**Neg

1nc

1nc Cuba EmbargoObama has PC—key to lifting the Cuban embargo Milbank 7/1 – Washington PostDana, In his presidential homestretch, Obama regains the momentum, 7/1/15, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-regains-the-momentum/2015/07/01/43a6b932-203c-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.htmlThis echo of his 2008 campaign theme was self-congratulatory but deserved, coming at a time of unexpected hope late in his presidency. In the space of just over a week, Obama’s tired tenure came back to life. He bested congressional Democrats and got trade legislation on his desk. The Supreme Court upheld the signature achievement of his presidency — Obamacare — and thereby cemented his legacy. The high court also made same-sex marriage legal across the land following a tidal change in public opinion that Obama’s own conversion accelerated. Had the court’s decisions not dominated the nation’s attention, Obama’s eulogy Friday for those slain in a South Carolina church, and his extraordinary rendition of “Amazing Grace,” would have itself been one of the most powerful moments of his presidency. It is little surprise, then, that this lame duck’s job approval rating hit a respectable 50 percent this week for the first time in two years in a CNN poll, and his disapproval rating dropped to 47. The good tidings of the past week have been arguably more luck than achievement for Obama, but he deserves credit for his effort to use the momentum of his victories to revive what had been a moribund presidency. When you earn political capital , as George W. Bush liked to

say, you spend it. This is why it was shrewd of the surging Obama to be in the Rose Garden on Wednesday morning, demanding new action from Congress on Cuba. “Americans and Cubans alike are ready to move forward; I believe it’s time for Congress to do the same,” he said, renewing his call to lift the travel and trade embargo. “. . . Yes, there are those who want to turn back the clock and double down on a policy of isolation, but it’s long past time for us to realize that this approach doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked for 50 years. . . . So I’d ask Congress to listen to the Cuban people, listen to the American people, listen to the words of a proud Cuban American, [former Bush commerce secretary] Carlos Gutierrez, who recently came out against the policy of the past.” Fifteen minutes later, Obama lifted off from the South Lawn in Marine One on his way to Nashville, where he tried to use the momentum generated by the Supreme Court Obamacare victory to spread the program to states where Republican governors have resisted. “What I’m hoping is that with the Supreme Court case now behind us, what we can do is . . . now focus on how we can make it even better,” he said, adding, “My hope is that on a bipartisan basis, in places like Tennessee but all across the country, we can now focus on . . . what have we learned? What’s working? What’s not working?” He said that “because of politics, not all states have taken advantage of the options that are out there. Our hope is, is that more of them do.” He urged people to “think about this in a practical American way instead of a partisan, political way.” This probably won’t happen, but it’s refreshing to see Obama, too often passive, regaining vigor as he approaches the final 18 months of his presidency. The energy had, at least for the moment, returned to the White House, where no fewer than six network correspondents were doing live stand-ups before Obama’s appearance Wednesday morning. There was a spring in the president’s step, if not a swagger, as he emerged from the Oval Office trailed by Vice President Biden. Republican presidential candidates were nearly unanimous in denouncing the plan to open a U.S. embassy in Havana. But Obama, squinting in the sunlight as he read from his teleprompters, welcomed the fight. “The progress that we mark today is yet another demonstration that we don’t have to be imprisoned by the past,” he said. Quoting a Cuban American’s view that “you can’t hold the future of Cuba hostage to what happened in the past,” Obama added, “That’s what this is about: a choice between the future and the past.” Obama turned to go back inside, ignoring the question shouted by Bloomberg’s Margaret Talev: “How will you get an ambassador confirmed?” That will indeed be tricky. But momentum is everything in politics — and for the moment, Obama has it again .

[insert link]

Lifting the embargo is key to successful cooperative engagement strategies in the Middle East and AsiaSergio Dickerson, Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army, 2010 (UNITED STATES SECURITY STRATEGY TOWARDS CUBA, www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518053)Today, 20 years have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall – it’s time to chip away at the diplomatic wall that still remains between U.S. and Cuba. As we seek a new foreign policy with Cuba it is imperative that we take into consideration that distrust will characterize negotiations with the Cuban government. On the other hand, consider that loosening or lifting the embargo could also be mutually beneficial . Cuba’s need and America’s surplus capability to provide goods and services could be profitable and eventually addictive to Cuba. Under these conditions, diplomacy has a better chance to flourish. If the Cuban model succeeds President Obama will be seen as a true leader for multilateralism . Success in Cuba could afford the international momentum and credibility to solve other seemingly “wicked problems” like the Middle East and Kashmir. President Obama could leverage this international reputation with other rogue nations like Iran and North Korea who might associate their plight with Cuba. The U.S. could begin to lead again and reverse its perceived decline in the greater global order bringing true peace for years to come.

Engagement prevents Asian nuclear conflict – the impact is extinctionHamel-Green, Executive Dean at Victoria, 1/5/10 (The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia, www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf)The international community is increasingly aware that cooperative diplomacy is the most productive way to tackle the multiple, interconnected global challenges facing humanity, not least of which is the increasing proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Korea and Northeast Asia are instances where risks of nuclear proliferation and actual nuclear use arguably have increased in recent years. This negative trend is a product of continued US nuclear threat projection against the DPRK as part of a general program of coercive diplomacy in this region, North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme, the breakdown in the Chinese-hosted Six Party Talks towards the end of the Bush Administration, regional concerns over China’s increasing military power, and concerns within some quarters in regional states (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) about whether US extended deterrence (“nuclear umbrella”) afforded under bilateral security treaties can be relied upon for protection. The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related political and economic issues, are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear attack, whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident, leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a limited nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global climate far more quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange involving approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead to a decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8

years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global winter, but the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow…The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain production than 5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger…To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective.

Uniqueness

Will PassObama is pushing for the Cuban embargo to be lifted—has the political capital and public support, but it’s close Talev and Lakshmanan 7/1 – Bloomberg Margaret and Indira, Obama Wants Travel to Cuba to Resume and Embargo to End, 7/1/15, http://skift.com/2015/07/01/obama-wants-travel-to-cuba-to-resume-and-embargo-to-end/President Barack Obama urged Congress to follow his decision to reopen the American embassy in Havana by lifting the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. “The best way to support our values is through engagement,” Obama said at the White House. “Americans and Cubans alike are looking to move forward. I believe it’s time for Congress to do the same.” The embassy will reopen on July 20 and Cuba will reopen its embassy in Washington. Secretary of State John Kerry intends to go to Havana for the occasion and he will “proudly raise the American flag” over the embassy, Obama said. Jeffrey DeLaurentis, who heads the U.S. Interests Section in Havana and would be the initial envoy heading the reopened embassy, delivered a letter from Obama confirming the plans addressed to Cuba President Raul Castro, according to the Foreign Ministry. The president hasn’t decided on who might be nominated as ambassador or whether he would make the nomination in the immediate future, according to an administration official. The question for Obama is whether he has the political momentum to get a U.S. ambassador to Cuba confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate or get the embargo lifted. Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, has said he would block any ambassador nominee offered by the White House. Ted Cruz, a Texas senator also seeking the party’s nomination, has echoed that threat. Obama’s Victories Obama is coming off of series of high-profile legislative and political victories. Congress last month gave him expanded authority to negotiate trade deals and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key portion of his signature health care law and legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. During a White House press conference Tuesday, Obama said he’d use the political capital he had built up on a long list of priorities. “We are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that we can make as long as I have the privilege of holding this office,” he said. Word of the embassy reopenings brought renewed criticism from a U.S. lawmaker who’s among those opposed to normalizing ties with Cuba’s Communist regime, citing its poor record on human rights. “Opening the American embassy in Cuba will do nothing to help the Cuban people and is just another trivial attempt for President Obama to go legacy shopping,” said Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Cuban-American Republican from Florida. Public Sentiment Obama said the U.S. must not be “imprisoned by the past.” He said there are tourists who want to travel to Cuba and businesses that want to invest there. Public sentiment may be moving Obama’s way. A Pew Research poll released in January, one month after the president first announced plans to reestablish diplomatic times, found that 63 percent of Americans favored re-establishing diplomatic relations, while 28 percent disapproved. Two-thirds of respondents favored ending the trade embargo.

Obama will win on Cuba policy—GOP will be forced to get on board Maloy 7/2 – Salon Simon, GOP’s dead-end Cuba gamble: Republicans’ Cold War-era tough talk won’t come to anything, 7/2/15, http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/gops_dead_end_cuba_gamble_republicans_cold_war_era_tough_talk_wont_come_to_anything/After winning a great victory for communism with the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies, Barack Obama went for broke this week and surrendered to Cuba, thus ending the Cold War in a crippling defeat for global capitalism. ¡Que viva la gran revolución! ¡Venceremos! Okay, maybe that’s not precisely what happened. But what did happen is that the White House followed through on a key portion of the president’s plan to normalize relations with our tiny communist island neighbor. In a Rose Garden ceremony yesterday, Obama officially announced that the United States and Cuba would open embassies in Havana

and Washington, DC. That announcement came just over a month after Cuba was removed from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. That’s two big changes to the United States’ Cuba policy, which had remained essentially unchanged for 50 years and made precisely zero progress towards its goal of dislodging the Castro regime. But Republicans in Congress and the 2016 presidential field are, as is their wont, pushing back on the president and insisting that we stick with what hasn’t been working. The two Cuban-American Republican presidential candidates, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, vowed to block Senate confirmation of any ambassador to Cuba. House Speaker John Boehner said “relations with the Castro regime should not be revisited, let alone normalized, until Cubans enjoy freedom – and not one second sooner.” 2016 hopeful Carly Fiorina outdid everyone, promising to Hugh Hewitt that as president she would close the U.S. embassy in Cuba. I guess it’s not entirely surprising that the GOP would still be so gung-ho about fighting the Cold War more than two decades after it ended. But there’s no real reason to think that all this tough talk and posturing on Cuba will amount to anything , even if a Republican wins the White House in 2016. The reason is simple: corporate America very strongly approves of Obama’s plans to open up Cuba, and Republicans try very hard to not piss off the business community too much. For half a century the island has just been sitting there off the Florida coast, a market completely shut off from thorough exploitation by American business interests. Those same business interests would love nothing more than to see the 50-year trade embargo come crashing down, but Obama can’t unilaterally end it because Bill Clinton stupidly gave up the executive branch’s authority over the embargo back in 1996. The only way to end the Cuba embargo is for Congress to vote to kill it, and statements like the one from the House Speaker quoted above don’t lead one to believe that that will happen any time soon. But America’s corporate masters are apparently massing their armies of lobbyists to try and convince enough Republicans in Congress to give up on this obsolete relic from the Kennedy administration. There’s also some political blowback to be had for advocating a hardline Cuba posture. Polling over the past few months has shown that Americans are ready to abandon the embargo and generally approve of Obama’s moves to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba. Even majorities of the Cuban-American population favor a less antagonistic posture towards Cuba. Carlos Gutierrez, the Cuban-born commerce secretary under George W. Bush, just recently wrote an op-ed for the New York Times explaining how he’d overcome his skepticism of the Obama administration’s Cuba policy, arguing that “it is now time for Republicans and the wider American business community to stop fixating on the past and embrace a new approach to Cuba.” Obviously Republicans have legitimate concerns about the Castro regime’s human rights abuses and longstanding policies of censorship and repression. But none have, as yet, offered a compelling rationale for why diplomatic rapprochement should be abandoned and the longstanding and wildly ineffective policies of isolation and embargo should snap back into place, given that they did nothing to stop those abuses in the first place. But they’ve promised to do it anyway, and in doing so they’re putting themselves into a box politically. Obama’s already set the country on the path to normalized relations with Cuba, and it’s tough to roll back that progress , especially when it is strongly supported by the public and all-powerful business interests. Any Republican who may feel impelled by ideological conviction to once again sever diplomatic ties and return to the Cold War days of total isolation will have to convince their corporate financial backers to sacrifice their bottom lines so that we can resume the dead-end fight against the Red Menace. Seems like it would be a lot more trouble than it’s worth.

