387 CM Politics Updates 1

Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>

Toby Tobs, Abby Abs, Adit
Politics Updates
POLITICS UPDATES 1
TURNS CASE
PROLFERATION 5
HEGEMONY 7
COMPETITIVENESS 8
NATIVES 10
NATIVES 12
NATIVES 13
CLIMATE 15
CLIMATE 16
CLIMATE 17
RIGHTS 18
RIGHTS 19
ECONOMY 21
ECONOMY 22
ECONOMY 23
UNIQUENSS
UNIQUENESS – OBAMA WIN NOW 29
UNIQUENESS ‐ OBAMA WILL WIN 30
I’m asking you to believe in not just my ability to bring change to Washington…I’m asking you to believe in yours”-Barack Obama 1
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
UNIQUENESS – OBAMA WILL WIN 31
UNIQUENESS – OBAMA WILL WIN 32
UNIQUENESS – MCCAIN WILL WIN 33
UNIQUENESS – MCCAIN WILL WIN 34
****LINK**** 35
IMPACTS
MCCAIN  DICTATORSHIP 40
MCCAIN WILL WIN ALWAYS 41
ENERGY KEY TO MCCAIN 42
OBAMA NUCLEAR 43
MCCAIN  NUCLEAR 44
MCCAIN  NOKO STRIKES 45
NOKO STRIKES  NUKE WAR 46
LOST GOOD – HEG 50
LOST GOOD – ENVIRO 51
MCCAIN  NUKE WAR 52
OFFSHORE DRILLING MODULE 53
MCCAIN  CAUCASUS INSTABILITY 55
MCCAIN  CAUCASUS INSTABILITY 56
CAUCASUS KEY TO US‐RUSSIA RELATIONS 57
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
CAUCASUS CONFLICT  NUKE WAR 58
ANSWERS TO
AT: INTRINSICNESS 60
AT DOESN’T ESCALATE 61
AT MCCAIN WONT STRIKE 62
AT OBAMA STRIKES 63
AT ISRAEL STRIKES 64
ISRAEL STRIKES EXTENSIONS 65
AT OBAMA=WITHDRAWAL 66
AT SPACE WEAPONS 67
AT NMD 69
NMD EXTENSIONS 70
AT SOFTPOWER 72
AT RUSSIA ADD ONS 73
AT NASA NOT PERCEIVED 74
AT SUPREME COMMANDER 74
AT CATCHING UP 74
PREZ POWERS IMPACT SCENARIO 75
PREZ POWERS IMPACT SCENARIO 76
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
****TURNS CASE****
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Prolferation
Obama is the ONLY way to stop nuclear proliferation
The Independent, 8/27/07, the only way to stop nuclear proliferation, lexis [adit]
These scattered stories are all fever-symptoms of the second nuclear age. In the first nuclear age, the Cold War, two
power blocks faced each other, eyeball-to-eyeball, with a doctrine, however hellish, regulating their use of nukes:
mutually assured destruction. You fire, we'll fire, and then we'll all die. Today, that world - with its mad MAD
doctrine - is gone, and the odds of a nuclear weapon being used are swelling.
In the second nuclear age, we have mini-cold wars spreading across the world's hot-spots. India vs
Pakistan. Israel vs (soon) Iran. North Korea vs the US (over Japan). And - back from the dead - the US
vs Russia. Yet this time there are no hot-lines, no agreements not to fire first, and barely any plans to defuse the
stand-offs, just 27,000 nuclear weapons, each one 70 times more powerful than the bomb
dropped on Hiroshima. Some scientists suggest it would take less than 5 per cent of this arsenal to
trigger a global nuclear winter.
Before he was assassinated, president John Kennedy foresaw the world we are now living in. He said: "I ask you to
stop and think for a moment what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in so many hands, in the hands of countries
large and small, stable and unstable, responsible and irresponsible, scattered throughout the world. There would be no
rest for anyone then, no stability, no real security. There would be only the increased chance of [nuclear] war."
So how do we get out of this radioactive cul-de-sac? Kennedy had an idea. He ran in 1960 as a nuclear hawk,
baiting Republican president Dwight Eisenhower from the right by falsely claiming he had allowed a "missile gap" to
develop between the Soviet Union and the US. Then - in the Cuban missile crisis - he came within inches of
overseeing a nuclear holocaust. After that, he declared: "The weapons of [nuclear] war must be abolished, before
they abolish us."
He proposed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) based on a simple bargain. The countries that
already had nuclear weapons would agree to slowly disarm in lockstep, and in return the countries without weapons
would agree not to tool up. The treaty was eventually signed, after his death, in 1968.
It is still the best route out of our current nuclear crises - yet the NPT is being used as toilet-paper by the
world's leaders. The Bush administration, for example, has ignored both parts of the bargain: it has
buffed up its own arsenal instead of reducing it, and it has recognised and rewarded other countries for proliferation.
That's what the current row in India is about. The US is proposing to reward India for becoming a nuclear power,
offering it nuclear materials and other goodies. The Communist members in the Indian coalition are refusing, and are
prepared to bring down the government.
The UN High Level Panel on Threats recently warned about where we're headed: "We are approaching a
point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and
result in a cascade of proliferation." Most of us have been inert in response. The old mass movements for
upholding the NPT have largely melted away.
Yet - for the first time in a long time - there has been an almost-unnoticed flash of hope on this
issue from the US. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was recently attacked for making a "gaffe"
after he said he wouldn't, as president, use nuclear weapons against civilians. (Ah, such "political immaturity"). But
instead of backing down, he raised the stakes, announcing: "Here's what I'll say as president: America
seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons."
He pledged to "strengthen the NPT", take US missiles off hair-trigger alert, and multilaterally make mighty
cuts in the US nuclear arsenal "to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse".
In other words, Obama wants the bargain Kennedy proposed to be brought back to life. The
developments in North Korea suggest his preferred strategy - diplomacy - might work. A fortnight ago, Kim Jong Il
agreed to disable his main nuclear complex at Yongbyon and declare all his nuclear activities by the end of the year.
He has been dragged to this point by a combination of sanctions and bribes by all the world's major powers, who are
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
unusually united. It's hard to be totally optimistic: Kim made deals in the past, only to see them break down. But it
suggests that sustained anathemetising of proliferation may bear results.
Many of the people who oppose the Cheney-Giuliani plans to bomb Iran think this is simply a matter of waiting for the
internal Iranian opposition to depose the Holocaust-denying thug Ahmadinejad. But this ignores a simple fact: most Iranians
want nuclear weapons, according to every opinion poll. It's desirable for the Iranian people to ditch Ahmadinejad for lots of
reasons - but it isn't a non-proliferation strategy, unless he is replaced by somebody even more
dictatorial.
No; the only long-term way to drag Iran away from the nuclear path is to change the minds of the
Iranian people themselves. In a Bushian world where all the major powers, including Britain, wave their own
nuclear weapons as virility symbols, that is impossible. In an Obaman world where the existing nuclear
powers were dismantling much of their arsenals, it could - just - be done.
And if the sanctions and threats and carrots all still failed? If Kim and Ahmadinejad's successors insisted, after all, on
tooling up? A denuclearising world could - as an absolutely last resort - justify taking military action to prevent other
countries going nuclear. But today, to go to war to uphold the NPT would be a sick joke, when the
world's leaders are all blatantly burning it themselves - and ramping up the risks of the
second nuclear age.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Hegemony
Bush’s politics have caused the phase of American declinism

Peter Howard, PhD from SIS in International security, with a focus on US Foreign Policy, 7/30/08
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-and-end-of-hegemonic-declinism.html
Its hard to miss the prevailing idea that American hegemony is in a precipitous decline. Earlier this
year, Parag Khanna was “Waving Goodbye to Hegemony” in a New York Times Magazine cover story. In Foreign Affairs,
Fareed Zakaria recently argued that America needs fundamental reform if it is to avoid a precipitous fall from grace. There
have been countless discussions of the “rise of China,” and a resurgent Europe and the loss of
America’s edge—even NBA stars are crossing the pond for more lucrative deals in Euros! In the current World Affairs,
Robert Lieber attacks the current phase of “American Declinism,” tracing it to a general malaise
about American politics. Declinism, he writes, has “a political subtext” and theories of America’s
decline “function as ideology by other means,” with “much of today’s resurgent declinism…
propelled not only by arguments over real-world events, but also by a fierce reaction against the Bush
presidency.” There is no doubt about the underlying political subtext, with a vast majority of Americans dissatisfied with
the direction of the country. In recent polls, over 80% of respondents say that the country is on the “wrong
track,” a level of dissatisfaction not seen since the early 1990’s. Not coincidentally, Lieber identifies that as the
previous period of rampant declinism. Lieber boils down the declinist project to its essence:
With impressive detail and more than a hint of condescension, the new declinists mine this data to make the case for an
America in jeopardy—watching helplessly as its global power crumbles away. The solution: a more “realistic” America that
lowers its sights and shifts course at home and abroad in line with the new realities.
Zakaria is a case in point. He calls for the US to adapt its policies to accommodate the “rise of the rest” but laments that “The
U.S. political system has lost the ability to accept some pain now for great gain later on.”
Obama is key to end the decline in US hegemony

Peter Howard, PhD from SIS in International security, with a focus on US Foreign Policy, 7/30/08
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-and-end-of-hegemonic-declinism.html
Obama, however, seems uniquely poised to both capitalize on this moment politically, as well as
renew American hegemony. His message of Hope and Change has stirred a deep sense of political awakening,
especially among younger voters who were previously alienated from politics over the past 8 years. His world tour,
culminating in a speech with a crowd exceeding 200,000 in Berlin, revealed the potential to
reassert America’s social purpose as leader of the international order. Indeed, as a number of
commentators pointed out, as President, the things that Obama will have to say to the Germans won’t differ all that much
from what the Bush Administration is saying. But how he says it, how he presents it, will change. Rather than present
an American mission, Obama looks to present a global mission of multilateralism in service of
shared values. While the resulting actions may look similar (ie, more troops in Afghanistan), the social purpose those
actions serve will be significantly different. The significant difference will be the upholding of the international order instead
of the decaying of that order creating the political space for resistance and challenge.
Thus, Obama’s message of hope and change, of a renewal of American politics, offers more than
just a pathway from the current “wrong track” malaise gripping the country. At its height, it offers a
renewal of America’s sense of social purpose, both at home and globally, and it is that renewal of
social purpose that can arrest the very real sense of decline in the present hegemonic order.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Competitiveness
Obama is uniquely key to promote US competiveness--McCain will maintain

harmful Bush policy
Mark Halperin was named editor-at-large and senior political analyst for TIME , Obama Camp Memo on Flint,
Michigan Competitiveness Speech, 6/16/08, http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-flint-michigan-
competitiveness-speech/
Senator Obama will spend the week discussing his plans to make America more competitive for the 21st century’s
global economy. In his speech today, Obama will lay out his comprehensive national competitiveness agenda,
including his plans to improve our education system, achieve energy security, encourage
innovation, rebuild our infrastructure, and pursue smart trade policies so that we create the
jobs of the future here in America.
Meanwhile, John McCain will not be holding a fundraiser with Texas oilman Clayton Williams after all. Williams,
you may recall, made a deeply offensive sexual comment while running against Ann Richards in 1990. The McCain
campaign has refused to return the money Williams raised—and despite initially telling press they were cancelling the
event, the campaign has rescheduled it for later this summer. That’s an interesting stand to take as they ramp up their
efforts to win over women voters.
John McCain will continue in the mold of Bush economic policies and hinder our
competitiveness
Instead of reaching for new horizons, George Bush has put us in a hole, and John McCain’s policies will
keep us there. Barack Obama doesn’t think that America should shrink from the challenge of
globalization, and we shouldn’t fall back on Senator McCain’s faith in the tried and failed approaches of George
Bush.
It’s time for a new direction that creates the jobs and opportunity of the future—a
competitiveness agenda built upon an improved education system, investments in energy,
innovation and infrastructure and a commitment to fiscal responsibility and fair trade.
The Obama Competitiveness Agenda:
A commitment to world-class education from birth through college. Obama will implement a Zero
to Five Early Education Plan to support young children and their parents and institute a grant program to help fund
states’ early education programs and move toward universal preschool. He’ll reform No Child Left Behind, improving
the assessments and accountability mechanisms to support our schools instead of punishing them—and he’ll finally
fund the program at adequate levels. Obama will reward teachers with higher salaries, and he’ll make college
affordable for all Americans by creating a tax credit for the first $4,000 of college—asking recipients of the
credit to give back by performing public service.
An energy policy that reduces our dependence on oil and gas, and creates millions of new
green jobs. Barack Obama will invest in a clean energy economy and create 5 million new green jobs by investing
$150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels, promote renewable energy and low-emissions
coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. He’ll invest in federal job training programs for clean
technologies and create an energy-focused youth jobs program to help disadvantaged young people. Obama will
create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard which has the potential to create hundreds of
thousands of new jobs, and he’ll extend the Production Tax Credit to increase renewable energy production and
create new local jobs.
An innovation agenda that increases R&D, supports start-ups and small businesses, cuts the
cost of health care, and provides broadband access to every American. Barack Obama will double
federal funding for basic research and make the Research and Development tax credit permanent. He’ll deploy next-
generation broadband to every American community, and he’ll protect the openness of the Internet by forbidding
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
providers from charging more for certain content. That will ensure that the new competitors have equal
opportunity to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences.
Strengthen our transportation infrastructure and invest in the creation of millions of new jobs. Barack Obama will
create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance federal transportation
investments. This Bank will use an infusion of new funding to provide financing to critical transportation
infrastructure projects across the country. When it comes to manufacturing, Obama’s energy plan will invest
in America’s highly skilled manufacturing workforce to retool for the production of green
technologies. He’ll provide assistance for our domestic auto industry, and create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund
to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies.
Insist on strong and smart trade. Obama will use trade agreements to spread good
labor and
environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements that fail to
live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will take trade enforcement seriously,
increasing resources for the USTR so it can carry out its responsibilities properly. Lastly, he’ll
update our copyright and patent systems to promote innovation and investment, while
protecting property owners, and ensure that intellectual property is protected in foreign
markets to help us compete globally.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Natives
Mccain hates native americans
ACSA, The ACSA is the world's largest computer science foundation with some 9.5 million registered members, and
15,000 sponsoring companies, Advances Magazine – 2/5/2008 http://acsa2000.net/cain2004.org/Dine-Navajo-
PressRelease.htm [adit]
A public research website: http://www.cain2008.org has brought together diverse historical
elements of factual proof that Senator John McCain's was the key "point man" introducing,
enacting and enforcing law that removed Dineh-Navajo Families from their reservation on the
Black Mesa in Arizona. The McCain revised law relocated them to Church's Hill, Nevada (a
Nuclear Waste Superfund Site, called "the New Lands" in PL 93-531). The Dineh-Navajo, a deeply spiritual
and peaceful people, engaged in only peaceful resistance to being moved off lands they'd owned since 1500 A.D.
Nonetheless, the Public Press and UN depicted brutalization, rights deprivation and forcible relocation.
According to the website (and the United Nations studies) a small band of Indians claiming to be of the "Hopi-
Navajo" band (an impossibility as Hopi is the parent culture of all Indian tribes), consisting of 3-5 local Arizona
individuals assembled originally by Kennecott attorney John Boyden, Esq (Kennecott is a predecessor owner of the
Peabody Western Group) and Congressman Wayne Owens, progressively laid claim to more and more of the lands
actually owned by the "Dineh-Navaho" and subsequently offered the "Dineh's" coal rights to Peabody Western Group
at nominal cost, while laws enacted by McCain, the Senate and signed into law, forced the
relocation of the Dineh-Navajo. Senator McCain and his predecessors introduced
legislation (S1973-1 and S.1003) which they claimed were justified by what has turned out to be a
non-existent range war between the Dineh (mainly consisting of grandfathers and grandmothers in their
70's living on farmlands that had belonged to their tribe since 1500 AD) and the Hopi (the 3-5 individuals rapidly
assembled to assist Peabody Western Group by Senator McCain, Congressman Owens and John
Boyden). Subsequently, as the Dineh were removed from their farms by the "Relocation Commission" authorized by
the US Senate at the behest of the revisions to the Public Law 93-531 introduced as S.1973-1 (1996 Partition) and
S.1003 (2001 and 2005 accelerated removal of the Dineh by amendment) by Senator McCain, expanded Coal
Mining Rights to their lands were granted to Peabody Western who with Bechtel Corp, have
been mining the lands formerly occupied by the Dineh, and piping the coal to the Mohave
Generating Station in Nevada, which serves the Las Vegas and Reno areas power needs. A
map of the Mining and Piping operations are found depicted below. Not that long ago, the United Nations performed
a Human Rights Investigation of the forced Navajo resettlement from Arizona to Nevada, under Special Rapporteur
A. Amor. A law revised and submitted to Congress by Senator John McCain and others before him was determined to
be the root cause of violations, which after ratification by President Clinton in 1999 during a globally publicized sit in
by Songstress Julia Butterfly Hill at Big Mountain, Arizona. The enactment led to the removal of the
Dineh band of Navajo from the Black Mesa to free the lands up to mining, and could lead to
relocation of the Dineh-Navaho from Big Mountain, all based on a tissue of deceit, false
claims of prior ownership by a small group of paid Arizona locals of Indian descent led by
one Wayne Taylor, working for McCain and Peabody. To quote the UN website "The Black Mesa
region in Arizona, USA is home to the indigenous communities of the Dineh (Navajo) and Hopi peoples. This
region also contains major deposits of coal which are being extracted by North America's
largest strip mining operation. The coal mines have had a major impact on families in the
region. Local water sources have been poisoned, resulting in the death of livestock. Homes
near the mines suffer from blasting damage. The coal dust is pervasive, as well as smoke
from frequent fires in the stockpiles. Not coincidentally, the people in the area have an unusually
high incidence of kidney and respiratory disease. " "The Dineh (otherwise known as Navajo) were
stripped of all land title and forced to relocate. Their land was turned over to the coal companies
without making any provisions to protect the burial or sacred sites that would be destroyed
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
by the mines. People whose lives were based in their deep spiritual and life-giving
relationship with the land were relocated into cities, often without compensation, forbidden
to return to the land that their families had occupied for generations. People became
homeless with significant increases in alcoholism, suicide, family break up, emotional abuse
and death.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Natives
Mccain has denied rights to Native americans
ACSA, The ACSA is the world's largest computer science foundation with some 9.5 million registered members, and
15,000 sponsoring companies, Advances Magazine – 2/5/2008 http://acsa2000.net/cain2004.org/Dine-Navajo-
PressRelease.htm [adit]
Within the legal maneuverings of Senator McCain, the non-existent tribal counsel, called: the
"Hopi-Navajo Counsel", made up of Peabody Group proxies of local Kayenta, Arizona area origin, surfaced false
claims of prior ownership and eminent domain, and then successfully testified before the
Senate (the Dineh were not invited to testify about their own fate before the Senate by Senator McCain, leading to a
hue and cry in 1999) and demanded the removal of the rightful landowners, the Dineh-Navajo,
claiming "encroachment on lands granted us by President Chester A. Arthur." They demand
completion of the removal of the Dineh-Navaho from the Black Mesa and Big Mountain. Or
course, as it turns out, the term "Hopi" refers to all Indians everywhere in the USA, and not any
single tribal unit. The testimony by alleged "Hopis" from Arizona who count in number
some five individuals, has with the help of Senator McCain, managed to testify at every
hearing without the Senate every once questioning whether such a tribe exists, or whether it
has rights to the territories which, now with many of the Dineh-Navajo having been forcibly
removed, some 25,000 families and growing, are now being mined by Peabody Group in
Black Mesa, with its sights set on Big Mountain. For an example of testimony by the fake Hopi tribal
counsel: leader Wayne Taylor, at Senate Hearings on the forcible resettlement of the Dineh Navajo, tried to claim
encroachment of lands he claimed "were occupied by our people for 1000 years", falsely alleging that the Navajo were
relative newcomers. The claims are historical falsehoods, as the Navajo and all Indian Tribes of America are sub-units
of the overall Hopi, which term refers to all Indian Tribes. (see Wayne Taylor's statement before the Senate:
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411336)
The behavior by Senator John McCain in manipulating the laws and circumstances of this
horrific affair is pervasively criminal, in the ACSA's opinion, and also quite worthy of the prosecution and
incarceration of Senator McCain, and his associates in sponsorship of the bills, the proxy Hopi "wooden
indians" bought and paid for by McCain and Peabody, and the profiteering from the coal
mining of the Black Mesa, for Criminal Fraud, Conspiracy and Misconduct of Office. ACSA
would further not be in a position to hand McCain any endorsement in his Presidential run,
we opine and consider his election, the election of a known criminal, would ultimately
damage the United States in ways as of yet not conceived.
Obama will provide assistance for natives

