Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
1
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
environment issues- key to election...................................................................................51
economic issues- key to election.......................................................................................52
national security- key to gop..............................................................................................53
a2- national security key election......................................................................................54
christian right- key to election...........................................................................................55
christian right- key to election...........................................................................................56
independents- key to election............................................................................................57
independents- key to election............................................................................................58
a2- independents key to election........................................................................................59
hispanic vote- key to election............................................................................................60
western states- key to election...........................................................................................61
western states- key to election...........................................................................................62
Industrial states- key to election........................................................................................63
gop credibility- key to election..........................................................................................64
**impacts**.......................................................................................................................65
2NC SOLVES CASE- alt energy.......................................................................................66
SOLVES CASE – ALT ENERGY ...................................................................................67
impact- obama solves- cap and trade.................................................................................68
2NC TURNS CASE – CAP & TRADE/ALT ENERGY ..................................................69
IMPACT- IRAN- ENGAGEMENT IL EXT.....................................................................70
impact- iran- miscalc/ war.................................................................................................72
impact- iran- terrorism / regional war................................................................................73
IMPACT – IRAN – WAR ................................................................................................74
IMPACT – IRAN – STABILITY .....................................................................................75
2NC- IRAN- TURNS CASE.............................................................................................76
2NC SOUTH KOREA FTA MODULE (1/2)....................................................................77
2NC SOUTH KOREA FTA MODULE (2/2)....................................................................78
impact- skfta- econ ext.......................................................................................................79
impact- skfta bad- north korea...........................................................................................80
impact- skfta bad- north korea ext.....................................................................................81
2nc nmd module (1/1)........................................................................................................82
impact- nmd- russia war il ext...........................................................................................84
2nc prolif module (1/1)......................................................................................................85
impact- obama- prolif il ext...............................................................................................86
2nc terrorism module (1/1) ...............................................................................................87
IMPACT- TERRORISM il ext...........................................................................................88
IMPACT- TERRORISM- extinction.................................................................................89
impact- terrorism- nuclear war..........................................................................................90
2nc latin america module (1/1)..........................................................................................92
impact- obama- latin america il.........................................................................................93
impact- latin america- economy........................................................................................94
2nc trade module (1/2).......................................................................................................95
2nc trade module (2/2).......................................................................................................97
impact- nafta bad- employment.........................................................................................98
impact- nafta bad- Econ.....................................................................................................99
impact- nafta bad- econ...................................................................................................100
impact- nafta bad- environment.......................................................................................102
2
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
impact- nafta bad- food prices.........................................................................................103
2nc israel/palestine module (1/1).....................................................................................104
impact- israel palestine il ext...........................................................................................106
impact- peace process il ext- us key................................................................................107
2nc us-arab relations module (1/2)..................................................................................108
2nc us-arab relations module (1/2)..................................................................................109
2nc iraq pull out module (1/2).........................................................................................110
2nc iraq pull out module (1/2)..........................................................................................111
impact- iraq pull out il ext................................................................................................113
2nc- iraq stability module (1/2)........................................................................................115
2nc- iraq stability module (1/2)........................................................................................116
impact- iraq instability- laundry list ................................................................................117
impact- iraq instability- terrorism....................................................................................119
impact- iraq instability- heg.............................................................................................120
impact- iraq instability- oil..............................................................................................121
2nc soft power module (1/3)............................................................................................122
2nc soft power module (2/3)............................................................................................123
2nc soft power module (3/3)............................................................................................124
impact- obama key to us cred..........................................................................................126
impact- soft power key to hard power.............................................................................127
impact- no soft power = terrorist attacks.........................................................................129
impact- us heg key to international stability....................................................................130
2nc offshore drilling module (1/2)...................................................................................131
2nc offshore drilling module (2/2)...................................................................................132
impact- mccain offshore drilling- ext..........................................................................133
IMPACT- OFFSHORE DRILLING- environment..........................................................134
2nc nuke power module(1/1)...........................................................................................135
impact- nuke power il ext................................................................................................137
impact- mccain nuclear power-terrorism.....................................................................138
2nc tax cuts module (1/2)................................................................................................140
2nc tax cuts module (2/2)................................................................................................141
impact- mccain bad economy- ext...............................................................................142
**aff**.............................................................................................................................143
mccain- win- christian right.............................................................................................144
McCain- win- obama inexperience..................................................................................146
MCCAIN- win—policies.................................................................................................147
mccain- win—fisa............................................................................................................148
mccain- win- campaign strategy......................................................................................149
mccain- win- iraq.............................................................................................................150
link turn- pro drilling key to mccain................................................................................151
link turn- pro drilling key to mccain................................................................................152
link turn- green issues- mccain loss.................................................................................153
impact- mccain solves- lift ethanol tariff.........................................................................154
impact- mccain solves- cap and trade..............................................................................155
IMPACT- MISSLE DEFENSE GOOD...........................................................................156
impact- obama decline heg..........................................................................................157
impact- l- obama likes nafta............................................................................................158
3
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
impact- nafta helps mexican econ....................................................................................159
impact- nafta good...........................................................................................................161
impact- il- obama won’t solve israel/palestine................................................................162
impact- mccain good economy....................................................................................163
impact- mccain good economy....................................................................................164
4
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
**1NC**
A. UNIQUENESS- OBAMA PROJECTED TO WIN- ISSUES NOW WILL DETERMINE
NOVEMBER OUTCOME
FERNANDO- 7-3
Asia Tribune, http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/12040
Opinion polls, the heart beat of US politics came out kicking this week as Senator John McCain
and Senator Barrack Obama took to campaigning like ducks to water. Pollsters spared no pains to
look masters of everything they purveyed. There were half a dozen polls showing that
Obama was ahead in close races in many states-sometimes by double digits. However, the
week was dismal in many ways mainly due to the two candidates trying to dislodge each other in different spheres of influence. Obama defied odds and
opted not to go for public financing but to rely on individual donors. McCain was quick to ward off attacks about his wartime record.
McCain was outraged by General Leslie Clark’s comments that McCain’s war time imprisonment and torture were not necessary ingredients for being a
good president. Obama not using the public financing was also debated seriously as he had earlier praised the system. Those who avail themselves of
the guaranteed $ 85 million campaign funding by the government meant that they have to restrict expenditure to that level. Obama who is assured of
getting over $ 200 million from individual donors felt that he was free to let go public financing. McCain felt that Obama had flip-flopped on this
important funding position.
Obama's sure-footed campaign suffered a rare and unnecessary embarrassment, when he had to retire the pseudo-presidential seal it had trotted out a
few days earlier. The seal — complete with a Latin phrase for "Yes, we can" replacing "E Pluribus Unum" — was such a head-slapping example of
gratuitous hubris that you had to wonder whether the opposition had a hand in this decision. It was an invitation to ridicule that Republicans happily
accepted.
Obama's presidential seal gaffe was soon overtaken by the news that one of John McCain's top aides had been quoted saying that a new terrorist attack
on U.S. soil before the election "would be a big advantage to him." Charlie Black, a veteran GOP strategist and Washington power broker, expressed a bit
of conventional wisdom about American politics — that voters prefer Republicans over Democrats in times of national security crisis. But he made it
sound as though McCain were wishing for such a crisis to occur, which is why Black promptly apologized, McCain immediately distanced himself from the
remarks and Obama and his many surrogates spent the next 48 hours expressing deep outrage.
The polls clearly showed that Obama is the front runner but that he could lose the
race if he were to allow mistakes to hamper his campaign. The election in the views of
many polls was for Obama's to lose. The situation was almost identical in 2000 and 2004
when Al Gore and John Kerry had the lead in June against Gorge W. Bush. Both squandered their
leads and lost the races.
A series of recent national polls showed that Obama's lead over McCain was
expanding. Two of them — one by Newsweek, the other by the Los Angeles Times — showed
that Obama had a substantial lead. McCain campaign quickly criticized the polls' methodology,
claiming each over-sampled self-identified Democrats.
Other polls, like those by Gallup, Rasmussen and Time, suggest a narrower race. But Obama
used them to his advantage. He dispatched campaign manager David Plouffe to Washington,
where he gave a 12-slide PowerPoint presentation demonstrating just how confident they are.
Plouffe identified 18 "battleground" states, all but four of which (Pennsylvania, New Hampshire,
Michigan and Wisconsin) voted for Bush in 2004. It was obvious that Obama was on the offense.
Plouffe said "The point is, we have a lot of different scenarios to get to 270 vote" — the number
of electoral votes needed to win.
As Obama assumed the role of front-runner, his shift to the political center was
obvious. He was shunning his role as the liberal candidate and looking more like a centrist to
win over the independents. The Republicans have castigated Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. And in the primaries
Obama took routinely liberal positions on all the major issues of the day. But in tone as well as in substance, Obama is now trying to be a centrist.
Both McCain and Obama had biographical ads showing their contributions. McCain’s war time heroism got fair exposure. Obama’s first biographical Ad
was on his love of family and country, and highlighting his legislative efforts "to move people from welfare to work" and "cut taxes."
Surprisingly Obama and McCain agreed to support the bipartisan compromise worked out this week on so-called FISA legislation that allows the Bush
Administration to continue its wiretapping program. They also agreed with the recent Supreme Court decisions disallowing the death penalty in cases of
child rape, and the guaranteed right to own guns by all citizens as stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Hillary Clinton and Obama
capped the week in Unity, N.H., with a joint rally. Later Bill Clinton also expressed willingness to campaign for Obama.
There was some positive news for John McCain this week. As the price of oil keeps climbing, so too the public's support for new oil drilling. McCain's
combination of aggressively pushing for new drilling and making bold proposals for ways to encourage development of alternative energy was seen as a
strong and proactive move on an issue that might otherwise benefit Obama.
The disclosure of North Korea’s nuclear activities made headlines this week. It has the potential to give a boost to President George W. Bush's dismal poll
ratings, which weigh like an anchor on McCain's campaign.
Still, the pollsters gave the green light that Obama may continue to be the frontrunner
at least for the time being. The campaign has just started. We are in for some heavy
debates in the months to come.
5
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
6
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
**1NC**
B- LINK- PLAN ALLOWS MCCAIN TO CO-OPT OBAMA’S ADVANTAGE ON ALT ENERGY-
GREEN GOP IMPAGE LOCKS IN MCCAIN VICTORY
The Foreign Policy Association, May 25, 2008
(“The Greening of the GOP” http://election.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/05/25/the-greening-of-the-gop/)
Expensive oil is here to stay — and so are the effects of climate change. These two realities are
altering American economic choices and attitudes, and thus the views of candidates running for
office. Consider, for example, how the Bush Administration has evolved from trying to
defeat environmentalists to trying to co-opt their agenda. Last week, the Administration
let slip that it plans to declare a huge area of territorial waters an environmental preserve —
something unimaginable seven years ago. Bush himself has gone from obstructionist to agnostic
to near-activist on climate change issues in the course of the last two years.gg-tbr1160-1.jpg But
look also at John McCain. His platform on climate change is far more activist than that advocated
by most Republican candidates for President just a few months ago. The Republican National
Committee, as part of its support-McCain effort, invites Web users to not only donate money to
McCain’s campaign, but asks them to sign an “environmental pledge” to do some things not
usually associated with Republican behavior, such as pledging to “start a carpool” or “take mass
transit.” At McCain’s campaign Website, you can buy “eco-friendly items” such as green-colored
T-shirts (“bio-degradable and antibacterial”(!)). This is a remarkable change in tone and
message that will increasingly be linked by McCain to energy independence and
national security. This is how he put it in a speech on May 12 at a Vestas wind-power center in
Portland, Oregon: “Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels,
and so, in many ways, does our security. A large share of the world’s oil reserves is controlled by foreign powers that
do not have our interests at heart. And as our reliance on oil passes away, their power will vanish with it.” This is not an original
insight, but it does have more credibility coming from a Senator from oil-scarce Arizona than from a President whose family built its
fortune on oil drilling in Texas. McCain’s Senate record on environment and energy conservation is mixed: he was quick to
recognize the reality of global warming and opposes oil drilling in ANWR, but has gotten fairly low ratings from
environmental groups over the years. As Americans suddenly discard their SUVs when faced with $4 per gallon gasoline, the most
salient foreign policy-linked issue in the minds of American voters this summer is likely to be what can be done about high gas prices
Convince most Americans that you have a real plan to
and their impact throughout the economy.
bring down the price of energy — and not just punish Exxon/Mobil and Chevron for
their record profits — and you stand a good chance of being elected President. So
far in this campaign, McCain has been the candidate most sensitive to Americans’ worries about oil prices. His proposed federal gas
tax holiday was predictably copied by Hillary and properly condemned by Obama — but it did show that McCain knew what was on
the public’s mind.
Both Democrats and Republicans seem to understand that a laissez faire approach
to energy markets, conservation and environment is now untenable. On the other hand, just
reduce the cost of gasoline significantly and Americans will go back to driving SUVs that Detroit
will happily manufacture for them. The challenge is to find the right mix of market-based
incentives to innovation and more efficient energy use, while penalizing polluters and energy
wasters. This is the kind of activist approach that Democrats seem more comfortable with,
although both parties should be reproached for the relatively puny efforts by Washington over
the last thirty years to achieve the energy security. When McCain spoke about wind power facility
in Oregon he failed to mention that the company — Vestas — is actually Danish-owned, not
American. As Republicans turn green, both Obama and McCain will be running against
the “failed policies” — or lack of them — in the area of energy planning, conservation, and
environment in this and previous Administrations. However, since the solutions that McCain and
Obama offer may resemble each other quite a bit, the election could hinge on whether
voters, on this like other issues, decide to punish McCain for being a Republican or
reward him for leading his party in a new direction.
7
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
**1NC**
C. IMPACT- OBAMA WILL ENGAGE IN DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN
TIME 5/16
(Scott MacLeod, journalist for TIME magazine, May 16, 2008, “Obama: Appeasement, or Engagement?” http://time
blog.com/middle_east/2008/05/obama_appeasement_or_engagemen.html)
McCain sees the Middle East in the same black and white, with-us-or-against-us framework as
Bush does. The Middle East is a contest that American must "win." America and its ally Israel
selflessly stand for freedom, democracy and peace. The enemies of the U.S. and Israel must be
vanquished. They are evil promoters of hatred and practitioners of murder. McCain's emphasis is
on America's military power. Obama sees the Middle East in more complex terms. He has stated
his intention to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran's leaders to seek Iran's
cooperation on issues including Iraq, terrorism and Iran's nuclear ambitions. He's also said he
would negotiate with Syrian leaders. His combined willingness to negotiate with two
countries that support Hamas and Hizballah indicates that Obama is ready to initiate
a comprehensive diplomatic engagement rather than rely largely on American military
force to resolve the conflicts in the Middle East. That's the reason that Bush seemed to be
attacking Obama during his speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday. He ridiculed those who
would "negotiate with terrorists and radicals" as promoters of "the false comfort of appeasement,
which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The same considerations apply even more strongly to bilateral negotiations with Iran at this stage. Until
now formal negotiations have been prevented by the memory of the hostage crisis, Iranian support of
terrorist groups and the aggressive rhetoric of the Iranian president. Nor does the Iranian president's letter
remove these inhibitions. Nevertheless, on a matter so directly involving its security, the United States
should not negotiate through proxies, however closely allied. If America is prepared to negotiate with North
Korea over proliferation in the six-party forum, and with Iran in Baghdad over Iraqi security, it must be
possible to devise a multilateral venue for nuclear talks with Tehran that would permit the United States to
participate -- especially in light of what is at stake.
An indefinite continuation of the stalemate would amount to a de facto acquiescence by the international
community in letting new entrants into the nuclear club. In Asia, it would spell the near-certain addition of
South Korea and Japan; in the Middle East, countries such as Turkey, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia could
enter the field. In such a world, all significant industrial countries would consider nuclear weapons an
indispensable status symbol. Radical elements throughout the Islamic world and elsewhere would gain
strength from the successful defiance of the major nuclear powers.
