Da Neg Elections 32

WNDI 2008

1 Elections DA Neg

Elections DA Neg Elections DA Neg........................................................................................................................................................1

Elections DA Neg............................................................................................................................1 1NC Elections DA......................................................................................................................................................4

1NC Elections DA..........................................................................................................................4 1NC Elections DA......................................................................................................................................................5

1NC Elections DA..........................................................................................................................5 1NC Elections DA......................................................................................................................................................6

1NC Elections DA..........................................................................................................................6 Yes Obama .................................................................................................................................................................7

Yes Obama .....................................................................................................................................7 Yes Obama – 8 Yr Jinx................................................................................................................................................8

Yes Obama – 8 Yr Jinx..................................................................................................................8 Yes Obama – NV ........................................................................................................................................................9

Yes Obama – NV ...........................................................................................................................9 Yes Obama – Enthusiasm Gap..................................................................................................................................10

Yes Obama – Enthusiasm Gap....................................................................................................10 Links – Nuclear Power .............................................................................................................................................11

Links – Nuclear Power ................................................................................................................11 Links – Alternative Energy.......................................................................................................................................12

Links – Alternative Energy.........................................................................................................12 Links – Alternative Energy.......................................................................................................................................13

Links – Alternative Energy.........................................................................................................13 Links – Ethanol ........................................................................................................................................................14

Links – Ethanol ...........................................................................................................................14 Links – PHEVs..........................................................................................................................................................15

Links – PHEVs.............................................................................................................................15 Links – Colorado ......................................................................................................................................................16

Links – Colorado .........................................................................................................................16 Links – Colorado ......................................................................................................................................................17

Links – Colorado .........................................................................................................................17 Link/Internals – Energy Key.....................................................................................................................................18

Link/Internals – Energy Key......................................................................................................18 Internals – West/Colorado Key.................................................................................................................................19

Internals – West/Colorado Key...................................................................................................19

WNDI 2008

2 Elections DA Neg

Internals – Bush Popularity Key ..............................................................................................................................20

Internals – Bush Popularity Key ...............................................................................................20 Internals – Bush Popularity Key ..............................................................................................................................21

Internals – Bush Popularity Key ...............................................................................................21 Internals – Bush Popularity Key...............................................................................................................................22

Internals – Bush Popularity Key................................................................................................22 Internals – Bush Popularity Key (Ohio)...................................................................................................................23

Internals – Bush Popularity Key (Ohio)....................................................................................23 Internals – GOP Base Key........................................................................................................................................24

Internals – GOP Base Key...........................................................................................................24 Internals – Energy Key..............................................................................................................................................25

Internals – Energy Key................................................................................................................25 Internals-Uniqueness – Obama leads Energy...........................................................................................................26

Internals-Uniqueness – Obama leads Energy...........................................................................26 Obama Solves Alt Energy ........................................................................................................................................27

Obama Solves Alt Energy ...........................................................................................................27 Obama Solves Warming ...........................................................................................................................................28

Obama Solves Warming .............................................................................................................28 Obama Solves Ethanol..............................................................................................................................................29

Obama Solves Ethanol.................................................................................................................29 Obama Solves Competitiveness ...............................................................................................................................30

Obama Solves Competitiveness .................................................................................................30 Impacts – NMD Bad.................................................................................................................................................31

Impacts – NMD Bad....................................................................................................................31 Impacts – Leadership................................................................................................................................................32

Impacts – Leadership..................................................................................................................32 Impacts – Tax Cuts....................................................................................................................................................33

Impacts – Tax Cuts.......................................................................................................................33 Impacts – Health Care...............................................................................................................................................34

Impacts – Health Care.................................................................................................................34 Impacts – Health Care ..............................................................................................................................................35

Impacts – Health Care ................................................................................................................35 Impacts – Iraq Withdraw...........................................................................................................................................36

Impacts – Iraq Withdraw............................................................................................................36 Impacts – CTBT........................................................................................................................................................37

Impacts – CTBT...........................................................................................................................37

WNDI 2008

3 Elections DA Neg

AT: McCain Good....................................................................................................................................................38

AT: McCain Good.......................................................................................................................38

WNDI 2008

4 Elections DA Neg

1NC Elections DA ( ) Obama leads but the race is close Steve Kornacki, op-ed writer, 7-18-2008, “State Polls Indicate Obama’s Tidal-Wave Potential, But National Polls Are Tight; Both Are Right,” The New York Observer, http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/state-pollsindicate-obamas-tidal-wave-potential-national-polls-are-tight-both-are-rig If you look at the national-level data, Barack Obama seems to be underachieving. In the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, the presumptive Democratic nominee holds a scant two-point edge over John McCain. The margin is also two points in Rasmussen's daily poll—which also shows a dead-even race when "leaners" are factored in. Some other recent polls have been a little more favorable to Obama, but the combined weight of the available national data strongly suggests that Obama, despite his personal popularity and the enormous built-in advantages his party enjoys this year, is locked in a much closer race than he should be.

( ) Plan is popular and energy is key to the election Reuters, 7-24-2008, “LCV and NRDC Outline the Future of Global Warming Legislation and Steps to Address High Gas Prices,” http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS214817+24-Jun-2008+PRN20080624 "Tied into both the economy and the environment, energy will be the defining issue of this election," LCV President Gene Karpinski said. "The American people demand a new energy policy that breaks our addiction to oil and dirty coal. Members of Congress who fight for a clean, renewable energy future will be back to fight next year, but those who stand in the way will have to answer to the voters in November. A Gallup poll released today indicates that energy is the top issue priority for 51% American voters. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx). "Americans are feeling pain at the pump and many experts say high gas prices are here to stay," NRDC's Energy Advocate Jim Presswood said. "With prices set in the global marketplace and only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves here at home, there is simply nothing we can do to impact prices by drilling. The real solution is clear: we must take bold action to break our addiction to oil and transition to a clean energy future. A future where new cars like plug-in hybrids go farther on a gallon of gas, enhanced public transit systems give Americans more transportation options, and renewable sources of energy power our communities.

( ) Bush popularity is key to McCain John McKinnon, 7-2-2008, “How Bush Ratings Complicate McCain’s Presidential Fight,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121493389576919869.html?mod=googlenews_wsj WASHINGTON -- President Bush's record unpopularity is playing an unprecedented role in the 2008 campaign, complicating John McCain's task among key constituencies. Mr. Bush received a 66% disapproval rating in The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll for June, tying his own record for the highest ever for any president in the Journal/NBC poll. The previous highs were a 56% rating for Mr. Bush's father in late 1992, and a 50% score for President Clinton in 1993. In the long-running Gallup Poll, Mr. Bush's disapproval rating reached 69% this spring -- a record going back to the Truman administration. His disapproval rating in the Journal poll is particularly striking among a number of key voter blocs for Mr. McCain in the November election: older voters (67%), women (71%) and independents (75%). Mr. Bush's second-term slide in the polls has been especially sharp among independents, a group that Sen. McCain depends on. Now for Mr. McCain to win in November, "at least one-third of McCain's voters will have to be people who disapprove of the job George Bush is doing," most of them independents, says Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. And Sen. McCain must accomplish that feat while continuing to align himself with Mr. Bush on some of the administration's most controversial policies, notably the Iraq war.

WNDI 2008

5 Elections DA Neg

1NC Elections DA ( ) McCain would hurt US science competitiveness. Michael Feldman, Editor for HPCwire. 2-1-2008. HPCwire, “Looking for a Tech-Savvy President.” http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/2089255.html Romney and McCain strike me as science and technology lightweights, especially in the realm of federal funding for basic research and science/math education. Since the Republican mantra for government is "less is more," I'm not sure what else we should expect. That said, I assume both candidates would support bipartisan COMPETES-type initiatives in the future, but commitment to funding is the real issue here (see below). On the other hand, Romney and McCain are both tech business-friendly, not just in their support for more H-1B visas, but also in other areas, such as reducing corporate tax rates and making the R&D tax credit permanent. While neither candidate has shown any interest in politicizing science, as has been done in the current administration, overall Romney and McCain have demonstrated little enthusiasm for science and technology issues. If I had to pick one, I'd go with McCain for his Senate support for NASA and the COMPETES Act. But his penchant for low taxes, high military spending and fiscal conservatism suggests he's going to leave a lot of U.S. science and technology up to the private sector. While the Republicans may think this approach is favorable to businesses, tech companies are unlikely to be enthusiastic. In a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Intel Chairman Craig Barrett expresses his frustration about the bipartisan failure of Congress to fund the science research and education agenda set out in the COMPETES Act. Writes Barrett: "The funding decisions on the America COMPETES Act took place a few days after Congress passed a $250 billion farm bill. In the eyes of our political leaders, apparently, corn subsidies to Iowa farmers are more important for our competitiveness in the next century than investing a few billion in our major research universities."

