Northwestern PTX Elections

ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 1
ELECTIONS DA
ELECTIONS DA..............................................................................................................................................1
1NC Shell (1/3).................................................................................................................................................2
1NC Shell (2/3).................................................................................................................................................3
1NC Shell (3/3).................................................................................................................................................4
**UNIQUENESS**.........................................................................................................................................6
Obama Winning-Vote Count.............................................................................................................................7
Obama Winning-Large Margin.........................................................................................................................8
Obama Winning-McCain Slip..........................................................................................................................9
Obama Winning-Independents.......................................................................................................................10
Obama Winning-Polls.....................................................................................................................................11
McCain Winning-Polls...................................................................................................................................13
McCain Winning-Swing States.......................................................................................................................14
McCain Winning-Momentoum.......................................................................................................................15
AT: Polls..........................................................................................................................................................16
**LINKS**.....................................................................................................................................................17
Environment Link-Public Popularity..............................................................................................................18
Alternative Energy Link-Public Popularity....................................................................................................19
Ethanol Link-Public Popularity......................................................................................................................20
Renewables Link-Public Popularity...............................................................................................................21
Biomass Link-Public Popularity.....................................................................................................................22
Solar Link-Public Popularity..........................................................................................................................23
Wind Energy Link-Public Popularity.............................................................................................................24
Nuclear Power Link-McCain Support............................................................................................................25
Cap and Trade Link-McCain Support.............................................................................................................26
Renewables Link-McCain Support.................................................................................................................27
Clean Coal Link-McCain Support..................................................................................................................28
Brazil Ethanol Link-McCain Support.............................................................................................................29
Energy Key-Public Concern...........................................................................................................................30
McCain Gets Credit-Green Policy..................................................................................................................31
McCain Gets Credit-green Policy...................................................................................................................32
McCain Gets Credit-GOP Focus....................................................................................................................33
McCain Gets Credit-Independent Outreach...................................................................................................36
Independents Link-Environment....................................................................................................................37
Independents Link-Environment....................................................................................................................38
Independents Key...........................................................................................................................................39
AT: Independents Key.....................................................................................................................................40
Western States Key.........................................................................................................................................41
AT: McCain gets Credit..................................................................................................................................42
Energy Not Key-Other Issues.........................................................................................................................43
**IMPACTS**...............................................................................................................................................44
2NC Turns Case..............................................................................................................................................45
Obama Good-Iran...........................................................................................................................................46
Engagement Good-War...................................................................................................................................47
Iran ConflictWar and Terrorism..................................................................................................................48
2NC Turns Case-Iran......................................................................................................................................49
2NC Soft Power Add-On (1/2)......................................................................................................................50
2NC Soft Power Add-On (2/2).......................................................................................................................51
**AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS**..................................................................................................................52
AT: Iranian Engagement (1/2)........................................................................................................................53
AT: Iranian Engagement (2/2)........................................................................................................................54
AT: Soft Power................................................................................................................................................55
Northwestern University Debate Society

National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 2
1NC SHELL (1/3)

A. Uniqueness-Political experts agree Obama will win
Sydney Morning Herald 7/28 2008, Australia, “No Cliffhanger, more like an Obama landslide,” p. 8, lexis
The US media stand accused of distorted election coverage, writes Anne Davies in Washington. Luckily for
the Republican nominee John McCain Europeans can't vote in the November US presidential election - just
100 days away. If they could it would be a landslide for the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.
Nevertheless Senator McCain has reason to be worried - very worried. Last week three leading political
scientists declared the US media's presentation of the election as a toss-up as a "myth". Alan Abramowitz, a
professor of political science at Emory University, Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution,
and Larry Sabato, professor of politics at University of Virginia, accused the media of flogging a dead
horse in trying to portray the presidential race as a cliffhanger. It was a particularly bold call for Professor
Sabato, who has previously cautioned about Senator Obama's claims that he can redraw the political map in
America. "While no election outcome is guaranteed and McCain's prospects could improve over the next
31/2 months, virtually all of the evidence that we have reviewed - historical patterns, structural features of
this election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months - point to a
comfortable Obama/Democratic Party victory in November," the three men wrote in Sabato's Crystal Ball
newsletter. "Trumpeting this race as a toss-up, almost certain to produce another nail-biter finish, distorts
the evidence and does a disservice to readers and viewers who rely upon such punditry. Again, maybe
conditions will change in McCain's favour, and if they do, they should also be accurately described by the
media. But current data do not justify calling this election a toss-up." The trio reviewed the national
tracking polls and found that Senator Obama has led Senator McCain in every national poll in the past two
months, except for twice early on when they tied. Senator Obama's margin has been in the 4-6 point range,
in contrast to the polls in the election run-ups in 2000 and 2004 which showed much more variation over
time, they said. The state-by-state polls have also consistently given Senator Obama an advantage. "Obama
is leading in every state carried by John Kerry in 2004 along with six states carried by George Bush: Iowa,
New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana, Nevada and Colorado. A seventh Bush state, Virginia, is tied," they wrote. But
there are other worrying signs for Senator McCain. A Fox News Poll found that 51 per cent of Americans
think Senator Obama will win. Only 27 per cent pick Senator McCain (from 32 per cent last month).
There's no doubt Senator Obama has run a campaign with few stumbles, apart from his serious mishandling
of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue. That's been achieved by keeping a safe distance from media
questioning, keeping the images tightly controlled and focusing on reassuring voters about his weaknesses,
for instance, his national security credentials. Meanwhile, Senator Obama is making headway with the
demographics that commentators warned would be difficult - and which conversely offered an opportunity
for Senator McCain. A Pew Hispanic Centre poll released last Thursday shows overwhelming support from
Latinos for Senator Obama - 66 per cent versus 23 per cent favouring Senator McCain. On Super Tuesday,
Senator Obama received only 38 per cent of the Latino vote, while former rival Hillary Clinton received 58
per cent, CNN exit polling showed. Senator McCain is facing a particularly hostile political environment.
The war remains deeply unpopular in the US, although support for the surge has risen somewhat as its
impact becomes clearer. The economic news just gets worse, and Senator McCain is struggling to
distinguish his economic remedies from those of George Bush. He is also struggling to convince
Republicans he is their man. Polling data continues to show that Democrats are more satisfied with their
party's nominee than Republican voters and more highly motivated to vote. While Republicans normally
benefit from higher turnout among their supporters, that may not be the case this year. There was a ray of
hope for Senator McCain last week with a Quinnipiac/Washington Post poll showing him ahead in
Colorado by 1 per cent, reversing Senator Obama's lead in the last two polls. More implausibly, a
Rasmussen poll had Senator McCain ahead again, by 10 points. in Ohio, where Senator Obama has enjoyed
a solid lead in the last two polls. The issue still remains for Senator Obama whether he can overcome what
some fear is a deep-seated racist reserve about him in middle America.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 3
1NC SHELL (2/3)

B. Links-
1. Public support for alternative energy sources
Teixeria, 07
(Ruy, Senior Fellow at both The Century Foundation and American Progress, as well as a Fellow of the New Politics Institute. He is
also a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, where he is co-directing a joint Brookings-American Enterprise Institute project on
political demography and geography, “What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment”, 3/5/07,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/pdf/wtprw.pdf)
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).
2. Wins on environment gives McCain enough momentoum to capture the presidency
Time, 08
(Eric Pooley, Staff Columnist for Time Magazine, “McCain's Gift to the Green Movement”, 5/14/08, <
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1779350,00.html>)
McCain has a predicament. Though his candidacy has gotten a boost from the endless Obama v. Clinton grudge match, McCain
knows that Democratic strife alone won't get him to the White House. To win, he must reel in independent
voters, and to do that he has to distance himself from one of the least popular Presidents in American
history at a time when 80 percent of voters say the country is heading down the wrong track. So while the
Democrats are busy finishing up their fight, McCain has been looking for ways to prove that his first term wouldn't
be tantamount to George W. Bush's third. The trouble is, there isn't a great deal of hard evidence for this proposition.
McCain supports Bush's war in Iraq (though he criticized its execution) and Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy (though he previously
opposed them). He has spoken passionately against Bush's policy on torture, and condemned the record-breaking growth in
government spending that has taken place on Bush's watch. But that fiscal restraint also limits McCain's policy options, which may be
why his approaches to health care and the economy don't differ a great deal from the President's. When you boil it all down,
global warming is the issue that sets McCain furthest apart from Bush. The denial-and-delay wing of the Republican
Party didn't like it, but as McCain hopscotched from New Jersey to Oregon to Washington to Ohio, the climate
crisis dominated each of his days. "We need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising
waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring," he said on May 12, jabbing the air at a Portland,
Oregon, wind-turbine facility. "Time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is
whether our own government is equal to the challenge." In case anyone missed the message, he added, "I will not shirk
the mantle of leadership the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action." Environmental
activists have been complaining for a year that the climate crisis has gotten short shrift in this election. McCain's speech in Portland
put it back on the agenda. The sight of a Republican standard-bearer stepping up with a solid plan for mandatory
greenhouse gas reductions — the kind of plan Bush and the G.O.P. congressional leaders vociferously oppose — was
heartening, even if McCain's policy is less than perfect. And when Obama and Clinton pounced on the plan (Obama called it
"breathtaking" in its hypocrisy, since McCain has voted against alternative energy subsidies; Clinton dismissed it as a compendium of
"halfway measures"), it signaled that global warming would be a serious debating issue in the general election. That's more good news
— and if it happened because it's smart politics for McCain, so be it. Climate policy wonks — who try to explain this complex
stuff for a living — admired the clarity and power with which McCain described the cap-and-trade system,
which would set a declining limit on global warming pollution, then let companies sell their excess
pollution permits for a profit. "For all of the last century," he said, "the profit motive basically led in one direction — toward
machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas." He praised the good that came from that growth but pointed out that there
were "costs we weren�t counting. And these terrible costs have added up." Now, he said, a cap-and-trade system would harness the
profit motive to reverse that trend and usher in a cleaner, more vibrant economy. "Instantly, automakers, coal companies, power plants,
and every other enterprise in America would have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions, because when they go under those limits
they can sell the balance of permitted emissions for cash. As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks
to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 4
1NC SHELL (3/3)

C. Internal Link-Obama will engage in diplomacy with Iran – McCain will maintain Bush’s hardline
stance
Isaacs 8 July 1, John, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “In a
Nutshell: McCain vs. Obama on National Security,
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/070108_mccain_obama_national_security/
President Bush has displayed unremitting hostility toward the radical regime dominating Iran, a country
that U.S. intelligence sources report had previously been pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He branded
Iran part of the "axis of evil" and promoted regime change as the preferred U.S. policy. With a few limited
exceptions, the United States under Bush has refused to talk directly with Iran. McCain has been clear
about his position on Iran. In February 2008, he told an audience: "I intend to make unmistakably clear to
Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish
and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent
ambitions." He also rejects "unconditional dialogues" with Iran. Obama has delivered messages on Iran
that were more mixed. He has said "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to
eliminate this threat." In a June 2008 speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, he refused to
take the military option against Iran off the table: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the
table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But
that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed,
and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts." In the
same speech, however, Obama promised: "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating
preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests." He has said also that it "would be a
profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran" and condemned the administration's "saber-rattling" on
Iran. Obama missed a vote on a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lieberman
that proposed labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama called the
amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he had cosponsored an earlier bill
declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
D. Impact-Failure to engage with Iran will cause nuclear conflict
Australian 8 July 2, Paul Kelly, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, “All Must Lean on
Iran,” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23954817-7583,00.html

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 5
This highlights the reason for delay: Iran is still several years away from acquiring a nuclear capability. The
ultimate decision point for military action will come but that point arrives under Bush's successor. At that
stage the US must either accept a nuclear armed Iran or move to thwart it. There can be no gainsaying the
imperative to halt the Iranian program. Speaking in the corridors of the dialogue, Burns told The Australian:
"I believe President Bush has been right to say it should be our policy to deny Iran a nuclear weapons
capability. A nuclear armed Iran would be a game-changer strategically in the Middle East, contrary to all
our interests, the interests of Israel and the interests of the moderate Arab states. Given the present make-up
of the Iranian Government, with President Ahmadinejad in power, that government could not be trusted
with nuclear weapons." Another dialogue participant, former ALP leader Kim Beazley, says: "There are
only two possible outcomes from a nuclear weapon coming into Iran's hands. One is a strike by either Israel
or the US to prevent it happening. The other is an arms race in the Middle East that sees four or five nuclear
powers all operating on hair-trigger situations. We are talking here, with absolute certainty, of Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and Egypt, with a high probability of some of the Gulf states as well." In this situation there
would be serious risks that proper command and control of nuclear systems would not exist. "You must
appreciate this problem arises not because of Israel's strategic strength but its weakness," Beazley says.
"Israel has the strategic depth of a beach suburb. It is not capable of fighting a nuclear war. It would get at
best 10 minutes warning of a strike from Iran." The costs would be crippling for Israel to develop an
effective second strike capability and it could not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Beazley and Burns say there is an
urgent need to deepen the diplomatic effort with Iran. "The US has got to share this burden," Beazley says.
"The actual economic interest at stake here for China, Japan, Korea and the Europeans is greater than that
of the US. China wants to be regarded as a great power, well, it's time for China to behave like a great
power and begin to pressure the Iranians. The rest of the world needs to grasp the seriousness of this and do
something about it." Burns says the US "has been effectively estranged from the Iranians for three
decades". Now it is vital to "find a way to talk with them". America's aim must be a peaceful solution,
despite the difficulty of dealing with Iran. He advocates broadening the range of nations involved in the
process. If Iran refuses to negotiate then far stronger sanctions must be applied and that means that China
must accept its responsibilities. Burns says: "We need the leading states of the world to say to the Iranians,
'No business' if you keep developing nuclear weapons. There is still room and time for diplomacy."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 6
**UNIQUENESS**

