UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Elections
Elections........................................................................................................................................... ...........1 Obama Good 1NC........................................................................................................................ ...............3 Obama Good 1NC ...................................................................................................................... ................4 Obama Winning...................................................................................................................................... .....5 Obama Winning...................................................................................................................................... .....7 Obama Winning...................................................................................................................................... .....8 Obama Winning- Polls................................................................................................................................. 9 Obama Winning- Polls.............................................................................................................................. .10 Obama Winning- Independents............................................................................................................... ...11 Obama Winning- Women.................................................................................................. ........................12 Obama Winning- Hispanics .................................................................................................................................................................. .13 Obama Winning Florida.................................................................................................... ........................14 No Distancing Now.................................................................................................................. .................15 Distancing Now.............................................................................................................................. ...........16 **Links**........................................................................................................................................... .......17 Alternative Energy Popular.............................................................................................. .........................18 Alternative Energy Popular.............................................................................................. .........................19 Alternative Energy partisan.................................................................................................... ...................20 Alternative Energy Bipartisan........................................................................................ ...........................21 Solar Power Popular................................................................................................................... ...............22 Nuclear Power Unpopular................................................................................................... ......................23 Nuclear Power Popular................................................................................................................... ...........24 Nuclear Power Popular................................................................................................................... ...........25 Wind Power Popular........................................................................................................................... .......26 Wind Power Unpopular.......................................................................................................... ...................27 RPS Popular...................................................................................................................... ........................28 **Internal Links**.................................................................................................................................... .29 Bush Popularity Key................................................................................................................................ ..30 Energy Key to the Election............................................................................................................... .........31 Energy Key to the Election............................................................................................................... .........32 Energy Key to the Election............................................................................................................... .........33 Oil Key to the Election............................................................................................................. .................34 Global Warming Key to the Election........................................................................................... ..............35 Evangelicals Key........................................................................................................................... ............36 Florida Key.......................................................................................................................................... .....37 **Impacts-Obama Good**............................................................................................................. ...........38 Iran Strikes......................................................................................................................... .......................39 China War.......................................................................................................................................... ........40 Hegemony........................................................................................................................... ......................41 Hegemony Ext................................................................................................................................. ..........42 Yucca Mountain.................................................................................................................................... .....43 Social Security....................................................................................................................................... ....44 Social Security ...................................................................................................................................... ....45 NMD ............................................................................................................................... .........................46 Tax Cuts.................................................................................................................................................... .47 Preemption...................................................................................................................... ..........................48 A2 India Deal...................................................................................................................... ......................49

1

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

A2 Too Early to Predict........................................................................................................... ..................50 **Aff**............................................................................................................................... ......................51 McCain Will Win................................................................................................................................... ....52 McCain Will Win................................................................................................................................... ....53 McCain Winning- Eye Color...................................................................................................... ...............54 McCain Winning- Women.......................................................................................................... ...............55 McCain Winning- State by State.................................................................................... ...........................56 McCain Winning- Polls......................................................................................................... ....................57 Obama Will Lose............................................................................................................................. ..........58 Too Early to Predict......................................................................................................................... ..........59 Too Early to Predict......................................................................................................................... ..........60 Polls Bad........................................................................................................................... ........................61 **Impacts- Obama Bad**.................................................................................................. .......................62 Tax Cuts.................................................................................................................................................... .63 UN Mod......................................................................................................................... ...........................64 Terrorism Mod..................................................................................................................................... ......65 Protectionism Mod............................................................................................................. .......................66 Protectionism Ext................................................................................................................ ......................67 India Deal.................................................................................................................................. ................68

2

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Good 1NC
Obama winning now although the race is still close OG paper ,Published on 07/22/2008, “Presidential odds: Obama maintains big lead against McCain” [http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-02267.html] Date Acessed 7/22/08 MS
We are slowly closing in on a month full with news relating to the two presidential candidates and it's time to look at the odds to win the November Elections. Far away from the 2008 Presidential Elections, many states are already "enjoying" the commercials coming from both camps, a sure sign of what's to come ahead. But while some grunt at the TV others are keeping a close eye - the odds makers. According to many betting experts, the current election is expected to surpass batting on any other non-sporting event, hence the bookmakers are approaching the subject quite careful. So what's the score: At the online sportsbook BodogSports the odds makers are still favoring Democratic

presidential candidate Barack Obama to win the Election with short odds -240, while his Republican rival John McCain remains the underdog with odds +175, a very small movement from a month ago. The top factors working to
benefit Barack Obama's presidential odds, according to some bookmakers, were the cartoon-cover of the New Yorker and his Middle Eastern trip, which is still underway. The surge in Iraq was beneficial to John McCain, his views on offshore drilling, however, seem to be against the public opinion. As the presidential race heats up, we are likely to see more and more fluctuation in the odds to win the 2008 Elections, stay tuned for the latest updates.

McCain will use the plan to gain credit and move away from Bush Slate Magazine 2008, june 14(Slate Magazine, June 13, Ducking the Climate Debate, Lexis)
Lieberman-Warner is dead now-defeated by a wide margin in the vote Obama and McCain missed-but its approach to controlling global-warming pollution, known as "cap and trade," lives on. Both candidates support cap and trade, which would set mandatory carbon reductions and create a market for carbon permits, making companies pay for the right to pollute. McCain

sponsored two important early cap-and-trade bills, in 2003 and 2005; Obama joined him as a cosponsor of the latter. Both have reason to campaign on the issue because it matters to the independent voters whose support they need to get elected. And for McCain, climate change is especially good politics: Bucking his party on the issue appeals to his sense of personal drama and offers his best evidence that he's not Just Like Bush. "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership," he vowed in a climate speech last month in Oregon. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action."
Energy is the key internal link Amy Walters 2008, June 4(Amy, ON THE TRAIL, The National Journal, June 4, 2008, LN)Time To Exhale McCain As Change Agent. He showed little remorse in throwing President Bush under the bus in his speech last night in New Orleans. But the issues he picked -- climate change and energy policy -while important, are not as seminal to voters as the economy and Iraq. If Obama is going to be successful at tying McCain to Bush, he must keep the focus on those two issues. Whenever McCain can keep Obama talking about lobbying reform or carbon caps, and not Bush's tax cuts or the rationale for going to Iraq, it's a win for McCain. While it's true that Democrats won't easily be able to morph McCain into "McBush," it's also important to remember that McCain's "maverick-ness" isn't as well-defined among independents as conventional wisdom suggests. Sure, indie voters like him. But a recent Charlottesville, Va., focus group conducted by Peter Hart showed that independent voters know McCain primarily for his military experience, not his reputation for bucking the GOP.

3

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Good 1NC
Obama guarantees licenses to illegal immigrants Maribel Hastings (La Opinion Correspondent) June 14, 2008 “Obama and McCain plans overlap somewhat, but have significant differences” [http://www.alternet.org/rights/88109/?page=2 Accessed June 25, 2008]
At first glance there doesn’t seem to be significant differences between Senator Obama and Senator McCain’s stance on immigration. It’s because Obama supports reform previously supported by John McCain until the political climate led him to take a “security-first” approach. If anything is similar between McCain and Obama and their respective political parties, Republican and Democrat, it’s to avoid the issue all together when possible. Especially since it’s not on the top of the issues of most concern to voters, and a volatile topic. What’s odd is that it’s an issue that, according to some, would benefit McCain in the fight for latino votes as the Senator from Arizona co-authored the Immigration Reform Bill with Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA). Although McCain presently emphasizes a “security-first” approach, the McCain/Kennedy bill still resounds among many hispanics. But everything is relative. Yesterday a NBC/WSJ poll concluded that 62% of hispanic voters prefer Obama versus 28% for McCain.

Upon closer scrutiny of both candidate positions, there are differences. For example, McCain opposes the Dream Act that benefits undocumented students and Obama supports it; McCain opposes giving driving licenses to illegal immigrants; Obama supports it. This prevents terrorism Privacy International (Privacy-focus Analysis Group) 11/02/2005 [http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-127060 Accessed June 25, 2008]
The first step in laying the foundations requires that federal agencies refuse any drivers' license that does not meet minimum document requirements and issuance standards, including verification of immigration status. As a result, temporary residents in the U.S. will only get a driver's license that is valid until their authorized period of stay expires. For all other noncitizens licenses will be valid for only one year. According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association Preventing immigrants from

obtaining driver's licenses undermines national security by pushing people into the shadows and fueling the black market for fraudulent identification documents. Moreover, it undermines the law enforcement utility of Department of Motor Vehicle databases by limiting rather than expanding the data on individuals residing in a particular state. Perhaps more to the point, it is clear from the 9/11 and Terrorist Travel staff report that the proposed restrictions would not have prevented a single hijacker from obtaining a driver's license or boarding a plane. (...) The terrorists did not need U.S.-issued driver's licenses to board the planes on September 11; they had foreign passports that allowed them to board airplanes. Use of foreign passports to board airplanes would still be permitted under this provision. Impact is Extinction Mohamed Sid-Ahmed (Political Analyst) 2004 (“Extinction!”, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm) What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

4

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Winning
OBAMA WILL WIN - INDEPENDENTS.
CILLIZZA 6/26/08 [CHRIS, staff writer for washingtonpost.com, Washington Post.com,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062601307.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008062601354&pos=]

Independents,

who were widely written off during the 2004 election in favor of appeals by the candidates to their respective party bases, look likely to play a central role in picking the next president in these four battleground states. And for now, Obama has a clear edge over McCain among

independent voters in all four states. That lead is largest in Minnesota, where Obama takes 54 percent among independents compared with just 33 percent for McCain. The Democrat's lead was 13 points in Wisconsin, 12 in Colorado and eight in Michigan. Obama's lead among independents is all the more important given the large number of voters eschewing the two major parties in each state. In Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, roughly three-in-ten voters identify as independents; in Colorado that number is closer to four in ten. The political environment in each state suggests a decidedly uphill climb for McCain in the general election. In Colorado, just 31 percent of voters approve of the way President Bush is handling his job, while 63 percent disapprove. In Michigan, the numbers are even more dismal, with a meager 26 percent expressing approval of Bush and a whopping 67 percent disapproving.

OBAMA WILL WIN Economy
FAUCHER 6/28/08
[Augustine, director of macroeconomics at Moody's Economy.com in West Chester, Pa, Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/28/economy_bodes_ill_wind_for_mccain /] HISTORICALLY, ECONOMIC conditions have played an enormous role in presidential elections, even as other factors come into play. Economic downturns are bad news for the incumbent, while expansions tend to lead to reelection. Franklin D. Roosevelt unseated Herbert Hoover in the depth of the Great Depression in 1932. Boom times helped reelect Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996.

For all the money and time and effort that go into campaigning, the results of presidential elections often seem to track basic economic conditions. My employer, Moody's Economy.com, has developed a model to predict the outcome of the vote in each state, based on economic conditions at the time of the election. The results forecast the Electoral College vote. And as of June, the model is predicting a big victory for the Democrat, Senator Barack Obama.

All Electoral indicators
MONTOPOLI 6/25/06 [BRIAN political correspondent, CBS NEWS
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/25/politics/horserace/entry4207063.shtml]

5

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Does Barack Obama already have the presidency locked up? For Democrats, it might be tempting to think so. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll out yesterday shows Obama with a 12 point edge – an advantage that stretches to 15 points when Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are included. The poll also suggests that more voters are identifying as Democrats than Republicans, and that John McCain is suffering from a “passion gap” – while just 58 percent of conservatives said they would vote for McCain, 79 percent of liberals vowed to vote for Obama. In addition, almost every metric in the race favors the Democratic candidate – among them the candidate’s fundraising ability, trends in party identification, and disenchantment with the current (Republican) president. McCain seems to realize that he
faces an uphill battle: At a fundraiser yesterday, the presumptive GOP nominee said, “We are behind, we are the underdog. That’s what I like to be.”

6

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Winning
Obama wining a landslide PR Web, Press Release Web, All Press Releases for July 22, 2008 “Obama to Win in Landslide, Predicts Acclaimed Numerologist” [http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/7/prweb1122094.htm] Date Accessed 7/22/08 MS
Barack Obama is going to win the Presidency in an historic landslide that changes world history, says acclaimed numerologist Marcy Leefar, professionally known as Mystical Marcy. Boca Raton, FL (PRWEB) July 22, 2008 -- Barack Obama is going
to win the Presidency in an historic landslide that changes world history, says acclaimed numerologist Marcy Leefar. Ms. Leefar, professionally known as Mystical Marcy (www.mysticalmarcy.com), reports that the numbers all add up to a dramatic win for the Senator from Illinois. "Both candidates have very powerful numbers associated with them," says Ms. Leefar from her Florida office. "The numbers clearly show that these men were destined to meet and that the fate of the world will change as a result of it." The numbers clearly show that these men were destined to meet and that the fate of the world will change as a result of it. "However, one of the most important messages that the numbers tell us is that 2009 will be what we call a Master Number year. This means that 2009 will be a year of major transformation for the world. The key point here is that it is transition from old to new. We see that Obama represents the new world and McCain represents the old one. And, while Senator McCain is certainly to be admired and respected, the meanings associated with 2009 indicate that the new will have a huge advantage over the old. McCain won't be a pushover by any means, says Ms. Leefar, because both candidates have the same "Life Path" number, which is 11. "Eleven is a Master Number, which indicates supernatural strength, high vibrations, inspiration and creative forces. Both Obama and McCain have this unusual attribute. However, there is another number called the Essence. McCain's Essence is eight, which means he has access to power, finance and fortune. This is very good, but Obama's Essence number is eleven - the same as his Life Path. What this means is that all of the strength and power that comes with eleven is doubled for Obama. He has forces in his favor right now that are virtually unstoppable." Each candidate's age is also carefully calculated in relation to other factors, and here again, Obama's numbers show a big advantage. "Obama's age calculations tell us that in the coming year he will have tremendous growth and influence,

whereas McCain's age calculations show us that he is burdened with emotional baggage that could hold him back. Additionally, Obama has big advantages in numbers referred to as his Personal Year and his Transiting Letters." "There are dozens
of calculations to consider and many different methods of interpretation," cautions Marcy. "Numerology is an ancient science and when it is practiced correctly and professionally, the results can be astounding. People can transform their lives with numerology." Famed West-coast numerologist Joe Ivory concurs with Marcy's calculations. "I've studied the numbers and am seeing the same results. We are about to witness something very big."

7

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Winning
No chance for McCain Willie Brown, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, July 20, 2008 Who will win the Obama vs. Obama election? [http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/19/BAD511PR2F.DTL] Date Accesed 7/21/08 MS
From New York to San Francisco, I've been asked over and over: Given the state of the country, how could Barack Obama and John McCain be so close in the polls? The answer - at this point it's not about Obama vs. McCain. It's about Obama vs. Obama. Upscale, white "Sex and the City" women are still livid over how they perceive the Obama people treated Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primaries.

He has got a major, major problem there, and they feel he has done nothing to address it. I'm not saying women will vote for McCain - he's just a look-over at best - but they will be missing in action this November unless something changes. Back in New York, I've picked up some real hesitation about Obama among Jewish Democrats as well. Plus, Obama is
now having to deal with the "true believers" upset about his moving to the middle on Iraq, gun control, the death penalty and everything else that happens when a candidate suddenly gets more "educated" on the issues. It's Obama vs. Obama - and it's still a wide-open race among undecideds.

