You are on page 1of 58

SDI 08 BHR 1

CONGRESS DISAD

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS.........................................................................................................................................3
A) UNIQUENESS—THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES FOR A SUPERMAJORITY NOW BUT
IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET THERE................................................................................................................................3
FRANDSEN, 7-1-08.......................................................................................................................................................3
Jon, Senior Editor, Kiplinger.com..................................................................................................................................3
........................................................................................................................................................................................4
B) LINK. ADOPTING A NEW ENERGY POLICY BEFORE THE ELECTION WOULD MASSIVELY BOOST
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.....................................................................................................................................4
Nyquist 05. (J.R, expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributing editor, “The
Political Consequences of a Financial Crash,” February 4,
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0204.html)....................................................6
LINK EXTENSIONS....................................................................................................................................................9
NUCLEAR POWER LINK..........................................................................................................................................18
AT: PRESIDENT GETS THE BLAME........................................................................................................................19
AT: DEMS CAN’T GET 60..........................................................................................................................................20
AT: MCCAIN WINS....................................................................................................................................................21
IMPACTS......................................................................................................................................................................23
ECONOMY..................................................................................................................................................................23
If the Democrats had 60 votes, they'd have a far, far greater chance of enacting such Obama proposals as expanding
health care to the uninsured, and raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.......................................28
PREMATURE IRAQ PULL OUT................................................................................................................................29
......................................................................................................................................................................................33
LEADERSHIP..............................................................................................................................................................34
CHINA..........................................................................................................................................................................35
DEMOCRATS GOOD DISAD.....................................................................................................................................38
UNIQUENESS..............................................................................................................................................................38
LINK.............................................................................................................................................................................43
IMPACTS......................................................................................................................................................................44
IRAQ PULL OUT GOOD............................................................................................................................................45
U.S. troop presence causes Iraqi civil violence– your impact is terminally non-unique – only way to solve for civil
war is withdrawal......................................................................................................................................................45
Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins University Center in Italy and
president of the Monterey Institute of International Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National
Defense U, “Two Retired Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php).....45
The current U.S. policy in Iraq is hurting the global war on terror. The war continues to expend finite resources,
erode military readiness, strain long-standing alliances, and inflame the Muslim world.
It does not have to be this way. By announcing a schedule for withdrawal, the U.S. sends a message to Iraqis and
all citizens of the world that we believe Iraq is capable of making decisions about its future and controlling its
resources. We declare our disinterest in using Iraq as a permanent platform for regional dominance.....................47
Terrorists use the U.S. military presence to gain more followers – this is systemic – the longer the presence, the
more intense their recruitment will be......................................................................................................................48
Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins University Center in Italy and
president of the Monterey Institute of International Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National
Defense U, “Two Retired Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php).....48
Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins University Center in Italy and
president of the Monterey Institute of International Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National
Defense U, “Two Retired Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php).....49
Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins University Center in Italy and
president of the Monterey Institute of International Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National
Defense U, “Two Retired Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php).....49
US cred was jacked by war – extending troop presence can’t solve – their impact is terminally non-unique.........52
SDI 08 BHR 2
CONGRESS DISAD

Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins University Center in Italy and
president of the Monterey Institute of International Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National
Defense U, “Two Retired Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php).....52
Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins University Center in Italy and
president of the Monterey Institute of International Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National
Defense U, “Two Retired Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php).....53
Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins University Center in Italy and
president of the Monterey Institute of International Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National
Defense U, “Two Retired Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php).....54
AFF ANSWERS ..........................................................................................................................................................55
SDI 08 BHR 3
CONGRESS DISAD

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS

A) UNIQUENESS—THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES FOR


A SUPERMAJORITY NOW BUT IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET THERE

FRANDSEN, 7-1-08

Jon, Senior Editor, Kiplinger.com


What once seemed ludicrous to consider is now distinctly possible: Democrats could win a 60-seat,
filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That would give them enough votes to exercise real control over
the chamber, significantly reducing the ability of the minority to relegate Democratic priorities to the
legislative graveyard.
Is such an outcome likely? Not yet. It would require a Democratic wave of support so huge that it could
sweep away seats long held by popular incumbents in solidly red states. The danger signs of such a
political tsunami are clearly in evidence, but the election is still too far off, and the mood of the electorate too volatile, for any political
analyst to confidently conclude that a solid trend is taking shape.
But Republicans should be deeply troubled. The prospect of Democrats picking up the nine or more seats they would need to hit the magic number of 60 is
far more conceivable at this stage of the campaign than the idea that Democrats could take control of the Senate was in 2006. Such a notion on
Independence Day two years ago seemed preposterous to Republicans and a pipe dream for Democrats.
It's hard to overstate the political power that would come with the ability to routinely block GOP-led
filibusters. That would be a huge advantage for a President Barack Obama and a giant headache for a
President John McCain. It would make it far more likely that Democrats could achieve goals long
thwarted by Republicans -- everything from funding for the Iraq war to civil liberties issues to the current
housing relief bill that is bottled up.
One of the biggest problems for Republicans right now is that the very idea of a Democratic landslide
makes the job of holding on to vulnerable seats even harder. The snowball effect is a very real
phenomenon in politics.
Momentum is more than a matter of perception. When it seems apparent this early in a campaign, it translates
into substantive things that spell success on Election Day: money, organization and, ultimately, turnout. Not
to mention that it can suck up oxygen from the other side. The campaign troops become dispirited and
money dries up -- and the number of races that need a good turnout and lots of money just keeps expanding.
Under the best of circumstances, this was always destined to be a tough year for Senate Republicans. They start off having to defend five open seats --
Virginia, Idaho, New Mexico, Nebraska and Colorado -- because of retirements (while the Democrats have none). They can count on losing at least three of
those. Then there are at least four seats that lean toward Democrats or are toss-ups: Alaska, New Hampshire, Oregon and Mississippi, where the seat vacated
by Trent Lott has been filled since December by Republican appointee Roger Wicker. The GOP can anticipate losing at least two of those. In addition,
Maine and Minnesota, which lean Democratic but have GOP incumbents, could easily slip in a strong Democratic year. Meanwhile, the only seat
Republicans have a realistic chance to pick up is the one held by Mary Landrieu in Louisiana.
That means in the very best of circumstances, Republicans lose a net of four seats. In a year so favorable to Democrats, a half dozen is more likely, and
seven or even eight is certainly possible.
However, there is a far bigger danger sign for Republicans. A growing number of seats in states that would normally be regarded as safe -- seats held by
veteran incumbents in solidly red states -- appear vulnerable. Polls show that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Elizabeth Dole of
North Carolina, Pat Roberts of Kansas and John Cornyn of Texas face credible challenges. McConnell appears to be in the most trouble. Dole has a double-
digit lead in most polls, but North Carolina is one of several Southern states that Democrats think Barack Obama could win, which would hurt her. Also,
polls in all four of those states show the incumbents hovering at or under 50% -- a sure political distress signal.
If Democrats were to win even two of those seats, it would signal that a wave of national discontent had reached deep into traditionally Republican
enclaves. It would be a sure bet that the vast majority of the more vulnerable incumbents in the other states would be swept away as well.
Multiple factors are working against Republicans right now:
Senate races are generally local affairs and independent of national issues, but these trends suggest that
voters are seeing Senate contests this year as more of a national referendum and appear ready to
reward one party and punish the other for what they see as the sour state of the union, just as they did in
2006.
The GOP is a deeply wounded party: Self-identified Democrats comfortably outnumber Republicans. Worse, the party is viewed with much skepticism by
much of the country, including many in the conservative base who believe their party has lost its ideological bearings. "If we were dog food, they would
take us off the shelf," says veteran GOP strategist Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia.
Not only is the party in danger of seeing its own base suppressed and that of the Democrats energized, there is a wave of new voters, the vast majority of
them Democrats and supporters of Obama. While incumbency is normally a huge advantage, it is of little meaning to these new and mostly younger voters.
The same goes for many voters who reliably show up during presidential election years but skip most others.
With such potent forces at play and gathering strength, the idea of Democrats gaining 10 or even 11 seats is well within
the realm of reason.
SDI 08 BHR 4
CONGRESS DISAD

B) LINK. ADOPTING A NEW ENERGY POLICY BEFORE THE


ELECTION WOULD MASSIVELY BOOST DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

MILLER 7-17-08

S.A. Miller –Washington Timeshttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/17/capitol-hill-hits-low-in-ratings/.

Self-proclaimed Democrats - disgruntled by the failure of their party's leaders to keep key campaign promises -
pushed Congress' job-approval rating to an all-time low in a Gallup Poll out Wednesday.
Driven by a staggering 12 percentage point plunge among Democrats, Congress' approval rating dropped to a record-
low 14 percent in July.
"Unless this Congress comes up with an energy policy that makes sense to the American people, it could go down
even lower," said Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat. "I strongly suggest the leadership get us on energy and
keep us focused on getting oil prices down. ... [Voters] see through the bluster of both sides."
The survey suggests Congress is taking the brunt of the blame for the country's economic woes, as President Bush's
approval rating holds steady at about 31 percent, and casts doubt on the prospect of massive Democratic gains in the
November elections.
Since taking control of Congress last year, Democrats have been unable to deliver on campaign promises to wean
the country off its dependence on foreign oil and end the Iraq war, although they kept pledges to raise the minimum
wage, expand benefits for war veterans, extend unemployment insurance and raise automobile fuel-efficiency standards.
"I think people are frustrated in general. They are concerned about the economy. They are concerned about high gas
prices. They are worried about the cost of home heating oil come the winter. They feel uncertain about the future," said
Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat.
"The other thing, too, is that there are a lot of liberals who are frustrated the war is still going on," he said.
Gallup called the rock-bottom rating "extraordinary." It marked the lowest opinion of Congress in the 34 years that the
Princeton, N.J.-based pollsters asked the question and just the sixth time the rating dipped below 20 percent, with four of
those below-20 ratings occurring in the past year.
The other low points were a 19 percent rating in March 1992, during the House bank check-kiting scandal, and an 18
percent rating in June 1979, during the oil crisis that caused a spike in gasoline prices and long lines at gas stations.
Capitol Hill Democrats said President Bush's low popularity and Republicans' refusal to pass Democratic legislation
dragged down Congress' score.
"It's always been my experience that Congress follows the low point for a president," said Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Democrat.
Wednesday's poll, which registered a five percentage point drop in Congress' rating from June to July, showed
Democrats' approval fell to 11 percent from 23 percent. Republican and independent voters take on Congress'
performance remained largely unchanged at about 19 percent, the poll showed.
"They want to blame everybody except themselves for the problems we have. ... It's a sad state. It says a whole lot about
the lack of leadership by the majority here in Congress. They are not addressing the issues the American people
want them to address," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
Gallup pollsters said one reason Congress is losing support while Mr. Bush's numbers are steady is that the president has
retained a core of Republican loyalists who appear ready to stick with him through the end of his term.
They noted that Congress may simply be less able to engender as much political loyalty and typically trails the president
in approval ratings. However, the Democrat-led Congress held much less intraparty support than Republican leaders
maintained even in 2006.
Sen. Kent Conrad said the poll reflected public outcry against partisan squabbling on Capitol Hill.
"I think there is a call here for Congress to come together, especially on the energy front," the North Dakota
Democrat said. "That's what it takes. You can see it is very hard to get things done here if you don't have bipartisan
support."
SDI 08 BHR 5
CONGRESS DISAD

C) IMPACT

1) A STRONGER DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WILL LEAD TO TAXATION OF


HEDGE FUNDS

OROL 08

Ron Orol is a Washington-based reporter for The Deal and author of Extreme Value Hedging: How Activist
Hedge Fund Managers Are Taking on the World. 6-10-08
http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/06/hedge_funds_dodge_democratic_t.php.

Hedge fund managers can take a big sigh of relief, but watch out for 2009. Legislation that would have
eliminated a tax provision allowing some hedge fund managers to defer taxes on billions of dollars of
compensation came close to passing the Senate Tuesday, but in the end it was blocked.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., attached a deferred tax provision to a broader energy bill, all of which was
rejected by a filibuster from Republican senators. The measure would, in a nutshell, make hedge fund
managers pay taxes immediately on income that is now tax-deferred.
"This vote is proof positive that Senate Republicans are more interested in helping hedge fund managers
avoid taxes than helping working families," Kerry said on the Senate floor.
And while Kerry and other Democrat lawmakers remain frustrated by the outcome, hedge fund lobbying
groups assert that the end of the deferment would have stifled investment and hurt the liquidity that
hedge funds provide to the markets.
Of course, should Democrats obtain or get near to a filibuster proof majority of 60 senators following
the upcoming election, a similar rejection might be more difficult or impossible to achieve. A Senate
with 58 Democrats would have an easier time convincing (or strong-arming) a couple Republicans to
break ranks and back a bill. And if not, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., could offer a few
"incentives" like a bridge to nowhere.

2) THE HEDGE FUND TAX BILL WILL CRUSH THE U.S. ECONOMY

KERPEN 6-16-08

Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity. http://www.philkerpen.com/?q=node/173.