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 7
OBAMA WINNING-VOTE COUNT

Obama is barely beating McCain – he needs all the votes he can get
International Herald Tribune 7/29 2008, “The Obama Paradox: Why No Breakaway?; He Draws Crowds
, but McCain Keeps Close in Polls; Elections 2008,” p.1, lexis
It is a question that has hovered over Senator Barack Obama even as he has passed milestone after
milestone in his race for the White House: Why is he not doing better? It shadowed him as he struggled
against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in many states through the primaries - results that sometimes stood
at odds with the huge, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see him. It was there in the exit polls that
suggested that many Democrats were uncomfortable with Obama, putting an asterisk next to some of his
biggest primary victories. And it is back again as he returns from an overseas trip that even Republicans
have described as politically triumphant. In this case, the question is why, given how sour Americans feel
about President George W. Bush and the Republican Party, about the Iraq war and the ailing economy that
Bush will leave to his successor and about the perception that Obama is running such a better campaign
than Senator John McCain, the senator from Illinois is not doing even better in national opinion polls Most
polls show Obama with a lead of 6 or 7 points over McCain nationally, and he rarely breaks the 50 percent
mark. Those are statistics that have given Republicans, who are not exactly feeling joyful these days, a line
to grab onto and has fed some underlying anxiety among some Democrats. ''They've known John McCain
for years,'' said Bill McInturff, a pollster for McCain. ''But people say in focus groups, 'Who the heck is
Barack Obama? Had you heard of him before six months ago?' ''And he's 46 years old. He's somebody
nobody knows about.'' McCain is ''running ahead of where he should be based on the environment,''
McInturff said. Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster, said the statistics should serve as a reminder of the
particular obstacles that Obama faces. ''Here's a 46-year-old African-American with a narrative that is very
unusual and that few other Americans can relate to,'' he said. ''Add to the fact that he has had four years in
the United States Senate and very little international experience. That's a large leap for the American public
to make.'' Beyond that, Obama faces an opponent in McCain with a history of appealing to independent
voters and defying his party on occasion. McCain's advocates argued during the primaries that he was the
strongest candidate the party had in a general election contest for just these reasons. ''I believe had Mike
Huckabee or Mitt Romney been our nominee, they'd be 10 or 12 points behind right now, they'd be much
closer to the generic vote,'' McInturff said. Yet for all that, is Obama really struggling? Are these summer
polls truly evidence of underperforming or fundamental weaknesses in his campaign? The truth of the
matter is, given the history in open presidential elections over the past 50-years - not to mention the recent
polarization that has marked politics in the United States - a seven-point victory by Obama, or by McCain,
in November would have to be considered substantial in a contest where there is no incumbent on the
ballot. ''If you look at this historically, presidential elections are close,'' said David Plouffe, Obama's
campaign manager. In the elections of 2000, 1968 and 1960, with no incumbent president on the ballot, the
two candidates were separated by less than a percentage point. George H.W. Bush defeated Michael
Dukakis in 1988 by seven points, and suffice it to say that Obama is no Dukakis. Bill Clinton defeated
Bush four years later by six points, and that was in a three-way election with H. Ross Perot. Some analysts
said that Obama could be like Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan was up against an unpopular incumbent,
President Jimmy Carter, who for all his weaknesses was a known quantity. Only after Reagan convinced
voters that he was credible as a president did the polls break in his direction. Even Obama's advisers say
they are uneasy at his difficulty at breaking the 50 percent barrier, a reminder - in poll after poll - that there
are a lot of Americans who are not ready to cast their lot with him and may never be. Yet in a multi-
candidate race, as this one is - though Bob Barr and Ralph Nader so far are having minimal effect - victory
can be claimed with less than 50 percent of the vote. Other than Bush in 1988 and Dwight Eisenhower in
1952, presidents have been routinely strolling into the Oval Office without a majority of the vote - or
barely: Reagan drew just under 51 percent in his three-way race with Carter. And finally, this is July. There
are two conventions and three debates to go; many Americans will not even begin really paying attention to
this election until early September. Voters may be holding back because they have all kinds of
apprehensions about Obama. Or they might just not be ready to make a decision quite this early.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 8
OBAMA WINNING-LARGE MARGIN

Media hype of a close election is wrong – Obama will win
The Age, 7/28 2008, Australia, “US pundits pour cold water on talk of tight election race; Analysis,” p. 10,
lexis
LUCKILY for the Republicans' John McCain, Europeans can't vote in November's presidential election -
just 100 days away. If they could, it would be a landslide for Democratic candidate Barack Obama. But
Senator McCain has reason to be worried - very worried. Last week three political scientists declared that
the US media's presentation of the election as being close was a myth. Alan Abramowitz, a professor of
political science at Emory University, Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Larry
Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia, accused the media of flogging a dead horse in
portraying the White House race as a cliffhanger. It was a particularly bold call for Professor Sabato, who
had been sceptical about Senator Obama's claims that he could redraw the political map. "While no
election outcome is guaranteed and McCain's prospects could improve over the next 3 1/2 months,
virtually all of the evidence that we have reviewed - historical patterns, structural features of this
election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months - point to a
comfortable Obama-Democratic Party victory in November," the trio wrote last week in Professor
Sabato's Crystal Ball newsletter. "Trumpeting this race as a toss-up, almost certain to produce another
nail-biter finish, distorts the evidence and does a disservice to readers and viewers who rely upon
such punditry. Again, maybe conditions will change in McCain's favour, and if they do, they should also
be accurately described by the media. But current data do not justify calling this election a toss-up." The
trio reviewed national tracking polls and found that Senator Obama has led Senator McCain in every
national poll in the past two months, except for twice early on when they tied. The state-by-state polls have
also consistently given Senator Obama an advantage. "According to realclearpolitics.com, Senator Obama
is leading in 26 states and the District of Columbia, with a total of 322 electoral votes; Senator McCain is
leading in 24 states, with a total of 216 electoral votes," they said. "Obama is leading in every state carried
by John Kerry in 2004, along with six states carried by George Bush: Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana,
Nevada and Colorado. A seventh Bush state, Virginia, is tied." There are other worrying signs for Senator
McCain. A Fox News poll found that 51% of Americans think Senator Obama will win. Only 27% say
Senator McCain will win (down from 32% last month). Senator Obama has run a campaign with few
stumbles, apart from his serious mishandling of the controversy over his former pastor, the Reverend
Jeremiah Wright. Meanwhile, he is making headway among the constituents that commentators warned
would be difficult to woo. A Pew Hispanic Centre poll, released last Thursday, shows overwhelming
support for Senator Obama from Latinos, at 66% to 23% for Senator McCain. Senator McCain faces a
hostile political environment. The Iraq war remains deeply unpopular in the US, although support for the
troop surge has risen somewhat as its impact becomes clearer. The economic news just worsens, and he is
struggling to distinguish his remedies from those of Mr Bush. He is also struggling to win over many
Republicans. The question remains: can Senator Obama overcome what some fear is a deep-seated racist
resistance to him in middle America?

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 9
OBAMA WINNING-MCCAIN SLIP

Obama will win – McCain’s ratings are slipping
Angus Reid Global Monitor 7/29 2008, Polls and Research, “Obama Stable, McCain Drops in US Race,”
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31384/obama_stable_mccain_drops_in_us_race
Democrat Barack Obama remains ahead in the 2008 United States presidential race, according to a poll by
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Democracy Corps. 49 per cent of respondents would support the
Illinois senator this year, while 43 per cent would vote for Republican Arizona senator John McCain.
Support for Obama remained stable since June, while backing for McCain fell by two points. Five per cent
of respondents would vote for other candidates, and two per cent are undecided. Yesterday, McCain
criticized the current administration’s handling of the economy—after it was revealed that the country’s
deficit would reach $482 billion U.S. in 2009—saying, "There is no more striking reminder of the need to
reverse the profligate spending that has characterized this administration’s fiscal policy." In American
elections, candidates require 270 votes in the Electoral College to win the White House. In November
2004, Republican George W. Bush earned a second term after securing 286 electoral votes from 31 states.
Democratic nominee John Kerry received 252 electoral votes from 19 states and the District of Columbia.
Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The presidential election is scheduled for Nov. 4.
Obama will win – McCain’s Iraq policy has lost him votes
Indianapolis Star 8/2 2008, “McCain’s Iraq Positions Turn Off Voters,”
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/OPINION01/808020395/1002/OPINION
Sen. John McCain is fond of saying that Sen. Barack Obama "would rather lose a war than lose an
election." Apparently, McCain would rather taunt Obama than debate the actual merits of Iraq and national
security. McCain refuses to commit to a timetable to withdraw American troops from Iraq. He refuses to
acknowledge that the invasion was a mistake, based upon lies, and has made us only more vulnerable to
another Sept. 11 (for which Iraq had no responsibility). At times he asserts that Iraq is too insecure for U.S.
troops to leave. At others, he says our troops will be welcome for 100 years. In neither case does he
recognize the strength of Iraqi nationalism, which is feeding the insurgency. Nor does he see that only by
setting a deadline will we prod Iraq leaders to make political compromises to end sectarian violence.
McCain scorns the tough, direct diplomacy that Obama favors, diplomacy in the tradition of all post-World
War II presidents except George W. Bush. Voters who do not want to be debating two disastrous wars
during the next election must hope that Obama wins this one.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 10
OBAMA WINNING-INDEPENDENTS
Obama will win the election – independents
Washington Post 7/24, 2008, “McCain Makes Significant Gains in Key Battleground States,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/24/ST2008072401398.html
The national political environment -- as reflected in these four statewide polls -- also seems to suggest
major hurdles for McCain in the fall. President George W. Bush remains a decidedly unpopular figure to
the general public with no more than 31 percent in any of the four states approving of the job he is doing.
The numbers are even more daunting among self-identified independents who typically make up the swing
vote in a presidential election. In Colorado, where independents have traditionally leaned toward Republicans, seven in ten
unaffiliated voters expressed disapproval with the job Bush is doing. Those numbers are nearly identical in each of the other three
states. The polls also reveal widespread pessimism about the future of the country -- never a good sign for
the candidate running under the party banner of the incumbent. In Minnesota, just one in five voters called themselves
very or somewhat satisfied with "the way things are going in the nation today" while a whopping 77 percent pronounced themselves
dissatisfied. The outlook was even worse in the other three states, with dissatisfied voters at 78 percent in Colorado, 81 percent in
Wisconsin, and 84 percent in Michigan.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 11
OBAMA WINNING-POLLS
It’s Obama’s election to win – polls prove
MSNBC 7/24 2008, “First Thoughts: Obama’s Election to Win,”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1218858.aspx
How important has this overseas trip been for Obama? Look no further than our latest NBC/WSJ poll,
which has Obama leading McCain by six points (47%-41%), unchanged from last month. While the survey
finds that the political winds are at the Dem candidate’s back -- just 13% believe the country’s on the right
track, an all-time low in the poll; this is the 25th-straight NBC/WSJ survey in which the GOP has a net-
negative rating; and Bush’s approval rating is only at 30% -- there are plenty of signs that Obama hasn’t yet
closed the deal; if anything, he's simply grabbing on to the reverse Bush coattails at the moment. A majority
(55%) think he would be the riskier choice for president, less than half of respondents say he doesn’t share
their values and background, and McCain clobbers him on experience and commander-in-chief questions.
This election, in fact, has become a referendum on Obama: 51% say they are focusing more on what kind
of president Obama would be, versus just 27% who say they are focusing more on McCain. While a
common refrain is that this election is shaping up as Obama’s election to lose, NBC/WSJ co-pollster Peter
Hart (D) puts it another way “This remains Barack Obama’s election to win,” he says. “In the end, the
election is about reassuring voters and removing doubts.”
Obama remains ahead in polls

US News & World Report 7/29 2008, “New Poll Shows McCain Leading Among Likely Voters,”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080729.htm
The Gallup daily presidential tracking poll shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain 48%-
40%, down from a 49%-40% lead yesterday. The survey polled 2,674 registered voters from July 25-27.
The Rasmussen Report automated daily presidential tracking poll for July 28 shows that while Obama
opened a wider lead over the weekend, it closed again in yesterday's survey of 3,000 registered voters.
Obama now leads McCain 45%-42%, and 48%-45% if leaners are included. A Democracy Corps (D) poll
of 1,004 likely voters taken July 21-24 shows Obama leading McCain 50%-45% in a two-way race or 49%-
43% if Bob Barr (L) and Ralph Nader are included.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 12
McCain Winning-Obama Slip