Obama ahead now
Greg Mitchell, (Editor) Editor and Publisher, Published: July 19, 2008 6:00 PM ET Paul Krugman Tells 'Net' Activists: Obama Will Win -- But Then Press Will Slam Him. [http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003829537] Date accessed 7/21/08 MS
AUSTIN Speaking at an afternoon panel at the enormous Netroots Nation convention in Austin, Texas, on Friday, Paul Krugman, The New York Times columnist, predicted, with seeming confidence, an Obama victory in November -- but added that "within three months of taking office, no, less than three months" the media would be out to get him, as much as
they had at the high point of anti-Bill Clinton bashing. Krugman was responding to a questioner who had stated that the media was "in the pocket" of the "government." Krugman pointed out that this was hardly the case when Clinton was in the White House and would be proven again when Obama took over. "Get ready for it," he warned.

8

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Winning- Polls
Polls prove Obama will win KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN, Poll shows McCain, Obama in tight Michigan race, 7/21/2008, 8:33 p.m. EDT, The Associated Press [http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/politics1/121668714614920.xml&storylist=michigannews] Date Acessed 7/21/08 MS
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A new poll shows 43 percent of Michigan voters back Democrat Barack Obama and 41 percent support GOP rival John McCain, with third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr picking up enough votes to be spoilers in the tight race. Democrat John Kerry beat President Bush in Michigan by just 3 percentage points in 2004. Barr, the Libertarian candidate, got 2 percent in the recent poll while independent Nader got 3 percent. Twelve percent were undecided. The EPIC-MRA poll surveyed 600 likely voters statewide from July 13 to 15, a time when McCain was campaigning heavily in the state. The Arizona Republican held a June 10 town hall meeting at an auto supplier near Detroit and then campaigned in western Michigan and Warren last Thursday and Friday.

Obama Leads in Polls
Harris Interactive, July 21, 2008, “Obama Leads Polls,” Yahoo News, Accessed: July 21, 2008. http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080721/20080721005172.html?.v=1 ROCHESTER, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--With just six weeks to go until the Democrat and Republican Presidential conventions, the general election is almost officially here. Results from a new Harris Poll show that: In a four way race, Barack Obama leads John McCain among registered voters 44 percent to 35 percent, while Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate and Ralph Nader each receive 2 percent. Sixteen percent of registered voters are not sure who they will vote for yet; Among Independents, Obama has a 12-point lead (38% to 26%), but one-quarter of Independents (25%) are not sure, 4 percent would vote for Bob Barr and 3 percent for Ralph Nader. These are some of the results of a Harris Poll of 2,690 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive® between July 3 and 11, 2008. Like all polls conducted well before an election, this should not be read as a prediction, but rather as a snap shot of the presidential “horse race”. Additional results include: Half of Matures (those over 63) say they would vote for John McCain, while three in ten (29%) would vote for Senator Obama, indicating that some of McCain’s strongest support comes from this generation; Ninety percent of African Americans are voting for Senator Obama, as are six in ten Hispanics (60%). Whites, however, are leaning towards Senator McCain over Senator Obama (40% versus 34%); Over two in five men (42%) and women (43%) say they would vote for Senator Obama, while over one-third of men (36%) and three in ten women (30%) would vote for Senator McCain. This suggests that the gender gap doesn’t really exist this year; and, Half of single women (51%) would vote for Senator Obama while just one-quarter (25%) would vote for Senator McCain.

Obama Will Win
Greg Mitchell, Editor and Publisher. Published July 19, 2008. “Paul Krugman Tells 'Net' Activists: Obama Will Win -- But Then Press Will Slam Him.” http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003829537 Date Accessed: July 22, 2008. Speaking at an afternoon panel at the enormous Netroots Nation convention in Austin, Texas, on Friday, Paul Krugman, The New York Times columnist, predicted, with seeming confidence, an Obama victory in November -but added that "within three months of taking office, no, less than three months" the media would be out to get him, as much as they had at the high point of anti-Bill Clinton bashing.

9

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Winning- Polls
Obama rocking the polls now By Heidi PRZYBYLA June 25, 2008 "Obama Has 15-Point Lead as Voters Reject Republicans (Update1)" reporter for Bloomberg magazine http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agCTbSDJ83rc&refer=home (Bloomberg) -- Democrat Barack Obama has opened a 15-point lead in the presidential race, and most of the political trends -- voter enthusiasm, views of President George W. Bush, the Republicans, the economy and the direction of the country -- point to even greater trouble for rival John McCain. Illinois Senator Obama, winning support from once skeptical women and Democrats, beats McCain 48 percent to 33 percent in a four-way race, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows. Independent candidates Bob Barr and Ralph Nader get 7 percent combined, with the remainder undecided. Obama's margin and most of the poll's
findings in other areas give the Democrats a commanding advantage more than four months before the November election, says Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times polling director. ``The Obama voters are much more energized and motivated to come out to vote than the McCain voters; McCain is still struggling to win over some of his core groups,'' she says. ``The good news for Obama is also that he seems to be doing better on the issue that is uppermost in voters' minds, and that is the economy.'

National polls put Obama in the lead Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff / July 20, 2008, Obama's paid staff dwarfing McCain's “Democrat targets 50 states as rival focuses on tossups” The Boston Globe, [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/20/obamas_paid_staff_dwarfing_mccains/?page=2] Date Accesed 7/21/08 MS
Behind the headlines about the unprecedented success of Democrat Barack Obama's fund-raising machine lies a more prosaic truth - his campaign will need every penny of its $300 million goal to bankroll an unprecedented 50state general election campaign with a massive army on the ground. His campaign already has by far the largest fulltime paid staff in presidential campaign history, and unlike Republican rival John McCain's, continues to grow by the day. National polls show the race remains close between Obama and McCain, but the Obama campaign is paying closer attention to polls in more than a dozen states that show Obama has a chance of winning in November. The states were won four years ago by President Bush, in many cases by huge margins. In theory, at least, Obama's effort could nudge states such as Virginia, Indiana, and North Dakota into the Democratic column and produce a surprising Electoral College boost. McCain so far is running a more traditional campaign, targeting perennial tossup states such as Florida and Ohio,
sending smaller staffs to those states than Obama, but spending more on television ads. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, said recently that his staff will eventually increase to about 450. By earlier this month, it had opened 11 regional offices in key states and another 84 offices across the country in a joint effort with the Republican National Committee. "It is an incredible amount of progress for a campaign that ended the primaries with no money, little infrastructure, and no formal organization outside the early primary states," Steve Schmidt, who was put in charge of day-today operations this month, said in a memo. "By putting emphasis on our regional operations . . . we have built a campaign that will be nimble when it counts and close to the ground where grass-roots activity will drive our message and efforts." Obama, meanwhile, is already running uncontested television advertising in seven of the historically Republican states and is sending in large paid staffs. "Between the Obama staff and the Democratic Party staff there will be several thousand" paid operatives on the ground deployed across the country, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand said in an interview. "I don't want to get too specific; it gives away strategy." Large staffs are working in traditional battleground states and every state will have at least some paid staff, with "large-scale operations in 22 states, medium operations in many others, and small staffs in only a handful of states," Hildebrand said. Obama and the Democratic Party have about 200 paid staffers working in Florida and more on the way, 90 in Michigan with plans to expand to 200 by August, at least 200 each eventually in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and 50 in Missouri with plans to expand to 150, according to published reports and interviews with Obama campaign officials. Hildebrand said state organizations should be at full strength by the end of August.

10

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Winning- Independents
Obama leading independents Market Watch, Obama Leads McCain by Nine Points Among Registered Voters, Matures and Whites for McCain; Echo Boomers, African Americans and Hispanics for Obama, Last update: 4:59 a.m. EDT July 21, 2008, [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-leads-mccain-ninepoints/story.aspx?guid=%7B8D62C9BA-4CAA-4591-A6A9-8816A907F135%7D&dist=hppr] Date Acessed 7/21/08 MS
ROCHESTER, N.Y., Jul 21, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- With just six weeks to go until the Democrat and Republican Presidential conventions, the general election is almost officially here. Results from a new Harris Poll show that: In a four way race, Barack Obama leads John McCain among registered voters 44 percent to 35 percent,
while Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate and Ralph Nader each receive 2 percent. Sixteen percent of registered voters are not sure who they will vote for yet; John McCain is holding onto just slightly more of his base as just over three-quarters of Republicans (77%) say they will vote for him versus just under three-quarters of Democrats (74%) who will vote for Barack Obama; and, Among Independents, Obama has a 12-point lead (38% to 26%), but one-quarter of Independents (25%) are not sure, 4 percent would vote for Bob Barr and 3 percent for Ralph Nader. These are some of the results of a Harris Poll of 2,690 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive(R) between July 3 and 11, 2008. Like all polls conducted well before an election, this should not be read as a prediction, but rather as a snap shot of the presidential "horse race". Additional results include; Half of Matures (those over 63) say they would vote for John McCain, while three in ten (29%) would vote for Senator Obama, indicating that some of McCain's strongest support comes from this generation; Half (51%) of the youngest generation or Echo Boomers (those aged 18-31) would vote for Barack Obama while just one-quarter (24%) would vote for Senator McCain; Ninety percent of African Americans are voting for Senator Obama, as are six in ten Hispanics (60%). Whites, however, are leaning towards Senator McCain over Senator Obama (40% versus 34%); Over two in five men (42%) and women (43%) say they would vote for Senator Obama, while over one-third of men (36%) and three in ten women (30%) would vote for Senator McCain. This suggests that the gender gap doesn't really exist this year; and, Half of single women (51%) would vote for Senator Obama while just one-quarter (25%) would vote for Senator McCain. Married women are more closely divided - 37 percent would vote for Obama and 36 percent would vote for McCain. So What? While Americans are thinking of summer vacations and the beach, November 4th may seem like eons away. However, in reality, the election is just 15 weeks from now. That means that everything from this point on in time definitely matters. Regina Corso, Director of The Harris Poll, said, "Senator Obama's lead seems solid, but there are some troubling spots to watch for in his campaign. First, Matures are solidly behind John McCain, and this is a group that goes out and votes in the strongest numbers among all age groups. Further, the divide among married women is also extremely close. With almost one-quarter of this group (22%) undecided, the candidate that can win the lion's share of those undecided Americans can move these overall numbers."

11

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Winning- Women
Women pro-Obama. They’re key to the election
By Ron WALTERS, June 23, 2008 NNPA Columnist Dr. Ron Walters is the Distinguished Leadership Scholar, Director of the African American Leadership Center and Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. “Nomination bounces Obama ahead of McCain” http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20080623h Moreover in this same poll, McCain predictably leads among all men and older adults who make up the strength of the Republican Party, but Obama leads by a striking margin among women (52-35 percent). This result, confirmed by both Gallup and Rassmusen polls, is vitally important, not just because women constitute the majority of the electorate, but it suggests that the split between Hillary's forces and Barack's forces among women is on the way to being substantially mended. A positive reason for this is that women are now thinking about who will appoint the next judge to the Supreme Court that will decide Roe v. Wade and keep abortion rights, or bring their sons home from Iraq, or deal with the economic problems facing their families in a sensitive way.

12

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Winning- Hispanics
Obama gets the Hispanic vote By Ron WALTERS, June 23, 2008 NNPA Columnist Dr. Ron Walters is the Distinguished Leadership Scholar, Director of the African American Leadership Center and Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. “Nomination bounces Obama ahead of McCain”
http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20080623h

Another surprising result finds Obama with a big lead among Hispanics (62-28 percent). At first look, this would seem to answer the question of whether Hispanics would vote for Obama. However, I think this result is tied more to the conclusion by Hispanic voters that Democrats would be better for their interests than Republicans when it comes to issues like Immigration.

13

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Winning Florida
Obama head in Florida Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff / July 20, 2008, Obama's paid staff dwarfing McCain's “Democrat targets 50 states as rival focuses on tossups” The Boston Globe, [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/20/obamas_paid_staff_dwarfing_mccains/?page=2] Date Accesed 7/21/08 MS
Behind the headlines about the unprecedented success of Democrat Barack Obama's fund-raising machine lies a more prosaic truth - his campaign will need every penny of its $300 million goal to bankroll an unprecedented 50state general election campaign with a massive army on the ground. His campaign already has by far the largest fulltime paid staff in presidential campaign history, and unlike Republican rival John McCain's, continues to grow by the day. National polls show the race remains close between Obama and McCain, but the Obama campaign is paying closer attention to polls in more than a dozen states that show Obama has a chance of winning in November. The states were won four years ago by President Bush, in many cases by huge margins. In theory, at least, Obama's effort could nudge states such as Virginia, Indiana, and North Dakota into the Democratic column and produce a surprising Electoral College boost. McCain so far is running a more traditional campaign, targeting perennial tossup states such as Florida and Ohio,
sending smaller staffs to those states than Obama, but spending more on television ads. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, said recently that his staff will eventually increase to about 450. By earlier this month, it had opened 11 regional offices in key states and another 84 offices across the country in a joint effort with the Republican National Committee. "It is an incredible amount of progress for a campaign that ended the primaries with no money, little infrastructure, and no formal organization outside the early primary states," Steve Schmidt, who was put in charge of day-today operations this month, said in a memo. "By putting emphasis on our regional operations . . . we have built a campaign that will be nimble when it counts and close to the ground where grass-roots activity will drive our message and efforts." Obama, meanwhile, is already running uncontested television advertising in seven of the historically Republican states and is sending in large paid staffs. "Between the Obama staff and the Democratic Party staff there will be several thousand" paid operatives on the ground deployed across the country, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand said in an interview. "I don't want to get too specific; it gives away strategy." Large staffs are working in traditional battleground states and every state will have at least some paid staff, with "large-scale operations in 22 states, medium operations in many others, and small staffs in only a handful of states," Hildebrand said. Obama and the Democratic Party have about 200 paid staffers working in Florida and more on the way, 90 in Michigan with plans to expand to 200 by August, at least 200 each eventually in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and 50 in Missouri with plans to expand to 150, according to published reports and interviews with Obama campaign officials. Hildebrand said state organizations should be at full strength by the end of August.

14

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

No Distancing Now
McCain attaching himself to Bush Bruce Walker. Journalist for CFP. July 19, 2008. “Why McCain Must Win.” Canadian Free Press. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4036 When Senator McCain looked like he might win the Republican nomination in 2000, I asked what, exactly, my friends were so worried about. McCain was honest, like Bush, while Clinton and Gore were steeped in moral slipperiness. McCain was pro-life, like Bush, while Clinton and Gore were pro-abortion. McCain, like Bush, supported a strong military, while Clinton famously “loathed” the military and Gore followed him like a trained poodle. McCain’s ACU (American Conservative Union) voting record is conservative and was even more conservative in 2000.

15

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Distancing Now
McCain now linked to Bush now Noah Kaplan Assistant professor of political science at the University of Houston 7/22/08 Why McCain Might Win http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/07/why_mccain_might_win.html The above breakdown suggests that McCain is less burdened by Bush’s economic record than might be anticipated; Obama is going to have a difficult time “tarring” McCain with the economic failures of the Bush administration. To the extent that the election is about the economy, Obama needs to be seen as the superior manager. But the public will not assume this based upon the current administration’s failures alone. Obama needs to be proactive and emphasize an economic program that is seen as a credible alternative to that offered by McCain and the Republicans. Otherwise, McCain has a real chance of winning the swing voters.