New York Times, 5/19/08 http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/obama-adopted-by-native-americans/
“Few have been ignored by Washington for as long as native Americans – the first Americans,”
said Mr. Obama, telling this crowd that he intended to appoint a Native American adviser to his
highest ranks of his administration if he wins. He also vowed to improve the health care and
education opportunities on reservations across the nation.
“I understand the tragic history,” Mr. Obama said, addressing tribal leaders and members. “Our
government has not always been honest or truthful in our deals.”
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Natives
Mccain has spearheaded illegal policies that brutalized natives for
decades
Cain2008.org created and maintained by the Canaanite Independent Political Committee (CIPC), a Political Party
organized to bring to the public attention the depraved enactments of Senator John McCain against the Arizona Dineh-
Navajo, by individuals with a conscience, so that those who died at his hand will not be forgotten. 2008
http://www.cain2008.org/
The Navajo Resettlement has led to the deaths of thousands of elders and mass radiation
based deformities among newborn Navajo children and youngsters who are forced to play
on land littered with Uranium Tailings. The accompanying thuggery and theft of property, fencing out
of rangelands, cattle seizures, water well cappings and beatings and other indignity has led
to the death of thousands of elder grandfathers and mothers of the Navajo Di'neh Nation, a
birth defect rate twice the national average has led to UN & EU condemnations! Navajo are full
US citizens! The environmental devastation around the mines, through brutal strip mining
operations, open explosives runs, and "grim reaper" steam shovels has transformed the
magnificent territories of the Dineh into a Hell-like scar on earth, the water level in the
region is reduced by 4 feet per year as the not-lawful steam slurry pipes pipe powdered coal
and steam hundreds of miles to Mohave, just to "light up the strip" in Las Vegas and Reno,
where energy wastefulness abounds: leaving leakage and residue in the environment poisoning the lands and people in
their vicinity. Coal dust blasted from the mines as well. A Video, "VANISHING PRAYER", provides a more vivid
view of the plight of the Di'neh-Navaho. Click one of these links (ABOVE) for a version that plays in media player!
Senator McCain has brutally pursued continuous victimization of the Navajo for decades. Read this 2006 article
where he vigorously moved to interdict efforts by the Dineh-Navajo to protect families effected tragically by the
forcible resettlement, trying to freeze out their own relief efforts. He frequently resorts to legal trickery
before the Senate by bringing a tiny, falsely registered "Hopi" tribal council to testify at
Senate hearings who repeatedly give perjures testimony in efforts to fraudulently seize land
rights away from their rightful Indian landholders, lands atop the intended Coal thefts. The
Dineh have never been given a full hearing, and their identities have been forged by Senate
and BIA Attorneys so as to enable their forcible removal.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, signed into UN Human Rights Policy and
agreed to by the United States (but being intentionally violated by legal deceptions, fraud and trickery conceived by
Senator John McCain and his cronies), defines the basis upon which 200 organizations at the UN simultaneously
issued a written condemnation of the mistreatment of the Dineh-Navjo, at Article 10:
The above exhibit is directly copied from the source documents at the United Nations, from proceedings of the current
Commission on Human Rights, Mission Group on Indigenous Peoples.]
Sewage from the mining has inundated the waters once pristine and inhabited by fish,
frogs, turtles, water fowl - all dead or fled. Resistors who keep living, are abused by local
Peabody thugs, there have been beatings and there have been murders of Dineh for keeping
their farms.
Navajo resister Rena Babbit-Lane, a weaver who lives at Big Mountain, expressed her people's struggle: "There's a
lot of pollution from Peabody Coal Mine and a lot of the people are sick from it. It's our land
on this Mesa - they don't need to bother us. They cannot impound anymore. What they are
doing to us is making us sick. There has been destruction of grave sites. They're crushing
cement foundations of people's homes that have been abandoned because of relocation. They
are taking. It shows you how they are greedy. They're erasing all the evidence of genocide.
Two burials of our family were destroyed. They were torn down and taken somewhere."
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Over the past decade, McCain's illegal conspiracy with paid stooges and Peabody in brutalizing the
gentle Dineh-Navajo, a deeply spiritual, agrarian peoples, the stripping away of their rights and forced
march to Nevada has led to the issuance of the very first UN Human Rights condemnation of the USA in history: an
official condemnation from the Human Rights Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Hon. A. Amor) that held John
McCain and his peers responsible for spearheading this illegal land seizure, coal seizure
without payment of licensing rights, and rape of the land. A very hypocritical group of Senators, Reed,
Rockefeller, Kennedy, Kerry and others along with Bill Clinton were also investigated. However, McCain was
cited as the principal spearhead as author of the laws responsible for the Human Rights
Violations! A paid media blackout followed that prevented coverage of the events that
displaced and killed the Dineh-Navajo by the US Press! Americans have not been made
aware of McCain's activities. Even today, Press Distributors refuse releases on this subject.
We must keep this story alive! We must try to keep the surviving Dineh Navajo alive!
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Climate
Mccain’s Climate policies are FRAUD—only obama can create effective
policy
Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 5/12/08
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/mccain-climate-plan-a-fra_b_101390.html
Sen. John McCain announced his long-awaited climate plan today. Ironically, he made the
announcement at a Danish wind turbine company in Oregon -- ironic because like so many conservatives before him,
he has worked hard to kill off the domestic wind industry (see here).
Much worse, though, his plan's cost-containment strategy for his climate policy is a fraud. It
substitutes a huge amount of low cost, phony emissions reductions both here and abroad --
called offsets -- for actual domestic emissions reductions. Offsets are "credits for reductions made from
sectors of the economy outside the trading system." Such an offset strategy is little more than
rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and would "involve substantial issuance of credits
that do not represent real emissions reductions," according to a recent analysis by Stanford. Ironically,
one of the carbon offsets that McCain explicitly cites, no till farming, does not actually offset carbon emissions,
according to the latest science. Every major cap & trade bill needs a strategy to keep the cost of
the emissions permits as low as possible to minimize economic pain and to stop politicians
from trying to undo the entire system, by, say ... oh, just hypothetically now ... demanding a
carbon price holiday whenever prices get too high or the economy starts to slow (see "McCain
reveals cynicism, hypocrisy with call for summer gas-tax holiday, energy budget freeze.") Progressives like Sen.
Obama typically embrace aggressive clean energy deployment strategies as well as smarter
regulations that promote efficiency (see "Could a President Obama or Clinton stop global warming?"). Sen.
McCain, like most conservatives, does not support such strategies and indeed has routinely
oppose them (see Part 1). Unfortunately, without such policies, the price for carbon could easily
reach hundreds of dollars per metric ton (as I explain in "No Climate for Old Men"), causing
economic harm and a political backlash.
Another strategy for cost containment is a safety valve, a ceiling on the permit price. A safety valid is a terrible idea
that undermines the whole point of a cap & trade (see here and here). Fortunately, McCain opposes a safety valve, as
he explains in the newly released "Q&A: John McCain's Climate Platform." You can also read his new talking points
and fact sheet and the speech itself. But the "Q&A" is the most important of all those.
This leaves McCain very few options if he wants a bill that keeps costs low. Sadly, he takes
absolutely the worst possible option -- unlimited offsets.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Climate
Mccains climate policy fails
New Republic 5/15/08 http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/05/15/a-fatal-flaw-in-mccain-
s-climate-plan.aspx [adit]
I flitted around this topic briefly in my post on McCain's big climate speech the other day, but Dave
Roberts has a fuller explanation of why his plan to allow companies to purchase an unlimited
number of carbon offsets under a cap-and-trade regime could end in disaster. The
unlimited-offset idea may well appease coal interests, who want to keep the price of carbon
cheap for as long as humanly possible until carbon capture and storage becomes viable. The
problem, though... well, let's turn the mic over:
what could be wrong with a measure that a) holds prices down while b) reducing emissions
and c) funding sustainable development in developing countries? The problem is that there's good
reason to believe the use of offsets would do none of the above. A new report out of the Program on Energy and
Sustainable Development at Stanford, by long-time carbon market analysts David G. Victor and Michael Wara, argues
that "the theoretical benefits of lower costs and broader engagement of developing countries
through the extensive use of offsets are an illusion. They are based on the assumption that it
is possible to administer an offsets system so that it rewards only bona fide reductions. This
assumption is valid for only a fraction of the real offsets market." The basic tension Victor and
Wara identify is between quality and quantity. Of the emission reductions that have been secured thus far under the
CDM [i.e., the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol] -- which vastly outweigh direct domestic
reductions undertaken in Europe -- Victor and Wara argue "that many of these reductions could have been
accomplished at a far lower price; that many credits are probably not backed by real reductions;
and that the promise of such a massive supply of credits is extremely unlikely if even the
current (poor) level of environmental quality of the program is to be maintained."
I've talked to officials in the EPA and elsewhere who think that it's nigh impossible to verify most any
offsets, period. Take, for instance, an offset that pays a developer to avoid cutting down a forest in such-and-such
a place? How do you know you're not just shifting development to another location? How do you know that an offset
credited as a "new" reduction wouldn't have happened anyway? It's impossible, these critics say, to prevent people
from gaming the system. Now, for what it's worth, I don't think offsets are totally unworkable, and they probably do
need to be included at some level. Some form of offset system may well be the only viable means of slowing down the
pace of deforestation in countries like Brazil and Indonesia, for instance.
But these programs need an incredibly thorough level of scrutiny. McCain, however, wants to
allow an unlimited number of offsets, and he plans to link up to the already overburdened and oft-
dubious CDM, which will make close monitoring much, much harder. And, under McCain's plan, a
"private-public partnership" would oversee the approval of all offset schemes, which means
the odds are high that the process will be dominated by rent-seeking corporations who want
as many bargain-rate offsets as possible, no matter how dubious. So I agree with Dave, this
has all the makings of a poorly thought-out disaster.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Climate
Obama is the only way to create effective global climate policy
Financial Express, 7/26/08 http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Obama-on-climate-change-US-needs-to-set-
example/340796/ [adit]
Pointing out that an effective foreign policy requires building a consensus, the Democratic presidential nominee
Barack Obama has said that a country like India will not look at the issue of climate change seriously unless the
wealthy nations like the US are also looking at the matter similarly.
"... an effective US foreign policy will be based on our ability not only to project power, but
also to listen and to build consensus," Obama, currently on a high-profile tour of West Asia and Europe,
said.
"The goal of an Obama administration in foreign policy would be obviously to act on behalf
of the interests and the security of the United States, but also to listen carefully enough to our
allies that we understand their interests, as well, and we try to find ways that we can work
together to meet common goals," he said.
Obama was asked about the topic of climate change during a press interaction with the President of France, generally
making the point that it is not enough to look at foreign policy issues only through the lens of
the security of the US.
"The United States is a very powerful country. But, as I said before, an issue like climate
change is not one we can solve by ourselves. It's going to require an international effort," he
added.
"Not onlyare we going to have to look at what countries like France and Germany are
already doing and making some very difficult choices to deal with their carbon emissions
and to make energy more efficient, but we're also going to have to talk to countries like
China and India," Obama said, adding "and it's going to be very hard for us to ask them to take seriously these
issues if they see that wealthy nations are not taking them seriously."
"And that's an example of where we have to present a common front and a common agenda
in order to get all the countries in the nation -- all the countries in the world involved in what
is going to be an enormous undertaking," the Illinois Democrat said.
"... my goal is just to make sure that, whether it's our European allies, whether it's Muslim
countries, whether it's our friends in Asia, that people feel as if the United States is taking
their interests, their concerns into account, and that we are interested in the prosperity and
peace of ordinary people, and...
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Rights
Obama is key to effective human rights policy
MSNBC 9/28/07 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/28/385651.aspx [adit]
It’s not enough just to look back in wonder of how far we’ve come -- I want us to look ahead
with a fierce urgency of how far we have left to go,” Obama said, citing Thurgood Marshall,
Martin Luther King, Jr., and the everyday people who participated in the Civil Rights
Movement.
But on top of the strong and lofty rhetoric that has become a trademark of Obama’s “hope”
and “change” message, the Illinois senator used his forum today to present a list of policy
proposals to tackle today’s civil rights shortcomings. His approach is five-pronged: (1) rid
the Department of Justice of “political cronies” and instead staff the civil rights division with
qualified attorneys; (2) create a voting rights division within the DOJ to track and prosecute
voter fraud and intimidation; (3) recruit more qualified public defenders by providing
college and law school loan compensation as incentives for new attorneys; (4) close the
disparity between punishment for crack-cocaine and powder cocaine; and (5) review
mandatory minimums, offering first-time, non-violent drug offenders the chance to serve
their sentence in rehab instead of jail, when appropriate.
In addition to his agenda run-down,

Obama also solicited adoring support from the audience in
addressing the issue of the Jena Six, a week after the Rev. Jesse Jackson criticized him for saying that the
issue wasn’t a matter of “black and white,” but instead, “right and wrong.” But the presidential hopeful stepped up his
criticism of the situation in Louisiana, today.
“You have to understand how badly our system of justice failed those six boys in the days
after that fight,” Obama said, adding later, “Like Katrina did with poverty, Jena exposed glaring
inequalities in our justice system that were around long before that schoolyard fight broke out.” While Obama
kept nearly all of his political jabs aimed at the other side of the aisle, he did take a moment
at the conclusion of his speech to poke fun at the media, and possibly, Clinton. Telling the
Biblical story of Moses and Joshua -- in which Joshua was called upon to finish Moses’ job of leading people out of
Egypt -- he told the young audience they are the Joshua generation, called on to finish the job of past civil rights
leaders. In describing Joshua’s doubts about his ability to lead, Obama deviated from his prepared
remarks, adding that some thought he was not “experienced enough.” The crowd quickly
understood the implicit comparison and awarded the senator with laughter and a standing
ovation.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Rights
MCcain Hates rights—voting records prove
Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/12/08 http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/19815774.html [adit]
In an effort to show that, if elected, he would be president of "all the people," John McCain has visited the Edmund
Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., the scene of one of the bloodiest civil rights marches in history. He's also traveled
though Alabama's impoverished Black Belt region, and showed up for services commemorating the 40th anniversary
of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination in Memphis.
Those gestures, designed to soften McCain's public image, cannot hide his awful record on
civil rights.
In 11 grading periods since he began serving in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1983 and the Senate in
1987, McCain has earned an F for every period, according to an annual report by the
NAACP.
Of the 11 grading periods, McCain's highest score was 50 percent (1985-86), meaning he supported
positions on legislation favored by the NAACP half of the time. His second-highest score was 40
percent (1997-1998). In the nine other grading periods, he supported the NAACP 30 percent of the time or less.
Instead of getting better on civil rights in recent years, McCain has grown worse. Since his
unsuccessful 2000 bid for president, McCain voted with the NAACP just 27 percent of the time during the 107th
Congress, 15 percent in the 108th Congress and an all-time low of 7 percent during the first session of the 109th
Congress, which ended in 2006.
When he ran for president in 2000, McCain refused to complete a questionnaire submitted to presidential candidates
by the NAACP and turned down invitations to address the national conventions of both the NAACP and the National
Urban League.
Even Ronald Reagan, who went to court to invalidate voluntary affirmative-action programs, and George W. Bush,
who often clashes with civil rights leaders, have addressed the two groups.
McCain has agreed to address the National Urban League and NAACP conventions this summer. He will have some
explaining to do.
An examination of McCain's years in Washington shows that he opposed initiatives favored by the
NAACP even when Republican moderates joined forces with the nation's oldest and largest
civil rights organization. Often portrayed in the media as a Republican maverick, McCain's civil rights
record shows he is anything but that.
In a vote likely to haunt him for the rest of his public career, McCain voted against 1983 legislation establishing
the third Monday in January as the federal holiday marking King's birthday. Back home in Arizona, he
supported Gov. Evan Mecham's decision in 1987 to rescind an executive order creating a state holiday for King, but
later reversed his position.
In 1985, McCain voted against a bill to strengthen sanctions against minority-ruled South
Africa because of its policy of apartheid.
In 1998, McCain voted against the Civil Rights Restoration Act requiring institutions
receiving federal funds to follow antidiscrimination laws, upheld by Congress despite a
presidential veto.
In what would become one of the greatest wedges between McCain and African Americans, McCain voted to
confirm a series of ultra-conservative nominees to the Supreme Court, beginning with the failed
nomination of Robert Bork.
McCain supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court - and has
since indicated that he would appoint similar judges if elected president.
He favored repealing a provision of the Brady Bill requiring a seven-day waiting period for
handgun purchases to ensure buyers aren't mentally ill or don't have a criminal record.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
McCain and the NAACP agreed on the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed by the Senate 98-
0, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 moderating a series of Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the scope of job-
discrimination laws.
McCain supported an amendment by Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas) that prohibited federal contracts to be based, in part,
on race, color, national origin or gender.
During the 105th Congress, McCain opposed forgiving student loans up to $8,000 for public-school
teachers who work in underserved communities for a specified period and opposed
expanding after-school programs. However, he supported an amendment offered by Sen. Judd Gregg (R.,
N.H.) that would have provided federal funding for vouchers for students to attend private schools.
McCain prides himself on his straight talk. Unfortunately, when it comes to supporting civil
rights, he has not had a straight walk
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Economy
Mccain will ignore the economy
Salon News, 3/25/08 http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/03/25/john_mccain_economy/ [adit]
That's it. John McCain's economic plan is to convene a couple of meetings. Oh, and some more
tax cuts. What's that I hear? The sound of Ohio voting Democratic? It's one thing to make a high-minded pledge to
eschew "election-year politics." It's quite another to act willfully ignorant of the pressing concerns
of millions of Americans.
The bulk of McCain's speech's recaps the broad outlines of what has transpired in the housing sector and Wall Street
over the past year and reads as if cribbed from various state-of-the-economy reports previously delivered by Treasury
Secretary Hank Paulson and chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke. It's hard to see any of it coming as news
to his audience, since Orange County was ground zero for the subprime lending industry.
McCain did say that "Capital markets work best when there is both accountability and
transparency. In the case of our current crisis, both were lacking ... When we commit
taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we
never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and
accountability."
If one was feeling charitable toward John McCain, one could interpret that paragraph as suggesting support for
increased government oversight and regulation of the financial industry. But while Democratic legislators
have been falling over themselves to suggest concrete ways to ensure more "transparency
and accountability," McCain just waves at the issue. And in the course of making the sensible suggestion
that financial institutions maintain "adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses," he
turns around and argues that the way to encourage that is "by removing regulatory, accounting and
tax impediments to raising capital."
Maybe McCain is hoping that his restatement of support for a corporate tax cut and his recommendation to remove
"impediments" to capital-constrained financial institutions will get him some corporate contributions for his cash-
strapped campaign. He certainly can't be imagining that any swing-state voters facing ballooning
credit card bills or a foreclosure notice in the mail will see anything in his speech to assuage
their concerns. But perhaps that OK, because McCain's straight talk proves he's too
honorable a man to play "election-year politics."
We'll see how well that works, in an election-year recession
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Economy
MCcain economy is like a Bush third term
Christy Hardin Smith Former attorney, who earned her undergraduate degree at Smith College, in American Studies and Government,
concentrating in American Foreign Policy. She then went on to graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania in the field of political science
and international relations/security studies, before attending law school at the College of Law at West Virginia University, where she was Associate
Editor of the Law Review. 5/12/08 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/85147/the_mccain_economy_will_be_like_bush's_third_term/ [adit]
Can America afford a presidential candidate who has to bring along an economic adviser in
order to be coherent on the subject? Not after the last few years of Bush Administration arrogance
in the face of failures, it can't.
Especially when that adviser (and rumored to be a leading contender for a McCain Treasury Secretary spot) is
former Senator Phil Gramm (TX-Enron), whose out of touch tendencies led to many a Molly Ivins
ribbing back in the day?
So what is McCain's economic strategy? Hell if I know -- or anyone else for that matter -- because it's one big
mish-mash, other than the fact that he likes to throw out "spend less and tax the wealthy less
for trickle down" platitudes like some magic fairy dust. Sounds like someone has a case of Jack
Kemp-itis, without actually comprehending its ramifications on anyone not living in a gated
community (YouTube) with deep water yacht slips.
What I do know, though, is that the GOP has put this country in a world of shit. And it seems that
most Americans understand that all too well:
More than three-quarters of respondents say the country is heading in the wrong direction, up
from 63 percent at the start of the year. The last time more than 70 percent of respondents
said that was in 1992.
Among respondents with more than $100,000 in annual household income, 68 percent said the country is
on the wrong track. Those with annual income under $60,000 had the highest levels of dissatisfaction, with
more than eight in 10 saying the U.S. is going in the wrong direction.
There is a partisan divide in the way people view the country. Slightly more than half of Republicans say
the U.S. is headed the wrong way, compared with 87 percent of Democrats.
People see the the cumulative impact of one bad decision after another each and every time
they fill up their cars or try to buy food for their families. Including a majority of GOP
voters. So, with that in mind, what in the hell were the Republicans thinking trotting out Roy
Blunt for some seriously mixed up messaging yesterday?
On CNN's "Late Edition" Republican whip Roy Blunt said, when it comes to taxes, a McCain
administration would be in effect a third Bush term.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Economy
Mccain presidency would be terrible for the economy [note]
The personal is political, Obama Vs. Mccain, 7/6/08 http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/07/obama-vs-
mccain-economy-edition.html
As currently constructed the McCain plan does not address the immediate challenges facing
our economy, like the 438,000 jobs that have been lost in the past six months, the 400 percent
increase in the cost of gas at the pump, and a massive contraction in the housing market. The
McCain plan offers no hope of relieving burdens for middle-class families struggling with
wages that have been stagnant for a generation and household incomes that have fallen $962
in this economic "expansion." Instead, the McCain plan would continue the economic
policies of the last eight years that have added $4.0 trillion to the deficit, primarily with tax
cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans who did not need and did not ask for them.
Indeed, McCain’s plan proposes to double down on these policies, with tax cuts that are
more expensive and stacked against average Americans than anything President Bush has
ever proposed.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the McCain campaign plans to spend the week "repackag[ing] proposals he has
already outlined" rather than improving on their economic plan. But no amount of repackaging can alter three basic
facts about the McCain plan:
Senator McCain has no plan for immediate fiscal stimulus to help struggling families or
jumpstart our economy. In January Senator McCain said the economy was not slipping into recession and said
he was "skeptical" about the stimulus measures being considered. His top economic adviser said stimulus plans were
typically unnecessary "junk." That same month Barack Obama proposed a fiscal stimulus plan centered
on rebates to workers and seniors, a package similar to what was ultimately passed on a
bipartisan basis. At the same time, Senator Obama warned that if the economy worsened further another round of
stimulus would be needed. On June 9th, Senator Obama called for a second stimulus, with at least
$50 billion in immediate measures to help jumpstart our economy. On July 3, in the wake of
news that our economy has now lost jobs for six straight months, Senator Obama asked Senator
McCain to join him in passing an immediate stimulus plan. However, since January when John McCain announced
during a debate that he thought Americans were better off because of George Bush’s economic policies, he has failed
to propose any immediate measure to give our economy shot in the arm by putting more money in the pockets of
Americans hit hardest by the downturn.
The McCain tax cut plan completely leaves out 101 million households – including those
working and middle-class Americans hardest hit by this downturn. In contrast, Senator Obama’s
plan benefits 95 percent of workers and their families. The principal middle class tax cut proposed by
John McCain is an increase in the dependent exemption that will not be fully in effect until 2016. Most
households without children would see nothing under the plan – a total of 101 million households,
including 67 million households currently paying income taxes but who would not benefit because they have no
dependents, and 34 million low-income households with no income tax liability but generally paying payroll taxes.
Nearly all seniors (37 million out of 38 million) would be left out. Even for families with children, the
increase in the dependent exemption provides only a modest tax cut. In the first year of the plan, it would be worth
about $125 to a middle-class family with two children. That same family would eventually see their taxes increase
under the McCain plan, because his health care plan would raise taxes on middle-class families over time. This is
completely inadequate, and will not help the very people whose reduced spending is
contributing to our slowing economy. The Obama plan offers more generous tax relief for
middle class families, including a "Making Work Pay Credit" that would benefit 95 percent
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
of workers and their families, providing $1,000 for a typical working family. Obama’s plan
would also expand tax credits to help families save, send a child to college, pay for childcare,
and afford their mortgage, while eliminating income taxes for all seniors making less than
$50,000.
McCain’s plan continues the Bush policies of tax cuts that are not paid for, which will push
our deficits higher and further weaken our economy. His plan continues giving tax cuts to those who
need them least and didn’t ask for them, including the wealthiest 2 percent of households and large corporations –
including big oil which gets $4 billion in new tax breaks from John McCain. Although economists generally agree that
short-run stimulus measures should not be paid for, it is critical that sustained policies like middle-class tax cuts be
paid for in order to avoid economic damage in the short run and inevitable tax increases in the future. Currently,
McCain’s budget plan "will add $200 billion to $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary
tax system, even more" annually to the deficit according to the New York Times. If McCain
cut back on his more than $100 billion in annual corporate tax cuts – including $1.2 billion
for Exxon-Mobil alone – plus other tax cuts for the most affluent, he could afford to pay for
more tax cuts for middle class families.
1.Senator McCain does not have an immediate plan to jumpstart our economy, and has
failed to support Barack Obama’s fiscal stimulus plan.
In this campaign, Senator McCain and I are having a robust discussion about our different visions for what we’ll do as
president. But when it comes to creating jobs and brokering relief for families who are struggling, we can’t wait six
months for the next president, and that’s why today I’m calling on Senator McCain and all members of Congress, to
come together and support this 50 billion dollar stimulus package. Let’s show the American people that we can come
together, Republicans and Democrats, to ease the burden on working families let’s not wait another 6 months for more
bad news.
- Barack Obama in Fargo North Dakota, July 3, 2004

