Elections Disad

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Index Index............................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Shell.............................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Shell.............................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Uniq – Obama will win................................................................................................................................................................................4 Uniq – Obama will win................................................................................................................................................................................5 Uniq – Obama winning on Energy Now......................................................................................................................................................6 Uniq – A2 the race is over............................................................................................................................................................................7 Link – Alternative Energy Popular..............................................................................................................................................................8 Link – Alternative Energy Popular..............................................................................................................................................................9 Link – Warming Policies Popular..............................................................................................................................................................10 Link – RPS popular....................................................................................................................................................................................11 Link – RPS Popular...................................................................................................................................................................................12 Link – Wind Popular..................................................................................................................................................................................13 Link – Wind Popular..................................................................................................................................................................................14 Link – SPS popular....................................................................................................................................................................................15 Link – SPS popular....................................................................................................................................................................................16 A2 – oil lobby link turn..............................................................................................................................................................................17 IL – Energy policy key...............................................................................................................................................................................18 IL – Energy Policy key..............................................................................................................................................................................19 IL – Bush popularity key...........................................................................................................................................................................20 IL – McCain tied to Bush...........................................................................................................................................................................21 Obama key to Soft Power..........................................................................................................................................................................22 Soft Power key to Hegemony....................................................................................................................................................................23 Hegemony Stops Nuclear War...................................................................................................................................................................24 McCain will win........................................................................................................................................................................................25 McCain will win........................................................................................................................................................................................26 Obama win inevitable................................................................................................................................................................................27 RPS – unpopular........................................................................................................................................................................................28 RPS – unpopular........................................................................................................................................................................................29 Wind – unpopular.......................................................................................................................................................................................30 Wind – unpopular.......................................................................................................................................................................................31 SPS – unpopular.........................................................................................................................................................................................32 Oil Link Turn.............................................................................................................................................................................................33 Bush doesn’t matter...................................................................................................................................................................................34 Energy isn’t key to the election..................................................................................................................................................................35 McCain key to soft power/ Obama isn’t....................................................................................................................................................36

Explanation Probably the easiest disad to explain ever. Obama will in the election now. The plan is popular and allows Bush to look good. If Bush starts looking better then McCain will pull out the victory. Obama winning is key to US soft power [being friends with everyone abroad] which prevents wars from erupting since America is so clearly amazing. The answers are quite good on the link turn, uniqueness, and no internal link debate. I didn’t include any impact turns because I figured those could be useful research assignments. Final Note. It seems this disad is the easiest thing to teach research on if you are interested in doing research. For example, reasons why McCain is good/Obama is bad or vice versa is an excellent example of some research you could have your students work on and use at some late October tournaments. Yes this disad will be dead at the start of November. I will make sure there is another disad that is available for the community starting then. It just seemed to be such an important issue and an easy disad to use to teach

1

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Shell A. uniqueness - Obama leads McCain in national polling and will likely win, but the race is close National Review 8/4/08 “Game Plan - Should McCain care to win . . .,” l/n

Ever since Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination, John McCain has been within five points of him in a weighted average of national polls; lately, he has been within four. Most Republican strategists thought that Obama would be much farther ahead. Polls show that the public would much rather elect a Democratic president than another Republican one. But voters have enough respect for McCain and enough doubts about Obama to make this race competitive. Nonetheless, McCain is behind, and it is going to take a smart and well-executed campaign to change that. The Iraq War is unpopular, and Americans want to end it as soon as we reasonably can. Most Americans are dissatisfied with the economy, upset in particular by the rising price of necessities. The number of people who think the country is on the right track is in the teens. President Bush and his party have been deeply unpopular for several years. Liberals are excited and organized in a way that conservatives aren't. The good news for Republicans is that Obama can be beaten. The bad news is that the McCain campaign has embarked on a course that -- although it has some of the right elements -- seems likely to fail, and the tightening of the polls may encourage it to continue on that course. The race wouldn't be as competitive as it is if McCain didn't have unusual strengths as a political persona, but McCain is also a great risk to his own cause. In important respects, he needs to run an un-McCain-like campaign, more negative than he'd prefer, more focused on domestic policy, and less freewheeling: Think of a Republican Hillary Clinton circa this year's Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries.

B. link - Massive popular support for alternative energy exists among otherwise conservative and swing voters Progressive States Network 2006 “Building a Progressive Majority in the States: Smart Growth and Clean Jobs,” http://www.progressivestates.org/content/486/

Politically, these programs are wildly popular with voters and help progressives reach many of the swing voters most up for grabs politically. Polling by the Apollo Alliance shows over 70 percent of Americans support a drastic increase in government spending on renewable energy and other programs to move towards energy independence. 87 percent of the public see policies to invest in alternative energy sources as a good way to reduce global warming. And swing voters are more excited about such policies than any other demographic group. Similarly, as the Michigan Land Institute has highlighted, the same exurban districts that had traditionally elected rightwing legislators have lately been voting in local referendum to raise taxes to finance smart growth initiatives and are increasingly electing more progressive leaders to deal with transit and sprawl problems. A good example is the recent election of Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who attributes his election victory in 2005 substantially to the strong support he received from emerging suburbs like Loudon County whose residents were attracted to his smart growth proposals.

AND - McCain is tied to Bush’s policies. Support among republicans and independents is necessary for victory Wall Street Journal 7/2/08 “How Bush Ratings Complicate McCain's Presidential Fight,” online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121493389576919869.html?mod=blog

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. Despite some slippage, Mr. Bush remains popular among self-identified Republicans, with a 62% approval rate, but the GOP's strength relative to Democrats has diminished under his tenure, according to surveys. As a result, Mr. McCain also will have to do significantly better among Republicans than Mr. Obama does among Democrats, in addition to winning independents by a wide margin, Mr. Newhouse says.

2

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Shell C. Obama is key to bolstering soft power and maintaining U.S. Leadership Joseph Nye, 6/15/08, Distinguished Service Professor and Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations –Harvard “Obama and Soft Power (II),” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/obama-and-soft-power-ii_b_107232.html

Several people responded to my earlier blog about Obama by asking what I meant by soft power. There is an entire chapter (and references) in my book The Powers to Lead for those who want to pursue it further, but put simply, soft power is the ability to obtain what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment. We all experience it every day. The better we are able to attract others, the less we have to spend on carrots and sticks. That is important, and it is a lesson that we have to re-learn as a nation after the past eight years. Some people pointed out that soft power makes a poor slogan in Amercan electioneering. That may be true, but soft power is an analytical term, not a slogan. It refers to an important dimension of power. I invented the term in 1990 when I was writing a book about why I disagreed with the then conventional wisdom that the United States was in decline. After summing up American military and economic power, I realized that something was missing -- our ability to attract others through our culture (where it has appeal), our values (when we apply them without hypocrisy) and our policies (when they are regarded as inclusive and legitimate in the eyes of others). Of course, hard power is also very important, and the ability to combine hard and soft power effectively is what I have called "smart power." That comes closer to being a useful slogan in American politics. It is ironic that China's President Hu Jintao last year proclaimed China's objective of increasing its soft power while Americans are unable to talk seriously about this dimension of power. ( A notable exception was Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plea for more investment in soft power tools last November.) So long as we have a truncated political discourse that ignores part of the tools in our toolbox, we will wind up with policies like those of past eight years. My belief is that Obama, because of his background and emotional intelligence, will be better able to understand the role of soft power and better able to provide effective leadership. U.S. Leadership is vital to preventing global nuclear war Zalmay Khalilzad, 1995, Fellow – RAND Corporation “Losing the Moment?” Washington Quarterly, 18:2, l/n

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.

3

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Uniq – Obama will win Obama will win now – Electoral College Human Events Online, 7/16/08 “New Electoral College Analysis: Obama 273, McCain 265,” l/n With Sen. Barack Obama moving ahead of Sen. John McCain in our latest Electoral College rundown, the private Republican view is that the focus must be on Obama in the coming campaign for McCain to win. A positive campaign will lose, and the spotlight on Obama must be harsher for McCain to have a chance. Former Sen. Phil Gramm is still McCain's close friend and adviser despite having told too much of the truth in public by saying we are a nation of whiners. Gramm has apologized to McCain, and McCain told him to forget it. The irritation by the Congressional Black Caucus over Obama's pivot to the right is genuine but not significant. Congressional blacks are truly irritated that Obama is not buying into their left-wing agenda, but they have no place to go. Jesse Jackson's unintended outburst is reflective of CBC irritation and probably a net political gain for Obama. Contrast with Jackson helps Obama with white voters. Obama has made a rare political mistake in seeming to say it is more important for the population to learn Spanish than for

: The Electoral College swings to a slight Obama advantage as New Mexico now appears to be in the Obama column. Overview: While state-by-state polls show a large Obama advantage, most of them overstate Obama's chances and understate the vote McCain is likely to get. Still, McCain has good reason to worry--indeed, more worrisome than his slight deficit in the Electoral College is the closeness in traditional Red States such as Montana, North Dakota, and Virginia. If he is at a cash disadvantage, he can't afford to play defense in so many states. The major X-factor in this contest is Obama's race, combined with his age--as well as the lack of exposure of his liberalism. Those question marks means he cannot immigrants to learn English. The English language issue is an important one, especially with white middle-income voters, which is Obama's potentially fatal weak spot. Presidential Electoral College

be confident in any state where he is currently polling significantly below 50%, however low McCain is. Former Rep. Bob Barr (Libertarian) is currently registering near 10% in many states. If history is a guide, this will drop quite a bit by Election Day, to below 1% in many states. Protest voters on both sides will diminish in numbers as the prospect of a President Obama or President McCain becomes more realistic. The battlegrounds remain Lake Erie and the Mountain West, but Obama could succeed in putting in play the northern Plains and the Southeast (from Virginia through Georgia). Below, our updated analysis on states that have shown movement since our last count

. Obama 273, McCain 265.

Obama will win – National Polls New York Observer 7/18/08 “State Polls Indicate Obama's Tidal-Wave Potential, But National Polls Are Tight; Both Are Right,” l/n

. 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. But if you ignore the national numbers and instead consider individual state polls, a realigning landslide suddenly seems to be within Obama's reach. In state after state, he's performing far better than John Kerry did in 2004, and numerous Republican bastions are seemingly in play. Consider Indiana, which George W. Bush won by 21 points in 2004 and which lasted Two radically different story lines are emerging in the presidential race, depending on what kind of poll you look at

