Starter - Elections Da

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Elections DA Elections DA..................................................................................................................................................1 .....................................................................................................................................................................1 1NC Shell.......................................................................................................................................................2 1NC Shell.......................................................................................................................................................3 Yes – Obama ..................................................................................................................................................4 Links – Ethanol .............................................................................................................................................5 Impacts - Iran.................................................................................................................................................6 Impacts - Iran.................................................................................................................................................7 Impacts – LOST.............................................................................................................................................8 Impacts – LOST.............................................................................................................................................9 Impacts – Gag Rule......................................................................................................................................10 Impacts – Bush Doctrine .............................................................................................................................11 AT – One Issue = No Impact .......................................................................................................................13 AT – Base Link Turn/Plan Unpopular with Right........................................................................................14 No – Obama ................................................................................................................................................15 Link Turns – Ethanol ...................................................................................................................................16 Link Turns – Ethanol ...................................................................................................................................17 Other Issues Key .........................................................................................................................................18

1/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

1NC Shell (A) Uniqueness - Obama winning now lead in polls McNerney 07/21 (Tracey, “Obama leads McCain by Nine Points Among Registered Voters.” Harris Interactive) With just six weeks to go until the Democrat and Republican Presidential conventions, the general election is almost officially here. Results from a new Harris Poll show that: In a four way race, Barack Obama leads John McCain among registered voters 44 percent to 35 percent, while Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate and Ralph Nader each receive 2 percent. Sixteen percent of registered voters are not sure who they will vote for yet;

(B) Links 1. Plan’s popular. Istook 08 (Erest, Former Oklahoma Congressman, Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow, “Ethanol policy threatens to starve the world,” 2/26 http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed022608c.cfm) As a Purdue University study noted, "This leap in corn prices is leading to an emerging opposition to ethanol subsidies on the part of animal agriculture, export markets and other corn users." Those groups have created a coalition to spotlight the ever-widening costs of ethanol, including a website at http://www.balancedfoodandfuel.org/.

2. McCain will lose unless Bush adopts popular policies Lichtman 05 (Political Science Professor – American University, The Keys to the White House, p. x-xi) Retrospectively, the Keys account for the results of every presidential election from 1860 through 1980, much longer than any other prediction system. Prospectively, the Keys predicted well ahead of time the popular-vote winners of every presidential election from 1984 through 2004. They called Vice President George H.W. Bush's victory in the spring of 1988 when he trailed Mike Dukakis by nearly twenty points in the polls and was being written off by the pundits. The Vice President defied the polls and the pundits, not because he discovered negative ads or refurbished his image, but because voters ratified the performance of the Reagan administration--four years of prosperity, the defusing of the Cold War, and a scandal that faded away. In 1992, George H.W. Bush lost his chance for a second term, as the Keys predicted, when a sour economy and lack of domestic accomplishment tarnished his record as president. The Keys predicted George W. Bush's 2004 re-election in April of 2003, a year and a half before a contest that pollsters found too close to call right up to election eve. As a sitting president with no prospective challenger in his own party or a serious third-party competitor, Bush's mixed record of accomplishment at home and abroad was sufficient to anticipate in his victory in 2004. Likewise, although President Bush will not be on the ticket in 2008, the fate of his would-be successor in the Republican Party will depend upon the president's performance in his second term. If the Bush administration fails to meet the domestic and foreign policy challenges of the next four years, voters will dismiss the Republicans, regardless of the Democratic nominee. Moreover, according to the Keys, the Democrats will have structural advantages in 2008 that they lacked in 2004. The Republicans will not be fielding a sitting president, which results in the loss of Key 3 and will likely confront a bruising battle for their party's nomination which forfeits Key 2. Thus, two Keys that the GOP held in 2004 are in jeopardy for 2008, making a Democratic victory likely that year, despite the setbacks at the polls that Democrats have suffered thus far in the twenty-first century. Democrats, moreover, need not worry about battling for their party's nomination; history shows that nomination struggles within the out-party do not subvert its chances to recapture the White House. A vigorous challenging party usually has multiple presidential contenders, each of whom professes to have the skills, personality, and policies needed to regain the White House. A spirited out-party contest for the presidential nomination might even signify the vulnerability of the party in power, as candidates compete for what appears to be a promising nomination. The greatest popular vote victory by a challenging party candidate in American history was achieved by Republican Warren Harding in 1920 after a deadlocked convention nominated him as a compromise candidate on the tenth ballot.