The economy is facing a serious downturn: Our economy has lost 438,000 jobs in 2008, six straight months of job
loss. In May, the unemployment rate jumped from 5.0 percent to 5.5 percent – the largest once month increase in more
than 22 years. Our housing market continues to deteriorate and consumer expectations for the future have fallen to the
lowest levels ever recorded. Experts from Lawrence Summers to Robert Shiller agree that another round of fiscal
stimulus is warranted.
John McCain missed the chance to push for the first stimulus: John McCain already missed
the chance to push for the first round of stimulus. In a debate on January 10th, McCain said "I don’t
believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong,
and I believe they will remain strong" and went on to argue that spending reductions were
needed to help the economy. That same month, top McCain economic adviser Kevin Hassett said that McCain
was "firmly" opposed to sending out fiscal stimulus rebate checks, likening it to "borrowing money from the Chinese
and dropping it from helicopters." At about the same time top economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said, "that for
short-term fluctuations in the economy, the best course of action is to let the Fed handle it" and called the stimulus
plan emerging from the President and Congress "junk." John McCain himself said he was "skeptical" about the fiscal
stimulus measures being proposed. In fact, while McCain eventually voted for the final version of the stimulus
package, McCain failed to show up for a key vote to expand the relief in the package to 20 million seniors and
250,000 disabled veterans. That expansion was defeated by one vote, and McCain was the only Senator absent. At the
time, he explained that he was "too busy" and "focused on other stuff."
After six months of consecutive job loss, Senator

McCain’s economic plan still includes no near-term
strategy to help our economy create jobs and provide relief for struggling families. Instead, his
"stimulus," originally announced in late January, is focused on a permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate that
would not even be fully effective until 2015. Experts across the political spectrum agree that such a permanent
corporate tax cut would do next to nothing to jumpstart our economy in the near-term. The Congressional Budget
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Office recently found that a cut in the corporate tax rate was among the least cost effective, least fast-acting and least
certain approaches to stimulate the economy available to policymakers. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post graded
McCain’s "stimulus" plan as a D+, explaining that McCain "proposes permanent tax cuts – cutting corporate rates,
increasing investment breaks, eliminating the alternative minimum tax – masquerading as a stimulus plan." Since the
first stimulus package passed, Senator McCain has not presented any new or additional plans to jumpstart the
economy. In April, he told Bloomberg TV that we had made "great progress economically" under the leadership of
George W. Bush.
Senator Obama championed the first stimulus and is calling for a second one: In contrast,
Senator Obama first proposed a fiscal stimulus centered around sending checks to workers
and senior citizens on January 13th. A plan along these lines was agreed to on a bipartisan basis and enacted in
February. Obama’s original plan included a contingency that should the jobs situation deteriorate a second round of
stimulus would be triggered. On June 9th Obama explicitly called for a second round of stimulus, including at least
$50 billion for:
An additional round of rebate checks for working families to help offset the impact of $4.00 a gallon gas and
skyrocketing food, health and college costs;
A $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to provide struggling homeowners with pre-foreclosure counseling and
refinancing assistance to help them stay in their homes; and
$10 billion in relief for state and local governments hardest hit by the housing crisis to prevent cuts in services such as
health, education and infrastructure.
2. The McCain tax cut plan completely leaves out 101 million households – including virtually all seniors – and
provides only $125 in the first year to a family with two children. Eventually the McCain health plan would raise
taxes on families. In contrast, Sen. Obama’s plan benefits 95 percent of workers, and provides the typical working
family with at least $1,000 in tax cuts.
I will reform our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity instead of distorting the market by
advancing the agenda of some lobbyist or oil company. I’ll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens, and I’ll
use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95 percent of workers and
their families. I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help
families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills. We’ll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree
making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect.
- Barack Obama in Raleigh, North Carolina on June 9, 2008

Families are struggling in the economy: We have just gone through the first economic "expansion" on record where
typical household income actually fell, by $962 from 2000 to 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available,
incomes have likely dropped further since 2006). During this period, the cost of healthcare has increase by 67 percent
in inflation adjusted terms, college costs are up 23 percent and the price of gas at the pump has increased by 400
percent. As middle class families have watched the value of their largest financial asset – their homes – plummet by
record amounts, they have been left with little margin for error.
John McCain’s "middle class" tax cut leaves most families behind: To put our economy back on
track, we must ease this intense financial squeeze on middle class families. Yet John McCain’s tax plan
would provide an extraordinarily small amount of upfront relief for middle class families –
and would eventually raise their taxes. John McCain’s corporate tax cuts would provide no direct benefit
for middle-class families, they would have to hope that a small portion of the benefits trickle down to them. McCain’s
plan to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would provide very little benefit for middle-class families beyond
what they are getting from the tax law in place in 2008. Essentially the only tax cut McCain is proposing that would
directly benefit middle-class families is his proposal to increase the dependent exemption by $500 a year until the
exemption reaches $7,000 in 2016. That proposal would:
Provide $0 in tax relief to 101 million households. Senator McCain’s dependent exemption increase only benefits
taxpayers who can claim dependents on their tax forms (e.g. parents with dependent children). Therefore, single
workers or married couples without dependents would receive no benefit from the proposal. Based on an analysis of
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
IRS data, 101 million households would receive $0 in relief under the McCain proposal in 2009. Those households
include:
67 million households paying income taxes but with no dependents. More than two-thirds of income taxpayers get no
benefit.
34 million households struggling with low income incomes and in many cases paying payroll taxes.
Provide $0 in tax relief to nearly every senior citizen in the United States – 37 million out of 38 million would be left
out. Senator McCain’s proposal would not benefit the vast majority of elderly households because they generally do
not have children or other dependents. As a result 37 million individuals over 65 would get zero tax relief from the
McCain middle-class tax cut.
Provide $125 in tax relief to a middle-class family with two children in the first year of his plan. The McCain plan
promises to increase the dependent exemption that a married couple could claim for each of their two children by
$500. However, the dependent exemption would rise by about $90 per year anyway, because the exemption is already
indexed to inflation. Therefore, the McCain plan reduces that married couple’s taxable income by about $410 per
child –or $820 overall – in the first year of the plan. For a family in the 15 percent income tax bracket, that translates
into a $125 tax cut (i.e. $820 multiplied by 0.15).
Taken as a whole, the McCain plan would raise taxes on middle class families in future years.
While the McCain plan increases the dependent exemption between 2010 and 2016, middle class families would
actually face higher taxes in later years of the plan. This is because the McCain health care plan finances its new tax
credits by requiring individuals to pay taxes on the health insurance premiums they pay. As premiums grow the tax
increase that pays for this plan would grow as well. As a result, by 2013 the typical family would pay $1,100 more in
taxes from the health plan according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress – more than offsetting any
benefit they get from Senator McCain’s middle class tax cut.
Barack Obama is proposing a tax cut for virtually all middle class families: In contrast,
Senator Obama has proposed broad middle class tax relief that would provide at least ten
times the benefit for typical families in the first year of his plan (see Table 1 below). When
the two plans are fully in effect, and ignoring the tax increases Senator McCain proposes to
finance his health plan, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the tax cuts under
Obama’s plan are three times larger than the tax cuts under McCain’s plan for families in
the middle quintile.
Senator Obama’s Making Work Pay tax cut will provide a tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working
family to offset the payroll taxes they pay. This tax cut is fully available in the very first year of his plan. His universal
mortgage credit will provide an average tax cut of $500 to 10 million homeowners who do not itemize their taxes. His
Automatic Workplace Pension program will expand the existing Savers Credit to match 50 percent of the first $1,000
of savings for families that earn under $75,000, and he will make the tax credit refundable. And he will provide a fully
refundable $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for working families. Given the record high energy
costs, high health care costs and stagnant wages that middle class families face, Senator
McCain’s plan to leave out 101 million households, and to provide only $125 a year in tax
relief for middle-class families with two children, is simply insufficient to relieve their
financial burdens.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
[note: although not qual’d cites really

qualed stuff]
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
****UNIQUENSS****
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Uniqueness – Obama Win Now
Obama ahead on critical issues and key states for election

Edward Luce, Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times, July 8, 08, “Hunger for victory Defines
Obama”, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f8b6f72-4d12-11dd-b527-000077b07658,s01=1. [T-Money]
When Democrats criticize John McCain, they first praise his honorable military record. When Republicans do the same to
Barack Obama, many begin by conceding that he is an “attractive and talented candidate”. Recent history says that Mr
Obama will have to fight a bitter campaign if he is to scrape a narrow victory for the White House. But a number of
independent operatives believe an Obama landslide is a growing possibility. They cite a barrage of advantages. Mr Obama is
expected to outspend his opponent by at least two-to-one. The economy is far and away the biggest issue of
concern to voters – and looks likely to become more so as oil prices and home foreclosures mount.
Only 4 per cent of Americans cite terrorism as their greatest concern – a massive shift from 2004,
when it was near the top of the list. And the proportion of voters identifying with Democrats versus Republicans has widened
to 51-33 per cent. Even those who believe the race will be as narrowly settled as the last two agree that the Republican party
faces a probable meltdown in all the other elections that will be staged in November. “This election is Obama’s to lose,” says
a senior Republican strategist who is not working for the McCain campaign. “Of course anything can happen – events could
overturn the climate of this race. But if you look at their strengths I would say a large Obama victory is more likely
than a narrow victory for McCain. You can rule out a large McCain victory.” Because he is black,
many still treat Mr Obama as the underdog. Were he white and all other things were the same, Mr Obama might be seen as a
stronger favorite. Opinion polls reflect this discrepancy. While the Democrats as a party have an 18-point lead over the
Republicans, Mr Obama’s poll advantage over Mr McCain is just 5.8 per cent, according to the poll average by Real Clear
Politics. But a breakdown suggests that Mr Obama’s lead is more significant than that. For example, Mr Obama is ahead
of Mr McCain in his most vulnerable swing states of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania while
drawing almost even with Mr McCain in Republican-leaning swing states such as Florida and
Virginia. In-Trade, the online betting site that has a far better record this year than the pollsters, gives Mr Obama a 64 per
cent chance of winning. In addition, Mr Obama’s campaign is as well-managed as Mr McCain’s appears to be in disarray.
The latter is on his third or fourth campaign manager depending on how you define the job. There has been speculation that
he may appointment of Mike Murphy, a controversial Republican strategist, to a senior role on the campaign, Mr Murphy
played down the idea on Tuesday. In contrast, Mr Obama’s two key senior figures – David Axelrod, his senior strategist, and
David Plouffe, his campaign manager – have been in place since the start. The two Davids have recently been supplemented
by a string of hiring’s from Hillary Clinton’s campaign in what has proved a far less awkward merger than many had feared.
“I am very impressed with the campaign Obama has run – it is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent in American
history,” said Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman, now head of the Harvard Institute of Politics. “I would caution
against any big predictions because we have a long way to go and Obama still has many cultural obstacles to overcome. But
the economy is so stuck and foreign policy is so awkward that it could point to a big Obama victory. That is a real -
possibility.” Mr Obama is also aided by a single-minded hunger for victory. In the last 10 days he has come under attack for a
series of policy shifts. These include his vote for a bill that renewed George W. Bush’s eavesdropping powers as well as U-
turns on public financing, gun owners’ rights and his decision to back Mr Bush’s office for faith-based charities. Many
liberals were disappointed by Mr Obama’s indication last week that he would “refine” his pledge to withdraw all US combat
troops from Iraq within 16 months. The candidate’s clarification did little to mollify them. But what is disquieting to liberals
has proved heartening to centrists. “If you look at the leads Obama has built on the economy and healthcare, then he goes into
this election with a big advantage,” says Tad Devine, a veteran Democratic operative. “John McCain has had a hard time
sustaining his reputation as a maverick because he supports Bush on all the big issues – foreign policy, tax cuts and
healthcare. This is way too early to be confident but the odds for an Obama victory are growing.”
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Uniqueness - Obama Will Win
Obama will win – campaign proves
Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution staff writer, 7/13/8, “Democrats coming out of the
woodwork”, http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-
blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/07/13/obama_winning_the_intensity_fa.html, [T-Money]
While most of the polls show a fairly tight presidential race, it doesn’t feel that way. As I
mentioned in comments a while back, the body language and attitude of the Obama campaign indicate
they believe Obama’s going to win, while the language and attitude of the McCain camp also
indicate they believe Obama will win.
Obama will win – independents detract from McCain support
CTV Canada, Canadian news organization, 7/16/8, “Obama leads McCain in new election poll”,
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/us_poll_080716/20080716?hub=Politics [T-Money]
A new poll suggests Barack Obama has a seven-point lead over John McCain in the race to the White
House, but nearly 10 per cent of voters have yet to make up their minds. The Zogby poll, released Wednesday, also
suggests independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr would draw
votes away from McCain, thereby extending Obama's lead even further.
Obama will win –voters like the “change” candidate
Lee Bandy, South Carolina Insider editor, 7/10/8, “South Carolina Democrats Excited about being Real
Players”, http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_710_467.aspx. [T-Money]
Based on early polls, Obama should easily beat Republican candidate John McCain, the Arizona
senator. After all, he leads the Republican in every measurement. Believing the nation is headed in the wrong
direction, these voters want a change. “Obama could win in a landslide,” says Charles Dunn, a
political scientist at Regents University in Virginia. But this will not be the first time the public
will be voting for change, or had a deep desire for change. They had it in 1980 when Ronald Reagan
challenged Carter and in 1992 when Bill Clinton opposed President Bush. Reagan and Clinton
won, running on a platfom of change. So, if 2008 repeats the history of 1980 and 1992, Obama
will win in a landslide, Dunn predicts.
Obama will win – he is leading in the polls
Gallup Daily, world poll organization, 7/14/8, “Presidential Race Remains Steady”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108814/Gallup-Daily-Presidential-Race-Remains-Steady.aspx, [T-Money]
The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update shows voter preferences holding steady, with 46%
saying they would vote for Barack Obama and 43% for John McCain if the presidential
election were held today. The figures are unchanged from Sunday's report, and in general reflect the
remarkable stability in the numbers for the past two-plus weeks. Over this time, Obama's support has
ranged between 46% and 48%, while McCain's share of the vote has been in the 42% to 44% range. Thus, Obama has
consistently held a modest, but consistent, advantage over McCain for the past two weeks, and for all
but three days since early June.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Uniqueness – Obama will win

