Despite the censure vote on Governor Charlie Crist last week that evenly divided Palm Beach County Republicans (it failed to pass as the group deadlocked at 65 votes apiece), the head of the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee says his membership is united.

They’re ALL disappointed in Governor Crist.

“There was not a single person last night out of 130 votes, and about 30 or 40 speakers, who got up there to tell us what a good job the governor is doing,”  said Sid Dinerstein, the chair of the Palm Beach County REC.

That vote comes a week and a half after the Volusia County GOP voted “overwhelmingly” in a voice vote to censure the governor.  The list of his perceived transgressions is long, including the governor’s enthusiasm for Barack Obama’s stimulus package and his failure to endorse certain GOP Congressional candidates. But for many, the most damning was his selection of liberal Justice James E. C. Perry to the state Supreme Court last March.

From speaking to several conservatives last week, it seems to be the selection of Perry to the high court that rankles most severely.

That was the last of the unprecedented four new Supreme Court Justices that Crist has had the opportunity to select, more than any previous governor in state history.  And after nominating several solidly conservative justices (among them former Polk County-based U.S. Congressman Charles Canady, best known nationally for being one of the 13 House Managers who argued before the Senate for the impeachment of Bill Clinton),  Crist emphasized his centrist credentials by selecting the 65-year-old Perry, only the second black to be named to the Supreme Court.

But Perry’s selection was part of the old Charlie Crist, the raging moderate who debated Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal earlier this year on Meet The Press regarding what philosophy best represented where the GOP should move next in the wake of its shellacking at the polls last November.

The new Charlie Crist is one strongly motivated by the stirrings in the state party for his rival, Marco Rubio.

Although the governor is thoroughly whipping the former House Speaker when it comes to fundraising, it is the 38-year-old Cuban-American from Miami who is turning on the base, not the man who is collecting censure votes from various county political parties.

In recent weeks the guv, celebrated by environmental groups throughout Florida for being in the small vanguard of GOP leaders with a vision regarding global warming, has strongly hinted that he will cancel his climate change summit, and is also backing away from advocating a cap and trade energy policy.

This follows his failure to veto Senate Bill 360, the controversial anti-growth management bill that has engendered the wrath of both liberals and conservatives throughout the Sunshine State, but was strongly supported by the developer community.

And then there’s the strange case of his lack of support for recently appointed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Last month, while the whole nation was buzzing (pro and con) about the self-proclaimed “wise Latina,” Crist originally told reporters when asked his opinion that he had no opinion about her, even as the Senate Judiciary Committee began their hearings.

Then, after his close ally Mel Martinez spoke movingly in support of her in what was ultimately a valedictory of sorts, the governor aligned himself with the other 31 GOP senators who somehow found her to be outside the mainstream of contemporary American jurisprudence, alienating some Latino groups.

As University of Central Florida Political Science Professor Aubrey Jewett said last week, “I found it interesting that when he didn’t really have an actual vote, he took the symbolic gesture of going out of his way to say he would not vote for her if he was in there.  Yet, when he had the chance to put a conservative on the Florida Supreme Court (which he did the first couple of times), the last person was a more liberal judge from Central Florida.  So, it’s interesting to see the Governor maneuver.”

Interesting, indeed. Crist has apparently learned his lesson of appearing to be too close to Barack Obama.  After being one of the few noted Republicans in the country to embrace the federal stimulus package this winter, the Governor is staying far away from any type of endorsement of the health care proposals that the president and Congressional Democrats are stumping for.

No, instead, he is touting his own Cover Florida proposal as a “national model that the feds could be wise to emulate as a private sector alternative.”

One problem, though —  hardly anybody in Florida is on the system.  As the Miami Herald reported last week, in a state with nearly 4 million uninsured people, only 3,757 have signed up (less than 1 percent).

And what about the stimulus plan that the governor has taken so much heat for supporting?  Although conservatives nationally have already declared the bill a failure, most neutral analysts have reasoned that too much of it is designed to kick in later this year and much of next year to give it a final grade.

But it doesn’t help to learn that the state ranks dead last in the country when it comes to spending highway money approved in the program (though Crist and other state officials have denounced that finding, claiming that the state’s spending has been characterized by “integrity, rather than speed”).

Nevertheless, the twisting and turning of positions could expose independents and Democrats to what hardcore Republicans (like PoHo contributor Chris Ingram) have been saying for a while — that Crist’s integrity, if not his overall record, is spotty, and he may not deserve a coronation to the U.S. Senate next year.

But the maxim in state politics for the past couple of years in Florida has been that Charlie Crist is untouchable. Marco Rubio and Kendrick Meek certainly don’t think so.  The question is whether the rest of the Florida electorate will follow them.

By Mitch Perry
PoHo contributor
Mitch Perry is the anchor of the WMNF Evening News on 88.5 FM community radio

Thursday night’s Town Hall Rally on health care with Congresswoman Kathy Castor in Ybor City has been dissected throughout the country thanks to YouTube.

The atmosphere both inside and outside of the Children’s Board was as intense and, at times, incendiary as the days after the presidential election in Florida in 2000.  (I’ll never forget Day 3 of the 36-day recount in West Palm Beach, when I saw Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler sprint for safety into a trailer from incensed Republicans after finishing a live interview with then CNN anchor Greta Van Susteren).

Although the failure of both houses of Congress to vote on health care legislation before the August break was initially viewed as a loss of momentum for President Barack Obama, the fact is that the American public does need to sit and discuss what is in this once-in-a-generation legislation.

