel‘s security, e) allowing
Palestinians to legitimately build and plant with no undue restrictions, f) forsaking any form of collective punishment,
g) removing that part of the fence infringing on Palestinian territory, and h) releasing all prisoners who forswear
violence, especially the most popular of them, Marwan Barghouti, who can revitalize Fatah political life, offer an
alternative to Mahmoud Abbas, if it becomes necessary — and present a real challenge to Hamas. Interact with
Hamas Although the Bush Administration refuses, rightfully, to negotiate with Hamas unless it accepts the three
benchmarks of agreeing to Israel’s right to exist, respecting prior agreements and renouncing terrorism, Washington
must, meanwhile, act decisively to bolster the Palestinian camp that supports the two-state
solution. Specifically, the Bush Administration must openly provide Mr. Abbas with financial support to go toward
salaries for his administration and for construction projects to create jobs, military equipment and training — so he and
his supporters can pose a credible challenge to Hamas. Washington should also encourage Israel to make
political concessions to widen his public support. Mr. Abbas must in turn rein in the violent Aksa Brigade, an
offshoot of Fatah, and dispatch his security forces to troubled areas to keep the calm with Israel.
107
2NC US-ARAB RELATIONS MODULE (1/2)

A. OBAMA KEY TO US-ARAB RELATIONS
Sullivan, December 2007
(Andrew, “Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters”, The Atlantic Monthly,
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama/3)
In normal times, such division is not fatal, and can even be healthy. It’s great copy for journalists. But we are not talking
about routine rancor. And we are not talking about normal times. We are talking about a world in which Islamist
terror, combined with increasingly available destructive technology, has already murdered thousands of
Americans, and tens of thousands of Muslims, and could pose an existential danger to the West. The terrible
failures of the Iraq occupation, the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Pakistan, the progress of Iran toward nuclear
capability, and the collapse of America’s prestige and moral reputation, especially among those millions of
Muslims too young to have known any American president but Bush, heighten the stakes dramatically. Perhaps the
underlying risk is best illustrated by our asking what the popular response would be to another 9/11–style attack. It is hard to imagine a reprise of the sudden unity and solidarity in the days
after 9/11, or an outpouring of support from allies and neighbors. It is far easier to imagine an even more bitter fight over who was responsible (apart from the perpetrators) and a profound
suspicion of a government forced to impose more restrictions on travel, communications, and civil liberties. The current president would be unable to command the trust, let alone the support,
of half the country in such a time. He could even be blamed for provoking any attack that came. Of the viable national candidates, only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge
this widening partisan gulf. Polling reveals Obama to be the favored Democrat among Republicans. McCain’s bipartisan appeal has receded in recent years, especially with his enthusiastic
embrace of the latest phase of the Iraq War. And his personal history can only reinforce the Vietnam divide. But Obama’s reach outside his own ranks remains striking. Why? It’s a good
question: How has a black, urban liberal gained far stronger support among Republicans than the made-over moderate Clinton or the southern charmer Edwards? Perhaps because the
Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism. It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his
are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America
person. They
in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of
the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles
of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man. What does he offer?
First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States
since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on
Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the
potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent
weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next
president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight
where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long
haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face
comes in. Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and
sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft
power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an
African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the
alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that
fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words
can.
108
2NC US-ARAB RELATIONS MODULE (1/2)

B. ARAB-US RELATIONS PREVENT WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Dr. James ZOBGY, president – Arab American Institute, 11/20/2000, Washington Watch, p.
http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch/112000.htm
The current Administration has but two months and a limited mandate in which it may act to reverse this downward
slide. They may not be able, at this point, to resolve the conflict and establish a comprehensive peace. But they can
make a determined effort both to restore confidence in U.S. leadership and to establish some specific goals that will
provide the next Administration and Israelis and Arabs alike with a renewed sense of purpose and direction. To do this,
the United States must publicly reexamine some aspects of its Middle East policy, restate some of its fundamental
commitments, and intensively engage public opinion on all sides of the Middle East equation. Firstly, the United
States can help end current hostilities and stem the possibility of that violence spilling over into a
broader regional war. Instead of merely relying on Israelis and Palestinians to act, the United
States could address some root causes of the current dilemma. Palestinians need to have their hope restored. The
United States can help provide that with a clear expression of support for the legitimate Palestinian right to a sovereign state, with a
capital in Jerusalem, exercising full control over its own borders. The United States should also make clear that Israel's continued
expansion of settlements and settlement by-pass roads are not only an obstacle, but the obstacle to a just resolution of the conflict.
Israel's proposed budget for 2001 includes $500 million for settlements and settlement infrastructure. The U.S. should make clear
that Israel may have settlements or peace, but not both. At the same time the U.S. should express its sorrow over the loss of
Palestinian life. Israel's objections to international protection for the Palestinians and its withholding of revenues from the Palestinian
Authority must also be opposed. During the last seven years little has been done to improve the economic lot of Palestinians. This
must, as least, be acknowledged and firm commitments must be made to change this state of affairs. The U.S. should also make clear
its grave concern with Israel's use of U.S.-supplied weapons in the continuing violence. Under the terms of the Arms Export Control
Act the United States can restrict shipments of weapons if the President or Department of State finds that their export "will increase
the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict." Israel's use of U.S. supplied helicopter gunships to kill Fateh commanders and to
attack Palestinian Authority offices and more recently to land in south Lebanon should provide sufficient justification for the
Administration to publicly call for an examination of Israeli behavior. Such steps would help restore some confidence in U.S.
leadership and act as a restraint against any further escalation or expansion of the conflict. It
would, especially if coupled with the other measures outlined above, also provide the Palestinian
leadership with the ability to restore some hope and calm among their much-aggrieved people.
But the United States must do more. For too long the United States has addressed the Arab world
through the narrow confines of the peace process. In some instances, improvements of bilateral
relations were tied to a country's stance toward peace with Israel. It is vitally important,
therefore, that the Administration utilize this interregnum to restate its commitment to bilateral
relations with individual Arab countries and regional blocs of Arab countries. These relationships are important in their
own right and steps should be taken to affirm that reality.
109
2NC IRAQ PULL OUT MODULE (1/2)

A. OBAMA WILL PULL OUT OF IRAQ
ASSOCIATED PRESS 7/3
(“Obama says Iraq trip could refine his policy” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq)
"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake
of political expedience," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party.
"Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a
typical politician." McCain, has been a vocal supporter of the Iraq war and war policy has been a
central disagreement between the two candidates. But Obama insisted his position has not
changed at all. He pointed out he has always said, "We need to be as careful getting out as we
were careless getting in." This means, he said, that his 16-month timeline "was always premised
on" not endangering either U.S. troops or Iraq's stability, which he had previously been told by
commanders was possible. "I'm going to continue to gather information to see whether those
conditions still hold," he said. "My goal is to end this conflict as soon as possible." "I continue to
believe that it is a strategic error for us to maintain a long-term occupation in Iraq at a time when
conditions in Afghanistan are worsening, al-Qaida is continuing to establish bases in areas of
northwest Pakistan, resources there are severely strained and we are spending $10 to $12 billion
a month in Iraq that we desperately need here at home, not to mention the strains on our
military," Obama said.
110
2NC IRAQ PULL OUT MODULE (1/2)
B. STAYING THE COURSE CREATES A BREEDING GROUND FOR AL QAEDA

RIEDEL AND BERGER 2007
(Bruce, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy AND Samuel Berger, National Security Adviser, 1997-2000,
July 23 2007 (“America Must Pull Out of Iraq to Contain Civil War” http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-
ed/riedel/20070723.htm)
A clear US commitment to a complete, irreversible withdrawal from Iraq may now be the only
way to develop a regional concert of powers that could work with Iraqis to try to stabilise the
country and cauterise the conflict. The continuing US and British occupation is a roadblock to
that co-operation. The galvanising impact of a decision to depart unequivocally can be the last
best chance at preventing the conflict from boiling over beyond Iraq to the whole region. How we
design and implement our departure is our last significant remaining leverage. There is no
guarantee that this will work, but geopolitical self-interest may encourage wary co-operation
from Iraq's neighbours. Iran does not need to invade Iraq to have influence there. The Saudis and
Jordanians do not have the military capability to invade. The Syrians are not interested and, in
spite of some sabre-rattling, the Turks do not need more Kurds to try to pacify. Focusing on
ending the occupation and bringing order in its wake may be the best chance left to end our
involvement while keeping the civil war contained to Iraq. None of Iraq's neighbours was eager
for the invasion four years ago, with the possible exception of Kuwait. All of them saw the US and
UK occupation as inherently destabilising, especially if it looked permanent. All are now worried
that the civil war in Iraq will serve as a breeding ground for terror and violence that will be
increasingly exported to their own countries. Iraq is already a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists
who have attacked Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, and for PKK terrorists who attack Turkey.
Now al-Qaeda is threatening to attack Iran for meddling on the side of the Shia in Iraq against
the Sunni Arab minority. But these countries cannot work constructively with an American
occupation army - especially not Iran, which has the most capability to be a decisive force given
its intimate ties to virtually every Shia and Kurdish politician, its geography and its economic
connections. Most of all Tehran wants to see the US leave Iraq for good so it cannot be a base
against Iran. The Saudis and Jordanians find it both difficult and less urgent to engage when the
occupation is open-ended. The Syrians find Iraq to be a good place to keep America bogged
down and less threatening. The Turks fear that a long-term American presence encourages
Kurdish -separatism. These calculations may well change once there is a clear time-line for
complete American and British withdrawal and the end of occupation. At that point it is in the self
interest of each of the neighbours to concentrate on shaping post-occupation Iraq and especially
preventing the terrorist threat that instability creates. All Iraq's neighbours will find it easier to
engage when it is not in support of an occupation army. None will want to see another gain direct
control of part or all of Iraq. All will want to avoid a power vacuum for al-Qaeda and other
terrorists. We should seek to build on the narrow moment of time when those self-interests might
be put into harmony to stabilise Iraq. For Iraqis as well it is imperative that the US make clear
now what it should have been saying from day one: we plan no permanent military presence in
Iraq, no bases and no special relationship. We want a fully independent Iraq, not a client state.
We should abandon any thought of staying in Iraq for decades as if it were South Korea or
Germany. When we suggest such it only rallies more recruits for al-Qaeda, especially foreign
suicide bombers. The best way to isolate al-Qaeda is to pull the occupation out from under it. The
United Nations should be invited to convene and administer a contact group of the neighbours that would address
several key issues in conjunction with the Iraqi government. At the top of the list would be agreement to assist rather
than exploit the peaceful and orderly withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Iraq, agreement to respect the
territorial integrity of Iraq, agreement to assist the government of Iraq in controlling and stabilising its territory and
funding of a major assistance package. These are key issues for the transition from occupation to post-occupation. For
111
the US it is obviously important to get help in making the withdrawal of our forces as smooth as possible. We should
try to leave behind a regional order that has a chance for stability.
C. Terrorism risks extinction

Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 8/28/03
(Washington Times)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated
dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the
magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself.
Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national
security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a
devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous
acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive
the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the
universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that
contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists,
and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of
we have
violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear
entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with
its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.
112
IMPACT- IRAQ PULL OUT IL EXT

OBAMA WOULD PULL OUT OF IRAQ
ASSOCIATED PRESS 7/3
(“Obama says Iraq trip could refine his policy” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq)
Obama's Web site contains this direct promise about Iraq: "Obama will immediately
begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each
month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will
make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some
troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al-Qaida attempts to build a base
within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted
strikes on al-Qaida." McCain was an early supporter of increasing the number of U.S.
troops in Iraq as President Bush did last year. He wants to pursue the current
counterinsurgency tactics to give Iraqis time to work out a political reconciliation. He has
said he's willing to see some U.S. troops stay there as much as 100 years but not if they
are being wounded or killed in combat. Rather he supports keeping a military presence in
that part of the world because of its volatility.
IL IRAQ STABILITY – OBAMA WILL WITHDRAW TROOPS

Baker 3/8
(Dean, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “What Will President
Obama Do?” http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/what-will-
president-obama-do/)
One of Obama’s big selling points throughout the primaries was that he spoke up openly
against the Iraq War in 2002 when the Congress was still debating whether to authorize
the war. The war is hugely unpopular. There was never any expectation that the United
States would be tied up in a long and costly war. Even the relatively small segment of the
public that supports the current military effort holds the view that victory is just around
the corner. Therefore they expect that it will be possible to withdraw most of the troops
from Iraq in the near future. Obama is virtually certain to work out a plan that involves
getting most U.S. combat troops out of Iraq fairly quickly. The key question is how his
administration will respond if sectarian warfare intensifies as the soldiers withdraw, or if
the Kurds or Shiites make an effort to break off from the country. Neither problem is likely
to prevent a withdrawal. After the bloodshed of the last five years, the ability of the
United States to tolerate violence in Iraq is quite high, especially if U.S. soldier are not in
the middle of it. Obama is also likely to be able to apply enough pressure to ensure that
a formal break-up of Iraq doesn’t occur.
IMPACT – IL – OBAMA WILL WITHDRAW TROOPS QUICKLY

Iraq. Obama promises to withdraw most combat troops in 16 months. McCain says he'd keep them there as
long as necessary to achieve victory and suggests that could be in four years. Neither is totally realistic.
113
Obama would find it hard to withdraw so many troops that quickly. McCain would come under intense
pressure from Congress and the public to act sooner, though the power of the presidency would give him
the upper hand. Congress' say on foreign policy is fairly limited.
114
2NC- IRAQ STABILITY MODULE (1/2)