16

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

**Links**

17

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Alternative Energy Popular
People aren’t stupid- they want new alternative energy policies Davis 7 Chris, “Profits Can Bloom”, The South China Morning Post, Lexis-Nexis, November 27, 2007 Politicians and business leaders around the world are becoming increasingly aware that how they manage energy can have long-term economic and social consequences. Investors are now looking for ways to reap rewards from this growing awareness. To address future expanding energy needs, global warming, and energy supply and security issues, alternative energy sources (natural gas, solar energy, wind, biofuels, fuel cells) are being developed aggressively by the private sector and governments. Lionel Kwok, Credit Suisse's head of products for private banking, North Asia, says that alternative energy themes are moving from a niche/experimental market to a mass market, prompting investment strategists to predict a rise in profitability. "Harmful emissions are the key force behind alternative energy development and will further accelerate the growth potential for investment in alternative energy sources," Mr Kwok says. Clean energy projects could become multibillion-dollar investments over the coming years. Republicans and Democrats both support alt energy Gregory D. Lee,( nationally syndicated columnist), July 21, 2008, Domestic Oil Drilling: “The Ball Is Now In Congress’s Court” North Star Writers Group [http://www.northstarwriters.com/gl031.htm] Date Assessed 7/22/08 MS
Everyone agrees that this country is addicted to oil. President Bush said exactly that during a State of the Union speech early in his presidency. Liberals, as well as conservatives, would like nothing better than to see alternative means of producing energy take root in this country. But until that day comes, possibly 40 or more years from now, this country must continue to use oil to fuel our vehicles, allow our economy to expand and maintain our standard of living. Naive Democrats never consider that there must be a transition period of when America is weaned off oil while these new technologies take root, rather than being cut off like an addict from his heroin supply.

18

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Alternative Energy Popular
Alternative energy widely supported Joseph Romm, (editor of Climate Progress. Joe is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration) at 3:19 PM on 22 Jul 2008, “House GOP offers Americans false hope, failed policies, and eco-havoc” [http://gristmill.grist.org/user/Joseph%20Romm] Date Accessed 7/22/08 MS Numerous independent polls show the American people strongly support this approach to our energy crisis. It would clearly garner the support of a bipartisan majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and it is legislation that the President would sign into law. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) continues to stand in the way of lower gas prices for struggling families and small businesses. When asked last week whether she would schedule a vote on meaningful legislation to increase American energy production, the Speaker told CNN, "I have no plans to do so." The Democratic leadership in Congress is defying the will of the American people and a bipartisan majority in Congress. American families are suffering. Time is running short, and further inaction can no longer be tolerated. House Republicans will stand together beginning today and demand that the Democratic leadership hold a vote on this legislation to increase American-made energy before Congress adjourns for the month of August. On Wednesday, all House Republicans assemble on the West Front Steps at approximately 1pm to unveil our legislation and publicly demand the up-or-down vote the American people deserve. You will be contacted shortly to become an original co-sponsor of this vital legislation.

19

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Alternative Energy partisan
Disputes continue about energy policies Fowler and Jenkins, [ D.C. Correspondent, energy political analyst], June 12 2008 Alisha and Jesse, Congress Politicizes Energy Incentives, 116.000 jobs already, http://watthead.blogspot.com/2008/06/congress-politicizes-energy-incentives.html On Tuesday the Senate failed to pass the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 (50-44). The bill contained, among other things, critical production tax incentives for the rapidly growing renewable energy industry. The Senate may get another chance to vote on the incentives this month, but their bickering, politicization of the issue and ultimate stalling is looking more and more like a de facto decision: No to clean energy.

20

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Alternative Energy Bipartisan
High support for alternative energies RenewableEnergyWorld.com, [Legislation, and Congressional Hearings News source] April 4 2008 http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52081 United States Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) have introduced the Clean Energy Stimulus Act of 2008. The bill, which has bipartisan support extends the commercial Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar and fuel cell projects for eight years and removes the utility

exemption. The bill also extends the residential solar credit for one year and removes the $2,000 cap. The bill currently has 23 co-sponsors. The vehicle for the package has not yet been announced; however, those behind the bill are confident they can get the 61 co-sponsors that the bill will need to pass the Senate. The bill authored by Ensign and Cantwell will also extend the placed-in-service deadline through 2009 for the Production Tax Credit for geothermal, wind, biomass and hydropower facilities. "

21

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Solar Power Popular
The public prefers solar energy Andrew Revkin and Matthew Wald 2k7, “Money shortages hinder a solar revolution; Backers don’t see big advances soon; BUSINESS OF GREEN”, The International Herald Tribune, Lexis-Nexis, July 17, 2007 The trade association for the U.S. nuclear power industry recently asked 1,000 Americans what energy source they thought would be used most for generating electricity in 15 years. The top choice? Not nuclear plants, or coal or natural gas. The winner was the sun, cited by 27 percent of those polled. Solar power, which has captured the public imagination strongly in Europe, is making big inroads in the United States. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world - from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers' fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's ''Million Solar Roofs'' initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming. Everyone wants solar energy Jeffry Strain, “Solar Power is Great, But is it Worth it?”, The Street, Lexis-Nexis, June 13, 2008 When it comes to politics, there aren't many issues where more than 90% of Republicans, Independents and Democrats can agree -- but that's exactly how things stand when it comes to developing solar power. According to a recently released SCHOTT Solar Barometer report, 91% of Republicans, 98% of Independents and 97% of Democrats believe it's in the vital interest of the U.S. to develop solar power. Companies such as BPBP, First SolarFSLR, Trina SolarTSL, Canadian SolarCSIQ and LDK SolarLDK are working to propel alternative energy even further, but there's a household angle, too. With energy costs taking more and more out of paychecks, many people are asking whether it makes financial sense to invest in a solar power system for their home to lower their electric bill.

22

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Nuclear Power Unpopular
Nuclear power is controversial
Matthew Knight (CNN Reporter) April 17, 2008 “Briefing: Nuclear power” [lexis Accessed June 24, Of all the power supplies in the energy mix, nuclear has historically been the most criticized and controversial. But this most unpopular of power sources has recently resurfaced in political and economic dialogue. Why is nuclear power back on the energy agenda? The simple answer is climate change. Nuclear power stations are almost carbon neutral when operational. This has proved attractive to politicians who are keen to utilize a proven and powerful technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the targets set down by the Kyoto Treaty. They also view the nuclear option as attractive as it shores up concerns about energy supply -- an increasingly vital debate in the 21st century

23

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Nuclear Power Popular
Both parties support nuclear power Edmund L. Andrews (New York Times Staff Writer) and Matthew L. Wald (New York Times Staff Writer) July 31, 2007 [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.html Accessed June 24, 2008]
Lobbyists have told lawmakers and administration officials in recent weeks that the nuclear industry needs as much as $50 billion in loan guarantees over the next two years to finance a major expansion. The biggest champion of the loan guarantees is Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee and one of the nuclear industry’s strongest supporters in Congress. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and the energy bill’s author, has long argued that nuclear power plants do not need federal loan guarantees. Mr. Bingaman said that the industry was over-interpreting the provision and that it would provide loan guarantees for only the most innovative power plants. But the provision has the potential to considerably expand the nuclear industry, which plans to build 28 new reactors at an estimated cost of about $4 billion to $5 billion apiece. And while the nuclear industry would be the biggest beneficiary, the provision could also set the stage for billions of dollars in loan guarantees for power plants that use “clean coal” technology and renewable fuels. The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after decades of opposition from environmental groups and others concerned about the risks. An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties, worried about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, support some expansion of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is gaining popular momentum JOANNE VON ALROTH (Staff Writer Investor’s Business Daily) June 5, 2008 “Nuclear Option Looks Better As Oil Surges” [lexis Accessed June 24, 2008]
"Going nuclear" has investors gearing up for an explosion of profit. Until recently, many shunned nuclear energy thanks to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Along with the issue of nuclear waste disposal, a feared repeat of those accidents made nuclear power extremely unpopular for the past two decades. That's changing thanks to screaming oil prices. Nuclear energy has developed a new and improved image -- it's cheaper than fossil

fuels. It's also increasingly seen as a cleaner energy source than coal, which remains the mostused energy source in the world. Improvements and better controls over the last 25 years have made nuclear
energy safer, advocates say. Power companies are increasingly expanding their nuclear stable. Seventeen of them plan to construct about 30 new nuclear plants in the U.S. in the next five years.

Nuclear Power is popular with the public Lou Dobbs Tonight (CNN Talk Show) June 19, 2008 Lou Dobbs Tonight [lexis Accessed June 24, 2008] DOBBS: What about nuclear power real quickly? (CROSSTALK) RASMUSSEN: Nuclear power is less popular than offshore drilling, but it is 51 percent supported nationwide. ROGINSKY: Nuclear power is something Obama said he would take a look at. I think you do have to look at alternative sources of energy, nuclear being one of them...

24

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Nuclear Power Popular
Nuclear Energy is Popular Business Wire May 2, 2006 “Survey Shows Strong Support for Nuclear Energy: Americans Want Clean, Affordable, Domestically
Produced Energy” Business Wire [http://www.ksbitv.com/technology/2904376.html] Accessed July 22, 2008 The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition today released a new national public opinion poll that shows strong support among Americans for nuclear energy and reveals a dearth of knowledge among many that currently shapes opinion. The poll conducted April 3-5, 2006, by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, among 810 registered voters has a +/-3.44 margin of error. "I am convinced that as people learn more about nuclear energy, they will come to share my certainty that increasing America's supply of nuclear energy makes sense from an environmental and an economic standpoint," said CASEnergy Co-Chair and former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. "There is a need for education to inform people that nuclear energy enhances security and, as the only major electricity source that does not emit greenhouse gases, protects the environment," said Dr. Patrick Moore, CASEnergy co-chair and co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace. "That's why the CASEnergy Coalition was founded." The new polling data reveals several key findings. Americans see a clear need for electricity production solutions that focus on affordability, energy independence and protecting the environment. According to the poll, seventy-six percent of Americans do not believe enough is being done to increase affordable electricity supplies for the future (See Chart 1). In addition, sixty-nine percent do not believe enough is being done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution associated with electricity production Nuclear energy is well positioned to help meet that need. "The survey shows that when given the facts that nuclear power is a clean, affordable and domestically produced energy source, support grows substantially," said David Ginsberg, Director of Political Operations for Penn, Schoen, and Berland. "With just a little bit of new information, people become extremely favorable to using nuclear energy and believe it should play a much larger role in our nation's electricity grid." At the beginning of the survey,

nuclear energy has a solid 59-35 favorability rating - second strongest among major sources of electricity. After just a brief amount of education, nuclear energy's favorability rating increased, with 73 percent of respondents very favorable or somewhat favorable to it (See Chart 2). Furthermore, upon hearing simple facts, nearly
half (48 percent) of respondents said that United States should rely heavily on nuclear energy, giving it either a seven, eight or nine on a nine-point scale when asked to rate how much the country should rely on nuclear energy as a source of electricity. Nuclear energy's attributes - protecting the environment and enhancing America's energy security - address people's concerns about electricity production in the future. Support for nuclear energy grew 40 percent after people learned that nuclear plants emit zero greenhouse gases or controlled air pollutants. "These findings clearly indicate there is a need to educate and raise awareness about nuclear energy as a clean, safe, affordable and reliable supply of electricity for America," said Whitman. "The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition is committed to fulfilling that mission."

Nuclear Energy is at a Record High for Support CNA (A non-profit organization established in 1960 to represent the nuclear industry) June 3, 2005 “Americans Voice Record-High Support
for Nuclear Energy” [cna.ca/english/pdf/Articles/insight2005_06p3.pdf] Accessed July 22, 2008

When Americans are asked about electricity sources for the future, their response is loud and clear: nuclear energy. Eighty-three percent of Americans said nuclear energy will be important in meeting future electricity needs,
according to a nationwide survey of public opinion conducted in May by Bisconti Research Inc. and NOP World. Additionally, 77 percent of Americans agreed that electric utilities should prepare now so that new nuclear power plants could be built if needed in the next decade. Eight in 10 survey respondents agreed that the U.S. Department of Energy and electric utilities should work together to develop new state-of-the-art nuclear power plants. About 70 percent said that a new reactor would be acceptable at the nearest nuclear plant site, if a new power plant is needed. Overall, seven of 10 Americans favor nuclear energy, a record high. Those results continue the upward trend in support for nuclear energy. An October 2004 survey by Bisconti Research and NOP World found 67 percent in favor. Those who “strongly favor” the use of nuclear energy (32 percent) greatly outnumber those “strongly opposed” (10 percent).

Majority support for nuke power RasmussenReports (Polling Analysis) June 14-15, 2008 “Oil Companies”
[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/general_business_toplines/t oplines_oil_companies_june_14_15_2008 Accessed June 24, 2008]
4* Suppose you had a choice between relying on oil from the Middle East or building more nuclear power plants. Which do you prefer? 11% Relying on oil imports 61% Nuclear power plants 28% Not sure 5* Should the federal government provide tax breaks to companies doing research on alternative energy sources? 63% Yes 20% No 16% Not sure

25

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Wind Power Popular
Broad range of support for wind power Killorin Jun 19, 2008 Francis, “Popular Energy: Backup”, Wicked local plymouth,
http://www.wickedlocal.com/plymouth/news/lifestyle/columnists/x390611610/Popular-energy-Backup Starting with the Westinghouse generator at Niagara Falls, hydro-power was our first RE source of electricity, and it still plays a part. Using runoff from nearby mountains, hundreds of dams (many of them first built to drive factory machinery or store water) were used to generate electricity in the early 20th century. Since nighttime loads are generally lower than those during the workday, dams backed by reservoirs often used that excess power to pump the water below the turbine back into the reservoir at night. Without a reservoir, there was no backup. Today, partly because fossil-fired power is more predictable and powerful and partly because of environmental pressures, the number of little hydro-power plants has shrunk. Under the Rural Electrification Authority (REA) established in the 1930s, the Tennessee Valley Authority built a number of hydro-power dams in the Southeast. At first, coal-fired plants constituted backup. Then, population and business surged because of the low rates under federal subsidies, and many more coal-fired plants had to be built. Today, the coal that was the backup is the primary source of energy in the TVA area. Under the same REA program, many huge dams were built on western rivers to improve irrigation, to supply water for arid areas, and to generate electricity. On the Colorado River, the Hoover Dam and its reservoir, Lake Mead, have performed this function for over 60 years, about two-thirds of the life of electric power. Today, Las Vegas and its suburbs have about two million inhabitants. The area depends on that reservoir for its water, and the electric grid that serves Las Vegas is heavily dependent on Colorado River dams for its supply of electricity. The Colorado, itself, depends on run-off from the Rocky Mountains, and therein lies a tragic irony. The water level behind the dam has shrunk to about one-half of its historic depth of 300 feet, and Las Vegas is in danger of losing its water supply. Another 50-foot drop and Hoover may not be able to generate electricity.

26

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Wind Power Unpopular
Wind energy is unpopular Cash and Chemnick 8 Cathy and Jean, “Tax credits for renewable energy pass Senate, but House fight looms”, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Lexis-Nexis, April 14, 2008 In February, the House passed a bill that would extend a variety of credits for wind, solar, efficiency and other technologies that are set to expire by the end of 2008. The measure (H.R. 5351) would authorize $18 billion for the credits, and pay for them with rollbacks to oil and natural gas tax breaks. Similar packages have failed twice in the Senate, because pro-fossil fuels Republicans have used Senate rules to block them. Last week, the Senate voted 88-8 for a renewable tax credit extension bill sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, and John Ensign, a Nevada Republican. It was added to a housing bill (H.R. 3221), which later passed by a vote of 84-12. Public thinks wind is impractical Associated Press, July 22, 2008: 01:58 PM EST, NEW YORK Kentucky senator slams support for mortgage giants, Kentucky senator says support package for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac 'smacks of socialism' CNNmoney.com, [http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/ca786501919b986760afdb4d27019b7b.htm] Date Accessed 7/22/08 MS Meanwhile, when asked about energy policy, another pressing issue for Congress amid record high fuel prices, Bunning said Tuesday that billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens' advocacy for developing a wind energy industry wouldn't be practical in the Bluegrass State. "In Kentucky, we could put up as many windmills as possible and we don't have enough wind to produce enough energy for one day," Bunning said.

