Elections Work

WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 1/111

1NC-Obama Good Shell 3
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-National Polling 6
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Economy 7
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-McCain’s Age 8
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Women 9
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Latinos 10
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-African Americans 11
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Iowa 12
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Colorado 13
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-New Jersey 14
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Wisconsin 15
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Missouri 16
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Michigan 17
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Minnesota 18
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Ohio 19
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-A2: Swing States 20
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-National Polls 21
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-Independents 22
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-War on Terrorism 23
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-Obama Loses Voters 24
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-Missouri 25
Links-Public Supports Alternative Energy Development 26
Links-Public Supports Wind Development 29
Links-Public Supports Nuclear Development 30
Links-Public Supports Ethanol Development 31
Links-Public Supports Ethanol Development 32
Links-Public Supports Solar Development 33
Links-Public Supports Solar Development 34
Links-Public Supports PTCs 35
Links-Public Supports Hydrogen Car Development 36
Links-Public Supports RPS 37
Internal Links-Bush Key to Election 38
2NC/1NR Link Module-Ohio 44
Ohio Exts. 45
2NC/1NR Link Module-Florida 46
Florida Exts. 47
2NC/1NR Link Module-Pennsylvania 48
Pennsylvania Exts. 49
2NC/1NR Link Module-Virginia 50
2NC/1NR Link Module-Missouri 51
2NC/1NR Link Module-Michigan 52
Link-Women Like Plan 53
Internal Link-Women Key to Election 54
Internal Link-Women Key to Election 55
Internal Link-Latinos Key to Election 56
Internal Link-Latinos Key to Election 57
Internal Link-Jewish Vote Key to Election 58
Internal Link-Jewish Vote Key to Election 59
Link-Evangelicals Like Plan 60
Internal Link-Evangelicals Key to Election 61
Link-Youth Like the Plan 62
Election D/A 2/111
Internal Link-Youth Key to Election 63
Internal Link-Youth Key to Election 64
Internal Link-Libertarians Key to Election 65
Obama Good-Oil Prices 66
Obama Good-Space Weapons 67
Obama Good-Space Weapons Exts. 68
Obama Good-NMD 69
Obama Good-NMD Exts. 70
Obama Good-CTBT 71
Obama Good-Space Exploration 72
Obama Good-Leadership 73
Obama Good-Leadership Exts. 74
Obama Good-Leadership Exts. 75
Obama Good-Iraq Withdraw 76
Obama Good-Iraq Withdraw 77
Obama Good-Iraq Withdraw Exts. 78
Obama Good-Bush Tax Cuts 79
Obama Good-Bush Tax Cuts 80
Obama Good-Bush Tax Cuts Exts. 81
Obama Good-Hair Trigger Nuclear Weapons 82
Obama Good-Iran Strikes 83
Obama Bad-Bush Tax Cuts 84
Obama Bad-Bush Tax Cuts 85
Obama Bad-Protectionism 86
Obama Bad-Protectionism Exts. 87
Obama Bad-Iraq Withdraw 88
Obama Bad-Space Weapons 89
Obama Bad-NMD 90
Election D/A 3/111
1NC Obama Good Shell

A. Uniqueness- Obama will win now, African American, Women and Youth voters, but it will be
close
Quinnipiac 7/15 (2008, "Women, Blacks Give Obama 9-point Lead Over McCain",
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1192)
With commanding leads among women and young voters and near unanimous support from black voters,
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a 50 – 41 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain, according to a
Quinnipiac University national poll of likely voters released today. Independent voters split 44 – 44 percent,
the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Sen. McCain has a slight 47 – 44 percent
edge among men voters and a larger 49 – 42 percent lead among white voters. But black voters back
Sen. Obama 94 – 1 percent, while women support him 55 – 36 percent. Obama leads 63 – 31 percent among
voters 18 to 34 years old and 48 – 44 percent among voters 35 to 54, while voters over 55 split with 45
percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama. The Democrat gets 44 percent to the Republican’s 47 percent
in red states, which went Republican by more than 5 percent in 2004, and leads 50 – 39 percent in purple or
swing states. “Sen. Barack Obama’s national lead is solid – but it’s not monolithic,” said Maurice Carroll,
director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “His support in the black community is about as close to
unanimous as you can get. Politicians say that the only uncertainty will be turnout. Sen. John McCain leads
among white voters. “As is usually the case, the outcome probably will be decided in the middle, among the
independent voters, who are evenly split at this point.” “About one-fifth of those who voted for New York Sen.
Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries decline – so far, anyway – to come home to their party.” By a 55 –
29 percent margin, likely voters nationwide have a favorable opinion of Obama. McCain gets a 50 – 31
percent favorability.
Election D/A 4/111

B. Links:
1. Bush’s low popularity assures McCain will lose now-only a shift in policy course can
propel the GOP to victory in 2008
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.
2. There is massive public support for alternative energy development

Ruy Teixeira, Senior Fellow The Century Foundation and American Progress, Fellow New Politics Institute, a
Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, 2007 “What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the
Environment” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw.html accessed July 14, 2008//bc
Energy issues are increasingly environmental issues and vice-versa. Global warming is most obviously an
environmental problem, yet it is rooted in energy consumption patterns and can only be addressed through
new energy policies. Achieving independence from Middle East oil controlled by unsavory regimes is perhaps
our foremost energy issue, but that can only be accomplished by ramping up domestic energy production,
which raises a host of difficult environmental issues. In short, it’s going to be difficult to make progress in one
area without dealing seriously with the other. That might sound daunting, but fortunately public opinion polls
show that Americans are aware of this close linkage and favor a package of steps that might lead to real
progress on both fronts. In the next several years, we shall see if policymakers have the courage to go down
the road the public clearly wishes them to take. By and large, the American public is unenthusiastic about
expanding production from conventional energy sources in the U.S., tending to favor conservation and
protecting the environment over such expansion. In a February, 2006 Pew Research Center poll, for example,
52 percent favored “more energy conservation and regulation on energy use and prices” as the more
important priority for U.S. energy policy over “expanding exploration, mining and drilling, and the
construction of new power plants,” which found support among 41 percent of those polled by Pew. That same
question has elicited a comparable response in Pew surveys going back to 2001. Similarly, in a March, 2006
Gallup question, 49 percent thought “protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk
of limiting the amount of energy supplies such as oil, gas and coal which the United States produces.” Forty-
two percent thought that the “development of U.S. energy supplies such as oil, gas and coal should be given
priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.” Gallup has asked that question since 2001, with a
similar (in fact, usually stronger) pro-environment response. But attitudes are more positive toward proposals
that would actively promote energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. In the
Election D/A 5/111
February, 2006 Pew poll where 85 percent agreed that America was “addicted” to oil, the public strongly
supported the following proposals to address America’s energy supply: requiring better auto fuel efficiency
(86 percent for/12 percent against); increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen
technology (82/14); tax cuts for companies to develop these alternative energy sources (78/18); spending
more on subway, rail and bus systems (68/27); and increasing federal funding for research on ethanol
(67/22).
Election D/A 6/111

C. Impacts
1. Obama is key to global nuclear disarmament-McCain will launch pre-emptive nuclear

strikes, drawing in Russia
David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 7/9 (2008, Miller-McCune, "McCain vs. Obama
Goes Nuclear", http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/511)
Between the two candidates, McCain's positions seem more cautious and sketchy. He has defined the goal as
"distant." He has also used language that could leave open the door to developing new nuclear weapons, if
they meet certain criteria. A most serious obstacle to McCain achieving progress is his strong support for
missile defenses, which have led the Russians to consider backtracking on nuclear disarmament by, for
example, bolstering its offensive nuclear capabilities and pulling out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces
Treaty. Further, McCain has stated that it is "naïve to say that we will never use nuclear weapons," which
seems to suggest that he would not support ruling out first use. Obama has staked out a seemingly stronger
position on achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world than has McCain. Obama has said that he
wants to be the president who leads the way to a nuclear weapons-free world, although he, too, sees it as a
"long road." He has come out in favor of removing U.S. nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, not
developing new nuclear weapons, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, achieving a verifiable global
ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material and making deep cuts in global nuclear arsenals. He
is also more cautious about nuclear energy, seeks to cut funds from unproven missile-defense systems and
opposes the weaponization of space.
2. Extinction
Utgoff 2002 (Deputy Director of Strategy Institute for Defense Analysis, "Proliferation, Missile Defense and
American Ambitions", Summer, pg. 90)
Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent
acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a
common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents
whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an
occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of
escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is
stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most,
if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than
it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole
nations.
Election D/A 7/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-National Polling
Obama will win now but the race is tightening
CBS NYT 7/15 (2008, "The Presidential Race: Midsummer", CBS NEWS NYT Poll,
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/JUL08a-Campaign08.pdf)
Democrat Barack Obama now holds a six-point edge over his Republican rival John McCain, leading 45% to
39%. But more voters now than last month are undecided, and more than one in four who express a
candidate choice could still change their minds. Both candidates have weaknesses: Voters are more likely
now than a month ago to view Obama and McCain as pandering, and see both as shifting on issues in order
to get elected. Obama now leads McCain 45% to 39% -- no different than the lead Obama held in early
June, as he was securing the delegate support necessary for the nomination. And this month, 12% of voters
are undecided as to who they will vote for, double the 6% who said this in June.
Obama will win now-the race is getting closer daily

Rasmussen Reports 7/16 (2008, Rassmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll,
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presiden
tial_tracking_poll)
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Barack Obama attracting 45% of the vote while
John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 48% and McCain 45% (see recent daily
results). Other polling shows that, in a hypothetical match-up, Obama leads the current President by twenty
percentage points while Hillary Clinton does a bit better than Obama against McCain. Tracking Polls are
released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. New data released this morning shows that growing numbers
of Americans see the U.S. winning the War on Terror. Expectations of improvement in Iraq are up significantly
as well. Later today, Rasmussen Reports will release statewide polling data for the Presidential and Senate
races in Oregon and Kansas. Currently, McCain leads by a 60% to 26% margin among Evangelical Christians
and holds a very slight edge over Obama among other Protestant voters and Catholic voters. Obama holds a
thirty-five point advantage among all other voters. Most voters who attend Church at least weekly support
McCain and most who rarely or never attend services prefer Obama (crosstabs available for Premium
Members).
Obama will win now-Electoral College calculator

Rasmussen Reports 7/11 (2008, "Election 2008: Electoral College Update",
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008
_electoral_college_update)
The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator (see methodology below) shows Barack Obama leading
in states with 210 Electoral College votes while John McCain leads in states with 168 votes. When leaners are
included, Obama leads 293-227. On Friday, July 11, Washington shifted from "Safe Democratic" to Likely
Democatic." State-by-state rankings are summarized in the following table. This Balance of Power Calculator
aggregates data from a variety of sources to provide a comprehensive assessment of the state-by-state race
for the White House. Data inputs include the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in a state, an average of the
latest polling from other firms (the “538 Average”), Rasmussen Markets data, Intrade market data, the
aggregated rankings of selected analysts, the state’s voting history, and national trends. The weight given to
each variable will vary over time (i.e.—polls will be counted more heavily in October than today, a state’s
history will be counted more heavily today than in October).
Obama will win now-lead in poll of polls

CNN 7/16 (2008, "Poll of polls update: Obama ahead by six", http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) Barack
Obama holds a 6-point lead over John McCain in the latest CNN poll of polls. The new average of the five
most recent national surveys of registered voters shows the Illinois senator at 47 percent with McCain
standing at 41 percent. About 12 percent say they are undecided. The margin between the two presidential
candidates has remained remarkably consistent since the prolonged Democratic presidential race came to an
end in early June. In a CNN poll of polls taken June 3, Obama and McCain were also separated by 6 points.
The latest poll of polls includes recent surveys from Gallup, CBS/NY Times, ABC/Washington Post, Quinnipiac,
and Newsweek.
Obama is winning the key states in the polls.

Nick Juliano, journalist and election forecaster, 6/18/08
“Obama trumps McCain in FL, OH, PA: Poll” http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/18/obama-trumps-mccain-in-
Election D/A 8/111
fl-oh-pa-poll/, accessed July 16, 2008//bc
Concerns about Barack Obama’s ability to compete in the key swing states that have decided the last several
elections are falling by the wayside, as a new poll Tuesday shows him ahead of Republican John McCain in
Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. With the nominating contest behind them, Democrats in the crucial swing
states seem to be coalescing around their eventual nominee. The Quinnipiac University poll shows Obama
ahead of McCain in the three states for the first time in this contest. •Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43
percent; •Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent; •Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent. No
president has won the White House without winning two of the three states since 1960. Concerns about
women who supported Hillary Clinton abandoning the Democratic nominee in favor of McCain also appear to
be unfounded, according to the poll. Obama leads McCain by 10 to 23 percent among the poll of likely voters.
“Finally getting Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Sen. Barack Obama,” Peter A.
Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a news release. Brown warns
that Obama is not yet “out of the woods,” but the poll results are a solid sign of his chances heading into
summer.
Election D/A 9/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Economy
Obama will win now-voters give Obama the edge on the economy
John Whitesides, Political Correspondent, 7/16 (2008, Reuters, "Obama has 7-point edge on McCain: Reuters
Poll", http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1535315320080716)
Democrat Barack Obama has a 7-point lead on Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential race, and
holds a small edge on the crucial question of who would best manage the economy, according to a
Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday. More than a month after kicking off the general election
campaign, Obama leads McCain by 47 percent to 40 percent. That is slightly better than his 5-point cushion in
mid-June, shortly after he clinched the Democratic nomination fight against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. But
Obama's 22-point advantage in June among independents, a critical voting bloc that could swing either way in
the November election, shrunk to 3 points during a month in which the candidates battled on the economy
and Obama was accused of shifting to the center on several issues. Obama had a 44 percent to 40 percent
edge nationally over McCain on who would be best at managing the economy, virtually unchanged from last
month. Among independents, the two were tied on the economy.
Election D/A 10/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-McCain’s Age
McCain’s age factor could be a grave detractor; more so than Obama’s race.
Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta, Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, June 22, 2008; “3 in 10 Americans
Admit to Race Bias” Page A01
At the same time, there is an overwhelming public openness to the idea of electing an African American to
the presidency. In a Post-ABC News poll last month, nearly nine in 10 whites said they would be comfortable
with a black president. While fewer whites, about two-thirds, said they would be "entirely comfortable" with it,
that was more than double the percentage of all adults who said they would be so at ease with someone
entering office for the first time at age 72, which McCain (R-Ariz.) would do should he prevail in November.
Numerous polls, for example, have indicated that McCain's age may be a bigger detractor than Obama's race.
And more are now concerned that McCain will heed too closely the interests of large corporations than said so
about Obama and the interests of blacks.
Obama will win now-McCain’s too old

Mary Vallis 7/12 (2008, The National Post, "Is John McCain too old to be President?",
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=648861)
Barack Obama lopes onto stages, plays hoops along the campaign trail, laughs easily and listens to rapper
Jay-Z. And then there is John McCain: Criticized for his stiff delivery from podiums, speaking with authority on
war because he has lived it, so much so that he cannot brush his hair because his torture in Vietnam still
stops him from lifting his arms above his shoulders. And when he makes a pop culture reference, it is the
Beach Boys' Barbara Ann. This is the difference a quarter of a century makes. Twenty-five years separate
presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain - an entire generation of wars, presidents, world
events and life experience. It is the widest age gap between the two parties' presidential nominees in U.S.
history. Sexism and racism have already played profound roles in the presidential race, but age is creeping
along as a third "ism" that could yet affect the outcome. If elected, Mr. Obama would be 47 years old when
he takes control of the country, almost as young as Bill Clinton and younger than George W. Bush. Mr. McCain,
on the other hand, would be 72, and the oldest president inaugurated for a first term. When pollsters
recently asked Americans to say the first words that popped into their heads to describe both presidential
candidates, 20% said "outsider" or "change" for Mr. Obama. For Mr. McCain, one in five blurted out "old." Polls
also show that voters are more concerned about Mr. McCain's age than Mr. Obama's race. A USA Today/Gallup
poll conducted in mid-June, for example, found nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) said Mr. McCain's age
could negatively affect his presidency. Only 8% of respondents, on the other hand, felt the same way about
Mr. Obama's race.
Election D/A 11/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Women
OBAMA IS WINNING WOMEN VOTES.
Gordon Trowbridge, July 9, 08
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/METRO/807090449. Michelle Obama courts
women voters in Pontiac. Accessed 7/16/08.
Polling data shows Obama winning the majority of female votes, as Democrats have for the last several
presidential elections. But the campaign clearly hopes Michelle Obama's story -- the first member of her
family to attend college -- speaks to both working-class women and more educated professionals. "I am a
working-class kid from a working-class community," she told the crowd. And while her father's income was
enough for her mother to remain home, she argued, most women no longer have that choice.
Election D/A 12/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Latinos
OBAMA WINNING LATINO VOTES.
Martin Sieff, July 11, 08
http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/07/11/Analysis_Obama_winning_the_Hispanic_vote/UPI-
76111215793419/. Obama winning the Hispanic vote. Accessed 7/16/08.
Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain both courted America's 40 million-strong Hispanic community this
week in their struggle for the White House, but Obama is clearly winning. Obama and McCain this week both
addressed the 79th convention of the League of United Latin American Citizens. Last week McCain, R-Ariz.,
took a high-profile trip to Mexico and Colombia to boost his credentials with Latin voters. He also is trying to
woo middle-class Hispanics with a commitment to maintaining President George W. Bush's tax cuts. However,
Obama, D-Ill., is succeeding where the Rev. Jesse Jackson failed 24 years ago in forging a genuine "Rainbow
Coalition" of black, white and Hispanic voters that could carry him into the White House. Even in his long
primary contest with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., he showed unexpected strength among younger Hispanic
voters, and now he is winning over older ones as well.
Election D/A 13/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-African Americans
OBAMA WINNING THE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTE.
Chuck Raasch, July 13, 2008
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080713/NEWS07/807130548/1009/NEWS07. Obama faces
an uphill path to White House. Accessed 7/16/08.
A Pew poll released Thursday showed Obama supporters were more than twice as likely to say they strongly
supported him than McCain's supporters were likely to say that of the Arizona senator. Blacks were slightly
more likely than whites to say they were very interested in the contest, and Obama was winning black voters
90% to 3% over McCain, according to Pew's June 18-29 poll of 2,004 adults.
Election D/A 14/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Iowa
Obama will win now-Iowa-Key Republican state
Rasmussen Reports 7/14 (2008, "Election 2008: Iowa Presidential Election",
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/ele
ction_2008_iowa_presidential_election)
Barack Obama has taken a double-digit lead over John McCain 48% to 38% in the latest Rasmussen Reports
telephone survey in Iowa. When “leaners” are included, the Democrat is ahead 51% to 41%. In June, Obama
enjoyed a seven-point lead in the battleground state. That lead represented a push for Obama from May,
when he was ahead by just 2 percentage points. McCain has held steady now at 38% for two months in a row.
The race is closer among voters not affiliated with either political party. Among those voters, Obama has a
38% to 34% lead. In June, Obama had a much larger lead 44% to 29% lead among those voters. Rasmussen
Markets shows that Democrats are currently given a 80.0 % chance of winning Iowa’s seven Electoral College
Votes in November.George W. Bush carried Iowa by only 10,000 votes in 2004, having lost the state four years
earlier to Al Gore by half that many. At the time this poll was released, Iowa was rated as “Leans Democrat” in
the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator. As he does nationally, Obama continues to do much
better among women than men in Iowa. The Democrat has a commanding 52% to 34% lead among women
voters in Iowa, but the two candidates are tied at 43% among men. Obama is viewed favorably by 59% of
Iowa voters and unfavorably by 38%. McCain’s numbers are 56% favorable, 40% unfavorable.
Election D/A 15/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Colorado
Obama will win now-Colorado-Key Republican state
Public Policy Polling 7/14 (2008, "Obama leads in Colorado",
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Colorado_714.pdf)
Barack Obama has a four point lead in Colorado, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling.
Obama has 47%, compared to John McCain 43%. The Hispanic vote is the key to Obama’s success in the
state. The state has a small black population, and McCain leads 46-45 among white voters. Obama’s lead
comes from a 58-34 advantage with the state’s growing Hispanic population. There’s good news for
Democrats in the US Senate race as well. Mark Udall leads Bob Schaffer 47-38 in the race to replace Wayne
Allard. “Colorado is trending Democratic,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “A key
thing to watch this fall will be what percentage of the state’s electorate Hispanics comprise. The higher that
number is, the more likely it will be that Barack Obama is victorious.”
Election D/A 16/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-New Jersey
Obama will win now-New Jersey-Key swing state
Rassmussen Reports 7/9 (2008, "Election 2008: New Jersey Presidential Election",
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_jersey/el
ection_2008_new_jersey_presidential_election)
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of New Jersey voters, taken Monday night, shows Obama
ahead of Republican candidate John McCain 44% to 39%. Last month, the Democratic hopeful had a 48% to
39% lead over his GOP rival. Now 11% of voters describe themselves as undecided, up from 6% in early June.
Five percent (5%) favor some other candidate. If leaners are included, Obama leads McCain by an even
narrower 47% to 44%. Leaners initially indicate no preference for either major candidate but indicate that
they are leaning towards either McCain or Obama. Nationally, Obama continues to hold a modest lead over
McCain in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Voters perceive their priorities on Iraq are
the biggest difference between McCain and Obama. Other key stats on Election 2008 are continuously
updated at Obama McCain By the Numbers. While the Presidential race has tightened in the Garden State,
incumbent Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg has a growing lead over Republican challenger Dick
Zimmer. New Jersey voters clearly disagree with their other Senator, Robert Menendez, who is promoting a
bill to maintain the ban on offshore oil drilling. Sixty percent (60%) say such drilling should be allowed, and
53% think it is likely to cause gasoline prices to go down. Last month Obama’s then-growing lead was linked
in part to Hillary Clinton voters moving into his column. The June survey was conducted 24 hours after Obama
had reached the number of delegates needed to capture the Democratic presidential nomination. Women, a
key voter bloc at play in the presidential campaign, continue to support the Democrat (52%) far more than his
Republican opponent (28%). Fifty-three percent (53%) of female voters voiced support for Obama a month
ago, but McCain has fallen significantly from 34%. Those voters have moved into the undecided column.
Election D/A 17/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Wisconsin
Obama will win now-Wisconsin-Key swing state
Rasmussen Reports 7/10 (2008, "Election 2008: Wisconsin Presidential Election",
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/wisconsi
n/election_2008_wisconsin_presidential_election)
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Wisconsin shows Barack Obama earning 50% of the vote
while John McCain attracts support from 39%. This is a big improvement for Obama who held a statistically
insignificant two point lead in the state a month ago. Last month’s poll was taken just before Hillary Clinton
dropped out of the race. When “leaners” are included in the current totals, it’s Obama 52% and McCain 42%.
Wisconsin neighbors Obama’s home state of Illinois which may be helping the Democrat in this state that has
been agonizingly close in recent Presidential elections. Three other states along the nation’s northern border
and just west of Wisconsin are also showing surprising Democratic strength early in Election 2008. Obama
leads big in Minnesota, leads narrowly in Montana, and the two candidates are tied in North Dakota. Of those
four states, Wisconsin and Minnesota have each voted for Democrats in recent elections, but by narrower
margins than current polling suggests. Montana and North Dakota are traditionally Republican states, at least
at the Presidential level. Nationally, Obama has a very modest lead over McCain in the Rasmussen Reports
daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let
us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news. In Wisconsin, Obama attracts support from 86%
of Democrats and has a twelve point advantage among unaffiliated voters. Eighty-four percent (84%) of
Republicans support McCain (see recent demographic highlights from national polling). Obama leads by
twenty-three points among women while McCain has a slight edge among male voters. Obama attracts a
majority of the vote in all age groups under 65. McCain holds a six-point edge among senior citizens. Overall,
Obama is viewed favorably by 61% of Wisconsin voters. That’s a five point improvement compared to a
month ago. McCain is viewed favorably by 57%, down three points.
Election D/A 18/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Missouri
Obama will win now-Missouri-Key swing state
Jo Mannies 7/13 (STL Post Dispatch, "Obama leads McCain slightly in latest Missouri poll",
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/84EC6E3C5EAE4FF586257484000FDDED?Ope
nDocument)
Missouri voters are frightened about the economy, hurting over high gas prices, disillusioned with the war in
Iraq and convinced the nation is headed in the wrong direction. Such a pessimistic view of the country is
prompting many of them to turn to Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. That's the political
picture painted by the latest poll conducted for the Post-Dispatch and KMOV-TV (Channel 4) by Research
2000, a Maryland-based polling firm. By significant margins, the 800 likely voters polled last week said they
trust the expected Democratic presidential nominee more than his Republican rival, John McCain, when it
comes to tackling many of the nation's domestic troubles. A majority gave higher marks to McCain only when
it comes to handling the war on terrorism. Pollster Del Ali says that backdrop largely explains why those
polled slightly preferred Obama over McCain, 48 percent to 43 percent. The remaining 9 percent were
undecided.
Election D/A 19/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Michigan
Obama will win now-Michigan-Key swing state and representative of economic battle
Rasmussen Reports 7/14 (2008, "Election 2008: Michigan Presidential Election",
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan
/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election)
Barack Obama has more than doubled his lead over John McCain to eight percentage points in the economic
battleground state of Michigan, with much of his new support coming from voters who have moved away from
the Republican hopeful. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds 47% of Michigan voters
favoring Obama while 39% back McCain. A month ago Obama had 45% support and McCain tallied 42%.
When leaners are factored in, Obama leads by the same margin of eight points, 50% to 42%. In May McCain
had a statistically insignificant one-point lead, but Obama has been gaining ground since Hillary Clinton
dropped out of the Democratic presidential race. McCain enjoys only a 46% to 41% lead over Obama among
male voters now, down from a 19-percentage point lead in May. The Democrat shows a slight uptick among
women voters who have consistently supported him over McCain. Now women favor Obama 51% to 35%.
While party regulars overwhelmingly support their respective candidates, Obama has turned it around with
unaffiliated voters. Last month McCain had a five-point lead, down from 13 points a month earlier. Now
Obama leads among unaffiliated voters 42% to 35%. The Michigan survey, taken last Thursday night, came
before the tightening of the race in Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Obama had enjoyed a
bounce in the polls after Clinton quit the race, but now he and McCain nationally are virtually tied. In
Michigan, Obama’s favorability rating also has gone up in the last month: He now is regarded favorably by
60% of voters, up from 54% in early June. McCain is viewed favorably by 59% of Michigan voters, roughly
where he was a month ago. But 35% also now have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama, up 5% from last
month. McCain remains at 18% in this category. The unfavorable ratings for both candidates remain largely
unchanged.
Election D/A 20/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Minnesota
Obama will win now-Minnesota-Key swing state
Rasmussen Reports 7/14 (2008, "Election 2008: Minnesota Presidential Election",
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minneso
ta/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election)
Barack Obama’s lead over John McCain in Minnesota has now grown to 18%, all at the expense of voters who
have moved out of the Republican’s column, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.
For the second month in a row, 52% back Obama, compared to 34% who now support McCain. But last month
McCain had the support of 39% of Minnesota voters. When leaners are factored in, Obama leads McCain by
17% -- 54% to 37%. Obama has maintained a 13- to 15-point lead in four out of the previous five monthly
polls. The only exception came in mid-March – soon after McCain wrapped up his party’s nomination and the
controversial remarks of Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, were first reported -- when McCain was within four
points of his Democratic opponent. While Obama and McCain maintain the support of more than eight out of
10 members of their respective parties, both have lost ground among unaffiliated voters, 25% of whom
remain undecided. Obama leads McCain 45% to 23% among the unaffiliated, but both are down 7% from
early June.
Election D/A 21/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-Ohio
Obama will win Ohio because of focus on the rural areas.
Plain Dealer Politics 7/14/08 “Obama Recruiting local volunteers to focus on Rural Ohio votes”
http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/isope/1216024210113370.xml&coll=2&thispage=
1, accessed July 16, 2008//bc
At the moment, Obama's campaign -- and its partner, the Ohio Democratic Party -- are more focused on rural
Ohio than Kerry's campaign and the party were at this time four years ago, in part because they have more
money and resources. The Obama campaign has divided the state into clusters of rural counties. Today, the
campaign will name Doug O'Brien to oversee the rural outreach program. O'Brien is not a stranger to rural
issues: He is taking leave from his job as assistant director of Ohio's Department of Agriculture. The
campaign is also building an early presence in what it calls "micropolitans," small Democratic cities, such as
Mansfield, that sit in predominantly Republican counties.
Election D/A 22/111
Uniqueness-Obama Wins Now-A2: Swing States
Obama will win even without the key states.
MSNBC 6/26/08
“Obama sees possible win without Ohiom Florida” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25192261/, accessed July
16, 2008//bc
Plouffe and his aides are weighing where to contest, and where chances are too slim to marshal a large effort.
A win in Virginia (13 electoral votes) or Georgia (15 votes) could give Obama a shot if he, like Kerry, loses
Ohio or Florida.
Plouffe also has been touting Obama's appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made
gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana,
Alaska and North Dakota. Obama's campaign has spent heavily on time and money in Virginia, where a
Democratic presidential candidate hasn't won since 1964. In recent elections, however, high-profile
Republicans have lost there. And in a sign of how serious Obama is taking the state, Plouffe dispatched to
Virginia many aides who helped Obama stage his upset win in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.
The key, Plouffe told supporters, will be to register new black voters and new young voters in Virginia.
Likewise, Georgia has many unregistered black voters who could turn out in record numbers to support the
first major-party nominee who is black, he argued. Plouffe said the campaign also will keep an eye on
Mississippi and Louisiana as the race moves into the fall to see if new black voters could put them within
reach.
Obama will win even if he loses all three traditional key swing states.
Nick Juliano, journalist and election forecaster, 6/18/08
“Obama trumps McCain in FL, OH, PA: Poll” http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/18/obama-trumps-mccain-in-
fl-oh-pa-poll/, accessed July 16, 2008//bc
While the poll results should be heartening for Obama and his advisers, they are running a campaign that
aims to expand the electoral playing field. With his impressive fundraising haul and deep campaign
infrastructure, Obama plans to deploy staff to all 50 states, and his campaign thinks it can win in places
Democrats traditionally haven’t been competitive, like North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado. His campaign
manager has envisioned a path to victory that doesn’t even need to include Florida and Ohio.
Election D/A 23/111
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-National Polling
McCain leading in the polls. It’s game over for Obama.
Public Policy Polling 7/15/08
“NC Polls: Stability is the new story” http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2008/07/nc-polls-stability-is-new-
story.html, accessed July 16, 2008//bc
Not so for the general election. Survey USA came out with its newest round of polls today. In the Presidential
race they show John McCain leading Barack Obama 50-45. Since the beginning of June five telephone polls
have been released for North Carolina- two by us, and one each from SUSA, Rasmussen, and Civitas. Every
single one of them has shown McCain leading by 2-5 points.
Obama is not winning now.