( ) That kills US heg Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly 1995 U.S. superiority in new weapons and their use would be critical. U.S. planners should therefore give higher priority to research on new technologies, new concepts of operation, and changes in organization, with the aim of U.S. dominance in the military technical revolution that may be emerging. They should also focus on how to project U.S. systems and interests against weapons based on new technologies. The Persian Gulf War gave a glimpse of the likely future. The character of warfare will change because of advances in military technology, where the [US] United States has the lead, and in corresponding concepts of operation and organizational structure. The challenge is to sustain this lead in the face of the complacency that the current U.S. lead in military power is likely to engender. Those who are seeking to be rivals to the United States are likely to be very motivated to explore new technologies and how to use them against it. A determined nation making the right choices, even though it possessed a much smaller economy, could pose an enormous challenge by exploiting breakthroughs that made more traditional U.S. military methods less effective by comparison. For example, Germany, by making the right technical choices and adopting innovative concepts for their use in the 1920s and 1930s, was able to make a serious bid for world domination. At the same time, Japan, with a relatively small GNP compared to the other major powers, especially the United States, was at the forefront of the development of naval aviation and aircraft carriers. These examples indicate that a major innovation in warfare provides ambitious powers an opportunity to become dominant or near-dominant powers. U.S. domination of the emerging military-technical revolution, combined with the maintenance of a force of adequate size, can help to discourage the rise of a rival power by making potential rivals believe that catching up with the United States is a hopeless proposition and that if they try they will suffer the same fate as the former Soviet Union.

WNDI 2008

6 Elections DA Neg

1NC Elections DA ( ) Sparks nuclear war Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995 Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

WNDI 2008

7 Elections DA Neg

Yes Obama ( ) Obama leads, but the race is fluid CBS News, 7-15-2008, “CBS Poll: Obama Leads But Race Looks Fluid,” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/15/opinion/polls/main4263422.shtml (CBS) Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama leads Republican counterpart John McCain 45 percent to 39 percent in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll of registered voters nationwide. The six percentage point spread is unchanged since June, when Obama led McCain 48 percent to 42 percent. But more than 1 in 10 voters now say they are undecided between the candidates - twice as many, percentage-wise, as last month - and 28 percent of those who did express a preference say they might still change their mind. The race between McCain and Obama appears to be more fluid than the 2004 battle between Democratic nominee John Kerry and President George W. Bush. Four years ago this month, just 6 percent of those surveyed were undecided between the candidates. And only 20 percent of those asked indicated their minds weren't yet made up.

WNDI 2008

8 Elections DA Neg

Yes Obama – 8 Yr Jinx ( ) Running for third consecutive GOP term ensures McCain defeat Robert David Sullivan, guest columnist and managing editor of CommonWealth Magazine, 7-14-2008, “McCain versus the eight-year electoral jinx,” The Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/14/mccain_versus_the_eight_year_elec toral_jinx/ PRESIDENT BUSH has left presumptive GOP nominee John McCain with a lot of problems, but the biggest may be the weak 50.7 percent of the vote that Bush received when running for reelection. That's a problematic number because American political parties almost always lose support when trying to secure a third term in the White House. The last time that a party improved its vote percentage after two terms was in 1928, when Republican Herbert Hoover soundly beat Democrat Al Smith, the first Catholic to be nominated to the presidency. Maybe Barack Obama's status as another "first" will bring about another exception to the rule. Then again, Smith wasn't on the ballot during an unpopular war and a scary economy. Since 1928, there have been six elections in which one of the major parties was seeking a third consecutive term in the White House - three for each major party. Only two attempts were successful. Democrat Franklin Roosevelt won a third term in 1940, and Republican George H. W. Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan in 1988; in both cases, the vote was much closer than it had been in the previous election. Not so lucky were Richard Nixon in 1960, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Gerald Ford in 1976, and Al Gore in 2000. In 24 states, the party seeking a third term lost ground in all six elections. These include Michigan, which the McCain campaign is targeting as its best chance to pick up a state won by John Kerry in 2004, and also the states of Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia, which the GOP is struggling to keep in its column this year.

WNDI 2008

9 Elections DA Neg

Yes Obama – NV ( ) Obama will win Nevada – new registration numbers Don Frederick, LAT Political Blogger, 7-7-2008, “In Nevada, the numbers game tilts Democratic,” LA Times Blog, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/in-nevada-the-n.html In Nevada, the numbers game tilts Democratic Nevada's vote in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections was relatively stable -- good news for Republicans. Its party registration figures, though, have been undergoing a transformation, which this November might translate into glad tidings for Democrats. Emphasis on "might." Eight years ago, George W. Bush carried the Sagebrush State against Al Gore by 21,597 votes out of about 609,000 cast (giving him a winning margin of roughly 3.5 percentage points). Four years ago, Bush won Nevada over John Kerry by 21,500 votes; with almost 830,000 cast, the president's margin was reduced a bit, to about 2.6 percentage points. Democrats could at least take solace in the trendline. But they are finding much greater joy in a new set of numbers -- the voter registration breakdown, as of June, from the Nevada secretary of state's office. On its list of "active" voters, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 55,560 -- an edge of about 5% among this entire pool of registrants, which numbers a bit more than 1 million. Especially encouraging for Democrats, as state Democratic Party official Kirsten Searer pointed out to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is that at this point in 2004, the GOP had a 1% advantage in voter registration. We've got to give credit to Zac Moyle, executive director of the Nevada Republican Party; he didn't try to sugarcoat the matter, saying, "We're disappointed by the numbers." Most distressing must be ... ... the change so far this year. Since January, the GOP voter figure in Nevada has actually gone down, by more than 5,000, while the number of Democrats has increased by close to 40,000.

WNDI 2008

10 Elections DA Neg

Yes Obama – Enthusiasm Gap ( ) Obama will win – enthusiasm gap Stephen F. Hayes, senior writer, 7-21-2008, “The Enthusiasm Gap,” The Weekly Standard, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/320jlvio.asp?pg=2 There are risks to this strategy and the enthusiasm gap is chief among them. A Washington Post/ABC News poll last month found that nearly half of the liberals surveyed are enthusiastic about supporting Barack Obama, while only 13 percent of conservatives are enthusiastic about McCain. More generally, 91 percent of self-identified Obama supporters are "enthusiastic" about their candidate; 54 percent say they are "very enthusiastic." Seventy-three percent of such McCain supporters say they are "enthusiastic" about his candidacy, but only 17 percent say they are "very enthusiastic." A USA Today/Gallup poll reported similar findings last week. That survey shows that while 67 percent of Barack Obama's supporters are "more excited than usual about voting" for their candidate, only 31 percent of John McCain's supporters can say the same thing. More troubling for the McCain campaign is that more than half of those who identified themselves as McCain backers--54 percent--say they are "less excited than usual" about their candidate. It is not surprising that conservatives are not warming to a candidate who likes to talk about climate change and government subsidies for displaced workers. But this coldness is increasingly alarming to some McCain backers. They believe that all of McCain's efforts to win over Democrats and independents can only pay off if he is able to get conservatives to turn out to vote for him in November.

( ) Enthusiasm gap is large CBS News, 7-15-2008, “CBS Poll: Obama Leads But Race Looks Fluid,” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/15/opinion/polls/main4263422.shtml Obama voters are far more enthusiastic about their candidate: Half of his supporters described themselves as "enthusiastic" about Obama as nominee, while just 16 percent of McCain voters said the same. Sixty-eight percent of McCain voters describe themselves as "satisfied" with the presumptive GOP nominee, while 14 percent say they are "dissatisfied." Only six percent of Obama voters say they are "dissatisfied" with the Democratic candidate. But there are some lingering reservations among former supporters of Obama's toughest rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. About one in five of those who say they voted for Clinton in the primaries now plan to support McCain in November. And just 29 percent of former Clinton supporters who plan to vote for Obama feel "enthusiastic" about the candidate.

WNDI 2008

11 Elections DA Neg

Links – Nuclear Power ( ) Nuclear power popular CBS News, 7-15-2008, “CBS Poll: Obama Leads But Race Looks Fluid,” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/15/opinion/polls/main4263422.shtml McCain has proposed that the U.S. build more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, and 57 percent of Americans say they support doing so - up 12 points from April of last year and the highest percentage since 1977.

WNDI 2008

12 Elections DA Neg

Links – Alternative Energy ( ) Alternative energy is popular Suemedha Sood, 6-24-2008, “In and Out With Offshore Drilling,” The Washington Independent, http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/getting-in-and-out Yet even as the public seems more accepting of drilling, public opinion data also shows that Americans are more likely to seek other options before supporting drilling in off-limits coastal areas. In a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken earlier this month, Americans ranked a list of energy alternatives to address rising gas prices. The most popular option was to encourage the expansion of wind and solar power. The offshore drilling option was the fourth on the list, only considered viable after looking into wind and solar power, Alaska exploration and energy conservation.