House Ways and Means chairman Charlie Rangel is once again jeopardizing legislation that would reduce
the incidence of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), holding it hostage to growth-crippling tax hikes. He
bragged last week that when it comes to tax hikes, he and House Democrats are “sticking to [their]
guns.” If he succeeds, he’s got enough bullets to take down taxpayers and the U. S. economy.
The AMT was never intended to apply to millions of middle-class families when it was put into action back in 1969. It was originally targeted at just 155 families who paid little or no
income tax. Poorly designed, and not indexed for inflation, the AMT is now poised to elevate tax bills for as many as 26 million Americans. Most fiscal conservatives believe the
AMT should be repealed outright, thus correcting a multi-decade policy mistake. But at the very least an AMT escalation should not be allowed to occur.
Many Democrats, led by Rangel, think otherwise. In their opinion, if an AMT tax hike is to be stopped, another tax hike — or several tax hikes — must be enacted.
Rangel’s ransom is steep. To begin, he is proposing a carried-interest tax, a bad idea that was thoroughly discredited when he advanced it last year.
The carried-interest tax, at a rate of 35 percent, would apply to gains realized by general partners in
investment partnerships, which include real-estate funds, venture-capital funds, oil and gas trusts, hedge
funds, and private-equity funds. This tax-hike bullet would tear a hole through the U.S. economy,
sending risk capital offshore at a time when our markets are starved for it. It also would act as a first step
toward raising the capital-gains tax for everyone, a policy move that many Democrats, including standard-bearer Barack Obama, now openly advocate.
Under current law, investment partners pay taxes on income based on the type of income earned. If ordinary income, they pay ordinary income-tax rates. If capital income, they pay
capital-gains tax rates. Currently, the capital-gains tax rate is lower than applicable income-tax rates.
By way of Rangel’s bill, however, investment partnerships would pay full ordinary income-tax rates on capital-gains income, even if that income is from the sale of corporate stock.
This goes against the rationale for having a separate capital-gains rate in the first place. A lower capital-gains rate alleviates the double taxation of corporate source income and avoids
taxing inflationary gains. It also encourages capital formation, entrepreneurship, and investment.
Now is a particularly bad time to wallop such risk-taking. Financial markets are still dealing with the
consequences of the housing collapse, and capital formation remains impaired.
SDI 08 BHR 6
CONGRESS DISAD

IT WOULD OBLITERATE THE WORLD ECONOMY

BUSH 06

Published 31 July 2006 Janet


http://www.newstatesman.com/200607310033

If hedge funds were a country, it would be the eighth-biggest on the planet. They can sink whole
economies, and have the potential to crash the entire global financial system. Yet they are beyond
regulation. We should be very afraid
Something ominous is going on in world finance - again. On 11 May, the US Federal Reserve, America's
central bank, raised rates and hinted that it might do so again. Wall Street wobbled but stock markets in the
emerging economies fell through the floor. Since that day, Colombia's stock market has slumped by 42 per
cent; Turkey's by 38 per cent; Pakistan and Egypt by 28 per cent; India by 25 per cent; the Czech Republic by
22 per cent.
Why? These fast-developing economies have been the recent darlings of the world's mobile capital, acting as
magnets for multinational corporations seeking new frontiers. Yes, the US economy is still the biggest in
the world and changes in US interest rates affect the entire global financial system. But there is
something very dark indeed at the heart of this story and it is called the hedge-fund industry - lords of havoc
who, a consensus is building, have the potential to be responsible for the next great crash - and nobody
knows what to do about it.

THE IMPACT IS MASSIVE STARVATION GLOBAL WAR AND THE UNLEASHING


OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Nyquist 05. (J.R, expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily


contributing editor, “The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash,” February
4, http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0204.html)

Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President
Bush, the American people will likely support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on
our market economy – guaranteeing its strangulation and the steady pauperization of the country. In Congress
today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas listed above. It is easy to see,
therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion, will
have serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the Democrats). Furthermore,
an economic contraction will encourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from
the free market system. The danger here is not merely economic. The political left openly favors the collapse
of America’s strategic position abroad. The withdrawal of the United States from the Middle East, the Far
East and Europe would catastrophically impact an international system that presently allows 6 billion people
to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market
and trading system that evolved under American leadership, the planet’s economy would contract and
untold millions would die of starvation. Nationalistic totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame,
would once again bring war to Asia and Europe. But this time the war would be waged with mass
destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the center of global capitalism.
Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of
appeasement and unilateral disarmament enacted. American appeasement and disarmament, in this context,
would be an admission of guilt before the court of world opinion. Russia and China, above all, would
exploit this admission to justify aggressive wars, invasions and mass destruction attacks. A future
financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs. But we cannot do this. As one observer recently
lamented, “We drank the poison and now we must die.”
SDI 08 BHR 7
CONGRESS DISAD

UNIQUENESS
DEMOCRATS WILL PICK UP SEATS NOW BUT NOT ENOUGH TO GET A
FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY

NUTTING 08

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/filibuster-proof-senate-tantalizingly-close-
democrats/story.aspx?guid=%7BB26F13DC-4CF2-4C7B-9304-4C131872F30F%7D
Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch.

When the polls say Senate seats in Republican bastions such as Alaska, Kentucky and Texas are vulnerable to
a Democratic takeover in November, you know it's the Democrats' year.
The Democrats, who now have 51 seats in the 100-member Senate (counting independents), are
beginning to dream of an almost unattainable goal: Reaching the magical 60 votes needed to exercise
absolute control of the chamber.
It's been 28 years since any party had the 60 Senate votes needed to end filibusters, the increasingly
common tactic used by the minority to obstruct and frustrate the will of the majority.
With six months to go before the election, analysts say the Democrats are likely to have a very good year,
but not quite good enough. "They are not going to get to 60," said Larry Sabato, a political science
professor at the University of Virginia who operates the Crystal Ball political newsletter and website.
Plenty can (and will) happen between now and November, of course. The current landscape looks very
favorable for the Democrats, and the tide is still moving their way, said Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen
Reports, whose poll showing a close race in Texas has shocked the Lone Star state.
"The underlying political fundamentals are bad for Republicans," Rasmussen said. Most importantly, voters
increasingly identify themselves as Democrats, with Democrats now outnumbering Republicans 41% to
31%.
Add in a weak economy, an unpopular war, an unpopular president, a large number of vacant Republican
seats, and a strong list of well-funded Democratic candidates, and you have makings of a Democratic
landslide. Rasmussen says 10 Republicans seats are in play this year, compared with just one Democratic
seat.

DEMOCRATS WON’T GET A FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY NOW BUT IT IS


POSSIBLE

MORAFF 6-23-08
Christopher Moraff, The Philadelphia Tribune. 6-23-08
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/88329/

Democrats hope that in November they'll pick up the seats necessary to put an end to that strategy,
giving them the first filibuster-proof majority in nearly 30 years. But analysts say that's a long shot.
According to Larry Sabato, professor of political science at the University of Virginia, of the 35 open
seats -- 22 Republican, 13 Democrat -- Democrats are likely to win 16, with another two, New Mexico
and Louisiana, toss ups.
"It is highly unlikely that Democrats will get the 60 Senate votes necessary to shut off filibusters," said
Sabato. "My guess is that they're going to pick up three to five [Republican] seats putting them
somewhere around 54, 55, or 56, but it's going to be awfully tough for them to get up to the 60 votes
that they'll need [to secure cloture votes]. That said it's a long way from November, so anything is
possible."
SDI 08 BHR 8
CONGRESS DISAD

DEMOCRATS WON’T GET A SUPERMAJORITY NOW

Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer


July 6, 2008

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-senate6-2008jul06,0,7335615.story

The stakes for Obama in the Senate races are high. If he is elected president, the biggest obstacle to his goals
could be in the Senate, where parliamentary rules mean that it can take 60 votes to approve legislation. The
Senate currently includes 49 Democrats and two independents who are aligned with the Democratic caucus.

"Big changes don't happen without big Senate majorities," Obama wrote in a recent letter urging
Democrats to contribute to Senate campaign coffers.

For now, most political analysts are predicting a Democratic gain of four to eight seats, which would
leave the party short of the 60-vote threshold. But Republicans are worried, because bigger gains are
not out of the question: Democratic fundraising is strong and the battlefield is heavily tilted against the
GOP.

"This is the toughest election in my 32 years in the United States Senate," wrote Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-
Utah), vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in a fundraising letter.

Senate Republicans are defending 23 seats; 12 Democratic seats are at stake. No Democrats are retiring -- a
good thing for the party, because it is usually easier to reelect an incumbent than to win an open seat.
SDI 08 BHR 9
CONGRESS DISAD

LINK EXTENSIONS
WHETHER THE PLAN IS POPULAR OR NOT IS NOT THE LINK. THE
DEMOCRATS ARE BEING DAMAGED BY CLAIMS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC
MAJORITY HASN’T BEEN ABLE TO GET THINGS DONE

MEDIA MATTERS 07
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707280005

During the "Fox News All-Stars" segment of the July 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit
Hume, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer stated that Republicans "have a chance [in the 2008
elections] if they argue that the Democrats have been in charge, and they are the do-nothing
Congress."

THE “DO NOTHING” ACCUSATION IS KEY TO REPUBLICANS KEEPING THEIR


SEATS. IT IS THEIR ONLY CHANCE

MEDIA MATTERS 07
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707280005

KRAUTHAMMER: They've done badly. And I think this will give the Republican the one opening
they are going to have in 2008. Everything is running against the Republicans, but I think they
have a chance if they argue that the Democrats have been in charge, and they are the do-nothing
Congress.
Just like Truman in 1948, who had the luck of losing the House and Senate two years earlier, he ran against
it, and said these guys have accomplished nothing.

THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY IS BASED ENTIRELY ON ACCUSING THE


DEMOCRATS OF “DOING NOTHING” ON ENERGY

Gannett News Service • July 11, 2008

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/NEWS01/807110305

Battered by poor poll numbers and rampant retirements in their ranks, congressional Republicans are
pounding Democrats over record gas prices to try to win back voters in the November election. GOP
leaders attack the Democrat-led House and Senate daily for "doing nothing" to lower gas prices and for
blocking increasingly popular proposals to lift the bans on oil and gas drilling off most U.S. coasts and in
Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, blasts Democrats with relentless missives that scream, "Dems
in a bind on gas prices" and "When will out-of-touch Democrats listen?"
A group of six Republican challengers from Indiana, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is even
planning to fly to the arctic refuge July 14 to promote drilling. Recent polls have shown that a majority of
Americans now favor increased oil exploration in the refuge and along coastal areas.
"It's the No. 1 issue on voters' minds," said Ken Spain of the National Republican Congressional
Committee. "Democrats' inaction has certainly left an opening for Republican candidates."
SDI 08 BHR 10
CONGRESS DISAD

PERCEPTIONS OF INACTION WILL HURT DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESSIONAL


ELECTIONS

CASEY 7-25-08

PATRICK CASEY 7-25-08

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/washington_post_why_not_debate.html

If the Democrats continue to do nothing, it'll be on display for the whole country to see. The
Democrats, and Barack Obama, will have inflicted a major, and very public, injury upon themselves
immediately prior to the Democratic Convention. It would be literally impossible for the drive-by media
to whitewash and spin that incident.

THE CHARGE THAT THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS ISN’T ACTING ENOUGH IS


WORKING FOR REPUBLICANS NOW

MORAFF 08

Christopher Moraff, The Philadelphia Tribune. 6-23-08

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/88329/

Congress watchers like Eric Lotke of the Campaign for America's Future say by preventing the Senate
from making any progress, Republican strategists are looking ahead to November when they hope to
capitalize on the public's perception of a "do-nothing" majority.
"It's what we call block and blame," said Lotke. "It's like mugging the delivery person and then blaming the
mail for being late. Eventually the Congress will start to be talked about and we'll get these 'do-nothing'
charges and attacks."
Already the strategy seems to be working. Despite the rout by Democrats in the 2006 mid-term elections,
public approval of Congress has plummeted. In May, a Gallup poll found the Legislature's approval
rating had sunk to a record low of 18 percent -- below even the President's approval rating.
SDI 08 BHR 11
CONGRESS DISAD

THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO ACT ON ENERGY IS THE KEY TO


REPUBLICANS WINNING CONGRESSIONAL RACES

Gannett News Service • July 11, 2008

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/NEWS01/807110305

Battered by poor poll numbers and rampant retirements in their ranks, congressional Republicans are
pounding Democrats over record gas prices to try to win back voters in the November election. GOP
leaders attack the Democrat-led House and Senate daily for "doing nothing" to lower gas prices and for
blocking increasingly popular proposals to lift the bans on oil and gas drilling off most U.S. coasts and in
Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, blasts Democrats with relentless missives that scream, "Dems
in a bind on gas prices" and "When will out-of-touch Democrats listen?"
A group of six Republican challengers from Indiana, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is even
planning to fly to the arctic refuge July 14 to promote drilling. Recent polls have shown that a majority of
Americans now favor increased oil exploration in the refuge and along coastal areas.
"It's the No. 1 issue on voters' minds," said Ken Spain of the National Republican Congressional
Committee. "Democrats' inaction has certainly left an opening for Republican candidates."
SDI 08 BHR 12
CONGRESS DISAD

FAILURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS TO ACT ON ENERGY WILL ALLOW


REPUBLICAN WINS IN CONGRESS

SKIBA 7-24-08
Democrats Have High Hopes for House and Senate Races
Amid a favorable political landscape, Democratic leaders predict a "tectonic-plate election."
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/07/24/democrats-have-high-hopes-for-house-and-
senate-races.html By Katherine Skiba

Republicans, unsurprisingly, don't buy it. They blame high gas prices on Democrats and hope that will
boost their campaigns in the fall. "As long as Democrats continue to defy 60 percent of the American
people on the issue of producing more domestic energy to lower the soaring cost of gasoline, Democrats
will continue to be forced to spend millions of dollars on their own members who have compiled
atrocious records on the No. 1 issue on voters' minds," says Ken Spain, spokesman for the National
Republican Congressional Committee.
At the National Republican Senatorial Committee, spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher urges Democrats to "be
careful with predictions" since "100 days is a lifetime in politics, and I'm sure they didn't predict they
would be on the wrong side of most Americans on energy three months from Election Day."

LINK AND UNIQUENESS. THE COMPOSITION OF CONGRESS WON’T CHANGE


IN THE 08 ELECTIONS AS REPUBLICANS ACCUSE THE DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESS OF NOT ACTING

SAMMON 07
Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter 8-31-07

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/2008_Congressional_Elections_Iraq_%20Eco
nomy_to_Dominate_070831.html

Democrats are expected to maintain control of Congress in the 2008 elections, with little change likely.
As is usually the case, there'll be only a handful of truly competitive races that will determine the precise
balance of power.
Republicans are bound to run on charges of a "do nothing" Democratic Congress that has mostly
failed to deliver, a charge which will be hard for Democrats to entirely deny given that much of their
agenda is gummed up in legislative gridlock and looks certain to remain so next year. Ironically, Democrats
will even have a hard time defending themselves to party stalwarts who think they should be doing more to
force a withdrawal from Iraq -- a move that the GOP has repeatedly blocked to date, but which may prove
harder in coming months.
Democrats will undoubtedly try to link Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, with the
unpopular President Bush, who is battling lame duck status in the twilight of his second term and remains
mired in low public approval ratings. That’s largely because of Iraq, though other government shortfalls from
immigration to the botched Hurricane Katrina response also hurt. Should the economy falter in the next year,
that will also be blamed on Bush, whether justified or not.
Neither party can count on any substantial gains in either the House or the Senate, and thus, neither party
will have much of a mandate. House districts largely favor incumbents and few Senate races will be
competitive. That ensures that Bush’s successor will confront a Congress still narrowly divided and just as
fractious and partisan as now. It will be difficult at best to steer any landmark or controversial agenda
items, whether it be health care, social security or tax overhaul.
SDI 08 BHR 13
CONGRESS DISAD

ENERGY PRICES ARE KEY TO THE ELECTION

LAMBRO 08

Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally


syndicated columnist 7-21-08

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/21/energy-a-democratic-minus/.