voted for a Democrat 44 years ago-and which Obama leads by one point in the most recent survey. Or North Carolina, which Bush carried by 12 points in '04 but where the latest poll has Obama within three. And so on. In North Dakota, the race is tied. In South Dakota, Obama trails by just four. Ditto for Alaska, perhaps the most Republican state in the union. He also leads in Montana and Colorado and in all but one recent survey in Virginia. And the trend isn't just evident in red states. In states where Kerry eked out victories last time around, polls now give Obama sizable leads. Kerry nearly fumbled away Minnesota (a three-point nail-biter), but Obama has a 17-point advantage in the most recent poll. Wisconsin and New Hampshire were photo-finishes in '04, but Obama has opened a double-digit lead there. Plus, Obama is running ahead in states that Kerry barely lost, like Iowa (by an average of seven points), New Mexico and Nevada. On top of all this, Obama is performing as well as any Democratic nominee is supposed to in the biggest blue states-California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Massachusetts-and leads (in some cases substantially) in every recent swing state except Florida, where the average of recent polls gives McCain a three-point edge. There are some traditionally Republican states where Obama is performing at a more typical (for a Democrat) level, like Utah, Alabama and Tennessee, but overall at the state-by-state level he seems positioned to win the November election going away. So how is it-with Obama so close to McCain in so many red states and so far ahead in all of the big blue states-that the national polls show such a close race? With all of the dramatic strides Obama is making in individual states, shouldn't his national margin be much wider? One tempting thought is that the national polls might seem so different because many of the red states where Obama is overachieving are so small. So while there might be palpable movement in his direction in, for instance, North Dakota (which accounts for 0.2 percent of the U.S. population), it's possible that in a national survey of 500 voters, only one North Dakotan-or maybe even none-is actually interviewed. But if we take the average result from recent polls in each state and weight each state according to its share of the national population, we get an overall national result that's entirely consistent with current national polling: Obama 46.2 percent, McCain 42.7-a 3½-point race. So there really is no inconsistency between the close national horse race and Obama's clearly superior position in individual state polls. The most obvious explanation for this is the large number of undecided voters included in most polls, which makes it tough for either candidate to break 50 percent in most states right now. In South Carolina, for example, Obama is clearly running better than Kerry did (or Al Gore, for that matter) and trails McCain by just six points in an average of that state's most recent polling. But as surprisingly close as the race is, Obama's raw number-39 percent support, on average-is nothing new for a Democrat in the state (Kerry finished with 41 percent in '04). The same is true in many other states, red and blue. Obama leads by an average of 17 points in dark-blue New York, but he's only averaging 53 percent of the vote there (while Kerry took 58 in '04). He's slaughtering McCain in California, but only averaging 53 percent support there. And he's opened leads in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, but also isn't securing the level of support that Kerry had in those states on Election Day four years ago. This doesn't mean that Obama is in trouble in any of these blue states or that the number of undecided voters is unusually high. It's simply a partial explanation for how seemingly solid polling data in individual states can translate into lukewarm national numbers. But things get more revealing if we take the numbers a step further and try to adjust the current state averages to account for the voters who are now undecided or threatening to vote for third-party candidates. For the sake of this exercise, let's award the undecided/third party vote in each state proportionally, based on the current average levels of support for both candidates. For instance, the Massachusetts average now has Obama leading, 52 to 36.2 percent. If we adjust that proportionally, Obama ends up with 58.96 percent to McCain's 41.04 percent. Do this for all 50 states, and Obama ends up with 51.98 percent of the national popular vote, with McCain at 48.02 percent. This doesn't exactly look like a landslide, and yet in all but four states, Obama's final number would be an improvement-substantial in many cases-over Kerry's '04 performance. In some cases, this means trimming 30-point Kerry deficits in dark red states to 20 or 15 points, a nice accomplishment that won't change the bottom line in those states. But in other cases, it means cutting 15-point Kerry losses in half (or more) and moving within theoretical striking distance in a state. What's striking about this data is that just about all of the improvement in individual states from '04 is on the Democratic

. This all shows us two things.

side. McCain may end up holding on to the traditional red states that now seem in doubt, but he's not threatening in any of the traditional blue states For one, even if Obama's surprising standing in red states endures through November, it won't mean he's a shoe-in on Election Day. If he comes close without flipping any of them over, McCain would still have a chance in the Electoral

, the current national polls that show a tight race are spot on. But the individual state polls that seem so rosy for Obama aren't misleading, either, in the sense that they reflect the potential for an Obama landslide. Obama is only flirting with the possibility now-his prospects may fade by Election Day-but he has the potential to win over a handful of states the other party has long counted on winning. McCain doesn't. In other words, the race really is close, and McCain has the potential to win. But only Obama has the potential to win big. College and Obama would not automatically score a runaway victory in the national popular vote. In that sense

4

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Uniq – Obama will win Obama ahead in a close race White House Press Bulletin 7/21/08 “Obama Up By Three In Gallup Tracking,” l/n

The Gallup national presidential tracking poll, which surveyed 2,669 registered voters from July 17-19, shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain 45%-42%.

Obama is leading but the race is close Business Recorder 7/18/08 “Obama Must Walk Fine Line in Middle East,” l/n

Despite his popularity overseas and the desire of many abroad to anoint him as the next president, Obama still faces a tough campaign against Republican opponent John McCain, whom US voters have more confidence in when for issues of national security and foreign affairs, according to recent opinion polls. Obama, however, leads McCain overall in national polls by margins ranging from 4 to 8 percentage points, a far from insurmountable gap with more than three months left before the November 4 election.

A consensus of polls show Obama leading McCain Boston Globe 7/16/08 “Democrats' bus heads South to sign up new voters,” l/n

A new national poll says Democrat Barack Obama leads Republican John McCain 50 percent to 41 percent, thanks to huge leads among women and young voters, and near unanimous support among blacks. But among independent voters, the candidates are tied at 44 percent, and McCain holds a 47 percent-44 percent lead among men and a 49 percent-42 percent edge among white voters, according to the Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday. "Sen. Barack Obama's national lead is solid - but it's not monolithic," Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a statement. The candidates have similar favorability ratings, but the poll found voters appear more open to the nation's first black president than to the country's oldest to take the oath of office for the first time. While 88 percent said they are "entirely comfortable" or "somewhat comfortable" having a black president and 86 percent said Obama's race won't affect their vote, 64 percent said they are "entirely comfortable" or "somewhat comfortable" with a president who is 72 and 20 percent say they are less likely to vote for McCain because of his age. The survey was conducted July 8-13 and has a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points. A new Washington Post/ABC News survey released yesterday gave Obama a similar 50 percent to 42 percent lead over McCain. And a New York Times/CBS News poll released last night gave Obama a 45 percent to 39 percent lead nationally.

5

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Uniq – Obama winning on Energy Now Obama leading McCain on alternative energy Hilary Rosen, 7/16/08, Democratic Strategist “Obama Gets Set to Travel Abroad,” CNN l/n

ROSEN: It's a -- you know, it's funny, but it's silly, because actually, Barack Obama is where the American people are on alternative energy, on energy independence, on health care, solving the health care crisis, on ending the war in Iraq, on increasing funds for education. John McCain has voted against every single one of those things. So, to somehow suggest that that's not where the American people want to be, or that because another senator has also voted the way, John McCain is not going to win on this issue.

Obama receiving endorsements for his energy policies Greenwire 7/21/08 “LCV endorses Obama for president,” l/n

The League of Conservation Voters today endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. The group presented the endorsement at a series of events in battleground states that featured prominent Democrats, such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former EPA Administrator Carol Browner. In recent months, LCV leaders have been critical of Republican candidate John McCain, but most of the group's on-the-ground operations have focused on voter education. LCV officials said they picked the Illinois senator based on his proposals for addressing climate change and renewable energy and based on the group's belief that Obama is committed to drastically altering public policy in those areas. "Barack Obama has been a committed leader and has offered bold and comprehensive proposals when it comes to global warming, energy and the environment," Browner said at a Washington event. "John McCain, whose plan will be a continuation of Bush-era political gimmicks, will carry on Bush's legacy of failure when it comes to energy policy." LCV President Gene Karpinski said the group will launch a campaign to highlight differences between Obama and McCain, but he would not say how much the group would spend on the race or in what states. The group will also continue to spend its resources on key Senate races, such as those in Colorado and New Mexico, he said. "We're going to do a series of activities to make sure in key states around the country voters are contacted in various different ways and are educated about the important differences between the records of the two candidates," Karpinski said. "We also ... have made it a top priority getting 60 pro-environment votes in the Senate." LCV intends to add Obama to its "Give Green" initiative, which allows individuals to direct money toward a small number of pro-environment candidates. The initiative has raised almost $25,000 for 20 congressional candidates.

6

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Uniq – A2 the race is over Despite a substantial lead for Obama, the race isn’t over Stuart Rothenberg, 7/7/08, Editor – Rothenberg Political Report “Where the Race for The White House Stands Right Now,” Roll Call

This isn't a tough climb for McCain - it's a veritable Mount Everest. And yet, it's simply too soon to declare the presidential race over. Especially since it has barely begun. Unlike many other kinds of elections, the presidential race is to a large extent about the candidates. McCain's own image is much better than his party's, and for all of Obama's strengths and appeal, the Democrat isn't without liabilities and weaknesses. Obama's race will limit his appeal to some voters, who will have greater difficulty relating to him than they would a white candidate. And even if you strongly disagree that he is "arrogant" or "elitist," as some of his opponents have said, it's certainly true that he lacks the warmth that some politicians possess. Questions about Obama's experience and readiness for the presidency still need to be answered. And, of course, his positions on issues (to the extent that he is forced to discuss them in detail) could limit some of his appeal. The Electoral College could help McCain, if the national numbers stay close. While, even in a close race, he may lose a couple of states that Bush won in 2000 (Colorado and Virginia certainly are possibilities), Michigan seems less than secure in the Democratic column. Ultimately, McCain's chances depend on voters being uncertain about Obama's readiness for the job and uncomfortable with him as president. And, of course, McCain must deflect Democratic efforts to portray him merely as a successor to Bush and the traditional Republican agenda. Obviously, the 2008 race for the White House could blow open between now and Election Day. But even if that doesn't happen, the underlying fundamentals make an Obama victory more likely. Still it isn't inevitable, and that's more than enough reason to continue monitoring the race closely.

7

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Link – Alternative Energy Popular Americans willing to support the plan even if it costs them money Deanna Glick, 10/10/07, Staff Writer “Americans willing to pay to fight global warming,” Green Daily http://www.greendaily.com/2007/10/10/americans-willing-to-pay-to-fight-global-warming/

According to recent published reports, an American majority would pay higher taxes or accept a higher price on a new home, if it meant the added money was going toward energy efficiency improvements that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. The report is the result of a new poll by GfK Public Affairs and the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. "City and local leaders are critical players in the effort to reduce global warming, and it's clear that their constituents want action," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale Project on Climate Change, one of the sponsors of the groundbreaking survey measuring public opinion of local government-led green initiatives. "The public is on board and willing to help foot the bill. All that's left to do now is act." A nice thought. But if we wait for government subsidies to come along as the answer to our environmental crisis, we're likely to end up buried in our own garbage. What this poll tells me is Americans are simply more willing to pay more money for a better environment than spend a little extra time doing the many things that don't cost anything in order to lessen our impact on the Earth: driving more fuel-efficient cars or using compact fluorescent light bulbs, for example. Is the American majority employing these practices? I have no way of knowing about the latter, but SUV sales seem pretty stable these days.

Voters support renewable energy – see it as key issue in the election Agriculture Online 3/6/06 “Survey shows public support for renewable energy,” www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1141846987064.xml&catref=ag1001

A new national public opinion survey demonstrates overwhelming public support for government policies and investments that will support development of renewable energy sources like solar, wind and ethanol. "This survey underscores a major shift in public opinion," says Read Smith, co-chair of the 25 x '25 Work Group, an organization that would like to see the US to get 25% of all energy from renewable resources by the year 2025. "Americans want to invest in renewable energy right here at home so that we are less dependent on countries in unfriendly and unstable parts of the world." Survey results were released today at the 25x'25 Agriculture and Forestry Renewable Energy Summit. Among the findings: Ninety-eight percent of voters see a national goal of having 25% of our domestic energy needs met by renewable resources by the year 2025 as important for the country, and 74% feel that it is "very important." Ninety percent of voters believe this goal is achievable. Similar majorities support government action to encourage greater use of renewable energy: 88% favor financial incentives, and 92% support minimum government standards for the use of renewable energy by the private sector. Nearly all voters (98%) say the costs, such as the cost of research and development and the cost of building new renewable energy production facilities, would be worth it to move us toward the 25x'25 goal. Voters consider energy to be an important issue facing the country, rating it similarly with health care, terrorism and national security, and education, and ahead of taxes and the war in Iraq. Half (50%) of voters believe America is headed for an energy crisis in the future, and 35% believe the country already is facing a crisis. Voters see many convincing arguments for a shift to renewable energy -- the need to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, protection of the environment for future generations, the readiness of these technologies to contribute today, and the opportunities they present to create new jobs, especially in rural communities.

