Gag+Rule+Neg+-+Hispanic+Backlash+DA

UNIQUENESS AND BRINK: THE IMMIGRATION BILL MOBILIZED MORE HISPANICS TO REGISTER FOR CITIZENSHIP AND TO VOTE. DEMS HOLD TENTATIVE CONTROL OVER THE HISPANIC VOTE BECAUSE OF THEIR UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT OF THE IMMIGRATION BILL, BUT MCCAIN IS CLOSE ON THEIR TAILS BECAUSE HE SUPPORTED IMMIGRATION AS WELL.

RAYMOND HERNANDEZ, 6-10-07 New York Times, “Hispanic Voters Gain New Clout With Democrats Article Tools Sponsored By WASHINGTON” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/us/politics/10hispanics.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=2b600694a0aa09cd&ex=1185681600 Helped by the fight over immigration, Democratic presidential candidates are courting Hispanic voters like never before, prompted by a string of early primaries in states with sizable Hispanic voting blocs. It has forced candidates to hire outreach consultants, to start Spanish-language Web sites and to campaign vigorously before Hispanic audiences. The battle for Hispanic voters is a result of the decision by several states with large Hispanic populations to move their presidential primaries to early 2008, including California, Florida and New York. Roughly two-thirds of the nation’s Hispanic residents live in nine of the states holding Democratic primaries or caucuses on or before Feb. 5. Republican and Democratic strategists, as well as independent analysts, say the influence of Hispanic voters is likely to be amplified next year because of an unusually intense response in many Hispanic communities to immigration policy. Conservative Republicans, with the help of some left-leaning Democrats, teamed up on Thursday to derail an immigration bill in the Senate that would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. It is in the new early primary states where Democrats hope the outreach efforts bear fruit. In the last presidential election, Hispanic voters accounted for a significant part of the overall Democratic primary electorate in California (16 percent), New York (11 percent), Arizona (17 percent) and Florida (9 percent), all states that will hold primaries by Feb 5. Sergio Bendixen, a pollster hired by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign to study Hispanic voting trends, said: “The Hispanic vote has never been all that important in the presidential primary process in the United States. But that will change in 2008.” At this early stage, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, appears best poised to benefit from the heightened Hispanic role in the primary process. She has already captured a prized endorsement, of Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, one of the nation’s most prominent Hispanic politicians. Mrs. Clinton is also well known and liked by many Hispanics, with several national New York Times/CBS News polls from the past few months showing that about 60 percent of registered Hispanic voters who identify themselves as Democrats have a favorable view of her, while a quarter do not. Meanwhile, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, remains a blank slate to many Hispanic voters, polls show, with 40 percent having no opinion of him. But his aspirational biography could prove a draw as more Hispanic voters get to know him. Former Senator John Edwards is even less well known among Democratic Hispanic voters. While a third have a positive view of Mr. Edwards and fewer than 10 percent have an unfavorable view of him, 6 in 10 are unable to offer an opinion. The only Hispanic in the race, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democrat, is working to build a base and establish a political identity beyond the Southwest. Many Democrats were as troubled by the Senate immigration bill as were Republicans, but for decidedly different reasons. Mrs. Clinton expressed concerns about the legislation, particularly a provision that makes it harder for legal immigrants in the United States to bring relatives from abroad. Mr. Obama said that he would have supported the bill, but that he too had similar concerns about the provision, according to his aides. On the Republican side, two of the main candidates, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, opposed the immigration bill, while Senator John McCain played a main role in drafting the legislation, only to face a huge backlash from conservative Republicans raising alarms about what they call a flood of immigrants. The bill’s setback — a major defeat for President Bush — could complicate Republican efforts to win over the fast-growing Hispanic electorate and help Democrats solidify their hold on these voters, an electoral prize expected to increase in importance in coming decades. Surveys showed that Hispanics were a small part of the Republican primary vote in 2000, with their greatest influence being in California, where they made up 9 percent of the vote. The debate over immigration has spurred Hispanic leaders and voters to mobilize like few issues in recent memory have. The National Association of Latino Elected Officials has joined with the Hispanic television network Univision on a national campaign to help Hispanic residents fill out citizenship applications and to help those who are already citizens register to vote. Stephanie Pillersdorf, a spokeswoman for Univision, said the number of Hispanic residents who had applied for citizenship in Los Angeles County alone had gone up 146 percent since the campaign started several months ago. The scramble for Hispanic support is evident both within the campaigns and out on the trail. On Friday, Mrs. Clinton spoke to Hispanic leaders in the Bronx, where she accused Republicans of undermining the immigration bill in the Senate. “The bill was mostly killed by people who don’t want any

CONTINUED...