Obama will lose the election – fears of inexperience, polls, and party disillusionment
Huffington Post 5/29 2008, “Obama is Working Hard and McCain is Hardly Working; Yet, Presidential
Race Remains Too Close to Call,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-almonte/obama-is-working-hard-
and_b_115684.html
Behind all the glitter of the Obama campaign, the grim reality is that the number of undecided voters is
growing. Six out of seven McCain supporters admit they do so without much enthusiasm; nevertheless,
voters still consider Obama a riskier choice, concerned that he does not have enough experience to lead the
country on the international stage and unconvinced by his solutions for the U.S. economy. The proof?
Despite Obama's highly publicized trip overseas, it has barely made an impression among voters at home.
Some polls actually show McCain gaining on him. It is also important to consider that many Hillary
supporters still harbor animosity toward Obama. They had once threatened to vote for McCain should
Hillary concede. Despite Hillary's best efforts to throw her support to Obama, it is still unclear whether her
supporters have fully embraced Obama as much as she has. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll
revealed that, while the majority of Clinton supporters had originally agreed to vote for Obama, that
number has been steadily decreasing. And former supporters are having second thoughts. James Dobson,
leader of Focus on the Family and a high profile member of the religious right, recently announced he
might switch support from Obama to McCain. It's not that he is enthusiastic about McCain, he explained,
it's just that he is no longer certain about Obama, whom he now believes "contradicts and threatens ...the
institution of the family." The glare of the media spotlight has also compelled Obama to make more definite
statements about his position on crucial issues, such as the war in the Middle East and the economy,
making him a clearer target for attack. Obama has also been disillusioning many Democrats behind the
scene, who feel he is already displaying an "exclusionary" attitude toward them. They fear that, like the
Bush administration, Obama will circle the wagon around his cabinet and disregard input from his fellow
Democrat once he gains the Oval Office. Many people also underestimate the experience and networking
skills of McCain, who has many political connections in Washington. While the spotlight has burned
brightly on his rival, he has been working behind the scene to bolster support among fellow Republicans --
themselves hardcore dealmakers on the Washington political scene -- who are ready to call in a few favors
and pull some strings to ensure their man wins.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 13
MCCAIN WINNING-POLLS
Polls of likely voters prove McCain will win
US News & World Report 7/29 2008, “New Poll Shows McCain Leading Among Likely Voters,”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080729.htm
A new USA Today/Gallup national poll shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain 47%-44%
among registered voters. However, when the sample is reduced to only those likely to vote, McCain jumps
to a 49%-45% lead. The survey, taken July 25-28, "showed a surge since last month in likely Republican
voters and suggested Obama's trip may have helped energize voters who favor McCain." The poll surveyed
900 registered voters and 791 likely voters.
Recent polls show McCain is ahead

Boston Globe 5/28 2008, “McCain Ahead in New Poll,” Political Intelligence,
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/mccain_ahead_in.html
While most national polls show Democrat Barack Obama with a single-digit edge over Republican John
McCain, a new survey out this afternoon shows McCain surging into the lead. The USA Today/Gallup poll
has McCain ahead 49 percent to 45 percent among likely voters after picking up 10 percentage points over
the last month. Obama still leads among the broader group of registered voters, 47 percent to 44 percent,
which the pollster says is the more important this far away from the election. (Gallup's separate daily
tracking poll has Obama up 49 percent to 40 percent.) The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday, as
Obama was wrapping up his high-profile foreign tour. Obama, himself, predicted he might dip a little in the
polls because he spent eight days off the campaign trail at home. The survey has a margin of error of plus
or minus 4 percentage points.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 14
MCCAIN WINNING-SWING STATES

McCain is gaining votes in swing states
Boston Globe, 8/1 2008, “McCain gaining in polls in swing states,”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/08/01/mccain_gaining_in_polls_in_swing_states/
New polls released yesterday by Quinnipiac University of likely voters in key swing states shows
Republican John McCain closing in on Democrat Barack Obama. A university survey in Florida shows
Obama leading 46 percent to 44 percent, compared with 47 percent to 43 percent last month. A poll in Ohio
also gives Obama a 46 percent to 44 percent edge, down from 48 percent to 42 percent last month. And a
survey by the university in Pennsylvania has Obama ahead 49 percent to 42 percent, compared with 52
percent to 40 percent last month. The pollsters say Obama's overseas trip apparently didn't help because
voters are more concerned with energy costs, an issue McCain emphasized while his rival was abroad
"While Obama was on tour, trying to show voters he could handle world affairs, voters were home trying to
fill their gas tanks," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's polling institute.
Key states are moving towards McCain

Wall Street Journal 7/25/08 “Gap is Narrowing in Battleground States,”
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121689893266880737.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_left
box
The presidential race is tightening in four key battleground states, with Republican John McCain holding
an advantage among white male voters and Democrat Barack Obama keeping his lead among the youngest
voters, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. Results of the poll, which was conducted in
partnership with The Wall Street Journal and washingtonpost.com, show the gap narrowing between Sens.
McCain and Obama. Sen. Obama leads slightly in Michigan and by double-digits in Wisconsin, but by
smaller margins than about one month ago. The two candidates are running statistically even in Colorado
and Minnesota, compared to the respective five-point and seven-point lead Sen. Obama had in June.
McCain is winning key states – Colorado and Michigan

AFP 7/25 2008, Agence France Presse, lexis
Another poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute showed McCain had cut
Obama's lead in the key battleground states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and overtaken Obama
in voter support in Colorado. "It's been a good month for McCain. His movement in these key states, not
large except for Minnesota, jibes with the tightening we are seeing in the national polls," said Peter Brown,
the institute's assistant director. "The good news for McCain is that he has improved his standing in
Colorado and Michigan, two states that are critical to each man's strategy," Brown said.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 15
MCCAIN WINNING-MOMENTOUM
McCain has momentum
Washington Times 7/22 2008 lexis
During the last six weeks, Mr. Obama has erred in making unabashed flips-flops. Despite the increased
attention he is currently receiving on his overseas tour, American voters are beginning to see beyond the
glitter that the talented speaker dispensed throughout the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Mr. Obama's
poll ratings are the lowest since he clinched the nomination in early June, Rasmussen reported. Mr. Obama
and John McCain are now tied at 42 percent and 41 percent. While Mr. McCain's ratings have remained
consistent, Mr. Obama's have dropped 6 percent since the end of the Democratic contest (48 percent of
those polled on June 8-10 said they would vote for him). Thus, Mr. Obama did not receive the "bump" in
the polls that many commentators expected he would get once the battle with Hillary Clinton came to an
end. Rather, his support has weakened.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 16
AT: POLLS
Polls are an inaccurate determinant of election winners
Rather 8/2 Dan, Syndicated Columnist, 2008, “Summer polls in presidential campaign are pure folly,”
Seattle PI, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/373197_ratheronline03.html
A few words about these polls. First and foremost, no matter whom one wants to see in the White House,
paying close attention to summer polls is pure folly. Some say to this line of reasoning, "Sure, but look at
Michael Dukakis, for example: He was up 17 points over George H.W. Bush in 1988." And Dukakis lost –
so what, precisely, is the point here? If you must search for historical antecedents, you could also look at
1980, when unpopular incumbent Jimmy Carter ran a close race against Ronald Reagan until very late in
the campaign, when voters evidently decided they were comfortable with the former actor and onetime
governor of California. Reagan went on to win by nine points in an electoral landslide. But as they say in
the disclaimers that run at the end of ads for investment services, past performance does not necessarily
serve as a predictor of future results. And it's worth remembering that polls haven't exactly been the most
reliable indicators so far in this election season. Perhaps this is advantage McCain, as Obama polled better
than he performed in the run-up to the New Hampshire and California primaries – and perhaps this is
advantage Obama, as one theory has it that pollsters, who only use land lines to place their polling calls, are
missing a lot of Obama's younger, cell-phone-only supporters.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 17
**LINKS**

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 18
ENVIRONMENT LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY
Environmental Protection is popular with the public-
Washington Monthly, 06
(Christina Larson, managing editor of The Washington Monthly, “The Emerging Environmental Majority”,
May 2006, < http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.larson.html>)
But there are outdoor organizations whose members include voters who can draw conservatives' attention.
After an Earthworks staffer tipped off a counterpart at Trout Unlimited, the sportsmen's group (whose
membership is two to one Republican) emailed its roughly 100,000 members and contacted regional
editorial boards to spotlight the fight. News spread like wildfire--western sportsmen were outraged that
public lands where they hunt and fish might be put on the auction block. Once they knew the stakes, local
hook-and-bullet organizations held phone-bank days, organized letter-writing campaigns, and scheduled
visits to regional Senate offices. A petition signed by 758 sportsmen's clubs affiliated with National Wildlife
Federation, from the Great Falls Bowhunters Association to the Custer Rod and Gun Club, landed on
elected officials' desks in Washington just weeks later. "These lands, so important to sportsmen and women,
are open to every American, rich and poor alike," the letter read. "We believe it is wrong to put them up for
mining companies and other commercial interests to buy at cut-rate prices." The outcry from rural and
exurban voters achieved what no amount of lobbying from environmentalists in Washington alone could
have. Within weeks, western Republican senators renounced the measure on the Senate floor and to their
hometown newspapers. As Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) told the Billings Gazette, "The local folks most
impacted by a sale have to be on board." The measure was then effectively dead--within weeks the
language was withdrawn from the House bill. This victory marked a telling moment of cooperation
between hunters and environmentalists, a working partnership once as unlikely as Madeleine Albright and
Jesse Helms. Environmental policies have become increasingly popular over the past few years. Seventy-
five percent of Americans in a 2005 Harris poll agreed with the statement, "Protecting the environment is
so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental
improvements must be made regardless of cost." Yet a shrinking minority of voters are willing to associate
themselves with the loaded term "environmentalist." In the same poll, only 12 percent claimed that label.
Americans like green, but they are less fond of greens. And that has been doubly true for outdoorsmen.
Over the past five years, though, Bush administration policies in the west--accelerating drilling on public
lands and waiving protections on water quality and wildlife--have given this odd couple a common enemy.
"The White House's pillaging of public lands has driven hunters and ranchers into the trenches with
environmentalists," says David Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society. "There's absolutely no question
about what's brought us closer together," agrees Oregon hunter and prominent outdoor columnist Pat Wray.
"It's the Bush administration." This is particularly true in western states like Montana, where the Wilderness
Society worked alongside local hunters and outfitters in 2004 to overturn plans to allow drilling in the
Rocky Mountain Front, a unique big-game habitat known as "America's Serengeti." Similar coalitions have
formed around New Mexico's Valle Vidal, Colorado's Roan Plateau, Wyoming's Powder River Basin, and
elsewhere--uniting the environmentalists' policy, legal, and media expertise with sportsmen's deep
knowledge of a particular place and ability to speak a language that resonates locally. These struggles may
pale in comparison to the brewing battle over global warming. As more red-state farmers find their crops
affected by rising temperatures, more ice fishermen notice lakes that no longer freeze in the winter, and
more hunters see wetlands where ducks breed begin to evaporate, concern about climate change is crossing
old political boundaries. Although they may have diverse starting points and dramatically different
reactions to labels like "environmentalist," liberal and conservative outdoor activists are discovering that on
a range of issues, their concerns about the earth overlap. In many ways, this brings them full-circle to the
beginning of America's environmental movement. If today's new alliances become a lasting united front,
the union could not only recast American politics with a progressive tilt but have vast implications for the
health of the planet.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 19
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY
Alternative Energies are popular with the public
China Daily, 08
(“Alternative energy popular stop in presidential campaign”, 7/23/08, Lexis)
A small green clearing on a hilltop beside the Ohio River doesn't seem like much of campaign stop, but John Baardson knows the
scent of alternative energy and undecided voters will lure America's presidential contenders before long.
"McCain has already called and expressed interest, and we believe Obama will too," said the president and chief
executive of Baard Energy. Before Americans go to the polls in November to choose Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack
Obama to be the next US president, Baardson plans to break ground on a $6 billion plant in Wellsville that will turn Appalachian coal
into 53,000 barrels a day of diesel and jet fuel. The plant, designed to produce fuel that costs just $60 to $70 a barrel with 46 percent
fewer emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than conventional diesel fuels, is an irresistible draw for the 2008
presidential hopefuls. With oil at $130 a barrel and gasoline at $4 a gallon, energy and the economy has vaulted to the top of the
political agenda, and McCain and Obama have both sought to portray themselves as proponents of cheaper alternatives. That Baard's
plant will be in Ohio, the politically critical state in President George W. Bush 2004 election victory that could once again help
determine the outcome of this election, is just a happy coincidence. "The politics are fascinating," Baardson said. "We want to drive
home the point that if you want the voters in this area, this is something you can give them ... the price of oil is the number one issue
out there and we have a clean solution." The plant will bring at least 1,500 construction and 200 full-time jobs to impoverished eastern
Ohio. In addition, some 18,000 tons of coal a day will be liquefied into fuel suitable for use in jets and trucks - adding an estimated
750 mining jobs to the mix. In return for the jobs and home-grown fuel supply, Baard wants the government to offer loan guarantees
and Air Force fuel contracts. The state of Ohio helped lure the plant, which is mostly privately funded, with tax incentives. While
conservative Republicans see more drilling as the best answer to America's oil needs and liberal Democrats want to focus on wind,
solar and biofuels, the politics of coal - which supplies about 50 percent of America's energy needs - is complex. Moderates on
both sides have found something to like about Baard's coal-to-liquid plant, which gasifies woodwaste and
coal and captures and sequesters about 85 percent of the resultant carbon dioxide emissions in the region's
coal beds. More importantly, analysts believe embracing coal-to-liquid technologies and others like it may offer Obama a way to
win over white working class voters in the area, an economically depressed but culturally conservative region that supported rival
Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nominating process. Obama has a track record of supporting coal, since coal mining is also a staple
of his home state, Illinois. But whether that will be enough to win over voters concerned about his race or reputation as a liberal elite
is not clear. "Right now Obama has the more difficult challenge in this region than McCain, but the economy is in lousy shape so
Democrats should be able to connect," said Herb Asher, a professor of political science at Ohio State University, "It's an important
area - only 10 percent of (Ohio's) vote but it can move back and forth. I think at this stage it's a challenge for Obama but he doesn't
have to carry it - even if he loses, the votes he gets could make the difference." Polls show Obama with a small lead over McCain in
Ohio, but the state is considered too close to call.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 20
ETHANOL LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY
Public Support for Ethanol
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, 08