( ) Alternative Energy good for republicans/popular Anne C. Mulkern, staff writer, 6-23-2008, “Political parties drill for blame in energy fight,” The Denver Post, nexis In a Zogby International poll this month asking what government actions people favored to lower fuel costs, 60 percent backed encouraging domestic drilling. Almost as many, 59 percent, supported cutting demand by boosting fuel-efficiency standards, and 54 percent endorsed the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. The survey did not ask people to pick one option over another. Political advisers are coaching Republicans to talk about more drilling and renewable energy. Democratic strategists suggest giving solutions that include cracking down on oil speculators and pushing gas alternatives. They also advise blaming President Bush.

( ) Alternative energy is bipartisan Alex Kaplun, E&ENews PM reporter, 3-10-2008, “ENERGY POLICY: Poll shows voters united on alternatives, split on nuclear, oil industry incentives,” E&E News, nexis Voters from both parties continue to strongly favor increased federal support for policies such as increased vehicle fuel efficiency, alternative energy development and greater use of mass transit but are more divided on policies such as nuclear power and tax breaks for oil exploration, according to a new poll. A poll released late last week by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that 90 percent of voters -- regardless of party affiliation -- support government efforts to boost vehicle efficiency and more than 80 percent support increased federal funding for alternative energy.

WNDI 2008

13 Elections DA Neg

Links – Alternative Energy ( ) Alt energy popular – seen as economic stimulus Ben Alder, 7-14-2008, “Poll: Deep economic insecurity,” politico.com, nexis Americans are deeply worried about their economic prospects and they want government to invest in expanding economic opportunity and assisting those in need, according to a new poll released today. The Rockefeller Foundation/Time magazine poll of 2,008 Americans, conducted June 19-29, found significant increases in economic anxiety, especially among young people and minorities, and dissatisfaction with the federal government's response. The percentage of Americans concerned with their own economic situation, at 47 percent, has nearly doubled from 24 percent in January 2007, when the Rockefeller Foundation conducted a similar study. The percentages of Americans who fear losing their job and have failed to pay a bill in the past year also rose since last January. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said they are facing greater financial risk than in the past and 55 percent say that Congress is hindering them from achieving economic security. Generation Y, defined as 18- to 29-year-olds in this survey, was the most pessimistic age cohort, with the bleakest view of the future. Forty-nine percent say America was a better place to live in in the 1990s and will continue to decline, compared to 40 percent or less for every other age cohort. "There was really surprising data on how many young people feel so badly about their financial future," said Teresa Wells, chief media strategist for the Rockefeller Foundation. "Half [of young people] think America's best days are behind us," said Margot Brandenburg, associate director of foundation initiatives at Rockefeller. "They have good reason to." She noted that half reported having gone without health insurance in the last year. Sixty-two percent said that they have failed to pay a bill on time because they could not afford to. They are more likely than older people to have not gone to a doctor because of cost, to worry that they are not saving enough for retirement and to have borrowed money from a friend. And young Americans seem readier than older Americans to turn to government for the solution. Eighty-six percent say more government programs should help those struggling under the current economic conditions. African-Americans and Latinos feel especially hard hit by recent economic turmoil, according to the survey. Ninety-six percent of African-Americans and 88 percent of Latinos believe the economy is on the wrong track. Congress is not the only political institution that gets a share of the blame: Almost 80 percent of African-Americans say the president is hindering their pursuit of economic security. "What we see is things are worse for everyone but more so for black and Latino workers," said Brandenburg. "They are more likely to be uninsured, to think that they aren't saving enough for retirement and lack the savings to handle an emergency. And they are more vocal in calling for government to play a role." For example, 93 percent of African-Americans and 87 percent of Latinos favor public works projects that would create jobs. One notable trend is the emerging popularity of environmental regulation as an economic

imperative. Stricter pollution limits and tax credits for alternative energy development were supported by 84 percent of all respondents, the highest of any proposal. Increasing the minimum wage, expanding public works projects were nearly as popular, with 83 percent and 82 percent approval respectively. Increases in unemployment benefits, government-funded childcare and government programs to provide health insurance were also supported by more than two-thirds of respondents as well. "If you look at what Americans are trying to say to their government leaders," said Wells, "they are very interested in environmental solutions that can help the economy."

WNDI 2008

14 Elections DA Neg

Links – Ethanol ( ) Ethanol is popular Alex Kaplun, E&ENews PM reporter, 3-10-2008, “ENERGY POLICY: Poll shows voters united on alternatives, split on nuclear, oil industry incentives,” E&E News, nexis A majority of voters -- 57 percent -- also supported increased funding for ethanol research, but that figure has dropped over the last couple of years from a high of 67 percent in early 2006. The decline was especially pronounced among Republican voters, with 59 percent favoring the additional funding this year compared to 72 percent two years ago.

WNDI 2008

15 Elections DA Neg

Links – PHEVs ( ) Support for PHEV’s is popular and key in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Lorraine Wollert and Jeff Green, staff writers, 7-18-2008, “GM’s Volt Becomes Centerpiece in Presidential Debate on Energy,” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aVV3eMUSiMgQ&refer=politics July 18 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp.'s plug-in electric car, the Chevrolet Volt, is becoming a musthave prop for the U.S. presidential candidates as they try to appeal to workers in contested states such as Michigan and Ohio and show their commitment to weaning the country off of imported oil. Stopping at a technical center run by the largest U.S. automaker in Warren, Michigan, Republican John McCain today called the Volt an illustration of how the U.S. can cope with rising crude oil prices and the decline of manufacturing jobs. ``The eyes of the world are now on the Volt,'' McCain said at a meeting with autoworkers after sitting in the vehicle and getting a briefing on the car's technology from GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner and Vice Chairman Bob Lutz. ``It's the future of America and the world.'' The Arizona senator and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, are holding up GM -beset by a collapse of its U.S. sales and three years of losses -- as a model of American ingenuity. McCain said the Volt, which GM aims to roll off assembly lines by 2010, demonstrates how U.S. automakers can move smartly and quickly away from fossil fuels without shedding manufacturing jobs. ``I've said the old automotive jobs aren't coming back,'' McCain said yesterday. ``But I also said in the same sentence that the Big Three would lead in green technologies and innovation and the new technologies that would restore the life and vitality of the automotive industry in America. And General Motors is doing exactly that by developing the Volt.'' Alternatives While the candidates' differences over whether to allow more oil drilling off the U.S. coast has dominated the debate, on the stump they both are giving prominence to their plans to boost alternative energy development and foster technology to cut emissions. McCain, 71, and Obama, 46, come at the issue from different directions. McCain wants to boost innovation by offering purchasers of zero carbon-emission cars a $5,000 tax credit. A graduated tax credit would apply to purchases of lower emission cars such as the Volt. He would establish a $300 million prize for development of new battery technology for vehicles. He also wants to encourage construction of 100 new nuclear plants and invest government money in development of clean-burning coal. Obama has pledged $150 billion in federal spending to create 5 million ``green collar'' jobs to cut pollution and energy use, in part by promoting the use of renewable fuels and retooling factories. Oil Dependency McCain adviser Jim Woolsey said both proposals share the same goal, ``an end-run around oil dependency.'' The plans have another common target: protecting American manufacturing jobs. Touting clean and green technology is a way for candidates to resonate in competitive states such as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where factory workers are a substantial voting bloc.