Hispanic Backlash DA (2/6) CONTINUED... immigration reform and don’t want a path toward legalization,” she said. “There’s a very big anti-immigrant feeling that is influencing the problem right now, particularly on the Republican side.” Earlier this month, Mr. Obama traveled to Nevada, a heavily Hispanic state that moved its caucus to Jan. 19, and sat down for interviews with Spanish-language television and newspaper reporters. Mr. Edwards, who hopes his populist appeal will draw support from Hispanics, is dispatching his political director, David Medina, to meet with members of Democratic Hispanic Caucus of Florida. Mr. Richardson alternates between English and Spanish on the campaign trail. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, also often likes to display his fluency in Spanish, including when he announced his candidacy on CNN en Español. Republicans have been making similar efforts. Mr. McCain has been making appearances before Hispanic audiences around the country, including in Miami, where he recently gave a speech on immigration. He also has access to a deep bench of prominent Hispanic leaders who fill in for him on Spanish-language radio and television programs, including Representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, all of Florida. The senator himself has also made appearances on Univision and Telemundo. Mr. Romney, in turn, announced on Friday the creation of a steering committee to help him attract Hispanic voters. Strategists for several Democratic campaigns say the new calendar has set the stage for Hispanic voters to have much more influence in picking the parties’ presidential nominees than they did when states like Iowa and New Hampshire were essentially alone among the early states in the nominating process. In fact, in the 2004 race, Senator John Kerry did not assemble a Hispanic outreach and media operation until about five months before the general election. By contrast, the Clinton campaign has already put in place a driven Hispanic outreach team that, among other things, issues press releases in Spanish on a regular basis and has a stable of Spanish-speaking surrogates to fill in for Mrs. Clinton at events that focus on Hispanics. It has also assigned a prominent role to its campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, a woman of Mexican descent who has been one of Mrs. Clinton’s most trusted advisers and friends since her days as first lady of Arkansas. Mrs. Doyle, who played a crucial role in getting the recent endorsement from Mr. Villaraigosa, has made herself available for interviews with Hispanic organizations of all sorts. Democrats are optimistic about their prospects of making large gains among Hispanic voters, mindful of the progress they made in the 2006 midterm elections, when only 26 percent of Hispanics voted for Republican Congressional candidates. That was down from 44 percent in 2004, when Mr. Bush was at the top of the ticket, according to nationwide exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky. While Mr. Bush’s popularity with Hispanics had been a factor in drawing large numbers of them to the Republican Party, many Hispanics appear to be returning to the Democratic fold as conservative efforts gained momentum last year to restrict immigration and build a wall along the Mexican border.

Hispanic Backlash DA (3/6) LINK: HISPANICS VIEW THE DEMOCRATS AS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS- IMMIGRATION ONLY BARELY COMES BEFORE PASSIONATELY HATED ABORTION POLICIES Jennifer Roback Morse, research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University National Catholic Register. October 7, 2003 “Abortion, Hispanics and the Great Recall Election of 2003,” http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1007morse.html But if McClintock or any other plausible contender has the guts to raise the abortion issue -- and if the media ever start listening to Farrell emphasize the social aspect of the abortion decision -- the Hispanic vote will be up for grabs. Here's why. Latinos make up about 15% of California's registered electorate. Mexican-Americans are more pro-life and pro-family than the average voter. In one nationwide poll, for instance, 50% of Latinos said, "Congress should put more limits on abortion." A large percentage of Mexican-Americans are Catholic -- not just nominally Catholic but devoutly and unabashedly Catholic. Some secular commentators make no secret of their delight that some Hispanics are abandoning Catholicism. These commentators fail to realize that Hispanics become Pentecostals and evangelicals, not Episcopalians or members of some New Age cult. In other words, they don't leave the Catholic Church because it is too traditional on moral issues: They leave because it isn't traditional enough. When Democrats talk about economic issues or entitlement issues or immigration issues, many Latinos respond. But when the subject is sex, family or abortion, Latinos resonate with Republicans. One of our "alternative newspapers" here in California reports that many Hispanics don't realize that the Democrats are the party of abortion. Jim Holman's San Diego News Notes clearly insinuates that Democrats strategically conceal their pro-abortion extremism from their Hispanic constituents. Hispanic Backlash DA (4/6) AND HISPANICS WILL BLAME DEMS FOR THE GAG RULE’S REPEAL – KEY ELECTION HOPEFULS ARE PUSHING FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE POLICY Lynn Harris, 7-18-07, Award-winning journalist, essayist, author, and media commentator on gender politics, “Dem hopefuls pull few punches on choice. In speeches to Planned Parenthood, Obama, Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards slam the GOP, promise change,” Salon.com

Thus far, much of the presidential campaign coverage has been about the campaign: money, staffing changes, who's ahead of whom where and by how much, who gets his hair cut where and for how much. So it's great to get a chance to hear candidates talk about actual policy. About reproductive health policy? Even better. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund invited all 2,971 presidential candidates to speak at its annual public affairs conference in Washington. Two and a half of them accepted: Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Elizabeth Edwards on behalf of her husband. (Where was Gov. Bill Richardson, who has surely been talking the talk?) Edwards' speech -- despite some grumbling that her husband's "Road to One America" tour apparently did not lead to one women's rights breakfast -- was "warmly received," according to Tapped's Dana Goldstein. (Transcripts of the speeches were not available from Planned Parenthood this morning.) While the New York Times coverage today is not specific about the policy content of Edwards' speech, Goldstein is: "Elizabeth tied John's women's health platform into his support for universal health care and the alleviation of poverty, assuring Planned Parenthood that it would be recognized as a service provider under her husband's plan, that all prescription drug coverage would include regular and emergency contraception, that pharmacists would not be allowed to refuse such drugs to women or girls, and even that abortion would be eligible for federal funding under an Edwards administration. This would mean a Congressional-backed repeal of the Hyde Amendment." Goldstein did catch one "Come again?" caveat in Edwards' speech. She said, "John opposes any ban that does not include an adequate protection for a woman's health," she said. Wait wait wait. Shouldn't she have just stopped talking after "ban"? Let's keep an eye/ear out here. Clinton, for her part, framed women's rights as "human rights," just as she did in her 1995 speech to the United Nations' fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. According to Goldstein, she got cheers and applause by vowing, "When I am president, I will dedicate my very first few days in office to reversing [Bush administration policies harmful to women]. Starting with the Global Gag Rule and going from there, I will not rest until we once again protect women's health." (Of course, our penultimate president rescinded the gag rule on his third day in office; another reversal would be a nice Clinton 2.0 coda.) Finally, according to Goldstein, Obama was good on the big picture, fuzzy on the policy particulars. He argued for "expanding the terms of the pro-choice debate beyond access to abortion, contraception, and comprehensive sexuality education and into a larger discussion about family planning and work-life balance for women [including] pay equity, paid maternal leave, and longer school hours that make it easier for mothers to work." (My take: To be sure, these matters are all of a piece and need to be understood that way. But nuance is also key. The challenge: Can we expand the debate in this way without overlooking or shying away from the reality that women need access to abortion, abortion, abortion?) Though Obama, appropriately -- and "elegantly," says Goldstein -- placed abortion in the context of race and class ("If we reduce teen pregnancy, we can also reduce poverty"), he apparently didn't go much farther on policy than to say he'd support the Freedom of Choice Act. Hispanic Backlash DA (5/6)

AND MCCAIN IS IN THE LEAD FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION- EARLY PRIMARIES PROVE Eric Ostermeier, Post Doctorate at the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, May 29, 2007, Smart Politics: The Upper Midwestern Political Roundup http://blog.lib.umn.edu/oster017/smartpolitics/2007/05/mccain_leading_in_clean_sweep_1.html McCain Leading in Clean Sweep of 3 Early Primary States Despite lukewarm performances at the first two GOP debates and a national campaign that appears to be lagging well behind Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Senator John McCain continues to lead the Republican frontrunner in new polls released by American Research Group (ARG) in 3 key states: Iowa (caucus = January 14), New Hampshire (primary = January 22), and South Carolina (primary = January 29). Giuliani leads McCain in all national surveys, including double digit leads in the latest polls by New York Times / CBS News, Zogby, and Rasmussen (in which McCain also trails Mitt Romney). Still, McCain is polling as the frontrunner in 3 smaller, though important, states. If McCain runs the table on these, it could give him momentum to become competitive heading into February 5th – in which up to 20 states hold primary contests. McCain now holds a 25 – 23 lead over Giuliani in Iowa, and has been tied or held the lead in each of the last 3 ARG polls in that state. Romney comes in third at 16 percent, and his support has increased in each of the last four polls there (from 8 to 10 to 14 to 16 percent). In New Hampshire, McCain leads Giuliani by 9 points (30 – 21), with Romney landing in second at 23 percent. McCain has polled ahead of Giuliani in 5 of the last 6 ARG polls in the Granite State. In South Carolina, McCain continues to lead Giuliani (32 percent to 23 percent), with Romney in fourth (at 10 percent) behind Fred Thompson (13 percent). McCain has lead Giuliani in all 4 ARG polls in South Carolina dating back to December 2006.