Unfortunately though, through the first week of the Congressional recess, the Town Hall format ain’t the place where that’s happening (and probably won’t , as more members of Congress can use footage of Tampa, St. Louis and Detroit to blow off further encounters).

The fact of the matter is that Americans – specifically, seniors have serious anxieties about what’s in the proposals, or at least what they think is in it.

Discussions about rationing and end of life care are intensely personal. The possibility that government might be involved in those potentially life and death issues is frightening people, and President Obama and his Congressional allies need to do more (as he did this past weekend) to allay those fears.

For years (if not decades), the GOP has accused Democrats of demagoging on the issue of Social Security.   Whether accurate or not, Republicans feel they are using that formula back on Democrats on health care reform.

Democrats could be clearer on what reform means, specifically when it comes to the public option.

Right now, it’s a tabula rasa that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner, Rick Scott and others are exploiting as a form of socialized Soviet-era medicine that will end the health care system as we know it, which is proving effective in polls where people who do have coverage think they’ll lose it (President Obama’s maxim that you won’t lose your doctor be damned).

For progressives, real health care reform would come come in the form of a single payer system. But that got the boot by the President before serious negotiations ever began.  Now, the killer app is the public option.  If it’s not part of the final plan, many Democrats in the House say they’ll bail.

And that might happen. In the all important Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus has removed the public option to appease two of the three Republicans in the negotiating room, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley and Wyoming’s Mike Enzi (Incidentally, all 6 of the Senators in that Committee reportadley represent a grand total of 2% of the population in the U.S.)

Some liberals think Baucus is going overboard in trying to appease Grassley and Enzi, since there is little evidence to indicate that even if they sign off on a plan in committee that rank and file Republicans will follow suit.

Instead of a public option, that committee has replaced it with a network of member-owned cooperatives.

What’s the difference? Plenty, according to Yale Political Science professor and author of The Great Risk Shift, Jacob Hacker.

He calls the co-op proposal “largely untested and symbolic,” adding that it fails on a couple of fronts: That it won’t be  cost control backup, nor will the co-ops have the authority or reach to implement what he calls “innovative delivery and payment reform in increasingly consolidate insurance markets”.

And he quotes West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller: “Will co-ops be effective in going after insurance companies?  The answer is a flat no.”

House Democrats feel the same way. The Congressional Democratic Caucus’s 57 members have said they will reject legislation without a public option, as has Tampa Representative Kathy Castor, who told members of the media last week shortly before the now infamous Town  Hall that, “a robust public option is vital to lowering costs, keeping these insurance companies honest. I am not interested in saying to people in the Tampa Bay area to take personal responsibility, but there’s no option than going to a private insurance company that’s organized to make a profit and when you look at the multimillion dollar CEO salaries and executive compensation packages , the way to go to bring real competition is a strong public option.”

Back to last week’s Town Hall in Ybor City, a critic of health care reform wrote to me this weekend that Thursday was the “best non Town Hall I’ve ever heard.” He went on to write about why he and others interrupted Castor was completely legitimate. Interesting. Castor (as well as Texas’ Lloyd Doggett, also the recipient of an ‘excited’ response by anti-health care reform folks) says the negative reaction just reinforced her feelings about the subject.

But who knows?  Rep. Castor may still reject a bill that comes her way later this year. But if so, it won’t be because of what happened last Thursday night.

By Mitch Perry
PoHo contributor
Mitch Perry is the anchor of the WMNF Evening News on 88.5 FM community radio.

With the recording industry in freefall, the manager of one of the most respected bands in rock announced last month a new sort of record label, perhaps more akin to a venture capital company.

Brian Message represents Radiohead. But now with Polyphonic, a new company he’s helping to create, new artists will be signed and given funding but then will record their own music and choose outside contractors to handle their publicity, merchandising and touring.

According to the NY Times,

Instead of receiving an advance and then possibly reaping royalties later if they have a hit, musicians will share in all the profits from their music and touring. In another departure from tradition in the music business, they will also maintain ownership of their own copyrights and master recordings — meaning they and their heirs can keep earning money from their music.

Meanwhile, Nielsen reports that sales of physical albums fell off , while individual digital tracks rose  27 percent. That follows news from earlier this year that indicates that teenagers are not only buying fewer CD’s (nothing too radical there), but also fewer digital downloads of music, prompting a market researcher to remark, “ These declines could be happening due to a lack of excitement among teens about the music available, but it could also reflect a larger shift in the ways teens interact with music, given that so much music is now available whenever and wherever they want it.”

Intrigued, I asked one of the veterans of the music industry, Danny Goldberg, what he makes of what’s happening in the industry he’s worked in for his entire adult life.  He said these developments are part and parcel of the radically different environment in the music industry.

““The record side of the business has been terribly, terribly damaged by the availability of free music on the Internet. The sales of individual tracks thru companies like iTunes in no way compensate for the loss of CD sales, so the total amount of revenues for recorded music are way less than half than 10 years ago.  Thousands and thousands of jobs have been lost.  Now, there are people who suggest that maybe some of those jobs should have been lost, and some of the people at record companies were egotists, and maybe didn’t do that much, but some people did do a lot.  It’s like marketing in any business smart hard working people are likely to do a better job than stupid, lazy inexperienced ones…. There’s just nothing to be done about it in the short term.”

Although some cutting edge observers of the media (like Chris Anderson) conclude this to be all to the good, many others think the jury is still out on that verdict.