A. Obama’s Iraq policy will establish regional stability
BAKER 3/8
(Dean, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “What Will President Obama Do?”
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/what-will-president-obama-do/)
Obama is virtually certain to work out a plan that involves getting most U.S. combat troops out of
Iraq fairly quickly. The key question is how his administration will respond if sectarian warfare
intensifies as the soldiers withdraw, or if the Kurds or Shiites make an effort to break off from the
country. Neither problem is likely to prevent a withdrawal. After the bloodshed of the last five
years, the ability of the United States to tolerate violence in Iraq is quite high, especially if U.S.
soldier are not in the middle of it. Obama is also likely to be able to apply enough pressure to
ensure that a formal break-up of Iraq doesn't occur.
B. CONTINUED FIGHTING IRAQ WILL CAUSE REGIONAL WAR, OIL SHOCKS, GLOBAL
TERRORISM AND COLLAPSE US HEGEMONY
Haas, 2007
(Richard, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Korea Times, IRAQ MORE THAN
AMERICA'S PROBLEM, July, lexis)
Terrorism bred in Iraq will not stay there. Terrorists who have tasted success in Iraq will increasingly turn on others. War in Iraq will
only exacerbate frictions between the country's Sunni minority and Shia majority, and such frictions could well be replicated
elsewhere. Even if not, the flight of millions of Sunni refugees will weaken neighbouring states. Continued fighting in Iraq could also
lead to regional war. It is also possible that resistance to Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq could lead to a wider conflict that draws in
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others. Such a conflict would threaten the vital flow of oil from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
Even without such a wider conflict, what happens in Iraq will affect the price of oil. Iraq is producing oil at levels below what it produced
under Saddam Hussein, and has the potential to double or even triple output. Doing so would require significant investment, which in turn would
require stability. It may be too late for the US to succeed in Iraq, but it is not too late for others to increase the odds that the US does not fail Costly
oil is a tax on the poor in developing countries and a source of inflation for the developed countries. It also provides resources to governments that in
many cases are promoting foreign policies that are contrary to the interests of most other countries. The rest of the world also has a stake in how the
US emerges from Iraq. There is a real danger that a widely-perceived failure in Iraq could lead to a serious weakening of
American domestic political support for an active international role, particularly difficult but necessary deployments of
military force. The alternative to a world shaped by a strong, confident, and engaged US is not likely to be a world that is
peaceful, prosperous, and free. In strategic terms, no other country or group of countries has the capacity to replace the
US. The alternative to a US-led global order is disorder. This suggests, first, that governments should avoid public comments
describing the American presence as an "occupation", lest they make it more likely that the US departs Iraq entirely. Second, countries
should support Iraq's government, despite its shortcomings. Third, terrorism needs to be checked. None of Iraq's neighbours,
including Iran, would benefit from sectarian conflict that grows into a regional war. Finally, governments should consider
contributing troops to help establish order, train the Iraqi police and military, and help Iraq guard its borders. Others should be
prepared to step up, lest Iraq's government falls and the Iraqi state fails. Iraq's future is not assured even if these measures are taken.
Still, there is a big difference between an Iraq that struggles and one that implodes; between an Iraq that contributes to
global energy security rather than undermining it; between a civil war and a regional war. It may be too late for the US to
succeed in Iraq, but it is not too late for others to increase the odds that the US does not fail.
115
2NC- IRAQ STABILITY MODULE (1/2)

C. REGIONAL WAR GOES NUCLEAR AND CAUSES EXTINCTION
Hoffman, 2006 Ian, Inside Bay Area, 'Nuclear winter' looms, lexis
Researchers at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting warned Monday that even a small regional nuclear war
could burn enough cities to shroud the globe in black smoky shadow and usher in the manmade equivalent of the Little Ice
Age. "Nuclear weapons represent the greatest single human threat to the planet, much more so than global warming," said
Rutgers University atmospheric scientist Alan Robock. By dropping imaginary Hiroshima-sized bombs into some of the world's biggest cities, now
swelled to tens of millions in population, University of Colorado researcher O. Brian Toon and colleagues found they could generate 100 times the
fatalities and 100 times the climate-chilling smoke per kiloton of explosive power as all-out nuclear war between the United States and former Soviet
Union. For most modern nuclear-war scenarios, the global impact isn't nuclear winter, the notion of smoke from incinerated
cities blotting out the sun for years and starving most of the Earth's people. It's not even nuclear autumn, but rather an
instant nuclear chill over most of the planet, accompanied by massive ozone loss and warming at the poles. That's what
scientists' computer simulations suggest would happen if nuclear war broke out in a hot spot such as the Middle East, the
North Korean peninsula or, the most modeled case, in Southeast Asia. Unlike in the Cold War, when the United States and
Russia mostly targeted each other's nuclear, military and strategic industrial sites, young nuclear-armed nations have fewer
weapons and might go for maximum effect by using them on cities, as the United States did in 1945. "We're at a perilous
crossroads," Toon said. The spread of nuclear weapons worldwide combined with global migration into dense megacities
form what he called "perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of society since the dawn of humanity." More than 20 years ago,
researchers imagined a U.S.-Soviet nuclear holocaust would wreak havoc on the planet's climate. They showed the problem was potentially worse than feared: Massive
urban fires would flush hundreds of millions of tons of black soot skyward, where -- heated by sunlight -- it would soar higher into the stratosphere and begin cooking
off the protective ozone layer around the Earth. Huge losses of ozone would open the planet and its inhabitants to damaging radiation, while the warm soot would
spread a pall sufficient to plunge the Earth into freezing year-round. The hundreds of millions who would starve exceeded those who would die in the initial blasts and
radiation.
116
IMPACT- IRAQ INSTABILITY- LAUNDRY LIST

A FULL-OUT IRAQI CIVIL WAR LEADS TO TRANSNATIONAL TERRORISM, OIL SHOCKS,
REGIONAL WAR AND PROLIFERATION
PASCUAL AND POLLACK, 2007
(Carlos, a Brookings vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Studies Program, Kenneth, senior fellow,
is director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Waning Chances for Stability, Opportunity
08)
Terrorists thrive in political voids and weak states, as when Al Qa'eda emerged in Somalia, Sudan, and Afghanistan. A
vacuum of governance in Iraq will engender transnational terrorism, which will target oil production and transit. Even
without a disruption in production or shipping, instability alone will cause oil prices to spike. More strife in Iraq will
further suppress oil production there and could spark conflicts in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, where a globally catastrophic
loss of oil production could result. And, strife in Iraq could adversely affect Iranian oil production and transit. As Middle
East oil supplies diminish, Venezuela, Sudan, and Russia could use energy and the wealth they derive from it as political
and diplomatic weapons. Similarly, Iran might proceed even more boldly with its nuclear program. Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
and perhaps other Middle East nations then might start a nuclear weapons race in a region prone to terror.
ALL OUT CIVIL WAR CAUSES REGIONAL WAR AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
BYMAN, 2007
Daniel, Director, Security Studies Program, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown
University, ALTERNATIVES FOR IRAQ'S FUTURE, CQ Congressional Testimony, July 18, lexis
The collapse of Iraq into all-out civil war means more than just a humanitarian tragedy. Such a conflict is unlikely to
contain itself. In other, similar cases of all-out civil war that also involve a failed state, the resulting spillover has fostered
terrorism, created refugee flows that can destabilize the entire neighborhood, radicalized the populations of surrounding
states and even sparked civil wars in other, neighboring states or transformed domestic strife into regional war. Terrorists
frequently find a home in states in civil war, as al- Qaeda did in Afghanistan. However, civil wars just as often breed new
terrorist groups-Hizballah, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of Algeria
and the Tamil Tigers were all born of civil wars. Many such groups start by focusing on local targets but then shift to
international attacks-starting with those they believe are aiding their enemies in the civil war.
US FAILURE IN IRAQ LEADS TO REGIONAL WAR, A DECLINE IN US HEGEMONY AND

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
BAKER AND HAMILTON ET AL '06
(James Baker, Chief of Staff for Reagan and Secretary of State for Bush Sr., Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9/11
Commission, and currently serves on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, having previously served in
the United States House of Representatives for 34 years, The Iraq Study Group Report, December 2006
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf)
Iraq is vital to regional and even global stability, and is critical to U.S. interests. It runs along the sectarian fault
lines of Shia and Sunni Islam, and of Kurdish and Arab populations. It has the world's second-largest known oil
reserves. It is now a base of operations for international terrorism, including al Qaeda. Iraq is a centerpiece of
American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world.
Because of the gravity of Iraq's condition and the country's vital importance, the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant
international challenges in decades. Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a
national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy.
117
118
IMPACT- IRAQ INSTABILITY- TERRORISM
CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ WOULD BREED INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

POLLACK, 2006
Kenneth, senior fellow, is director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings, A
SWITCH IN TIME A NEW STRATEGY FOR AMERICA IN IRAQ, February
Moreover, President George W. Bush is no doubt correct that if Iraq were to fall into chaos and civil war, it would
probably become a haven and breeding ground for terrorist groups to an even greater extent than it already is. Lebanon in
the 1970s and Afghanistan in the 1990s are examples of this phenomenon. Iraq was not the central front of the war on
terrorism before the U.S.-led invasion. By invading and failing to stabilize the country, however, it has become the central
front. Today, many Salafi Jihadist4 recruits are traveling to Iraq to learn the trade of terrorism and to test their mettle in
direct combat with the Americans. If the United States leaves Iraq in chaos, terrorists will establish training camps and
bases from which to attack the United States and its allies throughout the world, just as al-Qa'ida used Afghanistan to
mount the East Africa bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and September 11.Moreover, if we left Iraq prematurely, this
would be seen across the Muslim world as a great victory for the Salafi Jihadist cause—greater even than their part in
defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. This would be a major spur to terrorist recruitment.
FAILURE IN IRAQ LEADS TO TERRORISM

Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, "Al Qaeda is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald's." Left
unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could continue to incite violence between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could
provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al Qaeda
will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as
they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden,
has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread "the jihad wave to
the secular countries neighboring Iraq." A senior European official told us that failure in Iraq could incite
terrorist attacks within his country.
119
IMPACT- IRAQ INSTABILITY- HEG

CHAOS IN IRAQ WOULD END US HEGEMONY*
KAZEMI, 2006
Ali-Asghar, professor of international relations at Islamic Azad University in Tehran, A Worst Case Scenario,
6/13, http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/previous.php?opt=1&id=124
At the international level, the fall of Iraq could deal the most serious blow to US strategy in the Middle East and
end American hegemony in the entire world. If the United States and allied forces in Iraq fail to contain and
manage the crisis, we should expect immediate repercussions in the form of a domino effect in other countries,
beginning with Afghanistan. The proliferation of radicalism could easily affect North Africa in the West and
Muslim states in East and South Asia, including Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia. Those in
the United States and other parts of the world who push for a quick withdrawal of American troops from Iraq
are evidently not conscious of these and other catastrophic ramifications.
COLLAPSES US CRED- THE KEY I/L TO HEG

The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of,
and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities. Perceived failure there could diminish
America's credibility and influence in a region that is the center of the Islamic world and vital to the world's
energy supply. This loss would reduce America's global influence at a time when pressing issues in North
Korea, Iran, and elsewhere demand our full attention and strong U.S. leadership of international alliances. And
the longer that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the more the chances for American
failure in Afghanistan increase.
120
IMPACT- IRAQ INSTABILITY- OIL

INSTABILITY CAUSES OIL SHOCKS WHICH WOULD COLLAPSE THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Ambassadors from neighboring countries told us that they fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes
across the Islamic world. Many expressed a fear of Shia insurrections— perhaps fomented by Iran—in Sunni-
ruled states. Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems—including the
radicalization of populations, mass movements of populations, and regime changes—that might take decades to
play out. If the instability in Iraq spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop in oil production and exports could
lead to a sharp increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy.
IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR

LEWIS 98
Chris H. Lewis in his book "The Coming Age of Scarcity" p. 56 1998
Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw
from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States, Europe, and
Japan and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global
economy. These neocolonial wars will result in mass death, suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If first
world countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy, then we
may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in
comparison. However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and
political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage
the complex economic and trading networks and squander material, biological and energy resources that they
will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the
worst case scenario for the collapse of global civilization
121
2NC SOFT POWER MODULE (1/3)