27

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

RPS Popular
RPS is Popular Jeff McIntire-Strasburg (Staff Writer) 06.20.06 “Renewable Portfolio Standards... So Far” Discovery Communications, LLC
[http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/renewable_portf.php] Accessed July 22, 2008 In the US, state governments are leading the way in developing renewable energy generation. That's not really news to most Treehuggers, whether they live in the United States or elsewhere. We might not all know, though, how well the variety of state-level renewable energy programs are doing in terms of significant production of power from renewable sources. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has devoted itself to keeping an eye on states implementing renewable policies, and last week released a report on one of the most popular mechanisms embraced by US states: the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). According to the report, Race to the Top: The Expanding Role of U.S. State Renewable Portfolio Standards, the RPS concept has spread quickly in the past few years: 22 states and the District of Columbia have an RPS on the books, and over half of the US' population now lives in a state with an RPS.

RPS is Popular…Empirically Proven Barry G. Rabe (Ph.D. Political Science, M.A. Social Sciences, B.A. History and Urban Studies, Professor of Public Policy at the University of Michigan) June 14, 2006 “Race to the Top: The Expanding Role of U.S. State Renewable Portfolio Standards” The University of Michigan
Press [http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Global_warming/PCGCC_renewable_0601406.pdf] Accessed 7/22/08 Given its historic role in fossil fuel development and use, Texas might appear to be an unlikely setting for a major RPS commitment to the development of renewable electricity. However, the RPS enacted in Austin in 1999 is widely viewed as having launched a new chapter in energy development in the Lone Star state, triggering a massive increase in the supply of renewables that is being provided at prices highly competitive with conventional sources. In fact, the program has proven so successful and so popular that the Texas Legislature overwhelmingly endorsed a major extension and expansion of the legislation, which was signed into law by Republican Governor Rick Perry on August 1, 2005 (Texas Senate Bill 2005, 20).

28

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

**Internal Links**

29

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Bush Popularity Key
Bush popularity key to GOP in 08 Hugick 07 (Larry Hugick, Larry Hugick is chairman of Princeton Survey Research Associates International in Princeton, New Jersey, The Political Fallout: Bush, Iraq, and the GOP, www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2007/sep/hugick.asp)
George W. Bush is barred from seeking a third term, and his vice president is also not a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. But the impact of growing public discontent with the situation in Iraq and Bush’s record low approval ratings casts a

long shadow over the Republicans’ ability to keep the White House in 2008, after having already lost control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. In all three previous cases where a president scored an approval rating below 30 percent on more than one occasion, his party was soundly defeated in the next major election. Jimmy Carter, who had first to fend off a challenge by Ted Kennedy for his party’s
1980 presidential nomination, ultimately got only 41 percent of the popular vote in losing his bid for reelection to Ronald Reagan. After Richard Nixon’s resignation in the summer of 1974 removed him from the national stage, the GOP nonetheless lost forty-eight house seats in the fall congressional elections, allowing the Democrats to control two-thirds of house seats. In the 1952 presidential election, with the Korean conflict in a stalemate and Truman’s ratings consistently below 30 percent, Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson was defeated in a landslide, winning just 89 electoral votes to Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s 442. An incumbent president is always viewed as the leader of his party and has a major

influence on the way it is perceived. People’s party identification tends to be relatively stable, but when a president is highly unpopular for an extended period of time, his party’s image can suffer as well. As seen in
Table 2, based on Newsweek poll party ID averages, the proportion of Americans who call themselves Republicans dropped significantly between George W. Bush’s first year in office and the current year. In 2001, 30 percent of Americans identified as Republican. Preliminary figures for 2007 put the number of self-identified Republicans at 25 percent, a drop of five percentage points. Since Princeton Survey Research Associates began conducting the Newsweek poll in 1993, there have been fifty-seven quarters for which sufficient data were available to compute a party ID average. The first two quarters of 2007 are the only two in which GOP identification has averaged below 26 percent.

30

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Energy Key to the Election
The winner of the election will be decided by the economy and energy Mark Dillen,(career with US State Department ), July 8, 2008. “It’s the (international) economy, Stupid”. Foreign Policy Association. http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:pjS9_cUHDVgJ:election.foreignpolicyblogs.com/+%22ene rgy+policy%22+2008+elections+polls&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us.
Kohut makes the point that Americans are quite ambivalent about what to do now with regard to Iraq. This will shape a new context for the candidates as they prepare to debate the issue: Obama can say he was right about not invading Iraq in the first place, McCain can say it doesn’t make sense to withdraw now so quickly if it strengthens Iran’s influence in Iraq at a time Iran itself is the greatest threat to regional stability.But

the winner this fall will be the candidate who begins with the economy — on Main Street and Wall Street — and presents a coherent plan for getting the U.S. out of recession. Obama and McCain will agree about many aspects of energy policy, but the answer lies not only there. The next President will need to move simultaneously on many aspects of trade, fiscal and budgetary policies — providing stimulus and incentives while keeping oil-inspired inflation in check. Wiser use of the U.S. military is needed to demonstrate to markets and publics that supplies of oil can become more
reliable and predictable. Getting Iraq right is a start — but only a start.

Energy policies are what is going to determine the election. Meghan Welsh, (journalist for online News Hour), august 1, 2006. “Concerns over Energy Policy Fuels Midterm Election Campains”. News Hour. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2006/issues/energy.html
Top on the list of campaign topics heading into a heated midterm election year are soaring gas prices and America's dependence on foreign oil. As the price per barrel of oil continues to rise and Americans begin to feel the pinch at the pump, candidates are adopting energy policies as a way to reach voters.In July, the cost per barrel topped $78 and stayed near record
highs, fueled by intensifying violence in the Middle East that raised concerns of supply disruptions, despite attempts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to calm fears of a supply cutoff.Republicans

and Democrats alike are attempting to use energy

policy to appeal to voters and to discredit their opponents.

The single most important issue for the elections is energy. Joshua McNeil, (lcv), July 21, 2008. “New Hope New Energy”.LCV. http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/new-hope-new-energy.html.
In New Mexico, we refused to wait for George Bush to act on renewable energy,” Governor Richardson said from Santa Fe. “By investing in renewable energy, we’ve already created good jobs and started to break our dependence on oil. Our country's addiction on oil is a threat to our economy, our national security, and our way of life. Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need.”

An election-day poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found that in 2006, energy was the most important issue for independent voters. In 2008, as gas prices skyrocket and time to head off the effects of global warming runs out, recent polling shows energy to the be the single most important issue for the entire electorate.LCV was among
the first national organizations to endorse Barack Obama as he trailed in early polls in the 2004 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Since 1996, more than 80% of candidates endorsed by LCV have won.

31

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Energy Key to the Election
Energy is the key issue for candidates Platts News feature,( online newspaper), 7/22/08. “Energy issues continue to dominate capitol hill legislative agenda”. Platts.com. http://www.platts.com/Electric%20Power/Resources/News%20Features/uselection08/index.xml. 7/22/08
Energy issues continued to dominate the Capitol Hill legislative agenda in the week ended July 18, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle voicing indignation over gasoline prices that are heaping economic pain on millions of people across the country. "We could readily adjust to higher energy prices in this country if it were to happen gradually..." -- Elgie Holstein, adviser for Senator ObamaBut top energy advisors to Senators John McCain and Barack Obama said in the week ended July 18 that soaring pump prices would not deter their bosses from pursuing their controversial - and potentially expensive - climate-change plans should they be elected president this fall.

Oil and energy is the center issue for campaigns. Reuters,( ), 5/23/08. “Candidates’’ Energy plans wont fix U.S. woes”. Epoch Times. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-5-23/70957.html. 7/22/08
Americans struggling with rising fuel costs may find no quick relief from the energy proposals being touted by the two main presidential contenders in this year's election. Plans from Republican John McCain and Barack Obama, the Democratic front-runner, to overcome the energy malaise weighing on the troubled U.S. economy will do little to calm angry motorists, even as the issue moves toward center stage of the electoral debate, according to experts. "I would say that oil has moved front and center in the campaigns, and all the candidates have ambitious goals," said Antoine Halff, deputy head of research for Newedge USA. "They are long on ambitious goals but short on policy."

Energy policies are the bedrock of the election Beschloss, Morris. R. staffwriter for the Desert Sun; June 29,2008; “US energy policy is huge in election;” Desert Sun; http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/NEWS07/806290306/1006/news01 accessed 07/21/08 It's becoming crystal clear that the resolution of America's energy crisis is now the centerpiece of the current election campaign; it could conceivably be the decisive issue that decides the future occupant of the White House. This is increasingly motivated by public opinion, which heavily favors a "drill now" commitment. Polls prove energy is at the top
Raum, Tom; Assocaited Press Writer; June 23, 2008; “Gas at $4 brings promises, pandering”; YahooNews; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_el_pr/gas_price_promises accessed 07/21/08 Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their campaigns and have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on Capitol Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the nation’s addiction to foreign oil. This debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches. In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released Monday, nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the economy as the top issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points.

32

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Energy Key to the Election
Energy the critical issue
Bureau of International Information Programs; April 8, 2008; “Energy Policy Critical Presidential Campaign Issue”; US Dept. of State; http://www.america.gov/st/texttransenglish/2008/April/20080409144918wltsruh0.2585718.html accessed 07/21/08 Of all the issues being debated in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, energy policy is perhaps the most important. Modern economies worldwide, including the American economy, depend on a steady flow of energy. Making sure that gasoline, electricity and other fuels are available for businesses and households is a top priority. In recent years, energy policy has come under pressure for several reasons. Those reasons have to do with the environment, security and the global economy. The use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil are leading to climate change. America is a large importer of oil from foreign lands -- supplies that may be put at risk of a terrorist attack. Environmental and security concerns are compounded by soaring demand for energy from developing nations, pushing up prices. American consumers are paying more for gasoline, causing some to fear that energy prices will depress economic growth. And American politicians are feeling more pressure to address climate change.

33

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Oil Key to the Election
Oil is the most important issue with voters Lawrence kudlow, (staff writer for Real Clear Politics), June 10, 2008. “Voters say Drill”. Real Clear Politics. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/voters_say_drill.html. Date accessed: 7/22/08. The recent spike in oil prices and unemployment is dramatically changing this presidential campaign -- virtually overnight. The near $20 jump in oil to $140 a barrel, the unexpected half-point increase in the jobless rate to 5.5 percent (the biggest monthly increase in twenty years), and the resulting 400-point plunge in stocks has created a new campaign issue right before our eyes.Public worry number one is now oil, jobs, and the economy, with the inflationary woes of the U.S. dollar right underneath. The
candidate who can connect with these issues will win in November. But so far neither Obama nor McCain are dealing with the new political reality. In fact, it's all about oil right now. The price has doubled over the past year while the economy has slumped.

34

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Global Warming Key to the Election
The public is focused on solving global warming Brown, David; Pittsburgh Tribune Review Writer; June 24, 2008; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; “energy policy could dominate campaign”; http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_574218.html accessed 07/22/08
Soaring fuel prices and concerns about global warming have merged to make U.S. energy policy one of the hottest issues of the presidential campaign. Republican John McCain suggests investing $2 billion annually in "clean coal" technology, building 45 nuclear power plants by 2030 and lifting bans on offshore oil drilling. Democrat Barack Obama proposes investing $150 billion during 10 years in "clean energy," including low-carbon coal technologies and wind, solar and geothermal energy resources. McCain on Monday offered a $300 million prize for the person who develops a battery
that "has the size, capacity and power to leapfrog" existing technology for plug-in hybrid and electric cars. Obama on Sunday announced a plan to "crack down on excessive energy speculation ... to ease the impact of skyrocketing gas prices." Retired steelworker Don Jacoby, 70, of Franklin in Venengo County grumbles that much of it sounds like political blather. He has his own energy plan in place. "We stay home more. We don't make any extra trips unless we have to," said Jacoby, who supports McCain. "My wife would like to go on vacation this summer, but I don't know we're going to do it, being what gas prices are." Energy policy could dominate the campaign, said Morton Coleman, director emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh's Institute of Politics

. "Two things around energy that are going to have an important impact on this region, obviously, are

nuclear power and clean coal," he said.

35

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Evangelicals Key
Evangelicals decide the election By MICHAEL LUO June 9, 2008 “McCain Extends His Outreach, but Evangelicals Are Still Wary” staff writer for New York times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/us/politics/09mccain.html?_r=1&bl=&ei=5087&en=13794e8176fd421c&ex=1213156800&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Lori Viars, an evangelical activist in Warren County, Ohio, essentially put her life on hold in the fall of 2004 to run a phone bank for President Bush. Her efforts helped the president’s ambitious push to turn out evangelicals and win that critical swing state in a close election. But Ms. Viars, who is among a cluster of socially conservative activists in Ohio being courted by Senator John McCain’s campaign through regular e-mail messages, is taking a wait-and-see attitude for now toward Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. “I think a lot of us are in a holding

. McCain’s biggest challenges as he faces a general election contest with Senator Barack Obama: a continued wariness toward him among evangelicals and other Christian conservatives, a critical voting bloc for Republicans that could stay home in the fall or at least be decidedly unenthusiastic in their efforts to get out the vote. To address this, Mr. McCain’s campaign has been ramping up its outreach to evangelicals over the last month, preparing a budget and a strategic
pattern,” said Ms. Viars, who added that she wanted to see whom Mr. McCain picked for his running mate. Ms. Viars’s hesitation illustrates what remains one of Mr

plan for turning them out in 18 battleground states this fall. The campaign has been peppering over 600 socially conservative grass-roots and national leaders with regular e-mail messages — highlighting, for example, Mr. McCain’s statement criticizing a May 15 decision by the California Supreme Court overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, or his recent speech on his judicial philosophy. It has also held briefings for small groups of conservative leaders before key speeches. Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers, recently sat down with a dozen prominent evangelical leaders in Washington, where he emphasized, among other things, Mr. McCain’s consistent anti-abortion voting record. Mr. McCain’s outreach to Christian conservatives has been a quiet courting, reflecting a balancing act: his election hopes rely on drawing in the political middle and Democrats who might be turned off should he woo the religious right too heavily by, for instance, highlighting his anti-abortion position more on the campaign trail. “If McCain tried Bush’s strategy of just mobilizing the base, he would almost certainly fall short,”

the Republican brand name is less popular and but, of course, he can’t completely neglect the evangelical and conservative base.” The instrumental role of evangelicals in Mr. Bush’s victory in 2004 over Senator John Kerry is an oft-repeated tale at this point. Mr. Bush’s openness about his personal faith and stances on social issues earned
said John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Because
the conservative base is restive, McCain has special needs to reach out to independent and moderate voters, him a following among evangelicals, who represented about a quarter of the electorate in 2004. Exit polls in the 2004 election found that 78 percent of white “born again” or evangelical Protestants had voted for Mr. Bush. In contrast, Mr. McCain’s relationship with evangelicals has long been troubled. In 2000, when he was running against Mr. Bush for the Republican nomination, Mr. McCain castigated Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell as “agents of intolerance.” In a sign of the lingering distrust, Mr. McCain finished last out of nine Republican candidates in a straw poll last year at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, a gathering for socially conservative activists. James C. Dobson, the influential founder of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, released a statement in February, when Mr. McCain was on the verge of securing the Republican nomination, affirming that he would not vote for Mr. McCain and would

“For John McCain to be competitive, he has to connect with the base to the point that they’re intense enough that they’re contagious,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Right now they’re not even coughing.” The balancing act Mr. McCain faces in appealing to both moderate
instead stay home if he became the nominee. Dr. Dobson later softened his stance and said he would vote but has remained critical of Mr. McCain. voters and evangelicals was starkly illustrated last month when he rejected the endorsements of the Rev. John Hagee and the Rev. Rod Parsley, prominent evangelical leaders, after controversial statements by the two came to light. Mr. Parsley has been vocally anti-Islam and Mr. Hagee, in a sermon, said Hitler and the Holocaust had been part of God’s plan to drive the Jews to Palestine.