Goldberg adds…”It’s not just the record business, it’s also the book business, movie, newspaper business, and to a certain extent, the record business, as technology creates alternatives for people and fragments the business and some of it is not connected to people getting paid for their creative work.”

I was speaking to him upon the publication of his memoir of his 40 years in the business, Bumping into Geniuses: My Life Inside the Rock and Roll Business, just released in paperback.

Although it might be reach to call Goldberg a ‘Zelig’ of the rock music industry, he has had a glorious life in the business that continues to this date, where he currently manages Steve Earle and Tom Morello (of Rage Against the Machine fame) among others.

His book (which doesn’t focus much on the business of rock much at all) begins with remembrances of covering Woodstock 40 years ago for Billboard Magazine, then catapults when he begins doing public relations for a little band called Led Zeppelin back in 1973.

After Zeppelin, Goldberg also spent considerable time working over the past four decades with Patti Smith, Stevie Nicks, Bruce Springsteen, Warren Zevon, and Kurt Cobain.

Goldberg ended up being introduced to Nirvana by mutual friends Sonic Youth.   He spends 55 pages in the paperback version of Bumping Into Geniuses writing about his experience with the band and Cobain, which he calls the most important relationship of his professional career.

He revisits those halcyon days of grunge that was 1991, and includes a reference to a cutting remark Cobain once made about Pearl Jam.  It reminded me of that time when, for those who cared, you either had to be in the Nirvana or PJ camp.  Kind of like the Beatles or the Stones in the 60’s, if you were around then.

Being a Nirvana partisan, I remember reading about how Cobain was upset in 1993, when Vs outsold In Utero, and Eddie Vedder made the cover of Time.

In his book, Goldberg recounts how he thought a Cobain caustic remark about Vedder was “unfortunate.”  I asked him why he wrote that.

Goldberg said Cobain regretted making the remark, and that he and Eddie Vedder became good friends before Cobain died. “And they really were from the same planet artistically and spiritually and culturally, but you know, sometimes when somebody who’s similar to you can be a threat emotionally. There was competition but there was more collegiality.”

In addition to his musical adventures, Goldberg is a self described passionate liberal. In 2005, he wrote the book, How the Left Lost Teen Spirit and around the same time became the CEO of the Air America Radio Network.  One of the biggest radio markets in the country that the network never penetrated has been the Tampa Bay area.

Despite proclamations from Bill O’Reilly on a seemingly annual basis, the network itself is still on the air. (Although it’s biggest stars, such as Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garafolo and for all intends and purposes, Rachel Maddow, have long departed). But he admits the idea of something like Air America is easier to imagine than to execute.

“It was a very ambitious notion, to try to have 24/7 programming out of nothing. (But) radio is more done program by program. Randi Rhodes did well, Rachel … but it’s hard overnight to create a culture of 24/7 liberal talkers .Liberals express their way thru print and comedy. Conservatives have focused on talk radio, but look at TV comedy. Liberals have an advantage. Different kinds of culture connect asymmetrically to different types of culture”.

The media landscape is changing before our eyes. But Danny Goldberg’s book should remind us that though rock is a(n ever changing) business, it’s also about doling out lots of pleasurable experiences along the way. Let’s hope it never dies.

By Mitch Perry
PoHo contributor
Mitch Perry is the anchor of the WMNF Evening News on 88.5 FM community radio.

Last week had to the roughest in the first half year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate would not be able to vote on a health care bill before the August recess; Obama admitted his comments regarding the controversy over the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates had in a way exacerbated the conflict; and one major poll now shows him below 50 percent in approval ratings.

To add to all of that,  there was this: The bizarre world that is the deniers of his citizenship suddenly broke out of the conservative blogosphere and into mainstream conversation.

The “Birthers.” Again.

In a just world, television satirist’s John Stewart’s takedown of the “Birther movement” (also dubbed “The Born Identity”) would be the last word on the world of conspiracy mongers who believe President Obama is not a citizen of the United States. But that’s doubtful.

The resurgence of this story that surfaced during the campaign began anew with a near uprising at a town hall meeting hosted by Delaware GOP Rep. Mike Castle last week.

Then it became local. Last week a federal judge in Tampa denied the request of Lutz resident Stefan Frederick Cook, who was asking that he be rehired by the Odessa based Simtech Corporation. The military contractor canned him, he claims, due to pressure applied by the Department of Defense. Why did the DOD want him out, you may ask?

Reservist Cook claims they pressured Simtech to deny him employment after it became public that he was fighting orders to deploy to Afghanistan, because he says President Obama is not an American citizen.
Cook’s attorney is Southern California dentist/lawyer Orly Talitz, one of the “superstars” in the Birther movement

In a brief phone conversation last week, I tried to engage Talitz on the merits of Stefan Cook’s legal situation. Wasn’t his reasoning for balking at serving overseas a bit of a reach for a reservist who possibly doesn’t want to shoot or be shot at?

“Oh, no, no”, Talitz replied in her thick Eastern European accent. “He wants to go. (His attitude is) I want to go today. Show me that we have a legitimate commander in chief, I’ll pack my things and leave today.”

Further questioning on Cook proved fruitless, as that’s obviously not part of Talitz’s MO. Talking trash about the President of the United States, the first black commander in chief, clearly is, though.

She claims that in a search through a national database, she found 140 addresses for Barack Hussein Obama, and those addresses are connected to 39 different Social Security numbers. To Talitz, that means something sinister.

In case you didn’t hear, the theories of Obama’s citizenship have been thoroughly debunked.