A. OBAMA KEY TO US SOFTPOWER
Nye 2008
(Joseph Nye, Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, “Barack Obama and Soft Power” June 12, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-obama-and-soft-pow_b_106717.html)
I have spent the past month lecturing in Oxford and traveling in Europe where Barack
Obama could be elected in a landslide. I suspect that this fascination with Obama is true
in many parts of the world. In fact, as I have said before, it is difficult to think of any
single act that would do more to restore America's soft power than the
election of Obama to the presidency. Soft power is the ability to obtain the outcomes
one wants through attraction rather than using the carrots and sticks of payment or
coercion. As I describe in my new book The Powers to Lead, in individuals soft power
rests on the skills of emotional intelligence, vision, and communication that Obama
possesses in abundance. In nations, it rests upon culture (where it is attractive to
others), values (when they are applied without hypocrisy), and policies (when they are
inclusive and seen as legitimate in the eyes of others.) Polls show that American soft
power has declined quite dramatically in much of the world over the past eight years.
Some say this is structural, and resentment is the price we pay for being the biggest kid
on the block. But it matters greatly whether the big kid is seen as a friend or a bully. In
much of the world we have been seen as a bully as a result of the Bush Administration
policies. Unfortunately, a President Obama will inherit a number of policy problems such
as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea where hard power plays a large role.
If he drops the ball on any of these issues, they will devour his political capital. At the same time, he will have to be
careful not to let this inherited legacy of problems define his presidency. Some time between November 4 and January
20, he will need to indicate a new tone in foreign policy which shows that we will once again export hope rather than
fear. This could take several forms: announcement of an intent to close Guantanamo; dropping the term "global war on
terror;" creation of a special bipartisan group to formulate a new policy on climate change; a "listening trip" to Asia,
and so forth. Electing Obama will greatly help restore America's soft power as a nation that
can recreate itself, but the election alone will not be sufficient. It is not too soon to start
thinking about symbols and policies for the days immediately after the election.
122
B. SOFT POWER IS KEY TO GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Alex Lennon Editor In Chief – Washington Quarterly12-7-2007 ["Mediation and Diplomacy in U.S. Smart
Power" – CSIS Commission on Smart Power]
Current U.S. policy is perceived to rely too heavily on its military power. Unlike Cold War conflicts amenable to mediation between
escalation-averse Soviet and U.S. patron states, today's United States, as the world's most powerful country, has a unique opportunity
to mediate, integrating its hard and soft power to enhance U.S. global power and influence smartly. In the first decade after the Soviet
dissolution, mediation was a principal form of Washington's global influence and a symbol of the peaceful role it could play in the
world. In 1993, U.S. economic assistance and security assurances helped transfer nuclear weapons from post-Soviet Ukraine to
Russia. Among other efforts in the Middle East, Washington helped Israel and Jordan resolve differences over refugees, borders, and water
facilitating a 1994 agreement ending the state of belligerence between the two countries, while Jordan subsequently gained the status of a U.S. "major non-NATO ally." In 1995, U.S. efforts
under Richard Holbrooke's direction in the Balkans helped Croats, Muslims, and Serbs agree to the Dayton Accords ending the Bosnian war. George Mitchell's leadership to reach the 1998
Good Friday accord, as well as subsequent efforts led by Richard Haass and others, helped set the stage for Protestants and Catholics to begin jointly running the government in Northern
Armitage led U.S. efforts to help manage conflict and prevent tensions between India and Pakistan from
Ireland in May 2007. In 2002, Richard
escalating into war between nuclear-armed powers. There certainly have been other cases, however, where a U.S. role was not
appropriate In Kashmir, for example, nationalism and relative power led India to oppose any external attempts to fundamentally resolve the conflict with Pakistan. Indian strategic thinker
Raja Mohan recently concluded that "somewhat counterintuitively, Washington's reduced activity on Kashmir opened the space for India to initiate the first purposeful negotiation in decades on
the long-standing conflict with Pakistan." U.S. pressure would have been counterproductively perceived domestically in India as forcing New Delhi to the negotiating table. It needed to move
on its own. In some cases, another actor may be better suited to mediate an international conflict. But there are other instances when a U.S. role is appropriate. First, U.S.
interests in
resolving the conflict must be involved or Washington risks losing domestic support for its efforts. Second, the chances for U.S.
success are generally, but not exclusively, greater mediating between states. Ambassador Chester Crocker explained in an interview
for this initiative that political organization is relatively more stable within states, increasing chances for success, without
simultaneously trying to manage the inherent chaos within civil wars or when non-state actors are otherwise involved. Third,
Washington should consider the expectations for success it creates by getting involved as well as the potential availability of other
mediators. In these cases, alternate mediators may still benefit from U.S. support even if it does not take a leading and public role, as
the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) has done under General Anthony Zinni's leadership in the Philippines. Finally, the United States
needs to be perceived as a pragmatic player. USIP research has concluded that any actor perceived to be ideologically motivated will
limit its potential for mediation and diplomacy because it will be perceived as unwilling to compromise its principles for practical
gains. Accepting Gerry Adams as a negotiating partner in Northern Ireland, for example, was a politically unpopular but essential first
step toward progress. Under these circumstances, the United States could enhance its role in global mediation by providing unique
assets to successfully mediate an international conflict. It is a myth that the United States needs to be perceived as a neutral honest
broker to be an effective mediator. Evenhanded mediation can be provided by a number of other countries, such as Norway's role in
the 1993 Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Mediators, particularly the United States, can also be powerful
enforcers which may be closer to one side as long as they will lean on that side to enforce agreements reached. German strategic
thinker Josef Joffe advised that "credibility, however, is not enough; one also needs power to broker peace." The United States
becomes uniquely qualified when it can either deliver a stronger state which is an ally, such as Israel, or protect a weaker actor, such as
the parties against the Serbs in the Balkans, because it has power. Creative U.S. proposals perceived to be even-handed can certainly
improve negotiations, but U.S. hard power—its economic and military strength—enables it to play this enforcer's role as mediator. If
parties are interested in an agreement and simply believe that the United States can improve the chances for that agreement,
Washington can play a constructive role. It can provide economic incentives and political cover to help parties reach politically
unpopular decisions. It can also provide military power to monitor and enforce cease-fires when peace is demonstrably in the parties'
and the U.S. interest. Woodrow Wilson scholar and former Middle East negotiator Aaron Miller summarized that the United States
should be "willing to build bridges when it can and crack heads when it must." Power enables the United States as a mediator to both
reassure and cajole. When the circumstances are right for a U.S. role, its interests can be served by promoting diplomacy now,
rather than having to pay a higher military cost later if conflicts are not successfully managed. Alternatively, recent Saudi
initiatives in the Middle East and Chinese overtures in Southeast Asia demonstrate that if the United States does not take a leading
negotiating role, other actors might. Mediation can certainly be risky if the initiative fails and the perception of U.S. power
declines because it is unable to deliver a solution. While such a risk should be taken seriously, the beginning of the next
administration offers a unique opportunity when even a failed mediation effort would serve U.S. interests. It would demonstrate that a new U.S.
administration is determined to revitalize and integrate its diplomatic and economic power into Washington's role in the world. Diplomacy is not appeasement; it is a form of leverage. Henry
Kissinger wrote that "diplomacy is the attempt to persuade another party to pursue a course compatible with a society's strategic interests." Diplomacy can help to change the behavior of other
To get other countries to want what we want, the next U.S. administration should enhance its use of
regimes, not legitimate their existence.
diplomacy, talking to both friends and adversaries. It is a way to learn about other society's priorities, interests, and politics while
providing a channel to convey our own. Mediation and diplomacy are primary sources of U.S. power and influence. Mediation can
help demilitarize the perception of U.S. power, integrating its economic and diplomatic leverage into its role in the world, serving
123
national and global interests.

C. Continued U.S. hegemony is key to prevent multiple scenarios for great power war
Kagan 7-19- 07
(Robert-, Sr. Assoc. @ the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Sr. Transatlantic Fellow @ the
German Marshall Fund, Real Clear Politics, “End of Dreams, Return of History”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_
return_of_histor.html; Jacob)
The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict
among the world 's great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the
large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States
and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies
to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and
Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These,
too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no
matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States
weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where
most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is
certainly the view of most of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the
United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could
unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States
from the scene -- even if it remained the world's most powerful nation -- could be destabilizing. It could
tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its
periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put
an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a
permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible
even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe -- if it adopted what some call
a strategy of "offshore balancing" -- this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia
and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable
circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle
East and the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The vital
interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations
in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best
while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel, which
some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to
Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect
strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both
on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but
would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside
and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn 't
change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a
sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from
Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is
further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American
influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper
involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more
powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American
administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward
Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to
"normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States
back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new
regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition
among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into
the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence
124
and global involvement will provide an easier path.
125
IMPACT- OBAMA KEY TO US CRED

OBAMA REVIVES US LEGITIMACY
AP- 6-3-08 [Gregory Katz, reporter, “Around the World, Much is Expected of Barack Obama.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20080608/ai_n25505923]
Some analysts said Obama's multicultural background and vision of engaging the world on the
key issues of the day would help repair America's tattered world image.
"I do think Obama embodies the sort of change that would go the fastest and quickest toward
changing the United States' reputation abroad," said Tomas Valasek, director of foreign policy and defense
at the Center for European Reform in London.
it's also because of his willingness
"It's because of his personal success story ... it's because of his optimism ...
to try different approaches to Iran, nuclear disarmament and so forth," Valasek said.
The bumpy transition from being an inspirational icon to a flesh-and-blood prospective leader taking real stances on
difficult issues is beginning to create complications.
OBAMA CAN REVIVE AMERICAN CREDIBILITY WORLDWIDE

BLOOMBERG 7-1-08 [Frederick Kempe, President of the Atlantic Coucnil. “Obama Win Offers Brand America a
Global Lift” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_kempe&sid=a5CA0HA6azcY]
July 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. would profit globally from a failed Obama presidency more than it
would from a successful McCain presidency. That's the sort of provocative, but plausible, statement that lies
at the heart of the famous Oxford Union debates. Disagree? Then take it up with Kunal Basu, an Indian-born, U.S.-
educated, Oxford University professor who examines how corporate reputations are made and broken. He argues
that America's badly damaged brand around the world, one that has changed the course of
human history, has never been about its military superiority, its economic-growth rates or even
its innovative spirit.
``Where the U.S. has really been on the leading edge has been not technology but morality,'' he
says. Its very existence has been constructed around freedom of religion, speech and other
individual choices, and the ground-breaking ideal that all humans were created equal.
``Now it has the chance to re-establish itself there again,'' he says. ``The fact that the most powerful nation
in the world could again be the most moral would be transformative. The world needs it.''
Reputation, a matter of the most enormous value for companies and individuals alike, is hard to establish but easy to
lose. The same is true of countries.
With Abu Ghraib torture photos, Guantanamo Bay's stain on due process, and the U.S.'s perceived ineffectiveness from
Iraq to Hurricane Katrina, Brand America is hurting bad.
Obama's Rise
The U.S. has spent billions on public diplomacy trying to fix the problem, but marketing works best when in alignment
with changed facts. George W. Bush has helped with improvements in Iraq, diplomatic progress in the Mideast and
particularly North Korea. But nothing has moved the world opinion needle more than Barack Obama's rise.
John McCain's emergence on the Republican side of the ledger helps. He's a man of proven courage and integrity, a
former prisoner of war who often stood for his own principles over party dogma. The Economist magazine's cover
rightly labeled the two candidates, `Àmerica at Its Best.''
Basu says it is Obama who provides the sort of once-in-a- century event that can shape history. It
shows that America's self-correcting instinct and potential to provide a global example through
democratic renewal isn't yet exhausted. He also would be the first black person elected to the top office in a
country where whites have the majority.
126
IMPACT- SOFT POWER KEY TO HARD POWER

SOFT POWER KEY TO HARD POWER
HANNA 2002, [Julia, Kennedy School Bulletin, "Going It Alone," Spring, 2002,
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/spring2002/features/alone.html]
Being in first place is the American Way. Chants of “We’re Number One!” echo around the globe, wherever a
representative from the United States happens to be waving the stars and stripes. It’s a fact of our culture, as
unquestionable as apple pie or the Fourth of July, and not without good reason. The size and strength of the U.S.
military is unsurpassed. Despite the current recession, the World Economic Forum continues to rank the United States
first in growth competitiveness. Finally, for millions of people around the world, this country continues to represent
freedom, opportunity, and the brightest prospect for a better future.
It’s unlikely that the United States will cede its superpower status anytime soon. But the forces of
globalization and technology have dispersed the distribution of power amongst a much wider
band of factions, organizations, and individuals. Thanks to the Internet, the birth of a political movement is
only a few clicks away.
In this smaller, faster world, being Number One ain’t going to be the same. So what does that mean for America and
its role in the world? How should our interests and policies be defined as we enter the 21st century? Dean Joseph S.
Nye, Jr., addresses these questions and many others in The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only
Superpower Can’t Go It Alone, published in February by Oxford University Press. Nye describes his new work as a lineal
descendant of Bound to Lead, the 1990 book that refuted the popular opinion of the time that America was sinking into
a state of decline. The impetus for Paradox, he continues, came from the realization that the pendulum of conventional
wisdom had swung too far in the opposite direction; from decline to what he terms “triumphalism.” “Not since
Rome has any nation had so much power, but that power is still not enough to solve global
problems — like terrorism or the proliferation of nuclear weapons — without the help of other
nations,” he states. “We may be Number One, but that is not enough to make us invulnerable.”
September 11 made that all too clear. Nye began writing Paradox months before the terrorist attacks, but found he had
only minor revising to do after they occurred. “It was essentially a confirmation of my argument,” he says. “In the
comfortable decade between the end of the Cold War and this new century, Americans thought we were invincible.
September 11 revealed the deeper changes that were already occurring in the world that had escaped popular
attention.”
Ironically enough, those changes were brought about by the rise of technology and globalization, two developments
most closely associated with the United States. No one could fail to notice how the New Economy drove one of the
biggest economic booms in the history of the American economy, creating thousands of millionaires overnight. Less
apparent was how our enemies could use the Internet as a tool to orchestrate elaborately planned attacks. “A
technological revolution has been diffusing power away from governments and empowering individuals and groups to
play roles in world politics — including wreaking massive destruction — that were once reserved for the governments
of states,” Nye observes. “Privatization has been increasing, and terrorism is the privatization of war.” It’s more than a
matter of staying one step ahead of our enemies in a technological game of cat and mouse, he continues. “When the
Pan Am flight exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, the cause was a bomb in unaccompanied luggage. “So now the
airline employees ask if we packed our bag ourselves. A Mohammed Atta would say, ‘Yes, I packed my bag myself,’ so
we’ve created new security procedures. Unfortunately, each time you find a solution, someone will be looking for a
chink in your armor. That dynamic is bound to continue.”
Military power is an essential part of the response, but an equally productive focusing point, Nye continues, would be
the cultivation of what he calls “soft power,” or the ability to advance one’s agenda through attraction rather than
coercion. “Soft power arises from our culture, values, and policies,” he states. Given its proper weight,
soft power can serve as a much-needed balance to our economic and military might, two
examples of “hard power” that can overwhelm and alienate other countries. The thousands of
international students who come to study at U.S. institutions are an example of this country’s soft power. Our
government’s democratic values and promotion of peace and human rights influence how other
countries perceive us. For better or worse, so does the latest Bruce Willis action flick. America’s use of capital
punishment and relatively permissive gun control laws undercut its soft power in European countries. While its
intangible quality makes soft power much more difficult to use and control, observes Nye, that fact does not diminish
its importance.
“American pre-eminence will last well into this century, but our attitudes and policies will need to
encompass a very different means of meeting challenges and achieving our goals,” he says. While a
127
strong military presence will continue to be essential to maintaining global stability, it proves less adequate when
confronting issues such as global climate change, the spread of infectious diseases, and international financial stability.
“We must not let the illusion of empire blind us to the increasing importance of soft power,” Nye
cautions. “A unilateralist approach to foreign policy fails to produce the right results, and its
accompanying arrogance erodes the soft power that is often part of the solution.”
128
IMPACT- NO SOFT POWER = TERRORIST ATTACKS