8
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
and across the globe, triggering weapon decisions in several, perhaps many, other states. Such
developments could weaken Iran's security, not increase it. With these rapid developments and the
collapse of existing norms could come increased regional tensions, possibly leading to regional wars and to
nuclear catastrophe.3
Existing regional nuclear tensions already pose serious risks. The decades-long conflict between India and
Pakistan has made South Asia the region most likely to witness the first use of nuclear weapons since
World War II. An active missile race is under way between the two nations, even as India and China
continue their rivalry. In Northeast Asia, North Korea's nuclear capabilities remain shrouded in uncertainty
but presumably continue to advance. Miscalculation or misunderstanding could bring nuclear war to the
Korean peninsula.
In the Middle East, Iran's declared peaceful nuclear energy program, together with Israel's nuclear arsenal
and the chemical weapons of other Middle Eastern states, adds grave volatility to an already conflict-prone
region. If Iran were to decide at some later date to build nuclear weapons, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or others
might initiate or revive nuclear weapon programs. It is entirely possible that the Middle East could go from
a region with one nuclear weapon state, to one with two, three, or five such states within a decade-
compounded by the existing political and territorial disputes still unresolved.4
9
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
**UNIQUENESS**
10
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
11
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—POLLS
OBAMA IS WINNING-POLLS PROVE
CHICAGO TRIBUNE 6-24-08 [Mike Dorning, Washington Bureau. “Turnout Boost Could Favor Obama”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-turnout-web-jun25,0,327711.story]
WASHINGTON— Barack Obama could make major gains in at least nine states the Democratic ticket
lost in 2004 if he can achieve a relatively modest increase in turnout among young and African-
American voters, a Tribune analysis of voting data suggests.
That potential helps explain why the Obama campaign chose to forgo federal funding and also why it is engaged in a
massive voter registration drive. With its unprecedented resources, the campaign can fund an array of specific
targeting operations, and Obama exploited early versions of those to great success during the primary campaign.
If Obama could inspire just 10 percent more Democratic voters under 30 to go to the polls than
did four years ago, that alone could be enough to switch Iowa and New Mexico from red to blue,
the analysis suggests.
Just a 10 percent increase in turnout among blacks would make up more than 40 percent of George W. Bush's 2004
victory margin in Ohio and more than 20 percent of the Republicans' 2004 victory margin in Florida.
Turnout increases of 10 percent of both young voters and African-Americans could virtually
eliminate the Republicans' 2004 victory margin in Ohio and go a long way to closing the gap in
Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Virginia and—a bit more of a stretch—possibly North Carolina.
The campaign dispatched an advance guard to the likely battlefields of the November election more than a month
before Obama had even locked up the nomination. Its mission: to begin work on an ambitious national voter
registration drive that advisers say is a key part of the campaign's strategy.
Campaign volunteers have been registering voters at bars and nightclubs as well as visiting hip-hop parties and even
gas stations—where drivers irate over rising fuel prices are a target, said one organizer. More than 250 of the
campaign's "organizing fellows" arrived last week in Virginia, a state Democrats did not seriously contest in 2004, and
will spend much of the summer there on voter registration.
With the Illinois senator's enthusiastic following that regularly packs arena-sized venues for rallies, and unprecedented
organizational resources from his campaign's fundraising successes, his barrier-breaking campaign sees a chance to
re-shape the electorate this fall to the Democrats' advantage, possibly for several elections into the future.
"Honestly, it's the first chance the Democrats have had in a generation or two to expand a part of the electorate that
could help the Democratic Party for years to come," said Steve Hildebrand, Obama's deputy campaign manager.
There's still plenty of time between now and Election Day for the Obama hype to come crashing down. But the Obama
campaign sees reason for hope after a primary season in which at least 3.5 million new voters registered and young
people of voting age, typically apathetic, turned out as much as older voters in some states.
A projection by the Tribune based on the results of the 2004 election shows that a turnout increase of 10
percent among blacks and youths—two groups that have demonstrated considerable excitement
over the Obama candidacy—would offer a powerful potential lift to his campaign.
Two states that the Republicans narrowly won last time, Iowa and New Mexico, would switch to
the Democratic column. The Republican lead in Ohio would plummet from more than 118,000
votes to fewer than 6,000. A host of Republican states would come into play, while Democratic
leads would be substantially cushioned in major blue states that the presumed Republican
candidate John McCain has targeted: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
12
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—POLLS
OBAMA IS WINNING—POLLS PROVE
SARGENT 6-24-08 [Greg, editor of Election Central, “Poll: Obama Hold Huge Advantage Over McCain on Energy”.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/poll_obama_holds_huge_advantag.php]
A new Gallup poll finds that Obama holds a huge and striking advantage over McCain on which is
more trusted to handle energy issues.
And not only that, it also finds that energy policy, by one measure, has now become the number
one concern of voters.
The poll finds that Obama leads McCain by 19 points (47%-28%) on the question of who would do
a better job handling energy policy, including gas prices. It also finds that 51% say that energy and gas
prices are "extremely important" in determining their vote, higher than the economy (49%) or Iraq (44%).
It's worth pointing out that energy policy is central to McCain's strategy -- pushing an energy plan has emerged as one
of the key ways in which he's hoping to achieve separation from Bush and the GOP.
However effective that larger effort may prove, on the straight-up question of which candidate is
more trusted to handle the actual specifics of energy policy, Obama is simply crushing McCain.
OBAMA IS WINNING—POLLS
USA TODAY 6-22-08 [Susan Page, reporter. “Poll: Obama Has Edge Over McCain.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-22-poll-edge_N.htm]
WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama begins the presidential campaign with some overwhelming
advantages over Republican John McCain, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, but voters also express doubts about
the Illinois senator's experience and ability to handle the job of commander in chief.
A 54% majority of those surveyed are concerned Obama lacks the experience to be an effective president. A similar
number say he "may be too closely aligned with people who hold radical political views."
Still, the nationwide poll gives Obama an edge of six percentage points over McCain among likely
voters, 50%-44%. That's almost precisely where the race stood in the USA TODAY poll taken just
before Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. Among registered voters, Obama
leads McCain 48%-42%.
13
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—POLLS
OBAMA WILL WIN—POLLS PROVE
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA 6-25-08 [“Obama takes double-digit lead over McCain in latest poll.”
Lexis.]
The survey is the second in a matter of days to indicate McCain, 71, may face a sizable deficit as
the general election campaign kicks off. A Newsweek poll released four days ago showed the 47-
year-old Illinois Senator with a 15-point lead.
14
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—MONEY
OBAMA WILL WIN—HE HAS TWICE AS MUCH MONEY AS MCCAIN
SALTONSTALL 6-30-08 [Senior Correspondent, New York Daily News. “Barack Obama has collected nearly twice
as much money as John McCain” http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/30/2008-06-
30_barack_obama_has_collected_nearly_twice_.html
Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate
taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama than to GOP rival
John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.
"Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in spending. It wants someone who focuses
on the domestic economy," said Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."
Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s, when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in
history.
"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama."
For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their
portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far.
15
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—MONEY
OBAMA IS WINNING—FUNDING PROVES.
CLARK 7-1-08 [Jerry E., staff writer for the Rock Bridge Weekly. “5 Reasons Why John McCain's Going To Lose”
http://www.rockbridgeweekly.com/rw_article.php?ndx=11177]
Barack Obama appears to be vigorous, youthful and has a solid core of advisors with tons of
political experience - a team which already has proven that it can raise huge amounts of money
and then use it effectively. Since Mr. Obama flip-flopped on his promise to use public funding, the Obama
campaign will enjoy a 3-4 times greater funding advantage over McCain. In American elections, this is
a huge advantage.
16
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Predictive U- McCain will lose- lack of agenda, funding and Bush’s approval rating
Fund, June 27, 2008
(John, “No, McCain Isn't 'Doomed”, The Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121452433272409083.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Republicans shouldn't panic, but they should be worried. The McCain campaign reflects the candidate's
impulsive nature and hasn't articulated a consistent reform agenda. President Bush's job rating has
collapsed. One recent survey found only 53% of Republicans now approve of his performance. Sen.
Obama will have so much money to spend he can microtarget millions of his supporters early and deliver
absentee ballots – which are prone to abuse – to them.
17
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
18
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—BUSH
OBAMA WIN- MCCAIN ASSOCIATED WITH BUSH
MEET THE PRESS 6-29-08 [transcript, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25439733/]
GOV. FREUDENTHAL: Well, I think the transition that's occurred is that John McCain's not the John McCain of
2000 and 2002. In that time his appeal in this region was pretty real, because very independent.
At this stage he's really molded into a kind of Bush-Cheney look-alike, and that is not an
attractive thing to see continue in this country.
19
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—BUSH
MCCAIN WILL LOSE—BUSH
CLARK 7-1-08 [Jerry E., staff writer for the Rock Bridge Weekly. “5 Reasons Why John McCain's Going To Lose”
http://www.rockbridgeweekly.com/rw_article.php?ndx=11177]
4) With economic conditions apparently worsening, the party of the White House is much more
vulnerable, despite the causes for that situation. With war troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan
continuing and a huge disapproval rate amongst foreign nations, President Bush's support is a
liability for McCain, not an asset. The Obama campaign, soon to make a foreign junket, will make the case for a
fresh start for American foreign policy worldwide, which will achieve huge positive press for him. At the same time,
McCain's foreign trip planned for Mexico and Columbia will promote free trade - a policy that many workers in
industrial states strongly oppose.
20
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—CAMPAIGN
MCCAIN WILL LOSE—CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
LA TIMES 6-29-08 [Mark Z. Barbak, staff writer. “McCain's unorthodox campaign”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-mccain29-2008jun29,0,3957628.story]
This week, when Barack Obama campaigns in Ohio and Colorado, John McCain will be visiting Colombia and
Mexico. It's an unusual path for McCain to follow. But even more, it's a risky strategy for his presidential
campaign.
Not since Richard M. Nixon traveled to all 50 states in 1960, fulfilling a pledge he came to regret, has a presidential
candidate followed an itinerary that appears so at odds with his political needs.
For starters, and most obviously, there are no electoral votes to be had in Latin America or Canada,
another country McCain recently visited. Even more puzzling to observers is McCain's emphasis
on national security and foreign affairs -- Saturday he met with the leaders of Iraq and the Philippines -- at a
time when domestic matters have surged to the fore of voter concerns.
"You can't shoehorn in an issue the American people aren't focused on every day at their kitchen
table," said Matthew Dowd, who ran President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, which centered on fighting terrorism
at a time when Sept. 11 was far more resonant. "The danger is you miss being where people are at."
21
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
22
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—INDEPENDENTS
OBAMA WILL WIN—HE CAN SWAY INDEPENDENTS
WILSON 6-20-08 [Reid, associate editor and writer for RealClearPolitics. “Will There Be Coattails in November?”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080620/cm_rcp/will_there_be_coattails_in_nov
"What we've seen in the past ... is that coattails largely work through turnout," said Jim
Campbell, a political scientist and turnout expert at the University of Buffalo. "If you can boost
the turnout for a candidate at the top of the ticket, that carries along maybe six out of ten,
between six and eight out of ten additional votes below that." For Democrats, the reason to hope
for a coattail effect is obvious: Over the primary process, more people cast ballots for one of the party's
candidates than ever before. Obama is "a powerful partner for House Democrats heading into the fall election,"
Thornell said. "He has a proven ability to win independents. ... That's a voting bloc that Senator
Obama has done very well with, Democrats are making gains with, and I think that's going to be
something that I think helps the entire party out." Democrats won 8% more of the independent vote in
2006 than they did in 2004, a recent memo from DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen notes, and Obama's strength
among that bloc in states with big House races this year -- states like New Mexico, Ohio, Missouri and
Virginia -- bodes well for November.
23
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
24
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
25
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—HILLARY
OBAMA WILL WIN—CLINTON IS ONBOARD
BRAZILE 6-30-08 [Donna, political commentator. “Brazile: Democrats' unity bodes ill for McCain”
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/opinion/x1816437866/Brazile-Democrats-unity-bodes-ill-for-McCain]
Sen. John McCain cannot be happy with the prospect that Sen. Hillary Clinton returned to her day job with her suitcase
packed, ready to hit the road campaigning for her former Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton and
Obama have agreed to jointly campaign across the country to unite the Democratic Party and
energize voters, especially women and blue-collar workers.
Making matters even more interesting, McCain probably threw one of his famous hissy fits when he read the one-
sentence statement from the office of former President William Jefferson Clinton: "President Clinton is obviously
committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Sen. Obama is the next president of the United
States."
Unity, how sweet it is - especially after a grueling primary marathon that pitted the nation's most
powerful political couple against a newcomer on the national stage. With the differences between the
two candidates on issues is paper thin, it became a battle royale that, at times, pitted two superb candidates against
each other based on the differences in their age, gender, personality, race and connotations associated with their
names.
Highly regarded as a political maverick, McCain must now come to terms with his opponents
embracing each other symbolically and politically. The Obama-Clinton rapprochement is no
ordinary public relations stunt; it is a movement. And McCain better adjust his strategy to deal
with it or face the consequences
Based on my experience managing Al Gore's presidential campaign, we're in for some high-energy drama, which is
really saying something, since this political season has already proven to be like none other we have witnessed in a
generation. Now that Clinton and Obama are on the same page, what can be expected, and will this political marriage
have any offspring?
For starters, Obama must decide how to best use the Clintons to help unify the party and bring along their enthusiastic
backers, who comprise approximately half of all Democratic Party voters. He needs to lay it all out now and not leave
to chance a single detail of how to maximize the Clintons' tremendous power and force. The detailed do-and-don't list
in harnessing this power should be extensive, and efforts to keep the two former warring factions on the same page
will require the lines of communications between the two camps open 24/7. Note: Surrogates need not apply; the
communication should be one-on-one. However, should one be required, I highly recommend former Senate majority
leader Tom Daschle.
There's no question Sen. Clinton will campaign hard for both Obama and Democratic Party
candidates up and down the ballot. Her appeal is strong in crucial swing states like New
Hampshire, where she and Obama competed especially hard this past winter. Clinton is also
capable of helping Obama in states that were especially troublesome for him in the primaries,
including Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and California. To accomplish this,
the Obama campaign should be prepared to give Clinton the necessary resources she needs,
including money for mailings to her key supporters and campaign workers.
26
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—ECONOMY
OBAMA WILL WIN—ECONOMY
LA TIMES 6-29-08 [Mark Z. Barbak, staff writer. “McCain's unorthodox campaign”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-mccain29-2008jun29,0,3957628.story]
But that strategy has provoked consternation and confusion among some fellow Republicans. There
is, after all, the
cautionary lesson of 1992, when President George H.W. Bush lost his reelection bid. One big
reason was that voters believed Bush -- who was partial to foreign policy -- was less attuned to their
pocketbook pain than was his more domestic-minded opponent, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.
That campaign, not incidentally, was the last time the economy played such a large role in a
presidential election. In a worrisome sign for McCain, surveys show that economic issues again
top the political agenda, with most voters saying Obama would do a better job addressing
healthcare, record gas prices, even taxes -- usually a GOP strong suit -- than McCain.
27
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—ECONOMY
OBAMA WILL WIN— AHEAD ON ECONOMIC ISSUES BY DOUBLE DIGITS
USA TODAY 6-22-08 [Susan Page, reporter. “Poll: Obama Has Edge Over McCain.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-22-poll-edge_N.htm]
On issues, voters are most concerned about energy and the economy, and they prefer Obama by a
double-digit margin on each. He's favored on taxes, traditionally a Republican strength, and
essentially tied with McCain on handling illegal immigration.
On personal characteristics, McCain is rated more highly than Obama in just one of 10 categories
— as a "strong and decisive leader." Obama swamps his opponent as someone who is
empathetic and independent and "understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives."
28
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—AGE
MCCAIN WILL LOSE-AGE
KLEIN 6-29-08 [Ezra, Associate editor at the American Prospect. “The perils of honesty in politics”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-klein29-2008jun29,0,2312316.story]
The Obama campaign does not wish to make McCain's age an issue explicitly, but its officials
wouldn't mind if the electorate viscerally understood that he's a 71-year-old who laughingly
confesses that he's "illiterate" with computers. Because if the campaigns were being honest,
they'd confess that they're well aware of what we might as well call the Nixonian truth:
Sometimes it's the quiet, ugly stuff that helps you win.
