PoliticsDA - Fellows

Kumar, Moliver, Beardon Kentucky Fellows 08
Obama Good DA
Obama Good DA........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Party Time: 1NC.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Party Time: 1NC.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Overview:....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
Obama Wins: Wall......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Obama Wins: Wall......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
AT: Uniqueness O/W Link..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Links ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
Plan Popular Link.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
Solar Power Popular Link.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10
Geothermal Power Popular Link...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Brazilian Ethanol Link .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
Nuclear Power Unpopular Link................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13
Do Nothing Congress Link.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
Oil Lobbies Link ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15
McCain Likes Alternative Energy............................................................................................................................................................................................................................16
Nuclear Power Popular.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17
McCain supports Nuke Power..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18
Internal Links............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19
Coattails Internal.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Bush Matters – Internal.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21
Bush Matters – Internal.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................22
Spending – Internal ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Voting Blocks............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................24
Latinos Key...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................25
Independents key......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................26
Independents outweigh Hard Right .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................27
Everyone is key- Goldilocks. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................28
Women/Seniors.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29
Urban Workers.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................30
Religious Right = Dead.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................31
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................31
Battleground States Internal .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32
Moderates key ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33
Alternative Energy = Election Issue.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................34
Climate/Environment key 2008 Election Issue.........................................................................................................................................................................................................35
Iran Strikes Bad ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................36
Sweeter 1NC Impact ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37
Prolif ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38
Prolif ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39
Turkish Relations......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40
Oil Spikes..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................41
Other Impacts............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................42
Tax Cuts Bad 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................43
Tax Cuts Bad 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................44
Yucca Mountain Bad 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................45
CTBT Good 1NC .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................46
CTBT Good—Terrorism...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................47
CTBT Good—IMS...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................48
CTBT Good—IMS...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................49
CTBT Good—Indo-Pak war.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................50
CTBT Good—Indo-Pak............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................51
Aff Impact Turns ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................52
Iran Strikes Good .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................53
Iran Strikes Good......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................54
Iran Strikes Good......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................55
AT: Oil Scenario........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................56
Tax Cuts Good..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57
Tax Cuts Good..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................58
Tax Cuts Good..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................59
Tax Cuts Good: Evidence comparison......................................................................................................................................................................................................................60
Currency Dump Turn................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................61
Yucca Mountain Good..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................62
Yucca Mountain Good..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................63
Senate Elections DA: Uniqueness: Democrats win..................................................................................................................................................................................................64
Senate Elections DA: Uniqueness: Democrats win..................................................................................................................................................................................................65
Aff: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link....................................................................................................................................................................................................................66
Aff: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................67
Aff: Elections Improbable ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................68
Non Unique: McCain wins.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69
Page 1
Party Time: 1NC

[ ] Uniqueness: Obama’s winning now – he controls swing states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania
Quinnipiac University Poll.: June 18, 2008 OBAMA LEADS McCAIN IN FLORIDA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY SWING STATE
POLL FINDS; CLINTON ON THE TICKET DOES NOT HELP DEMS. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187=
With strong support from women, blacks and younger voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the apparent Democratic presidential contender, leads Arizona
Sen. John McCain, expected to be the Republican candidate, among likely voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to simultaneous
Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today.
This is the first time Sen. Obama has led in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three
largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University polls show:
Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent;
Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent;
Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent.
In the three states, Obama leads McCain 10 to 23 percentage points among women, while men are too close to call. The Democrat trails among white
voters in Florida and Ohio, but gets more than 90 percent of black voters in each state. He also has double-digit leads among young voters
in each state.
"Finally getting Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Sen. Barack Obama. He now leads in all three of the major swing states, although
his margins in Florida and Ohio are small," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"Sen. Obama is certainly not out of the woods, but these results are a Good indication that he enters the summer slightly ahead in the race to
be the next president."
Page 2
Party Time: 1NC

[ ] McCain’s support for green technologies is crucial to his ability to reach out to moderates and
independents and win the election
Horsley May 13th
by Scott Horsley May 13th 2008. McCain Targets Independents with 'Green' Effort. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90411556
But for the moment, McCain's tone is very different as he tries to reach out to independent and moderate voters at campaigns stops in the
Pacific Northwest. McCain visited a watershed center outside Seattle on Tuesday, where he stressed his commitment to environmental protection.
McCain even planned a nature walk around Washington's Cedar River Reservoir, with reporters and photographers in tow, and held a roundtable discussion with a
group of Washington state conservation advocates. Sally Jewell heads the Seattle-based outdoor gear company REI, a cooperative with 3.5 million active members. "We
have members that span from the far right to the far left of the political spectrum," she said. "But I think the one thing they all appreciate is a
healthy environment." By wrapping hIMSelf in the fleece vest of environmentalism, McCain hopes to reach out to that constituency. He
repeated his pledge to combat greenhouse gases by limiting the amount of these gases that companies can emit and encouraging those who
emit less to sell their permits to others. This "cap-and-trade" system is similar to plans proposed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New
York Sen. Hillary Clinton — albeit with less stringent limits on carbon pollution. McCain's Green Campaign Aimed at Moderate Voters "McCain
simply cannot win in November if he can't consolidate the center and win the swing independents who determine every presidential
election," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political analyst. "His task is tough enough because of President Bush's unpopularity, the unpopularity of the Iraq war
and the tanking of the economy. If he gets too identified with the right wing of his own party, he's going to alienate those swing independents, and he'll lose the election."
McCain is closely identified with President Bush in his support for the Iraq war and an economic policy built on tax cuts. But Sabato says
so far, that has not been the drag on McCain's campaign that it might be. "Right now, he has that maverick image, and he's running 20 to 25 points
better than the Republican brand," Sabato added. "The Democrats' job is to make sure that doesn't continue. McCain's job is to make sure that it does."
The environment is one area where McCain can put some daylight between his views and President Bush's. Speaking on Monday in Portland, Ore.,
McCain subtly criticized the president for not doing more to combat global warming. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on
serious challenges," he said. McCain also went out of his way to praise Oregon's Democratic governor and to promise more bipartisan
cooperation if he is elected president. "We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties and on all the resources a free market can provide," he said.
[ ] McCain will go to war with Iran

Edwards and Kane 1-28-2008 [David, Muriel, “Buchanan: McCain win would mean war with Iran,”
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Buchanan_McCain_win_means_war_with_0128.html]
"More wars" could prove to be the oddest of all presidential campaign slogans. Especially if it works. Presidential candidate John McCain shocked
observers on Sunday when he told a crowd of supporters, "There's going to be other wars. ... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but
there will be other wars." MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked old-line conservative Pat Buchanan about McCain's remarks, saying, "He talked about promising that
more wars were coming. ... Is he so desperate to get off the economic issue?" Pat Buchanan replied that McCain never used the word "promise" but simply
said there would be more wars, and that from McCain's point of view, "that is straight talk. ... You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we
will be at war with Iran." "That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him," Buchanan went on. "There's no doubt John McCain is going to
be a war president. ... His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians,
we're going to be in Iraq a hundred years." "So when he says more war," Scarborough commented, "he is promising you, if he gets in the White House, we'll not
only be fighting this war but starting new wars. Is that what conservative Republicans want? "I don't say he's starting them," Buchanan answered. "He expects more
wars. ... I think he's talking straight, because if you take a look at the McCain foreign policy, he is in everybody's face. Did you see Thad Cochran's comment when
he endorsed Romney? He said, look, John McCain is a bellicose, red-faced, angry guy, who constantly explodes."
[ ] US-Iran War leads to global conflagration

Hirsch 2006 [Professor of physics @ University of California San Diego. Jorge Hirsch, “America's nuclear ticking bomb,” San Diego Union Tribune, January 3, 2006, pg.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060103/news_mz1e3hirsch.html]
If only conventional bombs are used in an unprovoked U.S. or Israeli aerial attack against Iran's facilities, Iran is likely to retaliate with missiles
against coalition forces in Iraq and against Israel, as well as possibly a ground invasion of southern Iraq, that the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would not be able to
withstand. Iranian missiles could potentially contain chemical warheads, and it certainly would be impossible to rule out such possibility.
Iran has signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (in 1993 and 1997 respectively), however it is still likely to have supplies, as determined by the U.S.
State Department in August 2005. Early use by the United States of low-yield nuclear bombs with better bunker-busting ability than conventional bombs
targeting Iranian nuclear, chemical and missile installations would be consistent with the new U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine and could be argued to be
necessary to protect the lives of 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and of Israeli citizens. It would also send a clear message to Iran that any response would be answered by a far
more devastating nuclear attack, thus potentially saving both American and Iranian lives. However, the nuclear threshold is a line of no return. Once the
United States uses a nuclear weapon against a nonnuclear adversary, the 182 countries that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty will rightly feel at risk, and many of them will rush to develop their own nuclear deterrent while they can. A new world with many
more nuclear countries, and a high risk of any regional conflict exploding into all-out nuclear war, will be the consequence. The scientific
community (which created nuclear weapons) is alarmed over the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies. A petition to reverse these policies launched by physicists at the
University of California San Diego has gathered over 1,500 physicists' signatures including eight Nobel laureates and many prominent members of the U.S. scientific
establishment (http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/). Scientists object strongly to the concept of WMD, that lumps together nuclear weapons with other "weapons of mass
destruction" and blurs the sharp line that separates immensely more destructive nuclear weapons from all other weapons. An escalating nuclear war could lead to
the destruction of civilization. There is no fundamental difference between small nuclear bombs and large ones, nor between nuclear bombs targeting underground
installations versus those targeting cities or armies.
Page 3
Overview:
Disad outweighs case – If McCain can reach out to the moderates through the plan, he’ll attack Iran early in
his presidency. A US-Iran war has massive ramifications
Magnitude: Only Middle Eastern war will lead to nuclear war –instability avoids usual fears of reprisal, and
would lead to extinction
Nassar 2
Bahig Nassar, Arab Co-ordinating Centre of Non-Governmental Organizations, and Afro-Asian People’s Solidary Organization, 11/25/02, keynote paper for Cordoba
Dialogue on Peace and Human Rights in Europe and the Middle East, http://www.inesglobal.org/BahigNassar.htm
Wars in the Middle East are of a new type. Formerly, the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union had
prevented them, under the balance of the nuclear terror, from launching war against each other. In the Middle East, the possession of
nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction leads to military clashes and wars. Instead of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, the
United States and Israel are using military force to prevent others from acquiring them, while they insist on maintaining their own weapons to pose deadly threats to other
nations. But the production, proliferation and threat or use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear chemical and biological) are among the major global problems
which could lead, if left unchecked, to the extinction of life on earth. Different from the limited character of former wars, the current wars in
the Middle East manipulate global problems and escalate their dangers instead of solving them.
Timeframe: McCain would attack Iran immediately to rally his supporters. The plans impacts and solvency
are massively long term. [Explain]
And, Timeframe’s important - quick economic collapse means

1. Disad happens first, and disrupts solvency _______________________
2. Controls probability – intervening actors and unpredictable consequences are more like
when there’s a longer timeframe
Turns case -
Page 4
Obama Wins: Wall

1. 1NC Uniqueness outweighs – it analyzes poll results from a couple days ago which show that McCain is
behind in key battleground states. Prefer statistical evidence – only true way to determine what people want.
2. Prefer my evidence – the Quinnipac university poll is extremely accurate. Prefer my methodology
Quinnipiac University Poll. No Date. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml
Timely and accurate polls Frequently cited by journalists, public officials and researchers, the independent Quinnipiac University Poll regularly
surveys residents in Connecticut, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and nationwide about political races, state and
national elections, and issues of public concern, such as schools, taxes, transportation, municipal services and the environment. Known for its exactness
and thoroughness, the Quinnipiac poll was selected a "winner" by the New York Post for the most accurate prediction on the Schumer-D'Amato Senate
race in 1998, and results are featured regularly in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and on
national network news broadcasts. Student interviewers use a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system to collect data from
statewide and national residents. For a typical public opinion survey, a randomly selected sample of about 1,000 registered voters age 18 and over
is interviewed over five or six days. The polls are conducted at the Polling Institute on West Woods Road, close to the main campus
3. Models: Democrat will win the 2008 Presidential Election because Political Science Professor Alan
Lichtman’s “Keys Model” indicates six out of the 13 presidential keys have turned against the incumbent
party
Page 07
Susan Page, USA TODAY, May 3, 2007 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-05-02-gop-landscape_N.htm
In one of the best-known formulas to predict presidential elections, devised in 1981 by historian Allan Lichtman, six of 13 "keys" have
turned against the GOP, enough to forecast defeat of the party that holds the White House.
The formula -- which takes into account economic data, midterm election results, foreign policy developments, domestic unrest and
candidates' charisma-- has accurately forecast the popular-vote winner in the past six elections.
Applied to previous contests, it points to the winner in every election back to 1860, according to Lichtman, a professor at American
University.
He and other analysts say the political landscape the year before a presidential election hasn't so overwhelmingly favored one party over the other in
a generation or more, at least since Reagan won a landslide re-election over Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984.
Democrats aren't assured a victory in 2008, but they almost certainly face an easier task ahead than their Republican opponents.
And – this model has successfully predicted the winner of every presidential election
Lichtman 5
Allan Lichtman, Professor of History at The American University and Visiting Scholar at the California Institute of Technology, “The Keys to the White House: Forecast for
2008”, June 12-15, 2005, p. http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/ISF2005/Lichtman_Keys.pdf
The Keys to the White House are a historically-based prediction system that retrospectively account for the popular-vote winners of every
American presidential election from 1860 to 1980 and prospectively forecast well ahead of time the winners of every presidential election
from 1984 through 2004. The Keys give specificity to the theory that that presidential election results turn primarily on the performance of the party controlling the
White House and that politics as usual by the challenging candidate will have no impact on results. The Keys include no polling data and consider a much
wider range of performance indicators than economic concerns. Already, the Keys are lining up for 2008, demonstrating brighter prospects
for Democrats to recapture the White House than the conventional wisdom would have us believe.
4. Fundz - Obama will financially overwhelm McCain’s ability to win through TV ads
Preston June 24, 2008
Mark Preston CNN Political Editor. Updated June 24, 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/preston.obama.ads/index.html
Barack Obama's decision to forgo public financing for his presidential campaign provides him with the tools needed to implement a
"Shock and Awe" television ad strategy designed to paralyze John McCain's campaign, an expert on political TV advertising said in an
interview with CNN.The better-funded Obama is likely to force McCain to spend money on TV ads in Arkansas, Georgia and North
Carolina, said Evan Tracey, CNN's consultant on political television advertising. At this point in the campaign, these are states that CNN projects McCain has
an edge over the Illinois Democrat, but by no means are these states safely in the Arizona Republican's column. Obama is expected to raise
three or four times the $85 million he would have received from the public financing system, providing him with a huge financial
advantage over McCain, who has opted to take the public funds. Watch Tracey discuss Obama's advantage » Tracey, chief operating officer of
TNSMI/Campaign Media Analysis Group, notes that Obama used a similar advertising strategy against Hillary Clinton in the battle for the
Democratic presidential nomination. Obama spent $10 million in Pennsylvania on TV ads -- a state Clinton was heavily favored to win and
did so by 10 percentage points. Obama's decision to pour millions of dollars into Pennsylvania forced Clinton to spend more money in the
state than she would have wanted to in order to secure a convincing victory. But it came at a cost, because she had less money to dedicate
to the remaining primary contests including North Carolina and Indiana. She lost North Carolina by a wide margin and won Indiana only by two percentage
points. Now, as we turn our full attention to the McCain-Obama match up, Tracey explains how the two candidates plan to use television advertising to help win their
respective primaries, and predicts their general election strategies heading into November.
Page 5
Obama Wins: Wall

5. Constituent specific – Independents are divided.
Schneider June 18th
Bill Schneider. Wed June 18, 2008CNN Senior Political Analyst. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/schneider.independents. Analysis: Independents split over
McCain, Obama
Independents hold the key to victory, and both presidential contenders -- Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama -- know
it.
"I don't know if you would call it maverick, but I certainly have issues that I think can attract independents," McCain told supporters earlier this
year, while Obama said last month: "As important as it is for Democrats to be unified, it's also important that we reach out to independents."
Who's got the edge with independents? Two new polls gave the same answer -- neither candidate.The Washington Post-ABC News poll found
that independents are evenly divided, with 44 percent favoring Obama and 43 percent favoring McCain. The ABC/Post poll, conducted June 12-15,
had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
6. Game over: Presidential historians say that McCain will lose since he’s tied to Bush polices
Kuhn 6/15
David Paul Kuhn Politico.com Posted: 2008-06-15. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=8BE81940-3048-5C12-006952400AA347AF
One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if
any.
Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack
Obama’s prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.
“This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland
Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year,
“Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s
in 1980. “McCain shouldn’t win it,” said presidential historian Joan Hoff, a professor at Montana State University and former president of the Center for the
Study of the Presidency. She compared McCain’s prospects to those of Hubert Humphrey, whose 1968 loss to Richard Nixon resulted in large part from the unpopularity of
sitting Democratic president Lyndon Johnson. “It is one of the worst political environments for the party in power since World War II,” added Alan
Abramowitz, a professor of public opinion and the presidency at Emory University. His forecasting model — which factors in gross domestic product,
whether a party has completed two terms in the White House and net presidential approval rating — gives McCain about the same odds as
Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Carter in 1980 — both of whom were handily defeated in elections that returned the presidency to the
previously out-of-power party. “It would be a pretty stunning upset if McCain won,” Abramowitz said. What’s more, Republicans have held the
presidency for all but 12 years since the South became solidly Republican in the realignment of 1968 — which is among the longest runs with one
party dominating in American history. “These things go in cycles,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
“The public gets tired of one approach to politics. There is always a measure of optimism in this country, so they turn to the other party.”
But the biggest obstacle in McCain’s path may be running in the same party as the most unpopular president America has had since at least
the advent of modern polling. Only Harry Truman and Nixon — both of whom were dogged by unpopular wars abroad and political
scandals at home — have been nearly as unpopular in their last year in office, and both men’s parties lost the presidency in the following election.
Though the Democratic-controlled Congress is nearly as unpopular as the president, Lichtman says the Democrats’ 2006 midterm wins
resemble the midterm congressional gains of the out-party in 1966 and 1974, which both preceded a retaking of the White House two years
later. One of the few bright spots historians noted is that the public generally does not view McCain as a traditional Republican. And, as Republicans frequently point out,
McCain is not an incumbent. “Open-seat elections are somewhat different, so the referendum aspect is somewhat muted,” said James Campbell, a
professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo who specializes in campaigns and elections. “McCain would be in much better shape if Bush’s
approval rating were at 45 to 50 percent,” Campbell continued. “But the history is that in-party candidates are not penalized or rewarded to the
same degree as incumbents.” Campbell still casts McCain as the underdog. But he said McCain might have more appeal to moderates than Obama if the electorate
decides McCain is “center right” while Obama is “far left.” Democrats have been repeatedly undone when their nominee was viewed as too liberal,
and even as polls show a rise in the number of self-identified Democrats, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of self-
identified liberals. Campbell also notes that McCain may benefit from the Democratic divisions that were on display in the primary, as Republicans did in 1968, when
Democratic divisions over the war in Vietnam dogged Humphrey and helped hand Nixon victory. Still, many historians remain extremely skeptical about McCain’s prospects.
“I can’t think of an upset where the underdog faced quite the odds that McCain faces in this election,” said Sidney Milkis, a professor of presidential
politics at the University of Virginia. Even "Truman didn’t face as difficult a political context as McCain.”
7. National Polls - Obama has a sizeable popular vote lead over McCain
Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2008, p. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-2008jun25,0,5763707.story
WASHINGTON -- Buoyed by enthusiasm among Democrats and public concern over the economy, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has captured a sizable lead over
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the opening of the general election campaign for president, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found.
In a two-man race between the major party candidates, registered voters chose Obama over McCain by 49% to 37% in the national poll conducted last
weekend. On a four-man ballot including independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, voters chose Obama over McCain by an even larger
margin, 48% to 33%.
Page 6
AT: Uniqueness O/W Link

1. No offense – that means there is only a risk that the DA happens if the plan passes – they can’t win a
unique link turn meaning you err NEG based on offense/defense.
2. Big mistake – All our evidence says that McCain will lose because he’s tied to unpopular Bush policies.
Plan solves that internal link meaning the plan can overcome the negative perceptions of McCain. This acts
as a link booster for our coattails links since they’ve conceded our warrants.
3. Prefer internal link specificity: None of our evidence rules out a chance of a McCain victory, our internal
is specific to environmental popular policies can help McCain swing the independents. The Uniqueness for
this goes our way since independents are slightly in favor of Obama
Britt June 5
Russ Britt, MarketWatch. Last Update: 5:39 PM ET Jun 5, 2008. http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId={CE5B4F19-5B24-466F-B30A-0B8466F97AEA}
"They are regular voters, they are frequent voters," Ciruli said. "They care about the economy and the war, but they also respect experience."
McCain has an uphill climb in that Obama has a head start on enlisting new voters. At this year's Colorado caucuses, it was estimated that Republican
participants had tripled, but Democrats had grown ten-fold. More than ever, the big electorate battleground will be over independent voters, Ciruli says.
"This election is going to be fought more in the middle - for those unaffiliated voters who are non-partisan," he said.
4. It will be a close election: polls prove

Mooney 6/1
CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney july 1, 2008. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/01/new-cnn-poll-obama-mccain-in-a-statistical-dead-heat/
With the dust having finally settled after the prolonged Democratic presidential primary, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows Sens. John
McCain and Barack Obama locked in a statistical dead heat in the race for the White House.
Page 7
Links
Page 8
Plan Popular Link

Alternative Energies massively popular
Oil Change International, Blocking Alternatives, downloaded 6-23-2008, http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy
These energy subsidies are completely out of step with a nation that now broadly accepts the need to end our collective “oil addiction”.
According to Democratic pollsters Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner, “the public overwhelmingly supports the development of alternative
energy, higher mileage standards, hybrids, and incentives to produce more energy-efficient appliances.”
Americans overwhelmingly support alternative energy