But that apparently isn’t stopping allegedly responsible citizens, such as elected officials, from jumping on the Birther bandwagon.

Established Republicans, such as Melbourne GOP state Rep. Bill Posey, are part of the movement as well. He’s the author and main sponsor of a bill in the House to require presidential candidates to submit proof of citizenship.

Back to Orly Taitz. I asked her last week if reluctant members of the military simply weren’t using her to avoid serving their country, by using this discredited notion that Obama is not the commander in chief?

“Give them some time”, she replied. “You’ll see more people challenging this. Right now I have 170 members of the military that signed up to be plaintiffs. Everyday I get emails…I have something like 47,000 e-mails. I don’t have time to process them. Keep in mind not everybody has been called to duty….”

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer dubbed the anger liberals had over our last president “Bush Derangement Syndrome”.

What to make of the animosity that stalks Barack Obama, beyond the sometimes hyperventilating rhetoric that he is damaging the federal deficit more than any previous president has in our history (a line that was expressed to me at a recent Tea Party event in Brandon)?

Going into 2010, Democrats may very well be vulnerable after their big successes in the past two election cycles. But questions about the fitness of the Republican Party to lead will continue to be expressed until more of them denounce this disturbing ‘movement’ amongst some in their base.

By Mitch Perry
PoHo correspondent
Mitch Perry is the anchor of the WMNF Evening News on 88.5 FM community radio.

Legendary television anchorman Walter Cronkite’s death on Friday at the age of 92 has prompted massive encomiums on his career and how no one figure could ever dominate mass communications like “Uncle Walter” did in the ’60s and ’70s. It also allows us to ponder the state of national television news.

In the immediate days (and weeks) after Michael Jackson’s death last month, America’s broadcast and cable news networks went — predictably — hog wild over the pop superstar’s death. They saw their ratings rise, while also receiving criticism from a lot of quarters that they were overdoing it.

But were you really surprised?

Pardon the expression, but haven’t we seen this movie, err, blanket news coverage before?

Can you say Anna Nicole Smith?  Ronald Reagan? Princess Diana anybody?

Each of these personalities of course was quite different in terms of their significance on the body politic. But then, other than to her friends and family, what significance did the late Natalee Holloway fall have on you?

The fact of the matter is Fox and MSNBC over the years have devolved since their creation in the mid 1990’s from offering cable news to being mostly presenting a shred of news but mostly analysis. They do a solid job of covering the White House and national politics, albeit from a distinct ideological perspective. But they don’t deliver much hard news.

CNN, unfortunately, has become the last, best hope for Americans who crave straight up news reportage. They definitely deliver more of the goods, particularly on international stories. But that’s not really saying a whole lot.

Michael Jackson’s career was legendary. In terms of his vast talents, however, he peaked in the early 1990’s. The past 15 years were were mired in scandal and bizarre excess that easily made him an international punch line.

But his death was a shock, and so it shouldn’t have been any surprise that the coverage was extensive. In U.S., and throughout the world even, most people categorized as post Baby Boomers had lots of stories to share with their friends about their own experiences listening to Michael Jackson’s music (mostly of course, in the 1970s and ’80s).

But when the coverage continued long past the first long weekend of his death, some people became upset and angry at the cable news networks.

Some, like conservative media critic Brent Bozell, cited the deaths of 7 U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan in juxtaposition to the grotesque excess of the musical star.

Underneath some of the resentment was no doubt racial. The white backlash was best articulated by Long Island Republican Representative Peter King, who famously blasted Jacko as a “pervert” unworthy of nonstop media coverage.

And though lots of people felt that way, a significant slice of the population didn’t. Specifically black people. Polls showed a huge discrepancy between blacks and whites about how excessive the coverage actually was.

There were criticisms that the performer’s controversies were (pardon the expression) whitewashed. But MSNBC seemed to have extensive coverage of Vanity Fair scribe Maureen Orth on the night Jackson died, talking about her reporting on his 1993 legal problems regarding allegations of inappropriate behavior with a young boy.

But to Bozell and others who decried the networks failure to cover more “important” stories, I wanted to shake people and ask: And you’re just realizing this NOW?

People’s memories can’t be that hazy. You may recall the weekend after Iran’s Presidential election, there were loud complaints in the blogosphere about the lack of coverage of the events on the streets of Tehran.

Remember? That’s when we learned of the so-called “Twitter revolution”. Why Twitter?  Because those in the U.S. who were fascinated by the events regarding the race between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi, and had to rely on social media sites like Twitter and for reports from sites like the Huffington Post for the news, because the cable networks were taking the weekend off.

But how much information did you get regarding the coup in Honduras? Or the murder of a human rights activist in Chechnya? Immediately after 9/11, the networks bulked up as a craving developed among the American populace that they NEEDED to know what was going on overseas.

But that costs money. And though MSNBC and FOX were never beacons of such coverage, it is CNN that has become our biggest letdown of resources.

And if the coverage of Jackson was too soft for some, what are we to make of the six-day post-death coronation of the late Ronald Reagan back in 2004?

The late President was no doubt a giant figure of American history. However, he was also a controversial leader who many thought might be impeached in 1986 after news of the Iran/Contra scandal erupted. Nary a negative word was said between the time the Gipper died on a Saturday night, and when he was buried in the twilight of a Southern California summer evening six days later.

No, MJ’s coverage was akin more to the culture of celebritydom that was captured in the death of Princess Diana back in 1997, the first time that all three of “the cables” could go nonstop (including the live coverage of her funeral in the middle of the night in the U.S.).