FAIR 7/15/08
“Washington Post's McCain-Friendly Poll” http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3575 accessed July 16, 2008//bc
The Washington Post reported on July 15 that the public is evenly split between Republican John McCain and
Democrat Barack Obama's positions on ending the Iraq War. But the paper arrived at that conclusion based
on a deceptively worded poll question. Under the headline "Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout
Positions," the Post reported that their new poll "finds the country split down the middle between those
backing Sen. Barack Obama's 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing
with Sen. John McCain's position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home."
Election D/A 24/111
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-Independents
McCain will win now-Independents are moving his way
John Whitesides, Political Correspondent, 7/16 (2008, Reuters, "Obama has 7-point edge on McCain: Reuters
Poll", http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1535315320080716) But Obama's 22-point
advantage in June among independents, a critical voting bloc that could swing either way in the November
election, shrunk to 3 points during a month in which the candidates battled on the economy and Obama was
accused of shifting to the center on several issues. Obama had a 44 percent to 40 percent edge nationally
over McCain on who would be best at managing the economy, virtually unchanged from last month. Among
independents, the two were tied on the economy. "There has been a real tightening up among independents,
and that has to be worrisome for Obama," pollster John Zogby said. "It doesn't seem like Obama is coming
across on the economy." The gap between the two major presidential contenders has narrowed to 5
percentage points in New Jersey, as some of Barack Obama’s support appears to have slipped off into the
undecided column over the past month.
Election D/A 25/111
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-War on Terrorism
McCain Wins—the polls prove public perceives him to be more experienced.
ABC News 7/15/08
“Obama leading McCain but Doubts Loom”
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5378482&page=1 accessed July 16, 2008//bc
Americans by a wide margin, 63-26 percent, pick McCain as more knowledgeable on world affairs, rate him
much more highly in terms of readiness for the world stage and military leadership alike, and put him ahead
of Obama by 50-41 percent in trust to handle "an unexpected major crisis."
McCain will win because of terrorism.

ABC News 7/15/08
Gun control and "social issues such as abortion and gay civil unions" are toward the bottom, outranked by just
one other issue: The candidates' choice of vice-presidential running mates, rated as "extremely important" by
just 15 percent.
Obama has consistent leads among registered voters who rate each of these as extremely important, with
two exceptions: They're even among those who rate social issues as extremely important, and among those
who rate terrorism that important, McCain leads by 51-43 percent.
McCain Wins because of stance on terrorism.

AHN News 7/15/08
“Poll: McCain Continues to Trounce Obama on Terrorism”
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011615460, accessed July 16, 2008//bc
Seventy-two percent of voters nationwide view McCain as the better candidate to fight terrorism, while 48%
say Obama has good national security credentials. When voters were asked who they trusted more to handle
the war in Iraq regardless of who they officially supported, 47% chose McCain and 45% chose Obama.The
presumptive Republican nominee's lead is despite other findings by the poll, such as 63% of voters saying
"the war was not fighting for" and 60% saying that winning in Iraq is not necessary for the United States to
succeed in its overall fight against terrorism.
Obama Will Lose—Foreign Policy.

ABC News 7/15/08
Holes in Barack Obama's foreign affairs resume are spurring doubt about his readiness for a crisis -- raising
the stakes on his upcoming trip overseas and posing potential opportunity for his otherwise weaker
Republican opponent, John McCain. Obama continues to hold most of the advantages in the presidential race,
in enthusiasm, levels of partisanship, personal qualities and trust on top domestic issues, notably No. 1, the
economy; and he's improved in the past month among swing voter groups.
But Obama's experience gap vs. McCain shows up especially in global politics.
Election D/A 26/111
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-Obama Losses Voters
Obama will lose—Flip flops
Gay Wire 7/14/08
“Obama Losing Ground” http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?Section=70&ID=19603, accessed July 16,
2008//bc
According to a Newsweek poll released over the weekend, Obama leads John McCain by a mere three
percentage points in a national head-to-head general election match up. Taking into account the statistical
margin of error, that essentially means the two presidential contenders are locked in a virtual dead heat.
The latest numbers could suggest a substantial dip in favor for Obama, who enjoyed a 15 percentage point
lead over McCain as recently as June 20 in a similar Newsweek poll. Some observers are now saying that
Obama may have peaked too soon. The results of the latest Newsweek poll suggest that voters are upset
with what has been perceived as Obama’s flip-flopping in the last weeks, given his change of position on FISA
legislation, his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system, and his recent attempt to modify
his strong pro-abortion positions.
Obama will lose—Hillary voters break for McCain.

Gay Wire 7/14/08
“Obama Losing Ground” http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?Section=70&ID=19603, accessed July 16,
2008//bc
Most strongly affected by Obama’s move to the center are former Hillary Clinton supporters, who account for
50% of the overall total of 53% of voters who believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in
order to gain political advantage.
Obama also seems to be losing the support of moderate and independent voters who now favor McCain over
Obama 41 percent to 34 percent, whereas in June, Obama led McCain among independent voters by a
healthy double-digit margin of 48 percent to 36 percent.
The results of the Newsweek poll are supported by the latest Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll which
shows Obama ahead of McCain by a slight margin of 44 percent to 42 percent after both candidates had been
tied at 43 percent each for the two previous days.
Election D/A 27/111
Uniqueness-McCain Wins Now-Missouri
McCain will win now-Missouri-key swing state
Rasmussen Reports 7/9 (2008, "Election 2008: Missouri Presidential Election",
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/elect
ion_2008_missouri_presidential_election)
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Missouri shows John McCain attracting 47% of the vote
while Barack Obama earns 42%. A month ago, the candidates were essentially even. That survey was
conducted the night that Obama clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination. McCain had the advantage
in earlier surveys. When leaners are included in the current survey, McCain leads Obama 50% to 45%.
Leaners are survey participants who initially indicate no preference for either major candidate but indicate
that they are leaning towards either McCain or Obama. Including leaners, McCain is supported by 93% of
Missouri Republicans and enjoys a sixteen percentage point lead among unaffiliated voters. Last month,
Obama had a slight advantage among the unaffiliateds and this month he is supported by 80% of Democrats.
Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four-and-a-
half percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of
three consecutive polls. Using this approach, McCain leads Obama 45% to 42%. Last month’s three-poll
average showed McCain up by six. McCain is currently viewed favorably by 58% of Missouri voters, Obama
by 50%. Those figures reflect a modest improvement for both candidates over the past month.
Election D/A 28/111
Links-Public Supports Alternative Energy Development

Massive public support for alternative energy development
Energy issues are increasingly environmental issues and vice-versa. Global warming is most obviously an
environmental problem, yet it is rooted in energy consumption patterns and can only be addressed through
new energy policies. Achieving independence from Middle East oil controlled by unsavory regimes is perhaps
our foremost energy issue, but that can only be accomplished by ramping up domestic energy production,
which raises a host of difficult environmental issues. In short, it’s going to be difficult to make progress in one
area without dealing seriously with the other. That might sound daunting, but fortunately public opinion polls
show that Americans are aware of this close linkage and favor a package of steps that might lead to real
progress on both fronts. In the next several years, we shall see if policymakers have the courage to go down
the road the public clearly wishes them to take. By and large, the American public is unenthusiastic about
expanding production from conventional energy sources in the U.S., tending to favor conservation and
protecting the environment over such expansion. In a February, 2006 Pew Research Center poll, for example,
52 percent favored “more energy conservation and regulation on energy use and prices” as the more
important priority for U.S. energy policy over “expanding exploration, mining and drilling, and the
construction of new power plants,” which found support among 41 percent of those polled by Pew. That same
question has elicited a comparable response in Pew surveys going back to 2001. Similarly, in a March, 2006
Gallup question, 49 percent thought “protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk
of limiting the amount of energy supplies such as oil, gas and coal which the United States produces.” Forty-
two percent thought that the “development of U.S. energy supplies such as oil, gas and coal should be given
priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.” Gallup has asked that question since 2001, with a
similar (in fact, usually stronger) pro-environment response. But attitudes are more positive toward proposals
that would actively promote energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. In the
February, 2006 Pew poll where 85 percent agreed that America was “addicted” to oil, the public strongly
supported the following proposals to address America’s energy supply: requiring better auto fuel efficiency
(86 percent for/12 percent against); increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen
technology (82/14); tax cuts for companies to develop these alternative energy sources (78/18); spending
more on subway, rail and bus systems (68/27); and increasing federal funding for research on ethanol
(67/22).
The public favors alternative energy—multiple surveys prove.

The March, 2006 Gallup survey also documented these positive attitudes toward energy conservation and
alternative energy sources. In that poll, the public overwhelmingly supported spending government money to
develop alternative sources of fuel for automobiles (85 percent favor/14 percent oppose) and spending more
government money on developing solar and wind power (77/21). The Gallup poll also mirrored the findings of
the Pew poll, finding that the public was markedly less enthusiastic about proposals such as expanding use of
nuclear energy (55 percent for/40 percent against) and opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil
exploration (49 percent for /47 percent against). The public’s especially strong interest in developing
alternative energy sources is well-illustrated by a finding in a July, 2006 Los Angeles Times poll. The LAT poll
asked respondents to choose the best way among a number of options for reducing U.S. reliance on foreign
oil. More than half the respondents (52 percent) chose government investment in alternative energy sources,
way ahead of the next most popular option, relaxing environmental standards for oil and gas drilling (20
percent), which was followed by requiring stricter mileage standards for cars (eight percent) and more
nuclear power plants (six percent). Of course, much of the energy-related polling in the last couple of years
has been on the issue of rising gas prices. When gas prices were peaking in 2005, 60 percent to 70 percent of
Americans in Gallup polling reported that the rise is gas prices had caused some financial hardship for their
families; three-quarters said the rise in gas prices was making them angry. The primary focus of blame for the
increases was the big oil companies, followed by the Bush administration. In April of 2006, a Gallup poll
found the public willing to entertain a number of strong steps to deal with rising gas prices, including setting
prices controls on gasoline (70 percent in favor), temporarily suspending all federal gasoline taxes (64
Election D/A 29/111
percent), imposing an additional profits tax on oil companies (64 percent) and even breaking up the big oil
companies (56 percent). Indeed, so strong was sentiment about gas prices that concern about energy costs
was near the top of the public’s most important problems in many polls in late 2005 and spring and summer
of 2006.
Election D/A 30/111

The public loves alternative energy.
John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, former Chief of Staff to President
Clinton, 2007 “Americans Urgently Want Action on Energy Independence and Global Warming,”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/environment_poll.html accessed July 14, 2008//bc
After a year when public education and media coverage saturated classrooms, theaters, and television
screens and energy alternative advocacy permeated the Web, there is new evidence that points us not only
to support for solutions but also toward new signs of the expediency with which Americans want their leaders
in Congress to take this issue on. From Al Gore and Davis Guggenheim’s Oscar win for “An Inconvenient Truth”
to the thousands who participated in “Step It Up” events last week in advocacy of carbon emissions
reductions and the “Live Earth” global warming concerts planned for July 7th on every continent, activists
have been joined now by other Americans who, as evidenced by a new poll, clearly believe that the issue of
energy independence and global warming is one of the biggest priorities for our nation’s leaders. A poll for
the Center for American Progress conducted by GreenbergQuinlanRosner Research found that a majority of
Americans look to Washington for meaningful and timely action. Among the most important findings:
Americans want freedom and self sufficiency from our energy policies; Americans, in the tradition of our “can-
do” spirit, believe we should be leading the world in clean, alternative energy. If the political will exists, they
believe we can do anything; Americans want accountability. They want their leaders to show they will do the
right thing, put money to good use and act accordingly themselves; They see clean energy as a path to
economic growth and new jobs; Democrats, Independents, and Republicans believe the evidence of global
warming is now clear and only strengthens the case for immediate action on energy independence; and,
Americans overwhelmingly support vigorous standards for clean alternative energy technologies and better
mileage. They also support a cap and reduction on global warming pollution. This public urgency is consistent
with the scientific urgency illustrated by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
reports that determined that human activity causes global warming and that climate change will put humans
and our planet at real risk if left unchecked. In January, the House made a down payment on clean energy
alternatives such as wind and solar energy by redirecting federal tax breaks and subsidies for big oil
companies to investments in clean energy. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have
laid the groundwork for what should be a bipartisan approach to addressing the public and scientific urgency
– meeting the challenge they have set for Congress is critical. The House is on a fast track to adopt solutions
to these pressing problems and plans to consider additional pieces of the solution in July and this fall. The
Senate has now laid plans to debate clean alternative energy proposals in May. This new poll demonstrates
that legislators can support clean alternative energy and limits on global warming pollution with the
confidence that the American people will enthusiastically applaud such efforts. Conversely, the public will
disapprove of inaction or efforts that expand our reliance on conventional fuels or create more global
warming pollution. As we approach Earth Day this Sunday, we urge you to enunciate support and swift,
meaningful action to make America become self-sufficient in its energy use and create new jobs in the
process. We should demand that our leaders show global leadership on this crucial issue, and we must hold
them accountable for making it happen. Scientists aren’t the only ones urging our leaders to take action on
global warming—the American public demands it, too.
The American public is deeply dissatisfied with current energy policy. Alternative
energies are wildly popular.
A new survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the Center for American Progress shows a
heightened demand among Americans for immediate action to tackle global warming and achieve energy
independence. Most telling, Americans are demanding clean, alternative energy and they want their
leadership to act now to change our energy policies to put the country on the right path. The public wants
major change that quickly moves the country toward energy independence. Americans believe this will be a
boon for the economy, will create jobs, and that America should lead the way. As this survey demonstrates,
the public debate over whether global warming is here and whether it is caused by humans is settled.
Americans now want immediate action. Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the current energy policies
and now believe America has fallen behind the rest of the world on energy. Concern about energy and global
warming now rivals health care as the top domestic issue that requires immediate action. Americans believe
Election D/A 31/111
reducing dependence on oil and coal to stop global warming is one of the most important challenges our
country faces (29 percent) on par with bringing down rising health care costs (32 percent) and well ahead of
other issues.
The public, regardless of party identification, wants a shift to alternative energy.

Americans want immediate action on global warming. A solid majority, 60 percent, believes that the
increasing pollution of the past few decades has set global warming into motion and “we must take action
now or it will be too late to stop it.” Only 33 percent hold that the effects will not occur for decades and we
have some time before we must take action to stop global warming. · Americans of all political
persuasions want to act now to stop global warming and become energy independent. Unlike other
issues before Congress and the President—such as the Iraq war—there is no strong partisan divide on
stopping global warming. Huge majorities of Independents (59 percent) and Democrats (76 percent) support
action now along with a significant bloc of Republicans (41 percent).
Election D/A 32/111

70% of Americans favor alternative energy development
Americans want action on energy and global warming and they believe our country’s current policies are off
track. Only 27 percent of people feel that our energy policy is headed in the right direction, while 65 percent
say our energy policy is seriously off on the wrong track. Moreover, a majority of Americans (52 percent)
believes the United States is either falling or has fallen far behind other countries in developing clean,
alternative energy. Only 14 percent of people believe we lead the world in developing these technologies.
With the public expressing grave concerns that energy independence and global warming are major problems
that face our country, Americans believe we need to act immediately to move toward clean alternative
energy. Americans view alternative energy and more efficient cars not only as a means for energy
independence and reducing global warming, but also as economic boons. By a whopping 79 – 17 percent
margin, people believe that shifting to new, alternative energy production will help America’s economy and
create jobs, not cost American jobs. By a 22-point margin, 57 – 35 percent, Americans believe raising car and
truck mileage standards will save, not cost, people money.
The plan has bipartisan popularity with the public.