29
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
OBAMA- WIN—AGE
MCCAIN WILL LOSE—HE’S TOO OLD
COX 6-6-08 [David Glenn, columnist. “McCain’s Greatest Enemy.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/McCain-s-
Greatest-Enemy-by-David-Glenn-Cox-080606-924.html]
McCain, even if the most perfect candidate, is too old. He is in the season of plucking not
planting and the process by which the Republican Party choose his Vice Presidential running
mate could be the most profound challenge the Republican party faces during this campaign.
Because McCain’s greatest opponent in this campaign won’t be Barack Obama but the grim
reaper. Life expectancy for white males in the United States is 75 years and statistics for white
males with five years in a prison camp aren’t available, but I seriously doubt that it would help
that number any
30
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
31
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
32
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
33
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
**LINKS**
34
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Renewable energy incentives NOW shifts the energy debate in favor of McCain- causes GOP win
Raju, June 24, 2008
(Manu, “GOP going for green”, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-going-for-green-2008-06-24.html)
Senate Republicans aim to undercut Democrats’ claim to be the environmentally conscious party by
combining their own conservation message with a longstanding push for more oil drilling. The shift, to call
for increased energy production and less oil use, allows Republicans and their presidential candidate, Sen.
John McCain (Ariz.), to argue they will do whatever it takes to stop soaring gas prices. And it could throw cold
water on Democratic attempts to link McCain with President Bush and the oil companies reaping record
profits. Energy policy has become a flashpoint this campaign season, and both sides are jockeying over who
has the best plan to handle gas prices that top $4 per gallon. “Republicans will do BOTH — find more oil, use
less — Democrats won’t,” according to a presentation, obtained by The Hill, that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) gave at a closed-door lunch on
Tuesday. Democrats have long opposed expanded offshore drilling, highlighting environmental concerns and claims that there is enough land to drill and that more is an
unnecessary giveaway to oil and gas companies. Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief campaign strategist, called the GOP message a “defensive
Republicans
and sort of last-gasp effort.” “Two words: oil companies,” Schumer said. “They have for seven years done exactly what the oil companies wanted.”
are trying to debunk that claim with a greener message: more investment in plug-in electric cars and trucks, less
energy use by the federal government and increased oversight of market speculation on oil futures. The move
could be perceived as a shift toward McCain, who has been at odds with many in his party on cutting
greenhouse emissions and has used environmental issues to distinguish himself from Bush. McCain called for more
efficiency rules in a campaign stop Tuesday in Santa Barbara, Calif., arguing that energy could be conserved in the 3.3 billion square feet of federal office space nationwide. The
Republican proposal also calls for moving away from the party’s bedrock position of emphasizing oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and instead promoting oil-shale extraction
and offshore exploration. McCain has long opposed drilling in Alaska, but last week made a reversal to support a state’s right to allow exploration along the coastal United States.
Even though that reversal gives Democrats the opportunity to link McCain with Bush, it also allows the GOP to rally behind one party message
and unite in one attack against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the Democratic presidential candidate. In one slide of Tuesday’s presentation titled “No, we can’t” — a play on
Obama’s popular slogan, “Yes, we can” — Alexander tried to make the case that the presidential candidate has repeatedly voted against offshore drilling and expanding domestic
supplies of oil. He called the Democrat’s support for half of the energy solution “Obamanomics.” Following the lunch, Alexander, along with other members of the Republican
leadership, echoed the talking points. “Lamar likes to say, ‘What if President Kennedy said, “We’re not going to the moon. We’re going halfway to the moon”?’ ” said Senate
Republicans increasingly see an
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “That wouldn’t have been a very inspiring message, would it?”
advantage on the energy debate. With gas prices putting the economy in greater turmoil, public sentiment is
starting to shift towards offshore drilling and conservation measures. But the public is also skeptical that such a
move would effectively reduce gas prices. About 30 Senate Republicans huddled behind closed doors Tuesday
afternoon to craft an energy package they plan to unveil later this week. Items under consideration included the
drilling and conservation measures, as well as authorized funding on carbon sequestration technologies,
market-driven incentives for renewable energy and an expansion of nuclear power — all part of McCain’s
campaign platform. Republicans are urging their rank and file to take that message home during the
upcoming recess, saying that positive news coverage will emerge from events to talk about more efficiency
rules, like plug-in hybrid cars, along with calls for more supplies.
35
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
McCain will steal environmental votes by aligning the GOP with clean energy
NICHOLS 2008 – ASSOCIATE EDITOR CAPITAL TIMES
JOHN MCCAIN: ECO-WARRIOR, CAPITAL TIMES, 5-13
Yikes, it's really true. John McCain is running for president as a tree-hugging liberal.
No, not an all-the-time environmentalist - rather, as a swing-state-savvy, targeted-message-peddling, murky-
shade-of-green Republican who's hoping to pick up the votes of lifestyle liberals who want to address
climate change on the cheap. So Tuesday in Oregon, which like Wisconsin is a battleground state where a
reverence for the outdoors requires that Republicans greenwash their appeals, McCain's campaign will begin
airing a new television commercial that essentially says: "Look, I'm not like George Bush and Dick Cheney. I
don't live in la-la land when it comes to global warming. I actually believe in something I like to call 'science.' "
The senator - who broke a little bit with Bush and Cheney on environmental issues, but who never really lined
up with the serious Republican environmentalists who were isolated by the administration - is reinforcing the
message with a major campaign swing through the Northwest. He hopes to put the sometimes swing states of
Oregon and Washington in play by presenting himself as John McCain: eco-warrior.
36
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Voters shifting towards environmental friendly policy- plan scores votes for McCain
Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, June 24, 2008
(Julian, Meg Jacobs, associate professor of history at MIT, “Democrats need to learn to sell their Priorities”, The Washington Independent”
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/energy-talk)
But there is evidence that we are in a moment of change. In certain respects, public opinion has outpaced
political rhetoric. Even though Carter's speech was a flop, the environmental movement gradually influenced
the way the public thought about issues like conservation of energy. With energy prices at extremely high levels,
polls suggest that the public is more willing than ever to deal with environmental challenges.
Building on the work of the environmental movement, former Vice President Al Gore has helped to popularize
the issue of global warming through his Oscar-winning film and advocacy. More Republican politicians have
started to question the Bush approach to the energy crisis. National-security concerns have also
broadened electoral interest in reducing energy dependence on the Middle East. Even when the Republicans
controlled Congress, the Bush team has not been able to get through a measure to open up the Arctic National
Wildlife Reserve to drilling. Shifts in consumer attitudes and consumption have also helped citizens see
practical steps toward reducing oil use. According to several recent reports, the high cost of fuel is
persuading a large number of Americans to switch from Humvees and SUVs to smaller cars and even bicycles
for daily commute. Mass transportation is experiencing stunning rider increases.
37
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
38
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Green issues appeal to key swing voters in the election- sways important states towards McCain
CHICAGO TRIBUNE 5-13-2008
John McCain launched a green-tinted courtship of West Coast swing voters on Monday, with a call to action on global warming
and an indictment of the Bush administration's "failed" policies to combat it.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee visited the wind-power technology firm Vestas, near Portland International Airport,
to decry melting polar ice, vanishing glaciers, changes in animal migration and "rising temperatures and waters," all products, he said,
of a reliance on fossil fuels that threatens America's economy and security.
McCain championed nuclear power and warned that China and India must take steps to curb their own rising carbon emissions. "The
facts of global warming demand our urgent attention," McCain said, "particularly in Washington."
He endorsed a "cap and trade" system that would impose carbon-emission limits on industries and require businesses that exceeded
those caps to buy credits from businesses that pollute under their limits. Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton both support such a "cap and trade" system, with stricter limits than under McCain's plan.
Obama, Clinton and some environmental groups criticized the reach of McCain's proposals. And analysts and voter-registration
statistics suggest that even with his green appeal, McCain faces an uphill battle to put this increasingly blue state into play in the fall.
Democrat John Kerry won Oregon by 76,000 votes in 2004, a 4-percentage-point margin over President George W. Bush. McCain
advisers believe the Arizona senator's environmental stances could help push the state his way this fall.
Analysts note that Oregon's electorate has shifted over four years, with heated opposition to the Iraq War and Bush in general. Voter
registration reflects that: In November 2004, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by about 63,000. This month,
a registration surge in advance of the state's May 20 mail-ballot primary helped swell the Democrats' advantage to 190,000 voters.
The Portland speech expanded on an issue McCain has stressed throughout the campaign, before friendly and skeptical audiences
alike. In it, he laid out his targets for carbon emission reduction: 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, compared to the 80 percent
reduction proposed by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In a veiled shot at Bush, he promised to lead the world in the
effort.
"I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears," McCain said. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without
serious action on serious challenges."
Clinton and Obama both stressed energy policy in trips to Oregon last week, and both criticized McCain's remarks on
Monday for not going far enough.
"While Sen. McCain's proposals may be improvement on President Bush's, that's not saying much," Clinton said in a statement her
campaign released.
Obama ripped McCain for his vote on a 2005 bill that contained incentives for renewable energy development. "It is truly breathtaking
for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean
energy," Obama said in a statement.
McCain will keep up the environmental theme Tuesday with a round-table discussion in a suburb of Seattle. Pollster Tim Hibbitts said
the global warming pitch probably won't get him "on the green side" of Obama or Clinton among environment-first voters
but could help "take the edge off" among voters concerned with the environment but more focused on other issues.
39
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Swing voters perceive the plan as a moderate move by the GOP- key to McCain victory
Vlahos, July 3, 2008
(Kelley Beaucar, “Moderates Could Find It Difficult to Ride McCain’s Coattails”,
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/03/mcmoderates-coattails/
For John McCain, a victory in November could come at a steep price. Throughout his campaign, the
presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been shifting to the right in an effort to woo the GOP’s
wobbly conservative base. But that shift could make it harder for Republicans to win or hang on to House and
Senate seats in key swing districts this fall.
McCain longtime image of a moderate “maverick” who championed campaign finance reform, the environment
and pork-barrel busting could be a big help in tight congressional races where independent and swing voters
could make or break the election.
But if he continues to shift right to appeal to those base voters who are skeptical of him, he may not be welcome in those districts where he has the strongest role to play. “He is right now being
groomed by many in the Republican Party to create his conservative bona fides, and in doing so he may be pushing away some of the moderate vote that made him so attractive in the primary
and caucus races,” said Matt Towery, who has worked in Republican campaigns and now runs the Insider Advantage polling company in Georgia. “If that’s beginning to develop,” Towery
warned, “the coattails may be far and few between.” McCain’s touch-and-go relationship with the GOP’s conservative base is no secret. In a FOXNews/Opinion Dynamics poll in June, only 54
percent of Republicans surveyed said they were satisfied with their choice for president this year, compared to 78 percent of Democrats who said they were satisfied with Barack Obama.
McCain’s recent turnaround on the issue of offshore oil drilling and his support for an amendment to California’s constitution barring same-sex marriages may appeal to conservative voters, but
And while McCain needs conservatives to turn out and vote for him on
those positions risk turning off moderate voters in swing districts.
Election Day, the Republicans most needing his help this year are moderates from mixed districts who rely
on crossover votes and independents to win. For instance, political analysts say McCain could potentially help former Pennsylvania Rep. Melissa
Hart, a Republican who was upset by Democrat Jason Altmire in 2006 in her Democratic-trending suburban Pittsburgh district.
The problem for McCain, said Larry Ceisler, a Democratic consultant in Pennsylvania, is he “really hasn’t
done anything to show these moderate and independents that he is one of them.” However, Ceisler noted,
“McCain is certainly an improvement over Bush and (former Sen. Rick) Santorum, so I think he will create a
somewhat better environment” for swing voters than in the 2006 midterm, when Republicans lost four seats in
Pennsylvania.
40
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Plan changes the perception of the Republican brand- key to McCain victory
NPR, june 24, 2008
(“ Mccain advisor: GOP must address climate change”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91850623)
The Republican brand needs some "freshening up" if the party is going to appeal to voters in swing
states, says Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. "We now have a candidate in John McCain who is viewed as
independent-minded and taking different approaches, who is a little on the leading edge of some of the
emerging issues, like energy issues and climate change," Pawlenty, the national co-chairman of McCain's
presidential campaign, tells NPR's Michele Norris. Pawlenty says creative thinking on such issues will help
the Republican Party seem more modern.
Plan allows McCain to undercut Democrats as the green party- key to election
WHITE HOUSE BULLETIN 4-7-2008
McCain Could Undercut Democrats' Advantage On The Environment The White House Bulletin April 7, 2008 Monday
Newsweek (4/14, Adler, 3.12M), in its cover story, reports, "The environment, which typically ranks somewhere around 'regulatory
reform' among voters' concerns, has emerged as a leading issue in this election cycle; last year more than three voters in 10 said they
would take a candidate's green credentials into account, according to pollster John Zogby, up from just 11 percent in 2005." According
to Newsweek, many environmentalists "breathed a sigh of relief when McCain locked up his party's nomination, but he was widely
viewed as the most acceptable of the major GOP contenders." McCain "is an appealing figure to some environmentalists. ... So,
ironically, McCain -- with a voting record that would put him at the bottom of the heap among Democrats -- is sometimes perceived as
more passionate about the environment than his Democratic opponents, whose objectively much stronger records are viewed as a
matter of party orthodoxy."
41
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
42
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
43
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Plan restores the GOP’s credibility over energy policy- boosts Christian right turn out
Kuhnhenn, June 17, 2008
(Jim, “McCain ad puts distance with Bush on environment”, The Associated Press, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYpS6G-fl1u-
yS2zifc0FsveuPGwD91C36MG0)
SCRIPT: Announcer: "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming, five years ago. Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions. A
plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment. Reform. Prosperity. Peace. John McCain." McCain: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message."
KEY IMAGES: Jarring music and a quick black and white succession of video images — heavy traffic, smokestacks belching smoke, glaciers collapsing into the ocean, capped by a color clip
"McCain climate views clash with GOP."
of the sun setting. McCain then appears on screen behind a microphone above a superimposed newspaper headline:
The music softens amid images of windmills, water turbines and solar panels. The ad concludes with McCain
outdoors, pines and mountains behind him as a breeze ruffles his untucked shirt.
ANALYSIS: The ad is built on a foundation of five central words: " ... stood up to the president." Democrats
have been trying to portray the Republican presidential candidate as an extension of President Bush. McCain
and the Bush administration have clashed over how to control greenhouse emissions. And with McCain
embracing Bush's current policies on the Iraq war and tax cuts, the issue of climate change gives him a chance
to distance himself from the unpopular president. McCain has favored a plan that would see greenhouse
gas emissions cut by 60 percent by 2050 and supports more nuclear power.
But the ad aired a day after McCain's announcement Monday that, like Bush, he favors lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. The announcement, a reversal from his position in his
first presidential campaign in 2000, when he said he favored the ban, upset environmental groups.
McCain also had indicated he was open to a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, but on Tuesday criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for demanding the same thing. The Democratic
National Committee criticized McCain's environmental record, noting his policy changes and some votes against tax credits for alternate energy sources.This is the second ad in McCain's
expanded general election media campaign. The first described his family's tradition of military service and his more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. If there is a narrative in the
ads it is to establish his biography as a war hero and independent politician.
McCain currently has the airwaves to himself. Obama has yet to begin broadcasting his general election themes. McCain is spending at least $2 million a week on the ads, a modest expenditure
McCain often has said he aspires to be as great a conservationist as his role model and
that focuses on key battleground states.
fellow Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. While the ad sought to assure independent and environmentally
conscious voters, global warming also stands as an important issue with the evangelical and Christian
conservative voters McCain is trying to court.