Gasoline prices are flattening consumer wallets and hobbling our economy, while the Democrats sit back
and play politics with the issue.
Voter surveys show the economy and gas prices top the list of the most critical issues facing our country. A
Washington Post/ABC News poll reported last week that 85 percent of voters polled said gas prices will
be either extremely or very important to their vote in this year's elections. And with good reason:
Americans are getting walloped with huge gas bills, while utilities, buckling under ever-higher energy
prices, are raising electricity rates to historic levels.
SDI 08 BHR 14
CONGRESS DISAD

PERCEPTIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL INACTION ARE DRIVING APPROVAL OF


THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS DOWN

FRAM 7-15-08

ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 15, 5:49 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ap_poll_bush_congress.

Congress fared even worse: A new AP-Ipsos low of 18 percent said they were happy with Congress'
work, down a steep 5 percentage points from last month.
Underscoring the breadth of the gloom, dissatisfaction with the country's direction stretched across party and
ideological lines. Only three in 10 Republicans and fewer than one in 10 Democrats and independents said
the country is heading the right way. Only one in five conservatives and even fewer moderates and liberals
said they are happy with things.
Just 63 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of conservatives approved of Bush's handling of his job,
strikingly low numbers. About one in five Republicans and conservatives voiced strong approval for the
president, while one in 10 Republicans and three in 10 conservatives said they strongly disapproved.
Four percent of Democrats and 12 percent of independents gave Bush positive grades — the lowest he's ever
gotten from those groups in the AP-Ipsos survey. The numbers were similarly low for liberals and moderates.
With soaring fuel prices, ailing financial and housing markets and rising inflation, Bush got his lowest grade
for handling the economy. Just 24 percent approved of how he's dealing with it, tying last month's AP-Ipsos
low on that issue.
Only half of Republicans gave Bush good grades on the economy, as did hardly any Democrats or
independents. Disapproval was nearly evenly distributed across all levels of income — only a quarter of
those from households earning at least $100,000 a year were satisfied with his work on the economy, with
similar readings coming from those making less.
About three in 10 voiced approval for how he's handling Iraq, domestic issues and foreign affairs. All are
near or tied with previous lows in the survey.
Approval of the Democratic-led Congress was dismal — about one in five Democrats and Republicans
expressed satisfaction. In interviews, many Democrats have expressed dissatisfaction that Congress is
not doing enough, while many Republicans are unhappy with its Democratic leadership.
SDI 08 BHR 15
CONGRESS DISAD

FAILURE TO ADOPT AN ENERGY POLICY IS DRIVING DOWN CONGRESSIONAL


APPROVAL RATINGS

SIGNORILE 7-15-08

Charles, http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/07/15/reid-low-congressional-approval-bushs-fault/.

For the first time in the history of Rasmussen polling, Congress has an approval rating in the single digits.
Not to worry says Harry Reid, who does not attribute the low approval ratings to his Congress, but to
President Bush.
“Any time, I repeat, any time you have a president that is down so, so far in poll numbers, it drags down a
city council member,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “It drags down any elected official,
including us, and we recognize that.”
Although 62% of voters say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America, and a
whopping 72% think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers
than helping the American people, Reid can sum up American’s dismay in three words. It’s Bush’s Fault!
Note to Harry Reid, in order for someone to “drag you down” as you have described the President doing,
they must first be below you. With the President’s approval rating hovering around the 30% mark, it is
very unlikely he is having much of an affect on the do nothing Congress. More likely, it is due to
Congress’ failure to enact meaningful immigration reform, an energy policy that actually has the intent
purpose of reducing prices, or passing a budget that does not dig us even deeper into debt.

ENERGY POLICY IS KEY TO CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN 08


NYT July 9, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/washington/09cong.html?8br

After spending a week in their states and districts with angry and frightened consumers, many
lawmakers have returned to Capitol Hill convinced that Congress cannot afford a prolonged stalemate
over energy policy.
“This is the No. 1 issue on people’s minds, very clearly,” said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North
Dakota and one of a bipartisan group of 10 senators who met Tuesday morning to pursue ideas on a
compromise energy plan that could be enacted this year.
With Republicans pushing for more domestic oil and gas production and many Democrats focusing on
alternative energy sources, finding consensus will not be easy, Congressional leaders acknowledge.
SDI 08 BHR 16
CONGRESS DISAD

THE APPROVAL RATING OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS HAS PLUMMETED


AS PEOPLE PERCEIVE IT AS A DO NOTHING CONGRESS

RASMUSSEN REPORTS 7-8-08

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/cong
ressional_performance/congressional_performance

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the
first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or
excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious
category.
Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher
than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.
The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this
month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among
Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent
(65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.
Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those
voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress
is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.
Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the
past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters
(62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.
SDI 08 BHR 17
CONGRESS DISAD

LOW APPROVAL RATINGS OF CONGRESS WILL ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO


PREVENT DEMOCRATIC GAINS

Patrick Casey 7-16-08


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/gallup_congressional_approval.html.

Gallup is reporting that their latest Congressional Approval poll has resulted in the lowest approval rating for
Congress ever recorded: 14%.
PRINCETON, NJ -- Congress' job approval rating has dropped five percentage points over the past
month, from 19% in June to 14% in July, making the current reading the lowest congressional job
approval rating in the 34-year Gallup Poll history of asking the question. The previous low was 18%,
last reached in May.

Gallup goes on to point out that the latest drop is due almost entirely to Democrats feasting on their own
(a habit that they seem to enjoy, and which the GOP can exploit). In a twist that's quite stunning,
Republicans (at 19%) and Independents (at 14%) give higher approval ratings to Congress than do the
Democrats' own party members (at 11%).

It gets worse for this Democratic Congress. In the thirty four years that Gallup has been measuring
Congressional Approval by the month, that number has dipped below 20% only six times. This Democrat-led
Congress owns four of those occurrences (8/07, 5/08, 6/08, and this last month). The other two months that
the approval rating dipped below 20% was in June 1979 and March 1992. Democrats controlled both the
Senate and the House in those two months as well.

After the dismal approval rating of the Democratic Congress in 1979, the GOP assumed the majority
in the next Senate. After the Dem's 1992 performance, the Republicans won the majority in both the
House and the Senate two years later.

Message to Republicans: all is not lost, yet. No one is happy with today's Congress. Very few want
"more of the same". If the GOP could get its act together and develop a good communications plan
around solid issues (like drilling, for instance), they could make some real advances in the fall elections
-- even as the usual suspects continue to refer to 2008 as a "Democratic year".
SDI 08 BHR 18
CONGRESS DISAD

NUCLEAR POWER LINK

IF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS DOESN’T ACT ON ENERGY DEMAND


THROUGH NUCLEAR POWER THEY WILL NOT GAIN SEATS IN CONGRESS

LAMBRO 08

Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally


syndicated columnist 7-21-08

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/21/energy-a-democratic-minus/.

Americans instinctively understand this common-sense axiom of supply and demand economics. That's
why polls show more than 70 percent of us support drilling for oil in wilderness areas and beneath our
oceans. But our patience is coming to an end with the Obama Democrats, who say no to more oil drilling,
no to more refineries and no to nuclear power. Last week, the Gallup Poll said the Democratic Congress'
approval rating has sunk to 14 percent. It has dropped below 20 percent only six times in the last 34 years
and the Pelosi Congress accounts for four of them.
The conventional wisdom says Democrats will likely make major gains in Congress in November, but
they may not do as well as expected if the voters blame them for inaction on the biggest economic issue
in the country. The GOP will be hammering them on this for the rest of the election cycle.
SDI 08 BHR 19
CONGRESS DISAD

AT: PRESIDENT GETS THE BLAME


EMPERICALLY FALSE. FAILURE TO ACT ON ENERGY POLICY IS DRIVING
RATINGS OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS DOWN

NRCC 7-16-08

http://www.nrcc.org/news/view_article.asp?id=2074

While Republicans have pushed real energy solutions, Donnelly and the Democrats have taken political
cover and seek to “run out the clock” on Congress by avoiding energy legislation. Earlier this week it
was reported that “Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) appears intent on preventing votes on opening more areas
to offshore drilling…” (Roll Call, 7/14/08)
It seems the American public is aware of the Democrat majority’s inaction on energy and is not amused
with Donnelly and the Democrats’ political games.
“Congress' job approval rating has dropped five percentage points over the past month, from 19% in
June to 14% in July, making the current reading the lowest congressional job approval rating in the
34-year Gallup Poll history of asking the question.” (Gallup, 7/16/08)
SDI 08 BHR 20
CONGRESS DISAD

AT: DEMS CAN’T GET 60


DEMOCRATS DON’T HAVE TO GET TO 60. ALL THEY NEED IS 57 SEATS

MCCLATCHEY 6-29-08

http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/election2008/2008/06/analyst-to-dems.html

Duffy later added that the Democrats might not even need 60 votes, since they can likely attract support
from moderate Republicans such as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine on some issues, perhaps
more than enough to offset the loss of support issue-to-issue from some more conservative Democrats.
"They don't need 60," Duffy said. "To be effective, they don't necessarily need 60."
A prominent liberal strategist who also addressed the Democratic group, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the
website dailykos.com, agreed that Democrats could reach a filibuster-proof majority with fewer than 60
Democratic seats.
"The majority number for Obama to have a filibuster-rpoof majority is 57, 58," he said.
"There are seven potential Republians we can peel off on an issue by issue basis to get to that 60 vote
total," he said.

GETTING TO 60 IS POSSIBLE

HERZENBORN 08
David M. Herszenhorn Published: March 7, 2008

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/07/america/senate.php

Democrats have repeatedly sought to get 60 votes to advance legislation only to be blocked by Republicans.
On Thursday, Senate Democratic leaders complained that Republicans had engaged in a record number of
filibusters. Republicans accused Democrats of exaggerating the numbers and of inviting Republican
filibusters by pursuing legislation they say is partisan.
So far, no Democratic incumbents are so vulnerable that their re-election campaigns are rated as clearly up
for grabs.
"I don't remember a time when I had a ratings chart that I am looking at now, where one party didn't have any
races in 'toss-up' at all," said Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, a
nonpartisan publication. "When have you had a cycle where a party has a one-seat majority and there is
absolutely no talk of them losing that majority? It doesn't happen that way, ever."
Independent analysts like Duffy predict that the Democrats will pick up four to six seats, with an open
seat in Virginia virtually certain to flip in their favor and Republicans at risk of losing open seats in New
Mexico and Colorado.
Four Republican incumbents are potentially vulnerable because voters in their states increasingly identify
with Democrats. They are John Sununu of New Hampshire; Norm Coleman of Minnesota; Gordon Smith of
Oregon; and Susan Collins of Maine. To get to 60, the Democrats would need to win the three open seats
and these four, protect their incumbents, and still pick up two seats in traditionally Republican states
like Mississippi and Oklahoma.
SDI 08 BHR 21
CONGRESS DISAD

AT: MCCAIN WINS


DEMOCRATS WILL SUCCEED IN PUSHING THEIR AGENDA NO MATTER WHO IS
PRESIDENT

ANTLE 3-28-2008

W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12968

Get over it. The congressional elections are at least as important as the presidential race and there
things don't look quite so rosy for Republicans. Remember this basic rule of thumb: The more
Democratic the next Congress, the more liberal the next president will be in the first two years. This
rule is likely to hold no matter if it is Obama, Clinton, or McCain putting their hand on the Bible on
Jan. 20, 2009. Without a critical mass of Republicans, there will be no check on President Clinton or
Obama and President McCain will sign a slew of legislation along the lines of McCain-Kennedy,
McCain-Feingold, and McCain-Lieberman.

A DEMOCRATIC SUPERMAJORITY WOULD CONTROL TAX ISSUES NO MATTER


WHO IS PRESIDENT

GOLD 3-13-08
Howard R. Gold is executive editor of MoneyShow.com
http://www.moneyshow.com/msc/investors/article.asp?aid=EDITOR-14382.

But as I wrote last week, a likely big Democratic majority in Congress may mean big changes no matter
who's president. How will it affect the economy and investors?
In a nutshell, solid Democratic control of both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue may well mean sweeping
reversals in key economic policies that have evolved over the last three decades. If Senator John McCain
wins the White House, I also expect changes, but more tempered ones. This highly individualistic
conservative will sometimes battle Democrats and sometimes reach out across the aisle to compromise, as
he has throughout his Senate career.
I think a strong Democratic Congressional majority will have its biggest impact in four areas: taxes,
health care, trade, and deficits.
The most immediate decision facing the new president and Congress will be whether to extend the Bush tax
cuts, which expire in 2010. Senator McCain favors making them permanent, while Senators Clinton and
Obama want them repealed for households whose income is more than $250,000. The two Democrats favor
additional tax relief for middle- and lower-income families and keeping the estate tax (with some
modifications).
A victory by either Democrat would mean that the Bush tax cuts are toast, and top marginal rates may
head back up to where they were in the Clinton years (from 35% to nearly 40%). Estate tax relief would be
limited, and, in a classic case of the killing the goose that laid the golden egg, capital gains taxes may head
higher.
And despite his promises to uphold the Bush tax cuts (which he voted against twice in the Senate), a
President McCain would be hard pressed to get them through a Congress with a strong Democratic
majority.
SDI 08 BHR 22
CONGRESS DISAD

IMPROVING MCCAIN’S POPULARITY IS IRRELEVANT TO CONGRESSIONAL


RAISES. THERE IS NO COATTAIL EFFECT

DYE 2008
http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_dye_politics_5/6/1741/445730.cw/index.html

Congressional voting is largely independent of voting for the president, and coattail effects of
presidential campaigns are very limited. House campaigns average $800,000 and Senate campaigns over
$7 million, with incumbents raising and outspending their challengers by an average of two to one.

DOESN’T EFFECT OUR LINK SINCE INDEPENDENT VOTERS ARE TICKET


SPLITTERS

SPANGLER 08
TODD SPANGLER • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • June 4, 2008
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080604/NEWS15/80604134

How independents might vote


According to Ballenger, independents are typically ticket-splitters, willing to back candidates without
too many considerations of which party they belong to. Democrats in recent elections have had a baseline
advantage of about 8 percentage points over Republicans among independent voters.
SDI 08 BHR 23
CONGRESS DISAD

IMPACTS

ECONOMY
THE TIME FRAME ON OUR DISAD IS FAR FASTER THAN THE CASE.
PERCEPTIONS OF A DEMOCRATIC LANDSLIDE WOULD CAUSE IMMEDIATE
CRASHES IN THE MARKET

CRAMER 06
CO-FOUNDER OF THE STREET.COM
http://nymag.com/news/businessfinance/bottomline/19385/.