Mirroring recent public data on this issue, this survey shows strong public support for a series of proposals to
move to clean, alternative energy, institute higher mileage standards for automobiles, and cap carbon
emissions from industry to tackle our dependence on oil and stop global warming. These proposals receive
bipartisan support, highlighting the consensus around the nation that Washington should take action now to
improve our energy policy. This survey illustrates that support for these proposals is sufficiently robust to
withstand attacks (the questions provided critiques of the proposals). Support for these proposals exists
among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. For example, 60 percent of Republicans favor raising
mileage standards, nearly equaling the 67 percent of Democrats who do as well (74 percent of Independents
favor this proposal). On making 25 percent of our electricity come from alternative sources by the year 2025,
64 percent of Democrats favor the proposal, followed closely by 60 percent of Republicans (a staggering 71
percent of Independents favor this approach).
Across all demographic groups, regions, and political parties, there is overwhelming
support for alternative energy policy.
Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, 2005
“Yale Poll Reveals Overwhelming Public Desire For New Energy Policy Direction”
http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=4259 accessed July 14, 2008//bc (The survey was conducted on
behalf of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies by Global Strategy Group from May 15 to 22,
2005. The survey was conducted using professional phone interviewers. The nationwide sample was drawn
from a random digit dial (RDD) process. Respondents were screened on the basis of age, i.e., to be over the
age of 18. The survey has an overall margin of error of ±3.1% at the 95% confidence level. The survey
questions and full results can be found at the website http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter for the Yale Center for
Environmental Law and Policy.)
A new Yale University research survey of 1,000 adults nationwide reveals that while Americans are deeply
divided on many issues, they overwhelmingly believe that the United States is too dependent on imported oil.
The survey shows a vast majority of the public also wants to see government action to develop new “clean”
energy sources, including solar and wind power as well as hydrogen cars. 92% of Americans say that they
are worried about dependence on foreign oil. 93% of Americans want government to develop new energy
technologies and require auto industry to make cars and trucks that get better gas mileage. The results
underscore Americans’ deep concerns about the country’s current energy policies, particularly the nation’s
dependence on imported oil. Fully 92 percent say this dependence is a serious problem, while 68 percent say
it is a “very serious” problem. Across all regions of the country and every demographic group, there is broad
support for a new emphasis on finding alternative energy sources. Building more solar power facilities is
considered a “good idea” by 90 percent of the public; 87 percent support expanded wind farms; and 86
Election D/A 33/111
percent want increased funding for renewable energy research. According to Gus Speth, dean of the Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, “This poll underscores the fact that Americans want not only
energy independence but also to find ways to break the linkage between energy use and environmental
harm, from local air pollution to global warming.” Results of the poll indicate that 93 percent of Americans say
requiring the auto industry to make cars that get better gas mileage is a good idea. Just 6 percent say it is a
bad idea. This sentiment varies little by political leaning, with 96 percent of Democrats and Independents and
86 percent of Republicans supporting the call for more fuel–efficient vehicles.
Election D/A 34/111
Links-Public Supports Wind Development

The public overwhelmingly supports wind energy development
AWEA 2008 [American Wind Energy Association, Americans Overwhelmingly Support Federal Incentives for
Renewable Energy: Zogby Poll, January 22,
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/poll_renewable_energy_012208.html]
By a 7-1 margin, Americans agree that the federal government should extend incentives that encourage
greater use of renewable energy technologies, according to a national poll released today by the American
Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2007 was a record-breaking year for renewable electricity generation in
the United States, with almost 6,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy coming on line, infusing
some $20 billion in new investment into the economy. But the federal production tax credit (PTC) and tax
incentives for other renewable energy sources are now in danger of lapsing at the end of this year. The
survey research firm Zogby International surveyed Americans on existing federal incentives for renewable
energy, in a poll commissioned by AWEA. The survey found that 85% of Americans agree with the statement,
“The federal government should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of renewable energy
technologies such as wind and solar power.” Just 12% disagree. “The results confirm that Americans, by an
overwhelming majority, want their government to support renewable energy,” said AWEA Executive Director
Randall Swisher. “In 2007, tax incentives for renewable energy created tens of thousands of jobs for
Americans. We call upon Congress to help sustain this remarkable growth by extending these incentives.”
The public loves the plan

Earth Times 2008 [April 25, Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Spur Growth of Carbon-Free
Energy Technology, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/eight-of-10-americans-support,367788.shtml]
Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help promote
development of carbon-free energy technologies, including new nuclear power plants, according to a new
national survey of 1,000 adults. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans approve of providing tax
credits "as an incentive to companies to build solar, wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants." Only
20 percent do not approve. The number of Americans "strongly approving" of tax credits exceeded the
number of Americans "strongly disapproving" by the same four-to-one margin (37 percent vs. 9 percent).
Support was nearly identical when Americans were asked about providing federal loan guarantees to
companies that build solar, wind, advanced-design nuclear power plants "or other energy technology that
reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities." Seventy-seven percent
of those surveyed approve, while only 22 percent do not approve.
Polls show the public loves wind energy development

Gram, Dave, January 24, 2008
([http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2008/01/24/state_poll_people_like_wind_power_not_nucl
ear_waste/] ”People like wind power not nuclear waste” Associated Press Writer)
Among the findings of the surveys: strong support for wind and other forms of renewable energy, sharp
divisions about nuclear power with high concern about radioactive waste, and very high concern about
greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation.
Respondents were asked, for example, to pick a number from 1 to 7, with 1 being "increasing efficiency" and
7 being "buying/generating power." The average response among those attending the regional workshops
was 1.8, meaning strong support for efficiency over generating new power. The average response for the
deliberative polling participants was 2.5.
When asked about their level of concern about certain issues from 0 -- "not at all concerned" -- to 10 --
"extremely concerned," participants gave greenhouse gases an average score of 8.5 in the regional
workshops and 8.6 in the deliberative polling. Radioactive waste got scores of 8.1 and 7.8, respectively.
Still another asked respondents to pick a number from 1 -- "strongly support" -- to 5 -- "strongly oppose" for
"a wind farm visible from where you live." That scored a 1.6 average response in the regional workshops and
a 1.4 in the deliberative polling.
U.S. Public Opinion Survey Results on the Environment, Trade, and Campaign Finance Reform 2004
([http://www.globalstewards.org/survey.htm])
74% agree that "protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too
high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost."
79% favor "spending more government money on developing solar and wind power."
77% favor "more strongly enforcing federal environmental regulations."
Election D/A 35/111
90% said foods created through genetic engineering processes should have special labels on them.
77% believe the country should do 'whatever it takes' to protect the environment.
81% favor "setting higher emissions and pollution standards for business and industry."
Election D/A 36/111
Links-Public Supports Nuclear Development

The public supports the development of nuclear power.
James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News. ‘06
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19723. Public Favors Nuclear Power: Poll. Accessed 7/13/08.
Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the
Los Angeles Times. In a telephone poll of nearly 1,500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1,
61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected
global warming, while only 30 percent opposed it. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support
for nuclear power as a clean, economical, and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears
have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll
results, published August 4, are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial
departments. Shortly after the poll results were released, the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published
house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.
Majority of Americans support nuclear energy development

Alain Michel, Uranium Institute, ‘00
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2000/michel.htm. An Emotional Approach to Future Sustainable Nuclear
Energy Development. Accessed 7/13/08.
One of the obstacles, possibly the most important one, to rapid future re-development of nuclear energy is
people’s anxiety, mistrust and total lack of enthusiasm for the uses of this form of energy. This is essentially
an emotional problem. The results of public polls should give us confidence in a much more positive future for
nuclear energy. In Sweden, a majority of those interviewed favour the existence of the Swedish nuclear power
plants. In May 1999 in the USA, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) published results which showed that
"Americans who favour nuclear energy clearly outnumber those opposed", but their "common perception … is
that a majority of Americans oppose nuclear energy" (Ref 1). If a majority supports nuclear energy use, why
do so many governments, especially in Europe, close nuclear plants or promise to do so at a defined point in
the future? Are they misinformed, like the American citizens, of what others think? Probably not. My
explanation is that although when interviewed many people accept the survival of existing plants, they do not
like them. "Politicians are looking for ideas that can be taken by everyone" (Ref 2). Politicians have to favour
what the majority would like to see. When as a specialist of nuclear energy you get some acquiescence on the
need for it, this is most often followed by the comment: "Is there no other solution?", or: "Could you do it in a
better way?". The purpose of this paper is to open the discussion on what is behind this last sentence; is there
a "better" way to develop nuclear energy? Better meaning in this case something that more people would
appreciate to see producing electricity.
The public is coming around to nuclear power

Anne Trafton, MIT News Office July 23, 2007.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/nuclear-public-0723.html. Americans warming to nuclear power - MIT
survey. Accessed 7/13/08.
Americans' icy attitudes toward nuclear power are beginning to thaw, according to a new survey from MIT.
The report also found a U.S. public increasingly unhappy with oil and more willing to develop alternative
energy sources like wind and solar. Moreover, the national survey of 1,200 Americans' opinions on different
types of energy indicated growing concern about global warming -- but an apparent reluctance to pay to fight
it. Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, the MIT political scientist who conducted the survey through Knowledge
Networks, a consumer information company, said he hopes that tracking Americans' attitudes toward energy
will help policy-makers decide how to chart the United States' energy future. "We're trying to understand
what public policy in the U.S. should do to encourage new kinds of energy development or different patterns
of energy consumption," Ansolabehere said. The report, "Public Attitudes Toward America's Energy Options:
Insights for Nuclear Energy," was recently published by MIT's Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems.
Ansolabehere conducted a similar survey in 2002 as part of the MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear Power."
Polls show 70% of Americans support nuclear energy.

Nuclear Energy Institute, 06
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/americansfavornuclear/. Nearly Seven of 10 Americans Favor Nuclear
Election D/A 37/111
Energy, Support Building New Reactors at Existing Sites. Accessed 7/13/08.
Nearly seven of 10 Americans favor nuclear energy and 68 percent support building a new reactor at the
existing nuclear power plant closest to where they live, according to a recent public opinion poll conducted for
the Nuclear Energy Institute. Regionally, 70 percent of respondents in the Northeast and Midwest favor the
use of nuclear energy, 67 percent in the South and 66 percent in the West. Favorability among Northeast
residents has increased 12 percentage points since March of this year. The nationwide survey showed that 81
percent of those polled believe that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting U.S. future
electricity needs, and 76 percent agree that U.S. utilities should prepare now so new nuclear plants could be
built if needed in the next decade. Sixty-three percent say electric companies should “definitely” build new
nuclear power plants in the future.
Election D/A 38/111
Links-Public Supports Ethanol Development

78% of Americans support ethanol development.
RFA, 06
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/media/press/rfa/2006/view.php?id=721. Vast Majority of Americans want more
ethanol. Accessed 7/14/08.
Washington, DC ‚Äì New data from the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies
(www.pos.org/latestnumbers/nationals.cfm) shows that 78 percent of Americans support increasing the use of
ethanol and two-thirds of Americans support the increased use of biofuels in general.¬† Additional results
show that 91 percent of Americans feel the country is facing an energy crisis and 53 percent believe we
should diversify our energy supply by utilizing alternative energy sources like ethanol. ‚ÄúThese results
clearly reflect the growing enthusiasm for ethanol and other biofuels we have seen in the past year,‚Äù said
Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen.¬† ‚ÄúFrom the farmer in the field to the business owner
on Main Street to consumers at the pump, Americans are realizing that we need to do something different
when it comes to meeting our energy needs.¬† Ethanol and renewable fuels are ready today to start America
down a path of greater energy independence.‚Äù
Few oppose ethanol production.

DALE HILDEBRANT, FARM & RANCH GUIDE, NOVEMBER 07
http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2007/11/08/ag_news/regional_news/news14.txt. Polls show three-
fourths of Americans want increased renewable fuel use. Accessed 7/14/08.
Americans generally agree - they want to see renewable fuels used more in this country and that more
renewable fuels need to be produced. In addition, the poll found that only a small percentage of Americans
blame ethanol production for higher food prices. These were the findings of a national poll that was
conducted by the Renewable Fuels Now Coalition, the results of which were made public on Oct. 30 in
Washington, D.C. According to the poll numbers, 74 percent of Americans believe we should increase our use
of domestically produced renewable fuels like ethanol. In addition, 87 percent say the federal government
should actively support the development of a renewable fuels industry in this country, and 77 percent think
Congress should encourage oil refiners to blend more ethanol into their gasoline products.
Majority of Americans support ethanol production

ICR, (International Communications Research) 07
http://www.icrsurvey.com/Study.aspx?f=RFA_Poll.html. Public Supports larger role for domestic ethanol.
Accessed 7/14/08.
Eric Vaughn today unveiled the results of a nationwide public opinion poll that found strong public support for
a larger role for domestic ethanol in our nations energy policy. By wide margins, the public supports: ethanol
over foreign oil; requiring ethanol-blended gasoline instead of allowing the oil companies to choose whether
to use ethanol; and, candidates who support the increased use of ethanol. "Americans overwhelmingly want
policymakers to support domestic ethanol and to end our dependence on foreign oil," said Eric Vaughn,
president of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). "Consequently, the public is squarely behind the
government requiring ethanol-blended gasoline. Perhaps the most compelling finding is the public is much
more likely to vote for candidates who support increased ethanol use. Those debating the current energy
crisis would do well to address the immediate impact domestic ethanol can have. Its good public policy and
the people are listening." Key survey findings include: 62% of the public are familiar with ethanol. The public
supports a policy focusing on ethanol over maintaining our reliance on foreign oil by a huge 10 to 1 ratio (78%
for ethanol, 7% for foreign oil). 60% of the public would support a government requirement that gasoline
contain a small percentage of ethanol. Only 28% favor allowing the oil companies to make the decision alone.
Ethanol finds has a lot of public support.

CBS News, 07
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/042607environment.pdf. American’s Views On The Environment.
Accessed 7/14/08.
Americans in all regions of the country are opposed to nuclear power. Westerners are the most unfavorable
toward coal (which gets mixed reviews in the other three regions) and are the most positive toward solar and
wind. Ethanol – which often comes to the forefront of the energy debate every four years as the Iowa
Caucuses near – is seen as a good idea by Americans as a substitute for foreign oil. Fewer see it as a bad
Election D/A 39/111
thing even if producing it might drive up food prices. Ethanol is good idea 70% Bad idea 23 Americans in the
Midwest (which grows a great deal of corn) are the most positive about ethanol.
Election D/A 40/111
Links-Public Supports Ethanol Development

Polls show overwhelming support for cellulothic Ethanol.
Angus Reid Global Monitor, 07.
http://www.angus-reid.com/analysis/view/the_future_of_energy_in_the_west/. The Future of Energy in the
West. Accessed 7/13/08.
Part of the debate is where to find new energy sources. Nuclear power and biofuels such as ethanol are being
portrayed as part of the solution. Governments in the United States, western European nations and Australia
are pushing for both. Public opinion in these regions seems to be biased against nuclear and very warm to
biofuels—mainly because of the obvious dangers of nuclear power. Biofuels appear to have become the new
fad, but they have their dark side, too. In the United States, a recent New York Times/CBS News poll revealed
that seven-in-ten Americans support the use of ethanol, while 58 per cent of respondents think of nuclear
energy as a bad idea. An April survey by Gallup shows 86 per cent of people in the U.S. want the government
to invest in finding alternate sources of fuel for cars, while only 50 per cent would endorse a policy focusing
on expanding the use of nuclear energy. Another New York Times/CBS News study found public opinion is
evenly divided on whether the U.S. should build more nuclear power plants. In all, what public opinion in the
U.S. shows is widespread support for finding new sources of energy, while backing for nuclear power is less
strong even if it means both cutting oil dependency and eliminating pollution—two frequent concerns in the
country.
Election D/A 41/111
Links-Public Supports Solar Development

Massive cross-party support in the public for solar energy
SEIA.org, June 10, 2008
([http://www.seia.org/solarnews.php?id=184] “Poll Reports 94% of Americans Say It's Important for the U.S. to
Develop and Use Solar Energy” Solar Energy industries Association)
Poll Reports 94% of Americans Say It's Important for the U.S. to Develop and Use Solar Energy 98% of
Independents, 97% of Democrats, and 91% of Republicans support development of solar.74% of
Independents, 72% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans favor extension of Federal tax credits for renewable
technologies.77% of Americans feel Federal government should make solar power development a national
priority.
The public overwhelming supports development of solar power-94%

Coolidge, Georgina, July 1, 2008
([http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37536] Writer)
The government freeze on new applications showed a "big disconnect" from public support for solar power,
Resch said. In the same call, Robert Fishman, chief executive of privately held Ausra, a solar thermal power
developer headquartered in Palo Alto, California, said a recent poll showed 94 percent of Americans favor
solar power development to help ease pollution and cut energy costs.
Huge majority of Americans support solar development.

Hartanov, Drew, February, 2008
([http://renewable-energy-resources.blogspot.com/2008/02/solar-power-is-popular-american-choice.html]
“Solar Power is a popular American choice”, Writer, Top 2% of real-estate agents in Orange County)
WOW! We are almost all in agreement about at least one form of renewable energy; ninety per cent of
Americans think that builders should be offering the option of solar power in new homes.For those unsure of
the term: solar power is the term used to describe the resulting energy from the conversion of sunlight into
electricity. In order to do this, the sunlight must first be 'captured'.Because there is always (so far!) sunlight,
this is called a renewable source of energy. This means once we have perfected the technique to turn the
sunshine into electric power, we can always use that technique as there is always sunlight and it is always
free.
The public is behind solar development.

Revkin and Wald, 2007
([http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin] Mr. Revkin has a
biology degree from Brown and a Master's degree in journalism from Columbia, and Mr. Wald is a writer for
the N.Y. Times)
It is no wonder solar power has captured the public imagination. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are
winning supporters around the world — from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers’
fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Million Solar Roofs” initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and
fighting global warming.
Solar is popular with the public, particularly in Florida

Banfill, Ryan, March 13, 2008
([www.flaseia.org/Marketing/SolarPCRelease03-13-08.pdf] Ryan Banfill is a seasoned communications
professional with more than a decade of experience in the areas of government, political and association
communications; development and promotion of public policy and policymakers; and television production.
Ryan brings to RSC’s development of media and public affairs strategies the unique perspective of an award-
winning television producer; chief speechwriter and press secretary for a governor; communications lead in
the Southeastern U.S. for NFIB, the nation’s largest small-business advocacy group; and legislative
experience with the Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate. Along with his service with
former Florida Governor Lawton Chiles, Ryan has provided counsel to business leaders, state lawmakers, and
members of Congress. His special interests include issue and message development, public policy, and
electronic media communications.)
High consumer demand has exhausted the state’s solar rebate Program fund six months early, and
lawmakers and solar advocates today released a new survey showing Florida residents overwhelmingly
Election D/A 42/111
support spending more money on solar energy – even if costs them a little bit more on their utility bills. The
survey of 625 registered voters (margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent), conducted by Mason-Dixon
Polling & Research Inc., shows: A whopping 85 percent of those polled believe the Florida Legislature should
act to encourage investment in solar energy; and Eighty-one percent of those polled said they support that
investment even if it costs$1 extra on their monthly utility bills.“It’s clear that the Sunshine State likes the
idea of Florida becoming a solar energy leader, “said Bruce Kershner of the Florida Solar Energy Industries
Association. “These landslide numbers show Sunshine State residents want to see solar taking a more
important role as an energy source in their homes and businesses.”
Election D/A 43/111
Links-Public Supports Solar Development

Majority of Americans support the plan
Feldman, Stacy, June 11, 2008
([http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080611/poll-94-americans-want-solar-energy-future-3-want-coal] ” Poll: 94%
of Americans Want Solar Energy Future, 3% Want Coal” Environmental Writer.)
The US Senate Republicans are trashing hopes for a booming home-grown solar energy sector. Oh, but that’s
not news.
And neither is the fact that nearly all Americans – across all parties – believe that a solar energy industry is
vital to the United States. Ninety-eight percent of Independents. Ninety-seven percent of Democrats. And
ninety-one percent of Republicans.
The survey findings were released by the SCHOTT Solar BarometerTM yesterday and were conducted by the
independent polling firm, Kelton Research.
Election D/A 44/111
Links-Public Supports PTCs

The overwhelming majority of the public and Congress supports PTCs
Hurst, Timothy 2008
([http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/10/senate-to-vote-on-renewables-as-early-as-today/] Senate to Vote on
Renewables as Early as Today)
Considering the popular support for policies that promote renewable energy development, it seems odd that
Congress continues to drag their collective feet on passing the PTC. The results of a recent poll show that a
vast majority of Americans, across all political parties, overwhelmingly support development and funding of
solar energy. Ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents
agree that developing solar power is vital to the U.S.
PTC is unpopular in Congress, but the public thinks otherwise.

Parker, Randall, January 27, 2008
([http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004956.html] Subsidies Make Wind UK Farms Very Profitable)
Oddly enough, the problem with PTC is not that it's unpopular in Congress, but the opposite: that it's hugely
popular. That means that any law that includes it is likely to be supported by a strong majority, and then gets
larded with more disputable - and disputed - items, which are then opposed. The PTC gets taken hostage,
effectively... Crazy, but true.
PTC is popular with the general public.

Chadbourne & Park, 2007
([www.chadbourne.com/.../Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d32678a2-86b5-4b7c-b7eb-
32fd7c22bdec/0107pfn.pdf] “The road ahead” Authors)
MR. MIKRUT: As Rich Glicksaid, the House will be trying in the first 100 hours to carve back some of the tax
benefits provided to large oil companies. This could free up $3 billion in estimated revenue. A one-year
extension of the production tax credits costs a little less than$3 billion. The revenues associated with the two
items matchup rather well. The production tax credits are popular items and are relatively easy to extend.
Election D/A 45/111
Links-Public Supports Hydrogen Car Development

Public overwhelmingly supports development of hydrogen cars
Dave DeFusco, Yale University, 05
http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=4259. Yale Poll Reveals Overwhelming Public Desire For New Energy
Policy Direction. 07/14/08.
A new Yale University research survey of 1,000 adults nationwide reveals that while Americans are deeply
divided on many issues, they overwhelmingly believe that the United States is too dependent on imported oil.
The survey shows a vast majority of the public also wants to see government action to develop new “clean”
energy sources, including solar and wind power as well as hydrogen cars. 92% of Americans say that they are
worried about dependence on foreign oil. 93% of Americans want government to develop new energy
technologies and require auto industry to make cars and trucks that get better gas mileage. The results
underscore Americans’ deep concerns about the country’s current energy policies, particularly the nation’s
dependence on imported oil. Fully 92 percent say this dependence is a serious problem, while 68 percent say
it is a “very serious” problem.
The public supports hydrogen cars.

Michael Dimock, Pew Research Center For The People and The Press. 06
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/8/both-reds-and-blues-go-green-on-energy. Both Reds and Blues Go Green on
Energy. Accessed 7/14/08.
The outgrowth of this concern about both energy and the environment is that the public expresses almost
universal support for solutions that address both problems at the same time. Fully 86% favor the government
requiring better fuel efficiency standards for cars, trucks and SUVs, and 82% favor increased federal funding
for research on wind, solar and hydrogen energy. Even more striking in today's politicized environment, is the
level of bipartisan consensus behind these proposals. Republicans back higher fuel efficiency standards as
uniformly as Democrats, and, if anything, are even stronger backers of federal research programs on
alternative energy sources
Election D/A 46/111
Links-Public Supports RPS

Huge majority favors RPS plans
Pore, Robert, July 9, 2008
([http://www.theindependent.com/news/x544082676/Poll-Nebraskans-back-alternative-energies] Poll:
Nebraskans back alternative energies)
According to the poll, 91 percent agreed or strongly agreed that more should be done to develop such
alternative energy sources as ethanol, biodiesel, wind and solar. Randy Cantrell, a rural sociologist with the
university's Rural Initiative and Center for Applied Rural Innovation, said rural Nebraskans think they ought to
try everything possible to develop alternative fuels and conserve energy. "We ought to be blending
everything together to come up with a reasonable package to address energy needs," Cantrell said. Bruce
Johnson, UNL agricultural economist, said 28 states have a renewable portfolio standard, which requires
electricity providers to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from renewable sources by a certain
date. Four others have goals in place. Nebraska has neither.
Election D/A 47/111
Internal Links-Bush Key to Election

The incumbent president is a weight that the nominee of the incumbent party must try
to shake off.
Mark Murray (Deputy political director, NBC News) June 11, 2008 “Challenges for both Obama, McCain
indicate very competitive race ahead” [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/ Accessed June 27, 2008]
While Obama appears to be struggling with white men and white suburban women in the poll, McCain has
what seem to be even bigger challenges. They include President Bush, whose approval rating stands at 28
percent, as well as an electorate that wants change from the president’s policies. In the survey, 54 percent
say that they’re looking for a new president who would bring greater changes to current policies, even if that
person is less experienced and tested. By contrast, 42 percent say they’d rather have a more experienced
and tested person become president, even if that means fewer changes to current policies. Moreover, 59
percent say it's more important to have a president who will focus on progress and moving America forward,
versus 37 percent who would rather the president protect what has made America great. “The 200-pound ball
and chain around McCain’s foot is George W. Bush,” Hart says. “Unless he figures out a way to cut it loose,
he’s going to be dragging it throughout this election.” Newhouse adds, “Voters are not convinced that McCain
represents the change they want and that he’ll be all that different from Bush.” Indeed, according to the poll,
48 percent say it’s likely that Obama will be real change to the country. Just 21 percent say that of McCain.
Another obstacle for McCain is overall voter enthusiasm. Fifty-four percent of the respondents in the poll — no
matter whom they are voting for — believe that Obama will win in November. Only 30 percent think McCain
will win.
Empirically, incumbent president popularity has had a major impact on the outcome of
elections.
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.
Election D/A 48/111

Bush is a liability to the party.
Oxford Analytica, The Hill, 5-22-07 The president’s approval ratings have been unusually poor… liability for
his Party’s electoral prospects.
Avoiding Bush ties. This polling phenomenon is due, in part, to the fact that voters do not currently make a
strong link between Giuliani and President Bush. Indeed, Giuliani is seen as personifying the more popular
aspects of the Bush legacy (the immediate response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, for example) but not the
more contentious elements (Iraq and its aftermath). McCain’s difficulties in the past six months appear to be
because, having previously avoided association with the president, he has recently embraced Bush‘s troop
“surge” strategy for Iraq. •Unpopular president. The president’s approval ratings have been unusually poor
for almost two years. Since mid-2005, they have moved within a comparatively narrow 29-36 percent band in
mainstream surveys. There are few parallels for such an abysmal rating during a second presidential term,
when (with the obvious exception of former President Richard Nixon) the occupant of the White House tends
to become more personally popular at the same time that he becomes less politically effective. Furthermore,
even Bush’s personal pollsters seem to expect that his ratings will remain at this low ebb for the rest of the
year and into 2008. If he cannot achieve at least a 45 percent approval rating by next year, then the
president will remain a liability for his party’s electoral prospects.
Even if the incumbent is unpopular, he grants visibility to the candidate; visibility is key
to winning elections.
Charles H. Franklin 1993 (Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, “Senate Incumbent Visibility over
the Election Cycle” accessed on JSTOR on July 13, 2008 //BC)
Candidate visibility has become a key variable in the study of congressional elections. There is ample
evidence that visibility is a substantial advantage, one which almost always favors incumbents. In this paper I
trace the visibility of members of the U.S. Senate between their bids for reelection and over their political
careers. I find that there is a moderate drop off of visibility near the midpoint of a Senate term, and a fairly
sizable rise in prominence in the two years leading up to a reelection bid. Yet, even in the middle of the term,
incumbent senators remain quite salient in the minds of the public. Over an entire career, visibility cumulates
for some perceptions and does not cumulate much for others. This differential accretion of visibility may have
important consequences. Finally, I argue for the need to study perceptions of incumbents outside of the
election period. The time of governing is at the center of a republican society, yet we have few studies of how
governing is linked to public perceptions of incumbents. Candidate visibility has played a central role in
explanations of voting in congressional elections since the seminal work of Stokes and Miller (1962). If "to be
perceived at all is to be perceived favorably," then the candidate who is most visible possesses a powerful
electoral advantage. More recent work has continued to stress the importance of candidate visibility, even as
we have developed more complex models of voter choice in House and Senate elections (Abramowitz 1980;
Hinckley 1980; Ragsdale 1981; Westlye 1991). These works often stress the difference between incumbent
and challenger visibility and the consequences for voter choice. Invisibility is invariably a severe electoral
handicap, and it is invariably the challenger who suffers. While incumbents are universally acknowledged to
enjoy a visibility advantage, there has been surprisingly little effort to exam- ine the dynamics of that
advantage. For example, how long does it take a senator to build visibility? Are new senators much less well
known than those who have been in office for a term or two? What is the effect of the election cycle on
senators' visibility? There is good reason to think that incumbent visibility is at a high point during a
reelection campaign, but what happens between elections? If elections are the high-water marks of an
election cycle, how does visibility vary over an entire career? Do senators increase their prominence with
voters over the years, or is incumbent visibility something that is attained immediately upon election?
Election D/A 49/111

Imcumbent popularity is used in all but two mathematical forecasting models by expert
political analysts.
Megan Page Pratt, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 04 “Predicting Presidential Elections: An Evaluation of
Forecasting,” scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05192004-133719/unrestricted/Thesis.pdf -, accessed
July 13, 2008, //bc
Over the past two decades, with a renewed interest in the field of forecasting, a number of multivariate
models have evolved from the earlier bivariate prototypes first appearing in the late 1970s and early 1980s
(e.g., Sigelman 1979, Hibbs 1982, Brody and Sigelman 1983). The recent wave of forecasters combine both
economic and political variables to predict election outcomes. All the models adopt measures of presidential
popularity15 and various measures of national economic conditions16 for predicting the incumbent party
candidate’s percentage of the popular two-party vote. By incorporating these two types of indicators, today’s
models have significantly increased their ability to accurately predict election outcomes, with many
accounting for an impressive 80 to 90% of the variation in the presidential vote. In making forecasts, all but
two17 of the models employ aggregate, national-level time series data, for the period since WWII.18
Generally, anywhere from 9 to 13 presidential elections are used in the estimation of the various multivariate
models. Examining historical data from a relatively small number of past elections years, forecasters attempt
to identify general patterns in elections that accurately forecast the vote in an upcoming election. The models
are also informed by an extensive body of voting behavior research,19 which identifies various national-level
influences impacting individual presidential preferences Once the relevant indicators have been established,
the various values of each variable are then inserted into a statistical equation capable of providing a point
prediction of the incumbent party candidate’s percentage of the two-party popular vote.20 Typically, these a
priori or before-the-fact forecasts are made at least two months in advance of the November election from
only a handful of key explanatory variables. For instance, most forecasting models combine leading
macroeconomic indicators (e.g., change in economic growth, cumulative personal income, or inflation) with
some measure of the public’s sociopolitical evaluations of candidates to make predictions about the
incumbent party’s electoral prospects. The most common measure of public opinion is the Gallup Poll’s
presidential approval ratings, which assess the incumbent’s job approval among the electorate. In short, this
basic economy-popularity model of voting serves as the core specification of most multivariate models.
However, there is no consensus beyond this core specification. Depending on the researcher, other indicators
incorporated into the models include: incumbency,21 trial-heat polls,22 mid-term elections,23 presidential
primaries,24 and cyclical patterns in presidential elections.25
There is a linear relationship between incumbent popularity and election outcome.