WNDI 2008

16 Elections DA Neg

Links – Colorado ( ) Alternative energy is popular in Colorado and key to the election Alex Kaplun, E&E Daily Reporter, 6-3-2008, “Campaign 2008: Colo. Senate candidates seek upper hand in renewable energy debate,” Environment and Energy Daily, nexis Energy policy -- and in particular the development of renewable energy -- has been a major campaign topic in Colorado for several campaign cycles. And while it figures to be in play once again this time around, Democrats and their allies in particular see an opening to score major electoral points by highlighting what they describe as the Republican candidate's oil-friendly record in an era when such an image can prove to be highly damaging to a campaign. Shortly after becoming the nominee last month, Udall launched a 16-city tour in which he highlighted his renewable energy policy at stop after stop. Udall's first campaign ad of the season also focused on renewable energy. "Standing on your own. That's just the Colorado way," Udall says in the 30-second spot. "We need energy solutions, green jobs and a cleaner future for Colorado." Thus far, Udall's message has been largely positive, focusing primarily on his own track record and vowing to expand the availability of renewable fuels if he gets to the Senate. Attacking Schaffer In the meantime, environmental groups -- which view the Colorado Senate race as one of their top priorities in this cycle -- have gone on the air with ads attacking Schaffer for accepting campaign contributions from oil and gas companies as well as voting in favor of tax breaks for the industry. "As a politician and corporate oil executive, Bob Schaffer has had all of his fingers in big oil," the ad states. "Colorado deserves cleaner representation in the Senate." Udall has long been a favorite of the environmental community, most notably for his efforts to push through a federal renewable electricity mandate. At the same time, environmental groups pledged to target Schaffer because of what they describe as an industry-friendly voting record and his background as an executive at the oil company Aspect Energy. But Schaffer's allies have moved quickly to blunt what is expected to be a barrage of attacks from environmental groups by running their own ads that tout the former congressman's support for renewables. The same week that the League of Conservation Voters-led ads went on the air, the group Coloradans for Economic Grown launched its own ad campaign praising Schaffer for being an advocate for renewable energy -- highlighting his vote for a 2001 energy bill that contained incentives for solar power, hybrid vehicles and alternative fuels. "As a businessman, Bob led efforts to increase wind power sources," states the ad. "As our congressman, Bob Schaffer voted to fund research for renewable energy projects." On the campaign trail, Schaffer has likewise discussed the need for renewable energy but has also said the country needs to establish energy independence in part by increasing domestic energy production. Critics, however, say Schaffer's effort to embrace renewable energy is an attempt to change his oil-friendly perception that will fall flat with voters. "Obviously it's an attempt to mitigate the Oil Slick Bob image, but his record doesn't stand up" said Rick Ridder, a Colorado-based Democratic strategist. "It's difficult to become Mahatma Gandhi when you've been Genghis Khan all your life." Colorado trend The back-and-forth on energy policy has become a staple of recent statewide political campaigns, as voters view the development of renewable energy as a potentially major economic engine for Colorado and as voters in some corners of the state have expressed concern about the impact of drilling on the environment. Pundits say that with voters worried about high gas prices in general and the economy as a whole, the candidates' ability to win the energy debate could prove to be particularly critical this time around. "As a candidate, you've got to have an economic policy and something about Iraq, but a very good way to frame it, whether you're talking about foreign and domestic issues, is through energy policy and in particular a renewable energy policy," said Republican Colorado pollster Floyd Ciruli. "It's become a very popular sort of framework for discussing everything else." Experts say that while swing voters will likely never view the former Republican congressman as being particularly strong on the environment, the campaign could find success if it can simply eliminate from the voters' minds that he is an "Big Oil" candidate.

( ) Renewable are ridiculously popular in Colorado Craig Cox, staff writer, 6-30-2008, “Tax policies must catch up to renewable revolution,” The Denver Post, nexis Renewable energy is popular with voters and policymakers: Colorado's voters passed a renewable energy standard in 2004, requiring increasing percentages of electricity to be generated from renewable sources of energy. This standard was so popular - and feasible - that it was doubled to 20 percent last year with leadership from Gov. Bill Ritter and bipartisan legislative support.

WNDI 2008

17 Elections DA Neg

Links – Colorado ( ) Alternative energy massively popular in Colorado – democrats control the issue now John Ingold, staff writer, 3-31-2008, “Renewable energy draws most legislators' support Democrats are more likely than Republicans to want Colorado to push the issue,” The Denver Post, nexis Over the past several years, renewable energy has become the great unifier in Colorado politics, an issue so popular and so multifaceted that just about every lawmaker can find something there to like. Environmentalists love its eco-friendliness. National security hawks love its potential to make the country more energy-independent. Economy wonks love the promise of new jobs that come with the burgeoning industry. Support in some form or another for renewable energy bridges party and geographic lines. So far this year, at least 17 bills boosting renewable energy have been introduced in the state legislature - 11 from Democrats, five from Republicans and one with bipartisan prime sponsorship. Of those, two have been signed into law, including one last week that standardizes how people with solar panels on their homes or businesses get paid for the extra power they produce. The bill drew rafts of supporters in both parties who said it allows Colorado residents to take advantage of the state's abundant sunshine. "It's a perfect setup for Colorado to be a leader in this arena," said Rep. Judith Solano, a Brighton Democrat who was the bill's chief sponsor. Where there are differences between the parties in the legislature, it is not so much about the value of renewable energy as it is about how best to promote and foster its development. Republicans say they want to provide incentives for renewable energy but not to push it on the state. "I'm a huge fan of renewable energy," said Sen. Greg Brophy, a Republican from Wray who drives a Toyota Prius. "I seek to promote the use of renewable energy but not force it regardless of cost." Democrats, though, say a firm hand is needed to foster renewable-energy development. Sen. Ron Tupa, a Boulder Democrat, said Republicans have come around to supporting renewable energy bills only now that the issue is popular with voters. "It's just plain good politics," he said of supporting renewable energy. "And I think the general public is recognizing that, of the two parties, the Democratic Party is the one that has really taken this policy and run with it. So I guess the Republicans will oppose these bills at their own political peril."

WNDI 2008

18 Elections DA Neg

Link/Internals – Energy Key ( ) Plan is popular and energy is key to the election Reuters, 7-24-2008, “LCV and NRDC Outline the Future of Global Warming Legislation and Steps to Address High Gas Prices,” http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS214817+24-Jun-2008+PRN20080624 "Tied into both the economy and the environment, energy will be the defining issue of this election," LCV President Gene Karpinski said. "The American people demand a new energy policy that breaks our addiction to oil and dirty coal. Members of Congress who fight for a clean, renewable energy future will be back to fight next year, but those who stand in the way will have to answer to the voters in November. A Gallup poll released today indicates that energy is the top issue priority for 51% American voters. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx). "Americans are feeling pain at the pump and many experts say high gas prices are here to stay," NRDC's Energy Advocate Jim Presswood said. "With prices set in the global marketplace and only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves here at home, there is simply nothing we can do to impact prices by drilling. The real solution is clear: we must take bold action to break our addiction to oil and transition to a clean energy future. A future where new cars like plug-in hybrids go farther on a gallon of gas, enhanced public transit systems give Americans more transportation options, and renewable sources of energy power our communities.

WNDI 2008

19 Elections DA Neg

Internals – West/Colorado Key ( ) Mountain west key – energy issues are especially important for Coloradan voters The Denver Post, Editorial Staff, 5-27-2008, “West might be where it’s won,” http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9395389 The mountain West has become a key political battleground for the 2008 presidential election. Strategists are talking about how winning Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico could pave the way to an Electoral College win. Republican presidential candidate John McCain came to Denver Tuesday, and today Democrat Barack Obama pays a visit. It's a heady moment for a part of the country that has flown under the radar in recent presidential campaigns. But it's also an opportunity to engage in the issues and challenge the candidates. As Coloradans, we have some particular regional concerns, such as water, public lands and energy development. But candidates can no longer stroll in, put on a cowboy hat and boots as part of some "Western strategy" and expect to hit it off with Coloradans. We're a more diverse lot than that. We also have deep concerns about the war in Iraq, foreign affairs, the economy and immigration. And like the rest of the country, we want better schools and an affordable health care system that works. But a Western strategy to win the White House is an opportunity for residents here to have their voices heard, a chance to influence the political discourse something along the lines of the way Iowa does by having the first political caucus. We hope Coloradans take advantage of the opportunity by reading up on the issues that move them and forming opinions. As the presidential campaign moves into its final six months, the mountain West can play a key role in defining the candidates and tightening up the race. Polls done by Rasmussen Reports show Obama with a modest lead over McCain in Colorado, 48 to 42 percent. In New Mexico, the numbers are 50 to 41 for Obama. In Nevada, McCain was leading Obama 46 to 40 percent.

WNDI 2008

20 Elections DA Neg

Internals – Bush Popularity Key ( ) Bush’s unpopularity hurts the GOP candidate Stuart Rothenberg, Editor and Publisher of The Rothenberg Political Report, 11-12-2007, “The Bush Factor in the Upcoming Presidential Election,” The Rothenberg Political Report, http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/bush-factor-in-upcoming-presidential.html This cycle, many Republicans are making the argument that in the 2008 election, George W. Bush will be irrelevant. Voters will have “turned the page” on h im and will be looking toward the future rather than the past, they insist. Some Republican strategists assert confidently that voters will be evaluating the party’s presidential nominee, not Bush, and that the party’s image will be repaired once Bush is perceived as part of the past, not the future. Democrats counter that while Bush will not be on the ballot, his war will still be going on and Republicans will not be able to run from his record or from their support for him during his presidency. They insist that the election will allow voters to choose between change and continuity, and that the Republicans will represent continuity and Democrats will represent change. Who is more likely to be correct? In midterms, many Americans vote retrospectively. That is, they base their decisions on past performance. In presidential elections, they tend to look forward, to evaluate the nominees on the basis of how they will perform in office. But is it reasonable to believe that voters completely disregard past performance — a party’s past performance — when an unpopular president leaves office? Probably not. After all, Democrats have plenty of tape of Bush making promises that were not kept and asserting truths that turned out not to be true. And they’ll be running against a party that has been defined for the past few years by its leader, the president of the United States. That means the Republican nominee for president will inevitably be the candidate of continuity rather than dramatic change, no matter how passionately he delivers a message of change. It’s also true, however, that once the GOP has a presidential nominee, he will start to redefine the public’s image of the Republican Party. George W. Bush will seem less relevant, less important. But he will never disappear. That doesn’t doom the Republican nominee, but it puts him in a hole even before the race has begun.