(Political Research Institution, “Public Support for Ethanol”, 7/10/08,
http://www.greenbergresearch.com/articles/2216/4489_RFA%20%20_public%20survey%20analysis_%20m3%200610.pdf)
The on-going campaign to force the nation to revisit and reduce its commitment to ethanol has failed to move most American voters. A
recent bi-partisan survey of 1,200 registered voters shows that by a 2:1 margin, the public supports increased use of ethanol
in our nation’s fuel supply. This majority crosses party lines, capturing conservatives and environmentalists
alike. Voters largely blame the rising cost of food on fuel prices; less than one in ten blame the expanded
use of ethanol. Between June 23 and July 1, the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican polling
firm Public Opinion Strategies conducted a survey of 1,200 registered voters, including oversamples of environmentalists and
“opinion formers.”1 The overall margin of error for this survey is +/- 2.83. This survey was commissioned by the Renewable Fuels
Association. The pro-ethanol majority is big…and broad. Asked if they favor or oppose continuing to increase
use of ethanol, an impressive 59 percent come out in favor, while just 30 percent oppose. Support is even
higher (63 percent) among environmentalists. Men and women, older voters and younger voters, high school educated and
college graduates, and voters from all regions in the country support this alternative fuel. Most impressive, though, at a time when
Democrats and Republicans cannot seem to agree on anything, they agree on the increased use of ethanol.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 21
RENEWABLES LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY
Renewables are popular
National Conference of State Legislatures, 02
(Troy Gagliano, “Renewing the Energy Debate”, State Legislatures Magazine: April 2002,
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/402energy.htm)
Kansas Representative Sloan says the public doesn't need to be coaxed to use power generated from renewable
resources, but more has to be made available. "Public opinion polls show that citizens overwhelmingly
support it," he says, "because it's cost-effective and can be used in concert with traditional fossil fuel plant operations." State
lawmakers need to consider incentives to stimulate electricity generation from renewable resources, he says, which is not only
popular with the public, but can be beneficial to rural landowners and increase energy self-sufficiency.
"Legislators and regulators can provide minimal or no-cost incentives to individual landowners, utility managers and other interested
parties to invest in renewable technologies that enhance a state's energy self-sufficiency," Sloan says. "It's something we all have to
look at."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 22
BIOMASS LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY
Biomass is popular
Wall Street Journal, 06

(John Deutch, “Biomass Movement”, 5/10/06,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114722621580248526.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)
President Bush has made the welcome point that the U.S. needs "to move beyond a petroleum-based
economy," and has lent his support to the need to develop energy from biomass, which refers to all bulk
plant material. This is popular with the public and also enjoys significant support in Congress. Unfortunately,
congressional subsidies for biomass are driven by farm-state politics rather than by a technology-development effort that might offer a
practical liquid fuel alternative to oil. Meanwhile, major oil and chemical companies are evaluating biomass and investors are chasing
biomass investment opportunities. But how much of this is practicable?

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 23
SOLAR LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY

Solar Energy is popular
Forbes, 08
(Joshua Zumbrun and William Pentland, Columnists for Forbes, “Solar Power”, 7/8/08, http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/07/energy-
solar-blm-biz-beltway-cx_jz_wp_0708solar.html)
The bureau (BLM) decided to stop accepting applications to build solar plants on federal land until a two-year environmental impact
study was complete in 2010. Sanders, with a long history of backing environmental causes, was livid at the decision. But in the middle
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting, Sanders unexpectedly got word that the BLM reversed its decision. "I
congratulate the bureau for making the change and for understanding the enormous potential of solar energy," Sanders said. The
turnaround was a welcome development for backers of the technology--and, more important, demonstrates
the alternative energy industry's coming of age in Washington after decades of behind-the-scenes lobbying
effort. What happened? "After six weeks of public outcry and inquiries from Congress, BLM reversed their
position," says Katherine Gensler, the manager of regulatory and legislative affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association. This
chapter in the solar saga started in May, when the BLM announced it would no longer take applications. Since 2005, the bureau has
received 130 applications to develop solar plants across 1 million acres of federal land. Before accepting any more, the bureau wanted
to complete a "programmatic environmental impact study" to assess the process of building solar plants. Such studies typically take 18
to 24 months. For the solar industry, the delay was seen as a dangerous threat. The BLM controls 12 million acres in Arizona, 15
million in California, 8 million in Colorado, 13 million in New Mexico, 48 million in Nevada and 23 million in Utah. A lot of that land
is sun-drenched empty desert, some of the best land in the country for collecting solar energy. "It was a blow for the industry, and it
was a surprise," says Gensler. "It certainly caused fear in a lot of developers' hearts." Lengthy delays can jeopardize the funding of
some projects, and the longer projects wait in the pipeline, the longer companies must wait to reap the revenue from their investments.
"Right away we started to hear from folks," says Heather Feeney, a spokeswoman for the BLM. "Solar energy is incredibly
popular, and the BLM recognizes that and is willing to encourage that."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 24
WIND ENERGY LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY
Wind Energy the most popular form of alternative energy
Bradley, 98
(Robert, USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), “Dirty secrets of renewable energy”, May 1998,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2636_v126/ai_n27529128)
Wind power currently is the environmentalists' favorite source of renewable energy and is thought to be the
most likely to replace fossil fuel in the generation of electricity in the 21st century. Hydropower has lost
favor with environmentalists because of the damage it has done to river habitats and freshwater fish
populations. Solar power, at least when relied on for central-station or grid power generation, has
infrastructure that is very energy-intensive (and thus fosters the air pollution situation it is intended to solve). Moreover, it is
highly uneconomical, land-intensive, and thus a fringe electric power source for the foreseeable future. Geothermal has turned out to
be depletable, with limited capacity, falling output, and modest new investment. Biomass is uneconomical and an air pollution-
intensive renewable. This leaves wind power, beloved as a renewable resource with no air pollutants and
considered worthy of regulatory preference and open-ended taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. Despite decades
of liberal subsidies, though, the cost of generating electricity from wind remains stubbornly uneconomical in an increasingly
competitive electricity market.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 25
NUCLEAR POWER LINK-MCCAIN SUPPORT
McCain supports Nuclear power-would get credit
Environmental News, 08
(7/2/08, “McCain and Obama's Plans to Combat Climate Change”,
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37541)
“Nuclear power has got to be part of any real meaningful effort that we are going to make to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions,” said McCain. “It has got to be part of the equation.” McCain encourages
development of nuclear power. Despite his view that the market should correct itself, in May of 2005 and January of 2007,
McCain and Lieberman introduced climate change bills that would give billions in subsidies to the nuclear
industry. McCain proposes the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.
McCain gets credit for nuclear energy
Reuters, 08
(“FACTBOX: U.S. presidential candidates on nuclear energy”, 5/6/08,

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0643937020080506?sp=true)
Nuclear energy is part of each of the 2008 presidential candidates' energy platforms. Republican John
McCain supports it wholeheartedly, while Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton express reservations. Below are
aspects of each candidate's position on nuclear power as outlined in their energy polices. MCCAIN, an Arizona senator - believes
the United States can use nuclear power more extensively to reduce its reliance on petroleum imported
from unstable regions and unfriendly sources. - believes that fuel sources that are alternatives to oil should
be selected by competitive markets but thinks nuclear power has faced an uneven playing field because of
political opposition. - supports the Yucca Mountain storage facility and believes opposition to it is harmful
to U.S. interests. - is open to advances in technology that permit greater safe reprocessing of spent fuel. He
believes improvements in reactor design have reduced concerns over safe operation, but that there must be vigilance in all aspects of
operation, transportation of waste, and storage of waste.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 26
CAP AND TRADE LINK-MCCAIN SUPPORT
McCain gets credit for cap and trade

“Cap and trade is being implemented in Europe and they have stumbled and they’ve had problems but it is
still the right thing to do,”ﾝ said John McCain. “It is what we did in relation to acid rain.”ﾝ McCain is
calling for a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. One of the reasons McCain supports this
approach is because it encourages the market to respond with the lowest cost approach. He believes the
market will correct itself with the use of cleaner technologies without the need for intervention, such as a
tax credit or major investment from the government. One challenge with this plan is that we don’t operate in a truly free
market, which is needed for the market to correct the problem. Large subsidies exist for all sources of energy, although renewable
energy has had less consistent ones. Many of the hidden costs of pollution are not accounted for, even under a cap and trade system.
For example, who is paying for the hospital visits when a child has an asthma attack from air pollution?

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 27
RENEWABLES LINK-MCCAIN SUPPORT
McCain gets credit for Renewables
Although McCain says that he supports renewable energy, he has not set specific targets. John McCain’s website (JohnMcCain.com)
makes no mention of solar, wind, renewable energy, or even public transportation under the section on climate change and has no
section on energy. The Senate was one vote shy of passing an economic stimulus package earlier this year that contained an incentive
for solar energy. McCain didn’t show up to vote. He also does support the subsidies for ethanol that are currently in place. “Coal fired
power plants,”ﾝ said McCain “are being proposed to be built all over this country”¦If you can generate that power and set up a station
that is powered by solar, by God I would love it, but you know we don’t have that technology.”ﾝ Despite the advancement of
renewable energy in recent years, McCain doesn’t support incentives similar to what he has proposed for nuclear power and “clean”ﾝ
coal.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 28
CLEAN COAL LINK-MCCAIN SUPPORT
McCain gets credit for Clean Coal
McCain has expressed support for “clean”ﾝ coal and concern about the construction of additional
conventional coal powered plants. He recently told a Missouri State University audience that he will pledge
$2 billion to make “clean”ﾝ coal a reality. McCain had supported a moratorium on offshore oil drilling until recently. He
now is showing increasing support for opening up offshore areas to drilling. "I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these
restrictions and to put our own reserves to use," McCain said in June. "As a matter of fairness to the American people
and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for
America by increasing domestic production."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 29
BRAZIL ETHANOL LINK-MCCAIN SUPPORT
McCain gets cred on Brazilian Ethanol-prior support
Biofuels Digest, 08
(“McCain supports ending of ethanol subsidies, Brazilian ethanol tariff”, 6/16/08,
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/06/16/mccain-supports-ending-of-ethanol-subsidies-brazilian-ethanol-tariff/)
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said that he supports the ending of ethanol subsidies,
would back a repeal of the ethanol tariff, and would support the inclusion of Brazil and India into a larger
G8 group. McCain was quoted in Estato de Sao Paulo saying that he favors the removal of Russia from the G8. Recently, McCain,
who introduced the first proposed cap-and-trade bill in the Senate in 2003, said: “The facts of global warming demand our
urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple common sense demand
that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly,” he said. “I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that
the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious
challenges. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-
fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean
energy.” McCain was speaking at the Vestas Wind Technology plant in Portland, Oregon. Recently, Sen.
McCain led a revolt of 24 Senate Republicans have asked the EPA to waive, or restructure, the Renewable Fuel Standard passed in
December. In a statement, Sen. John McCain said that “This subsidized (ethanol) program â€” paid for by taxpayer dollars â€” has
contributed to pain at the cash register, at the dining room table, and a devastating food crisis throughout the world.” The Senators said
that waiving the ethanol mandate would encourage farmers to grow other crops, as opposed to growing corn for food markets.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 30
ENERGY KEY-PUBLIC CONCERN
Energy is the top concern of the public going into this election year
Associated Press, 08
(“Gas at $4 brings promises, pandering”, 6/23/08, < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25335622/>)
Oil and gas prices that have doubled in the past year have squeezed aside the war in Iraq as the No. 1 issue
this election year and both parties are blaming each other for the price spike — and for apparent
congressional paralysis. Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their campaigns and
have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their positions are being echoed daily by their
surrogates on Capitol Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower
fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the nation's addiction to foreign oil. This
debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches. In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released
Monday, nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or extremely important in
deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the economy as the top issue. People said
Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 31
MCCAIN GETS CREDIT-GREEN POLICY
McCain gets credit- Big on energy
Time, 08
(James Carney, Staff Columnist for Time Magazine, “The Week in Politics”, 1/28/08,
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1818880,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics)
There was some positive news for John McCain this week. As
the price of oil keeps climbing, so too, it seems, does the
public's support for new oil drilling. At the very least, McCain's combination of aggressively pushing for
new drilling and making bold proposals for ways to encourage development of alternative energy is helping
him look strong and proactive on an issue that might otherwise benefit the Democrat. And, of course, the
Administration's surprising deal with North Korea over the disclosure of its nuclear activities has the potential to give a boost to
President George W. Bush's dismal poll ratings, which weigh like an anchor on McCain's campaign.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 32
MCCAIN GETS CREDIT-GREEN POLICY
Obama treating Alternative energy at taboos-McCain gets credit
Denver Post, 08
(“McCain defies energy taboos”, 6/19/08, http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9640917)
John McCain deserves credit for expanding the nation's energy debate to include such potent but politically
controversial solutions as nuclear power and drilling for oil on the continental shelf. In a speech in Springfield,
Mo., on Wednesday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee also urged more research and investment in clean coal
technology and development of alternative energy such as wind and hydroelectric power. We particularly liked the emphasis
on nuclear energy because it is the only current large-scale source of around-the-clock electricity that does
not release the greenhouse gases that are changing the world's climate. We don't expect nuclear power to play a big
role in states like Colorado, blessed with abundant wind power, a developing solar technology and potential sources of geothermal
energy. But it could be key in regions such as the south with fewer renewable resources, as the Atlanta-based utility Southern Co. has
suggested. Likewise, clean coal technology, where carbon dioxide is sequestered and injected into old natural gas fields or otherwise
kept from escaping into the atmosphere, is vital if that abundant source of U.S. fossil energy is to be responsibly tapped. As far as
McCain's rhetorical support of renewable energy, we note that he actually voted against existing tax credits for renewable energy. But
if deathbed conversions are accepted by the church, then Americans worried about responsible energy policies can't be too picky about
politicians who come late to the party. As The Post editorialized Aug. 5, 2001, "No matter how zealously the U.S. pursues energy
conservation, it will still need some new production to avert energy shortages. But conservation is not only the most cost-effective and
environmentally friendly energy policy, it's also the only one that can produce immediate results." That's still true today, but it's also
true that we can't get to the emission-free "new energy economy" overnight. While Democrats, including Barack Obama,
have generally been advocates of renewables and conservation, they've mostly treated nuclear power and
development of oil reserves in the continental shelf or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as taboo
subjects. But America can't solve its energy problems with a half-hearted policy that pursues only the production or conservation
side of the energy equation. There is no one answer. There is a mosaic of answers. In the short run, there's conservation, especially by
carpooling or using public transit. Lifting the 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol would also give a swift increment to motor
fuel supplies. In the mid-term, we applaud the incentives for cellulosic ethanol that Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar added to the farm bill
that Congress repassed Thursday over President Bush's veto. The sooner America fills our tanks with ethanol from corn stalks, not
corn itself, the better off we all are. But for the foreseeable future, America — which now consumes about 21 million barrels of oil a
day — will still need some new petroleum sources. That's why it's wise to scrap the current ban on offshore drilling and to begin
careful exploration of the ANWR reserves. Critics of both moves argue that it would be years before either of those sources would
produce new oil. But that's true of all new initiatives. And if we had began a careful exploitation of the ANWR fields in 2001, as The
Post urged in that 2001 editorial, we'd be filling millions of tanks with that American-produced fuel today.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 33
MCCAIN GETS CREDIT-GOP FOCUS
McCain gets credit
CBS News, 08
(Brian Monopoli, Political Reporter, “
McCain Camp Sees Energy As Winning Issue”, 7/30/08, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/29/politics/main4304929.shtml)
If you're looking for someone to blame for high gas prices, John McCain's campaign is happy to help. In a television ad released by
the campaign last week, "Pump," an announcer criticizes Barack Obama for "saying no" to offshore drilling and "independence from
foreign oil." "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?," she asks - after which a photo of Obama appears onscreen. The spot
has been derided by USA Today as "baloney" for laying the blame for high gas prices solely at Obama's feet, and Obama responded
with an ad of his own in which an exasperated-sounding announcer suggests McCain blaming Obama for gas prices represents "the
same old politics." The McCain campaign has increasingly focused on gas prices and energy in recent days: In
addition to the ad, there have been conference calls to stress the short-term impact of McCain's proposals
and a photo op at a Bakersfield, California oil rig on Monday. There McCain sang the praises of expanded
offshore drilling, which Obama opposes, and once again knocked Obama as "the Dr. No of America's
energy future." Republicans believe that the McCain campaign, which has been criticized for being overly reactive in
its battle with Obama, has finally found an issue on which it can successfully go on the offensive. "This is the
first time the Republicans have felt upbeat and optimistic about a major issue in a long time," said
Republican strategist Scott Reed. "McCain has framed the issue well, with solutions and a sharp contrast to
Obama, and in Congress, Republicans seem to be rallying around this issue. They feel Democrats have
boxed themselves in a corner." "I think it's one of the best issues they have," said GOP strategist Ed Rollins,
who ran Mike Huckabee's campaign. "So much in the McCain campaign has been small and sort of nitpicky, and this is a substantive
issue that shows that he has strength and some vision, which I think is very, very important." The American people appear to
be moving in McCain's direction on the issue: A Pew survey released at the beginning of this month found
that support for energy exploration is at its highest point of the decade. The survey also found that while just 22 percent of liberals said
expanded exploration was their top energy priority (ahead of conservation) in February, that figure had jumped to 45 percent by June. Earlier this month, Democratic strategist James Carville and pollster Stan
Greenberg released findings that six-in-ten voters favor McCain's offshore drilling proposal. They suggested Obama and the Democrats "have not yet advanced a compelling narrative" on energy and gas prices. In
support for building new nuclear power plants, another proposal supported by McCain, is at its highest
addition,
point in more than 30 years - 57 percent of respondents in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll (PDF) indicated
they supported building new plants. Obama's energy plan "would force the oil companies to drill in the areas they’ve already leased, provide every American family with an
immediate energy rebate and a middle-class tax cut worth $1,000, and invest $150 billion in renewable sources of energy that will create 5 million jobs and replace the oil we import from the Middle East by 2025,"
according to Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan. Obama's new ad speaks of the candidate's plan to "crack down on oil speculators, raise mileage standards and fast track alternative fuels." In a broad sense,
"the mechanisms that Obama offers are more