Embassy creates momentum Spencer 7/1 – Star TribuneJim, Embassy reopening could help efforts to end Cuban trade embargo, 7/1/15, http://www.startribune.com/embassy-reopening-could-help-efforts-to-end-cuban-trade-embargo/311225501/

The reopening of the U.S. embassy in Cuba on July 20 pushes the United States a giant step closer to ending a long-standing trade embargo and travel restrictions that some Minnesota politicians and businesses have been lobbying hard to remove. “You can’t get rid of a trade embargo without first having an embassy,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar D-Minn., told the Star Tribune.

Lifting the embargo will pass—Obama will overcome GOP opposition Prensa Latina 7/2Battle in Congress Against Blockade of Cuba Advocated in USA, 7/2/15, http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3947081&Itemid=1"We need to talk with the Congress to lift the embargo, it will not be easy, but we have to do it," he said in an interview with Prensa Latina in connection with the announcement on the eve of the restoration of diplomatic relations between Havana and Washington and the opening of embassies, to from 20 July. According to Smith, who headed the American section in the years from 1979 to 1982, one can not speak yet of normal ties between the two nations, "because the embargo still remains." Having become law, it is up to the US Congress to pass a resolution on the end of the economic, commercial, and financial blockade in effect for more than half a century, but the Republican Party, which controls both houses, seems intent on using the Cuban issue in its pulse with President Barack Obama, who called for an end to the blockade. Despite the aggressive discourse of some sectors stuck in the past, especially the Cuban-American legislators, the former diplomat was optimistic about the future of bilateral scene. In his view, it will be difficult to jeopardize Obama's decisions to boost the approach, approved by the majority of Americans and with growing support among business men [persons] . Regarding the presidential elections next year, he predicted a Democratic victory, which would maintain the current line to pursue normal ties with the Caribbean country after decades of hostility, which also include the blockade and subversive plans to impose a regime change.

Yes PCYes PCMiller 6/30 – Roll Call Jonathan, Democrats Pursue a No-Veto Strategy on Spending Bills, 6/30/15, http://www.rollcall.com/news/democrats_pursue_a_no_veto_strategy_on_spending_bills-242605-1.htmlAllowing Obama to issue vetoes would seem to make sense. The president is a lame duck with an approval rating that hit 50 percent in a CNN poll for the first time in more than two years as he enjoys one of the best periods of his presidency, so

he's got some political capital to spend . At just four vetoes, his record doesn't come close to that of other recent presidents, though of course there's many months left in his tenure.

AT Gun ControlWon’t cost PC—received positively Kumar 7/2 – International Business Times Kalyan, Obama Turns Gaze On Gun Control Reforms: Survey Shows Slimming Support For Obama Line On Guns, 7/2/15, http://www.ibtimes.com.au/obama-turns-gaze-gun-control-reforms-survey-shows-slimming-support-obama-line-guns-1454168Mr Obama’s speech at the Charleston homage ceremony, with a "call to action" on gun control and race -- the thorniest and most divisive problems of his presidency, found a positive acceptance . The aftermath of Charleston shootings gave the President the moral authority to pursue his reform plans on gun control. Bruce Buchanan, a specialist in presidential politics said, "It remains to be seen if he can use either as leverage to press his remaining policy ambitions."

Links

GenericNew surveillance restrictions will cost PC—politically controversial Gross 15 - covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News ServiceGrant, Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsa-surveillance-from-congress.htmlAfter the U.S. Congress approved what critics have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers, including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be difficult to get “broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other activists are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will a long slog getting more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.” What’s in the USA Freedom Act? Some critics have blasted the USA Freedom Act as fake reform, while supporters have called it the biggest overhaul of U.S. surveillance program in decades. Many civil liberties and privacy groups have come down in the middle of those two views, calling it modest reform of the counterterrorism Patriot Act. The law aims to end the NSA’s decade-plus practice of collecting U.S. telephone records in bulk, while allowing the agency to search those records in a more targeted manner. The law also moves the phone records database from the NSA to telecom carriers, and requires the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to consult with tech and privacy experts when ruling on major new data collection requests from the NSA. It also requires all significant FISC orders from the last 12 years to be released to the public. The new law limits bulk collection of U.S. telephone and business records by requiring the FBI, the agency that applies for data collection, to use a “specific selection term” when asking the surveillance court to authorize records searches. The law prohibits the FBI and NSA from using a “broad geographic region,” including a city, county, state or zip code, as a search term, but it doesn’t otherwise define “specific search term.” That’s a problem, according to critics. The surveillance court could allow, for example, “AT&T” as a specific search term and give the NSA the authority to collect all of the carrier’s customer records. Such a ruling from FISC would seem to run counter to congressional intent, but this is the same court that defined all U.S. phone records as “relevant” to a counterterrorism investigation under the old version of the Patriot Act’s Section 215. The USA Freedom Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of overseas Internet traffic, including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly limiting that NSA program, called Prism in 2013 Snowden leaks, will be a difficult task in Congress, with many lawmakers unconcerned about the privacy rights of people who don’t vote in U.S. elections. Still, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes those NSA foreign surveillance programs sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress to look at FISA, although lawmakers may wait until the last minute, as they did with the expiring sections of the Patriot Act covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its oversight of U.S. surveillance programs, and the committee will address FISA before its provisions expire, an aide to the committee said. Republican leaders opposed to more changes Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass congressional

leadership, however. Senate Republican leaders attempted to derail even the USA Freedom Act and refused to allow amendments that would require further changes at the NSA. In the House, Republican leaders threatened to kill the USA Freedom Act if the Judiciary Committee amended the bill to address other surveillance programs. Still, many House members, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed for new surveillance limits, with lawmakers adding an amendment to end so-called backdoor government searches of domestic communications to a large appropriations bill this week.

Passage of the Freedom Act sapped momentum for surveillance reform – any further changes to surveillance programs will be met with resistance in CongressGross 6/5 (Grant, IDG News Service, 'Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress', www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsa-surveillance-from-congress.html)After the U.S. Congress approved what critics have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA Freedom Act , which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers, including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be difficult to get “broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other activists are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will be a long slog getting more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”

Plan unpopular – Congress fears risk of terrorism Milligan 6/12 (Susan, Political and foreign affairs writer, http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/12/privacy-or-terrorism-a-question-of-risk)But still, says John Mueller, a political science professor at Ohio State University and an expert in security studies, Congress and the public are still uncomfortable doing the same calculations they   naturally do when getting into a car or eating a few pieces of bacon: what is the real risk, and what costs are   we willing to pay to ease that risk? The chances of dying in a terror attack, even considering 9/11, are just one in four million, Mueller notes (it's one in 110 million if 9/11 is taken out of the equation). "The issue is   'acceptable risk,' and nobody wants to use that term," Mueller says. For when it comes to terrorism, any risk   may be too much for Congress and their constituents to take on.

Freedom Act negotiations prove the plan would be controversial – any further reforms would stir up backlashKayyali 5/1 (Nadia, member of EFF’s activism team; Nadia's work focuse on surveillance, national security policy, and the intersection of criminal justice, racial justice, and digital civil liberties issues, 5/1/2015, Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Yesterday's USA Freedom Markup: A Glimpse into the Fight to Reform Section 702,” https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-markup-glimpse-fight-reform-section-702)

The 2015 version of the USA Freedom Act, HR 2048/S.1123 passed out of the House Judiciary Committee this week, with a vote of 25 ayes and 2 noes. The Committee did not pass any amendments to the legislation. But the markup discussion revealed a lot about where the House Judiciary Committee stands when it comes to reforming Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act—one of the key authorities that the government claims as justification for mass surveillance. House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Bob Goodlatte

explained why he and others voted against all amendments: The legislation before us today was painstakingly and carefully negotiated not just amongst members of this committee, but with our colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee and the intelligence community… We must not pass amendments that will be a poison pill to the success of these reforms. Rep. Goodlatte made it clear that he wanted to pass the bill as is to preserve a carefully crafted compromise. In fact, he and other supporters of USA Freedom on the Committee repeatedly noted that they supported certain amendments in theory, but could not vote for them because of their concern about making the legislation impossible to pass. We think it’s important to take note of what they supported and what they didn’t. When these issues come up again, either around another piece of legislation or another reauthorization fight, we hope that you’ll join us in holding these lawmakers accountable. Ultimately, the lack of amendments was a mixed blessing because it blocked both bad and good changes. A data retention amendment from Rep. Steve King that would have authorized the government to enter into agreements with telecoms and compensate those telecoms to store data was on the table. Rep. Goodlatte spoke favorably about the amendment, but made it clear that he couldn’t support it because “data retention issues are controversial, and inclusion of this amendment will most certainly prevent consideration of this bill” on the House and Senate floor.[1] We’ve long been concerned about data retention, so we’ll be following this issue closely. Unfortunately, there were also some important amendments that would’ve strengthened a piece of legislation that we see as only a first, small step in the right direction— one that has serious faults that could have been partially addressed by these changes. In particular, we were closely watching an amendment that aimed to cut funding to NSA “backdoors” from Rep. Ted Poe, which mirrored the language in an amendment to the 2014 Department of Defense appropriations bill. As Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who also introduced the similar Secure Data Act of 2014 with Sen. Ron Wyden, explained: we have said that the bill would end bulk collection, but without addressing 702, I do not think it is correct that we will be ending bulk collection. The amendment would have addressed two types of NSA backdoors. First, it attempted to end the practice known as "backdoor searches.” The NSA collects contents of communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Even though it’s ostensibly used for foreign targets, Section 702 surveillance sweeps up the communications of Americans, and the NSA has acknowledged that it searches this information without a warrant for the communications of Americans. The amendment that did not pass yesterday attempted to prohibit this practice except in a few limited situations. The amendment also addressed the NSA’s backdoor into products and services. Leaked documents have shown that the NSA, with the help of the FBI, has sought backdoors into products and services, from encryption software to online communications tools like Skype. While the government claims that these backdoors would only be accessible to them, tech companies and security experts have made it very clear that security backdoors make products and services, and by extension the Internet, less secure for everyone. Yet both the FBI and NSA Directors have recently urged companies to install security "backdoors" into hardware or software, even while American businesses continue to suffer reputational harm overseas and even lose business. Ultimately, the amendment failed 9-24 .[2] Rep. John Conyers echoed Rep. Goodlatte’s comments on the compromise represented by the legislation in explaining his no vote: Any amendment to this compromise threatens to stop this legislation dead in its tracks. This is not mere speculation. House leadership had all but assured us that if the bill is amended, it will not be considered on the House floor. However, Rep. Conyers and others who voted against the amendment expressed clear support for what the amendment would have done. Rep Goodlatte noted, “this committee will exercise its jurisdiction on this and soon. We will hold a hearing on this . . .” Echoing Rep. Goodlatte’s sentiments, Rep. Darrell Issa noted: If I get an opportunity to vote for it on a bill that cannot be blown up by the House leadership and/or the Senate, I will vote for it, and I think that is what we need to do. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner also said that he supports the policy, but stated, “The time and the place to do this is when Section 702 comes up for reauthorization.” The sentiment that the FISA Amendments Act expiration is the right time for 702 reform was echoed by several others as well. But the FISA Amendments Act doesn’t expire until December 31, 2017. We don’t think reform to this unconstitutional spying bill should wait that long.