A Democratic trouncing in the House and Senate won’t mean that all of these scenarios will play out. But
almost immediately after any sweep occurs, Wall Street will react violently, because if Congress goes, so
goes the White House. How serious is the threat? I’ve scaled back my exposure to all of these areas. These
sectors are simply way too dicey even if the chatter grows that the Democrats could do well come
November. You should act now before the delicious free ride of corporate hegemony ends, and the
Democrats, once again, decide you’ve made too much money in the stock market.
SDI 08 BHR 24
CONGRESS DISAD

A FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY IN THE SENATE WOULD ALLOW MASSIVE


TAX INCREASES IN 2009

NOVAK 07
Robert Novak
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/rangel_making_history.html.

Meeting reporters at breakfast last week, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson set as his tax priority a "patch" to slow the runaway Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The former
investment banker acted as though he were oblivious to plans by Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, to turn the need for such a temporary tax
fix into the most radical left-wing tax revision in half a century.
When one questioner asked whether Paulson contemplated recommending a presidential veto of AMT legislation, he indicated astonishment at the very idea. His only stated concern
was that Congress this year had not patched the AMT, originally intended to catch tax-evading millionaires, to prevent it from wreaking havoc on middle-income Americans. Paulson
uttered not a word about what Rangel is up to.
Finally achieving his coveted chairman's role after years of waiting, Rangel wants to make history. His
staff is hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion
dollars in American income through the tax system. Even if this package gets through the House, it likely
would be filibustered to death in the Senate, with a veto by President George W. Bush as the last resort.
But Rangel may really be aiming at 2009, envisioning then a Democratic president and a filibuster-proof
Democratic majority in the Senate.
Unlike the Republican Ways and Means chairmen who preceded him over the previous 12 years, Rangel has a comprehensive tax strategy and a tactical game plan. His wedge is the
AMT, the latest and most egregious lunacy imposed on the American taxpayer. Its present form would raise $1.4 trillion in revenue over the next decade, through taxation of 23
million additional families this year alone. Congress regularly prevents this calamity by enacting a patch that limits AMT coverage to 4 million upper-bracket families.
But Rangel has refused to pass a patch, and he has not hidden what he has in mind. When Congress returned from its summer break, Ways and Means summoned the usual lineup of
tax redistributionists for a Sept. 6 hearing on "fair and equitable tax policy for America's working families." Jason Furman, director of the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project,
deplored "the increase in inequality" caused by the Bush tax cuts, which he said "have exacerbated after-tax income disparities."
On the day after the hearings, Rangel called in reporters to tell them an AMT "one-year patch is not on the radar screen." Advocating total repeal of AMT, he promised to pay for $800
billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years with "the mother of all reforms."
Rangel talked about closing "loopholes," but the real money would come from drastically increasing the number of Americans paying the top 36 percent income tax rate and applying
that rate to present capital gains taxpayers. Rangel also is considering the old millionaires' tax, but applying it to much more than millionaires: a surtax on household incomes over
$200,000. All this would reverse the tide of across-the-board tax reduction begun by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson and renewed by Ronald Reagan.
While Rangel appears to be preparing for big-time tax increases in 2009, he is giving it a try for 2007.
Something surely will be done to blunt AMT this year, and Rangel is holding it hostage with ransom to be
paid by left-wing tax revision. Even if it will not enable passage of the "mother of all reforms," it could force
passage of more limited redistribution this autumn.

THE DEMOCRATIC TAX PLAN WILL DESTROY THE U.S. ECONOMY

NORQUIST 07
Grover Norquist Available to Discuss Rangel's Trillion Dollar Tax Bill
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-
252007/0004690427&EDATE=.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) introduced "the mother of all tax
bills" today on Capitol Hill. While the bill contains two welcome tax reforms --AMT repeal and a small
corporate rate cut -- the massive tax increases contained in the bill would destroy the U.S. economy.
"Charlie Rangel's tax bill raises taxes on small businesses, middle-class families, pension funds, and
Americans doing business overseas -- you name it, and Rangel taxes it," said ATR President Grover Norquist.
"This bill is a clear and present violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, and should be opposed
vigorously."
SDI 08 BHR 25
CONGRESS DISAD

HEDGE FUND TAXATION KILLS U.S. COMPETITIVENESS

Economic times 10-26-07


http://www.pionline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080512/PRINTSUB/140198683/1031/TOC.

It also would require hedge-fund managers to pay tax on income they defer in offshore accounts, he
said.
The revenue would be used to pay for a stopgap measure that lawmakers must pass this year to temporarily
protect 21 million US households from the alternative minimum tax.

The proposal will also be part of a broader overhaul that contains a permanent repeal of the minimum tax, a
tax-rate surcharge on wealthy households and a lower corporate rate. “We are not raising taxes,” Rangel said
at a Capitol Hill news conference today. “We are restructuring the rates of taxes so that at the end of the day
90 million taxpayers will walk away saying, ‘I’ve got a decrease in taxes.’”

The measure will set up a showdown between Democrats who want to offset the lost revenue with new levies
and Republicans and the Bush administration, which oppose any increase.

Treasury Secretary Henry said Thursday the administration opposes Rangel’s plans, which “would
dramatically raise taxes in ways that in my judgment would hinder America’s ability to compete in the
global economy.”

HEDGE FUND TAXATION WOULD DESTROY ACCESS TO LIQUIDITY CAPITAL


THAT IS KEY TO THE ECONOMY

HALONEN May 12, 2008


http://www.pionline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080512/PRINTSUB/140198683/1031/TOC.

The hedge fund industry's Managed Funds Association, Washington, has vowed to fight the tax proposal.
“The MFA has opposed previous efforts to halt the use of deferred compensation in offshore funds and we
will continue to oppose such efforts this year,” Richard H. Baker, MFA president and chief executive
officer, said in an e-mail response to questions.
“Hedge funds have been the most reliable source of market liquidity in the midst of the current credit
and liquidity crisis,” Mr. Baker added. “The offshore funds are active providers of liquidity for U.S. and
global investments, including pension fund investments. This tax proposal, by raising over $20 billion
of revenue from the hedge fund community at this turbulent time, is inconsistent with the continued
need for hedge funds to invest in the marketplace.”
SDI 08 BHR 26
CONGRESS DISAD

THE HEDGE FUND TAX PLAN WOULD CRUSH REAL ESTATE

HOLZER 07
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/rangel-tax-bill-could-roil-real-estate-sector-warns-group-2007-11-07.html
Jessica Rangel tax bill could roil real estate sector, warns group

Hoping to shield its members from a tax hike on fund managers’ carried interest income, the Real Estate
Roundtable on Tuesday unveiled a study finding that the measure’s impact on real estate partnerships
alone would cost the economy up to $20 billion annually.
The measure would harm the economy by draining talent away from the real estate sector, dampening
investors’ appetite for riskier deals and encouraging inefficient economic activity as fund managers
seek to dodge the tax hike, the study concluded. “We think it is the most significant and the most potentially
destructive tax increase on real estate since 1986,” said the group’s president and chief executive, Jeffrey
DeBoer. He was referring to tax changes enacted 21 years ago that the group says sparked a sharp downturn
in the real estate sector.
As the House prepares to vote on the measure as soon as Thursday, the real estate group hopes the study
will call attention to the impact on the real estate sector of a tax increase seen as targeting hedge fund
and private equity managers.
Carried interest is used widely in the private equity and hedge fund industries to compensate investment managers, but it also applies to partnerships in the venture capital and real
estate industries.
Lobbies for both have been pushing lawmakers to exclude their industries from the measure, which would tax fund managers’ carried interest at ordinary income rates as high as 35
percent. Currently, they enjoy the lower 15 percent capital gains rate on the bulk of their pay.
The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measure last week, attaching it as an offset to a $76 billion tax package, including a must-pass one-year patch to the Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT).
Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) told reporters that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave a “roaring speech” in favor of the proposal at a Tuesday
meeting of the Democratic Caucus. “She made it abundantly clear where she stood,” he said.
Rangel said he fielded a number of questions about the carried interest at the meeting from members who seemed inclined to support the tax increase. He said that one lawmaker
asked about the measure’s impact on venture capitalists, adding that he told the audience to air their concerns: “If there are problems, I begged them to tell me now.”
The Real Estate Roundtable’s members include the top executives of companies that together hold a total of $700 billion in real estate assets. It hired Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former
director of the Congressional Budget Office, to conduct the study.
The study found that real estate partnerships account for 45 percent of all investment partnerships filing to the IRS. There are 6. 6 million such real estate partnerships, which hold
roughly $1.3 trillion in assets, about a quarter of the value of all commercial real estate in the U.S.
In a conference call with reporters, Holtz-Eakin argued that raising taxes on the industry would have a 15
to 20 percent hit on real estate fund managers’ income. That, in turn, would threaten real estate
projects in marginal neighborhoods, reducing the choice in housing and shopping for residents. He
said the tax increase would also hurt the construction industry.
“I don’t think people have recognized the pervasive impact of this policy,” Holtz-Eakin said.
SDI 08 BHR 27
CONGRESS DISAD

HEDGE FUND TAXATION WILL DEVASTATE THE ECONOMY

KERPEN 07

Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity http://www.philkerpen.com/?q=node/155.

Rep. Charlie Rangel is bent on including a carried interest capital gains tax hike in the must-pass patch to the
alternative minimum tax.
This bad idea will carry tax implications for every American.
With such a strong push behind it, this is a plan that we need to take seriously, because the stakes are high.
This tax hike would, in itself, cause a significant economic disruption by sending capital offshore and
discouraging the creation of new venture-backed businesses.
Everyone Loses
Even worse, however, is the precedent that would be set for raising the capital gains tax for everyone,
which many Democrats are now openly advocating.
Carried interest refers to the portion of the profits interests that the general partner who sets up an investment partnership retains. The general partner is the entrepreneur who has the
ideas and connections to make investments. When a partnership is formed, the general partner will bring in limited partners by selling them a stake in the fund, typically 80 percent, in
exchange for them putting up all or most of the money.
It’s really no different from the founder of a small business who has the ideas and know-how bringing in an outside investor. This structure — where general partners retain a carried
interest in the fund’s profits — is common not just in private equity, but also in venture capital, real estate, oil and gas, and hedge funds.
Under current law, when the partnership has income, it flows to the partners and they pay tax on it based on the character of the underlying income — if it’s ordinary income they pay
ordinary income tax, and if it’s capital income they pay capital gains tax.
Under Rangel’s bill, the character of the underlying income no longer matters. Even if the income is from the sale of corporate stock, the portion that general partners retain as a
carried interest would be taxed at the full ordinary income tax rates.
This goes against every rationale for having a lower capital gains tax rate.
The primary rationales are to alleviate the double taxation of corporate source income, to avoid taxing inflationary gains, and to encourage capital formation, entrepreneurship, and
investment. All of these rationales obtain in the carried interest case, because the income really is capital income. This is about hiking the capital gains tax for a particular group of
politically unpopular taxpayers, with serious economic consequences.
Scaring Capital Away
Private equity has been a key source of prosperity in recent years, as our public capital markets have
been increasingly hampered by excessive litigation and overregulation under Sarbanes-Oxley. Private equity
and other alternative investment vehicles like venture capital and real estate partnerships have kept capital
fleeing our public markets from going overseas and providing financing for innovative companies to grow
and create jobs.
Higher taxes could choke off this engine of prosperity and encourage capital to flee abroad.
If all this is not bad enough, the trend is toward something much worse: There is a Democratic effort underway to raise capital gains taxes for all investors. In House Ways and Means
Committee hearings on carried interest, Chairman Rangel asked panelist after panelist whether raising capital gains taxes across the board would solve the so-called problem of
carried interest taxation.
The majority of the witnesses on the stacked panel said it would, but it’s hard to see how imposing punitive double-taxation of capital across the board can be considered a solution to
anything except continued American prosperity. All of the major Democratic presidential candidates have come out for higher capital gains taxes, with both Barck Obama and John
Edwards calling for a return to the pre-Clinton tax cut rate of 28 percent, a whopping 87 percent tax hike.
Capital gains tax hikes would dramatically reduce the after-tax return on stock investments, which would
be a great impediment to stock markets. They would significantly raise the cost of capital, drying up
investment in many innovative, entrepreneurial companies.
They would hit the U.S. Treasury hard, contrary to the conclusions of the static-revenue scorekeepers. History is an excellent guide here: Every capital-gains tax hike in the past 30
years has led to lower federal revenues, while every cap-gains tax cut has led to higher revenues.
Yet Democrats and tax-scorers are repeating this mistake yet again in the carried interests fight at hand.
What's at Stake
One reason the tax hike is attractive to Democrats is that it scores as a major revenue raiser, which helps
them meet their self-imposed pay-as-you-go rules, which require them to offset tax reductions with tax hikes or spending cuts (they never choose the spending cuts). But an excellent
study by University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Knoll found that the tax hike would raise negligible revenue because of legal avoidance strategies — and that’s without even
considering the supply-side effects that we always see with changes in capital gains tax rates.
In other words, we could be looking at a major economic disruption without any federal revenue to show
for it.
SDI 08 BHR 28
CONGRESS DISAD

A SUPER MAJORITY WILL ALLOW DEMOCRATS TO GET TAX INCREASES


PASSED

MCCLATCHEY 6-29-08

http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/election2008/2008/06/analyst-to-dems.html

It would allow the Democrats to get big proposals through the Senate over the objections of the Republican
minority. The power of the filibuster, unique to the Senate, allows the minority to block anything they don't
like as long as they have 41 or more votes.
If the Democrats had 60 votes, they'd have a far, far greater chance of enacting such Obama proposals as
expanding health care to the uninsured, and raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.
SDI 08 BHR 29
CONGRESS DISAD

PREMATURE IRAQ PULL OUT


REPUBLICANS WILL USE THE THREAT OF FILIBUSTER TO PREVENT THE
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS FROM DOING ANYTHING

Christopher Moraff, The Philadelphia Tribune. 6-23-08

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/88329/

With one of the most contentious presidential primary battles in history finally behind us, media attention is
beginning to focus on a fight of a different kind -- that for control of the Senate in 2009.
As things stand the Democrats maintain a paper-thin majority of 51 votes, thanks to the Senate's two
Independents who tend to vote democrat; but that slim advantage so far hasn't been enough for them to assert
control over the chamber.
With 35 Senate seats up for grabs in November, the majority is hoping to pick up the extra votes it needs
for a 60-vote "supermajority" and with it the mandate to finally start making progress on platform
issues like Medicare drug reform and a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
For anyone who's ever taken a Civics class, the notion that it takes 60 votes to conduct business in the Senate may come as a surprise; after all, in the Senate all that's required to pass
legislation is a simple majority, right?
In theory, the answer is yes; but in practice, Senate protocol incorporates a number of procedural devices designed to give the minority some leverage; chief among these is the
filibuster.
Senate Democrats complain that for the past year and a half, the Republican leadership has been waging a dedicated campaign of obstruction, using the threat of filibuster to block the
bulk of the Democrats' 2006 election initiatives, and in the process subverting the will of the American electorate.
In the past two weeks alone, Senate Republicans have blocked votes on four vital measures -- at least two of which had wide public support.
On June 6, Senate Republicans used the threat of filibuster to block the Climate Security Act, which would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases. Days later they used
the same tactic to kill a Democratic measure that would have imposed a 25 percent tax on "windfall" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion
during the first three months of the year.
And last Thursday, June 12, the minority filibustered a bill to delay pay cuts to Medicare physicians, which the bill's sponsor, Max Baucus, D-Mont., said will adversely affect the
quality of senior health care.
Nearly as old as the Senate itself, the filibuster is a procedure whereby a disaffected minority can stall or even preempt passage of legislation by engaging in extended debate. Until
1917, it was virtually impossible to disrupt a filibuster once it got started. In that year, the Senate adopted Rule 22 -- the cloture rule -- which is currently the only formal procedure
for breaking a Senate filibuster. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate, essentially forcing a vote. In 1975 then-Senate
Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., spearheaded an effort to lower the threshold needed to invoke cloture to 60 votes from the previously required 2/3 majority.
"We cannot allow a minority to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there," he said at the time. Yet more than three decades later, Democrats and their supporters say that's exactly
what's happening.
"I think they've made a concerted effort to obstruct and block and impede any progress on basic issues," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., commenting on Republican obstructionism.
"So, they've made a concerted effort after losing the majority to say well, if we've lost the majority we're going to assert ourselves by blocking the Democrats from getting anything
done."