Megan Page Pratt, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 04
“Predicting Presidential Elections: An Evaluation of Forecasting,” scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-
05192004-133719/unrestricted/Thesis.pdf -, accessed July 13, 2008, //bc
Scores on the variable of presidential popularity are marked along the horizontal axis and popular vote
percentages won by incumbent party candidates are measured along the vertical axis. Each data point
plotted in the scatter diagram represents the incumbent party’s popularity rating in July and share of the
popular vote in the subsequent general election for that year. Presenting the data visually, it is easy to
observe the strong linear relationship between the predictor variable and the forecasted event. Indicated by
the upward sloping pattern, higher popularity ratings correspond to higher percentages of the popular vote
share won by the incumbent party. Using this same process, a similar relationship is found by forecasters
between economic growth (G) and the vote share: as growth increases so does the incumbent party
candidate’s percentage of the two-party vote
Election D/A 50/111

Incumbent popularity is key to constituent trust, which is the most important factor in
election outcome. It is even more important than party identification.
Glenn R. Parker 89
The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 2, “The Role of Constituent Trust in Congressional Elections”
accessed JSTOR, July 13, 2008 //bc
The purpose of this inquiry is to introduce a new variable into the study of congressional elections-constituent
trust. Constituent trust is defined as the level of confidence that constituents have in their elected
representative. This analysis suggests a strategy for measuring constituent trust and develops a model that
relates constituent trust directly and indirectly to electoral support. By pooling cross-sectional data drawn
from the University of Michigan's American National Election Studies (1978-84), I demonstrate that when
constituent trust is salient in voter cognitions, it has a significant direct influence on electoral support and is a
better predictor of electoral support than the incumbent's party identification. In addition to its direct effects,
I show that constituent trust indirectly influences electoral support because of its causal relationship to
incumbent popularity. One of the most important, but neglected, variables in the study of Congress is
constituent trust.1 "When a constituent trusts a House member, the constituent is saying something like this:
'I am willing to put myself in your hands temporarily; I know you will have opportunities to hurt me, although I
may not know when those opportunities occur; I assume-and I will continue to assume until it is proven other-
wise-that you will not hurt me; for the time being, then, I'm not going to worry about your behavior' " (Fenno,
1978:55-56). In short, constituent trust reflects the level of confidence that constituents have in their elected
representative. The effort that congressmen devote to generating trust, the saliency of trust in voter images
of their representative, and the logical relationship between constituent trust and electoral support attest to
the significance of this variable. Richard Fenno's account of the behavior of congressmen in their districts
calls attention to the amount of time that incumbents devote to cultivating the trust of their constituents: It is
not an overnight or a one-time thing. It is hard to win; and it must be constantly renewed and rewon. "Trust,"
said one member, "is a cumulative thing, a totality thing.... You do a little here and a little there." So it takes
an enormous amount of time to build and to maintain constituent trust. That is what House members believe.
And that is why they spend so much of their working time at home. Much of what I have observed in my
travels can be explained as a continuous and continuing effort to win (for new members) and to hold (for old
members) the trust of supportive constituencies. (Fenno, 1978:56) In Table 1 we present data drawn from the
American National Election Studies of 1978-84 that describe the nature of voter likes and dislikes about their
congressman. Trust is an important component in constituent perceptions of their representative; it
overshadows such basic political concerns as leadership qualities, party, ideology, and political issues, and it
follows closely behind the incumbent's experience and personal qualities in most years. Whether because of
the emphasis that congressmen place on generating trust or because of the intrinsic value that it has for
constituents, trust is a salient component in voter images of their congressman.
None of the events of the campaign trail matter. Incumbent popularity essentially
decides the outcome.
Alan I. Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University, 1988
“An Improved Model for Predicting Presidential Election Outcomes” Political Science and Politics, Accessed
JSTOR, July 13, 2008//bc
Election D/A 51/111
This paper describes a simple model for predicting the outcomes of presidential elections. The assumption
underlying this model is that the overriding issue in a presidential election is whether voters want to continue
the policies of the incumbent president and his party. If voters want more of the same, they will choose the
candidate of the incumbent party; if voters feel that "it's time for a change," they will choose the candidate of
the opposing party. According to this model, all other factors-including the personalities of the candidates and
the events of the campaign-can be treated as random disturbances which have only a marginal impact on the
final outcome. What determines whether voters want more of the same or a change in direction? The model
uses three variables to eval- uate the sentiment of the electorate: the popularity of the incumbent president,
the condition of the economy, and the timing of the election. The more popular the incumbent president and
the stronger the performance of the economy, the greater should be the vote for the candidate of the
incumbent party (whether that candidate is the incumbent president or someone else). Thus, a presidential
election can be viewed as a referendum on the incumbent president and the economy. Both presidential
popularity and economic conditions have previously been shown to have significant effects on the outcomes
of presidential elections. How- ever, the model proposed here includes one additional explanatory variable:
the timing of the election. The hypothesis is that the candidate of the incumbent party will do worse if his
party has controlled the White House for eight years or longer: the longer a party has been in power, the
more likely the public is to feel that "it's time for a change."
Election D/A 52/111

Perceptions of the incumbent president shape the public perception of the party and the
party’s candidate.
Only time will tell how the political fallout for the GOP from Bush and Iraq will compare to the damage
inflicted by Nixon and Watergate in the 1970s. Nixon’s resignation mostly removed Watergate as an issue on
the national agenda as Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon as president in August 1974, joined the
administration after the infamous “third-rate burglary.” But between now and the 2008 presidential election,
Iraq is not likely to fade as a major issue unless the situation there is resolved or a big event like another
terrorist attack dramatically alters the political landscape. From April through June of 2007, ten major national
polls asked the public to name the top problem facing the country. All ten polls found Iraq to be the number
one problem. When people are asked to name just one problem, Iraq or the war in Iraq are typically
mentioned by only about 30 percent of the public. But when respondents in an April Gallup poll were asked an
open-ended question and given the opportunity to name more than one problem, a two-thirds (66 percent)
majority mentioned Iraq—no other issue came close as a top-of-mind public concern. Health care, mentioned
by 20 percent, finished a distant second. With an unpopular Republican incumbent in the White House and a
damaging issue that won’t go away, the GOP faces an uphill battle in the 2008 presidential race. Today, the
Democrats enjoy a bigger advantage in generic presidential trial heats than they did at a similar point before
the two most recent nonincumbent presidential elections, 2000 and 1988. A July CBS News/New York Times
poll found voters nationwide preferring a Democrat over a Republican to be our next president by a fifteen-
point margin, compared with a ten-point Democratic advantage before the two most recent comparable
elections. Previous polling for Newsweek and other media organizations over the past year have shown a
similar margin in favor of the Democrats. Since Bush approval first dropped below 30 percent in May, the
Newsweek poll has shown the three leading Democratic presidential candidates (Hillary Clinton, Barack
Obama, and John Edwards) outpolling all four men regarded as the top contenders for the GOP nomination
next year (Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mitt Romney). This polling also suggests that if
New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg—who recently announced he was leaving the Republican Party—
enters the presidential race as an Independent, his candidacy is more likely to hurt to the Republicans’
chances of winning in 2008 than it is to hurt the Democrats. Thus far, all of the four leading GOP presidential
contenders have basically toed the Bush administration line on Iraq, supporting a continuing troop presence
there and defending the initial decision to go to war. That is not surprising, since a reduced Republican base,
whose support is critical to winning the GOP presidential nomination, still largely backs the war and keeping
U.S. troops in Iraq. Whoever emerges as the party’s standard-bearer, however, will face the challenge of
winning over a broader electorate that mostly disapproves of Bush policies and is eager to get out of Iraq. The
major Democratic contenders, in contrast, have all positioned themselves on the opposite side of this issue.
Even frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who had vigorously defended her vote to authorize the military action,
recently said now is time for the United States to begin withdrawing from Iraq, not later. History shows that
the Republican Party is quite resilient. In the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan in the White House, identification
with the GOP not only rebounded to pre-Watergate levels, but it continued to make gains that eventually
allowed the Republicans to recapture Congress and become the governing party. But 2008 is probably too
soon for the GOP to reverse trends that offer the rival Democrats a good opportunity to take control of the
White House and expand their margins in Congress. Should this happen, it would be the first time since Bill
Clinton’s first two years in office that the Republicans have been reduced to minority status across the board,
and Iraq will have had a lot to do with it.
Incumbent presidential popularity dictates the popularity of their party candidate.

Brody and Seigleman 83
(Richard and Lee, “Presidential Popularity and Presidential Elections,” The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 47,
No. 3, p 325, JSTOR, accessed July 14, 2008//bc)
THIS paper updates and extends findings reported by Sigelman (1979), who discovered, contrary to earlier
indications (Mueller, 1973), that the outcomes of presidential elections can be predicted with some accuracy
on the basis of the president's rating in the final preelection popularity poll. The 1980 election provides an
additional case to work with-the eighth time an incumbent president has sought reelection since 1938, when
the Gallup presidential popularity question was first asked-and it is of obvious interest to see how closely this
Election D/A 53/111
most recent case fits into the pattern established earlier. We also bring three previously ignored cases (the
1952, 1960, and 1968 elections) into the analysis by shifting the dependent variable from votes for the
incumbent president to votes for the candidate of the incumbent president's party. This substitution is based
on indications that presidential popularity has a powerful carryover effect on the outcome of midterm
congressional elections (Tufte, 1975). If congressmen of the president's party are held responsible for the
incumbent's performance, can we afford to overlook the possibility that the presidential candidate of the
president's party is also judged accordingly?
Incumbent presidential popularity effects the election outcome.

Brody and Seigleman 83
(Richard and Lee, “Presidential Popularity and Presidential Elections,” The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 47,
No. 3, p 325, JSTOR, accessed July 14, 2008//bc)
The findings reported here suggest that the incumbent president and his party are held accountable at the
time of the presidential election for the performance of the incumbent over the previous four years (Fiorina,
1981). The fact that there is a link between presidential popularity and presidential voting means that data on
presidential popularity can be used to generate reasonably accurate predictions of the outcome of
presidential elections, even when the incumbent is not running for reelection.
Election D/A 54/111

Incumbent popularity is one of the most important factors in election outcome.
Dr. Alan Abramowitz, Professor of Political Science at Emory University, May 29, 2008
“CAN MCCAIN OVERCOME THE TRIPLE WHAMMY?” Accessed July 14, 2008,
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/print.php?article=AIA2008052901, //bc
Three indicators of the national political climate have accurately predicted the outcomes of presidential
elections since the end of World War II: the incumbent president's approval rating at mid-year, the growth
rate of the economy during the second quarter of the election year, and the length of time the president's
party has held the White House. The higher the president's approval rating and the stronger the growth rate
of the economy, the more likely it is that the president's party will be victorious. However, if the president's
party has controlled the White House for two terms or longer it is less likely to be successful. Time-for-change
sentiment seems to increase after eight years regardless of the president's popularity or the state of the
economy. These three factors can be combined to produce an Electoral Barometer score that measures the
overall national political climate. The formula for computing this score is simply the president's net approval
rating (approval minus disapproval) in the Gallup Poll plus five times the annual growth rate of real GDP
minus 25 if the president's party has held the White House for two terms or longer. Mathematically, this
formula can be written as: EB = NAR + (5*GDP) - 25.
Election D/A 55/111
2NC/1NR Link Module-Ohio

Ohio citizens on board with providing energy incentives
Spinelli 2008
(John Michael Spinelli, writer for Ohio News Bureau, OhioNewsBureau, “Securing Ohio’s Energy Future Must
Include Plans to Resurrect Passenger Trains”, July 12, 2008, date accessed 14 July 2008,
http://thejournal.epluribusmedia.net/index.php/state-news/ohio-news/34-ohio-news/119-securing-ohios-
energy-future-must-include-plans-to-resurrect-passenger-trains)
Obama spoke in Dayton, Ohio, on Friday at a small high school gym to people who traveled to hear his plans
for securing Ohio’s and the nation’s future on energy. With oil at record levels and the price of gasoline rising
nearly every day, Ohioans, like many other Americans, are being forced to make uncomfortable spending
decisions among critical choices like fuel, food, health care, medicines or education on a daily basis, taxing
the elasticity of their virtually stagnant wages. The rising cost of transportation and fuel is undeniably a major
cost to nearly everyone in Ohio and other states, and is not expected to decrease anytime soon. Although
buses operated by transit authorities are experiencing increased riders as commuters and others search for
affordable alternatives to cars as their primary mode of transportation, passenger trains, which ruled the
country from coast to coast in days gone by, have mostly died out in heartland states like Ohio, where finding
an active train station is not an easy task. In Columbus, the state capital and my home, passenger trains
done stop here anymore as they did between 1850 and 1979, when the architecturally significant train
station, Union Station, the third and final train station on the same site, was demolished to make way for a
convention center city and business leaders lobbied hard for, thinking trains were the past and convention
traffic was the future. What city and business leaders of today might give to have glorious Union Station back
is a matter of academic speculation. But passenger rail traffic, which is being talked about more and more as
fuel costs make the costs of light rail more desirable, is taking on new significant. What is needed now is the
political will to make the investment necessary in resurrecting train traffic in the Buckeye State. Two people
who attended Mr. Obama’s talk on energy were Montgomery County Commissioner Debbie Lieberman and
State Sen. Tom Roberts, both of whom made comments to the Dayton Daily News about the importance of
Obama saying his plan would help fund high-speed trains running between Midwestern cities like Chicago,
Pittsburg, Detroit, Indianapolis and Ohio cities in-between them. Lieberman noted the economic development
aspects that high- speed trains could bring, namely the creation of new jobs that would come through
Obama’s plan to invest $15 billion in new sources of energy.
Ohio’s 20 electoral votes are key to the election

Ohio Politics Almanac 2007
(Ohio Politics Almanac, December 30, 2007, “The Ohio Impact”, date accessed 14 July 2008)
Long considered a bellwether state, Ohio has played a major factor in deciding the presidency. Here are some
Ohio presidential facts… Since 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was elected, no Republican has won the
presidency without carrying Ohio. Since 1900, Ohioans voted for the presidential winner all but two times:
Republican Thomas E. Dewey carried Ohio in 1944 against Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt; and Republican
Richard M. Nixon in 1960 beat Democrat John F. Kennedy. Though Ohio has voted for the presidential winner
25 of 27 elections since 1900, it didn't fare as well between 1804 and 1896. During that time, Ohio voted for
the presidential winner 17 of 24 times. Mahoning and Trumbull, considered two of the most Democratic
counties in Ohio, went Republican twice since 1948. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower captured more votes in
the two counties in his 1956 re-election victory over Democrat Adlai Stevenson as did Nixon in his 1972 re-
election win over Democrat George S. McGovern. In 2004, President George W. Bush, a Republican, and
Democrat John Kerry focused a great deal of attention on capturing Ohio's 20 electoral votes. Bush won the
state by 2.1 percent, 118,601 votes. If Kerry had won Ohio, he would have captured the presidency. He lost
the electoral vote 286-252. If Ohio's 20 electoral votes had gone to Kerry, the result would have been 272-266
for the Democrat.
Election D/A 56/111
Ohio Exts.
Ohio supports the plan, and they’re key to the election
WARD 08
Ward, Financial Times Staff Writer, 2008, Energy Concerns Could Swing Ohio Vote, accessed Lexis
Voters in a key US election state are responding in different ways to the pain of the fuel crisis, reports Andrew
Ward.
WARD CONTINUES….
Richard Daley hoped he would spend more time at his Kentucky vacation home in retirement. Instead, the 60-
year-old former engineer has cut his number of visits by half because of the soaring cost of driving the 200
miles from his home in West Chester, Ohio. "On a fixed income, we just can't keep absorbing these
increases," he says.
Mr Daley is one of millions of Americans rethinking their approach to energy consumption as petrol prices hit
record levels.
According to the Department of Transportation, US drivers travelled 30bn fewer miles between November and
April, compared with a year earlier, the biggest drop since the 1979 energy crisis.
While Mr Daley's story is increasingly familiar, it carries added weight because he lives in one of the most
important battleground states in November's presidential election.
His heavily Republican county on the edge of Cincinnati helped deliver George W. Bush's narrow victory in
Ohio four years ago. This time round, John McCain needs to win by a big margin there if he is to hold the
state.
Describing himself as an undecided independent, Mr Daley supports Mr McCain's plan to lift the ban on fresh
offshore oil and gas drilling around the US coast. But he also favours Barack Obama's proposal to levy a
windfall profit tax on oil companies and invest the proceeds in renewable fuels. "We need to exploit all the oil
we have but, in the long term, we have to find alternatives," says Mr Daley. Energy has soared towards the
top of the election agenda as petrol prices have topped $4 a gallon for the first time.
Three in four voters say the issue will be "very important" in determining their vote - outranking taxes,
terrorism and the Iraq war - according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Centre. Asked who they trusted
most to handle the energy issue, respondents favoured Mr Obama over Mr McCain by 18 percentage points.
"Voters are making the simple conclusion that if you change the party in the White House, somehow things
will get better," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.
Election D/A 57/111
2NC/1NR Link Module-Florida

Alternative energy incentives popular in Florida-Crist proves
Caputo 2008
(Michael R. Caputo, writer for Sun Sentinel, Sun Sentinel, “Alternate Fuels Quicker Fix”, June 26, 2008, date
accessed 14 July 2008, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-12forum26sbjun26,0,3804742.story)
For almost two decades, the GOP has had its head in the sand on energy and the environment. In contrast to
this and Al Gore's Chicken Little environmentalism, McCain and Crist are conservationists — a mantle worn
comfortably by few Republicans since Teddy Roosevelt. Crist's energy policy realizes Florida is awash in
energy resources: sun, wind, water and petroleum. In fact, we have more of all four than most states, so it is
particularly confounding to know we tap almost none of it. Today, when America needs more energy
independence, offshore oil drilling cannot continue as the third rail of Sunshine State politics. McCain has said
offshore drilling should be a state decision. If so, Florida should require lessees to fund paradigm-shifting
alternative energy development: Develop solar farms onshore. Already, the state has put $8.5 million toward
a solar panel field at Florida Gulf Coast University to power the entire campus during winter months.
Surround offshore derricks with seaborne wind turbines. With new floating and fixed technologies, 1,000 of
these modern windmills could power 4 million Florida homes. Drive oceanic energy research at our
universities. The water temperature difference between the surface and the depths of the ocean can
generate power. Today, the technology is stalled without support and capital. Convert landfills into energy.
Natural methane gas produced by one of our 110 active landfills can fuel 1,000 homes. A Gainesville project
powers 500 homes. In New Jersey, landfill-to-energy projects are providing power to universities and
municipalities. Teddy Roosevelt once said: "Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell 'em, 'Certainly, I
can!' Then get busy and find out how to do it." Some may not like it, but McCain, Crist and a growing number
of Floridians believe we should follow Roosevelt's wise words, and get busy.
Florida key to determining the 2008 elections

Schultz 2008
(Randy Schultz, Palm Beach Post Editorial Page Editor, Palm Beach Post, July 13, 2008, “Florida wins if Obama
Plays to Win”, date accessed 14 July 2008,
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2008/07/13/a1e_schultzcol_0713.html)
If your state is in play during a close election, candidates make many visits and spend heavily. Florida, if you
haven't noticed, is having economic troubles. Tourism is coming back a little, but overall spending is down,
and Florida relies most heavily on sales taxes to run government. Sen. McCain won't win California and New
York, and he's trailing in Ohio and Pennsylvania. So he really needs to win Florida. He'll be here, whether or
not he picks Gov. Crist for the ticket, which I don't think he will do. Last month, Sen. Obama's chief strategist
said that his candidate could win even without taking Florida or Ohio. But in a later conference call, David
Plouffe said that while the Obama campaign's first priority is to hold all of Sen. Kerry's 256 electoral votes, the
next priority is states such as ... Florida and Ohio, along with North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Iowa and
Colorado that the campaign considers winnable. Did you know that corn ethanol has a 51-cent per-gallon
subsidy that costs taxpayers $4.5 billion a year? Why does the public have to support a fuel that costs more
energy to produce than it saves and now is helping to drive up prices not just for corn but for everything that
uses corn? The answer is: the Iowa caucuses. Almost every presidential candidate - John McCain is a notable
exception - pledges to Iowans the virtues of Iowa corn-based ethanol while tromping through the snow in that
first presidential campaign test. These days, Congress should be rushing to end that ethanol subsidy. It isn't
happening, because Iowa has the best of both campaign worlds. It has the caucuses, and, despite having just
seven electoral votes, it's the swingiest swing state, and both parties want it. Mr. Bush won Iowa by just
10,000 votes in 2004, and Mr. Gore won it by just 4,000 votes. If Sens. McCain and Obama are here often,
they'll have to talk about national disaster insurance, Medicare, Everglades restoration, the space program
and other issues important to Floridians. That could make for promises to keep. The best thing for Florida
would be a vote that comes up just short of a recount. Floridians can disagree about who should win on Nov.
4, but Floridians can root for an all-out fight until Nov. 4.
Election D/A 58/111
Florida Exts.
Florida supports the plan, and they’re key to the election
FINANCIAL TIMES 08
Financial Times, 2008, Florida becomes battleground for offshore oil amid rising petrol prices, accessed Lexis
As the largest swing state in the US with 27 electoral college votes, Florida's decision in November could
settle whether Mr. McCain or Barack Obama takes the White House. Mr. Obama remains strongly opposed to
lifting the ban.
The further oil prices rise the greater the pressure on other politicians. According to investment bank FBR, the
US could produce an extra 2m to 3m barrels of oil a day if it scrapped all limits on offshore drilling and opened
up the Arctic. That would be roughly equivalent to the daily output of Venezuela or Nigeria.
"It wouldn't have any short-term impact but over five to 10 years it could substantially alter the market," says
Kevin Book at FBR.
Much would depend on whether the US and other countries had taken steps to reduce demand and invest in
new technologies. Supporters of alternative energy say most voters would oppose large-scale offshore drilling
if they believed there were better options.
But they are having trouble getting themselves heard. Last year's vigorous debate over climate change has
gone quiet. "We still haven't come up with a bumper sticker solution," says Kathy Castor, a Democratic
congresswoman from Florida who opposes drilling, says: "People are facing a barrage of propaganda from the
drilling lobby."
Election D/A 59/111
2NC/1NR Link Module-Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania supports the plan
COULOUMBIS 07
Couloumbis, Staff Writer Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007, A Mad Dash to Influence PA Energy Plans, accessed Lexis
For months, lobbyists for everyone from small-town Pennsylvania farmers to multibillion-dollar oil companies
have swarmed the Capitol, jockeying for the best seat at the table to exert influence on Gov. Rendell's
alternative energy legislation.
Some are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying to make sure they are heard.
It is a stark reminder that the fight over the future of alternative energy is not just a legislative brawl between
Republicans and Democrats.
Consider the stakes: $850 million, more than half of which will be spent on potential grants, loans, and other
subsidies for alternative, renewable, and other "clean energy" projects. Those who follow the issue say it is
the kind of investment that could reshape a portion of the state's economy - Pennsylvania's "energy
economy," as Rendell calls it.
Pennsylvania key to the election.