ANTI-AMERICANISM MAKES TERRORIST ATTACKS INEVITABLE
HARTMAN 07 [Devin, Writer for the University Wire. "Ending terrorism involves more than fighting a war."
4/24/2007.]
Terrorism prevention is instantly associated with military operations and domestic security
measures. These methods address the problem once it has been created. This reactionary
approach assumes such problems do and will continue to exist. This is true, of course, to a certain
extent. Yet it only cuts the weed once it has grown, leaving the buried roots to fester, spread and sprout again.
A heavy emphasis has been placed on averting immediate terrorist threats, and rightfully so, but more focus must
be put on the circumstances that breed terrorism. The matter demands a proactive plan, for it has no near
end in sight. A long-run management plan is essential to conquering terrorism.
First, it's important to note terrorism itself is a tactic, not an ideology. Radical ideology catalyzes acts of
terrorism. It's a mindset, in this case deep-seated anti-Americanism, which forms the base of the
problem.
Terrorism is a new brand of fight. Conventional tactics - hard power - aren't as effective in traditional
inter-state conflicts. The enemy lies hidden, highly mobile and is difficult to account for. The disease is no longer a
large, isolated tumor. It's now fragmented, with small barely recognizable pockets recurrently emerging. Surgery is a
limited option - internal methods will prove more useful.
The world is a stage. The projection of Americanism abroad plays an integral role in foreign
responses, which is particularly applicable to terrorist networks. The legitimacy of their claims is
crucial to their recruitment, which comprises the backbone of their sustained support. The more
foreign crowds view the United States as imperialistic, evil or a number of other negative traits,
the more successful these networks become. In this sense, it's not our intentions that matter, but how
they're perceived.
The greatest lesson in the ideological struggle is the detrimental impacts on terrorist prevention from the invasion of
Iraq. The 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, released by the CIA last April, precisely affirmed this. It noted the
conflict has become the "cause celebre for jihadists," breeding anti-Americanism and "cultivating supporters for the
global jihadist movement." Sure enough, polls indicate that support for the United States has dropped considerably
within the publics of nearly every Arab state after the invasion.
The foreign public relations nightmare in Iraq serves as a wake-up call to counterterrorism strategy.
The danger is that anti-Americanism continues to grow, as does the appeal of threatening
ideologies. It's the young, discontent and vulnerable - but still undecided - minds that will determine future security
threats.
The most ethical and practical technique to manage America's global impression is through genuine, benevolent
policy. This approach serves American security interests in the long run. U.S. foreign policy has frequently lacked, even
contradicted, this principle and felt harsh repercussions.
129
IMPACT- US HEG KEY TO INTERNATIONAL STABILITY

US KEY TO INTERNATIONAL STABILITY
KAGAN 7-19 -07
(Robert-, Sr. Assoc. @ the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Sr. Transatlantic Fellow @ the German Marshall
Fund, Real Clear Politics, "End of Dreams, Return of History",
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_
return_of_histor.html
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining
feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away,
and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents
these rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to
diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle
disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation
but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of
such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars
between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to
underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also
disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other
nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United
States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets
and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as
guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would
compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would
involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other
major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible.
130
2NC OFFSHORE DRILLING MODULE (1/2)

A. MCCAIN SUPPORTS DRILLING FOR NEW OIL AND GAS IN THE US
CNN 6-25-08 [“McCain calls U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil Dangerous”
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/campaign.wrap/?iref=mpstoryview]
McCain said he would "authorize and support solution to America's energy problem."
McCain proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling last week as part of his plan to reduce
dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices.
Officials from many coastal states oppose offshore drilling because of the risk of oil spills.
Environmentalists want to stop offshore drilling to protect oceans and beaches from further
pollution.
B. OFFSHORE DRILLING DESTROYS MARINE BIODIVERSITY

COHN 2002
(Jeffrey, science writer, Fall 2002, Defenders Magazine, Biodiversity: Offshore Oil Peril,
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/defenders_magazine/fall_2002/biodiversity_offshore_oil_peril.php)
Environmentalists are not so sure. They fear that if a large blowout similar to one in 1969 off the California coast near
Santa Barbara occurred off Alaska’s North Slope, it could trap oil for months under sea ice, where it would be difficult for
cleanup crews to reach. The oil could also collect around the edges of ice sheets and breathing holes used by seals,
bowhead whales and other marine mammals. Further, offshore operations require onshore facilities to process the oil and
gas and to house workers. They also require networks of roads, pipelines, waste disposal sites and runways, all of which
disrupt the environment and wildlife.
Orr says the chances of a blowout are slim, given improved technology. Industry and MMS claim some success in testing
cleanup methods in icy conditions, but most environmentalists remain skeptical that small-scale tests are sufficient if a
full-blown spill occurred. Martin Robards, marine ecologist and The Ocean Conservancy’s program manager for
Alaska, says the odds may be small, “but all it has to happen is just once" for devastating results to occur. Even a
relatively small leak in the pipelines that carry oil and gas from offshore rigs to onshore facilities could leave hundreds of
miles of coastline on Alaska’s North Slope awash in oil. Environmentalists fear any offshore drilling around Alaska threatens the wildlife that
abounds in the frigid North. Arctic waters are renowned for such marine mammals as bowhead and beluga whales and ringed, spotted and bearded seals.
Researchers have shown that whales avoid oil rigs, Robards says, which could cause them to abandon prime feeding
areas. Whales are particularly sensitive to the noise of drilling operations and the seismic waves from air-gun explosions
that industry uses to detect oil and gas deposits. Some biologists fear that noise and oil spills could also cause female polar
bears to abandon their newborn young.
131
2NC OFFSHORE DRILLING MODULE (2/2)
C. Ocean health is critical to the existence of all life on earth

Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2003
34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable.
"Occupy[ing] more than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17
oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support
processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both
aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the
importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it
remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and
hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem
services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition,
many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a
common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. n21
Traditionally, land-bound humans have regarded the ocean as an inexhaustible resource and have pursued
consumptive and extractive uses of the seas, such as fishing, with little thought of conservation. n22 In the last
two or three centuries, however, humanity has overstressed the world's oceans, proving that the ocean's
productivity is limited. n23 Degradation of the marine environment is becoming increasingly obvious:
Scientists have mounting evidence of rapidly accelerating declines in once-abundant populations of cod,
haddock, flounder, and scores of other [*162] fish species, as well as mollusks, crustaceans, birds, and plants.
They are alarmed at the rapid rate of destruction of coral reefs, estuaries, and wetlands and the sinister
expansion of vast "dead zones" of water where life has been choked away. More and more, the harm to
marine biodiversity can be traced not to natural events but to inadequate policies. n24
As a result, "human activities now pose serious threats to the oceans' biodiversity and their capacity to support
productive fisheries, recreation, water purification[,] and other services we take for granted." n25
132
IMPACT- MCCAIN OFFSHORE DRILLING- EXT

MCCAIN SUPPORTS OFFSHORE DRILLING—HE CHANGED HIS MIND
HUFFINGTON POST 6-18-08 [Sam Stein, reporter, “McCain's Offshore Drilling Position A Flip From Three
Weeks Ago” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-drilling_n_107872.html?page=6]
It is hardly a secret that when it comes to offshore drilling, Sen. John McCain was against the idea
before he was for it. On Monday, the Arizona Republican told a crowd in Texas that he was
abandoning his long-time support for a federal moratorium on drilling along the nation's
coastlines in favor of allowing states to decide for themselves.
MCCAIN WANTS TO IMPLEMENT OFFSHORE DRILLING

HUFFINGTON POST 6-18-08 [Sam Stein, reporter, “McCain's Offshore Drilling Position A Flip From Three
Weeks Ago” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-drilling_n_107872.html?page=6]
"I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own
reserves to use," he said on Tuesday, "as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a
matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable
fuel for America by increasing domestic production."
In part because of these limited benefits, McCain was far cooler to the idea of ending to federal moratorium on drilling
offshore back in May. Responding to an audience question, the presumptive GOP nominee stated his respect for states'
rights while adding a healthy dose of concern about forcing states to open up their coasts.
"Can I just say that this young man just pointed out that that he believes in states' rights, and so do I. And the people
of Louisiana decided that they wanted to drill off of their coast. And they do. The people of California and the people of
Florida, those two states decided that they didn't. What I would like to do, frankly, is to maybe give them a greater
source of the revenues to help maybe encourage them to allow some kind of exploration far off of their shores. But if I
told the state of California, you've got to have drilling off of your coast, that would frankly be a contradiction of what
were just talking about, about -- that's their land and that's off of their coast."
That McCain would, two weeks later, offer a full endorsement of removing federal restrictions on the drilling practice
seems hard to attribute to the high price of gas (after all, gas prices were similarly priced in late May), but rather
political posturing. A Republican with an environmentalism streak, the Senator has long stood
against drilling offshore, arguing that longer-term solutions were needed to end the energy crisis.
But the general election has changed that dynamic.
MCCAIN WANTS OFFSHORE DRILLING

Kansas City 6/28
(“Key energy issues charge up presidential debate”
http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/683516.html)
Obama does not support a dramatic expansion of offshore drilling, as recently proposed
by President Bush. The Democratic candidate recognizes Big Oil has not fully answered
criticisms that it has failed to aggressively drill in offshore areas already open to
exploration. McCain unfortunately now backs some offshore drilling after years of
opposing it.
133
IMPACT- OFFSHORE DRILLING- ENVIRONMENT

OFFSHORE DRILLING KILLS THE ENVIRONMENT
The Alligator 7/1
(“Risky Business: Offshore drilling threatens Fla. ecosystem, economy”
http://www.alligator.org/articles/2008/07/01/opinion/editorials/080701_eddy.txt)
But Florida need not face an environmental disaster on par with the Exxon Valdez spill of
1989 to feel the deleterious effects of offshore drilling. Toxic chemicals such as mercury,
lead, benzene, barium, chromium and arsenic, just to name a few, are routinely emitted
from “technologically advanced” oil platforms. And while large oil spills may be unlikely,
smaller ones are quite frequent and almost as damaging â€” the U.S. Coast Guard
estimates that more than 200,000 small spills occurred in the Gulf of Mexico from 1973
to 2001. Even if new drilling rigs can drastically reduce the chance of spillage and allay
environmental concerns â€” the evidence suggests this is dubious â€” the economic
benefit of drilling would not be felt for at least seven years, with some estimates placing
the economic impact of exploration around 2030. And what’s more, Big Oil has not drilled
three–quarters of the territory that Congress has made available for exploration. Why
should we endanger our beautiful, economically lucrative beaches if the oil industry
refuses to explore the areas already open for drilling?
Biodiversity is critical to prevent extinction

Richard Margoluis, Biodiversity Support Program, 1996,
http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10
Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support
system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It
is also responsible for mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in
weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control.
The importance of biodiversity to a healthy
environment has become increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends
on our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival.
DESTRUCTION OF BIODIVERSITY HURTS THE ECONOMY

WILDER, AND TEGNER AND DAYTON 99
(Dr. Robert J. Wilder, Director of Conservation at Pacific Whale Foundation, and Mia J. Tegner, marine biologist at
Scripps, Paul K. Dayton, professor at UCSD, “Saving Marine Biodiversity” http://www.issues.org/15.3/simpson.htm)
The escalating loss of marine life is bad enough as an ecological problem. But it constitutes an economic crisis as well.
Marine biodiversity is crucial to sustaining commercial fisheries, and in recent years several major U.S. fisheries have
"collapsed"- experienced a population decline so sharp that fishing is no longer commercially viable. One study indicates
that 300,000 jobs and $8 billion in annual revenues have been lost because of overly aggressive fishing practices alone.
Agricultural and urban runoff, oil spills, dredging, trawling, and coastal development have caused further losses.
134
2NC NUKE POWER MODULE(1/1)

A. MCCAIN WILL PURSUE NUCLEAR POWER
Christian Science Monitor 6/30
(“McCain and Obama share energy goals, not methods” June 30, 2008
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0630/p01s02-uspo.html)
Senator McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, wants 45 new nuclear power plants by
2030 and an end to the federal moratorium on new offshore drilling. He would use market lures –
tax rebates for electric cars, a $300 million prize for a better car battery – to promote alternative
sources of energy. He would offer motorists immediate relief in the form of a hiatus in the federal
gas tax.
B. TRANSPORTING NUCLEAR WASTE WILL ALLOW TERRORISTS TO STEAL WASTE FOR

NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT
Zeller 2001
(Louis Zeller, member of the Blue Ridge Environmental Transportaion , January 21,2008,
http://www.bredl.org/pdf/Dangers_of_Plutonium_Transportation.pdf “THE DANGERS OF PLUTONIUM TRANSPORTATION”
//CDNI-SS)
The plutonium oxide fuel would be valuable target. The secrecy and defense measures
which the military uses to transport plutonium weapons would have to be duplicated by
every domestic utility company using plutonium fuel. The transport of the plutonium from
present DOE facilities to the Savannah River Site and then to reactor sites would add to
the risk of accidental release of radiation. The US Department of Energy’s program would
transport plutonium from Defense Department sites to South Carolina for immobilization
and fuel fabrication. From Savannah River 33 tons of plutonium in mixed oxide fuel would
be transported across hundreds of miles of isolated countryside to utility reactors in
North Carolina and South Carolina. This overland transport link presents a unique
opportunity to those who might intercept and divert the fuel for weapons use. The freshly
fabricated fuel rod assemblies would be the most desirable form for groups who would go
after the plutonium for unlawful use in their own explosive devices. DOE admits this
vulnerability: “...the unirradiated fuel contains large quantities of plutonium and
is not sufficiently radioactive to create a self-protecting barrier to deter the
material from theft....” Revised Conceptual Designs for the FMDP Fresh MOX Fuel
Transport Package, Ludwig et al, ORNL/TM-13574, March 1998 The risks of deliberate
diversion and/or destruction of a fresh nuclear fuel or irradiated waste transport cask are
increased by plutonium fuel. Higher actinide inventories increase the public health risks.
The strategic value of plutonium oxide for new weapons increases the threat of diversion.
C. PROLIFERATION RISKS EXTINCTION

TAYLOR 02
Stuart Taylor Jr., journalist, LEGAL TIMES, September 16, 2002, LN.
The truth is, no matter what we do about Iraq, if we don't stop proliferation another five or ten potentially
unstable nations may go nuclear before long, making it ever more likely that one or more bombs will be set
off on our soil by terrorists or terrorist governments. Even an airtight missile defense will be useless against a
nuke hidden in a truck, a shipping container,oraboat. Unless we get serious about stopping
proliferation, we are headed for "a world filled with nuclear-weapons states where every crisis
threatens to go nuclear," where "the survival of civilization truly is in question from day to day ,"
and where "it would be impossible to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists, religious cults, and
135
criminal organizations," So writes Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a moderate Republican who served as a
career arms-controller under six presidents and led the successful Clinton administration effort to extend the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
136
IMPACT- NUKE POWER IL EXT

MCCAIN WILL BUILD 45 NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS
Kansas City 6/28
(“Key energy issues charge up presidential debate” http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/683516.html)
McCain argues that nuclear power could help cleanly produce a lot more electrical
power, helping to reduce global warming. He wants 45 new reactors built by 2030. However,
Obama has the stronger argument in opposing more plants until the nation has a safe storage
facility for the high-level waste created by more than 100 reactors.
137
IMPACT- MCCAIN NUCLEAR POWER-TERRORISM

Friedrich Steinhausler, 2003
(American Behavioral Scientist, “What It Takes to Become a Nuclear Terrorist” page 8 online @
http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/46/6/782)
There are 434 operating nuclear power plants (NPPs) worldwide (International Atomic
Energy Agency [IAEA], 1999). Due to their radioactive inventory (in the reactor core, in
the spent fuel storage area, to a lesser extent in the fresh fuel depot), they represent an
attractive target for a terrorist attack for the following reasons: instilling fear in the public
about an uncontrolled release of radioactivity by merely threatening with the possibility
of such an attack, that is, another form of “nuclear blackmail”; and conducting an actual
terrorist attack on vital areas of an operating nuclear power plant to inflict major damage
to the facility, resulting in the loss of control over the plant. This could lead to major
radioactive releases into the environment, resulting in elevated health risks and
substantial economic losses for society.
Security exercises prove nuclear plants highly vulnerable to terrorist attack

Southern Alliance For Clean Energy 2004
http://www.cleanenergy.org/resources/reports/FinalCodeRed.pdf
Nuclear power plants are prime terrorist targets. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
long recognized this and designed exercises to test the ability of the staff at nuclear
power plants to defend against an attack. These exercises do not inspire confidence.
Even though the power plant operators are told months in advance when the attack will
take place and what tactics will be used, almost half of the plants have been unable to
prevent “terrorists” from simulating an action that would lead to reactor core damage.
Ironically, these mock attacks have not been re-established since September 11th due to
the higher security status for nuclear facilities.4 Spent fuel storage casks stored near
reactors are even more vulnerable. If plants keep operating, the highly radioactive spent
fuel will have to be transported to long-term storage sites, giving terrorists additional
opportunities and raising the possibility of the most disastrous
NUCLEAR PLANTS SUSCEPTIBLE TO TERRORISM.

BMJ FEBRUARY 9, 2002
(British Medical Journal, “Nuclear Terrorism” online @
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1122278)
Nuclear terrorism might take several forms. An attack on a nuclear power plant or
other nuclear installation could result in a massive release of radioactive material.
Despite initial statements by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that commercial
power plants could withstand an aircraft crashing into them, it seems likely these plants
are highly vulnerable. As early as 1982 a study by the Argonne National Laboratory of the
US Department of Energy found that, if a jet aircraft crashed into a nuclear reactor and
only 1% of its fuel ignited after impact, the resulting explosion could compromise the
integrity of the containment building, with possible release of radioactive material. In the
aftermath of 11 September, David Kyd, spokesman for the International Atomic Energy
138
Agency, confirmed this view, stating: “[Reactors] are built to withstand impacts, but not
that of a wide bodied passenger jet full of fuel. . . . These are vulnerable targets, and the
consequences of a direct hit could be catastrophic” (Moneyline, CNN, 18 Sep 2001).
139
2NC TAX CUTS MODULE (1/2)

A. MCCAIN’S TAX CUTS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ECONOMY
Pallasch, June 30, 2008
(Ardon M., “Tax plan face off: Obama vs. McCain”, The Chicago Sun-Times,
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article#)
The rich would pay more under Barack Obama's tax plan, and the poor and middle-class would pay less, a nonpartisan
analysis finds. Under John McCain's plan, the rich would pay much less than they do now, the poor and middle-class
would pay a bit less, and the federal deficit would grow, the study found. Each individual's tax situation is different, so
it's hard to say for sure how much more or less you would pay under the presidential candidates' ever-evolving tax
proposals. By the numbers: The tax plans Obama's day off: haircut, gym, Sun-Times Will latest sales tax hike be too
much? And at this point that's all they are -- proposals that may or may not get through Congress. They don't take into
account wars, whether the president will sign an expensive social program into law, or the world economy. With those
caveats, here are highlights of how the candidates' proposals to change the tax code would impact you: Obama says he
would hike several taxes on people making more than $250,000, including the amount they pay on capital gains.
Currently, the top income tax rate is 35 percent. Under Obama, that would go back up to 39 percent. Obama's staff told the
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center he would raise the rates for people in the top two brackets -- about 2.5 million filers
out of 100 million-plus. People in those high tax brackets would see the tax rate on their capital gains hiked from the
current 15 percent to 20-28 percent. Obama started his campaign saying his plans would not increase taxes for people
earning less than $250,000. But he found himself in an apparent contradiction by saying he would tax all income to fund
Social Security, not just income up to $102,000, as is now the case. So now, Obama's plan calls for no Social Security tax
on income between $102,000 and $250,000, but all income above $250,000 would be taxed for Social Security. The 95
percent-plus of the American population that earns less than $250,000 would see the following tax breaks: A $500-per-
worker tax credit for people who earn less than $150,000 and do not itemize, and a $4,000 credit per child in college.
Seniors who earn less than $50,000 would pay no income tax. The Tax Policy Center notes seniors could end up paying
more if corporations respond to Obama's proposed increase in the corporate tax rate by passing those costs along to
consumers. McCain would make permanent most of the tax cuts President Bush has already enacted, including those that
benefit the middle class, such as elimination of the marriage penalty and the increase in child credits. He would also keep
cuts that benefit the wealthy, such as the elimination of the highest tax brackets. Obama would keep the breaks for the
middle class but not the ones for the wealthy. McCain would also double the dependent exemption from $3,500 to
$7,000, benefitting big families of all incomes. Obama would leave the top corporate tax rate at 35 percent. McCain
would cut it to 25 percent. The two candidates differ widely in their approach to the estate tax, which the Republicans call
the "death tax." McCain would set it at 15 percent for estates above $5 million. Obama would set it at 45 percent for
estates above $3.5 million. Both candidates favor extending a "patch" that would keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from
encroaching on middle-income families. Largely because his tax proposals would leave tax breaks for the wealthy in
place, McCain's plan would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Obama's, the Tax Policy Center found. The precise cost
depends on whether you assume the current tax breaks would be renewed or would expire. Assuming they would have
been renewed anyway, Obama's plan would bring in an additional $700 billion in taxes over the next 10 years, while
McCain's would cost the Treasury $600 billion. Assuming legislators would have let the tax breaks expire, Obama's plan
would cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 trillion and McCain's $3.7 trillion. The center uses various assumptions both
campaigns quarrel with. Each campaign also accuses the other of not being honest with the numbers. "Obama raises taxes
in a way that's detrimental to the economy," said McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "The John McCain plan is a jobs-
first plan that keeps small businesses in the game." Obama's Brian Deese said the $600 million deficit the study projects
McCain's plan would create "doesn't count impact of current Iraq war spending. If McCain's plan drives the deficit up and
puts upward pressure on interest rates, that increases costs for families and could force really Draconian, across-the-board
spending cuts."
140
2NC TAX CUTS MODULE (2/2)
Economic decline risks extinction

Bearden, Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, 2000 (Tom, June 24,
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, Accessed 9/11/03)
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress
on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As
an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including
U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear
missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual
treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly.
Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes
are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations
by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never
discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-
bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the
studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals
that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will
destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
141
IMPACT- MCCAIN BAD ECONOMY- EXT

MCCAIN’S CORPORATE TAX WOULD SWELL THE NATIONAL DEBT
Sperling, Center for American Progress Action Fund, June 6, 2008
(Gene, “McCain Emerges as Master Economic Flip-Flopper”, Bloomberg,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_sperling&sid=a.f5U.rij7vM)
Back in 2005, a friend asked if I should be careful about praising John McCain for his votes against George W. Bush's upper-income tax cuts in 2001
and 2003. After all, he warned, he might become the next Republican presidential nominee. My reply was, suppose McCain maintained his
position that, as he put it in 2001: `Ì cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the
benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.''
Suppose he did hold to his 2003 opposition to increasing the deficit through tax cuts during a time of war. On what grounds could I
criticize him? In spite of the advice from my friends, I went ahead and applauded McCain for both stands in my 2005 book ``The Pro-
Growth Progressive.'' This is now a non-issue. McCain, who would like us to see him as holding a consistent and principled stance on
tax cuts and fiscal discipline, is engaging in the mother of all economic policy flip-flops. If McCain's opposition to Bush's tax cuts
was based on the unseemliness of letting deficits balloon for the benefit of top earners in a time of war, then his opposition should
have grown stronger. Instead, it grew weaker and then collapsed. Since McCain's votes, we have witnessed budget
surpluses turn into projected $400 billion annual deficits. How do those intervening developments lead McCain, the
presumptive Republican presidential nominee, to now support permanently extending more than $100 billion in high-
income tax cuts he once opposed? Just the Beginning And that is only the beginning. With the public debt
expanding, corporate profits near records, and family incomes down since 2001, McCain has made his
signature economic proposal a corporate tax-relief package that will cost $2 trillion to $3 trillion over 10 years.
In the New York Times on June 1, former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw defended this indefensible fiscal policy by pointing to
two purely theoretical studies to posit that lowering the corporate-tax rate by a third is really about helping typical workers. He didn't
mention that the Congressional Budget Office, Treasury Department, and Joint Committee on Taxation all assume that the
owners of capital get the benefit of a corporate-tax cut. He also neglects to mention that the CBO estimates that a
whopping 59 percent of the benefits of such a reduction would go to the top 1 percent of earners. Distorted Picture This
is more regressive than the policies that led McCain in 2000 to blast Bush for having ``38 percent of his tax cut go to the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.'' Mankiw paints an even more incomplete and distorted picture of the fiscal impact.
He says McCain's plan to cut the corporate- tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent will cost only $100 billion a year in lost
revenue, but benefits to the economy will cut that cost in half. Yet, even the Bush Treasury Department suggested that the
costs of a smaller corporate-rate cut -- from 35 percent to 28 percent -- would cost at least $130 billion annually. Most
profoundly, Mankiw ignores the explosive costs of McCain's proposal to have 100 percent immediate expensing --
instead of depreciation -- for business investment while maintaining the deductibility of interest. This would
make it possible for companies to deduct far more than they invest and thus shelter income. Put another way,
this amounts to a negative tax rate. Do the Math Bush's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform stated that this would
``result in economic distortions and adversely impact economic activity.'' While the Urban Institute's Len Burman
estimates this would cost only $75 billion per year, University of Michigan economist Reuven Avi-Yonah figures that the rate cut and
expensing together ``would open up almost unlimited opportunities for sheltering income'' and reduce corporate tax revenue by 75
percent. Jason Furman, head of the centrist Hamilton Project, calculates the combined costs of the rate cut and income
sheltering at more than $300 billion a year. So let's do a little math: Start with $100 billion for extending current tax cuts for
the highest earners. Add to that an additional $50 billion it would cost to eliminate the alternative minimum tax for the highest earners,
another McCain proposal. Throw in $200 billion to $300 billion in corporate-tax cuts and you have a cost of $350 billion to $450
billion a year. That works out to $3.5 trillion to $4.5 trillion over 10 years. National Debt This isn't even the
full cost of the McCain tax agenda. Rather, these huge additions to our $5.3 trillion national debt are on top of the cost of
extending the Bush tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 -- a policy that McCain and Senators Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton all support. ``Straight talk'' from McCain would acknowledge these proposals would swell the national
debt or cause painful spending cuts to pay for them. The McCain camp instead offers vague and unrealistic promises to cut
unspecified spending and eliminate earmarks. McCain makes a lot of this last point, even though banning earmarks would only pay for
less than a half of 1 percent of his high-income tax-cut proposals.
142
**AFF**
143
MCCAIN- WIN- CHRISTIAN RIGHT
NON-UNIQUE—MCCAIN’S APPEAL TO CHRISTIAN VOTERS PROVES HE’LL WIN THE