( ) Economy ensures GOP tied to Bush Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer, 2-2-2008, “Decline in U.S. Jobs Could Prove Costly to GOP Nominee”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020103262_pf.html For Republicans already facing an economic headwind, the jobs numbers could prove punishing. Traditionally, the party holding the White House is blamed for bad economic times -- and credited for booms -- and economists said yesterday that this year should be no different, even if GOP candidates continue to distance themselves from President Bush.

WNDI 2008

21 Elections DA Neg

Internals – Bush Popularity Key ( ) Bush popularity is key to 2008 election chances Tony Harnden, Washington Correspondent, 5-7-2007, “Will Bush seal 2008 Republican defeat?,” Telegraph, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/may07/republicansdefeat.htm Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster with a penchant for delivering hard truths, told me today that the Republicans could be heading for a disaster on the scale of the Conservative party in 1997 - which consigned them to the wilderness for a decade. Paradoxically, the only way to prevent this happening is to recognise that it is a distinct possibility. It's not just Iraq and it's not just Bush - the poll rating reflects a deep and widespread dissatisfaction with Republicans and all they stand for. Rich Galen argues here that there are lessons for Republicans in Nicolas Sarkozy's victory in France. I heard Newt Gingrich - whom Galen used to work for - advance the same thesis on Fox news today, basically that you can come from the governing party but still win as a maverick advocate for change. That's certainly possible. It seems to be John McCain's developing strategy, though his close identification with Bush's surge policy will make this a difficult thing to pull off. But if the ruling party - personified by the president - is as unpopular as the Newsweek poll suggests then all bets are off. No matter how superb a candidate the Republicans fields he (and there are only men on offer - there was a good Democrat line this week about the California debate being "American Idol" for old white guys) will lose. Of course, Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics. And that was well before blogging, YouTube and all the rest of it. The surge could work and the situation in Iraq could improve. The Democrats could overreach or lose their lustre during amid bitter internecine battle over Iraq strategy. Statements like Senator Harry Reid's "the war is lost" could leave voters feeling that Democrats are the party of defeat. At the moment, however, none of the above looks like transforming Republican fortunes dramatically. Bush's poll ratings have been in the doldrums for well over a year, despite Republicans believing at almost every juncture that the corner is about to be turned.

( ) Bush’s low popularity is key to democratic chances in 2008 Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writer, 7-29-2007, “Can Republican nominee distance from Iraq war?,” Associated Press, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070729/ai_n19437571/print As ardent Democrats count the days until George W. Bush leaves office, many Republicans in Congress eagerly await the time when their 2008 nominee eclipses the president and, they hope, improves their reelection prospects. In blunt terms, even Bush's most loyal allies say their fate next year may come to this: Will voters largely forget the president and focus on a nominee who can distance himself from the Iraq war, a beleaguered attorney general and other problems that have sapped Bush's popularity. Perhaps as early as February, a likely nominee will emerge and Republicans will "not have the Bush monkey on our back," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla. "We're already in a post-Bush political era." Feeney is hardly a Bushbasher, having played a key role in the president's 2000 Florida vote recount effort. He also was Jeb Bush's running mate in 1994, when the president's younger brother lost his first race for governor in Florida. Then there is GOP Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, whose western Maryland district went heavily for Bush in 2000 and 2004. "I think Bush will not be politically relevant once we have a nominee. ... He will be a nonentity," Bartlett said. Democrats dismiss such comments as wishful thinking. They won control of the House and Senate in 2006 largely because of voters' unhappiness with Bush and the war. They are banking on Bush's even lower popularity now to help them to further victories next year. The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed Bush's approval rating at 33 percent, a level that usually means serious trouble for the incumbent's party. Congress' approval rating was even worse, 24 percent. But Democrats believe unhappy voters will focus their ire on the president and his party. Top congressional Republicans acknowledge that Bush's unpopularity is hurting them. "Our image is largely made by the president," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters last week. "And the president does enjoy -- suffer from, shall I say -- poor standing. ... However, compared to the Democratic Congress, he looks pretty good."

WNDI 2008

22 Elections DA Neg

Internals – Bush Popularity Key A win for Bush is a win for McCain – he lives and dies with Bush policies. Juan Cole, Writer for Salon. 3-12-08. Salon.com, “John McCain Runs for George Bush’s Third Term.” http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/12/mccain/ The most important thing about the endorsements proffered to John McCain by George W. Bush and evangelist John Hagee last week was McCain's reaction to them. The freshly minted Republican nominee for president, who has had harsh words in the past for both Bush's policies and evangelical "agents of intolerance," meekly accepted their support. He knows he cannot win in November if the evangelicals and pro-war conservatives stay home. How far will McCain go in presenting himself as Son of Bush in order to energize his party's base? To date, based on his willingness to embrace the Bush agenda and to associate with religious extremists, the answer seems to be pretty far indeed. When John McCain went to the White House last week, President Bush seemed to be offering him an out. Bush "welcomed" McCain as "the Republican nominee" in his official statement, but didn't initially use the word "endorse." It was McCain who leapt for the e-word. "Well, I'm very honored and humbled," said McCain, "to have the opportunity to receive the endorsement of the President of the United States, a man who I have great admiration, respect and affection [for]." McCain's strategists, meanwhile, are said to be privately plotting how best to deploy the deeply unpopular Bush, perhaps by quietly sending him to host fundraisers deep inside red states where he would not risk alienating the general population from McCain. But McCain is hewing so faithfully to Bush's legacy he may need no help from the man himself in alienating the population.

WNDI 2008

23 Elections DA Neg

Internals – Bush Popularity Key (Ohio) ( ) Ohio is key – Bush’s low popularity is necessary to give democrats an edge Stephen Koff, Plain Dealer Bureau Chief, 11-12-2007, “Ohio a likely bellwether in 2008 presidential election,” The Plain Dealer, http://www.cleveland.com/world/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1194860223146820.xml&coll=2 Washington -- The road to the White House "goes through Ohio," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday, using an adage deeply ingrained in national politics. It's why she sought Gov. Ted Strickland's endorsement, and he gave it. It's why President Bush and his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, stopped in Ohio so often in 2004 -- bringing crowd-drawing stars such as Bruce Springsteen (with Kerry) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (with Bush) -- that the state's press corps didn't have to travel the country to cover the campaign. The campaign came to Ohio, and Ohio decided the narrow outcome. Ohio is likely to be a bellwether for the nation again next November, when for the first time since 1952, there will be no incumbent president or vice president on the ballot. Among the variables: the Democratic Party's sweep of Ohio in 2006, Strickland's high ratings, Bush's low popularity and the war in Iraq -- factors that give Democrats an edge. Playing to the GOP's strength is the possibility of a Democratic candidate whom Ohio Republicans are sure they can vilify, and a slate of Republican-primary candidates filled with fresh faces, though Ohioans don't yet seem to know them well.

WNDI 2008

24 Elections DA Neg

Internals – GOP Base Key ( ) GOP base key to McCain win Stephen F. Hayes, senior writer, 7-21-2008, “The Enthusiasm Gap Part II,” The Weekly Standard, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/320jlvio.asp?pg=2 It is not surprising that conservatives are not warming to a candidate who likes to talk about climate change and government subsidies for displaced workers. But this coldness is increasingly alarming to some McCain backers. They believe that all of McCain's efforts to win over Democrats and independents can only pay off if he is able to get conservatives to turn out to vote for him in November. It is not surprising that conservatives are not warming to a candidate who likes to talk about climate change and government subsidies for displaced workers. But this coldness is increasingly alarming to some McCain backers. They believe that all of McCain's efforts to win over Democrats and independents can only pay off if he is able to get conservatives to turn out to vote for him in November.

WNDI 2008

25 Elections DA Neg

Internals – Energy Key ( ) Gas prices increase the significance of energy in the election Craig Gilbert, staff writer, 7-10-2008, “Dueling ads from McCain, Obama in Wisconsin reveal top issues,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=771208 That the two candidates have plenty of sharp differences to hash out on economic policy in general and energy policy in particular. The GOP ads identify some of them. McCain has proposed a summertime gas-tax holiday; Obama opposes it. McCain wants to expand offshore drilling; Obama is opposed. McCain supports a major expansion of nuclear power; Obama has not said no to nuclear, as the RNC ad asserts, but he hasn't said yes, either. The centerpiece of Obama's energy agenda is a $150 billion spending plan on energy technology. • That thanks to high gas prices, energy should play a bigger role in the campaign debate this year than it did in 2004.