Podesta 7
John Podesta, Daniel J. Weiss, Laura Nichols, Americans Urgently Want Action on Energy Independence and Global Warming, April 18,
2007, Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/environment_poll.html
Americans want freedom and self sufficiency from our energy policies; Americans, in the tradition of our “can-do” spirit, believe we
should be leading the world in clean, alternative energy. If the political will exists, they believe we can do anything; Americans want
accountability. They want their leaders to show they will do the right thing, put money to Good use and act accordingly themselves; They
see clean energy as a path to economic growth and new jobs; Democrats, Independents, and Republicans believe the evidence of global
warming is now clear and only strengthens the case for immediate action on energy independence; and, Americans overwhelmingly
support vigorous standards for clean alternative energy technologies and better mileage. They also support a cap and reduction on global
warming pollution.
Alternative energies popular with the public

Teixeira 7
Ruy Teixeira, March 5, 2007, What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment, Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw.html
But attitudes are more positive toward proposals that would actively promote energy conservation and the development of alternative
energy sources. In the February, 2006 Pew poll where 85 percent agreed that America was “addicted” to oil, the public strongly supported
the following proposals to address America’s energy supply: requiring better auto fuel efficiency (86 percent for/12 percent against);
increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen technology (82/14); tax cuts for companies to develop these
alternative energy sources (78/18); spending more on subway, rail and bus systems (68/27); and increasing federal funding for research on
ethanol (67/22).
Public has strong support for alternative energy, my evidence is comparative

Teixeira 7
Ruy Teixeira, March 5, 2007, What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment, Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw.html
The public’s especially strong interest in developing alternative energy sources is well-illustrated by a finding in a July, 2006 Los Angeles Times
poll. The LAT poll asked respondents to choose the best way among a number of options for reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil. More
than half the respondents (52 percent) chose government investment in alternative energy sources, way ahead of the next most popular
option, relaxing environmental standards for oil and gas drilling (20 percent), which was followed by requiring stricter mileage standards for cars (eight
percent) and more nuclear power plants (six percent
Page 9
Solar Power Popular Link

Solar power popular with the public
Revkin 7
Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. Wald, July 16, 2007, Solar Power Wins Enthusiasts but Not Money, The New York Times, Business,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html
It is no wonder solar power has captured the public imagination. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around
the world — from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers’ fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel
makers have had a great ride, to California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Million Solar Roofs” initiative is promoted as building
a homegrown industry and fighting global warming.
Solar power politically and publically popular

Heffernan 8
Olive Heffernan, A Bright Future for Solar Power, Natural Reports on Climate Change, Natural Environment Research Council, March 5,
2008, http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0803/full/climate.2008.20.html
Yet until now, political support for this budding energy source has not matched the public's enthusiasm. If the bill to boost renewable
energy gets the go-ahead from the US administration, it could remove one of the remaining impediments to using the sun as a significant
source of energy, bringing Kurzweil's predictions that much closer to reality.
The public supports solar energy

Coolidge 8
Coolidge, July 1, 2008, Georgina, Reuters, Environmental News Network http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37536
The government freeze on new applications showed a "big disconnect" from public support for solar power, Resch (Rhone Resch,
president of the Solar Energy Industry Association) said. In the same call, Robert Fishman, chief executive of privately held Ausra, a solar
thermal power developer headquartered in Palo Alto, California, said a recent poll showed 94 percent of Americans favor solar power
development to help ease pollution and cut energy costs.
Page 10
Geothermal Power Popular Link

Geothermal energy is popular with the public
Driscoll 7
Driscoll, 2007, Emily V. “Geothermal wells increase in popularity as a fossil fuel alternative”October 19th,
http://scienceline.org/2007/10/19/env-driscoll-geothermal/
The popularity of geothermal heating and cooling has increased rapidly—even President George W. Bush has a geothermal system at his
ranch in Crawford, Texas. In addition, experts are looking towards the technology as a way to provide clean electricity. Although geothermal energy makes
up just half of one percent of the total energy consumption in the United States, demand jumped 13 percent from 2001 to 2005, according to the federal
Department of Energy. In January, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released the most extensive report on the geothermal power generation in thirty years.
New York is no exception to the trend. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which gives money and technical help to
builders who use alternative energy sources, reports that 63 geothermal projects have been completed since its aid program began in 1999. Forty-six
more projects are in the works. “The number of applications and installments continues to go up,” said Gregory Lampman, a project manager with the
state authority
Page 11
Brazilian Ethanol Link

The plan’s a flip flop for McCain
Styles 08
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant, advisor
and communicator, helping organizations and executives address systems-level policy. His industry experience includes leadership roles at Texaco Inc. in strategy
development and scenario planning, alliance management, and energy trading, at both the corporate center and with business units involved in global oil refining &
marketing, transportation, and alternative energy. He has an MBA and a BS in Chemical Engineering. Friday, January 18, 2008
http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2008/01/candidates-energy-mccain.html
Ethanol is one aspect of energy policy on which McCain differs with many of his rivals. You have to admire someone who campaigns
seriously in Iowa on a platform of ending subsidies for corn ethanol, and in Michigan on higher fuel economy standards. Still, when confronted with the
charge that he has "flip-flopped" on this issue--that he was entirely against ethanol previously but now only opposes subsidies for it--his response was
somewhat less convincing than it might have been. In any case, his aversion to subsidies is apparently not confined to ethanol, extending beyond energy
to agricultural commodities, consistent with his overall emphasis on free markets and fiscal conservatism. He expects alternative energy to
advance on a "level playing field"--leveled further by monetizing the climate externality via market-based mechanisms.
And that kills his popularity

Wall Street Journal, 412002
These sellouts of principle can be excused, if you have the right tastes, by crass politics. Vetoing the campaign finance bill would be throwing down the
gauntlet to John McCain, who might decide to play Ross Perot in the 2004 campaign. The steel decision is aimed at a few congressional seats in Pennsylvania and West
Virginia deemed crucial to continued Republican control of the House in this fall’s elections. I tend to doubt this rationale even on political grounds. Public reversals on
principle, even if less dramatic than renouncing a “read my lips” pledge, erode a president’s standing and credibility
Page 12
Nuclear Power Unpopular Link

Public against Nuclear Power
Newshounds 8
Newshounds.com, June 2008,
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/06/19/gingrich_misrepresents_public_opinion_and_likely_results_of_offshore_drilling.php
A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked a much more neutral question: Which one of the following actions do you most support
as a way of addressing the rise in energy and gas prices? Encourage the development of wind and solar power. Open up protected areas in
Alaska for oil and gas exploration. Encourage American consumers to conserve energy. Encourage off-shore exploration for oil and natural
gas. Encourage the construction of nuclear power facilities." Wind and solar was the winner, with Alaska second, conservation third and
exploration fourth. Nuclear power was last.
Page 13
Do Nothing Congress Link

Due to elections, congress is only passing bipartisan bills
Freddoso 07
David Freddoso. “Do-Nothing Congress” has little time left for appropriations. September 4, 2007 6:30 AM
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRhZWE0NTg2OWYyMjIzMzc2OTc2M2EwM2U3MGQ4NmI=
The Democratic 110th Congress has passed 80 bills that President Bush has signed into law. These include 35 bills naming or renaming
federal facilities (mostly post offices); ten bills extending current laws and levels of spending on such items as Indian housing and a
commission on diplomacy, and one bill allowing construction of a 540-foot stretch of road in eastern Missouri. Just before the August recess,
Congress also unanimously passed a bill to rebuild the collapsed bridge in Minnesota.
Another 22 non-controversial, bipartisan bills were passed on such topics as expediting passport renewals, transfer of Indian lands in
Oregon and Michigan, reorganization of D.C. public schools, establishment of a commission on foreign investment, the governing
structure of the Red Cross and the Inter-American Development Bank, property taxes in the Virgin Islands, breast-cancer research,
nutrition for the elderly, NATO expansion, and Medicare billing.
In addition to those, Congress made a (unanimous) technical correction to antitrust laws, expanded the boundaries of the Grand Tetons National
Park, protected some judicial employees’ financial disclosure forms from the general public, and reallocated funds from the Senate Gift
Shop for a day-care program.
Page 14
Oil Lobbies Link

Oil Lobbies dislike action to curb global warming
Brown 2
Anthony Browne, Times of London. August 16th, 2002http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3531
Conservative lobbyists in the US funded by Esso have urged President Bush to derail the Earth summit in Johannesburg because it is anti-freedom,
anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western.
The lobbyists, funded by the oil company that was also a big donor to the Presidents election campaign, urged Mr Bush to make sure that
global warming was kept off the agenda at the summit, which starts later this month.
In a letter leaked to Friends of Earth in the US, the lobbyists tell Mr Bush: We applaud your decision not to attend in person . . . the summit will provide a
global media stage for many of the most irresponsible and destructive elements in critical economic and environmental issues. Your presence
would only help publicize various anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western agendas, it said.
Among others, the letter was signed by representatives of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow,
the American Enterprise Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis, all of which received funding from ExxonMobil, Essos
parent company. The letter, dated August 2, adds: The least important global environmental issue is potential global warming and we hope that
your negotiators can keep it off the table and out of the spotlight.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development will be attended by 100 world leaders. However, the US Government has already made clear that it will not
sign any internationally binding agreements.
Oil Lobbies control the legislative process

Learsy June 12th
Raymond J. Learsy is the author of the updated version Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil’s Grip on Our Future. A graduate of the Wharton School, he made his life in the fast-
paced, risk-filled world of commodities trading, beginning in 1959.June 12, 2008. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/obama-pledges-imposing-
wi_b_106695.html
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama sought to tap into Americans' anxiety over high gasoline prices by pledging to seek a windfall
profits tax on U.S. oil companies if elected.
"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills,"
the Illinois senator said on Monday according to Reuters.
On Tuesday, the big oil companies with the help of Senate Republicans showed the nation who's boss. The Senate slapped aside an energy
package that would have imposed a 25% tax on unreasonable profits on the five largest oil companies who squeezed a staggering $36 billion profit out of
consumers pockets this first quarter, it would have given government the leeway to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust
actions against the OPEC oil cartel (the forever oil lobby and administration stymied NOPEC legislation) and made energy price gouging a federal crime.
In doing so, Congress has once again shown how out of touch it is with the feelings and desires of its constituents for forceful action. And once
again this administration, together with the oil lobby, has been the cheerleader for the vested and powerful interests of the oil industry.
Page 15
McCain Likes Alternative Energy

[ ] McCain supports alternative energy, he’d vote for the plan
Styles 08
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant, advisor and
communicator, helping organizations and executives address systems-level policy. His industry experience includes leadership roles at Texaco Inc. in strategy development and scenario
planning, alliance management, and energy trading, at both the corporate center and with business units involved in global oil refining & marketing, transportation, and alternative
energy. He has an MBA and a BS in Chemical Engineering. Friday, January 18, 2008 http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2008/01/candidates-energy-mccain.html
It's a Good thing that Youtube and Google convey ample information on Senator McCain's views about energy and the environment, because his campaign website is a bit
sparse on both topics, particularly compared to the level of detail provided by Senator Obama. From his comments in various speeches, town halls, and small
events, it's clear that he is very concerned about our dependence on foreign oil, on both economic and national security grounds. He
emphasizes the instability or governmental hostility of many of the countries from which our imports flow, frequently citing Nigeria,
Venezuela and Russia as examples. I wasn't surprised to see him make the "funding both sides of the War on Terror" argument in the principal energy policy
document on his website. National security is Senator McCain's strong suit, and he places energy squarely within this context. The measures he
proposes for improving energy security cover the same themes as many other candidates, including wind and solar power, higher fuel
economy standards, electrification of transportation via plug-in hybrids and batteries, and biofuels. He also strongly supports nuclear
power, based on its low greenhouse gas emissions. Surprisingly, given the intensity of his views on energy independence--which seem to
include an unrealistic expectation of how soon it could be achieved--he would leave offshore drilling to the discretion of the nearest
affected states, and he opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I think he is missing a bet, there, but it's consistent with the theme of
environmental stewardship that runs through the whole McCain campaign. Climate change is a major element of that theme, and of the Senator's
legislative agenda. He has criticized the Bush administration's approach to global warming, and together with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-
CT) he sponsored a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill that was the precursor of the Warner-Lieberman bill currently under consideration in
the Senate. It's not hard to find video clips of the Senator talking about climate change and the inter-generational responsibility he feels in this regard. (I look forward to
reviewing Governor Romney's position on this issue, since the Romney campaign has labeled Senator McCain's approach to climate change as "radical" and "wrong-
headed.")
Page 16
Nuclear Power Popular

Public support for nuclear energy will continually grow
CSI ‘6 [Matthew Nisbet, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry; “Going Nuclear: Frames and Public Opinion about Atomic Energy”; The
Skeptical Inquirer; 6-1-2006; http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/nuclear/]
Nuclear energy is likely to remain a “third rail” of environmental politics, with many environmental groups willing to devote heavy resources to opposing any new plant
construction. Nuclear energy is also likely to remain an ambivalent issue for the generation of Americans who lived through Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, with the
images and frames of a runaway technology easily evoked by carefully designed message strategies. However, the more time passes with no new focusing events
related to the dangers of nuclear energy, and as the perceived urgency of energy independence and global warming increases, public
support in the aggregate is also likely to increase, as recent poll trends suggest. Framing will be the central device by which both advocates and opponents
of nuclear energy manage public opinion at the national level. However, if and when the decision is made to build a new nuclear power plant in a specific area, mobilized
minorities of local citizens will prove decisive. Who shows up to protest, vote, or speak out at the local level will have a stronger impact on the future of nuclear energy in the
U.S. than the current struggle to shape national opinion.
Polls prove nuclear technology is popular with the majority of American public
Taylor ‘6 [James E., Environment and Climate News; “Public Favors Nuclear Power; Poll”; The Heartland Institute; 10-1-2006;
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19723]
Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. In a
telephone poll of nearly 1,500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1, 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power
as a way to contain projected global warming, while only 30 percent opposed it. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear
power as a clean, economical, and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to
support nuclear power. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results, published August 4, are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in
newspaper editorial departments. Shortly after the poll results were released, the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting
increased use of nuclear power.
Nuclear technology popularity growing now – recent energy policies prove

Taylor ‘6 [James E., Environment and Climate News; “Public Favors Nuclear Power; Poll”; The Heartland Institute; 10-1-2006;
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19723]
The growing public support for nuclear power is already having positive effects on future construction plans. The federal Energy Policy Act of
2005 removed some of the obstacles to new plant construction. As a result, 16 companies have formally notified federal authorities they are considering building new nuclear
power plants, according to testimony by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils Diaz in May 2006 before the Senate Energy Committee. Energy producer Entergy
has taken the lead on new plant construction and is likely to receive a site permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2007 allowing a proposed new plant in
Mississippi. Entergy plans to add a second new nuclear power plant in Louisiana, and it is likely to receive an NRC site permit for that plant in 2008. "There are several
factors working in favor of development and expansion of nuclear power plants in the near future," said Nuclear Energy Institute
spokesperson Trish Conrad. "Expanded baseload production will be needed to meet growing demand [for electricity]. The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 has made the regulatory process less difficult. And public support is really lining up behind nuclear power, and for Good
reason."
Page 17
McCain supports Nuke Power

McCain would boost nuke power
News-Leader—2008 (“McCain talks energy at MSU: GOP presidential candidate calls for new nuclear plants”, 6/19/08, http://www.news-
leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/NEWS06/806190366/1015)
Republican presidential candidate John McCain is pushing for new nuclear power plants, carbon sequestration "clean coal" technology and
off-shore oil drilling to meet the country's energy needs for the next generation.
"One obstacle to expanding our nuclear-powered electricity is the mind-sest of those who prefer to buy time and hope that our energy
problems will somehow solve themselves," McCain said in his opening remarks at a town hall meeting at Missouri State University.
McCain pledged to "set this nation on a course to building 45 new (nuclear) reactors by the year 2030" if voters chose him over
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama in November to be America's 44th president.
Page 18
Internal Links
Page 19
Coattails Internal
Only a popular policy by Bush will prevent the Democrats for winning in 2008
Lichtman 5
Allan Lichtman, Professor of History at The American University and Visiting Scholar at the California Institute of Technology, The Keys to the White House, 2005, p. X-XI
Likewise, although President Bush will not be on the ticket in 2008, the fate of his would-be successor in the Republican Party will depend
upon the president's performance in his second term. If the Bush administration fails to meet the domestic and foreign policy challenges of
the next four years, voters will dismiss the Republicans, regardless of the Democratic nominee. Moreover, according to the Keys, the Demo-
crats will have structural advantages in 2008 that they lacked in 2004. The Republicans will not be fielding a sitting president, which results in
the loss of Key 3 and will likely confront a bruising battle for their party's nomination which forfeits Key 2. Thus, two Keys that the GOP
held in 2004 are in jeopardy for 2008, making a Democratic victory likely that year, despite the setbacks at the polls that Democrats have suffered thus
far in the twenty-first century. Democrats, moreover, need not worry about battling for their party's nomination; history shows that nomination
struggles within the out-party do not subvert its chances to recapture the White House. A vigorous challenging party usually has multiple
presidential contenders, each of whom professes to have the skills, personality, and policies needed to regain the White House. A spirited
out-party contest for the presidential nomination might even signify the vulnerability of the party in power, as candidates compete for what appears
to be a pro mising nomination. The greatest popular vote victory by a challenging party candidate in American history was achieved by Republican
Warren Harding in 1920 after a deadlocked convention nominated him as a compromise candidate on the tenth ballot.
A popular policy initiative would allow Bush to secure enough voters for McCain to win the election
Goldberg 7
Jonah Goldberg, Editor at large of National Review Online and syndicated columnist and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors, USA TODAY, September 4,
2007,
At home, Bush's options are far more constrained. But again, Clinton might be the model. The Democratic Congress is -- astonishingly -- even more
unpopular than President Bush. If Bush can pick some well-chosen fights with Congress, ideally over spending, he might at least bring
back disheartened members of his own political base. Bush might also borrow from Clinton's post-1994 playbook of proposing a lot of
small, very popular (and mostly insipid) programs and initiatives. Clinton had his school uniforms and V-chips. Surely the authors of compassionate
conservatism could conjure similar treacle.
Ideally, such proposals would unite a majority of Americans but divide moderate Democrats from the party's left-wing base (spare me the
rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth over the cruelty of "wedge issues").
A goal: Just change the climate
For example, paying inner-city students to get Good grades -- a proposal backed by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich
alike -- might be a Good idea with the added benefit of possibly annoying teacher's unions.
Such ideas are hard to come up with, never mind sell, particularly given Bush's liabilities and the media climate generally. But the president needn't get such ideas
passed, he need only get them discussed in order to recalibrate the political climate more in his favor. It wouldn't be easy, but he still has
the biggest megaphone in the country. He also holds the veto pen. Bush seemed to have lost it in the Oval Office couch cushions for much of his presidency,
but the Democratic takeover inspired him to find it.
Given the Democrats' need to placate their own base in order to prove all that effort in '06 was worth it, Bush could have some fat
opportunities to rally the majority of Americans, or at least his own base, to the GOP side.
Page 20
Bush Matters – Internal

Popular victories for Bush drain Obama’s momentum
Jackie C., 2-10-2008, Political Science, UC Berkeley, “Bush fatigue propels Obama and memories of RFK,”
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977255056
This is the backdrop that's led to the Bush fatigue that so benefits Barack Obama, and the democrats in general. No one could have imagined that Bush
would win reelection in 2004, I was devastated, and I truly believed that our nation, our system, our livelihoods would be forever lost. Kerry should have won. But we
settled for someone that lacked the charisma and inspirational qualities that we are being bombarded with by today's candidates. Kerry didn't excite or ignite enough of us
to make the difference. It wasn't until we woke up the day after the 2004 election, and took stock, that we really started to become motivated. For the first time in a long
time, kids that were coming of voting age had only known war. As they studied civics and government, there was actual evidence to study. As they studied the constitution,
they became aware of the damage BushCo had done. As they applied to college or graduated and entered the business world, they arrived burdened with crushing student
loan debt, low wages, and more than a 50/50 chance that they wouldn't be able to afford health care. The movement had started, and 2006 would prove crucial. Stay at home
mom's and hard working blue collar workers recognized they were being squeezed, squashed, ignored, taken advantage of, and quickly losing ground, assets and wealth.
Well heeled single women and wealthy men and older women realized their voter apathy had allowed this political tsunami to reach massive proportions. The stage was set,
we'd had enough. An astute politician who knows our history could read the teas leaves, and through intelligence, charisma and the promise of change, propel them selves
forward. I'm not saying it would work for just anyone, but Senator Obama is the poster child for youth, exuberance, change and a new
generation. We yearn for change from Bush/Cheney, and who illustrates the biggest change? Obama truly appears to be the opposite of
BushCo. The Bush scandals that so benefit Senator Obama reached critical mass and the lethargic apathetic electorate began to care. Republicans who were threatened by
party dogma not to speak out or challenge their President for fear of being labeled a traitor, sympathetic to terrorists; saw the light and realized they were being led about by a
mentally challenged, uncaring, selfish, imbecile. And if they thought Cheney would be the calm in the storm and voice of reason, they realized he, even more than Bush was
very dangerous. The scandals mounted, and even with our weak and biased media, we recognizeda pattern of corruption. I've culled lists, and my own journals, and came up
with over 7 pages of disasters & scandals. I tried to edit is as much as possible. Here's a partial list of what's caused the fatigue that helps Obama: secret energy plans, failure
to recognize and address global warming, Terry Schiavo, trying to roadblock the 9/11 commission and then failing to implement the recommendations, false, cherry picked
intelligence, Cheney's Preventive war doctrine (requires no eminent threat, and has always been considered a war crime), state of the union lies, bloated deficits, greed, tax
cuts for the wealthy, illegal surveillance (SWIFT), war mongering, war profiteering (Civilian Contractors), loss of civil rights (Patriot Act), acceptance of torture (Military
Commissions Act), black prisons and renditions, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, false military reporting (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, et al), lack of diplomatic relations or attempts
at diplomatic solutions - ANYWHERE.; and the distasteful, long tortured reign of the rubber stamping GOP congress. We've seen expanded weapons development at the cost
of scientific research funding, the gutting of the CIA (Porter Goss), traitorous acts against secret agents (Plame), the deplorable state of our veterans care system (Walter
Reed, high suicide rates, extended deployments, many other examples), cronyism to the extreme (heck-of-a job Brownie, the firing of US Justices replaced by partisan
hacks), Harriet Meirs and the other Supreme Court appointments, the wasteland caused by Hurricane Katrina, the wasted money and assets poured into the new department of
"Homeland Security" (we are less secure), lobbyist scandals (K Street, Jack Abramoff), Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, No. 3 at the CIA, Duke Cunningham convicted of receiving
$2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors, Tom DeLay, indicted for conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws (money laundering) in Texas;Mark Foley (R- Florida),
Jeff Gagnon, Medicare Part D, "No Child Left Behind", voter suppression, rising health care, education, energy and food prices, stagnant wages, negative savings rate, failing
economy, highest rate of foreclosures and small business bankruptcies, and ballooning earmarks. We were astounded for days weeks and months by FDA recalls and EPA
failures. WE learned about signing statements, the unilateral (aka Unitary) Executive doctrine, the overuse and abuse of our precious National Guard and the overextension,
insufficient training of our combat troops (too many tours, enlisting criminals, gang members, non-high school graduates, anyone breathing). We have an out of balance trade
deficit, and declining dollar, which should cause great concern but is never addressed. Bush has pushed for missile defenses that do not work, and tried to
gut the clean air act, with the "Clear Skies Act," and he cut AIDS funding to programs that promoted condom use instead of abstinence
only programs. If not for this Bush fatigue, Senator Obama may have had a steeper hill to climb. But the nation, all of us are ready and
desperate for change. In any other instance, Senator Obama would be highly scrutinized, and deeply vetted by the media who are
obviously in love with the idea of a changing force; and an honest to Goodness dynamic political movement of hope.
Page 21
Bush Matters – Internal

