DA Neg Elections 32

WNDI 2008 1
Elections DA Neg
Elections DA Neg
Elections DA Neg........................................................................................................................................................1
Elections DA Neg............................................................................................................................1
1NC Elections DA......................................................................................................................................................4
1NC Elections DA..........................................................................................................................4
1NC Elections DA......................................................................................................................................................5
1NC Elections DA..........................................................................................................................5
1NC Elections DA......................................................................................................................................................6
1NC Elections DA..........................................................................................................................6
Yes Obama .................................................................................................................................................................7
Yes Obama .....................................................................................................................................7
Yes Obama – 8 Yr Jinx................................................................................................................................................8
Yes Obama – 8 Yr Jinx..................................................................................................................8
Yes Obama – NV ........................................................................................................................................................9
Yes Obama – NV ...........................................................................................................................9
Yes Obama – Enthusiasm Gap..................................................................................................................................10
Yes Obama – Enthusiasm Gap....................................................................................................10
Links – Nuclear Power .............................................................................................................................................11
Links – Nuclear Power ................................................................................................................11
Links – Alternative Energy.......................................................................................................................................12
Links – Alternative Energy.........................................................................................................12
Links – Alternative Energy.......................................................................................................................................13
Links – Alternative Energy.........................................................................................................13
Links – Ethanol ........................................................................................................................................................14
Links – Ethanol ...........................................................................................................................14
Links – PHEVs..........................................................................................................................................................15
Links – PHEVs.............................................................................................................................15
Links – Colorado ......................................................................................................................................................16
Links – Colorado .........................................................................................................................16
Links – Colorado ......................................................................................................................................................17
Links – Colorado .........................................................................................................................17
Link/Internals – Energy Key.....................................................................................................................................18
Link/Internals – Energy Key......................................................................................................18
Internals – West/Colorado Key.................................................................................................................................19
Internals – West/Colorado Key...................................................................................................19
WNDI 2008 2
Elections DA Neg
Internals – Bush Popularity Key ..............................................................................................................................20

Internals – Bush Popularity Key ...............................................................................................20
Internals – Bush Popularity Key ..............................................................................................................................21
Internals – Bush Popularity Key ...............................................................................................21
Internals – Bush Popularity Key...............................................................................................................................22
Internals – Bush Popularity Key................................................................................................22
Internals – Bush Popularity Key (Ohio)...................................................................................................................23
Internals – Bush Popularity Key (Ohio)....................................................................................23
Internals – GOP Base Key........................................................................................................................................24
Internals – GOP Base Key...........................................................................................................24
Internals – Energy Key..............................................................................................................................................25
Internals – Energy Key................................................................................................................25
Internals-Uniqueness – Obama leads Energy...........................................................................................................26
Internals-Uniqueness – Obama leads Energy...........................................................................26
Obama Solves Alt Energy ........................................................................................................................................27
Obama Solves Alt Energy ...........................................................................................................27
Obama Solves Warming ...........................................................................................................................................28
Obama Solves Warming .............................................................................................................28
Obama Solves Ethanol..............................................................................................................................................29
Obama Solves Ethanol.................................................................................................................29
Obama Solves Competitiveness ...............................................................................................................................30
Obama Solves Competitiveness .................................................................................................30
Impacts – NMD Bad.................................................................................................................................................31
Impacts – NMD Bad....................................................................................................................31
Impacts – Leadership................................................................................................................................................32
Impacts – Leadership..................................................................................................................32
Impacts – Tax Cuts....................................................................................................................................................33
Impacts – Tax Cuts.......................................................................................................................33
Impacts – Health Care...............................................................................................................................................34
Impacts – Health Care.................................................................................................................34
Impacts – Health Care ..............................................................................................................................................35
Impacts – Health Care ................................................................................................................35
Impacts – Iraq Withdraw...........................................................................................................................................36
Impacts – Iraq Withdraw............................................................................................................36
Impacts – CTBT........................................................................................................................................................37
Impacts – CTBT...........................................................................................................................37
WNDI 2008 3
Elections DA Neg
AT: McCain Good....................................................................................................................................................38

AT: McCain Good.......................................................................................................................38
WNDI 2008 4
Elections DA Neg
1NC Elections DA
( ) Obama leads but the race is close
Steve Kornacki, op-ed writer, 7-18-2008, “State Polls Indicate Obama’s Tidal-Wave Potential, But National
Polls Are Tight; Both Are Right,” The New York Observer, http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/state-polls-
indicate-obamas-tidal-wave-potential-national-polls-are-tight-both-are-rig
If you look at the national-level data, Barack Obama seems to be underachieving. In the latest Gallup
daily tracking poll, the presumptive Democratic nominee holds a scant two-point edge over John McCain.
The margin is also two points in Rasmussen's daily poll—which also shows a dead-even race when
"leaners" are factored in. Some other recent polls have been a little more favorable to Obama, but the
combined weight of the available national data strongly suggests that Obama, despite his personal
popularity and the enormous built-in advantages his party enjoys this year, is locked in a much closer
race than he should be.
( ) Plan is popular and energy is key to the election

Reuters, 7-24-2008, “LCV and NRDC Outline the Future of Global Warming Legislation and Steps to Address
High Gas Prices,” http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS214817+24-Jun-2008+PRN20080624
"Tied into both the economy and the environment, energy will be the defining issue of this election," LCV
President Gene Karpinski said. "The American people demand a new energy policy that breaks our
addiction to oil and dirty coal. Members of Congress who fight for a clean, renewable energy future will
be back to fight next year, but those who stand in the way will have to answer to the voters in
November. A Gallup poll released today indicates that energy is the top issue priority for 51% American
voters. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx). "Americans are
feeling pain at the pump and many experts say high gas prices are here to stay," NRDC's Energy Advocate
Jim Presswood said. "With prices set in the global marketplace and only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves
here at home, there is simply nothing we can do to impact prices by drilling. The real solution is clear: we
must take bold action to break our addiction to oil and transition to a clean energy future. A future where new
cars like plug-in hybrids go farther on a gallon of gas, enhanced public transit systems give Americans more
transportation options, and renewable sources of energy power our communities.
( ) Bush popularity is key to McCain

John McKinnon, 7-2-2008, “How Bush Ratings Complicate McCain’s Presidential Fight,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121493389576919869.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's record unpopularity is playing an unprecedented role in the 2008
campaign, complicating John McCain's task among key constituencies. Mr. Bush received a 66%
disapproval rating in The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll for June, tying his own record for the highest ever
for any president in the Journal/NBC poll. The previous highs were a 56% rating for Mr. Bush's father in late
1992, and a 50% score for President Clinton in 1993. In the long-running Gallup Poll, Mr. Bush's disapproval
rating reached 69% this spring -- a record going back to the Truman administration. His disapproval rating in
the Journal poll is particularly striking among a number of key voter blocs for Mr. McCain in the November
election: older voters (67%), women (71%) and independents (75%). Mr. Bush's second-term slide in the
polls has been especially sharp among independents, a group that Sen. McCain depends on. Now for
Mr. McCain to win in November, "at least one-third of McCain's voters will have to be people who
disapprove of the job George Bush is doing," most of them independents, says Republican pollster Neil
Newhouse. And Sen. McCain must accomplish that feat while continuing to align himself with Mr. Bush
on some of the administration's most controversial policies, notably the Iraq war.
WNDI 2008 5
Elections DA Neg
1NC Elections DA
( ) McCain would hurt US science competitiveness.
Michael Feldman, Editor for HPCwire. 2-1-2008. HPCwire, “Looking for a Tech-Savvy President.”
http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/2089255.html
Romney and McCain strike me as science and technology lightweights, especially in the realm of federal
funding for basic research and science/math education. Since the Republican mantra for government is
"less is more," I'm not sure what else we should expect. That said, I assume both candidates would
support bipartisan COMPETES-type initiatives in the future, but commitment to funding is the real issue here
(see below). On the other hand, Romney and McCain are both tech business-friendly, not just in their support
for more H-1B visas, but also in other areas, such as reducing corporate tax rates and making the R&D tax
credit permanent. While neither candidate has shown any interest in politicizing science, as has been done in
the current administration, overall Romney and McCain have demonstrated little enthusiasm for science
and technology issues. If I had to pick one, I'd go with McCain for his Senate support for NASA and the
COMPETES Act. But his penchant for low taxes, high military spending and fiscal conservatism
suggests he's going to leave a lot of U.S. science and technology up to the private sector. While the
Republicans may think this approach is favorable to businesses, tech companies are unlikely to be
enthusiastic. In a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Intel Chairman Craig Barrett expresses his
frustration about the bipartisan failure of Congress to fund the science research and education agenda set out
in the COMPETES Act. Writes Barrett: "The funding decisions on the America COMPETES Act took place
a few days after Congress passed a $250 billion farm bill. In the eyes of our political leaders, apparently, corn
subsidies to Iowa farmers are more important for our competitiveness in the next century than investing a few
billion in our major research universities."
( ) That kills US heg

Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly 1995
U.S. superiority in new weapons and their use would be critical. U.S. planners should therefore give higher
priority to research on new technologies, new concepts of operation, and changes in organization, with the
aim of U.S. dominance in the military technical revolution that may be emerging. They should also focus on
how to project U.S. systems and interests against weapons based on new technologies. The Persian Gulf War
gave a glimpse of the likely future. The character of warfare will change because of advances in military
technology, where the [US] United States has the lead, and in corresponding concepts of operation and
organizational structure. The challenge is to sustain this lead in the face of the complacency that the current
U.S. lead in military power is likely to engender. Those who are seeking to be rivals to the United States are
likely to be very motivated to explore new technologies and how to use them against it. A determined
nation making the right choices, even though it possessed a much smaller economy, could pose an enormous
challenge by exploiting breakthroughs that made more traditional U.S. military methods less effective by
comparison. For example, Germany, by making the right technical choices and adopting innovative concepts
for their use in the 1920s and 1930s, was able to make a serious bid for world domination. At the same time,
Japan, with a relatively small GNP compared to the other major powers, especially the United States, was at
the forefront of the development of naval aviation and aircraft carriers. These examples indicate that a major
innovation in warfare provides ambitious powers an opportunity to become dominant or near-dominant
powers. U.S. domination of the emerging military-technical revolution, combined with the maintenance of
a force of adequate size, can help to discourage the rise of a rival power by making potential rivals believe
that catching up with the United States is a hopeless proposition and that if they try they will suffer the same
fate as the former Soviet Union.
WNDI 2008 6
Elections DA Neg
1NC Elections DA
( ) Sparks nuclear war
Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would
be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second,
such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the
world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear
exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.
WNDI 2008 7
Elections DA Neg
Yes Obama
( ) Obama leads, but the race is fluid
CBS News, 7-15-2008, “CBS Poll: Obama Leads But Race Looks Fluid,”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/15/opinion/polls/main4263422.shtml
(CBS) Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama leads Republican counterpart John McCain 45
percent to 39 percent in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll of registered voters nationwide. The six
percentage point spread is unchanged since June, when Obama led McCain 48 percent to 42 percent. But
more than 1 in 10 voters now say they are undecided between the candidates - twice as many,
percentage-wise, as last month - and 28 percent of those who did express a preference say they might still
change their mind. The race between McCain and Obama appears to be more fluid than the 2004 battle
between Democratic nominee John Kerry and President George W. Bush. Four years ago this month, just 6
percent of those surveyed were undecided between the candidates. And only 20 percent of those asked
indicated their minds weren't yet made up.
WNDI 2008 8
Elections DA Neg
Yes Obama – 8 Yr Jinx

( ) Running for third consecutive GOP term ensures McCain defeat
Robert David Sullivan, guest columnist and managing editor of CommonWealth Magazine, 7-14-2008, “McCain
versus the eight-year electoral jinx,” The Boston Globe,
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/14/mccain_versus_the_eight_year_elec
toral_jinx/
PRESIDENT BUSH has left presumptive GOP nominee John McCain with a lot of problems, but the
biggest may be the weak 50.7 percent of the vote that Bush received when running for reelection. That's
a problematic number because American political parties almost always lose support when trying to
secure a third term in the White House. The last time that a party improved its vote percentage after two
terms was in 1928, when Republican Herbert Hoover soundly beat Democrat Al Smith, the first Catholic to
be nominated to the presidency. Maybe Barack Obama's status as another "first" will bring about another
exception to the rule. Then again, Smith wasn't on the ballot during an unpopular war and a scary
economy. Since 1928, there have been six elections in which one of the major parties was seeking a third
consecutive term in the White House - three for each major party. Only two attempts were successful.
Democrat Franklin Roosevelt won a third term in 1940, and Republican George H. W. Bush succeeded
Ronald Reagan in 1988; in both cases, the vote was much closer than it had been in the previous election.
Not so lucky were Richard Nixon in 1960, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Gerald Ford in 1976, and Al Gore in
2000. In 24 states, the party seeking a third term lost ground in all six elections. These include
Michigan, which the McCain campaign is targeting as its best chance to pick up a state won by John Kerry
in 2004, and also the states of Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia, which the GOP is struggling to keep in its
column this year.
WNDI 2008 9
Elections DA Neg
Yes Obama – NV
( ) Obama will win Nevada – new registration numbers
Don Frederick, LAT Political Blogger, 7-7-2008, “In Nevada, the numbers game tilts Democratic,” LA Times
Blog, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/in-nevada-the-n.html
In Nevada, the numbers game tilts Democratic Nevada's vote in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections
was relatively stable -- good news for Republicans. Its party registration figures, though, have been
undergoing a transformation, which this November might translate into glad tidings for Democrats.
Emphasis on "might." Eight years ago, George W. Bush carried the Sagebrush State against Al Gore by
21,597 votes out of about 609,000 cast (giving him a winning margin of roughly 3.5 percentage points).
Four years ago, Bush won Nevada over John Kerry by 21,500 votes; with almost 830,000 cast, the
president's margin was reduced a bit, to about 2.6 percentage points. Democrats could at least take solace in
the trendline. But they are finding much greater joy in a new set of numbers -- the voter registration
breakdown, as of June, from the Nevada secretary of state's office. On its list of "active" voters, Democrats
outnumber Republicans by 55,560 -- an edge of about 5% among this entire pool of registrants, which
numbers a bit more than 1 million. Especially encouraging for Democrats, as state Democratic Party official
Kirsten Searer pointed out to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is that at this point in 2004, the GOP had a 1%
advantage in voter registration. We've got to give credit to Zac Moyle, executive director of the Nevada
Republican Party; he didn't try to sugarcoat the matter, saying, "We're disappointed by the numbers." Most
distressing must be ... ... the change so far this year. Since January, the GOP voter figure in Nevada has
actually gone down, by more than 5,000, while the number of Democrats has increased by close to 40,000.
WNDI 2008 10
Elections DA Neg
Yes Obama – Enthusiasm Gap

( ) Obama will win – enthusiasm gap
Stephen F. Hayes, senior writer, 7-21-2008, “The Enthusiasm Gap,” The Weekly Standard,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/320jlvio.asp?pg=2
There are risks to this strategy and the enthusiasm gap is chief among them. A Washington Post/ABC News
poll last month found that nearly half of the liberals surveyed are enthusiastic about supporting Barack
Obama, while only 13 percent of conservatives are enthusiastic about McCain. More generally, 91
percent of self-identified Obama supporters are "enthusiastic" about their candidate; 54 percent say they
are "very enthusiastic." Seventy-three percent of such McCain supporters say they are "enthusiastic" about
his candidacy, but only 17 percent say they are "very enthusiastic." A USA Today/Gallup poll reported
similar findings last week. That survey shows that while 67 percent of Barack Obama's supporters are "more
excited than usual about voting" for their candidate, only 31 percent of John McCain's supporters can say the
same thing. More troubling for the McCain campaign is that more than half of those who identified
themselves as McCain backers--54 percent--say they are "less excited than usual" about their candidate. It is
not surprising that conservatives are not warming to a candidate who likes to talk about climate change and
government subsidies for displaced workers. But this coldness is increasingly alarming to some McCain
backers. They believe that all of McCain's efforts to win over Democrats and independents can only pay
off if he is able to get conservatives to turn out to vote for him in November.
( ) Enthusiasm gap is large

Obama voters are far more enthusiastic about their candidate: Half of his supporters described
themselves as "enthusiastic" about Obama as nominee, while just 16 percent of McCain voters said the
same. Sixty-eight percent of McCain voters describe themselves as "satisfied" with the presumptive GOP
nominee, while 14 percent say they are "dissatisfied." Only six percent of Obama voters say they are
"dissatisfied" with the Democratic candidate. But there are some lingering reservations among former
supporters of Obama's toughest rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. About one in five of
those who say they voted for Clinton in the primaries now plan to support McCain in November. And just 29
percent of former Clinton supporters who plan to vote for Obama feel "enthusiastic" about the candidate.
WNDI 2008 11
Elections DA Neg
Links – Nuclear Power

( ) Nuclear power popular
McCain has proposed that the U.S. build more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, and 57
percent of Americans say they support doing so - up 12 points from April of last year and the highest
percentage since 1977.
WNDI 2008 12
Elections DA Neg
Links – Alternative Energy

( ) Alternative energy is popular
Suemedha Sood, 6-24-2008, “In and Out With Offshore Drilling,” The Washington Independent,
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/getting-in-and-out
Yet even as the public seems more accepting of drilling, public opinion data also shows that Americans
are more likely to seek other options before supporting drilling in off-limits coastal areas. In a NBC
News/Wall Street Journal poll taken earlier this month, Americans ranked a list of energy alternatives to
address rising gas prices. The most popular option was to encourage the expansion of wind and solar
power. The offshore drilling option was the fourth on the list, only considered viable after looking into wind
and solar power, Alaska exploration and energy conservation.
( ) Alternative Energy good for republicans/popular

Anne C. Mulkern, staff writer, 6-23-2008, “Political parties drill for blame in energy fight,” The Denver Post,
nexis
In a Zogby International poll this month asking what government actions people favored to lower fuel costs,
60 percent backed encouraging domestic drilling. Almost as many, 59 percent, supported cutting demand by
boosting fuel-efficiency standards, and 54 percent endorsed the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol
and biodiesel. The survey did not ask people to pick one option over another. Political advisers are
coaching Republicans to talk about more drilling and renewable energy. Democratic strategists suggest
giving solutions that include cracking down on oil speculators and pushing gas alternatives. They also advise
blaming President Bush.
( ) Alternative energy is bipartisan