ELECTION
DALLAS MORNING NEWS 7-5-08 [“McCain steps up efforts to woo religious voters”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/070608dnpolmccainchristians.40e5d1e.ht
ml]
John McCain has stepped up his appeal to Christian conservatives, meeting recently with religious leaders
in Ohio and making a publicized pilgrimage to see Billy Graham.
But even as he woos evangelicals, his campaign is pursuing a different strategy – abandoning George W. Bush's model
of galvanizing the GOP base and targeting independents to make up for lost social-conservative votes.
"We can't win the election the way George Bush did by just running up the score with Republicans, running up the
score with evangelicals and taking what we can out of the independent mix," said Sarah Simmons, the campaign's
director of strategy.
It's a risky move, though, as religious conservatives have been instrumental to Republican victories
for a generation. Some social conservatives warn that the appeal to moderate swing voters will
jeopardize already lukewarm support from evangelicals.
"McCain is in grave danger right now of causing a good number of potential supporters to just
stay home in resignation," said East Texas evangelist Rick Scarborough.
Phil Burress of the Ohio Christian Alliance, who met privately with Mr. McCain a week ago in Cincinnati, said evangelical
leaders urged him to pick a social-conservative running mate and to talk more openly about issues they care about,
especially abortion and gay marriage.
"We need something from Senator McCain to help rev up our people," Mr. Burress said. "Our people are flat. They don't
seem interested."
The McCain campaign says it is committed to making evangelicals part of a winning coalition.
In recent weeks, it has created nine-member Christian-outreach teams in 14 battleground states and arranged the visit
with Mr. Graham. It is scheduling private meetings with local evangelical leaders, beginning with the session in Ohio.
In addition, the campaign has a 1,000-person e-mail list of social conservative and national leaders with influence in
local communities.
Marlys Popma, who heads the McCain campaign's religious-outreach effort, said that while the Arizona senator is not
as openly expressive of his faith as Mr. Bush is, his record on abortion, same-sex marriage, home schooling and the
appointment of judges is a strong selling point to social conservatives.
"The more they see the good stuff about John McCain and then compare him to Barack Obama,
we're not going to have a problem getting excitement out of our base," she said.
NON-UNIQUE—MCCAIN WILL MOBILIZE CONSERVATIVE VOTERS

DALLAS MORNING NEWS 7-5-08 [“McCain steps up efforts to woo religious voters”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/070608dnpolmccainchristians.40e5d1e.ht
ml]
"It was emphasized to the campaign the importance of having a pro-life, pro-family conservative
on the ticket with Mr. McCain would go a long way toward generating energy and support for the
main candidate," said Chris Long, head of the Ohio Christian Alliance. "In Ohio, there is a marked
difference between the activities that were under way in '04 and what is nonexistent in 2008 to date."
Mr. Scarborough, who backed Mike Huckabee in the GOP primary, said his primary motivation is not enthusiasm about
Mr. McCain but fear of Mr. Obama.
"I am now committed to doing everything I can within my power to get John McCain elected," Mr.
Scarborough said, "because I am 100 percent committed to seeing that Barack Obama is not
elected."
Republican state Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston talk radio host with a social conservative following,
agreed. He said Mr. McCain's appeal to moderates might irritate evangelicals, but most will show
144
up on Election Day when faced with the option of Mr. Obama in the White House.
"They'll come around," Mr. Patrick said. "There is no choice."
145
MCCAIN- WIN- OBAMA INEXPERIENCE

OBAMA WILL LOSE—INEXPERIENCE
HERALD-DISPATCH 7-2-08 [“Ashley C. Stinnett: Can Americans really trust Barack Obama?”
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x2102941045/Can-Americans-really-trust-Barack-Obama]
it seems only fair to point out an ongoing struggle the

In this day and age of exit polls and data analysis,
Barack Obama campaign has yet to overcome: So many Americans are leery of his inexperience
as a United States senator.
Many will recall not too long ago, Obama was merely a state representative in Illinois. He was
propelled to his current office after serving many years in his home state. Like most freshman
senators, Obama quickly began learning the ups and downs of national politics. He began
shaking hands with prominent political leaders while memorizing the names of top lobbyists.
Of course, anyone who keeps up with national level politics realizes if an individual serves in Washington for more than
a week, he or she will be introduced to lobbyist sharks really soon. It's all part of the game.
Now begins the troubling part. Within a year of entering office, Obama made the conscious decision to
run for president. He began collecting names of influential people, all the while making phone
calls to big-money donors. This is typical behavior of anyone who seeks a major office.
Obama spent the majority of 2007 launching his bid to become president. The young statesman began traveling and
reaching out to millions. His campaign became more of a rock concert aimed at energizing minorities, youth voters and
blue-collar workers. Although everything seems to be going well, his many faults, not to mention the bizarre company
he keeps, begin to surface.
When looking at the national media's love of Obama, Ronald Reagan comes to mind. He was labeled the "Teflon
president." Some in the national media have given this title to Obama because they feel he gets a free pass regardless
of the circumstance. Unfortunately, the public can only be "duped" for so long.
The fact is that Obama has around a 40 percent voting record in the United States Senate. This is
atrocious even in comparison to Senate figures such as our very own Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller.
Obama's ideas are shallow to say the least, thus making him a great orator without any credibility to stand on. This
has become troublesome for the "average" American voter.
The few votes that he has cast in Washington represent a sharp reflection into his ultra-liberal
views. His stirring speeches of "change" and "hope" echo through the ears of blinded voters looking for anything to
grab a hold of. However, like every great rock concert, the public will soon forget the "coolness" factor and eventually
shake off the next-day hangover.
OBAMA IS INEXPERIENCED—POLLS PROVE

UPI.COM 6-23-08 [Poll: Obama's inexperience hurts him
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/23/Poll_Obamas_inexperience_hurts_him/UPI-33191214232050/]
WASHINGTON, June 23 (UPI) -- U.S. voters are concerned about likely Democratic candidate
Barack Obama's experience and ability to handle the job of president, a poll indicates.
Fifty-four percent of those surveyed in the Gallup/USA Today poll released Monday expressed
concern about the Illinois senator's experience to be effective. A similar number said Obama
"may be too closely aligned with people who hold radical political views."
146
MCCAIN- WIN—POLICIES
MCCAIN IS WINNING-POLLS DON’T MATTER, HE IS SHAPING HIS POLICIES.
SKOCPOL 6-26-08 [Theda, prof of government at Harvard. “Can the Obama Campaign Shape the Agenda?”
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/26/can_the_obama_campaign_shape_t/]
Although Obama seems to be "up" in current national polls, McCain is actually doing a much
better job of shaping the agenda to his advantage. He has used strong symbols (it does not matter if
they are "gimmicks") to portray himself as activist on gas prices and the environment and put
apparent distance between himself and Bush. And he has managed to paint Obama as an
ordinary schemer on campaign finance. Abetted by the media's proclivity for dramatic gestures and horse
race analysis, the McCain camp has done what it needs to portray their man as a fighting underdog
focused on real-world issues. Meanwhile, Obama's "economic tour" has gone little noticed -- and his campaign
seems not to understand how very difficult it will be to get the media to convey the economic stakes in this election to
ordinary voters.
Baldly put, the last two weeks leave me wondering if Obama's campaign is prepared for the
general election battle. Here are my questions:
147
MCCAIN- WIN—FISA
OBAMA SUPPORT IS DOWN—SUPPORT FOR FISA HAS ANGERED HIS CONSTITUENCY.
CBS 6-25-08 [Carrie Budoff Brown, reporter for the Politico.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/politics/politico/main4212811.shtml]
When former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, the progressive Netroots took their
affections to Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.
But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to
telecommunications companies - a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster - the honeymoon has
ended.
Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists
feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent
blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”
“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com.
“Obama pledged to
filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to
challenge him.”
The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominee’s first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the
general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had
largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February.
Obama’s post-partisan persona hasn’t always meshed so well with the noisy and contentious Netroots, and his rise to
prominence has come without their full-throated support. He told reporters in February that he doesn’t read blogs and
has long been viewed as cool to the Netroots - a notion that the candidate’s new media director, Joe Rospars, disputed
this week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, saying Obama was a favorite of the readers of the major
bloggers.
Either way, the Netroots eventually took Obama’s side against Clinton, and some came to view him as a champion of
progressive causes.
His stance on the FISA bill, however, has brought Obama back down to earth, in part because the
liberal blogosphere cares more about civil liberties than many of the other traditional issues that
have long dominated the Democratic agenda. While the mainstream media fixated on Obama’s decision to
opt out of the public financing system - and newspaper editorial boards eviscerated him - the Netroots commended
Obama for showing political savvy. After all, the readers of liberal blogs are many of the small donors who gave Obama
reason to reject public financing.
148
MCCAIN- WIN- CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
MCCAIN WIN—CAMPAIGN STRATEGY

STITT [Richard, http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1683 “Barack Obama, Don’t Go to War With the
Republicans With a Peashooter”]
It will be, as Bush pointed out in the aftermath of the 2004 election, "We
had an accountability moment, and
that's called the 2004 election. The American people listened to different assessments made
about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates and chose me, for
which I'm grateful."
G. W. Bush will interpret a John McCain win in November as a choice that the voters had between
Barack Obama and Bush’s policies. If voters choose Bush’s policies that McCain wants to
continue, it will be a huge victory for Bush.
Considering the breadth and scope of the Bush legacy of depravity, abandonment of Afghanistan, unending Iraq War
with over 4,110 U.S. fatalities, budget deficits in each and every year of his administration, record national debt of
$9.5 trillion, a weakening dollar, record balance of trade deficits, skyrocketing price of oil and gasoline, rising
unemployment, scathing attacks against individual liberties and freedoms, Barack Obama should be 20 to 30 points
ahead of John McCain. However, he is not and as a matter of fact, John McCain is gaining traction while the
infamous Republican smear machine is just getting wound up.
Barack Obama claimed recently that once he meets with U.S. military commanders in his
upcoming visit to Iraq he will "refine" his strategy for withdrawing troops and ending the Iraq War
over time. He is accused by the McCain operatives of changing tactics and coming around more
to John McCain's position. The mainstream media obediently disseminated the Republican propaganda that
Barack Obama has shifted his position on ending the Iraq debacle and has now become a centrist.
149
MCCAIN- WIN- IRAQ

Iraq policy puts McCain ahead with voters
CBS News June 25, 2008
(“Voters split over candidates’ Iraq views”, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/25/politics/main4209511.shtml?source=related_story
Still, this hate-the-war, love-the-warrior strain runs through the American electorate. In a new Associated Press-
Yahoo News poll, more than one out of five of the respondents who said they opposed the war also said they
support McCain for president. The sentiment does not discriminate by gender or by age. Most significantly, it
splits independent voters in favor of McCain. Respondents said McCain would do a better job in Iraq than
Obama by a margin of 39 percent to 33 percent. Undergirding that response is a strong sentiment that McCain
would be a better leader of the military than Obama. One out of three respondents said that description matched
McCain "very well," whereas only one out of 10 said the same of Obama, who did not serve in the armed
forces. The Iraq findings track McCain's advantage on the issue of terrorism. Of those surveyed, more than
twice as many believe McCain can better handle terrorism than Obama. As such, McCain is emerging clearly as
a candidate of national security, a conventional role for a Republican. The public's views about Iraq are
especially notable because many voters appear to separate McCain's past record of support for the war from
their perception of his performance as a military leader. What's more, it points to a potential Obama
vulnerability. Only 6 percent of those who say they will vote for Obama say McCain would do a better job on
Iraq. But among "weak" Obama supporters, that figure rises to 15 percent. Moreover, among undecided voters,
McCain is preferred 25 percent to 15 percent over Obama on Iraq.
150
LINK TURN- PRO DRILLING KEY TO MCCAIN