NSAReforming the NSA costs political capital Burnett 14 – retired Silicon Valley executive Bob, Why Hasn't Obama Reined in NSA?, Huffington Post, 1/10/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/obama-nsa_b_4574910.htmlObama decided not to expend political capital changing it. Given the economic problems he inherited from George Bush, plus the difficulty of working with a divided Congress, Obama may have decided it was not worth the effort to rein in the NSA. That's been true of national security in general. Obama had increased defense spending, expanded the national-security state, and maintained the hundreds of US military bases that dot the globe. Obama tried to shut down Guantanamo but was thwarted by Congress.

NSA reforms cost political capital – Republicans opposeRoberts 6/1 (Dan, The Guardian’s Washington Bureau chief, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/charges-against-edward-snowden-stand-despite-telephone-surveillance-ban)

But the White House placed itself firmly on the side of NSA reform, when asked if the president was “taking ownership” of the USA Freedom Act, which is expected to pass Congress later this week. “To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I would suspect [it] would be a logical conclusion from some historians that the president ended some of these programmes,” replied Earnest. “This is consistent with the reforms that the president advocated a year and a half ago. And these are reforms that required the president and his team to expend significant amounts of political capital to achieve over the objection of Republicans.” The administration also avoided four separate opportunities to warn that the temporary loss of separate Patriot Act surveillance provisions that expired alongside bulk collection on Sunday night had put the safety of Americans at risk, as some have claimed. “All I can do is I can illustrate to you very clearly that there are tools that had previously been available to our national security professionals that are not available today because the Senate didn’t do their job,” said Earnest. “As a result, there are programmes and tools that our national security professionals themselves say are important to their work that are not available to them right now, as we speak.”

AT: Freedom ActFreedom Act was symbolic and doesn’t non-unique the DA – inability of Congress to get more done proves the link – reforms with more teeth would be controversialFroomkin 6/2 [Dan Froomkin, June 2nd 2015, D.C., USA FREEDOM ACT: SMALL STEP FOR POST-SNOWDEN REFORM, GIANT LEAP FOR CONGRESS, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/02/one-small-step-toward-post-snowden-surveillance-reform-one-giant-step-congress/]MantisExactly two years after journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras traveled to Hong Kong to meet an NSA whistleblower named Edward Snowden, Congress has finally brought itself to reform one surveillance program out of the multitude he revealed — a program so blatantly out of line that its end was a foregone conclusion as soon as it was exposed. The USA Freedom Act passed the House in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote three weeks ago. After hardliner Republicans lost a prolonged game of legislative chicken, the Senate gave its approval Tuesday afternoon as well, by a 67 to 32 margin. The bill officially ends 14 years of unprecedented bulk collection of domestic phone records by the NSA, replacing it with a program that requires the government to make specific requests to the phone companies. After Snowden’s leak of NSA documents revealed it, the program was repeatedly found to violate the law, first by legal experts and blue-ribbon panels, and just last month by a federal appellate court. Its rejection by Congress is hardly a radical act — it simply reasserts the meaning of the word “relevant” (the language of the statute) as distinct from “everything” (how the government interpreted it). After 14 years of rubber-stamping executive-branch requests for pretty much anything related to terrorism, Congress had an extraordinary moment of opportunity to pass genuine reform. The Snowden revelations had changed the public’s attitude about government surveillance. And three provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire. The provisions did expire after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeatedly failed to stampede the Senate into extending them as is. Loath to vindicate Snowden, McConnell and most of the Republican majority took a position even more extreme than that of the White House and the intelligence community, both of which had declared themselves satisfied with the modest changes in the defanged compromise legislation.McConnell and other fearmongers   issued   dire warnings   until the very end. “The Senate is voting to take away one more tool from those who defend this country every day,” he said TuesdayMcConnell tried to get support for “some discrete and sensible improvements” to the Freedom Act on Tuesday, but failed. In one last stand before his final defeat, he refused to allow debate on   several amendments that would have given the reforms more teeth.

Internals

Yes SpilloverDomestic policies spillover—drain Obama’s ability to modify Cuba policy Lee 7/2 – Wall Street Journal Carol, White House Gears Up for Domestic-Policy Offensive, 7/2/15, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/02/white-house-gears-up-for-domestic-policy-offensive/The challenge for Mr. Obama will be in the places where his domestic and foreign policy agendas intersect . The president has limited political capital in Congress . And he needs lawmakers to back–or at least not amass a veto-proof majority

opposition to–a nuclear deal with Iran if one is finalized in coming days. He’ll also need to generate enough support among Republican and Democratic lawmakers for lifting the embargo on Cuba, which on Wednesday he again called on Congress to do as he announced finalized plans to open an American embassy in Havana.

Issues spillover – horse-trading occurs on unrelated issuesBeckman 10 – Professor of Political ScienceMatthew N. Beckman, Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine, 2010, “Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004,” pg. 59

This key point about agenda-centered lobbying leads to the final insight: because the president seeks a "deal" that is worse for leading opponents than what they could get by challenging him, the administration must compensate these leading opponents to offset the difference. This "horse-trading" can be on exogenous issues - for example, a different bill , an executive or judicial nomination, or some other executive-controlled offering - but often occurs within the confines of the same bill. Typically, the president's part of the logroll is included as the bill's first title, leading opponents' part as its second.

PC Theory TruePolitical capital key to the agendaHill ‘10 Dell [http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/05/obama-political-capital-tank-running-on-empty/] Obama’s Political Capital Tank Running On Empty/May 2)

Basically, political capital is the currency of politics.  It’s what one politician uses to convince another politician to support a particular piece of legislation.  Some would call it “one hand washing the other” and that’s a fair analogy.   For the President to advance a political agenda, political capital is his fuel tank to get things done.   He wheels and deals – all the while using that political fuel tank to get what he ultimately wants, and some agendas consume incredible amounts of that fuel.   ObamaCare, for instance, required an enormous amount of political capital to get enacted.   It has become the centerpiece of the Obama administration and is, quite frankly, about the only real victory the President can claim, but it came at a tremendous cost, literally and figuratively.

Political capital key and finiteMcClellan ‘9 – Professor of Political Science at Elizabethtown CollegeE. Fletcher McClellan is professor and Chair of the political science department at Elizabethtown College, Checking In, Patriot News, April 26, 2009, LN

Presidents make decisions, and it will soon be time for Obama to choose. So far he has had the luxury, if it can be called that, of justifying his actions as responses to economic crisis and the failed policies of his opponents. For their part, the Republicans have played the role of Washington Generals to Obama's Globetrotters, providing little in the way of credible alternatives to the president's plans. As Obama's predecessors discovered, political capital and time are finite resources. These are anxious times, and the public does not have unlimited patience. Though ridiculed for their manufactured character, the recent "tea party" protests, estimated to involve more than 300,000 participants nationwide, indicate that there are political boundaries to government spending and public debt. The same phenomenon is happening in Washington. Powerful lobbies and their Congressional allies are lining up to block the president's proposals to cut costly defense projects and curb corporate subsidies. Obama's plans for raising revenue, including his "cap and trade" proposal to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, are meeting stiff resistance. Taking a different approach, traditional opponents of health care reform such as the pharmaceutical industry are advocating expansion of the existing Medicaid program so as to prevent the adoption of a new public health insurance option. The unanswered question of the first 100 days is what is Obama willing to fight for? Is it health care? Energy independence? Tax cuts

for the middle class? If the history of recent presidents is any guide, there will come a time when Obama must shed his cool demeanor, abandon the soothing rhetoric, and draw a line in the sand. You don't have to believe in global warming to know that it will be a hot summer in the nation's capitol.

PC Theory True—StudiesAcademic studies go our way Schier 9Professor of Political Science at Carleton, (Steven, "Understanding the Obama Presidency," The Forum: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Berkely Electronic Press, http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol7/iss1/art10)

In additional to formal powers, a president’s informal power is situationally derived and highly variable. Informal power is a function of the “ political capital ” presidents amass and deplete as they operate in office. Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the presidential conduct of his job, the President’s electoral margin and patronage appointments (Light 1983, 15). Richard Neustadt’s concept of a president’s “professional reputation” likewise figures into his political capital. Neustadt defines this as the “impressions in the Washington community about the skill and will with which he puts [his formal powers] to use” (Neustadt 1990, 185). In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush’s political capital surged, and both the public and Washington elites granted him a broad ability to prosecute the war on terror. By the later stages of Bush’s troubled second term, beset by a lengthy and unpopular occupation of Iraq and an aggressive Democratic Congress, he found that his political capital had shrunk. Obama’s informal powers will prove variable, not stable, as is always the case for presidents. Nevertheless, he entered office with a formidable store of political capital. His solid electoral victory means he initially will receive high public support and strong backing from fellow Congressional partisans, a combination that will allow him much leeway in his presidential appointments and with his policy agenda. Obama probably enjoys the prospect of a happier honeymoon during his first year than did George W. Bush, who entered office amidst continuing controversy over the 2000 election outcome. Presidents usually employ power to disrupt the political order they inherit in order to reshape it according to their own agendas. Stephen Skowronek argues that “presidents disrupt systems, reshape political landscapes, and pass to successors leadership challenges that are different from the ones just faced” (Skowronek 1997, 6). Given their limited time in office and the hostile political alignments often

present in Washington policymaking networks and among the electorate, presidents must force political change if they are to enact their agendas . In recent decades, Washington power structures have become

more entrenched and elaborate (Drucker 1995) while presidential powers – through increased use of executive orders and legislative delegation (Howell 2003) –have also grown. The presidency has more powers in the early 21st century but also faces more entrenched coalitions of interests, lawmakers, and bureaucrats whose agendas often differ from that of the president. This is an invitation for an energetic president – and that seems to describe Barack Obama – to engage in major ongoing battles to impose his preferences .

AT HirshHirsh concedes political capital matters Hirsh 13Michael, chief correspondent, There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital, 2/7/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207

The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term . Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept ,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and

say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters , if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.”

AT Winners WinWinner’s don’t win and PC is finite – empirics prove and especially true in the context of Obama Eberly 13 – political science assistant professor @ St. Mary’s College Todd, “The presidential power trap” [http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-george-hw-bush-party-support/2] January 21 //mtc

As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little of what he hopes to accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass. Mr. Obama occupies an office that many assume to be all powerful, but like so many of his recent predecessors, the president

knows better. He faces a political capital problem and a power trap.¶ In the post-1960s

American political system, presidents have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To lead well, a president needs support — or at least permission — from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful, entrenched interest groups; and accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements. If presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the prospect of inadequate political support or political capital to back their power assertions. ¶ What was so crucial about the 1960s? We can trace so much of what defines contemporary politics to trends that emerged then. Americans' confidence in government began a precipitous decline as the tumult and tragedies of the 1960s gave way to the scandals and economic uncertainties of the 1970s. Long-standing party coalitions began to fray as the New Deal coalition, which had elected Franklin Roosevelt to four terms and made Democrats the indisputable majority party, faded into history. The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the two parties began ideologically divergent journeys that resulted in intense polarization in Congress, diminishing the possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes, combined with the growing influence of money and interest groups and the steady "thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to presidential leadership.¶ Political capital can best be understood as a combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the president's electoral victory margin. The components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval, congressional support and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times past. In recent years, presidents' political capital has shrunk while their power assertions have grown, making the president a volatile player in the national political system.¶ Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald Reagan was elected in two landslides, yet his most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less than majority support, and despite a strong economy during his second term, his greatest legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of a controversial but crucial budget bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000 having lost the popular vote, and though his impact on national security policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001. Ambitious plans for Social Security reform, following his narrow re-election in 2004, went nowhere.¶ Faced with obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of important executive orders has increased significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct policy on their terms. Presidents have had to rely more on recess appointments as well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional recess (even a weekend recess) to avoid delays and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny and often further erode political capital.¶ Barack Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first year and early

into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned . His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government.¶

By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval had slipped well below its initial levels, and Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support and rising congressional opposition, Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, looked to the energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to

allow homeowners to more easily refinance federally backed mortgages, to help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student loan debt. He issued several executive orders effecting change in the nation's enforcement of existing immigration laws. He used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act — though the enacting legislation makes no accommodation for such waivers. Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's actions were hardly unprecedented or imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a contemporary president.¶ Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present trends. But Barack Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and Democratic majority Senate, hardly signals a grand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital.¶ Only by solving the problem of political capital

is a president likely to avoid a power trap. Presidents in recent years have been unable to prevent their political capital from eroding . When it did, their power assertions often got them into

further political trouble. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able to overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure important policy changes — in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax cuts and education reform — that at the time received popular approval.¶ However, short-term legislative strategies may win policy success for a

president but do not serve as an antidote to declining political capital over time , as the difficult final years of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate. None of Barack Obama's recent predecessors solved the political capital problem or avoided the power trap. It is the central political challenge confronted by modern presidents and one that will likely weigh heavily on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.