Alex Kaplun, E&ENews PM reporter, 3-10-2008, “ENERGY POLICY: Poll shows voters united on alternatives,
split on nuclear, oil industry incentives,” E&E News, nexis
Voters from both parties continue to strongly favor increased federal support for policies such as
increased vehicle fuel efficiency, alternative energy development and greater use of mass transit but are
more divided on policies such as nuclear power and tax breaks for oil exploration, according to a new poll. A
poll released late last week by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that 90 percent
of voters -- regardless of party affiliation -- support government efforts to boost vehicle efficiency and
more than 80 percent support increased federal funding for alternative energy.
WNDI 2008 13
Elections DA Neg
Links – Alternative Energy

( ) Alt energy popular – seen as economic stimulus
Ben Alder, 7-14-2008, “Poll: Deep economic insecurity,” politico.com, nexis
Americans are deeply worried about their economic prospects and they want government to invest in
expanding economic opportunity and assisting those in need, according to a new poll released today. The Rockefeller
Foundation/Time magazine poll of 2,008 Americans, conducted June 19-29, found significant increases in economic anxiety, especially
among young people and minorities, and dissatisfaction with the federal government's response. The percentage of Americans
concerned with their own economic situation, at 47 percent, has nearly doubled from 24 percent in January 2007, when the Rockefeller
Foundation conducted a similar study. The percentages of Americans who fear losing their job and have failed to pay a bill in the past
year also rose since last January. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said they are facing greater financial risk than in the past and 55
percent say that Congress is hindering them from achieving economic security. Generation Y, defined as 18- to 29-year-olds in this
survey, was the most pessimistic age cohort, with the bleakest view of the future. Forty-nine percent say America was a better place to
live in in the 1990s and will continue to decline, compared to 40 percent or less for every other age cohort. "There was really surprising
data on how many young people feel so badly about their financial future," said Teresa Wells, chief media strategist for the Rockefeller
Foundation. "Half [of young people] think America's best days are behind us," said Margot Brandenburg, associate director of
foundation initiatives at Rockefeller. "They have good reason to." She noted that half reported having gone without health insurance in
the last year. Sixty-two percent said that they have failed to pay a bill on time because they could not afford to. They are more likely than
older people to have not gone to a doctor because of cost, to worry that they are not saving enough for retirement and to have borrowed
money from a friend. And young Americans seem readier than older Americans to turn to government for the solution. Eighty-six
percent say more government programs should help those struggling under the current economic conditions. African-Americans and
Latinos feel especially hard hit by recent economic turmoil, according to the survey. Ninety-six percent of African-Americans and 88
percent of Latinos believe the economy is on the wrong track. Congress is not the only political institution that gets a share of the blame:
Almost 80 percent of African-Americans say the president is hindering their pursuit of economic security. "What we see is things are
worse for everyone but more so for black and Latino workers," said Brandenburg. "They are more likely to be uninsured, to think that
they aren't saving enough for retirement and lack the savings to handle an emergency. And they are more vocal in calling for government
to play a role." For example, 93 percent of African-Americans and 87 percent of Latinos favor public works projects that would create
jobs. One notable trend is the emerging popularity of environmental regulation as an economic
imperative. Stricter pollution limits and tax credits for alternative energy development were supported
by 84 percent of all respondents, the highest of any proposal. Increasing the minimum wage, expanding
public works projects were nearly as popular, with 83 percent and 82 percent approval respectively.
Increases in unemployment benefits, government-funded childcare and government programs to provide health
insurance were also supported by more than two-thirds of respondents as well. "If you look at what Americans are trying
to say to their government leaders," said Wells, "they are very interested in environmental solutions that
can help the economy."
WNDI 2008 14
Elections DA Neg
Links – Ethanol
( ) Ethanol is popular
Alex Kaplun, E&ENews PM reporter, 3-10-2008, “ENERGY POLICY: Poll shows voters united on alternatives,
split on nuclear, oil industry incentives,” E&E News, nexis
A majority of voters -- 57 percent -- also supported increased funding for ethanol research, but that
figure has dropped over the last couple of years from a high of 67 percent in early 2006. The decline was
especially pronounced among Republican voters, with 59 percent favoring the additional funding this
year compared to 72 percent two years ago.
WNDI 2008 15
Elections DA Neg
Links – PHEVs
( ) Support for PHEV’s is popular and key in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Lorraine Wollert and Jeff Green, staff writers, 7-18-2008, “GM’s Volt Becomes Centerpiece in Presidential
Debate on Energy,” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aVV3eMUSiMgQ&refer=politics
July 18 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp.'s plug-in electric car, the Chevrolet Volt, is becoming a must-
have prop for the U.S. presidential candidates as they try to appeal to workers in contested states such
as Michigan and Ohio and show their commitment to weaning the country off of imported oil.
Stopping at a technical center run by the largest U.S. automaker in Warren, Michigan, Republican John
McCain today called the Volt an illustration of how the U.S. can cope with rising crude oil prices and the
decline of manufacturing jobs. ``The eyes of the world are now on the Volt,'' McCain said at a meeting with
autoworkers after sitting in the vehicle and getting a briefing on the car's technology from GM Chief
Executive Officer Rick Wagoner and Vice Chairman Bob Lutz. `Ìt's the future of America and the world.''
The Arizona senator and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, are holding up GM --
beset by a collapse of its U.S. sales and three years of losses -- as a model of American ingenuity. McCain
said the Volt, which GM aims to roll off assembly lines by 2010, demonstrates how U.S. automakers can
move smartly and quickly away from fossil fuels without shedding manufacturing jobs. `Ì've said the old
automotive jobs aren't coming back,'' McCain said yesterday. ``But I also said in the same sentence that the
Big Three would lead in green technologies and innovation and the new technologies that would restore the
life and vitality of the automotive industry in America. And General Motors is doing exactly that by
developing the Volt.'' Alternatives While the candidates' differences over whether to allow more oil drilling
off the U.S. coast has dominated the debate, on the stump they both are giving prominence to their plans to
boost alternative energy development and foster technology to cut emissions. McCain, 71, and Obama, 46,
come at the issue from different directions. McCain wants to boost innovation by offering purchasers of zero
carbon-emission cars a $5,000 tax credit. A graduated tax credit would apply to purchases of lower emission
cars such as the Volt. He would establish a $300 million prize for development of new battery technology for
vehicles. He also wants to encourage construction of 100 new nuclear plants and invest government money in
development of clean-burning coal. Obama has pledged $150 billion in federal spending to create 5 million
``green collar'' jobs to cut pollution and energy use, in part by promoting the use of renewable fuels and
retooling factories. Oil Dependency McCain adviser Jim Woolsey said both proposals share the same goal,
`àn end-run around oil dependency.'' The plans have another common target: protecting American
manufacturing jobs. Touting clean and green technology is a way for candidates to resonate in
competitive states such as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where factory workers are a substantial
voting bloc.
WNDI 2008 16
Elections DA Neg
Links – Colorado
( ) Alternative energy is popular in Colorado and key to the election
Alex Kaplun, E&E Daily Reporter, 6-3-2008, “Campaign 2008: Colo. Senate candidates seek upper hand in
renewable energy debate,” Environment and Energy Daily, nexis
Energy policy -- and in particular the development of renewable energy -- has been a major campaign
topic in Colorado for several campaign cycles. And while it figures to be in play once again this time
around, Democrats and their allies in particular see an opening to score major electoral points by
highlighting what they describe as the Republican candidate's oil-friendly record in an era when such
an image can prove to be highly damaging to a campaign. Shortly after becoming the nominee last
month, Udall launched a 16-city tour in which he highlighted his renewable energy policy at stop after stop.
Udall's first campaign ad of the season also focused on renewable energy. "Standing on your own. That's just
the Colorado way," Udall says in the 30-second spot. "We need energy solutions, green jobs and a cleaner
future for Colorado." Thus far, Udall's message has been largely positive, focusing primarily on his own
track record and vowing to expand the availability of renewable fuels if he gets to the Senate. Attacking
Schaffer In the meantime, environmental groups -- which view the Colorado Senate race as one of their top
priorities in this cycle -- have gone on the air with ads attacking Schaffer for accepting campaign
contributions from oil and gas companies as well as voting in favor of tax breaks for the industry. "As a
politician and corporate oil executive, Bob Schaffer has had all of his fingers in big oil," the ad states.
"Colorado deserves cleaner representation in the Senate." Udall has long been a favorite of the
environmental community, most notably for his efforts to push through a federal renewable electricity
mandate. At the same time, environmental groups pledged to target Schaffer because of what they describe as
an industry-friendly voting record and his background as an executive at the oil company Aspect Energy. But
Schaffer's allies have moved quickly to blunt what is expected to be a barrage of attacks from environmental
groups by running their own ads that tout the former congressman's support for renewables. The same week
that the League of Conservation Voters-led ads went on the air, the group Coloradans for Economic Grown
launched its own ad campaign praising Schaffer for being an advocate for renewable energy -- highlighting
his vote for a 2001 energy bill that contained incentives for solar power, hybrid vehicles and alternative fuels.
"As a businessman, Bob led efforts to increase wind power sources," states the ad. "As our congressman, Bob
Schaffer voted to fund research for renewable energy projects." On the campaign trail, Schaffer has likewise
discussed the need for renewable energy but has also said the country needs to establish energy independence
in part by increasing domestic energy production. Critics, however, say Schaffer's effort to embrace
renewable energy is an attempt to change his oil-friendly perception that will fall flat with voters.
"Obviously it's an attempt to mitigate the Oil Slick Bob image, but his record doesn't stand up" said Rick
Ridder, a Colorado-based Democratic strategist. "It's difficult to become Mahatma Gandhi when you've been
Genghis Khan all your life." Colorado trend The back-and-forth on energy policy has become a staple of
recent statewide political campaigns, as voters view the development of renewable energy as a
potentially major economic engine for Colorado and as voters in some corners of the state have
expressed concern about the impact of drilling on the environment. Pundits say that with voters
worried about high gas prices in general and the economy as a whole, the candidates' ability to win the
energy debate could prove to be particularly critical this time around. "As a candidate, you've got to
have an economic policy and something about Iraq, but a very good way to frame it, whether you're
talking about foreign and domestic issues, is through energy policy and in particular a renewable energy
policy," said Republican Colorado pollster Floyd Ciruli. "It's become a very popular sort of framework for
discussing everything else." Experts say that while swing voters will likely never view the former
Republican congressman as being particularly strong on the environment, the campaign could find
success if it can simply eliminate from the voters' minds that he is an "Big Oil" candidate.
( ) Renewable are ridiculously popular in Colorado

Craig Cox, staff writer, 6-30-2008, “Tax policies must catch up to renewable revolution,” The Denver Post, nexis
Renewable energy is popular with voters and policymakers: Colorado's voters passed a renewable
energy standard in 2004, requiring increasing percentages of electricity to be generated from
renewable sources of energy. This standard was so popular - and feasible - that it was doubled to 20
percent last year with leadership from Gov. Bill Ritter and bipartisan legislative support.
WNDI 2008 17
Elections DA Neg
Links – Colorado
( ) Alternative energy massively popular in Colorado – democrats control the issue now
John Ingold, staff writer, 3-31-2008, “Renewable energy draws most legislators' support Democrats are more
likely than Republicans to want Colorado to push the issue,” The Denver Post, nexis
Over the past several years, renewable energy has become the great unifier in Colorado politics, an issue
so popular and so multifaceted that just about every lawmaker can find something there to like.
Environmentalists love its eco-friendliness. National security hawks love its potential to make the
country more energy-independent. Economy wonks love the promise of new jobs that come with the
burgeoning industry. Support in some form or another for renewable energy bridges party and
geographic lines. So far this year, at least 17 bills boosting renewable energy have been introduced in the
state legislature - 11 from Democrats, five from Republicans and one with bipartisan prime sponsorship. Of
those, two have been signed into law, including one last week that standardizes how people with solar panels
on their homes or businesses get paid for the extra power they produce. The bill drew rafts of supporters in
both parties who said it allows Colorado residents to take advantage of the state's abundant sunshine. "It's a
perfect setup for Colorado to be a leader in this arena," said Rep. Judith Solano, a Brighton Democrat who
was the bill's chief sponsor. Where there are differences between the parties in the legislature, it is not so
much about the value of renewable energy as it is about how best to promote and foster its development.
Republicans say they want to provide incentives for renewable energy but not to push it on the state. "I'm a
huge fan of renewable energy," said Sen. Greg Brophy, a Republican from Wray who drives a Toyota Prius.
"I seek to promote the use of renewable energy but not force it regardless of cost." Democrats, though, say a
firm hand is needed to foster renewable-energy development. Sen. Ron Tupa, a Boulder Democrat, said
Republicans have come around to supporting renewable energy bills only now that the issue is popular with
voters. "It's just plain good politics," he said of supporting renewable energy. "And I think the general
public is recognizing that, of the two parties, the Democratic Party is the one that has really taken this
policy and run with it. So I guess the Republicans will oppose these bills at their own political peril."
WNDI 2008 18
Elections DA Neg
Link/Internals – Energy Key

( ) Plan is popular and energy is key to the election
Reuters, 7-24-2008, “LCV and NRDC Outline the Future of Global Warming Legislation and Steps to Address
High Gas Prices,” http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS214817+24-Jun-2008+PRN20080624
"Tied into both the economy and the environment, energy will be the defining issue of this election," LCV
President Gene Karpinski said. "The American people demand a new energy policy that breaks our
addiction to oil and dirty coal. Members of Congress who fight for a clean, renewable energy future will
be back to fight next year, but those who stand in the way will have to answer to the voters in
November. A Gallup poll released today indicates that energy is the top issue priority for 51% American
voters. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx). "Americans are
feeling pain at the pump and many experts say high gas prices are here to stay," NRDC's Energy Advocate
Jim Presswood said. "With prices set in the global marketplace and only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves
here at home, there is simply nothing we can do to impact prices by drilling. The real solution is clear: we
must take bold action to break our addiction to oil and transition to a clean energy future. A future where new
cars like plug-in hybrids go farther on a gallon of gas, enhanced public transit systems give Americans more
transportation options, and renewable sources of energy power our communities.
WNDI 2008 19
Elections DA Neg
Internals – West/Colorado Key

( ) Mountain west key – energy issues are especially important for Coloradan voters
The Denver Post, Editorial Staff, 5-27-2008, “West might be where it’s won,”
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9395389
The mountain West has become a key political battleground for the 2008 presidential election. Strategists
are talking about how winning Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico could pave the way to an Electoral
College win. Republican presidential candidate John McCain came to Denver Tuesday, and today Democrat
Barack Obama pays a visit. It's a heady moment for a part of the country that has flown under the radar in
recent presidential campaigns. But it's also an opportunity to engage in the issues and challenge the
candidates. As Coloradans, we have some particular regional concerns, such as water, public lands and
energy development. But candidates can no longer stroll in, put on a cowboy hat and boots as part of some
"Western strategy" and expect to hit it off with Coloradans. We're a more diverse lot than that. We also have
deep concerns about the war in Iraq, foreign affairs, the economy and immigration. And like the rest of the
country, we want better schools and an affordable health care system that works. But a Western strategy to
win the White House is an opportunity for residents here to have their voices heard, a chance to influence the
political discourse something along the lines of the way Iowa does by having the first political caucus. We
hope Coloradans take advantage of the opportunity by reading up on the issues that move them and forming
opinions. As the presidential campaign moves into its final six months, the mountain West can play a key
role in defining the candidates and tightening up the race. Polls done by Rasmussen Reports show Obama
with a modest lead over McCain in Colorado, 48 to 42 percent. In New Mexico, the numbers are 50 to 41
for Obama. In Nevada, McCain was leading Obama 46 to 40 percent.
WNDI 2008 20
Elections DA Neg
Internals – Bush Popularity Key

( ) Bush’s unpopularity hurts the GOP candidate
Stuart Rothenberg, Editor and Publisher of The Rothenberg Political Report, 11-12-2007, “The Bush Factor in
the Upcoming Presidential Election,” The Rothenberg Political Report,
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/bush-factor-in-upcoming-presidential.html
This cycle, many Republicans are making the argument that in the 2008 election, George W. Bush will
be irrelevant. Voters will have “turned the page” on h im and will be looking toward the future rather than
the past, they insist. Some Republican strategists assert confidently that voters will be evaluating the party’s
presidential nominee, not Bush, and that the party’s image will be repaired once Bush is perceived as part of
the past, not the future. Democrats counter that while Bush will not be on the ballot, his war will still be
going on and Republicans will not be able to run from his record or from their support for him during
his presidency. They insist that the election will allow voters to choose between change and continuity,
and that the Republicans will represent continuity and Democrats will represent change. Who is more likely
to be correct? In midterms, many Americans vote retrospectively. That is, they base their decisions on past
performance. In presidential elections, they tend to look forward, to evaluate the nominees on the basis of
how they will perform in office. But is it reasonable to believe that voters completely disregard past
performance — a party’s past performance — when an unpopular president leaves office? Probably
not. After all, Democrats have plenty of tape of Bush making promises that were not kept and asserting
truths that turned out not to be true. And they’ll be running against a party that has been defined for
the past few years by its leader, the president of the United States. That means the Republican nominee
for president will inevitably be the candidate of continuity rather than dramatic change, no matter how
passionately he delivers a message of change. It’s also true, however, that once the GOP has a
presidential nominee, he will start to redefine the public’s image of the Republican Party. George W.
Bush will seem less relevant, less important. But he will never disappear. That doesn’t doom the
Republican nominee, but it puts him in a hole even before the race has begun.
( ) Economy ensures GOP tied to Bush

Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer, 2-2-2008, “Decline in U.S. Jobs Could Prove Costly to GOP
Nominee”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020103262_pf.html
For Republicans already facing an economic headwind, the jobs numbers could prove punishing.
Traditionally, the party holding the White House is blamed for bad economic times -- and credited for
booms -- and economists said yesterday that this year should be no different, even if GOP candidates
continue to distance themselves from President Bush.
WNDI 2008 21
Elections DA Neg

( ) Bush popularity is key to 2008 election chances
Tony Harnden, Washington Correspondent, 5-7-2007, “Will Bush seal 2008 Republican defeat?,” Telegraph,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/may07/republicansdefeat.htm
Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster with a penchant for delivering hard truths, told me today that the
Republicans could be heading for a disaster on the scale of the Conservative party in 1997 - which
consigned them to the wilderness for a decade. Paradoxically, the only way to prevent this happening is to
recognise that it is a distinct possibility. It's not just Iraq and it's not just Bush - the poll rating reflects a deep
and widespread dissatisfaction with Republicans and all they stand for. Rich Galen argues here that there are
lessons for Republicans in Nicolas Sarkozy's victory in France. I heard Newt Gingrich - whom Galen used to
work for - advance the same thesis on Fox news today, basically that you can come from the governing party
but still win as a maverick advocate for change. That's certainly possible. It seems to be John McCain's
developing strategy, though his close identification with Bush's surge policy will make this a difficult thing to
pull off. But if the ruling party - personified by the president - is as unpopular as the Newsweek poll
suggests then all bets are off. No matter how superb a candidate the Republicans fields he (and there are
only men on offer - there was a good Democrat line this week about the California debate being "American
Idol" for old white guys) will lose. Of course, Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics.
And that was well before blogging, YouTube and all the rest of it. The surge could work and the situation in
Iraq could improve. The Democrats could overreach or lose their lustre during amid bitter internecine battle
over Iraq strategy. Statements like Senator Harry Reid's "the war is lost" could leave voters feeling that
Democrats are the party of defeat. At the moment, however, none of the above looks like transforming
Republican fortunes dramatically. Bush's poll ratings have been in the doldrums for well over a year,
despite Republicans believing at almost every juncture that the corner is about to be turned.
( ) Bush’s low popularity is key to democratic chances in 2008

Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writer, 7-29-2007, “Can Republican nominee distance from Iraq
war?,” Associated Press, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070729/ai_n19437571/print
As ardent Democrats count the days until George W. Bush leaves office, many Republicans in Congress
eagerly await the time when their 2008 nominee eclipses the president and, they hope, improves their re-
election prospects. In blunt terms, even Bush's most loyal allies say their fate next year may come to this:
Will voters largely forget the president and focus on a nominee who can distance himself from the Iraq
war, a beleaguered attorney general and other problems that have sapped Bush's popularity. Perhaps
as early as February, a likely nominee will emerge and Republicans will "not have the Bush monkey on our
back," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla. "We're already in a post-Bush political era." Feeney is hardly a Bush-
basher, having played a key role in the president's 2000 Florida vote recount effort. He also was Jeb Bush's
running mate in 1994, when the president's younger brother lost his first race for governor in Florida. Then
there is GOP Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, whose western Maryland district went heavily for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
"I think Bush will not be politically relevant once we have a nominee. ... He will be a nonentity," Bartlett
said. Democrats dismiss such comments as wishful thinking. They won control of the House and Senate in
2006 largely because of voters' unhappiness with Bush and the war. They are banking on Bush's even lower
popularity now to help them to further victories next year. The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed
Bush's approval rating at 33 percent, a level that usually means serious trouble for the incumbent's
party. Congress' approval rating was even worse, 24 percent. But Democrats believe unhappy voters will
focus their ire on the president and his party. Top congressional Republicans acknowledge that Bush's
unpopularity is hurting them. "Our image is largely made by the president," Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters last week. "And the president does enjoy -- suffer from,
shall I say -- poor standing. ... However, compared to the Democratic Congress, he looks pretty good."
WNDI 2008 22
Elections DA Neg

A win for Bush is a win for McCain – he lives and dies with Bush policies.
Juan Cole, Writer for Salon. 3-12-08. Salon.com, “John McCain Runs for George Bush’s Third Term.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/12/mccain/
The most important thing about the endorsements proffered to John McCain by George W. Bush and
evangelist John Hagee last week was McCain's reaction to them. The freshly minted Republican nominee
for president, who has had harsh words in the past for both Bush's policies and evangelical "agents of
intolerance," meekly accepted their support. He knows he cannot win in November if the evangelicals and
pro-war conservatives stay home. How far will McCain go in presenting himself as Son of Bush in order
to energize his party's base? To date, based on his willingness to embrace the Bush agenda and to associate
with religious extremists, the answer seems to be pretty far indeed. When John McCain went to the
White House last week, President Bush seemed to be offering him an out. Bush "welcomed" McCain as
"the Republican nominee" in his official statement, but didn't initially use the word "endorse." It was McCain
who leapt for the e-word. "Well, I'm very honored and humbled," said McCain, "to have the opportunity to
receive the endorsement of the President of the United States, a man who I have great admiration, respect and
affection [for]." McCain's strategists, meanwhile, are said to be privately plotting how best to deploy
the deeply unpopular Bush, perhaps by quietly sending him to host fundraisers deep inside red states where
he would not risk alienating the general population from McCain. But McCain is hewing so faithfully
to Bush's legacy he may need no help from the man himself in alienating the population.
WNDI 2008 23
Elections DA Neg
Internals – Bush Popularity Key (Ohio)

( ) Ohio is key – Bush’s low popularity is necessary to give democrats an edge
Stephen Koff, Plain Dealer Bureau Chief, 11-12-2007, “Ohio a likely bellwether in 2008 presidential election,”
The Plain Dealer,
http://www.cleveland.com/world/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1194860223146820.xml&coll=2
Washington -- The road to the White House "goes through Ohio," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said
Friday, using an adage deeply ingrained in national politics. It's why she sought Gov. Ted Strickland's
endorsement, and he gave it. It's why President Bush and his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, stopped in
Ohio so often in 2004 -- bringing crowd-drawing stars such as Bruce Springsteen (with Kerry) and Arnold
Schwarzenegger (with Bush) -- that the state's press corps didn't have to travel the country to cover the
campaign. The campaign came to Ohio, and Ohio decided the narrow outcome. Ohio is likely to be a
bellwether for the nation again next November, when for the first time since 1952, there will be no
incumbent president or vice president on the ballot. Among the variables: the Democratic Party's sweep
of Ohio in 2006, Strickland's high ratings, Bush's low popularity and the war in Iraq -- factors that give
Democrats an edge. Playing to the GOP's strength is the possibility of a Democratic candidate whom Ohio
Republicans are sure they can vilify, and a slate of Republican-primary candidates filled with fresh faces,
though Ohioans don't yet seem to know them well.
WNDI 2008 24
Elections DA Neg
Internals – GOP Base Key

( ) GOP base key to McCain win
Stephen F. Hayes, senior writer, 7-21-2008, “The Enthusiasm Gap Part II,” The Weekly Standard,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/320jlvio.asp?pg=2
It is not surprising that conservatives are not warming to a candidate who likes to talk about climate change
and government subsidies for displaced workers. But this coldness is increasingly alarming to some McCain
backers. They believe that all of McCain's efforts to win over Democrats and independents can only pay off
if he is able to get conservatives to turn out to vote for him in November. It is not surprising that
conservatives are not warming to a candidate who likes to talk about climate change and government
subsidies for displaced workers. But this coldness is increasingly alarming to some McCain backers. They
believe that all of McCain's efforts to win over Democrats and independents can only pay off if he is
able to get conservatives to turn out to vote for him in November.
WNDI 2008 25
Elections DA Neg
Internals – Energy Key

( ) Gas prices increase the significance of energy in the election
Craig Gilbert, staff writer, 7-10-2008, “Dueling ads from McCain, Obama in Wisconsin reveal top issues,”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=771208
That the two candidates have plenty of sharp differences to hash out on economic policy in general and
energy policy in particular. The GOP ads identify some of them. McCain has proposed a summertime
gas-tax holiday; Obama opposes it. McCain wants to expand offshore drilling; Obama is opposed. McCain
supports a major expansion of nuclear power; Obama has not said no to nuclear, as the RNC ad asserts, but
he hasn't said yes, either. The centerpiece of Obama's energy agenda is a $150 billion spending plan on
energy technology. • That thanks to high gas prices, energy should play a bigger role in the campaign
debate this year than it did in 2004.
WNDI 2008 26
Elections DA Neg
Internals-Uniqueness – Obama leads Energy

( ) Obama holds large lead on energy
Frank Newport, Editor of the Gallup Poll, 6-24-2008, “Obama has edge on key election issues,”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx
Two issues top the list, based on the percentage rating each as extremely important in choosing between
candidates: energy/gas prices and the economy. (Energy has spiked in its importance to voters in recent
months as gas prices have risen to the $4-per-gallon level.) Obama has a clear advantage over McCain
on both of these top two issues. Americans give Obama a 19-point edge over McCain as best able to
deal with energy, with 47% choosing Obama and 28% McCain. On the economy, Obama has a 16-point
margin over McCain, 48% to 32
WNDI 2008 27
Elections DA Neg
Obama Solves Alt Energy

( ) Dems lead to Apollo energy
Stanley Greenberg, Former Advisor to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Nelson Mandela, and others, 2004,
“The Two Americas,” 306
While the Republicans press relentlessly for increased production of coal, gas, and oil in the United States
and for opening up new fields around the world, the Democrats offer a radically different approach in the
spirit of JFK and the effort to land a man on the moon. The Democrats will commit the country to
develop America’s vast energy resources in a way that strengthens America, fuels investment in energy
technology and renewables, and drastically reduces U.S. dependence on Middle East oil. It also puts
America in the lead in reducing the emission of heat-trapping gases that produce global warming. In all
these areas, Democrats are the party of technology and the future. The hope is to inspire Americans with the
possibilities and opportunity to take on the biggest long-term challenges.
WNDI 2008 28
Elections DA Neg
Obama Solves Warming

( ) Only a Democratic president will solve warming – McCain’s plan doesn’t cut it.
David Roberts, Writer for Grist. 2/15/08. Grist Environmental News and Commentary, “John McCain and
Climate Change.” http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/15/10152/5591
Relative to what's offered by other Senate cap-and-trade bills (and the plans of his Democratic rivals),
the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act -- even in its 2007 incarnation -- is weak. Unlike other
such bills, McCain's specifically sets aside massive and unnecessary subsidies for the nuclear industry.
Its emissions targets are exceeded even by the lowest-common-denominator bill now heading to the
Senate floor, the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act. This is to say nothing of the Sanders-
Boxer bill, the strongest extant climate legislation, which now boasts both Clinton and Obama as co-
sponsors and includes even more aggressive targets. Beyond that, we have the plans offered by the
leading Democratic campaigns, which offer bold targets, 100 percent auctioning of pollution permits, and
detailed plans for how to allocate the auction revenue to boost the green economy. McCain has never
updated his position on cap-and-trade legislation, despite the steady advance in public opinion and
climate science since he introduced his bill in 2003. He has not discussed, much less matched, the
ambitious targets of his Dem rivals. He has not signed onto the Sanders legislation, or even Lieberman's
new bill. He has not said whether he'll vote for it, and has hinted ($ub. rqd) that he'll vote Nay unless
big buckets of nuclear pork are added. In short, McCain's take on cap-and-trade legislation is now
anachronistic, lagging well behind what's current, what's possible, and what's needed.
WNDI 2008 29
Elections DA Neg
Obama Solves Ethanol

( ) Only Dems institute cellulosic ethanol not corn-based ethanol.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Former Chief Economist at the US Department of Labor. 2/27/08. The New York Sun,
“The Ethanol Catch-22.” http://www.nysun.com/article/71930?page_no=1
Mr. Obama proposes to fund research so that America can use 2 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol — ethanol
from plant matter instead of corn — by 2013. In addition, he would require 60 billion gallons of advanced
biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
WNDI 2008 30
Elections DA Neg
Obama Solves Competitiveness

( ) Apollo energy would save the economy.
Moises Velasquez-Manoff, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, 1-25-2007, “Unions see greenbacks
in ‘green’ future,” Christian Science Monitor, academic
With alarm growing over global warming and the economic vulnerability created by American
dependence on foreign oil, it's increasingly obvious to many that the only viable future is a green one. The
pursuit of this future has made unlikely bedfellows of many groups historically at odds with each other.
Evangelicals have joined forces with tree huggers. Creationists have aligned themselves with scientists. And
now, organized labor is working with environmentalists. Union leaders are betting that a green economy will
not only address the issue of climate change, it will also provide a bonanza of well-paying manufacturing
jobs - the kinds of jobs that have largely vanished from the United States in recent decades. A proliferation of
wind turbines and solar panels means more factories, while ever more stringent efficiency standards imply
the need for inspectors and experts in sealing and insulating. "From labor unions' point of view, these are the
kinds of jobs their unions are most prepared for," says Jeff Rickert, vice president of the Apollo Alliance, a
coalition of the major environmental and labor organizations. Having worked in steel mills and paper plants,
many in the workforce already possess the appropriate skill set, say labor leaders. All that's needed are
incentives at the federal level, and America will be well on its way toward what some call a "third industrial
revolution." "This is like the transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy," says
Robert Borosage, president of the Institute for America's Future, a progressive think tank. "It has the
potential for massive growth." According to studies by the Apollo Alliance, which has outlined a 10-point
plan for energy independence and jumpstarting the renewables sector, dollars invested in clean energy
create more jobs than those invested in traditional energy sources. Renewable energy is simply more
labor intensive. An investment of $30 billion per year for 10 years would create 3.3 million jobs and
boost the gross domestic product by $1.4 trillion, according to its analysis. The federal government
would recoup the initial investment in increased tax revenues within the same 10-year period.
( ) McCain would hurt US science competitiveness.

Michael Feldman, Editor for HPCwire. 2/1/08. HPCwire, “Looking for a Tech-Savvy President.”
http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/2089255.html
Romney and McCain strike me as science and technology lightweights, especially in the realm of federal
funding for basic research and science/math education. Since the Republican mantra for government is
"less is more," I'm not sure what else we should expect. That said, I assume both candidates would
support bipartisan COMPETES-type initiatives in the future, but commitment to funding is the real issue here
(see below). On the other hand, Romney and McCain are both tech business-friendly, not just in their support
for more H-1B visas, but also in other areas, such as reducing corporate tax rates and making the R&D tax
credit permanent. While neither candidate has shown any interest in politicizing science, as has been done in
the current administration, overall Romney and McCain have demonstrated little enthusiasm for science
and technology issues. If I had to pick one, I'd go with McCain for his Senate support for NASA and the
COMPETES Act. But his penchant for low taxes, high military spending and fiscal conservatism
suggests he's going to leave a lot of U.S. science and technology up to the private sector. While the
Republicans may think this approach is favorable to businesses, tech companies are unlikely to be
enthusiastic. In a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Intel Chairman Craig Barrett expresses his
frustration about the bipartisan failure of Congress to fund the science research and education agenda set out
in the COMPETES Act. Writes Barrett: "The funding decisions on the America COMPETES Act took place
a few days after Congress passed a $250 billion farm bill. In the eyes of our political leaders, apparently, corn
subsidies to Iowa farmers are more important for our competitiveness in the next century than investing a few
billion in our major research universities."
WNDI 2008 31
Elections DA Neg
Impacts – NMD Bad

( ) A McCain victory would lead to NMD
John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Council for a Livable World. 2/29/08. Veterans for Common Sense, “An
Early Look Ahead: McCain, Clinton and Obama on National Security Issues.”
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9459
McCain has declared that he "strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and
national missile defenses." 29His votes in the Senate back up that claim: he opposed all three
amendments to cut the program in 2004. 30 In a 2001 speech to the Munich Conference on Security
Policy, he advocated abandoning the ABM Treaty. 31 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." 32 Clinton's position has been more ambiguous. Of three key votes in
2004, she voted in effect for missile defense once and against it twice. However, she criticized President
Bush's decision in 2001 to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and both she and Obama voted for an
amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed
the vote. 33 She also has criticized the Bush administration of "focusing obsessively on expensive and
unproven missile defense technology." 34 Neither Clinton nor Obama has indicated plans for missile
defense upon assuming the presidency.
( ) That would cause a big nuclear war with Russia and China.
Matthew Yglesias, Writer for The Atlantic. 2/21/08. The Atlantic, “McCain and the Missiles.”
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccain_and_the_missiles.php
John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses.
Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that
possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran
that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential
threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also
necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of
missile attack from a regional adversary. For starters, north Korea doesn't possess ICBM capabilities.
Second, it's hard to see how national missile defense will protect our forces from Iranian missile attacks
when our forces are right next door in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, it's unclear why we'd be particularly
worried about any sort of ballistic missile attack given the close quarters situation at hand. But while this is a
bit dishonest and ignorant, the business about hedging against "potential threats from possible strategic
competitors like Russia and China." Simply put, a scenario in which the United States possesses an
effective ability to shoot down a Russian or Chinese ICBM threat would be completely intolerable in
Moscow or Beijing. It would, in effect, give the United States a viable a threat of a nuclear first strike.
Neither Russia nor China is going to let that happen. Instead, they'll spend money on building up their
nuclear arsenals in order to maintain their deterrent capacity. Thus, at great cost to the Unites States, to
Russia, and to China we'll be back at the status quo. But beyond the monetary cost, the large buildup in
Chinese nuclear capabilities that would result from this situation would force India to engage in a
nuclear build-up of its own. And that, in turn, would force Pakistan to follow suit. This large increase
in the global stock of nuclear weapons would, of course, imply an increase in the odds of a nuclear
accident or the loss or theft of nuclear material. At the same time, a nuclear buildup of this sort might
create incentives for Iran to reinitiate its nuclear weapons research program. And even if it didn't,
revitalizing the Non-Proliferation Treaty desperately requires the status quo nuclear powers to be working
together on nuclear issues, and fulfilling our treat obligations to move toward reduced arsenals. In short,
what McCain has on tap here is a recipe for disaster -- a breakdown in great power relations, new arms
races, massive nuclear proliferation, etc. And why? I suspect the last bit is the real reason. He wants "to
allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred." Basically, we need to spend huge
sums of money and encourage an enormous amount of nuclear proliferation because that would facilitate the
launching of new aggressive wars. Probably the proliferation McCain's policies helped induce would become
the rationale for a new round of warfighting.
WNDI 2008 32
Elections DA Neg
Impacts – Leadership
( ) Obama’s background would restore American soft power
Peter Canellos, Boston Globe Washington Bureau Chief, 12-25-2007, “Clinton, Obama offer chance to fix US
image,” Boston Globe, academic
There is little doubt that Obama's background gives him a unique stature - and that having him as the
symbol of America could alter perceptions of the United States in Africa, Asia, and South America.
Emphasizing the multiracial aspect of the United States to a multiracial world could give the American
Dream new currency: It would prove that American values are applicable to everyone. Such a
possibility is obviously thrilling to the Democrats who've flooded Obama's campaign events.
( ) Key to solve nuclear war

Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would
be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second,
such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the
world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear
exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.
WNDI 2008 33
Elections DA Neg
Impacts – Tax Cuts

( ) Obama would raise taxes; McCain would cut them
Charles Babington, chief political correspondent for washingtonpost.com, 7-16-2008, “As economy dominates,
Obama, McCain seek answers,” AP,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jN61C761wfQ3fDl9Klkep98pB8zgD91V791O0
The two candidates offer fundamentally different approaches to the economy. McCain wants to cut
taxes at virtually all income levels, although high-earners would reap the biggest benefits. Obama
would raise taxes on the wealthy and pour more spending into subsidies of education, health care and
other programs.
( ) Tax cuts lead to total economic crisis – this leads to a massive economic collapse
Isabel V. Sawhill, Senior Fellow and Vice President, Economic Studies. USA Today, “The Danger of Deficits.”
August 16, 2005. http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/sawhill/20050816.htm
Psychiatrists have clinical terms to describe how most elected officials are responding to the deficit —
denial, repression, magical thinking. In short, they're doing next to nothing. There is a deafening silence — from the halls of
Congress and corporate boardrooms to the living rooms and voting booths where Americans make decisions about their own and their
children's futures. In fact, there is some good news on the deficit front. The Congressional Budget Office outlook for 2005 has improved
markedly since its March projection. But no one should be lulled into thinking that this good news will last. The problem will get
much worse if nothing is done. Deficits will become unsustainable when baby boomers begin to retire
in 2008 and are poised to balloon out of control a generation hence, wreaking havoc on today's younger Americans.
Solutions are all painful. We need to reform the three major entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), curb
soaring health care costs, raise federal revenue (yes, that means taxes), cut low-priority spending and impose budgeting
rules. President Bush deserves praise for putting Social Security reform on the table, but his proposed private accounts would add $5
trillion in deficits over two decades. He talks about halving the deficit in five years, but the most recent congressional budget blueprint
actually increases deficits by $168 billion over that period. The prescription drug law will add a half-trillion dollars or more over the
coming decade. The Bigger Picture Social Security is a surprisingly small part of the problem. Medicare and Medicaid costs will
increase four times faster than Social Security. If the big three entitlement programs — 42% of federal spending — grow at
present rates, either everything else that government does will be crowded out, or a 33% tax increase will be needed by
2030. If taxes stay at current levels, no money will be left for national parks, highways, extra police, better-trained
teachers, veterans' health care, and the environment. Without deficit reduction, just interest on the debt will absorb one out
of every three personal income tax dollars collected by 2015. But why should anyone care? One danger is that Asian and other
central banks, which hold a huge and growing chunk of American debt, could stop financing our deficits.
Interest rates would rise, stocks and bonds would plunge, and recession would follow. Another possibility is
that increasing federal debt — combined with America's dwindling private savings — would mean much less money
available to invest in new infrastructure and equipment, new technologies and new businesses. And a cardinal
rule of economics is: Less investment means less economic growth and a slower increase in living standards. The
failure to address deficits reflects wishful thinking, irresponsible political rhetoric and myopia. We'd need indefinite
economic growth of more than 4% per year, something the U.S. economy did not do even during the go-go late 1990s, when growth
averaged 3.3%. Selective cuts alone wouldn't work either because only 19% of the budget is not for mandated entitlement programs,
defense, or debt interest. Finally, it's myopic to believe that budget deficits just don't matter. You would be hard-pressed to find an
economist who concurs. So, what's to be done? We need to reform Social Security and Medicare eligibility and benefit formulas: We
could raise the eligibility age as life expectancy rises, and reduce benefits for the well-off, but protect lower-wage workers. We could
transform Medicare from an open-ended, fee-for-service system to one protecting all Americans from catastrophic expenses. Those with
limited means would be given enough to buy a basic health plan, but no one would be guaranteed unlimited care at public expense.
Plenty of federal programs are ineffective, obsolete, or cater to politically powerful elites — and could be cut. The big hitch is politics.
The U.S. tax system cries out for overhaul. It must be simpler, fairer and more conducive to growth and efficiency. We could introduce a
modest consumption or value-added tax, and eliminate $200 billion in tax subsidies. What might be most troubling is the lack of
presidential leadership and bipartisan congressional action to restore fiscal sanity. What will it take? Another Ross Perot? A stock
market crash? Rallies in Washington? The Chinese moving their money into euros?
WNDI 2008 34
Elections DA Neg
Impacts – Health Care

( ) Obama will pass universal health care
Perry Pacon, Washington Post Campaign Blogger, 7-8-2008, “Democrats Gear Up New Push for Universal
Health Care,” The Washington Post, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-
trail/2008/07/08/democrats_gear_up_new_push_for.html
Democrats are launching an aggressive push for universal health care, fourteen years after a failed
attempt on the issue resulted in political disaster. A coalition of liberal groups that includes major labor
unions such as the Service Employees International Union and the activist group MoveOn.org announced
today it will spend $40 million to make health insurance a major issue in the campaign, with Elizabeth
Edwards, the wife of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, as the one of the group's main
spokespersons. The group, which has dubbed itself "Health Care for America Now!" plans to spend its
money running ads in battleground states, canvassing 45 states to get people to sign petitions supporting the
initiative and trying to get every member of Congress to sign a pledge to expand health insurance to all
Americans. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Democratic staffers are trying to set up a structure for getting a bill
through Congress next year. The staffs of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who heads the Senate's Health, Education Pensions and Labor
Committee, are already meeting with key health care experts, including some from Massachusetts, which
passed a landmark health care law two years ago. In a series of meetings over the next month, Senate aides
plan to meet with doctors' groups, insurance companies, business associations and other key players in
reforming health care. Their goal is to have the outlines of a health care proposal by the end of this year
that can be introduced in the opening days of the next president's administration. "We want to create a
mandate," said Richard Kirsch, one of the leaders of the health care organization of the liberal groups, many
of whom worked together to oppose President Bush's 2005 Social Security plan. Barack Obama has
already pledged to make passing health care reform a centerpiece of his first term, and his campaign
has recently added a group of advisers who specialize in the subject, including Elizabeth Edwards, Sarah
Bianchi, a former Clinton White House aide and Neera Tanden, Hillary Clinton's policy director during the
primaries. Tanden is working as a domestic policy adviser, while Bianchi and Edwards are participating in
campaign conference calls on health care with other experts.
( ) Large uninsured population causes infectious disease spread

Joshua Lederberg, Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics and Informatics at The Rockefeller University,
2000, Public Health Systems and Emerging Infections, p. 24-25
Today, the
public health system is at a crossroads as how to define and sustain its role. The changing face of
health care poses new challenges for the detection, treatment, and prevention of infectious diseases.
Historically, local public health departments, hospitals, and clinics have been the main source for infectious
disease outbreak detection and treatment. The members of managed care organizations and the rate of privatization of
public health laboratories continue to increase in response to the needs of the communities they serve. Simultaneously, many of the
specific functions of public health laboratories and institutions that provide epidemiological services may be being eroded. Along with
that erosion, local public health systems may have a diminished capacity to detect and respond to emerging infectious diseases.
Additionally, the public health system’s capabilities may also be adversely affected by the growing number of
the uninsured population that focused most of the burden for resources on the public safety net and public
laboratories. The challenge for public health laboratories will be to implement cost-shifting or to obtain new sources of support.
WNDI 2008 35
Elections DA Neg
Impacts – Health Care

( ) Unchecked disease spread causes human extinction
South China Morning Post, 1-4-1996 (Dr. Ben Abraham= “called "one of the 100 greatest minds in history"
by super-IQ society Mensa” and owner of “Toronto-based biotechnology company, Structured Biologicals Inc”
according to same article)
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much
more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this
makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more
than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to
Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of
one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a
single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he
said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it
affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-
fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few
could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the
only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance
to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen
anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to
admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the
Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-
Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant
sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He
cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are
being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human
habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale
and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
WNDI 2008 36
Elections DA Neg
Impacts – Iraq Withdraw

( ) Obama will withdraw in recent months
WSJ (Wall Street Journal), 7-18-2008, “On Iraq’s Horizon,” Evening Wrap,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121641325293866057.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The United Nations mandate for the U.S. military presence in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and the two governments
have been hashing out a bilateral pact as a replacement. The agreement, like that which the U.S. has with
South Korea, would deal with specifics, such as how to handle possible criminal prosecutions of American
soldiers. But it will also have a broader, strategic component -- and on that point there have been differences.
The Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, showing increased confidence as violence
decreases, has been pressuring Washington to agree to a specific timeline to withdraw U.S. forces. President
Bush has adamantly opposed setting a timetable. His argument -- often leveled at Democrats as well -- is that
the security situation is simply too unpredictable and that setting a withdrawal date would only encourage
Iraqi insurgents to hang on. However, Washington and Baghdad now appear to be narrowing their difference.
The White House, while insisting that no "arbitrary date for withdrawal" would be set, said the president and
Prime Minister Maliki have agreed that the accord should include "a general time horizon for meeting
aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further
reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq." On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has been a bit more specific.
He has said that if elected president as the Democratic nominee he would set in motion a 16-month
withdrawal plan for troops in Iraq. He, of course, has been accused by some supporters of backing
away from that promise. But in a speech this week the Illinois senator reiterated his commitment to end
the war even though he added that his strategy could be subject to "tactical adjustments." Mr. Obama
is heading off on a trip that's likely to include Iraq. Details of his itinerary haven't been disclosed for security
reasons, but stops are planned for at least Jordan, Israel, London, Paris and Berlin. Voters -- as well as the
McCain camp -- will be looking for any rhetorical adjustments to the Democrat's view of U.S. military
prospects in Iraq after his return.
( ) Iraq withdrawal is key deter North Korea and prevent war

Olsen – Professor of National Security Affairs with a specialization in Asian Studies – April 2003 (Edward A.
Center for Contemporary Conflict, “Strategic Insight U.S.-North Korea: From Brinkmanship to Dialogue,”
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/apr03/eastAsia.asp)
Because of such anxieties about North Korea, and their ability to disrupt U.S.-ROK harmony, there is great risk that North
Korea will try to take advantage of the United States being stretched thin during war in Iraq, by escalating its
brinkmanship. Taking a provocative military step that could lead to a second front war may well be seen by Pyongyang as a way to
compel the United States to negotiate bilaterally on North Korea's terms. Such circumstances could easily get out of
control—escalating to a full scale war that could be far more daunting than the situation in Iraq. Pyongyang will not
necessarily wait until the United States wraps thing up in Iraq and can turn its full attention—diplomatically or militarily—
to North Korea. Although the United States seems poised to cope with more North Korean reckless brinkmanship in the heat of war with
Iraq, Pyongyang may well take advantage of the United States being stretched thin to use its own
preemptive preemption strategy. In this sense North Korea represents a profoundly serious threat to world peace.
( ) The impact is nuclear war and extinction

Lee Wha Rang, Korea Web Weekly, September 13, 1999. http://www.kimsoft.com/1997/lee0913.htm, accessed
3/17/03
Meanwhile, Kim Dae Jung should tell his Japanese friends to keep their mouth shut and tone down their anti-North Korea rhetoric. Kim
should hire specialists on American legal terms - fight fire with fire - lawyers against lawyers. As long as Kim is represented by
amateurs, he will be clobbered by America's Harvard lawyers - the most bright, cunning and vicious negotiators on Earth, the
consummate masters of forked-tongues. The Korean peninsula sits on an atomic powder keg and any misstep
will ignite it into a global NBC war and tens of millions of people - Koreans, Japanese, Chinese and Americans -
will die horrible death. The Earth day after will not be suitable for human habitation.
WNDI 2008 37
Elections DA Neg
Impacts – CTBT
( ) Obama will ratify CTBT
Will Lambers, author "Nuclear Weapons" and "The Road to Peace”, 7-18-2008, “Obama or McCain Can Finish
Journey to Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,” http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/18/203804.php
Obama has already signaled his intentions to push for ratification of the CTBT should he be elected.
McCain has promised to reexamine the CTBT, perhaps realizing that the U.S. may be better off living under
such a treaty than without. Either Obama or McCain is going to have the golden opportunity to make
history by ratifying this landmark treaty. By doing so, the next president can set the conditions for deep
reduction of nuclear arsenals and perhaps, for their complete elimination.
( ) Underground testing degrades ecosystems

Grant Guthrie, J.D. candidate at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, Hastings International
and Comparative Law Review, Spring/Summer, 2000, 23 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 495
The effects of underground nuclear testing extend beyond the limits of all foreseeable historical time.
One by-product of nuclear testing, plutonium 239, has a half-life over 20,000 years. This means that the
environmentally hazardous, residual radiation generated by nuclear testing will remain embedded in
the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. Over this period of time, there is no doubt that natural
changes in the Earth's geology will allow the trapped radiation to escape and interact with ground
water or the atmosphere. The effects on the world's eco-system could be catastrophic. No one generation
is allowed under the law to inflict such damage on future generations.
( ) Biodiversity is key to preventing 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.
WNDI 2008 38
Elections DA Neg
AT: McCain Good

( ) Dems will maintain control of congress
Edward Luce, Washington Commentator and former South Asia Bureau Chief for Financial Times, 1-29-2008,
“Back to ‘the economy stupid’: How a slowdown will influence America’s presidential contest, Financial Times
(UK), http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e00b194e-ce8c-11dc-877a-000077b07658.html
Most forecasters predict the Democrats will increase their majorities in the Senate and the House this
November regardless of which party takes the White House. “An economic downturn would probably
reinforce what is almost certainly going to be another good year for congressional Democrats,” says
Charlie Cook, a Washington political analyst. “Voters already associate their economic anxieties and their
other complaints – about corruption and inept foreign policy – with the Republican party.”
( ) Democrats will block McCain agenda

Sarah Binder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and professor of political science at George Washington
University, 10-20-2007, “Gridlcok on Capital Hill,” Guardian (UK),
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sarah_binder/2007/10/congressional_gridlock.html
"There's little time left in the year. And Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by."
President Bush minced no words this week in blaming Democrats in Congress for the gridlock we see this
fall in the nation's capital. In fact, both parties and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are to blame. With
ideologically divided parties sharing power and eyeing the upcoming presidential election, we should not
be surprised to see stalemate on Capitol Hill. Democrats took up their gavels in January vowing to change
the course of the war in Iraq and to secure a host of modest domestic priorities, including healthcare,
education and energy reforms. They also promised to clean up a "culture of corruption" outside the halls of
Congress and to promote procedural fairness within. Public approval of Congress rose with the Democrats'
return to power. But today, roughly three-quarters of the American public disapproves of the way Congress is
performing its job. The president does not fare much better. The public is deeply disappointed in his
stewardship of the war and the economy, and disapproving of his veto of a children's health insurance bill.
Democrats do have legislative successes to herald. After 10 months in power, they have enacted ethics and
lobbying reform, increased the minimum wage, secured new measures to bolster homeland security and
achieved a host of smaller goals. Missing from this list, however, are all the big issues of the day: changing
the course of the war in Iraq, overhauling the nation's immigration laws, reforming and expanding healthcare
for the uninsured. Numerous other policy initiatives also show slow progress over the year, including efforts
to address the nation's energy, farming, education and affordable housing needs. Senate confirmation of
nominees slated for the federal courts of appeals has also moved sluggishly. Such gridlock should come as
no surprise. As a lame duck president, Bush has little incentive to sign Democratic legislation. And with
just 51 Democratic senators, congressional leaders don't have the 60 votes required to halt a Republican
filibuster or override every presidential veto - particularly not as moderates have become an endangered
species on Capitol Hill in recent decades. Differences between house and senate Democrats over Iraq policy,
the pace of passing federal spending bills and upcoming efforts to reform tax policy are also contributing to
Congress's lackluster record. Which party will pay the price for gridlock? Although Democrats may castigate
the president for unpopular vetoes and blame Republicans for blocking major policy initiatives, the public
rarely holds the minority party in Congress responsible for stalemate. More often, congressional majorities
are blamed for failing to get anything done. This means that neither Democrats nor Republicans are likely to
gain the upper hand as the parties fail to compromise over policy disputes. To be sure, Democrats have an
electoral incentive to avoid being tagged as the "do-nothing" Congress as they head into 2008. A record of
accomplishments would help prove to voters that they can be trusted to govern. With the even balance of
power between the parties, however, Democrats also have an incentive to deny Republicans bragging
rights for policy successes. That is a recipe for more gridlock as we enter a presidential election year. The
next president and new Congress will be left the challenge of solving the nation's most pressing and vexing
problems.

DA Neg Elections 32

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

DA Neg Elections 32

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WNDI 2008 1

Internals – Bush Popularity Key ..............................................................................................................................20

AT: McCain Good....................................................................................................................................................38

( ) Plan is popular and energy is key to the election

( ) Bush popularity is key to McCain

( ) That kills US heg

Yes Obama – 8 Yr Jinx

Yes Obama – Enthusiasm Gap

( ) Enthusiasm gap is large

Links – Nuclear Power

Links – Alternative Energy

( ) Alternative Energy good for republicans/popular

( ) Alternative energy is bipartisan

Links – Alternative Energy

( ) Renewable are ridiculously popular in Colorado

Link/Internals – Energy Key

Internals – West/Colorado Key

Internals – Bush Popularity Key

( ) Economy ensures GOP tied to Bush

Internals – Bush Popularity Key

( ) Bush’s low popularity is key to democratic chances in 2008

Internals – Bush Popularity Key

Internals – Bush Popularity Key (Ohio)

Internals – GOP Base Key

Internals – Energy Key

Internals-Uniqueness – Obama leads Energy

Obama Solves Alt Energy

Obama Solves Warming

Obama Solves Ethanol

Obama Solves Competitiveness

( ) McCain would hurt US science competitiveness.

Impacts – NMD Bad

( ) Key to solve nuclear war

Impacts – Tax Cuts

Impacts – Health Care

( ) Large uninsured population causes infectious disease spread

Impacts – Health Care

Impacts – Iraq Withdraw

( ) Iraq withdrawal is key deter North Korea and prevent war

( ) The impact is nuclear war and extinction

( ) Underground testing degrades ecosystems

( ) Biodiversity is key to preventing extinction

AT: McCain Good

( ) Democrats will block McCain agenda

You might also like