SPECTER’S SWITCH

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced an unexpected switch of political loyalties on Tuesday, saying that he was leaving the Republican Party because it had shifted far to the right of his views. This along with the fact that he did not think he could overcome a primary challenge next year. Mr. Specter acknowledged that his decision to change parties was driven by his intense desire to win that sixth term.

Specter claims he will bring a centrist approach to governance that will be about solutions to problems such as health care, climate change, immigration, and fiscal balancing. However before super specter can solve the world’s problems he first needs to win over democrats. Specter has mentioned that he is "comfortable" with how Mr. Obama is conducting his presidency and apparently Obama is just as comfortable with Specter.

In a brief conversation with Specter, the president said, “You have my full support”. The president added that Democrats are “thrilled to have you.” As a democrat, “thrilled” wouldn’t exactly be the word I’d use considering his many positions that put him at odds with democrats such as voting to authorize the war in Iraq, backing President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, and favoring school vouchers. How is it that a Republican Senator of nearly three decades suddenly feels he doesn’t belong to that party? I question his loyalty to anyone but himself.




However I wouldn’t throw him under the bus just yet. In all fairness, Mr. Specter was one of just three Republican senators to vote in favor of the stimulus package this year. He is a supporter of abortion rights and expanded embryonic stem cell research, and he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. It seems as though he is making an effort to earn his democratic stripes.

President Obama is not the only White House official to welcome Specter with open arms. Vice President Biden had been at the center of the effort to persuade Mr. Specter to change parties. Mr. Biden and Mr. Specter had spoken 14 times — six times in person and eight in telephone conversations. In each case, White House officials said, Mr. Biden argued that the Republican Party had increasingly drifted away from Mr. Specter since the election and that ideologically, he was closer to the Democratic Party.

This defection by Specter creates the potential for Democrats to control 60 votes in the Senate if Al Franken prevails this summer in the court fight over Minnesota Senate election, in which recounts show a slight edge over the Republican incumbent, Norm Coleman.

Many Republicans were far from heartbroken by Specters political switch. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, did not hold back when he claimed Specter “left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.”

Republican Senator Snowe of Maine is part of the small group of moderates that understand Specter’s decision. In an op-ed piece for the New York Times, she expressed her unhappiness with the way the party has been marginalizing its constituents. Conservative Republicans have created a harsh political environment in which moderates no longer feel welcome. She argues that the party can not survive without moderates and that an expansion of diversity within the party would broaden its appeal.

"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1241150400&en=408e0c2fd77cf45c&ei=5087%0A"

It seems that a reevaluation of the Republican Party is in order. Is their room for moderates in a conservative party?

Obama: The Salesman-in-Chief

Drawing on the techniques President Obama employed during his campaign and lessons from predecessors, he seeks to shape public attitudes regarding the economic downturn by conveying his message to the public directly. The president is expected to show Americans how all the pieces of his financial puzzle fit together to make the economy sound again. There's the $787 billion just-signed stimulus bill, plus an even more expensive mix of rescues for the financial industry, auto companies and troubled mortgage holders that needs to be defended before the public. The difficulty this administration faces is in selling this bill to the American people and in order to successfully do so, the administration must effectively frame their political message to the media.

A successful political frame is one that can be summed up by a simple message. It is important to use themes to communicate a frame’s message because a frame is an individual’s interpretation of a person, group or organization. By communicating a story through different themes, people are able to better bond with the frame you are trying to sell them. Themes also create a better story. They allow you to consistently say the same thing without sounding like a broken record.

Obama's message is put in this way: "We all have a special responsibility to do what we can to put this country back on the right track and to see it through back to prosperous and better days." The political theme dominating the White House is a New Era of Responsibility. The frame of blaming the failing economy on the previous administration has thankfully run its course. Instead, this new frame emphasizes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a responsible resolution to the financial crisis. The positive name of the Act was a great place to start but the administration has got to do a better job of convincing the public (me included) to support this enormous bill.

This is probably why the Obama administration recently took their message on the road. In search of where the people are, the president has landed appearances on shows such as The Tonight Show, CBS’ “60 Minutes”, and ESPN with Andy Katz, as well as holding a primetime press conference.



During these interviews, Obama framed his financial plan as helping the “little guy”. His attached narrative to that frame is that the nation will get through the economic hardships and this stimulus plan is the only way to do so. Rather than winning me over, the president’s cross national tour to befriend the middle class had an adverse effect. Instead I feel as though I am being backed into a corner to support the stimulus plan or else and I do not seem to be the only one who feels this way. There is a sense of desperation by the administration in the way we are constantly bombarded with information on how the nation will continue to suffer if this bill is not passed. Well, excuse me if I am not eager to hand over more of my hard earned money to solve the problems of a political system that has lost the money in the first place. I understand that this bill will probably aid our country through this recession, but I would like to catch my breath before once again being drowned in a pool of information. There is a line between reaching the people and annoying them. Obama is getting scarily close to crossing that line. However, to be fair any president would have a difficult time rounding up support for his policies with such a strong counter-attack from Republicans.