BORICK 07
Borick, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer, 2008, Christopher, Pennsylvania not done as a Swing State,
accessed Lexis
As political thoughts turn toward the 2008 presidential election, there are rumblings that Pennsylvania is
losing its status as one of the premier swing states.
After John Kerry's win in the commonwealth in 2004 made it four straight Democratic victories in the Keystone
State, questions about Pennsylvania's place among the elite battleground states began to appear.
These questions were fueled in November when the state's voters played a pivotal role in propelling the
Democratic Party into the majority in both the U.S. House and Senate.
No other state matched the commonwealth's contribution to the Democratic takeover on Capitol Hill, with
Gov. Rendell's landslide victory and the Democrats' success in the state House further darkening the blue
shade of Pennsylvania politics.
But hold those obituaries for the state's leading role in presidential elections. The vital signs remain strong for
Pennsylvania's revival as a swing state in 2008. Here is my case:
Even with the gains made by Democrats in November, Pennsylvania remains one of the most politically
balanced states.
Republicans lead Democrats by 140-139 among all federal- and state-level elected offices.
This remarkable parity reflects an underlying parity in the electorate, with registered Democrats only slightly
outnumbering registered Republicans.
Even more telling are the self-identified ideological beliefs of the state's voters.
When leaving polling stations in November, 46 percent of the voters called themselves moderate, 29 percent
said they were conservative, and 25 percent claimed to be liberal.
Pennsylvania's striking level of partisan balance takes on greater political importance when combined with
the size of its population. It is one of the largest states that does not markedly tilt toward one party.
While California and New York appear safely Democratic and Texas seems securely Republican, Pennsylvania
trails only Florida in combining large populations with party balance.
The commonwealth's 21 electoral votes make up the fifth-largest Electoral College prize.
Election D/A 60/111
Pennsylvania Exts.
Pennsylvania key to the election
USA Today 2008
(USA Today, July 1, 2008, “Suburbs Key to McCain in Swing State Penn.”, date accessed 15 July 2008,
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/01/20080701swingstate-pa.html)
If John McCain wants to be the first Republican in two decades to win Pennsylvania, he will need help from
swing suburbs such as those in Bucks County. The challenge is that Bucks County, one of four "collar
counties" around Philadelphia, is turning more Democratic. For the first time since 1978, registered
Democrats have an advantage in the county, outnumbering Republicans by about 3,500 voters. The last
Republican presidential candidate to win the county was George H.W. Bush in 1988 - also the last time a GOP
nominee won the state of Pennsylvania. "There is no way a Republican statewide candidate can lose those
suburban counties and win the state," said Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin & Marshall College
in Lancaster. Taking Pennsylvania will be tough, McCain said Monday to voters attending a town-hall-style
meeting in Pipersville, north of Philadelphia. But the Arizona senator said the task is doable if he can win over
voters on his ideas for improving the economy, cutting federal spending, reducing dependence on foreign oil
and prevailing in Iraq."I'm the underdog, have no doubt about it," the presumptive GOP presidential nominee
said during the meeting at a mechanical construction company. "Pennsylvania again may decide who the next
president of the United States is."
Election D/A 61/111
2NC/1NR Link Module-Virginia

Virginia’s public supports the plan
Chesapeake Climate Action Network 2008
(Chesapeake Climate Action Network, February 11, 2008, “Virginia GA Rejects Clean Energy Future”, date
accessed 15 July 2008, http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org)
This afternoon, the Virginia Senate Commerce and Labor Committee voted to kill the Clean Energy Future Act.
This ambitious bill (SB446), introduced by Senator Chap Petersen, would have put Virginia on course to
become a leader in clean energy, efficiency, and conservation - protecting the environmental, generating
jobs, and saving people money. Yeah, I know, what a crazy idea!
The public support for the bill was overwhelming! Over 40 organizations joined the fight. Environmental and
energy businesses worked side by side with faith leaders and hundreds of students from schools across
Virginia. Thousands of citizens wrote letters, made calls, and turned out for lobby day! And we have a lot to
show for it. The bill had 18 co-patrons in the house and Senate, with many joining on their own after hearing
support from their districts. The vision of a clean energy future was contagious, and though it was a long shot,
this issue catalyzed support across the commonwealth. We owe our thanks to Senator Petersen and other
champions for leading the way on this issue.
Virginia is the critical swing state-it will determine the election

Associated Press 2008
(Associated Press, June 5, 2008, “Virginia a Possible Swing State in 2008”, date accessed 15 July 2008,
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/05/virginia-a-possible-swing-state-in-2008/)
Virginia, with 13 votes, is the only one in the group that didn’t see high-level action in 2004.The state hasn’t
voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964 and hasn’t been hard-fought in a White House race
in years. But Virginia moves into the competitive category in 2008, given Democratic gains fueled by high
population growth in the moderate-to-liberal Washington suburbs. George W. Bush comfortably won Virginia
twice, but he lost the northern part to Democrat John Kerry four years ago. Voters there were critical in
helping Democrats retain the governor’s mansion in 2005 and seize a GOP-held Senate seat in 2006 that
gave Democrats control of Congress. This year, former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner is expected to win easily
in his race for the state’s other Senate seat left open by the retiring GOP Sen. John Warner.“We want to
campaign here and we want to win here,” Gov. Tim Kaine, Obama’s senior-most Virginia backer, told The
Associated Press after Obama clinched the nomination. Signaling his intention to compete in Virginia, Obama
on Thursday was holding an event in Bristol, in the far western corner of the state, before headlining a rally at
a 25,000-seat amphitheater in this burgeoning town near Manassas and just three miles from the site of two
major Civil War battles, known as Bull Run to Northerners, Manassas to Southerners. Obama would boost his
chances if he puts a Virginia Democrat on the ticket with him. Among the possibilities: Kaine, Mark Warner,
Sen. Jim Webb. The three were campaigning with him Thursday. Democrats say Obama’s ability to bring new
voters into the process gives him a chance to put states like Virginia, which is nearly 20 percent black, into
play. They downplay any notion that the state — the base of the Confederacy where much of the war to end
slavery was fought — will spurn a black man and note that Virginia was the nation’s first state to elect a black
governor, moderate Democrat Douglas Wilder in 1989.“Obama’s going to maximize the black vote and it will
probably offset the negative white vote,” said Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, whose district is across the
Potomac River from Washington. “The South is still unreconstructed in terms of race, but I think that Virginia
is going to be the vanguard of that political reconstruction.”Republicans, in turn, acknowledge that Obama
could benefit from high black turnout, but they say McCain — a Navy veteran and Vietnam War prisoner —
can hold his own in the state where military veterans make up nearly 15 percent of the population.
Republicans argue Obama is more liberal than recent Democratic winners in Virginia and say he won’t
persuade rural voters in an ideologically conservative state.“He’s not a moderate centrist Democrat,” said
Virginia Del. Chris Saxman, McCain’s campaign co-chairman in Virginia. “Given who he is, John McCain is well
positioned to carry Virginia.”In part, the path to victory for Democrats runs through the shopping centers,
industrial parks and housing developments of northern Virginia, essentially down Lee Highway — the road
that not only is named after Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee but also is the path Union troops retreated upon
from those battles. Interviews with voters at a plaza near where Obama will speak Thursday suggest that
while the Democrat has his work cut out for him, so does McCain, particularly among pivotal voters who don’t
claim either party.
Election D/A 62/111
2NC/1NR Link Module-Missouri

Missouri supports the plan-massive support for alternative energy development-wind
proves
Renewable Energy World Press 2008
(Renewable Energy World Press, May 27, 2008, “Quietly, Wind Farms Spread Footprint in U.S.”, date accessed
15 July 2008, http://renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/quietly-wind-farms-spread-footprint-in-us/)
At 265 feet tall, four gleaming white wind turbines tower over the tiny farm town of Rock Port, Missouri, like a
landing of alien intruders. But despite their imposing presence and the stark contrast with the rolling pastures
and corn fields, the turbines have received a warm welcome here. As Eric Chamberlain, who manages the
wind farm for Wind Capital Group, eats lunch in a local restaurant, local people greet him with a “Hey Windy!”
and many say they are happy to be using clean electricity.“It doesn’t pollute the environment, it provides tax
revenue, creates jobs. I don’t see a downside,” said Chamberlain, who is something of a celebrity in this town
of 1,400 people. While growth in ethanol use as an alternative fuel has had a big impact on rural America,
wind power has also been growing steadily for the past three years, with wind farms like this one springing up
all over the windy expanse of the Great Plains and beyond. While only 1 percent of U.S. electricity comes from
wind, it is attracting so much support these days that many in the industry believe it is poised for a growth
spurt.“These are pretty heady times,” said Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy
Association, which held an investment conference April 30 in Iowa that drew more than 600 attendees.
“People are finally starting to see the data about what is happening to the world’s climate and that is really
having an impact,” said Swisher. Last year, a record 3,100 turbines were installed across 34 U.S. states and
another 2,000 turbines are now under construction from California to Massachussetts. In all, there are about
more than 25,000 U.S. turbines in operation, an investment of $15 billion. On May 12, the U.S. Energy
Department said wind power could provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030, or 304 gigawatts, up from
the current 16.8 gigawatts. Achieving that will require that wind turbine installations rise to almost 7,000 a
year by 2017, the department said. The industry appears poised to comply.
Missouri key the outcome of the election
Singer 2008
(Jonathan Singer, writer and columnist for DirectDemocracy, MyDirectDemocracy, July 10, 2008, “ Missouri
Looks a lot like a Swing State”, date accessed 15 July 2008,
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/10/73718/5635)
Missouri is one of those states -- kind of like Florida -- I have generally tried not to get my hopes up about to
too great a degree. Missouri seems to be the type of state that would provide electoral votes 300 through 311
for Barack Obama if he carried it rather than 259 to 270 (i.e. it would be gravy to carry rather than the one to
put him over the top). But inasmuch as this election is not just about putting together the states to get to 270
but also a broader chess game to force the opposing candidate to go on defense in states he should be able
to feel safe in, thus decreasing the opponent's ability to reach 270, Missouri is an important state for the
Obama campaign. You can see as much in the latest polling from the state.
Election D/A 63/111
2NC/1NR Link Module-Michigan

Michigan supports the plan
Croce 2008
(James A. Croce, CEO NextEnergy, University of Michigan, February 27, 2008, “Just in Renewable Energy has
Six Million Advocates in Michigan”, date accessed 15 July 2008, http://www.wwj.com/MER---February--
2008/1960136)
Sometimes the army we know marching behind us is not as large as we want to believe. Such is the case with
renewable energy in Michigan, as shown by a recent Michigan State University research report titled “Public
Attitudes to Renewable Energy,” which was undertaken in fall 2007 and released last month. Researchers
used telephone interviews and contacted just over 1,000 Michigan residents across the state. The study,
conducted by the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at MSU, found that while nearly 70 percent of
Michiganders know what renewable energy is and support it, about 31 percent of Michigan residents surveyed
don’t even know the meaning of the term “renewable energy.”Twenty-two percent don’t know a thing about
hydroelectric power, solar power, or wind power. Fifteen percent had never heard of biofuels … one of the
new fuels we are asking them to embrace when they drive their cars in the future. Eight percent still don’t
know what recycling is. Okay, that’s the bad news. But it’s bad news that can be corrected. Because when the
researchers were able to explain these issues and technologies to the less-informed or uninformed, they got
an overwhelmingly positive response. Once the term “renewable energy” was explained, 54 percent
considered renewable energy “very important” to themselves and their families. An additional 33 percent
considered renewable energy “somewhat important” and less than 7 percent considered renewable energy
“not very important” or “not important.” (I cannot help but ask myself who would believe that renewable
energy is not important … but that’s just me.)Also on the “plus” side, when asked about the importance of
using energy efficiently, an impressive 78 percent of Michigan residents considered energy efficiency very
important, while 21 percent considered energy efficiency somewhat important. Fortunately, zero percent said
energy efficiency was not important at all.
Michigan key to the election
Kleefeld 2008
(Eric Kleefeld, writer for TPM Election Center, TPM Election Center, July 14, 2008, “Obama Secures Lead in
Crucial Swing State of Michigan”, date accessed 15 July 2008,
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_secures_lead_in_crucial.php)
Barack Obama has secured a decent-sized lead in Michigan, a must-win swing state where he'd previously
been a lot weaker, a new Rasmussen poll suggests. The numbers: Obama 47%, McCain 39%, with a ±4.5%
margin of error. A month ago, Obama had taken a small lead of 45%-42%, just as he'd sewn up the
Democratic nomination. Obama had stayed away from the state until very late in the game, due to the
controversies surrounding their rogue primaries, but he appears to have overcome any lingering bitterness
surrounding the matter that might have been out there.
Election D/A 64/111
Link-Women Like the Plan

Women are more interested in alternative energy than any other demographic.
Calvert mutual funds 2007
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY” www.calvert.com/pdf/altenergysurveysummary.pdf, accessed July 15, 2008//bc
Women, in particular, represent a major audience for climate/alternative energy investments. Women are
significantly more concerned than men (86% versus 66%) about global warming. However, women are
significantly less likely than men to have had a discussion with their financial professional about alternative
energy investing. One sign of how big a market women represent for financial professionals on this question
is seen in that women are more likely than men -– by a margin of 77% to 66% -– to be interested in a mutual
fund “with a clear focus on global alternative energy sources and technologies -- such as solar, wind and
other clean energy sources.”
Women support pro alternative energy policies.

NREL 2k
National Renewable Energy Laboratory “The roll of women in sustainable energy”
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26889.pdf , accessed July 15, 2008//bc
Are rural women really interested in renewable energy technologies? aren.t they culturally unprepared to
work on energy projects? And what do men think about this type of approach? Aren.t women tied down with
household chores and children, so they are difficult to reach? Are women able to organize themselves to
participate in renewable energy projects or to influence policy? Is there really any link between women.s use
of energy in developing countries, and the commercialization of renewable energy technologies? These are
some of the doubts expressed by renewable energy technologists about involving women in renewable
energy. Women’s role in technology has often been "invisible," like women’s work. Yet women’s roles in
developing indigenous technical knowledge is now well-documented. Supporting women’s own innovation
abilities could be a rich source of improving renewable energy technologies, while at the same time
increasing women’s own capacities and confidence. Women are also increasingly playing nontraditional roles
in energy technology development and use, both because more women are de facto heads of households,
and due to the increasing presence of women in energy professions. Experience in involving women in
renewable energy activities has been fairly limited and anecdotal to date. Still, given the opportunity, women
have in a number of cases demonstrated their interest by taking active roles in renewable energy projects
that produce real benefits for them: that improve their quality of life, reduce their workload, or provide them
with the chance to increase their income. Women are already playing diverse roles in some renewable energy
activities as energy consumers and beneficiaries; as microentrepreneurs; as extension workers and
caretakers; and as leaders, networkers and lobbyists.
Election D/A 65/111
Internal Link-Women Key to Election

Women will control the outcome of this election.
Martha Burk, money editor of Ms. Magazine and author, 6/30/08
“Women Have the Voting Power to Control This Election” Ms Magazine,
http://www.alternet.org/election08/89741/, accessed July 14, 2008//bc
There are many pressing national issues we don't normally think about as women's issues, but that is indeed
what they are. The economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care crisis, tax policies -- all affect
women in different ways than they affect men, and all are growing concerns. Women are 32 percent more
likely to be targeted for subprime loans than men. If this sounds like a doomsday scenario, it's not -- though it
is a challenge. Women have the numbers and the voting power to control any election, and we have the
numbers to affect the national agenda after elections are over. The gender gap first identified in the 1980
elections -- the difference between women and men in their levels of support for a given candidate or issue --
has never gone away, and neither has women's majority in the ranks of voters. That's why women-generated
change is possible.
Without Hillary, the female bloc has become critical to winning the election.
New York Times 6/12/08
“Clinton Bloc Becomes the Prize for Election Day”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07women.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin,
accessed July 14, 2008//bc
Now that a would-be first female president is ending her quest for the White House, the race is more about
women than ever before. With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ending her campaign for the Democratic
nomination, the presumptive nominees are moving to claim her followers, especially her signature bloc, the
millions of women who cast primary votes for her. Senator Barack Obama’s campaign is positioning itself as
the rightful heir to these Democratic voters. Senator John McCain’s strategists are plotting to convert them,
particularly older women who are skeptical of Mr. Obama’s thin résumé. Even the Democratic National
Committee chairman is avidly trying to make up for accusations that he allowed sexism in the race to pass
unchallenged. “The wounds of sexism need to be the subject of a national discussion,” the chairman, Howard
Dean, said in an interview. “Many of the most prominent people on TV behaved like middle schoolers” toward
Mrs. Clinton. Many Clinton voters say that she will remain their leader, that she has created a lasting female
constituency, a women’s electoral movement unlike any other. So with Mrs. Clinton ready to endorse Mr.
Obama in a speech on Saturday, the vanquished candidate faces her first postcampaign test. Can she pivot
millions of supporters in the direction of Mr. Obama, the candidate she just stopped denigrating?
Women are the key voting bloc.

Reno Gazette Journal, 7/11/08
“Candidates seek female vote”
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/NEWS19/807110473, accessed July 14, 2008//bc
It's women's week on the presidential campaign trail, judging from the attention that U.S. Sens. Barack
Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-Ariz., are lavishing on female voters and issues especially important to
them. Obama, campaigning in New York on Thursday with former rival U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-
N.Y., criticized McCain's opposition to an equal-pay Senate bill, his support for conservative-leaning Supreme
Court justices and his abortion-rights objections. "I will never back down in defending a woman's right to
choose," Obama said at a "Women for Obama" breakfast fundraiser. McCain planned a similar day today,
when he will meet with female business owners in Minnesota and then hold a women-oriented town-hall
meeting in Wisconsin. Asked about women in an interview this week, McCain said he wants to "make sure
that any barriers to their advancement are eliminated." Obama makes similar remarks, but the two sharply
differ on their approach to several key issues. Obama would require employers to expand family and medical
leave, for example, while McCain said it should "be subject to negotiations between management and labor."
"Senator Obama believes that big government is the answer," McCain said. Women, who some surveys show
tend to make their choices somewhat later than men in presidential races, have been a coveted group for
decades. Previous elections have focused on "soccer moms" and "security moms," for instance.
Single Women are the key voting bloc.

US News And World Report, 4/15/08 “Unmarried Women are the 'Soccer Moms' of the 2008 Presidential
Election” http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/04/15/unmarried-women-are-the-soccer-
Election D/A 66/111
moms-of-the-2008-presidential-election.html accessed July 14, 2008//bc
This year, according to national poll results released this morning, the country could witness the historic
emergence of a new and powerful voting bloc: low-wage, change-seeking, concerned-about the country-but-
still-hopeful unmarried women who lean strongly Democratic. It's a mouthful, but bottom line, what the
Democratic polling firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research says it found in its recent survey of American
women was that unmarried women are not only the fastest growing voting demographic but are poised to
become as important to the Democrats' ability to capture the presidency as white Evangelical Christians have
been to Republicans. "The road to the White House is paved with the votes of unmarried women," says Page
Gardner, president of Women's Voices, Women Vote Action Fund, which sponsored the poll. These women, the
pollsters say, represent the most profound demographic change in the nation, and the number of unmarried
women who are turning out to vote is growing at two times the rate of married women of voting age. Their
survey found that unmarried women now represent 26 percent of the electorate, essentially pulling even with
married women, and outstripping the potential voting influence of blacks and Hispanics combined, Gardner
says. And that's good news for Democrats—66 percent of the unmarried women surveyed said they planned
to mark their ballots for a Democrat on Election Day. That's 13 points more than married women who said
they'll vote for a Democrat.
Election D/A 67/111
Internal Link-Women Key to Election

Women are the key voting bloc.
US News And World Report, 4/15/08 “Unmarried Women are the 'Soccer Moms' of the 2008 Presidential
Election” http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/04/15/unmarried-women-are-the-soccer-
moms-of-the-2008-presidential-election.html accessed July 14, 2008//bc
The poll showed that married and unmarried women were united on a number of issues. Seventy-seven
percent believe the country is on the wrong track; and more than three quarters of both groups said they
want to "make sure every American has healthcare insurance." A majority of all women surveyed also said
that candidates of both parties have failed to address their top concern of economic security. They are feeling
the financial squeeze, Greenberg says, and are "overwhelmingly focused on cost—cost, cost, cost." So who
are these politically engaged unmarried women who should, Stan Greenberg says, be given as much
attention as white Evangelicals? They are more racially diverse than their married counterparts, says pollster
Anna Greenberg, but are still 61 percent white. They skew younger and older. Fifty-five percent live alone, 19
percent have children under the age of 18, and half have household incomes of less than $30,000. (Just 15
percent of married women fall into that category.) Their numbers are growing, Anna Greenberg says, in part
because of the changing role of women in society, the number of women delaying marriage, and the effects
of immigration and the higher birth rates within the Hispanic immigrant community. Page says that her
organization's goal is to sign up 1.3 million new unmarried women voters, and it is working on get-out-the-
vote efforts, including encouraging voting by mail in states where it's allowed. But to woo this demographic,
she says, candidates will have to better address women's concerns about pay equity and family-friendly
workplace policies, education, and savings opportunities, and take on big issues including healthcare
coverage. Unmarried women voters are in a "fairly extraordinary position," Stan Greenberg says. "There is a
fundamental divide" among potential married and unmarried women voters, he says, "and there will be
nothing more important than understanding this gap."
Women are the swing voting bloc of this election.

Chicago Tribune, 6/18/08
“Suburban women seen as key bloc for Obama and McCain; But McCain to fight for Clinton backers”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-women-votersjun18,0,2504617.story accessed July 15,
2008//bc
In the months to come, the two camps will wage their fight in key territories in battleground states like
Pennsylvania. This enclave west of Philadelphia—home to educated, professional women of all political stripes
— is the sort that will help decide the election. Recent polling suggests that women favor Obama over
McCain, but also that the Republican holds a slight edge with white suburban women, a crucial target group in
the campaign. "The Republicans, in order to do unusually well with women voters, will have to target them"
in very small blocs, said Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University.
"Especially because of the discussions in the primaries about suburban voters being a challenge for Sen.
Obama to reach and connect with, suburban voters will be a target." So for all the talk during the primary
season about the white working class and the turnout of minority voters, this cohort of women voters, as in
previous elections, could provide the real tipping point in the campaign.
Women will be the deciding vote in the 08 election

The Observer, a highly respected news source, 6/22/08
“Obama turns on charm for women who loved Hillary Clinton”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/22/barackobama.hillaryclinton accessed July 15, 2008//bc
So far the picture is mixed. Obama has received a bump in the polls since emerging as the victor in the
Democratic contest. He is also comfortably ahead of Republican rival John McCain when it comes to women
voters overall, beating him by 13 points in two recent polls. But the picture is not so simple. Many experts
believe the key demographic is likely to be suburban white women, who have been dubbed 'soccer moms' or
'security moms' by pollsters. They are often the key swing voting bloc that can mean the difference between
winning and losing the presidency. They were a Clinton demographic stronghold, and among them McCain
now leads Obama by 44 per cent to 38. At the same time, polls show one in five Clinton supporters now
intends to vote for McCain. That indicates there is much work to do for Obama and his staffers.
Election D/A 68/111
Internal Link-Latinos Key to Election

Latino vote key to election.
Pew Research Center 08
“Hispanics and the 2008 Election: A Swing Vote?” http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=83,
accessed July 15, 2008
Hispanics are the nation's largest and fastest growing minority group; at 46 million strong, they make up
about 15% of the U.S. population. Their electoral clout continues to be undercut, however, by the fact that
many are ineligible to vote, either because they are not citizens or not yet 18 years old. In 2008, Latinos will
comprise about 9% of the eligible electorate nationwide. If past turnout trends persist, they will make up only
about 6.5% of those who actually turn out to vote next November.
But despite these modest numbers, Hispanics loom as a potential "swing vote" in next year's presidential
race. That's because they are strategically located on the 2008 Electoral College map. Hispanics constitute a
sizable share of the electorate in four of the six states that President Bush carried by margins of five
percentage points or fewer in 2004 –New Mexico (where Hispanics make up 37% of state's eligible
electorate); Florida (14%); Nevada (12%) and Colorado (12%). All four are expected to be closely contested
once again in 2008.
The analysis of Hispanic partisan affiliation and political attitudes is based on the new 2007 National Survey
of Latinos. The survey was conducted by telephone from Oct 3 through Nov 9, 2007 among a randomly
selected, nationally representative sample of 2,003 Hispanics, of whom 843 are registered voters. The state
electoral analysis uses recent Census surveys.
Latino vote key

Huffington Post, 2006
“The Battle for the Latino Vote” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/the-battle-for-the-
latino_b_35164.html accessed July 15, 2008//bc
And what about the Hispanic vote? Will Democrats regain their traditional footing among the nation's largest
minority (as they did in 2006) or will Republicans rebound from their 2006 beating among Hispanics (only
30%, according to exit polls) and get back to the significant inroads they had made among this group which
includes so many social conservatives? This is no small question. Just to put things in context , consider these
figures: Hispanics were 5% of 95 million voters in 1996, 6% of 105 million voters in 2000, and 8.5% of 122
million voters in 2004. With a highly competitive election in 2008 and a heavy voter registration drive, we
could be looking at an electorate that includes a Hispanic component amounting to 10% of 130 million voters
in 2008.
Latino vote key.