Health care and energy prove winners don’t win – capital is finiteLashof ‘10Dan Lashof, director of the National Resource Defense Council's climate center, Ph.D. from the Energy and Resources Group at UC-Berkeley, 7-28-2010, NRDC Switchboard Blog, "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda: Lessons from Senate Climate Fail," http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/coulda_shoulda_woulda_lessons.html

Lesson 2: Political capital is not necessarily a renewable resourc e . Perhaps the most fateful decision the Obama administration made early on was to move healthcare reform before energy and climate legislation. I’m sure this seemed like a good idea at the time. Healthcare reform was popular, was seen as an issue that the public cared about on a personal level, and was expected to unite Democrats from all regions. White House officials and Congressional leaders reassured environmentalists with their theory that success breeds success. A quick victory on healthcare reform would renew Obama’s political capital, some of which had to be spent early on to push the economic stimulus bill through Congress with no Republican help. Healthcare reform was eventually enacted, but only after an exhausting battle that eroded public support, drained political capital and created the Tea Party movement . Public support for healthcare reform is slowly rebounding as some of the early benefits kick in and people realize that the forecasted Armageddon is not happening. But t his is occurring too slowly to rebuild Obama’s political capital in time to help push climate legislation across the finish line .

Impacts

Engagement—Embargo KeyLifting the embargo boosts international engagement – that increases our negotiating leverage with regimes like Iran and North KoreaKlaas Hinderdael, Associate Case Manager at Kroll risk management, 6/11/11 (Breaking the Logjam: Obama's Cuba Policy and a Guideline for Improved Leadership, http://bcjournal.org/volume-14/breaking-the-logjam.html?printerFriendly=true)In the context of Raúl shifting course in Cuba, the Obama administration has the opportunity to highlight the benefits of both the use of soft power and a foreign policy of engagement. As evidence mounts that the United States is ready to engage countries that enact domestic reforms, its legitimacy and influence will grow. Perhaps future political leaders, in Iran or North Korea for example , will be more willing to make concessions knowing that the United States will return in kind . The United States should not wait for extensive democratization before further engaging Cuba, however. One legacy of the Cold War is that Communism has succeeded only where it grew out of its own, often nationalistic, revolutions. As it has with China and Vietnam, the United States should look closely at the high payoffs stemming from engagement. By improving relations, America can enhance its own influence on the island’s political structure and human rights policies. At home, with the trade deficit and national debt rising, the economic costs of the embargo are amplified. Recent studies estimate that the US economy foregoes up to $4.84 billion a year and the Cuban economy up to $685 million a year.50 While US-Cuban economic interests align, political considerations inside America have shifted, as “commerce seems to be trumping anti-Communism and Florida ideologues.”51 Clearly, public opinion also favors a new Cuba policy, with 65 percent of Americans now ready for a shift in the country’s approach to its neighboring island.52 At this particular moment in the history of US-Cuban relations, there is tremendous promise for a breakthrough in relations. In a post-Cold War world, Cuba no longer presents a security threat to the united States, but instead provides it with economic potential. American leaders cannot forget the fact that an economic embargo, combined with diplomatic isolation, has failed to bring democracy to Cuba for over 50 years. American policymakers should see Cuba as an opportunity to reap the political, economic, and strategic rewards of shifting its own policies toward engagement. By ending the economic embargo and normalizing diplomatic relations with the island, President Obama would indicate that he is truly willing to extend his hand once America’s traditional adversaries unclench their fists.

Engagement—Yes Asia WarAsia outweighs all other impacts—It has the greatest risk of nuclear war that involves the superpowers with the most nuclear weapons, is key to the global economy, is key to global democracyMead 10Mead, senior fellow @ the Council on Foreign Relations, 2010 Walter, American Interest, “Obama in Asia”, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/11/09/obama-in-asia/

The decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological affiliation.  East and South Asia are the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will most likely be shaped; economic growth, environmental progress, the destiny of democracy and success against terror are all at stake here .   American objectives in this region are clear.  While convincing China that its best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelm-like dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or contain China.  We want a strong, rich, open and free China in an Asia that is also strong, rich, open and free.  Our destiny is inextricably linked with Asia’s ; Asian success will make America stronger, richer and more secure.   Asia’s failures will reverberate over here , threatening our prosperity, our security and perhaps even our survival. The world’s two most mutually hostile nuclear states, India and Pakistan, are in Asia .   The two states most likely to threaten others with nukes, North Korea and aspiring rogue nuclear power Iran, are there.   The two superpowers with a billion plus people are in Asia as well.   This is where the world’s fastest growing economies are.   It is where the worst environmental problems exist.   It is the home of the world’s largest democracy , the world’s most populous Islamic country (Indonesia — which is also among the most democratic and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the world’s most rapidly rising non-democratic power as well.  Asia holds more oil resources than any other continent; the world’s most important and most threatened trade routes lie off its shores.  East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia (where American and NATO forces are fighting the Taliban) and West Asia (home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are the theaters in the world today that most directly engage America’s vital interests and where our armed forces are most directly involved.  The world’s most explosive territorial disputes are in Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery resources) bitterly disputed between countries like Russia, the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and Vietnam.  From the streets of Jerusalem to the beaches of Taiwan the world’s most intractable political problems are found on the Asian landmass and its surrounding seas. Whether you view the world in terms of geopolitical security, environmental sustainability, economic growth or the march of democracy, Asia is at the center of your concerns.  That is the overwhelming reality of world politics today, and that reality is what President Obama’s trip is intended to address

Conflict in Asia goes nuclearChakraborty 10United Service Institution of India“The Initiation & Outlook of ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) Plus Eight,” http://www.usiofindia.org/Article/?pub=Strategic%20Perspective&pubno=20&ano=739

The first ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus Eight (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and the USA) was held on the 12th of October. When this frame work of ADMM Plus Eight came into news for the first time it was seen as a development which could be the initiating step to a much needed security architecture in the Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific is fast emerging as the economic center of the world, consequently securing of vulnerable economic assets has becomes mandatory. The source of threat to economic assets is basically unconventional in nature like natural disasters, terrorism and maritime piracy. This coupled with the conventional security threats and flashpoints based on territorial disputes and political differences are very much a part of the region posing a major security challenge . As mentioned ADMM Plus Eight can be seen as the first initiative on such a large scale where the security concerns of the region can be discussed and areas of cooperation can be explored to keep the threats at bay. The defence ministers of the ten ASEAN nations and the eight extra regional countries (Plus Eight) during the meeting have committed to cooperation and dialogue to counter insecurity in the region. One of the major reasons for initiation of such a framework has been the new face of threat which is non-conventional and transnational which makes it very difficult for an actor to deal with it in isolation. Threats related to violent extremism, maritime security, vulnerability of SLOCs, transnational crimes have a direct and indirect bearing on the path of economic

growth. Apart from this the existence of territorial disputes especially on the maritime front plus the issues related to political differences, rise of China and dispute on the Korean Peninsula has aggravated the security dilemma in the region giving rise to areas of potential conflict. This can be seen as a more of a conventional threat to the region. The question here is that how far this ADMM Plus Eight can go to address the conventional security threats or is it an initiative which would be confined to meetings and passing resolution and playing second fiddle to the ASEAN summit. It is very important to realize that when one is talking about effective security architecture for the Asia Pacific one has to talk in terms of addressing the conventional issues like the territorial and political disputes. These issues serve as bigger flashpoint which can snowball into a major conflict which has the possibility of turning into a nuclear conflict.

1nc Cuba RelationsEnding the embargo is key to US/Latin American relationsRobert White, Senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, 3/7/13 (After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba, www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas. I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century. Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations. Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas larga” — “the longest night” — began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-Communism. During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service. The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes. After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.” Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United States and Canada — as an alternative. At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.” Mr. Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor. Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America’s leading statesman at the time,

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with

Cuba. Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America , as it had been since the very

early years of the Castro regime. After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk hero. And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas — are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.) Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive? The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help. Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments. If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin Americ a . While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote .

Relations are key to solve proliferationIAD ’12 [Inter-American Dialogue, research organization with majority of Board of Directors from Latin American and Caribbean nations, “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]

Many of the issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global ¶ dimensions . Because of this, the United States should seek greater ¶ cooperation and consultation with Brazil, Mexico, and other countries of ¶ the region in world forums addressing shared interests .¶ Brazil has the broadest international presence and influence of any Latin ¶ American nation . In recent years it has become far more active on global ¶ issues of concern to the United States . The United States and Brazil have ¶ clashed over such issues as Iran’s nuclear program, non-proliferation, and ¶ the Middle East uprisings, but they have cooperated when their interests ¶ converged, such as in the World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, ¶ Argentina, and Canada also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to ¶ rebuild and provide security for Haiti . Washington has worked with Brazil ¶ and other Latin American countries to raise the profile of emerging economies in various international financial agencies , including the World Bank ¶ and the International Monetary Fund .¶ In addition to economic and financial matters, Brazil and other Latin ¶ American nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of global political, environmental, and security issues . Several for which US and Latin ¶ American cooperation could become increasingly important include: ¶ As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region, Latin America has the ¶ opportunity to participate more actively in non-proliferation efforts .¶ Although US and Latin American interests do not always converge ¶ on non-proliferation questions, they align on some related goals . For ¶ example, the main proliferation challenges today are found in developing and unstable parts of the world, as well as in the leakage—or transfer ¶ of nuclear materials—to terrorists . In that context, south-south connections are crucial . Brazil could play a pivotal role.

Proliferation causes extinctionUtgoff 2’Utgoff, 2002 (Deputy Director of the Strategy Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses, Victor, “Proliferation, Missile Defence, and American Ambitions,” Survival, Volume 44, Number 2, Summer)First, the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous.

Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent's nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons. Second, as the world approaches complete proliferation, the hazards posed by nuclear weapons today will be magnified many times over. Fifty or more nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the risk of nuclear accidents that could cause serious damage not only to their own populations and environments, but those of others, is hugely increased. The chances of such weapons falling into the hands of renegade military units or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out hazardous manufacturing and storage activities. Worse still, in a highly proliferated world there would be more frequent opportunities for the use of nuclear weapons. And more frequent opportunities means shorter expected times between conflicts in which nuclear weapons get used, unless the probability of use at any opportunity is actually zero. To be sure, some theorists on nuclear deterrence appear to think that in any confrontation between two states known to have reliable nuclear capabilities, the probability of nuclear weapons being used is zero .3 These theorists think that such states will be so fearful of escalation to nuclear war that they would always avoid or terminate confrontations between them, short of even conventional war. They believe this to be true even if the two states have different cultures or leaders with very eccentric personalities. History and human nature, however, suggest that they are almost surely wrong. History includes instances in which states known to possess nuclear weapons did engage in direct conventional conflict. China and Russia fought battles along their common border even after both had nuclear weapons. Moreover, logic suggests that if states with nuclear weapons always avoided conflict with one another, surely states without nuclear weapons would avoid conflict with states that had them. Again, history provides counter-examples. Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 even though it saw Israel as a nuclear power at the time. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and fought Britain's efforts to take them back, even though Britain had nuclear weapons. Those who claim that two states with reliable nuclear capabilities to devastate each other will not engage in conventional conflict risking nuclear war also assume that any leader from any culture would not choose suicide for his nation. But history provides unhappy examples of states whose leaders were ready to choose suicide for themselves and their fellow citizens. Hitler tried to impose a 'victory or destruction' policy on his people as Nazi Germany was going down to defeat 4 And Japan's war minister, during debates on how to respond to the American atomic bombing, suggested 'Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?'5 If leaders are willing to engage in conflict with

nuclear-armed nations, use of nuclear weapons in any particular instance may not be likely, but its probability would still be dangerously significant. In particular, human nature suggests that the threat of retaliation with nuclear weapons is not a reliable guarantee against a disastrous first use of these weapons. While national leaders and their advisors everywhere are usually talented and experienced people, even their most important decisions cannot be counted on to be the product of well-informed and thorough assessments of all options from all relevant points of view. This is especially so when the stakes are so large as to defy assessment and there are substantial pressures to act quickly, as could be expected in intense and fast-moving crises between nuclear-armed states.' Instead, like other human beings, national leaders can be seduced by wishful thinking. They can misinterpret the words or actions of opposing leaders. Their advisors may produce answers that they think the leader wants to hear, or coalesce around what they know is an inferior decision because the group urgently needs the confidence or the sharing of responsibility that results from settling on something. Thus, both history and human nature suggest that nuclear deterrence can be expected to fail from time to time, and we are fortunate it has not happened yet. But the threat of nuclear war is not just a matter of a few weapons being used. It could get much worse. Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would rise enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressures to force the enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances, but maybe not. And the horrors of the carnage already suffered may be: seen as, justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.' Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way to essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other's cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants beforehand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the, late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations

Relations—Embargo KeyFailing to lift the embargo now dooms relations foreverWhite, ’13 [3/7/13, Robert E. White, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, was the United States ambassador to Paraguay from 1977 to 1979 and to El Salvador from 1980 to 1981, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba”, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all]FOR most of our history, the United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a partnership with Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, thepostwar treaty that pledged the United States to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America. Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities . The death this week of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity . Throughout his

career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress. An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas . I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century. Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations. Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas larga” — “the longest night” — began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-Communism. During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service. The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes. After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any

conventional conception of the national interest.” Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United States and Canada — as an alternative. At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.” Mr. Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor. Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba. Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime. After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk hero. And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas — are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.) Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive? The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help. Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments. If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America . While Washington would c ontinue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating i n matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.

Relations—Solves ProlifRelations are key to preventing Latin American proliferation and nuclear terrorismFerkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing

Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12, ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)The policy implications for the United States are to maintain the role of a guiding figure in Latin American developments. The stakes for the US have never been higher. In a region that has a strong history of domestic terrorism and stratocracy, strong oversight is warranted. The current US administration’s policy on nuclear deterrence is that the threat of a nuclear attack from a sovereign state has gone down, but the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists has gone up. No region of the world is closer to the US or has a greater ease of access to the US border than Latin America. Therefore, it is vital that the US continue providing antiterrorism training to key Latin American states, offer economic assistance and encourage mutual cooperation and information sharing among allied states. Once this is accomplished, Latin American nuclear proliferation will cease to be a factor in the terrorist activity that threatens each state to this day. The mutual cooperation will help to diminish the activities of groups like the FARC and the AUC. Furthermore, international groups such as Al Qaida and Hezbollah will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons should they develop a stronger presence in the region. A blind eye should also not be turned towards states that overtly refuse to cooperate in the GWOT. States like Venezuela and Nicaragua should not be left to their own devices. The relationships that are being built with Russia and Iran must also be carefully monitored. Venezuela may not be very close to a nuclear weapon, but the technology and applied sciences it receives from both Iran and Russia has the potential to speed up its development. It has already failed to acquire technology from its neighbors, so the US must continue to solidify its relations with states like Brazil and Argentina and discourage any relations with Iran. If its leaders and diplomats can continue to press that issue, it can curb the increase in trade between Latin America and Iran and end the political and diplomatic connections Iran has been forming in recent years. Above any other measure, the US must ensure that every Latin American nation knows that it cares about the development and defense of the region. If that region is secure, the US is secure; and as long as the region struggles with terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the US will be there to support it in every way possible.

Relations—Prolif BadProliferation increases the risk of nuclear warCFR 9’http://www.cfr.org/publication/19226/us_nuclear_weapons_policy. “US Nuclear Weapons Policy.” Council on Foreign Relations April 2009. Increasing global access to weapons-usable nuclear materials, and the technologies used to make them, has substantially challenged the United States in its mission of preventing nuclear weapons acquisition and use. Further proliferation will likely raise the risks of strategic miscalculation and increase the probability of nuclear use, particularly if it happens quickly and involves actors that oppose the mainstream international order. Presently, seven states—China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have demonstrated the capability to make nuclear weapons; Israel is widely believed to have the capability but has not explicitly acknowledged this status as a matter of policy; and though North Korea detonated a low-yield nuclear device in October 2006, it may not yet have the ability to deploy nuclear weapons.

Proliferation won’t be stable – intentional or accidental use becomes likelyOng 2000Graham Gerard Ong, officer with the Ministry of Information and the Arts (Singapore), 2000, http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/Vol27_2/Denying%20Armageddon.htmMilitary analyst Roger Hilsman in his recent book, From Nuclear Military Strategy to a World Without War5, draws up six possible scenarios of "Armageddon" or nuclear war of a global scale that mankind can face in the near future: · Scenario 1: Group sponsored nuclear terrorism. A terrorist organisation might smuggle a small suitcase type nuclear bomb in a city of a major power and set it off to dramatise its demands. · Scenario 2: State sponsored nuclear terrorism. An "outlaw" state that acquires or manufactures nuclear weapons may try to provoke a war between the US and Russia or the US and China by sending agents to set off nuclear devices in the capitols of these countries. · Scenario 3: Nuclear war between third and fourth countries. A good possibility is India and Pakistan. Both have tested nuclear weapons, and in the case of war are very likely to use them. · Scenario 4: A war between Israel and a Muslim state in the Middle East. Israel is known to have built a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Countries such as Iraq and Iran have engaged in nuclear weapons activities before. If any of these or other Muslim states acquire such weapons, a war with Israel could easily escalate into nuclear warfare. · Scenario 5: Nuclear war between nuclear powers purely by accident. Hilsman predicts that the number of states possessing nuclear weapons will rise such that in a decade or two, several dozen countries will have such weapons. The chances for miscalculation will be proportionately higher in launching such weapons. · Scenario 6: The "bolt from the blue" scenario. This is a war that starts when one nuclear state attacks an adversary without warning during a period of low international tension and succeeds in achieving surprise. Countries that have autocratic governments allow an irrational leader to carry out such attacks based on hatred and anger without much opposition.

AT Embargo GoodNo offense – the embargo has repeatedly failed to liberalize Cuban governance and solidifies support for regime hardlinersBandow 12 (Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan. December 11, 2012, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo”, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo

The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a century. The policy may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the embargo has failed to liberate the Cuban people. It is time to end sanctions against Havana. Decades ago the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a nasty authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista. After coming to power in 1959, they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized American assets, and allied with the Soviet Union. Although Cuba was but a small island nation, the Cold War magnified its perceived importance. Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited, diplomatic ties were severed, travel was restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havana’s American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washington also pressed its allies to impose sanctions. These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cuba’s reliance on the Soviet Union. Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba and in 1996, it penalized foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were banned from traveling to America. On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued to tighten restrictions, even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, Customs and Border Protection increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an increased risk of embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, eliminated the allowance for travelers to import a small amount

of Cuban products for personal consumption. Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the president’s discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free. It is far past time to end the embargo. During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washington’s best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship. However, the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability

to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest. The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a

State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect. The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.”

Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo , maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.” Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited

Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.” Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved

an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag. Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments. In 1994, John Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation declared that “the embargo remains the only effective instrument available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime more quickly.” The latter’s collapse, he wrote, is more likely in the near term than ever before. Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, retains faith in the embargo: “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered.” One of the best definitions of insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting to achieve different results. The embargo survives largely because of Florida’s political importance. Every presidential candidate wants to win the Sunshine State’s electoral votes, and the Cuban American community is a significant voting bloc. But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana: “for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in policy.” And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba. Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in the United States. Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans

after liberalizing contacts with the island. He also would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential politically. Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: “The embargo doesn’t work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All

the problems he has, he blames the American embargo.” There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. Spain’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gonzalo de Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope, then, is to move forward in the relationship between the European Union and Cuba. The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least

significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island. Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually.

Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites. Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform

makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, “American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.” The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way. The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.”

But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people. Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial

engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad.” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

Cuba embargo fails to create reform—lifting it unilaterally key to create prerequisite conditions Birns and Mills 13—director and senior research fellow @ Council on Hemispheric Affairs Larry and Frederick“Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now” [http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/]

The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and that political repression continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo as a tool for coercing either more dramatic reforms or regime change. It is true that the reformist tendency in Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a one party system to political pluralism. Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of non-violent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors agree that no non-violent Cuban dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for more democracy in any sense of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The easing of tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more democratic form of socialism on the island, the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in Cuba, not in Washington or Miami.