And I’m not even talking about the disturbing trend the networks displayed in recent years showing nonstop coverage of missing attractive white women, which climaxed in the coverage of Natalee Holloway (and what led one academic to blame on the demise of the Fairness Doctrine).

At least Michael Jackson left something behind that people could identify with. But what to make of the coverage of the deaths of Chaundry Levy, Laci Peterson, and Anna Nicole-Smith?

So is there any positive source of television news 28 years after Walter Cronkite was forced out at CBS in 1981? Well, I can’t answer for what Katie, Brian and Charlie are doing at 6:30 PM (I’m doing my newscast at that time), but I can tell you that except for the breaking news conference, I’m not going to the cables for news. What about commentary, to make sense of it all? As the soon to be departed Governor of Alaska said recently, hell yes. But for day to day coverage, if you can’t get BBC America on your cable or satellite package, you’re better off sticking to the many other great sources of information still in existence in the summer of 2009. You know, like newspapers, certain web sites, or yeah, even public/community radio stations.

Los Angeles Dodgers star Manny Ramirez’s return to Major League Baseball two weekends ago after a 50 game suspension for using a performing enhancing drug was met with predictable hand wringing by much of the sporting press.

Ramirez’ bust in May (for using a female fertility drug) was wedged between similar outings of Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa, who both reportedly failed drug tests back in 2003. Despite the fierce criticism in some quarters, A-Rod and Manny have been received pretty much like the conquering heroes they always have been by their home town fans since the embarrassing disclosures.  And that annoys many ink stained scribes.

Some attribute the lack of outrage to ‘steroid fatigue syndrome’.  That is, to the fact that after Ken Caminiti’s Revelations that half the sport was awash with ‘roids back in 2002 to Jose Canseco’s Juiced publication in 2005 that 70 percent of the players in the game were on the well, juice, to the intimate details of Barry Bonds alleged usage of “the cream” and “the clear” in Game of Shadows in 2006, to the Mitchell Report’s publication in December of 2007, the theory is that baseball fans have now been desensitized to these stories.

Writers and fans now spend quality free time debating whether some of these stars deserve inclusion in the sacred ground that is Cooperstown, NY, the site of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

But one journalist is sick of what he says is the hypocrisy and moral preening of the baseball media.

Zev Chafets is the author of the just published, Cooperstown Confidential: Heroes, Rogues and the Inside Story of the Baseball Hall of Fame. In it, the author, a former New York Daily News columnist, takes an outsider’s look at the Hall, and blasts what he says is the whipped up ‘hysteria’ that has gripped the media since it became painfully apparent that America’s game was awash in performing enhancing drugs, or “PEDS”.

Chafets perspective is a welcome one, in comparison to much of the sports media establishment, such as Los Angeles Times sports columnist Bill Plaschke.  In May, he blasted Dodger fans for having the indignity of acting like San Francisco Giants fans in showing support for Manny Ramirez immediately after his suspension.

“Manny Ramirez had just willfully broken baseball rules, busted clubhouse chemistry, decimated a winning culture, and yet the first voices we heard were ones cheering him?”

Plaschke, like many of his sporting press brethren, mocked Giant fans for being in ‘denial’ for cheering Barry Bonds in his quest to break Hank Aaron’s all time home run record in 2007, after it was apparent to most that the superstar had used such PEDS.

Yet, New York Yankee fans have cheered on A-Rod since his admission earlier this year that yes, he too, had been caught up in the ‘loosey-goosey era’ of trying to improve his performance by taking something called “boli.”

Zev Chafets spent time in government service and politics in Israel, and is the author of five novels. He doesn’t have anything good to say about those who cover American baseball.

“The writers, the supposed experts, watched over the last 20-30 years as steroids became a very, very common substance. And they didn’t see it. They didn’t report on it. And they didn’t know about it.  So clearly, if these substances altered the very nature of baseball as they claim, the writers were not very good observers on what they were supposedly reporting on.”

Chafets continues, “Or it’s possible that they knew about it, and didn’t report on it, to protect the players. Either way they‘ve been made to look very bad by this scandal. I think a lot of writers thought they’d get their revenge by portraying these guys using HGH or anabolic steroids as degenerates, or criminals against the American way or drug addicts. It’s childish. It’s vindictive, and not a glorious record in the story of baseball journalism.”

Chafets new book is instructive as he lambastes any idea that the Baseball Hall of Fame consists of boy scouts or role models.

Speaking to me on the telephone from New York, Chafets discussed his experience attending the Hall of Fame ceremonies back in 2007. 53 of the 61 still living Hall of Famers were on stage watching the ceremonies of two classy stars, Cal Ripkin Jr. and Tony Gwinn, be inducted. Describing the scene, various miscreants rolled off his tongue, such as confessed spit ball pitcher Gaylord Perry, as well as “ bean ball artists, drunk drivers, drug dealers … quite a collection of people … I didn’t care, because I think the Hall of Fame  should be a place to celebrate great ballplayers, not great citizens.  If you want to find role models, go to church.  Cooperstown should be a place reserved for great baseball players.”

Chafets says the ballplayers of today aren’t anymore immoral than those of years gone by, it’s just that the media has no interest in covering up for them.

Sports fans for years have endlessly debated the merits of Pete Rose, who was suspended for gambling on baseball in the 1980’s. In the coming years, as Bonds, Roger Clemens, and later, A-Rod comes up for possible inclusion, you’ll hear those who have a say, the sportswriters, explain why they can’t vote for some of these players. But Chafets says that the Hall of Fame is about achievement on the field, not off it.

“The notion that we can hide reality from people so they can idol worship is a false option. People who cling to it, encourage a view that’s very cynical. Fans now know that most players have used substances (a great many of them) they just don’t know who. Everybody becomes a suspect and cynical.  Which is why I think the Hall of Fame, which is the beating heart of baseball ought to embrace reality instead of pretending that it doesn’t exist or it’s just a few cases.”

Last Saturday in Brandon’s Clayton Park, approximately 200 citizens gathered for a TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already) organized by conservative activist Terry Kemple, and featuring a rally-the-troops speech by State Senator Ronda Storms (right).

It was one of what was supposed to be over 1,000 such expressions of outrage at government spending under the Obama administration around the country on Independence Day, and followed a similar outburst of conservative sentiment at the first “Teabag” parties held on Tax Day, April 15th.

That day was also dedicated to federal largesse, though you may recall it more as a media battle between the seeming outright advocacy of the Fox News network, and the derision of it by more liberal commentators, including way too many allusions to what the phrase ‘teabagging’ meant. (This Keith Olbermann bit was just part of that onslaught.)

The growing federal deficit was on the minds of most of the citizenry. Despite the fact that a large part of the current deficit can be laid at the feet of former President George W. Bush (as my previous column, referring NY Times columnist David Leonhardt, can attest to), those in attendance on Saturday were of no mind to hear such specific facts.

Susan O’Connor from Valrico said indignantly, “Now you have to remember the debt that Obama has given us is what? Quadruple what any other president has ever put us in. You can’t even compare that debt. What he’s done in 6 months is how many trillions more than all other Presidents combined.”

Mary Tyer from Brandon identified herself as a “proud American” who said the country couldn’t afford the change Barack Obama is advocating. She grew increasingly more irritated by my questions. “He’s stealing our money every day!” When I politely mentioned that though there would be tax increases in a health care reform package, the only taxes that have gone up so far under his administration have been for people who purchase cigarettes, this senior citizen didn’t want to hear about it.

““Oh yes, this country was in good shape when he came into office. Look at it now! Do you like it?” Her voice grew more agitated, and at this point I think she just didn’t like me anymore.

“You know something, young man, you’re going to have to have to pay it, too!”

“But ma’am…he really hasn’t raised taxes yet,” I interjected. “The deficit grew tremendously under George Bush-”“

“PLEASE DO NOT BRING GEORGE BUSH INTO THIS! OUR COUNTRY WAS SAFE WHEN THAT MAN WAS IN OFFICE. WHERE ARE WE NOW? DO YOU KNOW?” And with that she skulked away.

I then walked around looking at the various signs in the crowd. One depicted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama as “The Axis of Evil.”

Another sign, held by Bob Hunter from Sun City Center, included photos of Pelosi, Reid and California Representative Henry Waxman, co-author of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation that barely passed the House late last month. His sign was captioned “The Three Stooges.”

Hunter is a recent transplant from Pennsylvania. His face grew red after I mentioned the words “Arlen” and “Specter” to him. Commenting on the Senator’s conversion to the Democrats, he wondered how he could have been re-elected so many times. Then the answer came to him.

“If it wouldn’t be for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Those were the two areas with the greatest population in Pennsylvania, and all the people on welfare, that’s where they live, and they’re not going to kick out the Golden Goose.”

Elected officials and those aspiring to higher office spoke in the park.
Two Congressional candidates vying for the Republican nomination in District 12 (the seat being vacated by Adam Putnam) — Thomas Snider and Polk County Commissioner Randy Wilkinson — gave short speeches. As did District 56 House Representative Rachel Burgin.

But the star of the afternoon was Hillsborough area State Senator Ronda Storms, who touched on a variety of issues in her 10-minute address.

Looking patriotic in her stars-and-stripes blouse, Storms stayed on the main theme of the afternoon: too much dependence on the federal government. And she blasted some of what she called the excesses of Hillsborough County’s indigent health care system, effusively praised recently in the wake of the passing of Phyllis Busansky, who helped craft the program back in 1991.

Storms said that the program paid for a citizen to be flown to New Orleans for, “I kid you not, the medical replacement for Viagra. That’s the kind of program we want to avoid.”

Somewhat stunned by this comment, I asked Storms about that allegation in a follow-up individual interview. She said that she’s been amazed that the local media have not done a comparison between the indigent program and what’s happening in Washington. “We learned that given unlimited amounts of money, it reduces the motivation for efficiency.”

Storms says she does believe the health care system needs to change, and is not a fan of managed care.

Also in her speech, the State Senator remarked that in addition to the federal government taking over banks and car companies, they were also taking over the media. To buttress her point, she cited as her main source for this allegation veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas, generally the butt of tasteless jokes by the Republican right.

In fact last week, Thomas called out Press Secretary Robert Gibbs for controlling the press in a way she said was worse than Richard Nixon.

Storms added, “You know what? You and I know, it’s the truth.”

In our interview, Storms also predicted that Hillsborough County voters will reject the one-cent sales tax for transit that is expected to be on the 2010 ballot.

“It’s going to go down in flames. It’s not going to pass, because people are sick of it. There is an anti-rail system sentiment, and an anti-tax sentiment. It’s being generated by a narrow group of people …and most of those people have something to gain from it. There are a few true believers, but the people don’t want it.”