A SUPER MAJORITY LEADS TO IRAQ PULL OUT

STEIN 07

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/10/5806_the_democrats_best-
case_senate_scenario_filibuster-proof_majority.html

Let's take a minute to indulge in best-case scenarios, shall we? Time runs down the situation in the Senate. They note that if the Dems pick up...
The open seat in Colorado being vacated by the retiring Wayne Allard,
The open seat in New Mexico being vacated by the retiring Pete Domenici,
The open seat in Virginia being vacated by the retiring John Warner,
The open seat in Nebraska being vacated by the retiring Chuck Hagel,
The open seat in Idaho being vacated by the retiring Wide Stance,
The New Hampshire seat being defended by John Sununu,
The Maine seat being defended by Susan Collins,
The Minnesota seat being defended by Norm Coleman,
The Oregon seat being defended by Gordon Smith,
and they defend...
<UL
The Louisiana seat held by Mary Landrieu,
they will have 60 seats, enough to beat a Republican filibuster. This doesn't even take into account the possibility of Alaska Senator Ted Steven's legal troubles deepening and forcing
A 60-seat majority means, for the first time, real legislation that can end the Iraq War. And a
his retirement.
Democratic tidal wave of this nature would likely usher in a Democratic president, which means a new era of
progressive domestic policies.
The races listed above all have a legitimate chance to go the Dems' way—there are 11 seats held by Democrats and 12 seats held by Republicans that I didn't even mention because
the incumbent is unlikely to face a serious challenge in any of them. (For a ranking of races, see this pdf.) These races all depend, of course, on the quality of opponents and various
local factors. But with so many Republicans up for reelection in states trending blue, it should be an exciting 2008.
SDI 08 BHR 30
CONGRESS DISAD

Iraq withdrawal inevitable – Democratic Congress would CAUSE FAST WITHDRAWAL

Jonathan Rauch, correspondent at the Atlantic”. Atlantic. “Our inevitable withdrawal from Iraq could poison
American politics for a generation.” January/February 2008. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/partisan-
retreat

In 2009, a Democratic president might say something like this: “Every year of this administration, America will
reduce its troop strength in Iraq. The downward path is nonnegotiable and ironclad. But the pace is not. If Iraqis
try sincerely and strenuously to keep their country together, or if they decentralize enough to keep the peace, and if they
produce results, we will help them, including militarily. If not, we’ll pull out much faster.” This is not unlike what Joe
Biden has said, both as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a Democratic presidential
candidate. It implies a faster withdrawal than Bush Republicans prefer, but a slower one than dovish Democrats
demand. And my guess is that many, if not most, Republicans would go for it. Republican hard-liners, of course,
might prefer demagoguery. But grown-up Republicans would recognize that withdrawal is inevitable; they would want
to be relevant; they would feel battered by the election results, and tired of incurring the public’s wrath; they would
face intense pressure not to sabotage a new commander in chief who could claim the public mandate. The bigger
problem for a middle way out, I would guess, would be on the Democratic left. So far in the primary campaign,
Democratic presidential candidates have had a hard time keeping the door open for any American forces to stay in Iraq.
If the Democrats sweep the board this year, doves will say that the public has spoken and wants change. Why in
the world should they pace the withdrawal from Iraq at a rate that suits the losing party? Yet if the Democrats
were to rush for the exit with Republicans unified against them, they would be blamed by Republicans for whatever
subsequent disasters befell Iraq and, for that matter, the whole disaster-prone Middle East. For years, they would face
charges of having “cut and run,” which could reinvigorate the debilitating stereotype of Democratic weakness. On the
other hand, a policy with significant two-party support would be less contentious, more sustainable, and thus
more likely to succeed. Running the whole government, Democrats would need to care about succeeding. The crucial
decision the next president will make is not whether to withdraw forces from Iraq—that is baked in the cake—
but how. As a corollary, if Democrats win both branches in the fall, their biggest challenge will not be leaving
Iraq; it will be keeping America in one piece on the way out. Having felt flicked aside by the Republicans through
Bush’s presidency, victorious Democrats will be tempted to return the favor. Before succumbing, they might recall how
badly partisan warfare has gone. Then they might ask themselves why a partisan retreat would go any better.
SDI 08 BHR 31
CONGRESS DISAD

Premature Iraq withdrawal leads to civil war – draws in other countries.

Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and
Distinguished Visiting Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University. He is the author of The Army and
Vietnam. Foreign Affairs. Sep/Oct 2005. Google Scholar

Despite the Bush administration's repeated declarations of its commitment to success in Iraq, the results of current policy there are not encouraging. After two years, Washington has
made little progress in defeating the insurgency or providing security for Iraqis, even as it has overextended the U.S. Army and eroded support for the war among the American
public. Although withdrawing now would be a mistake, simply "staying the course," by all current indications, will not improve matters either. Winning in Iraq will require a new
approach. The basic problem is that the United States and its coalition partners have never settled on a strategy for defeating the insurgency and achieving their broader objectives. On
the political front, they have been working to create a democratic Iraq, but that is a goal, not a strategy. On the military front, they have sought to train Iraqi security forces and turn
the war over to them. As President George W. Bush has stated, "Our strategy can be summed up this way: as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." But the president is describing a
withdrawal plan rather than a strategy. Without a clear strategy in Iraq, moreover, there is no good way to gauge progress. Senior political and military leaders have thus repeatedly
made overly optimistic or even contradictory declarations. In May of 2004, for example, following the insurgent takeover of Fallujah, General Richard Myers, chair of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, stated, "I think we're on the brink of success here." Six months later, before last November's offensive to recapture the city, General John Abizaid, the commander of
U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, said, "When we win this fight -- and we will win -- there will be nowhere left for the insurgents to hide." Following the recapture, Lieutenant
General John Sattler, the Marine commander in Iraq, declared that the coalition had "broken the back of the insurgency." Yet in the subsequent months, the violence continued
unabated. Nevertheless, seven months later Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that the insurgency was in its "last throes," even as Lieutenant General John Vines, commander of the
multinational corps in Iraq, was conceding, "We don't see the insurgency expanding or contracting right now." Most Americans agree with this less optimistic assessment: according
to the most recent polls, nearly two-thirds think the coalition is "bogged down." The administration's critics,
meanwhile, have offered as their alternative "strategy" an accelerated timetable for withdrawal. They see Iraq
as another Vietnam and advocate a similar solution: pulling out U.S. troops and hoping for the best. The
costs of such premature disengagement would likely be calamitous. The insurgency could morph into a
bloody civil war, with the significant involvement of both Syria and Iran. Radical Islamists would see
the U.S. departure as a victory, and the ensuing chaos would drive up oil prices.

Premature Iraq withdrawal would lead Iraq to an all out civil war.

Reuters. By: Waleed Ibrahim and Ahmed Rasheed. “Iraqis warn of civil war if U.S. troops withdraw”. July 9,
2007. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL09156977._CH_.242020070709

BAGHDAD, July 9 (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders warned on Monday that an early U.S. troop withdrawal could tip the
country into all-out civil war after The New York Times said debate was growing in the White House over a
gradual draw-down of forces. The stark comments from politicians across the sectarian divide followed a wave of
weekend bombings and shootings in Iraq that killed 250 people. "This could produce a civil war, partition of the
country and a regional war. We might see the country collapse," Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, a Kurd, told
a news conference when asked about the newspaper report. The Times cited U.S. administration officials and
consultants as saying the White House feared the last pillars of political support among Senate Republicans for
President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy were "collapsing around them." It said debate was intensifying over
whether Bush should try to prevent more Republican defections by announcing his intention to begin a gradual troop
pull-out from high-casualty areas. The White House denied it was considering a troop withdrawal based on a
"political judgment saying there was no debate over an immediate draw-down. "The president has said many times,
that as conditions required and merit, that there will be, in fact, withdrawals and also a pulling back from areas of
Baghdad and so on," said spokesman Tony Snow. "But the idea of trying to make a political judgment rather than a
military judgment about how to have forces in the field is simply not true."
SDI 08 BHR 32
CONGRESS DISAD

Although Iraq withdrawal is inevitable, both Iraqis and experts agree, premature
withdrawal Iraq would lead to increased conflict and the collapse of the Iraqi government.

New York Times. By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ALISSA J. RUBIN. Chaos Is Seen in Iraq Exit, But Experts
Split on Degree. May 27, 2007. Lexis

There is one matter on which American military commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush
administration's staunchest Congressional critics agree: if the United States withdrew its forces from
Baghdad's streets this fall, the murder and mayhem would increase. But that is where the agreement
ends. The wrangling in Washington over war financing, still fierce despite the Democrats' decision to forgo
for now withdrawal deadlines, has obscured a more fundamental debate over what Iraq's future might look
like without American troops. Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round of civil
conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi
politicians to finally reconcile their differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get? Those questions
loom as the administration debates how and when to wind down its troop increase in Iraq, as Iraqis weigh the
trade-offs between autonomy and security, and as Congressional Democrats, frustrated by this week's
compromise with the White House, vow to hold a tougher line on future war financing. To address the issue,
The New York Times interviewed more than 40 Iraqi politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of
public opinion in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior military officials, American intelligence experts,
politicians and independent analysts who have recently returned from Iraq were also solicited. The somewhat
surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all their distaste for the American occupation, many of them
fear that a pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that would jeopardize the fitful
attempts at political dialogue and risk the collapse of the Iraqi government. ''Many militias and
terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans to leave,'' said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the
Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two brothers this year to
attacks by insurgents. ''This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our favorite
option,'' he said. ''People in the street say the United States is part of the chaos here and they could have made
it better and safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not leave Iraq in the trouble,
which they, themselves, have caused.'' Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A
troop drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military commanders say, and even then
it should be gradual and carefully engineered. ''There will be a time when we will slowly remove
ourselves from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,'' said Lt. Gen. Raymond T.
Odierno, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels
be maintained through early 2008. ''But this should be done thoughtfully and methodically when conditions
permit.'' If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials say, the fledgling Iraqi Army
and police forces could not hold the line against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent
groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had decided to lie low would resume large-
scale attacks on Sunni residents. Mixed Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, already growing scarce, would
disappear, and Iraqi forces would fracture along sectarian lines. The conditions that need to be achieved before a major troop reduction, General Odierno said, are a reduction in
insurgent and militia attacks and an improved ability by Iraqi security forces to protect noncombatants. A sharply divergent view is prevalent in Congress, where lawmakers have
pressed, unsuccessfully, to impose a schedule for American troop withdrawal and binding benchmarks for Iraqi political reform. Some leading Democrats acknowledge a risk of
increased violence if the United States pulls back, but they assert that the Iraqis will not take the painful steps toward a genuine political accommodation until American forces begin
to leave. ''That is the leverage,'' said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. ''They have got to look into the abyss. And
this is the abyss: do they want a civil war, or do they want a nation?'' ''I would begin a troop reduction as an action-forcing mechanism,'' he added. The View From Iraq In trying to
stem the violence in Iraq, the Bush administration is expanding the American force in Baghdad. The goal has not been to impose a military solution, but to provide enough security
that Iraqis can move toward political reconciliation. A National Intelligence Estimate made public in January analyzed the consequences of a complete withdrawal of American troops
over 12 to 18 months. The document, which reflects the collective view of the United States intelligence agencies, said that American forces were an essential stabilizing element in
Iraq and warned that Iraq's security forces would be hard-pressed to assume significantly expanded responsibilities in that period. No similar intelligence assessment has been made
public on what might occur if the United States pulled back from its effort to secure Baghdad several months from now but maintained a limited troop presence at the large bases in
and around the capital. But many Iraqis have a view on this question and on the consequences of a total withdrawal. Sheik Ajmi al-Mutashar, an agricultural engineer and
businessman from Salahuddin Province in central Iraq and a Sunni, said he worried that an American troop pullback would lead to the collapse of the Iraqi government. ''If the
. ''We will have small emirates or cantons divided on sectarian and
government falls it will be impossible to form another one,'' he said
ethnic lines.'' Several Shiites also agreed that an American pullback would severely weaken the already
fragile Iraqi government and lead to a surge of fighting among armed factions. ''Without a strong and
visible American presence, the government would collapse,'' said Abu Fayad, an aide to a leading Shiite
member of Parliament.
SDI 08 BHR 33
CONGRESS DISAD
SDI 08 BHR 34
CONGRESS DISAD

LEADERSHIP
CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS WILL CRUSH U.S. LEADERSHIP THROUGH
ECONOMIC ISOLATIONISM

REP. BRADY 3-5-08

http://thehill.com/op-eds/democratic-congress-unwisely-promoting-isolationism-2008-03-05.html

Congressional Democrats blame the administration for the current economic downturn, promising they
will create jobs in America rather than overseas and “level the playing field” for U.S. workers vying to
compete in an increasingly global market.
Given all that rhetoric, why is this Congress so willing to promote economic isolationism, handcuff one of
our strongest economic sectors and prevent U.S. workers from selling their products and services
overseas? Why is this Congress so eager to let foreign countries freely sell their products into America —
competing against our workers — while balking at allowing our workers to do the same?
With its refusal to take up pending agreements with long-standing trading partners Colombia, South Korea
and Panama, this Congress risks squandering the bipartisan progress on trade accomplished last year that, as
a first step, generated record support for two-way trade with Peru.
Worse yet, at a time when the entire world is shaping the global market to create new opportunities and
new customers for their companies and their workers, the U.S. Congress is benching itself. This
undermines America’s leadership abroad and sends the wrong signal that the world’s greatest economy is
afraid to compete — unwilling to tear down the artificial barriers that can help lift millions of the world’s
poor out of poverty.
SDI 08 BHR 35
CONGRESS DISAD

CHINA
THE DISAD TURNS THE CHINA RELATIONS ADVANTAGE. THE DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESS WOULD PUSH AN AGENDA OF UNILATERAL CHINA BASHING

LANDERS 07
Kim, ABS Reporter http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2005666.htm.