**Aff

Uniqueness

2ac Won’t PassNo Cuba legislation—massive opposition in CongressKim 7/2 – Politico Seung Min, Why the GOP Congress could be trouble for Obama in Cuba, 7/2/15, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/why-the-gop-congress-could-be-trouble-for-obama-in-cuba-119668.htmlPresident Barack Obama knows he didn’t need Congress to formally relaunch a U.S. Embassy in Cuba. But Republicans are already plotting revenge for when Obama does need them down the road. Within hours of Obama’s announcement to open an embassy in Cuba, Republicans in Congress were threatening to deny funding to the embassy while blocking any ambassador to lead it — underscoring the deep antipathy toward Obama’s Cuba policy on Capitol Hill. And lifting that decades-old embargo? Fat chance, Republicans say. “The support to keep pressure on the Castro regime is stronger now than it has ever been in Congress,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), a Cuban-American lawmaker and one of the most vocal critics of Obama’s Cuba policy, said in an interview. Obama has already acted without Congress, easing some trade and travel restrictions to Cuba as well as taking the island nation off the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. But the White House would need lawmakers to green-light funding for an embassy and to officially end the embargo. Though he appears unlikely to nominate a permanent ambassador, that would take Congress’ assent, too. Obama has some congressional allies on Cuba, mostly Democrats but also a handful of Republicans. After that, it’s a wall of opposition, from GOP leadership that opposes restoring full diplomatic relations, to committee chairs skeptical of the administration’s Cuba policy, to a raft of Republican presidential contenders waving a loud megaphone to showcase their Cuba opposition. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a 2016 presidential candidate who is of Cuban descent, said in a statement Wednesday that he would work to block funding for a U.S. Embassy in Cuba and any nominee for ambassador Obama recommends, “unless and until the president can demonstrate that he has made some progress in alleviating the misery of our friends, the people of Cuba.” The Obama administration doesn’t need Congress’s approval to simply switch its existing “interests section” in Havana to a full-fledged embassy. But it would need lawmakers to sign off on additional funding. The State Department asked Congress for roughly $6 million for fiscal 2016 to convert the interests section to an embassy. It’s clear the current building would need upgrades: A May 2014 inspector general report said the facility, located on the waterfront Malecón boulevard in Havana, is “subject to high winds and salt air and requires constant attention.” Administration officials “believe that they have the resources available in the State Department to at least start the embassy,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in an interview Wednesday. Republicans “cannot stop the president from his policy change; they can embarrass the United States by limiting investment.” But Republicans have already shown plenty of appetite for a Cuba fight. House Republicans have a funding bill for the State Department that restricts money for an embassy or a similar diplomatic facility in Havana, beyond funds already in place before Obama’s announcement in December to normalize relations with Cuba. The measure would also bar money from being spent on opening a Cuban embassy in Washington. It’s unclear when the State Department appropriations bill, which has already cleared a House committee, would come to the floor. It wasn’t on a list of legislation released Wednesday that House Republicans will take up in July. The Senate hasn’t yet released its funding bill for the State Department. But the lawmaker who would spearhead it is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who chairs the panel that oversees State funding and vowed in December to use every tool in his power to block funds for an embassy in Cuba. Senate aides didn’t indicate Wednesday whether the chamber’s funding bill for the State Department would include such restrictions. The Senate Appropriations Committee will take up that bill next week. “As president, I would not honor this decision with Cuba and I would close the embassy until the Castro brothers actually change their behavior,” Graham, another 2016 contender, said Wednesday. Another key leverage point Republicans would have is if Obama nominates an ambassador to Cuba. But given deep opposition from the likes of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Cruz and others, and the likelihood of a drawn-out nomination battle he might not win, Obama might decide against it. If he choose to not nominate an ambassador, observers have said the U.S. Embassy could function without one. The U.S. currently has a chief of mission at the interests section in Havana: Jeffrey DeLaurentis, who is considered a top contender for the ambassadorship. He’ll become the chargé d’affaires as soon as diplomatic relations are normalized. Durbin, a strong advocate of

normalizing ties with Cuba, conceded that the prospects for confirming an ambassador were slim in the GOP-led Senate. “We have three Cuban-American senators and any one of them, if they decided to, could be a hold on that ambassador,” said Durbin, referring to Rubio, Cruz and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Still, the Obama administration’s Cuba overtures have driven a rift through Capitol Hill that doesn’t fall neatly along party lines. For instance, some Senate Republicans representing farm states such as Jerry Moran of Kansas favor opening up more relations with Cuba, since more agricultural exports there could be an economic boon back home. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) was part of the congressional mission that rescued Alan Gross, a U.S. contractor held by the Cuban government for five years until his release in December. Flake praised Obama’s steps to open an embassy, saying it would lead to more travel and contacts between U.S. citizens and Cubans. “It’s long past time for U.S. policy toward Cuba to be associated with something other than five decades of failure,” Flake said. Flake is pushing legislation that would end the travel ban on U.S. citizens and legal residents to Cuba; it’s backed by more than 40 other senators, including a half-dozen Republicans. Another bill, by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), that would end the Cuba trade embargo has 17 co-sponsors. Notably, both measures are backed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a 2016 presidential hopeful who sparred with Rubio in December over Cuba, saying the Florida senator was “acting like an isolationist who wants to retreat to our borders and perhaps build a moat.” (Rubio has said of Paul: “He has no idea what he’s talking about.”) But with opposition from Republican leaders and key committee chairs on the administration’s Cuba policy, those bills will have little chance of success. The top two Republicans on Capitol Hill are both strong opponents of normalizing relations with Cuba. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated again Wednesday that any conversation in the House about easing relations with Cuba would be a nonstarter.

1ar Won’t PassCongress won’t lift the embargo Parsons and Wilkinson 7/1 – Los Angeles Times Christi and Tracy, With embassies to reopen, Obama urges Congress to 'move forward' on Cuba, 7/1/15, http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-obama-embassy-cuba-20150701-story.html#page=1For now, Congress appears unlikely to lift the economic embargo, which was first imposed in the 1960s and stiffened several times, and allow U.S. businesses to invest freely in Cuba. Critics in both parties lined up Wednesday to emphasize their opposition. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Congress may not approve money for the new embassy or confirm an ambassador after Obama nominates one. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also slammed the White House move. “Once again the regime is being rewarded while they jail dissidents, silence political opponents, and harbor American fugitives and cop killers,” he said in a statement.

No Republicans support for lifting the embargo Beam 7/2 – Associated Press Adam, Mitch McConnell says Senate unlikely to confirm any envoy to Cuba, 7/2/15, http://www.pressherald.com/2015/07/02/mitch-mcconnell-says-senate-unlikely-to-confirm-any-envoy-to-cuba/Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Republican majority is unlikely to confirm an ambassador to Cuba, as the United States prepares to reopen its embassy in the communist country after more than 50 years of hostile relations. In a speech to a local chamber of commerce in Kentucky, McConnell called Cuba “a thuggish regime” that is “a haven for criminals” fleeing prosecution in the United States. “I’m having a hard time figuring out what we got out of this, you know? You would think that the normalization of relations with Cuba would be accompanied by some modification of their behavior,” McConnell said. “I don’t see any evidence at all that they are going to change their behavior. So I doubt if we’ll confirm an ambassador, they probably don’t need one.” President Obama has urged Congress to lift the country’s trade embargo with Cuba as part of his effort to re-establish ties. But McConnell noted Thursday that many of the restrictions placed on Cuba would require legislation, “and we’re going to resist that.” “It is a police state that is mired in the ’50s and ’60s,” he said. “I don’t know how it ends, but I do think there is going to be resistance.” McConnell’s comments were part of a larger criticism of Obama’s foreign policy initiatives, saying that he “can’t think of a single place, not one, where we’re in better shape now than we were when he came into office.” But McConnell said he is seeking common ground with Obama to accomplish some things at home, including passing legislation to keep the federal Highway Trust Fund solvent.

2ac PC ThumperObama spending PC on a litany of other issues Kumar 6/30 – McClatchy DC Anita, Obama: I might walk away from Iran deal, 6/30/15, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article25839220.htmlObama said that last week was a good week – which some analysts are calling his best week as president – when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage, Congress passed hard-fought trade legislation and he delivered a heartfelt eulogy for a slain pastor in Charleston. “Last week was gratifying,” he said. He said he plans to use his political capital to work with Congress to rebuild aging infrastructure, change the criminal justice system and boost job training. “I might see if we can make next week even better.”

2ac Gun Control ThumperObama spending PC on gun control Kumar 7/2 – International Business Times Kalyan, Obama Turns Gaze On Gun Control Reforms: Survey Shows Slimming Support For Obama Line On Guns, 7/2/15, http://www.ibtimes.com.au/obama-turns-gaze-gun-control-reforms-survey-shows-slimming-support-obama-line-guns-1454168Mr Obama in the past expended much of his political capital by meeting with failure in pursuing gun control reform, after the Connecticut, school shooting in 2012, in which 20 children and six adults were killed. Now the reinvigorated administration, charged up after the Supreme Court victories and broad support for his Charleston eulogy are exuding a bold confidence to act on it. Obama’s personal political listserv also sent out an email calling for supporters to "stand against gun violence," reported The Guardian.

1ar Gun Control ThumperMassive push for gun controlKumar 7/2 – International Business Times Kalyan, Obama Turns Gaze On Gun Control Reforms: Survey Shows Slimming Support For Obama Line On Guns, 7/2/15, http://www.ibtimes.com.au/obama-turns-gaze-gun-control-reforms-survey-shows-slimming-support-obama-line-guns-1454168Recent developments in the U.S. have helped president Barack Obama to revisit his unfinished agenda that includes gun control reforms. Among the land mark recent developments that buoyed Mr Obama are Supreme Court decisions on Obamacare and same-sex marriage. Then there was the nation-wide outrage over the Charleston church shootings on nine black parishioners in a South Carolina church, calling for curbs on guns. Mr Obama’s efforts to re- emerge as a "full-throated progressive" with the message of hope and change that he oozed at the start of the 2008 presidential campaign is getting a new reinforcement with the president turning his gaze into new areas of reform, including gun control. "In the past 10 days, through the intervention of America’s top judges combined with public revulsion towards the murderous actions of a white supremacist, Obama has seen the national mood shift sharply in his direction," the Guardian noted. It said Obama’s signature healthcare reform, Obamacare, has been upheld and gay marriage got elevated into a constitutional right and the Confederate flag has been torn down across South.

It’s massively unpopular Kumar 7/2 – International Business Times Kalyan, Obama Turns Gaze On Gun Control Reforms: Survey Shows Slimming Support For Obama Line On Guns, 7/2/15, http://www.ibtimes.com.au/obama-turns-gaze-gun-control-reforms-survey-shows-slimming-support-obama-line-guns-1454168Meanwhile, the CNN/ORC poll has found that only 42 percent people are approving the way Mr Obama is handling gun policy compared to 53 percent, not approving it. In the two polls in 2013, after the Sandy Hook killings, the president's approval on gun policy had reached 46 percent. The issue has serious racial undertones, with 61 percent whites disapproving of the president's gun policies and 79 percent of blacks approving it. That is why, many congressional and pro-gun sources are saying support for broad gun control and ban on new assault weapons ban are almost dead on Capitol Hill.

Links

GenericSurveillance changes are bipartisan Steinhauer and Weisman 15 – New York Times Jennifer and Jonathan, Battle Lines in G.O.P. Set Stage for Surveillance Vote, 5/30/15, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/us/surveillance-vote-in-senate-is-tangled-in-gop-debate.htmlSince 2011, when Republicans took control of the House, Congress has lurched from one deadline to the next, as Republicans and Democrats have sparred bitterly over funding for the government, the ability to lift the debt ceiling and other policy matters. But unlike those fights, the Senate’s showdown this weekend over the future of the government’s dragnet of American phone records is not a result of a partisan fracas. It is an ideological battle within the Republican Party, pitting the Senate majority leader against the speaker of the House and, in the Senate, newcomers against long-serving members, and defense hawks against a rising tide of younger, more libertarian-minded members often from Western states. Senate leaders are expected to try to assemble a compromise surveillance bill on Sunday that can get the required votes to proceed before the authorizing law expires Monday. President Obama and his director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., added more pressure with sharp statements on Friday and Saturday calling for immediate approval of a surveillance bill passed by the House. “A small group of senators is standing in the way, and, unfortunately, some folks are trying to use this debate to score political points,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. “But this shouldn’t and can’t be about politics. This is a matter of national security.” Even if a compromise can be reached in a rare Sunday session in the Senate, all signs point to at least a temporary expiration on Monday of a key section of the Patriot Act that the government has been using to sweep up vast amounts of telephone “metadata.” Last month, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would overhaul the Patriot Act and curtail the metadata surveillance exposed by Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security Agency. But in the Senate, that measure failed on a procedural vote this month, and efforts to pass a short-term extension collapsed under objections by three senators. On Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, will try again. But opponents of a quick resolution, like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, can easily force a delay. Mr. Paul said Saturday that he would move to end the current law, although he was silent about passing a new one. “Tomorrow I will force the expiration of the N.S.A. illegal spy program,” he said in an email to supporters. Representative Devin Nunes of California, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said, “They can take things into the middle of the week.” He added, “This is very likely to go on for a few days.” Over the congressional recess last week, Senate Republican leaders reached out to Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, to see if he would negotiate a compromise with Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman and a strong opponent of changes to current law. Mr. Goodlatte declined. Several factors have combined to force the showdown. The revelations of the breadth of the program have increased voter distrust of it, members of Congress said. American companies have complained that foreign customers have been turned off by their products because of fears that their privacy would be at risk if they purchased computers and cellphones made in the United States. Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans make up a growing alliance of members as concerned with civil liberties as national security. “People who could not agree on anything have come together on this issue ,” said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American

Civil Liberties Union. “That has created a different dynamic in Congress, which has been so partisan over the last several years. These divisions are not along party lines. They are over something else entirely.”

