Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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. 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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
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 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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
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.
The American public is deeply dissatisfied with current energy policy. Alternative
energies are wildly popular.
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
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
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
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.
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
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 34/111
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."
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 38/111
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
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 40/111
Empirically, incumbent president popularity has had a major impact on the outcome of
elections.
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 48/111
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 mem- bers 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 favor- ably," 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 chal- lenger visibility and the consequences for voter choice. Invisibility is invariably a severe electoral
handicap, and it is invariably the chal- lenger 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 dur- ing a
reelection campaign, but what happens between elections? If elections are the high-water marks of an
election cycle, how does vis- ibility vary over an entire career? Do senators increase their promi- nence with
voters over the years, or is incumbent visibility something that is attained immediately upon election?
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 49/111
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
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
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 eco- nomic 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."
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 52/111
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 57/111
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."
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 59/111
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."
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 61/111
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?
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.
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 80/111
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.
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 84/111
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 85/111
Obama Good-NMD
Obama will cut national missile defense, while McCain develops it
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)
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."
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 88/111
Obama Good-CTBT
Obama is the only candidate who will ratify the CTBT
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)
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 89/111
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 92/111
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 98/111
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."
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 99/111
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 100/111
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 101/111
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.
WDW 2008 Connor, Dylan, Anthony, Brittany, Apark
Election D/A 103/111
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.
Obama Bad-NMD
Obama will cut national missile defense, while McCain develops it
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)
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.