While Obama remains a popular figure, the country and Congress are reluctant to embrace his budget proposals. Aides say that the more the president talks about his plans — and frames his budget proposal through real-world needs — the more Americans would be swayed.

I’m not sure how effective this method will be. I find it hard to believe that rhetoric alone will heal our recession.

Meanwhile, Republicans have not taken the President’s attempt to influence the American people lying down. According to the concept of competing frames, politicians vie to push their framed rhetoric on the public. They use repetition to embed these frames in our brains in hopes that we will adopt these messages into our subconscious. Republicans have launched a counter-frame that the economic plan is just governmental pork spending. This counter-frame has already had an effect on Congress. In fact, the opposition’s frame has forced compromises in the stimulus legislation that limit its potential effectiveness. Whether or not this frame will be effective enough to destroy American support for the stimulus plan remains to be seen. Jamieson and Waldman argue that negating the oppositions’ frames will only reinforce them, so it is possible that this Republican tactic may backfire.

It has now become a frantic race for both parties to successfully frame a message that will illicit the support of the media and public.

“Yes, we can” got Obama into office, now what message will keep him there?

e-democracy: the Presidency in an Internet Age

From fundraising to volunteer mobilization, the Obama campaign team used every online and digital tool it could to secure him the presidency. Now in power, the new president has taken the first steps towards making the US government more technologically connected and more interactive with its constituency. President Obama has already brought change to the White House through his use of technology to govern. He uses new media in an unprecedented way from his daily emails to subscribers detailing his plans for action to his internet weekly addresses to remain connected with citizens.

Politicians use the media as a way to set their agenda. They can promote an issue to bring it to the attention of the public. Politicians are now setting their agenda’s by appealing to the public directly. The use of the internet in the political sphere has opened doors that were once only used to the media. The public can now receive email messages from politicians informing them on the currents laws passed by the politician and find out where they stand on certain policy issues. This also provides a personal appeal that could not be given by the media.

Take the daily emails from the Obama administration for example. These emails let me know what is happening in the government, such as what policies are being considered, as well as allow me to show either my support or dislike for those policies through a link for a discussion board. These emails keep me up to date on issues I may otherwise have missed. I have to say I look forward to my daily emails from the Obama administration. It is exciting to be a part of change. Others may not feel the same. Many would argue that these emails are cluttering their inboxes but I think there is valuable information politicians need to get out to the public and that these emails are a convenient way to do just that.

The public can also access President Obama’s webpage and see his recovery plans for the economic crisis rather than hearing a distorted version of his ideas through the biased media. The American people can also use the multimedia offered on the site to watch videos of the president. Last week the president gave his speech to a Joint Session of Congress. For those who missed it, his speech can be accessed on YouTube as well as through a posting on the president’s website.



Rather than relying on journalists to serve as a watchdog, the public can now hold politicians personally accountable for the promises they do not live up to through this more private relationship with the politicians. President Obama plans to try to skip the media, while delivering his message directly to the public, albeit via a more high tech mode. Just this past Saturday morning, the president delivered one of his weekly addresses on the internet where he explained how the budget he sent to Congress will fulfill the promises he made as a candidate.



This new technologically advanced White House administration does invite criticism however. Many argue that the Obama administration may not always like what they hear from the citizens on their forums and discussion boards and they may begin to censor certain messages from appearing thereby limiting democracy. Some are fearful that his efforts will create a government-controlled news channel, which will destroy independent journalism. In his article, Bennett claims that politicians dominate the media and frame messages from their perspective in order to shape public opinion.

I seem to be more fearful of the media in the sense that I would rather be given the information straight from the source and formulate my own opinions than be spoon fed the media’s perception of politics. We have become an interactive society and we should no longer sit idly by waiting to be given information from the media when we can receive the same info ourselves straight from the politicians themselves. I would also argue that technology seems to encourage participation in a democracy because it provides people with outlets needed to express their views. In fact we should encourage local politicians to take advantage of the internet the way Obama has and create a connection with their constituents in order to restore trust in our government. Although it would be strange to have Governor Patterson or Mayor Bloomberg as my friend on Facebook, as long as I am kept up to date on where my tax money is going I will take e-democracy in any form I can.