Economic issues giving Obama the lead over McCain now
Beth Braverman, CNNMoney.com contributing writer, 6-12-8, “Voters favor Obama’s Economic
Policy – poll, Democratic Presidential Candidate Holds Slight Edge Over GOP Rival McCain on Key
Election Issue”
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/12/news/economy/president_poll/index.htm [T-Money]
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Barack Obama has a slight edge over presidential rival John McCain on the economy,
according to a poll of registered voters released Thursday. The CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows that 50% of voters polled
believe Obama will better handle the economy, while 44% favor McCain's economic policies. The poll reflects telephone
interviews with 921 registered voters June 4-5. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. Obama's slight
lead in the poll reflect his edge in general polls, as well as his perceived strength on domestic issues versus McCain's
perceived strength in foreign policy, said Andrew Taylor, chairman of the political science department at North Carolina
State University. "We have a Republican administration, and there are people who blame the administration for the current
economic situation," Taylor said. "They think the Democrats would be better for the economy right now."
The economic issues will provide for a Democratic victory

USA Today, leading news organization, 2-5, 8, p. A1. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0198-
452433/Economy-s-slide-has-voters.html. [T-Money]
Voters usually blame the party that holds the White House for hard times. In a USA TODAY survey taken Jan. 23-25, 47 top
economists predicted by 77%-4% that the economy would help Democrats over Republicans in the fall elections. "This is a
clear plus for the Democrats going into the fall campaign, so I think that the Democrats will certainly subscribe to the view
that 'It's the economy, stupid,'" says Greg Valliere, chief political strategist for the Stanford Financial Group. "And this
economy is not going to turn around anytime soon." A year ago, the 2008 election seemed likely to be dominated by the
war in Iraq, but economic concerns gradually have become a stronger focus of debates, campaign ads and voter queries. Now,
voters' views of the economy help define each candidate's support.
Economic climate bolstering Obama support now

David Goldman, CNNMoney.com, 7-1-8 “Americans say they'll vote with their wallets, The battered
economy is the top issue for voters, and that isn't expected to change by November.”
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/01/news/economy/election_issue_poll/index.htm, [T-Money]
Economists say that the economic pain will not ease for voters come the November election.
"The next two quarters are likely to see a bit of an improvement, mainly because of the tax rebates, but there really isn't
anything out there on the horizon that's going to change the economic landscape in a meaningful way," said Vitner.
"Consumers are likely to be very concerned about the economy come election day."
That may be good news for Barack Obama. "When the economy is bad, it tends to favor the party that's out of power," said
Vitner. "It's going to be very difficult for the Republicans to take the White House."
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Uniqueness – Obama will win
Obama leading McCain with Hispanic voters

Adam Nagourney & Megan Thee, New York Times, 7-16-8 “Poll Finds Obama Isn’t Closing Divide
on Race,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/politics/16poll.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=12
16268711-qXv1mm6X2dNyFG+NavOatg, [T-Money]
After a Democratic primary season in which Mr. Obama had difficulty competing for Hispanic votes against Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain among Hispanic voters in the likely general election matchup by 62 to 23
percent. Mr. Obama is viewed favorably by more than half of Hispanic Americans, compared with Mr. McCain, whose
favorability rating is just under one-quarter. By significant margins, these voters believe that Mr. Obama will do a better job
of dealing with immigration; Mr. McCain has been trying to distance himself from Republicans who have advocated a tough
policy on permitting illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Uniqueness – McCain will win
McCain will win now
Beth Fouhy, Associated Press writer, 7-3-8 McCain: Staff shake-up part of "natural evolution", Lexis.
[T-Money].
McCain began the day at the Basilica de Guadalupe, Mexico's holiest Roman Catholic site, where he viewed the famed
portrait of the Virgin of Guadalupe and received a blessing from the Basilica's monsignor.
McCain laid a wreath of white roses at the altar and stood atop the Papal balcony. He was accompanied by President Bush's
brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who was in Mexico on business.
"I think he's going to win," Jeb Bush said of McCain's chances against Democrat Barack Obama. "He just needs to be himself
and not let Sen. Obama redefine himself."
McCain's visit to the Basilica had clear political overtones as Catholic and Hispanic voters are expected to be key swing
voters in the November election. Obama also has worked to woo Catholics and Hispanics after those groups voted heavily for
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton during the primary season.
McCain winning Christians and evangelicals now.
Rasmussen Reports, 7-16-8, “Daily Presidential Tracking Poll”

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_
poll, [T-Money]
Currently, McCain leads by a 60% to 26% margin among Evangelical Christians and holds a very slight edge over Obama
among other Protestant voters and Catholic voters. Obama holds a thirty-five point advantage among all other voters. Most
voters who attend Church at least weekly support McCain and most who rarely or never attend services prefer Obama
(crosstabs available for Premium Members).
McCain has momentum now – Obama should be polling higher

The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia), editorial, 7-17-8, “The signs aren't good” SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A08)
This should be an easy year for Democrats. A record percentage of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong
direction - and after years of mostly Republican rule, that should help Democrats. Meanwhile, the media hype surrounding
Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama is unprecedented and often unquestioning. National media have set him up as
some sort of messiah. And after a pitched primary battle in which he emerged victorious, you would think Obama would
appear unbeatable by now. By contrast, after an anti-climactic fizzle of a Republican primary, John McCain has sort of
stumbled out of the gate for the general election, appearing unable to find his footing and to define his campaign clearly. Yet,
a recent Rasmussen poll amazingly has the two candidates tied at this point. The Obama campaign plans a football-stadium
acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in August. And his speech will coincide with the anniversary of Martin
Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Obama is sure to get a huge bounce from all that. But by all rights, he should be
starting from a stronger position than he seems to be. That can't be good news for Democrats. And consider: A Washington
Post/ABC News poll says 72 percent think McCain would be a good commander-in-chief, but only 48 percent think Obama
would.
Moreover, despite Obama's reputation for oratory, runners-up from the Republican primary can tell you what a savagely
effective debater McCain is. Polls at this point don't mean much. But they are signposts on a long journey.
Directions can change quickly on a political odyssey. But right now, the signs aren't good for Obama.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Uniqueness – McCain will win
Uniqueness - McCain winning now, promise to drill oil domestically gains

votes
James P. Pinkerton, columnist for the American Conservative, 6/17/08, “McCain gets it right,”
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/17/how-johnmccain-
will-win-the-white-house/. [T-money]
“We must embark on a national mission to end our dependence on foreign oil”—those are important words from John
McCain, quoted in The Houston Chronicle this morning, under the headline, “McCain calls for end to offshore drilling
ban/GOP candidate in Houston today to mend fences with oil industry.” Let’s hope McCain keeps it up, appealing to pro-
growth voters, for the next five months. If he does, he can win the 2008 presidential election. The opposition Democrats of
course, have a paradoxical set of energy policies: they want to restrict production, increase taxation—and then complain
about high gas prices. The Democrats should understand the fundamentals of supply and demand: the more demand, with
fixed supply, the higher the price. That is, if you limit oil drilling (no ANWR, no new offshore drilling) even as domestic and
world demand for oil continues to rise, then presto! –you are going to get a rise in prices. So the Democrats can raise oil taxes
if they want—which will do nothing to increase supply—but such a tax hike is not going to help increase production.
McCain will win the election. He wins lots of support from Democrats-
polls prove
CBS News, June 4, 2008,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/opinion/polls/main4154051.shtml. [T-Jaxb
The poll contains troubling signs for Obama as he looks to mobilize the Democratic Party behind him following his long and
sometimes bitter battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, however. Twelve percent of Democrats say they
will support McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who defected to President Bush in
2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama in the general election. McCain
leads Obama by 8 points among registered independent voters, considered a key voting block in November. The Arizona
senator leads Obama 46 percent to 38 percent, with 11 percent of respondents undecided.
McCain will confirm victory in the last 48 hours.
Mosheh Oinounou, July 27, 2008, “McCain Predicts ‘Underdog’ Win in Final 48 Hours”,
<http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/27/mccain-predicts-hell-overtake-obama-48-hours-before-theelection/>,
accessed . [T-Money]
John McCain predicted the general election race would come down to the buzzer Friday, declaring himself the underdog but
quipping that he’d ride to victory in the last “48 hours.”The comment came as new polls show Barack Obama leading
nationally and in several key swing states. McCain may be hoping to reprise his nomination fight, in which he revived his
flailing campaign just as primaries began.“I’m the underdog. I’m behind,” the presumptive GOP nominee told reporters in
Ohio“I’ve got to catch up and get ahead. And I expect to do that about 48 hours before the general election,” he said with a
laugh.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
****LINK****
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
1nc 2, plan makes obama lose—A. Caldwell says McCain takes credit for new energy policy that
tips the election. Obama focused the election on energy. IF the plan passes during Bush’s
presidency that creates the perception that republicans are better on energy, that tips the
election. Prefer our warranted and predictive evidence.
INSERT LINE BY LINE

New energy policy before the election enables the GOP to ride a tsunami into office
(Free Republic, 6-19-08, “How McCain and the GOP Can Ride An Energy Wave To Victory”,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2033687/posts, [Ian Miller])
The energy problem in the US is lightning in a bottle for the candidate and/or party that can unleash it. The issue is there for
the GOP to take advantage of as they by far have been much more on the right side of the issue. I'm no big fan of McCain.
He wasn't my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice but it's who we have. It appears that he is getting the message about the energy crisis in
the country, unlike Obama who keeps mouthing the same empty liberal rhetoric. Americans have had it with high energy
prices because they know that rising food prices and rising prices of just about everything else is related to the higher energy
costs. They are also learning that we have more oil available under our ground and shores than the entire Middle East. Even
democrats with half a brain left are saying "it's time to drill!" Different republicans are offering different, albeit very similar
solutions. McCain has some ideas. Current members of Congress have some ideas. Newt Gingrich has some ideas and has
perhaps been in front on this issue with his "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." campaign. What the GOP needs to do is rally
around a singular plan, much like they did in the 1992 elections with Newt's "Contract With America" plan. Here's how I
think they get there and how they can "drop the bomb" on the democrats. First, McCain make ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
along with national security the #1 campaign issue. There is simply NO down side to this. Energy independence means
HUGE JOB GROWTH in a slumping economy, BIG DROP in energy prices, food prices, and all related industries, which all
adds up to a roaring economy, and it means NO MORE RELIANCE on foreign thugs, dictators, and terrorists for our energy.
These are the points that need to be stressed. Second, the way McCain brings this front and center is to pick a VP candidate
to be his point man on this. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...Newt Gingrich. Again, Newt is not the perfect conservative.
He has some baggage, but in this day and age, who doesn't? I think he IS the perfect VP candidate under these conditions. He
knows the energy issue inside-and-out and can bring instant authority and credibility to the ticket on this issue. Of course,
Newt is a strong conservative on most other issues as well. Then, McCain and Newt need to have an "emergency energy
conference" with GOP members of Congress and those GOP challengers running for office. You think Newt could work with
Congressional GOP members? Obviously. Slam Dunk. They come up with a singular energy plan, basically calling for the
opening up of onshore and offshore oil fields, coal fields, nuclear energy, etc., AND "fast-tracking" these through Congress.
Similar to the "Contract with America", these candidates sign a pledge to back these measures in office. Then, a massive,
coordinated ad campaign follows. They can use Newt's "Drill Here. Drill Now" slogan, and add "VOTE - " at the end. These
ads will highlight how the democrats have blocked our energy independence, what the GOP plan is, how it would lead to
energy independence, and all the benefits that would result. The ads then end with the slogan. If it's a Presidential ad, it ends
with "DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. VOTE MCCAIN/GINGRICH.". If it's a national GOP ad, it ends with "DRILL HERE.
DRILL NOW. VOTE REPUBLICAN". It it's an ad for a Congressional candidate it can end with "DRILL HERE. DRILL
NOW. VOTE THOMPSON.", or whoever the candidate is. I believe that IF the GOP can coordinate a plan and strategy such
as this, that they can ride a tsunami into office. Really, that could be the tip of the iceberg.
energy policy ensures McCain’s victory

(BOB RAYNER, TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST, 7-13-08, “How McCain Can Use a Struggling Economy to Beat
Obama”, http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-07-13-0054.html, [Ian Miller])
Amercians are smart, but we like to be able to conjure simple ideas about our prospective leaders. Who are they and what do
they stand for? John McCain still has some work to do if he wants to become the next president. So here's some help: Spend
less. Drill more. Don't raise taxes. Seven words. Just about right for a compelling domestic program. Sure, McCain should
remind people that he is a war hero who hates war but understands -- in his bones -- the tough stances needed to protect the
country in a dangerous world. He must signal that he recognizes people are worried about health care -- and that his
consumer-friendly, less-government approach is more compassionate, more effective, and more American than his
opponent's. BUT MOST OF ALL, McCain has to convince voters that he has the right plan for attacking the country's
economic malaise. He is surprisingly well positioned to do just that. So far, though, his message remains hazy, but that
should be easy to fix. # Spend less: Nothing has done more to damage Republican credibility with moderate and conservative
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
voters than the six-year spending orgy initiated by a GOP-controlled Congress and encouraged by a Republican White
House. McCain's record is earmark-free and he has spent -- pardon the pun -- years scolding his GOP colleagues for their
irresponsible ways. He is the perfect candidate to restore financial discipline in Washington. Barack Obama is not. # Drill
more: McCain's record is less perfect on energy policy. But he's learning. The Arizona senator has already called for giving
states the option to explore and produce offshore oil and natural gas. Perhaps he should consider a trip to Alaska and a visit
with the state's energetic and persuasive young governor, Sarah Palin. Just as Obama's trip to Iraq will provide opportunities
to develop more responsible policies about the war, McCain's journey north might open his eyes about the need to drill in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Americans are ready for a sensible, comprehensive energy policy. But they also understand
that oil and gas must be an important part of the equation for the next few decades. And they are justifiably concerned that
rising global demand could keep pushing prices higher for years. Common sense has persuaded a majority that increased
supplies will ease prices -- no matter how many obscure professors NPR and The New York Times dredge up to proclaim
that energy markets are immune to the forces of supply and demand. McCain can and should propose bold and immediate
increases in domestic energy production, including nuclear. He is certain to win this fight because Obama's green flank will
never allow him to move far enough onto rational ground.
McCain will get credit for alternative energy

(Ariel Sabar, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, June 30, 2008, “McCain and Obama share energy goals, not
methods”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0630/p01s02-uspo.html)
Washington - John McCain and Barack Obama know that most Americans need look no further than the gas pump for proof
of America's energy crunch. With fuel topping $4 a gallon and oil at a record price, energy now ties the economy in polls as
voters' top concern, and the presidential candidates spent the past week trying to outflank each other on an issue that's
thinning billfolds from Maine to California. Their plans share key goals – less reliance on foreign oil, a push for cleaner fuels
– but their methods differ sharply. Senator McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, wants 45 new nuclear power plants by
2030 and an end to the federal moratorium on new offshore drilling. He would use market lures – tax rebates for electric cars,
a $300 million prize for a better car battery – to promote alternative sources of energy. He would offer motorists immediate
relief in the form of a hiatus in the federal gas tax. Senator Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, opposes new
offshore drilling and is wary of nuclear power. He would double auto fuel-efficiency standards within 18 years, subsidize
development of ethanol, and force power companies to generate one- quarter of their energy from wind, solar, and other
renewable sources by 2025. An opponent of the gas-tax holiday, Obama favors a "windfall profits" tax on multinational oil
companies. In many ways, their approaches square with party ideology. On the Republican side, financial carrots and a
significant role for the private sector. On the Democratic side, subsidies, taxes, and regulation. But in a departure from GOP
predecessors, McCain has refused to cede the "green" label to his Democratic rival. His aides say his plan strikes the right
balance among short-term relief for consumers, environmental stewardship, and long-term energy independence. They have
taken to calling Obama "Dr. No," portraying him as an obstructionist with too narrow a view of the country's energy woes.
In a speech in Las Vegas Wednesday, McCain trumpeted his plan as a breakthrough after "three decades of partisan
paralysis." He vowed Wednesday to wean America of its dependence on foreign oil by 2025 and gave his proposal no less
momentous a title than "The Lexington Project," after the Revolutionary War site where "Americans asserted their
independence once before." Obama last week called McCain's proposals a series of "cheap gimmicks" that "will only
increase our oil addiction for another four years." Obama wants to reduce oil use 35 percent by 2030, pass a law to phase out
all incandescent light bulbs, and spend $150 billion over the next decade to develop and market clean-energy technology,
from hybrid vehicles to biofuels like ethanol. The campaigns are keen to the politics of their plans in important swing states.
Ethanol is an economic engine in corn-growing Iowa and Minnesota; offshore drilling is a divisive issue in Florida; and
nuclear power is a lightning rod in Nevada, home of the federal government's proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain. While Obama's plan is more in keeping with traditional interests in those states, McCain frames his proposals as a
boon for consumers and another example of his "straight talk." "With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon,
many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians," he said this month in a speech in
Houston. With McCain trailing Obama on most domestic issues in voter opinion polls, the Arizona senator has strived to link
his energy plan to national security, where his ratings are higher. "When we buy oil, we are enriching some of our worst
enemies," he said last week in Las Vegas, naming the Middle East, Venezuela, and Al Qaeda as beneficiaries of America's
dependence on overseas oil. Obama has said that new oil exploration would not lead to lower prices at the pump – not
anytime soon, anyway. "We can't drill our way out of the problems we're facing," he said this month in Florida. The war of
words between the senators escalated throughout the week, with dueling conference calls for reporters and new standalone
websites devoted to energy. Both McCain and Obama support tougher government oversight of energy futures traders whose
speculation has been blamed for spikes in oil prices. They also agree that the federal government – with its giant fleet of cars
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
and square miles of office space – should become a model of energy efficiency. But where Obama sees stricter standards
as key to a more energy independent and efficient America, McCain looks to domestic oil exploration and
entrepreneurialism. "I won't support subsidizing every alternative, or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that
stimulates innovation and lowers costs," McCain said in a speech last year. "But I'll encourage the development of
infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and then let consumers choose the winners."
McCain backs a tax credit of up to $5,000 for consumers who buy cars with low- to zero-carbon emissions, and proposes a
$300 million prize for the first person to invent a battery for plug-in cars that "leap frogs" current technology and supplies
power at 30 percent of today's costs.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
****IMPACTS****
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
MCCAIN  DICTATORSHIP
A MCCAIN WIN LEADS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AS
WE KNOW IT
Robert Parry [author, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq], 5/16/08, AlterNet, “Dire
Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?,” http://www.alternet.org/election08/85432/
If John McCain wins the presidency – and gets to appoint one or more U.S. Supreme Court justices – America’s 220-year
experiment as a democratic Republic living under the principle that “no man is above the law” may come to an end.
To put the matter differently, if a President McCain replaces one of the moderate justices with another Samuel Alito – as
McCain has vowed to do – then Justice Department lawyer John Yoo’s extreme vision of an all-powerful Executive could
well become the new law of the land.
On May 6 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, during a speech aimed at appeasing conservatives, McCain promised to
appoint justices in the mold of George W. Bush’s selections, Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, expanding the
court’s right-wing faction that also includes Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Those four justices already have embraced the Bush administration’s radical notion that at a time of war – even one as
vaguely defined as the “war on terror” – the President possesses “plenary” or unlimited powers through his commander-in-
chief authority.
As expressed in classified memos by Yoo when he was a key lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel,
there should be, in essence, no limits on what a war-time President can do as long as he is asserting his duty to protect the
nation.
Alito also is associated with this concept of a “unitary executive,” holding that a President should control all
regulatory authority, define the limits of laws via "signing statements" and – at his own discretion – override treaties, the
will of Congress and even the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Under this theory, a President can cite his commander-in-chief powers to spy on citizens without warrants, imprison
people without charges, authorize torture, order assassinations, and invade other countries without congressional
approval.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
MCCAIN WILL WIN ALWAYS
OBAMA MAY BE AHEAD NOW BUT WON’T WIN IN NOVEMBER – 4 REASONS
Steven Stark [former cultural commentator for CNN, National Public Radio, and the Voice of America, lawyer and former
Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, he is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School], 7/31/08, Real Clear
Politics, “It Ain’t Over Yet,” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/it_aint_over_yet.html
Obama may indeed end up the comfortable winner in November. But right now, there are a number of factors that still
make John McCain at least even money - and by my current calculations, slightly better - to emerge victorious on
Election Day.
It's true that Obama has a powerful tail wind, thanks to the nation's desire for change, and he is the most eloquent
nominee since Ronald Reagan, with star power to boot. He also will be able to outspend the GOP decisively. And so far,
McCain has failed to gain much traction against his Democratic rival.
But Obama's head winds are just as strong. To win, he will literally have to rewrite history. Some of the hurdles he'll
have to overcome, as I've observed previously, include:
• No Democrat who hails from north of the Mason-Dixon line has been elected since 1960.
• No candidate in the modern primary era has ever been elected in November after failing to win more than one of the
nation's seven largest states in either its pre-convention primary or, if the state didn't hold a primary, its caucuses.
• No candidate in modern times has ever been elected president with a voting record that could be identified as his
party's most liberal or conservative, yet in 2007 Obama was designated as the former (by the National Journal).
• No candidate arguably since Abraham Lincoln has been elected president with as little political experience as
Obama.
None of this is to say that Obama can't overcome these historical obstacles, and he has exceeded expectations before. But as
any lawyer knows, try to defy too many precedents and the odds begin to run against you.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
ENERGY KEY TO MCCAIN
ENERGY WILL TIP THE ELECTION IN MCCAIN’S FAVOR