36

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Florida Key
Florida key Jim Stratton, Sentinel Staff Campaign 2008: Winning strategies,Campaign 2008: Winning strategies for Obama, McCain in Florida, July 20, 2008, [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orlwin2008jul20,0,1651611.story] Date accesed 7/21/08 MS
Set aside the soaring speeches and rock-star rallies, and Sen. Barack Obama's future in Florida depends on a fragile proposition. To win the Sunshine State, the Democrat needs a massive turnout among two fickle voting blocs: young people and blacks. By contrast, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, sees a state of tailor-made constituencies: military types and conservative whites, especially in North Florida; wealthy Republicans in southwest Florida; Cubans in southeast Florida, along with lots of other right-of-center Floridians. Add in the GOP's famous turnout machine -- Republicans carried Florida in eight of the past 11 presidential elections -- and you reach the same conclusion as
pollster Brad Coker. "Overall, the state's long been more Republican than the rest of the country," he says. "I think the Gore-Bush race in 2000 created a false impression about how even it was."At the same time, that narrow Bush win -- 537 votes, amid evidence that thousands of Gore voters saw their ballots discarded as spoiled -- inspires Steve Schale, Obama's campaign chief in Florida. All Obama has to do, Schale said, is "just a little better than Al Gore did in 2000." Here's how he'll try -- and how McCain will try to stop him. Obama: Maximize turnout. Obama must rev up voter turnout, especially in Democrat-rich South Florida; his Florida operation started going door-to-door Saturday. In particular, he'll court blacks and young voters, two groups that overwhelmingly support him -- but who can be inconsistent.

37

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

**Impacts-Obama Good**

38

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Iran Strikes
McCain will strike Iran
Paul Harris 2008, “To his fans he's a lovable patriot with a maverick streak. But to his critics he's an anti-abortion Creationist who surrounds himself with religious extremists Paul Harris uncovers the dark side of John McCain” LexisNexis McCain believes in projecting American military power abroad. So it is no wonder that the neoconservatives who pushed for war in Iraq have now regrouped around him. McCain's main foreign policy adviser is Randy Scheunemann, who was executive director of the shadowy Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Other leading neocons on board include John Bolton, America's belligerent former UN ambassador, Bill Kristol, editor of the Neocon bible the Weekly Standard, and Max Boot, who has pushed for a US version of the old British Colonial Office. Another close McCain adviser is former CIA director James Woolsey, who has openly advocated bombing Syria. Such a group of warlike counsellors has raised fears that McCain may strike Iran to stop its suspected quest for a nuclear weapon, triggering a fresh war in the Middle East. The Republican candidate has openly joked about bombing Tehran. It was just over a year ago, in the tiny borough of Murrells Inlet in South Carolina, and McCain faced a small crowd in one of his characteristic town hall meetings. As McCain stood on the stage, one man asked him about the 'real problem' in the Middle East. 'When are we going to send an airmail message to Tehran?' the man pleaded. McCain laughed and - to the tune of the Beach Boys' classic 'Barbara Ann' - began to sing: 'Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.' But some think McCain's joke may well become policy. 'I think a McCain presidency would be very likely to strike Iran,' says Cliff Schecter, author of a new book, The Real McCain

Impact is global extinction
Hirsch 2k6 (Seymour, professor of physics @ the University of California @ San Diego, April 10, pg. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HIR20060422&articleId=2317) Iran is likely to respond to any US attack using its considerable missile arsenal against US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. Israel may attempt to stay out of the conflict, it is not clear whether Iran would target Israel in a retaliatory strike but it is certainly possible. If the US attack includes nuclear weapons use against Iranian facilities, as I believe is very likely, rather than deterring Iran it will cause a much more violent response. Iranian military forces and militias are likely to storm into southern Iraq and the US may be forced to use nuclear weapons against them, causing large scale casualties and inflaming the Muslim world. There could be popular uprisings in other countries in the region like Pakistan, and of course a Shiite uprising in Iraq against American occupiers. Finally I would like to discuss the grave consequences to America and the world if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. First, the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans both on American soil and abroad will be enormously enhanced after these events. And terrorist's attempts to get hold of "loose nukes" and use them against Americans will be enormously incentivized after the US used nuclear weapons against Iran. Second, it will destroy America's position as the leader of the free world. The rest of the world rightly recognizes that nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from all other weapons, and that there is no sharp distinction between small and large nuclear weapons, or between nuclear weapons targeting facilities versus those targeting armies or civilians. It will not condone the breaking of the nuclear taboo in an unprovoked war of aggression against a non-nuclear country, and the US will become a pariah state. Third, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will cease to exist, and many of its 182 non-nuclear-weapon-country signatories will strive to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent to an attack by a nuclear nation. With no longer a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, any regional conflict may go nuclear and expand into global nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are million-fold more powerful than any other weapon, and the existing nuclear arsenals can obliterate humanity many times over. In the past, global conflicts terminated when one side prevailed. In the next global conflict we will all be gone before anybody has prevailed.

39

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

China War
McCain threatens US-China War Patrick Whelan (Staff Writer Catholic Democrats) 5/28 2008 “Senator McCain falls far short in speech on nuclear threat” [http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/news/2008/05/senator_mccain_falls_short_in.php Accessed June 26, 2008]
Senator John McCain spoke Tuesday (May 27) at the University of Denver in what was billed as a major policy speech on nuclear security. He essentially condemned the Bush Administration approach to unilateralism, repeatedly invoking the importance of collective action in dealing with the acquisition of nuclear technology by developing countries and by transnational anti-American organizations. To his great credit, he called for dramatic further reductions in nuclear missiles, and for a new arms limitation agreement with Russia to accomplish it. Catholic Social Teaching has dictated action of this nature for nearly 50 years, and a wide variety of Catholic voices addressing these issues had fallen on virtually deaf ears during the eight Bush years in the White House. But Senator McCain fell far short of meeting what most Catholic thinkers would call the moral imperative on

called for continuing the militarization of the North Pacific, a move condemned last week in a joint statement by the Russian and Chinese governments as the beginning of a new arms race. He also reinforced the highly destructive unilateral Bush move to place a network of missiles in Central Europe on the pretense that the US needs to protect Europe from Iran, even though most European
these issues. He countries have condemned this costly escalation in hostilities. Senator McCain failed to even mention the most urgent need regarding nuclear forces, namely Pentagon planning under the Bush Administration for the militarization of space. Mr Bush is requesting $10 million in funding in fiscal year 2009 for a "Space Test Bed" as part of a space-based missile defense system. The program would begin the process of putting weapons in space for the first time and would therefore have dangerous long-term consequences. Last year, Congress rejected funding for the Space Test Bed. But this year, the Union for Concerned Scientists has warned that several influential senators have expressed a willingness to fund space weapons and anti-satellite programs on the mistaken assumption that the US can effectively "defend" its satellites in the face of China's threat to deploy space weapons. Not only would the program break the international taboo against weapons in space, the interceptors have no chance of providing an effective defense despite the enormous cost of their deployment. Senator McCain also reinforced his determination to continue the killing, and the dying, and the unfathomable spending, in Iraq. While any student of foreign affairs must applaud his general sentiment of increased engagement with US allies, the commitment to heightened militarism in the face of so much economic need at home and abroad can only be described as grossly incompatible with the central imperative of Christianity--devotion to and imitation of a Savior who sacrificed his own life for the wellbeing of every human being.

40

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Hegemony
Obama is key to Us leadersip Howard Salters 2008, “Obama vs McCain on Peacekeeping” http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/66076 During the 1990´s, the administration of President Bill Clinton accepted this leadership position. While there were a few notable failures, such as in Rwanda, on the whole the administration chose to act as a leader on the issue through its funding and support of the U.N. However, over the past seven years American leadership has faltered. Upon coming to power, the Bush administration´s rhetoric repudiated Clinton´s policies and rejected any form of what might be perceived as, or assistance in, nation building. To make it evident that he was moving the country in a different direction, Bush allowed debt to the U.N. to accumulate, isolated the U.S. from the rest of the world and even cut the U.S.´s budget for U.N. peacekeeping operations. Regardless of who is the next president, it is essential that he emphasizes the need for U.S. leadership on the issue. While both presidential candidates would be a more favorable choice on this issue than the current president, it is apparent that Senator Barack Obama, compared to his opponent Senator John McCain, has prioritized this issue and would likely restore American leadership on a global scale. Obama has clearly stated his views on the importance of peacekeepers. He contends, "UN peacekeepers can help prevent and end conflict while enhancing international peace and security." More importantly, he understands the role the U.S. needs to play to make such missions successful. "Barack Obama supports renewed U.S. leadership in support of effective United Nations and regional peace operations." US Leadership solves multiple scenarios for extinction Khalizad. 95 (Zalmay, Analyst at the RAND, Washington Quarterly, Spring) Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange

41

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Hegemony Ext
OBAMA INCREASES LEADERSHIP MACWHIRTER 08, The Herald Ian, “There is only one Man who can save America” LexisNexis
Obama's historic purpose is to reconnect to America's other tradition - of exercising "soft" power rather than "hard" power. Soft power was the way the US defeated the Soviet Union, not through military conquest but through cultural osmosis. It was as much American rock music and Levi's consumerism that undermined the Warsaw Pact and brought down the communist bureaucracies. Soft power was the way America rebuilt post-war Europe by Marshall Aid, rather than through the scorchedearth policy it has employed in Iraq. Soft power revives the inviolable principle of national selfdetermination, as proposed by President Woodrow Wilson after the First World War, which underpins the United Nations.

42

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Yucca Mountain
Democrats will block Yucca Mountain – even an expanded Yucca cant handle all of the current nuclear waste RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL (Nevada) November 2, 2007 HEADLINE: Opposition to Yucca Mountain growing on the campaign trail If the Democrats retake the White House and keep their hold on Congress in 2008, the Yucca Mountain project would appear to be dead. The growing opposition is understandable. The problems with the plan and the licensing process have been piling up, and it's now recognized that even an expanded Yucca Mountain site won't be enough to handle all of the nuclear waste that has been building up at nuclear power plants around the country and is expected to be generated by new plants in the works. Yucca risks a terrorist attack Miguel LLANOS (Reporter ) 2002 MSNBC 2002 The perils of nuclear transport Yucca’s supporters argue that the risk of an accident or successful terrorist attack on a shipment is extremely small and that it’s a risk society is willing to take in exchange for a reward — in this case a cheap source of electricity. Each year, there are 300 million shipments of hazardous material in the United States. And 2,700 shipments of spent nuclear fuel, the primary type of radioactive waste at issue here, have been shipped 1.6 million miles over the last 20 years without a single release of radioactivity, supporters say. Yucca’s critics counter that never before will so much radioactive waste have been shipped so far and for so long — 24 years under the Yucca Mountain proposal. The Sept. 11 attacks, they add, have raised the specter of terrorism. That point is shared by the rail industry, whch has shown reluctance to become a carrier and asked that, if it must, the Energy Department require dedicated trains for nuclear waste shipments. Transporting the waste with other railcars increases safety risks, Ed Hamberger, head of the Association of American Railroads, told lawmakers earlier this year. That Energy Department policy “is driven no doubt by economic considerations,” he added. “I submit that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, have altered that calculation forever.”

43

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Social Security
Democrats oppose privatization of social security Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee) December 31, 2007 HEADLINE: Where they stand -Social Security The Associated Press researched the leading Democrat and Republican presidential candidates' stands on key issues. Here is what the AP found on the question of Social Security: Democrats oppose using a portion of payroll taxes to finance private
retirement accounts. In addition: * Sen. Hillary Clinton: Noncommittal on raising the $97,500 income cap on Social Security. Proposes a federal match of up to $1,000 per person to help people set up 401(k) plans in program costing $25 billion a year, to be paid for by freezing the estate tax at 2009 levels. * Former Sen. John Edwards: Subject the portion of income over about $200,000 to Social Security taxes, while keeping the portion of income between $97,500 and $200,000 free of it. * Sen. Barack Obama: Proposes raising cap with an unspecified "small adjustment" that would subject a portion of higher incomes to Social Security taxes. * Gov. Bill Richardson: Opposes raising the income cap for Social Security taxes. Republicans favor using a portion of payroll taxes to finance private retirement accounts. In addition: * Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani: "I would rule out a tax increase" to save Social Security. * Sen. John McCain: Would consider "almost anything" as part of a compromise to save Social Security, yet rules out higher payroll taxes for now. * Former Gov. Mike Huckabee: Higher benefits for people who delay retirement past 70. Give retirees option of declining their benefits, and instead have Social Security issue a lump sum payment at their death, with the money going to their children or grandchildren. * Former Gov. Mitt Romney: Higher taxes are "wrong way to go." * Former Sen. Fred Thompson: Only major candidate proposing lower-than-promised benefits for future retirees. Also warns richest people "we're not going to take care of all your Medicare in the future."

Privatization risks global depression John Waelti, Professor of Economics at the University of Minnesota, July 14, 2003
The third, least obvious and least discussed, but arguably the most important, reason why privatization of Social Security and tying it to financial markets is a bad idea has to do with macroeconomic stabilization. In plainer English, fixed, dependable Social Security checks, delivered to recipients during good times and bad, help to prevent recession and take the edge off recessions when they occur -- like now. Because of the reliability of Social Security checks as a source of continued economic activity, economists refer to Social Security as an "automatic" or "built-in" stabilizer to the economy. Economists have been woefully remiss in not making this case in the strongest possible terms during the privatization debate. Picture the worst case scenario -- a recession coupled with a prolonged period of falling stock prices. Sound familiar? If Social Security checks were tied to depressed stock prices, not only would those who depend mainly on Social Security payments be badly hurt, but the level of spending in the economy would fall just when it is most needed to sustain economic activity. Much is made these days of the importance of maintaining consumer spending to get us out of recession. The current Social Security system tends to moderate recession or, to use language of the economist, acts as a countercyclical force. Should people invest in stocks? Yes! That is, with appreciation (perhaps newly acquired) of tolerance for risk. But private investment in stocks should be in addition to, and not a substitute for, fixed payments into and receipts from the current Social Security system. Those who would privatize Social Security to "ease the burden of government" have it completely backward. It is not the responsibility of Wall Street to bail out the federal government. Who in their right mind would trust Wall Street for this awesome responsibility anyway? It is the responsibility of government to provide the structure and proper fiscal policies by which to minimize the frequency and severity of recession -- and to make Wall Street behave. But that's another story. * Social Security in its present form is a significant, though unheralded, policy that is useful in keeping recessions from being as frequent or as severe as they otherwise would be. This contribution to macroeconomic stability is yet another reason why the system needs to be protected, enhanced and assured to be there for future generations.

