2AC---Politics DA---Obama Good---Generic

Reject Their Political Model the Negatives Myopic Focus Justifies Violence Ruby-Sachs 8 Emma Ruby-SachsLawyer Posted: November 24, 2008, J.D. from the University of Toronto and practices civil litigation with
Sutts Strosberg LLP, Ranking the Issues: Gay Rights in an Economic Crisis, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/ranking-the-issuesgay-ri_b_146023.html

The classic approach to politics is to rank priorities and measure the finite bowl of political capital. If Obama pushes hard on a green new deal, he likely won't have much left for universal health care. If he
backs off of serious economic regulation, then he might get more support for social programs from Republicans. Because gay civil rights

The alternative is to reject the ranked priorities political model altogether. There is little evidence that sway and support is finite in the American political system. Political capital relates to the actions of the leader, yes, but can be infinitely large or non-existent at any point in time. In some ways, the more you get done, the more the bowl of capital swells. Ranking America's problems to conserve political influence is a narrow minded approach to solving this crisis. Putting banks at the top of the list avoids the plight of large employers (like car companies - as much as we love to hate their executives). Sending health care and other social programs to second or third place, leaves those immediately affected by the crisis with nothing to fall back on. Finally, ignoring the disenfranchisement of a segment of the population breeds discontent, encourages protest, boycotts (a definite harm in this economy) and violence. It divides families (especially those who are still unable to sponsor their partner into the United States), imposes
struggles affect fewer individuals and relate to less quantifiable harms, it's hard to justify putting them at the top of the list. higher tax burdens on gay couples, denies benefits to gay spouses in many employment situations and polarizes social conservatives and social liberals in a time when consensus is essential.

Winners Win Singer, 9 [Johnathan, editor of MyDD, a position he has held since 2005, JD candidate at Berkeley Law, My direct Democracy, By
expending capital, Obama Grows His Capital, 3-3, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428) Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's important to note, too, that political

capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers.
President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So

at this point, with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from universal healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.

No internal link, issues in congress are compartmentalized and external policies like the plan or Obamas clout are irrelevant Dickinson 9 [*professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University where he worked under the
supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, 5/26/09, Matthew, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics,

Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power, http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor -obama-and-presidentialpower/] 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 for 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,

Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a presidents 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 presidents 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 presidents preferences? How often is a presidents 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 shes 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 presidents veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential armtwisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes dont 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 what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. 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 Obamas lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof). His real in fluence has already occurred, in the decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee. If we want to measure Obamas power, then, we need to know what his real preference was and why he chose Sotomayor . My guess and it is only a guess is that after conferring with leading Democrats and Republicans, he recognized the overriding practical political advantages accruing from choosing an Hispanic woman, with left-leaning credentials. We cannot know if this would have been his ideal choice based on judicial philosophy alone, but presidents are never free to act on their ideal preferences. Politics is the art of the possible. Whether Sotomayer is his first choice or not, however, her nomination is a reminder that the power of the presidency often resides in the presidents ability to dictate the alternatives from which Congress (or in this case the Senate) must choose. Although Republicans will undoubtedly attack Sotomayor for her judicial activism (citing in particular her decisions regarding promotion and affirmative action), her comments regarding the importance of gender and ethnicity in influencing her decisions, and her views regarding whether appellate courts make poli cy, they run the risk of alienating Hispanic voters an increasingly influential voting bloc (to the extent that one can view Hispanics as a voting bloc!) I find it very hard to believe she will not be easily confirmed. In structuring the alternative before the Senate in this manner, then, Obama reveals an important aspect of presidential power that cannot be measured through legislative boxscores.

Obama wont get involved --- reduces the chance of passage

Nance 12 (Scott, Editor and Publisher of The Washington Current, Partisan Sniping Infects Even The Bipartisan Transportation Bill, The Democratic Daily,
2/15/2012, Lexis) SIyer

Last fall, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee together linked arms to unanimously approve a new federal transportation bill. The committees liberal chairwoman,
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and conservative ranking Republican, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, alike cheered the ability of the legislation, known as S. 1813, to put Americans back to work nationwide. Sadly, that Kumbaya moment just couldnt last. Now that its moved from committee to the Senate floor, even this rare bill to achieve extraordinary bipartisan support has fallen victim to partisan sniping. Boxer complained Monday about an effort by Republican senators to introduce controversial, unrelated amendments to the highway bill, which would authorize the government to spend $109 billion over two years on roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure. Were trying to get out of this recession. This is a jobs bill thats just waiting t o happen. We have myself and Senator Inhofe as partners in this effort. We want to get to this highway bill, she says. Listen, we have to put aside these wedge issues, these gotcha issues. We have business after business after business that is struggling. This is a bipartisan bill. This will save 1.8 million jobs and create an additional million jobs. Meanwhile, Inhofe himself

was busy making sure President Obama couldnt take any credit for the transportation bill, if it were to pass.

The bottom line is that the Presidents involvement is detrimental to our bipartisan efforts. Whenever the President gets involved in transportation infrastructure, he turns it in to a partisan, political issue, Inhofe says. Remember back to his $787 billion failed stimulus bill, the one he claimed was an infrastructure bill? Despite all of his talk, only
3% went for infrastructure, 3% went for defense, and the rest went to liberal social engineering.