CBS News, 7/30/08, “McCain Camp Sees Energy As Winning Issue,” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/29/politics/main4304929.shtml
Nonetheless, Republicans believe they are winning the perception battle on energy, and both President Bush and
Congressional Republicans have begun spotlighting the issue. McCain senior advisor and spokesman Taylor Griffin
promised that McCain will continue to press the issue, arguing that Obama "refuses to embrace real solutions."
"It's important for McCain to show his action plan for domestic issues," Reed said. "The rap on McCain is he didn't
have much on the economy, but the truth is for the last two months he's pretty much owned the energy issue. He has
found a political niche, and he's filled it."
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
OBAMA NUCLEAR
OBAMA SUPPORTS NUCLEAR POWER
LA Times, 5/9/07, “Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants,”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/
WASHINGTON - The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether
nuclear power should play a role in any federal attack on climate change.Congress, with added impetus from a Supreme
Court ruling last week, appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides
lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill against
their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power. 0409 02
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer - Bay Area Democrats with similar political views - are on opposite
sides.
Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but now holds a different view. “I think it has to be on the table,” she
said.
Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take the lead in writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil
fuels to nuclear power was “trading one problem for another.”
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates -
support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more
nuclear plants.
Opponents of nuclear power say that because a terrorist attack on a plant could be catastrophic, it makes no sense to build
more potential targets. And radioactive waste still has no permanent burial site, they say, despite officials’ three decades of
trying to find one.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
MCCAIN  NUCLEAR
MCCAIN SUPPORTS NUCLEAR POWER
LA Times, 5/9/07, “Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants,”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/
When McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) added subsidies for nuclear power to their 2005 bill to cut greenhouse
gas emissions, they lost support from environmentalists and votes in Congress, including Boxer’s.
McCain said he had no idea whether he would be more successful this time. But he said there was “no way that you
could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, and anybody who tells you
differently is not telling the truth.”
On Capitol Hill last month, former Vice President Al Gore, who has become a leading advocate for swift action on climate
change, said he saw nuclear plants as a “small part” of the strategy.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
MCCAIN  NOKO STRIKES

MCCAIN WILL STRIKE NORTH KOREA – HE’S AN UBERHAWK
Ted Galen Carpenter [vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute], July 2008, “John McCain
on Foreign Policy: Even Worse Than Bush,” http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9548
Over the years, John McCain has acquired a reputation as a maverick Republican. Independents and even some
Democrats who loathe George W. Bush's foreign-policy record seem to believe that McCain would be a significant
improvement. In several GOP primaries earlier this year, most notably those in New Hampshire and Michigan, nearly one
third of voters who stated that they oppose the Iraq war cast ballots for McCain. That seems to defy logic, since the Arizona
senator has been the most vocal critic of Bush's Iraq policy, arguing as far back as late 2003 that he should commit even more
troops to the war.
But it is not merely McCain's views on Iraq policy that mark him as an überhawk. He has also advocated hardline policies
toward Iran, Syria, and North Korea, and has even staked out confrontational positions toward such major powers as
China and Russia. The evidence suggests that a McCain administration would be even more reckless and aggressive
than the current one.
MCCAIN WILL STRIKE NORTH KOREA

Since the dawn of the 21st century, Senator McCain has been among the most hawkish Republican political figures.
That became evident in 2002 when McCain proposed that the United States openly threaten to use military force
unless Pyongyang capitulates on the nuclear issue. "After first responding appropriately to North Korean violations of the
[1994] agreement and refusing even to discuss with North Korea its extortion demands," wrote McCain in the January 20,
2003, issue of the Weekly Standard, "the administration now appears to have embraced, and in some respects exceeded, the
style and substance of the Clinton administration's diplomacy." He was especially perturbed that President Bush and
Secretary of State Colin Powell "publicly ruled out the use of force, although force could eventually prove to be the
only means to prevent North Korea from acquiring a nuclear arsenal."
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
NOKO STRIKES  NUKE WAR

KIM JONG-IL WILL TRIGGER GLOBAL NUKE WAR IF THE U.S. STRIKES
PREEMPTIVELY
Huffington Post, 7/3/06, “North Korea Threatens "Annihilating Strike And A Nuclear War" If Attacked...,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/03/north-korea-threatens-an_n_24273.html
North Korea will respond to a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an "annihilating strike and a nuclear
war," the state-run media said Monday, heightening its antagonistic rhetoric.
The Korean Central News Agency, citing an unidentified Rodong Sinmun newspaper "analyst," accused the United
States of increasing military pressure on the isolated communist state.
NORTH KOREA STRIKES LEAD TO GLOBAL NUKE WAR AND ESCALATE

QUICKLY
Joseph Coleman [staff writer, San Francisco Chronicle], 7/3/06, “N. Korea Warns of Nuclear War if Attacked,”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/03/international/i055921D38.DTL
North Korea vowed on Monday to respond with an "annihilating" nuclear strike if its atomic facilities are
attacked pre-emptively by the United States.
The Bush administration responded sternly, saying while it had no intention of attacking, it was determined to protect
the United States if North Korea launched a long-range missile.
"Should North Korea take the provocative action of launching a missile the U.S. would respond appropriately,
including by taking the necessary measures to protect ourselves," Julie Reside, a State Department
spokeswoman, said.
Still, Reside said, the United States and other countries that have negotiated with North Korea are seeking a
fundamentally different relationship with the reclusive regime. She said that relationship must be based on the
complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons and nuclear program.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
MCCAIN KILLS US-CHINA RELATIONS
MCCAIN WILL DESTROY US-CHINA RELATIONS

John McCain harbors a barely disguised hostility toward China, arguing that her growing economy and military
modernization pose a great threat to the United States. On several occasions, he has cited China's rise as a justification
for even greater U.S. military spending. Most independent experts estimate Beijing's military budget to be between $50 and $75 billion, and the
Pentagon contends it is between $84 and $125 billion. At any rate, McCain considers the amount excessive for China's legitimate defense needs. Yet he does
not view the U.S. military budget (including supplementals for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) of nearly $800 billion to be excessive.
He also advocates provocative symbolic snubs of the Chinese government. For example, he criticized President Bush's
decision to attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, because of human-rights abuses.
Cato Institute foreign-policy analyst Malou Innocent concedes that Beijing's authoritarianism is troubling, but she notes that
"Senator McCain appears to preclude the possibility of building a constructive relationship with China unless it
becomes fully democratic." That attitude puts at risk America's extensive economic relationship with China as well as
ignores the numerous issues on which we need China's help — most notably in trying to defuse the North Korean and
Iranian crises. This is yet another area in which a McCain presidency would likely be more confrontational and
destabilizing than the Bush presidency.
U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS KEY TO FIGHT PROLIF

Phillip Saunders [director, East Asian Non-Proliferation Program, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies],
10/23/01, “Can 9-11 Provide a Fresh Start for U.S.-Sino Relations?,” CNS Reports, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sino911.htm
China and the United States still share numerous common interests in fighting proliferation.
In terms of specific nonproliferation issues, the United States and China both oppose the
introduction of nuclear weapons onto the Korean peninsula and seek to restrain India's efforts
to build an operational nuclear arsenal. Both also want to avoid arms races in Northeast Asia
that might lead Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan to develop nuclear weapons and
ballistic missiles. Finally, both the United States and China seek ways to improve the
effectiveness of the treaties banning chemical and biological weapons.
PROLIFERATION LEADS TO EXTINCTION

Utgoff- Depute director of strategy, forces, and resources division of institute for defense analysis-2002 (Victor,
“Proliferation, Missile defense and American ambitions” Survival, P. 87-90)
At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to
distant targets, and these initiatives would spurt increasing numbers of the world’s capable states would follow suit.
Restraint would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear weapons and long
range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the technology for building nuclear forces continues to
improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely at some point, halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will
disappear. Once that happens, the transition to a highly proliferation world would be very rapid. While some regions might be
able to hold the line for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most areas could create pressures
that would finally overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a
grave threat to world peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the
past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially burdensome efforts to be
made to slow or stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world would
sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to
a highly proliferated would be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear
weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those whose succeed in outracing an opponent
may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Escalation of
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
violence is also basic human nature. Once violence starts retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels
unimagined by participants beforehand. Intense widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot
out with nuclear weapons.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
MCCAIN  NO LOST
MCCCAIN WOULD VETO LOST
Washington Times, 10/31/07, “McCain caters to GOP voters,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/31/mccain-
caters-32to-gop-voters/
Sen. John McCain has quietly been piling up flip-flops, including ditching his long-held support for the Law of the Sea
convention and telling bloggers he now opposes the DREAM Act to legalize illegal alien students.
The sea treaty has become the latest litmus test for the 2008 Republican presidential field, and after a decade-long
record of public support for it, Mr. McCain has pivoted to bring himself in line with the rest of the candidates.
"I would probably vote against it in its present form," he told bloggers last week during a conference call.
Republican primary voters tilt to the right, and the sea treaty is another example of Mr. McCain veering to try to align himself
with them, recanting positions along the way on immigration, tax cuts and campaign-finance reform.
Mr. McCain's support for the sea treaty stretched back to the 1990s, when he signed a letter with three other senators urging
its passage, and continued through 2003, when he was scheduled to testify on its behalf before a Senate committee.
But after the rest of the Republican presidential field took a stand against the treaty this month, Mr. McCain had
little choice but to change, conservatives said.
MCCAIN WOULD VETO LOST

Newsmax, 10/26/07, “McCain Lines Up Against Sea Treaty,”
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_sea_treaty/2007/10/26/44087.html
Sen. John McCain has become the latest presidential candidate publicly to express opposition to ratification of the
United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).
During a call with bloggers, McCain noted in response to a question about LOST: "I do worry a lot about American
sovereignty aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form.”
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
LOST GOOD – HEG

LOST KEY TO ACCESS SLOCS AND SIGNALS U.S. LEADERSHIP
Eagleburger and Moore ‘07
(Lawrence S., Fmr Secretary of State and John, US Ambassador to LOST and Dir Center for Oceans Law & Policy –
U Virginia, Washington Post, 7-30, Lexis)
Foreign policy concerns, as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute shows, are like the Energizer bunny; they generally go on
and on. When we have an opportunity for a decisive foreign policy win, it should not be missed. One such
opportunity has arisen with the Law of the Sea Convention, and in contrast to what Jack Goldsmith and Jeremy
Rabkin have argued on this page ["A Treaty the Senate Should Sink," op-ed, July 2], the convention should be
approved. The convention is strongly supported by our military leaders and aids our national security in
crucial ways . It provides legal certainty for U.S. naval vessels navigating the world's oceans, the largest
maneuver space in the world. It assists the Coast Guard and facilitates crucial oil and gas development on our
offshore continental margin, reducing the need for Middle Eastern oil. Indeed, in its 200-mile economic zone, it
extends U.S. resource control into the oceans in an area greater than the land area of the nation, giving the United
States the largest economic zone in the world. The United States would hold the only permanent seat on the
Counsel of the Seabed Authority. This new functional entity permits U.S. firms to develop critically needed deposits
of copper, nickel, cobalt and manganese from ocean-floor sites. But thdelay in U.S. adherence to the convention
has already meant the loss of one of four original U.S. mine sites, and the other three are at risk. Meanwhile,
China, Russia, India, Japan and others have moved to obtain exploration licenses to their deep-seabed sites. Not
surprisingly, the Navy; the Coast Guard; and our fishing, shipping, undersea cable, mining, and oil and gas industries
all support ratification, as do environmentalists. The congressionally established Ocean Policy Commission voted
unanimously for U.S. accession to the convention as its first official act. There are also important foreign policy
reasons to adhere, as Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England
wrote in an op-ed in June. In sharp contrast to the Kyoto treaty, the United States led the world in negotiating the Law
of the Sea Convention and achieved a historic negotiating success -- a success that probably could not be replicated
today. Moreover, when President Ronald Reagan subsequently determined that Part XI of the convention, on seabed
mining, required major revision, the world expressly met his conditions before the convention went into effect. Today
the convention is in force for 154 nations, including all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council but the
United States. Failure to adhere diminishes the voice of the United States in protecting our interests worldwide;
it excludes America from the new functional organizations created by the convention, such as the Commission
on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; and it sends a signal of American isolationism. Why then has the convention, which
was successfully renegotiated in 1994, not yet received a vote in the Senate? Sadly, ideologically driven opponents have purveyed a web of
distortions. They assert that the convention would give our sovereignty away, but the reality would be enhanced protection of our ships on the seas
and the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S. history, greater in area than that of the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska
combined. They assert that the International Seabed Authority, which after a quarter- century of operation has 35 employees and a budget of less
than $12 million, is both a U.N. agency (it's not) and a stalking horse for world government. The agency also has no power to
tax Americans. Opponents assert that Ronald Reagan deep-sixed the convention, when instead he set requirements for renegotiation of Part
XIwhich were successfully achieved, and he directed that we follow the remainder of the convention, which has been U.S. oceans policy now
through four presidencies. They assert that the convention harms President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), when the Joint Chiefs of
Staff state flatly that the convention "strengthens the coalition" and "supports" PSI. Foreign policy issues deserve debate, but not shameful
distortions. The Senate must not cede its role to uninformed voices, especially when our president and national security leaders are on record as to
what is in our country's interest and when the rest of the world has specifically accommodated America's request for renegotiation. If the Senate
misses this opportunity, our allies and adversaries alike will note that U.S. foreign policy has been diminished
by an ideological extreme. The Senate should follow the president's leadership on this important issue.
THIS CAUSES GLOBAL NUKE WAR

Zalmay KHALILZAD [RAND Corporation], 1995, Losing the Moment?, Washington Quarterly, Vol 18 No 2, p. 84
.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the
Finally, U
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
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
LOST GOOD – ENVIRO

U.S. ACCESSION KEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
Kraus ‘07
(Don, Vice President of Governmental Relations – Citizens for Global Solutions, “Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea”,
6-6, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4286)
During the Nixon administration negotiations began to create a common set of rules for how nations use our oceans. Now, almost
40 years later, the United States is on the verge of joining the 155 nations that have ratified the United Nations Law of the Sea
Convention (LOS). This treaty defines maritime zones, protects the environment, preserves freedom of navigation, and establishes
clear guidelines for businesses that depend on the sea for resources. Until the United States ratifies the treaty its rights at sea will
lack international recognition. An incredibly diverse group of organizations and trade associations—including environmental, oil
industry, peace, and veterans groups—have come together to put this important piece of old business back on the agenda. The
reasons these odd bedfellows back the treaty are as varied as their missions. But together they elicited support from the White
House and Senate leadership and have opened a small window of opportunity for LOS ratification. The timing is critical.
According to the bipartisan Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, oceans and coasts are severely threatened. In its
2006 report card on U.S. ocean policy, the commission gave the U.S. a D- in “International Leadership” (up from an F in
2005). The commission cited accession to the LOS convention as the key step the United States must take to improve its
score. A February letter from major environmental organizations to Senate leaders urged quick ratification and cited the
convention’s “basic obligation for all states to … protect and preserve the marine environment and conserve marine living species”
as a reason for their support.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PREVENTS GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL

DESTRUCTION THAT RISKS EXTINCTION
Harris ‘01
(Paul G., Lecturer @ Lignan U, Associate Fellow – Oxford Center for Environment, Ethics, and Society at Mansfield
College, Oxford U., The Environment, International Relations, and U.S. Foreign Policy, p. 241-2)
Environment, Equity, and U.S. Foreign Policy: Normative Implications In addition to promoting U.S. global interests, a more robust
acceptance by the U.S. government of international equity as an objective of global environmental policy—and indeed of foreign
policy generally—has potentially beneficial implications forhumankind. Implementation of the equity provisions of international
environmental arrangements may reduce human suffering by helping to prevent changes to local, regional, and global
environmental commons that would adversely affect people, most notably the many poor people in the economically developing countries who are least
able to cope with environmental changes. Insofar as environmental protection policies focus on sustainable economic development, human suffering may be mitigated as
developing countries—especially the least- developed countries—are aided in meeting the basic needs of their citizens. Economic disparities within and between countries
are growing. At least one-fifth of the world’s population already lives in the squalor of absolute poverty.59 This situation can be expected to worsen in the future. If this
process can be mitigated or reversed by international policies focusing on environmentally sustainable economic development, human well-being on a global scale will rise.
‘What is more, international cooperative efforts to protect the environment that are made more likely and more effective by
provisions for international equity will help governments protect their own environment and the global environment if they are
successful. Insofar as the planet is one biosphere—that it is in the case of ozone depletion and climate change seems
indisputable- persons in every local and national community are simultaneously members of an interdependent whole
Most activities, especially widespread activities in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world, including the release of ozone-destroying chemicals
and greenhouse gases, are likely to adversely affect many or possibly all persons on the planet. Efforts to prevent such harm or make amends for historical harm (i.e., past
pollution, which is especially important in these examples because many pollutants continue doing harm for years and often decades) require that most communities work
together. Indeed, affluent lifestyles in the United States, ‘Western Europe, and other developed areas may harm people in poor areas of the world more than they will harm
those enjoying such lifestyles because the poor are ill-equipped to deal with the consequences.6° Furthermore, by concerning themselves with the consequences of their
actions on the global poor and polluted, Americans and the citizens of other developed countries will be helping their immediate neighbors—and themselves —in the long
run. Actualization of international equity in conjunction with sustainable development may help prevent damage to the natural environment worldwide, thereby promoting
human prosperity. The upshot is that the United States has not gone far enough in actively accepting equity as an objective of global environmental policy. It ought to go
further in doing so for purely self-interested reasons. But there are more than self-interested reasons for the United States to move in this direction. It ought to embrace
international equity as an objective of its global environmental policy for ethical reasons as well. We can find substantial ethical justification for the United States, in concert
with other developed countries, to support politically and financially the codification and implementation of international equity considerations in international environmental
agreements. The United States ought to be a leader in supporting a fair and just distribution among countries of the benefits, burdens, and decision-making authority
associated with international environmental relations.61 To invoke themes found in the corpus of ethical philosophy (but without here assuming the burden of philosophical
exegesis!), the United States ought to adopt policies that engender international equity in at least the environmental field (1) to protect the health and well-being of the human
species; (2) to promote basic human rights universally; (3) to help the poor be their own moral agents (a Kantian rationale); (4) to help right past wrongs and to take
responsibility for past injustices (i.e., past and indeed ongoing U.S. pollution of the global environment); (5) to aid the world’s least-advantaged people and countries (a
Rawlsian-like conception); (6) and to fhlflll the requirement of impartiality (among other ethical reasons)62—all in addition to the more dearly self-interested justification that
doing so will bolster U.S. credibility and influence in international environmental negotiations and contemporary global politics more generally. One might argue, therefore,
that the United States ought to be aiding the developing countries to achieve sustainable development because to do so may
simultaneously reduce human suffering and reduce or potentially reverse environmental destruction that could otherwise
threaten the healthy survival of the human species . Insofar as human-caused pollution and resource exploitation deny individuals and their communities the
capacity to survive in a healthy condition, the United States, which consumes vastly more than necessary, has an obligation to stop that unnecessary consumption. From this
basic rights perspective,63 the U.S. government should also take steps to reduce substantially the emissions of pollutants from within the United States that harm people in
other countries.64 The United States ought to refrain from unsustainable use of natural resources and from pollution of environmental commons shared by people living in
other countries—or at least make a good effort toward that end—because the people affected by these activities cannot reasonably be expected to support them (we would not
be treating them as independent moral agents, to make a Kantian argument65).
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
MCCAIN  NUKE WAR