Internals

PC Theory FalsePolitical capital not key to the agendaDickinson 9 – Professor of Political ScienceMatthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, 5-26-2009, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, “Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power,” http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidential-power/

As for Sotomayor, from here the path toward almost certain confirmation goes as follows: the Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to hold hearings sometime this summer (this involves both written depositions and of course open hearings), which should lead to formal Senate approval before Congress adjourns 1for its summer recess in early August.  So Sotomayor will likely take her seat in time for the start of the new Court session on October 5.  (I talk briefly about the likely politics of the nomination process below). What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power.  Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative “box scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress.  That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the president’s preferences?  How often is a president’s policy position supported by roll call outcomes?  These measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power.  This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does .   Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence.   Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants .   (I am ignoring the importance of a president’s veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying.   But this is not to say that presidents lack influence.  Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the alternatives from which Congress must choose.  That is, presidential power is largely an exercise in agenda-setting – not arm-twisting.   And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination.  Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox.  That is, how senators decide to vote on Sotomayor will have almost nothing to do with Obama’s lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof). His real influence has already occurred, in the decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee.

Political capital isn’t key-tons of other factors are comparatively more importantBeckmann and Kumar 11Matt, Professor of Political Science, and Vimal, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3

For political scientists, however, the resources allocated to formulating and implementing the White House’s lobbying offensive appear puzzling, if not altogether misguided. Far from highlighting each president’s capacity to marshal legislative proposals through Congress, the prevailing wisdom now stresses contextual factors as predetermining his agenda’s fate on Capitol Hill. From the particular ‘political time’ in which they happen to take office (Skowronek, 1993) to the state of the budget (Brady and Volden, 1998; Peterson, 1990), the partisan composition of Congress (Bond and Fleisher, 1990; Edwards, 1989) (see also Gilmour (1995), Groseclose and McCarty (2001), and Sinclair (2006)) to the preferences of specific ‘pivotal’ voters (Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbie, l998), current research suggests a

president’s congressional fortunes are basically beyond his control. The implication is straightforward, as Bond and Fleisher indicate: …presidential success is determined in large measure by the results of the last election. If the last election brings individuals to Congress whose local interests and preferences coincide with the president’s, then he will enjoy greater success. If, on the other hand, most members of Congress have preferences different from the president’s, then he will suffer more defeats, and no amount of bargaining and persuasion can do much to improve his success. (Bond and Fleisher, 1990: 13

Winners WinWinners win – PC is a false conceptHirsh 13Michael, chief correspondent, There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital, 2/7/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207

But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how sudden ly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “ Winning wins .” In theory, and in practice , depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote.¶ Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is , at best, an empty concept , and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it . “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue ; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it , then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect .”

Especially true for ObamaHirsh 13Michael, chief correspondent, There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital, 2/7/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207

On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “political capital” Obama possesses to push his program through.¶ Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the next four years.¶ Consider this: Three months ago, just before

the November election, if someone had talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or “political capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen.¶ What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.”¶ As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun

laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago.¶ Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all.¶ The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.”¶ The real problem is that the idea of political capital —or mandates, or

momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong . “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens . It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history.¶ Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger.¶ But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote.¶ Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”¶ ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ¶ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because he’s aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?”¶ Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a

controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.)¶ And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didn’t fully understand the concept either.¶ At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. That’s my style.” The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country.¶ Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romney’s gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most people’s eyes. Voters didn’t trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse bore out the public’s skepticism. Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it.¶ The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. It’s like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I don’t think Obama’s going to make that mistake.… Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Party’s concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown.” Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, “but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea,” as the party suffers in the polls.¶ THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER¶ Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. A nother well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didn’t realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention , with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country’s mood.¶ Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the government’s attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didn’t really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said.¶ Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielberg’s hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis’s Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move people’s hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But it’s clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. “The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did,” says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington.¶ Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories.¶ In terms of Obama’s second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes . Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the country’s mood will support—such as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—there is no reason to think he can’t win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction.¶ Amid today’s atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who

has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get some early

wins —as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—that will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others . “Winning wins.”

Winners winRottinghaus 12 – Professor of Political Science @ HoustonBrandon, Obama Will Have to Bargain for His Mandate, http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-barack-obama-have-a-mandate/obama-will-have-to-bargain-for-his-mandate November 7

It would be tempting for the White House (and pundits) to suggest to the voters that the president gained a mandate at the end of a hard won victory. Yet, the truth is that mandates are not concretely "born" but are instead " bargained ." Political science scholars argue that mandates are perceptions of political opportunity by presidents who use them as a bargaining tool . A president will claim a mandate if he believes he can prospectively mobilize more voters than members of Congress to support his policy views. Historically, claiming a mandate is the equivalent of putting a major policy change on the national agenda . In general, presidents claim mandates to attempt to use that language and positioning to pressure Congress. For the 2012 election to be a "mandate" in this way, the president must claim not only that the people back him but also what specific policies they are suggested to support. The president's speech on election night only vaguely hinted that his healthcare initiative was proving successful and popular. It remains to be seen in the coming days whether or not the White House suggests a mandate for a specific policy or initiative which they can use to bargain with Congress . Even if a mandate is claimed, Congress has to agree with the White House about the veracity of the claim. If Congress rejects the president's claims of a mandate—or, as House Speaker John Boehner did in a statement after the president's re-election, assert that the American people re-elected a Republican Congress, too—then the Republicans in the House and Senate are poised to discredit any claim of an Obama mandate and balk at negotiations over new Obama policy initiates or solutions to immediate issues involving automatic tax and spending increases to take place at the first of the year. It is not clear that either side has an advantage in these negotiations, considering the dynamic with either the present or future Congress. Imminent scholar of democracy Robert Dahl wrote that

"no elected leader is uniquely privileged to say what an election means." Clearly the president's victory signals faith in him and his efforts to handle the nation's fragile economy and delicate foreign policy. Voters clearly trusted his vision for the future, even if only slightly more than Mitt Romney's vision. Yet these outcomes do not make a mandate. The White House must push for something tangible or the president's re-election is just an invitation to struggle for four more years.

Impacts

AT Asia WarNo Asian war- economic and regional cooperationBitzinger & Desker 8 – senior fellow and dean of S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies respectively (Richard A. Bitzinger, Barry Desker, “Why East Asian War is Unlikely,” Survival, December 2008, http://pdfserve.informaworld.com-/678328_731200556_906256449.pdf)

The Asia-Pacific region can be regarded as a zone of both relative insecurity and strategic stability. It contains some of the world’s most significant flashpoints – the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Strait, the Siachen Glacier – where tensions between nations could escalate to the point of major war. It is replete with unresolved border issues; is a breeding ground for transnationa terrorism and the site of many terrorist activities (the Bali bombings, the Manila superferry bombing); and contains overlapping claims for maritime territories (the Spratly Islands, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands) with considerable actual or potential wealth in resources such as oil, gas and fisheries. Finally, the Asia-Pacific is an area of strategic significance with many key sea lines of communication and important chokepoints . Yet despite all these potential crucibles of conflict, the Asia -Pacific, if not an area of serenity and calm, is certainly more stable than one might expect . To be sure,

there are separatist movements and internal struggles, particularly with insurgencies, as in Thailand, the Philippines and Tibet. Since the resolution of the East Timor crisis, however, the region has been relatively free of open armed warfare. Separatism remains a challenge, but the break-up of states is unlikely. Terrorism is a nuisance, but its impact is contained. The North Korean nuclear issue, while not fully resolved, is at least moving toward a conclusion with the likely denuclearisation of the peninsula . Tensions between China and Taiwan, while always just beneath the surface, seem unlikely to erupt in open conflict any time soon, especially given recent Kuomintang Party victories in Taiwan and efforts by Taiwan and China to re-open informal channels of consultation as well as institutional relationships between organisations responsible for cross-strait relations. And while in Asia there is no strong supranational political entity like the European Union, there are many multilateral organisations and international initiatives dedicated to enhancing peace and stability, including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ( APEC ) forum, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. In Southeast Asia, countries are united in a common eopolitical and economic organisation – the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ( ASEAN ) – which is dedicated to peaceful economic, social and cultural development, and to the promotion of regional peace and stability . ASEAN has played a key role in conceiving and establishing broader regional institutions such as the East Asian Summit, ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and South Korea) and the ASEAN Regional Forum. All this suggests that war in Asia – while not inconceivable – is unlikely.

Interdependence and democracyVannarith 10—Executive Director of the Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace. PhD in Asia Pacific Studies, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific U (Chheang, Asia Pacific Security Issues: Challenges and Adaptive Mechanism, http://www.cicp.org.kh/download/CICP%20Policy%20brief/CICP%20Policy%20brief%20No%203.pdf) Large scale interstate war or armed conflict is unthinkable in the region due to the high level of interdependency and democratization . It is believed that

economic interdependency can reduce conflicts and prevent war. Democracy can lead to more transparency, accountability, and participation that can reduce collective fears and create more confidence and trust among the people in the region. In addition, globalism and regionalism are taking the center stage of national and foreign policy of many governments in the region except North Korea. The combination of those

elements of peace is necessary for peace and stability in the region and those elements are present and being improved in this region.

Embargo Good/Reform

Embargo Good/Encourages ReformThe embargo is pushing Cuba towards reform – ending it early causes backslidingSandy Fitzgerald, 7/5/2013, Newsmax, "democracy advocates urge obama to keep cuban trade ban," http://www.newsmax.com/US/Cuba-embargo-democracy-Farinas/2013/07/05/id/513503The trade embargo on Cuba must stay to starve Havana's communist government of cash, pro-democracy activists have told the State Department.¶ A steady flow of cash into Castro's government could help it crush the island's pro-democracy efforts, warned Cuban hunger striker Guillermo Farinas who met behind closed doors with Obama administration officials in Washington. ¶ The Obama administration has yet to comment about the meetings, which included one with Farinas at Foggy Bottom in late June, reports the Washington Times.¶ The meetings were described as "extraordinary and very helpful by Mauricio Claver Carone, executive director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC in Washington. "[U.S. policymakers] now get to actually see it and feel it firsthand from the protagonists themselves,” he said.¶ U.S. and Cuban officials in June held a landmark meeting to discuss re-establishing direct mail between the countries, and plan a July 17 meeting to talk about migration regulations. ¶ Raoul Castro, 82, who replaced his older brother, Fidel, has allowed some reforms since he took over in 2008, including easing travel bans. He plans to step down in 2018, when his second five-year term in office ends. The United States has been in a stalemate with Cuba since 1961, when the elder Castro agreed to allow the former Soviet Union to house ballistic weapons in Cuba.¶ Even though Fidel Castro has not been in office for several years, Cuba is still on Washington's terrorism sponsors list.¶ In addition, Cuba is still detaining American Alan Gross, who was arrested in 2009 while in Cuba working for an International Development-funded program.¶ Cuban authorities sentenced Gross to 15 years in prison for illegally delivering satellite phones to Jewish Cubans.¶ The Washington meetings suggest a thaw in the two countries' relationships, a change that some U.S. lawmakers — particularly Cuban-American Republicans — criticize.¶ Florida GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lethinen said Thursday that she and other Cuban-American lawmakers met with the democracy advocates, and she remains skeptical about changes and believes the embargo needs to continue until "Cuba becomes a free and democratic society ."¶ The State Department isn't commenting about what was discussed at the Foggy Bottom meetings. William Ostick, a spokesman for the department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere said the State Department will continue its concern about the Cuban government's use of detention and violence against critics.