44

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Social Security
Economic decline causes global nuclear war Mead 92 [Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28] But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.

45

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

NMD
Obama will block NMD Smith in ‘8 [Charles R, “Obama’s Defense Plan Leaves US Vulnerable,” June 10, 2008, Newsmax.com] Sen. Barack Obama has made very little effort to supply the voters with any idea of his real policies. To date most of his speeches concentrate on the smoke and mirrors of feelings but little, if any, substance. There is one area that Obama has made his intentions very clear; U.S. national defense. The senator, like his liberal colleagues, stands ready to cut our national security to dangerous levels. During a policy speech on national defense, Obama declared the real enemy to America is not North Korea, Moscow, Beijing, Tehran or bin Laden. According to Obama, the U.S. military is the evil that must be destroyed. “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems,” stated Obama. The implications here are standard fare for left-wing zealots who hate anything military. For example, Obama pledged to cut the national missile defense, calling it “unproven.” Ironically, the only way to prove such a defense in combat is to have someone shoot missiles at the U.S. homeland. Of course, without a missile defense, we will be helpless at any such onslaught. NMD = nuclear war Graham (fmr. Pres. special representative of the for arms control, participated in every US arms control negotiation from 1970-97) 5 (Thomas, “Space Weapons and The Risk of Accidental Nuclear War”, Arms Control Today. v35 i10, ProQuest)
The United States and Russia maintain thousands of nuclear warheads on longrange ballistic missiles on 15-minute alert. Once launched, they cannot be recalled, and they will strike their targets in roughly 30 minutes. Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, the

chance of an accidental nuclear exchange has far from decreased. Yet, the United States may be contemplating further
exacerbating this threat by deploying missile interceptors in space. Both the United States and Russia rely on space-based systems to provide early warning of a nuclear attack. If deployed, however, U.S. space-based missile defense interceptors could eliminate

the Russian early warning satellites quickly and without warning. So, just the existence of U.S. space weapons could make Russia's strategic trigger fingers itchy. The potential protection space-based defenses might offer the United States is swamped therefore by their potential cost: a failure of or false signal from a component of the Russian early warning system could lead to a disastrous reaction and accidental nuclear war. There is no conceivable missile defense, space-based or not, that would offer protection in the event that the Russian nuclear arsenal was launched at the United States. Nor are the Russians or other countries likely to stand still and watch the United States construct spacebased defenses. These states are likely to respond by developing advanced anti-satellite weapon systems.1 These weapons, in turn, would endanger U.S. early warning systems, impair valuable U.S. weapons intelligence efforts, and increase the jitteriness of U.S. officials.

46

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Tax Cuts
McCain continues tax cuts David Welna (NPR Correspondent) June 16, 2008 “McCain's Voting Record: Bush Comparison Accurate?” [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91544414 Accessed June 23, 2008] But once McCain began campaigning to be President Bush's successor, he dramatically changed his stance on those tax cuts, saying he could make them permanent and would reduce taxes on 25 million middle-class families. Since then, McCain has continued proclaiming his newfound fealty to the Bush tax cuts. Fellow Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, who is often mentioned as a possible McCain running
mate, applauds the about-face. "I think he recognizes that to allow these tax cuts to expire would be the equivalent of a tax increase at a time when the economy is really struggling," Thune said. "So, he believes, and I think rightly so, that extending the tax relief is important to the economy expanding and continuing to create jobs."

Tax cuts tank the economy Lori Montgomery (Washington Post Staff Writer) March 28, 2008 “As Candidates Warm to Bush Tax Cuts, Economists Warn of Long-Term Effect” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032703145.html Accessed June 24, 2008]
When President Bush pushed big tax breaks through Congress in 2001 and 2003, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) joined Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats in opposing them as fiscally reckless. But now that McCain and Clinton are running for president, neither is looking to get rid of the cuts. Instead, they are arguing over which ones to keep. The same is true of Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who recently blamed the Bush tax cuts for driving the nation toward recession. But he, too, wants to preserve about half the cuts, and pile on new ones. The direction of the tax debate is frustrating deficit hawks in Washington, who worry that none of the candidates is charting a course toward a balanced budget. Meanwhile, Bush and other politicians are telling voters alarmed by a sagging economy that keeping the cuts past their 2010 expiration date can help revive the nation's fortunes, a claim

Far from acting as an economic tonic, the tax cuts "are neither sustainable nor beneficial" without massive cuts in government spending far beyond what Bush or any candidate to succeed him has proposed, said Alan D. Viard, a former economist in the Bush White House who is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The most
many economists say is nonsense. popular cuts -- those known as "middle-class" tax cuts -- are more likely to slow economic growth than promote it, Viard and others said. "Those are the provisions that detract from long-term growth even if you finance them with a reduction in government spending," said Robert Carroll, a former Bush Treasury official who teaches at American University. "If you pay for them with future tax increases, I think that would be awful." The tax cuts, the signal economic achievement of the Bush administration, are among the three biggest federal tax reductions since the end of World War II, comparable in size to the Reagan tax cut of 1981 and the Kennedy tax cut passed in 1964, according to the nonprofit Tax Foundation. By the time the Bush cuts are scheduled to expire, it's projected that they will have saved taxpayers $1.6 trillion. The cuts affected both businesses and individuals. The individual cuts, which are the focus of the current debate, are split into two main elements. The first, growth-oriented provisions, are aimed at spurring the economy in the long term and flow mainly to the wealthy. Those provisions lowered the estate tax and will repeal it in 2009, and lowered the tax on capital gains and dividends to 15 percent. The legislation also lowered the top four income tax brackets, with the top rate falling to 35 percent from 39.6. The second element, social-relief provisions, are aimed at providing short-term stimulus and flow to a wider spectrum of taxpayers. Those provisions created a 10 percent tax bracket at the bottom of the scale, doubled the child-tax credit to $1,000 and reduced the penalty on married couples filing jointly. The economic impact of the cuts is unclear. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said "it is hard to be certain what effects the tax cuts have had on the economy because there is no way to compare actual events to the counterfactual case where the tax cuts were not enacted." Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time.

Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that
point.

47

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Preemption
McCain will adopt a policy of preemption Elliot D. Cohen, (Ph.D., is a political analyst and media critic.) JOHN MCCAIN’S CHILLING PROJECT FOR AMERICA. Global Research. June 12, 2008. Accessed on June 26, 2008 <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9341> John McCain has long been a major player in a radical militaristic group driven by an ideology of global expansionism and dominance attained through perpetual, pre-emptive, unilateral, multiple wars. The credo of this group is “the end justifies the means,” and the end of establishing the United States as the world’s sole superpower justifies, in its estimation, anything from military control over the information on the Internet to the use of genocidal biological weapons. Over its two terms, the George W. Bush administration has planted the seeds for this geopolitical master plan, and now appears to be counting on the McCain administration, if one comes to power, to nurture it. Other countries will model our policy of pre-emption including India/Pakistan LOPEZ 03(“Perils of Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine” George Lopez director of policy studies at the
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame Indianapolis Star October 3, 2003 http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content .cfm?topicId=3956) Finally, a strategy of pre-emption wreaks havoc on the international order, especially when other nations adopt the same principle. In October 2002, Russia declared a policy of pre-emption against Chechen rebels. And on Wednesday, the defense minister stated that Russia would use a pre-emptive strike if its national interests demanded it. In April 2003, India argued that Pakistan's nuclear weapons and support of terrorists in Kashmir made it a more suitable target for pre-emptive attack than Iraq. The use of military force is sometimes necessary, especially in dealing with extremist terrorism. But administration strategies of muscular unilateralism and pre-emption have become a stubborn ideology that both skews the meaning of recent events and eschews a variety of proven multilateral means for advancing U.S. security. The new strategy has aroused animosity abroad and reduced the trust and cooperation of U.S. allies. In Iraq we see how pre-emption breeds resentment, fosters countervailing coalitions and overburdens resources. Pre-emption's irony is that the new reliance on unilateral military force makes the United States less, not more, secure.

Risks extinction Duffy 03 (Jeff Duffy, “India and Pakistan with Nuclear Weapons” www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us /History/India/03/duffy/duffy .htm) All of this strife could be multiplied tremendously with the introduction of nuclear weapons. Such weapons would drastically multiply the damage India and Pakistan could cause, and could even affect the whole world. Nuclear weapons not only kill huge masses of people in the direct area where the bombs are dropped but also pose danger to surrounding areas.
From the bombs come radioactive pollution of the air and the chance of radioactive particles on the earth surface. It has been proven that even low concentrations of

Modern nuclear weapons can create unimaginable devastation and could even destroy all life on earth. One possible outcome is nuclear winter which is caused when multiple bombs are set off resulting in killing all life on earth. Since these two countries are in possession of nuclear weapons there is a great chance that they will use them. Unfortunately, India and Pakistan both have developed nuclear weapons. Recently they have been testing them. No one can know whether a nuclear war will break out or, if it does, what the consequences will be. We know it could devastate the Indian subcontinent, and harm people all over the world.
radioactivity endanger humans and can harm people throughout the whole world.

48

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

A2 India Deal
India won’t contain China, it wants strategic independence and good Chinese relations Financial Times 7/20/2005
The broad case for partnership is compelling. India and the US are natural trading partners or, rather, would be if India's government made greater effort to release its huge economic potential. Closer business links and co-operation in space technology and agriculture should bring real gains. India and the US are also natural partners in promoting democracy around the world. India brings legitimacy to an agenda that many in the developing world see as bound up with US neo-colonial interests. India is not likely to play the

role some in Washington wish to ascribe to it, as the emerging military counterbalance to China. It wants strategic autonomy and good relations with China. But India can help US interests by contributing to a balance of
influence that favours peace and democracy. Yet all of this would have been possible without selling out the global non-proliferation regime. This was a mistake that Congress should reconsider before drafting legislation to end sanctions. Offering India - a nuclear weapons state outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty - full civilian nuclear co-operation undermines the NPT. It smacks of double standards and will make it even more difficult to build a consensus on Iran and North Korea.

49

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

A2 Too Early to Predict
The summer means you can predict Mann, Thomas E.; Senior Fellow for Governance Studies at the Brookings Institute; May 30, 2000; Brookings Institute “Reading Polls too Much too Soon”; http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0530elections_mann.aspx accessed 07/22/08 By late summer, however, the polls do begin to gel. In every election between 1948 and 1996 in which the president had a July approval rating exceeding 50 percent, his party won in November. And every nominee since 1952 who led by more than 53 to 47 percent in the post-convention polls won the general election. Predictions are possible Cassidy, John; Staff Writer; Jan. 14, 2008; Portfolio.com “The Next President Revealed”; http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/economics/2008/01/14/Predicting-the-Presidential-Election; accessed 07/22/08 The best time to try to predict presidential races is in the summer of an election year, when timely economic information is available and opinion polls are more reliable. Several political scientists have devised voting models that combine economic statistics and survey data. Alan Abramovitz, of Emory University, uses three indicators: G.D.P. growth rate in the first half of the election year, the president's approval rating in June, and a "time for change" factor if the incumbent party has been in office for two or more terms. Michael Lewis-Beck, of the University of Iowa, uses the same economic variable as Abramovitz, the president's approval rating in July of the election year, and a polling indicator that captures the electorate's feelings about noneconomic issues. James Campbell, of the State
University of New York at Buffalo, waits until early September before issuing a forecast. His model has just two variables: the growth rate of G.D.P. in the second quarter and how well the incumbent party's candidate performs in polls conducted on Labor Day weekend.

50

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

**Aff**

51

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

McCain Will Win
Voters fear Obama is an ineffective leader- he’s doomed Floyd and Mary. Journalists for Frontpage Magazine. July 21, 2008. “NYT Poll: Obama "Not Likely" to Be Effective Commander-in-Chief”. Frontpage Magazine. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/2048697/posts
Americans are afraid of this scenario, Barack H. Obama as commander-in-chief. The New York Times and CBS News released a poll this week; in it, Americans answered detailed questions about this possibility. The poll’s answers shocked the strategists at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. An intensive international travel schedule for Obama and a refocus of the campaign’s message on defense and foreign policy speaks to this fear. The poll says Americans consider him lacking in the abilities necessary to run the armed services. Conversely, the polls show John McCain blows Obama out of the water as a good commander-in-chief. Forty-six percent of respondents thought McCain would very likely “be effective” as commander-in-chief, as opposed to only 24 percent saying the same of Obama. In fact, 36 percent think it is “not likely” Obama will be effective in the position. Obama’s talents lie in his gift of oratory and his ability to move people with emotion, but this does not necessarily make for a good commander. The chief executive’s job requires forward thinking, realistic assessments of the world’s threats, and the maturity to make judgments in a crisis. A president who hasn’t had any experience in military strategic planning is going to find himself in deep trouble if he finds his strategic armories empty in the face of an advancing enemy. A review of Obama’s national defense plans offers insight into his preparedness to meet today’s and tomorrow’s defense realities. Obama makes a variety of claims which we think would dramatically weaken America if enacted. The Obama plans include cutting tens of billions of dollars of the Defense Department budget, and the development of no new weapons in space to protect satellites and strategic assets. He plans cuts in missile defense systems, slowing our development of future combat systems, developing no new nuclear weapons, and negotiating with Russia to take our ICBMs off what he calls “hair-trigger alert”. He advocates deep cuts in our nuclear program. Not only does Obama have dangerous disarmament plans for America, he sorely lacks in experience. Besides being a junior senator, he has not been on any of the major defense committees. He has no previous hands-on experience with the military nor has he spent time with the men and women of our armed forces. Will he be able to effectively deal with crazed terrorists and power-hungry leaders with nuclear weapons in hand? Recent polls show Americans are nervous about Obama as commander-in-chief, and rightly so.

McCain’s got it in the bag- Obama losing among blue-collar voters
Alex Spillius. Washington Correspondent for The Daily Telegraph. 6/3/2008. “Barack Obama's failure to win bluecollar voters will let John McCain win.” The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2027588/USelection-Barack-Obamas-failure-to-win-blue-collar-voters-will-let-John-McCain-win.html Republican strategists said yesterday that Senator Barack Obama's failure to win over blue-collar voters would deliver the White House to Senator John McCain, despite his faltering campaign. Senior party figures suggested that Mr McCain could even surpass George W Bush's margin of victory in 2004. They believe that concerns among small town and rural voters about Mr Obama's ethnic background and lack of experience would result in a decisive amount of "split ticket" voting in November's general election. This would see Democrats vote along party lines for state legislators, Congressmen and governors but opt for the Republican presidential nominee over Mr Obama. That would bring the battle between Mr Obama and Mr McCain into sharp focus and the attention shift to the magic number of 270, the majority of electoral college votes needed to win the presidency. In both 2000 and 2004, Mr Bush won by majorities of just five and 35, due to the winner-takes-all system in states such as Florida and Ohio. Republican strategists think that all the excitement caused by Mr Obama's campaign for change, which has brought out millions of young voters and revitalised the black electorate, will not be big enough to work where it really matters – in the swing states – where he needs to turn "red" Republican states into "blue" Democrat states. Chip Felkel, a Republican consultant in South Carolina, which Mr Obama won by a landslide with the help of the black vote, said: "The African American vote makes more states interesting but doesn't really bring them into play. That's probably true for my state, North Carolina and Georgia."