8

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Link – Alternative Energy Popular Alternative energy policies are massively popular New York Times, 4/27/07 “Public Says Warming Is a Problem, but Remains Split on Response,” l/n

Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with ethanol, which is now made largely from corn, is a good idea, the survey found. They also are nearly evenly split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in their community, they said no, 59 percent to 36 percent. The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday to Tuesday with 1,052 adults. The margin-of-sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points. Nearly four of five of those polled said they believed that the condition of the air, water, land and wildlife around the world was fair or poor. One percent rated global environmental quality as excellent, and 19 percent called it good. But 56 percent said the environmental condition in their communities was excellent or good. Despite general optimism about their children’s future found in other surveys, respondents in this poll said by 57 percent to 11 percent that the condition of the environment would be worse for the next generation. Fifty-two percent said that generally speaking they would support protecting the environment over stimulating the economy. Thirty-six percent chose the economy. But respondents also said, 62 percent to 21 percent, that developing new energy sources was more important than protecting the environment. Yet they also expressed the belief that the government should encourage conservation over increasing development of additional energy sources. By a substantial margin, Americans continue to oppose drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as they have for the last six years. Although respondents split almost evenly on whether Washington can effectively address global warming, they almost unanimously (92 percent to 6 percent) supported requiring automobile manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient cars. There is more opposition to using fossil fuels among Democrats than Republicans. Fifty-four percent of Democrats consider using coal to generate electricity to be a bad idea, compared with 39 percent of Republicans. Sixty-one percent of Republicans favor using natural gas to generate power, while Democrats divided, with 42 percent saying it is a good idea and 45 percent opposing it. Americans almost universally support developing alternative energy sources like wind or solar power and biofuels, with 87 percent expressing approval. But fewer than 10 percent of those polled said they used any alternative energy source at home.

9

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Link – Warming Policies Popular Policies to address global warming are popular among voters across all parties New York Times, 4/27/07 “Public Says Warming Is a Problem, but Remains Split on Response,” l/n

Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds. Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were needed. Massive public support for policies to combat global warming WPO ‘6 [World Public Opinion; “World Publics Willing to Bear Costs of Combating Climate Change”; 10-11-2006; http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/255.php?lb=bte&pnt=255&nid=&id=]

Concern about global warming has increased sharply in the United States. Nearly half of the American public sees climate change as a critical threat to vital U.S. interests. The U.S. public is not alone. A multinational poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs finds that global warming is a big concern among the Chinese and the Indian publics and is viewed especially urgently by South Koreans and Australians. Only small minorities in the United States and the other countries surveyed think that evidence for global warming is too weak to justify measures that might entail economic costs. Many Americans, Australians and the Chinese agree that action needs to be taken now, even if it involves significant expenditures. Indians prefer a more gradual approach. More Americans See Global Warming as Threat American concern about global warming has surged nine points since 2004, when only 37 percent believed global warning put U.S. vital interests at risk. The Chicago Council’s 2006 survey shows that 46 percent of Americans now consider climate change menacing, raising it to the upper half of international threats. Asked to choose the argument that comes closest to their opinion about global warming, only 17 percent of Americans agree that “until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs.” Thirty-seven percent think that the problem of global warming should be addressed but that “its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually.” The highest percentage (43%) says global warming is “a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.” This percentage is up 9 points from the 34 percent willing to pay significant costs in a Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll taken in June 2005.

10

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Link – RPS popular Public support for renewable energy mandate stronger than ever Joshua Fershee 08, Assistant Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law May 17, 2008, p. http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1390130/changing_resources_changing_market/

Public opinion polls, growing support from utilities, and continually increasing state RPS legislation indicate that support for a renewable energy mandate is stronger than ever. However, opposition remains strong. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of Americans appear ready to take a calculated risk to find out if renewable energy can fulfill its promise. The question remains: Is Congress?

Considerable bipartisan voter support for a national RPS Facilities Net 07 "Poll Shows Bipartisan Support for National Renewable Electricity Standard." Facilities Net. 15 Nov. 2007. 28 June 2008 .

A recent poll of potential 2008 voters found that Americans across the political spectrum support a new national standard for renewable electricity like those already in place in more than 20 states. The poll, commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association, documents growing support for renewable energy and growing concern about energy independence as top domestic priorities for potential 2008 voters. Highlights of the survey include: - 93 percent of conservatives agreed that energy independence “should be the government’s top priority” - 77 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Southerners, 83 percent of those in military families, 77 percent of self-identified conservatives, 81 percent of rural voters, 85 percent of independent voters and 92 percent of Democrats agreed that the Federal government should follow the lead of a number of states that now require at least some of their electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar

RPS has proven popular with the American public Barry Rabe 07 , Professor in the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan June 8, 2007, p. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/70819.html

Despite failure of similar legislation in the past, the prospects for approval look good this year, said Barry Rabe, professor in the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. "These policies have proven popular in a number of states," he said. "The majority of American citizens already live in Congressional districts with an RPS." And it looks like more states will join their ranks this year, namely Michigan, North Carolina and Illinois, where legislators are considering making the current voluntary standard mandatory.

11

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Link – RPS Popular There is massive bipartisan support for a national RPS among potential voters AWEA, 7 (American Wind Energy Association, “New Poll Shows Overwhelming Bipartisan Support for National Renewable Electricity Standard,” 11-13-2007, www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Poll_Shows_Bipartisan_Support_111207.html) // JMP

A new poll of potential 2008 voters by Zogby International found that Americans across the political spectrum support a new national standard for renewable electricity like those already in place in more than 20 states. The poll, commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association, documents growing support for renewable energy and growing concern about energy independence as top domestic priorities for potential 2008 voters. Highlights of the survey include: 93 percent of conservatives agreed that energy independence “should be the government’s top priority”; 77 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Southerners, 83 percent of those in military families, 77 percent of self-identified conservatives, 81 percent of rural voters, 85 percent of independent voters and 92 percent of Democrats agreed that the Federal government should follow the lead of a number of states that now require at least some of their electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar; and 64 percent of those polled disagree with the proposition that the federal government is doing enough to promote clean renewable energy. “This demonstrates the tremendous level of bipartisan support across our nation for a renewable electricity standard” commented Representative Tom Udall (D-NM), who authored the renewable electricity standard provision approved by the House of Representatives earlier this year. “It is crystal clear the public wants Congressional action to increase the role of clean domestic energy, like wind and solar power, in meeting America’s electricity needs. The House took an important step towards that goal in August, and it is critical that a renewable electricity standard be included in any final energy package that comes to the floor.”

RPS is popular with the public UPI, 7 (Rosalie, Westenskow, United Press International, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” 6-8-2007, http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP

Despite failure of similar legislation in the past, the prospects for approval look good this year, said Barry Rabe, professor in the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. "These policies have proven popular in a number of states," he said. "The majority of American citizens already live in Congressional districts with an RPS."

12

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Link – Wind Popular Wind energy is farming public support EEC ‘7 [Endless Energy Corporation; “General Wind Farm Public Support”; Last updated Spring 2007; Accessed June 24, 2008; http://www.endlessenergy.com/general_public_support.shtml]

Public approval for wind projects usually starts high (before the project is started) and support consistently increases after the wind farm is constructed. Once the wind farm is built, many who were opposed to wind energy change their opinion and decide to support the wind farm. In Searsburg, Vermont, the wind farm project had a 66% approval / neutral rating before construction and 83% afterwards. Other projects have had similar results.

Wind farming popular with the public DoE ‘5 [U.S. Department of Energy; “Wind Energy Benefits”; National Renewable Energy Laboratory; April 2005; http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37602.pdf]

The people want wind energy. Because of all the reasons listed above, along with concern over debilitating illnesses associated with air pollutants, wind has overwhelming public support. Many people express their support by purchasing blocks of wind energy to power their homes or businesses. Xcel Energy’s Windsource, the largest customer-driven wind energy program in the nation (more than 30,000 participants), experienced 30% annual growth from 1998 to 2003. Deliberative public polling in Texas7 and Nebraska8 demonstrated overwhelming support of wind energy as an element of the generation portfolio. Because customers want wind as a portion of their electricity portfolio, more than 300 utilities currently offer green pricing programs that include wind energy.

Public support for wind energy – public opinion increases after implementation AWEA ‘7 [America Wind Energy Association; “Wind Energy Policy Issues”; Last updated 2007; http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_policy.html#What%20is%20net%20metering%20(net%20billing)%20and%20how%20does%20it%20work]

Wind energy is one of the most popular energy technologies. Opinion surveys regularly show that just over eight out of 10 people (80%) are in favor of wind energy, and less than one in ten (around 5%) are against it. The rest are undecided. Public opinion in support of wind power tends to become even more strongly in favor once the wind turbines are installed and operating, a finding from several surveys carried out in the UK and in Spain. Some people who live near proposed wind projects may be apprehensive about them. But when accurate information and knowledge is made available, experience shows that initial concerns are reduced and support for wind farms increases.

13

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Link – Wind Popular The production tax credit is largely bipartisan Real de Azua in 1--Communications Coordinator and International Policy Analyst, AmericanWind Energy Association (Christine, Tulane Environmental Law Journal, “The Future of Wind Energy”, Summer 2001, Lexis Nexis)

The federal wind energy PTC enjoys solid bipartisan support. A PTC extension bill was sponsored in the Senate in the 106th Congress by Senators Grassley (R-IA), Jeffords (R-VT), Conrad (D-ND), and in the House by Representatives Thomas (R-CA) and Matsui (D-CA). 101 Extension of the PTC was one of the very few specific environmental provisions included in both the Democratic and the Republican Party platforms in the 2000 Presidential elections. 102 Although the outlook for an extension appears good, the vagaries of the political process, particularly in the divided 107th Congress, are likely to prevent an extension of the PTC from being adopted early in the legislative process, thereby casting uncertainty once again upon proposals for the installation of new wind plants in 2002. PTC has bipartisan support

Refocus 03 (“Boom or Bust? Which way are U.S. winds blowing?”, Renewable Energy Focus, August, ScienceDirect)

While the PTC cycle wreaks havoc on business planning, there is a clear sense amongst industry players that it will always be extended. Generally, the PTC has strong bi-partisan support within the government and receives minimal negative media. Complications often arise with the bills that accompany its passage, as well as the lack of a committed federal level renewable energy framework. The concern thus lies, not with PTC extensions itself, but rather with the timing of the extension. This has the effect of placing a primacy on proper project pacing — which is essentially the trademark of the industry today. Instead of a sustained and stable level of growth in development and construction activity, activity ebbs and flows with the PTC cycle. Projects are fast-tracked or slow-tracked and employees laid-off or hired in a frenzy (or plenty of overtime required for existing employees) depending on the PTC timing.

Massive public support for wind energy Levesque 7 American Wind Energy Association, (“Does the Passage of a Stripped-Down Energy Bill Mean Momentum is Lost for Renewables?” December 19, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=50920, rday) That drumbeat to which Reid was referring is the voice of the public. Survey after survey shows that Americans support the enactment of policy that will provide them with clean, renewable energy. It should come as no surprise, then, that other members of Congress have said they expected the issues to return as well. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), for one, told reporters he would push for renewables legislation in 2008. So while politics, unfortunately, certainly can prove victorious in a near-term battle, public sentiment will inevitably demand further attention to what matters most in their eyes.

Massive democratic support for wind energy Levesque 7 American Wind Energy Association, (“Does the Passage of a Stripped-Down Energy Bill Mean Momentum is Lost for Renewables?” December 19, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=50920, rday) Not at all. In fact, momentum for an RES and a full-value, long-term PTC continues to build, even as politics put a speed bump in their path for the near-term. Almost the moment the Senate voted to remove the tax title containing the PTC, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made clear that he and the Senate would return to the issue in 2008. "If President Bush thinks we'll stop fighting to end Big Oil giveaways-so that we can invest more in clean-energy innovation-he is mistaken," said Reid. "And if Senate Republicans think this is the last they'll hear of the renewable electricity standard, they are mistaken, too. Republicans may have blocked these priorities for now, but the drumbeat for change is far too loud and far too strong for them to keep blocking much longer."

14

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Link – SPS popular The public supports space solar power – the plan will make it an election issue Snead, 07 - Aerospace engineer and consultant focusing on Near-future space infrastructure development (Mike, “Space solar power and America's energy future (Part 3)”, 12/23, Spacefaring America Blog, http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/12/23/19-space-solar-power-and-americas-energy-future-part-3.aspx) Whether intentional or not, the U.S.-led effort to delay adoption of specific quantitative reductions in "greenhouse gas" emissions will move this debate squarely into the U.S. presidential campaign. Already, eco-activists are initiating a write-in campaign for former Vice President Al Gore in the upcoming New Hampshire presidential primary to help highlight global warming as a political issue. While probably too late to impact the primaries, this issue may arise during the fall's campaign. How should the U.S. respond to the demands of most other nations that we cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 percent within 12 years? The stage has been set for the next president to squarely address this issue and to deal with the selected implementation throughout their administration. Add this to the issues of U.S. dependency on imported petroleum, the high cost of petroleum, and the pending world-wide shortage of conventional oil, and it is possible that energy and the environment could move to center stage of the American presidential campaign. Voters may see this as a central "pocket-book" issue with greater personal importance than Iraq and illegal immigration. Bali's impact on the potential for space solar power What is important to advocates of space solar power is that, returning to the list of selection criteria for future energy sources, the public's feelings regarding energy acceptability is moving towards the acceptance of the need for new energy sources. Thus, the public may be open to new information on space solar power as a new and acceptable energy source. Heightened Congressional interest in how the U.S. will respond to the Bali and the likely debates of this issue during the fall will provide an important opportunity to introduce and expand on the discussions of the potential of space solar power for meeting mid- and far-term U.S. and world energy needs.