2/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

1NC Shell (C) Impact Obama victory will solve multiple scenarios for global war Muhammed 3-11 (Assistant Editor -- Final Call, http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4444.shtml) Professor Starks says there is still hope the country can be turned around. Sen. Obama and his campaign represents “that hope in the sense that he is positive and offering policy alternatives” to the last 8 years of the Bush administration, he said. With the world immersed in nearly global conflicts, Bob Stein, a professor of social sciences at Rice University, said establishing peace would be the greatest challenge for the next president. “I think the challenges that the next president of the United States will face in the pursuit of world peace is everything from the war in Iraq to the conflict in Afghanistan. The issue of instability in Darfur and Africa. There are worldwide conflicts that are multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. There are no simple solutions because these challenges are quite complex and the next president will be taking on something that no one has had to handle their first day in office within the last 25 to 30 years,” Professor Stein told The Final Call. “Just trying to get out of Iraq alone poses the biggest challenge for the Democrats. Weapons of mass destruction may have gotten us into the war but how to get out is going to be difficult to execute. McCain has spoken on this. I think it will require more than just America to get out, but instead will take a world community effort. America needs help from its allies to get out of that war. She can’t do it alone. It’s an incredible complex situation the next president will face. World peace will be a great task to achieve.”

3/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Yes – Obama Obama winning now ABC News 07/23 (“Obama still leads McCain in presidential poll”) Democrat Barack Obama has a six-point lead over Republican John McCain in the United States presidential race as a growing percentage of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to a new poll. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll says Senator Obama leads Senator McCain by 47 per cent to 41 per cent for the November 4 election, unchanged from last month.

Obama win – popularity from overseas trip Brimley 07/23 (Shawn, “Obama’s Trip: Nothing But Net,” Democracy Arsenal) And today, a new poll shows that Obama is maintaining his 6-point lead over McCain. I think one can assume that the powerful images of Obama speaking to an estimated 100,000 people tomorrow in Berlin will push those numbers even higher.

Obama win – lead in polls Reuters 07/23 (“Obama leads McCain by 6 points: poll) Democrat Barack Obama has a 6-point lead over Republican John McCain in the presidential race as a growing percentage of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday. Obama leads McCain by 47 percent to 41 percent for the November 4 election, unchanged from last month. But 55 percent believed Obama, a 46-year-old first-term Illinois senator, would be the riskier choice for president, while 35 percent said that of McCain, 71, a fourth-term Arizona senator, the poll said. But Obama's message of change may resonate with a disgruntled electorate after eight years of a Republican-run White House. Only 13 percent of those polled believed the country was headed in the right direction. That was the lowest percentage on this question in the NBC/Journal poll's history. The sagging economy remains the public's top concern, but voters do not have much confidence in either candidate on that issue, with 28 percent saying they had faith Obama could put it back on track, while 17 percent said that of McCain. Obama's lead over McCain expands to 13 points when third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are included, with Obama at 48 percent, McCain at 35 percent, Nader at 5 percent and Barr at 2 percent, the poll said.

4/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Links – Ethanol Plan is popular LeMay no date given “The cost of Environmentalism is very high!” http://lemay.ws/Papers/8415.htm Supply shortages cannot be solved without exploration and development of alternative hydrocarbon power sources, and demand will inexorably increase with world-wide population growth. Ethanol production will fall of its own weight because food demand will cause ethanol to be uneconomic against petroleum sources as prices for corn go up, even with subsidies. Food will take a higher priority, and we may see political pressure to increase subsidies which will be unpopular.

Substantial support for shift in ethanol policy Martin 08 (Andrew, NY Times staff writer, “Fuel Choices, Food Crises and Finger-Pointing,” 5/15, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/business/worldbusiness/15food.html?pagewanted=print) Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he had come to realize that Congress made a mistake in backing biofuels, not anticipating the impact on food costs. He said Congress needed to reconsider its policy, though he acknowledged that would be difficult. “If there was a secret vote, there is a pretty large number of people who would like to reassess what we are doing,” he said.

Politicians shifting to oppose ethanol subsidies Istook 08 (Erest, Former Oklahoma Congressman, Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow, “Ethanol policy threatens to starve the world,” 2/26 http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed022608c.cfm) Some in Congress are repenting of their recent fivefold increase in the ethanol subsidy. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said he now realizes that the new law is a mistake, because Congress did not anticipate the impact on food costs. Congress should reconsider the new law, he suggested.

5/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Impacts - Iran McCain will strike Iran Clemons 08 (Steve, Senior Fellow & Director of the American Strategy Program @ New America Foundation, “John McCain: Maverick Man Who Thinks War With Iran Inevitable,” Huffington Report, 2/4) On Iran and its nuclear program, McCain has been so flippantly bellicose -- singing "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys tune -- that some conservatives have warned that a President McCain would take America to war with Iran. McCain last Sunday said: "There's going to be other wars... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars." Presumably, McCain was suggesting his view that a war with Iran was inevitable. When asked by Joe Scarborough about McCain's statement, Pat Buchanan replied: "That is straight talk... You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we will be at war with Iran." Buchanan said, "That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him," adding, "There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president... His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're going to be in Iraq a hundred years."