In the United States, the Democrat-led Congress is pushing for a ban on Chinese made toys being imported
into the US.
The largest toy company in the US, Mattel, announced today it was recalling more than 18 million Chinese made toys worldwide because of safety concerns.

And China's product safety is also becoming an issue in the race for the White House.

As North America Correspondent Kim Landers reports.

KIM LANDERS: In the United States, China is occasionally seen as a partner, more often an adversary. Now the label "Made in China" is fast becoming a warning sign for American consumers
and an easy target for presidential candidates.

In the US, about 60 per cent of all product recalls this year have been for goods manufactured in China. And today the giant toy company Mattel added one more.

It's yanking 18.5 million Chinese made toys from store shelves, half a million of which were sold in Australia.

It's prompted Democratic Senator Dick Durbin to call for a ban on toys exported from China to US until they can all be guaranteed to be safe.

DICK DURBIN: We have to do something in Washington to give confidence to consumers across America that when they go into the toy store, they aren't going to play Chinese roulette trying to
figure out which toy they can safely buy for their child.

KIM LANDERS: China's safety record is also becoming a popular topic with many of the presidential candidates. Last week at a Chicago forum organised by one of America's biggest labour
unions, White House hopeful Hillary Clinton seized on the "Made in China" phobia.

HILLARY CLINTON: We have to have tougher standards on what they import into this country. I do not want to eat bad food from China or have my children having toys that have got to get
them fixed. So let's be tougher on China going forward.

KIM LANDERS: So far, China bashing has outweighed calls for engagement with the emerging superpower.

John Tkacik is a senior research fellow at the Asian Studies Centre of The Heritage Foundation. He's a retired
diplomat who served in China and was the chief of China Analysis for the US State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

He thinks if a Democratic candidate wins the race for the White House in 2008, there'll be a noticeable change in the complex US-China relationship .

JOHN TKACIK: There would be a fairly big shift in the way we deal with China in trade disputes. I have a
feeling that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House, even a Hillary Clinton White House, would
be less inclined to allow the Chinese to drag their heels through WTO (World Trade Organisation) dispute
resolutions, you know, for months and years, and would probably be inclined to take stronger action
unilaterally.

UNILATERAL ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE WTO FRAMEWORK WILL CRUSH


RELATIONS

IKENSON 07
Dan Ikenson is associate director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies
http://www.freetrade.org/node/657

Daniel Ikenson: "As long as the disputes are conducted under the auspices of the WTO, the relationship
will improve dramatically. We still have a lot to learn about and from each other. We are experiencing
growing pains now, but we have a roadmap to guide us. Our respective WTO commitments obligate us to do
certain things and prevent us from doing others. As long as we continue to recognize the vast benefits of the
rules-based trading system and recognize that the cost of those benefits is adherence to the rules (which really
isn't a cost because it's beneficial), we will overcome all of our trade disputes without descent into a trade
war.
SDI 08 BHR 36
CONGRESS DISAD

"But if either country decides to take matters into their own hands and starts knowingly violating
commitments with punitive unilateral actions, then the relationship could spiral downward. I think, very
clear, the stakes are simply way too high for either country to let that happen."
SDI 08 BHR 37
CONGRESS DISAD

TURN, CONTROL OF POLICY BY A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WILL CRUSH


RELATIONS WITH ASIA AND CHINA

SUTTER 06
Robert Sutter, Visiting Professor of Asian Studies Brookings Northeast Asia Commentary
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/12northeastasia_sutter.aspx

The implications of the Democratic victory for U.S. policy in Asia seem serious. The Democratic
majority of the 110th Congress, led by opinionated and often confrontational leaders Representative Nancy
Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid, will press for change in a partisan atmosphere charged by preparations for the
U.S. presidential election of 2008. In Asia, the Democratic majority is forecast to pursue strong trade
and economic measures that if successful will seriously disrupt U.S. economic relations with the region
and the free trade emphasis of the Bush administration. Mainstream commentator Thomas Friedman
predicts a civil war in American politics over the massive U.S. trade deficit and related economic issues
with China. Democrats pushing more activist negotiating approaches toward North Korea, as well as human
rights and environmental initiatives, add to anticipated serious complications in U.S. relations with Asia.

A DEMOCRATIC DOMINATED CONGRESS WOULD BE PROTECTIONIST


TOWARD CHINA

IKENSON 07
Dan Ikenson is associate director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies
http://www.freetrade.org/node/657

Daniel Ikenson: "Regrettably, many policymakers on Capitol Hill are ill-informed about economics.
Most believe exports are good, imports are bad, and the trade account is the scoreboard. Since the U.S. has a
large trade deficit, we are losing at trade, and the main reason we are losing is because our trade partners are
cheating.
"In China's case, the cheating involves currency manipulation, subsidization of industry, unfair labor
practices, intellectual property right violations and more. By forcing China to play fair, the trade balance
will correct itself. That's the rationale that motivates Congress. It's misguided.
"The trade account has very little to do with trade policy and very much to do with fiscal policy and habits of
savings and consumption. But, to answer your question, yes, to a large extent these actions are intended to
defuse political pressure (and, as I said at the top, to head off actions that could lead to a trade war)."
Yong Tang: "What is the political significance of the cases? Someone said the Democratic controlled
Congress is more likely to embrace trade protectionism than the Republican controlled Congress. Do you
think so?"
Daniel Ikenson: "Yes, I think that is true, although a growing number of Republicans is beginning to
become more skeptical about trade ¨C particularly trade with China."
SDI 08 BHR 38
CONGRESS DISAD

DEMOCRATS GOOD DISAD

UNIQUENESS

DEMOCRATS WILL WIN NOW

SKIBA 7-24-08
Democrats Have High Hopes for House and Senate Races
Amid a favorable political landscape, Democratic leaders predict a "tectonic-plate election."
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/07/24/democrats-have-high-hopes-for-house-and-
senate-races.html By Katherine Skiba

With 100-plus days until the elections, top Democrats are high on their prospects of picking up more
House and Senate seats.
They credit good candidates, fundraising muscle, a strong field operation, and planned TV buys—not to
mention Barack Obama's coattails—along with the backdrop of an unpopular GOP president and ailing
economy. The GOP, of course, counters that its rivals' early predictions count for little.
Could Democrats reach the magic number of 60 for a filibuster-proof Senate majority? Such a feat
would certainly confound the expectations of political analysts.
Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is predicting a "tectonic-plate election," says that would be very
difficult, but it's not out of the question.
Senate Democrats now have a slim voting majority of 51-49. The optimistic Schumer, chairman of the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, says that his party's candidates are ahead in races in Virginia,
New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, and Alaska; running "even or very close" in Oregon, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Maine, and North Carolina; and "not close but narrowing" in Kansas, Texas,
Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Georgia.
Leading up to November, Democrats have long had two built-in advantages: far fewer seats up for re-
election, 12 vs. 23, and not a single retirement (while five Republican senators are calling it quits).
Schumer prefers to point out that 35 races are playing out in 33 states that comprise the "reddest map in a
long time." Most contests are in the Deep South, Great Plains, and Mountain West. Only three states with
Senate races are blue, though barely: Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon, Schumer says.
SDI 08 BHR 39
CONGRESS DISAD

A FLOOD OF POLLS SHOW DEMOCRATS WILL WIN NOW THEY ARE GOING TO
ADD 11 SEATS

BLAKE 5-27-08

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/early-polls-suggest-dems-can-take-many-gop-
senate-seats-2008-05-27.html

A flood of recent polls supports Democratic arguments that the party will win a larger majority in the
Senate in the next election.
Democrats have now polled ahead or within the margin of error in 11 Republican-held seats, as polls
conducted in recent weeks show openings in second-tier targets including Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina and Texas.
There are 23 Republican seats up for grabs this election cycle — including five open seats. Democrats have
only 12 members up for reelection and no open seats.
The only Democratic-held seat that is polling close is in Louisiana, where Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) and state
Treasurer John Kennedy (R) will face each other. The majority of races that are polling close are in
Republican-held seats.

DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO GET 60 SEATS NOW

MCCORMACK 08

John, The Weekly Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/05/eleven_gop_senate_seats_in_jeo.asp

I've always scoffed at the notion that the Democrats could win control of a 60-seat filibuster-proof
Senate majority in November, but the Hill's Aaron Blake points out that "Democrats have now polled
ahead or within the margin of error in 11 Republican-held seats, as polls conducted in recent weeks show
openings in second-tier targets including Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas. . . Democrats
have also polled ahead in at least some of the polling in Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico and
Virginia, polling substantial leads in the latter three. They have also been within the margin of error in
Minnesota and Oregon."

AND THEY ONLY NEED 10 SEATS

BURNETT 7-7-2008

Bob, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/seeking-60-seats_b_111169.html

Democrats have a 51-49 majority in the Senate that depends upon the support of independents Joe Lieberman
and Bernie Sanders. However, Lieberman supports John McCain for President, which suggests the
Connecticut Senator may vote with Republicans in a new Congress. Therefore, if Democrats want to
increase their majority to 60, so that Barack Obama's agenda would not be held hostage by Republican
filibusters, they will have to add 10 new Senators.
SDI 08 BHR 40
CONGRESS DISAD

DEMOCRATS WILL GET A SUPERMAJORITY NOW

LOOMIS NEWS 3-28-08

http://loomisnews.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/2009-us-senate-60-democrats-in-2008/

Purely by the numbers. When you breakdown analyst opinion of the upcoming races, a Democratic
majority of 57 or 58 votes is probably the most likely outcome, while a Democratic caucus of as many
as 61 votes is possible.
(See followup at 50 State Strategy)
Here’s how I work through it:
The current US Senate split: 49 D, 2 Independents, and 49 R (both independents caucus with Dems)
One independent is Bernie Sanders of Vt., who will surely caucus with the Democrats (but don’t call him Shirley!)
the other is Joe Lieberman, who could very well be kicked out of the Democratic caucus after the election. (Unless the Democrats are as stupid as they usually act.)
35 Senate seats are up for election in 2008 – 1/3 of the Senate plus 2 special elections
Current split of Senate seats up for election: 12 D, 23 R
The consensus from analysts is that the Democrats will pick up seats this election in the House and the Senate. Several major sites rank the competitiveness of upcoming races (see
below for sources). Taking the various rankings that are compatible and averaging them, we get this breakdown of the partisan breakdown of the upcoming election:
Consensus average on Senate competitiveness:

Safe Dem 10

Lean Dem 2

Tilt Dem 2

Toss up 3

Tilt Rep 5

Lean Rep 3

Safe Rep 10
(see below for table of the actual predictions from individual sites)
In-depth analysis of individual races can be very subjective. Taking the average consensus, we can figure the likely outcome of the 35 Senate races for party control of the US Senate
after the 2008 election.
A conservative estimate shows the Democrats should pick up 4 seats (totaling 53 to a probable 54 caucus votes, including at least 1 independent
the sum of all the Democratic safe/leans/tilts + ½ the toss-ups,
and none of the Republican safe/leans/tilts
A moderate estimate is a pickup of 8 seats (totaling 57 to a probable 58 caucus votes, including at least 1 independent)
the sum of all the Democratic safe/leans/tilts/toss-ups + 1/2 the tilt Republican
taking none of the Republican safe/leans
A bigger Democratic estimate with a pickup of 9 seats (totaling 58 to a probable 59 caucus votes, including at least 1 independent)
the sum of all the Democratic safe/leans/tilts/toss-ups + 2/3 of the tilt Republicans and 1/3 of the leans Republicans.
A landslide Democratic estimate with a pickup of 11 seats (totaling 60 to a probable 61 caucus votes, including at least 1 independent)
the sum of all the Democratic safe/leans/tilts/toss-ups + 2/3 of tilt Republicans + 2/3 of leans Republican + 1 additional Republican seat from somewhere
So the range of possible Democratic caucus majorities in the US Senate should increase to anywhere
from a rock bottom 54 seats to a possible 61 seats, with 57/58 being the midpoint of these estimates.
I suspect that as Obama’s general election campaign steps up, at least a couple of safe Republican seats
(probably in the deep South) will be brought into play, and the upper range of these estimates is the most
likely outcome.
Democratic caucus outcomes of 59 or even 60 votes are very possible, and 61 is certainly in the realm of
possibility.
SDI 08 BHR 41
CONGRESS DISAD

DEMOCRATS WILL WIN NOW

Gannett News Service • July 11, 2008

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/NEWS01/807110305

Davis pointed to polls such as the one released this week by Rasmussen Reports showing Democrats
continue to enjoy double-digit leads over Republicans when Americans are asked whether they would
vote for a Democrat or a Republican for Congress.

DEMOCRATS WILL GET A SUPER MAJORITY IN THE SENATE NOW

MCCLATCHEY 6-29-08

http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/election2008/2008/06/analyst-to-dems.html

One of the most respected independent analysts of U.S. Senate races told a group of Democrats Sunday
that she's starting to think they may win enough seats this November to have a filibuster-proof
majority. Jennifer Duffy, the Senate analyst for the Cook Political Report, said that as of now, she
expects Democrats to add between 4 and 8 seats to their 51-seat majority in the Senate. And perhaps
even more. "For the first time, I'm seriously contemplating the possibility of 60," she told a meeting of
the Democratic Leadership Council in Chicago.

Democrats will have control of Congress

John Mashek (Editor for US News) July 21st 2008


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mashek/2008/7/21/democrats-should-toss-joe-lieberman.html

A move by Lieberman, who calls himself an independent Democrat, would switch control of the Senate to the GOP
by one vote. But what would that margin mean with only a few months left in the session? Nothing of any real
consequence.