Solar-powered technologies are becoming extremely popular with the public New York Times, 98 (Barbara Flanagan, “Public Eye; Still Reaching for the Sun,” Section F; Page 2; Column 5, LN) // DCM
over the last few years have scientists figured out how to make photovoltaic material -- now a thin black film that can be attached to other materials -- turn sunlight into electricity affordably. The Energy Department and BP Solar (a subsidiary of British Petroleum, and a manufacturer of But only

photovoltaics) helped sponsor this traveling exhibition to spread the news: this is not your father's solar energy. It is not your father's old museum fare either. Lucy Fellowes, who shaped the exhibition over four years, did more than the standard curatorial sweep. Yes, Ms. Fellowes, the museum's curator for special projects, created a time line of solar history and collected solar-powered products and prototypes (lawn mower, lantern, call box, computer, lights and so on). But there is plenty of innovation, too. She commissioned two forward-looking New York architects to design the exhibition and to create two original structures using photovoltaics in new ways. Early on, the exhibition and its message became a collaborative mission. Nicholas Goldsmith, of FTL Happold Architects and Engineers, designed the garden's most imposing structure: a 30-foot-high solar tensile pavilion, a fabric tent laminated with photovoltaic film five-thousandths of an inch thick. At night, the film electrifies a display of red lights. The show's timing is fortuitous. At the apex of a stock market that has financed a cavalcade of giant gas guzzlers and small electronic consumables, "Under the Sun" offers a change of perspective. Refreshingly, it involves no recycled garbage.

After a decade of techno-ennui -- the fatigue of being startled by an onslaught of PC's, laptops, cell phones, satellites, lasers -- users are jaded. Cash-machine cards in hand, they stand ready to be wowed, then bored, then wowed again by the next Its wonders may be arriving just in time.

barrage of personal gadgets in black or taupe. Is that all there is?

When designers express the link between earth and sky, between the sun and our insatiable need for power, the trick can be downright thrilling. rel="nofollow"> What is missing is awe. It takes something like this exhibition to show off the poetry of solar energy.

15

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Link – SPS popular The media will spin the plan positively NSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-release-01.pdf) Nevertheless, DoD review team leaders were virtually overwhelmed by the interest in Space‐Based Solar Power that they discovered. What began as a small e‐mail group became unmanageable as the social network & map‐of‐expertise expanded and word spread. To cope, study leaders were forced to move to an on‐line collaborative group with nearly daily requests for new account access, ultimately growing to over 170 aerospace and policy experts all contributing pro‐bono. This group became so large, and the need to more closely

As word spread and enthusiasm grew in the space advocacy community, study leaders were invited to further expand to an open web log in collaboration with the Space Frontier Foundation. The amount of media interest was substantial. Activity was so intense that total e‐mail traffic for the study leads could be as high as 200 SBSP‐related e‐mails a day, and the sources of interest were very examine certain questions so acute, that the group had to be split into four additional groups.

diverse. There was clear interest from potential military ground customers—the Army, Marines, and USAF Security Forces, and installations personnel, all of which have an interest in clean, low environmental‐impact energy sources, and especially sources that are agile without a long, vulnerable, and continuing logistics chain. There was clear interest from both traditional “big aerospace,” and the entrepreneurial space community. Individuals from each of the major American aerospace companies participated and contributed. The subject was an agenda item for the Space Resources Roundtable, a dedicated industry group. Study leaders were made aware of significant and serious discussions between aerospace companies and several major energy and construction companies both in and outside of United States. As the study progressed the study team was invited to brief in various policy circles and think tanks, including the Marshall Institute, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Energy Consensus Group, the National Defense Industry Association, the Defense Science Board, the Department of Commerce’s Office of Commercial Space, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong in the space advocacy community, particularly in the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), National Space Society (NSS), Space Development Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG), all of which hosted or participated in events related to this subject during the study period.. There is reason to think that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response was collecting energy from space, with support from 35% of those polled—twice the support for the second most popular response, planetary defense (17%)—and three times the support for the current space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(10%).

SBSP lies “at the intersection of missionary and mercenary”—appealing both to man’s idealism and pragmatism, the United States’ special excites the imagination with its scale and grandeur, besting America’s previous projects, and opening new frontiers. How does one account for such significant interest? Perhaps it is because

mission in the world and her citizens’ faith in business and technology. As an ambitious and optimistic project, it

Such interest goes directly to the concerns of the Aerospace commission, which stated, “The aerospace industry has always been a reflection of the spirit of America. It has been, and continues to be, a sector of pioneers

For this nation to maintain its present proud heritage and leadership in the global arena, we must remain dedicated to a strong and prosperous aerospace industry. A healthy and vigorous aerospace industry also holds a promise for the future, by kindling a passion within our youth that beckons them to reach for the stars and thereby assure our nation’s destiny.” drawn to the challenge of new frontiers in science, air, space, and engineering.

Plan popular with the public Pfaltzgraf & Van Cleave, 7 -* Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University and President Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and ** Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University (Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Independent Working Group, “Missile Defense, The Space Relationship, and the 21st Century”, 2007, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf.) //WCH

Despite the political obstacles, there is a desire within the general American public to maintain space superiority, including the deployment of space-based missile defense. If the United States is perceived as no longer dominant in space, many people will want to know how and why such dominance was lost and what needs to be done to restore it.

16

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

A2 – oil lobby link turn Campaign contributions aren’t key to success and the lobby still gives even when it doesn’t get its way Lindsay Renick Mayer, 11/23/07 Reporter – Center for Responsive Politics “Big Oil, Big Influence,” PBS, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html

Campaign contributions don't always get the oil industry desired results. Many of the oil industry chieftains, who were pushing to open ANWR for exploration, were disappointed when the 2005 energy bill came out of conference committee without that provision. Nor, do campaign contributions always get the industry's favorite candidates elected. Four of five of Big Oil's most favored candidates—all Republicans—lost their re-election races in 2006, despite hefty campaign contributions from oil and gas employees and PACs that cycle. The losers included Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns of Montana, George Allen of Virginia and James Talent of Missouri.

Anti-oil lobby is the strongest group in washington William L. Anderson 1/3/02, Scholar – Mises Institute and Professor of Economics – Frostburg State University "The Oil Dependency Myth." Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://mises.org/story/861

If Feldstein and other "energy independence" advocates wish to ask us to believe that domestically produced oil will not be held hostage to politics, they are either naïve or stupid. The single most powerful lobby in Washington, D.C., is the green lobby, and environmentalists are much more hostile to the energy needs of our economy than are even the most anti-American Middle Easterners. Obtaining crude oil means someone has to drill, and most oil-producing or potential oil-producing lands in this country are the property of the national government, which means that by definition, drilling and exploration in those areas will be determined by the political process.

Democratic control means Big Oil is weak politically Lindsay Renick Mayer, 11/23/07, Reporter – Center for Responsive Politics “Big Oil, Big Influence,” PBS, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html

With Democrats now in control of Congress, the oil and gas industry is finding that it's getting less for its money on Capitol Hill. Other industries with competing interests and far less cash to spread around, such as environmental groups and alternative energy producers, are now finding more support for their legislative goals. For example, the Clean Energy Act of 2007 seeks to repeal the 2004 and 2005 tax breaks to Big Oil and re-direct the money to renewable energy efforts.

17

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

IL – Energy policy key Energy policy will decide the election. Currently Obama is leading, but McCain can gain the advantage Roll Call 7/21/08 “Energy Politics Debated,” l/n

Democrats and Republicans on the Hill are calling on their presidential candidates to turn up the volume in the fight over how to lower gas prices, as the two parties ratchet up their partisan rhetoric on the issue. Even as lawmakers have been engaging in a battle royal over soaring energy costs, the campaigns of both presumptive nominees, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), have focused on foreign policy for the past few weeks. That has some lawmakers scratching their heads. “If I were running for president, I’d sure be talking more about energy. It’s all I’m hearing about back home,” House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.) said. “And you can’t talk about foreign policy without talking about energy.” The issue has been more pronounced for Republicans, who believe they have Democrats on the defensive, given polls showing increased public support for more domestic oil and gas drilling — an issue the GOP has championed but one Democrats have tried to sidestep. “It’s more of a problem that [the McCain campaign is] not holding Obama accountable for what his views are,” said a senior Senate GOP aide. “This is an issue where there should be a distinct contrast between McCain and Obama. There should be a drumbeat.” Hill Democrats counter that Obama has his own argument to make. They charge that with two oilmen in the White House presiding over the runup in energy costs, Republicans have lost credibility on the issue. A June Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Obama claiming a 20-point advantage over McCain on the question of which candidate voters trust more to address gas prices. Congressional partisans of both stripes said the problem is not that Obama and McCain haven’t both laid out plans for dealing with the energy crisis. McCain has been talking about his “Lexington Project” energy plan since late June, and Obama gave a speech on his proposals on July 11 in Dayton, Ohio. But members of both parties said neither has taken the bullhorn available to presidential candidates to get voters to zero in on their respective plans. Privately, Democrats have been frustrated that Obama took such a long time to come out with a comprehensive energy policy and that his new plan appeared to be more about checking the box than engaging in a larger national debate on the issue. “It’s extremely detailed, but he hasn’t put the necessary amplification behind it,” one Senate Democratic aide complained. The aide added, “A lot of Democrats were waiting for him to come out with something, and he left us flat-footed. ... We didn’t want to step on his toes, and now, we have some ground to make up.” Republicans, meanwhile, said McCain could compete against Obama on domestic issues by ramping up the energy debate. “The presidential candidate who convinces the public he has a bona fide plan for energy independence will win,” said Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.), who, with Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), recently formed a bipartisan working group to craft a new energy policy. Peterson said he has been urging the McCain camp to get more specific in its energy prescriptions and to devote more attention to the issue on the stump. “That’s what people want to talk about,” he said.

Energy is key to a McCain victory Prairie Pundit 7/21/08 “Make Obama the Issue,” prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/make-obama-issue.html

This echoes some of the theme of Novak's speech to the Defending the American Dream Summit Friday evening. While I agree with some of the premise, I think there are other opportunities for Republicans that need to be an issue. At the top is energy. While McCain is an imperfect messenger on that issue he is better than Obama. The Democrats and Obama are so far on the wrong side of the issue on energy that a good campaign should defeat them from top to bottom. The Democrats are in trouble on this issue because their position is so nonsensical. They want to sue OPEC for not producing more while at the same time refusing to produce our own oil and gas. How can you take that as a serious policy? They block production of every energy available, but biofuels which they ware subsidizing to the detriment of the world's food supply.

Energy policy key to the election – will affect 9 out of 10 votes U.S. News & World Report 7/21/08 “Protecting Mother Nature,” l/n

Now that there is consensus that global climate change is happening, the real debate is how the next president will address it. Several recent developments, including record oil prices, rapidly rising energy demand, and a growing awareness of the impact of fossil fuel use on the Earth, have provided ample evidence that energy and environment challenges are intimately connected and require a coordinated response. Voters, meanwhile, are growing more concerned. In June, a Gallup Poll found that 9 of 10 voters say that high energy costs will influence their vote in November.