McCain is linked to Bush’s foreign policies.
Dergham 1/11. (Raghida, staff writer. “The Road Map Of Candidates' Positions To Enter The White House.” Dar Al-Hayat Online.)
If the
US presidential elections will in fact be a National Security election, as it is believed, they will be at the center of interest, concern and expectation of the whole
In this phase of the elections, attention is focused on
world because American national security has become international as a result of the type of threats to American security.
the questions of gender and color, since the competition between the African-American Senator Barack Obama (Illinois) and Senator Hillary Clinton (New York), the former First Lady,
represents a wonderful historical development for the US and the world. There is a great deal of enthusiasm reinforced by the potential precedent of putting a woman or a black man in the White
House. The momentum is gathering for "change" in the sense of removing Republicans from the Presidency so that the Democrats will have both the presidency and the majority in Congress. Angry
voices about the US' involvement in the war on Iraq are growing louder, while there is a rising resentment toward president George W Bush and his era. But all that is taking place in the context of
politics and is a far cry from scrutinizing policy. So
when the storm of the primaries calms down, the American conversation will surely turn from demanding
"change" to examining the quality of that change at a time of huge challenges
to American national security. At that time, experience for instance, might win
over enthusiasm for untested new leadership, especially if major events occur in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran, or if there is a big major terrorist attack
inside or outside the US. On the other hand, the surprise might come from the new generation and the desire for vital and fresh leadership, especially if the economy deteriorates and becomes the
force behind the elections, instead of national security. In any case, thenext president of the US will not come to office only as a result of voting within the US,
but also, as a result of events happening outside the country. The contribution of traditional powers and states will be coupled with that of non-state actors, such as militias
and regional and international terrorist movements. It could be said today that George W. Bush indeed succeeded in the crux of his strategic policy to guarantee US national security, i.e. to take
terrorist attacks, as he says, away from American cities. He has justified the war on Iraq stating that it took the battle against terror faraway from American
territory. Since terror has not struck the United States since the Iraq war, Mr. Bush can claim that his policy is the right one.
Such a claim will not automatically lead voters, who are angry at the war in Iraq, to a surprising embrace of the "achievements" of this president who is hated by about half of Americans. The debate
on this point is serious and inconclusive; neither side can prove whether protecting American soil resulted from the "invitation" by Bush to Al-Qaeda and its like to join battle in Iraq- which they did.
Logically, and regardless of the "morality" of using Iraq and its people as a substitute arena for the war on terror instead of US cities, there have not been any attacks on American cities since the Iraq
war. From this narrow standpoint, Bush
can say that he has succeeded in protecting US security within the country's borders. And this is a useful
basis for anyone who is close to Bush's policy on Iraq, namely Senator John McCain of Arizona. McCain, 71, fought in the service of his country in Vietnam and
endured torture; he fought before for the White House and ran against Bush. In 2002, he voted for the invasion of Iraq and supported the recent surge of US troops. He is firmly against withdrawal
from Iraq in defeat or surrenders and opposes setting a timetable for the withdrawal. As
for Iran, McCain supports an alliance with Europe to impose economic and diplomatic
sanctions. He says that there is no such thing as unconditional diplomacy and that the military option should remain on the table with Iran. He
insists on succeeding in Iraq and not bowing to Iran; he points to Iran's proxy wars with the US in Iraq and says that the mullahs in Iran have not paid the
price for frustrating US efforts. McCain rejects the idea of relieving Iran and Syria of responsibility for harming Lebanese sovereignty and arming Hezbullah and
other militias against the Lebanese State. He believes in the necessity of ending impunity of those who adopted political assassinations as a means to intervene in the
domestic affairs of other states. He holds Iran responsible for funding Hamas and Hezbullah and providing weapons to the latter via Syria; he is demanding that Tehran and
Damascus immediately halt their intervention in Lebanese and Palestinian affairs. He supports the establishment of a Palestinian State and affirms that there will be no
solution but a "political one." He is very firm in his pledge to fight terror in all its forms, wherever it is and whenever it takes place.These positions render him closer
to a "continuity" of Bush's policy. If the surge in Iraq continues to work, if US cities are not victIMS of a terror attack, and if Bush's policy toward Iran succeeds-either
by convincing it to give up its provocative policies or by standing up to it- this will boost McCain's chances as a serious "US national security candidate."
And, even though McCain is distancing himself, Bush’s foreign policy decisions still influence to voters.
Unpopular policies cause McCain to lose the general election.
Hames 2/4. (Tim, Chief Leader Writer @ The Times and former lecturer in politics @ Oxford University. “Goodbye, George. Oh, back so soon? Whoever wins in the US
tomorrow, the result will be continuity.” The Times (London). Lexis.)
Bush has appeared more like the invisible man to one

He is supposed to be the most powerful man in the world with a full 50 weeks left in office. Yet, this year, George W.
political party in the United States and a Guy to be tossed on the bonfire by the other.
Early last month Mr Bush left for a long trip to the Middle East, but because his flight coincided with the New Hampshire primary it was treated as an afterthought by the American media. A week
ago he delivered the State of the Union Address, normally a highlight of the Washington calendar, but it was viewed as a modest news event to fill in the time between the South Carolina primary for
the Democrats and the Florida primary for the Republicans.
The President will today send a massive budget over to Congress, where it will be put to one side by people more interested in the outcome of tomorrow's Super Tuesday showdowns. The United
States has seen many a lame duck President. A lame dodo is more unusual.
It has been a long time since the man in the White House has seemed to cast such a small shadow on the battle to be his successor. In so far as the
Democrats speak of Mr Bush at all, it is to dismiss all that he has done and promise sweeping change once he is out of the Oval Office.
Nor are the main Republican contenders bothering to mount a defence of their notional leader and his Administration. They are, in effect, stealing
from Nicolas Sarkozy's strategy in France last year, when he overcame the liability of association with an unpopular Centre-Right President seeing out his second term by simply ignoring him,
seizing control of the party that was once the property of Jacques Chirac, and then exploiting public uncertainties about a female rival long involved in a relationship with another prominent
politician. This has to be the route by which John McCain, too, can retain the presidency for his party (whether he will celebrate by meeting and then marrying
a glamorous model turned singer is more doubtful).
In a sense, the marginalisation of Mr Bush is not surprising. It is an extreme version of what has happened to everyone who has held his position into an eighth year. He has been living proof of the
curse of the second term. In fact, the record of those who hang on for a second helping at the White House is so depressing that it might be a shrewd move for Mr McCain to exploit his age as an
excuse not to seek one if he wins office.
At least Mr Bush has not been forced to resign in the manner of Richard Nixon, or faced impeachment votes in Congress over his sex life as did Bill Clinton. Apart from that, however, he has endured
a brutal experience. For almost three years his approval ratings have been stuck at 30 to 35 per cent. His standing was symbolised by the mid-term elections of 2006, when the Democrats won control
of the House of Representatives and the Senate, an event last witnessed in 1918 when Woodrow Wilson was the doomed President. It was the mid-term defeat that convinced the Democrats that they
would win this year and which persuaded Republicans that they had to distance themselves from the Bush era. Yet,
despite this, Mr Bush might end up having the last
laugh. First, while he may seem invisible, he is far from inconsequential. The tone of the fight in November will be set by the state of the economy
and the success or not of American foreign policy. The President has sent an economic stimulus package to Congress that - out of fear of recession - has been better received on
Capitol Hill than his approval levels might suggest. It will be Mr Bush, not the various presidential aspirants, who decides what the United States will say
and do about the international hotspots of Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. If the Republican Party calculates, somewhat harshly, that it owes him nothing, then he can reciprocate the
sentiment. He will influence this election.
Page 22
Spending – Internal
Bush maintaining fiscal responsibility is key to 2008 GOP victory
Bloomberg News “Bush, Democrats Seek `Very Big Fight' With Each Other on Budget” 7/9/2007
President George W. Bush and congressional Democrats are headed for their first showdown over the federal budget. For both sides, more than
money is at stake. Bush, who only vetoed one piece of legislation passed by the Republican Congress in his first six years in office, is now threatening to reject
almost every spending bill sent to him by the Democratic-controlled Congress unless lawmakers abandon plans to spend $23 billion more
than he requested. While the amount involved is less than 1 percent of the $2.9 trillion federal budget, the political stakes are greater. A little more than 16
months before the 2008 elections, Democrats and Republicans alike figure a fight may be in their interests. `Ìt's a very big fight over a
fairly small sum of money,'' says Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based nonpartisan group that advocates a balanced
budget. `Ìt has a lot of political significance in terms of the signals being sent.'' Bush and the Republicans, stung by criticism that they
presided over a surge in government spending, are looking to rehabilitate themselves among core supporters by holding the line on the
budget. Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to show they can deliver on promises to shore up education, health care and a host of other initiatives. More Than Expected
Other consequences might only become clear over time. The additional spending proposed by the Democrats would barely affect a deficit the Congressional Budget Office says might exceed $220
billion next year, though it may end up costing more than expected if it causes agency budgets to grow faster over time. Bush, 61, has pledged to put the budget on course to be balanced by 2012. The
deficit in 2006 was $248 billion. Unlike other measures such as the immigration legislation that died last month in the Senate, the annual spending bills must pass to keep the government's doors
open. And neither Bush nor the Democrats are eager for a repeat of the budget fights of 1995, when the federal government partially shut down twice after President Bill Clinton refused
congressional Republicans' demands to pare taxes and spending by hundred of billions of dollars. Still, with both sides spoiling for a fight, there's a chance things could spin out of control. ``This
is going to be a very serious showdown,'' says Stephen McMillin, deputy director of Bush's Office of Management and Budget. ``The differences could not
be more stark.'' À Hell of a Difference' House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, dismisses the administration's veto threats. His
party's budget, he says, will ``make a hell of a difference in people's lives, but it has virtually no difference on the deficit.'' The fight will unfold during the coming
months as Democrats begin sending Bush the 12 annual spending bills, and may consume much of the rest of this year's legislative agenda.
It will play out at the margins of the federal budget, as the vast majority of spending has become politically all but untouchable. Defense and homeland-security spending, entitlements such as Social
Security and Medicare, and interest payments on the national debt now consume more than 80 percent of the government budget. The remainder pays for domestic programs ranging from the space
program to national parks and must be approved annually by Congress. Bush submitted a plan in February that would cut spending on those programs by 0.3 percent, according to a Congressional
Budget Office estimate. Falling Short Democrats say the proposal falls short of what's needed just to maintain current services, and want to spend 5 percent more, with much of the increase slated
for education, veterans and health-care programs. Democrats say the proposed increase is the minimum needed to shore up programs eroded by a dozen years of Republican budgets. ``We're not
The Republicans, he
making humungous new investments,'' says Obey, 68. `Ì've never had anybody in my district say, `Why don't you guys get your act together and cut cancer research?'''
says, are attempting to block the new spending because they've ``blown the budget sky-high and now are looking for a way on the cheap to
recover their image.'' Since Bush took office in 2001, federal spending has increased 32 percent, and the budget is now equivalent to 20.3 percent of gross domestic product, the most since
1996. Pet Projects The Republicans' control of Congress, which ended in November, was marked by an explosion in pet-project spending, the creation of a costly prescription-drug entitlement
program and a string of budget deficits that peaked at $413 billion in 2004. House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, says there's
a need for the party to re-
establish its credibility with fiscal conservatives. ``For Republicans, who have a tarnished fiscal- responsibility image in the last election, it gives us an
opportunity to show people that we really are who we said we are,'' Boehner, 57, said in an interview. ``We're here for a smaller, less costly and more accountable
government.'' Each side has taken steps that may escalate the battle. The Bush administration replaced OMB Director Rob Portman, who had Good relations with Democrats, with a former
congressman from Iowa, Jim Nussle, 47, who has a reputation for partisan combativeness; he once appeared on the floor of the House with a paper bag over his head to protest an ethics scandal
involving Democrats. `Belly-Bumping' Obey called Nussle's appointment to the budget job an `àct of confrontation,'' saying the administration is replacing someone ``who at least talks the
moderation game with someone who has been a belly-bumping, hard-line conservative for a long time.'' Senate Democrats have raised the specter of difficult confirmation hearings for Nussle. `À
number of members have spoken with me about their very real concerns about his nomination,'' says Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, 59, a North Dakota Democrat. They've
`èxpressed serious reservations about Mr. Nussle's reputation for confrontation.'' Conrad said in a statement July 5 that he `ànticipates'' that Nussle's confirmation hearings will take place this
month. Sean Kevelighan, the OMB spokesman, said last week that Nussle wouldn't be available for comment until he is confirmed. In his weekly radio address July 7, Bush urged Congress to
confirm Nussle, who he said would ``be a strong advocate for protecting our tax dollars here in Washington.'' Bush also renewed his threat to veto any appropriations measure that contains the ``failed
tax-and-spend policies of the past.'' Policy Changes The Democrats, meanwhile, have laced the spending bills with policy changes that they know the
White House won't accept. On June 21, one day after Bush vetoed legislation expanding federal support of embryonic stem-cell research, Democrats attached similar provisions to a
health-care spending bill. They ignored his promises to veto any legislation loosening federal abortion restrictions, passing a foreign-aid spending
bill that would allow the government to provide contraceptives to organizations that actively support abortion rights. Other changes would relax
trade restrictions with Cuba and extend employment benefits to homosexual partners of federal employees. Each has drawn a separate veto threat. Bush and the
Republicans ``should hope'' the Democrats stoke the conflict even more, says Patrick Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who heads the
Club for Growth, a Washington-based group that backs small-government candidates. ``The only way Republicans are going to make progress'' this year `ìs if the
president vetoes the bills and has high- profile fights over spending,'' he says. `Ìt's very, very important that they have this fight.''
Page 23
Voting Blocks
Page 24
Latinos Key
Latino’s are crucial to the election
Adler, Martinez and Martin 6/28
BEN ADLER & GEBE MARTINEZ & JONATHAN MARTIN | 6/28/08 7:22 PM EST. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11418.html
Recognizing the growing political power of the nation’s largest minority, John McCain and Barack Obama both sought to woo Latinos in
back-to-back speeches on Saturday — and it’s clear each candidate has some work to do to earn their favor.
Hispanics are crucial due to their political clout in important electorates

Taylor and Fry 7
Paul Taylor and Richard Fry, Pew Hispanic Center. 12.6.2007 . “Hispanics and the 2008 Election: A Swing Vote? http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=83
After spending the first part of this decade loosening their historic ties to the Democratic Party, Hispanic voters have reversed course in the
past year, a new nationwide survey of Latinos by the Pew Hispanic Center has found. Some 57% of Hispanic registered voters now call themselves
Democrats or say they lean to the Democratic Party, while just 23% align with the Republican Party – meaning there is now a 34 percentage point
gap in partisan affiliation among Latinos. In July, 2006, the same gap was just 21 percentage points – whereas back in 1999, it had been 33 percentage points.
The new survey finds that a plurality of Hispanics view the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party as the one that shows more
concern for Latinos and does a better job on the issue of illegal immigration (although a substantial minority of Latinos see no difference between the
parties on these matters). Also, many more Latinos say the policies of the Bush Administration have been harmful to Latinos than say they have
been helpful. Hispanics are the nation's largest and fastest growing minority group; at 46 million strong, they make up about 15% of the
U.S. population. Their electoral clout continues to be undercut, however, by the fact that many are ineligible to vote, either because they are not citizens or not yet 18
years old. In 2008, Latinos will comprise about 9% of the eligible electorate nationwide. If past turnout trends persist, they will make up only about 6.5% of those who
actually turn out to vote next November. But despite these modest numbers, Hispanics loom as a potential "swing vote" in next year's presidential race.
That's because they are strategically located on the 2008 Electoral College map. Hispanics constitute a sizable share of the electorate in four of the six
states that President Bush carried by margins of five percentage points or fewer in 2004 –New Mexico (where Hispanics make up 37% of state's
eligible electorate); Florida (14%); Nevada (12%) and Colorado (12%). All four are expected to be closely contested once again in 2008. The analysis of Hispanic partisan
affiliation and political attitudes is based on the new 2007 National Survey of Latinos. The survey was conducted by telephone from Oct 3 through Nov 9, 2007 among a
randomly selected, nationally representative sample of 2,003 Hispanics, of whom 843 are registered voters. The state electoral analysis uses recent Census surveys. In
addition to the state-by-state demographic and electoral data, an Appendix includes the most recent information on Hispanics by congressional district.
Page 25
Independents key
Independents are McCain’s only hope
The Sunday Times June 8, 2008. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4085815.ece
When you look at McCain’s campaign and ask yourself where he could bring out new voters in the same way, you come up empty. Bush
won in 2004 by marshalling evangelical voters. McCain cannot do the same thing. Without them even John Kerry would have won easily. Security mums?
It’s possible, but McCain does not have that strong an appeal to women. Veter-ans? They may well help McCain in a state such as Virginia or
Ohio. Perhaps McCain’s most promising advantage will come from independent and moderate voters intent on balancing what looks like a
Democratic sweep in the House and Senate. He could appeal to them by portraying hIMSelf as a conservative balance to a liberal
Congress. The trouble is that tactical voting has limited traction in a year where change and a desire to throw the bums out dominate the atmosphere.
Independents are crucial to the election

Britt June 5
"They are regular voters, they are frequent voters," Ciruli said. "They care about the economy and the war, but they also respect experience."
McCain has an uphill climb in that Obama has a head start on enlisting new voters. At this year's Colorado caucuses, it was estimated that Republican
participants had tripled, but Democrats had grown ten-fold. More than ever, the big electorate battleground will be over independent voters, Ciruli says.
"This election is going to be fought more in the middle - for those unaffiliated voters who are non-partisan," he said.
Independents are crucial, they’re spending tons of money

Schouten 6.19
Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-17-outside-spending_N.htm. 6/19/2008
This story is part of USA TODAY's series, "The Price of Power," which tracks the role of money and business interests in politics.
WASHINGTON — The first wave in a flood of spending by independent groups in the general election race for the White House came Tuesday
with a TV ad blasting Republican John McCain for his support of the Iraq war.
The spot was paid for by the liberal MoveOn.org Political Action and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
— two of the many outside groups and labor unions poised to spend millions to help elect Democrat Barack Obama.
POLITICS BLOG: Rate the MoveOn ad The $540,000 ad campaign is running nationwide on cable and in local TV markets in the battleground states of Ohio, Wisconsin
and Michigan. Outside groups have spent more than $25 million since Jan. 1, 2007, on "independent expenditures," and more than 70% has gone
toward Democratic candidates, according to an analysis by USA TODAY of campaign-finance data. That's nearly half of what was spent by these groups
in 2004.
Page 26
Independents outweigh Hard Right

Prefer statistical evidence – independents are more crucial to the election
Britt June 5
Recent figures show that it's now 41% Democrats and 31% Republicans, Rasmussen said.
"If John McCain wants to be president, he has to let Barack Obama unify the Republican base for him," Rasmussen said.
Galen, the Republican strategist, says McCain won't need all the Bush voters, though. McCain conceivably could ignore the 5% to 7% of the
vote that hard-right evangelicals comprise in favor of the 15% to 20% in moderate Republicans and independents believed to be there for
the taking.
"If that's true, that's a trade you make every day," Galen said.
Page 27
Everyone is key- Goldilocks.