according to Bruce Bullock, the director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University,
government oriented, whereas the mechanisms that McCain is talking about tend to be more incentive
based towards the market." The rival campaigns have been squabbling about which candidate offers short-term relief for Americans struggling with high gas prices. Though the McCain
campaign acknowledges that offshore drilling won't result in an increase in the oil supply for a number of years, McCain economic advisor Martin Feldstein argued this week that "policies that affect long term-
supply, like the McCain strategies for increasing exploration and production...have an immediate impact on today's prices." The Obama team, meanwhile, dismisses McCain plans as doing nothing "to alleviate the
crisis of the moment," in the words of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley, who characterize McCain's proposals as "pandering." In an earlier ad, the Obama campaign tied McCain's energy policy to that of President
Bush and suggested McCain is "part of the problem." Economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution said the McCain camp's argument that McCain's long-term proposals could have a short-term impact on
prices is legitimate, though he said his "suspicion is that the impact would be very, very small." Asked if there were any significant short-term solutions being offered by either candidate when it comes to high gas
prices, Burtless said, "If you define a short-term solution as returning the U.S. to the price we were at five years ago, or even one year ago, I don't think there is anything practical on the horizon." SMU's Bullock said
that while both candidates' proposals "have some merit" - he points to Obama's emphasis on investments in alternative energy and McCain's push to increase supply - they are both offering "gimmicks" as well.
(Among them, he says, are Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies and McCain's proposed gas tax holiday.) "I don't think we can produce our way out of this, and I don't think we can conserve
our way out of this," Bullock said. In the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, voters indicated that they are largely on the same page as the economists, with the majority suggesting that neither candidate's
Republicans believe they

policies will reduce gas prices anytime soon - though Obama had a slight edge over McCain among those who believed the candidates could do so. Nonetheless,
are winning the perception battle on energy, and both President Bush and Congressional Republicans have
begun spotlighting the issue. McCain senior advisor and spokesman Taylor Griffin promised that McCain
will continue to press the issue, arguing that Obama "refuses to embrace real solutions." "It's important for
McCain to show his action plan for domestic issues," Reed said. "The rap on McCain is he didn't have
much on the economy, but the truth is for the last two months he's pretty much owned the energy issue. He
has found a political niche, and he's filled it."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 34
McCain gets credit for environmental issues-GOP undercutting
Raju, 08
(Manu, Staff Writer and Political analyist for The Hill, “GOP going for green”, 6/24/08, < http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-
going-for-green-2008-06-24.html>)
Senate Republicans aim to undercut Democrats’ claim to be the environmentally conscious party by
combining their own conservation message with a longstanding push for more oil drilling. The shift, to call
for increased energy production and less oil use, allows Republicans and their presidential candidate, Sen.
John McCain (Ariz.), to argue they will do whatever it takes to stop soaring gas prices. And it could throw
cold water on Democratic attempts to link McCain with President Bush and the oil companies reaping
record profits. Energy policy has become a flashpoint this campaign season, and both sides are jockeying
over who has the best plan to handle gas prices that top $4 per gallon. “Republicans will do BOTH — find
more oil, use less — Democrats won’t,” according to a presentation, obtained by The Hill, that Sen. Lamar
Alexander (R-Tenn.) gave at a closed-door lunch on Tuesday. Democrats have long opposed expanded
offshore drilling, highlighting environmental concerns and claims that there is enough land to drill and that
more is an unnecessary giveaway to oil and gas companies. Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate
Democrats’ chief campaign strategist, called the GOP message a “defensive and sort of last-gasp effort.”
“Two words: oil companies,” Schumer said. “They have for seven years done exactly what the oil
companies wanted.” Republicans are trying to debunk that claim with a greener message: more investment
in plug-in electric cars and trucks, less energy use by the federal government and increased oversight of
market speculation on oil futures. The move could be perceived as a shift toward McCain, who has been at
odds with many in his party on cutting greenhouse emissions and has used environmental issues to
distinguish himself from Bush. McCain called for more efficiency rules in a campaign stop Tuesday in
Santa Barbara, Calif., arguing that energy could be conserved in the 3.3 billion square feet of federal office
space nationwide. The Republican proposal also calls for moving away from the party’s bedrock position of
emphasizing oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and instead promoting oil-shale extraction and offshore
exploration. McCain has long opposed drilling in Alaska, but last week made a reversal to support a state’s
right to allow exploration along the coastal United States. Even though that reversal gives Democrats the
opportunity to link McCain with Bush, it also allows the GOP to rally behind one party message and unite
in one attack against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the Democratic presidential candidate. In one slide of
Tuesday’s presentation titled “No, we can’t” — a play on Obama’s popular slogan, “Yes, we can” —
Alexander tried to make the case that the presidential candidate has repeatedly voted against offshore
drilling and expanding domestic supplies of oil. He called the Democrat’s support for half of the energy
solution “Obamanomics.” Following the lunch, Alexander, along with other members of the Republican
leadership, echoed the talking points. “Lamar likes to say, ‘What if President Kennedy said, “We’re not
going to the moon. We’re going halfway to the moon”?’ ” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.). “That wouldn’t have been a very inspiring message, would it?” Republicans increasingly see an
advantage on the energy debate. With gas prices putting the economy in greater turmoil, public sentiment is
starting to shift towards offshore drilling and conservation measures. But the public is also skeptical that
such a move would effectively reduce gas prices. About 30 Senate Republicans huddled behind closed
doors Tuesday afternoon to craft an energy package they plan to unveil later this week. Items under
consideration included the drilling and conservation measures, as well as authorized funding on carbon
sequestration technologies, market-driven incentives for renewable energy and an expansion of nuclear
power — all part of McCain’s campaign platform. Republicans are urging their rank and file to take that
message home during the upcoming recess, saying that positive news coverage will emerge from events to
talk about more efficiency rules, like plug-in hybrid cars, along with calls for more supplies.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 35
McCain gets credit for environmental wins-focus shift
Caldwell, 08
(Theo, president of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada, National Post, “How
McCain can grease the wheels of victory", 6/18/08, Lexis)
As we approach the 2008 elections, whichever presidential candidate and party conjures a cogent energy
plan -- incorporating domestic drilling and defying environmental alarmism-- will be rewarded. At first
glance, it would seem that spiralling gas prices and frustration at the pumps would hurt the incumbent
party. Notwithstanding the Democrats' majorities in both houses of Congress, it is the Republican party that
the public identifies with incumbency, saddled as they are with an unpopular president who catches blame
for everything from poor Iraq war planning to inclement weather. But the religious environmental zealotry
of much of the Democrats' base makes them the party of windmills and stern lectures, not practical
solutions. Congressional Democrats have contented themselves with browbeating today's most politically
correct villains, oil executives, while reflexively voting down any proposed energy solution, from domestic
drilling to nuclear power. The Democrats' presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, has suggested
that high energy costs might carry the benefit of forcing America to change its gluttonous ways, recently
chiding his countrymen: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72
degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." Americans did not win
the Cold War so they would have to consult Sweden before setting their thermostats. This kind of thinking
is anathema to the Land of the Free, and it opens the door for the GOP to capitalize on the energy issue. In
1994, Gingrich's Republicans achieved a majority in Congress through a simple, common sense platform
known as the Contract with America. A one-page roster of eight reforms and 10 proposed Acts, the Contract
neatly answered voters' principal questions of those who seek to govern. To wit, who are you, what do you
hope to accomplish, and how will you do it? In 2008, with energy prices fixing to become the top election
issue, combining foreign and domestic policy concerns into a monstrous hybrid of a problem, an
understandable and workable proposal could help the GOP again. If every Republican running for office,
from freshman House candidates to their presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, spoke with a single,
sensible voice on this issue, they could snatch victory from defeat. A first draft might read: "We are
Americans too, and we know that energy prices have gotten out of hand. We want to reduce fuel costs for
all of us, and cut the number of dollars we send to hostile, oil-producing countries in the Middle East and
South America. If you elect us, we will do the following three things: We will begin to tap America's vast
oil reserves, using technological drilling advances that protect the environment. We will also promote
alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power, to move us away from an oil-based economy. Finally, we
will eliminate barriers to the import of cheaper, more efficient automotive systems that have been
successful in other parts of the world." If the Republicans agree on such a platform, 2008 could be their
year after all.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 36
MCCAIN GETS CREDIT-INDEPENDENT OUTREACH
McCain gets credit-Independents
CNN, 08
(Peter Hamby, Correspondent for CNN, “McCain appeals to independents with environment pitch”,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/12/mccain.climate/index.html)
(CNN) -- Kicking off a week-long push seen as outreach to independent and Democratic voters in crucial swing
states, John McCain on Monday delivered a speech outlining his vision for combating global warming. Sen.
John McCain's stance on global warming has put him at odds with some members of his party. "We stand warned by serious and
credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great," McCain said in Portland, Oregon. "The most relevant
question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge." McCain's commitment to fight global warming puts him at
odds with some Republicans in Congress and with the Bush administration, which has not made climate change a top priority.
McCain's stance on carbon emissions places him closer on the environmental spectrum to Sens. Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton. In his speech, the Arizona senator proposed capping carbon emissions incrementally, with the goal of returning to
1990 emission levels by the year 2020 using a cap-and-trade program. Such a program would cap greenhouse gas emissions at certain
levels, and allow more efficient energy producers to sell off emissions permits to other, less efficient companies, thereby creating
market-wide incentives to reduce carbon output. McCain believes this system will encourage companies to seek out more efficient
means of production. "As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve or acquire
alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. McCain has also released a television ad in Oregon connecting climate change to
increased destructive weather phenomena like hurricanes. The spot features a McCain voiceover saying, "It's not just a greenhouse gas
issue, it's a national security issue." McCain will also speak about the environment on Tuesday in the neighboring
state of Washington. Oregon and Washington are among several potential battleground states in the West,
including California, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, where voters count the environment as a top
issue. However, McCain is not completely breaking with Republican orthodoxy on environmental matters. He agrees with the Bush
administration's position on the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States has refused to ratify because large polluting nations like
China and India are not obligated to reduce emissions. McCain is also an ardent supporter of expanding nuclear power, a fact he
mentions at nearly every campaign stop.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 37
INDEPENDENTS LINK-ENVIRONMENT
Environment biggest issue for independents
New York Times, 07