Towing the conservative line on oil boosts GOP turnout- key to McCain victory
Pinkerton, June 17, 2008
(James, “McCain Gets it Right”, http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/17/how-john-mccain-will-win-the-white-house/)
“We must embark on a national mission to end our dependence on foreign oil”—those are important words from
John McCain, quoted in The Houston Chronicle this morning, under the headline, “McCain calls for end to
offshore drilling ban/GOP candidate in Houston today to mend fences with oil industry.” Let’s hope McCain
keeps it up, appealing to pro-growth voters, for the next five months. If he does, he can win the 2008
presidential election. The opposition Democrats of course, have a paradoxical set of energy policies: they want to restrict production, increase taxation—
and then complain about high gas prices. The Democrats should understand the fundamentals of supply and demand: the more demand, with fixed supply, the higher the
price. That is, if you limit oil drilling (no ANWR, no new offshore drilling) even as domestic and world demand for oil continues to rise, then presto! –you are going to
get a rise in prices. So the Democrats can raise oil taxes if they want—which will do nothing to increase supply—but such a tax hike is not going to help increase
production. And then, of course, in addition, the Democrats (and some Republicans) want to push their “cap and trade” climate change legislation, which would impose
trillions in new taxes and costs on the U.S. economy, while leaving China and India free to grow and perhaps overtake us. Nice! But
if the Democrats have
a bad energy policy, McCain’s has been little better. For a long time, it looked as if McCain was not going to
campaign as a conservative on energy issues, but was going to continue in his decades-long role as a
“maverick,” which meant mostly taking policy positions that catered to the MSM aka the Mainstream Media.
As McCain has demonstrated, such conservative-bucking tactics are a great way to get good press; but it
won’t win the presidency, now that the MSM have found a Democratic candidate that they REALLY love. So
while McCain had taken the politically correct positions on many issues, including ANWR and global
warming—thus alienating conservatives—McCain was discovering that liberals were abandoning him,
anyway. As I said on “FOX News Watch” two weeks ago, McCain has had the best press of any Republican in decades, but it’s all going to end, now that Barack
Obama is on the national stage. Just last week, National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote a brilliant column summing up the dilemma of the McCain campaign as it tried to
carve out votes from liberals, as opposed to conservatives; Rich made the point that “Barack Obama famously couldn’t connect with working-class voters in the
primaries, offering them an airy diet of hope and change. John
McCain rose on his personal honor, which is why on energy he’s
fumbling away the GOP’s best domestic political opening in years.” In fact, the economic slowdown,
including the spike in gasoline prices, gives Republicans a chance to attack Democrats as elitists, as “let-them-
drive-bicycles”-type snobs; as polar-bear loving Greens who would rather worry about glaciers on the North
Pole than about jobs for Middle Americans in North Carolina or North Dakota.
151
LINK TURN- PRO DRILLING KEY TO MCCAIN

Plan costs McCain swing votes- oil concerns
Pethokoukis, June 3, 2008
(James, “5 Ways Climate Change Is Hurting McCain” http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/06/03/5-ways-climate-change-is-
hurting-mccain.html)
If John McCain comes up short in November, particularly in coal states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, he may
well wish he hadn't jumped aboard the cap-and-trade bandwagon. See, here's the thing: Inside-the-beltway
critics keep harping that McCain doesn't have an overarching narrative that ties his economic policies together.
(Obama's, beyond the idea of "change," seems to be all about economic security and income equality.) Rich
Lowry over at National Review may have found one, as outlined in a post titled "Cost-of-Living
Conservatives." Here goes: Speaking of energy prices, this would be an excellent time for Republicans to
emphasize reducing the cost of living and of raising a family across the board: on energy, drilling and
opposition to more energy taxes; on health care, a reduction of insurance regulation to make it easier to buy
low-cost plans; on taxes, the Ponnuru tax reform with its massive child credit for families; on prices, free trade
to keep the prices at Wal-Mart and elsewhere as low as possible, an end to ethanol subsidies, and opposition to
inflationary Fed rate cuts. Of course, the problem with all this, at least as it would apply to McCain, it that the
putative GOP presidential nominee is for capping carbon emissions and, thus, dramatically raising energy costs.
Essentially, he is for higher energy taxes, just like his opponent, Barack Obama. Now those costs wouldn't be
felt right away, but the whole concept cuts against a cost-of-living approach. At one point, reducing carbon
emissions probably seemed to McCain and many other politicians like a great way to attract independent and
moderate voters. But when people are worried about the economy, fears of a warming Earth pale
compared with everyday kitchen-table concerns. What, $125-a-barrel oil isn't enough of a price signal to
change behavior and increase investment in alternative energy technologies?
152
LINK TURN- GREEN ISSUES- MCCAIN LOSS

LINK TURN-PLAN IS PERCEIVED AS MCCAIN GOING GREEN, COSTING HIM THE ELECTION
PITTSBURG POST-GAZETTE 7-2-08 [“Gas prices open door for McCain”
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/34411]
As the general election season approaches, independent voters like Mowad may present a real
problem for Obama -- and an opportunity for McCain.
They may like the Democrat's message of change, but they also like affordable gasoline. With
McCain's call to end the 1981 moratorium on drilling off the U.S. coastline -- which Obama
opposes -- pollsters and political strategists believe the GOP may have found a potent "wedge"
issue for the fall campaign.
"Everywhere Sen. McCain travels, voters are telling him they are fed up with gas prices," said Paul Lindsay, a McCain
spokesman.
Obama's campaign did not return a request for comment, but other experts believe that if gas prices continue to soar,
Obama will need to move aggressively with proposals that will provide relief at the pump or he'll lose crucial
undecideds, independents and moderate Republicans in swing states like Pennsylvania.
Beyond being a pocketbook issue, the offshore drilling debate gives the GOP a chance to sharpen the
ideological and cultural differences between the candidates -- in this case on the environment.
A recent survey by pollster John Zogby found that 75 percent of undecided voters support offshore drilling.
A Gallup Poll found independents favoring it by 56 percent to 43 percent. Overall public support for domestic
exploration is probably even higher than that, adds Republican strategist Kevin Madden.
VOTERS SUPPORT NEW MEASURES TO OBTAIN OIL. GOING GREEN WILL LOSE THE
ELECTION FOR MCCAIN.
WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT 6-24-08 [“In and Out With Offshore Drilling”
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/getting-in-and-out”]
While Bush is pushing for offshore drilling on his way out of office, Sen. McCain is using the issue
as a way into the presidency. Voters have cited gasoline prices as one of the most important
issues of this year's presidential election, and the GOP nominee in-all-but-name is doing everything he
can to make himself look like the energy candidate. But it's unclear whether offshore drilling will actually do anything
to reduce gas prices. That's one reason analysts disagree on whether McCain's sudden change on the issue is good
strategy or a political misstep.
(Matt Mahurin) The issue is an emerging as an important one. On average, the price of gas has soared to $4.08 a
gallon across the U.S., reaching as high as $4.59 a gallon in states like California. Just two years ago, gas averaged
$2.58 a gallon -- a price most Americans never imagined they would look back on with longing.
Recent polls show that voter attitudes may well be changing when it comes to drilling in offshore areas. The majority of
Americans interviewed for a May Gallup poll said they would support drilling in coastal and wilderness areas if it meant
a reduction in gas prices. Fifty-seven percent of those polled favored the measure and 41 percent opposed it.
"With $4-plus gas, Americans are more open to policies that they might not have been open to
four years ago," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of The Gallup Poll.
Political scientist Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, agrees. "Voters are so
frustrated," he said, "that they are open to lots of solutions they might normally reject: drilling,
exploration, nuclear power, major conservation restrictions etc." But, he pointed out, that doesn't mean
offshore drilling would be their No. 1 priority when it comes to energy alternatives.
153
IMPACT- MCCAIN SOLVES- LIFT ETHANOL TARIFF

MCCAIN WANTS TO ELIMINATE THE ETHANOL TARIFF
NEW YORK TIMES 6-23-08 [Larry Rohter, South American bureau chief, “Obama Camp Closely Linked With
Ethanol”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214869
504-NHVOPsBMM/tB0OWUCcuk4g]
Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that
domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-
gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which
packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce. “We made a
series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for
corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to
inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides,
it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”
154
IMPACT- MCCAIN SOLVES- CAP AND TRADE

MCCAIN SUPPORTS PERMITS PROGRAMS
BALDWIN 6-18-08 [Tom, Washington correspondent for The Times. “John McCain calls for offshore drilling to ease
US fuel crisis” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4159793.ece]
Mr McCain, who this week declared himself the underdog in the presidential race, said his speech was
the first in a series over the next fortnight setting out how he will “break our strategic dependence on oil”.
He has sought to distance himself from Mr Bush on the environment, promising to back European
cap-and-trade policies for tackling global warming, while opposing oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge
and Florida’s Everglades.
155
IMPACT- MISSLE DEFENSE GOOD

MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM CRUCIAL TO EXERT US POWER AND PREVENT A MULTIPOLAR
WORLD
Spring 6/30
(Baker, Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation, “US should defy China-Russia on missile defense”
June 30, 2008, http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15589)
If the U.S. and its allies buckle under Chinese and Russian pressure, they should expect repeated
efforts to serve the same general purpose in the context of other issues. These other issues are
likely to include further expansion of NATO, the settlement of diplomatic recognition of Kosovo,
the evolution toward a more balanced security relationship between the U.S. and Japan, and
concerted U.S. and South Korean military cooperation to counterbalance North Korea if it
ultimately proves unwilling to abandon its nuclear weapons program. This means that missile
defense cooperation between the U.S. and its allies has political implications that go beyond the
added security provided by missile defense systems. The issue is becoming a fundamental test
of alliance solidarity. The Chinese and Russians are all but certain to view the abandonment of
missile defense cooperation between the U.S. and its allies as proof that they can use the tactic
of driving wedges in the alliance to advance to the next step of their already successful policy of
creating a multipolar world.
MULTIPOLARITY BAD
Spring 6/30
(Baker, Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation, “US should defy China-Russia on missile defense”
June 30, 2008, http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15589)
The sequence of actions that the Chinese and Russians are contemplating is all too predictable.
If, for example, Poland abandons missile defense cooperation with the U.S., the Poles should
anticipate that Russia will take both positive and negative actions to draw them back into its
sphere of influence. These actions could range from offering advantageous energy deals to
threatening to target Poland with military forces in order to obtain commitments from Poland to
limit the scope of NATO and bilateral U.S.– Polish security cooperation. China would likely use
Japan's abandonment of missile defense cooperation with the U.S. to convince the Japanese that
the U.S. cannot assure the protection of energy routes. Avoiding this predictable sequence of
actions by China and Russia to divide the U.S. from its allies requires a response that
demonstrates to all concerned that the effect of such attempts will be the opposite of what is
intended. First and foremost, this means continuing missile defense cooperation. In the broader
context, it requires the allies to strengthen their bonds. Even in a multipolar world, this positive
coalition dynamic is the key to countering potentially aggressive behavior by China, Russia, and
other non–status quo powers. The goal of this approach is to demonstrate to China and Russia
that their attempts to drive wedges will not cause the U.S., China, the Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom to act as individual
powers. Rather, the U.S. and its allies are prepared to continue to collaborate and work together.
Nuclear-games exercises designed and conducted by The Heritage Foundation have shown that
the preservation of the U.S.-led alliance is just as important in maintaining peace and stability in
today's multipolar world as it was in the bipolar world of the Cold War.[2] Alliance de-formation in
a multipolar world can cause unpredictable swings in the balance of power. The credibility of the
alliance structure is essential to stability and peace.
156
IMPACT- OBAMA DECLINE HEG

OBAMA WILL WITHDRAW THE US AS A GLOBAL POWER
Stelzer 6/12
(Irwin, Economist, fellow of the Hudson Institute, 18/06/2008, “President Barack Obama would be bad for Britain”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/18/do1804.xml)
There's worse. Obama is eager to shed America's role as keeper of world order. Troops are to be
brought back from Iraq regardless of what generals tell him, a position far more extreme than
Gordon Brown's. The PM courageously decided to slow troop withdrawals when his generals
advised they are still needed in Basra. However much British and European public opinion
opposed the American intervention in Iraq, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has made it
clear that it would be a tragedy if America retreated from its global responsibilities,
and shifted that burden to a UN incapable of effective action when the world's hot
spots boil over. Nor can Europeans be happy with Obama's promise to meet with the world's
bad guys, no pre-conditions required. He is apparently unaware that his willingness to meet the
leaders of North Korea and Iran (Castro the younger is also on his list, but fear of a backlash
among Florida's Cuban expatriate community has muted this plan) undermines the multilateral
efforts of the groups that are dealing with those regimes.
157
IMPACT- L- OBAMA LIKES NAFTA
OBAMA IS BACKING FREE TRADE

CNN Money 6-18-08 [Nina Easton, Washington editor. “Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all”
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061815]
WASHINGTON (Fortune) -- The general campaign is on, independent voters are up for grabs, and Barack Obama is
toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic
nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't
want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I
reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan
studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
158
IMPACT- NAFTA HELPS MEXICAN ECON

NAFTA HAS ENABLED GROWTH IN THE MEXICAN AND US ECONOMIES
CEVALLOS 4-9-08 [Diego, writer for upsidedownworld.org,
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1216/68/]
Clinton andObama began lashing out at NAFTA in February, shortly before the Democratic primary
in Ohio, a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the United States, for which
unions blame the closure of factories and the transfer of their jobs to Mexico. Union members are
traditionally Democratic voters.
The Ohio primary was a key test of whether Clinton could carry on in her neck-and-neck race with Obama, who in turn
was seeking a decisive victory.
Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo (1994-2000), presently head of the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation,
wrote that "it is hard to accept that politicians of the intellectual stature (of Clinton and Obama) truly believe what they
have said about the effects of existing U.S. trade policies on the wellbeing of the American people.
"They and their respective advisers on economic issues must know very well that these statements are not warranted
by any serious study. Cherry-picked anecdotal evidence is not enough to validate the protectionist oratory of the
otherwise brilliant candidates," he went on.
If NAFTA is renegotiated or abandoned, the partners will lose trade benefits and face a number of
shocks and problems, because their economies are highly interconnected, officials in Mexico
argue.
The Mexican left and activists against free trade in this country say that the main cause of the
problems in the countryside, where the greatest proportion of poverty is concentrated, is NAFTA
itself.
More than 20 million Mexicans live in the country’s rural areas, and 75 percent of them are poor. Barely one-third of
rural workers have formal jobs with social benefits, and there is a constant exodus to cities in Mexico and the United
States.
However, the government and the business community maintain that, far from impoverishing rural
areas, NAFTA has saved them from total ruin. They point out that Mexican farm exports to the
United States increased by more than 200 percent over the last 14 years, and that the productivity of
maize has increased more than four-fold over the same period.
They also say that thanks to free trade, Mexico is the top exporter of several vegetables and fruits to the United
States, and that it is now the fourth world producer of eggs and poultry.
Official statistics indicate that since NAFTA went into effect, trade between the partners has grown
more than three-fold. Furthermore, while exports from the United States to Mexico have multiplied by a factor of
3.3, exports from Mexico to the United States have increased by a factor of 5.3.
NAFTA IS CRITICAL FOR THE MEXICAN ECONOMY.