44
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Plan steals key Western states from Obama- guarantees McCain win
Kiely, June 25, 2008
(Kathy, “Obama aims to wrest West from GOP”, USA TODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-24-Obama_N.htm)
To deliver messages on the need for energy savings, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain
this week are choosing the same unlikely backdrop — this 24/7 playground of air-conditioned casinos and
neon-lit desert skies. On Tuesday, Obama promised "a very different vision of what this country can and should
achieve on energy." McCain arrives Wednesday to discuss his plans for renewable fuels at the University of
Nevada-Las Vegas campus. Why preach conservation in a city that celebrates excess? The decision may have
had less to do with the candidates' messages than with their electoral strategies. "It's a sign that the electoral
map is very competitive," said Brian Krolicki, Nevada's lieutenant governor and a McCain supporter. "Every
state counts." Obama's visit is part of a strategy to score upset victories in the traditionally Republican
but independent-minded region that lies between California and the Rocky Mountains. "The winning-
the-West strategy," as Danny Thompson, head of the Nevada AFL-CIO, called it, could help Obama win
overall even if he falls short in some of the industrial battleground states. In Pennsylvania, for example, Hillary Rodham
Clinton beat Obama decisively during the primaries. Clinton won, but much more narrowly, in Nevada and New Mexico — both of which Obama visited this week.
Together with Colorado, the states represent a combined 19 electoral votes, just one fewer than Ohio, the state that decided the 2004 presidential election. President
Bush won all three Western states that year, but by close margins. Since then, Democrats have scored gains in gubernatorial, congressional and state legislative races.
"These states are becoming more and more Democratic," says Joel Kotkin, a California-based scholar who
studies the nation's demographic trends. On paper, this should be McCain country. The Republican has represented
neighboring Arizona for more than 25 years in Congress and, as Obama himself acknowledged Monday, "can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party
in the past."
45
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
46
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
McCain’s environmental policies have cost him California- plan steals these votes and the election from
Obama
Murdock, June 24, 2008
(Paul, “McCain’s Energy Plan Could Cost Him California But Help Elsewhere”, http://blogs.forbes.com/trailwatch/2008/06/mccains-energy.html)
It has been twenty years since George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in California, the last time that the
Golden State supported a Republican in the general election. Nevertheless, John McCain has claimed that
California’s 55 electoral votes could be in play this November. If last week is a clue, he’s wrong. On Tuesday,
the candidate advanced a proposal rooted in his argument for states’ rights (similar to his gay marriage
rationale), that calls for an end to the moratorium on the construction of offshore oil platforms. While McCain is
opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, he has cited the production shortage in the United States as justification for new drilling projects
That move may have cost McCain California,
along America’s coastline, including the 1,100-mile stretch of Pacific Ocean along California.
by alienating independents, environmentalists and, perhaps, uncommitted supporters of Hillary Clinton.
McCain’s proposal is also a break from policies preferred by his biggest political asset in the state, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. While California drivers—who
are accustomed to paying the highest gas prices in the continental U.S.—may be ready for a break at the pumps, the idea of a coastline littered with oil derricks is a
tough one for Californians to like. Their spectacular coastline is not only a refuge for the state’s residents; it is also a draw to millions of tourists. In contrast, Barack
Obama’s plan to tax windfall oil profits and use the money on renewable energy may appeal to coastal
residents. Neither plan, however, is likely to last beyond November, nor would they make much of a difference
in gas prices, according to Forbes’ Robert Lenzner. Were McCain to win California, the Forbes Interactive
Electoral Map shows that he would almost certainly win the White House, even if Barack Obama managed
to take several key swing states. McCain has used his green credentials to distance himself from the
unpopular (and oil-friendly) Bush administration. Despite the inclusion of some green proposals in McCain’s
policy statement—including “clean” coal, wind, solar and nuclear power—an extended campaign battle over
drilling in pristine places could make it easy for Obama to draw comparisons between McCain and Bush. Such
comparisons could imperil McCain’s relationship with the 17% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters who have said
they will vote for him in the fall.
47
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
**INTERNAL LINKS**
48
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Energy issues key to the election- number one issue for voters
Raum, June 23, 2008
(Tom, “Gas at $4 brings promises, pandering” , The Associated Press, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isJU4OyzZglXxAWlzkvmnslNP3-
wD91FUOI00)
two rival filling-station owners across the highway in long-bygone price wars, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama
and Republican Sen. John McCain keep putting up flashy signs and offering new incentives in hopes of
attracting customers battered by $4 gas prices. McCain is offering a summer break from the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax, and holding out the
promise of more offshore drilling to help you drive more cheaply to the beach. He wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors to generate electricity. On Monday, he
proposed a $300 million government prize to anyone who can develop a superior battery to power cars of the future. He may even wash your windows. If you pull into
the Obama station, he'll promise you cash back from the windfall-profits tax he plans to slap on Big Oil. Check the tires? How about promises to go after oil-market
speculators who help drive up prices as well as big subsidies for solar, wind, ethanol and other alternative-energy projects? The Illinois senator likens his energy
Oil and gas prices that have doubled in the past year have squeezed aside the war
package to the Kennedy-era space program.
in Iraq as the No. 1 issue this election year and both parties are blaming each other for the price spike — and
for apparent congressional paralysis. Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their
campaigns and have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on
Capitol Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the
nation's addiction to foreign oil. This
debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches. In a USA Today-
Gallup Poll released Monday, nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or
extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the economy as the top
issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points.
Yet energy experts and economists — and even some of the candidates' own advisers — say none of their signature proposals will have any impact on $4 gasoline or
$130 a barrel oil in the near term, or even the intermediate term. Is it open season for pandering?
49
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
50
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
As George Bush and John Kerry circle each other warily in the early days of the presidential campaign,
focusing mainly on war and economic recovery, there's another issue that could make the key difference in a
close race.
It's the environment. There are dramatic differences in tone and approach between the presumptive candidates here. As a result, the issue is more
politically significant than it has been since former Interior Secretary James Watt's pyrotechnic presence early in the Reagan administration 20 years ago.
While the environment is seldom at the top of voters' concerns, it can significantly change the balance
in a tight race - as Ralph Nader and the Green Party showed four years ago. And while national security
and the economy are twin gorillas in the campaign, both sides know that environmental protection ranks high
among American values from the grass roots on up - including among most Republicans, according to public opinion
surveys.
In a confidential memo to elected Republican leaders last year, GOP pollster Frank Luntz warned that
environmental issues are the Republicans' weak spot.As a result, wrote Mr. Luntz, "Not only do we risk
losing the swing vote, but our suburban female base could abandon us as well." That Mr. Bush and Vice president Dick
Cheney are both former oilmen does not help the administration's image here.
51
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
52
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
53
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
54
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
55
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
56
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
57
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
58
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
59
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
60
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
61
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
62
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
63
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
64
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
**IMPACTS**
65
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
SOLVES CASE – OBAMA WILL PROMOTE BILLIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INVESTMENT
NEW YORK TIMES 5-19-2008
Senator Barack Obama's proposal that the federal government spend $150 billion over 10 years to
promote alternative energy and create several million jobs has found receptive ears in Silcon Valley.
Mr. Obama reiterated the investment plan on Wednesday in a speech in Michigan, but his words
reverberated in Silicon Valley, where the plan is being interpreted as a boon for the local economy.
As part of his proposal, Mr. Obama pledges that, if president, he will invest $10 billion a year in a
''Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund'' that would help finance companies
involved in alternative energy.
''This is great news,'' said Josh Green, an alternative energy investor at Mohr Davidow Ventures, a venture
firm. ''It would be an incredibly helpful thing for clean tech.''
Daniel M. Kammen, an adviser to Mr. Obama on energy issues and the director of the Renewable and
Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, has said alternative energy
investments could use support from the government if they are going to make a dent in the $3 trillion
global energy market. Alternative energy solutions now represent a tiny fraction of that market.
66
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
67
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
68
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
69
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
President Bush has displayed unremitting hostility toward the radical regime dominating Iran, a
country that U.S. intelligence sources report had previously been pursuing a nuclear weapons
program. He branded Iran part of the "axis of evil" and promoted regime change as the preferred
U.S. policy. With a few limited exceptions, the United States under Bush has refused to talk
directly with Iran. McCain has been clear about his position on Iran. In February 2008, he told an
audience: "I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that
espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to
the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions." He also
rejects "unconditional dialogues" with Iran. Obama has delivered messages on Iran that were
more mixed. He has said "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to
eliminate this threat." In a June 2008 speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, he
refused to take the military option against Iran off the table: "I will always keep the threat of
military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no
alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use
military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and
abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts." In the same speech, however, Obama
promised: "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a
clear-eyed understanding of our interests." He has said also that it "would be a profound mistake
for us to initiate a war with Iran" and condemned the administration's "saber-rattling" on Iran.
Obama missed a vote on a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and
Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Obama called the amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he had
cosponsored an earlier bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
70
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
KIPLINGER LETTER 5-23-2008
Dealing with foreign foes. Campaign rhetoric has been heated, and it has made the two
candidates seem further apart on their approaches than they are. Obama would be more
willing to talk with Iran and others, and with fewer preconditions, but McCain would be open to
talks, too.
71
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
72
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
73
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
74
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
75
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
76
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
77
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
C. Collapse of the South Korean economy would cause global nuclear war
Corey Richardson, a Washington-based analyst who covered East Asian security issues as a presidential
management fellow with the US Department of Defense, and is a co-founder of The Korea Liberator. “South
Korea must choose sides” Asia Times 2006
www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html
A Korea faced with an economic dilemma of such magnitude would find maintaining its conventional military
forces at current levels impossible. At the same time, it would feel more vulnerable than ever, even with US
security assurances.
For a nation paranoid about the possibility of outside influence or military intervention, strapped for cash, and
obsessed about its position in the international hierarchy, the
obvious route might be to either incorporate North Korean nuclear devices (if they actually exist), or build their
own, something South Korean technicians could easily accomplish. North Korea, after all, has set the example
for economically challenged nations looking for the ultimate in deterrence.
One might argue that clear and firm US security guarantees for a reunified Korea would be able to dissuade any
government from choosing the nuclear option. If making decisions based purely on logic the answer would be
probably yes.
Unfortunately, the recent Korean leadership has established a record of being motivated more by emotional and
nationalistic factors than logical or realistic ones. Antics over Dokdo and the Yasukuni Shrine and alienating the
US serve as examples. But the continuation of the "Sunshine Policy" tops those.
Instead of admitting they've been sold a dead horse, the Roh administration continued riding the rotting and
bloated beast known as the Sunshine Policy, until all that are left today are a pile of bones, a bit of dried skin,
and a few tufts of dirty hair. Roh, however, is still in the saddle, if not as firmly after North Korea's recent
missile tests.
Japan must then consider its options in countering an openly nuclear, reunified Korea without USFK. Already
building momentum to change its constitution to clarify its military, it's not inconceivable that Japan would
ultimately consider going nuclear to deter Korea. As in South Korea, there is no technological barrier preventing
Japan from building nuclear weapons.
While the details of the race and escalation of tensions can vary in any number of ways and are not inevitable,
that an arms race would occur is probable. Only the perception of threat and vulnerability need be present for
this to occur.
East Asia could become a nuclear powder keg ready to explode over something as childish as the
Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Korea and Japan, a Diaoyu/Senkakus dispute between China and Japan, or
the Koguryo dispute between Korea and China.
78
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
The FTA is particularly menacing to South Korean farmers. The United States wants to open up South Korea’s
rice market so that U.S. corporate agribusiness can export cheap rice into the country and make it impossible for
Korean farmers to compete. Many of South Korea’s 3.5 million rice farmers are likely to be driven off the land
if confronted with competition from U.S. agribusiness.
The report said some 20,000 farmers who grow vegetables and fruits would lose their jobs if the rice market
opening were included in the FTA. Reps. Kim Tae-hong, left, and Im Jong-in, second from right, of the governing Uri Party hold balloons with
lawmakers of the minor opposition Democratic Labor Party in front of the Shilla Hotel in Seoul, Thursday. The DLP lawmakers, including Kwon Young-gil, second
from left, continued their hunger strike for the fourth consecutive day yesterday, urging the government to stop negotiations on a South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement
But the industries the report linked to
(FTA). / Yonhap Some 116,700 people in other primary products industries would face unemployment, it said.
the opening of the rice market were not limited to agriculture. It indicated that about 6,500 South Koreans in the
automobile industry would also be forced to leave their workplaces. The FTA would also force some 46,600
people in the electronic equipment industry to quit their jobs, according to the report.
79
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
80
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
81
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
82
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note
however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would
not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities
most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere
preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
83
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
84
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
85
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
86
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
87
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
88
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
89
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
90
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
use of nuclear weapons. 53
91
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
92
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Thursday the chief of Mexico's national police was gunned down by these thugs in Mexico City, striking into the heart of the Mexican
state. Meanwhile, the raid that killed Reyes also revealed the presence of Mexican operatives in Colombia believed to be in training to
destroy Mexico's oil pipelines, which supply much of America's oil. It's an ugly picture for the U.S. We must either de-fang
Chavez soon, or watch democratic neighbors collapse to his vast dictatorship. If that happens, oil prices will rise as high as his
ambition.
93
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
94
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
95
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
nose for enough gas to get you to work while subsidizing the oil cartels and while congress fiddles and hums.
96
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
97
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Unions in the United States, on the other hand, claim that employment in their country has fallen
because factory owners have preferred to move their industries to Mexico, where wages are
lower and labour and environmental laws less stringent.
"The free trade agreement must be revised. Millions of people are clamouring for this," said
Villamar.
In early March, RMALC sponsored the creation of a working group of lawmakers from Canada, the
United States and Mexico, to lobby for the renegotiation of NAFTA.
NAFTA HAS LOST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS, EXPLODED THE DEFICIT AND
DEPRESSED PAY FOR FACTORY WORKERS
NICHOLS 2004 [John, The Capital Times, “NAFTA now 10 years of bad policy”
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:WD1aPxvq4PoJ:www.citizenstrade.org/pdf/capitaltimes_nafta.pdf+NAFTA+bad&
hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us&client=firefox-a]
Instead of the trade surplus that was supposed to swell the U.S.
economy, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has grown from $9
billion in 1993 to almost $90 billion in 2003.
Instead of creating new jobs in the United States, NAFTA has been a job
killer. Under the strict requirements of the NAFTA Trade Adjustment
System, more than 525,000 U.S. workers have been officially certified as
having lost their jobs as a result of the agreement. And that is just
the tip of the job-loss iceberg; hundreds of thousands of additional
positions have been eliminated in NAFTA-related factory cutbacks and
closures.
Instead of raising U.S. wages, NAFTA has been used to depress pay.
According to the Institute for Policy Studies, threats by U.S.
corporations to move manufacturing operations overseas if workers join
unions were heard in around 50 percent of union organizing drives before
NAFTA went into effect. After its implementation, the threats were heard
in close to 70 percent of organizing drives.
98
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
99
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
CAFTA's big brother, NAFTA, offers evidence of how unbalanced trade deals fail workers in both
rich and poor countries. NAFTA has cost US workers close to 900,000 jobs and job opportunities.
NAFTA was supposed to open markets for American goods and services, creating high-paying
jobs at home and prosperity abroad. But the opposite has occurred. In 11 years under NAFTA, the
US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size, reaching $111
billion in 2004.
Nor has NAFTA delivered the promised reductions in poverty in Mexico. Mexico's workers still
struggle for basic human rights, decent wages, and safe workplaces. NAFTA's failure to protect
workers' rights has allowed employers to continue thwarting independent union organizing in
Mexico's export industries.
While exports and investment boomed, real wages fell and poverty rose in Mexico in the past 11
years, according to the Carnegie Endowment. More than a million Mexican farmers lost their land
to low-priced agriculture imports and were forced to search for work in factories or as migrant
laborers in the United States. Now investors in Mexico's export assembly plants are moving to
China, where labor costs are even lower.
Canadians and Mexicans and Americans should all support the NAFTA renegotiation proposed by
Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The U.S. senators want to
strengthen NAFTA’s labour and environmental standards. But most importantly, they want to
abolish NAFTA’s nefarious Chapter 11 which allows private capital to trump democratic
government.