WNDI 2008

26 Elections DA Neg

Internals-Uniqueness – Obama leads Energy ( ) Obama holds large lead on energy Frank Newport, Editor of the Gallup Poll, 6-24-2008, “Obama has edge on key election issues,” http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx Two issues top the list, based on the percentage rating each as extremely important in choosing between candidates: energy/gas prices and the economy. (Energy has spiked in its importance to voters in recent months as gas prices have risen to the $4-per-gallon level.) Obama has a clear advantage over McCain on both of these top two issues. Americans give Obama a 19-point edge over McCain as best able to deal with energy, with 47% choosing Obama and 28% McCain. On the economy, Obama has a 16-point margin over McCain, 48% to 32

WNDI 2008

27 Elections DA Neg

Obama Solves Alt Energy ( ) Dems lead to Apollo energy Stanley Greenberg, Former Advisor to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Nelson Mandela, and others, 2004, “The Two Americas,” 306 While the Republicans press relentlessly for increased production of coal, gas, and oil in the United States and for opening up new fields around the world, the Democrats offer a radically different approach in the spirit of JFK and the effort to land a man on the moon. The Democrats will commit the country to develop America’s vast energy resources in a way that strengthens America, fuels investment in energy technology and renewables, and drastically reduces U.S. dependence on Middle East oil. It also puts America in the lead in reducing the emission of heat-trapping gases that produce global warming. In all these areas, Democrats are the party of technology and the future. The hope is to inspire Americans with the possibilities and opportunity to take on the biggest long-term challenges.

WNDI 2008

28 Elections DA Neg

Obama Solves Warming ( ) Only a Democratic president will solve warming – McCain’s plan doesn’t cut it. David Roberts, Writer for Grist. 2/15/08. Grist Environmental News and Commentary, “John McCain and Climate Change.” http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/15/10152/5591 Relative to what's offered by other Senate cap-and-trade bills (and the plans of his Democratic rivals), the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act -- even in its 2007 incarnation -- is weak. Unlike other such bills, McCain's specifically sets aside massive and unnecessary subsidies for the nuclear industry. Its emissions targets are exceeded even by the lowest-common-denominator bill now heading to the Senate floor, the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act. This is to say nothing of the SandersBoxer bill, the strongest extant climate legislation, which now boasts both Clinton and Obama as cosponsors and includes even more aggressive targets. Beyond that, we have the plans offered by the leading Democratic campaigns, which offer bold targets, 100 percent auctioning of pollution permits, and detailed plans for how to allocate the auction revenue to boost the green economy. McCain has never updated his position on cap-and-trade legislation, despite the steady advance in public opinion and climate science since he introduced his bill in 2003. He has not discussed, much less matched, the ambitious targets of his Dem rivals. He has not signed onto the Sanders legislation, or even Lieberman's new bill. He has not said whether he'll vote for it, and has hinted ($ub. rqd) that he'll vote Nay unless big buckets of nuclear pork are added. In short, McCain's take on cap-and-trade legislation is now anachronistic, lagging well behind what's current, what's possible, and what's needed.

WNDI 2008

29 Elections DA Neg

Obama Solves Ethanol ( ) Only Dems institute cellulosic ethanol not corn-based ethanol. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Former Chief Economist at the US Department of Labor. 2/27/08. The New York Sun, “The Ethanol Catch-22.” http://www.nysun.com/article/71930?page_no=1 Mr. Obama proposes to fund research so that America can use 2 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol — ethanol from plant matter instead of corn — by 2013. In addition, he would require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.

WNDI 2008

30 Elections DA Neg

Obama Solves Competitiveness ( ) Apollo energy would save the economy. Moises Velasquez-Manoff, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, 1-25-2007, “Unions see greenbacks in ‘green’ future,” Christian Science Monitor, academic With alarm growing over global warming and the economic vulnerability created by American dependence on foreign oil, it's increasingly obvious to many that the only viable future is a green one. The pursuit of this future has made unlikely bedfellows of many groups historically at odds with each other. Evangelicals have joined forces with tree huggers. Creationists have aligned themselves with scientists. And now, organized labor is working with environmentalists. Union leaders are betting that a green economy will not only address the issue of climate change, it will also provide a bonanza of well-paying manufacturing jobs - the kinds of jobs that have largely vanished from the United States in recent decades. A proliferation of wind turbines and solar panels means more factories, while ever more stringent efficiency standards imply the need for inspectors and experts in sealing and insulating. "From labor unions' point of view, these are the kinds of jobs their unions are most prepared for," says Jeff Rickert, vice president of the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of the major environmental and labor organizations. Having worked in steel mills and paper plants, many in the workforce already possess the appropriate skill set, say labor leaders. All that's needed are incentives at the federal level, and America will be well on its way toward what some call a "third industrial revolution." "This is like the transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy," says Robert Borosage, president of the Institute for America's Future, a progressive think tank. "It has the potential for massive growth." According to studies by the Apollo Alliance, which has outlined a 10-point plan for energy independence and jumpstarting the renewables sector, dollars invested in clean energy create more jobs than those invested in traditional energy sources. Renewable energy is simply more labor intensive. An investment of $30 billion per year for 10 years would create 3.3 million jobs and boost the gross domestic product by $1.4 trillion, according to its analysis. The federal government would recoup the initial investment in increased tax revenues within the same 10-year period.

( ) McCain would hurt US science competitiveness. Michael Feldman, Editor for HPCwire. 2/1/08. HPCwire, “Looking for a Tech-Savvy President.” http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/2089255.html Romney and McCain strike me as science and technology lightweights, especially in the realm of federal funding for basic research and science/math education. Since the Republican mantra for government is "less is more," I'm not sure what else we should expect. That said, I assume both candidates would support bipartisan COMPETES-type initiatives in the future, but commitment to funding is the real issue here (see below). On the other hand, Romney and McCain are both tech business-friendly, not just in their support for more H-1B visas, but also in other areas, such as reducing corporate tax rates and making the R&D tax credit permanent. While neither candidate has shown any interest in politicizing science, as has been done in the current administration, overall Romney and McCain have demonstrated little enthusiasm for science and technology issues. If I had to pick one, I'd go with McCain for his Senate support for NASA and the COMPETES Act. But his penchant for low taxes, high military spending and fiscal conservatism suggests he's going to leave a lot of U.S. science and technology up to the private sector. While the Republicans may think this approach is favorable to businesses, tech companies are unlikely to be enthusiastic. In a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Intel Chairman Craig Barrett expresses his frustration about the bipartisan failure of Congress to fund the science research and education agenda set out in the COMPETES Act. Writes Barrett: "The funding decisions on the America COMPETES Act took place a few days after Congress passed a $250 billion farm bill. In the eyes of our political leaders, apparently, corn subsidies to Iowa farmers are more important for our competitiveness in the next century than investing a few billion in our major research universities."

WNDI 2008

31 Elections DA Neg

Impacts – NMD Bad ( ) A McCain victory would lead to NMD John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Council for a Livable World. 2/29/08. Veterans for Common Sense, “An Early Look Ahead: McCain, Clinton and Obama on National Security Issues.” http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9459 McCain has declared that he "strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses." 29His votes in the Senate back up that claim: he opposed all three amendments to cut the program in 2004. 30 In a 2001 speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, he advocated abandoning the ABM Treaty. 31 Obama has been critical of the Bush missile defense plans: "The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes." 32 Clinton's position has been more ambiguous. Of three key votes in 2004, she voted in effect for missile defense once and against it twice. However, she criticized President Bush's decision in 2001 to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and both she and Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed the vote. 33 She also has criticized the Bush administration of "focusing obsessively on expensive and unproven missile defense technology." 34 Neither Clinton nor Obama has indicated plans for missile defense upon assuming the presidency.

( ) That would cause a big nuclear war with Russia and China. Matthew Yglesias, Writer for The Atlantic. 2/21/08. The Atlantic, “McCain and the Missiles.” http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccain_and_the_missiles.php John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary. For starters, north Korea doesn't possess ICBM capabilities. Second, it's hard to see how national missile defense will protect our forces from Iranian missile attacks when our forces are right next door in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, it's unclear why we'd be particularly worried about any sort of ballistic missile attack given the close quarters situation at hand. But while this is a bit dishonest and ignorant, the business about hedging against "potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China." Simply put, a scenario in which the United States possesses an effective ability to shoot down a Russian or Chinese ICBM threat would be completely intolerable in Moscow or Beijing. It would, in effect, give the United States a viable a threat of a nuclear first strike. Neither Russia nor China is going to let that happen. Instead, they'll spend money on building up their nuclear arsenals in order to maintain their deterrent capacity. Thus, at great cost to the Unites States, to Russia, and to China we'll be back at the status quo. But beyond the monetary cost, the large buildup in Chinese nuclear capabilities that would result from this situation would force India to engage in a nuclear build-up of its own. And that, in turn, would force Pakistan to follow suit. This large increase in the global stock of nuclear weapons would, of course, imply an increase in the odds of a nuclear accident or the loss or theft of nuclear material. At the same time, a nuclear buildup of this sort might create incentives for Iran to reinitiate its nuclear weapons research program. And even if it didn't, revitalizing the Non-Proliferation Treaty desperately requires the status quo nuclear powers to be working together on nuclear issues, and fulfilling our treat obligations to move toward reduced arsenals. In short, what McCain has on tap here is a recipe for disaster -- a breakdown in great power relations, new arms races, massive nuclear proliferation, etc. And why? I suspect the last bit is the real reason. He wants "to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred." Basically, we need to spend huge sums of money and encourage an enormous amount of nuclear proliferation because that would facilitate the launching of new aggressive wars. Probably the proliferation McCain's policies helped induce would become the rationale for a new round of warfighting.