There has been much blather in the media this year about who speaks for the Republican Party. With over three years before the next presidential election, that may not be the right question to ask (especially in a week that saw the fortunes of Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin diminish). But Democrats emerged from the desolation of John Kerry’s loss in 2004 by having grass-roots groups like MoveOn.Org coalesce around opposition to George Bush. Excessive federal spending on behalf of the Obama administration seems to be the one thing conservative activists are excited about, in what could be the most important year for changing domestic policy in a generation.

By Mitch Perry
PoHo contributor and anchor of the WMNF Evening News on 88.5 FM community radio

Health care reform in Washington is in peril.

In the words of Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski late last week, “Obviously this is not going to go as fast as we thought.”

The promise of reforming health care has been a singular focus of President Barack Obama — well, along with dealing with the banking crises, the foreclosure crises, and getting the economy recharged.

But now that crunch time is approaching, the various voices that comprise the debate in Washington are speaking up, and some groups previously considered as potential allies, (such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) are now speaking critically of the legislation being discussed right now.

And it can’t bode well that President Clinton’s former pollster, Stan Greenberg, has written a new article that’s subtitled “Why health care reform could fail again.”

Greenberg writes in the New Republic that he’s compared surveys he did back in 1993 and now, and has discovered that on some basic fundamentals, the American public remains stagnant when it comes to making serious changes in our system.

His dismal conclusion?

“If anything, I found on most of these questions that the desire for change and support for reform was slightly stronger 16 years ago, underscoring the importance of learning some lessons from that history.”

If that isn’t portending inertia, the president’s supporters were then hit with a trifecta of major polls last week, all showing that for the first time since health care was last seriously debated in Washington, concerns about the federal deficit have become the most salient issue amongst the American public.

No doubt the $787 billion stimulus, followed by the less enthusiastic response for bailouts for AIG and even General Motors, has reinforced in much of the public’s mind that we are somehow running out of money and that making major changes to health care may be a tad too ambitious at the present time.

But according to The New York Times business columnist David Leonhardt, Obama is not the man to blame for the fact that we have a current deficit that is expected to go to $1.2 trillion dollars from 2009 to 20012.

In an interview on WMNF radio earlier this month, Leonhardt said that of our current financial deficit, Obama’s spending so far is responsible for very little of it.

In fact, he says, “Most of what he wants to spend is for continuing for Bush plans. Most Republicans want to keep the tax cuts going. So, yes, the stimulus bill is quite expensive, but it makes up about $150 billion of the $200 billion or so that his policies are responsible for(the deficit) right now. But the rest of what he’s proposing is not so much.”

Leonhardt explains that’s because health care reform simply will not happen until it’s “deficit neutral” (i.e. can be paid for, either though higher taxes or cuts in spending elsewhere). And he says the president and the Democratic Congress’ controversial cap-and-trade proposal on energy actually raises money for the government, tied to the price of carbon emissions. “The government is going to get a lot of money from that through these licenses,” Leonhardt said. “They can figure out how they’re going to spend that money, but it’s NOT going to make the deficit bigger.”

But even citizens who urgently want to see health care reform are feeling uneasy these days.

At a discussion on health care reform at the Seminole Library in Pinellas County on Saturday, I encountered several people who are not feeling as optimistic as they did after the election changes happening in health care.

Linda Gervitz, a clinical psychologist from Clearwater, said, “I’m really concerned that in these attempts to make everybody happy, the doctors, the insurance companies, to some extent consumers, that nothing is going to be done. What came out of the last attempt is by the Clintons actually made things worse — because then we got HMO’s. So I’m really worried that without a clear mission and a clear path we’re gong to end up with things getting worse, like Medicare Part D…. So I guess I’m pessimistic.

And a Seminole woman who would only identify herself as Jean added, “It seems like we had a lot of hope for this, and it does seem like people are now pulling back from it, and I think if we don’t get it this year, it’s going to be a lot less likely that we’ll get it next year.”

The next month or so should decide whether the U.S. can find a way to provide coverage to as many of the 47 million people are without right now, as well as lowering costs to consumers and businesses alike.

By Mitch Perry
PoHo contributor and anchor of the WMNF Evening News on 88.5 FM community radio.

For weeks, state and national political reporters have been anticipating that the Charlie Crist/Marco Rubio race for the Republican nomination for Senate in Florida next year will be a barn-burning battle between competing philosophies in the party.

That’s despite a poll released last week that shows the governor with an overwhelming lead in the match-up.

And now Rubio doesn’t necessarily have a hold on all those disaffected Republicans who think the Governor is too moderate for their tastes.

Enter Sarasota resident Bob Smith.

He’s not your average disgruntled conservative but in fact a former two-term U.S. Senator from New Hampshire who also (sort of) ran for President.

Smith declared his candidacy officially last week for the nomination last week. Here’s video of his announcement:

In an interview, the 68-year-old Smith, who moved to Sarasota in 2003 after losing to John Sununu in the New Hampshire GOP Senate primary in 2002, said he’s motivated to run by the liberal leanings of Gov. Crist.

“I think Governor Crist wants to take the party in a different direction than I do,” Smith said. “I’m a Reagan Republican, a conservative on the issues.” He then spouted that he’s tough on immigration, pro-gun, pro-life. He knows that’s not Crist’s style, and that bothers Smith.

“We need conservative leadership that will come forth and say these are the principles of our party, and winning simply with an ‘R’ next to you name is not enough, because the victory is shallow.  What’s a victory if you’re Democrat-lite?”

Conservative principles are what animate Bob Smith. In our 15 minute phone conversation, the word ’principles’ was uttered no less than at least half a dozen times.