52

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

McCain Will Win
Obama might be popular but he’ll lose the electoral college Harry Siegel. Journalist for Politico. 6/18/08. “Obama could win vote, lose election.” Politico. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11182.html Until 2000, it hadn’t happened in more than 100 years, but plugged-in observers from both parties see a distinct possibility of Barack Obama winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College — and with it the presidency — to John McCain. Here’s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush’s in 2004 and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11. Hank Sheinkopf, president of Sheinkopf Communications and an adviser to Bill Clinton in 1996, warns that such a split “is anything but impossible.” While he gives Obama a slight edge in the general election “because he doesn’t have George Bush riding with him,” he predicts that “Obama’s going to get big votes for a Democrat in the Southern states but not enough to win any new electoral votes. So it’s a distinct possibility that he could lose the entire South, split the Midwest” and end up not as president but rather as the second coming of Al Gore. When asked the odds of this playing out, he offers “50-50.”

53

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

McCain Winning- Eye Color
McCain’s eyes will win him the ballgame Andrew ROMANO, June 23, 2008 “The Body Politic” Newsweek. Romano graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University in 2004 with an A.B. in English and a certificate in American Studies. Romano was named Associate Editor and Political Blogger in December 2007. http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/23/let-s-get-physical.aspx EYE COLOR: Less familiar than the height factor but definitely more consistent: of our 43 presidents, a shocking 38 have had blue, gray or hazel eyes. The brown-eyed exceptions? John Quincy Adams, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon--with two impeachees, not exactly a stellar lineup. Genetic diversification can partially explain this pattern. The country's early ethnic settlers--English, Scottish, Irish and German, primarily--tended to have blue eyes, and 50 percent of Americans boasted light eyes, a recessive genetic trait, as recently as 1900. But at no point in U.S. history were 89 percent of the population's peepers blue. In fact, while the general incidence of non-brown eyes declined to its current level of 16 percent over the last century, the presidential rate held steady at nine out of ten. Any way you look at it, that's a highly disproportionate number--and in our battle of the body parts, it gives the blue-eyed McCain an edge over his brown-eyed rival. Advantage: McCain.

54

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

McCain Winning- Women
McCain ahead with women By Kurt ANDERSEN Jun 5, 2008 New York Magazine. Andersen writes a column called "The Imperial City" for New York magazine, and contributes to Vanity Fair. He has previously been a columnist for The New Yorker ("The Culture Industry") and Time. “I’m Not Totally Sure We Can Ten November scenarios to give an Obama supporter agita.” http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/47551/ 4. …But he [Obama] may have real problems with independents and women. The deeper I dive into the data, the more anxious I become. Back in February, Mark Penn, then Clinton’s chief strategist, declared that Obama’s support among independents “would evaporate relatively quickly once he faced the Republicans.” Or even, as it happened, once he faced the Clintons for several more months. Between February and May, according to Pew polling, the percentage of independents with a favorable view of Obama shrank from 62 to 49 percent. So far he’s holding onto his base—among people under 30 and college graduates, his support has actually increased. Two of the unenthusiastic constituencies, old people and Catholics, don’t seem to be growing more antagonistic. But the two other relatively Obama-unfriendly blocs, female and working-class whites, appear to be turning against him—especially white women. In just one month, according to Pew, Obama (and Hillary Clinton) virtually erased the gender gap: In April, he was beating McCain among white women, but by May, McCain was running ahead of Obama by 8 percent.

55

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

McCain Winning- State by State
State by State analysis proves McCain will narrowly win now
Robert NOVAK AND Timothy P. CARNEY 05/28/2008 "Electoral College Outlook: McCain 270, Obama 268" Mr. Novak is a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report, a political newsletter he founded in 1967 with Rowland Evans. Mr. Carney, a contributing editor to HUMAN EVENTS and the senior reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report. He is also the author of "The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money," published by John Wiley & Sons. Read more of his work at TimothyPCarney.com. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26723&s=rcme

Electoral College: While national polls garner attention, they have no direct bearing on choosing our next President. A state-by-state count of electoral votes is the key to analyzing the presidential race. For the first time this year, we run through all 50 states plus the District of Columbia in order to handicap the presidential race. Outlook: If the election were held today, we see a McCain victory by the narrowest of margins. The electoral map looks nearly identical to 2004, with Iowa and Colorado swinging into the Democratic camp. Beneath the surface, however, we see Michigan and Pennsylvania becoming more competitive for Republicans. The election will hinge on two regions: Lake Erie and the Mountain West. An Obama win in New Mexico or Nevada would be enough to tip the scales, but a McCain win in Pennsylvania could put the race out of reach. In the end, as always, it comes down to Ohio, where Obama’s weakness among rural whites could send McCain to the White House. McCain 270, Obama 268.

56

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

McCain Winning- Polls
MCCAIN AHEAD NOW- IRAQ
AP Wed., June. 25, 2008 "Voters split over McCain, Obama on Iraq Poll: Public feels presumed GOP nominee better suited to handle the war" AP is the Associated Press http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25363944/
Not a national security election For McCain, there is a major complication. Not all those voters who perceive him as stronger on Iraq say they will vote for him for president. Unlike the 2004 presidential contest, this is not shaping up as a national security election. Neither the war nor terrorism is foremost in the public's mind. The economy and energy prices are the pre-eminent issues of the day. And on those, Obama has the

this hate-the-war, love-the-warrior strain runs through the American electorate. In a new Associated Press-Yahoo News poll, more than one out of five of the respondents who said they opposed the war also said they support McCain for president. The sentiment does not discriminate by gender or by age. Most significantly, it splits independent voters in favor of McCain. Respondents said McCain would do a better job in Iraq than Obama by a margin of 39 percent to 33 percent. Undergirding that response is a strong sentiment that McCain would be a better leader of the military than Obama. One out of three respondents said that description matched McCain
edge. Still,

"very well," whereas only one out of 10 said the same of Obama, who did not serve in the armed forces. Potential Obama vulnerability. The Iraq findings track McCain's advantage on the issue of

terrorism. Of those surveyed, more than twice as many believe McCain can better handle terrorism than Obama. As such, McCain is emerging clearly as a candidate of national security, a conventional role for a Republican.
The public's views about Iraq are especially notable because many voters appear to separate McCain's past record of support for the war from their perception of his performance as a military leader. What's more, it points to a potential Obama vulnerability. Only 6 percent of those who say they will vote for Obama say McCain would do a better job on Iraq. But among "weak" Obama supporters, that figure rises to 15 percent. Moreover,

among undecided voters, McCain is preferred 25 percent to 15 percent over

Obama on Iraq. Leeann Ormsbee, a registered Democrat from Waterford, Pa., believes the United States rushed to war, but now does not
believe troops should simply withdraw. The 29-year-old self-employed house cleaner says she has never voted for a Republican. She might this time.

57

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Obama Will Lose
Women and jewish voters will not vote for Obama in November Willie Brown. Former San Francisco mayor. July 20, 2008. “Who will win the Obama vs. Obama election?” San Francisco Bay Area News. http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/20/BAD511PR2F.DTL&feed=rss.news
From New York to San Francisco, I've been asked over and over: Given the state of the country, how could Barack Obama and John McCain be so close in the polls? The answer - at this point it's not about Obama vs. McCain. It's about Obama vs. Obama. Upscale, white "Sex and

the City" women are still livid over how they perceive the Obama people treated Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primaries. He has got a major, major problem there, and they feel he has done nothing to
address it. I'm not saying women will vote for McCain - he's just a look-over at best - but they will be missing in action this November unless something changes. Back in New York, I've picked up some real hesitation about Obama among Jewish Democrats

as well. Plus, Obama is now having to deal with the "true believers" upset about his moving to the middle on Iraq, gun control, the death penalty and everything else that happens when a candidate suddenly gets more "educated" on the
issues. It's Obama vs. Obama - and it's still a wide-open race among undecideds.

58

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Too Early to Predict
Predictions are too early Anna Lothson, staff writer for the Daily Iowan. 7/16/08. The Daily Iowan, “Iowa market heavily favors Obama”. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11794.html, assessed online 7/22/08.
The Democratic contract on the winner-take-all market traded at 64.3 cents, according to its website. This figure shows that investors believe there is a 64 percent probability that Obama will win the popular vote in the general election. The Gallup poll had Obama up 46 to 43 percent.

Polls and, increasingly, markets have been used to judge the outcomes of elections. This year's difference means that investors seem to like Obama, while polls of likely voters show they are considering McCain more. What is unique about the various Iowa Electronic Markets, said Forrest Nelson, a UI professor of economics who oversees the enterprise, is that they are constantly being followed. "The polls don't get much attention until right before the election," he said. The UI College of Business introduced the Iowa Electronic Markets
in 1988 to offer a real-money online futures market. Anyone can participate by purchasing "shares" of different possible outcomes and receive payouts if right. For example, if someone buys a share of John McCain winning the presidency - currently at $0.36 - and he is elected in November, that share pays off $1. The theory is, with enough people predicting with their money on the line, a more-correct prediction will emerge.

Studies prove polls are meaningless this early Justin Wolfers, staff writer NYT, New York Times, Opinion All NYT, Tuesday, July 22, 2008, “Putting Your Money Where Your Model Is”, http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/putting-yourmoney-where-your-model-is/, assessed online 7/22/08 Senator Obama’s lead is larger than the stated margin of error …. Moreover, Sen. Obama is leading in all of the major battleground states, except Virginia and Florida which remain incredibly close. How should we interpret polling data four months prior to an election? Political scientists Robert Erikson (of Columbia) and

Christopher Wlezien (of Temple) have recently mined daily polling reports from the last half-century of elections, mapping the relationship between early polling numbers and final election returns. At this point in the race, they find that around half of any lead should be discounted, as early advantages tend to dissipate. Profs. Erikson and Wlezien point to another reason to be wary of Sen. Obama’s early polling lead: On
average, the voting public tends to be more strongly anti-incumbent three-and-a-half years into an administration than they are on Election Day. Based on patterns in previous cycles, the professors suggest that this exaggerated anti-incumbent feeling is boosting Sen. Obama’s lead by around three percentage points.

Too soon

Spence,Matt; Times Writer; June 20, 2008; The Times; “June Poll Don’t hold up”; http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/06/june-polls-dont.html Accessed 07/22/08
This week's polls showing Barack Obama with small, but significant, single-digit leads among likely voters are certainly welcomed by Democrats, but recent history hasn't been kind to early frontrunners. In fact, only one of the last five June election-year polling averages has correctly predicted the popular vote winner in November - Bill Clinton in 1996. Even then, the polls missed his win-margin by more than 9 percent. As hard as it may be to believe, Michael Dukakis was leading the first George Bush by an average of 8.2 percent in June of 1988. Bush went on to win the general election by 7.8 points. Mr. Bush led the relatively unknown Bill Clinton by 4.9 percent In June of '92, but managed to lose in November by 5.6 percent. June 1996 polls showed the incumbent President Clinton leading by a whopping 17 points, but even Bob Dole managed to close the gap to a more respectable 8.5 percent. 2000 was different only in that George W. Bush led by 4.7 percent in June, won the election, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore by 0.5 percent. And finally, John Kerry led in the June 2004 polls by an average of 0.9 percent, but lost the popular vote, and the election, to the incumbent Bush by 2.4 points.

59

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Too Early to Predict
Polls are unreliable Mann, Thomas E.; Senior Fellow for Governance Studies at the Brookings Institute; May 30, 2000; Brookings Institute “Reading Polls too Much too Soon”; http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0530elections_mann.aspx accessed 07/22/08
Trial-heat polls taken before the late summer of an election year are notoriously unreliable in anticipating the November victor—in other words, not much better than flipping a coin. Recall that in June 1980 President Jimmy Carter enjoyed an 11 point lead over Ronald Reagan. In June 1988 Michael Dukakis was up 14 points over Vice President George Bush. Of course, both Reagan and Bush took full advantage of the broad forces working in their favor and won decisive victories.

60

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Polls Bad
Polls are unreliable Craig GILBERT, Staff, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel December 19, 2007 HEADLINE: ELECTION 2008; In search of a winner; Iowans lack guideposts on presidential electability Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin) And the general election match-ups that pollsters test are of limited use as well, Franklin said. They're heavily influenced by how well-known each candidate is. And they're testing for a contest that is more than 10 months away. "I tend to discount the head-to-head match-ups, except they show a fairly close race between the best-known candidates," Franklin said, adding that he suspects that "the voters are at least as unable as I am to make an objective judgment about who's electable."

61

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

**Impacts- Obama Bad**

62

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Tax Cuts
Obama will repeal the tax cuts Paul Stenhauser (CNN Reporter) September 18, 2007 “Obama tax plan: $80 billion in cuts, five-minute filings” CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html Accessed June 24, 2008]

Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed overhauling the tax code to lower taxes for the poor and middle class, increase them for the rich and make it so most Americans can file their taxes in five minutes. The tax relief plan he envisions for the middle class alone would mean $80 billion or more in tax cuts, he said. Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is a front-runner for his party's 2008 presidential
nomination, said during a speech at the Tax Policy Center that the present tax code reflects the wrong priorities because it rewards wealth instead of work. "Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we've got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code," he said. "This isn't the invisible hand of the market at work. It's the successful work of special interests." VideoWatch Obama unveil his tax plan » The result, according to Obama? "Gaps in wealth in this country grow wider, while the costs to working people are greater." His plan means billions in breaks by nixing income taxes for the 7 million senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who do not itemize their deductions -- most of whom make less than $50,000 annually -- and providing 150 million Americans with tax cuts of up to $1,000. "I'd reward work by providing an income tax cut of up to $500 per person -- or $1,000 for each working family -- to offset the payroll tax that they're already paying," he said. "Because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, my proposal would effectively eliminate all income taxes for 10 million working Americans." Obama also said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. "At a time when Americans are working harder than ever, we are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we're taxing gains for investors," Obama said. "We've lost the balance between work and wealth."

Obama's plan is similar in many

ways to his Democratic rivals, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina. Both Edwards and Clinton rolled out their tax plans earlier this year -- with Clinton calling for "rolling back some of President Bush's fiscally-irresponsible tax breaks for the highest income Americans," and Edwards
pledging to "get rid of Bush's tax cut for people who make over two hundred thousand dollars a year." Tuesday's announcement in Washington is part of an economic policy push by Obama. On Monday he was at the NASDAQ headquarters in New York City chastising Wall Street executives

Obama also said he'd simplify the tax code so that any employed American with a bank account can do their taxes in minutes if they take the standard deduction. It makes sense, he said, because the Internal Revenue Service already collects wage and bank account information. "There's no reason the IRS can't send
for looking out for themselves rather than helping the middle class.
Americans pre-filled tax forms to verify," he said. "This means no more worry. No more wasted time. No more extra expenses for a tax preparer." Obama proposes funding the tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens and increasing the dividend-and-capital-gains tax for the wealthy, he said. He called his proposal a "fair" alternative to the present tax code and said it was necessary because hard times on Main Street translate to hard times on Wall Street. "When the changes in our economy are leaving too many people behind, the competitiveness of our country risks falling behind," he said. "When that dream of opportunity is denied to too many Americans, then ultimately that pain has a way of trickling up."