18

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

IL – Energy Policy key Energy Policy reform is key to a McCain victory David Brooks, 7/21/08, Syndicated Columnist – New York Times “The Coming Activist Age; Conservatives Know How to Proceed Cautiously with Change,” Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, l/n

Two of the most prominent conservative reformers were Benjamin Disraeli and Theodore Roosevelt. Both reframed the political debate so that it was not change versus the status quo, it was unfamiliar change versus cautious, patriotic change designed to preserve the traditional virtues of the nation. Disraeli inherited a British Conservative Party that was a political club for the landowning class. He created One Nation Conservatism, a reminder that Britain was one community, with a sense of mutual responsibility across classes. Then, at the pinnacle of his career, he embraced reform, expanding the franchise to the socially conservative working class. Disraeli saw this change as a way to restore ancient glories. Or, as he put it: "In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change, which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines." Like Disraeli, Roosevelt was a romantic nationalist. While the more progressive reformers spoke the international language of modernization, Roosevelt spoke the language of highly charged Americanism. He believed private property was the basis of American greatness. He built his persona around the classic American icons: the cowboy, fighter and pioneer. He defended his initiatives as the way to maintain the economic and social order. People had enough change in their lives; they were looking for government that could preserve the way things already were. If the trusts threatened the traditional small-business man, he would take on the trusts. If industrialism threatened the natural landscape, he would become a preservationist. His formula was like Disraeli's: political innovation to restore traditional national morality. He had an image of an American hero -- thrifty, hard-working, vigorous and righteous -- and sought to create a Square Deal for that sort of person. "The true function of the state as it interferes in social life," Roosevelt wrote, "should be to make the chances of competition more even, not to abolish them." John McCain's challenge is to re-create this model. He will never get as many cheers in Germany as Barack Obama, but for a century his family has embodied American heroism. He will never seem as young and forward-leaning as his opponent, but he did have his values formed in an age that people now look back to with respect. The high point of his campaign, so far, has been his energy policy, which is comprehensive and bold, but does not try to turn us into a nation of bicyclists. It does not view America's energy-intense economy as a sign of sinfulness. If Mr. McCain is going to win this election, it will be because he can communicate an essential truth -- that people in a great and successful nation do not want change for its own sake. But they do realize that it's only through careful reform that they can preserve what they and their ancestors have so laboriously built.

19

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

IL – Bush popularity key Popular Bush policies will win the Election for McCain Jonah Goldberg, 6/4/07, Editor – National Review Online “Political Exit Strategy for Bush,” USA Today http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/political-exit-.html

At home, Bush's options are far more constrained. But again, Clinton might be the model. The Democratic Congress is -astonishingly -- even more unpopular than President Bush. If Bush can pick some well-chosen fights with Congress, ideally over spending, he might at least bring back disheartened members of his own political base. Bush might also borrow from Clinton's post-1994 playbook of proposing a lot of small, very popular (and mostly insipid) programs and initiatives. Clinton had his school uniforms and V-chips. Surely the authors of compassionate conservatism could conjure similar treacle. Ideally, such proposals would unite a majority of Americans but divide moderate Democrats from the party's left-wing base (spare me the rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth over the cruelty of "wedge issues"). A goal: Just change the climate For example, paying inner-city students to get good grades -- a proposal backed by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich alike -- might be a good idea with the added benefit of possibly annoying teacher's unions. Such ideas are hard to come up with, never mind sell, particularly given Bush's liabilities and the media climate generally. But the president needn't get such ideas passed, he need only get them discussed in order to recalibrate the political climate more in his favor. It wouldn't be easy, but he still has the biggest megaphone in the country. He also holds the veto pen. Bush seemed to have lost it in the Oval Office couch cushions for much of his presidency, but the Democratic takeover inspired him to find it. Given the Democrats' need to placate their own base in order to prove all that effort in '06 was worth it, Bush could have some fat opportunities to rally the majority of Americans, or at least his own base, to the GOP side.

Bush’s approval rating is key to a McCain victory Jonah Goldberg, 6/4/07, Editor – National Review Online “Political Exit Strategy for Bush,” USA Today http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/political-exit-.html

President Reagan's historical standing was put on the glide path to greatness in part because his anointed successor won the presidency. If Al Gore had won in 2000, Bill Clinton's legacy would certainly be higher (and it will also improve if Hillary Clinton is elected). The problem for Bush and the GOP is that it seems very unlikely a Republican candidate will have any chance of winning in 2008 so long as Bush's approval ratings are in the freezing range. As my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru argues, Bush's approval ratings need to be at least in the mid-40s for the Republican nominee to have a fighting chance. But how to get those numbers up so late in his administration?

Bush’s popularity is key to the election Oxford Analytica, 5/22/07, international consulting firm “Despite GOP’s pessimism, party may yet field a winner in ’08 White House race,” The Hill thehill.com/op-eds/despite-gops-pessimism-party-may-yet-field-a-winner-in-08-whitehouse-race-2007-05-22.html

Unpopular president. The president’s approval ratings have been unusually poor for almost two years. Since mid-2005, they have moved within a comparatively narrow 29-36 percent band in mainstream surveys. There are few parallels for such an abysmal rating during a second presidential term, when (with the obvious exception of former President Richard Nixon) the occupant of the White House tends to become more personally popular at the same time that he becomes less politically effective. Furthermore, even Bush’s personal pollsters seem to expect that his ratings will remain at this low ebb for the rest of the year and into 2008. If he cannot achieve at least a 45 percent approval rating by next year, then the president will remain a liability for his party’s electoral prospects.

20

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

IL – McCain tied to Bush Voters associate McCain with Bush policies – especially independents White House Bulletin 7/3/08 “Republicans Urge McCain To Define Himself Before Obama Launches Attacks,” l/n

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be drawing criticism for flip-flopping on some major issues, such as federal policy on eavesdropping and taking public financing for his presidential campaign, but some Republican strategists see a larger picture, and are worried about it. "What he's doing is fundamentally seizing the middle," says a GOP insider who has advised several presidential candidates in the past. On the other hand, Republican candidate John McCain is sending mixed messages -supporting Bush policies, such as calling for offshore drilling, one day, and distancing himself form Bush policies, such as on global warming, the next. Acknowledging such criticism, GOP strategists are heartened by the promotion of McCain confidant Steve Schmidt to take over the management of the campaign. They see this as a signal the McCain finally understands what's wrong and has assigned Schmidt, a tough-minded operative who has a record of electoral success behind him, to fix things. The insider adds that McCain can't simply replay Bush's 2004 strategy of appealing almost totally to the GOP base. "John McCain can't win just with Republican votes -- he needs new voters, independents, and Democratic votes," he says. "He needs to be like the John McCain of 2000. He needs to be the reformer. He needs to be the maverick again and stop pretending he likes George Bush." McCain's GOP critics point to a new Gallup Poll showing the 68 per cent of Americans are concerned that McCain would pursue policies that are too close to those of Bush, and 67 per cent of independents share those concerns.

McCain won’t be able to distance himself from Bush Christian Science Monitor 7/1/08 “Obama, McCain campaigns go global,” l/n

McCain's trip this week to Colombia and Mexico is likely to be a lower-key affair than Obama's foreign travels. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Arizona senator will be in Cartagena, Colombia, meeting with President Alvaro Uribe to discuss trade and narcotics. Democrats in Congress are holding up a free-trade pact with Colombia that has come to symbolize growing opposition among American workers to a range of free-trade pacts, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). On Thursday, McCain will meet with Mexican president Felipe Calderon to discuss bilateral cooperation in the fight against drug cartels. McCain is not expected to do or say anything that would depart from Bush administration policy, even as he tries to distance himself from an unpopular president.

21

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Obama key to Soft Power An Obama victory is vital to restoring American Soft Power Joseph Nye, 6/12/08, Distinguished Service Professor and Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations – Harvard “Barack Obama and Soft Power,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-obama-and-soft-pow_b_106717.html

I have spent the past month lecturing in Oxford and traveling in Europe where Barack Obama could be elected in a landslide. I suspect that this fascination with Obama is true in many parts of the world. In fact, as I have said before, it is difficult to think of any single act that would do more to restore America's soft power than the election of Obama to the presidency. Soft power is the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than using the carrots and sticks of payment or coercion. As I describe in my new book The Powers to Lead, in individuals soft power rests on the skills of emotional intelligence, vision, and communication that Obama possesses in abundance. In nations, it rests upon culture (where it is attractive to others), values (when they are applied without hypocrisy), and policies (when they are inclusive and seen as legitimate in the eyes of others.) Polls show that American soft power has declined quite dramatically in much of the world over the past eight years. Some say this is structural, and resentment is the price we pay for being the biggest kid on the block. But it matters greatly whether the big kid is seen as a friend or a bully. In much of the world we have been seen as a bully as a result of the Bush Administration policies. Unfortunately, a President Obama will inherit a number of policy problems such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea where hard power plays a large role. If he drops the ball on any of these issues, they will devour his political capital. At the same time, he will have to be careful not to let this inherited legacy of problems define his presidency. Some time between November 4 and January 20, he will need to indicate a new tone in foreign policy which shows that we will once again export hope rather than fear. This could take several forms: announcement of an intent to close Guantanamo; dropping the term "global war on terror;" creation of a special bipartisan group to formulate a new policy on climate change; a "listening trip" to Asia, and so forth. Electing Obama will greatly help restore America's soft power as a nation that can recreate itself, but the election alone will not be sufficient. It is not too soon to start thinking about symbols and policies for the days immediately after the election.

Obama key to soft power Washington Post 7/21/08 “Obama, Foreign Policy Realist,” http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/07/obama_foreign_policy_realist.html

In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology -- temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.

22

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Soft Power key to Hegemony Soft Power key to sustaining US leadership – assumes the 21st century NYE 02 former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government (Joseph, “The Paradox of American Power”)

PEERING INTO THE FUTURE The September 2001 wake-up call means that Americans are unlikely to slip back into the complacency that marked the first decade after the Cold War. If we respond effectively, it is highly unlikely that terrorists could destroy American power, but the campaign against terrorism will require a long and sustained effort. At the same time, the United States is unlikely to face a challenge to its preeminence unless it acts so arrogantly that it helps other states to overcome their builtin limitations. The one entity with the capacity to challenge the United States in the near future is the European

Union if it were to become a tight federation with major military capabilities and if the relations across the Atlantic were allowed to sour. Such an outcome is possible but would require major changes in Europe and considerable ineptitude in American policy to bring it about. Nonetheless, even short of such a challenge, the diminished fungibility of military power in a global information age means that Europe is already well placed to balance the United States on the economic and transnational chessboards. Even short of a military balance of power, other countries may be driven to work together to take actions to complicate American objectives. Or, as the French critic Dominique Moisi puts it, “The global age has not changed the fact that nothing in the world can be done without the United States. And the multiplicity of new actors means that there is very little the United States can achieve alone.”73 The United States can learn useful lessons about a strategy of providing public goods from the history of Pax Britannica. An Australian analyst may be right in her view that if the United States plays its cards well and acts not as a soloist but as the leader of a concert of nations, “the Pax Americana, in terms of its duration, might. . . become more like the Pax Romana than the Pax Britannica:’74 If so, our soft power will play a major role. As Henry Kissinger has argued, the test of history for the United States will be whether we can turn our current

predominant power into international consensus and our own principles into widely accepted international norms. That was the greatness achieved by Rome and Britain in their times.75 United States leadership is solely dependent on Soft power FRASER 03 doctorate in political science from Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, former Editor-in-Chief of National Post (Matthew, , p. 18, “Weapons of Mass Distraction: Soft Power and American Empire”).

Let's begin with soft power. The term has been championed by Joseph S. Nye, a Harvard professor who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton. Nye has defined soft power as "the ability to achieve desired outcomes in international affairs through attraction rather than coercion." Nye argues, more specifically, that America's global influence cannot depend solely on its economic strength, military muscle, and coercive capacities. Yes, hard power is needed as an implied threat, and should be used when necessary—as was demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq. But American leadership in the world must depend on the assertion of soft power—namely, the global appeal of American lifestyles, culture, forms of distraction, norms, and values. In short, American leadership is more effective when it is morally based. Soft power has the advantage of being much less violent than brute force. It can claim, moreover, the not inconsequential virtue of being much less costly. Why keep the peace with ground troops, aircraft carriers, and inter-continental missiles when Big Macs, Coca-Cola, and Hollywood blockbusters can help achieve the same long-term goals? Soft power also includes artistic expression and institutional arrangements—such as travelling exhibitions and scholarly exchange programs—that help export American models. When foreign students undertake studies in the United States, they return to their home countries immersed in American values, attitudes, and modes of thinking.