Cuba reforms gaining momentum now, but will take time to pay offTed Piccone, 1/9/2012,“Cuba is Changing, Slowly but Surely,” ACC. 6-16-2013, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/01/19-cuba-piccone,A closer look, however, reveals something more profound—a wholesale mental shift, outlined clearly by President Raul Castro over the last two years, that the time has come to move the Cuban people from wholesale dependence on the state to a new era of individual responsibility and citizenship. ¶ This is going to take time . The economic reforms or “updating”

of Cuba’s Soviet-style economic system, approved last spring at the Communist Party’s first National Congress in 14 years, are just beginning to be enacted. They include an expansion of licenses for private enterprise (over 350,000 have been granted), opening more idle land to farmers and cooperatives, allowing businesses to hire employees, empowering people to buy and sell their houses and cars, and opening new lines of credit with no legal ceilings on how much Cubans can borrow. Non-state actors are allowed now to sell unlimited services and commodities directly to state-owned enterprises and joint ventures, thereby opening new channels of commercial activity between farmers and tourist hotels, for example. Think Viet Nam or China. The reforms include tough measures too, like shrinking the buying power of the longstanding ration card that every Cuban gets to purchase subsidized basic goods, cutting unemployment benefits, and eventually dismissing anywhere from 500,000 to one million employees from the state sector as bureaucratic middlemen become obsolete and tax revenues rise. ¶ These changes, while painful, are reason enough to be optimistic about

Cuba’s economic future. But something much more fundamental is at work—a turn away from government control of pricing and subsidizing products throughout the economy to a more decentralized framework of subsidizing persons based on need. At heart, the Castro government is prepared to move Cuba from a society based on equity of results to equality of opportunity, infused with a culture of humanism. Not that Cuba’s system ever offered true equality, as one taxi driver reminded me as we drove down Havana’s famous seaside Malecon. The door, however, is now opening wider to the inevitable rise in inequality that comes from capitalism, even restrained forms of it. Whether one is able to prosper as a self-employed restauranteur, or is the beneficiary of generous relatives sending remittances and goods home from Miami, new gradations in Cuba’s economic and social strata are on the way. As long as someone arrives at their wealth legally and pays their taxes, assured one senior party official, they are free to become rich.

Cuba is reforming now, but it still isn’t close to free market statusPatricia Mallen, 7/11/2013, International Business Times, "cuba announces financial reforms, opens up to foreign investment," http://www.ibtimes.com/cuba-announces-financial-reforms-opens-foreign-investment-1341269“We will be working for deep reforms for the rest of the year and well into the next,”

Murillo, who is in charge of the reform commission, told Reuters. “ The very first step has been to eliminate prohibitions and restrictions .”¶ Murillo said that the government was planning to give companies more autonomy and give entrepreneurs more freedom to grow. He clarified, however , that “the model of the revolution is based in social propriety, and not private, even though the latter creates jobs.”¶ The plan is to allow state-owned companies to keep 50 percent of profits, after taxes, and then reinvest them in production. Up to now, all profits went to the government. News agency Prensa Latina reports that reforms include shutting down all companies that lose money for more than two years. “Our goal is to improve business efficiency and finish with the debt that has been dragging our economy down,” Murillo said.¶ The other key aspect of the reform is to open the country to foreign investment. “We are aware that our island needs more foreign investment,” Murillo admitted. He specified, nonetheless, that the government will only welcome foreign companies that bring technology, financing and jobs.

Additionally, only the status quo can solve the aff – the embargo will be lifted once Cuba reforms, but lifting it too early only strengthens the regime, turning the case. Gordon Chang, 2/20/2008, Commentary Magazine, "In defense of the Cuban embargo," http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2008/02/20/in-defense-of-the-cuban-embargo/Even if we lift the embargo, Castro’s successors will not allow their economy to be overrun by American tourists, investors, and corporate executives. Fidel’s legitimacy, we should remember, is largely founded on his ridding the island of foreign exploiters and his creating home-grown socialism. Cuban leaders, in any event, would allow only enough commerce to maintain their regime, just as North Korea’s Kim Jong Il is doing today. It is a Fukuyama-induced fantasy to think that history has ended and that we can rid ourselves of despicable autocrats with just letters of credit and bills of lading. The Castro boys, Fidel and successor Raul, have survived just about everything during five decades and are not about to surrender to globalization.¶ An embargo helped kill communism in Europe, and it can also end it in the Caribbean. One day we will establish normal trading relations with Cuba, but that should not be before the people there govern themselves. “The post-Fidel era is clearly at hand , and the Bush administration has done almost nothing to

prepare for it,” the New York Times said. Prepare for what? The embargo has been working all along, and it is up to the Cuban dictators to relax their grip, not us.

AT LA Relations – Alt CausesPoor relations inevitable—other prioritiesHakim 11 President Emeritus of the Inter-American Dialogue [Peter Hakim, The United States and Latin America: The Neighbourhood has Changed, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, Volume 46, Issue 4, 2011]During the following ten years, US foreign policy attention turned sharply to the Middle East. Washington's integrationist strategy for the Americas unravelled as its weaknesses and inconsistencies became increasingly visible. For their part, Latin American governments became increasingly independent and assertive in their foreign policies, diversified in their international relations, and more inclined to challenge US leadership and initiative. The United States has not yet come fully to grips with this changing context of hemispheric relations. The G.W. Bush and Obama administrations remained, at least rhetorically, wedded to the idea of partnerships and shared responsibilities with Latin America, but these concepts seem less and less relevant to the region's evolving context.What the past two decades of US–Latin American relations may have most clearly revealed is how difficult it is for Washington to define and execute a coherent policy in the region—with officials constrained by domestic politics, far more urgent demands on its foreign policy resources, and an increasingly independent and self-assured Latin America. The fact is that US policies toward Latin American and the Caribbean are almost invariably derivative policies. They tend not to be the result of a careful calculation of US interests and values and a clear view of what it will take to advance them. Instead, they tend to be mostly shaped by US domestic political considerations or by the demands of global issues.

Proliferation DefenseProliferation won’t increase the risk of conflictBeardsley and Asal 9Journal of Conflict Resolution Volume 53 Number 2 April 2009 278-301 © 2009 SAGE Publications 10.1177/0022002708330386 http://jcr.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com Winning with the Bomb Kyle Beardsley Department of Political Science Emory University, Atlanta Victor Asal Department of Political Science State University of New York, AlbanyOne additional implication follows from the proposed logic. The actors themselves have control over the probability of each escalation scenario. Actors that go into a crisis, presumably over a lesser issue, with absolutely no intention of escalating past a certain point should not be expected to have a probability of full escalation greater than zero. Since states rarely threaten nuclear use, it would be a tenuous assertion to say that all crises involving nuclear actors have some lingering implicit threat. As a result, the effect of nuclear weapons should be contingent on the saliency of the crisis to the actors involved. In low-salient conflicts that an actor has no intention to escalate if needed, nuclear weapons should have no bearing. If nuclear weapons do have an impact on crisis outcomes, it will be in more salient crises in which the probability of full escalation is greater than zero—although still presumably small.

New nuclear states won’t go to warWaltz 3Kenneth Waltz, Professor of Political Science, Columbia, THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, 2003, p. 141. (DRGOC/C485)Can weak and poor states manage to deploy second-strike forces? The answer is "yes ," quite easily. This answer contradicts Sagan's, and many others', belief that second-strike forces are difficult to build and deploy. Decades of American military worries feed this view. But as Bernard Brodie put it if a "small nation could threaten the Soviet Union with only a single thermonuclear bomb , which, however, it could and would certainly deliver on Moscow:' the Soviet Union would be deterred. I would change that sentence by substituting "might" for "would" and by adding that the threat of a fission bomb or two would also do the trick. We now know that Britain, thinking as we did that the Soviet Union was hard to deter, pretended to have H-bombs when it had none. Sagan believes that the American air force and navy had to be goaded into developing second-strike forces. He cites the Killian Report of 1955, written by civilians, as providing the push that caused tile military to become concerned with the survivability of strategic weapons. In one sense, he is right. Our military services were more interested in their traditional missions and weapons than they were in nuclear deterrence. The navy's initial response to the Polaris program was to say that it was a national program, not a naval one. (Eisenhower wondered what the difference might be.) An unconventional naval officer Hymill Rickover, drove the program through ahead of time and on budget. For this, the navy never forgave him. Congress had to add his name to the lists of officers to be promoted because the navy would not do so. Military organizations are renowned for their resistance to innovation.

AT Engagement ScenarioAnd lifting the embargo before Cuba reforms is an act of appeasement – that emboldens adversaries and makes the US look weak to the entire worldBrookes ‘9 (Peter is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. “KEEP THE EMBARGO, O” April 15, 2009, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_Oul9gWKYCFsACA0D6IVpvL)In the end, though, it's still Fidel Castro and his brother Raul who'll decide whether there'll be a thaw in ties with the United States -- or not. And in usual Castro-style, Fidel himself stood defiant in response to the White House proclamation, barely recognizing the US policy shift. Instead, and predictably, Fidel demanded an end to el bloqueo (the blockade) -- without any promises of change for the people who labor under the regime's hard-line policies. So much for the theory that if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us. Many are concerned that the lack of love from Havana will lead Washington to make even more unilateral concessions to create an opening with Fidel and the gang. Of course, the big empanada is the US economic embargo against Cuba, in place since 1962, which undoubtedly is the thing Havana most wants done away with -- without any concessions on Cuba's part, of course. Lifting the embargo won't normalize relations, but instead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -- Fidel's 50-year fight against the Yanquis, further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American Left. Because the economy is nationalized, trade will pour plenty of cash into the Cuban national coffers -- allowing Havana to suppress dissent at home and bolster its communist agenda abroad. The last thing we should do is to fill the pockets of a regime that'll use those profits to keep a jackboot on the neck of the Cuban people. The political and human-rights situation in Cuba is grim enough already. The police state controls the lives of 11 million Cubans in what has become an island prison. The people enjoy none of the basic civil liberties -- no freedom of speech, press, assembly or association. Security types monitor foreign journalists, restrict Internet access and foreign news and censor the domestic media. The regime holds more than 200 political dissidents in jails that rats won't live in. We also don't need a pumped-up Cuba that could become a serious menace to US interests in Latin America, the Caribbean -- or beyond. ( The likes of China, Russia and Iran might also look to partner with a revitalized Cuba .) With an influx of resources, the Cuban regime would surely team up with the rulers of nations like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia to advance socialism and anti-Americanism in the Western Hemisphere. The embargo has stifled Havana's ambitions ever since the Castros lost their Soviet sponsorship in the early 1990s. Anyone noticed the lack of trouble Cuba has caused internationally since then? Contrast that with the 1980s some time. Regrettably, 110 years after independence from Spain (courtesy of Uncle Sam), Cuba still isn't free. Instead of utopia, it has become a dystopia at the hands of the Castro brothers. The US embargo remains a matter of principle -- and an appropriate response to Cuba's brutal repression of its people. Giving in to evil only begets more of it. Haven't we learned that yet? Until we see progress in loosing the Cuban

people from the yoke of the communist regime, we should hold firm onto the leverage the embargo provides.