(Christine Hauser, Staff Writer for the New York Times, “Democrats Outline Plans to Improve Environment “, 11/18/07,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18forum.html)
After immigration, reducing

oil dependence and global warming is the second most important issue among
independent voters, said Daniel J. Weiss, the director of climate strategy for the Center for American
Progress Action Fund, a cosponsor of the forum. Mr. Weiss cited a Democracy Corps poll released last
month, which also found that among Democrats, it is the fourth most important issue.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 38
INDEPENDENTS LINK-ENVIRONMENT
McCain popularity k2 independent vote
The Washington Independent, 08
(Jeremy P. Jacobs, “Year of the Independent Voter”, 5/17/08, http://washingtonindependent.com/view/year-

of-the)
Of those independents resistant to national trends, certain criteria of what they are looking for have
emerged, said Zogby. In poll after poll, independents want a candidate that, in ranked order, is a competent manager, can
work with both parties, can command the military and has strong personal values. Obama, Zogby said, has
convinced these voters that he can work with Republicans, that he has strong personal values and, at least on the war in Iraq, has
sound military judgment. McCain's story as a prisoner of war in Vietnam is cited to prove he has a strong personal values and
understands the military. His maverick brand also resonates as bipartisan. Both candidates, Zogby said, will fight to prove they are
competent managers. This also suggests that even in a political environment where Democratic voter turnout is
soaring and the GOP is losing congressional seats in districts it has held for years, if McCain can prove he
is a competent manager, he could win over independents crucial in a close election.
McCain reaching out to Independents on the environment-plan puts him over the top
National Public Radio, 08

(Scott Horsley, business correspondent for NPR. He covers general economic issues with a special emphasis on energy, “McCain
Targets Independents with 'Green' Effort”, 5/13/08, < http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90411556>)
But for the moment, McCain's

tone is very different as he tries to reach out to independent and moderate voters
at campaigns stops in the Pacific Northwest. McCain visited a watershed center outside Seattle on
Tuesday, where he stressed his commitment to environmental protection. McCain even planned a nature walk
around Washington's Cedar River Reservoir, with reporters and photographers in tow, and held a roundtable discussion with a group of
Washington state conservation advocates. Sally Jewell heads the Seattle-based outdoor gear company REI, a cooperative with 3.5
million active members. "We have members that span from the far right to the far left of the political spectrum,"
she said. "But I think the one thing they all appreciate is a healthy environment." By wrapping himself in
the fleece vest of environmentalism, McCain hopes to reach out to that constituency. He repeated his
pledge to combat greenhouse gases by limiting the amount of these gases that companies can emit and
encouraging those who emit less to sell their permits to others. This "cap-and-trade" system is similar to plans
proposed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton — albeit with less stringent limits on carbon pollution.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 39
INDEPENDENTS KEY
Independents key to McCain victory
Washington Post, 08
(Dan Balz and Jon Cohen, Washington Post Staff Writers, “Poll Finds Independent Voters Split Between McCain, Obama”, 6/17/08, <
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602690_pf.html>)
Dissatisfaction with the direction of the country hit an all-time

Two other indicators point to problems for McCain.
high this month, with 84 percent saying the nation is now seriously on the wrong track. And asked which
party they favor for the House this fall, 52 percent said Democratic and 37 percent said Republican.
McCain needs support from independents because in recent elections, partisans have overwhelmingly
supported their own party's candidates, and self-identified Democrats now outnumber Republicans. If
Obama is able to consolidate Democratic voters, McCain will need to capture a sizable percentage of
independents to win the White House.
Independents key to the election
New York Times, 08

(Adam Nagorney and Jeff Zeleny, Staff Writers for the New York Times, “Already, Obama and McCain Map Fall Strategies”, 5/11/08,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11strategy.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Already,%20Obama%20and%20McCain%20Map
%20Fall%20Strategies&st=cse&oref=login)
Independent voters have been critical in presidential elections as the country has become polarized along
party lines. What makes this election different is the extent to which Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have
turned to independent voters for support throughout their careers. Historically, independent voters have
responded to specific issues and concerns, in particular an emphasis on government reform and an aversion
to overly bitter partisan wrangling. Accordingly, Mr. McCain's advisers said they would present him as a senator who
frequently stepped across the aisle, while portraying Mr. Obama as a down-the-line Democratic voter who is ideologically out of touch
with much of the country.
Independents key to McCain election win
National Public Radio, 08

(Scott Horsley, business correspondent for NPR. He covers general economic issues with a special emphasis on energy, “McCain
Targets Independents with 'Green' Effort”, 5/13/08, < http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90411556>)
"McCain simply cannot win in November if he can't consolidate the center and win the swing independents
who determine every presidential election," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political analyst.
"His task is tough enough because of President Bush's unpopularity, the unpopularity of the Iraq war and
the tanking of the economy. If he gets too identified with the right wing of his own party, he's going to
alienate those swing independents, and he'll lose the election." McCain is closely identified with President Bush in his
support for the Iraq war and an economic policy built on tax cuts. But Sabato says so far, that has not been the drag on McCain's
campaign that it might be. "Right now, he has that maverick image, and he's running 20 to 25 points better than the Republican
brand," Sabato added. "The Democrats' job is to make sure that doesn't continue. McCain's job is to make sure that it does." The
environment is one area where McCain can put some daylight between his views and President Bush's.
Speaking on Monday in Portland, Ore., McCain subtly criticized the president for not doing more to
combat global warming. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious
challenges," he said.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 40
AT: INDEPENDENTS KEY
Independents not key-at worst they’ll swing democrat
The Washington Independent, 08
(Jeremy P. Jacobs, “Year of the Independent Voter”, 5/17/08, <

http://washingtonindependent.com/view/year-of-the>)
In addition, the
influence of independent voters can be minimal. Experts say independent voters are often the
least politically active and, consequently, tend not to vote. Most of the uninformed independent voters tend
not to make a rational, personal decision on which candidate to vote for, but are instead swept up into
national trends. A growing yet still small class of informed independent voters, it appears, behaves the same way. One problem
that often arises in discussing independents is how large a percentage they are of the electorate. The American National Election
Studies (ANES), a group that surveys voters across the country every election year, measures voter partisanship by asking if voters to
rank their partisanship on a seven-point scale from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. On this scale, 26 percent said they
were "moderates" in 2004, a four point jump from 2002. But this doesn't accurately identify independent voters, said Candice Nelson,
a political scientist at American University and co-author of "The Myth of the Independent Voter." Two questions must be used to
determined partisanship, Nelson said. First, respondents should be asked if they consider themselves a Democrat, Republican or
independent. Nelson has found that roughly 30 percent will say they are independents. But then a second question asks if the
respondent considers him or herself an independent, does he or she lean toward one party. This greatly reduces the number of
independents, for Nelson has found that "leaners toward a political party act in practice just like party members." True or "hard"
independents typically make up just 10 percent of the electorate, according to ANES. They tend to be the "least
interested in politics," Nelson said, "and the least likely to vote." "If you are not quite sure what should be done or where you
belong," said Morris Fiorina, the Stanford political scientist and author of "Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America," "you are
going to be attracted to a candidate that gives off that same sort of impression rather than someone who speaks like he knows
everything." These voters tend to be less educated, Nelson pointed out, which is the best predictor of whether someone will vote. "It's
going to be hard," she said, "for both McCain and Obama to motivate this group" to turn out at the polls. Other experts doubt the
significance of the independent vote. Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, estimates that
15 percent of the electorate are "hard" independents this year. He says the group is made up of both the least interested voters and the
most informed voters, who tend to vote based on specific issues. Either way, these voters tend to be more influenced by the national
environment than individual candidates. "Both types, assuming they vote, are pushed by the currents
disproportionately into one party’s camp each year," Sabato said. In 2002 and 2004, Sabato said, the GOP benefited
because the national electorate was still receptive to President George W. Bush and his war on terror. In 2006, Democrats carried this
group when Bush's approval rating plummeted and disapproval of the war in Iraq skyrocketed. Those same issues, plus the slowdown
in the economy, Sabato said, will likely push independent voters to the Democrats again this year.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 41
WESTERN STATES KEY
Environmental policies biggest concern for western voters
New Mexico Independent, 08

(Joe Gay, journalist who grew up in Albuquerque but spent nearly 30 years in Alaska. Most recently he was an editor with the
Albuquerque Tribune. He now covers the environment, transportation and water issues for the New Mexico Independent, “Voters: End
oil dependence, but don't make us pay too much.“, 7/31/08, http://nmindependent.mypublicsquare.com/view/voters-end-oil)
Congress and the next president would be advised to lean green, based on the results of a new poll that
finds Western voters strongly support a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks,
increased spending on mass transit and a shift away from oil as a transportation fuel. The environmental
advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, perhaps best-known for its role as a nuclear safety watchdog, polled 2,003 voters in
New Mexico and six other western states July 19-23, just as crude oil was starting to retreat from record high prices and gasoline
prices were starting to drop. Nine out of 10 of those polled said it is critical for the United States to end its dependence on oil, 95
percent said the government should act now to avoid future energy crises and 89 percent said they were concerned that the country has
no plan for transitioning to fuels other than oil. Paying for that transition to new fuel wasn't so popular, however. Only 44 percent of
respondents said they would pay 20 to 50 cents more per gallon of gasoline to fund research on energy efficiency and alternative fuels.
New Mexico was the only state where a majority said it would support such a tax, and that was 51 percent. The margin of error for the
full poll, conducted by David Binder Research, was 2.2 percent; for New Mexico it was 6.2 percent. While voters weren't too keen on
paying more themselves, nearly two-thirds of respondents (63 percent) supported a tax on oil companies to help fund mass
transportation. In New Mexico, which is both an oil producer and an investor in mass transit, 68 percent supported new fees on oil
companies to make mass transit "inexpensive, convenient, safe, and fast." The poll was conducted in the seven states that,
along with four Canadian provinces, constitute the Western Climate Initiative. The coalition formed to
develop a regional plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions because the federal governments have refused
to act. A draft plan for the reduction plan released this week focuses mainly on power plants and factories.
Transportation sources, while constituting some 40 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions in the West, aren't addressed in the plan until
2015. Voters, however, told pollsters they want transportation industry emissions cut, too. Eighty-four percent of respondents said
transportation sources should be required to reduce their greenhouse-gas pollution along with power plants and factories, and 88
percent said automakers should be required to produce more efficient cars that pollute less and use less gasoline. With the West
seen by both major parties as a potential key to the White House in November, the poll suggests that Sens.
John McCain and Barack Obama could go further in their energy proposals and perhaps draw in voters who
may not have made up their minds about the election but clearly know what they want in energy policy.
West is key in the upcoming election
(Associated Press, Obama, McCain Fight Over Western States, 5/28/08, http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/28/obama-mccain-
fight-over-western-states/)
Call it the political version of how to win the West. Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are
tripping over each other this week in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado, a prelude to a likely general
election matchup and inevitable fight for three booming battleground states. President Bush narrowly won the three states four years ago
and Democrats now see them as ripe for opportunity. “I’m a Western senator,” McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting from Arizona, said in this gambling mecca Wednesday, signaling he intends to fiercely defend the
turf. “I understand our issues.” Obama, who has nearly secured the Democratic nomination, sounds just as determined. “We can win the West,” the Illinois senator said Monday at a museum in Las Cruces, N.M., as
Once a Republican stronghold, the

he stood alongside the state’s Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, a prominent Hispanic. “We’re going to fight as hard as we can in these states.”
historically conservative West has changed demographically over the past decade and, thus, politically.
Retirees from all over, including the liberal Northeast and West Coast, flocked to the region because of its
available and cheap land, its dry, warm climate, its range of recreational activities and its magnificent
mountains and sprawling deserts. Businesses sprouted in the region’s few dense population centers, and job
opportunities followed. So did swarms of swing-voting Hispanic immigrants. That growth exploded since
the last presidential election. Census figures show that Nevada grew 10.1 percent, Colorado 5.5 percent and New Mexico 4.1 percent between July 2004 and July 2007. Thus, the region
has become far more competitive and margins of victory have tightened as Democrats made inroads into decades-old GOP dominance. In 2004, Bush won New Mexico by 1 percentage point, Nevada by 2 and
, if Obama can win