Strikes cause Syria to retaliate against Israel with smallpox Corsi 07 (Jerome, citing Jill Bellamy-Dekker, director of the Public Health Preparedness program for the European Homeland Security Association under the French High Committee for Civil Defense “Syria ready with bio-terror if U.S. hits Iran” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54542) An American biodefense analyst living in Europe says if the U.S. invades Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions, Syria is ready to respond with weapons of mass destruction – specifically biological weapons."Syria is positioned to launch a biological attack on Israel or Europe should the U.S. attack Iran," Jill Bellamy-Dekker told WND. "The Syrians are embedding their biological weapons program into their commercial pharmaceuticals business and their veterinary vaccine-research facilities. The intelligence service oversees Syria's 'bio-farm' program and the Ministry of Defense is well interfaced into the effort."Bellamy-Decker currently directs the Public Health Preparedness program for the European Homeland Security Association under the French High Committee for Civil Defense.She anticipates a variation of smallpox is the biological agent Syria would utilize.

The impact outweighs nuclear war Singer 01 (Clifford, professor of nuclear engineering @ U Illinois @ Urbana—Champaign “Will Mankind Survive the Millennium?” http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/research/S&Ps/2001-Sp/S&P_XIII/Singer.htm) In recent years the fear of the apocalypse (or religious hope for it) has been in part a child of the Cold War, but its seeds in Western culture go back to the Black Death and earlier. Recent polls suggest that the majority in the United States that believe man would survive into the future for substantially less than a millennium was about 10 percent higher in the Cold War than afterward. However fear of annihilation of the human species through nuclear warfare was confused with the admittedly terrifying, but much different matter of destruction of a dominant civilization. The destruction of a third or more of much of the globe’s population through the disruption from the direct consequences of nuclear blast and fire damage was certainly possible. There was, and still is, what is now known to be a rather small chance that dust raised by an all-out nuclear war would cause a so-called nuclear winter, substantially reducing agricultural yields especially in temperate regions for a year or more. As noted above mankind as a whole has weathered a number of mind-boggling disasters in the past fifty thousand years even if older cultures or civilizations have sometimes eventually given way to new ones in the process. Moreover the fear that radioactive fallout would make the globe uninhabitable, publicized by widely seen works such as "On the Beach," was a metaphor for the horror of nuclear war rather than reality. The epidemiological lethal results of well over a hundred atmospheric nuclear tests are barely statistically detectable except in immediate fallout plumes. The increase in radiation exposure far from the combatants in even a full scale nuclear exchange at the height of the Cold War would have been modest compared to the variations in natural background radiation doses that have readily been adapted to by a number of human populations. Nor is there any reason to believe that global warming or other insults to our physical environment resulting from currently used technologies will challenge the survival of mankind as a whole beyond what it has already handily survived through the past fifty thousand years.

6/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Impacts - Iran There are, however, two technologies currently under development that may pose a more serious threat to human survival. The first and most immediate is biological warfare combined with genetic engineering. Smallpox is the most fearsome of natural biological warfare agents in existence. By the end of the next decade, global immunity to smallpox will likely be at a low unprecedented since the emergence of this disease in the distant past, while the opportunity for it to spread rapidly across the globe will be at an all time high. In the absence of other complications such as nuclear war near the peak of an epidemic, developed countries may respond with quarantine and vaccination to limit the damage. Otherwise mortality there may match the rate of 30 percent or more expected in unprepared developing countries. With respect to genetic engineering using currently available knowledge and technology, the simple expedient of spreading an ample mixture of coat protein variants could render a vaccination response largely ineffective, but this would otherwise not be expected to substantially increase overall mortality rates. With development of new biological technology, however, there is a possibility that a variety of infectious agents may be engineered for combinations of greater than natural virulence and mortality, rather than just to overwhelm currently available antibiotics or vaccines. There is no a priori known upper limit to the power of this type of technology base, and thus the survival of a globally connected human family may be in question when and if this is achieved.

7/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Impacts – LOST McCain victory means continued opposition to Law of the Sea McCain 08 (John, www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/mccain_would_oppose_law_of_the_sea_treaty) There’s more encouraging news today about mounting Republican opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Sen. John McCain told bloggers this morning that he would oppose the measure if it came to the Senate floor as it currently exists. I’d like to make some changes to it. I think that we need a Law of the Sea. I think it’s important, but I have not frankly looked too carefully at the latest situation as it is, but it would be nice if we had some of the provisions in it. But I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form.