ELECTING MCCAIN WOULD LEAD TO NUKE WAR
Jeffrey St. Clair [editor, CounterPunch], 11/23/04, “Meet the Senator Most Likely to Start a Nuclear War: The Mark of
McCain,” http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair11232004.html
In 1992, Robin Silver and Bob Witzeman went to meet with McCain at his office in Phoenix to discuss Mt. Graham.
Silver and Witzeman are both physicians. Witzeman is now retired and Silver works in the emergency room at Phoenix
hospital. The doctors say that at the mention of the words Mount Graham McCain erupted into a violent fit. "He
slammed his fists on his desk, scattering papers across the room", Silver tells us. "He jumped up and down, screaming
obscenities at us for at least 10 minutes. He shook his fists as if he was going to slug us. It was as violent as almost any
domestic abuse altercation."
Witzeman left the meeting stunned: "I'm a lifelong environmentalist, but what really scares me about McCain is not
his environmental policies, which are horrid, but his violent, irrational temper. I think McCain is so unbalanced that if
Vladimir Putin told him something he didn't like he'd lose it, start beating his chest about having his finger on the nuclear
trigger. Who knows where it would stop. To my mind, McCain's the most likely senator to start a nuclear war."
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
OFFSHORE DRILLING MODULE

MCCAIN WOULD BEGIN DRILLING OFFSHORE
AP, 6/17/08, “McCain Would Lift Drilling Ban,” http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/17/9696/
ARLINGTON, Va. - Sen. John McCain said yesterday that the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling
should be lifted and that individual states ought to be given the right to pursue energy exploration in waters near their
coasts.0617 06
With gasoline prices rising and the United States chronically dependent on foreign oil, the Republican presidential
contender said his proposal would “be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis.”
McCain also suggested giving the states incentives - among them a greater share of royalties paid by companies that drill for
oil - to permit offshore exploration.
Asked how far offshore states should be given control over drilling rights, he said that was a matter for negotiation.
The Arizona Republican offered no further details of his proposal, which he is expected to describe more fully today in an
energy speech.
OFFSHORE DRILLING WILL LEAD TO EXTINCTION

Politics of a New Paradigm, 7/2/08, “As planet warms, McCain, Bush push offshore drilling,”
http://garypatrickgarry.com/2008/07/02/as-planet-warms-mccain-bush-push-offshore-drilling/
The worst possible manifestation of the failure of humanity to embody any sense of the sacred is present in the
approach that people like John McCain, George Bush, Newt Gingrich, and the Big Oil interests that they represent take
toward the environment. As it becomes more and more apparent that their leadership has led us to the brink of
extinction as a species, they use their own colossal failures as a springboard to take us deeper into the abyss. They
use the economic desperation that they have caused through their unspeakable greed as a way to dig deeper and take
still more from the earth that is sending sign after sign that she has had enough.
To me, money is paper. In fact, it is less paper and more digits on a computer screen. The economic system that we live under is quite flexible. We can
change it at any time. I constantly read about the costs associated with greening the planet and responding to global warming and pollution in general as
being prohibitive. People like Bush and McCain are quick to point out the economic impact of lessening consumption and embracing sustainability. They are
right, a “growth economy” and a global culture of sustainable living are not compatible.
The economic system can be altered. It is malleable, even disposable if need be. Our ecosystem is not disposable. It is not optional. We seem to be
proceeding from the standpoint that there is nothing that can be changed about the way that goods and services are exchanged, even if it causes the extinction
of every species on earth. This is a paradigm that has to be transcended.
If the economic system that is destroying our habitat was providing us all with health, wealth, and prosperity, I can understand why it would be hard to shift
out of it, though it would be just as necessary as it is today. However, half of the people on earth live on less than $2 a day. Even those among us who “have
it pretty good” work and commute 40-60 hours a week doing something we probably don’t like to do for someone we probably can’t stand, with very little to
show for it except basic survival. A shift in the economic paradigm would not only enable the healing of the earth, it would provide improved conditions for
about 90% of the people on the planet.
I read yesterday that Americans are more supportive of drilling domestically for oil now that gas prices are over $4 a
gallon. This is nauseating. People are willing to reward the politicians and their Big Oil masters for gouging them at the
pumps by handing over the rights to our shared habitat so that they can rape it and pollute it just a little bit more? And the
kicker is, domestic drilling will do nothing to lower the price of gas!
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
MCCAIN  CAUCASUS INSTABILITY

MCCAIN WILL DESTABILIZE GEORGIA-RUSSIA RELATIONS AND COLLAPSE
THE CAUCASUS INTO ESCALATING CONFLICT
Justin Raimondo [American author and the editorial director of the website Antiwar.com.], 11/20/06, “Conflict in the
Caucasus: First battleground in the new Cold War?,” http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10043
The anti-Russian rhetoric coming out of John McCain's mouth, dutifully echoed by the White House, is not just talk. The
playing of the "Great Game" in Central Asia involves a U.S. strategy to lock the Russians out of the oil bonanza and
claim the area as an alternative source of energy, i.e., an alternative to the Middle East. This may have something to do
with why the regime-changers have their sights set on the former Soviet Union, demonizing Vladimir Putin as the alleged
reincarnation of Joseph Stalin and targeting Russia as a renewed threat to the West.
The Russians are using the Ossetian and Abkhazian examples as counterpoints to the recent suggestion by the
Western occupiers of Kosovo that the formerly Serbian province be granted formal independence. The Kosovars are
demanding it, and why, after all, did the U.S. and its European allies fight a war to "liberate" Kosovo from the former
Yugoslavia, anyway? Yet if Kosovo deserves independence, then why not Abkhazia and South Ossetia? This riposte is
meant to stick in the craw of the Europeans, who have made a special point of taking the Georgian side in this dispute.
Russian "peacekeepers," OSCE "observers," South Ossetian troops, and the U.S.-trained-and-equipped Georgian
military are facing off along ill-defined borders, with renegade "rebel" bands supporting one side or the other running
wild in the no-man's land in between. This is a recipe for disaster, and an armed confrontation is bound to occur, with
the distinct possibility of escalating into all-out warfare. The Russians would soon be drawn in, and the U.S. could not
escape being dragged into this particular vortex – with fateful consequences all 'round.
I can just hear McCain barnstorming the country in '08, denouncing "Russian imperialism" and demanding that we
"stop Putin" in the Caucasus before Russian troops cross the Bering Straits.
MCCAIN WILL DESTABILIZE THE CAUCASUS AND CAUSE A NEW COLD WAR
THAT WILL TURN HOT FAST
Justin Raimondo [American author and the editorial director of the website Antiwar.com.], 11/20/06, “Conflict in the
Caucasus: First battleground in the new Cold War?,” http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10043
What seems like a small, obscure dispute could balloon into a major crisis because of the stakes involved. The rising
amount of U.S. aid to Georgia greatly aids Saakashvili's military buildup: his belligerence begs for a stern rebuke,
perhaps an aid cutoff. It's time to rein in this would-be Napoleon-of-the-steppes and nip Georgian imperialism in the bud –
before it destabilizes what is, after all, a volatile region. If John McCain, George Soros, Anne Applebaum, and the usual
neoconservative suspects have their way, Georgia may be the first battleground of a revived Cold War. The problem is
that the conflict may turn hot with frightening swiftness.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
MCCAIN  CAUCASUS INSTABILITY
MCCAIN SUPPORTS GEORGIAN SEPARATIST TERRORISTS

Anatol Lieven [staff writer, Newsweek], 10/16/06, “War in the Caucasus?: The dispute between Georgia and Russia has all
the makings of a tragic conflict,” http://www.newsweek.com/id/44909?tid=relatedcl
The Bush administration has repeatedly assured the Kremlin that it is putting heavy pressure on Saakashvili's
government not to attack the breakaway regions. Yet Moscow can't help but see a contradiction. Exhibit A is the fact
that the United States continues to arm and train Georgian forces. Moreover, Russians see Georgian adventurism as
encouraged by less restrained U.S. politicians, such as John McCain and other senators who visited Georgia in recent
months and expressed strong support for Georgian aspirations. McCain's helicopter allegedly came under fire as it flew over
South Ossetia.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
CAUCASUS KEY TO US-RUSSIA RELATIONS

THE CAUCASUS IS THE KEY INTERNAL TO US-RUSSIA RELATIONS
Dr. Vakhtang Maisaia [chairman, Foreign Policy Association of Georgia], 7/28/08, “Is the South Caucasus the “Achilles
Heel” of Russia-US Relations?” http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=11719
Due to the global geopolitical transformations that are steadily transforming relations into another possible Cold War
scenario and “soft bipolarity”, the South Caucasus is gaining new momentum. The power changes in Russia (Putin-
Medvedev tandem) and the upcoming power transfer in the US (from the Bush Administration to a yet unknown political
team) directly influences the processes of contemporary international relations. “Neo-Realpolitik” of the 21st century
dominates the minds and thoughts of the international community. Relations between the two global power-centers are
important and decisive for world politics. Steadily, the global power polarity is shifting away from unipolarity (i.e. USA
dominance) into multipolarity (i.e. more engagement of Russia and as well as India, Brazil and EU).
Russia-US relations have been transforming from strategic (as in Yeltsin’s so-called “Week Power” status period) into
more pragmatic, but perhaps less “friendly” interactions (as in Putin-Medvedev’s period). Controversial issues, even in
such remote global politics as Presidential elections in Zimbabwe, not to mention more “hot-spot” issues, like contradictions
over Iranian nuclear program, NATO enlargement towards East, anti-missile defense system deployment in Central Europe,
are demonstrating how contemporary world politics are elusive and dynamic and often times quite murky. Unfortunately,
despite the formal arrangements in Russia-USA relations (the global war against terrorism, NATO-Russia Council,
global energy security, North Korea nuclear program, and global warming) the drawbacks to bilateral connections
are outnumbering the benefits.
As we are to see the change of power in Washington and the Moscow’s White House is in the hands of Gazprom and Siloviki
group representatives, the events will take a more dramatic turn. That it was no accident that Henry Kissinger, ex-State
Secretary contributed to calming down the strained relations between the Soviet Union and the US for that time was seen in
the following:
“America, should alter the policy of assertive intrusion into what Russians consider their own sense of self … We can
affect [Russia] more by patience and historical understanding than by offended disengagement and public
exhortations. Perhaps Washington should douse the rhetoric, but there is a causal connection between domestic politics and
foreign policy. Today, Russia’s sense-of-self thrives upon overrunning others’ sense-of-self. The West, particularly America,
must offer no succor here.”
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
CAUCASUS CONFLICT  NUKE WAR

CAUCASUS INSTABILITY IS THE MOST PROBABLE SCENARIO FOR GLOBAL
NUCLEAR WAR
Stephen Blank [professor of research at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College], June 2000, “US
Military Engagement with Transcaucasia and Central Asia”,http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/docs/Blank2000.pdf
Washington’s burgeoning military-political-economic involvement seeks, inter alia, to demonstrate the U.S. ability to
project military power even into this region or for that matter, into Ukraine where NATO recently held exercises that
clearly originated as an anti-Russian scenario. Secretary of Defense William Cohen has discussed strengthening U.S.-
Azerbaijani military cooperation and even training the Azerbaijani army, certainly alarming Armenia and Russia.69 And
Washington is also training Georgia’s new Coast Guard.70 However, Washington’s well-known ambivalence about
committing force to Third World ethnopolitical conflicts suggests that U.S. military power will not be easily
committed to saving its economic investment. But this ambivalence about committing forces and the dangerous
situation, where Turkey is allied to Azerbaijan and Armenia is bound to Russia, create the potential for wider and
more protracted regional conflicts among local forces. In that connection, Azerbaijan and Georgia’s growing efforts to
secure NATO’s lasting involvement in the region, coupled with Russia’s determination to exclude other rivals, foster a
polarization along very traditional lines.71
In 1993 Moscow even threatened World War III to deter Turkish intervention on behalf of Azerbaijan. Yet the new Russo-
Armenian Treaty and Azeri-Turkish treaty suggest that Russia and Turkey could be dragged into a confrontation to
rescue their allies from defeat.72 Thus many of the conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict in
which third parties intervene are present in the Transcaucasus. For example, many Third World conflicts generated by
local structural factors have a great potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their
lesser proteges and proxies. One or another big power may fail to grasp the other side’s stakes since interests here are not as
clear as in Europe. Hence commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a client’s defeat are not as well
established or apparent. Clarity about the nature of the threat could prevent the kind of rapid and almost uncontrolled
escalation we saw in 1993 when Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan led Russian leaders to threaten a
nuclear war in that case.73
Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally, Russian nuclear threats could trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small
possibility given the erratic nature of Russia’s declared nuclear strategies). The real threat of a Russian nuclear strike
against Turkey to defend Moscow’s interests and forces in the Transcaucasus makes the danger of majorwar there
higher than almost everywhere else. As Richard Betts has observed, The greatest danger lies in areas where (1) the
potential for serious instability is high; (2) both superpowers perceive vital interests; (3) neither recognizes that the other’s
perceived interest or commitment is as great as its own; (4) both have the capability to inject conventional forces; and, (5)
neither has willing proxies capable of settling the situation.74
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
****Answers TO****
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT: INTRINSICNESS
1. INTRINSICNESS ARGUMENTS DON’T APPLY TO FUTURE PRESIDENTS –

RIGHT NOW OBAMA AND MCCAIN ARE NORMAL, PRIVATE CITIZENS;
THIS JUSTIFIES PRIVATE ACTOR FIAT WHICH IS ABUSIVE, 3 REASONS:
2. NO DA IS TRULY INTRINSIC – THEY COULD TRY AND CRAFT THIS
ARGUMENT OUT OF ANY DISAD
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT Doesn’t Escalate
Any retaliation by Iran would force the US to engage with more nuclear weapons.
Phyllis Bennis, Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies 4/19/06 “Iran: The Day After”
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0419-23.htm [Mills]
And what about the oil weapon? Iran certainly has the capacity to shut the strategic, but potentially vulnerable, Strait of
Hormuz, through which a huge proportion of Middle Eastern oil flows to the rest of the world. What if the Iranian navy
scuttled an oil tanker in the Strait, blocking oil traffic? What if it was a U.S. tanker? Do we really think the Bush
administration - which so far has steadfastly refused even to hint at the possibility that Iran might respond with anything other
than cheers and flowers to a U.S. bombing campaign - would respond to Tehran's military retaliation politely, saying "oh of
course we anticipated an Iranian strike-back, it's just tit-for-tat and now it's over"? Or do we think they will be true to form
and move towards powerful retribution against Iran, possibly including the invasion by U.S. ground troops that we're being
told today is not even being considered? Some military analysts indicate Iran's troops these days are training primarily in
defensive guerrilla-war strategies, seemingly aimed at overcoming a future invasion. That shouldn't surprise us. Iran, like the
rest of the world, has watched the Bush administration's disparate treatment of the various "Axis of Evil" countries. It has
escaped no one's notice – certainly not Iran's – that the U.S. invaded Iraq, a country that had no viable nuclear program, while
quietly ignoring North Korea, understood to have at least the technical capacity to produce, and perhaps already having, an
existing nuclear weapon. We can assume that other countries around the world have learned the same dangerous and tragic
lesson – that Non-Proliferation Treaty or not, if you get on the wrong side of Washington only a nuclear capacity might
protect you from a possible U.S. invasion.
AT McCain Wont Strike

[ ] AT McCain wont strike Iran
1. McCain’s anti-terrorism, pro-Israel stance ensures strikes and wars – Obama would negotiate.
FOXNews.com 5 /19, 2008 “Obama, McCain Feud Continues Over U.S. Policy on Talking to Despots”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/19/obama-mccain-feud-continues-over-us-policy-on-talking-to-despots/
The foreign policy fight between John McCain and Barack Obama flared up again Monday when the candidates jabbed one
another over over how to address the threat posed by Iran. While the two have been feuding since President Bush last week
told the Israeli Knesset, or parliament, that a policy of appeasement is a “foolish delusion,” the heated rhetoric rose a notch
after Obama said Sunday night that Iran is not an equivalent threat to the Soviet Union. “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these
countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a
threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you
off the planet,” Obama told voters in Pendleton, Ore. “You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on
the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of
strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen,” he said. Obama has called for unconditional direct talks
between the U.S. and Iran, saying the U.S. would be negotiating from a position of strength. He has since modified that call,
saying that mid-level meetings would have to set an agenda and criteria before direct talks could be conducted. Speaking to
the National Restaurant Association on Monday, McCain said Obama doesn’t understand that a summit meeting with a U.S.
president is the ultimate form of diplomacy, and not one to be squandered on a nation that is unrepentant about its pursuit of
nuclear weapons, its desire to blow Israel off the map and its frequent attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. “Senator Obama has
declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the president of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to
meetings between former American presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of
Senator Obama’’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to
possess,” McCain said. “It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions;
its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are
succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next
president ought to understand such basic realities of international relations,” he continued. Responding almost immediately,
Obama, who was in Billings, Mont., on Monday, said he understands that Iran is a grave threat, but it’s important to engage
enemies as well as friends. “That is what diplomacy is all about,” he said, adding that Iran’s strength has grown primarily
“because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting an endless war in Iraq.” Iran, Obama said, is the “single biggest beneficiary
of a war that should never have been authorized and never have been waged.”
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT McCain wont strike