Before NAFTA, private investors’ grievances were adjudicated on a government-to-government basis. But NAFTA allows foreign
capital to sue government directly. And sue they have — for tens of millions of dollars — challenging the public’s right to regulate
the environment, culture, agriculture, natural resources, jobs and health and safety. As of Jan. 1, 2008, there have been 49 investor-
state claims under NAFTA: 18 against Canada, 17 against Mexico and 14 against the U.S. So far, Canada has paid $27 million in
damages and Mexico, $18.7 million. To date, investor claims against the U.S. have been dismissed. Two cases provide a flavour. An
Exxon-Mobil subsidiary is suing Newfoundland and Labrador for $40 million because the province demanded a fixed amount of local
research and development. Chemtura Corp. is suing Canada for $100 million over the ban on its pesticide Lindane, a neurotoxin and
suspected carcinogen. NAFTA is “very much a relic of the Roaring Nineties,” says Scott Sinclair, director of the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives’ trade and investment research project. “That’s another era now and it’s just not an appropriate framework for
managing the problems of the early 21st century. There is a growing recognition we need active democratic governments to protect the
environment on issues like climate change and to deal with the growing inequality which again is a consequence of the patterns of
trade that have developed under NAFTA and other trade agreements.” Sinclair points out Chapter 11 not only costs taxpayers but
chills government from regulating in the first place. NAFTA also plays an even greater — but disguised — role in this and other U.S.
election campaigns. Illegal immigration, primarily from Mexico, is a major flashpoint in American politics. But Obama and Clinton
have not connected illegal immigration to NAFTA’s Mexican agricultural “clearances.” NAFTA forced Mexico to liberalize and
corporatize its agriculture. U.S. agribusiness giants like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland effectively pushed millions of small
farmers off the land into the slums of Mexico City and finally to the U.S. border. A Mexican government study reports the number of
agricultural households plunged from 2.3 million in 1992 to 575,000 in 2002. Those woRandall King in the primary sector (forestry,
hunting and fishing as well as agriculture) represented 26.8 per cent of the total woRandall King population of Mexico in 1991 but
100
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
only 14.6 per cent in 2006. “NAFTA negotiations took place without taking into consideration the views of Mexico’s civil society,”
writes Americas Policy Program researcher Ana de Ita in Fourteen Years Of Nafta And The Tortilla Crisis. Mexico now imports most
of its corn from the U.S. because its agricultural land grows fruit and vegetables for North American tables. “So while
agricultural and food exports from Mexico are concentrated in a small number of lavish products
for the U.S. elites, Mexico has lost its ability to feed its population and has increased its
dependency on the import of basic goods,” de Ita continues.
101
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
US presidential candidates are arguing about the destruction caused by the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Make it fair or get rid of it, is their claim.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a much bigger problem than the loss of
jobs in certain sectors. The Economic Policy Institute, Common Dreams and marketing professors around the
continent agree it fails Mexicans, Americans and Canadians with flawed data, flawed assumptions and partial
interpretation.
However, NAFTA has become a tool for US presidential candidate Barack Obama. Pointing out his rivals' short-comings
on the issue, he is doing as well among manufacturing workers in Ohio as he did with garment workers in South
Carolina and farmers in Iowa. His stalwartness has revived Ross Perot’s argument of a “giant sucking sound” of jobs
heading to Mexico. Furthermore, the media is now focusing on key areas of the agreement.
* Environment – A 2000 CRS report for congress states the agreement: “…only obligates parties to enforce their
own environmental laws.” It continues that “lax enforcement of environmental laws in Mexico would
provide an added incentive for U.S. industries to relocate.” This is not an abstract hypothesis: according
to the Economic Policy Institute on July 13th 2001, “10.9% of foreign exports [since 1993] were designated as
‘environmental release’ imports…”
* Safety – this has become a large concern by many NAFTA watchers. The agreement has
allowed corporations to by-pass USA laws. An example is the Trucking Domicile Laws. In 2001, a NAFTA
tribunal ordered the U.S. to fully open its border to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies. According to Public Citizen
(who has filed suit over expansion of the program): “…the system designed to ensure that Mexico-domiciled carriers
comply with U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing safety standards is incomplete, and it is not clear whether the drug and
alcohol testing program is functional, the inspector general found.”
102
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
103
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
104
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
prompt Israeli retaliation, and perhaps even an Israeli preventive strike on WMD-related sites in Iraq or Iran.
There are few situations, however, that would require direct and massive U.S. military intervention or air- and sea-lifts
to resupply depleted Israeli equipment inventories. U.S. forces and personnel could be indirectly involved in future
conflicts or be targeted by hostile groups or states (personnel at risk might include CIA officers involved in monitoring
implementation of the Israeli–Palestinian Wye agreement). As a result, the United States will need to enhance
its ability to deal with terrorism and WMD, the threats that pose the greatest danger to its
personnel and interests in the Arab–Israeli arena.
In a future Arab–Israeli war, Israel would depend on the United States for both information and
materiel. In a conventional scenario (such as war with Syria, which is at present unlikely), this might include target
intelligence for counter-Scud operations and strikes on WMD-related facilities, information to aid interdiction of enemy
expeditionary forces from outer-ring states (though the abilities of Libya, Iraq, and Iran have been greatly diminished
by sanctions and/or war), specialized munitions to deal with hardened or underground facilities, anti-missile systems to
supplement Israel’s capabilities, and a resupply of tanks and aircraft if combat losses are substantial (which seems
unlikely).
105
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
TOKYO • A senior Palestinian minister said yesterday that he was pinning his hopes on US presidential candidate
Barack Obama, believing he would seal an elusive deal on creating a Palestinian state.
The Palestinian Authority's planning minister Samir Abdullah told reporters on a visit to Tokyo he expected Obama to
win the election in November and “look at the Palestinian question and try to do something about it.”
“He promised that he will not wait until the end of his term to launch negotiations and he will
make it happen from day one. I hope that he will fulfil his promise,” he said.
Since Obama was elected to the Senate and through his presidential campaign, he has also expressed his support for
Israel in its struggle against terror. He defines Israel as “the United States’ strongest ally in the region, and the only
democracy there”; he is committed to Israel’s security, including by maintaining its military superiority; he sees Hamas
as “a terror organization devoted to the idea of destroying the State of Israel,”[17] and therefore does not comprise a
legitimate partner to negotiations until it changes its attitude. Obama supports a two-state solution and is
“committed to making every effort to help Israel achieve peace,” but will not force a settlement on it; he
opposes a Palestinian right of return.[18]
These positions and his voting history in the Senate place Obama at the heart of the traditional
pro-Israeli consensus in America. However, his overall record offers a less rosy picture from
Israel’s point of view. In all matters relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Obama expresses an
evenhanded position, which is striking in its contrast with the American political landscape. After the failure of the
Camp David summit he criticized the Clinton administration for its unconditional and unilateral support of Israel. He
used the expression “cycle of violence" instead of the expression generally used among supporters of Israel,
“Palestinian violence and Israeli response.”[19] In the past, he has said that “no one is suffering more than
the Palestinian people.” (He later excused the remark as said in the context of the Palestinians suffering from the
failure of their leaders to recognize Israel). He promised to apply pressure to both sides in order to
achieve tangible progress in the political process. He outlined that his administration will ask
Israel to shoulder part of the responsibility to change the status quo and he will help “Israelis to
identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace.”[20] Obama is the only
candidate who has not expressed support for the security fence, which he described as “another example of the
neglect of this administration in brokering peace.”[21]
106
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
107
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
108
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
109
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
110
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
A clear US commitment to a complete, irreversible withdrawal from Iraq may now be the only
way to develop a regional concert of powers that could work with Iraqis to try to stabilise the
country and cauterise the conflict. The continuing US and British occupation is a roadblock to
that co-operation. The galvanising impact of a decision to depart unequivocally can be the last
best chance at preventing the conflict from boiling over beyond Iraq to the whole region. How we
design and implement our departure is our last significant remaining leverage. There is no
guarantee that this will work, but geopolitical self-interest may encourage wary co-operation
from Iraq's neighbours. Iran does not need to invade Iraq to have influence there. The Saudis and
Jordanians do not have the military capability to invade. The Syrians are not interested and, in
spite of some sabre-rattling, the Turks do not need more Kurds to try to pacify. Focusing on
ending the occupation and bringing order in its wake may be the best chance left to end our
involvement while keeping the civil war contained to Iraq. None of Iraq's neighbours was eager
for the invasion four years ago, with the possible exception of Kuwait. All of them saw the US and
UK occupation as inherently destabilising, especially if it looked permanent. All are now worried
that the civil war in Iraq will serve as a breeding ground for terror and violence that will be
increasingly exported to their own countries. Iraq is already a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists
who have attacked Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, and for PKK terrorists who attack Turkey.
Now al-Qaeda is threatening to attack Iran for meddling on the side of the Shia in Iraq against
the Sunni Arab minority. But these countries cannot work constructively with an American
occupation army - especially not Iran, which has the most capability to be a decisive force given
its intimate ties to virtually every Shia and Kurdish politician, its geography and its economic
connections. Most of all Tehran wants to see the US leave Iraq for good so it cannot be a base
against Iran. The Saudis and Jordanians find it both difficult and less urgent to engage when the
occupation is open-ended. The Syrians find Iraq to be a good place to keep America bogged
down and less threatening. The Turks fear that a long-term American presence encourages
Kurdish -separatism. These calculations may well change once there is a clear time-line for
complete American and British withdrawal and the end of occupation. At that point it is in the self
interest of each of the neighbours to concentrate on shaping post-occupation Iraq and especially
preventing the terrorist threat that instability creates. All Iraq's neighbours will find it easier to
engage when it is not in support of an occupation army. None will want to see another gain direct
control of part or all of Iraq. All will want to avoid a power vacuum for al-Qaeda and other
terrorists. We should seek to build on the narrow moment of time when those self-interests might
be put into harmony to stabilise Iraq. For Iraqis as well it is imperative that the US make clear
now what it should have been saying from day one: we plan no permanent military presence in
Iraq, no bases and no special relationship. We want a fully independent Iraq, not a client state.
We should abandon any thought of staying in Iraq for decades as if it were South Korea or
Germany. When we suggest such it only rallies more recruits for al-Qaeda, especially foreign
suicide bombers. The best way to isolate al-Qaeda is to pull the occupation out from under it. The
United Nations should be invited to convene and administer a contact group of the neighbours that would address
several key issues in conjunction with the Iraqi government. At the top of the list would be agreement to assist rather
than exploit the peaceful and orderly withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Iraq, agreement to respect the
territorial integrity of Iraq, agreement to assist the government of Iraq in controlling and stabilising its territory and
funding of a major assistance package. These are key issues for the transition from occupation to post-occupation. For
111
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
the US it is obviously important to get help in making the withdrawal of our forces as smooth as possible. We should
try to leave behind a regional order that has a chance for stability.
entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with
its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.
112
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Obama's Web site contains this direct promise about Iraq: "Obama will immediately
begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each
month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will
make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some
troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al-Qaida attempts to build a base
within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted
strikes on al-Qaida." McCain was an early supporter of increasing the number of U.S.
troops in Iraq as President Bush did last year. He wants to pursue the current
counterinsurgency tactics to give Iraqis time to work out a political reconciliation. He has
said he's willing to see some U.S. troops stay there as much as 100 years but not if they
are being wounded or killed in combat. Rather he supports keeping a military presence in
that part of the world because of its volatility.
One of Obama’s big selling points throughout the primaries was that he spoke up openly
against the Iraq War in 2002 when the Congress was still debating whether to authorize
the war. The war is hugely unpopular. There was never any expectation that the United
States would be tied up in a long and costly war. Even the relatively small segment of the
public that supports the current military effort holds the view that victory is just around
the corner. Therefore they expect that it will be possible to withdraw most of the troops
from Iraq in the near future. Obama is virtually certain to work out a plan that involves
getting most U.S. combat troops out of Iraq fairly quickly. The key question is how his
administration will respond if sectarian warfare intensifies as the soldiers withdraw, or if
the Kurds or Shiites make an effort to break off from the country. Neither problem is likely
to prevent a withdrawal. After the bloodshed of the last five years, the ability of the
United States to tolerate violence in Iraq is quite high, especially if U.S. soldier are not in
the middle of it. Obama is also likely to be able to apply enough pressure to ensure that
a formal break-up of Iraq doesn’t occur.
113
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Obama would find it hard to withdraw so many troops that quickly. McCain would come under intense
pressure from Congress and the public to act sooner, though the power of the presidency would give him
the upper hand. Congress' say on foreign policy is fairly limited.
114
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
B. CONTINUED FIGHTING IRAQ WILL CAUSE REGIONAL WAR, OIL SHOCKS, GLOBAL
TERRORISM AND COLLAPSE US HEGEMONY
Haas, 2007
(Richard, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Korea Times, IRAQ MORE THAN
AMERICA'S PROBLEM, July, lexis)
Terrorism bred in Iraq will not stay there. Terrorists who have tasted success in Iraq will increasingly turn on others. War in Iraq will
only exacerbate frictions between the country's Sunni minority and Shia majority, and such frictions could well be replicated
elsewhere. Even if not, the flight of millions of Sunni refugees will weaken neighbouring states. Continued fighting in Iraq could also
lead to regional war. It is also possible that resistance to Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq could lead to a wider conflict that draws in
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others. Such a conflict would threaten the vital flow of oil from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
Even without such a wider conflict, what happens in Iraq will affect the price of oil. Iraq is producing oil at levels below what it produced
under Saddam Hussein, and has the potential to double or even triple output. Doing so would require significant investment, which in turn would
require stability. It may be too late for the US to succeed in Iraq, but it is not too late for others to increase the odds that the US does not fail Costly
oil is a tax on the poor in developing countries and a source of inflation for the developed countries. It also provides resources to governments that in
many cases are promoting foreign policies that are contrary to the interests of most other countries. The rest of the world also has a stake in how the
US emerges from Iraq. There is a real danger that a widely-perceived failure in Iraq could lead to a serious weakening of
American domestic political support for an active international role, particularly difficult but necessary deployments of
military force. The alternative to a world shaped by a strong, confident, and engaged US is not likely to be a world that is
peaceful, prosperous, and free. In strategic terms, no other country or group of countries has the capacity to replace the
US. The alternative to a US-led global order is disorder. This suggests, first, that governments should avoid public comments
describing the American presence as an "occupation", lest they make it more likely that the US departs Iraq entirely. Second, countries
should support Iraq's government, despite its shortcomings. Third, terrorism needs to be checked. None of Iraq's neighbours,
including Iran, would benefit from sectarian conflict that grows into a regional war. Finally, governments should consider
contributing troops to help establish order, train the Iraqi police and military, and help Iraq guard its borders. Others should be
prepared to step up, lest Iraq's government falls and the Iraqi state fails. Iraq's future is not assured even if these measures are taken.
Still, there is a big difference between an Iraq that struggles and one that implodes; between an Iraq that contributes to
global energy security rather than undermining it; between a civil war and a regional war. It may be too late for the US to
succeed in Iraq, but it is not too late for others to increase the odds that the US does not fail.
115
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Researchers at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting warned Monday that even a small regional nuclear war
could burn enough cities to shroud the globe in black smoky shadow and usher in the manmade equivalent of the Little Ice
Age. "Nuclear weapons represent the greatest single human threat to the planet, much more so than global warming," said
Rutgers University atmospheric scientist Alan Robock. By dropping imaginary Hiroshima-sized bombs into some of the world's biggest cities, now
swelled to tens of millions in population, University of Colorado researcher O. Brian Toon and colleagues found they could generate 100 times the
fatalities and 100 times the climate-chilling smoke per kiloton of explosive power as all-out nuclear war between the United States and former Soviet
Union. For most modern nuclear-war scenarios, the global impact isn't nuclear winter, the notion of smoke from incinerated
cities blotting out the sun for years and starving most of the Earth's people. It's not even nuclear autumn, but rather an
instant nuclear chill over most of the planet, accompanied by massive ozone loss and warming at the poles. That's what
scientists' computer simulations suggest would happen if nuclear war broke out in a hot spot such as the Middle East, the
North Korean peninsula or, the most modeled case, in Southeast Asia. Unlike in the Cold War, when the United States and
Russia mostly targeted each other's nuclear, military and strategic industrial sites, young nuclear-armed nations have fewer
weapons and might go for maximum effect by using them on cities, as the United States did in 1945. "We're at a perilous
crossroads," Toon said. The spread of nuclear weapons worldwide combined with global migration into dense megacities
form what he called "perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of society since the dawn of humanity." More than 20 years ago,
researchers imagined a U.S.-Soviet nuclear holocaust would wreak havoc on the planet's climate. They showed the problem was potentially worse than feared: Massive
urban fires would flush hundreds of millions of tons of black soot skyward, where -- heated by sunlight -- it would soar higher into the stratosphere and begin cooking
off the protective ozone layer around the Earth. Huge losses of ozone would open the planet and its inhabitants to damaging radiation, while the warm soot would
spread a pall sufficient to plunge the Earth into freezing year-round. The hundreds of millions who would starve exceeded those who would die in the initial blasts and
radiation.