US Ratification key to prevent miscalc & conflict with Russia, New Cold War, and Russian Expansionism Eachus 07 (Ron, Former legislator, Statesman Journal, 9/10 www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070910/COLUMN0703/709100322/1064) The hypothetical Northwest Passage via the Arctic Ocean is becoming a reality as a result of global warming. But the U.S. is at a disadvantage because of its reluctance to join other countries in the one international agreement that can help sort out the ensuing stampede for resources and concurrent need for environmental and cultural protection. It is ironic. Burning fossil fuels triggers accelerated melting of the Arctic ice. The receding ice makes new oil and gas deposits more accessible. The cycle of excessive consumption perpetuates itself and fosters a new "cold war" as Russia, the U.S, Canada and other countries lay claim to the fuel- and mineral-rich sea bed. And here's another irony: Even President Bush, who has utter disregard for treaties to reduce carbon emissions, recognizes that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty is necessary. In 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted rules under which each country is entitled to a 200-nautical-mile economic zone with rights over natural resources. Countries can claim jurisdiction beyond that if they can show that their continental shelf extends further. All Arctic border countries except the U.S. have signed the treaty, putting us on the sidelines when boundaries are negotiated and disputes resolved. We're powerful enough to bully our way around, but we don't have much standing without the treaty. Since 1982, the Arctic sea ice has decreased by nearly 20 percent. And some geologists estimate that nearly 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil lies under the nowmore-accessible Arctic Ocean. Canada asserts the passages through its Arctic archipelago are part of its internal waters. Russia claims that the undersea ridge from the North Pole to Eurasia is a geological extension of its continental shelf. Denmark replies that the end of the same ridge was once part of Greenland, which belongs to them. Russia even sent a mini-sub to the bottom of the ocean floor to stake a symbolic claim with a flag encased in titanium. The vision may be laughable. But Russia takes this seriously. Oil revenues sustained Cold War Russia. The resurgent Russia of today uses oil and gas as a tool for influence over its former Soviet Block states. "The Arctic is ours and we should manifest our presence," the leader of the expedition declared. Forgive the obvious analogy, but the recent spurt of activity is merely the tip of a larger iceberg to be revealed in the future when international tensions can escalate into incidents and accidents. Posturing can easily lead to confrontation. Arctic climate change can lead to greater storms. Oil spills there are harder to clean up. Lost in the territorial fray is the basic question of whether exploitation and extraction of natural resources ultimately will be how we define the Arctic. As harsh as it is, this is a fragile and sensitive part of the Earth. Is the Arctic to become another example of trampling on the environment, disrespect for native cultures, and extinction of native species? Environmental organizations have been supportive of the Law of the Sea Treaty as a way to control access and development. So whether one thinks we should protect the Arctic environment from exploitation or whether one thinks we can't afford to let other countries control the resources, ratifying the treaty gives the U.S. a justifiable seat at the negotiating table. When the Senate considers the treaty this fall, members should ratify it. Leaving the fate of the Arctic up to a colonialism-like free-for-all of territorial claims will only feed an unfettered appetite for consumption and conflict. And shoving the U.S. to the sidelines, where the options are limited to unilateral assertion of power reserved for the mighty, isn't in our interests either.

8/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Impacts – LOST Russian Expansionism Causes Multiple Scenarios for Nuclear War Cohen 96 (Ariel, Heritage Foundation, 1/25, Lexis) Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $ 6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Moreover, it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for peace, world stability, and security. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS, these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors, but also the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. And, of course, a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf. n15 n15 Vladimir Zhirinovsky, mouthpiece for the most irredentist elements in the Russian security and military services, constantly articulates this threat. Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Middle East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and Afganistan will increase. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services, in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult. Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in the early 21 st century. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable, or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modem market economies and free societies. Moreover, if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed, tens of thousands of U.S. and Western jobs would be created. The U.S. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies. In order to protect U.S. and Western interests in Eurasia and ensure free and fair access to the oil reserves of the region, the United States should: * Strive to preserve the independence and economic viability of the New Independent States in the region. In cooperation with Britain, Germany, and France, the U.S. should prevent the reconstitution of Moscow's sphere of influence in the southern CIS. The West should not grant Moscow carte blanche in the "near abroad" in exchange for cooperation in Bosnia. The U.S. should lead other Western countries in implementing programs that support independent statehood, free-market development, and the rule of law in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the Central Asian states. Training for the civil and security services of these countries should be stepped up, and economic reforms, including privatization of industries and agriculture, should be continued. Moreover, sanctions on technical and humanitarian assistance to Azerbaijan, imposed at the height of the Karabakh conflict, should be lifted to increase Washington's leverage in settling the conflict there. * Ensure that Russia is not a dominant, but rather an equal partner in developing the oil resources of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russian oil companies should be assured of equitable access to the development of oil resources and pipeline projects. The strategic goal of the West should be the creation of a level playing field that allows Russian and Western corporations to participate in the development of Eurasian energy resources on an equal footing.

Leads to extinction Bostrom 02 (Nick, PhD @ Oxford University, www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html) A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.

9/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Impacts – Gag Rule Obama will repeal the gag rule – McCain won’t Pollitt 08 (Kathy, CBS News, 6/22, www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/opinion/main4198848.shtml) Are there feminist Hillary Clinton supporters who hate Barack Obama so much they'll vote for John McCain just to show the Democratic Party how ticked off they are? Yes, and I get e-mails from all five of them. Seriously, I'm sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election, but I don't think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane. Let me rephrase that: she would have to believe that the chief — indeed the only — goal of the women's movement is to elect Clinton, not to promote women's rights. A vote for McCain would be the ultimate face-spiting nose-cutoff. Take that, women's equality! Not that the media will help women get it. As Eric Alterman and George Zornick exhaustively document elsewhere in this issue, the mainstream press is doing its best to persuade us that McCain is a moderate -- barely distinguishable from Barack Obama — even on abortion rights, one of the brighter dividing lines between the parties. In the Providence Journal five days after Clinton suspended her campaign, columnist Froma Harrop was typical: "Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade?... The answer is unclear but probably 'no.'" After all, in 1999 he told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that he "would not support repeal" of Roe because women would seek unsafe, illegal procedures. Since the Democrats will control Congress, Harrop figures, "McCain would probably choose a cipher" rather than get bogged down in the abortion wars. This fake shrewdness, buttressed by much use of "probably," "seems," "may" and "my guess is," has as much value as a bet by a drunk in a bar. We all have our hunches — usually they magically line up with our wishes and preferences, in Harrop's case, her support for Clinton. By the end of the column she's castigating Obama for his "present" votes on abortion bills in the Illinois Assembly, and by the time she's finished, you'd never know that NARAL and Planned Parenthood give Obama 100 percent ratings and McCain a big fat zero. How antichoice is John McCain? Let's leave the psychological tea leaves out of it and look at his record. In his four years in the House, from 1983 to 1986, he cast eleven votes on reproductive issues. Ten were antichoice. Of 119 such votes in the Senate, 115 were antichoice, including votes for the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions and for the "gag rule," which refuses funds to clinics abroad that so much as mention abortion. In 1999, the year he said he opposed repeal of Roe on health grounds, he voted against a bill that would have permitted servicewomen overseas, where safe, legal abortion is often unavailable, to pay out of their own pockets for abortions in military hospitals.

Gag rule causes global overpopulation San Gabriel Valley Tribune 05 (7/11, Lexis) Our past efforts have proven very successful: Because of years of hard work by the family-planning and reproductive- health community, total world fertility has declined from six children per woman in the 1960s to fewer than three today. But as the largest youth generation in history enters their reproductive years, our work is far from over. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is doing everything in its power to stifle women's rights and jeopardize the future of our planet. For four years running, President Bush has blocked funds that Congress has appropriated to the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA], the largest supplier of reproductive health-care and family-planning services worldwide. As one of his first acts in office, Bush imposed the Global Gag Rule, which restricts foreign NGOs that receive money from the United States for family-planning services from using their own funds to provide legal abortion services, give counseling or referrals for abortion, or petition their own governments to liberalize restrictive abortion laws. The results of this policy were easy to predict:Clinics are closing in Kenya, and contraceptive supplies have dried up in Ethiopia.

Impact is extinction Otten 01 (Edward, Prof @ U Cincinnati, http://www.ecology.org/biod/population/human_pop1.html) The exponential growth of the human population, making humans the dominant species on the planet, is having a grave impact on biodiversity. This destruction of species by humans will eventually lead to a destruction of the human species through natural selection. While human beings have had an effect for the last 50,000 years, it has only been since the industrial revolution that the impact has been global rather than regional. This global impact is taking place through five primary processes: over harvesting, alien species introduction, pollution, habitat fragmentation, and outright habit

10/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc destruction.

Impacts – Bush Doctrine McCain victory restarts the Bush doctrine and he will strike Iran. Broder 07 (Staff, June 7, Washington Post) The leading Republicans, for their part, very clearly see the risks of failing militarily in Iraq but have offered no ideas other than a continuation of the Bush policies that have lost most of their domestic support. Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney all endorse what is in effect the status quo -- even when asked to suggest a possible alternative or fallback. None of them appears to have heard of the Iraq Study Group suggestions. Meantime, they see nothing wrong with raising the possibility of using a nuclear weapon -- for the first time in more than six decades -- as a bargaining tool in dealing with the ticklish situation in Iran. It is hard to imagine a policy more likely to shift international pressure away from sanctions on Iran and against the United States than talk of using the nuclear weapons in our arsenal against targets in that part of the world. Sure, they say nukes would be a last resort, but they seem remarkably sanguine about brandishing them.