Repealing Cuts Would Devestate the Global Economy – most qualified economists vote neg Kyle Wingfield (Editorial Writer, Wall Street Journal) June 21, 2008 “An Economist Who Matters” [http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121400327981993375.html Accessed June 24, 2008] Robert Mundell isn't in the habit of making fruitless policy recommendations, though some take a long time ripening. Nearly four decades passed between his early work on optimal currency areas and the birth of the euro in 1999 – the same year he received the Nobel Prize for economics. So when Mr. Mundell says that rescinding the Bush tax cuts "would be devastating to the world economy," that oil prices are "not so far off track," that
Asia needs its own multilateral currency, or that the ham sandwiches sitting before us could use some mustard, one is inclined to pay attention – and, except in the case of lunch, to think long term. It's late May, and we are in surprisingly sunny Denmark for a Copenhagen Consensus summit. Mr. Mundell is one of eight economists debating cost-effective solutions to such problems as malnutrition and global warming. Europe is a natural enough place to meet the Ontario native, and not only because of his advocacy for the euro. When Mr. Mundell is not in New York City – where he's a professor at Columbia University and occasionally appears on David Letterman's late-night TV show (reading from Paris Hilton's book, listing the top 10 ways winning the Nobel has changed his life) – he's often in Tuscany at his 500-year-old castle, "Palazzo Mundell," restored in part with his Nobel winnings. Back in America,

Democratic nominee Barack Obama regularly professes disdain for the Bush tax cuts, suggesting that those growthspurring measures may be scrapped. "If that happens," Mr. Mundell predicts, "the U.S. will go into a big recession, a nosedive." One of the original "supply-side" economists, he has long preached the link between tax rates and economic growth. "It's a lethal thing to suddenly raise taxes," he explains. "This would be devastating to the world economy, to the United States, and it would be, I think, political suicide" in a general election. Should taxes instead be cut again, I ask him, to stimulate the sluggish economy? Mr. Mundell replies that he favors a ceiling of 30% on marginal rates (the current top rate is 35%). He recounts how the past century experienced a titanic struggle over whether tax rates
there's an election going on. There's also been a spate of financial problems, not the least of which is a weak dollar. But Mr. Mundell says "the big issue economically . . . is what's going to happen to taxes."

are too high or too low: from a 3%

income tax in 1913; up to 60% during World War I; down to 25% before Congress and President Herbert Hoover raised taxes back to 60% in 1932 and "sealed the fate of our economy for a long, long time"; all the way up to 92.5% during World War II before falling in three steps, reaching 28% under President Ronald Reagan; and back to nearly 40% under Bill Clinton before George W. Bush lowered them to their current level. In light of this fiscal roller coaster, Mr. Mundell says, "the most important thing that could be done with respect to tax rates now is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Eliminating that uncertainty would be more important than pushing for a further cut – in the income tax rates, anyway." One tax that he would cut, to 25%, is the corporate tax rate. "It could be even lower," he says, "but I think it would be a big step to lower it to 25% . . . I made that proposal back in the 1970s." A long-haired Mr. Mundell spent that decade not only arguing for the euro, but laying the intellectual groundwork for the Reagan tax-cut revolution. Mr. Mundell says those tax cuts remain "as important to the United States as the creation of the euro was to Europe – a fundamental change." Combined with Paul Volcker's tight-money policy at the Fed, which Mr. Mundell also championed, supply-side economics killed off stagflation. Or at least it killed it off at the time.

63

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

UN Mod
Obama strengthens the UN Kincaid in ‘8 [Cliff, The National Ledger, Fed 12, 2008, “Barak Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote,” http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=22&num=18845] Presidential candidate Barack Obama wants the United States to spend 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid. Naturally, the United Nations is involved in this money grab. A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. UN kils US hegemony Brett D. Schaefer Heritage Lecture #842 June 16, 2004 |http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/em842.cfmheritage foundation Brett D. In the General Assembly (which approves the budget for the organization) each of the U.N.'s 191 members has only one vote--regardless of how much they contribute to the organization. The one-vote structure inevitably creates inequities with small, poor nations gaining far more from the U.N. than they pay for. Obviously, most of these nations do not concur with America's priorities on reform. On the contrary, most nations see the U.N. as a source of patronage, jobs, financial resources, anda diplomatic force multiplier of sorts. These nations want a bigger U.N.--not a smaller, more efficient U.N. Given these conflicting priorities, it is hardly surprising that progress on reform has been slow and that progress has largely been achieved at the point of America's checkbook. Yet U.S. criticism and reform efforts do have an impact. In 1997 and 2002, the U.N. announced its own reform agenda. Nuclear war Zalmay Khalilzad, Rand Corporation, The Washington Quarterly 1995 Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

64

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Terrorism Mod
Obama gives licenses to illegal immigrants Maribel Hastings (La Opinion Correspondent) June 14, 2008 “Obama and McCain plans overlap somewhat, but have significant differences” [http://www.alternet.org/rights/88109/?page=2 Accessed June 25, 2008]
At first glance there doesn’t seem to be significant differences between Senator Obama and Senator McCain’s stance on immigration. It’s because Obama supports reform previously supporte by John McCain until the political climate led him to take a “security-first” approach. If anything is similar between McCain and Obama and their respective political parties, Republican and Democrat, it’s to avoid the issue all together when possible. Especially since it’s not on the top of the issues of most concern to voters, and a volatile topic. What’s odd is that it’s an issue that, according to some, would benefit McCain in the fight for latino votes as the Senator from Arizona co-authored the Immigration Reform Bill with Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA). Although McCain presently emphasizes a “security-first” approach, the McCain/Kennedy bill still resounds among many hispanics. But everything is relative. Yesterday a NBC/WSJ poll concluded that

Upon closer scrutiny of both candidate positions, there are differences. For example, McCain opposes the Dream Act that benefits undocumented students and Obama supports it; McCain opposes giving driving licenses to illegal immigrants; Obama supports it.
62% of hispanic voters prefer Obama versus 28% for McCain.

Key internal link to terrorism Janice L. Kephart (former counsel to the September 11 Commission) September 2005 “Center for Immigration Studies” [http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/kephart.html#author Accessed June 26, 2008]
This report covers the immigration histories of 94 terrorists who operated in the United States between the early 1990s and 2004, including six of the September 11th hijackers. Other than the hijackers, almost all of these individuals have been indicted or convicted for their crimes. The report builds on prior work done by 9/11 Commission and the Center for Immigration Studies, providing more information than has been previously been made public. The findings show widespread terrorist violations of immigration laws. The report highlights the danger of our lax

. The report makes clear that strict enforcement of immigration law -- at American consulates overseas, at ports of entry, and within the United States -- must be an integral part of our efforts to prevent future attacks on U.S. soil.
immigration system, not just in terms of who is allowed in, but also how terrorists, once in the country, used weaknesses in the system to remain here Among the findings: * Of the 94 foreign-born terrorists who operated in the United States, the study found that about two-thirds (59) committed immigration fraud prior to or in conjunction with taking part in terrorist activity. * Of the 59 terrorists who violated the law, many committed multiple immigration violations -- 79 instances in all. * In 47 instances, immigration benefits sought or acquired prior to 9/11 enabled the terrorists to stay in the United States after 9/11 and continue their terrorist activities. In at least two instances, terrorists were still able to acquire immigration benefits after 9/11. * Temporary visas were a common means of entering; 18 terrorists had student visas and another four had applications approved to study in the United States. At least 17 terrorists used a visitor visa -- either tourist (B2) or business (B1). * There were 11 instances of passport fraud and 10 instances of visa fraud; in total 34 individuals were charged with making

terrorists claimed to lack proper travel documents and applied for asylum, often at a port of entry. * Fraud was used not only to gain entry into the United States, but also to remain, or "embed," in the country. * Seven terrorists were indicted for acquiring or using various forms of fake identification, including driver's licenses, birth certificates, Social Security cards, and immigration arrival records. * Once in the United States, 16 of 23 terrorists became
false statements to an immigration official. * In at least 13 instances, terrorists overstayed their temporary visas. * In 17 instances,

legal permanent residents, often by marrying an American. There were at least nine sham marriages. * In total, 20 of 21 foreign terrorists became naturalized U.S. citizens.

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

65

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Protectionism Mod
Obama = protectionism Continetti 8 Matthew, “Fair Weather Free Trader”, The Weekly Standard, March 10, 2008 Obama has explained in the past that it is "not realistic to expect to renegotiate NAFTA" and that Americans "benefit enormously from exports and so have an interest in free trade that allows us to move our products overseas." In a John Kerry-like straddle, he acknowledged in 2005 that a trade deal modeled on NAFTA--the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)--was "probably a net plus for the U.S. economy" … before voting against it. That vote may be seen as the beginning of his turn toward protectionism. The way Obama tells it, however, he
has borne witness to the chaos wrought by free trade for some time--a quarter century, in fact. "When I first moved to Chicago in the early '80s," he said last week, "I saw steelworkers who had been laid off of their plants," painful evidence that the "net costs of many of these trade agreements, if they're not properly structured, can be devastating." What trade agreements Obama blames for 1980s deindustrialization, he did not say; NAFTA was far off in the future when he showed up on the South Side. And President Reagan had in fact imposed steel tariffs to protect U.S. makers. Productivity gains resulting from improved technology were, however, allowing fewer workers to produce more steel. More likely, once the son-of-a-millworker dropped out of the Democratic contest, the friend-of-the-steelworkers saw an opening and seized it. And so it was that Barack Obama--Columbia '83, Harvard Law '91--became a populist. His rhetoric is increasingly heated. In a "major economic address" in Janesville, Wisconsin, on February 13, Obama said that "decades of trade

deals like NAFTA" included "protections for corporations and their profits," but none for "our workers," who have "seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear." In Youngstown, Ohio, on February 18,
Obama said "NAFTA didn't put food on the table." On February 24, in Lorain, Ohio, he said "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs" in the Buckeye State.

Protectionism kills billions
John Rutledge 2007, “Protectionism – the real threat to global growth, stability”, The China Daily, LexisNexis, August 7, 2007 If things are so good, then why are voters demanding protectionism? I am convinced that today's chorus of protectionist actions represents more than the profit-seeking actions of a few special interest groups. Today, when a political leader announces a new protectionist measure, crowds cheer. I believe that rising protectionism, nationalism, and social instability are rooted in the turbulence caused by rapid economic change. Rapid economic change raises average incomes but it creates new industries and destroys others, creating uncertainty in the lives of many people. Those, whose fortunes have been temporarily or permanently reduced, as well as those who are simply afraid of change, appeal to political leaders for relief; political leaders who promise to stop or reverse change will gain power over leaders who counsel openness. Left unchecked, this process can lead to global trade war as country after country erects non-market barriers to the smooth flow of trade. Ultimately, these mounting frictions can produce system failure, akin to the blackouts caused by failures of an electricity network, in which the global economy stops growing, as it did in the 1970's. Rampant protectionism could also breed social and political instability and, ultimately, bring nations into conflict. Political instability would put all the gains of the past quarter century at risk. The unintended consequences of protectionism would be harmful for people living in developed countries; they would be a tragedy for the world's three billion poor people. We can choose a better course. Although we cannot entirely eliminate calls for protectionism, there are things we can do to retard its growth and mitigate its harmful effects. Here are a few ideas: Policies to reduce frictions include training, education and relocation assistance for people experiencing change due to rapid global growth.

66

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

Protectionism Ext
Obama protectionist Tony Blankley 2008, “Obama-economics: The free market policies”, The Washington Times, LexisNexis, June 4, 2008 Similarly on the question of international trade, in "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama said that a tariff on imported steel may provide temporary relief to American steelmakers, but that it would also make every American manufacturer that uses steel, from carmakers to home builders, less competitive. Yet on March 4, he spoke of "entire cities that have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that US workers had a fair deal." To workers in a cold warehouse, he claimed that NAFTA has destroyed 1 million American jobs, "including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio." As president, he vowed, he will not "stand idly by while workers watch their jobs get shipped overseas." He has called for a "timeout" on free trade treaties.

67

UMKC SDI 2008 LouGie Lab

Elections Disadvantage Obama Good

India Deal
McCain key to India Deal Times of India 4-27-08 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/S_A_Aiyar_India_for_McCain/articleshow/2986947.cms Which of the three candidates for the US Presidency — Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John McCain — will be best for India? Most Indians would opt for Obama or Clinton. But from a policy viewpoint, McCain would be best for India. Indians have followed with fascination the Democratic struggle in primaries between Clinton and Obama.
Through history, all presidential candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties have been white males. This time, all white males have been eliminated early in the Democratic primaries, and the race is now between a woman and a black. Indian feminists would love to see Clinton win. The US constitution in 1787 had a noble vision of equality for all humans, yet women did not get the vote till 1920. For a woman to be elected this year would be a US landmark. However, female rulers are not news at all in South Asia. Every major country in the region has had female rulers — Indira and Sonia Gandhi in India, Begums Hasina and Khaleda in Bangladesh, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, and Srimavo Bandaranaike and Chandrika Kumaratunge in Sri Lanka. All these women attained power because they were related to earlier male prime ministers. Hence, they represented a feudal culture of inheritance within powerful families, not of feminists storming male bastions. Hilary Clinton's rise also owes much to her relationship with a powerful male president. So, a Hilary victory would replicate the South Asian model, with women coming to power via the bedroom door. From a gender viewpoint, that is not an uplifting model. Far more uplifting would be the election of a black as US president. Blacks entered the US as slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries. The US Civil War ended slavery, but southern States enacted laws that, by one device or another, prevented most blacks from voting. Only with the civil rights legislation of the 1960s did blacks become full partners in the US democracy. Most Indians passionately supported the US civil rights movement, and so will be delighted with an Obama victory. John McCain cannot possibly capture our imagination the same way. As a Republican, he carries the odium of being President Bush's party colleague. Remember, Indian political parties unanimously passed a parliamentary resolution in 2003 deploring the US invasion of Iraq. McCain is a hawk on Iraq, and wants the US forces to stay there almost forever. He is much admired in the US as a Vietnam War hero. But Indians view American soldiers in Vietnam as failed imperialists rather than heroes. However, what matters for Indo-US relations is not the colour, gender or war record of any presidential candidate. What matters is their position on key bilateral issues. And

in this regard, McCain beats Clinton and Obama hollow. Both the Democrats say they will reduce US troops in Iraq quickly, but not withdraw totally. Both are as hawkish on Iran as McCain. Both are working hard to change the image of the Democrats as being soft on defence and security issues. The Indo-US nuclear deal is in a limbo after Left Front objections, and can be revived only after fresh elections and fresh rulers in the two countries in November 2008 and May 2009 respectively. Historically, the US nuclear non-proliferation lobby was always dead against Indian nuclear advancement, but President Bush bulldozed his way through these objections to try and create a new Indo-US strategic partnership. McCain as president will be inclined to pursue the Bush line. However, Democrats have always strongly opposed nuclear proliferation. Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on India for its 1998 nuclear explosion. If the next president is a Democrat, non-proliferators will once again occupy key positions of power. Nuclear specialists in past Democratic regimes, such as Strobe Talbott or George Perkovich, are strongly opposed to the Indo-US nuclear deal. Even if the new president is inclined to go ahead, the non-proliferation lobby will probably attach new conditions — such as curbing economic ties with Iran — that India may find unacceptable. In matters of trade, Democrats have always been instinctively protectionist. Both Clinton and Obama have sworn to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, and have opposed free-trade agreements with Colombia and Korea. The US is slipping into recession, and so protectionist pressures are going to rise sharply. A Democratic president will favour protectionist measures to stop the migration of jobs from the US to emerging markets like India and China. Curbs on Indian software and outsourcing deals can be expected, and the issue of visas to Indian specialists to work in the US will be curbed. By contrast, McCain is generally in favour of free trade. He
will oppose most protectionist measures proposed by the US Congress (which has a Democratic majority) with some determination. He is more likely than any Democrat to offer concessions on agricultural subsidies in the Doha Round negotiations. Indians find Obama and Clinton more likeable than McCain, but personal likeability is irrelevant in international relations. McCain will be best for India. It's a pity that he will probably lose.

68

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful