Politics & the Space Topic

[brubaie]

I delivered a version of the lecture below this morning @ the University of Michigan's camp and thought you all might be interested in it! Hope this helps.

Here are the 5 reasons I think this lecture deserves 100%, undivided attention even if you think you aren’t interested in the politics DA –

1. Politics is the topic – other DAs won’t be as common. There are two primary reasons space policies don’t get done – cost and politics.

2. CPs on the topic – popularity of privatize, domestic agent, foreign agents, advantage CPs, etc.

3. Dependable strategy – even if not generally like politics, can’t predict every Aff and new Affs, etc.

4. No Ceilings – You don’t know as much as you think you do and politics could be done far better than it’s being done now. Quite simply, politics has departed from its golden age. Gone are the Adrienne Broveros and Greta Stahls and other people who innovated. The goal of this lecture is to inspire all of you to pursue similar complexity and depth.

5. Don’t lose – other teams are gonna read it – for some very good teams, it makes up about 80% of the 2NRs.

POLITICS ON THE TOPIC –
1. Current Political Backdrop
Why study the current political backdrop? It provides the framework for everything else – while negative debaters would like events like the plan to exist separate from this dominant dynamic, the truth is that these events dramatically shape the nature of politics.

A. National election looming – makes agenda DAs a little weak
Maxim of politics: the #1 job of any politician is to be re-elected.

B. Budget crisis – constrains policy actions, drastically shapes the link
Maxim of politics: it’s the economy, stupid.

C. Massive job losses – as of this morning, 9.1% of the nation is unemployed. In states like Michigan it’s 10.3%. This can radically skew traditional politics. Recent example of Heavy-Launch vehicle –

Backdrop – Congress rewards $2bn contract to Utah group, ATK. Sacramento based Aerotech cries foul.

Irony? Conservatives support rewarding gov’t lump sum and California argued for competition between private industries.

“Which all goes to show…that space policy is truly non-partisan, and non-ideological, and it is driven primarily by rent seeking, not a desire to open up space to humanity. As long as space policy remains unimportant, it will continue to be subject to the petty politics of those whose states and districts benefit from the jobs created, even as wealth is destroyed.”
Maxim of politics: all politics is local.

2. Current Space Policy – who runs the show?

Obama’s National Space Policy – look @ who it’s written for
A. ‘Committed to a robust and competitive industrial base’ –
B. ‘Seek partnerships with the private sector’
<Who do you think inserted those clauses??>
C. ‘Remains committed to the use of space systems in support of its national and homeland security’
<Military lobby>

D. End of human spaceflight – STS-135 Atlantis is final flight
<The war’s over and the bums won>

3. Obama Good – Links/Internal Links

Before we list the links, it’s important to understand the process. Congress goes through three steps in implementing space policy; a) the budget, b) authorization and c) appropriations

A. Budget and tradeoffs – to quote the famous philosopher/rapper Nelly; “if it don’t make dollas then it don’t make cents.” Now, to quote someone far less qualified – Scott Lilly, a scholar @ the Center for American Progress – “The congressional agenda over the next year is going to be focused on cutting programs, not adding to them. Adding resources to the nation's $18.7 billion-a-year space program would require cuts in other areas”

NASA’s lifeblood is federal funding, and it has been losing blood for decades

B. Republicans – Marcia Smith, editor @ Space Policy Online said it best – “It’s not that Republicans don’t like NASA…but they love NASA more in good economic times than bad.”
Another qualifier – they obviously don’t want to hand Obama a win. Programs they might have supported under Bush, they would oppose under Obama.

C. Even if the plan is popular, implementing it costs capital – since NASA’s budget is set by Congress, they have to bicker over the details

Why would there be a fight?? A few reasons –

**Difference in opinions – Obama’s policy “ran into a buzzsaw” because of the difference b/w jobs creation and ‘finding cool stuff in space’

**Barney Frank – while famous for being only the 2nd openly gay politician and remarking the Monica Lewinsky report was ‘too much reading about heterosexuals,’ he’s less commonly known as the chairman of the Financial Service Committee – forms the core of an organized bloc against NASA – plays a critical role in what money is spent

**Empirics – according to Launias and McCurdy, we should have a low expectation for presidents. Every President makes proclamations but even JFK needed proper prior authorization before he could ensure support.

D. Obama has to push –
John Logsdon, space policy expert; “Presidential leadership will be essential – the president has to use some portion of his political capital to put forward an Obama space program.”
Eric Hedman, Chief Tech Officer – “proponents and agencies always need to fight for more…”

E. Reasons why the Link o/w the turn
1. Timeframe – their ev doesn’t assume the current economic crisis – also, the Cold War is over – that was the major fiscal and cultural driver

2. Benefits aren’t perceived – most people only know about the cost and don’t view the catastrophic threat of an asteroid with the same urgency as a space policy expert

3. Media spin – generally only covers space-related stories when something goes horribly wrong – meanwhile, the opposite goal has been poorly communicated by supporters
 
4. National Elections – 2012 – Link Stuff-
A. Is it too early for a 2012 Elections DA?
**Yes, it is – there isn’t even a GOP front-runner and very few have announced their candidacy
**No, it isn’t – Obama has already started campaigning and small issues now could come back to haunt him

B. How the link differs from an agenda DA – <ask audience – how does an election link differ from a general politics link – looking for ‘public opinion’ instead of ‘Congressional opinion’>
The other issues above still MATTER – it’s just a question of WHO they matter to – for instance, according to previously referenced Marcia Smith “If Barack Obama wants to get reelected two years from now, he will have to join the bandwagon to cut federal spending”

C. Public opinion –
Rasmussen Reports, 2010 – 50% believe NASA funding cut, while only 31% agree
Only 26% believe should visit the Moon or Mars, much less colonize them
John Zogby – finds support is highly variable – previous polls polled friendly states

D. Swing states – Florida, etc all have huge bases

DEBATING POLITICS –

5. Thumpers
Operating principle; the strength of most politics DAs is (x) will pass, (x) is unpopular, (x) isn’t a big impact.

So, the AFF that simply says – no pass, plan is popular, impact D is enormously vulnerable.

The weakest parts are what is NOT visible, which is the soft underbelly of the DA – the nuts and bolts of the link and internal link – AKA the stuff that would make most any political theorist laugh off the Politics DA

What they are – Defensive responses about missing pieces of a DA.

How to read them – Common examples;
1. Obama thumpers – doesn’t have PC, spending PC, distracted by multiple issues now
2. Other groups are angry and won’t compromise – GOP, Tea Party, no Bipart
3. Process – (x) is the top of the docket, gridlock is inevitable
4. Link UQ – controversy over (x) is inevitable

When not to read them – I can only think of one example; when you’re in big trouble on a CP and want to turn the net benefit.

How to answer them – 3 techniques;
1. Stress specificity – insulating internal links, indicting ev quality of thumpers, etc.
2. Predict them – imagine drawing up a ‘politics playbook’ – anticipate and frame these issues – to borrow from Calum’s philosophy; they’re brinks, not non-uniques
3. CP out of them – uniqueness CPs – stop whatever it is from happening, etc.
 
6. Structuring the Extension -
**Impact calculus –
A. Brevity
B. Diversity
C. Turns
D. Comparisons

**Uniqueness –
A. Recency
B. Momentum/future predictive
C. Link uniqueness

**Link v link turn –
A. How does it affect the internal link
B. Specificity
C. Important qualifiers – author quals, types of people in a particular party v whole party
**Link turns the case – circumvention/under-funding – at least crushes the signal
**Link shapes direction of uniqueness 
 
7. Answering Elections
A. Obama will win
I’m not Kuresawa – I can’t predict what will happen in the future, but there are a few common reasons why you should bank on the champion instead of the challenger –
**Incumbency effect
**More $
**No real GOP challenger

B. Too early to call

C. Public likes the plan

D. Polling data = flawed

E. Other issues O/W – truth

F. Obama Bad – could really punk the first team to try to read elections

8. Answering a politics DA
Agenda UQ/Elections UQ
Thumpers <above>
Link D
Link Turn
Internal Link D
Theory <above>
Impact D
Impact Turn
 
9. Theory & Politics
Intrinsicness – Test of the opportunity cost of the DA – opportunity = advantages, cost = implementing plan.

Perm – do plan + debt ceiling – achieves maximum opportunity. Costs twice as much capital, whose impact is…the debt ceiling

Not work as well on other DAs – do plan + something else to save the economy still saves money, still contains an intrinsic cost

**Not so much that intrinsicness is GOOD – that it is true

**To answer it, best to prove it’s false – there IS an intrinsic link – can’t ignore questions of authorization and implementation
Politics DAs are good
Bricker’s article – 3NR, Journal = The Last Word

Vote No / Plan = outcome, not process – fiat
Logical policy-maker must consider plan before rejecting it. If that policy-maker is a U.S. congressperson or the president, it means the plan was introduced and then rejected – that still costs capital
Again, same thing – not so much vote no = good so much as vote no = true

Neg answers;
1. SQ = world without any change – basic assumption of presumption is that neg = no change
2. Doesn’t trigger the link – introduce = Congress – Obama doesn’t push
3. Politics DAs = good

Least Necessary Means
Negative argument – presumption against change means you should assume the Aff uses the ‘least necessary means’ to implement the plan

Means its 51 Senators and 218 House members – ensures it’s a controversial vote  

10. Researching Politics
Google Reader – The Hill, Politico, Roll Call, CQ Politics,
Related – NYT, Washington Post, etc.
Google Alerts – Walk through how to get to Google Alerts…
Obama + “political capital”
Obama + “approval rating”
Obama + “space policy”
Obama + “space exploration”
Obama + “space development”
Obama + “agenda item”
“Agenda item title”
Obama + “impact title”
“Impact title”
Obama + “bipartisanship”
Lexis – Use the above terms – save the best results in a packet and go through packet by packet

[brubaie]

An example that "all politics is local." Politicians are squabbling about where to host the base. This is a good example of the argument that if the substance of the plan is popular it's only because host states think it would benefit them. In the meantime, fights would break out that drain capital. While this link doesn't provide evidence of that second claim, it provides a richer context for examples of local battles:
http://www.journal-news.com/news/hamilt ... 67295.html

Brown, D-Ohio, said he’s concerned that the New York museum is not ready to host the shuttle, while the National Museum of the United States Air Force, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, is.

The Dayton-area museum was among the candidates that competed to host the retired space shuttles earlier this year.

Brown has called New York’s revised plans — which include buying new property and going through the zoning process — a “bait and switch.”

[CodyArmstrong]

Out of curiosity, what politics scenario would you suggest running now that SKFTA isn't an option?

[brubaie]

Hey Cody!

I think people are going to gravitate towards one of three major politics DAs:

1. Jobs Agenda Good

While I think this will eventually be the most popular DA, it will be a struggle this weekend. The rough summary of the events on jobs is this: Obama succeeded in getting a Senate vote and failed to get the 60 votes needed to implement his $447 billion reform all at once. Most analysts say that Obama anticipated defeat and simply wanted to use the "no" vote as campaign fodder.

Where do we go from here? That's why it's a struggle this weekend. Democrats have a series of different ideas, ranging from a 5.6% tax increase on all income above $1mn (the GOP saids forget about it) to a combination proposal where Democrats get their Infrastructure Bank and the GOP gets their corporate tax holiday. Even this proposal is still developing, as lawmakers are struggling to reach a bipartisan compromise.

Eventually, this will be the most reliable DA. The nature of the election means that most agenda items will grind to a halt. As a result, the link is strong: almost any major policy proposal could throw a wrench into Congress, and space policy certainly would. Once the agenda item is set, I expect this to be the most popular DA.

2. Elections DAs

This will be more popular initially and taper off. Romney is starting to secure his hold on the GOP nomination, which will set up a very evenly matched election initially. The impacts both ways are huge: the election of a president inspires tons and tons of policy change.

The largest difficulty will be that space simply isn't the defining issue for most Americans. Although it interacts with areas voters find important, such as the economy and national security, it wouldn't matter to most voters.

To counter this, the Negative will likely make their link very specific. For instance, a DA could argue -- "The election is close but Romney will win. The plan causes tons of new space jobs in Ohio and Florida which tips narrow swing states back to Obama." They could also argue something like -- "The election is close but Obama will win because Americans think he's financially responsible. The plan is wreckless spending, tilting the most important issue in the election: the economy."

The other difficulty is that the DA is subject to massive "mood swings" in Uniqueness. One week it will be impossible to find a good poll for Obama. Another week, it will be impossible to find a good one for Romney. Sometimes you'll find great studies and Nate Silver will write an even better one saying the opposite. The elections DA can be a frustrating thing to attach yourself to as a researcher.

The final difficulty is that the DA is easy to impact turn. Both candidates have many policy ideas. It's very difficult to say "Romney would ignore the environment so much that we'd all die from global warming in his term" or "Obama would be such a weak leader that every terror group would attack," although there is qualified evidence making variations of both claims.

The year Wake Forest's team of Seth Gannon and Alex Lamballe won the NDT, they answered the elections DA by reading non-uniques (the other candidate will win), link answers (other issues outweigh, elections are unpredictable, polls are unreliable, etc), impact answers (impact defense and some of the internal link answers I described above) and then impact turn.

Imagine being the 1NR. As a sophomore, this strategy put me in an enormously difficult position. I had to try to win our impact, answer all the substance of their good evidence with larger volumes of better evidence and deal with the impact turn, all in about 4 minutes. Ultimately, it proved nearly impossible. I learned that round why the Elections DA can be difficult to love.

However, the amount of literature is enormous, the impact is huge and well-prepared teams can really get ahead here if they invest lots of time in the block. Just know that a well-matched opponent makes winning this particular DA very difficult.

3. China currency manipulation

An interesting thing has happened with this bill. For anyone unfamiliar, we previewed this DA here a couple weeks ago (viewtopic.php?f=70&t=35712&p=167235&hilit=china#p167235).

Many analysts then predicted that the vote was just more campaign fodder for Senate Democrats. They supposedly knew it wouldn't reach the House and simply held the vote for political effect to take shots at China.

Then a funny thing happened. Analysts began to predict that perhaps a House vote could occur after all. Pelosi began to push very hard for the bill, even saying that it should be voted on before trade. Those hopes were chilled temporarily by Cantor putting the ball back in Obama's court. Because Obama has been reluctant to firmly commit, Cantor expressed the desire for Obama to state his opinion before the House considered the matter. That's where we sit today, as the political theatre unfolds.

If Obama responds and it reaches the House, this will be a very popular DA as a stop-gap before the Jobs bill dominates headlines again. However, even then it will be short-lived, as the vote will come up rather quickly. We'll keep an eye out and keep you posted!

[brubaie]

Hey Cody!

I think people are going to gravitate towards one of three major politics DAs:

1. Jobs Agenda Good

While I think this will eventually be the most popular DA, it will be a struggle this weekend. The rough summary of the events on jobs is this: Obama succeeded in getting a Senate vote and failed to get the 60 votes needed to implement his $447 billion reform all at once. Most analysts say that Obama anticipated defeat and simply wanted to use the "no" vote as campaign fodder.

Where do we go from here? That's why it's a struggle this weekend. Democrats have a series of different ideas, ranging from a 5.6% tax increase on all income above $1mn (the GOP said forget about it) to a combination proposal where Democrats get their Infrastructure Bank and the GOP gets their corporate tax holiday. Even this proposal is still developing, as lawmakers are struggling to reach a bipartisan compromise.

Eventually, this will be the most reliable DA. The nature of the election means that most agenda items will grind to a halt. As a result, the link is strong: almost any major policy proposal could throw a wrench into Congress, and space policy certainly would. Once the agenda item is set, I expect this to be the most popular DA.

2. Elections DAs

This will be more popular initially and taper off. Romney is starting to secure his hold on the GOP nomination, which will set up a very evenly matched election initially. The impacts both ways are huge: the election of a president inspires tons and tons of policy change.

The largest difficulty will be that space simply isn't the defining issue for most Americans. Although it interacts with areas voters find important, such as the economy and national security, it wouldn't matter to most voters.

To counter this, the Negative will likely make their link very specific. For instance, a DA could argue -- "The election is close but Romney will win. The plan causes tons of new space jobs in Ohio and Florida which tips narrow swing states back to Obama." They could also argue something like -- "The election is close but Obama will win because Americans think he's financially responsible. The plan is wreckless spending, tilting the most important issue in the election: the economy."

The other difficulty is that the DA is subject to massive "mood swings" in Uniqueness. One week it will be impossible to find a good poll for Obama. Another week, it will be impossible to find a good one for Romney. Sometimes you'll find great studies and Nate Silver will write an even better one saying the opposite. The elections DA can be a frustrating thing to attach yourself to as a researcher.

The final difficulty is that the DA is easy to impact turn. Both candidates have many policy ideas. It's very difficult to say "Romney would ignore the environment so much that we'd all die from global warming in his term" or "Obama would be such a weak leader that every terror group would attack," although there is qualified evidence making variations of both claims.

The year Wake Forest's team of Seth Gannon and Alex Lamballe won the NDT, they answered the elections DA by reading non-uniques (the other candidate will win), link answers (other issues outweigh, elections are unpredictable, polls are unreliable, etc), impact answers (impact defense and some of the internal link answers I described above) and then impact turn.

Imagine being the 1NR. As a sophomore, this strategy put me in an enormously difficult position. I had to try to win our impact, answer all the substance of their good evidence with larger volumes of better evidence and deal with the impact turn, all in about 4 minutes. Ultimately, it proved nearly impossible. I learned that round why the Elections DA can be difficult to love.

However, the amount of literature is enormous, the impact is huge and well-prepared teams can really get ahead here if they invest lots of time in the block. Just know that a well-matched opponent makes winning this particular DA very difficult.

3. China currency manipulation

An interesting thing has happened with this bill. For anyone unfamiliar, we previewed this DA here a couple weeks ago (viewtopic.php?f=70&t=35712&p=167235&hilit=china#p167235).

Many analysts then predicted that the vote was just more campaign fodder for Senate Democrats. They supposedly knew it wouldn't reach the House and simply held the vote for political effect to take shots at China.

Then a funny thing happened. Analysts began to predict that perhaps a House vote could occur after all. Pelosi began to push very hard for the bill, even saying that it should be voted on before trade. Those hopes were chilled temporarily by Cantor putting the ball back in Obama's court. Because Obama has been reluctant to firmly commit, Cantor expressed the desire for Obama to state his opinion before the House considered the matter. That's where we sit today, as the political theatre unfolds.

If Obama responds and it reaches the House, this will be a very popular DA as a stop-gap before the Jobs bill dominates headlines again. However, even then it will be short-lived, as the vote will come up rather quickly. We'll keep an eye out and keep you posted!

[CodyArmstrong]

Out of the three that you mentioned, which one would you suggest?

[brubaie]

Hi Cody,

Sorry for the delay! I just returned from St. Mark's, which will hopefully help me answer this question a bit more effectively.

The DA I would suggest most highly is the Jobs DA. There are three reasons for this:

1. It'll thump whatever DA you decide to read instead.

The jobs bill really is Obama's first priority. Right now his focus is focus on two very interrelated goals: achieving his jobs agenda and winning re-election. While he is certainly exerting some force against anti-China elements of Congress on things like currency pressure or the sale of F-16 C/Ds to Taiwan, the evidence describing these efforts is usually pretty weak. There is a robust defense of the argument that he is pushing jobs right now.

2. The evidence quality is getting much better.

While Democrats were initially disorganized, they are beginning to coalesce. The exact parameters of the deals are still being defined, but policy ideas like the infrastructure bank and unemployment insurance are catching on.

The impact diversity is also very good. Many teams argued that an infrastructure bank would boost green technology. For example, Northwestern LV is reading the internal link/impact combo posted below (labelled under 'PX UNLV' @ http://bit.ly/qgmdWq). Carrollton framed this argument well in the debate I judged in the octofinals. They argued that Tea Party and conservative gains in 2012 meant there was a particular need to rush energy legislation through in time. This helped to deflect some of the typical timeframe difficulties associated with winning a global warming impact.

Infrastructure key to clean tech leadership
Puentes 11—senior fellow, Brookings (Robert, Infrastructure Investment and U.S. Competitiveness, http://www.cfr.org/united-states/infras ... ess/p24585)

Most experts agree the United States must address the nation's …with the private and nonprofit sectors. Infrastructure is a big piece of that.

Extinction
Klarevas 9 –Louis Klarevas, Professor for Center for Global Affairs @ New York University, 12/15, “Securing American Primacy While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-kla ... 93223.html

As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, … a national strategy of greengemony.

3. Least bad option

There are large logical issues with many of the other DAs.

Elections: Who is the GOP candidate? Why would an issue that most Americans don't care about that happens a year before the election effect the election more than (insert almost anything else)? Then you get into all the problems with polling, major unpredictable events, hugely complicated political matters, etc. and it gets murkier.

China Currency: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-1 ... tions.html

I did see an interesting take on this DA, though. The argument was that Boehner is blocking the move, but needs to hold the GOP together to do it. The plan would split them, which allows anti-China forces to fill the gap and pass the legislation. Certainly an interesting spin since it doesn't rely on Obama.

Taiwan Arms Sales: Obama already made a decision not to sell the new F-16 C/Ds according to Cornyn, the author of the Cornyn-Melendez legislation that would've forced the sale. The compromise involves modernizing Taiwan's existing F-16 A/Bs, which still upsets China. Also, as noted just above this, the Senate just passed currency legislation aimed at China that they are none too pleased with.

[brubaie]

To help people keep up with the rapidly evolving world of politics, we're going to post somewhat regular updates here on the progress of major legislation.

Due up this week: Appropriations Bills
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_43/pu ... 541-1.html

[F]irst the Senate must consider the spending package, which is made up of three appropriations bills: Commerce, Justice and science; Agriculture, rural development, and Food and Drug Administration; and Transportation and Housing and Urban Development spending measures.

Followed by the jobs bill
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... onder-plan

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled on Tuesday that he and other Senate Democrats are looking to advance President Obama's proposal to spend $35 billion to shore up jobs for teachers, police and firefighters in the coming weeks.

Here's why Appropriations could be bad news for the Jobs Bill"
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/8 ... -this-week

Although the White House is pressing for a vote as soon as possible, appropriations legislation stands in the way of immediate action. The Senate will take up a 2012 spending bill at 4 p.m. on Monday. The jobs bill cannot be offered as an amendment to the bill because it raises taxes. The Senate cannot switch to the jobs bill without unanimous consent or by adopting a motion to proceed vote, which requires a super-majority of 60 votes.

Reid isn't deterred -- he thinks they'll clear it this week.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_43/pu ... 541-1.html

...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Monday that after clearing the spending package, the Senate will move to provide $35 billion in aid for cities and counties to keep teachers, firefighters and police on the job.

Here's what would happen if they didn't:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/8 ... -this-week

If Reid fails, the next chance to vote on the Obama agenda would come after Halloween — a disappointment for the White House.

[CodyArmstrong]

Hi Brian, this weekend I'm mavericking at Churchill and know there will be a lot of ptx scenarios being run which is new to me since nobody every runs ptx at my usual tournaments. I was wondering what types of scenarios I can expect to see and what cards I should be looking to cut to answer them? Thanks!

[brubaie]

Hi Cody!

This is a great question.

The most popular politics DA by a landslide is the Payroll Tax Cut extension. Obama and Congress worked out a deal to extend the Payroll Tax Cut for two months but not for a full year. The story of the DA is that House Republicans feel they got burned in the deal, and want to modify or scrap the extension. Obama needs political capital to earn an extension, which helps drive consumer spending and economic growth.

Here are a few good responses:

a. It won't pass. Obama's deals won't be good enough for GOP conferees, who are looking to earn more than Obama will give. The evidence for this is surprisingly good.

Senators block it – Kyl, Crapo and Barrasso
Benen, 12-31 – Steve Benen is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. “Enjoy the Payroll Tax Break While It Lasts,” Washington Monthly, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politi ... 34436.php#.

Last week, after a needlessly-contentious process, Congress approved a two-month extension of the payroll tax break. As part of the agreement, a conference committee will try to come up with an agreement to extend the cut through the end of 2012. I’ve been rather pessimistic about the likelihood of success, and yesterday, the odds got worse. The Senate Republican leader announced Friday that he had chosen three of his colleagues to try to thrash out a bipartisan deal on payroll taxes, unemployment benefits and Medicare. The three Republican senators will join four Democratic senators and 13 House members on a conference committee wrestling with the issues, which tied the Senate in knots for more than two months. The newly named Republican conferees are Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona, Michael D. Crapo of Idaho and John Barrasso of Wyoming. These aren’t three senators you’d appoint to a conference committee if you want to be constructive. These are three senators you’d appoint to a conference committee if you want to be destructive. Kyl, for example, was instrumental in sabotaging the super-committee process, and was described by Democratic negotiators as “walking napalm.” Crapo and Barrasso, meanwhile, are two far-right senators who’ve never demonstrated any willingness to accept concessions on anything.

House conferees won’t sign on, even if the Dems offer concessions
Benen, 12-31 – Steve Benen is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. “Enjoy the Payroll Tax Break While It Lasts,” Washington Monthly, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politi ... 34436.php#.

What’s more, note that the House GOP leadership has already announced its conferees, most of whom have already said they don’t want a payroll-cut extension no matter what concessions Democrats are willing to make. The conference committee will technically have until March 1, when the cut expires, but as a practical matter, they’ll have to wrap up a deal well before then, giving both chambers a chance to debate and vote on an agreement.

b. Other issues will destroy Obama's capital (the Keystone pipeline, Health Care, etc.)
Keystone is an unavoidable political landmine
Nakamura, ’12 – David Nakamura, “Obama taking fight to Congress,” Washington Post, 1-1, Lexis.

Even if Obama chooses to disengage from Congress, there are several potential political land mines littering his playing field. Republicans successfully added a provision to the two-month payroll tax cut extension mandating that Obama make a politically sensitive decision on the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline by the end of February. He had hoped to delay a decision on the project - which Republicans have said will create jobs but environmentalists have said would harm natural resources - until after a federal environmental review is completed in 2013. Also, the Supreme Court is scheduled to rule, before the November elections, on a key provision of Obama's health-care overhaul package, approved in 2010.

c. Obama's political capital is already remarkably low
Parnes, 12-29-11 – “Obama’s approval rating plummets,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... underwater.

President Obama enjoyed a surge in popularity this week — but the bounce proved to be remarkably short-lived. A Gallup tracking poll released Thursday showed that Obama is once again underwater, plummeting to 41 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval, a sharp drop from earlier in the week. A survey released Monday showed the president had a sudden uptick in the opinion poll, with 47 percent of respondents approving of the way he was handling his job and 45 percent disapproving. It was the first time since July that more people viewed him favorably than unfavorably. The bounce in popularity came on the heels of the payroll-tax cut debate, when Senate Democrats and Obama stood firm to force House Republicans into accepting a two-month deal. After emerging as the winner in that debate, the president headed to Hawaii on Friday for a Christmas vacation with his family. Obama, who has spent much of his down time on the golf course and out with his family, has not appeared at a public event since leaving Washington.

Other popular DAs included the following:

-- Jackson-Vanik. This is an amendment that denied most favored nation status to nations associated with the Communist bloc, notably the Soviet Union. Today, Jackson-Vanik restricts trade with Russia due to concerns about its human rights policy and treatment of regional neighbors. Critics argue that Jackson-Vanik is a cold war relic, and administration officials like Joe Biden have pledged that Obama will devote his capital to its removal. The impact is U.S.-Russia relations.

In addition to the arguments above about other issues constraining Obama's capital, here are a few good reasons Jackson-Vanik won't be repealed:

No chance of repeal – 4 reasons, we’ll cite the top authority
Vestnik, 12-14-11 – “US Congressman Kevin Brady doubts restrictions will be lifted on Russian-US trade,” http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/20926.html

Kevin Brady, member of the US House of Representatives and head of the Subcommittee on Trade, said on Tuesday that lifting the Jackson-Vanik amendments would be a complicated task for the US Congress, RIA Novosti reports. He explained that the scepticism is based on human rights violations in Russia and its support for Iran. Russia needs to inform about its private sector, business and agriculture, and explain the benefits of joining the WTO to Obama’s administration to overcome the common mistrust that Congress has. Russia needs to demonstrate its willingness to fulfil its WTO obligations, especially in agriculture. Christopher Wilson, US deputy trade secretary and WTO representative, said that there are congressmen interested in lifting the Jackson-Vanik amendments. He added that it would not happen until Russia provides all the benefits it gets from joining the WTO for US businessmen. The Jackson-Vanik amendments were introduced in 1974, limiting trade with the USSR for lack of migration freedom. An annual moratorium has been introduced for the amendments since 1989.

Widespread skepticism, even among trade supporters because of human rights
CCI – Russia, 12-15 – Сhamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, “Jackson-Vanik vote soon – Congress,” http://eng.tpp-inform.ru/news/1931.html.

A vote in the U.S. Congress to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment could be held in the first half of 2012 if the Obama administration carries out preparatory work. This was announced on Tuesday by Congressman Kevin Brady who heads the Subcommittee on Trade. He believes that the abolition of the discriminatory Jackson-Vanik amendment and giving Russia the status of permanent normal trade partner of the United States will not be easy. According to Brady, even those members of Congress who favor the expansion of trade relations with other countries, have expressed skepticism about Russia. He referred to concerns about the situation of human rights in Russia and Moscow's cooperation with Iran.

-- Debt Ceiling. The agreement reached in August says that Congress will raise the debt ceiling in three parts but has the opportunity to block any of the three increases. Some in Congress say they'd like to block the increase, arguing that expanding national debt is against our economic and national interests. Obama has threatened to veto any attempt to block the increase.

I think the best answer to this DA is that uniqueness overwhelms the link. Even if the plan takes away Obama's capital, it doesn't take away his ability to veto.

Obama will veto it but he won’t have to
Nakamura, 12-31 – David, “Debt-ceiling vote delayed until Congress returns,” SF Chronicle, http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-12-31/n ... debt-limit.

Under the agreement reached in August, lawmakers agreed to raise the debt limit in three increments while also implementing $2.4 trillion in budget cuts. The deal, however, also gave Congress the option of voting to block each of the debt-ceiling increases by passing a "resolution of disapproval." Even if such a resolution were passed, Obama could veto it, and he could be overridden only by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. In September, when the first debt-limit hike was scheduled to take effect, the Republican-led House passed a disapproval resolution, but the Democratic-controlled Senate blocked it. A White House official who requested anonymity to provide procedural details said Obama would veto a disapproval resolution but said the administration did not expect that to happen.

-- Jobs. Obama will continue to tout his jobs package around the country, but it is doubtful anything is done
Nicholas, ’12 – Peter Nicholas, Washington Bureau, “Obama's resolution? To limit dealings with Congress,” LA Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 5075.story.

Obama will also make the case for passage of his $447-billion jobs package, most of which Congress has rejected over the last three months. His jobs plan includes money to keep public workers on the job and rebuild the nation's roads, ports and bridges. But it seems doubtful that he'll push Congress on his jobs plan with the same focus that he brought to the payroll tax cut debate. In late December, Congress agreed to extend the payroll tax cut for two months, following a high-stakes showdown with Obama that delayed his Hawaiian vacation for six days. Nothing else on Obama's menu requires congressional action as urgently as the tax cut, the White House said. If Congress were to let the cut expire at the end of February, tens of millions of Americans would be hit with a tax increase, harming the fragile economic recovery, the White House contends. Earnest said that now that Obama was "sort of free from having to put out these fires, the president will have a larger playing field, as it were. And if that playing field includes working with Congress, all the better. But I think my point is that that's no longer a requirement." In pushing his jobs plan — which included the payroll tax cut — Obama often mocked lawmakers who opposed it for fear of giving him "a win" politically. He bristled over such characterizations, saying his aim was not short-term political advantage but a solution for the nation's high jobless rate.

-- Defense cuts. The supercommitee failure meant that a legislative "sequester" kicks in, which saps money from several budgets. Defense is the hardest hit, with over $500bn in cuts projected over 10 years. GOP lawmakers want to reverse the sequester. As with debt, Obama has threatened to veto any compromise that doesn't include an increase in revenues. Some teams argue that defense cuts are good because they enable a more cost-efficient military that relies more on high tech weaponry and less on global physical deployments.

I would make two answers --

a. A Deal is inevitable -- sequestration won't go into effect and Obama can't change that
Herb, 12-24-11 – Jeremy, writer for The Hill, “Defense cuts could hinge on '12 election,” http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/bu ... 2-election.

“The status quo benefits the Democrats’ political preferences, which are to let the Bush tax cuts expire — at least for the wealthiest Americans — and to use the increase in revenue to pay off deficit reduction,” Sharp said. “Republicans might actually have more of an incentive to reach a deal earlier as opposed to later, because the later they go, then they’re in a situation where they really don’t want tax cuts to expire and so they have to concede more to get the Democrats to come on board,” he said. Of course, even if both sides want to change the automatic cuts to defense spending, this past week’s payroll tax debate has shown the two parties often find a way to reach an impasse even when they are seeking a similar goal. “I would probably expect leaders to undo sequestration,” Sharp said, “but I think it’s pretty foolhardy at this point to bet on our political leaders reaching a compromise."

b. Cuts are bad -- there are a BUNCH of good cards out there. Just type a search that is -- "defense cuts" and "doomsday" -- and you'll be off to a good start.

-- Elections. I think this DA is still pretty weak because there's no GOP nominee. The GOP primary will continue to dominate the news coverage. Space policy would probably just be a drop in the ocean. However, some teams can set this DA up persuasively, arguing that key swing states like Florida have large commercial space bases and treat the issue very seriously.

I'll post one good for both "Obama wins" and "Obama loses."

Obama wins -- No realistic GOP challenger in key swing states – it’s Obama’s for the taking
MacAskill, 1-2-11 – Ewan, “Crunch time in Iowa as riven Republican field faces uninspired public for first time,” The Guardian (London), Lexis.

There is only one problem: the Republicans are struggling to find anyone to inspire them or unite behind, and now it is too late for any new saviour to ride to the rescue. Tomorrow is crunch time: the Iowa caucuses are the first contest in a Republican battle that could potentially be fought, state by state, all the way to the summer. "A bunch of cranks," says Bob Wessel, an 87-year-old second world war veteran who can remember voting for Eisenhower, of the current candidates campaigning in Des Moines. "If this is all the Republicans have got, I will vote for Obama." Dissatisfaction with the field is a recurring theme on the campaign trail in Iowa. Those turning out for campaign meetings often say they are undecided and make unfavourable comparisons with the calibre of Republicans who canvassed for their support in the past. An estimated 100,000-plus Republicans will gather in community centres, schools and other meeting places tomorrow evening to vote. It is the culmination of weeks - and, in some cases, months - of campaigning; a mind-numbing round of meet-and-greets in pizza parlours, shopping malls and sports bars. Rick Santorum, who has spent more time on the ground than any of the pack, has conducted 363 town hall meetings. Reflecting the unsettled nature of the race, there have been six frontrunners since August, beginning with Tea Party favourite Michele Bachmann. She was followed by Texas governor Rick Perry, who has fought one of the most inept campaigns ever, even in the admission of his own staff. Herman Cain was next up, before being forced to suspend his campaign amid a welter of sexual harassment allegations. Then Ron Paul, from the fringes of the Republican party, and, in the last fortnight, Mitt Romney, who is still most likely to win the nomination. In the latest twist, Rick Santorum, in single digits for the whole of 2011, is making a late surge propelled by endorsements of Christian evangelical leaders. Seven have entered this brutal elimination contest but after Iowa the field may be down to six. Bachmann, at the bottom of the polls and attracting sparse crowds, is the likeliest to drop out, though she insists she plans to continue campaigning. Next week's New Hampshire primary could prompt the withdrawal of Jon Huntsman - the only candidate not to have been a frontrunner, or even enjoyed a surge. The Des Moines Register poll, published on Saturday night and eagerly awaited by the campaigns because of its past reliability, predicts a three-horse race going into the final stretch. Romney polled top with 24%, followed by Paul on 22%, Santorum on 15%, Gingrich on 12%, Perry on 11% and Bachmann on 7%. Huntsman is not competing in Iowa, judging that he has little chance in the socially conservative state where Christian evangelicals make up an estimated 50% of caucus-goers, and is waiting instead in New Hampshire. The surprise in the Register poll is the Santorum surge recorded over the last two days, showing Romney holding on at 24% but with Santorum leapfrogging Paul to take second place on 21%, leaving Paul in third on 18%. The poll findings reinforced the volatility of the race. J Ann Selzer, president of the company that carried out the polling in six of the last seven caucuses, said she had never before seen such a surge. "People who love politics love this kind of surprise battle, where there is a path to victory for a number of candidates," she said. Selzer and political journalists are enjoying the disorderly nature of the race more than a Republican party desperate to get Obama out of the White House. The party controls the House of Representatives, but is hoping to add both the White House and the Senate in November to begin rolling-back healthcare reform, welfare benefits and the other "socialist" policies of the Obama administration. The Democrats, housed in Obama's re-election headquarters in Chicago, are happily watching the fractured Republican race. They will hope it drags out month after month, state by state, leaving the candidates consumed by their own campaigns and with less time to focus on fundraising for the general election. David Axelrod, the mastermind of Obama's 2008 victory, believes Romney will emerge triumphant and is putting together a formidable, well-funded machine he thinks is capable of beating him - especially if the tentative signs of economic recovery prove reliable. Another of Obama's team, Jim Messina, the campaign manager, sent out a video last week to supporters setting out five possible combinations of states that would provide a pathway to victory. Iowa is listed as one of them and the Obama team is already putting its organisation in place. Jordan Oster, 25, one of the young volunteers who formed the backbone of Obama's 2008 victory in Iowa and plans to work for him again, said the president had eight offices in the state - more than all the Republican candidates combined. Obama won Iowa easily last time round, taking 54% of the vote to John McCain's 44%. But current polling in Iowa - his approval ratings are hovering in the mid-40s - shows why, in spite of the riven Republican field, his re-election is in doubt. Wilbur Hutchens, 74, who voted for Obama in 2008, is disillusioned over the state of the economy, high unemployment and healthcare reform. "Why should I be expected to pay for other people?" he said. Hutchens was at the Legends American Grill in Marshalltown, attending a campaign event for Bachmann, but has not yet decided who to support. "I will vote Republican regardless of who gets the nomination," he said. Hutchens is considering voting for Romney on Tuesday night on the grounds that he stands the best chance of beating Obama. "I will decide on electability, on who will beat Obama. That is a major consideration for me," he said. Romney is a better campaigner than he was in 2008 and could soak up anti-Obama votes. He would also have huge financial backing that was not available to any of the candidates in 2008 thanks to a supreme court ruling that has effectively lifted restrictions on political donations. Groups such as Restore Our Future, packed with former Romney campaign staff and business associates, have spent millions demolishing Newt Gingrich, one of his rivals in Iowa. Much more resources will be available to take down Obama, supplied not only by Restore our Future but Karl Rove's American Crossroads and the vast riches of the Koch brothers. Romney's big problem is the reluctance of the party to warm to him. His poll ratings have been stuck at around 24-25%. Although rightwing by the standards of past Republican presidents, he is viewed by the present generation of Republicans as too moderate, too much of an opportunist, and is particularly disliked by the Tea Party movements. Christian evangelicals are suspicious of his Mormonism. But their intense dislike of him may be outweighed by their even greater dislike of Obama.

Obama loses -- best polls and empirics
WILLIAMS, 1-2 – “Embattled Obama faces fight to retain Oval Office,” The Western Mail, LexisNexis

AMERICA goes to the polls this year with Barack Obama facing an uphill struggle to retain the White House keys. As the clock ticks towards election day on November 6 the incumbent must turn around his re-election hopes amid uncertain economic conditions. Mr Obama's popularity at home has ebbed since becoming president and the country is struggling to keep its fragile economic recovery on course. But many believe that an against-the-odds victory is within his grasp, aided by a potentially weak Republican challenger. The political environment, and Mr Obama's place in it, is far removed from that of 2008 when the then 47-year-old first-time senator was elected on a wave of enthusiasm. Much of that enthusiasm has dissipated in the intervening years. Mr Obama's approval ratings have been low throughout 2011, dipping below the 40% mark in mid-August. They have picked up a little of late, but he still languishes in the low 40s. No post-war president seeking re-election has bounced back from figures that low this late on. Over the Christmas/New Year period before being granted a second term, George W Bush had an approval rating of 63%, while Bill Clinton was on 51% as the Times Square ball dropped to usher in his re-election year. A further delve into statistics does little to instil Obama supporters with much hope.

----

Hope this helps!! Feel free to ask any more questions, I'd be happy to help clarify or add anything this doesn't address

[CodyArmstrong]

Thank you so much! I'll start cutting now and if I have any questions about what you said, I'll be sure to ask!

[brubaie]

No problem at all! Best of luck this weekend