Besides, the Democrats are likely to pick up three to five seats in November, assuring them control again.

Fund raising and polls show Democrats will control congress

Mary Jacoby and T.W. Farnam (writers for Wall Street Journal) July 21st 2008

Democratic-congressional-party committees meanwhile raised more money in June than Republicans to aid their
House and Senate candidates in November's elections.

The Democratic fund-raising advantage, along with polls showing a preference for Democratic control of Congress,
have bolstered Democrats' hopes of widening their majorities in both chambers.
SDI 08 BHR 42
CONGRESS DISAD

Democrats will control because of voter registration and voters abroad.

Stanley Grossman (editor for inthenews.co) July 9th 2008

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/world/inconversation/iraq/countries/united-states-
america/beating-filibuster-$1230972.htm

That's why even those Americans not living in the land of the free like to do everything they can to influence
elections. This November it will be no different, with the Democrats hoping a new secret weapon will play a major
role in giving them a filibuster-proof Senate.

It turns out the key is voter registration. This has traditionally been a complicated business; different states have
different rules and the mountain of getting Americans living abroad to look up complicated guidance has been a
tough one to climb for activists. In 2004 the US state department estimated only 16 per cent of citizens living abroad
voted, compared to turnout of 62 per cent among those living in the US.

Even GOP leaders say that Democrats will have control

Robert Paul Reyes (Editor for News Blaze) July 12th 2008

http://newsblaze.com/story/20080712180644reye.nb/topstory.html

The outlook for the GOP is so grim that party leaders have readily conceded there is no chance they can regain
control of the Senate in 2008, even though Democrats' current majority is slim, 51-49."
SDI 08 BHR 43
CONGRESS DISAD

LINK
WHILE DEMOCRATS WILL WIN NOW A DEMOCRATIC MISTAKE WILL LEAD TO
A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL VICTORY

ANTLE 3-28-2008

W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12968

Instead the GOP is continuing to lose ground in red districts, such as the recent special election loss of
former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat. Candidate recruitment has faltered. Melissa Bean, the Illinois
Democrat who toppled Phil Crane in 2004, has an A-List challenger. Ohio's Zack Space, New York's John
Hall, and Florida's Ron Klein do not. Neither do Indiana's Ellsworth or North Carolina's Shuler, which does
not bode well for efforts to retake the House.
TO MAKE MATTERS worse, the Cook Political Report estimates that Republicans hold 12 of the 14
seats most likely to switch parties in November. Twenty-two Republicans have announced their retirement
from the House compared to just six Democrats. These retirements include GOP incumbents holding at-risk
seats. Departing Congressman Tom Reynolds of New York, for example, beat an eccentric Democratic
challenger by just four points in 2006.
The GOP's Senate math is even more daunting. Structurally, the Republicans were always going to be
at a disadvantage since they had to defend 23 seats to the Democrats' 12. Several specific races have
made matters even worse. Virginia, the only Southern state to vote for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter in
1976, is the Democrats' best pick-up opportunity. In this fall's Old Dominion Senate race, former Democratic
Gov. Mark Warner is almost certain to trounce his Republican predecessor Jim Gilmore.
New Hampshire, New England's last Republican bastion, is in the midst of blue tide. Consequently, GOP
Sen. John Sununu is at serious risk of being bumped off by former Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in a
rematch from six years ago. Shaheen might have won the seat in 2002 if Sununu hadn't primaried Sen. Bob
Smith.
Joining Sununu on the Democrats' most wanted senators list are Gordon Smith of Oregon, Norm Coleman of
Minnesota, and Susan Collins of Maine, all of whom have strong Democratic challengers. The Democrats
have also recruited Mark Udall to run for a Republican open seat in Colorado and Tom Udall to do the same
in New Mexico. The only Democratic incumbent facing a serious GOP challenger is Mary Landrieu in
Louisiana.
A miracle or a Democratic implosion could deliver the Senate to the GOP. Faith teaches us that the
former is possible, experience proves the latter. Nevertheless, a bigger Democratic majority is the way to
bet. Fortunately, all Republicans really need to have a say in how the country is run is just 41 Senate
seats. Senate Republicans have proved this ever since Harry Reid became majority leader, frustrating the
Democrats on Iraq, the alternative minimum tax, the stimulus package, card check, and countless other
pieces of legislation.
SDI 08 BHR 44
CONGRESS DISAD

IMPACTS
DEMOCRATIC SUPERMAJORITY IN THE SENATE WILL SOLVE GLOBAL
WARMING

GEORGEO 07

http://www.climateprediction.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=6894&sid=e0761688cb4e48a39025f7c
c9b15debd

While the IPCC’s confidence level on global warming is over 90% , the short-term political realities of
global warming we face are even more certain. The world can address global warming only to the
degree determined by the U.S. On November 4, 2008, three things must happen for the U.S. to begin
properly addressing global warming; 1) A Democrat or a “Green” Republican must win the White House, 2)
Democrats must maintain their majority in the House, (an expected outcome) and 3) Democrats must win a
filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (a tougher, but achievable goal).

For those who live in the U.K., Canada, Australia and other parts of the world, these realities may not seem
fair, but they are inescapable. As such, during these next 20 months, the most important action on global
warming that the world’s people can take is to help the Democrats increase their majority in the
Senate from the current 51 seats, (which includes 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats) to the
full 60 seats necessary to prevent Republican Senators from filibustering, and thereby defeating, any
serious and substantial legislation to address global warming.

One can understand why a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate is a virtual necessity by
reviewing the votes cast to defeat a 2003 Senate amendment of a bill addressing global warming;
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00420 . As the roll call shows, 45 Republicans voted against the
amendment and 7 Republican Senators voted in favor.

Anyone wishing more evidence regarding the importance of a 60 seat Democrat majority in the Senate can follow the progress this year of global warming bills now before the U.S.
Congress by accessing the following page, and typing "climate change" in the search box; http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html

In the 2008 U.S. elections, 33 Senate seats will be at play; 20 seats are now held by Republicans, 11 seats
are now held by Democrats, and 2 seats will be open. Under a likely scenario, in order for the Democrats to
win the 9 seats they need for a filibuster-proof Senate majority they must win 21 of those 33 seats.

GEORGEO 07

http://www.climateprediction.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=6894&sid=e0761688cb4e48a39025f7cc9b15debd

Without a Democrat or “Green” Republican president, a Democrat House majority and a filibuster-proof
(60 seat) Democrat Senate majority in January, 2009, substantial progress on addressing global
warming will not happen until either after the 2010 elections, when this same 60 seat Democrat Senate
majority must likely be won, or January 2013, in the case of a “Non-Green” Republican president being
elected in 2008.

We throughout the world must recognize the significance of America’s 2008 election to making
substantial and timely progress on global warming mitigation and adaptation. It may be a U.S. election,
but the most effective action that citizens from every other country can take on global warming during
these next 20 months is to help the Democrats win the presidency, the House, and the 9 seats they need to
control a filibuster-proof Senate.
SDI 08 BHR 45
CONGRESS DISAD

IRAQ PULL OUT GOOD

U.S. troop presence causes Iraqi civil violence– your impact is terminally non-
unique – only way to solve for civil war is withdrawal

Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins
University Center in Italy and president of the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National Defense U, “Two Retired
Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center
for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php)

Those who argue that the United States needs to continue to maintain substantial numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq
suggest several dangers that are possible, although not inevitable, if the U.S. draws down our troops before Iraqi
forces can demonstrate the capability to maintain security while confronted with the current level of insurgency.

Charge #1: There could be a civil war. Only the presence of U.S. forces is keeping some stability in Iraq and
precluding a religious war and increased civilian casualties. Response: There already is a civil war, even if the
Administration doesn't use that term. It is beside the point that one side doesn't wear uniforms, a common
occurrence in today’s warfare. With conservative estimates of 12,000 - 25,000 civilian deaths and many more
thousands wounded since the fall of Baghdad, the high level of civil violence is indisputable. While U.S. troops do
provide security in certain locations like the Green Zone, the reality is that daily life in Baghdad is still miserable,
journalists can’t leave their hotels, congressional visitors can’t drive from the airport into Baghdad, and suicide
bombers continue to kill on a daily basis. The presence of U.S. forces, the collateral damage they cause and the
casualties they inflict on Iraqi civilians are major incentives for the recruitment of insurgents. The visible
presence of our troops may actually be more of a cause of civil conflict than a solution to it.

Iraqi occupation causes civil instability and violence

Time 04. (“No Easy Options”, April 19, pg. 34, lexis)

For the past year many in Iraq's Shi'ite majority have chafed under the U.S. occupation--at the lack of jobs and the
frustrating pace of the promised transition to Iraqi rule, a transition that promised to bring them to power. That
simmering discontent last week turned into a full, chaos-inducing boil. Following a call to arms by a radical,
power-hungry cleric named Muqtada al-Sadr, thousands of Iraqi Shi'ites declared war against a military that had
freed them from a heinous dictator. In cities across Iraq, Shi'ite militants united behind the goal of casting off the
yoke of occupation by killing or capturing any foreigner, military or civilian, they came across. Together with the
fighting in Fallujah, the Shi'ite uprising produced the bloodiest eruption of violence since the war began. In the past
week, 46 U.S. soldiers and more than 460 Iraqis were killed. Seemingly overnight, an uprising by the country's
previously peaceful majority--a specter that has haunted U.S. planners and could doom chances for democracy in
Iraq--went from remotely plausible to dangerously imminent.
SDI 08 BHR 46
CONGRESS DISAD

US military presence contributes to civil war between Sunnis and Shiites – impact is
occurring now

Hersh 12-5-05. (Seymour M., Pulitzer Prize winner and author of Chain of Command, “Where
is the Iraq war headed next”, The New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051205fa_fact)

The fear is that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would inevitably trigger a Sunni-Shiite civil war. In many areas, that
war has, in a sense, already begun, and the United States military is being drawn into the sectarian violence. An
American Army officer who took part in the assault on Tal Afar, in the north of Iraq, earlier this fall, said that an
American infantry brigade was placed in the position of providing a cordon of security around the besieged city for
Iraqi forces, most of them Shiites, who were “rounding up any Sunnis on the basis of whatever a Shiite said to
them.” The officer went on, “They were killing Sunnis on behalf of the Shiites,” with the active participation of a
militia unit led by a retired American Special Forces soldier. “People like me have gotten so downhearted,” the
officer added.

Withdrawal solves civil war

Odom 05. (Lieutenant General William E., Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and prof @
Yale, former Director of NSA, former Asst Chief of Staff for Intell, former Military Assistant,
“What’s wrong with cutting and running?”, NiemanWatchdog, August 3,
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129)

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil
war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is
rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security
Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea,
China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be
formed.
SDI 08 BHR 47
CONGRESS DISAD

Withdrawal solves insurgency

Odom 05. (Lieutenant General William E., Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and prof @
Yale, former Director of NSA, former Asst Chief of Staff for Intell, former Military Assistant,
“What’s wrong with cutting and running?”, NiemanWatchdog, August 3,
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129)

3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take
over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of
holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.

Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding
elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.

Withdrawal key to war on terror

Lowell Sun 1-30-05

The current U.S. policy in Iraq is hurting the global war on terror. The war continues to expend
finite resources, erode military readiness, strain long-standing alliances, and inflame the Muslim
world.
It does not have to be this way. By announcing a schedule for withdrawal, the U.S. sends a
message to Iraqis and all citizens of the world that we believe Iraq is capable of making decisions
about its future and controlling its resources. We declare our disinterest in using Iraq as a
permanent platform for regional dominance.
SDI 08 BHR 48
CONGRESS DISAD

Terrorists use the U.S. military presence to gain more followers – this is systemic
– the longer the presence, the more intense their recruitment will be

Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins
University Center in Italy and president of the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National Defense U, “Two Retired
Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center
for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php)

Any assessment of the impact of withdrawal from Iraq must be balanced against the consequences -- and there could be
many -- of staying indefinitely. The insurgency could continue to intensify and expand: Using the U.S. military
occupation as its clarion call, Al Qaeda has successfully appealed to foreign religious terrorists, Sunnis, and other
nationalist elements within Iraq, all bent on ridding the Middle East of American military presence and influence.
Even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has conceded the tension between foreign forces needed for protection and their image as occupiers. Just as the
insurgency in Iraq has intensified in the last two years, it is likely to continue to expand its recruitment of foot-
soldiers and martyrs, as well as its training and development of new leaders and its mastery of new tactics, many of
which will be applicable in other venues. Indeed, the CIA already has warned that Iraq, as a living laboratory of urban combat, could be a more
effective training ground for terrorists than was Afghanistan. With Al Qaeda’s use of Internet web sites now emerging as a primary
vehicle to coordinate acts of terrorism, it seems likely that continued western military occupation in Iraq will become an
increasingly potent incentive to inspire radicals and their young and avid followers; and it will play a major part in
leading to attacks on Americans and other members of the coalition at times and in places least expected. The occupation also will continue to put at
risk the lives of Iraqi security forces and moderate Iraqi politicians, perceived as puppets of the U.S.
SDI 08 BHR 49
CONGRESS DISAD

Iraqi occupation diverts American resources away combating terrorism and is responsible
for breeding resentment

Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins
University Center in Italy and president of the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National Defense U, “Two Retired
Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center
for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php)

Those who argue that the United States needs to continue to maintain substantial numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq
suggest several dangers that are possible, although not inevitable, if the U.S. draws down our troops before Iraqi forces can demonstrate the
capability to maintain security while confronted with the current level of insurgency.

... CARD CONTINUES…

Charge #2: Iraq could become a failed state that is a haven for terrorists. Response: Iraq became a haven for
terrorists as a direct result of the U.S. invasion. It is quite possible that ending the occupation would decrease, not
increase, terrorist activity; but the larger question is how to deal with the multi-headed monster that Al Qaeda and its
supporters have become. We are failing to accord sufficient priority to this threat, due in large part to our
preoccupation with the ongoing war in Iraq.