Colorado by 5. Of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory, the states offer a combined 19 — the same number that Democrat John Kerry lost to Bush by four years ago. So
all the states that Kerry did, plus the three Western states, Democrats would win the White House after
eight years of Republican rule. Democrats argue that they now have more of a chance to take the West, and
Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico are among their top targets. Arizona would have been, too, if McCain,
the state’s four-term senator, wasn’t the GOP opponent. They point to recent electoral gains that swept Republicans from long-held offices, and note that both
Colorado and New Mexico have Democratic governors. They argue that migration, in part from the more liberal coasts, works to their benefit. And, they claim that swing-voting Hispanics, whose numbers also have
grown, are trending Democratic this year.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 42
AT: MCCAIN GETS CREDIT
McCain wont take credit-anti environment voting record
Roberts, 08
(Jeanne, Formerly a reporter for a California newspaper, has also worked for a Chamber of Commerce, as the CFO for a utility
district, and in the Corporate Communications Department of Xcel Energy, “Socially Conscious Decision '08: John McCain”, 4/10/08,
< http://thepanelist.com/Opinions/Opinions/Socially_Conscious_Decision_'08:_John_McCain_20080410918/>)
McCain agrees, in principle, that human activities are warming the planet, but strongly opposes the Kyoto
Protocol. He also opposes government investment in alternative energy. "When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol
does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense." McCain once said.
Now that oil is $108 a barrel and climbing, I wonder if he will change his mind. Unfortunately, ethanol is
not alternative energy and is proving disastrous to world grain supplies. McCain voted no to reducing oil
usage 40 percent by 2025. In 2005, he voted against a renewable portfolio standard that would have
mandated 10 percent of electricity from renewables by 2020. He supports cap and trade carbon programs,
and nuclear energy, but is reportedly neutral on forcing auto makers to meet fuel efficiency standards, yet
supports S.14, which would put 100,000 hydrogen-powered cars on the road by 2010. He also introduced S.
1926, which would impose fuel efficiency standards after 2010 for light trucks (26.3 mpg). Perhaps
McCain only supports energy initiatives which he either introduced or had a hand in crafting. Theodore
Roosevelt is McCain's hero, and McCain has said that he would increase funding for national parks if he were elected. His stance on
other environmental/critical habitat issues is largely negative. He voted no to designate parts of the California Desert as
wilderness. When the act passed, McCain nullified it by attaching a rider allowing military flights and missile testing in the area.
He was supported in this by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who had already perverted the bill's intent by allowing mining claims. If
elected, McCain has already admitted he will permit new road construction in 50 million acres of national forest in the Southwest. So
much for national parks.
McCain won’t get credit-seen as a flip flopper
Los Angeles Times, 08

(Noam Levy, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times, “McCain's energy record is on/off”, 7/1/08, <
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-energy1-2008jul01,0,2757167.story>)
But McCain's record of tackling energy policy on Capitol Hill shows little of the clear direction he says
would come from a McCain White House. Instead, the Arizona senator has swerved from one position to
another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government's role in energy policy.
At times he has backed measures to ease restrictions on oil drilling off the coast and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Other
times he has voted to keep them. He has championed standards to require that automakers make vehicles more fuel-efficient, yet
opposed standards to require that utilities use less fossil fuel by generating more power from renewable sources, such as wind and
solar. McCain has rejected federal tax breaks for renewable energy producers, but backs billions of dollars in
subsidies for the nuclear industry. He has criticized corn-based ethanol for doing "nothing to increase our
energy independence." Yet while campaigning in 2006 in the Midwest corn belt, McCain called ethanol a
"vital, vital alternative energy source." Senior McCain policy advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin said McCain's
positions reflected a pragmatic approach to governing. "Sen. McCain is interested in getting results," he
said. But many environmentalists see it as inconsistency. "There is a very sporadic pattern here," said Tim Greef, deputy
legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 43
ENERGY NOT KEY-OTHER ISSUES
Other issues determing the election-environment not key
Carroll, 07
(Joseph, Staff writer for Gallup, “Iraq, Economy, Healthcare, Immigration Top Vote Issues”, 12/10/07,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103132/Iraq-Economy-Healthcare-Immigration-Top-Vote-
Issues.aspx?version=print)
When asked which issues will be most important in determining their vote for president in next year's
election, Americans by a wide margin say the war in Iraq, with more than one in three mentioning the war.
Other key issues include the economy, healthcare, and illegal immigration. Iraq has diminished somewhat
as the top issue over the course of the year, while there has been a slight increase in the reported importance
of immigration. The poll finds slight variations by partisanship and region in regard to which issues will be
most important in influencing votes. The Nov. 30-Dec. 2, 2007, poll asked Americans to name, in their own words, what will
be the most important issues they will take into account when deciding whom to vote for in next year's presidential election. Thirty-six
percent of Americans say Iraq, with the economy (16%), healthcare (15%), and illegal immigration (10%) mentioned next most often.
Between 3% and 6% of Americans mention homeland security or military defense, taxes, the honesty and integrity of the candidate,
abortion, domestic issues, Social Security reform, and international affairs.
War and economy most important issues for voters
(“As economy dominates, Obama, McCain seek answers”, 7/16/08,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jN61C761wfQ3fDl9Klkep98pB8zgD91V791O0)
The economy is deteriorating so quickly and dramatically that it threatens to overtake many proposals the
presidential candidates have been offering for months. Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain are suggesting tax, spending and regulatory plans in response to soaring gasoline prices, a home
lending crisis and other woes hitting consumers. But it is far from clear that their ideas can seriously
improve matters or even pay for themselves without expanding the deficit, as the candidates claim. A year
ago, the Iraq war and terrorism dominated the campaign, and that was reflected in candidates' rhetoric and poll results. Obama's
opposition to the war helped propel him to the Democratic nomination, while McCain's national security credentials swayed some
GOP voters. The landscape has shifted. New problems are cropping up almost daily, and voters will be demanding answers. "I don't
think either candidate has really spelled out how they would get us out of the mess we're in," said Rea S. Hederman Jr., who tracks the
economy and campaign for the conservative Heritage Foundation. Inflation has rarely been mentioned in the presidential contest, but
that seems likely to change soon. The government reported Wednesday that consumer prices rose in June at the second fastest pace in
26 years. Bank failures suddenly are front-page news as well. The FBI is looking into possible fraud related to home loans made by
IndyMac Bancorp Inc., which was taken over Friday by the FDIC. Polls show that voters are clearly more concerned about the
economy and gas prices than about the Iraq war and national security. McCain and Obama undoubtedly will return to
these issues and offer new proposals, but perhaps the voters' chief question should be: Can they really help?
"The president doesn't have that much impact on the short-run fluctuations of the economy," said Alan D.
Viard, an economist at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute. The candidates will continue to
talk about plans to help ease Americans' pain, he said, but voters should be wary. For example, Viard said,
McCain's proposal to temporarily suspend the federal tax on gasoline would do little more than encourage
people to keep driving instead of conserving fuel. Obama has called McCain's plan a gimmick.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 44
**IMPACTS**

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 45
2NC TURNS CASE

Obama will invest in alternative energy
WSJ 6/17 2008, “How Obama, McCain Square Off on Energy,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121368261519680447.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
He would pay for that $15 billion-a-year plan with revenue collected from a separate proposal to limit the
emissions of greenhouse gases through a system of trading pollution permits that are auctioned off to
utilities and other producers of carbon dioxide. Mr. Obama, who compares his energy ambitions to the
Kennedy-era space program, would invest that $150 billion over 10 years in solar, wind and possibly
nuclear alternatives to fossil fuels. Mr. Obama sees a better chance now of pushing through the kind of
major infrastructure programs that failed to make it in the Clinton years. "The difference I would suggest is
that there is a strong recognition in the public mind that we can't continue on our current energy path," he
tells the Journal. That's where he may be right, in counting on support from a shift in public opinion in
recent years toward belief in dangers posed by human-induced global warning, and from the sharp pain
caused by high oil prices.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 46
OBAMA GOOD-IRAN
Obama will constructively engage with Iran
MacLeod 5/16 2008, Scott, TIME magazine, “Obama: Appeasement or Engagement?” http://time-
blog.com/middle_east/2008/05/obama_appeasement_or_engagemen.html
McCain sees the Middle East in the same black and white, with-us-or-against-us framework as Bush does.
The Middle East is a contest that American must "win." America and its ally Israel selflessly stand for
freedom, democracy and peace. The enemies of the U.S. and Israel must be vanquished. They are evil
promoters of hatred and practitioners of murder. McCain's emphasis is on America's military power. Obama
sees the Middle East in more complex terms. He has stated his intention to engage in "aggressive personal
diplomacy" with Iran's leaders to seek Iran's cooperation on issues including Iraq, terrorism and Iran's
nuclear ambitions. He's also said he would negotiate with Syrian leaders. His combined willingness to
negotiate with two countries that support Hamas and Hizballah indicates that Obama is ready to initiate a
comprehensive diplomatic engagement rather than rely largely on American military force to resolve the
conflicts in the Middle East. That's the reason that Bush seemed to be attacking Obama during his speech to
the Israeli Knesset on Thursday. He ridiculed those who would "negotiate with terrorists and radicals" as
promoters of "the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 47
ENGAGEMENT GOOD-WAR
Engagement solves war - prevents Iranian miscalculation
Tirman 7 John, August 14, MIT’s Center for International Studies, “A New Cold War With Iran?”
www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/14/a_new_cold_war_with_iran
Most important, the US-Soviet competition was a highly formalized affair, with a large number and variety
of institutions and norms to keep it from spinning out of control -- treaties, multilateral and bilateral
organizations, commerce and trade, cultural and scientific exchanges, and so on. These institutions and
norms were nested in many parts of each government's official institutions (e.g., foreign office, defense
establishment, executive offices), as well as academic institutions, party institutions, the news media, and
civil society. All these players acted to moderate the conflict, in effect, and to counterbalance the occasional
incendiary incident or bad actor. The effect of this thick web of political, scientific, and social relationships
was robust. Even on human rights, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics felt compelled to moderate its behavior after the 1975
Helsinki Accords came into force. The Soviet commitment to international norms and institutions due to their need for legitimacy and
to satisfy other national interests, such as trade, made them reasonable and predictable, if nonetheless opposed to US policies. When
the end of the Soviet Union came, it came swiftly and peacefully largely because these institutions and
norms had long been accepted. No such system of institutions and norms govern or guide the US-Iran
competition. There's no buffer, hotline, embassies, or ongoing talks. We have purposefully excluded Iran
from the international community and its normative framework and processes, labeling Iran a pariah, rogue,
or terrorist regime. The absence of formal ties, commerce, and other kinds of exchange has rendered Iran
opaque to Americans, and that opacity is reciprocal. This is a perilous situation. One misstep can lead to
war. So while it seems improbable war is on the agenda of US decision makers, events can take over, not
least events engineered in Iran by those who wish to see the United States further humiliated in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The actual Cold War had its dangers, to be sure -- massive nuclear arsenals and colossal
waste in military expenditures -- but it was stable, and was contained. What is truly worrisome about the
Iran-US rivalry is how the lack of stability and communication might lead to war. And, as we've discovered
in Iraq, a real war is both catastrophic for its millions of victims, and unpredictably damaging for those who
start it. Lulling ourselves into thinking this is a manageable mini-Cold War -- like we were seduced to
think Iraq would be a "cakewalk" -- could be America's next big error of arrogance.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 48
IRAN CONFLICTWAR AND TERRORISM

US Iranian conflict sparks war and terrorism
GEORGE W. Bush leaves the White House in six months having destroyed the power balance in the
Middle East by launching a war that empowered Iran and having failed to devise any solution to halt Iran's
quest to acquire a nuclear capability. It is a humiliating legacy. The trajectory of confrontation between the
US and Iran, originating in its 1979 revolution, draws upon more than a generation of antagonism and
ignorance. It will reach its climax during the presidency of Bush's successor, John McCain or Barack
Obama. Every sign is that Bush will shun the option of a military strike against Iran in the twilight of his
term. This is the assessment of Americans close to the Bush administration and the view of US allies such
as Australia. The Rudd Government would face a horrific shock as alliance partner if Bush ordered the
bombing as a farewell operation. The Iranian issue was a highlight of the recent Australian-American
Leadership Dialogue in Washington that put the crisis under examination. The debate revealed a divided
administration, the different nature of Bush's second term compared with his first and a persuasive case for
avoiding immediate military action. There is, however, no denying that the US and Iran are on a collision
trajectory. Former US diplomat Nicholas Burns, who was number three at the State Department under
Bush, told The Australian: "I think for President Bush and for the next president, Iran is the most serious
foreign policy challenge because the consequences of an altercation with Iran are incalculable for our
interests and for the fate of the larger Middle East. We have been right to keep the military option on the
table but I do not believe there is an inevitability about war with Iran." The arguments against hostilities by
either the US or Israel are far greater than recognised. First, any strike will prejudice the pivotal US
strategic goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would expose 150,000 US forces in Iraq to Iranian retaliation. It
would threaten progress in Iraq and vastly complicate US force withdrawal. It would trigger Iranian
terrorist activity across the region and provoke Shi'ite militia group Hezbollah into strikes. It would
represent a complete refusal to absorb the lesson from the 2003 invasion of Iraq: that resort to massive
military action unleashes forces beyond the control of the US.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 49
2NC TURNS CASE-IRAN

Iranian conflict drives up oil prices
Second, the global economic consequences would be grave. Iranian retaliation would see the world oil
price skyrocket from its present high level. Commander-in-chief of Iran's revolutionary guards, Mohammad
Ali Jafari, has warned that Iran "will definitely act to impose controls on the Persian Gulf and Strait of
Hormuz". This will take inflation and recession threats to new peaks in the industrialised world. The
resentment towards Bush would be even greater.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 50
2NC SOFT POWER ADD-ON (1/2)

Obama would revitalize US soft power
Nye 8 Joseph, June 12, Dean of Government at Harvard, “Barack Obama and 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.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 51
2NC SOFT POWER ADD-ON (2/2)