23

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Hegemony Stops Nuclear War Decline in hegemony will cause great power wars and nuclear exchange Lieber 05, Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University (Robert J., The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century, p. 53-54)

Withdrawal from foreign commitments might seem to be a means of evading hostility toward the United States, but the consequences would almost certainly be harmful both to regional stability and to U.S. national interests. Although Europe would almost certainly not see the return to competitive balancing among regional powers (i.e., competition and even military rivalry between France and Germany) of the kind that some realist scholars of international relations have predicted, 21 elsewhere the dangers could increase. In Asia, Japan, 'louth Korea, and Taiwan would have strong motivation to acquire nuclear weapons - which they have the technological capacity to do quite quickly. Instability and regional competition could also escalate, not only between India and Pakistan, but also in Southeast Asia involving Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and possibly the Philippines. Risks in the Middle East would be likely to increase, with regional competition among the major countries of the Gulf region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq) as well as Egypt, Syria, and Israel. Major regional wars, eventually involving the use of weapons of mass destruction plus human suffering on a vast scale, floods of refugees, economic disruption, and risk to oil supplies are all readily conceivable. Based on past experience, the United States would almost certainly be drawn back into these areas, whether to defend friendly states, to cope with a humanitarian catastrophe, or to prevent a hostile power from dominating an entire region. Steven Peter Rosen has thus fittingly observed, "If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive." Similarly, Niall Ferguson has added that those who dislike American predominance ought to bear in mind that the alternative may not be a world of competing great powers, but one with no hegemon at all. Ferguson's warning may be hyperbolic, but it hints at the perils that the absence of a dominant power, "apolarity," could bring "an anarchic new Dark Age of wailing empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic plunder and pillage in the world’s forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves."''

Loss of U.S. hegemony would lead to political chaos and nuclear war Brzezinski 04, former national security adviser, professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies ( Zbigniew, THE CHOICE: GLOBAL DOMINATION OR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP, , p. 17)

The notion of total national security is now a myth. Total security and total defense in the age of globalization are not attainable. The real issue is: with how much insecurity can America live while promoting its interests in an increasingly interactive, interdependent world? Insecurity, while uncomfortable, has been the fate of many other nations for centuries. For America there is no longer a choice: if socially disagreeable, its insecurity has to be politically manageable. In reflecting on the security implications of this new reality, it is important to bear in mind the points made earlier. America is the world-transforming society, even revolutionary in its subversive impact sovereignty-based international politics. At the same time, America traditional power, unilaterally protective of its own security while sustaining international stability not only for its own benefit, but for that of- the international community as a whole. The latter task compels U.S. policymakers to concentrate on the more traditional U.S. role as the linchpin of global stability. Despite the new realities of global interdependence and the mounting preoccupation of the international community with such new global issues as ecology, global, warming, AIDS, and poverty, the argument that American power is uniquely central to world peace is supported by a simple hypothetical test: What would happen if the U.S. Congress were to mandate the prompt retraction of U.S. military power from its three crucial foreign deployments—Europe, the Far East, and the Persian Gulf? Any such U.S. withdrawal would without doubt plunge the world almost immediately into a politically chaotic crisis. In Europe, there would be a pell-mell rush by some to rearm but also to reach a special arrangement with Russia. In the Far East, war would probably break out on the Korean Peninsula while Japan would undertake a crash program of rearmament, including nuclear weapons. In the Persian Gulf area, Iran would become dominant and would intimidate the adjoining Arab states.

24

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

McCain will win The Race is neck-and-neck – McCain is gaining momentum because of Obama’s flip-flopping New York Sun 7/16/08 “McCain: A Formidable Rival,” l/n

Something most unlikely is happening in the presidential election. All the odds are stacked against John McCain. By his own admission he is "as old as dirt" and has "as many scars as Frankenstein." He is not a great stump speaker, finds it awkward reading a speech from a teleprompter, and, though charming in person, he does not have great screen presence. His campaign is in shambles. Even before his economic adviser Phil Gramm started wagging his finger at Americans feeling the pinch at the gas pumps, the Arizona senator was finding it hard to get his ducks in a row. If he cannot even sort out his campaign organization, what is the chance he will make an effective president? Mr. McCain was all set to recruit the veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy, who ran his 2000 campaign, before other members of his staff vetoed the appointment. Being pushed about by your own subordinates is a bad omen for someone bidding to be the nation's chief executive. Mr. McCain also is finding it difficult to focus on a clear message. What would America be like under his stewardship? No one has any idea. Part of his campaign's failure is the lack of a simple phrase that would show where he might be leading us. And yet, for all these shortcomings, the latest daily tracking opinion polls from Rasmussen put Mr. McCain neck and neck with the charismatic, articulate, focused, artful, handsome, telegenic, young Barack Obama. The latest polling in the pivotal state of Florida gives Mr. McCain a clear lead. This is not what is meant to be happening. According to bien pensant wisdom, 2008 is a Democratic year and everything suggests an Obama victory. Change is in the air, the Republicans are pariahs, the president is as popular as a raccoon in the rafters, and all Mr. Obama has to do to win is smile and keep his own counsel. So how to explain why Mr. McCain is riding high? If, as Mr. Obama likes to suggest, the Arizona senator will merely continue the policies of President Bush, he should not stand a prayer in November. Yet there he is, laughing and joking as he draws alongside his thrusting young rival. As there is little we do not already know about Mr. McCain, the problem appears to lie with Mr. Obama. His shifting stance on key issues certainly has driven many of his most devoted followers to apoplexy. While even his own Web site has fallen to rebels who think his turn on domestic wiretapping is a betrayal of everything they stand for, his other "revisions" also have sent up the warning flares. Most troublesome for liberals is his change of mind over abortion, capital punishment, and guns. He no longer thinks pregnant women who risk their mental health if they give birth should be allowed to abort. He now believes that rapists, not just child murderers, should be put to death by the state. And he welcomed the recent ruling declaring Washington's gun laws unconstitutional as a useful clarification. Would President Obama appoint a Supreme Court justice bent on overturning Roe v. Wade? It is not at all clear. Then there are Mr. Obama's errors of judgment. His reluctance to push his daughters into the limelight was admirable. You cannot be a good politician if you are not a good parent. But then he and his wife Michelle had Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, parade their girlish charms on "Access Hollywood" as if they were contestants in a sickening junior beauty queen pageant. Then the following morning Mr. Obama was full of remorse for exploiting his children in such a crass manner. He made a similar backward flip over his opposition to the Iraq war, a stance which, Mrs. Clinton remembers better than most, formed the central plank of his primary campaign. In those distant days he said Iraq was most certainly not a front against Al Qaeda, he promised to bring the troops home without delay, and he said a permanent American military presence in Iraq was out of the question. Then he backtracked. The troops would come home only when it was safe to do so and some American troops would have to remain in Iraq for a long time to rid the country of Al Qaeda. What voters appear to be concerned about is not so much Mr. Obama's need to run to the center. By deserting his activists he is, after all, pleasing the majority in the all-important center ground. What they are becoming wary of is what his zig-zagging tells us about his character. And the more we discover about Mr. Obama, the more we find to dislike. All politicians are vain, but in Mr. Obama there is the same self preening swagger that is evident in President Bush. The grumpy, unreconstructed Mr. McCain, meanwhile, is an authentic eccentric, a courageous politician who has, over immigration and the Iraq War, defied his own party and his president. His independence has not made him many friends among conservatives and evangelicals, but he is so cussed, he does as he pleases and hang the consequences. Mr. McCain is not much good at policy for its own sake and doesn't take himself too seriously. He is without pomp and likes to crack a joke to make a point, even when the joke is a little off color. His evident strength of character is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama's lust to please, which is why, against the odds, the Arizona senator is proving a most formidable rival.

25

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

McCain will win McCain will win – experience and Romney Beehive Standard Weekly 7/20/08 “McCain Reaches Out to Romney to Help Rebuild Faith in the GOP,” http://beehivestandardweekly.com/articles/207/1/Romney-as-McCain&%2339%3Bs-Second-Almost-a-SureBet

Obama will win some states in the south where large cities play host to a large, down-trodden black American population, but McCain will win the key states of Texas and Florida and will likely attract more than his fair share of mid-western states. Obama will loose a few key northern states as McCain and Romney have great appeal in normally blue Democratic states. Consider Lieberman's strength in the Northeast and Romney's strength in Michigan and Massachussetts. The strength of the GOP in the Northeast will surprise many Democrats. White, blue collar workers will not support Obama. Perhaps it is prejudice or perhaps they are unforgiving of the primary that didn't seem to count their votes on the national stage when they supported Hilary Clinton. In the end, the straight talking McCain and Romney's history in the rust belt will stun Obama fans. Though Mr. Obama is a rock star with great fame and popularity, he lacks the respect of the rank-and-file union membership. Not that he isn't a polished and intelligent person, but he lacks experience in the economy. Jobs and feeding one's own family will be a higher priority for voters come November. In the balance, America will sway towards age and experience this year as taking chances with a young lawyer is not on the national agenda. Proven leadership, in both the economic and miliatry fronts, will win the day.

26

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Obama win inevitable Obama victory inevitable – it’s just a question of margin The Moderate Voice, 7/21/08 “Musings on Barack Obama,” http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/cindy-mccain/21198/musings-on-barack-obama-why-the-only-question-is-what-his-margin-of-victory-will-be/

Even with the election three and a half months out, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that Barack Obama will be the next president. This is not a particularly rash prediction given that color-blind Democrats and Independents and even some Republicans will far outnumber people who would never vote for an African-American, Obama has an enthusiastic base and will attract a broad cross-section of voters, is pretty much in tune with the mainstream on the issues that matter, has long coattails and is incredibly well organized and financed. In contrast, John McCain has a small and unenthusiastic base, is running a lackadaisical campaign more focused on raising money than winning votes, has trouble figuring out where he stands on the issues that matter, has no coattails and is stuck with an albatross known as George Bush, whose unpopularity he wears like a bad case of five o’clock shadow. The only question is whether Obama will squeak by or win in a walk, and I believe the margin will have a lot to do with how successful he is at defining who John McCain is.

Obama will win in a landslide Washington Post 7/11/08 “Gramm Remark Adds to McCain's Difficulty Addressing the Economy,” l/n

With most Americans blaming President Bush for their troubles, McCain faced an uphill climb even before his campaign's recent miscues. Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis-based economic forecasting firm, will release a report next week that factors in such variables as the growth rate of real disposable income, unemployment rate, real oil price increases, the power of the incumbent party as well as the impact of party fatigue to forecast the outcome of the election. The result projects a victory of more than 10 percentage points for presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama, said Chris P. Varvares, the firm's president. "How do you define a landslide?" he asked.