WNDI 2008

32 Elections DA Neg

Impacts – Leadership ( ) Obama’s background would restore American soft power Peter Canellos, Boston Globe Washington Bureau Chief, 12-25-2007, “Clinton, Obama offer chance to fix US image,” Boston Globe, academic There is little doubt that Obama's background gives him a unique stature - and that having him as the symbol of America could alter perceptions of the United States in Africa, Asia, and South America. Emphasizing the multiracial aspect of the United States to a multiracial world could give the American Dream new currency: It would prove that American values are applicable to everyone. Such a possibility is obviously thrilling to the Democrats who've flooded Obama's campaign events.

( ) Key to solve nuclear war Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995 Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

WNDI 2008

33 Elections DA Neg

Impacts – Tax Cuts ( ) Obama would raise taxes; McCain would cut them Charles Babington, chief political correspondent for washingtonpost.com, 7-16-2008, “As economy dominates, Obama, McCain seek answers,” AP, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jN61C761wfQ3fDl9Klkep98pB8zgD91V791O0 The two candidates offer fundamentally different approaches to the economy. McCain wants to cut taxes at virtually all income levels, although high-earners would reap the biggest benefits. Obama would raise taxes on the wealthy and pour more spending into subsidies of education, health care and other programs.

( ) Tax cuts lead to total economic crisis – this leads to a massive economic collapse Isabel V. Sawhill, Senior Fellow and Vice President, Economic Studies. USA Today, “The Danger of Deficits.” August 16, 2005. http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/sawhill/20050816.htm Psychiatrists have clinical terms to describe how most elected officials are responding to the deficit — denial, repression, magical thinking. In short, they're doing next to nothing. There is a deafening silence — from the halls of Congress and corporate boardrooms to the living rooms and voting booths where Americans make decisions about their own and their children's futures. In fact, there is some good news on the deficit front. The Congressional Budget Office outlook for 2005 has improved markedly since its March projection. But no one should be lulled into thinking that this good news will last. The problem will get

much worse if nothing is done. Deficits will become unsustainable when baby boomers begin to retire in 2008 and are poised to balloon out of control a generation hence, wreaking havoc on today's younger Americans. Solutions are all painful. We need to reform the three major entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), curb soaring health care costs, raise federal revenue (yes, that means taxes), cut low-priority spending and impose budgeting rules. President Bush deserves praise for putting Social Security reform on the table, but his proposed private accounts would add $5 trillion in deficits over two decades. He talks about halving the deficit in five years, but the most recent congressional budget blueprint actually increases deficits by $168 billion over that period. The prescription drug law will add a half-trillion dollars or more over the coming decade. The Bigger Picture Social Security is a surprisingly small part of the problem. Medicare and Medicaid costs will increase four times faster than Social Security. If the big three entitlement programs — 42% of federal spending — grow at present rates, either everything else that government does will be crowded out, or a 33% tax increase will be needed by 2030. If taxes stay at current levels, no money will be left for national parks, highways, extra police, better-trained teachers, veterans' health care, and the environment. Without deficit reduction, just interest on the debt will absorb one out of every three personal income tax dollars collected by 2015. But why should anyone care? One danger is that Asian and other central banks, which hold a huge and growing chunk of American debt, could stop financing our deficits. Interest rates would rise, stocks and bonds would plunge, and recession would follow. Another possibility is that increasing federal debt — combined with America's dwindling private savings — would mean much less money available to invest in new infrastructure and equipment, new technologies and new businesses. And a cardinal rule of economics is: Less investment means less economic growth and a slower increase in living standards. The failure to address deficits reflects wishful thinking, irresponsible political rhetoric and myopia. We'd need indefinite economic growth of more than 4% per year, something the U.S. economy did not do even during the go-go late 1990s, when growth averaged 3.3%. Selective cuts alone wouldn't work either because only 19% of the budget is not for mandated entitlement programs, defense, or debt interest. Finally, it's myopic to believe that budget deficits just don't matter. You would be hard-pressed to find an economist who concurs. So, what's to be done? We need to reform Social Security and Medicare eligibility and benefit formulas: We could raise the eligibility age as life expectancy rises, and reduce benefits for the well-off, but protect lower-wage workers. We could transform Medicare from an open-ended, fee-for-service system to one protecting all Americans from catastrophic expenses. Those with limited means would be given enough to buy a basic health plan, but no one would be guaranteed unlimited care at public expense. Plenty of federal programs are ineffective, obsolete, or cater to politically powerful elites — and could be cut. The big hitch is politics. The U.S. tax system cries out for overhaul. It must be simpler, fairer and more conducive to growth and efficiency. We could introduce a modest consumption or value-added tax, and eliminate $200 billion in tax subsidies. What might be most troubling is the lack of presidential leadership and bipartisan congressional action to restore fiscal sanity. What will it take? Another Ross Perot? A stock market crash? Rallies in Washington? The Chinese moving their money into euros?

WNDI 2008

34 Elections DA Neg

Impacts – Health Care ( ) Obama will pass universal health care Perry Pacon, Washington Post Campaign Blogger, 7-8-2008, “Democrats Gear Up New Push for Universal Health Care,” The Washington Post, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thetrail/2008/07/08/democrats_gear_up_new_push_for.html Democrats are launching an aggressive push for universal health care, fourteen years after a failed attempt on the issue resulted in political disaster. A coalition of liberal groups that includes major labor unions such as the Service Employees International Union and the activist group MoveOn.org announced today it will spend $40 million to make health insurance a major issue in the campaign, with Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, as the one of the group's main spokespersons. The group, which has dubbed itself "Health Care for America Now!" plans to spend its money running ads in battleground states, canvassing 45 states to get people to sign petitions supporting the initiative and trying to get every member of Congress to sign a pledge to expand health insurance to all Americans. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Democratic staffers are trying to set up a structure for getting a bill through Congress next year. The staffs of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who heads the Senate's Health, Education Pensions and Labor Committee, are already meeting with key health care experts, including some from Massachusetts, which passed a landmark health care law two years ago. In a series of meetings over the next month, Senate aides plan to meet with doctors' groups, insurance companies, business associations and other key players in reforming health care. Their goal is to have the outlines of a health care proposal by the end of this year that can be introduced in the opening days of the next president's administration. "We want to create a mandate," said Richard Kirsch, one of the leaders of the health care organization of the liberal groups, many of whom worked together to oppose President Bush's 2005 Social Security plan. Barack Obama has already pledged to make passing health care reform a centerpiece of his first term, and his campaign has recently added a group of advisers who specialize in the subject, including Elizabeth Edwards, Sarah Bianchi, a former Clinton White House aide and Neera Tanden, Hillary Clinton's policy director during the primaries. Tanden is working as a domestic policy adviser, while Bianchi and Edwards are participating in campaign conference calls on health care with other experts.

( ) Large uninsured population causes infectious disease spread Joshua Lederberg, Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics and Informatics at The Rockefeller University, 2000, Public Health Systems and Emerging Infections, p. 24-25 Today, the

public health system is at a crossroads as how to define and sustain its role. The changing face of health care poses new challenges for the detection, treatment, and prevention of infectious diseases. Historically, local public health departments, hospitals, and clinics have been the main source for infectious disease outbreak detection and treatment. The members of managed care organizations and the rate of privatization of public health laboratories continue to increase in response to the needs of the communities they serve. Simultaneously, many of the specific functions of public health laboratories and institutions that provide epidemiological services may be being eroded. Along with that erosion, local public health systems may have a diminished capacity to detect and respond to emerging infectious diseases. Additionally, the public health system’s capabilities may also be adversely affected by the growing number of the uninsured population that focused most of the burden for resources on the public safety net and public laboratories. The challenge for public health laboratories will be to implement cost-shifting or to obtain new sources of support.