Bush doctrine causes Indo-Pak war and a Taiwanese invasion. Fetzer 02 (www.assassinationscience.com/domination.pdf) A policy of preemption is not only morally corrupt but inherently destabilizing. As I observed in Reader Weekly (19 September 2002), embracing first strikes encourages attacks upon your enemy for perceived threats, real or imagined. Unlike our policies of the past, according to which the US would attack you only if you attacked us first, this new approach functions as an incentive to use 'em or lose 'em. It will inevitably encourage Pakistan to attack India, China to attack Taiwan, North Korea its southern neighbor, and--most conspicuously--Iraq to attack US forces in the Middle East.

Indo/Pak war causes extinction. Fai 01 (Executive Director of the Washington-based Kashmiri American Council. http://pakistanlink.com/Letters/2001/July/13/05.html ) The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.

And so does a Taiwanese war. Johnson 01 (The Nation. 5-14) China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China's

11/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc borders have virtually no deterrent effect.

12/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

AT – One Issue = No Impact Ethanol subsidies are key to the election Istook 07 (Ernest, Former Oklahoma Congressman, Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow, “Ethanol policy – what a turkey,” 12/1, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=44840) On the other hand, ethanol has a big and successful lobby. Having its champion state, Iowa, as the first place to hold a presidential contest also discourages contenders from picking a fight against ethanol.

13/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

AT – Base Link Turn/Plan Unpopular with Right No base support now -(a) Grassroots conservatives oppose and they are key. Bozell 3-15 (Wash Post) The conservative talk-show community? Don't mind them — they're irrelevant. This message from John McCain surrogates and other members of the political class is filling the airwaves and op-ed pages. In the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes recently wrote that McCain needn't worry that conservatives are uncomfortable with his candidacy, because "while they love to grumble and grouse, conservatives tend to be loyal Republicans who wind up voting for their party's candidate." In the same pages, novelist Mark Helprin, a former adviser to Bob Dole's presidential campaign, savaged conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin for daring to speak out against McCain. "Rather than playing recklessly with electoral politics by sabotaging their own party," he wrote, "each of these compulsive talkers might be a tad less self-righteous, look to the long run, discipline himself, suck it up, and be a man." I know the conservative movement. I've been in the trenches fighting for an alphabet soup of conservative causes for 30 years. I've raised hundreds of millions of dollars for it. And I earnestly hope that McCain isn't listening to the advice he's getting from these folks. Their thinking betrays a fundamental misreading of the conservative pulse in America today. Conservative leaders, particularly those in talk radio, cannot and will not be silent. They will not betray their principles and their audiences. Tens of millions of activists turn to them for guidance. These activists could be, and need to be, McCain's ground troops, but unless and until conservatives believe him — and believe in him — they will not work for his election. McCain may have the Beltway crowd in his corner, but grass-roots conservatives aren't sold. Yet through his surrogates, McCain is attacking these leaders. This is beyond folly. It is political suicide.

(B) Exit polls & evangelicals. Sheinn 3-2 (Atlanta Journal Constitution) Some conservatives' anger toward McCain lingers. A recent report from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 78 percent of white, born-again Protestants voted for George W. Bush over Democrat John Kerry in 2004. But, wrote John Green, Pew's senior fellow in religion and American politics, McCain "may have some trouble achieving that level of support from white evangelicals given that a majority of them preferred other candidates in the primaries." If the race is close, a drop in support from such a key component of the Republican base could be damaging. Exit polls taken from the Georgia primary give McCain reason for concern. He lost badly to Huckabee, and in some cases to third-place finisher Romney, among those who identified themselves as either somewhat conservative or very conservative. Among Republican voters who said they chose a candidate who shares their values, McCain got 15 percent, compared with 51 percent for Huckabee and 31 percent for Romney.

Swing voters more important. MSNBC 3-5 The president has already said that McCain is a true conservative and pledged to campaign for him. White House political officials acknowledge that Bush's unpopularity with moderates and independents -- the swing voters McCain would need to win in November -- makes the embrace tricky. Better to do it early and get it over with. And Bush remains popular with the Republican base, so the president can help with party unity and raise money.