116
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Terrorists thrive in political voids and weak states, as when Al Qa'eda emerged in Somalia, Sudan, and Afghanistan. A
vacuum of governance in Iraq will engender transnational terrorism, which will target oil production and transit. Even
without a disruption in production or shipping, instability alone will cause oil prices to spike. More strife in Iraq will
further suppress oil production there and could spark conflicts in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, where a globally catastrophic
loss of oil production could result. And, strife in Iraq could adversely affect Iranian oil production and transit. As Middle
East oil supplies diminish, Venezuela, Sudan, and Russia could use energy and the wealth they derive from it as political
and diplomatic weapons. Similarly, Iran might proceed even more boldly with its nuclear program. Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
and perhaps other Middle East nations then might start a nuclear weapons race in a region prone to terror.
ALL OUT CIVIL WAR CAUSES REGIONAL WAR AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
BYMAN, 2007
Daniel, Director, Security Studies Program, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown
University, ALTERNATIVES FOR IRAQ'S FUTURE, CQ Congressional Testimony, July 18, lexis
The collapse of Iraq into all-out civil war means more than just a humanitarian tragedy. Such a conflict is unlikely to
contain itself. In other, similar cases of all-out civil war that also involve a failed state, the resulting spillover has fostered
terrorism, created refugee flows that can destabilize the entire neighborhood, radicalized the populations of surrounding
states and even sparked civil wars in other, neighboring states or transformed domestic strife into regional war. Terrorists
frequently find a home in states in civil war, as al- Qaeda did in Afghanistan. However, civil wars just as often breed new
terrorist groups-Hizballah, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of Algeria
and the Tamil Tigers were all born of civil wars. Many such groups start by focusing on local targets but then shift to
international attacks-starting with those they believe are aiding their enemies in the civil war.
Iraq is vital to regional and even global stability, and is critical to U.S. interests. It runs along the sectarian fault
lines of Shia and Sunni Islam, and of Kurdish and Arab populations. It has the world's second-largest known oil
reserves. It is now a base of operations for international terrorism, including al Qaeda. Iraq is a centerpiece of
American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world.
Because of the gravity of Iraq's condition and the country's vital importance, the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant
international challenges in decades. Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a
national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy.
117
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
118
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Moreover, President George W. Bush is no doubt correct that if Iraq were to fall into chaos and civil war, it would
probably become a haven and breeding ground for terrorist groups to an even greater extent than it already is. Lebanon in
the 1970s and Afghanistan in the 1990s are examples of this phenomenon. Iraq was not the central front of the war on
terrorism before the U.S.-led invasion. By invading and failing to stabilize the country, however, it has become the central
front. Today, many Salafi Jihadist4 recruits are traveling to Iraq to learn the trade of terrorism and to test their mettle in
direct combat with the Americans. If the United States leaves Iraq in chaos, terrorists will establish training camps and
bases from which to attack the United States and its allies throughout the world, just as al-Qa'ida used Afghanistan to
mount the East Africa bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and September 11.Moreover, if we left Iraq prematurely, this
would be seen across the Muslim world as a great victory for the Salafi Jihadist cause—greater even than their part in
defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. This would be a major spur to terrorist recruitment.
Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, "Al Qaeda is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald's." Left
unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could continue to incite violence between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could
provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al Qaeda
will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as
they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden,
has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread "the jihad wave to
the secular countries neighboring Iraq." A senior European official told us that failure in Iraq could incite
terrorist attacks within his country.
119
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
At the international level, the fall of Iraq could deal the most serious blow to US strategy in the Middle East and
end American hegemony in the entire world. If the United States and allied forces in Iraq fail to contain and
manage the crisis, we should expect immediate repercussions in the form of a domino effect in other countries,
beginning with Afghanistan. The proliferation of radicalism could easily affect North Africa in the West and
Muslim states in East and South Asia, including Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia. Those in
the United States and other parts of the world who push for a quick withdrawal of American troops from Iraq
are evidently not conscious of these and other catastrophic ramifications.
The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of,
and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities. Perceived failure there could diminish
America's credibility and influence in a region that is the center of the Islamic world and vital to the world's
energy supply. This loss would reduce America's global influence at a time when pressing issues in North
Korea, Iran, and elsewhere demand our full attention and strong U.S. leadership of international alliances. And
the longer that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the more the chances for American
failure in Afghanistan increase.
120
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Ambassadors from neighboring countries told us that they fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes
across the Islamic world. Many expressed a fear of Shia insurrections— perhaps fomented by Iran—in Sunni-
ruled states. Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems—including the
radicalization of populations, mass movements of populations, and regime changes—that might take decades to
play out. If the instability in Iraq spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop in oil production and exports could
lead to a sharp increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy.
Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw
from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States, Europe, and
Japan and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global
economy. These neocolonial wars will result in mass death, suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If first
world countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy, then we
may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in
comparison. However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and
political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage
the complex economic and trading networks and squander material, biological and energy resources that they
will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the
worst case scenario for the collapse of global civilization
121
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
122
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
123
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
national and global interests.
124
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
and global involvement will provide an easier path.
125
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
126
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Being in first place is the American Way. Chants of “We’re Number One!” echo around the globe, wherever a
representative from the United States happens to be waving the stars and stripes. It’s a fact of our culture, as
unquestionable as apple pie or the Fourth of July, and not without good reason. The size and strength of the U.S.
military is unsurpassed. Despite the current recession, the World Economic Forum continues to rank the United States
first in growth competitiveness. Finally, for millions of people around the world, this country continues to represent
freedom, opportunity, and the brightest prospect for a better future.
It’s unlikely that the United States will cede its superpower status anytime soon. But the forces of
globalization and technology have dispersed the distribution of power amongst a much wider
band of factions, organizations, and individuals. Thanks to the Internet, the birth of a political movement is
only a few clicks away.
In this smaller, faster world, being Number One ain’t going to be the same. So what does that mean for America and
its role in the world? How should our interests and policies be defined as we enter the 21st century? Dean Joseph S.
Nye, Jr., addresses these questions and many others in The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only
Superpower Can’t Go It Alone, published in February by Oxford University Press. Nye describes his new work as a lineal
descendant of Bound to Lead, the 1990 book that refuted the popular opinion of the time that America was sinking into
a state of decline. The impetus for Paradox, he continues, came from the realization that the pendulum of conventional
wisdom had swung too far in the opposite direction; from decline to what he terms “triumphalism.” “Not since
Rome has any nation had so much power, but that power is still not enough to solve global
problems — like terrorism or the proliferation of nuclear weapons — without the help of other
nations,” he states. “We may be Number One, but that is not enough to make us invulnerable.”
September 11 made that all too clear. Nye began writing Paradox months before the terrorist attacks, but found he had
only minor revising to do after they occurred. “It was essentially a confirmation of my argument,” he says. “In the
comfortable decade between the end of the Cold War and this new century, Americans thought we were invincible.
September 11 revealed the deeper changes that were already occurring in the world that had escaped popular
attention.”
Ironically enough, those changes were brought about by the rise of technology and globalization, two developments
most closely associated with the United States. No one could fail to notice how the New Economy drove one of the
biggest economic booms in the history of the American economy, creating thousands of millionaires overnight. Less
apparent was how our enemies could use the Internet as a tool to orchestrate elaborately planned attacks. “A
technological revolution has been diffusing power away from governments and empowering individuals and groups to
play roles in world politics — including wreaking massive destruction — that were once reserved for the governments
of states,” Nye observes. “Privatization has been increasing, and terrorism is the privatization of war.” It’s more than a
matter of staying one step ahead of our enemies in a technological game of cat and mouse, he continues. “When the
Pan Am flight exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, the cause was a bomb in unaccompanied luggage. “So now the
airline employees ask if we packed our bag ourselves. A Mohammed Atta would say, ‘Yes, I packed my bag myself,’ so
we’ve created new security procedures. Unfortunately, each time you find a solution, someone will be looking for a
chink in your armor. That dynamic is bound to continue.”
Military power is an essential part of the response, but an equally productive focusing point, Nye continues, would be
the cultivation of what he calls “soft power,” or the ability to advance one’s agenda through attraction rather than
coercion. “Soft power arises from our culture, values, and policies,” he states. Given its proper weight,
soft power can serve as a much-needed balance to our economic and military might, two
examples of “hard power” that can overwhelm and alienate other countries. The thousands of
international students who come to study at U.S. institutions are an example of this country’s soft power. Our
government’s democratic values and promotion of peace and human rights influence how other
countries perceive us. For better or worse, so does the latest Bruce Willis action flick. America’s use of capital
punishment and relatively permissive gun control laws undercut its soft power in European countries. While its
intangible quality makes soft power much more difficult to use and control, observes Nye, that fact does not diminish
its importance.
“American pre-eminence will last well into this century, but our attitudes and policies will need to
encompass a very different means of meeting challenges and achieving our goals,” he says. While a
127
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
strong military presence will continue to be essential to maintaining global stability, it proves less adequate when
confronting issues such as global climate change, the spread of infectious diseases, and international financial stability.
“We must not let the illusion of empire blind us to the increasing importance of soft power,” Nye
cautions. “A unilateralist approach to foreign policy fails to produce the right results, and its
accompanying arrogance erodes the soft power that is often part of the solution.”
128
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Terrorism prevention is instantly associated with military operations and domestic security
measures. These methods address the problem once it has been created. This reactionary
approach assumes such problems do and will continue to exist. This is true, of course, to a certain
extent. Yet it only cuts the weed once it has grown, leaving the buried roots to fester, spread and sprout again.
A heavy emphasis has been placed on averting immediate terrorist threats, and rightfully so, but more focus must
be put on the circumstances that breed terrorism. The matter demands a proactive plan, for it has no near
end in sight. A long-run management plan is essential to conquering terrorism.
First, it's important to note terrorism itself is a tactic, not an ideology. Radical ideology catalyzes acts of
terrorism. It's a mindset, in this case deep-seated anti-Americanism, which forms the base of the
problem.
Terrorism is a new brand of fight. Conventional tactics - hard power - aren't as effective in traditional
inter-state conflicts. The enemy lies hidden, highly mobile and is difficult to account for. The disease is no longer a
large, isolated tumor. It's now fragmented, with small barely recognizable pockets recurrently emerging. Surgery is a
limited option - internal methods will prove more useful.
The world is a stage. The projection of Americanism abroad plays an integral role in foreign
responses, which is particularly applicable to terrorist networks. The legitimacy of their claims is
crucial to their recruitment, which comprises the backbone of their sustained support. The more
foreign crowds view the United States as imperialistic, evil or a number of other negative traits,
the more successful these networks become. In this sense, it's not our intentions that matter, but how
they're perceived.
The greatest lesson in the ideological struggle is the detrimental impacts on terrorist prevention from the invasion of
Iraq. The 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, released by the CIA last April, precisely affirmed this. It noted the
conflict has become the "cause celebre for jihadists," breeding anti-Americanism and "cultivating supporters for the
global jihadist movement." Sure enough, polls indicate that support for the United States has dropped considerably
within the publics of nearly every Arab state after the invasion.
The foreign public relations nightmare in Iraq serves as a wake-up call to counterterrorism strategy.
The danger is that anti-Americanism continues to grow, as does the appeal of threatening
ideologies. It's the young, discontent and vulnerable - but still undecided - minds that will determine future security
threats.
The most ethical and practical technique to manage America's global impression is through genuine, benevolent
policy. This approach serves American security interests in the long run. U.S. foreign policy has frequently lacked, even
contradicted, this principle and felt harsh repercussions.
129
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining
feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away,
and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents
these rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to
diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle
disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation
but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of
such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars
between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to
underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also
disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other
nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United
States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets
and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as
guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would
compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would
involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other
major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible.
130
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Environmentalists are not so sure. They fear that if a large blowout similar to one in 1969 off the California coast near
Santa Barbara occurred off Alaska’s North Slope, it could trap oil for months under sea ice, where it would be difficult for
cleanup crews to reach. The oil could also collect around the edges of ice sheets and breathing holes used by seals,
bowhead whales and other marine mammals. Further, offshore operations require onshore facilities to process the oil and
gas and to house workers. They also require networks of roads, pipelines, waste disposal sites and runways, all of which
disrupt the environment and wildlife.
Orr says the chances of a blowout are slim, given improved technology. Industry and MMS claim some success in testing
cleanup methods in icy conditions, but most environmentalists remain skeptical that small-scale tests are sufficient if a
full-blown spill occurred. Martin Robards, marine ecologist and The Ocean Conservancy’s program manager for
Alaska, says the odds may be small, “but all it has to happen is just once" for devastating results to occur. Even a
relatively small leak in the pipelines that carry oil and gas from offshore rigs to onshore facilities could leave hundreds of
miles of coastline on Alaska’s North Slope awash in oil. Environmentalists fear any offshore drilling around Alaska threatens the wildlife that
abounds in the frigid North. Arctic waters are renowned for such marine mammals as bowhead and beluga whales and ringed, spotted and bearded seals.
Researchers have shown that whales avoid oil rigs, Robards says, which could cause them to abandon prime feeding
areas. Whales are particularly sensitive to the noise of drilling operations and the seismic waves from air-gun explosions
that industry uses to detect oil and gas deposits. Some biologists fear that noise and oil spills could also cause female polar
bears to abandon their newborn young.
131
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
132
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
It is hardly a secret that when it comes to offshore drilling, Sen. John McCain was against the idea
before he was for it. On Monday, the Arizona Republican told a crowd in Texas that he was
abandoning his long-time support for a federal moratorium on drilling along the nation's
coastlines in favor of allowing states to decide for themselves.
"I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own
reserves to use," he said on Tuesday, "as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a
matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable
fuel for America by increasing domestic production."
In part because of these limited benefits, McCain was far cooler to the idea of ending to federal moratorium on drilling
offshore back in May. Responding to an audience question, the presumptive GOP nominee stated his respect for states'
rights while adding a healthy dose of concern about forcing states to open up their coasts.
"Can I just say that this young man just pointed out that that he believes in states' rights, and so do I. And the people
of Louisiana decided that they wanted to drill off of their coast. And they do. The people of California and the people of
Florida, those two states decided that they didn't. What I would like to do, frankly, is to maybe give them a greater
source of the revenues to help maybe encourage them to allow some kind of exploration far off of their shores. But if I
told the state of California, you've got to have drilling off of your coast, that would frankly be a contradiction of what
were just talking about, about -- that's their land and that's off of their coast."
That McCain would, two weeks later, offer a full endorsement of removing federal restrictions on the drilling practice
seems hard to attribute to the high price of gas (after all, gas prices were similarly priced in late May), but rather
political posturing. A Republican with an environmentalism streak, the Senator has long stood
against drilling offshore, arguing that longer-term solutions were needed to end the energy crisis.
But the general election has changed that dynamic.
Obama does not support a dramatic expansion of offshore drilling, as recently proposed
by President Bush. The Democratic candidate recognizes Big Oil has not fully answered
criticisms that it has failed to aggressively drill in offshore areas already open to
exploration. McCain unfortunately now backs some offshore drilling after years of
opposing it.