Iraq war prevents U.S. from more effective means of combating terrorism

Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins
University Center in Italy and president of the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National Defense U, “Two Retired
Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center
for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php)

U.S. attention will continue to be diverted from other critical security issues: Waging a full-time, unpopular war in
Iraq, combined with the recent hurricane disasters, consumes the attention of the Administration's national security
team, resulting in too little consideration of other critical threats to the security of the United States. These include
terrorist organizations, unsecured nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union, the nuclear aspirations
of Iran and North Korea and loose nuclear materials around the globe available to terrorists. It also detracts attention
and funds from protection of our borders, our ports, our nuclear and chemical plants, our food and water supplies,
and our domestic transportation system.
SDI 08 BHR 50
CONGRESS DISAD

Staying in Iraq jacks international credibility and diverts resources from fighting terrorism

Gazette 05. (“Former CIA Director calls for Iraq withdrawal”, Harvard University News, June
7, http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2005/06/07-pbk.html)

Deutch, who delivered the Phi Beta Kappa oration at the honor society's annual Literary Exercises, served as CIA
director under President Bill Clinton from May 1995 until December 1996. In his 20-minute speech, he challenged
the views of both Republicans and Democrats who say that the United States must stay the course to stabilize the
country before disengaging.

That position, Deutch said, is based on the assumption that the United States will leave a stable nation behind. But it
is also possible, he said, that the United States will fail in its Iraq objectives and lose international credibility by
staying the course, even as its ability to deal with other crises, such as North Korea, Iran, and the fight against
international terrorism, is compromised.

Withdrawal solves terrorism

Odom 05. (Lieutenant General William E., Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and prof @
Yale, former Director of NSA, former Asst Chief of Staff for Intell, former Military Assistant,
“What’s wrong with cutting and running?”, NiemanWatchdog, August 3,
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129)

4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration
and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further
practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the
sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.

Why not ask: "Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qaeda --
which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?"
SDI 08 BHR 51
CONGRESS DISAD

US presence in Iraq contributes to diminished credibility

Deutch 05. (John, former deputy secretary of defense and director of the CIA, prof of chem @
MIT, “Time to Pull Out. And Not Just From Iraq”, The New York Times, July 15, pg. 19, lexis)

THIS conventional view, however, ignores two important questions. The first is, how much are American interests in
the Arab world being harmed by our continued presence in Iraq? Second, how much does the United States'
presence in Iraq reduce our ability to deal with other important security challenges, notably those posed by North
Korea, Iran and international terrorism? Those who argue that we should ''stay the course'' because an early
withdrawal from Iraq would hurt America's global credibility must consider the possibility that we will fail in our
objectives in Iraq and suffer an even worse loss of credibility down the road.

I do not believe that we are making progress on any of our key objectives in Iraq. There may be days when security
seems somewhat improved or when the Iraqi government appears to be functioning better, but the underlying
destabilizing effect of the insurgency is undiminished. When, after the fall of Baghdad, the decision was taken to
disband the Iraqi Army, an impossible security situation was created: a combination of hostile ethnic factions
supported by demobilized, but armed, military and security units with surrounding nations actively supporting them.
SDI 08 BHR 52
CONGRESS DISAD

US cred was jacked by war – extending troop presence can’t solve – their impact
is terminally non-unique

Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins
University Center in Italy and president of the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National Defense U, “Two Retired
Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center
for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php)

Those who argue that the United States needs to continue to maintain substantial numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq
suggest several dangers that are possible, although not inevitable, if the U.S. draws down our troops before Iraqi
forces can demonstrate the capability to maintain security while confronted with the current level of insurgency.

... CARD CONTINUES…

Charge # 3: If the U.S. "cuts and runs," we will lose prestige and credibility across the globe.

Response: Accusations that arguments for policy change constitute a “cut and run” surrender is an emotional ploy
that obfuscates the issue. It is precisely the U.S. intervention in Iraq that has squandered the positive image of, and
world sympathy that was felt for, the U.S. immediately after 9/11. According to authoritative polling, after two years
of an aggressive U.S. campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East, the Iraq war has made millions
suspicious of U.S. intentions; and the polls reveal that most now believe the war has made the world more, not less,
dangerous.

Not only do most Europeans view us in a negative light, but our image in the Muslim world is even worse: only
about one fifth of Turks, Pakistanis or Jordanians -- to name three U.S. allies -- view us positively. It is true that
American military power is respected and prestigious because it is the strongest in the world; but being regarded as a
stubborn bully focused exclusively on our own interests as seen by the Administration does not give our nation the
kind of image or credibility we desire and need. It is significant that polls show 80% of Iraqis want the American
military to depart. At a recent conference, Iraqi leaders called for the departure of American troops and even
suggested that insurgents are justified in killing coalition troops.

The war against extremists cannot be won primarily through the use of force—it is foremost a war of ideas. We are
losing that war and our Iraqi policy is one of the contributors to that condition.

The U.S. cannot rebuild its credibility by extending the occupation, but rather by reforming the botched
reconstruction program to restore a consistent supply of water, electricity and gasoline to Iraq’s civilian population,
and by talking with all parties in the country and region to help rebuild its political structure.
SDI 08 BHR 53
CONGRESS DISAD

US occupation of Iraq has caused a credibility gap, undermining military success

Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins
University Center in Italy and president of the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National Defense U, “Two Retired
Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center
for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php)

The "credibility gap" will intensify: Once again, after many years, we see the return of an ominous credibility gap
in the middle of a war. The majority of the American public is coming to reject the Vice President’s prediction that
the insurgency is “in its last throes,” concluding instead that the war in Iraq, even if the original rationale justified
the invasion, is not making Americans safer from terrorism.

American government credibility will continue to be undermined by optimistic forecasts of success. Already,
public opinion polls indicate a widening gap. A November Washington Post poll found that approval of Bush's Iraq
policy has fallen to 36% with 64% disapproving. Only 39% in the same poll agreed that the war was worth fighting.
A number of polls show increasing numbers of American agreeing that some or all U.S. troops should be brought
home. As we learned from the Vietnam experience, we cannot sustain a military campaign over the long term
without public support.

Staying in Iraq jacks international credibility and diverts resources from fighting terrorism

Gazette 05. (“Former CIA Director calls for Iraq withdrawal”, Harvard University News, June
7, http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2005/06/07-pbk.html)

Deutch, who delivered the Phi Beta Kappa oration at the honor society's annual Literary Exercises, served as CIA
director under President Bill Clinton from May 1995 until December 1996. In his 20-minute speech, he challenged
the views of both Republicans and Democrats who say that the United States must stay the course to stabilize the
country before disengaging.

That position, Deutch said, is based on the assumption that the United States will leave a stable nation behind. But it
is also possible, he said, that the United States will fail in its Iraq objectives and lose international credibility by
staying the course, even as its ability to deal with other crises, such as North Korea, Iran, and the fight against
international terrorism, is compromised.

Withdrawal solves credibility – which is not a concern anyways

Odom 05. (Lieutenant General William E., Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and prof @
Yale, former Director of NSA, former Asst Chief of Staff for Intell, former Military Assistant,
“What’s wrong with cutting and running?”, NiemanWatchdog, August 3,
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129)

2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A
hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we
have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there
damages our credibility more than leaving.
SDI 08 BHR 54
CONGRESS DISAD

Iraq war jacks leadership and international cooperation

Gard and Johns 2005. (Robert G., Lieutenant General, Director of John Hopkins
University Center in Italy and president of the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; John, Brigadier General and dean with National Defense U, “Two Retired
Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position”, Center
for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, November 28,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php)

International cooperation will be undermined: The number of countries assisting the U.S. in Iraq, most of which
provide few troops, has already fallen by a quarter, from 34 last year to 25 today; and five more are due to leave by
year's end. Recently South Korea announced the reduction of its commitment. Furthermore, the international
cooperation necessary to confront terrorism may deteriorate further by the continued suspicion of, and hostility
toward, the United States in most other countries.

A recent Pew Center international poll shows that the United States is held in low esteem across the globe,
particularly in the Muslim world, largely as a result of the U.S. Administration’s foreign policies; and the war in Iraq
continues to be deeply unpopular internationally, including with the populaces of our allies. Most countries believe
that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has made the world a less safe place. Many are also suspicious that the
United States intends to establish permanent bases in Iraq to secure the flow of oil from the region, a charge the
Administration has not denied.

Continued occupation causes overstretch – crushing heg

The Guardian 8/25/2k5

The United States is now that weary Titan. In the British case, the angst was a result of the unexpectedly protracted,
bloody and costly Boer war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defied the mightiest military the world had
seen; concern about the rising economic power of Germany and the United States; and a combination of imperial
overstretch with socio-economic problems at home. In the American case, it's a result of the unexpectedly
protracted, bloody and costly Iraq war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defies the mightiest military the
world has seen; concern about the rising economic power of China and India; and a combination of imperial
overstretch with socio-economic problems at home.
SDI 08 BHR 55
CONGRESS DISAD

AFF ANSWERS

TURN, IF THE PLAN BOOSTS MCCAIN THE REPUBLICANS WILL GAIN IN THE
SENATE

ANTLE 3-28-2008

W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12968

Further complicating matters is the presidential election. Republicans haven't won most close Senate races
while a Democrat rode to the White House since 1992, when Arlen Specter, Bob Packwood, Kit Bond,
Alfonse D'Amato, and John McCain defied Clinton's coattails while Lauch Faircloth and Paul Coverdell
picked off Democratic incumbents. If McCain carries swing states like New Hampshire, Minnesota,
Colorado and New Mexico or runs up huge margins in red states like Kentucky or even Virginia, it
could make the difference in the Senate contests.

In other words, Republicans must hope that McCain does well enough to pull some Senate candidates
across the finish line. Conservatives should hope there are enough Republicans to pull McCain to the right.
SDI 08 BHR 56
CONGRESS DISAD

ENERGY POLICY NOT KEY TO THE ELECTION


Donna Brazile and Alfred S. Regnery 3-3-08

Democratic Political Strategist; American Spectator Publisher


Monday, March 3, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/29/DI2008022902782.html

Alfred S. Regnery: I would be surprised if it becomes a very big issue. The economy is a big one and will
be through the fall. People will talk about energy and global warming and things like that, but I don't
think it's going to attract many voters either way. And again, the question is who's going to pay for it. If
we adopted some of the global warming solutions being pitched, it would basically break the country. The
money's not there.

NO LINK. CONGRESS DOESN’T GET EITHER THE CREDIT OR THE BLAME

O'Connor 07
Patrick,http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2432.html.

Given the possibility that Democrats will hold both chambers and pick up the White House, McConnell
said they have greater incentive to move controversial legislation now before the responsibility falls
completely on their shoulders.
"Get it off the table now, if it's a little bit controversial," McConnell said. "The president tends to get the
credit or the blame for everything anyway. The Democrats won't have as much of their fingerprints on
it."

NO LINK. THE PUBLIC DON’T EVEN KNOW DEMOCRATS ARE IN CHARGE OF


CONGRESS

CHADDOCK 7-8-08
Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0708/p03s04-uspo.html

Washington - Members of Congress are used to working in an institution that gets no respect, but a recent plunge to the bottom of confidence ratings – and a week back home with
constituents riled over gas prices – is raising alarms even on thick-skinned Capitol Hill.
Some Democrats blame the Republicans, especially GOP senators who have used procedural maneuvers to block votes on key legislation.
"It's worrisome, but I understand it: The strategy of the Republicans has been to stop anything from happening – and people think that nothing is being done to help their lives," says
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) of Michigan.
Some Republicans worry that the public doesn't know enough about Congress to blame the right
party.
"Not only does Congress have an approval rating below bubonic plague and head lice, I saw a recent
poll that as many as 40 percent of people still believe that Congress is in Republican hands," says Rep.
Jeb Hensarling (R) of Texas. "I wish we could get a little accuracy out there about who is in charge – and let
those ratings fall where they may."
SDI 08 BHR 57
CONGRESS DISAD

PERCEPTIONS OF CONGRESS AS A WHOLE ARE IRRELEVANT TO HOW PEOPLE


VOTE

CHADDOCK 7-8-08
Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0708/p03s04-uspo.html

A recent Gallup Poll confirms what many lawmakers say they're hearing from their constituents: that
confidence in Congress has never been lower. Only 12 percent of Americans say they have a "great deal"
or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress as an institution – the lowest level ever for any US institution
since Gallup began asking the question 35 years ago. Congressional job approval, a slightly different
question, has dropped to 18 percent.
Pollsters say it's tough to sort out why Congress now ranks so low. "In general, Americans are responding
negatively to everything we put in front of them," says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll in
Princeton, N.J. Government institutions, especially, are at or near their lowest ratings to date.
But when pollsters ask if voters think that their local member of Congress deserves to be reelected, the
response is usually positive. More than 90 percent of incumbents who opt to stay in Congress are
typically reelected.
"Typically, the local congressman is held in higher regard as a person than the institution they're a part of,"
says Mr. Newport. It's a trend pollsters also see in questions about confidence in the medical system, public
education, and law enforcement, he adds.
This view that voters can at the same time harbor contempt for Congress but also respect for their local
congressman has settled into the culture on Capitol Hill.
SDI 08 BHR 58
CONGRESS DISAD

TURN, LOW BUSH POPULARITY IS KEY TO DEMOCRATIC WINS

MAISEL 08

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/1007/ijde/maisel.htm

A new president will be elected in 2008, and national issues — the war in Iraq, terrorism, immigration policy,
energy dependence — will dominate the scene. If President Bush's approval rating remains low among
voters and these issues are unresolved going into the November election, the Democrats may have an
advantage in closely contested races.

NO LINK AND TURN. LOW CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL RATING IS ACTUALLY


HELPING DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS BECAUSE THE
PUBLIC BLAMES REPUBLICANS

DEMOCRACY CORPS 4-14-08

http://www.democracycorps.com/polling/2008/04/economic-concerns-driving-political-measures-to-new-depths/.
Democratic Advantage at Congressional Level Grows

In the midst of mounting economic concerns and new record low marks for President Bush, approval of
Congress and its performance has also fallen, averaging just 22 percent across three polls released in the
last few weeks, and remains even lower than Bush’s overall job approval But the anger toward Congress is
not aimed at the Democrats, and this year’s Democracy Corps polling shows a decline in negatives for
the “Democratic Congress” which remains considerably stronger than the assessments of “Republicans
in Congress.” In fact, the profound change dynamic created by these plunging assessments of the
country’s direction and its political leadership is only increasing the electoral prospects of Democrats
at the congressional level.
From September of last year through February of this year, there was remarkable consistency in the generic
congressional ballot, with Democrats holding an advantage of 10-11 points throughout the six-month period.
There is a natural expectation that this enormous gap will close as the election nears and traditional partisan
lines are exposed again, and particularly in the current environment where John McCain has closed the gap
with his potential Democratic rivals. Instead, the gap actually grew in two polls released in March, with
NBC News/Wall Street Journal finding a 14-point margin for Democrats among registered voters (49 to 35
percent) and our own Democracy Corps poll showing an increase in the Democratic advantage among
likely voters to 13 points (53 to 40 percent).