Soft power is key to overall US leadership
Nye 4, Joseph, Summer, Dean of Government at Harvard, Political Science Quarterly, Summer, ebsco
But it would be a mistake to dismiss the recent decline in our attractiveness so lightly. It is true that the United States has recovered from unpopular policies in the past, but that
Moreover, while America's size and
was against the backdrop of the Cold War, in which other countries still feared the Soviet Union as the greater evil.
association with disruptive modernity are real and unavoidable, wise policies can soften the sharp edges of
that reality and reduce the resentments that they engender. That is what the United States did after World
War II. We used our soft power resources and co-opted others into a set of alliances and institutions that
lasted for sixty years. We won the Cold War against the Soviet Union with a strategy of containment that used our soft power as well as our hard power.
It is true that the new threat of transnational terrorism increased American vulnerability, and some of our unilateralism after September 11 was driven by fear. But the United States
cannot meet the new threat identified in the national security strategy without the cooperation of other countries. They will cooperate, up to a point, out of mere self-interest, but
their degree of cooperation is also affected by the attractiveness of the United States. Take Pakistan for example. President Pervez Musharraf faces a complex game of cooperating
with the United States on terrorism while managing a large anti-American constituency at home. He winds up balancing concessions and retractions. If the United States were
more attractive to the Pakistani populace, we would see more non-cessions in the mix. It is not smart to discount soft power as just a question of image, public relations, and
ephemeral popularity. As I argued earlier, it is a form of power--a means of obtaining desired outcomes. When we discount the importance of our attractiveness to other countries,
if the United States is so unpopular in a country that being pro-American is a kiss of
we pay a price. Most important,
death in their domestic politics, political leaders are unlikely to make concessions to help us. Turkey,
Mexico, and Chile were prime examples in the run-up to the Iraq war in March 2003. When American
policies lose their legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester and
further reduce our leverage. For example, after September 11, there was an outpouring of sympathy from Germans for the United States, and Germany joined a
military campaign against the al Qaeda network. But as the United States geared up for the unpopular Iraq war, Germans expressed widespread disbelief about the reasons the
United States gave for going to war, such as the alleged connection of Iraq to al Qaeda and the imminence of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. German suspicions were
reinforced by what they saw as biased American media coverage during the war and by the failure to find weapons or prove the connection to al Qaeda right after the war. The
combination fostered a climate in which conspiracy theories flourished. By July 2003, one-third of Germans under the age of thirty said that they thought the American government
Absurd views feed upon each other, and paranoia can be
might even have staged the original September 11 attacks.(FN11)
contagious American attitudes toward foreigners harden, and we begin to believe that the rest of the world
really does hate us. Some Americans begin to hold grudges, to mistrust all Muslims, to boycott French wines and rename french fries, to spread and believe false
rumors.(FN12) In turn, foreigners see Americans as uninformed and insensitive to anyone's interests but their own. They see our media wrapped in the American flag. Some
Americans, in turn, succumb to residual strands of isolationism, saying that if others choose to see us that
way, "to hell with 'em." If foreigners are going to be like that, who cares whether we are popular or not. But
to the extent that we allow ourselves to become isolated, we embolden enemies such as al Qaeda. Such
reactions undercut our soft power and are self-defeating in terms of the outcomes we want. Some hard-line
skeptics might say that whatever the merits of soft power, it has little role to play in the current war on
terrorism. Osama bin Laden and his followers are repelled, not attracted by American culture, values, and policies. Military power was essential in defeating the Taliban
government in Afghanistan, and soft power will never convert fanatics. Charles Krauthammer, for example, argued soon after the war in Afghanistan that our swift military victory
proved that "the new unilateralism" worked. That is true up to a point, but the skeptics mistake half the answer for the whole solution.
Decline in leaderships sparks nuclear war

Khalilzad 95 Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term
guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in
which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and
the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the
world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states,
and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global
rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the
attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more
conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 52
**AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS**

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 53
AT: IRANIAN ENGAGEMENT (1/2)

Iranian engagement fails
Sadjadpour 7 March 22, Karim, Analyst at International Crisis Group, Journal of International Affairs
To better understand the concerns and ambitions of Iran's leadership, it is worth taking a closer look at the
person of Ayatollah Khamenei. In the nearly eighteen years he has been supreme leader--since Ayatollah
Khomeini's death in 1989, Khamenei's track record depicts a leader averse to both confrontation and
accommodation with the West. On one hand he was Iran's president during the eight-year war with Iraq--
when the country was politically isolated and in dire straits financially--and is cognizant that another such
conflict could inflict fatal damage upon the Islamic Republic. On the other hand, he believes Iranian
appeasement in the face of western pressure will not allay Tehran's concerns but only invite further
pressure. He is deeply cynical that any western or U.S. attempts to reintegrate Iran into the global arena are
with the best interests of the Islamic Republic in mind. Indeed, it could be said that Khamenei continues to
adhere to his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini's worldview, that the relationship between the United States
and Iran is similar to that between a wolf anda sheep. Whether the United States announces that it wants to
isolate or dialogue with Iran--as Secretary Rice did this past summer--Khamenei's speeches constantly urge
vigilance against the nefarious schemes of the enemy, giving the impression that he is paralyzed with
mistrust. As an Iranian academic friend close to the country's top leadership once told me: Ayatollah
Khamenei is convinced that the problems the United States has with Iran are not about our external
behavior--be it the nuclear issue, opposition to Israel, or support for Hezbollah but our very existence as an
independent Islamic government on one of the most
strategic patches of real estate in the world. Deep down he believes that the only thing that will appease the
Americans is a change of regime, to go back to the patron-client relationship they had with Iran during the
time of the Shah. Whether or not it's true this is what he believes. (1) This deep sense of mistrust explains
in part the inability of the Islamic Republic to make bold decisions that break with the revolution's past.
While the vast majority of the country's political elite privately realize that the "death to America" culture
created in 1979 is counterproductive in 2007, the fear that the fabric of the Islamic Republic could come
unwound, coupled with the system's inherent dysfunctionality, has created an inertia to simply muddle
along rather than face the unpredictability of tampering with the status quo. As a European ambassador in
Tehran once told me, "If you take away 'death toAmerica,' and you take away the hijab, what will be left of
the Islamic Republic?" (2)
And engagement is counterproductive

Gardiner 7 March 27 Niles, International Relations Expert at Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032707b.cfm
The European Union, which accounts for 35 percent of Iran's imports, must be pressured into cutting off all
financial ties to Iran, with penalties applied to European firms who do business with Tehran. The EU's
misguided policy of 'constructive engagement' has been a spectacular failure, and has only strengthened
Tehran's position, and bought the Iranians valuable time in building their nuclear program. Countries such
as Germany, Italy and France must end the huge export guarantees currently in place protecting their
companies trading with Iran. Iran should be closed for business with the West until it ends its nuclear
program and support for global terrorism. Decades of European appeasement of Tehran has to be brought to
an end if political and economic sanctions are to be effective.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 54
AT: IRANIAN ENGAGEMENT (2/2)

Negotiations only boost Iran’s regime
Sokolski 5 Henry, October, Director of Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center, “Getting Ready for a
Nuclear Ready Iran,”
http://www.house.gov/israel/issues/Dem%20Website/Iran/Background/Getting%20Ready%20for%2
0a%20Nuclear-Ready%20Iran%20(Strategic%20Studies%20Institute,%20October%202005).pdf
Call on Iran to agree to a Montreux Convention to demilitarize the Straits of Hormuz and an agreement to
limit possible incidents at sea. One of the constant complaints of Iranian diplomats is that the United
States and other major powers are unwilling to negotiate directly with Iran to guarantee its security.
Certainly, the United States is loath to negotiate directly with Iran’s representatives for fear that this would
give its current revolutionary government greater support than it otherwise would have. More importantly,
after having been disappointed so many times, Washington officials are rightly skeptical that Tehran is
serious about reaching substantive agreements. The Council on Foreign Relations recently highlighted this
problem in a report on Iran, which eschewed attempting any grand bargaining with Tehran. Several of
America’s key European allies and other influential interest groups, however, are inclined to negotiate, if
at all possible, incrementally. This suggests that the pressure for talks will persist and that, in some fashion,
they will continue. Where should such negotiatons be focused? One sensible area, which unlike nuclear
and human rights matters (where it is in Iran’s interest to hide its hand or lie and where negotiating with
Iran would only lend greater legitimacy to the current regime’s bad policies), is demilitarizing and
guaranteeing free passage through the Straits of Hormuz and agreeing to naval standards of behavior in
and around the Gulf. Securing a Montreux-like agreement for the Straits of the sort in place for the
Dardanelles and an incidents at sea agreement like that the United States secured with the Soviets during
the Cold War would be in Iran’s interest. An agreement regarding Hormuz could assure multipower
guarantees to prevent any foreign nation from closing the straits (through which nearly all of Iran’s own
oil exports flow). It would require submarines―including U.S., Israeli, French, and British special forces
vessels―to surface before entering or exiting the Straits. It ultimately (after initial sounding talks with key
European nations) would entail negotiations with the United States.

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS
ELECTIONS DA 55
AT: SOFT POWER

Alternate causalities damage our image
Baker 7 Gerard, May 26, Assistant Editor of The Times. “Bush has created a mess, but no need for panic”,
lexis
The Iraq war rolls on, sapping the US's confidence. In the broader Middle East, the war that was supposed
to turn history in the US's direction seems to have done the opposite. Iran is emboldened. Syria is throwing
its weight around again. And the US is despised as never before. Its much-vaunted soft power, the appeal of
its freedoms, its lifestyle, its economic opportunities, is tarnished. It is not just Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo that bring odium, but the very American system itself -- its thirst for oil, its healthcare, its
inequalities. Americans read every day that their economic supremacy is in its last days. This week a delegation from Beijing has
been in Washington for economic talks. In the photos, the Chinese leaders, smiling beneficently on their hosts, looked like nothing so
much as a kind of memento mori, a chilling reminder for Americans that the future does not belong to them. Meanwhile, an
immigration debate rages on. Right and Left are furious with a compromise bill in Congress.
Guantanamo Bay has irreparably damaged our soft power

The Atlantic Newspaper 7 “Guantanamo's Shadow,” October,
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200710/guantanamo-poll
“Nothing has hurt America’s image and standing in the world—and nothing has undermined the global
effort to combat nihilistic terrorism—than the brutal torture and dehumanizing actions of Americans in Abu
Ghraib and in other prisons (secret or otherwise). America can win the fight against terrorism only if it acts
in ways consistent with the values for which it stands; if its behavior descends to the level employed by the
terrorists, then we have all become them instead of us.” “Gitmo has hurt the US in two different ways. At
the strategic level, it has undercut the U.S. case around the world that we represent a world view and a set
of values that all can admire, even those who do not wish to replicate our system and society in their own
countries. Gitmo has become a symbol for cruelty and inhumanity that is repugnant to a wide sector of the
world community and a powerful tool that al Qaeda can use to damage US interest and recruit others to its
cause. At the tactical level, Gitmo deludes many in the US, an never more than the senior leaders of the
Bush Administration, into believing that harsh interrogation techniques can produce good intelligence and
is a necessary tool in fighting terrorist. This 'truth' spread from Gitmo to Iraq and we have paid a horrible
price for it.” “It has hurt America disastrously. The so-called global war on terrorism depends
fundamentally on America's moral authority, so that other nations will want to cooperate with us.
Guantanamo has become a vibrant symbol of American exceptionalism, but this exceptionalism is
unwanted around the world.”

2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

Northwestern PTX Elections

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Northwestern PTX Elections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALEX/CHRIS SENIORS

Northwestern University Debate Society

1NC SHELL (1/3)

Northwestern University Debate Society

1NC SHELL (2/3)

1. Public support for alternative energy sources

2. Wins on environment gives McCain enough momentoum to capture the presidency

Northwestern University Debate Society

1NC SHELL (3/3)

Northwestern University Debate Society

Northwestern University Debate Society

Northwestern University Debate Society

OBAMA WINNING-VOTE COUNT

Northwestern University Debate Society

OBAMA WINNING-LARGE MARGIN

Northwestern University Debate Society

OBAMA WINNING-MCCAIN SLIP

Northwestern University Debate Society

Northwestern University Debate Society

Obama remains ahead in polls

Northwestern University Debate Society

McCain Winning-Obama Slip

Northwestern University Debate Society

Recent polls show McCain is ahead

Northwestern University Debate Society

MCCAIN WINNING-SWING STATES

Key states are moving towards McCain

McCain is winning key states – Colorado and Michigan

Northwestern University Debate Society

Northwestern University Debate Society

Northwestern University Debate Society

Northwestern University Debate Society

ENVIRONMENT LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY

Environmental Protection is popular with the public-

Northwestern University Debate Society

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY

Alternative Energies are popular with the public

Northwestern University Debate Society

ETHANOL LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY

Public Support for Ethanol

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, 08

Northwestern University Debate Society

RENEWABLES LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY

Renewables are popular

National Conference of State Legislatures, 02

Northwestern University Debate Society

BIOMASS LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY

Wall Street Journal, 06

Northwestern University Debate Society

SOLAR LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY

Northwestern University Debate Society

WIND ENERGY LINK-PUBLIC POPULARITY

Wind Energy the most popular form of alternative energy

Northwestern University Debate Society

NUCLEAR POWER LINK-MCCAIN SUPPORT

McCain supports Nuclear power-would get credit

McCain gets credit for nuclear energy

(“FACTBOX: U.S. presidential candidates on nuclear energy”, 5/6/08,

Northwestern University Debate Society

CAP AND TRADE LINK-MCCAIN SUPPORT

McCain gets credit for cap and trade

(7/2/08, “McCain and Obama's Plans to Combat Climate Change”,

Northwestern University Debate Society