BLOOMBERG 7-2-08 [“Maybe it's proximity, not familiarity, that breeds contempt.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_marinis&sid=a0K0kflNpmSM]
In Mexico, which has close economic ties and a long border with its neighbor to the north,
presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is seen as an advocate of
trade policies that will do little good and maybe much harm.
Contrast that with Brazil, where Obama's trade and foreign policy proposals elicit passionate approval -- something
Brazilians may regret if he's elected U.S. president.
Every political leader should place reason over passion, especially when considering what is in the best interest of the
nations they command. That seems to be what's happening in Mexico, but not in Brazil.
Based on what Obama said during the primary campaign, it is clear that he is no free trader. He wants to renegotiate
the North American Free Trade Agreement, opposes a trade accord with Colombia, favors maintaining agricultural
subsidies and backs the continued protection of the expensive and inefficient U.S. ethanol industry.
Nafta is crucial for Mexico. Undoing the treat, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said, would
159
`ìnflict considerable damage on the economy'' and force North America, as a region, ``to
compete from a position of backwardness in today's world.''
160
IMPACT- NAFTA GOOD

NAFTA DOESN’T HURT JOBS
ENTINE 4-12-08 [Jon, Adjunct Fellow at the AEI. “Democrat Debacle on Free Trade”
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27818,filter.all/pub_detail.asp]
That's the political overview. What are the economics of this issue? It is difficult to make a strong
economic case against Nafta. Since it took effect in 1994, manufacturing output has increased by
63 per cent. Claims of massive job losses contradict the numbers--the US jobless rate has
dropped from 6.9 to 4.8 per cent--and state-of-the-art meta-studies, such as the non-partisan
Congressional Research Service report of 2004, show the trade deal may even have generated
jobs. The new questioning of Nafta has less to do with the pact itself, Mexico or Canada, but the
fact that the US economy did not grow enough jobs after the recession that began in 2000, and
now things are getting darker, fast.
161
IMPACT- IL- OBAMA WON’T SOLVE ISRAEL/PALESTINE

OBAMA WILL FLIP FLOP BACK TO NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ISRAEL/PALESTINE
Lerner [Michael, writer, http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0807/frontpage/obama]
Obama enthusiasts argue that the most important goal at this point is for Obama to get elected,
and once elected he will “flip-flop” back to a peace perspective on Israel/Palestine and even on Iraq
where his call for withdrawal in the first year has now been seriously qualified by talk about the need to consult with
the military before implementing his plans (Bush having already shown us the relevant point, that the President gets to
pick his own military commanders on the basis of what they are likely to see and tell him). Others urge “critical
support,” noting that Obama even in office is unlikely to challenge the AIPAC-formed right-wing
consensus in the Jewish world unless we in the peace movement begin to coalesce, focus our resources and
energies in the way that J Street promises to do, and give Obama reason to believe that the peace camp
can provide him adequate “cover” for a more principled stand.
162
IMPACT- MCCAIN GOOD ECONOMY

MCCAIN’S TAX CUTS KEY TO THE ECONOMY
The Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2008
(“Corportate Tax Cut Windfall” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486763043717547.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
For those who still claim that tax rates don't matter to economic decisions or U.S. competitiveness, we present
Exhibit A: the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act. This law gave American companies a one-year window in
2005 to repatriate earnings from foreign subsidiaries to the United States at a 5.25% tax rate. Normally
companies must pay the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate, minus a credit for whatever foreign taxes they paid on
those earnings. The IRS examined the results from this tax cutting experiment and found that the money came
back in a flood. More than 800 U.S. corporations repatriated $362 billion from foreign operations. Congress's
Joint Committee on Taxation had predicted closer to $200 billion. These dollars are now being invested in the
U.S., rather than remaining in Europe or China. This capital infusion may be one reason that U.S. business
investment rose 9.6% in 2005 – the highest rate in more than a decade. Many Democrats, liberal groups and
even some economists in the Bush Treasury opposed the measure four years ago, predicting it would lose
revenue and merely be a tax holiday for profitable corporations. The Joint Tax Committee estimators also
blundered again by predicting a mere $2.8 billion in revenue gains in the first year and then big losses after
2005. As always, they underestimated how tax reductions change behavior. The tax incentive raised $18 billion
in 2005, and revenues have continued to exceed estimates. Instead of getting 35% of nothing, as U.S. companies
kept their cash abroad, the Treasury took in 5.25% of the hundreds of billions the companies brought home.
[Corporate Tax Cut Windfall] One lesson here is how hypersensitive the trillions of dollars of annual global
capital flows are to tax rates. It also underscores how damaging the U.S. corporate income tax is to American
firms. Over the past decade the U.S. has gone from a below-the-average corporate tax nation to the second
highest rate in the industrial world. (See table.) Many countries have slashed their corporate rates to as low as
10%. The economic impact is even worse because the U.S. is one of the few countries that taxes foreign
subsidiary income when it is repatriated. Most countries let their companies pay taxes in the country where the
income is earned, and the few countries that do tax repatriated income are changing their models. Japan is the
only developed nation with a higher corporate tax rate than the U.S., but the Japan Times reports that the
government wants to change its tax laws to stop taxing repatriated capital. America's tax laws are repelling
capital at the same time the rest of the world is inviting these dollars and the jobs and growth that inevitably
follow. House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel wants to dig the ditch deeper by taxing American
companies on their foreign earnings whether or not they bring the money back to the U.S. He thinks this will
raise money for the Treasury, but the likelier effect is that more American multinationals will relocate abroad.
Senator John Ensign of Nevada, the author of the 2005 holiday bill, is proposing to do the same again for one
year to stimulate the economy. As a rule, we don't like temporary tax cuts because they don't provide permanent
incentives. But the 2005 holiday was an exception that proved the folly of current policy. The best response
going forward would be for Congress and the next Administration to reduce sharply the corporate tax rate so it
is competitive with falling rates around the world. John McCain is proposing to cut it to 25%. If Barack Obama
really wanted to "run to the center," he'd see that and cut it even further. As the 2005 results show, he'd then
have more tax revenue to spend on his many social programs.
163
IMPACT- MCCAIN GOOD ECONOMY

MCCAIN’S TAX POLICY GOOD FOR ECONOMY
Shlaes, senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations, June 25, 2008
(Amity, McCain's Tax Plan Would Block a Democrat Katrina”,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=a3fSndzwGUyU)
June 25 (Bloomberg) -- At about the time the river rose above its banks in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, people in
Washington began talking about how John McCain was going to put the whole country underwater with his tax
plan. Suggesting that McCain = Disaster is weird. The fiscal program of the presumptive Republican nominee
for president is hardly disastrous. Or, to put it all in diluvial terms, McCain's levies are like levees. They may
look expensive on paper. But they'll provide a valuable infrastructure that will shore up the American house in
ways that will prove more than worth it later. Consider corporate taxes. Here the U.S. is perilously out of
balance with the rest of the world. At 35 percent, our top rate is the second-highest among developed countries,
behind only Japan. Everyday, we forgo business because of that 35 percent figure. Executives spend hundreds
of hours and hundreds of millions of dollars shifting activity abroad just to get around it. McCain would cut the
top rate to 25 percent. The critics claim that supply-siders overrate the value of tax cuts. Sometimes they are
right. When you cut an already low tax a little bit, you're not going to get the kind of change in behavior that a
cut from a very high rate can yield. But McCain's corporate change falls into the latter class. A 10-percentage-
point rate cut may not pay for itself directly. But overall growth will more than compensate for nominal revenue
loss. Domestic businesses could stay home, and foreign businesses would come. Unkept Promises Social
Security? Here McCain is likewise sound. He acknowledges the entitlement's structural vulnerability: ``Benefits
promises cannot be kept.'' Currently, Social Security pensions increase not merely to compensate for inflation
but add a bonus on top of that -- a younger brother gets a better pension than an older one, even if the men
followed the same job path. McCain would alter the formula to adjust payouts for inflation -- but not more. In
addition, he would pull an `Àlan Greenspan'' and increase the retirement age. These changes would improve
the budget numbers -- and voters' sense of faith in their government. Then there is the income tax. McCain
would abolish the alternative minimum tax, a levy originally aimed at rich Americans that is increasingly
ensnaring the middle class because it wasn't indexed for inflation. This is a brave proposal since the AMT might
as well be called the ATM, so well does it serve as a cash machine for Washington. What McCain has discerned
is that the AMT imposes not only a dollar tax but also a civic burden on citizens. Like a booby trap, the tax
often surprises them by revealing they owe more than they thought. McCain also would like to keep President
George W. Bush's tax cuts, rather than allow them to expire. Irresponsible Democrats Here again, solid
proposals. People talk about the expense - - getting rid of the AMT costs $50 billion or so now per year and will
cost yet more in the future. But that is only on paper. And Democratic programs such as income credits for
lower earners cost more. No one blames the credits for fiscal disasters. Democrats, the same ones who depict
McCain as irresponsible, have their own plans to limit the AMT. In other words, we have something close to
political consensus on AMT reform. My own view is that AMT abolition would re-ground the country. The
certainty of a simpler and more permanent rate structure will do its part to contribute to that crucial
competitiveness as well. Barack Obama's proposed tax increases, by contrast, would slow the economy's
growth, and taxes will make up a greater share of gross domestic product, as in Germany -- or even France. In
the long run, McCain's plans make fiscal sense, too.
164

CNDI - Elections DA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CNDI - Elections DA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS

ELECTIONS- OBAMA GOOD

THIS PREVENTS PROLIFERATION

REGIONAL PROLIFERATION RISKS GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR

OBAMA- WIN -ENERGY ISSUES

OBAMA WILL WIN-HIS ENERGY POLICY IS MUCH MORE POPULAR

OBAMA WILL WIN-ENERGY POLICY PROVES

OBAMA IS WINNING—POLLS PROVE

OBAMA WILL WIN—MONEY PROVES

OBAMA IS WINNING—FUNDING PROVES

OBAMA- WIN—GOP WEAK

MCCAIN WILL LOSE- REPUBLICAN BRAND IS TOXIC WITH VOTERS

OBAMA- WIN—GOP WEAK

MCCAIN WILL LOSE- BUSH CREDIBILITY

MCCAIN WILL LOSE—BUSH

MCCAIN WILL LOSE—BUSH

MCCAIN WILL LOSE- UNPOPULAR AGENDA

MCCAIN WILL LOSE—CAMPAIGN IS DISORGANIZED

OBAMA- WIN—LATINOS AND EVANGELICALS

DEMS WILL WIN—INDEPENDENTS

OBAMA- WIN—SWING STATES

OBAMA- WIN—KEY STATES

Obama will win- ahead in key industrial states

OBAMA WILL WIN—DEMS AHEAD ON THE ECONOMY

OBAMA WILL WIN-POLLS PROVE VOTERS PREFER HIS ECONOMIC POLICY

MCCAIN WILL LOSE—HE’S TOO OLD

MCCAIN CAN’T BE PRESIDENT—HE’S TOO OLD

MCCAIN IS TOO OLD TO BE PRESIDENT

OBAMA- WIN—80S ELECTION

A2- OBAMA- LOSE- INEXPERIENCE

POLLS ARE WRONG

SUMMER LEADS WILL DRASTICALLY DROP

LINK- ALT ENERGIES

LINK- ALT ENERGIES

A GOP focus on energy policy will grant McCain the presidency

Plan solidifies the environment as a Republican issue- key to the election

LINK- ALT ENERGIES

Greening GOP Image key to voters

LINK- ALT ENERGIES- SWING VOTERS

LINK- ALT ENERGIES- SWING VOTERS

LINK- ALT ENERGIES- SWING VOTERS

GREEN ISSUES WILL BE VITAL TO SWING THE ELECTION IN MCCAIN’S DIRECTION

LINK- ALT ENERGIES- SWING VOTERS

LINK- ALT ENERGIES- INDEPENDENTS

Plan boosts McCain’s popularity with independents

LINK- ALT ENERGIES- INDEPENDENTS

Climate change legislation sways independents towards McCain

LINK- ALT ENERGIES- CHRISTIAN RIGHT

LINK- ALT ENERGIES- WESTERN STATES

LINK- ENERGY INCENTIVES- GOP

Market based energy incentives unify the GOP- key to turnout

LINK- ENVIRONMENT- CALIFORNIA

ENERGY ISSUES- KEY TO ELECTION

ENERGY ISSUES- KEY TO ELECTION

Energy key to election

ENVIRONMENT ISSUES- KEY TO ELECTION

Environment vital issue in close race

ECONOMIC ISSUES- KEY TO ELECTION

Voters are deciding on economic issues- not national security concerns

NATIONAL SECURITY- KEY TO GOP

National security k GOP win

A2- NATIONAL SECURITY KEY ELECTION

National security isn’t key to the election- energy issues are

CHRISTIAN RIGHT- KEY TO ELECTION