27

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

RPS – unpopular Past attempts by Congress prove a federal RPS is extremely controversial Ralls, 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann, Energy Law Journal, “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards,” Vol. 27, no. 2, p.451, Proquest) // JMP II. THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 DOES NOT INCLUDE A FEDERALLY - MANDATED RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD Over the past ten years, Congress has grappled with comprehensive energy legislation.6 The stated purpose of the final bill, EPAct 2005, was "[t]o ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy."7 The Administration strongly supported H.R. 6, saying that it would "benefit consumers by increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment . . . . [It would] reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil by increasing the use and diversity of renewable energy sources."8 The Administration noted that the Electricity Title would promote its objectives of improved reliability and increasing supply.9 But the Administration opposed any effort to set a national RPS, as "these standards are best left to the States. A national RPS could raise consumer costs, especially in areas where these resources are less abundant and harder to cultivate or distribute."10

RPS proponents had attempted to include a federal mandate in earlier versions of energy legislation. 11 A RPS, it was argued, would promote energy efficiency and conservation,12 would enhance our efforts to become less dependent on foreign oil,13 and would provide consumers with affordable and reliable electricity. 14 These purposes certainly appeared to dovetail with the brief statement of purposes for EPAct 2005. But for all of that, a

federally mandated RPS was extremely controversial, as evidenced by the debates that occurred on the Senate floor regarding an amendment to H.R. 6. (S. Amdt. 791). S. Amdt. 791 was the final attempt to include a RPS; the Senate vote in favor of S. Amdt. 791 was close, 52-48.15 Ultimately, however, the RPS was not included in EPAct '05, mainly due to strong opposition in the House. In S. Amdt. 791, Sen. Bingaman (D-NM), Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and long-time advocate of the RPS, proposed a scaled federal RPS of up to 10% by 2020 through 2030.16 Overall, supporters contended that it would provide many benefits, including: reduced dependence on foreign energy sources, a reduction in the price of natural gas, new jobs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced reliability of the electricity grid.17 Opponents countered that a national RPS would amount to a rate increase; in essence it would subsidize certain segments of the energy industry that already benefited from significant federal subsidies with little capacity to show for it; and it de facto amounted to an unfunded federal mandate.18

Eligible versus ineligible renewable resources presented a significant stumbling block in the debates. Proponents of S. Amdt. 791 argued that it was technology neutral and that while not all regions/states have abundant wind, geothermal, or solar resources, biomass and bio-fuels are common across the country and are included in the list of eligible existing and new renewable energies.19 Opponents considered the scope so inflexible that even if an electric utility were to meet the renewable requirement of 10% by generation of power through another form of renewable power or even "green power" such as nuclear energy,20 that utility would still be obligated to generate power or buy renewable credits to cover an additional 10% to satisfy the federal standard.21 S. Amdt. 791 provided for a State Renewable Energy Account Program (SREAP),22 under which the Department of Energy (DOE) would collect money from the sale of renewable energy credits (RECs)23 and civil penalties assessed against utilities that fail to obtain the base amount of electricity from renewable sources.24 The proceeds would be transferred to the states, giving preferences to states that have a disproportionately small amount of renewable capacity and to states to improve renewable energy technologies.25 Despite careful language in S. Amdt. 791 that states RPS programs would be undiminished, opponents maintained that the practical effect was that states would have to replace their existing programs with the federal proposal,26 or else pay what amounted to a new tax and a new rate increase into the SREAP.27 Moreover, they pointed out that fuel choices and resource development decisions historically have been within the purview of the states.28 Lawmakers were also divided on whether the outcome of the mandate, under S. Amdt. 791, would be cost-effective and support reliable delivery of electricity. Supporters argued that the cost to customers of the mandated RPS would be negligible, and projected significant savings. Citing data from the Energy Information Administration within the Department of Energy (EIA), they asserted that the amendment would result in over "68,000 megawatts of renewable generation between 2008 and 2025 . . . . [t]he cost to consumers would be about .18 of a percent . . . increase in overall energy prices."29 Additionally, over the life of the RPS program (2005 to 2025), EIA statistics projected cumulative residential cost savings of $2.5 billion and $2.9 billion for electricity and natural gas, respectively, and cumulative savings for all end-use sectors of $22.6 billion.30

Opponents of S. Amdt. 791 vehemently disagreed about the cost savings. They too cited the EIA Letter and calculations, which projected that from 2005 to 2025 the RPS would have "[A] cumulative total cost of the electric power sector [of] about $18 billion . . . ."31 As for the savings to end-users, those numbers were predicated upon the assumption that the price for natural gas would decrease in response to an increased renewable market. S. Amdt. 791 was essentially asking ratepayers to assume an additional $18 billion in costs in the hopes of natural gas prices going down.32 In regard to reliability, S. Amdt. 791 opponents noted that wind power, one of the main renewables, would make an insignificant contribution to the overall power requirements and, thus, to the goal of providing low-cost reliable power.33 They noted that logistically, wind farms are sited where the wind is, in remote areas oftentimes at the top of a ridge, where there is little if any existing transmission sufficient to transmit the power.34 Furthermore, wind power necessitates that back-up coal, natural gas, or nuclear power always be available to avoid interruption to electric services.35

The plan is empirically divisive – a federal RPS has been defeated 17 times in Congress Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP In the last 10 years--from 1997 to 2006--federal bills promoting RPS were introduced in Congress 17 times. (12) In addition, 102 legislative proposals dealing with climate change have been introduced from 1997 to 2004. (13) All have been beaten back by Republicandominated Congresses. It is safe to say, therefore, that considerable state action in both cases has arisen not because of some judgment that state-based action is optimal or preferable but rather because of the perceived policy vacuum at the federal level. A federal-scale

political philosophy of allowing market forces to determine energy and environmental policy dates back at least as far as the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and it has been reinforced by the political power of Washington, DC-based interest groups and trade associations who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. However, this philosophy and political structure is not mirrored throughout much of the country, and hence many states have become very active in the RPS and climate change arena. And, similarly, many other states that mirror the philosophy and approach of the federal level remain inactive.

28

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

RPS – unpopular Debates over national RPS are empirically divisive Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP In a little over the last decade, at least 21 states have passed renewable portfolio standards (RPS) – laws requiring electricity suppliers to employ a certain percentage of renewable energy to meet growing energy demands. In that same time, Congress has considered (and rejected) at least 17 different proposals for a national RPS. Each time a national RPS is debated, opponents argue that a federal mandate will increase electricity rates and cost utilities billions of dollars by forcing investments in expensive renewable technologies. The Bush Administration officially rejects a national RPS on the grounds that it would create “winners and losers” among regions of the country and increase electricity prices in places where renewable resources are less abundant or harder to cultivate.

The plan would be unpopular – the coal lobby is buying immense influence in Congress Boston Globe, 8 (Editorial from Loie Hayes, “Green and coal don't exactly mix ,” 6-8-2008, www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/06/08/coal_gasification_is_dirty_and_unproven/) // JMP I wonder if the legislators who think coal gasification is a green energy source also believed Ronald Reagan when he argued that ketchup should count as a vegetable in school lunch programs. "Coal gasification" and "green energy" don't belong together in the same sentence, let alone in legislation that's supposed to lessen our dependence on dirty fuels. State subsidies should not be used to tilt the market toward technologies that tear the tops off mountains, dumps the refuse into valleys, and buries toxins in the nation's shrinking fresh water supply. The coal lobby - and the Big Ag lobby behind the biofuels boondoggle - are already buying up every politician within reach! Legislators should cut these two poison pills from the energy overhaul bill that is otherwise a wonderful breath of fresh air from Beacon Hill.

Plan is unpopular – hundreds of congress people are tied to coal interests Bloomberg, 8 (Jim Efstathiou Jr., “Rio Tinto Says U.S. Must Spend Billions for Clean-Coal Devices,” 6-2-2008, www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aKVuoOkwQtkI&refer=australia) // JMP Wind and Solar ``This isn't going to pass this year,'' Ned Helme, president of the utility industry-funded Center for Clean Air Policy in Washington, said at a May 28 press conference. Doubling the annual research budget to $100 million for wind energy would provide turbines that supply 20 percent of the nation's power by 2030, said Liz Salerno, manager of policy analysis for the Washington-based American Wind Energy Association. Wind and solar together now supply just 2.4 percent of electricity demand. That would require changing priorities in Congress. Tax credits for power produced from coal and natural gas totaled $13.7 billion from 2002 to 2007, versus $2.8 billion for renewable generation, according to an October 2007 study by the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm. In the same period the U.S. Energy Department spent $1.4 billion for research on windmills and solar devices, compared with $3.1 billion on technology to cut emissions from coal. Coal Interests ``You've got 150 to 200 members of the U.S. Congress with coal in their district and at the moment only one or two with solarthermal,'' Representative Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington, said in a May 15 interview. ``We have to accommodate some realities.''

29

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Wind – unpopular Funding issues guarantee that passing tax credits will be contentious San Francisco Chronicle, 8 (Zachary Coile, “Congressional stalemate over renewable energy,” 6-18-2008, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL) // JMP Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year. The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them. The stalemate is causing jitters among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are making billion-dollar bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to build solar panels and wind turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress acts. Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which helps finance and operate large-scale solar power projects, said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31, when the credits expire. Because large solar projects can take six months to build, the company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed. "It creates a hiccup that is very unfortunate," Harris said. The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington. House Democrats, seeking to abide by "pay-as-you-go" budget rules, insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising revenue elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at every proposal so far to find that money. The House first passed a measure early last year to extend the renewable energy credits by cutting subsidies to big oil companies. The oil industry lobbied fiercely, President Bush vowed to veto it and the Senate blocked it. Last month, the House approved a bill to extend the credits by delaying an obscure tax break for companies with foreign operations and closing a tax loophole for hedge fund managers. But Republicans objected to what they called a stealth tax increase, and the Senate's 52-44 vote Tuesday fell short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and move the legislation forward.

Passing the tax credit will spark a political firestorm in Congress Friedman, 8 (Thomas L., NYT, “Dumb as We Wanna Be,” 4-30-2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) // JMP Are you sitting down? Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

Funding issues for the tax credit empirically causes contentious battles in Congress Friedman, 8 (Thomas L., NYT, “Dumb as We Wanna Be,” 4-30-2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) // JMP The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

30

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Wind – unpopular Wind energy is empirically politically divisive Eberhart in 6—MFS Harvard, JD candidate and senior notes editor of NYU (Robert, New York University Environmental Law Journal, “Federalism and the String of Offshore Wind Energy Facilities”, Lexis Nexis) The dilemma facing environmental policymakers concerning wind energy is perhaps most acute in the debates surrounding the development of offshore facilities. On one hand, the opportunities for development and the potential environmental benefits are staggering. Government estimates place the national offshore potential - not including the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes - at approximately 907,000 megawatts (which exceeds the current total installed electrical generation capacity of the United States), and other studies point to additional attractive development opportunities in the Great Lakes. 5 However, offshore proposals have the potential to generate deep public divisions, which has been aptly illustrated by the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound off of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the first offshore facility proposed for the United States. 6 Despite wind energy's purported environmental advantages over conventional power plants, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and other elected officials have publicly opposed the project, 7 a local environmental group has spent millions of dollars fighting the proposal before administrative agencies and in court, 8 and in late 2004 Congress reportedly almost stopped the project from [*377] obtaining necessary permits as part of conference committee negotiations over a defense spending bill. 9 Most recently, language in the House version of a Coast Guard authorization bill reportedly would prohibit development of the project. 10

PTC and RPS are politically contentious Sklar 7 (Scott, Lessons from The Political Process: Energy Bill Woes, 11/13/7, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/print?id=50551, AM) One thing you learn in Washington, D.C., is that politics is never predictable. After a nine year career as an aide in the US Senate and over 25 years as a registered renewable energy lobbyist, I am still always amazed at the machinations and changes of course in the legislative arena. This year just typifies the mercurial nature of the legislative process. As early as November 8th, SEIA reported to its members, "At a press conference this morning, Speaker Pelosi stated that the House intends to take up and pass an energy bill before the end of next week (11/17) and it will include an energy tax title." Four days later, the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are seriously considering breaking off the three most contentious policy issues of the Energy Bill — vehicle mileage standards (CAFE), renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS), and the host of energy tax incentives (ITC/PTC). The leadership has a series of conflicting needs within the Democratic Party, adhering to its own imposed "pay as you go" budget rules, and threats of Presidential vetoes. On November 9th, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) told reporters that he and Rep. Baron Hill (DInd.) wrote to Pelosi yesterday "saying we will garner our supporters to vote against any energy bill" that doesn't include their fuel economy legislation (H.R. 2927) that would increase the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards to 32 miles per gallon for light trucks and 35 mpg for passenger cars by 2022. Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) both support the CAFE increase passed by the Senate in June, which mandates an increase to 35 mpg overall for the domestic fleet by 2022. In the end, the Democratic leadership wants to have one sure piece of legislation that addresses cutting petroleum imports — and vehicle mileage is the way to do just that. In this case, the Administration does support a modest CAFE package and the big question mark is Democratic Energy Committee Chairman John Dingell who hails from Detroit.

31

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

SPS – unpopular The public opposes the plan – irrational fear of microwave power Shiner 8, (Linda, “Where the Sun Does Shine: Will space solar power ever be practical?” http://www.airspacemag.com/spaceexploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html, Air & Space Magazine, July 01, 2008) Perhaps the biggest hurdle facing space solar power is public concern about how low-level microwave beams will affect animals and humans. Never mind that the fear remains unfounded. Because of the widespread use of microwaves for communication, the Federal Communications Commission has established a safety standard for human exposure. In all proposed space power systems, the expected power density at the edges of the receiving antenna, where people are most likely to be affected, meets the standard. But explaining this to the public, which hears “microwave” and thinks “oven,” might require a large and costly education campaign. Another worry, that microwave beams could scramble a passing airliner’s avionics or harm passengers, could be addressed by restricting the airspace around the beams, just as the Federal Aviation Administration restricts the airspace over nuclear power plants. Space power advocates may find it instructive to study the political struggles of the nuclear power industry.