CNN, news source, 2007
“Inside the Hispanic vote: Growing in numbers, growing in diversity”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/28/hispanic.vote/index.html, accessed July 15, 2008//bc
The Hispanic community is the fastest-growing minority group in the United States, according to the U.S.
census. But its percentage of the electorate is lower than its numbers as a whole because of lower citizenship
rates, less voter participation and a youthful demographic. Of the nation's more than 44 million people of
Hispanic origin, about a third are too young to vote. But all that's changing. Before the midterm elections in
2006, the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington-based think-tank, estimated more than 17 million Hispanics
would be eligible to vote in that election. The number represented a 7 percent increase from 2004. The
Hispanic share of the U.S. electorate increased from 8.2 percent to 8.6 percent during the same period, Pew
estimated. That percentage may grow even more by 2008 as a result of citizenship drives, get-out-the-vote
campaigns and the natural growth of the community. Univision, the Spanish-language broadcast giant, has
thrown its considerable weight behind a citizenship drive this year. "We feel that empowering our audience is
good for Hispanics and the country," Univision President Ray Rodriguez told the Wall Street Journal in May
2007, adding that it was "a totally nonpartisan effort." Organizations such as the National Association of
Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, or NALEO, are also mobilizing the vote. "We have spearheaded a
massive naturalization campaign and close to, I think, a million applications will have been submitted this
fiscal year," said NALEO's executive director, Arturo Vargas. The change in the electorate could play a
significant role in possible swing states like Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida during the
2008 election. There's a reason the Democratic Party decided to hold its presidential convention in Denver,
experts said. "I don't think it's really registered with people just how influential the Latino vote can be in some
Election D/A 69/111
of these state primaries," Vargas said.
Latino vote key.

BBC, 2007
“Hispanics set to be key 2008 voters” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7051724.stm, accessed July 15,
2008//bc
But even if they don't seem interested in dabbling in Spanish, the candidates are certainly interested in
capturing the vote of US citizens of Hispanic origin. Traditionally, the Latino community has voted for the
Democrats, although history has shown its allegiance can be swayed depending on the individual candidate.
President George W Bush got 44% of the Latino vote in the 2004 election, for example. But it remains unclear
if another Republican presidential candidate would get a similar level of support.
Election D/A 70/111
Internal Link-Latinos Key to Election

Latino vote key.
New York Sun, 7/7/08
“Latino Vote Is in Play in Presidential Contest” http://www.nysun.com/national/latino-vote-is-in-play-in-
presidential-contest/81332/, accessed July 15, 2008//bc
Senator Obama is battling hard against Senator McCain for Latino voters, with both campaigns seeing
Hispanics as a demographic group that could swing battleground states in the presidential election. Mr.
Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, the Republican, will deliver
speeches tomorrow at the League of United Latin American Citizens' conference in Washington. Both men will
go to San Diego to address a meeting of the National Council of La Raza early next week. The two candidates
also spoke last week before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. "In Florida, a
Democratic candidate for president has never won the Hispanic vote," Mr. Bendixen said. "Barack Obama
needs to hit the middle 50s to be able to carry Florida."
Mr. Bendixen said Mr. Obama will need even larger margins in New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, if
Democrats are to win the electoral votes of those states. "In the southwest states, John Kerry got about 55%
of Hispanic voters," the pollster said. "Obama needs to push that into the middle 60s in order to swing
enough votes to make up the difference by which Democrats lost those three states in 2004."
Election D/A 71/111
Internal Link-Jewish Vote Key to Election

The Jewish lobby controls the presidential election outcome.
Mearsheimer and Walt (John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt) 2006 “The Israel Lobby”
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html, accessed July 15, 2008//bc
Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant
leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they
make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that
Democratic presidential candidates ‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the
money’. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like
California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to
antagonise them. Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that critics of Israel do not
get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but
knew that Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the appointment. In this way
any aspiring policymaker is encouraged to become an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public critics of
Israeli policy have become an endangered species in the foreign policy establishment.
The Israel Lobby vote is most influential of all voting blocs.

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of
which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress
and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the
American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A
National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with
AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’. The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like
Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former
majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of
biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to
God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal
editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and
the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters. The US form of government offers activists
many ways of influencing the policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and members
of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They
enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk of the
population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue, even if their
numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.
The Israel lobby has unprecedented political clout.

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle
Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the
related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and
jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in
American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its
allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two
countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation
can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides. Instead, the
thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of
the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has
managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing
Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
Election D/A 72/111
Internal Link-Jewish Vote Key to Election

The Israel Lobby has control of Washington.
The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose
coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.
This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that
individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because
Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American
Jews said they were either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel. Jewish Americans also differ
on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by
hardliners who generally support the Likud Party’s expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo
peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians,
and a few groups – such as Jewish Voice for Peace – strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences,
moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel. Not surprisingly, American Jewish
leaders often consult Israeli officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist
from a major Jewish organisation wrote, ‘it is routine for us to say: “This is our policy on a certain issue, but
we must check what the Israelis think.” We as a community do it all the time.’ There is a strong prejudice
against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr,
the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of ‘perfidy’ when he wrote a letter to President Bush
in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial ‘security fence’. His critics
said that ‘it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the
president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.’
The Israel Lobby has taken control of the young vote.

Where the Lobby has had the most difficulty is in stifling debate on university campuses. In the 1990s, when
the Oslo peace process was underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger with Oslo’s
collapse and Sharon’s access to power, becoming quite vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in
spring 2002 and employed massive force to subdue the second intifada.
The Lobby moved immediately to ‘take back the campuses’. New groups sprang up, like the Caravan for
Democracy, which brought Israeli speakers to US colleges. Established groups like the Jewish Council for
Public Affairs and Hillel joined in, and a new group, the Israel on Campus Coalition, was formed to co-ordinate
the many bodies that now sought to put Israel’s case. Finally, AIPAC more than tripled its spending on
programmes to monitor university activities and to train young advocates, in order to ‘vastly expand the
number of students involved on campus . . . in the national pro-Israel effort’.
Jewish Vote Key.

New York Times 2007
“A Prosecutorial Brief Against Israel and Its Supporters”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/books/06grim.html, accessed July 15, 2008//bc
Slowly, deliberately and dispassionately Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt lay out the case for a ruthlessly
realistic Middle East policy that would make Israel nothing more than one of many countries in the region. On
those occasions when Israel’s interests coincide with America’s, it should count on American support, but
otherwise not. What Americans fail to understand, the authors argue, is that most of the time the two
countries’ interests are opposed. The reason they do not realize this, Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt insist, can
be explained quite simply: The Israel lobby makes sure of it. Working closely with members of Congress,
public-policy organizations and journals of opinion, energetic, well-financed groups like the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee and the American Jewish Committee, along with dozens of political-action
committees, perpetuate the myth, as the authors see it, of Israel as an isolated, beleaguered state
surrounded by enemies and in need of America’s unstinting financial and military support.
This lobby is particularly adept at stifling debate before it begins, the authors argue. “Whether the issue is
abortion, arms control, affirmative action, gay rights, the environment, trade policy, health care, immigration
or welfare, there is almost always a lively debate on Capitol Hill,” they write. “But where Israel is concerned,
Election D/A 73/111
potential critics fall silent and there is hardly any debate at all.”
Jewish Vote Key.

New York Times 2007
“A Prosecutorial Brief Against Israel and Its Supporters”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/books/06grim.html, accessed July 15, 2008//bc
Working tirelessly in the background is the Israel lobby, playing Iago to America’s Othello, leading president
after president down ever more dangerous paths. Without intense pressure from the Israel lobby, the authors
argue, America would not have undertaken the war in Iraq. Most American readers will bristle at the authors’
characterization of Israel. This is to be expected, Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt argue, because of the
completely false image of Israel and its history that has been manufactured by the Israel lobby. As a result,
Americans completely misinterpret the Palestinian issue and fail to support a productive policy that would tilt
away from Israel and toward the Palestinians.
Election D/A 74/111
Link-Evangelicals Like the Plan

Evangelicals are deeply concerned about environmental issues and alternative energy
policy.
Sightline Institute, 2006
“Climate Checklist: Recent opinion research findings and messaging tips”
http://www.sightline.org/research/sust_toolkit/communications-strategy/flashcard2-climate-research-
compendium/?searchterm=flashcards accessed July 15, 2008//bc
Overall, three out of four evangelicals tend to support environmental issues such as reducing global warming
and protecting wilderness areas from development, including one out of four who tend to support these
issues strongly; The main reasons given by those who support these issues strongly was believe that part of
God's command for Christians is to take care of the earth, desire to leave the earth as a place their own
children and grandchildren can enjoy, the concern that not enough people take these issues seriously, and
the perception that government and business tend to focus too much on money and need to be reminded of
their environmental responsibility; A majority of evangelicals believe that a person's Christian faith should
generally encourage them to support environmental issues; While only 19 percent of evangelicals feel they
know a lot about climate change, almost two-thirds are either completely or mostly convinced global warming
is taking place; Seven out of ten believe global climate change will pose a serious threat to future
generations; Sixty-three percent believe the problem is being caused today and we must start addressing it
immediately; Even among evangelicals who are political conservatives, over four out of ten believe global
warming must be reduced even if there's a high economic cost.
Evangelicals care about alternative energy and global warming.

TerraPass, environmental studies non-profit, 2007
“Evangelicals get religion on climate change,” http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/evangelicals-ge, July 15,
2008//bc
Last year The National Association of Evangelicals, a group that represents 30 million religious Americans,
declined to take a position on global warming, citing an inability to reach a consensus. This year the NAE
changed course, joining with scientific leaders to announce concerns over “human-caused threats to
Creation” that includes climate change, species extinction, and habitat loss. For outsiders accustomed to
viewing the evangelical community as a monolith, the reversal might come as a surprise. But the evangelical
community has never been the same thing as the Religious Right, and the rift exposes some important fault
lines between the old guard of the evangelical community, personified by James Dobson, and the new guard,
made up of younger leaders of rising prominence, such as Rick Warren and Rich Cizik.
Election D/A 75/111
Internal Link-Evangelicals Key to Election

Evangelicals are undecided-they’ll determine the outcome of the election
Lawton, Kim, June 13, 2008.
([http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1141/perspectives.html] “2008 Campaign: Faith-Based
Outreach Plans” Managing Editor, RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY)
There are a large number of evangelicals, about 18 percent, still undecided, and we're hearing from some of
the leaders of the movement that they're just not that enthused about the McCain campaign and about John
McCain. And so I think the Republicans have a big challenge in trying to make sure that that base is energized
because, indeed, they represented 40 percent of George Bush's total vote in the last election, so they need
those evangelical votes.
Evangelicals remain undecided.

ABERNETHY, BOB, June 13, 2008.
([http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1141/perspectives.html]” 2008 Campaign: Faith-Based
Outreach Plans” News anchor)
According to a new political survey from the Henry Institute at Calvin College in Michigan, significant numbers
of religious voters remain undecided. Despite some dissatisfaction with McCain, a majority of evangelicals did
say they'll probably end up voting for him. And for the first time in polling history, the survey found that more
mainline Protestants now identify themselves as Democrats than as Republicans.
Election D/A 76/111
Link-Youth Like the Plan

Youth like alternative energy—protests and activism prove.
Nicole McClelland, founder of Wiretap magazine and Extrovert Magazine, 2008
“Top 10 Youth Activism Victories in 2007” http://www.wiretapmag.org/activism/43351/, accessed July 15,
2008//bc
From shutting down toxic waste facilities to making colleges more affordable, young people all over America
put their energies into remarkable actions for their communities, and for the world. Anyone who laments that
American young people are apathetic, uninvolved or not sufficiently outraged clearly isn't up on the news.
Luckily, though, we are. The past 12 months have been filled with many great youth organizing successes;
some were covered extensively by mainstream media, and some went -- sadly -- unnoticed. From these
extraordinary stories, Wiretap has culled a list of our favorite 10 youth victories of the year. They're not just
the events you've heard about, like the hunger strikes at Harvard and Stanford, because the less-attended
actions of low-income, low-profile youth groups can be equally triumphant. And they're not just acts of
campus activism, either -- because half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 are not enrolled in
college. And though there are countless other examples of protest, cooperation, and informed dissent that
went on and are still continuing around the country, here are 10 especially inspirational stories that went
down this year. Congratulations to these and all other young people who took responsibility and took charge
in 2007 to work hard both with their peers and with other groups, who put their energies into action for their
communities, and for the world. It's time to go way beyond just switching light bulbs to fight global warming,
and this year young people from all over the country proved their commitment to the planet. In February,
nearly 600 student groups staged events during the Campus Climate Challenge Week of Action. But activists
were just getting started, and college campuses were barely the starting point. On April 14, Step It Up -- the
brainchild of a group of young people and environmentalist and author Bill McKibben -- brought people
together at 1,400 locations nationwide demanding that Congress cut carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. It
was such a success that organizers kicked off Step It Up 2 just seven months later and got 14,000 messages
sent to Congress and presidential candidates, 80 of whom sent statements or representatives or showed up
at events. That same month, at Power Shift 2007, 5,500 young activists from across the country got together
at the University of Maryland College Park to make Congress change its colors. Over four days in November,
participants staged a rally on the Capitol and held more than 300 lobbying meetings to pressure
congresspeople to provide more green jobs and greener policies for a greener, brighter, more sustainable
future.
Youth care about alternative energy policy.

Lindsey Franklin, leader in youth environmental activism, July 15, 2008
“Re-imagine What’s Possible… and Re-invent the Future” http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/07/15/re-
imagine-whats-possible-and-re-invent-the-future/#more-5017, accessed July 15, 2008//bc
Young people are crucial in the global transition from dirty to clean energy. We also must play a pivotal role in
re-envisioning and re-inventing our society to fully harness the potential within a clean energy future. If
there is one idea that serves as our core identity and our rallying cry it is this: young people today have the
power to change the world. Many of us emerge into the adult world a bit groggy with confusion and perhaps a
lack of direction, but with the fierce motivation to “make a difference.” And the world, it seems, desperately
needs us. We face an incredibly uncertain future. As a forthcoming UN report concludes, seeming almost
entirely redundant, the world has never seen calamities at such a global scale. It is a relatively new
conception of the world as a connected global community that enables us to feel the sadness and anger
inherent in these global calamities. Many of us who live in post-scarcity comfort, with most of our own
fundamental needs met, can’t bear the injustice of a world where billions of people do not. As the UN report
points out, “ours is the first generation with the means for many to know the world as a whole, identify global
improvement systems, and seek to improve [them].”
Election D/A 77/111
Internal Link-Youth Key to Election

Young people will control the outcome of the election.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 08
“OPPORTUNITY 08: THE YOUTH VOTE” http://www.brookings.edu/events/2007/1205_youth_vote.aspx,
And I don’t think we’re necessarily going out on a limb to say that young people are going to be a major part
of the next election, because young people were a major part of the last two elections, 2004, 2006. And I’ll
show you a couple of examples of why we think that. 2004, this graph here is the youth voter turnout
between -- of 18 to 21 year olds since they first got the right to vote in 1972. This survey uses the U.S.
Census population surveys. And we can see that between 2000 and 2004, there was a 31 percent increase in
overall turnout between all 18 to 21 year olds. In 2000, about 3 in 10 turned out to vote. And in 2004, you can
see that 42 percent turned out to vote and that increase of about 31 percent. The older you got, if you look at
22 to 24 year olds, that increase was actually even higher than that. So, the point is in 2004, we saw the
highest youth turnout in 32 years since young people first got the right to vote.
The Youth Vote is key for the first time in the 2008 election.
Mike Connery, Youth Vote Historian, May 2008
“Ignore the Youth Vote at Your Own Peril” http://www.alternet.org/election08/84034/?page=4, accessed July
15, 2008//bc
Michael Connery has written a necessary and accessible primer on the status of the progressive youth vote in
the U.S. Youth to Power is a slim volume that gives important historical context to the youth vote and an in-
depth look at the current activity of young progressives aligning with the Democratic Party, turning on its
head the long-held perception of youth in America as apathetic and disconnected from electoral politics.
Connery essentially issues a wake-up call to progressive leaders: ignore the youth vote now and in any
election in the future at your own peril. With good reason -- the Millennial generation, defined in the political
realm as those born between 1978 and 1996, includes 50 million eligible voters for this year's presidential
election. And more and more of them are aligning with the Democratic Party on issues like health care, the
war in Iraq, foreign policy and environmental standards. Connery, a respected progressive blogger, maintains
the blog Future Majority and is a contributor to MyDD, DailyKos and the Huffington Post's "Off the Bus"
project. As a veteran of the 2004 presidential cycle -- Connery co-founded a get-out-the-vote organization
called Music For America -- he is well positioned to share observations and suggestions to those in power and
simultaneously share experience and inspiration with youth voters and young leaders during this historic
presidential election cycle.
The Youth Vote is key.

Mike Connery, Youth Vote Historian, May 2008
“Ignore the Youth Vote at Your Own Peril” http://www.alternet.org/election08/84034/?page=4, accessed July
15, 2008//bc
The youth vote was also untested in 2004, and the apathetic narrative was dominant. As a result, there
wasn't a strong incentive for the campaigns to put major resources into a youth operation. Too many
candidates had tried to turn out young voters and failed, and it was regarded as reckless and wasteful for a
candidate to put their eggs in the youth basket. So there was less ability and incentive -- on the part of
campaigns and supporters -- to try new things or work within the confines of the campaign. Instead, people
worked outside of the campaign structure, mostly in 501c3 and 527 groups like The League or Music for
America. This time around, the major presidential candidates, at least on the Democratic side, recognize the
value of the youth vote. They saw that youth were the only demographic to break for Kerry in 2004, and that
young voters helped candidates like Jon Tester and Jim Webb win elections in 2006. Obama, Edwards and
Clinton all hired full-time youth directors early in the cycle. This was unprecedented. In the case of Obama,
not only did he specifically target and put real resources behind courting young voters, he also ran a very
decentralized and open campaign that allowed his supporters to participate to a degree they couldn't in
previous elections. Students for Barack Obama and Generation Obama, his two youth initiatives, both started
outside the campaign in the grassroots. So the opportunity and resources to work within the campaigns are
there this cycle whereas they haven't been in previous elections.
Young people are turning out to vote.

Election D/A 78/111
“OPPORTUNITY 08: THE YOUTH VOTE” http://www.brookings.edu/events/2007/1205_youth_vote.aspx,
So, there are certain issues having to do with the future of the planet and also the immediacy of the Iraq War,
which the youth of this country are fighting more than my generation, that make the youth vote -- the
younger demographic have a special interest in some of the issues that we are discussing in this presidential
race. And the other point, just to put it very quickly and bluntly, is that the younger generation is voting. And
watch out, politicians, because you’ve got to spend even more time paying attention to this group of voters
than you have before. And that’s a striking aspect of the survey that I was, frankly, surprised to read and
learn something, among many other things that I learned from reading through this, that the percent of the
younger demographic voting in today’s elections has really increased.
Election D/A 79/111
Internal Link-Youth Key to Election

Young people are going to vote
“OPPORTUNITY 08: THE YOUTH VOTE” http://www.brookings.edu/events/2007/1205_youth_vote.aspx, July 15,
2008//bc
Voters today, I believe, are much less interested in the partisanship of politics and much more interested in
issues and where the candidates stand on them. That’s why young people everywhere, I think, should be
tracking projects like Opportunity '08, which are raising the profile of critical issues facing our country. As the
IOP survey data will show, young people today are engaged heavily in the political process, and they are
following the 2008 election with surprising and gratifying interest, a message, that as Mike said, is important
to all of our presidential candidates. America’s youth today are talking about and caring about politics, and as
Mike said, for a very good reason. They have probably much more at stake in this presidential election, more
than anybody else because the decisions of the 44th president of the United States will impact them far
greater than it will impact my generation or Mike’s generation. The IOP survey team will tell you that young
people understand this, whether it’s the state of our nation’s healthcare system or the war in Iraq or Iran or
other foreign policy issues. Young people today are very plugged in.
Trends show that youth voter turn-out will be extremely high this election cycle.
Oshyn 2008
(Kristen Oshyn, writer at the Century Foundation, Century Foundation, September 7, 2007, “Youth Vote 2008”,
date accessed 15 July 2008, Issue Brief)
Election 2008 has the potential to be momentous for the youth vote. Young voters have turned out in
consistently higher numbers for the past two election cycles, and speculation says that this trend will
continue with a possible push even higher. Studies point out that voting is habit forming, with the odds
increasing significantly that, once a person has voted, he or she will vote again, indicating long-term impacts
on parties and politics.1 Although young adults are still behind older counterparts when it comes to voter
turnout, recent reports describe a young generation that is increasingly engaged in the electoral process and
one that is planning on sticking around. Campaigns finally are standing up to help bring young voters into the
fold. Eyeing the tight primary races and the anticipated general election, strategists are turning to the
youngest generation to secure as many new votes as possible. For the 2008 presidential cycle, the public is
experiencing an almost entirely new level of political campaigning as candidates delve into technology,
frequently with the purpose of finding and attracting young adults.
Election D/A 80/111
Internal Link-Libertarians Key to Election

Liberatarians are the key vote in the 2008 election
Devenson 2008 (Max Deveson, writer for BBC News, America BBC, July 15, 2008, “Bob Barr and the Nader
Effect”, date accessed 15 July 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7496678.stm)
With the mood of the country now turning against the war - and the Republican Party brand - it's possible Mr
Barr could pick up a number of anti-war voters who are disaffected with the Republican Party, but who still
baulk at the idea of voting for a Democrat. As a consequence, Mr Barr could eat into John McCain's support
base, especially in Georgia (Mr Barr's home state) and in north-western states with a strong libertarian streak,
such as Montana and Alaska. In fact, if Mr Barr manages to pick up enough alienated Republicans, and if Mr
Obama succeeds in rallying African-Americans, then Georgia could even flip into the Democratic column, just
as Mr Nader's ability to woo Floridian Democrats allowed George Bush to win the Sunshine State in 2000. So
Mr Barr could have an impact in certain states - but it's debatable how decisive his role would be. For Mr
Obama to be doing well enough to be in a position to take Georgia with Mr Barr's help, the electoral maths
suggests that he would already be beating John McCain by a wide margin - the election would already be his.
The same applies to Montana or Alaska, according to Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer. "If Obama is
within a few points of winning either state come November, then he'll almost certainly be in position to score
a sweeping electoral college route, no matter what effect Barr has," he writes. Nonetheless, Mr Barr and Mr
Nader will certainly give the mainstream candidates a few headaches and force them to spend money in
places where they would rather not have to.
Libertarians looking to make a splash in Georgia this election cycle.

Tinsley 2008
(Anna M. Tinsley, writer for Star-Telegram, Star-Telegram, July 14, 2008, “Barr, Nader could siphon votes from
Obama, McCain”, date accessed 15 July 2008, http://www.star-telegram.com/464/story/758077.html)
A new Zogby interactive poll shows Obama holding a nationwide lead in popular vote with 44 percent to
McCain’s 38 percent, Barr’s 6 percent and Nader’s 1 percent. The rest are undecided. In Texas, McCain leads
with 42 percent to Obama’s 39 percent, Barr’s 6 percent and Nader’s 2 percent."It is reasonable to assume
that McCain’s lead would be bigger if Barr were not in the race, but Texas is not the only place where Barr
represents a real threat to McCain," said Fritz Wenzel, communications director for Zogby. "He also wins
significant percentages in other key states."Nader won’t be on the Texas ballot because he didn’t turn in
supporting signatures by a May deadline, but he drew 2 percent in the poll anyway. "It just reflects support for
him; that’s all," Wenzel said. Barr, a former Georgia congressman, is known as one of the leaders who sought
impeachment of President Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Barr, a former federal prosecutor who
was elected to Congress in 1994, said he is encouraged by recent poll numbers."The latest poll demonstrates
that the one real alternative is the Bob Barr campaign and the Libertarian Party," he said. Barr’s greatest
impact this year might be in Georgia, where he is well-known and could draw a fair number of votes,
especially as Obama works to ramp up support among the state’s sizable population of black voters,
Buchanan said. "Ordinarily, a Democrat can’t expect to do much good" in Georgia, Buchanan said. "But with
Barr drawing off white Republicans, it could make a difference."
Libertarians are pushing to be on televised debates this election cycle.