2. McCain will attack Iran – he will never back down on military force
Matthew Yglesias, Associate Editor of The Atlantic Monthly, The American Prospect, 4-28-08,
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_militarist
Things were looking bleak for Republicans in February, and it was clear that only a candidate with crossover appeal to war
opponents stood any chance of going toe-to-toe with a Democrat. Thus, though it may have angered the conservative base,
the Republicans got lucky as McCain emerged as the front-runner over Mitt Romney, the preferred choice of Bush-lovers.
But there is a problem. Despite neoconservatism's close association in the public imagination with the Bush administration,
and despite McCain's image as a moderate, a look at the record makes clear that McCain, not Bush, is the real neocon in the
Republican Party. McCain was the neocons' candidate in 2000, McCain adhered to a truer version of the faith during the early
years of hubris that followed September 11, and as president McCain would likely pursue policies that will make what we've
seen from Bush look like a pale imitation of the real thing. McCain, after all, is the candidate of perpetual war in Iraq. The
candidate who, despite his protestations in a March speech that he "hates war," not only stridently backed the 2003 invasion
of Iraq but has spent years calling on the United States to depose every dictator in the world. He's the candidate of ratcheting-
up action against North Korea and Iran, of new efforts to undermine the United Nations, and of new cold wars with Russia
and China. Rather than hating war, he sees it as integral to the greatness of the nation, and military service as the highest
calling imaginable. It is, in short, not Bush but McCain, who among practical politicians holds truest to the vision of a foreign
policy dominated by militaristic unilateralism.
3. McCain will strike Iran—Obama will negotiate

Irish Times, 2-9-08
WorldView: Ever since the revised US National Intelligence Estimate saying that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons
programme in 2003 was published in early December, the prospect that the US and/or Israel might mount a military strike
against Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities has been completely discounted at home and abroad. Hillary Clinton does not have
to worry about being so pre-empted in April or May, forcing her to approve or disapprove. Barack Obama supports engaging
Iran in talks, while John McCain favours confronting the Iranians directly with sanctions and military means if necessary.
AT Obama Strikes
[ ] AT Obama will strike
1. Obama won’t strike Iran—prefer our evidence it cites his speech
Donald Lambro 2/11/08 (The Washington Times, “Iraq aside, Democrats mum on foreign policy”, lexis)
Last year, though, Mrs. Clinton came under fire from antiwar activists when she voted for a bipartisan Senate resolution
condemning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization that was responsible for roadside bombings and other
attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Antiwar critics saw the vote as an attempt by the Bush administration to prepare to go to war
against Iran unless it abandoned its ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama opposed the resolution but missed
the vote because he was campaigning. Many of Mr. Obama 's foreign policy advisers are also from the Clinton
administration, including former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, Susan E. Rice, an assistant secretary of state
during Mr. Clinton's second term, and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. Also on his team are Jimmy Carter's national
security adviser, Zbigniew Brezezinski, and former National Security Agency counterterrorism specialist Richard Clarke. A
key foreign policy clash that developed during debates between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama arose when he called for a
change in dealing with rogue nations, saying he would hold unconditional talks with leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba.
Mrs. Clinton called his proposal "irresponsible and, frankly, naive." Mr. Obama shot back, charging that her approach was
outdated and represented a continuation of the Bush-Cheney policies. Mr. Obama 's foreign policy emphasizes personal
diplomacy, economic development and humanitarian aid, and he rejects the pre-emptive policies of the Bush administration
that led to the war in Iraq. "For most of our history, our crises have come from using force when we shouldn't, not by failing
to use force," he told the New York Times. "The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that
refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough; it makes us look arrogant," he says on his
campaign Web site. But Mr. O'Hanlon thinks Mr. Obama 's eagerness for one-on-one meetings with leaders of rogue nations
"would cheapen the value of a presidential summits." "You don't want a president using his time by being lied to by foreign
leaders. Hillary would be much more pragmatic. She suggested midlevel talks with Iran. Obama would look weak, and
Hillary would not look weak," he said.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT Obama Strikes
2. Obama will personally negotiate with Iran
The Guardian 11/3/07 (“Iran: Stopping nuclear ambitions”, lexis)
Bombing Iran would be a disaster. Even if bombs busted Iran's nuclear bunkers, they would still miss their target. A military
strike on the uranium-enrichment centrifuges would hasten an Iranian weapons programme, not delay it. A pre-emptive strike
would turn a covert programme into an overt one, this time with the full backing of a wounded nation. Iran would leave the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), spelling the end of visits by international nuclear inspectors. Iran has already violated
the NPT by failing to declare experiments with nuclear materials, but its formal departure from the regulatory regime would
leave it free to pursue its nuclear programme unfettered by inspection. And Iran would have 154,000 US targets in Iraq to fire
back at. But letting Iran pursue its nuclear ambitions would be no less cataclysmic. The arrival of the Iranian bomb would set
off an arms race among the Sunni states in the Gulf unparalleled in the history of nuclear proliferation. The absence of Arab
reaction to the Israeli bombing of a suspected nuclear facility under construction in the Syrian desert was a telling sign of the
fear spreading in the region. Even assuming Tehran would not pass fissile material to its proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas, the
mere possession of a nuclear capability would give an unstable populist regime untold military and diplomatic clout.
International negotiations are logjammed. A grand bargain offered four years ago, whereby Iran stops uranium enrichment in
return for uranium for its fuel cycle, generous aid packages and a full return to the international stage, is still on the table. Iran
has refused to comply with two previous rounds of UN sanctions and the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany
were struggling yesterday in London to come up with a third round. The threat of military action does not give the diplomats
more force. It muddies their efforts by dividing world opinion and allowing Iran to believe that it can stall indefinitely. If the
military option can not be used, it must be removed from the table. What the Iranian regime fears is a unified international
response, because only then would it face a genuine choice between the bomb and penury. Russia and China would have no
choice but to support tougher economic sanctions, and Germany and Italy might even stop their export credit guarantees. The
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said he would personally negotiate with the regime if it forgoes pursuit of
nuclear weapons. The desire to solve this issue needs that sort of commitment, if the west is not to find itself igniting another
fire in the Middle East that it can not put out.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT Israel Strikes
[ ] AT Israel Strikes
1. Israel wont strike Iran-Obama’s recent visit boosted confidence in peace talks
The Age, 7/25/08, Obama visit raises Israeli hopes for future, http://www.theage.com.au/world/obama-visit-raises-israeli-
hopes-for-future-20080724-3kj7.html [adit]
The front page of Israel's largest-selling newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, yesterday bore this unambiguous banner headline: "Our
Love Affair With Obama".
"His charismatic personality and chumminess fit the Israelis like a glove and were reminiscent of the love affair between the
Israelis and Bill Clinton," wrote the paper's political correspondent, Itamar Eichner.
In the rival daily Maariv, political analyst Ofer Shelach noted that "in Israel, the last of the colonies in the dwindling empire
of admiration for all things American, the public part of his visit yesterday was like the journey of a crown prince to a
remote, excited tribe".
Hillel Schenker, the vice-president of Israeli Democrats Abroad, was still in a state of high excitement when The Age talked
to him several hours after Senator Obama left.
"This was a stunning visit," Mr Schenker said. "What people could sense here was that this was the next president of the
United States."
When asked to compare Senator Obama's Israel visit with that made in March by his opponent, Republican candidate John
McCain, Mr Schenker almost gloated. "People barely took any notice of McCain when he came here. He left people feeling
weary, where Obama left us feeling electrified."
A key difference, Mr Schenker said, was Senator Obama's decision to meet Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
"It showed a real commitment on his part to be engaged in the peace process, which is not only in Israel's interest but the
world's. He gave people a taste not only of his charisma, but that he is someone who can rebuild American prestige in the
region, without which we can't find solutions to any of the problems."
2.Their evidence is not predictive—It says that Israel MIGHT postpone the attack if McCain wins,
so the impact is inevitable
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Israel Strikes Extensions

Non Unique—recent Talks with Israel built confidence—our ev postdates
SHIRA HERZOG, Israel-affairs columnist with The Globe and Mail, 7/28/08
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080728.wcoisrael28/BNStory/specialComment/home [adit]
It wasn't exactly Obamamania that hit Israel last week - but no one was disappointed, least of all the Democratic presidential
candidate himself. Barack Obama went to Jerusalem knowing he could claim success if Israelis' suspicion of him gave way to
a feeling that he wasn't a threat after all.
And, in carefully calibrated public appearances, the charismatic senator demonstrated that "he got it" - that he sensed,
understood and internalized Israelis' pervasive sense of vulnerability.
Recent talks make their impacts improbable—obama earned some wiggle room with Israel
SHIRA HERZOG, Israel-affairs columnist with The Globe and Mail, 7/28/08
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080728.wcoisrael28/BNStory/specialComment/home [adit]
Ultimately, Israelis aren't voting for Mr. Obama and, even in the U.S., it's unlikely that the small Jewish community will cast
the decisive vote for or against him. But the very fact that a visit to the Middle East, aimed at focusing on key U.S. foreign-
policy priorities, couldn't take place without including Israel, highlights the symbolism of this issue.
Caught between an American voting public anxious for change, an Israeli leadership committed to peace talks but nervous
about U.S. pressure, and vocal American Jewish spokesmen whose positions are more hawkish than their Israeli counterparts,
Mr. Obama has little wiggle room. In the circumstances, he did as well as could be expected.’
Obama’s new realitons with isreal means they wont attack

New York Times, 7/28/08 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/us/politics/28caucus.html?ref=politics [adit]
Congressional colleagues welcomed his international star turn as a source of reassurance, for Americans generally and for
particular constituencies like Jewish voters with misgivings about Mr. Obama. “The antidote for him in the Jewish
community will be personal interaction,” Ms. Wasserman Schultz said, but she called his stop in Israel “a big step forward.”
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT Obama=withdrawal
[ ] AT obama Withdrawal
1. Obama would withdraw in 16 months—that’s vital to successs in other areas

Perry Bacon Jr., July 14, 2008, Washington Post “Obama Reaffirms Iraq Withdrawal Plan, Sparking a Fresh Round of
McCain Camp Criticism” http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/14/obama_reaffirms_iraq_withdrawa.html
Barack Obama is strongly reaffirming his stance on pulling combat troops out of Iraq in his first 16 months in office, if
elected president, emboldened by the Iraqi government saying last week it supports a timetable for U.S. forces to leave. "The
call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an
enormous opportunity," Obama wrote today in a New York Times op-ed. "We should seize this moment to begin the phased
redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security
interests of the United States." Maliki's comments have left Obama increasing focused on the withdrawal part of his Iraq
strategy, instead of the troops he would leave there to maintain stability, which he had emphasized in the last few weeks as
the general election has started. Obama still has not said how large of a force he would leave in Iraq, as ten of thousands of
the forces in Iraq are not "combat troops" and could remain in the country even if Obama removed all combat forces. But
his emphasis on withdrawal is likely to quiet critics who said he appeared to be changing his position on getting troops out of
Iraq. "My core position, which is that we need a timetable for withdraw ... is now a position that is held by the Iraqi
government itself," he told reporters on his campaign plane Saturday night. "...John McCain and George Bush both said that
if Iraq as a sovereign government stated that it was time for us to start withdrawing our troops they would respect the wishes
of that sovereign government."
2.Obama won’t withdraw – political cost.

George Friedman Founder of Stratfor, 2-5-2008, “Foreign Policy and the President’s Irrelevance,” L/N
Any president who simply withdrew forces from Iraq without a political settlement would find himself or herself in an
enormously difficult position. Indeed, such a president would find himself or herself in a politically untenable position. The
consequences of a withdrawal are as substantial as the consequences of remaining. The decline in violence and the emergence
of some semblance of a political process tilts the politics of decision-making toward a phased withdrawal based on
improvements on the ground and away from a phased withdrawal based on the premise that the situation on the ground will
not improve. Therefore, even assuming Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, the likelihood of a rapid, unilateral
withdrawal is minimal. The political cost of the consequences would be too high, and he wouldn't be able to afford it.
3. Obama’s withdrawal is key to national security

Andrew Ward and Stephen Fidler, July 15 2008 Financial Times, “Obama restates troop withdrawal pledge”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d45d48a-5296-11dd-9ba7-000077b07658.html
Barack Obama on Tuesday renewed his case for ending the war in Iraq and focusing attention on Afghanistan before a trip to
the countries and amid an intensifying debate with John McCain, his Republican rival, over the “war on terror”. The
presumptive Democratic presidential candidate said he remained committed to withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq
within 16 months of taking office, arguing that recent security gains had failed to repair the damage caused to US interests by
the war. Mr Obama has faced mounting pressure from Mr McCain to acknowledge the success of the US “surge” strategy in
reducing violence and to modify his plans to end the war. But the Illinois senator on Tuesday said the gains of recent months
should not be allowed to obscure the heavy costs of US involvement in Iraq. “This war distracts us from every threat that we
face and so many opportunities we could seize,” he said, citing the need for a greater focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran
and issues such as nuclear proliferation and energy security. “By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on
Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.” Mr Obama’s consistent opposition to the war in Iraq was one of his
strongest assets in his Democratic primary battle with Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorise the 2003 invasion. But he has
come under fierce attack from Mr McCain for committing to retreat from Iraq.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT Space Weapons
Space Weapons leads to an accidental nuclear war
Thomas Graham, Jr. 12-8-08 “A Pearl Harbor in Outer Space? Space Weapons and the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War”
http://www.counterpunch.org/graham12082005.html
Both the United States and Russia rely on space-based systems to provide early warning of a nuclear attack. If deployed,
however, U.S. space-based missile defense interceptors could eliminate the Russian early warning satellites quickly and
without warning. So, just the existence of U.S. space weapons could make Russia's strategic trigger fingers itchy. The
potential protection space-based defenses might offer the United States is swamped therefore by their potential cost: a failure
of or false signal from a component of the Russian early warning system could lead to a disastrous reaction and accidental
nuclear war. There is no conceivable missile defense, space-based or not, that would offer protection in the event that the
Russian nuclear arsenal was launched at the United States. Nor are the Russians or other countries likely to stand still and
watch the United States construct space-based defenses. These states are likely to respond by developing advanced anti-
satellite weapon systems.[1] These weapons, in turn, would endanger U.S. early warning systems, impair valuable U.S.
weapons intelligence efforts, and increase the jitteriness of U.S. officials.
Space defenses are ineffective and are seen as a threat, leading to nuclear war
THOMAS GRAHAM, Jr. 12-8-08 “A Pearl Harbor in Outer Space? Space Weapons and the Risk of Accidental Nuclear
War” http://www.counterpunch.org/graham12082005.html
The Russian early warning system is in serious disrepair. This system consists of older radar systems nearing the end of their
operational life and just three functioning satellites, although the Russian military has plans to deploy more. The United
States has 15 such satellites. Ten years ago, on January 25, 1995, this aging early warning network picked up a rocket launch
from Norway. The Russian military could not determine the nature of the missile or its destination. Fearing that it might be a
submarine-launched missile aimed at Moscow with the purpose of decapitating the Russian command and control structure,
the Russian military alerted President Boris Yeltsin, his defense minister, and the chief of the general staff. They immediately
opened an emergency teleconference to determine whether they needed to order Russia's strategic forces to launch a
counterattack. The rocket that had been launched was actually an atmospheric sounding rocket conducting scientific
observations of the aurora borealis. Norway had notified Russia of this launch several weeks earlier, but the message had not
reached the relevant sections of the military. In little more than two minutes before the deadline to order nuclear retaliation,
the Russians realized their mistake and stood down their strategic forces. Thus, 10 years ago, when the declining Russian
early warning system was stronger than today, it read this single small missile test launch as a U.S. nuclear missile attack on
Russia. The alarm went up the Russian chain of command all the way to the top. The briefcase containing the nuclear missile
launch codes was brought to Yeltsin as he was told of the attack. Fortunately, Yeltsin and the Russian leadership made the
correct decision that day and directed the Russian strategic nuclear forces to stand down. Obviously, nothing should be done
in any way further to diminish the reliability of the space-based components of U.S. and Russian ballistic missile early
warning systems. A decline in confidence in such early warning systems caused by the deployment of weapons in space
would enhance the risk of an accidental nuclear weapons attack. Yet, as part of its plans for missile defense, the Pentagon is
calling for the development of a test bed for space-based interceptors as well as examining a number of other exotic space
weapons. In an interview published in Arms Control Today, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency,
touted what he said was "a very modest and moderate test-bed approach to launch some experiments." Obering said the
Pentagon would only deploy a handful of interceptors: "We are talking about onesies, twosies in terms of
experimentation."[2] Despite Obering's claims, however, establishing a test bed for missile defense in space, as opposed to
current preliminary research, would be a long step toward space weaponization. Once space-based missile defenses are
tested, they are likely to be deployed, and in significant numbers, no matter if the tests are successful.To see the path that a
space test bed is likely to follow, one need only look at the present ground-based program: the Pentagon claims there is little
true difference between a test bed and an operational deployment. Moreover, in space the deployment could be more
dramatic. Although the current ground-based configuration envisions a few dozen interceptors, continuous space coverage
over a few countries of concern would likely require a very large number of interceptors because a particular interceptor will
be above a particular target for only a few minutes a day. Today's missile defenses provide very little real protection as the
United States currently faces no realistic threat of deliberate attack by nuclear-armed long-range missiles. But space weapons
could actually be detrimental to U.S. national security. They would increase the perceived vulnerability of early warning
systems to attack and cause Russia and perhaps other countries such as China to pursue potentially destabilizing
countermeasures, such as advanced anti-satellite weapons.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT NMD
1. NMD does more harm the help
Robert Freeman writes about technology and economics, commondreams.org, May 20, 2004,
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0520-11.htm
And finally, fourth: Does such a system do more good than harm? This is perhaps the most damning indictment of missile
defense. Missile defense destroys the entire framework of international arms control and non-proliferation that was built up
over the past fifty years. And it is the U.S. that is the aggressor, the destroyer. Both China and Russia have said they would
respond to such a system by dramatically increasing their offensive capabilities so as to be able to overwhelm any system the
U.S. deployed. It would spark a new global arms race, especially in south Asia, increasing tensions in one of the world's
already most unstable areas. Our European allies are opposed to missile defense precisely because of this certainty-that it
makes the world not more but less secure. The president of France, publicly mocking the idea on Bush's first visit to Europe,
said accurately, "It is a fantastic invitation to proliferation." North Korea's response to the invasion of Iraq is instructive: it
now views nuclear weapons as its only insurance against a similar such invasion. And this is entirely logical. This same logic
applies equally well to missile defense. If the U.S. is going to build it and others perceive that it threatens their security, they
will not sit idly by. They will proliferate their nuclear warheads and their delivery systems so as to overwhelm or underfly
any US attempt at effective defense. And more nuclear weapons in the hands of more states would leave the U.S. and the rest
of the world less stable and more insecure than if such a system were never built in the first place. Strike Four.
2. Missile Defense Destroys peace and prosperity