SSP is controversial – energy lobbies will fight Glaser, 08 - aerospace engineer, vice president at Arthur D. Little, consulting on consulting projects in aerospace, solar energy, and materials science (Peter, Ad Astra, Interview, “An energy pioneer looks back”, Spring, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP2008.pdf) Ad Astra: In light of the growing demand for dwindling hydrocarbons and the dangerous increases of greenhouse gases, do you think that the world is now primed to seriously consider space-based power systems? Glaser: No, because people can still get gas for their cars too easily. Those in the top levels of science and government know what is coming, but the average man on the street will not care unless it impacts his wallet. That is the biggest problem. The basic approach is unchanged from my initial concept. We could have built this system 30 years ago. The technology just keeps getting better. The design and implementation is a small problem compared to the much larger obstacle of getting people to understand the potential benefits. Building such a system could provide cheap and limitless power for the entire planet, yet instead of trying to find a way to make it work, most people shrug it off as being too expensive or too difficult. Of course existing energy providers will fight, too. It only makes sense that coal and oil lobbies will continue to find plenty of reasons for our representatives in Congress to reject limitless energy from the sun.

SSP will be a political firestorm in challenging current energy lobbies Preble, 06 - President of the Space Solar Power Institute (Darel, “Introduction to the motion to the National Space Society Board of Directors,” 12/15, http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf) Changing our nation and our world’s baseload energy generation sources to introduce SSP is a massive battle. The current oil, coal, and gas energy providers, nuclear as well, are not eager to see their baseload investments face competition from SSP, which has zero fuel costs and zero emissions and a billion years of steady supply projected. This is why SSP has been unfunded since it was invented in 1968. Carter pushed through the SSP reference study in 1979-1980, but space transportation costs were far too high, and they were forced to plan to use astronauts to bolt it together. This is too dangerous for astronauts outside the protection of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. (The Space Station is inside the Van Allen Belts) People are also too expensive to use for SSP construction. Telerobotics, the real way to assemble SSP, did not exist in 1979. Now it is used in heart surgery every day worldwide and for a thousand other uses. (The fossil fuel industry has battled environmentalists every inch during our struggle to understand climate change effects. That is their right. Perhaps half the studies are wrong. But half are right.) Most crucially, space transportation costs have stayed too high because there is no market large enough to support a Reusable Launch Vehicle fleet. SSP IS just such a massive market. Robert Zubrin mentions this battle and perspective in “Entering Space”, page 51. He quit space transportation and decided to work on Mars, which has no possibility of commercialization this century. This is detailed in the Space Transportation chapter on the SSPW website also. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

32

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Oil Link Turn Pro-Oil policies are vital to republican campaign contributions from Big Oil Lindsay Renick Mayer, 11/23/07, Reporter – Center for Responsive Politics “Big Oil, Big Influence,” PBS, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html

During his first month in office, President George W. Bush appointed Vice President Dick Cheney to head a task force charged with developing the country's energy policy. The group, which conducted its meetings in secret, relied on the recommendations of Big Oil behemoths Exxon Mobil, Conoco, Shell Oil, BP America and Chevron. It would be the first of many moves to come during the Bush administration that would position oil and gas companies well ahead of other energy interests with billions of dollars in subsidies and tax cuts—payback for an industry with strong ties to the administration and plenty of money to contribute to congressional and presidential campaigns.

Campaign contributions will allow McCain to overcome Obama The Guardian 7/12/08 “Cash pours in for McCain's campaign,” l/n

John McCain, the US Republican presidential candidate, is attracting millions more dollars in funding than expected, which could allow him to match Barack Obama's donation machine. He is on course to raise $400m (£201m) for the November election, which he said would put him roughly level with Obama. McCain surprised US political pundits by raising $22m in June, his best showing since he launched his campaign for the White House early last year. Obama remains favourite to win the election, with polls putting him on average five points ahead, but McCain shows increasing signs of making a fight of it in spite of his lacklustre campaign so far. Obama opted out of a public finance scheme - which provides $84.1m in federal funding to cover election expenses but sets that as a ceiling - in expectation of raising hundreds of millions more. But he is suffering for several reasons: a failure to win over the big Democratic fundraisers who bankrolled Hillary Clinton's campaign for the nomination; an unwillingness of supporters to help cancel Clinton's $23m debt; and, to a lesser extent, disillusionment among sections of the party with his shift from left to centre. Obama's campaign team has yet to post its fundraising figures for June. His fundraising has been on a downward trend: he raised $55m in February, $41m in March, $31m in April and $22m in May. The June figures are expected to reverse that trend but fall significantly short of the total needed to meet election budget needs. Obama's campaign team said yesterday that a Wall Street Journal report that he had raised $30m in June - $20m less than expected - was "way off the mark". A spokesman, Dan Pfeiffer, said: "Some in the press still haven't realised that anyone who is talking about numbers doesn't know what our numbers are." In addition to what he raises himself, McCain will have access to the funds of the cash-rich Republican party - about $68m - while Obama will have only $3m from the Democratic party.

33

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Bush doesn’t matter McCain can’t win presidential election on Bush’s coattails Mark Preston 08, CNN Political Editor CNN, May 27, 2008, p. Lexis

While the event was initially planned to be open to cameras at the Phoenix Convention Center, it's been moved to a private residence and is now closed to the media. So there will only be brief pictures of McCain and the president on the media. So there will only be brief pictures of McCain and the president on airport tarmac. MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: If John McCain is to win in November, it's not going to be on a Bush coattail. HENRY: Democrats already used chummy photos for ads charging a McCain victory will amount to a third Bush term.

McCain distancing himself from Bush on numerous important issues New York Times, June 17, 2008 p. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?pagewanted=1&

On balance, the McCain campaign has sought to emphasize the differences between Mr. McCain and the unpopular Mr. Bush rather than the similarities. “In the last 10 years, he’s been an independent voice for what he thinks is in his country’s best interest,” said Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers. “Sometimes it’s brought him into conflict with members of his party and with the president. The Democrats know that.”

McCain distancing himself from Bush over environmental issues New York Times, June 17, 2008 p. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?pagewanted=1&

Mr. McCain, who has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate — he has missed votes on toughening fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy — has nonetheless tried to highlight what he considers his stark environmental divide with Mr. Bush. “There is a longstanding, significant, deep, strong difference on this issue between myself and the administration,” Mr. McCain said last month.

McCain distancing himself from Bush’s environmental policies The New York Times, May 14, 2008 p. Lexis

Senator John McCain intensified his criticism of President Bush and the administration's environmental polices on Tuesday, taking a walk in the cold, rain-drenched foothills of the Cascade Mountains and asserting that in the effort to stem climate change, ''America can lead and not obstruct.'' At an outdoor news conference in the Cedar River Watershed east of Seattle, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, declared that ''the president and I have disagreed on this issue for many years -- it isn't a recent disagreement.'' He added, ''There is a longstanding, significant, deep, strong difference on this issue between myself and the administration.'' Mr. McCain was on his second day of a trip to the Pacific Northwest, a potential swing region in the November election, to promote his plan to slow global warming and appeal to the region's many independent voters who view the environment as an election issue of critical concern. Mr. Bush, who questioned the scientific basis for global warming in his first term, is deeply unpopular, and Mr. McCain, whom the president endorsed at the White House in March, has been sprinting away from him this week.

34

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

Energy isn’t key to the election Voters less supportive of policies that cause them to change their lifestyles Renewable Energy World 08 Lacey, Stephen. "Renewable Energy as a Mainstream Product Choice." Renewable Energy World. 24 Feb. 2008. 25 June 2008 .

A growing body of opinion research shows that Americans are concerned about how consumption of dirty fossil energies is impacting the environment, threatening national security and hindering long-term economic growth. But when the time comes for action, renewable energy and climate change are not yet true priorities for the everyday consumer. That may point to one of the keys for marketing renewable energy to the general public: while efficiency and conservation are very important in the entire energy picture, many consumers care more about what the product can give them, not take away. That's because many consumers see renewable energy as a major change in lifestyle, not an ordinary product choice, say analysts. Until the industry better addresses concerns about cost, reliability and ease of use, it will simply be easier for Americans not to buy clean energy. "People will say that they support the environment, that they support clean energy...but when it comes down to real action it has to be easily accessible, and so people don't want to make complete tradeoffs," says Ron Pernick, co-founder and principal of Clean Edge, a clean tech research and publishing firm.

Americans rank climate change and renewable energy as comparatively unimportant priorities Renewable Energy World 08 Lacey, Stephen. "Renewable Energy as a Mainstream Product Choice." Renewable Energy World. 24 Feb. 2008. 25 June 2008 .

In a 2007 analysis of 21 opinion polls on American attitudes toward climate change and renewable energy, American Environics found that there is "widespread agreement that global warming is occurring and that the government should take action to address the problem." However, when asked specifically about their priorities for Congress and the President, global warming ranked far below issues such as the Iraq War, heath care, education and immigration. Another poll from the Pew Research Center reported climate change ranking 20th out of 23 choices.

Energy and environment issues not yet major presidential campaign issues Environment & Energy Daily, April 15, 2008 p. http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/775

As the three remaining presidential candidates head into the home stretch of primary season, energy and environment issues have yet to make a splash in stump speeches and debates, despite the fact that each candidate has vowed to make climate and energy top priorities. During today's E&ETV Event Coverage, the candidates' energy and environment advisers give their positions on the expansion of coal and nuclear, implementation and funding of alternative energy, and climate policy. Panelists include, Jason Grumet, environmental adviser for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Todd Stern, adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), and James Woolsey, environmental adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Energy and environmental issues not being discussed in presidential election Salt Lake Tribune, February 2, 2008 p. Lexis

Tony Massaro, political director for the League of Conservation Voters, a Washington, D.C., group that advocates for proenvironment policies and candidates, said the fast-paced primary season, coupled with the complexity of the issues, has made it difficult for candidates to discuss energy and the environment in much depth. "In all likelihood, we are not going to see that level of specificity the people of the West want and deserve until we have the general election matchup," said Massaro, a longtime Coloradoan. Frank Maisano, a Washington lobbyist for coal companies, wind-power developers and refineries nationwide, said he is not surprised that energy and environment has not commanded the kind of attention that Westerners, with their understandably nuanced view of the subject, might want.

35

Elections Disad Aff & Neg

Georgia Novice Packet

McCain key to soft power/ Obama isn’t McCain’s policy would project both hard and soft power Investor's Business Daily 5/22/08 l/n Instead of talk, McCain's policy would project both hard and soft power to boost democracy and build the private sector. He tells the Castros to empty the political prisons, free the media and legalize labor unions and political parties. He also wants free elections, which Cuba hasn't seen since 1958. And that was just his carrot.

McCain’s foreign policy has a soft power side as well New York Times 5/25/08 l/n McCain's democracy talk has a '' soft power'' side as well as a hard-power one. His underlying premise is that the United States has a deep national-security interest in the growth of democracy abroad. Our strategy of relying on autocrats to protect our interests in the Middle East and elsewhere has backfired, he said in his March speech; we should promote democracy abroad because ''it is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.'' In an effort to change the face of the Islamic world, he said, ''scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.''

Obama is too inexperienced when it comes to foreign policy- that’s key to soft power Reza Aslan 12/30/07, assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California at Riverside “ He Could Care Less About Obama's Story,” www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122801899_2.html

Obama may possess all the intuition of a fortuneteller. But as chair of a Senate subcommittee on Europe, he has never made an official trip to Western Europe (except a one-day stopover in London in August 2005) or held a single policy hearing. He's never faced off with foreign leaders and has no idea what a delicate sparring match diplomacy in the Middle East can be. And at a time in which the United States has gone from sole superpower to global pariah in a mere seven years, these things matter.

36