Daniels 2008
(Doug Daniels, writer for Campaigns&Elections, Campaign&Elections, July 13, 2008, “Barr Set to Make Debate
Push”, date accessed 15 July 2008, http://www.campaignsandelections.com/stories/?StoryID=1FB19EC4-
1422-17E0-F8B8758069D64A10)
This year, with former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr polling at 6 percent nationally, according to a recent Zogby
survey, the Libertarian nominee is set to make his own push for inclusion in this year's three official debates,
and his campaign is already challenging the rules for qualifying."The criteria are absolutely, unequivocally
unfair, and the debate commission is a complete fraud," says Russell Verney, former campaign manager for
Ross Perot who's now managing Barr's White House bid… "We're a population that historically likes debate,
that likes information, that likes to be involved, that does not appreciate being force-fed only certain
information by certain people at certain times," Bob Barr says. "But that's what the debates have largely
become in recent years-simply a forum for the two major parties to preen before the voters and support the
status quo and to take the nuanced differences between the parties and pretend that they are actually
substantive differences." Barr just launched his campaign in mid May, but according to a recent Zogby poll
Election D/A 81/111
he has significant support in some states, including 10 percent in New Hampshire and 8 percent in
Georgia. He is also likely to be on the ballot in 49 states, and seems to have tapped into some of the
enthusiasm behind the Ron Paul movement, which had unprecedented success in bringing the Libertarian
agenda into the mainstream. And while Russell Verney argues the debate commission's criteria are biased, he
says he remains optimistic Barr can reach the 15 percent threshold."We're already at 6 percent nationally, ten
in New Hampshire, nine in Oklahoma, Nevada, and elsewhere, so I feel confident we'll get over the 15
percent," he says. "But then this fraudulent commission will ask out-of-work political pundits and academics if
we have a chance, and use that information, too."
Election D/A 82/111
Obama Good-Oil Prices

Electing Obama would instantly shave $40 off the price of oil
Tony Crescenzi, Chief Bond Market Strategist at Miller Tabak and Co., 7/8 (2008, CNBC, "Obama Win Could
Cut $40 Off Oil", http://www.cnbc.com/id/25590462)
If Barrack Obama wins the presidency, the price of oil could fall by $40 per barrel. The financial markets will
discount the possibility before hand, at least partially. There are three ways in which this could happen: 1) As
was the case during the Clinton administration, Obama might be more inclined to intervene in the foreign
exchange market to support the value of the dollar. The U.S. has not intervened in the FX market since
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin did so in September 2000 when the Treasury sought to support the Euro,
then costing about 80 cents per dollar (yes, the cost has almost doubled since then). Intervention or the
threat of intervention could shave $20 off the price, based on the divergence in price between oil quoted in
dollars versus that of other currencies. 2) Obama will speak in a more concilatory tone toward nations in the
Middle East. If he does, some of the risk premium would likely be extracted from the oil price. 3) Energy
conservation and investment in energy infrastructure are likely to increase if Obama wins, as it will be part of
his mandate. Announcements of a nationwide effort to both decrease consumption and increase the supply of
energy would have an announcement effect on the energy markets, lowering energy prices and burning
speculators. Points 2 and 3 are probably the most bankable ideas, but the mere threat of point 1 is still
enough to impact the markets.
Growing oil prices will collapse the global economy

Shigeru Sato and Yuji Okada, Bloomberg Staff Writers, 6/25 (National Post, "Oil at US$200 would trigger
global recession, Deutsche Bank warns", http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=612878)
The global economy would collapse if oil hit US$200 a barrel, said the top energy analyst at Germany's
largest bank. "Two-hundred dollar oil would break the back of the global economy," Deutsche Bank AG's chief
energy economist Adam Sieminski said in an interview on Wednesday in Tokyo. "Next step after US$200
would be global recession and bad news for everybody." Mr. Sieminski's comments come after Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. forecast oil may rise to between US$150 and US$200 within two years as supply growth, especially
from producers outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, fails to keep pace with demand.
Deutsche Bank is due to release its oil-price forecast on June 27. Oil doubled in the past year, touching a
record US$139.89 a barrel on June 16. Crude oil for August delivery was at US$136.84 a barrel, down 16
cents, at 7:08 p.m. Tokyo time in after-hours trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Election D/A 83/111
Obama Good-Space Weapons

Obama will cut space weaponization
Charles Smith, 6/10 (2008, Newsmax, "Obama's Defense Plan Leaves Us Vulnerable",
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama/2008/06/10/103236.html)
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.
Deploying space weapons guarantees accidental launch and nuclear extinction

Mitchell, et al, 2001 (Gordon R., July, pg. http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html)
A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this
rationale glosses over the tendency that '… the presence of space weapons…will result in the increased
likelihood of their use'.33 This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank
Barnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies
go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stems from
the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to
the UN Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the
same capability to target something on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in
space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death
Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space
warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-
second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory,
this automation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the
decision to commit violence out of human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war,
military planners could sow insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed
'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which have many
sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this
interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As
Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics,
multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36 Deployment of space weapons with pre-
delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable,
given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects
of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from space
strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than would be done
by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool
of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever
conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for
destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with
maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by
a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.
Election D/A 84/111
Obama Good-Space Weapons Exts.

Obama will not weaponize space
Missile Threat 2/29 (2008, Missile Threat Online, "Obama Pledges Cuts in MIssile Defense, Space, and
Nuclear Weapons Programs", http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp)
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues
such as nuclear weapons and missile defense. The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end
misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington. First,
I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the
beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, 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.
Election D/A 85/111
Obama Good-NMD
Obama will cut national missile defense, while McCain develops it
Another important issue is the tension with Russia over U.S. implementation of missile defenses, particularly
in Eastern Europe. The U.S. missile-defense program has been viewed as a threat by Russia since the U.S.
unilaterally abrogated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. The Russians have viewed U.S. missile
defenses as threatening their deterrent capability despite U.S. assurances to the contrary, and if this issue is
not resolved, it could be a deal breaker for further progress on nuclear disarmament. Our foundation believes
an important step in clearing the path with Russia for major reductions in nuclear weapons would be for the
U.S. to re verse course on dep loyment of missile defenses and open negotiations with the Russians to
reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. That is not the path of the current administration or its party's
standard-bearer in November. McCain voted yes on deploying National Missile Defense in 1999, and more
recently stated, "The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in
Czechoslovakia (sic) and Poland, and I don't care what his [Putin's] objections are to it."Obama, on the other
hand, has said, "I will cut investments in unproven missile-defense systems." Another potential stumbling
block is space weaponization. The Russians and the Chinese have both promoted a draft treaty to reserve
outer space for peaceful purposes, including a ban on space weaponization. The U.S. has not been willing to
even discuss such a ban, and was the only country in the United Nations to vote against such a ban in the
2007 General Assembly. Obama has said flatly, "I will not weaponize space." McCain has stated, "Weapons in
space are a bad idea. A treaty that increases space security is a good idea, but it is likely to take a long time
to negotiate. There is a simpler and quicker way to go: a code of conduct for responsible space-faring nations.
One key element of that code must include a prohibition against harmful interference against satellites."
Impact is nuclear war with Russia

Graham (fmr. Pres. special representative of the for arms control, participated in every US arms control
negotiation from 1970-97) 1995 (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 space-based 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. Obama will cut missile defense developments
Election D/A 86/111
Election D/A 87/111
Obama Good-NMD Exts.

Obama will cut national missile defense spending and halt deployment
Missile Threat 2/29 (2008, Missile Threat Online, "Obama Pledges Cuts in MIssile Defense, Space, and
Nuclear Weapons Programs", http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp)
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues
such as nuclear weapons and missile defense. The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end
misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington. First,
I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the
beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, 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. And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the
Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world
without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban
on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert,
and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
Election D/A 88/111
Obama Good-CTBT
Obama is the only candidate who will ratify the CTBT
Ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In 1999, the Senate with a Republican majority
voted along party lines against ratification of the treaty, and the Bush administration has not resubmitted it
for further Senate consideration. Obama has stated, "I will make it my priority to build bipartisan consensus
behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty." McCain was among the senators voting against
ratification of the treaty in 1999. He has indicated that he would reconsider his earlier decision, stating that
he would take another look "to see what can be done to overcome the shortcomings that prevented it from
entering into force."
Testing modern nuclear weapons will result in the explosion of the Earth
Dr. Tom Chalko, MSC, PhD, head of Australia's physics, 2003 (March 3, Scientific Engineering Research, "Can
a Neutron Bomb accelerate Global Volcanic Activity?", http://sci-e-research.com/neutron_bomb.html)
Consequences of using modern nuclear weapons can be far more serious than previously imagined. These
consequences relate to the fact that most of the heat generated in the planetary interior is a result of nuclear
decay. Over the last few decades, all superpowers have been developing so-called "neutron bombs". These
bombs are designed to emit intensive neutron radiation while creating relatively little local mechanical
damage. Military are very keen to use neutron bombs in combat, because lethal neutron radiation can
peneterate even the largest and deepest bunkers. However, the military seem to ignore the fact that a
neutron radiation is capable to reach significant depths in the planetary interior. In the process of passing
through the planet and losing its intensity, a neutron beam stimulates nuclei of radioactive isotopes naturally
present inside the planet to disintegrate. This disintegration in turn, generates more neutron and other
radiation. The entire process causes increased nuclear heat generation in the planetary interior, far greater
than the initial energy of the bomb. It typically takes many days or even weeks for this extra heat to
conduct/convect to the surface of the planet and cause increased seismic/volcanic activity. Due to this
variable delay, nuclear tests are not currently associated with seismic/volcanic activity, simply because it is
believed that there is no theoretical basis for such an association. Perhaps you heard that after every major
series of nuclear test there is always a period of increased seismic activity in some part of the world. This
observable fact CANNOT be explained by direct energy of the explosion. The mechanism of neutron radiation
accelerating decay of radioactive isotopes in the planetary interior, however, is a VERY PLAUSIBLE and
realistic explanation. The process of accelerating volcanic activity is nuclear in essence. Accelerated decay of
unstable radioactive isotopes already present in the planetary interior provides the necessary energy. The
TRUE danger of modern nuclear weaponry is that their neutron radiation is capable to induce global
overheating of the planetary interior, global volcanic activity and, in extreme circumstances, may even cause
the entire planet to explode.
Election D/A 89/111
Obama Good-Space Exploration

Obama is key to space exploration development and getting off the rock-several reasons
SpaceRef 1/10
(2008, Barack Obama 2008, "Barack Obama's Plan for American Leadership in Space",
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647)
Over the decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embodied the adventurous
spirit that lifted this nation to greatness and inspired people around the world. Barack Obama believes that
the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in space, but also
here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security. Over the years, NASA technology
has been applied to improve everything from computers and medical technology to baby formula and
automobiles. Work done at NASA, whether here on earth or in outer space, impacts the daily lives of all
Americans. Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles: The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 will
leave the United States without manned spaceflight capability until the introduction of the Orion Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV) carried by the Ares I Launch Vehicle. As president, Obama will support the
development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities
is limited to the minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being
designed with technology that is already proven and available. Complete the International Space Station: The
International Space Station is an example of what we can accomplish through international cooperation.
Barack Obama is committed to the completion of the International Space Station. Continue Unmanned
Missions: Robotic missions provide a level of endurance and cost-effectiveness that is unsurpassed. The
Voyager probes, launched in the 1970s, are still sending back data beyond our solar system. Closer to home,
the Spirit and Opportunity rovers have been exploring the surface of Mars for more than 1,300 days, 14 times
longer than their intended mission length. Along with Earth-orbiting platforms like the Hubble Space
Telescope and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, unmanned missions have yielded some of the greatest
scientific discoveries of the last century. Barack Obama is committed to a bold array of robotic missions that
will expand our knowledge of the solar system and lay the foundations for further manned exploration.
Monitor the Forces and Effects of Climate Change: Barack Obama has proposed bold initiatives to put America
on the path to stop global climate change. His administration will set standards based on rigorous scientific
inquiry that, in turn, cannot take place without a capable space program. The task of researching and
understanding the forces that affect our home planet will require a constellation of climate monitoring space
platforms. As president, Obama will ensure that NASA has the funding necessary to play its part in the fight
against global climate change. Support Scientific Research: In the past, government funding for scientific
research has yielded innovations that have improved the landscape of American life, technologies like the
Internet, digital photography, bar codes, Global Positioning System technology, laser surgery, and
chemotherapy. Today, we face a new set of challenges, yet the United States is losing its scientific dominance.
Over the last three decades, federal funding for the physical, mathematical and engineering sciences has
declined at a time when other countries are substantially increasing their own research budgets. Barack
Obama believes federally funded scientific research should play an important role in advancing science and
technology in the classroom and in the lab. He will work to diversify the makeup of the scientific community
and provide federal research programs a much- needed infusion of funds.
THE HUMAN RACE MUST COLONIZE SPACE TO SURVIVE

The Baltimore Sun Company February 2, 2004
Putting people in space is expensive. But doing nothing - staying home - could carry high costs, too, some
say.
Nations that have stopped their exploration and expansion have become vulnerable to others, said Carleton
University's Laughlin.
"They start swirling around in a circle and they stop developing," he said, citing medieval China and Arabic
cultures as examples. "The same damn thing could happen to us ... if our resources dry up or our political will
disappears."
Worse, proponents of space colonization say a failure to move humans off the planet will leave the species
vulnerable to extinction through environmental catastrophe, such as an asteroid strike.
"If the human race is to survive, it must positively become a multiplanet species, because something is going
to make it impossible for us to survive here on Earth," said Roger D. Launius, chairman of the space history
division at the National Air and Space Museum.
"That is the ultimate threat, and the reason why we've got to do it," he said. "It is also the one people don't
Election D/A 90/111
take very seriously."
Election D/A 91/111
Obama Good-Leadership
Electing Obama is key to America’ credibility and restoring global leadership
Joseph Nye, Prof @ Harvard, 6/12
(2008, Huffinton Post, "Barack Obama adn Soft Power", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-
obama-and-soft-pow_b_106717.html) I have spent the past month lecturing in Oxford and traveling in Europe
where Barack Obama could be elected in a landslide. I suspect that this fascination with Obama is true in
many parts of the world. In fact, as I have said before, it is difficult to think of any single act that would do
more to restore America's soft power than the election of Obama to the presidency. Soft power is the ability
to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than using the carrots and sticks of payment or
coercion. As I describe in my new book The Powers to Lead, in individuals soft power rests on the skills of
emotional intelligence, vision, and communication that Obama possesses in abundance. In nations, it rests
upon culture (where it is attractive to others), values (when they are applied without hypocrisy), and policies
(when they are inclusive and seen as legitimate in the eyes of others.) Polls show that American soft power
has declined quite dramatically in much of the world over the past eight years. Some say this is structural,
and resentment is the price we pay for being the biggest kid on the block. But it matters greatly whether the
big kid is seen as a friend or a bully. In much of the world we have been seen as a bully as a result of the Bush
Administration policies. Unfortunately, a President Obama will inherit a number of policy problems such as
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea where hard power plays a large role. If he drops the ball on
any of these issues, they will devour his political capital. At the same time, he will have to be careful not to let
this inherited legacy of problems define his presidency. Some time between November 4 and January 20, he
will need to indicate a new tone in foreign policy which shows that we will once again export hope rather than
fear. This could take several forms: announcement of an intent to close Guantanamo; dropping the term
"global war on terror;" creation of a special bipartisan group to formulate a new policy on climate change; a
"listening trip" to Asia, and so forth. Electing Obama will greatly help restore America's soft power as a nation
that can recreate itself, but the election alone will not be sufficient. It is not too soon to start thinking about
symbols and policies for the days immediately after the election.
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.
Election D/A 92/111
Obama Good-Leadership Exts.

Obama’s election key to restore global leadership
Moisi, January 3, 2008 (Barack Obama's American revolution
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C01%5C03%5Cstory_3-1-2008_pg3_5)
The world needs a more modest and confident America. For a European who hasbeen deeply troubled and
saddened by America's evolution in the last decade,Obama, of all the declared presidential candidates,
seems to come closest toincarnating such an America For eight years, George W *Bush* *has managedto
incarnate and reinforce all the prejudices and negative stereotypes theworld has of the US*. *He has*
antagonised the world more than any other American president before him, se*riously damaging America's
"soft" power byinefficient and excessive use of its "hard" power. Reconciling the UnitedStates with itself and
the world should thus be the twin priorities forAmerica's next president. If there is one candidate who can
accomplish this,who can contribute, in a split second, to restoring America's internationalreputation, it is
Barack Obama.* Exceptional periods sometimes createexceptional leaders. Without the French Revolution,
Napoleon Bonaparte wouldhave remained a gifted and frustrated junior military officer. Likewise, thecurrent
period in America and its relations with the world have been trulyexceptional, requiring a leader who can
fundamentally challenge a globalmajority's view that America has become arrogant, impotent, and selfish. Of
course, diehard anti-Americans will never be persuaded, but they remain aminority, with the possible
exception of the Muslim world. The silentmajority is ready to be convinced that there is life after Bush. Why is
Obama so different from the other presidential candidates, and why could hemake such a large difference
internationally? After all, in foreign policymatters, the next president's room for manoeuvre will be very small.
He (orshe) will have to stay in Iraq, engage in the Israel-Palestine conflict onthe side of Israel, confront a
tougher Russia, deal with an ever moreambitious China, and face the challenge of global warming. *If Obama
canmake a difference, it is not because of his policy choices, but because ofwhat he is. The very moment he
appears on the world's television screens,victorious and smiling, America's image and soft power would
experiencesomething like a Copernican revolution.* Think of the impression hiselection would make not only
in Africa, but in Asia, the Middle East, andeven Europe. *With its rise to global supremacy, America had
become theincarnation of the West, and the West was seen as "white"*. Power in Americashifted first from the
East Coast to the West Coast, and then to the South.But if a shift across America's racial divide is not truly
revolutionary,then what is? Of course, to reduce Obama to the colour of his skin is agrave oversimplification,
even if he has been keen to emphasise his "blackroots". In fact, African-Americans do not fully support him.
With his whitemother and his African father, he does not fit any African-Americanprecedent. But that is
another reason why Obama is exceptional: *thecomplexity of his identity makes him truly universal, a global
candidate fora global age. By virtue of his unique personal history, he can bridgeAfrica, America, and even
Asia* — where he studied as a young boy in aMuslim school — thereby reviving the universal image and
message ofAmerica. But*, above all, what makes Obama unique, given what the US hasbeen through during
the Bush years, is the nature of the message heembodies,* which is best summed up in the title of his book
The Audacity ofHope. *If America can move from a culture of fear to one of hope* — andagain incarnate hope
for the world — *it will require a leader who embodiesthe American dream*: modern and armed with a
humanistic religious message,in contrast to the anxious irrationalism of the Christian conservativemovement
that fuelled Bush's political base. Josh Rovenger, 6/24 (2008, California Chronicle, "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.
Election D/A 93/111
Obama Good-Leadership Exts.

Obama key to U.S. leadership-United Nations credibility
Rovenger, 6/24 (2008, California Chronicle, "Obama vs. McCain on Peacekeeping",
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/66076)
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." However, he
does not ignore historical difficulties and current realities facing peacekeeping operations. He acknowledges
that, "our expectations of the UN have often not been met-because obstructionist states have blocked timely
action and corruption and management failures have undermined solutions." He proposes both global and
domestic solutions to fix this. On the international level, he wants to pursue reforms that, "improves the UN´s
ability to conduct future peace and stability operations." This will allow the forces to "work with other
multinational actors that deploy forces." As for internal reforms, he thinks that, "to succeed in post-conflict
peace building we must improve our civilian capacity." If Obama wins the election this November, he
promises that he "will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this
challenge," and "will increase both the numbers and capabilities of diplomats, development experts and other
civilians who can work alongside our military." While McCain does not seem to oppose peacekeeping
operations, he does favor his league of democracies over the U.N. to address such international issues. "The
new league of democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could
act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur." He also has emphasized NATO
´s role, saying "The world will rely on NATO to a greater degree as well-as a security guarantor, as a
peacekeeper, and as diplomatic leverage." The next president´s opportunities to restore American leadership
will arise on several aspects of peacekeeping endeavors. Most obvious is the necessity for the next president
to fulfill our financial obligations to U.N. peacekeeping missions and perhaps even increase it. Obama has
shown his commitment by promising that we will meet "our obligations to fund assessed peacekeeping
operations and doing our share to fund voluntary peacekeeping operations." Although McCain´s rhetoric on
this issue is sparse, his decision in 2005 to vote against a key piece of legislation that would have increased
U.S. funding for U.N. peacekeeping operations is indicative of what he may do in office.
Election D/A 94/111
Obama Good-Iraq Withdraw

Obama key to withdraw from Iraq, McCain will increase ground forces
Voice of America News 7/3 (2008, "Obama Pledges to Withdraw US Troops From Iraq",
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-03-voa81.cfm)
The presumptive Democratic Party U.S. presidential nominee, Barack Obama, says he will begin ending U.S.
troop involvement in the war in Iraq on his first day in office.Obama told reporters Thursday that on his first
day in office, he will instruct the five top U.S. military officers, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to end the war
"responsibly and decisively." He also said he intends to remove U.S. troops from Iraq at a pace that will lead
to a total withdrawal in 16 months.The Illinois senator said this is the same position he has long held on Iraq.
But Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, accused him of reversing his position on Iraq. In a statement,
McCain said Obama has adopted McCain's view that the U.S. cannot risk progress made in Iraq by starting to
withdraw U.S. troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground. Senator McCain has said U.S.
troops could be in Iraq for many years and that a greater military commitment is needed to achieve long-term
success.
U.S. PRESENCE IN IRAQ EMBOLDENS INSURGENT AND RELIGIOUS FACTIONS SPURRING

CIVIL WAR
POSEN 2006 (FEBRUARY, BARRY, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT MIT, BOSTON REVIEW)
The American presence in Iraq—and official declarations that the U.S. military there will “hunt down” the
terrorists—exacerbates these problems. First, Iraqi politicians will not apply sustained pressure to their
security forces to improve themselves so long as they know that the Americans will remain to protect the
state from the insurgents. Second, the Iraqi units themselves will not grow in capability and confidence so
long as they are relying upon American command and control, firepower, and tactical acumen. The assertion
that they would profit from more training, more professional leadership, more organization, and better
equipment is true, though the American and Iraqi governments have already had two years to pour resources
into these problems. But how do the insurgents do so well with no large training bases, no safe place to
organize, no secure electronic command-and-control network, and only the weaponry they can obtain
covertly? The answer is almost certainly motivation. The insurgents care more about ejecting the United
States than Iraqi politicians and soldiers care about stopping the insurgents—in part because the Iraqis can
rely on the United States to do it for them. Third, the political leaders of Iraq’s three main factions will not
make difficult compromises so long as the United States remains in Iraq. Ironically, the U.S. presence probably
encourages the Kurds, the Shia, and the Sunni Arabs each to believe that they are stronger than they are. The
Kurds have become accustomed to American protection from the Shia and from Turkey, so they have felt free
to demand what amounts to an independent state and control of Iraq’s northern oil fields. The Shia rely on
American soldiers to do the hard fighting against the Sunni Arab insurgents, which permits Shia politicians to
believe that they can safely strive for a religious state and preserve their monopoly over Iraq’s rich southern
oil fields. Some Shia politicians also support purges of officials and soldiers—most of them Sunni Arabs—who
may have had an affiliation with Saddam’s regime but who were pragmatically drawn into the Iraqi
administration and security services by Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister. The Sunni Arabs probably
believe that only the presence of U.S. troops can prevent them from re-establishing their domination of Iraq.
Only U.S. troops have been able to dethrone them in the past, and many do not even believe the widely
accepted estimate that they are outnumbered three to one by the Shia. They also seem to have forgotten
that they preserved their domination of Iraq with chemical weapons, artillery, tanks, and aircraft—all of which
are gone. They will not reconcile themselves to a diminished position in Iraq until they discover that they
cannot beat the Shia and the Kurds in a fair fight. Fourth, the American presence fuels all four social sources
of insurgent support. Sunni Arabs almost surely see the United States as the agent of their fall from the top of
the social order and the American presence as an obstacle to restoring their power and resources. U.S.
military action, however precise by historical standards, nevertheless directly harms Iraqis and their extended
families. Every killing or arrest produces more insurgents, and it is easy to see how when every victim may
have two or three brothers and many more male first cousins. Finally, and obviously, the American presence
stimulates both religious and nationalist opposition. It is easy to forget that, for a time, even some Shia
violently opposed the American presence for these reasons.
IRAQ CIVIL WAR ESCALATES TO REGIONAL WAR

Pollack 2006 (Kenneth M., Research Director-Saban Center for Middle East Policy, “A Switch in Time: A New
Strategy for America in Iraq”, Analysis Paper, Number 7, February,
Election D/A 95/111
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/20060215_iraqreport.pdf, p. 3-4)
A civil war in Iraq would likely destabilize Iraq’s neighbors. Civil wars often have spillover effects on
neighboring states—such as refugee flight and armed groups moving in to seek sanctuary there. Neighboring
states often intervene to prevent such spillover or to grab territory, which would be especially tempting in oil-
rich Iraq. For instance, the Lebanese civil war of the 1970s and 1980s imposed damaging spillover effects on
both Syria and Israel, while civil strife in Afghanistan in the 1990s exacerbated the problems of Central Asia,
Iran and Pakistan. The collapse of the Democratic Republic of Congo from the late-1990s onwards has
embroiled six neighboring countries in southern and eastern Africa and caused millions of deaths. A civil war
in Iraq might well spread instability into already fragile states such as the major oil producers of Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, and Iran; our NATO-ally Turkey; our friend, Jordan; and even our sometimes foe, Syria—an enormous
risk to vital U.S. national interests. Experts already fret over the long-term stability of each of these countries.
Allowing Iraq to fall into civil war and further threaten the well-being of these other states would be running
an enormous risk to vital U.S. national interests.
Election D/A 96/111
Obama Good-Iraq Withdraw

MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT ESCALATES TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR
Steinbach 2002 (John, D.C. Iraq Coalition – Centre for Research on Globalization, “Isreali Weapons of Mass
Destruction: a Threat to Peace”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious
implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war.
Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire
missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would
now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is
gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union
has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose
of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super
sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel
no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate
disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear
weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if
not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons
of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle
East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)
Election D/A 97/111
Obama Good-Iraq Withdraw Exts.