Obama and McCain must reach out across the political spectrum, a narrow minded strategy ensures defeat
Britt June 5
LOS ANGELES (Menafn - MarketWatch) -- Conventional wisdom has it that Sen. Barack Obama needs to win over white working-class voters and
Sen. John McCain must energize the Republican Party's conservative base if either candidate hopes to take the White House come
November.
But it may not be that simple. While the word "change" is being thrown about frequently by the two presumptive nominees for the presidency, it's
bound to be more than just rhetoric when it comes to new electoral realities and winning over 2008 voters.
McCain and Obama have to reach as many demographic groups as possible to root out voters without allegiances, and in some cases voters
from other parties.
McCain and Obama could well end up overhauling their respective party platforms when it's all over, overlap each other in appealing to
various demographics, find new sources of votes and end up turning political logic on its ear when ballots are cast in November.
But consider how polls show the two are virtually neck-and-neck and have been for several weeks. With an unpopular Republican president in office, the nation at war and
the economy faltering, those poll numbers alone defy conventional wisdom, says Rich Galen, a Republican strategist.
"By any measure, [McCain] ought to be behind by 25 points," Galen said.
To be sure, early polls are notoriously unreliable, but the situation still illustrates how topsy-turvy the race could end up becoming.
Galen and other political watchers say Obama and McCain will have to convince more than just their respective blue-collar workers and
conservative evangelicals they should be president.
They'll have to reach as many demographic groups as possible in order to root out voters without allegiances, and in some cases they may
have to enlist voters from other parties.
And certain states may fall a different way than in the past, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and even possibly California.
Expanding the base
Obama, in particular, will have to enlist those voters that supported him in the primaries and caucuses and hope that young voters and others
are out there to help him continue to expand his base, said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.
Obama managed to win states where an African-American candidate would seem an unlikely choice, including Iowa, Utah, Kansas and
Montana. He also raised more than $50 million more than Clinton through April through a well-managed Internet fundraising effort.
More than just the usual Democratic voters are needed for Obama to claim victory, although making sure they're in his corner wouldn't hurt. He'll need to
break out of the same strategies that hurt Al Gore and John Kerry in their failed 2000 and 2004 bids, respectively.
"If he tries to play the old let's-divide-the-pie-up game, he's going to lose," Coker said.
Obama has to make sure he wins back some of the voters who opted for Clinton. He'll need to try to win back such states as Ohio, Florida,
Michigan and Pennsylvania, said Scott Rasmussen, whose polling firm Rasmussen Reports has been filing daily updates on presidential poll numbers.
What he doesn't make up there, he'll have to win those Western states that now are up for grabs, including Colorado, New Mexico and
Nevada. There also are other regions such as Virginia that could now be in play, he says.
Page 28
Women/Seniors
Single Women will decide the election, my evidence is predictive
Halloran April 15
Liz HalloranUS NEWS Posted April 15, 2008. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/04/15/unmarried-women-are-the-soccer-moms-of-the-2008-
presidential-election.html
Every presidential campaign season pollsters slice and dice their numbers to come up with a new class of voters destined to be key
demographic deciders come Election Day—from the "soccer moms" of 2000, to the post-9/11 "security moms" and "Nascar dads" of 2004.
This year, according to national poll results released this morning, the country could witness the historic emergence of a new and powerful voting
bloc: low-wage, change-seeking, concerned-about the country-but-still-hopeful unmarried women who lean strongly Democratic.
It's a mouthful, but bottom line, what the Democratic polling firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research says it found in its recent survey of
American women was that unmarried women are not only the fastest growing voting demographic but are poised to become as important
to the Democrats' ability to capture the presidency as white Evangelical Christians have been to Republicans.
"The road to the White House is paved with the votes of unmarried women," says Page Gardner, president of Women's Voices, Women Vote Action Fund,
which sponsored the poll. These women, the pollsters say, represent the most profound demographic change in the nation, and the number of
unmarried women who are turning out to vote is growing at two times the rate of married women of voting age.
Their survey found that unmarried women now represent 26 percent of the electorate, essentially pulling even with married women, and
outstripping the potential voting influence of blacks and Hispanics combined, Gardner says. And that's Good news for Democrats—66
percent of the unmarried women surveyed said they planned to mark their ballots for a Democrat on Election Day. That's 13 points more than
married women who said they'll vote for a Democrat.
Women are a major voting block

Britt June 5
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, says Obama will need to convince two-thirds of Hispanics to follow him. But
that may be the easy part, he says.
"For Obama, it isn't just the white working class. It's women," Sabato said. "A Democrat needs a huge majority of women." Clinton appealed to
large numbers of women, particularly those over 30, and now Obama will have to convince them to come back into the fold. The group
makes up as much as 53% of the electorate in any given contest, Sabato said. Sabato contends the working-class demographic may not have the
clout among Democrats it once had. Large portions of the group defected from the party to become Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, and
many have yet to return. "They're just not that important to the Democratic Party anymore," he said. "I would put white working-class [voters]
way down the list." All Obama needs to make sure of is that he gets at least 42% to 43% of the white vote, Sabato said.
Older women are a major voting block

Britt June 5
McCain's praise of Clinton in his speech Tuesday night was seen as a move on his part to appeal to the older women voters who could
swing either way. Getting a chunk of that group will be necessary to win, as well as the vast majority of the senior crowd, says Denver pollster
Floyd Ciruli.
Senior citizens are crucial in key swing states.

Creamer June 18th
Robert Creamer, Huffington Post. Posted June 18, 2008. “How Obama Could Win Over Seniors”. http://www.alternet.org/election08/88636/
Conventional wisdom considers senior citizens to be prime McCain turf. After all, throughout the primaries Barack Obama has polled more strongly among
younger voters. A recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll shows Obama leading McCain overall 49% to 45%. But he trailed by 22% among white seniors while
he lead two to one among voters under 30. Senior voters are especially important to McCain in swing states with older populations like
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida, Iowa and Michigan. McCain has to hang on to senior voters to have any shot at victory. But Obama can
substantially increase his vote share among senior citizens, and if he succeeds, he can turn the November election into a Democratic landslide. Here's how he might do it:
Page 29
Urban Workers
Urban workers are McCain’s core voting block
Britt June 5
For McCain, however, winning the white working-class is much more critical. Reagan Democrats - if they can still be called that - have
become an essential component for a Republican's hopes in any election.
Further, if McCain can capture at least 40% of the Hispanic vote, it could bolster his chances in California and other regions that are heavily
Latino. There remains a significant challenge for McCain in making sure the Republican base is there for him in November, said pollster
Rasmussen. Over the last four years, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans has become lopsided after being nearly even for decades. Until 2004,
each comprised roughly 37% of the electorate.
Page 30
Religious Right = Dead

The religious right has no candidate to back in November
Kirkpatrick 7
David D. Kirkpatrick is a correspondent in the Washington bureau of The New York Times. October 28, 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html
Just three years ago, the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement could almost see the Promised Land. White evangelical Protestants
looked like perhaps the most potent voting bloc in America. They turned out for President George W. Bush in record numbers, supporting him for re-election by a ratio of
four to one. Republican strategists predicted that religious traditionalists would help bring about an era of dominance for their party. Spokesmen for the Christian
conservative movement warned of the wrath of “values voters.” James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, was poised to play kingmaker in 2008, at least in the
Republican primary. And thanks to President Bush, the Supreme Court appeared just one vote away from answering the prayers of evangelical activists by overturning Roe v.
Wade.
Today the movement shows signs of coming apart beneath its leaders. It is not merely that none of the 2008 Republican front-runners come
close to measuring up to President Bush in the eyes of the evangelical faithful, although it would be hard to find a cast of characters more
ill fit for those shoes: a lapsed-Catholic big-city mayor; a Massachusetts Mormon; a church-skipping Hollywood character actor; and a
political renegade known for crossing swords with the Rev. Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Nor is the problem simply that the Democratic
presidential front-runners — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards — sound like a bunch of tent-revival
Bible thumpers compared with the Republicans.
Historical trends prove that the religious right has lost its power
Kirkpatrick 7
The engineers of the momentous 1980s takeover that expunged political and theological moderates from the Southern Baptist Convention
are retiring or dying off, too. And in September, when I called a spokesman for the ailing Presbyterian televangelist D. James Kennedy, another pillar of the Christian
conservative movement, I learned that Kennedy had “gone home to the Lord” at 2 a.m. that morning.
Meanwhile, a younger generation of evangelical pastors — including the widely emulated preachers Rick Warren and Bill Hybels — are pushing the
movement and its theology in new directions. There are many related ways to characterize the split: a push to better this world as well as save eternal souls; a
focus on the spiritual growth that follows conversion rather than the yes-or-no moment of salvation; a renewed attention to Jesus’ teachings about social justice as well as
about personal or sexual morality. However conceived, though, the result is a new interest in public policies that address problems of peace, health
and poverty — problems, unlike abortion and same-sex marriage, where left and right compete to present the best answers.
The backlash on the right against Bush and the war has emboldened some previously circumspect evangelical leaders to criticize the
leadership of the Christian conservative political movement. “The quickness to arms, the quickness to invade, I think that caused a kind of desertion
of what has been known as the Christian right,” Hybels, whose Willow Creek Association now includes 12,000 churches, told me over the summer. “People
who might be called progressive evangelicals or centrist evangelicals are one stirring away from a real awakening.”
The religious right has lost its clout

Kirkpatrick 7
“There was a time when evangelical churches were becoming largely and almost exclusively the Republican Party at prayer,” said Marvin
Olasky, the editor of the evangelical magazine World and an informal adviser to George W. Bush when he was governor. “To some extent — we have to see how much —
the Republicans have blown it. That opportunity to lock up that constituency has vanished. The ball now really is in the Democrats’ court.”
Page 31
Battleground States Internal

Alternative Energy is crucial to environmentally minded voters in Oregon/Washington
Horsley May 13th
by Scott Horsley May 13th 2008. McCain Targets Independents with 'Green' Effort. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90411556
McCain said any meaningful international effort to address climate change would have to include China and India. But even if those countries don't sign on,
the U.S. has a responsibility to act, he said.
A prepared text of McCain's speech supplied to reporters suggested that western countries might use trade sanctions to push China and
India into cutting their carbon output. But in delivering the speech, McCain substituted softer language, saying diplomacy and technical
support should be enough to move the two countries.
"Pressing on blindly with uncontrolled carbon emissions is in no one's interest, especially China's. And the rest of the world stands ready to
help," he said.
McCain hopes that message helps him with environmentally minded voters, especially in battleground states like Oregon and Washington.
Page 32
Moderates key
Moderates are a crucial constituency in swing states.
Lukasiak 08
PaulLukasiak. Independent researcher who blogs about elections. on Thu, 2008-02-28 16:29.
http://www.correntewire.com/count_whose_vote_2_independents_vs_moderates. Count Whose Vote 2: Independents vs Moderates
Yet exit
polling data reveals that the “Moderate” demographic is much larger than “Independents”. And there is no correlation between the
voting patterns of “Independents” and “Moderates”. And “Moderate” voter are the key constituency that will be crucial in swing states in
November.
Page 33
Alternative Energy = Election Issue

Alternative technologies and US energy policy will be a major electoral issue- large majorities of independent
voters want USFG action
The New York Times, April 25, 2007, p. Lexis
A group of environmental entrepreneurs, including Andrew Shapiro of GreenOrder and Jesse Fink of Marshall Street Management, just created a Website, GreenPrimary.org,
to host online forums where, after the Green Debate, voters can study the different candidates' policy positions and even vote for the one they think is most serious. ''The
2008 presidential campaign will present the first opportunity for a national candidate to make sustainability a breakthrough electoral issue,''
Mr. Shapiro argues. A new survey released last week by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, conducted for the Center for American Progress,
underscores that large majorities of independents (59 percent) and Democrats (76 percent) support action now to stop global warming and
make the U.S. energy-independent, along with a significant bloc of Republicans (41 percent). ''Only 27 percent of people feel that our
energy policy is headed in the right direction, while 65 percent say our energy policy is seriously off on the wrong track,'' the Greenberg firm
said. ''Moreover, a majority of Americans (52 percent) believes the U.S. is either falling or has fallen far behind other countries in developing
clean, alternative energy. Only 14 percent of people believe we lead the world in developing these technologies.''
Energy issues will figure prominently in 2008 presidential election

David Victor, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations, March 3, 2008, p.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15661/energy_trap.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3131%2Fdavid_g_victor
Democrats voting in Ohio and Texas may well decide the shape of the U.S. presidential election. Regardless of who they choose to run against Sen. John McCain, the all but
certain Republican candidate, it is likely that energy issues will figure more prominently in the election than at any time in the last generation.
High prices are sapping economic growth, the No. 1 concern across most of the country. Gasoline is now approaching $4 a gallon; natural
gas and electricity are also more costly than a few years ago. Global warming has become a bipartisan worry, and solving that problem will
require radical new energy technologies as well. All this is Good news in the rest of the world, which is hoping that a new regime in Washington will put the
United States on a more sustainable energy path.
Energy issues will have unprecedented prominence in 2008 presidential election

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 25, 2007, p. Lexis
Oil prices flirting with $100 a barrel, warnings of climate change and holiday road trips fueled by gas topping $3 a gallon are combining
to give energy issues unprecedented prominence in the presidential campaign. "The bottom line for us, we're happy everybody is talking
about it," said David Willett, national press secretary for the Sierra Club. "Even in '04, while there was a clear difference between the candidates, it wasn't really a campaign
issue."
Energy has spiked in its importance to voters in recent months

Gallup, June 24, 2008, p. 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.)
Page 34
Climate/Environment key 2008 Election Issue

Climate change now a front-burner election issue
National Public Radio 08, "Elections 2008." National Public Radio. 30 Jan. 2008. 28 June 2008
<http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/issues/climate.html>.
Historically, environmental issues have taken a back seat in national elections. But that appears to be changing. Climate change is moving
to the front burner for many of the candidates vying for the Democratic and Republican nominations in 2008. The new awareness results
from several factors: A growing consensus among Americans on the left and right that global warming issues must be addressed; concern
over imported oil from the Middle East; and the newfound muscle of California's eco-voters, thanks to their state's early primary this year.
Protecting the environment is one of the top three campaign issues
South Bend Tribune (Indiana), May 4, 2008, p. Lexis
Ross said the top three campaign issues in his mind are the county's financial crisis, maintaining the county's infrastructure and protecting
the environment. All three are key to whether the county can encourage and attract future growth, he said. But the questions all are tied to
money, Ross said, which goes back to the so-called Circuit Breaker legislation.
Climate issue has potential to transform 2008 presidential election

Bruce Lieberman, Reported on science issues from 2002-2007 for the San Diego Union-Tribune, Yale Climate Media Forum, January 4,
2008, p. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0108_debates.htm
What happens between now and election day to elevate or sink the climate change issue in the minds of the electorate is anyone's guess.
Scientists know that the most credible signals of a warming climate reside in the evolving patterns of weather over the long-term. But
another summer of punishing heat waves or a cataclysmic season of Atlantic hurricanes could play into the public's - and the media's -
compulsion to put a face on global warming. And that could certainly change the dynamics of the campaign's final months. "One hell of a
Katrina next September would totally transform what happens on November 4th," Corell said.
Energy and climate will be a front-burner issue in the 2008 presidential election
Daniel Kammen, Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, San Francisco
Chronicle, May 18, 2008, p. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/18/IN3R10MGSK.DTL
The Democratic presidential candidates have each committed to a national energy portfolio of at least 25 percent of electricity from clean
energy sources by 2025, and all three candidates are in favor of cap-and-trade systems to build greenhouse gas markets. It is vital, but
politically challenging, to make sure that all emissions credits are auctioned, not given away to large polluters. We are now in a moment -
perhaps a first - where a growing view exists that energy and climate could be front-burner issues for candidates and voters. The time is
right to focus on the energy system we want, not on the one we had, and sadly, still have.
Page 35
Iran Strikes Bad
Page 36
Sweeter 1NC Impact

US strikes on Iran would cause nuclear retaliation and proliferation—culminates in extinction
Hirsch, 2006
(Jorge Hirsh is a Professor of physics at the University of California San Diego, “ America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss,” Antiwar.com, February 20, 2006, pg.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577)
The U.S. has just declared that it will defend Israel militarily against Iran if needed. Presumably this includes a scenario where Israel would initiate hostilities by unprovoked
bombing of Iranian facilities, as it did with Iraq's Osirak, and Iran would respond with missiles targeting Israel. The U.S. intervention is likely to be further
bombing of Iran's facilities, including underground installations that can only be destroyed with low-yield nuclear bunker-busters. Such
nuclear weapons may cause low casualties, perhaps only in the hundreds [.pdf], but the nuclear threshold will have been crossed. Iran's reaction to a U.S. attack with nuclear
weapons, no matter how small, cannot be predicted with certainty. U.S. planners may hope that it will deter Iran from responding, thus saving lives. However, just as the U.S.
forces in Iraq were not greeted with flowers, it is likely that such an attack would provoke a violent reaction from Iran and lead to the severe
escalation of hostilities, which in turn would lead to the use of larger nuclear weapons by the U.S. and potential casualties in the hundreds of
thousands. Witness the current uproar over cartoons and try to imagine the resulting upheaval in the Muslim world after the U.S. nukes Iran. - The Military's Moral Dilemma
- Men and women in the military forces, including civilian employees, may be facing a difficult moral choice at this very moment and in the coming weeks, akin to the moral
choices faced by Colin Powell and Dan Ellsberg. The paths these two men followed were radically different. Colin Powell was an American hero, widely respected and
admired at the time he was appointed secretary of state in 2001. In February 2003, he chose to follow orders despite his own serious misgivings, and delivered the pivotal UN
address that paved the way for the U.S. invasion of Iraq the following month. Today, most Americans believe the Iraq invasion was wrong, and Colin Powell is disgraced, his
future destroyed, and his great past achievements forgotten. Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst, played a significant role in ending the Vietnam War by leaking the Pentagon
Papers. He knew that he would face prosecution for breaking the law, but was convinced it was the correct moral choice. His courageous and principled action earned him
respect and gratitude. The Navy has just reminded [.pdf] its members and civilian employees what the consequences are of violating provisions concerning the release of
information about the nuclear capabilities of U.S. forces. Why right now, for the first time in 12 years? Because it is well aware of moral choices that its members may face,
and it hopes to deter certain actions. But courageous men and women are not easily deterred. To disobey orders and laws and to leak information are difficult actions that
entail risks. Still, many principled individuals have done it in the past and will continue to do it in the future ( see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].) Conscientious
objection to the threat and use of nuclear weapons is a moral choice. Once the American public becomes fully aware that military action against Iran will include the planned
use of nuclear weapons, public support for military action will quickly disappear. Anything could get the ball rolling. A great catastrophe will have been averted. Even U.S.
military law recognizes that there is no requirement to obey orders that are unlawful. The use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country can be argued to be in
violation of international law, the principle of just war, the principle of proportionality, common standards of morality ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), and customs that make up the
law of armed conflict. Even if the nuclear weapons used are small, because they are likely to cause escalation of the conflict they violate the principle of proportionality and
will cause unnecessary suffering. The Nuremberg Tribunal, which the United States helped to create, established that "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his
government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." To follow orders or to
disobey orders, to keep information secret or to leak it, are choices for each individual to make – extremely difficult choices that have consequences. But not choosing is not
an option. - America's Collective Responsibility - Blaming the administration or the military for crossing the nuclear threshold is easy, but responsibility will be shared by all
Americans. All Americans knew, or should have known, that using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country like Iran was a possibility given the Bush administration's
new policies. All Americans could have voiced their opposition to these policies and demand that they be reversed. The media will carry a heavy burden of responsibility. The
mainstream media could have effectively raised public awareness of the possibility that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons against Iran. So far, they have chosen to almost
completely hide the issue, which is being increasingly addressed in non-mainstream media. Members of Congress could have raised the question forcefully, calling for public
hearings, demanding public discussion of the administration's plans, and passing new laws or resolutions. So far they have failed to do so and are derelict in their
responsibility to their constituents. Letters to the president from some in Congress [1], [2] are a start, but are not likely to elicit a meaningful response or a change in plans
and are a far cry from forceful action. Scientific organizations and organizations dealing with arms control and nuclear weapons could have warned of the dangers associated
with the Iran situation. So far, they have not done so ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). Scientists and engineers responsible for the development of nuclear weapons could
have voiced concern [.pdf] when the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies became known, policies that directly involve the fruits of their labor. Their voices have not been
heard. Those who contribute their labor to the scientific and technical infrastructure that makes nuclear weapons and their means of delivery possible bear a particularly
heavy burden of moral responsibility. Their voices have barely been heard. - The Nuclear Abyss - The United States is preparing to enter a new era: an era in
which it will enforce nuclear nonproliferation by the threat and use of nuclear weapons. The use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran
will usher in a new world order. The ultimate goal is that no nation other than the U.S. should have a nuclear weapons arsenal. A telltale sign that this is the plan is the
recent change in the stated mission of Los Alamos National Laboratory, where nuclear weapons are developed. The mission of LANL used to be described officially as "Los
Alamos National Laboratory's central mission is to reduce the global nuclear danger" [1] [.pdf], [2] [.pdf], [3] [.pdf]. That will sound ridiculous once the U.S. starts throwing
mini-nukes around. In anticipation of it, the Los Alamos mission statement has been recently changed to "prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to protect
our homeland from terrorist attack." That is the present and future role of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, to be achieved through threat (deterrence) and use of nuclear weapons.
References to the old mission are nowhere to be found in the current Los Alamos documents, indicating that the change was deliberate and thorough. It is not impossible that
the U.S. will succeed in its goal. But it is utterly improbable. This is a big world. Once the U.S. crosses the nuclear threshold against a non-nuclear country,
many more countries will strive to acquire nuclear weapons, and many will succeed. The nuclear abyss may turn out to be a steep precipice or a gentle slope.
Either way, it will be a one-way downhill slide toward a bottomless pit. We will have entered a path of no return, leading in a few months or a few
decades to global nuclear war and unimaginable destruction. But there are still choices to be made. Up to the moment the first U.S. nuclear bomb explodes, the
fall into the abyss can be averted by choices made by each and every one of us. We may never
Page 37
Prolif
Iran Strikes Collapse the NPT
Prather in 2005
[Gordon - policy-implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration,
the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army – February 28, “June Aggression Against Iran,”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/prather/prather13.html]
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," President Bush said as he emerged from talks with European Union leaders.
Ridiculous? Let's hope so. For, according to Sirus Naseri, a senior member of Iran's delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose Board of Governors meets
next week in Vienna: "To even imply that a nuclear weapon state would attack [IAEA] Safeguarded facilities of a non-nuclear weapon state
pokes a hole right in the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and it deserves to be rejected severely." And of course, Naseri is right. It
was bad enough back in 1981 when the Israelis – not a "party" to the NPT – attacked and destroyed Osiraq, a French-supplied Safeguarded research
reactor in Iraq. The United Nations Security Council strongly condemned the military attack by Israel, which it considered to be "in clear violation of the Charter of the
United Nations and the norms of international conduct." Furthermore, the attack was "a serious threat to the entire safeguards regime of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." You see, the IAEA was made the
international "safeguards" inspectorate by Article III of the NPT. The key to preventing nuke proliferation is the international control of the production,
processing, transformation and disposition of certain "nuclear" materials. In return for a promise not to acquire or seek to acquire nukes, the NPT
recognizes the "inalienable right" of all signatories to enjoy the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy. But all NPT-proscribed "nuclear" materials – as well as the facilities in
which they are stored, processed, transformed or consumed – have to be made subject to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement. In the event the IAEA discovers "nuclear"
materials and/or activities that should have been "declared" but were not, it reports that failure to the IAEA Board of Governors. In the event the IAEA discovers the
"diversion" of nuclear materials – a violation of the NPT, itself – the IAEA Board may refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council for possible action. More than a year
ago, Iran voluntarily signed an Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement, vastly expanding the authority of IAEA inspectors to go anywhere and see anything.
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the IAEA Board of Governors at their last meeting that after a year-long exhaustive and intrusive inspection, he has found
no evidence that Iran has ever attempted to acquire nukes or the makings thereof. Hence, there are no violations of the NPT to report to the Security Council. Well, the neo-
crazies have gone ballistic. That's twice – first Iraq and now Iran – ElBaradei has given the lie to their charges that Islamic states had clandestine nuclear weapons programs
in violation the NPT. But, Bush is determined to get the "nuclear crisis" in Iran before the Security Council, somehow, so that he can get another ambiguous resolution that
he could then use to justify an attack – by the U.S. or Israel – on Iran's Safeguarded facilities. So what conceivable rationale could Bush manufacture? Well, later in the
U.S.-EU news conference Bush made this claim:
"The reason we're having these discussions is because [the Iranians] were caught enriching uranium after they had signed a treaty saying they wouldn't enrich uranium. These
discussions are occurring because they have breached a contract with the international community. They're the party that needs to be held to account, not any of us." Bush
manufactured all that. The EU-Iran agreement – which is being "monitored" by the IAEA – is not a "treaty." In any case, the Iranians were not "caught" enriching uranium.
As best the IAEA can determine, the Iranians have yet to enrich any uranium. The Iranians merely agreed to suspend for six months or so any attempt to do so. They did not –
initially – agree to suspend the manufacture of gas-centrifuges for enriching uranium. However, as a "confidence-building measure," they voluntarily agreed a few months
ago to suspend those activities, too. But, if the Europeans don't live up to their end of the agreement – and Bush is determined to see that they won't or can't – the Iranians
have announced that they intend to resume – probably in June – all the IAEA Safeguarded activities they have currently suspended. Maybe that's why the worst-kept
secret in Washington is that we – in cahoots with our "ally" Israel – are planning to "take out" those Safeguarded facilities in June.
So, bye-bye, NPT. Hello, mushroom-shaped clouds.
This causes proliferation