14/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

No – Obama Obama won’t win – McCain has better voter turnout McNerney 07/21 (Tracey, “Obama leads McCain by Nine Points Among Registered Voters.” Harris Interactive) John McCain is holding onto just slightly more of his base as just over three-quarters of Republicans (77%) say they will vote for him versus just under three-quarters of Democrats (74%) who will vote for Barack Obama; and, -- Among Independents, Obama has a 12-point lead (38% to 26%), but one-quarter of Independents (25%) are not sure, 4 percent would vote for Bob Barr and 3 percent for Ralph Nader. These are some of the results of a Harris Poll of 2,690 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive(R) between July 3 and 11, 2008. Like all polls conducted well before an election, this should not be read as a prediction, but rather as a snap shot of the presidential "horse race". Additional results include: -- Half of Matures (those over 63) say they would vote for John McCain, while three in ten (29%) would vote for Senator Obama, indicating that some of McCain's strongest support comes from this generation; -- Half (51%) of the youngest generation or Echo Boomers (those aged 18-31) would vote for Barack Obama while just one-quarter (24%) would vote for Senator McCain; -- Ninety percent of African Americans are voting for Senator Obama, as are six in ten Hispanics (60%). Whites, however, are leaning towards Senator McCain over Senator Obama (40% versus 34%); -- Over two in five men (42%) and women (43%) say they would vote for Senator Obama, while over one-third of men (36%) and three in ten women (30%) would vote for Senator McCain. This suggests that the gender gap doesn't really exist this year; and, -- Half of single women (51%) would vote for Senator Obama while just one-quarter (25%) would vote for Senator McCain. Married women are more closely divided - 37 percent would vote for Obama and 36 percent would vote for McCain. So What? While Americans are thinking of summer vacations and the beach, November 4th may seem like eons away. However, in reality, the election is just 15 weeks from now. That means that everything from this point on in time definitely matters. Regina Corso, Director of The Harris Poll, said, "Senator Obama's lead seems solid, but there are some troubling spots to watch for in his campaign. First, Matures are solidly behind John McCain, and this is a group that goes out and votes in the strongest numbers among all age groups. Further, the divide among married women is also extremely close. With almost one-quarter of this group (22%) undecided, the candidate that can win the lion's share of those undecided Americans can move these overall numbers."

McCain leads in polls – Iraq Bash 07/22 (Dana, “With spotlight on Obama, McCain steps up attacks,” CNN) McCain's campaign is doing what it can to keep Obama from using the overseas trip to burnish his foreign policy credentials. As Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki discussed a general time frame for troop withdrawal on Monday, McCain was quick to point to the surge as the reason for progress on the ground. "When you win wars, troops come home -- and we are winning. And the fact is that if we had done what Sen. Obama wanted to do, we would have lost, and we would have faced a wider war," McCain said Monday as he campaigned in Kennebunkport, Maine, with former President George H.W. Bush. Watch McCain criticize Obama's trip McCain aides are trying to protect one of the few areas where the GOP candidate does better in polls than Obama -- the ability to be commander in chief. According to an ABC News/The Washington Post poll, 72 percent think McCain would be a good commander in chief, while less than half -- 48 percent -- say Obama would.

15/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Link Turns – Ethanol Plan unpopular – ethanol subsidies have bipartisan backing Istook 08 (Ernest, Former Oklahoma Congressman, Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow, “Ethanol: The political fuel,” http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed041808b.cfm) Ethanol decisions have always been based mostly on politics, not economics. What began as a farm subsidy has been an American success story – of political maneuvering. The money from taxpayer subsidies was plowed back into the hiring of more lobbyists and clout in Washington, plus campaign contributions for friends. This enabled a push for larger subsidies, which provided the means to hire more lobbyists, more clout and make larger contributions, and so forth. Starting with incentives created in 1978 after the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. subsidy grew to $3.75 billion a year, until last December's new energy law raised it fivefold to over $18 billion (51 cents a gallon for 36 billion gallons of ethanol). The subsidy effort has been strongly bipartisan. Congressional leaders of both parties have gladly raked in cash from the ethanol lobby. The primacy of Iowa's caucus for picking a president also cowed many candidates into backing ethanol, lest they lose votes in that major corn-growing state. Until now, those who spoke against ethanol were often accused of suspect motives themselves. The pro-ethanol Renewable Fuels Association expressed prompt outrage at a speaker who told last week's International Oil Summit in Paris: Staple food crops such as soybeans, sugar and corn are being produced not to feed humans but to fuel cars, trucks and now even airplanes. As a result, the price of food has been soaring; for example, corn prices went from under $2 per bushel in 2005 to $6 in 2008 and rising. But despite the ethanol boom, petroleum prices remain high and energy consumers are no more secure than they were before.... biofuel production is not contributing positively to environmental protection, nor is it reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases as anticipated. In fact, the opposite might be the case. Forests in many parts of the world, which play a major role in reducing CO2 by acting as carbon sinks, are being cleared to produce biofuel crops, which have a far smaller capacity to absorb carbon. Who said that? It was Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali Al-Naimi. But so long as ethanol requires a 51-cents a gallon subsidy (which is $28 a barrel) just to compete with $113 a barrel oil, there's little prospect that the Saudis are afraid of the competition. The ethanol lobby generates far more power in Washington than it does on the nation's highways. Compared to Saudi oil, its energy production remains a drop in the barrel.