WNDI 2008

35 Elections DA Neg

Impacts – Health Care ( ) Unchecked disease spread causes human extinction South China Morning Post, 1-4-1996 (Dr. Ben Abraham= “called "one of the 100 greatest minds in history" by super-IQ society Mensa” and owner of “Toronto-based biotechnology company, Structured Biologicals Inc” according to same article) Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a farfetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr BenAbraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.

WNDI 2008

36 Elections DA Neg

Impacts – Iraq Withdraw ( ) Obama will withdraw in recent months WSJ (Wall Street Journal), 7-18-2008, “On Iraq’s Horizon,” Evening Wrap, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121641325293866057.html?mod=googlenews_wsj The United Nations mandate for the U.S. military presence in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and the two governments have been hashing out a bilateral pact as a replacement. The agreement, like that which the U.S. has with South Korea, would deal with specifics, such as how to handle possible criminal prosecutions of American soldiers. But it will also have a broader, strategic component -- and on that point there have been differences. The Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, showing increased confidence as violence decreases, has been pressuring Washington to agree to a specific timeline to withdraw U.S. forces. President Bush has adamantly opposed setting a timetable. His argument -- often leveled at Democrats as well -- is that the security situation is simply too unpredictable and that setting a withdrawal date would only encourage Iraqi insurgents to hang on. However, Washington and Baghdad now appear to be narrowing their difference. The White House, while insisting that no "arbitrary date for withdrawal" would be set, said the president and Prime Minister Maliki have agreed that the accord should include "a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq." On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has been a bit more specific. He has said that if elected president as the Democratic nominee he would set in motion a 16-month withdrawal plan for troops in Iraq. He, of course, has been accused by some supporters of backing away from that promise. But in a speech this week the Illinois senator reiterated his commitment to end the war even though he added that his strategy could be subject to "tactical adjustments." Mr. Obama is heading off on a trip that's likely to include Iraq. Details of his itinerary haven't been disclosed for security reasons, but stops are planned for at least Jordan, Israel, London, Paris and Berlin. Voters -- as well as the McCain camp -- will be looking for any rhetorical adjustments to the Democrat's view of U.S. military prospects in Iraq after his return.

( ) Iraq withdrawal is key deter North Korea and prevent war Olsen – Professor of National Security Affairs with a specialization in Asian Studies – April 2003 (Edward A. Center for Contemporary Conflict, “Strategic Insight U.S.-North Korea: From Brinkmanship to Dialogue,” http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/apr03/eastAsia.asp) Because of such anxieties about North Korea, and their ability to disrupt U.S.-ROK harmony, there is great risk that North Korea will try to take advantage of the United States being stretched thin during war in Iraq, by escalating its brinkmanship. Taking a provocative military step that could lead to a second front war may well be seen by Pyongyang as a way to compel the United States to negotiate bilaterally on North Korea's terms. Such circumstances could easily get out of control—escalating to a full scale war that could be far more daunting than the situation in Iraq. Pyongyang will not necessarily wait until the United States wraps thing up in Iraq and can turn its full attention—diplomatically or militarily— to North Korea. Although the United States seems poised to cope with more North Korean reckless brinkmanship in the heat of war with Iraq, Pyongyang may well take advantage of the United States being stretched thin to use its own preemptive preemption strategy. In this sense North Korea represents a profoundly serious threat to world peace.

( ) The impact is nuclear war and extinction Lee Wha Rang, Korea Web Weekly, September 13, 1999. http://www.kimsoft.com/1997/lee0913.htm, accessed 3/17/03 Meanwhile, Kim Dae Jung should tell his Japanese friends to keep their mouth shut and tone down their anti-North Korea rhetoric. Kim should hire specialists on American legal terms - fight fire with fire - lawyers against lawyers. As long as Kim is represented by amateurs, he will be clobbered by America's Harvard lawyers - the most bright, cunning and vicious negotiators on Earth, the consummate masters of forked-tongues. The Korean peninsula sits on an atomic powder keg and any misstep will ignite it into a global NBC war and tens of millions of people - Koreans, Japanese, Chinese and Americans will die horrible death. The Earth day after will not be suitable for human habitation.

WNDI 2008

37 Elections DA Neg

Impacts – CTBT ( ) Obama will ratify CTBT Will Lambers, author "Nuclear Weapons" and "The Road to Peace”, 7-18-2008, “Obama or McCain Can Finish Journey to Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,” http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/18/203804.php Obama has already signaled his intentions to push for ratification of the CTBT should he be elected. McCain has promised to reexamine the CTBT, perhaps realizing that the U.S. may be better off living under such a treaty than without. Either Obama or McCain is going to have the golden opportunity to make history by ratifying this landmark treaty. By doing so, the next president can set the conditions for deep reduction of nuclear arsenals and perhaps, for their complete elimination.

( ) Underground testing degrades ecosystems Grant Guthrie, J.D. candidate at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Spring/Summer, 2000, 23 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 495 The effects of underground nuclear testing extend beyond the limits of all foreseeable historical time. One by-product of nuclear testing, plutonium 239, has a half-life over 20,000 years. This means that the environmentally hazardous, residual radiation generated by nuclear testing will remain embedded in the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. Over this period of time, there is no doubt that natural changes in the Earth's geology will allow the trapped radiation to escape and interact with ground water or the atmosphere. The effects on the world's eco-system could be catastrophic. No one generation is allowed under the law to inflict such damage on future generations.

( ) Biodiversity is key to preventing extinction Richard Margoluis, Biodiversity Support Program, 1996, http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10 Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy environment has become increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival.

WNDI 2008

38 Elections DA Neg

AT: McCain Good ( ) Dems will maintain control of congress Edward Luce, Washington Commentator and former South Asia Bureau Chief for Financial Times, 1-29-2008, “Back to ‘the economy stupid’: How a slowdown will influence America’s presidential contest, Financial Times (UK), http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e00b194e-ce8c-11dc-877a-000077b07658.html Most forecasters predict the Democrats will increase their majorities in the Senate and the House this November regardless of which party takes the White House. “An economic downturn would probably reinforce what is almost certainly going to be another good year for congressional Democrats,” says Charlie Cook, a Washington political analyst. “Voters already associate their economic anxieties and their other complaints – about corruption and inept foreign policy – with the Republican party.”

( ) Democrats will block McCain agenda Sarah Binder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and professor of political science at George Washington University, 10-20-2007, “Gridlcok on Capital Hill,” Guardian (UK), http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sarah_binder/2007/10/congressional_gridlock.html "There's little time left in the year. And Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by." President Bush minced no words this week in blaming Democrats in Congress for the gridlock we see this fall in the nation's capital. In fact, both parties and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are to blame. With ideologically divided parties sharing power and eyeing the upcoming presidential election, we should not be surprised to see stalemate on Capitol Hill. Democrats took up their gavels in January vowing to change the course of the war in Iraq and to secure a host of modest domestic priorities, including healthcare, education and energy reforms. They also promised to clean up a "culture of corruption" outside the halls of Congress and to promote procedural fairness within. Public approval of Congress rose with the Democrats' return to power. But today, roughly three-quarters of the American public disapproves of the way Congress is performing its job. The president does not fare much better. The public is deeply disappointed in his stewardship of the war and the economy, and disapproving of his veto of a children's health insurance bill. Democrats do have legislative successes to herald. After 10 months in power, they have enacted ethics and lobbying reform, increased the minimum wage, secured new measures to bolster homeland security and achieved a host of smaller goals. Missing from this list, however, are all the big issues of the day: changing the course of the war in Iraq, overhauling the nation's immigration laws, reforming and expanding healthcare for the uninsured. Numerous other policy initiatives also show slow progress over the year, including efforts to address the nation's energy, farming, education and affordable housing needs. Senate confirmation of nominees slated for the federal courts of appeals has also moved sluggishly. Such gridlock should come as no surprise. As a lame duck president, Bush has little incentive to sign Democratic legislation. And with just 51 Democratic senators, congressional leaders don't have the 60 votes required to halt a Republican filibuster or override every presidential veto - particularly not as moderates have become an endangered species on Capitol Hill in recent decades. Differences between house and senate Democrats over Iraq policy, the pace of passing federal spending bills and upcoming efforts to reform tax policy are also contributing to Congress's lackluster record. Which party will pay the price for gridlock? Although Democrats may castigate the president for unpopular vetoes and blame Republicans for blocking major policy initiatives, the public rarely holds the minority party in Congress responsible for stalemate. More often, congressional majorities are blamed for failing to get anything done. This means that neither Democrats nor Republicans are likely to gain the upper hand as the parties fail to compromise over policy disputes. To be sure, Democrats have an electoral incentive to avoid being tagged as the "do-nothing" Congress as they head into 2008. A record of accomplishments would help prove to voters that they can be trusted to govern. With the even balance of power between the parties, however, Democrats also have an incentive to deny Republicans bragging rights for policy successes. That is a recipe for more gridlock as we enter a presidential election year. The next president and new Congress will be left the challenge of solving the nation's most pressing and vexing problems.