His disdain for the moderate politics practice by Charlie Crist is not an uncommon feeling among rank and file Republicans, and thus, we also have Rubio’s candidacy.

Rubio is three decades younger than Smith, smoother, and frankly, more telegenic than the former New Hampshire lawmaker. So, other than ego, why does Smith think he has what it takes over the former House Speaker?

Smith talks about style and experience as differentiating himself from his fellow conservative. Style, Smith explains, in the respect that he says Rubio is better at party politics, having maneuvered his way to leadership in the Florida House.

And experience? Well, yeah, Smith has it in spades over Rubio. Two decades in Washington-type experience, which may not necessarily be what Florida GOP voters are clamoring for in 2010.

Last week, in arguing that perhaps Kendrick Meek or another Democrat would be a better choice for Floridians if they’re main issue was property tax or insurance reform, Palm Beach Post editorial writer Jac Wilder VerSteeg wrote:

Gov. Crist promised to lower property taxes and get property insurance premiums under control. So did former House Speaker Marco Rubio. Neither fulfilled his promise. Now the two are running against each other for the 2010 Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. Takes some nerve.

Can Smith be the Republican Party recipient of voter disgust? Not if the voting populace doesn’t know who he is.

“Money is very important”, he admits. “ I’d by lying if I said it wasn’t. You need to get your message out.”

But Bob Smith can dream.  And he would no doubt love to get back at those Republicans who he says have lost their way.

“I believe if I were to win this election,” Smith said, “we would send a message to the rest of the country, that we can win on conservative values. “

Mitch Perry
PoHo contributor
Mitch Perry is the anchor of the WMNF Evening News on 88.5 FM community radio

The shocking assassination of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller on May 31 has brought back the volatile issue of abortion on to the national landscape.

Of course, it’s never gone away. But the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by President Obama to the Supreme Court — and her relatively scant record on abortion issues — has elicited analysis that, perhaps unlike every previous Supreme Court nomination over the past few decades, her nomination won’t be heavily focused by her thoughts on Roe v. Wade.

Pro-choice advocates were stunned when Gallup reported last month that for the first time since it began asking the question, a majority of Americans now call themselves pro-life vs. pro-choice (although a review of other similar polls taken over the past year continue to reflect a majority pro-choice America.)

If that wasn’t at least a soft blow to those reproductive rights advocates, Tiller’s death by the hands of 51-year-old Scott P. Roeder absolutely was.

And for a portion of the public, upon learning of Tiller’s death, thoughts immediately turned to Bill O’Reilly, who focused relentlessly on the controversial doctor’s status as one of just a handful of M.D.’s in the country who continued to perform late term abortions.

Some liberal commentators and bloggers immediately blamed the cable news analyst for inciting Roeder to commit murder.  O’Reilly, predictably, pushed back, and used the opening moments of his show last week to argue that his foils, NBC News and company, were just as responsible for the murder of U.S. soldier William Long in Arkansas by a Muslim convert.

For many in the abortion rights movement, Tiller’s death brought back the dark days of the 1990’s, when doctors David Gunn, Bernard Slepian and John Britton were killed for their work as abortion providers.

Sarasota resident Sherry Svekis received a late-term abortion from Tiller in 1985. Not being a regular Fox News viewer, she was unaware of the very public campaign O’Reilly had wrought against Tiller over the years until his death.

But after hearing the denunciations of Tiller,  Svekis penned a letter to the Tampa Tribune last week, describing her encounter with Tiller, and her very fond memories of him.

Intrigued by her acknowledging the abortion with the late doctor, I spoke with her last week.

In 1985 there were only a few places Svekis knew where she could get an abortion after being 20 weeks pregnant (she says she was at 24 weeks into gestation).

She says her mother, a Unitarian minister, had learned through a contact about Tiller, and after her ob-gyn physician contacted the medical examiner in Kansas, she felt confident that she would be in good hands.

But unlike the Frankenstein depicted by his critics, Svekis says that Tiller was a compassionate man. She says nearly a year after her abortion, Tiller contacted her to see if she was interested in adopting a baby — after diagnosing that a woman patient he had was too far along in her pregnancy to abort.

“It was reminiscent of John Irving’s novel The Cider House Rules, the doctor who says he can give you an abortion or give you an orphan…. I don’t know what his guidelines were, but she was too far along for him to give her and adoption, and would we like to accept?”

She respectfully declined. But she was touched by his thoughtfulness. (She subsequently had two children of her own.)

“He spent the time to understand what a woman’s position was. Why she was there. What her physical and emotional situation was … he’d try to work with her and whomever came with that person to support her.”

Svetkis says she’s aware it’s a bit unconventional to want to tell the world about a surgical procedure from more than 20 years ago. She says her family and friends were aware of her abortion.

But, she says, when she heard of Tiller’s death, “It was like I needed to make my experience as public as possible as to what an incredible, compassionate man this was, and how important this service was.”

She continued, “There are so few people who can do it. And those that are and the people that can do this procedure are being intimidated out of their rights, and I view it as terrorism.”

Sherry Svetkis says she hopes that with the considerable skills that Barack Obama posses, that perhaps a discussion can be renewed in America about the issue of reproductive rights.

She says, “We need many more voices from the women, and families in this country who have made these choices, so we can have an understanding to what these situations are, and why its important to have services. It’s a woman’s right to her body, and Dr. Tiller was a firm believer in that. We need to support women so they don’t have to be in this situation.”

The Justice Department announced late last week that it was launching an investigation into whether anyone else was involved in Tiller’s death and investigating for potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act.