Plan is unpopular – Congress wants to please ethanol lobbies Grunwald 08 (Michael, TIME Senior Correspondent, “The Clean Energy Scam,” http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1725975,00.html) The best place to see this is America's biofuel mecca: Iowa. Last year fewer than 2% of U.S. gas stations offered ethanol, and the country produced 7 billion gal. (26.5 billion L) of biofuel, which cost taxpayers at least $8 billion in subsidies. But on Nov. 6, at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled an eye-popping plan that would require all stations to offer ethanol by 2017 while mandating 60 billion gal. (227 billion L) by 2030. "This is the fuel for a much brighter future!" she declared. Barack Obama immediately criticized her--not for proposing such an expansive plan but for failing to support ethanol before she started trolling for votes in Iowa's caucuses. If biofuels are the new dotcoms, Iowa is Silicon Valley, with 53,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in income dependent on the industry. The state has so many ethanol distilleries under construction that it's poised to become a net importer of corn. That's why biofuel-pandering has become virtually mandatory for presidential contenders. John McCain was the rare candidate who vehemently opposed ethanol as an outrageous agribusiness boondoggle, which is why he skipped Iowa in 2000. But McCain learned his lesson in time for this year's caucuses. By 2006 he was calling ethanol a "vital alternative energy source." Members of Congress love biofuels too, not only because so many dream about future Iowa caucuses but also because so few want to offend the farm lobby, the most powerful force behind biofuels on Capitol Hill. Ethanol isn't about just Iowa or even the Midwest anymore. Plants are under construction in New York, Georgia, Oregon and Texas, and the ethanol boom's effect on prices has helped lift farm incomes to record levels nationwide.

16/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Link Turns – Ethanol Ethanol lobby control Congress Moore 97 (Stephen, CATO Institute Senior Fellow, “Push Ethanol Off the Dole,” 7/10, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6123) Yet even after ethanol has siphoned $7 billion from the federal treasury, the mighty ethanol subsidies still flow. Why? Ethanol’s survival has nothing to do with economics or the environment and everything to do with political muscle. Almost 70 percent of ethanol is produced by America's premier agri-giant, Archer Daniels Midland. ADM, the selfproclaimed "supermarket to the world," has spent a small fortune on farming Capitol Hill over the past 20 years. Through programs like ethanol and sugar price supports, it has reaped a profitable harvest from taxpayers. In fact, an estimated 40 percent of ADM’s profits come from government-subsidized products.

Ethanol lobby entrenches Congress Istook 08 (Ernest, Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow, “Ethanol policy threatens to starve the world,” 2/26, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed022608c.cfm) Ending the subsidy is easier said than done, of course. As the New York Times has noted, the ethanol lobby is now "an entrenched political force." Years of multi-billion dollar subsidies have turned a small group into a wealthy and effective lobby on Capitol Hill. Washington should give an ear to some common sense instead. But expecting that to happen may be just plain ... corny.

17/18

Arizona Debate Institute 2008

Fellows

Elections11474909.doc

Other Issues Key Other issues affect elections: (1) Economy Fram 08 (Alan, “Poll: Economy top issue; energy worries grow most,” 7/23, mlive.com) The economy is the nation's top concern by far, but anxiety about energy has grown more since spring than any other issue while the focus on Iraq continues to fade, according to a poll released Wednesday. The findings by the Associated Press-Ipsos poll provide the latest confirmation of how economic woes -- including job losses, rising inflation and the ailing financial and housing markets -- are dominating voters' worries as this fall's presidential election approaches.

(2) Health care Borosage 08 (Robert L., President of the Institute for America’s Future, “Your Health Care May Decide The 2008 Election,” 6/22, Huffington Post) In this assessment, I suspect that one issue, seldom mentioned now, is going to matter a great deal by November. Iraq will be big no doubt; the economy bigger. But health care may just be the pothole that cracks up McCain's Straight Talk express. People worry a lot about affording health care. Workers accept lower wages with employers that offer health care. They hang onto lousy jobs to keep their health care. Most labor negotiations and disputes center largely on the costs of health care. On this issue, attention is paid over kitchen tables across the country.

(3) Foreign Policy – Middle East Benn 08 (Aluf, “The Obama show lands in Israel,” 06/24, Salon.com) As expected, Obama has said all the right things in terms of what the Israeli establishment wants to hear. Like any other American politician, he repeated his commitment to Israel's security and its special relationship with the United States, condemned terrorism, and pledged to prevent the Iranian nuclear threat. But while acknowledging his charm, his Israeli interlocutors seem to sense that Obama is not proficient in the nitty-gritty of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking and does not expect any quick breakthrough toward peace. Clearly, he has more pressing issues on his foreign policy agenda; Israel's problems are way down his list, after Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and the economy and energy reform back home.

18/18