133
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
But Florida need not face an environmental disaster on par with the Exxon Valdez spill of
1989 to feel the deleterious effects of offshore drilling. Toxic chemicals such as mercury,
lead, benzene, barium, chromium and arsenic, just to name a few, are routinely emitted
from “technologically advanced” oil platforms. And while large oil spills may be unlikely,
smaller ones are quite frequent and almost as damaging — the U.S. Coast Guard
estimates that more than 200,000 small spills occurred in the Gulf of Mexico from 1973
to 2001. Even if new drilling rigs can drastically reduce the chance of spillage and allay
environmental concerns — the evidence suggests this is dubious — the economic
benefit of drilling would not be felt for at least seven years, with some estimates placing
the economic impact of exploration around 2030. And what’s more, Big Oil has not drilled
three–quarters of the territory that Congress has made available for exploration. Why
should we endanger our beautiful, economically lucrative beaches if the oil industry
refuses to explore the areas already open for drilling?
The escalating loss of marine life is bad enough as an ecological problem. But it constitutes an economic crisis as well.
Marine biodiversity is crucial to sustaining commercial fisheries, and in recent years several major U.S. fisheries have
"collapsed"- experienced a population decline so sharp that fishing is no longer commercially viable. One study indicates
that 300,000 jobs and $8 billion in annual revenues have been lost because of overly aggressive fishing practices alone.
Agricultural and urban runoff, oil spills, dredging, trawling, and coastal development have caused further losses.
134
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
The plutonium oxide fuel would be valuable target. The secrecy and defense measures
which the military uses to transport plutonium weapons would have to be duplicated by
every domestic utility company using plutonium fuel. The transport of the plutonium from
present DOE facilities to the Savannah River Site and then to reactor sites would add to
the risk of accidental release of radiation. The US Department of Energy’s program would
transport plutonium from Defense Department sites to South Carolina for immobilization
and fuel fabrication. From Savannah River 33 tons of plutonium in mixed oxide fuel would
be transported across hundreds of miles of isolated countryside to utility reactors in
North Carolina and South Carolina. This overland transport link presents a unique
opportunity to those who might intercept and divert the fuel for weapons use. The freshly
fabricated fuel rod assemblies would be the most desirable form for groups who would go
after the plutonium for unlawful use in their own explosive devices. DOE admits this
vulnerability: “...the unirradiated fuel contains large quantities of plutonium and
is not sufficiently radioactive to create a self-protecting barrier to deter the
material from theft....” Revised Conceptual Designs for the FMDP Fresh MOX Fuel
Transport Package, Ludwig et al, ORNL/TM-13574, March 1998 The risks of deliberate
diversion and/or destruction of a fresh nuclear fuel or irradiated waste transport cask are
increased by plutonium fuel. Higher actinide inventories increase the public health risks.
The strategic value of plutonium oxide for new weapons increases the threat of diversion.
135
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
criminal organizations," So writes Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a moderate Republican who served as a
career arms-controller under six presidents and led the successful Clinton administration effort to extend the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
136
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
McCain argues that nuclear power could help cleanly produce a lot more electrical
power, helping to reduce global warming. He wants 45 new reactors built by 2030. However,
Obama has the stronger argument in opposing more plants until the nation has a safe storage
facility for the high-level waste created by more than 100 reactors.
137
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Nuclear power plants are prime terrorist targets. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
long recognized this and designed exercises to test the ability of the staff at nuclear
power plants to defend against an attack. These exercises do not inspire confidence.
Even though the power plant operators are told months in advance when the attack will
take place and what tactics will be used, almost half of the plants have been unable to
prevent “terrorists” from simulating an action that would lead to reactor core damage.
Ironically, these mock attacks have not been re-established since September 11th due to
the higher security status for nuclear facilities.4 Spent fuel storage casks stored near
reactors are even more vulnerable. If plants keep operating, the highly radioactive spent
fuel will have to be transported to long-term storage sites, giving terrorists additional
opportunities and raising the possibility of the most disastrous
138
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Agency, confirmed this view, stating: “[Reactors] are built to withstand impacts, but not
that of a wide bodied passenger jet full of fuel. . . . These are vulnerable targets, and the
consequences of a direct hit could be catastrophic” (Moneyline, CNN, 18 Sep 2001).
139
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
The rich would pay more under Barack Obama's tax plan, and the poor and middle-class would pay less, a nonpartisan
analysis finds. Under John McCain's plan, the rich would pay much less than they do now, the poor and middle-class
would pay a bit less, and the federal deficit would grow, the study found. Each individual's tax situation is different, so
it's hard to say for sure how much more or less you would pay under the presidential candidates' ever-evolving tax
proposals. By the numbers: The tax plans Obama's day off: haircut, gym, Sun-Times Will latest sales tax hike be too
much? And at this point that's all they are -- proposals that may or may not get through Congress. They don't take into
account wars, whether the president will sign an expensive social program into law, or the world economy. With those
caveats, here are highlights of how the candidates' proposals to change the tax code would impact you: Obama says he
would hike several taxes on people making more than $250,000, including the amount they pay on capital gains.
Currently, the top income tax rate is 35 percent. Under Obama, that would go back up to 39 percent. Obama's staff told the
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center he would raise the rates for people in the top two brackets -- about 2.5 million filers
out of 100 million-plus. People in those high tax brackets would see the tax rate on their capital gains hiked from the
current 15 percent to 20-28 percent. Obama started his campaign saying his plans would not increase taxes for people
earning less than $250,000. But he found himself in an apparent contradiction by saying he would tax all income to fund
Social Security, not just income up to $102,000, as is now the case. So now, Obama's plan calls for no Social Security tax
on income between $102,000 and $250,000, but all income above $250,000 would be taxed for Social Security. The 95
percent-plus of the American population that earns less than $250,000 would see the following tax breaks: A $500-per-
worker tax credit for people who earn less than $150,000 and do not itemize, and a $4,000 credit per child in college.
Seniors who earn less than $50,000 would pay no income tax. The Tax Policy Center notes seniors could end up paying
more if corporations respond to Obama's proposed increase in the corporate tax rate by passing those costs along to
consumers. McCain would make permanent most of the tax cuts President Bush has already enacted, including those that
benefit the middle class, such as elimination of the marriage penalty and the increase in child credits. He would also keep
cuts that benefit the wealthy, such as the elimination of the highest tax brackets. Obama would keep the breaks for the
middle class but not the ones for the wealthy. McCain would also double the dependent exemption from $3,500 to
$7,000, benefitting big families of all incomes. Obama would leave the top corporate tax rate at 35 percent. McCain
would cut it to 25 percent. The two candidates differ widely in their approach to the estate tax, which the Republicans call
the "death tax." McCain would set it at 15 percent for estates above $5 million. Obama would set it at 45 percent for
estates above $3.5 million. Both candidates favor extending a "patch" that would keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from
encroaching on middle-income families. Largely because his tax proposals would leave tax breaks for the wealthy in
place, McCain's plan would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Obama's, the Tax Policy Center found. The precise cost
depends on whether you assume the current tax breaks would be renewed or would expire. Assuming they would have
been renewed anyway, Obama's plan would bring in an additional $700 billion in taxes over the next 10 years, while
McCain's would cost the Treasury $600 billion. Assuming legislators would have let the tax breaks expire, Obama's plan
would cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 trillion and McCain's $3.7 trillion. The center uses various assumptions both
campaigns quarrel with. Each campaign also accuses the other of not being honest with the numbers. "Obama raises taxes
in a way that's detrimental to the economy," said McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "The John McCain plan is a jobs-
first plan that keeps small businesses in the game." Obama's Brian Deese said the $600 million deficit the study pro- jects
McCain's plan would create "doesn't count impact of current Iraq war spending. If McCain's plan drives the deficit up and
puts upward pressure on interest rates, that increases costs for families and could force really Draconian, across-the-board
spending cuts."
140
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
141
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Back in 2005, a friend asked if I should be careful about praising John McCain for his votes against George W. Bush's upper-income tax cuts in 2001
and 2003. After all, he warned, he might become the next Republican presidential nominee. My reply was, suppose McCain maintained his
position that, as he put it in 2001: ``I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the
benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.''
Suppose he did hold to his 2003 opposition to increasing the deficit through tax cuts during a time of war. On what grounds could I
criticize him? In spite of the advice from my friends, I went ahead and applauded McCain for both stands in my 2005 book ``The Pro-
Growth Progressive.'' This is now a non-issue. McCain, who would like us to see him as holding a consistent and principled stance on
tax cuts and fiscal discipline, is engaging in the mother of all economic policy flip-flops. If McCain's opposition to Bush's tax cuts
was based on the unseemliness of letting deficits balloon for the benefit of top earners in a time of war, then his opposition should
have grown stronger. Instead, it grew weaker and then collapsed. Since McCain's votes, we have witnessed budget
surpluses turn into projected $400 billion annual deficits. How do those intervening developments lead McCain, the
presumptive Republican presidential nominee, to now support permanently extending more than $100 billion in high-
income tax cuts he once opposed? Just the Beginning And that is only the beginning. With the public debt
expanding, corporate profits near records, and family incomes down since 2001, McCain has made his
signature economic proposal a corporate tax-relief package that will cost $2 trillion to $3 trillion over 10 years.
In the New York Times on June 1, former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw defended this indefensible fiscal policy by pointing to
two purely theoretical studies to posit that lowering the corporate-tax rate by a third is really about helping typical workers. He didn't
mention that the Congressional Budget Office, Treasury Department, and Joint Committee on Taxation all assume that the
owners of capital get the benefit of a corporate-tax cut. He also neglects to mention that the CBO estimates that a
whopping 59 percent of the benefits of such a reduction would go to the top 1 percent of earners. Distorted Picture This
is more regressive than the policies that led McCain in 2000 to blast Bush for having ``38 percent of his tax cut go to the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.'' Mankiw paints an even more incomplete and distorted picture of the fiscal impact.
He says McCain's plan to cut the corporate- tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent will cost only $100 billion a year in lost
revenue, but benefits to the economy will cut that cost in half. Yet, even the Bush Treasury Department suggested that the
costs of a smaller corporate-rate cut -- from 35 percent to 28 percent -- would cost at least $130 billion annually. Most
profoundly, Mankiw ignores the explosive costs of McCain's proposal to have 100 percent immediate expensing --
instead of depreciation -- for business investment while maintaining the deductibility of interest. This would
make it possible for companies to deduct far more than they invest and thus shelter income. Put another way,
this amounts to a negative tax rate. Do the Math Bush's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform stated that this would
``result in economic distortions and adversely impact economic activity.'' While the Urban Institute's Len Burman
estimates this would cost only $75 billion per year, University of Michigan economist Reuven Avi-Yonah figures that the rate cut and
expensing together ``would open up almost unlimited opportunities for sheltering income'' and reduce corporate tax revenue by 75
percent. Jason Furman, head of the centrist Hamilton Project, calculates the combined costs of the rate cut and income
sheltering at more than $300 billion a year. So let's do a little math: Start with $100 billion for extending current tax cuts for
the highest earners. Add to that an additional $50 billion it would cost to eliminate the alternative minimum tax for the highest earners,
another McCain proposal. Throw in $200 billion to $300 billion in corporate-tax cuts and you have a cost of $350 billion to $450
billion a year. That works out to $3.5 trillion to $4.5 trillion over 10 years. National Debt This isn't even the
full cost of the McCain tax agenda. Rather, these huge additions to our $5.3 trillion national debt are on top of the cost of
extending the Bush tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 -- a policy that McCain and Senators Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton all support. ``Straight talk'' from McCain would acknowledge these proposals would swell the national
debt or cause painful spending cuts to pay for them. The McCain camp instead offers vague and unrealistic promises to cut
unspecified spending and eliminate earmarks. McCain makes a lot of this last point, even though banning earmarks would only pay for
less than a half of 1 percent of his high-income tax-cut proposals.
142
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
**AFF**
143
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
John McCain has stepped up his appeal to Christian conservatives, meeting recently with religious leaders
in Ohio and making a publicized pilgrimage to see Billy Graham.
But even as he woos evangelicals, his campaign is pursuing a different strategy – abandoning George W. Bush's model
of galvanizing the GOP base and targeting independents to make up for lost social-conservative votes.
"We can't win the election the way George Bush did by just running up the score with Republicans, running up the
score with evangelicals and taking what we can out of the independent mix," said Sarah Simmons, the campaign's
director of strategy.
It's a risky move, though, as religious conservatives have been instrumental to Republican victories
for a generation. Some social conservatives warn that the appeal to moderate swing voters will
jeopardize already lukewarm support from evangelicals.
"McCain is in grave danger right now of causing a good number of potential supporters to just
stay home in resignation," said East Texas evangelist Rick Scarborough.
Phil Burress of the Ohio Christian Alliance, who met privately with Mr. McCain a week ago in Cincinnati, said evangelical
leaders urged him to pick a social-conservative running mate and to talk more openly about issues they care about,
especially abortion and gay marriage.
"We need something from Senator McCain to help rev up our people," Mr. Burress said. "Our people are flat. They don't
seem interested."
The McCain campaign says it is committed to making evangelicals part of a winning coalition.
In recent weeks, it has created nine-member Christian-outreach teams in 14 battleground states and arranged the visit
with Mr. Graham. It is scheduling private meetings with local evangelical leaders, beginning with the session in Ohio.
In addition, the campaign has a 1,000-person e-mail list of social conservative and national leaders with influence in
local communities.
Marlys Popma, who heads the McCain campaign's religious-outreach effort, said that while the Arizona senator is not
as openly expressive of his faith as Mr. Bush is, his record on abortion, same-sex marriage, home schooling and the
appointment of judges is a strong selling point to social conservatives.
"The more they see the good stuff about John McCain and then compare him to Barack Obama,
we're not going to have a problem getting excitement out of our base," she said.
"It was emphasized to the campaign the importance of having a pro-life, pro-family conservative
on the ticket with Mr. McCain would go a long way toward generating energy and support for the
main candidate," said Chris Long, head of the Ohio Christian Alliance. "In Ohio, there is a marked
difference between the activities that were under way in '04 and what is nonexistent in 2008 to date."
Mr. Scarborough, who backed Mike Huckabee in the GOP primary, said his primary motivation is not enthusiasm about
Mr. McCain but fear of Mr. Obama.
"I am now committed to doing everything I can within my power to get John McCain elected," Mr.
Scarborough said, "because I am 100 percent committed to seeing that Barack Obama is not
elected."
Republican state Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston talk radio host with a social conservative following,
agreed. He said Mr. McCain's appeal to moderates might irritate evangelicals, but most will show
144
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
up on Election Day when faced with the option of Mr. Obama in the White House.
"They'll come around," Mr. Patrick said. "There is no choice."
145
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
WASHINGTON, June 23 (UPI) -- U.S. voters are concerned about likely Democratic candidate
Barack Obama's experience and ability to handle the job of president, a poll indicates.
Fifty-four percent of those surveyed in the Gallup/USA Today poll released Monday expressed
concern about the Illinois senator's experience to be effective. A similar number said Obama
"may be too closely aligned with people who hold radical political views."
146
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
MCCAIN- WIN—POLICIES
MCCAIN IS WINNING-POLLS DON’T MATTER, HE IS SHAPING HIS POLICIES.
SKOCPOL 6-26-08 [Theda, prof of government at Harvard. “Can the Obama Campaign Shape the Agenda?”
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/26/can_the_obama_campaign_shape_t/]
Although Obama seems to be "up" in current national polls, McCain is actually doing a much
better job of shaping the agenda to his advantage. He has used strong symbols (it does not matter if
they are "gimmicks") to portray himself as activist on gas prices and the environment and put
apparent distance between himself and Bush. And he has managed to paint Obama as an
ordinary schemer on campaign finance. Abetted by the media's proclivity for dramatic gestures and horse
race analysis, the McCain camp has done what it needs to portray their man as a fighting underdog
focused on real-world issues. Meanwhile, Obama's "economic tour" has gone little noticed -- and his campaign
seems not to understand how very difficult it will be to get the media to convey the economic stakes in this election to
ordinary voters.
Baldly put, the last two weeks leave me wondering if Obama's campaign is prepared for the
general election battle. Here are my questions:
147
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
MCCAIN- WIN—FISA
OBAMA SUPPORT IS DOWN—SUPPORT FOR FISA HAS ANGERED HIS CONSTITUENCY.