McCain will keep the U.S. in Iraq for the next 100 years
NPR 6/26 (2008, "McCain Foreign Policy Aide Outlines Iraq Position",
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91940482)
Republican Sen. John McCain will not put a timetable on withdrawing troops from Iraq because that would
"send the wrong signal to our enemies," says the Arizona senator's senior foreign policy adviser. Randy
Scheunemann tells NPR's Robert Siegel that McCain, as president, would keep troops in Iraq until al-Qaida is
defeated and no longer able "to pose a strategic threat to the country." "If we were to withdraw before the
Iraqi security forces were able to handle their own security, there is little doubt that al-Qaida would be left
free to reconstitute and begin to plan and conduct attacks and threaten its neighbors — as they had when
they had a sanctuary in Afghanistan before Sept. 11," Scheunemann says. The defeat of al-Qaida,
Scheunemann says, would mean the group was no longer able to stockpile weapons, control land or organize.
Scheunemann has also served as an adviser to former Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott and former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. If the surge in troop levels in Iraq has been as successful as McCain
says and has reduced the violence, why talk about reducing troops at all? Why not send in additional ones?
Scheunemann says the violence has gone down not just because there are more troops but because "we've
fundamentally changed the strategy — from essentially engaging in search-and-destroy missions out of bases
to engaging in an active counterinsurgency strategy, which gets much more intelligence from the Iraqi
people." McCain has been criticized for saying that he would keep troops in Iraq for 100 years — a statement
that Scheunemann says the Democrats seized upon and that the public took out of context.
Obama key to Iraq withdraw

AFP 7/8
(2008, "McCain, Obama at odds over Iraqi Withdrawal Demand",
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5icMg7uJLrzdcOx0lcwi9lv2TA9LQ)
Iraq's hardening demand for a pullout deadline for US troops on Tuesday sent shockwaves through the White
House campaign, putting Republican hopeful John McCain on the defensive. McCain, who says it is too early to
leave Iraq, said US pull-backs must be dictated by security conditions, after Democrat Barack Obama said the
Iraqi government now shared his desire for a timetable for withdrawals. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said
on Monday that Iraq was seeking such an arrangement in talks with Washington on the future US force
structure in the country. Iraq hardened its position on Tuesday, saying it would reject any security pact with
Washington unless it set a date for the pullout of US-led foreign soldiers -- a condition turned down by
President George W. Bush. But McCain, who has made staunch support for the US troop "surge" escalation
strategy a centerpiece of his campaign, said that recent security gains should not be put at risk by an
artificial timetable. "The Iraqis have made it very clear, including the meetings I had with the president and
foreign minister of Iraq, that it is based on conditions on the ground," McCain said in an interview with
MSNBC. "I have always said we will come home with honor and with victory and not through a set timetable,"
he said, adding that Iraqis would act in their national interest and the United States would act in its own
interests. "We will withdraw, but ... the victory we have achieved so far is fragile and (the redeployment) has
to be dictated by events and on the ground," McCain said, mirroring the Pentagon's line on the issue. The
Obama campaign responded by bringing up a comment by McCain from 2004, when he said that if a
sovereign Iraqi government asked American forces to quit Iraq, "it's obvious we would have to leave." "The
American people need a strategy for succeeding in Iraq, not just a strategy for staying," said Obama foreign
policy advisor Susan Rice. "John McCain's stubborn refusal to adjust to events on the ground just shows that
he has no plan to end this war," she said. Obama and McCain have been waging a fierce political battle over
their plans for US policy in Iraq, an issue that looks set to dominate the presidency of whichever of them
emerges triumphant from November's election. McCain has stated he would aim to get US troops out of Iraq
by 2013, but said on one occasion repeatedly used by the Obama campaign that he would be prepared to
stay 100 years in a peacekeeping capacity. Obama has pledged to get US combat troops out within 16
months, and this week denied claims he was wavering on that undertaking in the light of security gains in
Iraq.
Election D/A 98/111
Obama Good-Bush Tax Cuts

McCain will extend the Bush 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."
Obama will cut the Bush 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
for looking out for themselves rather than helping the middle class. 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 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."
Election D/A 99/111
Obama Good-Bush Tax Cuts

Extending the Bush tax cuts tanks the U.S. economy
Robert Freeman (Writer for economics, technology and education at CounterPunch) May 30. 2003 “A Form of
National Insanity” CounterPunch [http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html Accessed June 24,
2008]
Rarely in public affairs do we have the luxury of such starkly clear, empirically proven, historically sound
contrasts. If Bush's tax cuts do not represent a fiscal process wildly out of control it is hard to imagine what
does. And sadly, per Einstein's insanity dictum, we've seen it all before. Bush wants people to believe these
losses are due to a recession he inherited from Bill Clinton. But the economy has grown for seven of the last
eight quarters Bush has been in office, hardly a recessionary environment. In truth, the losses owe to a
reckless economic philosophy, the failings of which have been conclusively, and now repeatedly,
demonstrated. We need to wake up from our patriotism-besotted, war-induced stupor. Losses and debts of
this magnitude threaten our nation's well being far more than do fictive weapons of mass destruction in the
hands of a two bit, third world thug. Destroying our fiscal patrimony at the very moment we need it most-
when history shows we should know better-is nothing short of national insanity.
Election D/A 100/111
Obama Good-Bush Tax Cuts Exts.

Obama will slash the Bush tax cuts
Jeff Zeleny 2007
(January 1, NYT, "Obama Says He'd Roll Back Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest",
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/us/politics/14talk.html)
If elected president, Senator Barack Obama said Sunday, he would seek to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts
for the wealthiest Americans and use the money to pay for health care, but he did not suggest he would raise
other taxes to pay for expanded services. Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat seeking his party’s presidential
nomination, said in a television interview broadcast Sunday that he supported “rolling back the Bush tax cuts
on the top 1 percent of people who don’t need it.” He did not endorse a broader plan to raise taxes on the
affluent that has been proposed by John Edwards, one of Mr. Obama’s rivals for the nomination. Speaking on
“This Week” on ABC, Mr. Obama said “everything should be on the table” when considering overhauling the
Social Security system. He said he would consider raising the retirement age as well as increasing payroll
taxes, but he ruled out privatizing the federal program.
Obama Good-Hair Trigger Nuclear Weapons

Obama is key to removing Russian and U.S. nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert
status
Remove all nuclear weapons from high-alert status, separating warheads from delivery vehicles. There remain
some 3,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert in the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, elevating the risks of
accidental launches. Obama states on his campaign Web site that he would "work with Russia to take U.S.
and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert." He has also said, "If we want the world to de-emphasize
the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example. President Bush once said,
'The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status — another
unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation.' Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise.
I will. We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch." McCain has
not stated his position on de-alerting nuclear arsenals.
The impact is accidental nuclear war

Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, 1997 (November, Scientific America, "Taking
Nuclear Weapons off Hair-Trigger Alert", http://www.cdi.org/aboutcdi/SciAmerBB.html)
That frightening incident (like some previous false alarms that activated U.S. strategic forces) aptly
demonstrates the danger of maintaining nuclear arsenals in a state of hair-trigger alert. Doing so heightens
the possibility that one day someone will mistakenly launch nuclear-tipped missiles, either because of a
technical failure or a human error--a mistake made, perhaps, in the rush to respond to false indications of an
attack. Both the U.S. and Russian military have long instituted procedures to prevent such a calamity from
happening. Designers of command systems in Russia have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure strict
central control over nuclear weapons. But their equipment is not foolproof, and Russia's early-warning and
nuclear command systems are deteriorating. This past February the institute responsible for designing the
sophisticated control systems for the Strategic Rocket Forces (the military unit that operates Russian
intercontinental ballistic missiles) staged a one-day strike to protest pay arrears and the lack of resources to
upgrade their equipment. Three days later Russia's defense minister, Igor Rodionov, asserted that "if the
shortage of funds persists ... Russia may soon approach a threshold beyond which its missiles and nuclear
systems become uncontrollable." Rodionov's warning may have been, in part, a maneuver to muster political
support for greater defense spending. But recent reports by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency confirm that
Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces have indeed fallen on hard times. Local utility managers have repeatedly
shut off the power to various nuclear weapons installations after the military authorities there failed to pay
their electric bills. Worse yet, the equipment that controls nuclear weapons frequently malfunctions, and
critical electronic devices and computers sometimes switch to a combat mode for no apparent reason. On
seven occasions during the fall of 1996, operations at some nuclear weapons centers were severely disrupted
when thieves tried to "mine" critical communications cables for their copper.
Obama Good-Iran Strikes

Obama’s election is key to avert McCain’s planned strike on Iran
HARRIS 08, OBSERVER MAGAZINE
(Paul, “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
Nuclear 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.
Obama Bad-Bush Tax Cuts

McCain will extend the Bush 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."
Obama will cut the Bush 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
for looking out for themselves rather than helping the middle class. 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 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."
Obama Bad-Bush Tax Cuts

Repealing the Bush tax cuts would devastate the U.S. and world economies
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, 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." Democratic nominee Barack Obama regularly professes
disdain for the Bush tax cuts, suggesting that those growth-spurring 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 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.
Obama Bad-Protectionism
Obama will move the U.S. towards protectionism-he’s staunchly anti-free trade
Sean Mussenden 7/9 (2008, "On Free Trade, Big Differences Between McCain, Obama", Media General News
Service, http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/on-free-trade-big-differences-between-mccain-
obama/1322/)
Recent international trade deals have given Americans easy access to cheap clothes and DVD players while
sending manufacturing jobs in North Carolina, Ohio and Michigan overseas. John McCain loves these deals.
Barack Obama, not nearly as much. With talk of the souring economy dominating the presidential election,
free trade has emerged as a key debate point in the battle for the White House. "There's a stark contrast
between the two major presidential candidates on trade, probably the starkest we've seen in decades," said
Dan Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that
supports free trade. "McCain is an unabashed free trader," he said. "Obama has a much more skeptical view
about trade liberalization." In nearly three decades in Congress, McCain has supported every major trade
deal, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, which dropped economic barriers with Mexico and
Canada in 1994, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005. During trips to Mexico and Canada
this summer, McCain reiterated his strong support for NAFTA in the face of calls from some Democrats and
union leaders to renegotiate the deal. And on a swing through Colombia this month, McCain pressed for a
new trade pact with that country that is currently stalled in Congress. As president, he said that he would like
to see similar trade agreements cover all of North and South America. "Ninety-five percent of the world's
consumers live outside the United States. Our future prosperity depends on opening more of these markets,
not closing them," McCain said Monday at a town hall meeting in Denver. Obama, who joined the Senate in
2004, did not get a chance to vote on NAFTA but has said he would have voted against it. He opposes the
pending deal with Colombia, he said earlier this year, because it lacks sufficient protection for Colombia's
labor unions. Obama voted against CAFTA in 2005, saying the deal did not do enough to guarantee that
Central American manufacturers would adhere to the same environmental and labor standards as U.S.-based
plants.
A new wave of protectionism would erupt into nuclear conflict

Spicer, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, 1996, p. 121
The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II:
between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will
bring, or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for
innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite
technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to
provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which
natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and
unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that
the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a
proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in
the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the
years ahead.
Trade is the number one factor that contributes to peace

Gerald P O’driscoll jr is senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Sara Fitzgerald is a trade policy analyst at the
Heritage Foundation. Orange County Register, Feb. 11, 2003
A report by the World Bank says that 2 billion people -- most of them in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East
and the former Soviet Union -- "live in countries that are being left behind." These countries have failed to
integrate with the world economy, failed to knock down barriers to trade and investment flows, failed to
establish property rights and, as a result, failed to grow into modern economies.And, according to research by
Edward Mansfield of the University of Pennsylvania and Jon Pevehouse of the University of Wisconsin, that's a
recipe for trouble. Mansfield and Pevehouse have demonstrated that trade between nations makes them less
likely to wage war on each other -- and keeps internecine spats from spiraling out of control. They also found
these trends are more pronounced among democratic countries with a strong tradition of respect for the rule
of law.Countries that trade with each other are far less likely to confront each other on the battlefield than are
countries with no trade relationship. And the size of the economies involved doesn't affect this relationship,
which means small, weak countries can enhance their defense capabilities simply by increasing trade with
the world's economic giants.Experts, including Mansfield and Pevehouse, say intensive trade integration,
perhaps more than any other factor, has led to an unprecedented five decades of peace in Western Europe.
Obama Bad-Protectionism Exts.

McCain is the free-trade candidate-Obama will retreat into protectionism
David Jackson, 6/20 (2008, "McCain exports free-trade debate", USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-19-McCain_N.htm)
Republican presidential candidate John McCain did not mention rival Barack Obama Friday, but made clear to
an audience in Canada that he is the better bet for trade relations. "We draw strength from one another,"
McCain told a meeting of the Economic Club of Toronto in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. "A prosperous Canada
means a more dynamic and resilient American economy." The candidate who has repeatedly criticized
Obama's suggestion to re-work the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico said:
"Threatening to abrogate an agreement that has increased trade and prosperity is nothing more than
retreating behind protectionist walls."
Obama Bad-Iraq Withdraw

Obama will withdraw from Iraq, McCain will increase ground forces
Voice of America News 7/3 (2008, "Obama Pledges to Withdraw US Troops From Iraq",
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-03-voa81.cfm)
The presumptive Democratic Party U.S. presidential nominee, Barack Obama, says he will begin ending U.S.
troop involvement in the war in Iraq on his first day in office.Obama told reporters Thursday that on his first
day in office, he will instruct the five top U.S. military officers, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to end the war
"responsibly and decisively." He also said he intends to remove U.S. troops from Iraq at a pace that will lead
to a total withdrawal in 16 months.The Illinois senator said this is the same position he has long held on Iraq.
But Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, accused him of reversing his position on Iraq. In a statement,
McCain said Obama has adopted McCain's view that the U.S. cannot risk progress made in Iraq by starting to
withdraw U.S. troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground. Senator McCain has said U.S.
troops could be in Iraq for many years and that a greater military commitment is needed to achieve long-term
success.
WITHDRAWAL CAUSES REGIONAL WARS THAT GO NUCLEAR

Washington Times 2006 (April 5, http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060404-085855-
8325r.htm)
The negative ramifications of dropping the Iraq enterprise -- and with it the Bush initiative to encourage free
market democracy throughout the Middle East -- would be enormous. Imagine the terrorist recruiting
bonanza and their reinvigorated efforts to topple other regional regimes; envision Saudi oil and Pakistani
nuclear arms in extremist hands. Then, think of the United States, with its porous borders and millions of
illegal aliens, thousands among them Muslims. U.S. withdrawal from Iraq -- and, thence, the region -- would
put 35-45 percent of the world's oil supply (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, plus Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, United Arab
Emirates) at the whim of West-hating fanatics and leave the region exposed to Pakistani nuclear attack.
Goaded by maniacal Iranian mullahs, attacks in the U.S. would follow. Whatever one's pre-invasion view of
the liberation of Iraq, the cost to freedom worldwide is simply too great to envision. This is especially true, as
the Iraqis are on the cusp of creating a functioning government. Iraq is close to civil war, but not there yet.
Virtually every Shia and Sunni leader has spoken in genuine outrage at the unrest since the Samarra mosque
attack in February, calling on their flocks to resist the Ba'athist sucker game, which seeks finally to drive the
Shia majority to full-fledged war. When Shia firebrand leader Muqtada al-Sadr speaks feelingly about reaching
out to Sunnis, including worshipping together with them, it is clear even he understands hopes for peace are
on the brink of disappearing, with civil war the disastrous result. Iraq is not Vietnam, but withdrawal can
make it worse. America's no-win, defensive Vietnam strategy foreordained the humiliating outcome. In Iraq,
we won the main Iraq military campaign, trained a core military, guided a series of interim governments,
constitution-writing and elections, and are encouraging final talks to form a permanent government.
However, if we leave Iraq now, our efforts will collapse, rendering the Vietnam debacle a minor negative
moment. In short, this is precisely not the time for the United States to accept defeat, to cut and run.
Bloody, costly and frustrating as it has been, Iraq is successfully rebuilding. To leave now -- or at any time
before we have fully supported reconstruction of the government, infrastructure and security forces -- would
be more than craven. Throughout the Middle East, America would be seen as defeated by the terrorists we
pledged to eliminate; U.S. respect from London, Berlin and Moscow to Beijing, Tokyo and Sydney would be
decimated. Besides completely losing credibility with foe and friend alike, the United States and the entire
world would be at grave risk. The battle in Iraq is not lost. However, if we depart, the country, the region and
very probably the world will be. Afghanistan will be next, then Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE and -- the
biggest prizes -- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. What then? The terrorist enemy will have emotional and nearly
total political dominion over 1.2 billion Muslims, at which point, it will be extraordinarily difficult to avoid -- not
just civil war in Iraq -- the bloodiest cultural-religious conflict the world has seen.
Obama Bad-Space Weapons

Obama will cut space weaponization
Charles Smith, 6/10 (2008, Newsmax, "Obama's Defense Plan Leaves Us Vulnerable",
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama/2008/06/10/103236.html)
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.
US SPACE DOMINANCE WOULD PRECLUDE ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS LAUNCH AND

UNDERMINE OPPONENT ATTEMPTS TO MILITARIZE SPACE
Lorenzini 2001 (March 21, Space Power Doctrine, Online)
A space weapon system being considered today is the space-based, directed-energy battle station.8 This
hypothetical system would be capable of destroying ICBMs and sea-launched cruise missiles (SLBMs) during
their vulnerable boost phase and strategic bombers during transit flight. Such a system, once completed,
could degrade the effectiveness of the current generation of strategic systems.
Perhaps even more significant is the fact that once they were placed in orbit, these battle stations could
destroy all enemy satellite systems and prevent an opponent from reentering the space arena for any reason.
The nation that is able to achieve a space-based global defense system first has the potential for freezing
other nations out of the high ground of space, thus achieving total military dominance.
Obama Bad-NMD
Obama will cut national missile defense, while McCain develops it
Another important issue is the tension with Russia over U.S. implementation of missile defenses, particularly
in Eastern Europe. The U.S. missile-defense program has been viewed as a threat by Russia since the U.S.
unilaterally abrogated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. The Russians have viewed U.S. missile
defenses as threatening their deterrent capability despite U.S. assurances to the contrary, and if this issue is
not resolved, it could be a deal breaker for further progress on nuclear disarmament. Our foundation believes
an important step in clearing the path with Russia for major reductions in nuclear weapons would be for the
U.S. to re verse course on dep loyment of missile defenses and open negotiations with the Russians to
reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. That is not the path of the current administration or its party's
standard-bearer in November. McCain voted yes on deploying National Missile Defense in 1999, and more
recently stated, "The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in
Czechoslovakia (sic) and Poland, and I don't care what his [Putin's] objections are to it."Obama, on the other
hand, has said, "I will cut investments in unproven missile-defense systems." Another potential stumbling
block is space weaponization. The Russians and the Chinese have both promoted a draft treaty to reserve
outer space for peaceful purposes, including a ban on space weaponization. The U.S. has not been willing to
even discuss such a ban, and was the only country in the United Nations to vote against such a ban in the
2007 General Assembly. Obama has said flatly, "I will not weaponize space." McCain has stated, "Weapons in
space are a bad idea. A treaty that increases space security is a good idea, but it is likely to take a long time
to negotiate. There is a simpler and quicker way to go: a code of conduct for responsible space-faring nations.
One key element of that code must include a prohibition against harmful interference against satellites."
Deployment of NMD is the only way to leave the MAD system that will inevitably result
in global WMD use. The Current system will result in a nuclear conflict between Russia
and the US
Willie Curtis, Associate Prof of Poly Sci @The US Naval Academy. New England Law Review. 2002
l/n
Critics of the National Missile Defense (NMD) system also argue that deployment would undermine the Anti-
Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which they see as the cornerstone of the nuclear relationship between the U.S.
and Russia. They further insist that the ABM Treaty is critical to preserving strategic stability. The fact is that
in the new strategic game, the ABM Treaty is rapidly becoming an anachronism that only permits the U.S. and
Russia to mutually annihilate each other, thereby mutually deterring each other through the strategy of MAD.
Indeed, the ABM Treaty perpetuates MAD because it prevents both the U.S. and Russia from protecting
themselves against nuclear retaliation. In the new strategic environment where proliferation of WMD and
ballistic missile technology is spreading, it is questionable if the MAD strategy is appropriate, and thus
whether the ABM Treaty, which was devised to cope with a bipolar, rather than multipolar world, is
appropriate as well. As Henry Kissinger suggests:
Whatever, tenuous plausibility the MAD theory may have had in a two-power world evaporates when eight
nations have tested nuclear weapons and many rogue regimes are working feverishly on development of
[*801] nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction, as well as on the ballistic missiles
with which to deliver them.

Elections Work

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Elections Work

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark

Election D/A 1/111

1NC Obama Good Shell

1NC Obama Good Shell

2. There is massive public support for alternative energy development

1NC Obama Good Shell

1. Obama is key to global nuclear disarmament-McCain will launch pre-emptive nuclear

Obama will win now-the race is getting closer daily

Obama will win now-Electoral College calculator

Obama will win now-lead in poll of polls

Obama is winning the key states in the polls.

Obama will win now-McCain’s too old

Obama is not winning now.

McCain will win because of terrorism.

McCain Wins because of stance on terrorism.

Obama Will Lose—Foreign Policy.

Obama will lose—Hillary voters break for McCain.

Links-Public Supports Alternative Energy Development

The public favors alternative energy—multiple surveys prove.

Links-Public Supports Alternative Energy Development

The public, regardless of party identification, wants a shift to alternative energy.

Links-Public Supports Alternative Energy Development

The plan has bipartisan popularity with the public.

Links-Public Supports Wind Development

The public loves the plan

Polls show the public loves wind energy development

Links-Public Supports Nuclear Development

Majority of Americans support nuclear energy development

The public is coming around to nuclear power

Polls show 70% of Americans support nuclear energy.

Links-Public Supports Ethanol Development

Few oppose ethanol production.

Majority of Americans support ethanol production

Ethanol finds has a lot of public support.

Links-Public Supports Ethanol Development

Links-Public Supports Solar Development

The public overwhelming supports development of solar power-94%

Huge majority of Americans support solar development.

The public is behind solar development.

Solar is popular with the public, particularly in Florida

Links-Public Supports Solar Development

Links-Public Supports PTCs

PTC is unpopular in Congress, but the public thinks otherwise.

PTC is popular with the general public.

Links-Public Supports Hydrogen Car Development

The public supports hydrogen cars.

Links-Public Supports RPS

Internal Links-Bush Key to Election

Internal Links-Bush Key to Election

Internal Links-Bush Key to Election

There is a linear relationship between incumbent popularity and election outcome.

Internal Links-Bush Key to Election

Internal Links-Bush Key to Election

Incumbent presidential popularity dictates the popularity of their party candidate.

Incumbent presidential popularity effects the election outcome.

Internal Links-Bush Key to Election

2NC/1NR Link Module-Ohio

Ohio’s 20 electoral votes are key to the election

2NC/1NR Link Module-Florida

Florida key to determining the 2008 elections

2NC/1NR Link Module-Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania key to the election.

2NC/1NR Link Module-Virginia