Dunn in ‘90
(Lewis, Assistant Vice President of Science Applications International Corporation, in “Beyond 1995: The Future
of the NPT Regime”, p. 31-32)
Collapse of the nonproliferation treaty in 1995 would increase significantly the prospects for the further spread of nuclear weapons around
the globe. Heightened perceptions of the likelihood of runaway proliferation, corrosion of the norm of nonproliferation, lessened assurance
about neighboring countries intentions, and a weakening of nuclear export controls are but some of the direct results of the treaty’s
breakdown. As a result, the world would become more dangerous, and all countries’ security—both former parties and outside critics—would be gradually undermined.
To elaborate, one direct impact of a breakdown of the NPT in 1995 would be to change international perceptions of the likelihood of widespread nuclear proliferation. More
specifically, over the nearly two decades since the NPT entered into force in 1970, perceptions held by government leaders, observers, and others about the prospects for the
spread of nuclear weapons have markedly changed. In the early 1960s, it was widely expected that there would be twenty to twenty-five nuclear-weapon states by the mid-
1070s. In the late 1980s, it is now widely assumed that such proliferation can be prevented. The very fact that more than 135 countries have renounced nuclear weapons by
adhering to the NPT has greatly contributed to this change of perception. Particularly, if the treaty’s collapse followed several highly visible nonproliferation breakdowns,
there would be many fears that the earlier predictions, though premature, were correct. Such fears would be further reinforced if after a failure to renew the treaty many
parties were reluctant to reaffirm otherwise their commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons.
This perception of the likelihood of more widespread proliferation could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leaders of countries that had
renounced nuclear weapons would now be asking whether such renunciation would be reciprocated by other countries, especially their close neighbors. At the least, some
countries could be expected to hedge their bets by starting low-visibility programs to explore the steps needed to acquire nuclear weapons. In other countries that had
already been weighing the pros and cons of covert pursuit of nuclear weapons, a perception that many countries might soon move toward
nuclear weapons in the decades after 1995 could tip the balance for a national decision.
Page 38
Prolif
Prolif leads to Extinction
Utgoff in ‘02
(Victor, Deputy Director for Strategy, Forces and Resources at the Institute for Defense Analyses, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”,
Volume 44, Number 2, Summer, p. 87-90)
the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain
First,
nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider
preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent's nuclear programme or defeat
the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as
biological weapons.
Second, as the world approaches complete proliferation, the hazards posed by nuclear weapons today will be magnified many times over . Fifty or
more nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the risk of nuclear accidents that could cause serious damage not only to their own populations and environments, but those of others, is hugely increased. The chances
of such weapons falling into the hands of renegade military units or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out hazardous manufacturing and storage activities.
Increased prospects for the occasional nuclear shootout
Worse still, in
a highly proliferated world there would be more frequent opportunities for the use of nuclear weapons. And more frequent
opportunities means shorter expected times between conflicts in which nuclear weapons get used, unless the probability of use at any
opportunity is actually zero. To be sure, some theorists on nuclear deterrence appear to think that in any confrontation between two states known to have reliable
nuclear capabilities, the probability of nuclear weapons being used is zero.' These theorists think that such states will be so fearful of escalation to nuclear war that they would
always avoid or terminate confrontations between them, short of even conventional war. They believe this to be true even if the two states have different cultures or leaders
with very eccentric personalities. History and human nature, however, suggest that they are almost surely wrong. History includes instances in which states known to possess
nuclear weapons did engage in direct conventional conflict. China and Russia fought battles along their common border even after both had nuclear weapons. Moreover,
logic suggests that if states with nuclear weapons always avoided conflict with one another, surely states without nuclear weapons would avoid conflict with states that had
them. Again, history provides counter-examples. Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 even though it saw Israel as a nuclear power at the time. Argentina invaded the Falkland
Islands and fought Britain's efforts to take them back, even though Britain had nuclear weapons. Those who claim that two states with reliable nuclear capabilities to
devastate each other will not engage in conventional conflict risking nuclear war also assume that any leader from any culture would not choose suicide for his nation. But
history provides unhappy examples of states whose leaders were ready to choose suicide for themselves and their fellow citizens. Hitler tried to impose a 'victory or
destruction' policy on his people as Nazi Germany was going down to defeat.' And Japan's war minister, during debates on how to respond to the American atomic bombing,
suggested 'Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?" If leaders are willing to engage in conflict with nuclear-armed nations, use
of nuclear weapons in any particular instance may not be likely, but its probability would still be dangerously significant. In particular, human nature suggests that the threat
of retaliation with nuclear weapons is not a reliable guarantee against a disastrous first use of these weapons. While national leaders and their advisors everywhere are usually
talented and experienced people, even their most important decisions cannot be counted on to be the product of well-informed and thorough assessments of all options from
all relevant points of view. This is especially so when the stakes are so large as to defy assessment and there are substantial pressures to act quickly, as could be expected in
intense and fast-moving crises between nuclear-armed states .6 Instead, like other human beings, national leaders can be seduced by wishful thinking. They can misinterpret
the words or actions of opposing leaders. Their advisors may produce answers that they think the leader wants to hear, or coalesce around what they know is an inferior
decision because the group urgently needs the confidence or the sharing of responsibility that results from settling on something. Moreover, leaders may not recognise clearly
where their personal or party interests diverge from those of their citizens. Under great stress, human beings can lose their ability to think carefully. They can refuse to
believe that the worst could really happen, oversimplify the problem at hand, think in terms of simplistic analogies and play hunches. The intuitive rules for how individuals
should respond to insults or signs of weakness in an opponent may too readily suggest a rash course of action. Anger, fear, greed, ambition and pride can all lead to bad
decisions. The desire for a decisive solution to the problem at hand may lead to an unnecessarily extreme course of action. We can almost hear the kinds of words that could
flow from discussions in nuclear crises or war. 'These people are not willing to die for this interest'. 'No sane person would actually use such weapons'. 'Perhaps the opponent
will back down if we show him we mean business by demonstrating a willingness to use nuclear weapons'. 'If I don't hit them back really hard, I am going to be driven from
office, if not killed'. Whether right or wrong, in the stressful atmosphere of a nuclear crisis or war, such words from others, or silently from within, might resonate too readily
with a harried leader. Thus, both history and human nature suggest that nuclear deterrence can be expected to fail from time to time, and we are fortunate it has not happened
yet. But the threat of nuclear war is not just a matter of a few weapons being used. It could get much worse. Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are
employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would rise enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressures to force the
enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances, but maybe not.
And the horrors of the carnage already suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.' Again, history demonstrates
how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way
to essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of
missiles against each other's cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and
from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of
violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants beforehand.' Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such
anger can lead us t0 impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible.
In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a
substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a
world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a
while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
Page 39
Turkish Relations
Strikes collapse Turkish Relations
REUTERS in 2005
[December 30, http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html]
Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his
recent recovery from a mild stroke. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's
government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to
the task.
The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation
here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the
creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq.
Turkish relations are key to central Asian stability

Bagci and Kardas in ‘03
(Huseyin and Saban, Middle East Technical University, “Post-September 11 Impact: The Strategic Importance
of Turkey Revisited”, Prepared for the CEPS/IISS European Security Forum, Brussels, May 12,
http://www.eusec.org/bagci.htm#ftnref112)
In developing this relationship, Turkey's special ties with the region again appeared to be an important asset for U.S. policy. Turkey had a lot to
offer: Not only did Turkey have strong political, cultural and economic connections to the region, but it had also accumulated a significant intelligence capability in the
region. Moreover, the large experience Turkey accumulated in fighting Terrorism would be made available in expanding the global war on Terrorism to this region.[43] As a
result, after the locus of interest shifted to a possible operation against Afghanistan, and then to assuring the collaboration of the countries
in Central Asia, Turkish analysts soon discovered that Turkey's geo-strategic importance was once again on the rise. It was thought that, thanks
to its geography's allowing easy access to the region, and its strong ties with the countries there, Turkey could play a pivotal role in the conduct of U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan, and reshaping the politics in Central Asia: "Turkey is situated in a critical geographic position on and
around which continuous and multidimensional power struggles with a potential to affect balance of power at world scale take place. The
arcs that could be used by world powers in all sort of conflicts pass through Turkey. Turkish territory, airspace and seas are not only a necessary element to any force
projection in the regions stretching from Europe and Asia to the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and Africa, but also make it possible to control its neighborhood... All these
features made Turkey a center that must be controlled and acquired by those aspiring to be world powers... In the new process, Turkey's importance has increased in
American calculations. With a consistent policy, Turkey could capitalize on this to derive some practical benefits... Turkey has acquired a new
opportunity to enhance its role in Central Asia."[44]
Central Asian war escalates globally

Blank 98
Stephen Blank, MacArthur Professor of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, Jane’s Intelligence Review, 5-1-98
Many of the conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict in which third parties intervene are present in the Transcaucasus.
For example, many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have a great potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often feel obliged to
rescue their lesser proteges and proxies. One or another big power may fail to grasp the other side's stakes, since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence
commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a client's defeat are not well established or clear as in Europe. Clarity about the nature of the threat could
prevent the kind of rapid and almost uncontrolled escalation we saw in 1993 when Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan led Russian leaders to threaten a
nuclear war in that case. Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia - or if it could,
would trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russia's declared nuclear strategies) - the danger of major war is
higher here than almost everywhere else.
Page 40
Oil Spikes
Iran strikes spark Terrorism and oil price spikes
McConnel in 2006
[Scott – Founder of the American Conservative - March 27, The American Conservative, “Mission Improbable,” http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/feature.html]
<It’s not only Brownback. Robert Kagan, the hawkish neoconservative author and Washington Post columnist who has the distinction of co-authoring dozens of articles and
editorials with The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, including the original pieces calling for war against Iraq, writes that the likely costs of a military strike against
Iran’s nuclear facilities “outweigh the benefits.”
That’s almost certainly true. While air strikes against Iran would have no assurance of eliminating that country’s hardened and dispersed nuclear
program, Iran would have many retaliatory cards to play through Shi’ite militias or terrorist groups in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Lebanon, Israel, and the Strait of Hormuz. Unless the U.S. is ready to accept, as an outcome of inconclusive air strikes, oil at $200 a barrel,
many more body bags coming home from Iraq, and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of God knows who, it must recognize
the military option is a very poor one. >
Super spike causes global depression

Douthwaite in ‘03
(Richard, “Oil and the Irish Economy”, http://www.constructireland.ie/articles/0210douthwaite.php)
In April, the merchant bank Goldman Sachs warned that a ‘super-spike’ in oil prices might drive the cost of a barrel of crude up to $105, twice what
they are at the time I’m writing this in early June. $105 would also be six times the average price between 1987 and 2000.
The bank referred to a ‘spike’ because prices could not stay at the $100 level for more than a few months without causing the collapse of
the world economy. This would happen because we would all be spending so much more to buy our oil that we would be unable to carry
on buying other things at the rate we do at present, particularly as the prices of other fuels would rise in step with that of oil.
As a result of the diversion of our spending, factories around the world would find they had spare capacity. They would lay off staff and
cancel expansion projects and, as construction work is so energy intensive, its cessation would cause oil demand to fall rapidly. This is exactly
what happened the last time its price went significantly above the $20 level in 1972 money. Millions of people would become unemployed and cut their spending to the bare
minimum, causing other people to lose their jobs too. A global depression could develop in which the lack of activity in the world economy could
cause the price of oil in today’s money to plummet from $100 back to around $15 a barrel again.
Economic collapse causes nuclear war

Beardon 00
(Tom-, Retired Lieutenant –Colonel, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve it Quickly,” www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm)
History bears out that desperate

nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress of nations will have increased the
intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are
almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a
spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United State-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate
responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly.
Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries
and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one’s adversary. The real legacy of the MAD
concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at
all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the
studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the
Untied States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for
many decades.
Page 41
Other Impacts
Page 42
Tax Cuts Bad 1NC

McCain planning for tax cuts now
Gross, March 2008, Daniel, 3-28-08 Slate Magazine, M o n e y b o x c o l u m n i s t f o r S l a t e a n d t h e b u s i n e s s c o l u m n i s t f o r
N e w s w e e k . http://www.slate.com/id/2187570/pagenum/all/#page_start
"In all, his tax-cutting proposals could cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain
campaign," the Wall Street Journal reported. And how to make up for the lost revenues? Hmmm. McCain promises to cut earmarks; to eliminate waste, fraud,
and abuse; and to reduce the projected growth of Medicare; but he won't provide many numbers. As the WSJ deadpanned: "The cost will make it
difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term." That's perhaps the understatement of the year. The 2009 budget calls
for a deficit of $407 billion on projected receipts of $2.7 trillion*, as this table shows. Essentially, McCain wants to cut revenues by about 15
percent from current levels, with nothing close to that in spending reductions, in a time when, even after spending excess Social Security payroll taxes, the deficit is
running at more than $400 billion. Here's some straight talk: McCain's fiscal program is either a joke or a fantasy.
Tax Cuts increase the federal deficits undermining economy.

Gale and Orszag, 2004
William G. Gale (Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair and deputy director of the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, and codirector of the Tax Policy
Center) and Peter Orszag (the Joseph A. Pechman Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and codirector of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center), October 15, 2004,
online: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=9026
The "Revenue and Budget Issues" section examines the tax cuts in the context of overall federal fiscal policy. Even without making the tax cuts permanent,
reasonable projections imply that the federal government faces sizable deficits over the next decade and an unsustainable budget path over
longer periods. Making the tax cuts permanent would significantly exacerbate these problems, reducing revenues over the next 75 years by
an amount significantly larger than the projected shortfall in the Social Security trust fund over the same period. Although the administration has
not proposed any specific way to pay for the tax cuts, some simple calculations show that the required spending cuts or revenue increases are substantial and well beyond the
range of any recent policy discussion. The third section examines distributional effects. Making the tax cuts permanent would increase the disparity in after-
tax income; most households would receive a direct tax cut, but after-tax income would rise by a larger percentage for high-income
households than low-income households. Once the financing of the tax cuts is taken into account, however, the distributional effects will
likely be even more regressive. For example, if the eventual policy adjustments made to finance the tax cuts impose burdens proportional to income, about 80 percent
of households, including a large majority of households in every income quintile, will end up worse off after the tax cuts plus financing than before. The fourth section
examines the effects on long-term economic growth. The tax cuts offer the potential to raise economic growth by improving incentives to work, save, and invest. But the tax
cuts also create income effects that reduce the need to engage in productive economic activity, and they subsidize old capital, which
provides windfall gains to asset holders that undermine incentives for new activity. In addition, making the tax cuts permanent would raise
the deficit over the medium term, in the absence of any short-term financing. The increase in the deficit will reduce national saving—and
with it the capital stock owned by Americans and future national income—and raise interest rates, which will negatively affect investment.
The net effect of the tax cuts on growth is thus theoretically uncertain. Several studies have quantified the various effects noted above in different ways and used different
models, yet all have come to the same conclusion: Making the tax cuts permanent is likely to reduce, not increase, national income in the long term
unless the reduction in revenues is matched by an equal reduction in government consumption. And even in that case, a positive impact on long-term
growth occurs only if the spending cuts occur contemporaneously, which has decidedly not occurred, or if models with implausible features (like short-term Ricardian
Equivalence) are employed. The fifth section provides additional perspectives on making the tax cuts permanent by comparing the features of, and economic environment
surrounding, the Reagan tax cuts to those currently in place.
High deficits will decrease the savings rate and destroy the financial system leading to an economic downturn
Reuters, 2004
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A ballooning budget deficit and low savings rate pose risks to the U.S. economy and the financial system, New York
Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner said on Thursday.
"The current deterioration in the U.S. fiscal position and the acute decline in the net national savings rate represent risks to the financial
system and the economy as a whole," Geithner told the New York Banker's Association.
Geithner said such looming risks were made all the more worrying by the size of the U.S. current account deficit and the unprecedented scale
of financing needed to fund it.
Page 43
Tax Cuts Bad 1NC

Extinction
Bearden, 2000
T.E. Bearden, 2000, Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists, Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study, “The Unnecessary
Energy Crisis”, June 24, http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased
the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations,
are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea,
including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States —
attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict,
escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched,
adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD
concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid
escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization
as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
Page 44
Yucca Mountain Bad 1NC

McCain supports nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain
Paul Heintz “McCain raps U.S. Intelligence skills.” The Reformer 12/5/2007
McCain spoke bluntly about the Bush administration's contributions to halting global warming, saying they "would be judged harshly" by history. "As far as what we've
done, in two words: not enough, not enough, not enough," he said. A key way to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, he said, would be to increase the use of nuclear
power. When asked after the forum how he proposed to dispose of high level nuclear waste, McCain said, "My preference is that we store it.
I always thought that Yucca Mountain was the right place to do it." "It's not a problem of technology. It's a problem of political will. We
have now the worst of all worlds, because we have nuclear waste sites around every nuclear power plant in America, which provides us
with the greatest challenge to our security," he said. "So I would try and resolve it and I would try to go back and revisit the Yucca
Mountain issue, but I would do everything in my power to resolve it."
Waste storage at Yucca Mountain will cause nuclear volcanoes

New Scientist, August 24, 2002, p. Miryn
IF A volcano ever erupted beneath the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada it could cause a devastating
explosion that sent high-level nuclear waste spewing into the atmosphere.
Yucca Mountain lies about 145 kilometres north-west of Las Vegas, within an active volcanic field. An eruption at the site is considered extremely
unlikely, but it is possible. There are six craters within 20 kilometres of the site, including Lathrop Wells volcano, which formed by eruptions just 80,000 years ago. A study
in 2000 estimated that there was a 1 in 1000 chance of an eruption at the site during the 10,000 years it will take for the radioactivity of the waste stored there to dissipate.
And a recent report suggests that a more active cluster of volcanoes 100 kilometres to the north could be an even bigger threat (New Scientist, 20 April, p11).
Now Andrew Woods of the BP Institute at the University of Cambridge and his colleagues have found that if an eruption occurred beneath the site, a rising
sheet of magma could burst into the proposed storage tunnels 200 to 300 metres below the surface. The pressure in the hollow tunnels would be
much lower than in the surrounding rock, so once the magma broke through it would gush into the tunnels at tens or hundreds of metres per second. The heat would be
enough to deform and rupture the 7-centimetre-thick walls of the waste canisters in just 20 minutes, the researchers say.
Worse, if the storage tunnels were open to the main access tunnel, this could act as an easy escape route for the magma to reach the
surface, sending nuclear waste several miles skyward in an explosive eruption. According to Woods's model, even if the tunnels were blocked,
the magma could still build up enough pressure to break through to the surface. The study, which was funded by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is
published in Geophysical Research Letters (DOI: 10.1029/2002GL014665).
The effort to determine whether Yucca Mountain would be a safe place to stash more than 75,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste has lasted more than 20 years and cost
over $4 billion. The US Congress approved the site earlier this year, and last month President Bush signed a bill giving it the green light. But the state of Nevada is fiercely
opposed and has five lawsuits pending against it. And the Department of Energy must still apply for a licence from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to store waste
underground at Yucca Mountain -- a process that could last up to five years.
Volcanoes aren't the only threat that has Nevada on edge about the plans for Yucca Mountain. Earthquakes and rising groundwater could
also bring radioactive material to the surface.
This will end the survival of the human race

David Comarow, Las Vegas Attorney, Testimony presented at US Department of Energy Public Hearing, December 8, 2001, p. http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-
issues/nuclear-energy/issues/yucca-mountain/yucca-mountain-testimony-comarow_2001-12-08.htm
None of that is impossible, and therefore none of that is unthinkable. We are not talking about the short-term or even long-term economic prosperity of Las Vegas. We are
talking about nothing less than the survival of the human race. Lest you dismiss this as just more fanatic hyperbole, let this be a reality check: Yucca
Mountain will hold all of the high level nuclear waste ever produced from every nuclear power plant in the US - with about 10% additional
defense waste -- some 77,000 tons. The danger of getting it here aside for a moment, the amount of radioactivity and energy to be stored in
one place, under that relatively tiny little bump in the desert is easily enough to contaminate and sterilize the entire biosphere. Is that
unthinkable? No. If it is possible, it is thinkable. When you are talking about these types of risks, risks that can endanger entire segments of our
population, let alone the entire earth, then the risk analysis must go into higher gear. It is not enough to merely calculate the risks as "extremely low" - because there
is no "low enough" when the consequences are so cataclysmic. We accept certain risks, which are relatively high - 50,000 traffic deaths per year for example. But, as terrible
as those deaths and injuries are, they do not imperil our culture, our nation or the survival of the human race. We are less willing to accept such risks when
the consequences happen all at once -- plane crashes for example. That is our human nature. We are willing to spend much more to lower the risk of death in groups than
chronic deaths spread out over time and space. As a people, as caretakers for future people, we cannot create unnecessary catastrophic risks like
biosphereicide, the agonizing death of billions.
Page 45
CTBT Good 1NC

Dem win causes the ratification of the CTBT
Chand—2008 (Manish Chand is a Staff Writer for Thaindian News, “Obama or McCain, how will nuclear deal fare?”, 6/11/08,
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/obama-or-mccain-how-will-nuclear-deal-fare_10058855.html)
“Democrats are trying to revive the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Unlike the last time when they failed in 1999, if they manage
to get CTBT passed in Congress there is no way India can hold out as a lone ranger,” he stressed.
Failure of US to ratify CTBT will enable terrorists to use nuclear weapons

Helen Caldicott, Founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush’s Military-Industrial Complex, 2002, p. XVII-XVIII
The Bush administration boycotted the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty Conference (CTBT) at the United Nations in November 2001 and had
the audacity to remove its nameplate from its seat in the conference room. A week before, at a General Assembly meeting, the U.S. was the only
country to vote against placing the CTBT on the General Assembly's agenda for 2002. Washington has signed, but the Senate has not
ratified the treaty, which would ban all above- and below-ground nuclear testing. As a group of nongovernment organizations said, "Failure to act
may lead to a cascade of proliferation events that will enable future terrorists to use nuclear weapons."
Nuclear terrorist attack will cause extinction

SidAhmed 4
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly Online, August 26-September 1, 2004, p. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons
used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate.
Today, the technology is a secret for nobody.
So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they
can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the
course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign
state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded.
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the
new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the
expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed
up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.
But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious.
Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear
pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
Page 46
CTBT Good—Terrorism
Failure of US to ratify CTBT will enable terrorists to use nuclear weapons
Caldicott 2
Helen Caldicott, Founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush’s Military-Industrial Complex, 2002, p. XVII-XVIII
The Bush administration boycotted the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty Conference (CTBT) at the United Nations in November 2001 and had the
audacity to remove its nameplate from its seat in the conference room. A week before, at a General Assembly meeting, the U.S. was the only country
to vote against placing the CTBT on the General Assembly's agenda for 2002. Washington has signed, but the Senate has not ratified the
treaty, which would ban all above- and below-ground nuclear testing. As a group of nongovernment organizations said, "Failure to act may lead to a
cascade of proliferation events that will enable future terrorists to use nuclear weapons."
US ratification of CTBT key to making world less vulnerable to nuclear Terrorism

Dickinson 1
Dickinson Journal of International Law, Winter, 2001, p. Lexis
In a few more years, the nuclear powers will exceed a dozen and some say that if that happens, no one should have any doubt that the decision of the U.S. Senate was a direct
cause. India and Pakistan, as well as other nations, can now continue their testing and implicit threats to each other, without any justifiable moral admonition from the U.S. It
is difficult to dissuade India and Pakistan from testing nuclear weapons in each other's backyards if the U.S. will not promise to end testing
through the CTBT. The first nuclear tests are most likely to come from India and Pakistan or some not-yet-nuclear country. The fragile structure of arms control
may fail and the Senate failure to ratify could launch a nuclear weapons race where there is no longer a tremendous worry of U.S. pressure
to abstain from testing, making the U.S. and the rest of the world a little more vulnerable to nuclear Terrorism. Pakistan is developing links with
North Korea. Iran has approached Pakistan about acquiring missile weapon technology. They have relationships with Afghanistan's Taliban. Pakistan's coup leader still
considers the Kashmir conflict with rival India a predominant issue with his country. Given that the Pakistani army has tendencies to misconstrue Indian
strategic thinking, the risk of war is ever a concern and the risk of it spiraling out of control is ever present until we attain a comprehensive
nuclear test ban.
Page 47
CTBT Good—IMS
US ratification of the CTBT only way to ensure the continuation of the International Monitoring System
New Scientist, June 8, 2002, “Someone to watch over Us”, p. Lexis
In a military-style nerve centre in Vienna, a bunch of scientists are watching over the entire planet. Giant computers process a torrent of data that pours in through secure
satellite links from seismic detectors all over the globe, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Today they have seen nothing unusual. Tomorrow could be different. But let's
hope not, for these are the scientists charged with spotting whether someone, somewhere has decided to explode a nuclear bomb. Their network is the International
Monitoring System, an unprecedented global surveillance system. Designed to warn of illicit nuclear tests, the IMS is not yet operating at
full strength. But when--or more importantly, if--it gets there, it will also be able to notify us almost instantly about a host of other large-
scale disasters. These range from natural events such as earthquakes, incoming meteorites and huge turbulent waves to human-made
disasters such as nuclear accidents. There's just one problem; the network may never reach its full potential. This week politicians are meeting in
Vienna to discuss the fate of the IMS. No one knows if it will survive. The future of the IMS is bound up with the survival of the increasingly
fragile-looking Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, designed to outlaw nuclear weapons tests. If the CTBT dies, the network that was built to
help enforce it will be in jeopardy too. Loss of the IMS would be a huge blow not just to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation, but also to
all the humanitarian and disaster relief agencies that might have used the system. For now, though, the plan remains as it was; to grow the network over
five years until it is processing 10 gigabytes of data each day. This will stream data in near real time from a global network of 170 seismic stations, 11 hydro-acoustic stations
monitoring underwater explosions, and 60 infrasound arrays listening for the low boom of atmospheric blasts, plus 40 radionuclide detectors that check the air daily for the
gases and radioactive particles released by nuclear tests. "It's the synergy that makes it powerful," says Peter Marshall of Britain's Atomic Weapons Establishment, who
headed the scientific panel that designed the IMS. If seismographs detect vibrations beneath the seabed, but hydroacoustic microphones do not hear
an explosion, then it is an earthquake, not a secret underwater nuclear test. But an unexplained infrasound rumble plus a gust of caesium at
a radionuclide detector could be an atmospheric bomb test. The radioactive signal without the infrasound, however, would sound the alarm
that someone was concealing a serious nuclear accident. It was when monitoring stations in Sweden picked up just such a signal in 1986
that the world was alerted to the Chernobyl accident. And that could be just a fringe benefit. Researchers are also confident that the
network will reveal global phenomena that they cannot now predict. All this is now in doubt because of uncertainty over the test ban treaty.
Agreed in 1996, the CTBT needs to be ratified by another 13 of the 44 nations with nuclear reactors before it comes into force. The most important nation of all, the US, has
already said it won't sign, and Israel is just one country likely to follow its lead. "The future of the CTBT verification system depends on the renewal of
political support from the US for the treaty itself," says Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, a think tank in Washington DC. And India and
Pakistan's current demonstration of the power that comes with the bomb might mean that even fewer states are likely to sign up.
IMS provides crucial data needed to distinguish between incoming meteors and nuclear weapons
New Scientist, July 20, 2002, “Ray of hope for test ban treaty”, p. Lexis
There's a suspicious flash over a remote part of the world. It looks like a rogue nuclear test and international panic breaks out. Yet it could
be a harmless meteor going pop in the upper atmosphere. Now researchers say they can tell the two apart using openly available infrasound
data. If they are right, it's Good news for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which is currently languishing as the US refuses to sign, partly on the
grounds that it is not enforceable. American military satellites are almost certainly able to tell the difference between exploding meteors, known
as bolides, and nukes by looking at the radiation they give off. But the Pentagon doesn't release data from these satellites until weeks or
months after the event. One alternative is to listen in to low-frequency infrasound shock waves, which travel up to 1000 kilometres from
the site of a nuclear explosion. Dozens of infrasound stations are preparing to join the CTBT's enforcement network, so there is a pressing
need to be able to interpret the signals in real time. Now Elisabeth Blanc and colleagues at the French Atomic Energy Commission in Paris say they've solved the
problem. They analysed data on a bolide that landed in Tahiti in 2000, releasing as much energy as a nuclear bomb, equivalent to around 3 kilotons of TNT. In work accepted
at The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America they say they can reconstruct the path taken by an exploding meteor by combining infrasound from several nearby
stations. "An explosion is a point source while a meteorite is a moving source, producing infrasound for a few seconds," says Blanc. Meanwhile Doug ReVelle and colleagues
at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico have shown that infrasound can be more reliable than satellite images. They point out that porous
meteorites can release up to ten times as much energy as hard rocks, making them look far brighter to satellites than expected for their size.
Terry Wallace, a seismologist at the University of Arizona who has testified to the US government on the possibility of verifying the CTBT, says the work
is important for the success of the treaty. It doesn't rely on high technology, so other countries don't have to depend on the US, he says.
"Infrasound is a very open technology."
Page 48
CTBT GOOD—IMS
Misperception of a small meteor risks triggering an accidental nuclear war

BBC News, July 15, 2002, “Asteroids could trigger nuclear war”, p. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2128488.stm
A small asteroid could accidentally trigger a nuclear war if mistaken for a missile strike, experts have warned. Scientists and military chiefs studying the
threat are calling for a global warning centre to be set up to inform governments immediately of asteroid impacts. The risk is seen as particularly grave if an
asteroid blast were to happen in areas of military tension, such as over nuclear-armed neighbours India and Pakistan. Each year about 30
asteroids several metres in length pierce the atmosphere and explode, with even the smaller sized ones unleashing as much energy as the
nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in Japan. Earlier this month, an Israeli pilot flying an airliner over the Ukraine reported seeing a blue
flash in the sky similar to the type of blast caused by a surface-to-air missile, despite Ukrainian authorities saying no such missile had been
fired. Experts now believe the pilot saw an explosion caused by an asteroid entering the Earth's atmosphere at high speed. Experts met last week in
the US capital Washington DC to discuss what might have happened had such an explosion occurred over a volatile area such as the India-Pakistan
region. "Neither of those nations has the sophisticated sensors we do that can determine the difference between a natural Neo (near-Earth
object) impact and a nuclear detonation," Air Force Brigadier General Simon Worden from the US Space Command told the Aerospace Daily newspaper. "The
resulting panic in the nuclear-armed and hair-trigger militaries there could have been the spark for a nuclear war."
Page 49
CTBT Good—Indo-Pak war

US ratification of the CTBT would prevent a nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan
Choubey 7
Deepti Choubey, Deputy Director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, States News Service, November 7, 2007, p. Lexis
In South Asia, the CTBT could help to prevent the arms race that Pakistan warns could result from the Bush administration's pursuit of an
unprecedented exception to both U.S. and global rules on nuclear trade for India. Securing Indian support of the CTBT could diminish
concerns about India's ability to increase its arsenal. Pakistan, eager to keep up with reciprocal measures and gain the same treatment as
India, could likely also be persuaded to do the same.
Left unchecked, this arms race will cause an accidental or even intentional nuclear exchange
Ahmed 1
Samina Ahmed, Research Fellow at Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, “Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: U.S. Policy Challenges,”
Foreign Policy in Focus, July, 2001, p. http://fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n28nuclear.html
Should future U.S.-Indian strategic cooperation entail a tacit U.S. acceptance of operational nuclear weapons in India, a retaliatory Pakistani deployment is inevitable.
Deliverable nuclear arsenals in South Asia would impair vital U.S. regional and global interests. The nonproliferation regime would
weaken as other states are encouraged to follow the South Asian example. If the U.S. pursues a policy of containing China through a nuclear-armed India,
heightened Sino-Indian tensions could result in a Sino-Indian nuclear arms race. Above all, the presence of operational nuclear arsenals in
India and Pakistan would increase the threat of an accidental, unauthorized, or even intentional nuclear exchange, damaging all U.S. interests in
the region: political, strategic, and commercial.
US ratification of CTBT needed to head off a further nuclear arms race in South Asia
Kashvili 00
GENERAL JOHN KASHVILI (RET.), SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CTBT, TO THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT
FOR INTERNATIONANL PEACE NONPROLIFERATION CONFERENCE, Federal News Service, March 16, 2000, p. Lexis
The CTBT reinforces the strategic arms reduction process. It confirms that neither the United States nor Russia is making significant qualitative improvements
in its arsenal, which fosters the stable environment for further
reductions in nuclear arms. The CTBT can help head off a further nuclear arms race in South Asia, the place where the risk of nuclear war is
perhaps the highest now. India and Pakistan are bitter rivals who have fought three wars since independence in 1947, and who both conducted nuclear tests in 1998.
Persuading them to formalize their testing moratorium through the CTBT is a major goal of the international community. But it surely is
not easy asking them to give up a legal right to test if we desire to retain ours.
US ratification of the CTBT will cause India and Pakistan to sign on as well
LaVera 99
Damien LaVera, Programs and Communications Director at Lawyers Alliance for World Security,
“The Time for Senate Action on the CTBT is Now: A Response to Conservative Criticisms of the Treaty,” Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, June 22, 1999, p.
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/ laws062299.htm
While Spring is correct to state that the Treaty will not enter into force in the immediate future, rapid ratification of the CTBT is in the vital national security
interest of the United States. The five nuclear powers, the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China, have participated in a voluntary moratorium on
nuclear testing since 1995, and there have been no U.S. nuclear tests since 1992. Instead, these nations are working to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons by
strengthening the international norm against testing. U.S. ratification of the CTBT, which will likely encourage other signatories to ratify, would
bolster the anti-testing norm and help to increase the pressure on India and Pakistan to sign. In addition, the United States has participated in the
current moratorium without any verification regime. CTBT entry into force would benefit the United States by internationalizing and solidifying the
moratorium on testing and by instituting an effective global verification regime designed to assure CTBT compliance. The current
inclination of conservatives in the Senate to not ratify until enough other states have ratified is an abdication of U.S. leadership in the field
of nuclear non-proliferation and contrary to U.S. national security. In any case, both India and Pakistan indicated immediately after
conducting their nuclear explosive tests that they would not stand in the way of CTBT entry into force. Presumably this means that, should the rest
of the 44 required states sign and ratify the Treaty, so too would India and Pakistan. The prospect of putting direct pressure on India and Pakistan to live up
to this pledge, and thereby cap their nascent nuclear programs, adds greater urgency to the need for Senate action on the Treaty.
Page 50
CTBT GOOD—INDO-PAK
US ratification of the CTBT would strengthen the resolve of India and Pakistan
Nitze and Drell 99
Paul Nitze and Sidney Drell, Former Arms Control Negotiator; and Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, “This Treaty Must Be
Ratified,” Washington Post, June 21, 1999, p. http://www.clw.org/coalition/nitzedrell062199.htm
Approval of the CTBT by the Senate is essential in order for the United States to be in the strongest possible position to press for the early
enforcement of this vital agreement. Failure to act will undercut our diplomatic efforts to combat the threat from the proliferation of
nuclear weapons. The president rightly has referred to the CTBT as the `longest-sought, hardest-fought prize in the history of arms control.' President Eisenhower was the
first American leader to pursue a ban on nuclear testing as a means to curb the nuclear arms race. Today, such a ban would constrain advanced and not-so-
advanced nuclear weapons states from developing more sophisticated and dangerous nuclear weapons capabilities. This is particularly
important in South Asia. Last year, both India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, threatening a dangerous escalation of their nuclear
arms competition. Both countries now have expressed a commitment to adhere to the CTBT this year. U.S. ratification would remove any
excuse for inaction on the part of these nations and would strengthen their resolve. The CTBT also fulfills a commitment made by the nuclear powers in
gaining the agreement of 185 nations to extend indefinitely the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1995. The NPT remains the cornerstone of the worldwide effort to limit
the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce nuclear danger.
US can’t persuade India and Pakistan to ratify the CTBT until we do

Richardson 00
Bill Richardson, Former Secretary of Energy under Clinton Administration, “Post-Cold War Nuclear Challenger, Repairing the Regime: Preventing the Spread of Weapons of
Mass Destruction, Editor: Joseph Cirincione, 2000, p. 23-24
Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999 is essential. Without this treaty, we will lose one of the most important tools
available to us for constraining the development of more advanced nuclear weapons and limiting the spread of nuclear weapons to new
states. Failure to ratify also seriously erodes our ability as a nation to lead in non-proliferation matters. Without ratification, we undercut
our credibility in persuading India and Pakistan to join us in this important regime.
US ratification of the CTBT key to stop nuclear adventurism in South Asia

Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers 98
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, “India and Pakistan Commit to Join CTBT by 1999: But Will U.S. Ratify the Test Ban Treaty?” Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
Issue Brief, September 30,, 1998, p. http://www.clw.org/coalition/brief20.htm
Meanwhile, if the United States seeks to stop further nuclear blasts in India and Pakistan, the United States Senate must approve the CTBT,
which has been awaiting Senate action for over one year. U.S. leadership on the CTBT is needed to secure ratification by other key nations,
including Russia, China, Israel, as well as India and Pakistan. Many non-nuclear weapon state signatories are no doubt waiting for the
United States, Russia, and China to act on the treaty. (Britain and France ratified in April.) The record of the Chemical Weapons Convention
illustrates the influence of U.S. leadership: after U.S. ratification in April 1997, other key nations, including China, Pakistan and Russia,
followed suit. However, the small handful of Senators who oppose the CTBT refused to hold hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee or permit a floor vote on treaty
ratification. Instead they have tried to use the South Asian tests as an excuse for inaction and have blocked Senate consideration for over a year. As Denver's Rocky Mountain
News said in its May 18 editorial, "Because of its Helms-inspired lolly-gagging, the United States has sacrificed moral authority as well as leadership on
the issue." But now, Indian and Pakistani accession to the CTBT is clearly within reach. Consequently, the CTBT critic's argument of last resort -- that
the Senate should not waste time on the CTBT because the treaty will not enter into force for several years -- has been turned on its head. Senate failure to promptly
consider and approve United States' ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would only give aid and comfort to nuclear
adventurism in South Asia and allow the arms race in the region to spiral out of control.
Page 51
Aff Impact Turns
Page 52
Iran Strikes Good

Strikes would crush Iran’s nuclear program – our evidence assumes ALL your reasons strikes fail
Edward Luttwak, military, UNSC and White House Chief of Staff consultant and Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 2006. The First
Post, “To bomb or not to bomb?”, http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=346
<<This brings us to the

second flawed argument, which holds that an air attack against Iran's nuclear installations could not be a swift air strike,
but would instead require thousands of strike and defense-suppression sorties, and is likely to fail even then because some facilities might
be too well hidden or too strongly protected.
Iraq’s weapon programme of 1981 was stopped by a single air strike by less than a squadron of fighter-bombers
Actually this argument begins sensibly enough, by rejecting any direct comparison with Israel's 1981 air attack that stopped Saddam Hussein's first try at producing
plutonium bombs, by incapacitating the Osirak reactor. Iran is evidently following a different and much larger-scale path to nuclear weapons, employing the centrifuge
separation of uranium hexafluoride gas to extract a strong enough concentrate of fissile uranium 235 to make bombs. It requires a number of different plants operating in
series to go from natural uranium to highly enriched uranium formed in the specific shapes needed to obtain an explosive chain reaction. Some of these plants, notably the
Natanz centrifuge plant, are both very large and built below ground with thick overhead protection.
It is at this point that the argument breaks down. Yes, Iraq's weapon programme of 1981 was stopped by a single air strike by less than a squadron of
fighter-bombers because it was centered in a single large reactor building. But this does not mean that to stop Iran's programme all of its
100-odd buildings must be destroyed, requiring almost a hundred times as many sorties as the Israelis flew in 1981, which would strain even the
US airforce. Some would even add more sorties to carry out a preliminary suppression campaign against Iran's air defences, a collection of inoperable anti-aircraft weapons
and obsolete fighters with outdated missiles.
An air attack is not a demolitions contract, where nothing must be left but well-flattened ground. Iran might need a 100 buildings in Good
working order to make its bomb, but it is enough to demolish a few critical installations to delay its programme for years, and perhaps
longer, because what Iran could still buy when its efforts were still kept secret would be much harder or impossible to buy now. Some of
these installations may be thickly protected against air attack, but their architecture evidently has not kept up with the performance of the
latest penetration bombs. Nor could destroyed items be easily replaced by domestic production. In spite of all the claIMS of technological
self-sufficiency of its engineer-president, not even simple machined metal parts can be manufactured in Iran. More than 35 per cent of
Iran's gasoline must now be imported because the capacity of its foreign-built refineries cannot be expanded without components that are
under US embargo and cannot be fabricated locally; and Iran's aircraft fall out of the sky with regularity because spare parts cannot be
locally machined.
The bombing of Iran's nuclear installations may still be a bad idea for other reasons, but not because it would strengthen the hold of its
rulers, nor because it would require a huge air offensive. On the contrary, it could all be done in a single night. One may hope that Iran's rulers are not
misled by their own propaganda, and will therefore accept a diplomatic solution rather than gamble all on an irrelevant axiom, and wildly exaggerated calculations.>>
Lack of trust of Iran guarantees that its nuclear acquisition will trigger proliferation throughout the region
and nuclear war
Nye 06 - Professor of International Politics at Harvard [Joseph S. Nye, a former Assistant US Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, “Should Iran Be Attacked?,”
Monday , 29 May 2006, pg. http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2105]
<<Would an Iranian bomb really be so bad? Some argue that it could become the basis of stable nuclear deterrence in the region, analogous to the nuclear
standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But statements by Iranian leaders denying the Holocaust and urging the
destruction of Israel have not only cost Iran support in Europe, but are unlikely to make Israel willing to gamble its existence on the prospect of
stable deterrence.
Nor is it likely that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others will sit passively while the Persian Shia gain the bomb. They will likely follow suit,
and the more weapons proliferate in the volatile Middle East, the more likely it is that accidents and miscalculations could lead to their use.
Moreover, there are genuine fears that rogue elements in a divided Iranian government might leak weapons technology to terrorist groups.>>
Page 53
Iran Strikes Good

The impact is dramatically increased risk of nuclear war
Allison in ‘06
[Graham, Professor of Government at Harvard’s Kennedy School, Boston globe March 12, “THE NIGHTMARE THIS TIME;
A NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN WITH IRAN COULD BE THIS GENERATION'S CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS. HERE ARE THE REASONS WE MUST NOT LET IT COME
TO THAT,” Lexis]
<Before accepting the answer that the US can deal with an Iranian nuclear bomb, four further risks must be weighed: the threat of proliferation,
the danger of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch, the risk of theft of an Iranian weapon or materials, and the prospect of a preemptive Israeli attack.
'A cascade of proliferation'
The current nonproliferation regime is a set of agreements between the nuclear "haves" and "have-nots," including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in which 184 nations
agreed to eschew nuclear weapons and existing nuclear weapons states pledged to sharply diminish the role of such weapons in international politics. Since 1970, the treaty
has stopped the spread of nuclear weapons with only two exceptions (India and Pakistan).
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change warned in December 2004 that current developments in Iran
and North Korea threatened to erode the entire nonproliferation regime to a point of "irreversibility" that could trigger a "cascade of
proliferation." If Iran crosses its nuclear finish line, a Middle Eastern cascade of new nuclear weapons states could produce the first
multiparty nuclear arms race, far more volatile than the Cold War competition between the US and USSR.
Given Egypt's historic role as the leader of the Arab Middle East, the prospects of it living unarmed alongside a nuclear Persia are very
low. The International Atomic Energy Agency's reports of clandestine nuclear experiments hint that Cairo may have considered this possibility. Were Saudi Arabia to
buy a dozen nuclear warheads that could be mated to the Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles it purchased secretly in the 1980s, few in
the American intelligence community would be surprised. Given its role as the major financier of Pakistan's clandestine nuclear program in the 1980s, it is not
out of the question that Riyadh and Islamabad have made secret arrangements for this contingency.
In 1962, bilateral competition between the US and the Soviet Union led to the Cuban missile crisis, which historians now call "the most dangerous moment in human
history." After the crisis, President Kennedy estimated the likelihood of nuclear war as "between 1 in 3 and even." A multiparty nuclear arms race in the Middle
East would be like playing Russian roulette with five bullets in a six-chamber revolver-dramatically increasing the likelihood of a regional
nuclear war.>
Strikes will trigger an Iranian Glasnost. An overthrow of the mullahs cannot happen without external
military action – this takes out all your retaliation arguments
Lewis 06 [James Lewis, “Military Strikes and a Democratic Future for Iran,” The American Thinker, January 25th, 2006, pg.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5189]
<<The Khomeinist regime in Iran is finally baring its teeth to the world, in the public appearances of the little fanatic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran’s nuclear build-up
has been going on for two decades, and the regime is now openly laughing at diplomatic efforts by the Europeans to make it stand down its nuclear development. In addition
to a dozen smuggled Ukrainian cruise missiles, the regime is now in possession of some 25 North Korean missiles with a 2,500 km range. Paris is well within range of
Tehran’s WMDs, as Jacques Chirac acknowledged last week when he told Iran that terror attacks in France could lead to a nuclear response.
The paradox is that the regime is most vigorously hated by its own people, who have suffered the most. The most attractive outcome, therefore, would be
a Iranian Glastnost - a quiet overthrow of the mullocracy by its own figurative children, the people of Iran, especially the educated urban dwellers. The
USSR crumbled when the children of the elite stopped believing. The children of the mullahs, most of them, have long ago stopped believing. Yet they are now being
governed by a creature of the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard, who proclaIMS hIMSelf as a true believer in a Shiite Armageddon.
Ahmadinejad is not Gorbachev, but rather Stalin or Hitler. A peaceful revolt will not work by itself, but it can be a crucial ingredient.
Iranian Glastnost will therefore not happen without external military actions to render the regime visibly impotent before its people. When
the US and UK invaded Saddam’s Iraq, his army crumbled in the face of a brilliant ground and air assault. The Kurds had in fact already rebelled
after the Gulf War a decade before, and created their own autonomous region. A decade of US air attacks, combined with famously leaky sanctions, rendered Saddam’s
military demoralized and unable to resist coherently.
Unbeknownst to us, Saddam was bluffing, putting up a creaky but intimidating front, terrorizing his own people, and hyping his goal of getting WMDs and missiles enough
to fool the CIA and every other western intelligence agency.
Saddam’s real plan was to fall back on the insurgency we see today. But today the insurgency is on its last legs, led by Sunni Baathists who can hope for no mercy from the
new Iraq, and by al Qaeda terrorists rejected by even the Baathist terror-brothers, and prepared for martyrdom. Zarqawi, it was just reported, sleeps with a bomb belt, so as to
blow hIMSelf up if he is caught. He may get his chance very soon.
The conventional story peddled by the antique media is that US action in Iraq is a failure. On the contrary, by historical standards it is an extraordinary success, as successful
as the liberation of Europe in World War Two. The Iraq action therefore provides many useful lessons for a policy to isolate, contain, and undermine
the Tehran regime.>>
Page 54
Iran Strikes Good

Nuclear Iran deters US action destroying hegemony and Middle East stability
Efraim Inbar, Professor at the BESA center, “The Imperative to Use Force Against Iranian Nuclearization”, December 2005,
http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/perspectives12.html
<<The Nature of the Threat T he Islamic Republic of Iran is the greatest and most urgent threat to the new regional order in the Middle East and to
American hegemony in world affairs. Iran actively supports the insurgency in Iraq against the establishment of a pro-American regime that is clearly
more liberal than that of Saddam Hussein. Teheran encourages the radical Shiite elements in Iraq in order to promote the establishment of another Islamic republic. It
opposes a more liberal regime that could potentially serve as a catalyst for democratization in the area. M oreover, Iran is allied with Syria, another
radical state with an anti-American predisposition, and seeks to create a radical corridor from Iran to the Mediterranean. Iran also lends critical support to terrorist
organizations such as Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Indeed, the Iranian nuclear program is primarily designed to provide a strategic response
to American hegemony in world affairs. Teheran wants to be able to continue to oppose American policies and to deter possible American
action against the radical Islamic regime. At the same time, its nuclear program threatens regional stability in the Middle East. >>
US leadership solves global nuclear war by deterring potential threats

Khalilzad – RAND Corporation – 1995
[Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis]
United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
<Under the third option, the
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.>
Page 55
AT: Oil Scenario

Nuclear Iran allows indefinite sky high oil prices
HANSON, CLACISSIST AND HISTORIAN AT STANFOR DUNIVERSITY, JUNE 8TH
[2006, REAL CLEAR POLITICS, VICTOR DAVIS, IRAN’S NUCLEAR SCORPION, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/irans_nuclear_scorpion.html]
With a few nuclear missiles, Iran knows it could dictate the strategic landscape of the Persian Gulf - bullying Gulf sheikdoms over border
disputes and petroleum output and claiming the forefront in the Islamist struggle against Israel. A "Persian bomb" wins national prestige
and quells dissidents at home, while ensuring enough unpredictability to keep oil prices sky-high.
Page 56
Tax Cuts Good

Tax Cuts are Key to the US economy—5 warrants
Forbes, 2006
Forbes 1-12-2006 (http://www.forbes.com/home/columnists/2006/01/11/bush-tax-cuts-comment-cx_pgk_0112kerpen.html)
Dow 11,000 is just the latest in a long line of compelling evidence that the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on capital gains and dividend
income worked. The day those tax-rate cuts passed the Senate, the Dow stood at just 8,601. The story since then has been that incentives
matter--as Milton Friedman says, when you tax something, you get less of it; and when you tax something less, you get more of it.
Reducing the tax bite on investment income, by 25% for capital gains and by more than 50% for dividends, triggered a wave of investment
activity that revived the stock market. About six months later, the Dow broke through 10,000, and by the second anniversary of the tax-rate
reductions, the Dow was over 10,500. With this week’s milestone, the Dow has now climbed 28% since those rate reductions. The bull
market has created an astonishing $5 trillion in shareholder wealth. Overall gross domestic product growth was a robust 4.2% in real terms
in 2004, and more than 3.7% through the first three quarters of 2005--significantly higher than the post-World War II average of just over
3%. Unemployment, even after three major hurricanes, keeps declining, and is now at a historically low rate of 4.9%. With the budget
deficit at a paltry 2.6% of GDP, and the economy humming, it should be unthinkable to enact a series of massive tax hikes to derail the
Good times and send Dow 11,000 tumbling back into four-digit territory. Unfortunately, the tax rates on investment income are scheduled
for automatic hikes in less than three years--a relatively short horizon for many investors--unless the president can spur Congress to act. If
he fails, the tax rate on capital gains will increase 33%--destroying trillions of dollars of shareholder wealth and slamming the brakes on
economic growth. The tax rate on dividends will increase 133%, making companies less accountable to investors and creating strong
incentives for companies to hoard cash inefficiently. Many critics will point out that the most recent market rally was triggered by the
Federal Reserve signaling that its series of interest rate hikes may be coming to an end. It's true that the expectation of rising interest rates
increases the cost of capital, a critical determinant of stock market performance. But tax rates are also a critical determinant of the cost of
capital, because they have a huge impact on the after-tax return on capital investments. The scheduled tax hikes, if they are allowed to
occur, could be enough to derail the market, even if the Fed has stopped raising rates. Just the uncertainty created by the impending tax
hike could be enough to undermine investor confidence, reverse the stock market recovery and derail economic growth. Predictability is
the mother of business confidence. If there is a perception that these tax hikes may occur as scheduled, the cost of capital could increase
enough to send the market, and the economy, into a tailspin
Page 57
Tax Cuts Good

1. Consumer Spending—High taxes deter investors from investing due to additional costs AND, Consumer
spending is key to growth
Schoen—2007
(John W. Schoen is a Senior Producer for MSNBC, “Slow growth could mean U.S. avoids recession” 4/27/07 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18353653/)
Friday’s report showing the U.S. economy grew just 1.3 percent in the first three months of this year — the slowest growth in four years — confirmed that the ongoing
housing slump is weighing on the broader economy. And by most accounts, that slump will likely persist well into the year — and possibly longer. But many economists suggest
that a prolonged slowdown may have a silver lining. By stretching out the period of weak growth, the U.S. economy may be able to avoid a full-blown
recession. Consumers — whose spending makes up 70 percent of economic activity —continued to do their part in the first three months of
the year to keep the gross domestic product in positive territory. First-quarter consumer spending was up 3.8 percent — only a bit slower than the
4.2 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2006.
So far, that spending has been supported by a solid job market: The nation’s unemployment rate fell to 4.4 percent last month, matching a five-year low. But consumers are beginning to get
nervous about the prospects for economic growth. For example, a widely watched gauge of consumer confidence dropped in April.
2. Economic Uncertainty—High taxes kill businesses ability to predict their income and productivity due to
uncertainty on the amount of loss from taxes AND, Economic uncertainty paves the way for a collapse
Hanke, 2004
Steve Hanke is a professor of applied economics at The Johns Hopkins University, 10-4-04, http://www.cato.org/research/articles/hanke-041004.html
One reason economic statistics are weak: Businesses are hoarding cash and stockpiling commodities. Can we blame them? Recent economic indicators resemble that old
chestnut about the weather--if you don't like it today, just wait until tomorrow. This volatility, coupled with the lack of discernible trends, has kept stocks on edge for
months. Will the stomach-churning swings in the economic data end soon? Probably not. The invasion of Iraq has opened Pandora's box, unleashing a plethora of
troubles. The ponderable ones are risks that can be quantified, managed and insured or hedged against, at a cost. The imponderables generate uncertainty. Beyond the
quantifiable pale, uncertainty forces even the shrewdest executives to take a leap in the dark. Operating under the increasing weight of risk and uncertainty, the
economy, not surprisingly, has hit a soft patch. Increased levels of risk and uncertainty cause people to make adjustments. We have to look no further than the reaction of
Floridians to the hurricane alerts that have gone out in recent weeks. With the first signs of trouble, people in the prospective path of destruction go on hoarding and
stockpiling sprees. The rush for provisions has also accompanied the increased level of risk and uncertainty associated with the so-called war on Terrorism. Indeed, U.S.
businesses have taken hoarding to new levels. Moody's has reported that the ratio of liquid financial assets to debt on the balance sheets of U.S. nonfinancial companies has
recently hit a 35-year high. Given the course of events in the Middle East, the hoarding of cash has been prudent. How has it been accomplished? By cutting costs and
improving productivity, businesses have increased cash flow. They have hung on to the cash by shying away from capital expenditures. While the hoarding of cash has
dramatically improved the balance sheets of businesses, it has left the economy starved of fuel. For one, employment growth has been sluggish. Also, investment--the big
swing factor that gives rise to booms and busts--has been flat.
3. Investor Confidence—High taxes lowers investment levels creating a perception of collapse for investors
AND, Investor confidence is key to the economy
Fornelli—2007
(Cindy Fornelli is the Executive Director at the Center for Audit Quality, “Investor confidence is easy to shake, hard to restore” 5/21/07
http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?articleid=24190&print=yes )
And I am not alone on this point. Last year, 261 financial executives interviewed for the Oversight Systems Financial Executive Report were clear: With investors now
expressing more confidence in financial reporting, they don't want any relaxation of standards for smaller companies. And, ultimately, investor
confidence is what this is all about. Investors are entitled to credible assurances about the financial records they rely on in making investment decisions.
This should be true whether they're investing in large companies or the smaller start-ups that are the backbone of our economy. Subjecting those companies to the same requirements
as larger companies will help, not hinder, their growth.
4. Stock Markets—Higher taxes kill investor movement through taxes which kills the market which our
Forbes evidence indicates is key to the economy’
5. Business Confidence—High taxes hurt business confidence by creating a perception that the businesses
will have to spend more money for the same products AND, Business confidence is key to the economy
Chicago Tribune, 2003
Chicago Tribune, 2003 (“NEWLY CONFIDENT CONSUMERS NEED SOME COMPANY” LN)
Ben Herzon, senior economist with Macroeconomic Advisors of St. Louis, sees all kinds of positive trends the rest of us probably knew about. There's the end of the Iraq war, a weak dollar that will spur exports, a rising stock market, low inflation and the impending
. Consumers have made heroic efforts of consumption. They continued

federal tax cut. Herzon also has one point that has gotten less attention: An increase in unfilled orders of capital Goods
buying long after it was clear the economy was dead, before finally giving up during last year's holiday season. Not so the corporations. They kept their checkbooks snapped shut. Back orders of non-defense capital Goods have fallen steadily, in fact, since October
of 2000--roughly the point at which economists first started noting the signs of a slowing economy. Back orders hit their low last December. They rose for the first time in January, but only a smidgen. They jumped 0.7 percent in February. In March they climbed 1.8
Consumers can be confident all they

percent. Back orders stand at $127.2 billion now. That's a long way to go toward the record $163 billion set in October 2000, but it's a start. "It's the beginning of a turnaround," Herzon says.
want, but they can't turn the economy by themselves. Business spending has always been the missing factor. Without it, the economy
remains slow. Sure, factory orders rose in March, but so did unemployment claIMS. That meant that the uptick in spending wasn't strong enough for companies to commit to hiring new workers. But if back orders are building, this could change.
Companies that can't fill orders start hiring new people. And when those hires start, economic vigor begins, too. Consumer confidence
is one thing. If business confidence returns, then this economy just might turn around.
Page 58
Tax Cuts Good

6. Tax cuts boost the stock market and consumer spending which is key to reduce the deficit
Moore and Bell, 2004
(Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and Jeffrey Bell is a principal of Capital City Partners, a Washington consulting firm, Weekly Standard 12-27, 2004)
Tactically, putting off this vote makes very little sense. If Bush were to lock into place the cuts in capital gains tax and the dividend taxes to a 15 percent rate, the
income tax rate reductions, the $1,000 per child tax credit, and the death tax repeal, the economy and the stock market would certainly reward him with a
further burst of growth. Since these tax cuts were first implemented in May 2003, the Dow Jones Industrial average has increased by nearly 30 percent
and GDP has surged forward by 4.5 percent. Without the stimulative effect of these tax cuts, John Kerry's tailor might now be measuring him for a new Inauguration Day
suit. The only reason these growth stimulants were passed as temporary changes in the first place was to fit within the straitjacket of Senate budget rules that have since
expired. The longer the tax cuts are left on a temporary basis, the less salience they have for America's economic future, particularly when it
comes to the unfolding decisions of long-term investors. Politically, Bush needs to pocket some early and meaningful legislative victories. The tax cut is the
logical choice here, as it is favored by every element of the Bush-Reagan coalition that delivered the sweeping victory on Election Day. Bush owes this to his loyal voter
base. There is one faction within the GOP that wants to put off tax cuts, and that is the deficit reduction crowd. They insist that the tax cuts must be "paid for"
before they are made permanent. Yet, the evidence shows that because the Bush tax cuts revived economic activity in 2004, the Treasury collected
about $60 billion more in tax revenues than was expected during the year, and the deficit shrank by $103 billion from its projected level. So the cuts
already are paying for themselves. Moreover, the deficit hawks should be refocusing their ire at the source of the red ink problem: out of control federal spending.
Whether intended or not, the delayed tax cut gratification strategy is an engraved invitation to congressional critics of the Bush tax cuts to reopen the campaign 2004 debate
on whether they ever should have passed--or whether they are still worthwhile given the new bugaboos of high budget deficits and a weakened dollar. (How raising taxes on
domestic investment could possibly strengthen the dollar is never explained.) Delay simply means that every element of the first-term tax cut agenda becomes a bargaining
chip for the pro-tax Nancy Pelosi Democrats and some squeamish Republicans, such as Senate Finance Committee chairman Charles Grassley. Another strategic problem has
emerged: Some Republicans, like the normally sensible Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, say that in order to "pay for" Social Security reform, Congress is going
to need to enact some tax increases, not tax cuts. This complicates things mightily. Graham favors raising the effective top tax rate on wages to at least 50.3 percent for most
families making more than $87,900, now the statutory ceiling for the payroll tax. Graham even acknowledged in a December 11 Fox News Sunday interview that unless tax
increases are a big part of Social Security reform, it would be wrong to make Bush's first-term tax cuts permanent. In short, he invites bargaining away the tax cut as part of
some grand deal. Bush's biggest legacy so far on domestic policy is his successful completion of the Reagan supply-side tax-cutting agenda. Locking in this first-term
achievement would be a vindication of Bush's pro-growth policies. Indeed, a victory on the tax bill puts Bush in a stronger position to tackle Social Security and tax reform.
Conversely, a failure to cement his tax cuts into place would represent a startling, unexpected and early setback on several levels. Economically, the tax cuts will
become less and less of a stimulus as their expiration dates approach.
High deficits will decrease the savings rate and destroy the financial system leading to an economic downturn
Reuters, 2004
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A ballooning budget deficit and low savings rate pose risks to the U.S. economy and the financial system, New York
Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner said on Thursday.
"The current deterioration in the U.S. fiscal position and the acute decline in the net national savings rate represent risks to the financial
system and the economy as a whole," Geithner told the New York Banker's Association.
Geithner said such looming risks were made all the more worrying by the size of the U.S. current account deficit and the unprecedented scale
of financing needed to fund it.
7. Rolling back tax cuts would cause interest rates to skyrocket killing the economy
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2004
Even so, let's consider what might happen if Democrats got their wish and clobbered the rich with a tax increase.
One result would likely be higher interest rates -- precisely the opposite of what happened in the 1990s -- especially if last year's cuts in dividend and capital gains were
repealed.
Follow the logic: Taking back Bush's capital gains and dividend tax cuts alone would reduce the returns on investment. With rewards diminished,
less capital would be put at risk. Less investment would occur in new business ventures. The stock market would plunge.
Foreign investors would immediately recalibrate America's future growth potential. Capital that might have found a home here would end
up elsewhere. To compensate, interest rates would have to rise to prop up the dollar, triggering a vicious cycle: Rising rates would slow
economic growth, further reducing investment returns and further undercutting America's ability to compete for capital.
Page 59
Tax Cuts Good: Evidence comparison

Prefer our arguments
1. Empirically proven
Chicago Tribune, 2006
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/opinion/13616010.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
In a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago, he recalled the predictions of Democrats who said those tax reductions would "undermine the economy."
Someone forgot to tell the economy: In 2005, it grew by a solid 3.6 percent, added 2 million jobs and reduced unemployment to 4.9 percent.
On Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 11,000 for the first time since before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
2. Consensus of qualified economists agree

US Newswire, 2004
The current jump in economic growth could quickly return to a slump if Congress repeals recent tax cuts or enacts new taxes on a key
incentive for start-up businesses. That's the message 116 economists, led by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, delivered to lawmakers today in an
open letter organized by the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU). "Economic recovery is always tricky, but heightened international tensions and the post 9/11
threat of domestic Terrorism add to the difficulties," the statement explained. "Consequently, Congress needs to be especially careful not to enact tax policy which would
harm financial markets, businesses, or consumers." Signatories hailed from a broad cross-section of academic institutions, think tanks, and private economic analysis firms.
NTU drafted the letter in response to two controversial tax proposals that Congress may consider after it returns to session next week. Some lawmakers seek repeal of
all or part of the tax reductions enacted over the past three years, a move the signatories contend "would hurt the private sector, and consequently generate
far less revenue than tax hike proponents claim." The economists stated that the tax cuts have "been quite beneficial to the economy" because they
"have both lowered the aggregate tax burden and also lowered government-imposed barriers -- such as high marginal tax rates -- to economic growth."
Yet another often-discussed scheme would limit the amount of stock option expense a firm may deduct from taxable income to the actual amount reported in financial
statements. "The effect of this change," the economists point out, "would be to raise billions in taxes, because private sector accounting rules ... would leave companies with
little choice but to take a deduction for options based on the lower 'fair value' when they are issued, rather than the higher 'intrinsic value' when exercised." Besides unfairly
denying the full tax deduction for the real expense businesses incur in providing options, changing the tax law would also adversely impact small start-up firms, who must
issue options because they often cannot afford to compete for talent with cash compensation. The signatories acknowledged that Congress should be "rightly concerned about
federal budget deficits," but nonetheless urged lawmakers "to recognize that the deficits have been caused by the economic slowdown and a run-up in federal
spending." They concluded that "Congress should address its spending excesses and also enact policies that further economic growth. But the federal government
should not hike taxes by reversing the recent tax cuts or by limiting what firms may deduct as stock option expenses. These actions are wrong and would
imperil the economic recovery now underway."
Page 60
Currency Dump Turn

Obama will pressure China on Currency
Council on Foreign Relations “The Candidates on U.S. Policy toward China” 12/17/2007
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14946/candidates_on_us_policy_toward_russia.html#346
Sen. Clinton, unlike many of her fellow candidates, has chosen to focus a significant portion of her campaign rhetoric on China’s economic impact
on the United States, which she says is causing “a slow erosion of our own economic sovereignty.”
In February 2007, after the Dow Jones Industrial
Average dropped by 416 points as a result of a “scare in the Chinese stock market,” Clinton wrote a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging them to take action to reduce Chinese-owned debts. She is also concerned
about China’s economic practices, including the revaluation of the yuan, saying in a CNBC interview that she wants “the countries with
whom we do business to have protections for intellectual property; I want them to have a rule of law that is enforceable; I want them to not
manipulate their currency.” With fellow candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Clinton will cosponsor a bill to penalize China (FT) if it does not
act to revalue its currency. Clinton has been critical of China ’s human rights record as well.
China-bashing legislation destroys the WTO and causes global trade wars
Ikenson 8/20/2007 (Daniel, associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, “Dark Days Ahead?”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8649)
But policymakers fail to acknowledge this crucial relationship. Instead, too many in Congress view exports as Good, imports as bad, and the trade account as the scoreboard.
Given the large and growing U.S. trade deficit, policymakers conclude that we are losing at trade. And we are losing at trade because our trade
partners are cheating. In China's case the alleged cheating involves currency manipulation, subsidization of industry, unfair labor practices, hidden
market barriers, dumping, and other transgressions. Some of these allegations may carry a degree of truth, but by and large the trade relationship has been conducted within
the rules and consensually, yielding huge benefits for Americans. In any event, the proper course for redress for complaints is through the dispute settlement system of the
World Trade Organization. The Bush administration lodged three formal complaints earlier this year, which are working their way through the process. Congress should allow
that process to continue and restrain its urge to be seen doing something. There is a distinct risk that unilateral, punitive actions on trade could severely
damage the trade relationship and lead to a contagious deterioration of respect for the WTO and its decisions. That, ultimately, would take
us back to the days when tit-for-tat trade wars were common, and uncertainty in trade prevailed.
Nuclear war and extinction

Copley News Service ’99 (December 1, L/N)
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing
the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that
threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with
other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some
Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're
not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the
demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father
of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and
other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have
been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they
have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the
United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the Goods we produce, the threat
of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the
everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies
that make high-tech Goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have Good jobs at
Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at
Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of
jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to
live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world
trade. They should be celebrating it.
Page 61
Yucca Mountain Good

Yucca Moutain is key to maintain US international proliferation credibility under the NPT
Robert Busby GW J. Int'l L. & Econ “THE UNITED STATES'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY IS
THREATENING ITS ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION”. 1997
The U.S. commercial nuclear industry may need to store its own high-level waste on-site for many more years. 261 As a result, the
commercial nuclear industry and its associated state governments will only increase their protests, resisting the acceptance of foreign waste
until the DOE actually begins to accept domestic waste for storage. To avoid increased domestic discontent regarding acceptance of foreign waste, the U.S. government must
begin acting responsibly at least to move toward meeting its January 31, 1998 deadline. 262 The United States now appears ready to follow the example of
other nuclear nations and construct an interim storage facility before building a permanent storage facility. 263 The DOE, however, does not believe that it has
the statutory authority to mandate this interim storage solution. 264 In addition, the secretary of energy expressed concern that the planned interim storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada will become a "de facto" permanent site
Congress and the president chose Yucca Mountain as the
before the department can determine whether siting a permanent storage facility is feasible. 265 In the NWPA amendments of 1987,
site for the permanent storage facility. 266 The DOE studied Yucca Mountain for ten [*479] years, assessing its appropriateness as a
permanent storage site. 267 The Yucca Mountain site remains the only suggested location. 268 An interim storage facility at Yucca
Mountain would alleviate the U.S. domestic storage problem. It would also facilitate U.S. international nuclear nonproliferation goals by
providing storage space to accept foreign waste under programs like RERTR. As a less appealing alternative, the United States could continue to accept
these relatively smaller amounts of international waste at federal facilities, such as Savannah River. An interim storage facility would allow the United States
to continue its support of the goals set forth in Article IV of the NPT. 269 If such a facility existed in 1995, for example, the United States could have
immediately accepted all of Russia's HEU. 270 If such a facility exists in the near future, the United States could at least temporarily hold North
Korea's SNF until reprocessing or other storage becomes available. 271 The United States will enjoy this type of flexibility in the future if a centralized storage system is in place. Under
the DOE's current interpretation of the applicable laws, even an interim facility could not accept foreign waste. The DOE reasons that the funds to create the interim facility come from the Nuclear Waste Fund of the 1982 NWPA.
The authority to accept some of the foreign waste, however, comes from the Atomic Energy Act. 272 To resolve this procedural problem, the DOE could assess a storage fee for storing waste in the central facility. The United
States must identify a solution to this problem to maintain its credibility under the NPT.
Yucca Mountain 1nc

Collapse of US non-prolif leadership collapses hegemony and causes great power wars
The impact is global nuclear war

Khalilzad 95 [Zalmay, RAND Corporation, Losing The Moment? Washington Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2, p. 84]
Global Leadership
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.
Page 62
Yucca Mountain Good

Yucca Mountain is key to the revival of the US Nuclear Power industry
Baltimore Sun 2/16/2002
Nevada's governor, Kenny Guinn, a Republican, is expected to formally object to Bush's selection of the site. That action would shift the decision to Congress, which will
have 90 days to vote on it. If both houses of Congress approve the plan by a majority vote, the Energy Department will have 90 days to submit a license application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If the project moves forward, Yucca Mountain will become a $58 billion temple honoring the survival of
commercial nuclear power in this country, which is the nation's second-largest source of energy after coal and generates about 2,000 tons
of waste a year. If the plan stalls, Yucca Mountain could become the mausoleum in which the industry is buried. No new U.S. nuclear
plants have been built since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. And none is likely to be built until a permanent home is found for the
spent fuel.
US nuclear power is key the economy, leadership and to solve prolif

M.R. Buckner Chair of the ANS Special Committee and T.L. Sanders Strategic consultant for the strategic Materials tech department “Activities of the ANS Special
Committee on Nuclear Nonproliferation” Nuclear News Feb. 2001 http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2001488/ms2001488.html
The greatest minds that we have nationally to weigh in on this question have done so, and they believe that the
failure to have a strong nuclear energy research
and development program will diminish our national security, our economic competitiveness, and the public well-being. The bottom line is that
as our primacy in nuclear R&D declines, we will lose our ability to participate on the world stage and to observe and understand the
civilian nuclear programs of emerging nations. U.S. leadership in world nuclear policy is a national security imperative. A Global Nuclear
Materials Management Initiative was started in early 1998 to articulate a framework and vision to assure safe, secure, and legitimate use of nuclear materials
worldwide as nuclear technology is developed and deployed. A task force led by Sen. Sam Nunn and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
evaluated the current state of U.S. leadership and developed recommendations for a path forward. Senator Nunn eloquently stated a call for action: The world simply
cannot afford delay in addressing the urgent security hazards posed by nuclear insecurity in the FSU [former Soviet Union]. There is little remaining
margin for continued decay of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure if the United States is to be technically credible in non-proliferation
leadership in the twenty-first century. The opportunities are there; an investment of a few billion dollars, properly applied, could
dramatically reduce the risks the world now faces. The fundamental requirement is leadership. The time to act is now—before a
catastrophe occurs.5
Page 63
Senate Elections DA: Uniqueness: Democrats win

Democrats will likely win the Senate election
Rothenberg June 24, 2008
Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper. June 24, 2008. Are Senate Races Moving in One
Direction?. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/are_senate_races_moving_in_one.html
The next most vulnerable Senate seat, in Minnesota, has moved toward the Republicans in recent weeks. GOP strategists have successfully
put presumptive Democratic-Farmer-Labor nominee Al Franken on the defensive, both over his nonpayment of certain taxes and, more importantly, a
variety of statements he has made over the years. Franken has defended his remarks by insisting that they were part of his shtick and intended as satire, not statements of his
beliefs. But his language has been crude and his comedy often biting, and even some Democratic officeholders have expressed concern about his judgment.
Republican Sen. Norm Coleman has benefited in the polls of late, and even though Franken has time to change the dynamic of the race, it
now seems likely that the comedian turned politician will have to defend hIMSelf repeatedly over the next four months. At the very least, that
puts the challenger constantly on the defensive, improving Coleman's prospects. There are no signs of movement in Alaska, and that's Good news for
Democrats. Polls continue to show challenger Mark Begich (D) leading Sen. Ted Stevens (R) narrowly. The longer that race stays tight, the
better for Democrats, who are trying to knock off a state political icon. The fact that the Maine race has not closed in surveys widely
viewed as reliable is disappointing news for Democrats. GOP Sen. Susan Collins continues to be well-regarded and has a comfortable lead
over her challenger, Rep. Tom Allen (D). Sitting in a blue state that went for Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Collins would seem
to be a perfect target in a "wave" election, but so far, her prospects are undimmed. Democrats remain upbeat about Jeff Merkley's chances
of ousting Sen. Gordon Smith in Oregon, but I'm not convinced that they are any closer to doing that now than they were four or five
months ago. True, the recent decision by Independent John Frohmayer to drop his Senate candidacy is Good news for Merkley. But it is difficult to see it as all that
significant, especially since Democrats spent so much time and effort arguing that Frohmayer's candidacy was inconsequential when he was a candidate. If they were right
that he wasn't going to be a factor in the race, they cannot now claim that his exit is all that important. Still, this definitely is a race to watch for possible "wave" evidence,
and Smith almost certainly will have a fight on his hands all the way to November. If a wave develops, the three best places to watch may well be North
Carolina, Kentucky and Mississippi. Democratic prospects in all three seem to have improved recently (especially after post-primary polling in North Carolina and
Kentucky), giving the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee more options in the campaign's final months. Even Republicans seem increasingly nervous
about Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), who hasn't released polling numbers since February and has been up on TV since late May. Dole's
opponent, state Sen. Kay Hagan (D), has some liabilities, but I have little doubt about her work ethic. Finally, the Louisiana Senate race, pitting
incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) against her GOP challenger, John Kennedy, hasn't changed at all. Polls show the Senator ahead, but the fundamentals almost guarantee a
close race. In sum, developments in two states, Minnesota and Maine, should have Republicans optimistic, while Democrats have reasons to
be happy about some longer-shot races, as well as their top takeover opportunities.
Page 64
Senate Elections DA: Uniqueness: Democrats win

Democrats will win the senate – political wave effect.
Rothenberg June 24, 2008
Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper. June 24, 2008
Are Senate Races Moving in One Direction?. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/are_senate_races_moving_in_one.html
Senate election cycles normally take one of two paths.

Either all the close races fall toward one party in a political "wave," or individual races are decided by race-specific factors, particularly the
quality of the candidates, the power of incumbency and local issues. We've had cycles when both parties have suffered a substantial
number of defeats with only a minimal net change of Senate seats (1976 and 1978 are prime examples), but that's not going to happen this cycle.
Republicans have only a single reasonable opportunity for a takeover this year. We've had four noteworthy Senate "waves" in the past 28
years, in 2006, 1994, 1986 and 1980, and it's possible that we'll see another one this year. But it's also possible that all the talk about Democratic
Senate opportunities is just a bit over-hyped, and that Democrats will have a Good year, not a great one. One way of anticipating whether a
wave is likely to develop is to monitor competitive Senate contests periodically to determine whether they are moving in one direction.
That's what I intend to do in this column. Of course, any wave may not show itself until after the two presidential nominating conventions. Still, the way individual
Senate races move in the near term may offer some clue about a trend. I must begin with one caveat: In evaluating races, I do not factor in certain widely
circulated polls, including those conducted by Rasmussen Reports, that I regard as less reliable. (In other words, I treat some polls as if they don't even exist.)
Democrats continue to be well-positioned to take over three GOP-held seats: open seats in Virginia and New Mexico, and Sen. John
Sununu's seat in New Hampshire. There is no evidence of significant movement in any of those contests, though Republicans continue to
insist that Sununu's race will close. Democrats, of course, don't need movement in any of the contests. They lead in all three.
Page 65
Aff: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link

Uniqueness overwhelms the link—the election is not close—claIMS otherwise are fabricated by the media
Hogarth—2008 (Paul Hogarth is a Potential Field Operate in San Francisco for the Obama Campaign, ““Flag City” Just Another Media
Myth About Obama”, 7/1/08, http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5826)
Yesterday’s Washington Post had a front-page piece on Findlay, Ohio – the “Flag City” – where small-town voters in the ultimate swing
state still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. What the Post didn’t report is that Findlay voted 2-1 for George Bush in 2004, and in
2006 rejected Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (who won a landslide victory statewide.) It’s just the latest example of the media
projecting the myth that the Presidential race is somehow close, and grasping for non-existent trends to keep it alive.
But reality says otherwise. Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats
are “divided.” State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes – with hints that November could
become a rout. Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as “outliers,” along with the constant reminder that
Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates). The media won’t admit that the Presidential
race is over, and Obama is going to win.
Uniqueness overwhelms the link—Obama will crush the election—The Democratic Base, Women Latinos
But anyone who closely follows the election online knows that Obama has solidified the Democratic Party base – and is on a clear path to
winning the presidency in November. After Hillary Clinton suspended her primary campaign and endorsed Obama, pundits wrote (and still
write) stories about disgruntled Hillary supporters who will vote for John McCain in the November election. Women are not supposed to
vote for Obama because, according to Geraldine Ferraro, he’s run a “terribly sexist campaign.” Latinos are supposedly too racist to vote for
a black candidate – and pundits say a sizable number will vote Republican (ignoring the party’s xenophobic jihad on immigration policy.)
But the facts are getting into the way of that theory. A recent poll shows Latinos breaking 62-28 for Obama over McCain, with other polls
showing similar results. When you consider that Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, it’s obvious that Latinos are deserting the G.O.P.
in droves. Along with labor’s unprecedented get-out-the-vote effort to target that community in November, Obama is likely to pick up
either Colorado, New Mexico or Nevada – and possibly all three states.
And McCain has more to worry about Republican women deserting him than vice versa. Not only have Democratic women united behind
Obama, but polling shows McCain’s anti-choice record (once women hear about it) is going to be a huge liability. “I'm sure there are
female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election,” said Katha Pollitt in The Nation, “but I don't think too
many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane.”
Uniqueness overwhelms the link—Obama will win all the Swing States
Obama will win the general because he has a solidified lead in all the states John Kerry won in 2004 – even swing states like Michigan,
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. While the blue states won’t be enough to win the Presidency, it prevents Obama from having to play defense
– giving him 252 electoral votes in the bag and shifting the battle into traditionally Republican states.
To surpass the magic number of 270, Obama just needs to win all the Kerry states, Colorado (where he’s been consistently ahead in the
polls) and Virginia (whose demographic shift favors Democrats.) But Obama is likely to also win Iowa and New Mexico (Gore won both),
and he’s ahead in Ohio – regardless of what people in “Flag City” believe. Florida will be tough but winnable, while Nevada, Montana,
Missouri and North Carolina are all still in play. Even Georgia – where Obama is firing up the state’s many black voters and young voters,
coupled with former Congressman Bob Barr playing spoiler for McCain – could generate an upset and help Obama win that state.
But what's even more encouraging is how Obama's strategy differs from John Kerry. In 2004, Kerry’s chances dwindled as the campaign
zeroed in on fewer swing states – precluding the odds of winning and not leaving much room for error. When he stopped advertising in
Arkansas and Missouri to focus on Ohio, he reduced his supporters in those states to mere bystanders. But that won’t happen this time –
with superior resources and more grassroots supporters, Obama is running a “50 state strategy” that will give all his supporters something
to do. The campaign is even putting money in states like Texas where they have virtually no chance of winning – but a little help could put
Democrats running in targeted races over the finish line.
Page 66
Aff: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link

Uniqueness Overwhelms the link—Polls prove—Arguments otherwise are just media myths
Nevertheless, the mainstream media still acts like this is a horse race – even when their own national polls show Obama winning by double
digits. Newsweek recently had Obama up by 15 points, while the Los Angeles Times had him up by 12 points – but the press dismissed
these polls as mere outliers. Of course, polls are just a sample of the electorate -- and you can never be sure if a single poll is a fluke or an
accurate trendsetter. But when a series of polls start showing the same pattern, it becomes impossible to ignore.
Naturally, nervous Democrats refuse to believe that these latest polls show Obama is going to win – because they’re still haunted by the
ghost of Michael Dukakis (who famously blew a 17-point lead in 1988.) But Obama is not like Dukakis, Kerry or Gore – who failed to
excite their base and resisted fighting back at the right-wing noise machine. Not only has Obama proven a willingness to be a “street-
fighter” in this campaign when he faces attacks, but the Democratic base is likely to turn out in droves for him – regardless of what they
think his chances are at prevailing. Because the media is fixated on the narrative that Democrats are divided and Obama is a “weak”
candidate, they focus on any sign of his vulnerabilities without an overall context of what it means for the presidential race. The fact that
some voters in “Flag City” think that Obama is a Muslim doesn’t mean he will lose Ohio – and it certainly doesn’t belong on the front page
of the Washington Post. Democrats should work hard for Obama in the general election regardless of what the odds are – but they
shouldn’t let the media’s myth cow them into believing John McCain has a shot.
Page 67
Aff: Elections Improbable

Voters have ADD—they wont decide till 24 hours before polls open
Caruba—2008 (Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center “Election Day Scenarios”,
6/24/08, http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=22025)
One suspects that both candidates will be counting on the short memories of voters and, possibly, a great deal of voter fatigue by the time
Election Day rolls around. It is likely that a lot of voters will not make up their mind until within 24 hours of the polls opening. We have
evolved into a nation suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder.
Page 68
Non Unique: McCain wins

McCain will Win—11 warrants (people see Obama has ill-equipped for foreign policy, large republican turnout, independent votes,
senior votes, low turn out of young votes, racism, Hispanic votes, low turn out of traditional Democrats due to Obama/Hillary fighting,
blue-color voters will cross line, evangelic voters, and gun-owners)
So one scenario is a huge blow-out for Obama and the Democrats. The “change” he has been advocating would increase the Democrat’s
control over Congress and put him in the Oval Office. The downside of this is that he may well be the least prepared person for the job
since Andrew Johnson replaced Lincoln.
A second scenario is that the next election, like so many before it in recent election cycles, proves to be agonizingly close as Republicans,
waking from their stupor, turn out in sufficient numbers to defeat Obama with lots of help from the independents. McCain may be old, but
one third of the population is old too. And they vote! The kids that are all worked up over “change” and “hope” are going to be too busy
playing video games and text messaging to vote.
A third scenario is that America’s famed racism rears its ugly head and Obama gets blown away as white voters turn out in droves to make
sure he does not get any closer to the White House than an invitation to tea. Ironically, Hispanic voters are quite likely to vote against him
as well. There is no love lost between Hispanic-Americans and Afro-Americans. When asked to identify themselves racially, Hispanics put
a check mark in the “white” box.
A fourth scenario, put forth by World Net Daily, is that it will be an election where large numbers of voters simply stay home. The theory is
that disaffected supporters of Hillary Clinton will not want to cast a vote for Obama after having their hopes of a woman president dashed.
How many Republicans, unhappy with their candidate, decide not to vote is too difficult to say, but it remains a possibility, though a dim
one. Republicans are patriots at heart and not likely to abandon their party or their nation. Many are already convinced Obama is a
Communist.
Given that many Democrats swoon whenever they see Obama, their vote is assured, though some may, as in the days of Reagan, cross over
to McCain because they are blue-color, evangelicals, gun-owners, or for comparable reasons. This is entirely likely. It also returns us to the
second scenario of a very tight win for McCain.
Flip-Flopping to drill in ANWR would win McCain the election

I have a friend who believes, as I do, that if McCain would climb down off his little Green environmental cloud and declare he is for
drilling here, i.e. ANWR and in States known to have oil reserves, and drilling now, the election would be his. Neither of us think he’s
smart enough to do that
Page 69

PoliticsDA - Fellows

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PoliticsDA - Fellows

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kumar, Moliver, Beardon Kentucky Fellows 08

Party Time: 1NC

Party Time: 1NC

[ ] McCain will go to war with Iran

[ ] US-Iran War leads to global conflagration

And, Timeframe’s important - quick economic collapse means

Obama Wins: Wall

Obama Wins: Wall

AT: Uniqueness O/W Link

4. It will be a close election: polls prove

Plan Popular Link

Americans overwhelmingly support alternative energy

Alternative energies popular with the public

Public has strong support for alternative energy, my evidence is comparative

Solar Power Popular Link

Solar power politically and publically popular

The public supports solar energy

Geothermal Power Popular Link

Brazilian Ethanol Link

And that kills his popularity

Nuclear Power Unpopular Link

Do Nothing Congress Link

Oil Lobbies Link

Oil Lobbies control the legislative process

McCain Likes Alternative Energy

Nuclear Power Popular

Nuclear technology popularity growing now – recent energy policies prove

McCain supports Nuke Power

Bush Matters – Internal

Bush Matters – Internal

Bush has appeared more like the invisible man to one

Hispanics are crucial due to their political clout in important electorates

Independents are crucial to the election

Independents are crucial, they’re spending tons of money

Independents outweigh Hard Right

Everyone is key- Goldilocks.

Women are a major voting block

Older women are a major voting block

Senior citizens are crucial in key swing states.

Religious Right = Dead

The religious right has lost its clout

Battleground States Internal

Alternative Energy = Election Issue

Energy issues will figure prominently in 2008 presidential election

Energy issues will have unprecedented prominence in 2008 presidential election

Energy has spiked in its importance to voters in recent months

Climate/Environment key 2008 Election Issue

Climate issue has potential to transform 2008 presidential election

Iran Strikes Bad

Sweeter 1NC Impact

This causes proliferation

Turkish relations are key to central Asian stability

Central Asian war escalates globally

Super spike causes global depression

Economic collapse causes nuclear war

History bears out that desperate

Tax Cuts Bad 1NC

Tax Cuts increase the federal deficits undermining economy.

Tax Cuts Bad 1NC

Yucca Mountain Bad 1NC

Waste storage at Yucca Mountain will cause nuclear volcanoes

This will end the survival of the human race

CTBT Good 1NC

Failure of US to ratify CTBT will enable terrorists to use nuclear weapons