This is the first opportunity in fifty years to be not just strong but wise, to seize the peace we fought half a century to win and
turn it into a prosperity that buoys all the world. We have a rare opportunity to make former enemies reluctant to wage war
against their greatest benefactor, to make them, instead, co-creators in a more peaceful, more prosperous world for all of
humanity.
We seized a similar such opportunity at the end of World War II. The Marshall Plan not only rebuilt Europe from the ashes of
the greatest devastation ever, it not only proved an effective bulwark for shattered democratic states against the predation of
Soviet aggression, it also jump-started the greatest engine of wealth creation the world has ever seen.
But missile "defense" renders such possibilities stillborn. While it is an unequaled, unending bonanza for the U.S. weapons
industry, missile "defense" would be the death knell of the just and peaceful and prosperous future the world's people now
deserve.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
NMD extensions
NMD will leave the U.S more vulnerable and less secure.
There is a dirty little secret about national missile defense the Pentagon doesn't want you to know. It is this: missile defense is
fundamentally flawed--not just in technology but in rationale and in concept. It should not be built. It should never have even
been started. And like the war in Iraq, if deployed, missile defense will leave the U.S. more vulnerable and less secure than if
it had never been built at all.
Let's do a little thought experiment. How would we know if a weapon system such as missile defense was a good idea or not?
Well, like any complex system looking for a justification, missile defense must pass four simple tests: Is it necessary? Can it
work? Are there better alternatives? And, does it do more good than harm? These are very simple, very sensible
considerations. The problem with missile defense is that it fails not just one, but all four of these tests. And badly. Consider:
First: Is it necessary? Missile defense's purported rationale is to defend against so-called "rogue states" launching a nuclear
attack on the U.S. This has been almost laughable from the beginning. It is hard to imagine people can even talk about it with
a straight face.
The purportedly suspect countries (North Korea, Libya, Iran, and Iraq) do not possess ballistic missiles. The 2005 target
readiness date was based on a worst case scenario developed in 1997 of North Korea possibly being able to launch such a
missile within eight years. But North Korea had suspended its missile development program almost two years before that
scenario was even created. And until President Bush promised to invade it, North Korea was steadily working toward
rapprochement with South Korea. Somehow, however, the magical 2005 date was never changed.
And what of the other so-called "rogue states"? Iraq is in rubble, militarily occupied, and posing no threat to anybody but the
hapless US soldier on the ground. Iran does not possess either nuclear weapons or ballistic missile delivery systems. Libya
never showed the capacity to develop anything even as technically sophisticated as a watch much less an ICBM capable of
accurately delivering a nuclear warhead thousands of miles away on the first try. And it has recently come over to the side of
goodness and light. Strike One.
NMD are not workable—Tests prove, cant detect dummies, and non ballistic based attacks
Second: Can it work? The tests to date have been more comical than credible. Most of them ended in failure. The one that
didn't was so phony it prompted charges of fraud by contractor employees who said they were pressured to fake their data.
And on the most recent test, the target contained a homing beacon advertising its trajectory so that only a blind mule couldn't
find it.
The problems with workability are four-fold. First is the very real difficulty of "hitting a bullet with a bullet". Actually, this
metaphor understates the problem as incoming ballistic missiles travel at 10 times the speed of a bullet.
The second problem with workability is testing. A truly operational missile defense system would be the biggest machine
ever conceived-hundreds of millions of lines of computer code, tens of millions of parts, strewn across millions of miles of
earth and space. And it has to work perfectly. The first time. Without ever having been tested in its real-world environment.
Think about that. Would you operate your company's accounting department with such a system? Would you agree to blindly
pay whatever phone bill was sent to you by such a system? Would you trust your personal checking account to a system that
had never been realistically tested? And yet missile defense proponents want you to bet yours and the nation's security on
such a system. It is beyond arrogance. It is lunacy.
The third problem with workability is that it is impossible to distinguish "dummy" warheads from the real thing. But it is
much cheaper and easier to proliferate dummies than it is to hit all of them. This asymmetry of offense and defense makes it
impossible for the defense to win. And needless to say, it only takes one real one to slip through and the system has
catastrophically failed.
The last and most damning problem with workability is that a bomb placed in the cargo hold of a ship or the bed of a truck
bypasses the entire system. This, of course, is how a real aggressor would deliver a warhead (if he had one). Think 9/11. It is
vastly easier, quicker, less costly, more certain of success, and more discreet than an ICBM with a return address emblazoned
in its exhaust plume. Missile defense is completely useless against such a simple recourse. No engineering workarounds, no
amount of expanded funding, and no amount of Buck Rogers "spin" can fix it. Strike Two.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
NMD is too costly for the benefit

Are there better alternatives? The most conservative estimates of the system's cost place it in the low hundreds of billions of
dollars. (Some $90 billion have already been spent and we've hardly even started.) Critics put the final cost at closer to a
trillion dollars. Given the Pentagon's history of cost overruns (remember $700 hammers?), there's good reason to believe the
latter estimates will prove closer to the mark.
A trillion dollars could pay off a significant portion of our $7 trillion (and growing) national debt. With regard to "rogue
states" we could: offer incentives to stop any missile development programs; permanently position warships off of their
coasts to shoot down any missile launched from their soil; give them economic development assistance; give them access to
U.S. markets; dramatically step up inspections at U.S. ports; or any of a number of other types of constructive engagement.
All of these combined would not begin to approach the cost of a missile defense system. Any one of them would likely be
more effective. In particular, a simple commitment to North Korea to not invade it would, according to North Korea itself,
invite the suspension-and verification-of its nuclear weapons programs. It seems a simple, astoundingly cost effective
proposition. Yet it is routinely rebuffed by the U.S. Strike Three.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT Softpower
1. Electing Obama is the single greatest act for restoring U.S. soft power—prefer our evidence its from NYE
Joseph Nye – is a professor at Harvard, received a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard; 6-12-08; “Barack Obama and Soft
Power” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-obama-and-soft-pow_b_106717.html?page=2
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.
2. Obama victory is key to international peace and a strong US

Sheldon Schorer, counsel to Democrats Aborad, Israel, Jerusalem Post, 3-1-07,
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894552490&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The 2008 election will give American voters in Israel an opportunity to rectify the harmful legacy of the two Bush
administrations by electing a Democrat to the presidency. The Republican candidates pride themselves on their identification
with President George W. Bush and his policies. Only a Democrat can bring about change and lead the United States and
Israel out of the current quagmire and into a position of greater peace and security. The centerpiece of Bush's foreign policy,
his war on terror, has been a disastrous failure. America has not lessened the threat of international terrorism, which has
grown. American weakness - symbolized by troops mired in Afghanistan and Iraq - and the consequent loss of international
political clout have had a devastating effect on Israel's security, making it less secure today than it was during the Bill Clinton
era. In addition to emboldening Hizbullah and Hamas, America has failed to dissuade Iran from pursuing an aggressive
program of nuclear weapons development. Both leading Democratic contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are
strong friends of Israel, who understand its needs and who support Israel's efforts to achieve peace and security. A new
Democratic president will continue the party's long tradition of support for Israel. Hillary Clinton's concern and support for
Israel's needs are well-known, and she has demonstrated this support in the Senate time and again. Although his views are
lesser known, Senator Barack Obama has also shown strong understanding for Israel. In a June 2004 speech, Obama
summarized the Democratic position: "Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true
ally in the Middle East and the only democracy. The administration's failure to be consistently involved in helping Israel
achieve peace with the Palestinians has been both wrong for our friendship with Israel, as well as badly damaging to our
standing in the Arab world." More recently, Obama said, "My view is that the United States's special relationship with Israel
obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting
Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction." The Bush era of cowboy diplomacy, which has been
marked by instability and insecurity, will soon come to an end. A Democratic victory will reverse this trend and will result in
increased stability and security for both the United States and Israel.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT Russia Add ons

McCain will drive a stake in US/Russian relations
John Judis, visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The New Republic, 7-30-08,
http://tnr.com/story_print.html?id=220a2dab-3d4b-45e4-9355-b03d44b6b844
But McCain's response has been to throw down the gauntlet. He has called Putin's complaints about the United States
"childish." When Putin criticized the Bush administration in 2007 for following a "unipolar model" of foreign policy--a
criticism that many Democrats shared--McCain accused Putin of trying to start a new cold war. While the Bush
administration has insisted that the anti-missile batteries it hopes to place in Eastern Europe are meant to defend against
Iranian missiles, McCain says they are needed as "a hedge against potential threats" from Russia and China. That's
incredibly provocative-- tantamount to defining NATO again as an anti-Russian alliance. McCain continues to support the
1974 Jackson-Vanik Act's trade restrictions on Russian exports long after Soviet restrictions on Jewish emigration--the
original basis for the sanction--were lifted. By doing that, he is singling out Russia from among the many pseudo-
democracies or autocracies that enjoy trading relations with the United States. And, in his Los Angeles speech, McCain
inserted into Kagan's draft a proposal to kick Russia out of the Group of Eight. To promote democracy, he proposed
"ensuring that the G-8 becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude
Russia." Dmitri Trenin, the deputy director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, describes McCain as "an echo of the cold war"
and says that "Russians see him as a guy from the past." In his recent book, Getting Russia Right, Trenin lays out what would
happen if McCain got his way with the G-8. "Russia's foreign policy would turn overtly anti-American, and Moscow would
feel the need to found or join a rival club." Highlighting the absurdity of McCain's provocation, his proposal can't possibly
work. The G-8 operates by consensus, and other members are opposed.
McCain will instigate a new Cold War with Russia

John Judis, visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The New Republic, 7-30-08,
http://tnr.com/story_print.html?id=220a2dab-3d4b-45e4-9355-b03d44b6b844
The problem with this analogy and with McCain's division of the world more broadly is that it imposes a dynamic on world
politics that simply doesn't exist. While obviously there are democracies and autocracies, there is little evidence that the one
is engaged with the other in a worldwide struggle over what form of government is best, as the United States and the Soviet
Union were during the cold war. The Chinese are not trying to impose communism on Germany, for example; nor is
Germany trying to export parliamentary democracy to China. Countries still go to war, of course, but they most often do so
for non- ideological reasons: territory, regional hegemony, access to natural resources, and so on. Existing alliances often cut
across different forms of government, as in the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Because this struggle does not
exist, McCain's solution to it--his League of Democracies--would not advance American interests. As Thomas Carothers of
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has argued, the organization would be ill-equipped to address major
problems like global warming, trade protection, nuclear proliferation, and resource scarcity, because solving those problems
requires cooperation between democracies and autocracies. Even when such cooperation isn't needed, a League is unlikely to
be useful: The democracies themselves can't even agree on when to promote democracy. South Africa has refused to
intervene in Zimbabwe; Europe won't clamp down on Russia; and, whatever their election-year bluster, a succession of
American presidents has been reluctant to ruffle China's feathers. But the greatest problem with McCain's division of the
world is that it threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. McCain isn't advocating a new cold war, but, if he initiated a
global struggle against autocracy by founding a League of Democracies, the resulting split would roughly reproduce the cold
war confrontation between West and East. By building a new organization that excludes Russia and China, the United States
would create gratuitous tensions with these countries. Even without such provocation, U.S. and European relations with
Russia have been growing more fractious since 2002, and McCain's approach threatens to exacerbate them in particular.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
AT NASA not perceived

1. 1nc 2, plan makes obama lose—A. Caldwell says McCain takes credit for new energy policy
that tips the election. Obama focused the election on energy. IF the plan passes during Bush’s
presidency that creates the perception that republicans are better on energy, that tips the
election. Prefer our warranted and predictive evidence
2. Either they fund a plan that is precieved by public or they are too small to be topical
3. Even if they fund research that’s still perceived, giving money to NASA would be a major
bill that would get lots of attention. All NASA bills in the past prove
4. their own inherency evidence proves that solar satellites don’t exist now. And their
spillover args prove that it will be perceived as an energy policy
5. Their own spillover args prove that it will be precieved as energy policy
6. MCCain will want to win the elction, he will spin plan as energy policy to get support
that’s our 1nc link ev.
7. Read link wall
AT supreme commander
1. Obama is winning now. Ward indicates how a poll proves that 82% believe obama is the best in
energy policy. And Energy policy is the key issue this year because of high gas prices. Prefer
our evidence because their evidence doesn’t have the specificity and ours cites a poll which is
the ultimate decider of who wins
2. Their evidence doesn’t actually say McCain is winning it just says he is a better military
leader. Our evidence actually cites polls proving he is winning.
3. And we have multiple warrants for why obama will win
AT Catching up
They say McCain catching up but our evidence assumes theirs,
1. cross apply how Obama is controlling energy and that’s the key issue.
2. Even if they win this arg, it only provides brink ev proving the plan is the key tipping
point to make McCain win.
3. Their evidence has no warrants prefer our multiple warrants and pieces of evidence
proving obama is winning
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Prez Powers Impact Scenario

OBAMA IS THE ONLY WAY TO PRESERVE JUDICIAL INDEPDENCE TO CHECK UNLIMITED
EXCECUTIVE POWER THAT THREATENS DEMOCRACY
(David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, May 19, 2008, “John McCain and Barack Obama: Two visions of the
Supreme Court”, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-scotus19-2008may19,0,4169081.story?page=1, [Ian Miller])
Harvard Law School professor Laurence H. Tribe, who is an advisor to Obama, said McCain's speech "relied on simplistic
and misleading slogans about judicial activism." "Sen. Obama certainly doesn't share Sen. McCain's remarkable view that
the greatest threat to American values and traditions comes from our independent federal judiciary," Tribe said. "On the
contrary, Sen. Obama would find it crucial to preserve judicial independence in part to hold in check the excesses of
unilateral executive power that have threatened our democracy under the Bush-Cheney administration."
A MCCAIN COURT WOULD ALLOW UNCHECKED EXCEUTIVE POWER

(Brent Budowsky, Served in senior Congressional Staff positions including Legislative Director to Representative Bill
Alexander, June 13, 2008, “McCain Supreme Court: Nightmare for Women, Workers and Justice”,
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/06/13/mccain-supreme-court-nightmare-for-women-workers-and-justice/, [Ian Miller])
Want to overturn Roe v. Wade and begin a new political civil war over abortion? How about a Supreme Court that supports
the George Bush approach of executive power similar to royal monarchs, with massive and illegal wiretapping thrown in,
legalized by a McCain court? The Supreme Court is not only one branch of government, it is the branch that determines the
powers of the other two branches. In the world of George Bush and John McCain, the executive branch is all-powerful with
no meaningful checks and balances. With a Supreme Court that would fully support this radical and extreme notion of
unlimited, pre-emptive executive power, the sins of George Bush are only the beginning of what a McCain court would make
the law of the land. Bush and McCain almost always agree on the need for a supersecret superstate, justified by the politics of
fear, employing tactics such as massive eavesdropping in violation of clear constitutional language and clear federal law.
Bush and McCain almost always agree in opposition to legal protections for women and labor. In their economic and legal
philosophy, Bush and McCain always agree on a Darwinian laissez-faire where the big boys rule, the average folks are
unprotected, the powerful monopolize their power and the powerless become second-class citizens with third-class legal
rights. The list goes on. Even on torture, McCain's latest position is torture-friendly. Even on Guantanamo, which McCain
says he will close, his legal position is anti-constitutional. His verbal position depends on his need for extreme right-wing
support and his level of political desperation at the time he speaks, on a given day. In the same way that McCain, like Bush,
opposes a long list of programs important to women, McCain, like Bush, is hostile to Roe v. Wade, and McCain, like Bush,
favors a Supreme Court that would turn justice in America backward a hundred years. McCain would create a bitterly divided
nation even more than George Bush, which is almost impossible, but a McCain Supreme Court would do it. Imagine a
Supreme Court with five, six or seven justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito with new McCain
justices being young and having the power to control the court for decades. This, folks, is deadly serious business, indeed.
Politics Updates
DDI 2008 <C/M>
Prez Powers Impact Scenario

UNCHECKED PRES POWERS LEAD TO NUCLEAR WAR
(Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Oh, March, 2002, http://www.downwinders.org/Kucinich_Peace_p.html, [Miller])
"Politics ought to stay out of fighting a war," the President has been quoted as saying on March 13th 2002. Yet Article 1,
Section 8 of the United States Constitution explicitly requires that Congress take responsibility when it comes to declaring
war. This President is very popular, according to the polls. But polls are not a substitute for democratic process. Attributing a
negative connotation here to politics or dismissing constitutionally mandated congressional oversight belies reality: Spending
$400 billion a year for defense is a political decision. Committing troops abroad is a political decision. War is a political
decision. When men and women die on the battlefield that is the result of a political decision. The use of nuclear weapons,
which can end the lives of millions, is a profound political decision. In a monarchy there need be no political decisions. In a
democracy, all decisions are political, in that they derive from the consent of the governed. In a democracy, budgetary,
military and national objectives must be subordinate to the political process. Before we celebrate an imperial presidency, let it
be said that the lack of free and open political process, the lack of free and open political debate, and the lack of free and open
political dissent can be fatal in a democracy. We have reached a moment in our country's history where it is urgent that
people everywhere speak out as president of his or her own life, to protect the peace of the nation and world within and
without. We should speak out and caution leaders who generate fear through talk of the endless war or the final conflict. We
should appeal to our leaders to consider that their own bellicose thoughts, words and deeds are reshaping consciousness and
can have an adverse effect on our nation. Because when one person thinks: fight! he or she finds a fight. One faction thinks:
war! and starts a war. One nation thinks: nuclear! and approaches the abyss. And what of one nation which thinks peace, and
seeks peace? Neither individuals nor nations exist in a vacuum, which is why we have a serious responsibility for each other
in this world. It is also urgent that we find those places of war in our own lives, and begin healing the world through healing
ourselves. Each of us is a citizen of a common planet, bound to a common destiny. So connected are we, that each of us has
the power to be the eyes of the world, the voice of the world, the conscience of the world, or the end of the world. And as
each one of us chooses, so becomes the world. Each of us is architect of this world. Our thoughts, the concepts. Our words,
the designs. Our deeds, the bricks and mortar of our daily lives. Which is why we should always take care to regard the
power of our thoughts and words, and the commands they send into action through time and space. Some of our leaders have
been thinking and talking about nuclear war. Recently there has been much news about a planning document which describes
how and when America might wage nuclear war. The Nuclear Posture Review recently released to the media by the
government: 1. Assumes that the United States has the right to launch a preemptive nuclear strike. 2. Equates nuclear
weapons with conventional weapons. 3. Attempts to minimize the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. 4. Promotes
nuclear response to a chemical or biological attack. Some dismiss this review as routine government planning. But it becomes
ominous when taken in the context of a war on terrorism which keeps expanding its boundaries, rhetorically and literally. The
President equates the "war on terrorism" with World War II. He expresses a desire to have the nuclear option "on the table."

387 CM Politics Updates 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

387 CM Politics Updates 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Politics Updates

DDI 2008 <C/M>

Bush’s politics have caused the phase of American declinism

Obama is key to end the decline in US hegemony

Obama is uniquely key to promote US competiveness--McCain will maintain

Obama will provide assistance for natives

In addition to his agenda run-down,

- Barack Obama in Fargo North Dakota, July 3, 2004

After six months of consecutive job loss, Senator

- Barack Obama in Raleigh, North Carolina on June 9, 2008

[note: although not qual’d cites really

Uniqueness – Obama Win Now

Obama ahead on critical issues and key states for election

Uniqueness - Obama Will Win

Obama will win – campaign proves

Obama will win – independents detract from McCain support

Obama will win –voters like the “change” candidate

Obama will win – he is leading in the polls

Uniqueness – Obama will win

The economic issues will provide for a Democratic victory

Economic climate bolstering Obama support now

Uniqueness – Obama will win

Obama leading McCain with Hispanic voters

Uniqueness – McCain will win

McCain will win now

McCain winning Christians and evangelicals now.

Rasmussen Reports, 7-16-8, “Daily Presidential Tracking Poll”

McCain has momentum now – Obama should be polling higher

Uniqueness – McCain will win

Uniqueness - McCain winning now, promise to drill oil domestically gains

McCain will confirm victory in the last 48 hours.

INSERT LINE BY LINE

energy policy ensures McCain’s victory

McCain will get credit for alternative energy

MCCAIN WILL WIN ALWAYS

OBAMA MAY BE AHEAD NOW BUT WON’T WIN IN NOVEMBER – 4 REASONS

ENERGY KEY TO MCCAIN

ENERGY WILL TIP THE ELECTION IN MCCAIN’S FAVOR

MCCAIN  NOKO STRIKES

MCCAIN WILL STRIKE NORTH KOREA

NOKO STRIKES  NUKE WAR

NORTH KOREA STRIKES LEAD TO GLOBAL NUKE WAR AND ESCALATE

MCCAIN KILLS US-CHINA RELATIONS

MCCAIN WILL DESTROY US-CHINA RELATIONS

U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS KEY TO FIGHT PROLIF

PROLIFERATION LEADS TO EXTINCTION

MCCAIN WOULD VETO LOST

LOST GOOD – HEG

THIS CAUSES GLOBAL NUKE WAR

LOST GOOD – ENVIRO

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PREVENTS GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL

MCCAIN  NUKE WAR

OFFSHORE DRILLING MODULE

OFFSHORE DRILLING WILL LEAD TO EXTINCTION

MCCAIN  CAUCASUS INSTABILITY

MCCAIN  CAUCASUS INSTABILITY

MCCAIN SUPPORTS GEORGIAN SEPARATIST TERRORISTS

CAUCASUS KEY TO US-RUSSIA RELATIONS

CAUCASUS CONFLICT  NUKE WAR

1. INTRINSICNESS ARGUMENTS DON’T APPLY TO FUTURE PRESIDENTS –

AT McCain Wont Strike

AT McCain wont strike

3. McCain will strike Iran—Obama will negotiate

Israel Strikes Extensions