CBS 6-25-08 [Carrie Budoff Brown, reporter for the Politico.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/politics/politico/main4212811.shtml]
When former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, the progressive Netroots took their
affections to Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.
But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to
telecommunications companies - a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster - the honeymoon has
ended.
Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists
feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent
blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”
“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com.
“Obama pledged to
filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to
challenge him.”
The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominee’s first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the
general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had
largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February.
Obama’s post-partisan persona hasn’t always meshed so well with the noisy and contentious Netroots, and his rise to
prominence has come without their full-throated support. He told reporters in February that he doesn’t read blogs and
has long been viewed as cool to the Netroots - a notion that the candidate’s new media director, Joe Rospars, disputed
this week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, saying Obama was a favorite of the readers of the major
bloggers.
Either way, the Netroots eventually took Obama’s side against Clinton, and some came to view him as a champion of
progressive causes.
His stance on the FISA bill, however, has brought Obama back down to earth, in part because the
liberal blogosphere cares more about civil liberties than many of the other traditional issues that
have long dominated the Democratic agenda. While the mainstream media fixated on Obama’s decision to
opt out of the public financing system - and newspaper editorial boards eviscerated him - the Netroots commended
Obama for showing political savvy. After all, the readers of liberal blogs are many of the small donors who gave Obama
reason to reject public financing.
148
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
It will be, as Bush pointed out in the aftermath of the 2004 election, "We
had an accountability moment, and
that's called the 2004 election. The American people listened to different assessments made
about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates and chose me, for
which I'm grateful."
G. W. Bush will interpret a John McCain win in November as a choice that the voters had between
Barack Obama and Bush’s policies. If voters choose Bush’s policies that McCain wants to
continue, it will be a huge victory for Bush.
Considering the breadth and scope of the Bush legacy of depravity, abandonment of Afghanistan, unending Iraq War
with over 4,110 U.S. fatalities, budget deficits in each and every year of his administration, record national debt of
$9.5 trillion, a weakening dollar, record balance of trade deficits, skyrocketing price of oil and gasoline, rising
unemployment, scathing attacks against individual liberties and freedoms, Barack Obama should be 20 to 30 points
ahead of John McCain. However, he is not and as a matter of fact, John McCain is gaining traction while the
infamous Republican smear machine is just getting wound up.
Barack Obama claimed recently that once he meets with U.S. military commanders in his
upcoming visit to Iraq he will "refine" his strategy for withdrawing troops and ending the Iraq War
over time. He is accused by the McCain operatives of changing tactics and coming around more
to John McCain's position. The mainstream media obediently disseminated the Republican propaganda that
Barack Obama has shifted his position on ending the Iraq debacle and has now become a centrist.
149
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
150
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
151
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
152
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
As the general election season approaches, independent voters like Mowad may present a real
problem for Obama -- and an opportunity for McCain.
They may like the Democrat's message of change, but they also like affordable gasoline. With
McCain's call to end the 1981 moratorium on drilling off the U.S. coastline -- which Obama
opposes -- pollsters and political strategists believe the GOP may have found a potent "wedge"
issue for the fall campaign.
"Everywhere Sen. McCain travels, voters are telling him they are fed up with gas prices," said Paul Lindsay, a McCain
spokesman.
Obama's campaign did not return a request for comment, but other experts believe that if gas prices continue to soar,
Obama will need to move aggressively with proposals that will provide relief at the pump or he'll lose crucial
undecideds, independents and moderate Republicans in swing states like Pennsylvania.
Beyond being a pocketbook issue, the offshore drilling debate gives the GOP a chance to sharpen the
ideological and cultural differences between the candidates -- in this case on the environment.
A recent survey by pollster John Zogby found that 75 percent of undecided voters support offshore drilling.
A Gallup Poll found independents favoring it by 56 percent to 43 percent. Overall public support for domestic
exploration is probably even higher than that, adds Republican strategist Kevin Madden.
VOTERS SUPPORT NEW MEASURES TO OBTAIN OIL. GOING GREEN WILL LOSE THE
ELECTION FOR MCCAIN.
WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT 6-24-08 [“In and Out With Offshore Drilling”
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/getting-in-and-out”]
While Bush is pushing for offshore drilling on his way out of office, Sen. McCain is using the issue
as a way into the presidency. Voters have cited gasoline prices as one of the most important
issues of this year's presidential election, and the GOP nominee in-all-but-name is doing everything he
can to make himself look like the energy candidate. But it's unclear whether offshore drilling will actually do anything
to reduce gas prices. That's one reason analysts disagree on whether McCain's sudden change on the issue is good
strategy or a political misstep.
(Matt Mahurin) The issue is an emerging as an important one. On average, the price of gas has soared to $4.08 a
gallon across the U.S., reaching as high as $4.59 a gallon in states like California. Just two years ago, gas averaged
$2.58 a gallon -- a price most Americans never imagined they would look back on with longing.
Recent polls show that voter attitudes may well be changing when it comes to drilling in offshore areas. The majority of
Americans interviewed for a May Gallup poll said they would support drilling in coastal and wilderness areas if it meant
a reduction in gas prices. Fifty-seven percent of those polled favored the measure and 41 percent opposed it.
"With $4-plus gas, Americans are more open to policies that they might not have been open to
four years ago," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of The Gallup Poll.
Political scientist Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, agrees. "Voters are so
frustrated," he said, "that they are open to lots of solutions they might normally reject: drilling,
exploration, nuclear power, major conservation restrictions etc." But, he pointed out, that doesn't mean
offshore drilling would be their No. 1 priority when it comes to energy alternatives.
153
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
154
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
155
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
If the U.S. and its allies buckle under Chinese and Russian pressure, they should expect repeated
efforts to serve the same general purpose in the context of other issues. These other issues are
likely to include further expansion of NATO, the settlement of diplomatic recognition of Kosovo,
the evolution toward a more balanced security relationship between the U.S. and Japan, and
concerted U.S. and South Korean military cooperation to counterbalance North Korea if it
ultimately proves unwilling to abandon its nuclear weapons program. This means that missile
defense cooperation between the U.S. and its allies has political implications that go beyond the
added security provided by missile defense systems. The issue is becoming a fundamental test
of alliance solidarity. The Chinese and Russians are all but certain to view the abandonment of
missile defense cooperation between the U.S. and its allies as proof that they can use the tactic
of driving wedges in the alliance to advance to the next step of their already successful policy of
creating a multipolar world.
MULTIPOLARITY BAD
Spring 6/30
(Baker, Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation, “US should defy China-Russia on missile defense”
June 30, 2008, http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15589)
The sequence of actions that the Chinese and Russians are contemplating is all too predictable.
If, for example, Poland abandons missile defense cooperation with the U.S., the Poles should
anticipate that Russia will take both positive and negative actions to draw them back into its
sphere of influence. These actions could range from offering advantageous energy deals to
threatening to target Poland with military forces in order to obtain commitments from Poland to
limit the scope of NATO and bilateral U.S.– Polish security cooperation. China would likely use
Japan's abandonment of missile defense cooperation with the U.S. to convince the Japanese that
the U.S. cannot assure the protection of energy routes. Avoiding this predictable sequence of
actions by China and Russia to divide the U.S. from its allies requires a response that
demonstrates to all concerned that the effect of such attempts will be the opposite of what is
intended. First and foremost, this means continuing missile defense cooperation. In the broader
context, it requires the allies to strengthen their bonds. Even in a multipolar world, this positive
coalition dynamic is the key to countering potentially aggressive behavior by China, Russia, and
other non–status quo powers. The goal of this approach is to demonstrate to China and Russia
that their attempts to drive wedges will not cause the U.S., China, the Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom to act as individual
powers. Rather, the U.S. and its allies are prepared to continue to collaborate and work together.
Nuclear-games exercises designed and conducted by The Heritage Foundation have shown that
the preservation of the U.S.-led alliance is just as important in maintaining peace and stability in
today's multipolar world as it was in the bipolar world of the Cold War.[2] Alliance de-formation in
a multipolar world can cause unpredictable swings in the balance of power. The credibility of the
alliance structure is essential to stability and peace.
156
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
There's worse. Obama is eager to shed America's role as keeper of world order. Troops are to be
brought back from Iraq regardless of what generals tell him, a position far more extreme than
Gordon Brown's. The PM courageously decided to slow troop withdrawals when his generals
advised they are still needed in Basra. However much British and European public opinion
opposed the American intervention in Iraq, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has made it
clear that it would be a tragedy if America retreated from its global responsibilities,
and shifted that burden to a UN incapable of effective action when the world's hot
spots boil over. Nor can Europeans be happy with Obama's promise to meet with the world's
bad guys, no pre-conditions required. He is apparently unaware that his willingness to meet the
leaders of North Korea and Iran (Castro the younger is also on his list, but fear of a backlash
among Florida's Cuban expatriate community has muted this plan) undermines the multilateral
efforts of the groups that are dealing with those regimes.
157
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
WASHINGTON (Fortune) -- The general campaign is on, independent voters are up for grabs, and Barack Obama is
toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic
nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't
want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I
reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan
studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
158
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Clinton andObama began lashing out at NAFTA in February, shortly before the Democratic primary
in Ohio, a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the United States, for which
unions blame the closure of factories and the transfer of their jobs to Mexico. Union members are
traditionally Democratic voters.
The Ohio primary was a key test of whether Clinton could carry on in her neck-and-neck race with Obama, who in turn
was seeking a decisive victory.
Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo (1994-2000), presently head of the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation,
wrote that "it is hard to accept that politicians of the intellectual stature (of Clinton and Obama) truly believe what they
have said about the effects of existing U.S. trade policies on the wellbeing of the American people.
"They and their respective advisers on economic issues must know very well that these statements are not warranted
by any serious study. Cherry-picked anecdotal evidence is not enough to validate the protectionist oratory of the
otherwise brilliant candidates," he went on.
If NAFTA is renegotiated or abandoned, the partners will lose trade benefits and face a number of
shocks and problems, because their economies are highly interconnected, officials in Mexico
argue.
The Mexican left and activists against free trade in this country say that the main cause of the
problems in the countryside, where the greatest proportion of poverty is concentrated, is NAFTA
itself.
More than 20 million Mexicans live in the country’s rural areas, and 75 percent of them are poor. Barely one-third of
rural workers have formal jobs with social benefits, and there is a constant exodus to cities in Mexico and the United
States.
However, the government and the business community maintain that, far from impoverishing rural
areas, NAFTA has saved them from total ruin. They point out that Mexican farm exports to the
United States increased by more than 200 percent over the last 14 years, and that the productivity of
maize has increased more than four-fold over the same period.
They also say that thanks to free trade, Mexico is the top exporter of several vegetables and fruits to the United
States, and that it is now the fourth world producer of eggs and poultry.
Official statistics indicate that since NAFTA went into effect, trade between the partners has grown
more than three-fold. Furthermore, while exports from the United States to Mexico have multiplied by a factor of
3.3, exports from Mexico to the United States have increased by a factor of 5.3.
In Mexico, which has close economic ties and a long border with its neighbor to the north,
presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is seen as an advocate of
trade policies that will do little good and maybe much harm.
Contrast that with Brazil, where Obama's trade and foreign policy proposals elicit passionate approval -- something
Brazilians may regret if he's elected U.S. president.
Every political leader should place reason over passion, especially when considering what is in the best interest of the
nations they command. That seems to be what's happening in Mexico, but not in Brazil.
Based on what Obama said during the primary campaign, it is clear that he is no free trader. He wants to renegotiate
the North American Free Trade Agreement, opposes a trade accord with Colombia, favors maintaining agricultural
subsidies and backs the continued protection of the expensive and inefficient U.S. ethanol industry.
Nafta is crucial for Mexico. Undoing the treat, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said, would
159
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
``inflict considerable damage on the economy'' and force North America, as a region, ``to
compete from a position of backwardness in today's world.''
160
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
That's the political overview. What are the economics of this issue? It is difficult to make a strong
economic case against Nafta. Since it took effect in 1994, manufacturing output has increased by
63 per cent. Claims of massive job losses contradict the numbers--the US jobless rate has
dropped from 6.9 to 4.8 per cent--and state-of-the-art meta-studies, such as the non-partisan
Congressional Research Service report of 2004, show the trade deal may even have generated
jobs. The new questioning of Nafta has less to do with the pact itself, Mexico or Canada, but the
fact that the US economy did not grow enough jobs after the recession that began in 2000, and
now things are getting darker, fast.
161
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
Obama enthusiasts argue that the most important goal at this point is for Obama to get elected,
and once elected he will “flip-flop” back to a peace perspective on Israel/Palestine and even on Iraq
where his call for withdrawal in the first year has now been seriously qualified by talk about the need to consult with
the military before implementing his plans (Bush having already shown us the relevant point, that the President gets to
pick his own military commanders on the basis of what they are likely to see and tell him). Others urge “critical
support,” noting that Obama even in office is unlikely to challenge the AIPAC-formed right-wing
consensus in the Jewish world unless we in the peace movement begin to coalesce, focus our resources and
energies in the way that J Street promises to do, and give Obama reason to believe that the peace camp
can provide him adequate “cover” for a more principled stand.
162
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
For those who still claim that tax rates don't matter to economic decisions or U.S. competitiveness, we present
Exhibit A: the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act. This law gave American companies a one-year window in
2005 to repatriate earnings from foreign subsidiaries to the United States at a 5.25% tax rate. Normally
companies must pay the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate, minus a credit for whatever foreign taxes they paid on
those earnings. The IRS examined the results from this tax cutting experiment and found that the money came
back in a flood. More than 800 U.S. corporations repatriated $362 billion from foreign operations. Congress's
Joint Committee on Taxation had predicted closer to $200 billion. These dollars are now being invested in the
U.S., rather than remaining in Europe or China. This capital infusion may be one reason that U.S. business
investment rose 9.6% in 2005 – the highest rate in more than a decade. Many Democrats, liberal groups and
even some economists in the Bush Treasury opposed the measure four years ago, predicting it would lose
revenue and merely be a tax holiday for profitable corporations. The Joint Tax Committee estimators also
blundered again by predicting a mere $2.8 billion in revenue gains in the first year and then big losses after
2005. As always, they underestimated how tax reductions change behavior. The tax incentive raised $18 billion
in 2005, and revenues have continued to exceed estimates. Instead of getting 35% of nothing, as U.S. companies
kept their cash abroad, the Treasury took in 5.25% of the hundreds of billions the companies brought home.
[Corporate Tax Cut Windfall] One lesson here is how hypersensitive the trillions of dollars of annual global
capital flows are to tax rates. It also underscores how damaging the U.S. corporate income tax is to American
firms. Over the past decade the U.S. has gone from a below-the-average corporate tax nation to the second
highest rate in the industrial world. (See table.) Many countries have slashed their corporate rates to as low as
10%. The economic impact is even worse because the U.S. is one of the few countries that taxes foreign
subsidiary income when it is repatriated. Most countries let their companies pay taxes in the country where the
income is earned, and the few countries that do tax repatriated income are changing their models. Japan is the
only developed nation with a higher corporate tax rate than the U.S., but the Japan Times reports that the
government wants to change its tax laws to stop taxing repatriated capital. America's tax laws are repelling
capital at the same time the rest of the world is inviting these dollars and the jobs and growth that inevitably
follow. House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel wants to dig the ditch deeper by taxing American
companies on their foreign earnings whether or not they bring the money back to the U.S. He thinks this will
raise money for the Treasury, but the likelier effect is that more American multinationals will relocate abroad.
Senator John Ensign of Nevada, the author of the 2005 holiday bill, is proposing to do the same again for one
year to stimulate the economy. As a rule, we don't like temporary tax cuts because they don't provide permanent
incentives. But the 2005 holiday was an exception that proved the folly of current policy. The best response
going forward would be for Congress and the next Administration to reduce sharply the corporate tax rate so it
is competitive with falling rates around the world. John McCain is proposing to cut it to 25%. If Barack Obama
really wanted to "run to the center," he'd see that and cut it even further. As the 2005 results show, he'd then
have more tax revenue to spend on his many social programs.
163
CNDI ’08 ELECTIONS
BLOOM-CHARNESS-KIM REGENTS
164