MCCAIN IS PRO LIFE, MEANING HE WILL ABSORB THE HISPANIC VOTES THAT THE DEMS LOSE WHILE BUILDING UPON HIS SUPPORT FROM THE IMMIGRATION BILL. MCCAIN’S WIN WILL MEAN AN EXTENDED STAY IN IRAQ.

Holly Ramer, Associated Press Writer, March 19, 2007, The Associated Press State & Local Wire “McCain continues N.H. bus tour, chides Dems on Iraq”

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain on Sunday questioned whether Democrats who oppose sending more American troops to Iraq truly support those who already are there. "To say that 'we support the troops but don't believe your mission will succeed, it's doomed to fail, we don't want you to go,' is not exactly the most supportive statement," the Arizona senator said in defending his own strong support for the war. Instead of proposing nearly two dozen proposals to end the war, Democrats should give President Bush's new strategy a chance, he told several hundred people at the Exeter Town Hall. "To set a date for withdrawal is in my view, to say to enemy, 'Hey, we're leaving on a certain date, just hang on and we'll go,'" he said. Yet in response to another question, McCain decried the partisan bickering so common in Washington. "If we want to young people to serve in office, we'd better stop impugning each other's integrity and patriotism just because we happen to disagree," he said, promising that he would reach out to Democrats if elected to save Social Security, reform Medicare and solve other looming problems. Another audience member raised concerns that McCain's support for the troop increase could hurt his campaign. "With your support of staying in Iraq with a new direction, how do you propose to combat the constant drumbeat from the media and the other side of the aisle about pulling out of Iraq?" McCain was asked. McCain gestured to an audience member whose son was killed in Iraq, saying that man's sacrifice made the political ramifications irrelevant. "How could I allow any political ambition of mine to interfere with what I think is right for the country?" he said. Sunday was the second day of McCain's three-day trip to the state where he soundly defeated George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primary before losing the nomination. Earlier in the day, he did some grass-roots campaigning in a grand setting, attending a house party at a mansion built for one of his predecessors in the U.S. Senate. "Thank you for welcoming us all into this middle income tract home," McCain jokingly told hosts Dan and Jennifer Philbrick, who restored the former home of U.S. Sen. Edward Rollins, a Republican who served in the late 1800s. "Some of my Democratic friends want every American to have a home," McCain said from the steps of a broad stairway in the foyer, which was decorated with hand-painted murals of pastoral scenes. "I want every American to have a home like this." A question about abortion provided an opportunity for McCain to separate himself from other Republicans seeking the nomination. "I am a pro-life person. That's been a solid 24-year record," he said. "I have not changed my position.”

Hispanic Backlash DA (6/6)

STAYING THE COURSE EMBOLDENS ENEMIES AND COLLAPSES AMERICAN HEGEMONY

Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center of the Interdisciplinary University in Israel and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, 2005, The Washington Quarterly 28.2, 67-80, Project Muse, [Beyer]

One of the most forceful arguments against a planned and phased U.S. withdrawal is based on the administration's desire to preserve its own reputation and U.S. credibility. Refusing to leave Iraq, U.S. policymakers believe, is the only way to ensure that the United States retains a high level of credibility with its adversaries in the region. For the United States, to pull out as it did from Vietnam or to allow for the defeat of its allies as it did in the shah's Iran, they argue, would signal to radical forces that they could attack U.S. interests with impunity and disregard its threats. Although this may sound like a persuasive argument, it does not accurately reflect the current situation. The United States achieved the most credibility possible through its willingness and ability to overthrow Saddam. Being bogged down in an endless war in Iraq, however, can only erode U.S. standing in the region. The United States is currently so overextended in Iraq that it is incapable of taking tough action on any other issue in the region or elsewhere in the world—and its enemies know it. The U.S. military presence has been used to criticize and mobilize forces against the United States. The lack of a U.S. victory has been portrayed as proof of its weakness, and U.S. misdeeds have been invented or magnified to demonstrate that the United States has evil intentions toward Arabs and Muslims.


 * (EITHER CROSS APPLY KHALILZAD FROM THE 1AC OR READ IT HERE:)

US LEADERSHIP KEY TO PREVENT GLOBAL NUCLEAR EXCHANGE

Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.