UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who bore with us through our tech issues today for the live stream. We finally got it done.

The video stream of the taping is after the jump:

Live TV : Ustream

Scott Farrell of The Farrell Files on 10 Connects and CL Editor David Warner join me this morning to tape our weekly HoCast.

Here is our tentative issue lineup, including discussion of Tampa’s electric shuttle car controversy. Have something you want us to discuss or a nominee for Political Whore of the Week? Leave it in comments and we’ll read it during the podcast:

1. The Public Transportation Commission’s decision to pull the plug on free electric shuttles in downtown Tampa

2. Health care and Town Halls: is the nuttiness getting too much? Sarah Palin makes up crap about death panels and the Senate reacts. One crazy brought a gun to the NH Town Hall with Obama. Obama’s popularity continues to slide. Clips as follows:

Dingell calls town hall mobs like KKK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfoGCYFRQlM&feature=ytn%3Amptnews

Obama compares health care concerns to FedEx and UPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XTi-WdOu2s

Audio from the man who brought a gun to the presidential town hall and the discourse he has with Chris Matthews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1DBIHocbXk

3. Dick Cheney believes that George W Bush “went soft” on him, according to Washington Post. Cheney is prepping a tell-all book
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203306.html

4. Scientology’s ads hit the airwaves here, and the St Pete Times accepts their web banner ads.

5. And is it too easy to do Hillary losing it in the congo?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XTi-WdOu2s

Plus Political Whore of the Week nominees
1-time winner Brian Blair officially announces for Florida Legislature
Major Garrett of Fox News, for his naked partisanship during the daily WH newser and a question on why people are getting White House emails http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLQT0X1aSoI
The Moonbats who are selling a $18.49 DVD (with free bumpersticker!) called “A Question of Eligibility” that details the Birther movement and claims

A rural Alabama family physician, Benjamin made some headlines rebuilding her nonprofit Gulf Coast medical clinic in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Obama said during the news conference announcing the pick, “For all the tremendous obstacles that she has overcome, Regina Benjamin also represents what’s best about health care in America, doctors and nurses who give and care and sacrifice for the sake of their patients.”

Benjamin calls the job a physician’s dream. “I cannot change my family’s past,” she said. “I can be a voice in the movement to improve our nation’s health care and our nation’s health. I want to be sure that no one falls through the cracks as we improve our health care system.”

Read more about Benjamin below the jump:

Read Benjamin’s biography here.

Her Wikipedia page

By Lorna Bracewell
PoHo contributor

In a presidential proclamation issued on Monday, President Barack Obama officially recognized the month of June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The president’s call for equality and his acknowledgment of the many contributions LGBT people have made to America’s culture, society and politics despite being culturally, socially and politically marginalized are truly moving. However, I can’t help feeling slightly ambivalent about the whole thing. Here’s why:

Unlike many in the big gay blogosphere, the root of my ambivalence is not the excruciatingly slow pace at which the president has pursued formal equality for LGBT people. Rather, it’s the order in which things seem to be happening. It seems wrong to me that LGBT people have been given a month before we’ve been given civil rights.

That’s not the way things happened for African Americans. They officially got their duly deserved month in 1986 when Congress passed Public Law 99-244. This law required the president to issue a proclamation recognizing Black History Month, which had been privately observed since 1915. Then President Ronald Reagan obliged with a document that reads quite similarly to Obama’s LGBT Pride Month proclamation.

All of this happened some 116 years after the passages of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the amendments to the federal Constitution that abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and enfranchised all males regardless of race, and 22 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, a federal law that went a long way toward making the abstract legal rights guaranteed by those amendments substantively meaningful for African Americans.

In short, African Americans got their rights first and their month second. It is almost Orwellian that the many achievements of the LGBT civil rights movement are being extolled while LGBT people are still being denied the most basic civil right of marriage and are still prevented from serving openly in the military.  Let’s hope history-turned-on-its-head doesn’t repeat itself and force us to wait 116 years for formal equality.

Let’s hope for his sake Barack Obama’s vetting team asked Sonia Sotomayor if she has paid her taxes. Let’s hope they asked her if she’s ever hired, employed, otherwise used undocumented folks for laundry, housekeeping, garbage pickup, whatever. Also, she damn well have been kidding about the impact a judge’s ethnicity and sex have on the decision-making process. She better downplay her comment about a Latina woman (isn’t that redundant) making better decisions than a white male considering the folks asking her questions are predominantly white males, and old white males at that.

Now, for the hard part…

By all objective criteria, Sonia Sotomayor is qualified for the nation’s highest court from her academic, legal, and judicial experience. That shouldn’t be an issue. If it is, we have a whole other set of problems. She’s a summa cum laude Princeton grad and a Yale law grad. She’s been on the federal bench since 1992, appointed by a Republican no less.

In her decisions, she’s tipped her judicial cap to the religious constituency by advancing First Amendment claims based on religion. She’s even sided with business in some of her rulings. Most importantly, she hasn’t entered the abortion fray.

In terms of how she’ll play politically, she’s an Hispanic woman who’s humble, hard working, and knows her roots. In the press conference, she didn’t come off as a man-eating feminista bent on punishing the imperialist dogs. From her remarks, you’d glean nothing of her accomplishments, which are considerable.

On the other hand, she’s made some statements that could give Dems pause and Repubs fodder. The two statements to which I’ve referred will need some polish. More importantly, she’ll have to nuance her response to the certain questions concerning public policy making. She’s on record for stating that the court is where public policy is created. That’s a problem for Obama. If she brushes off the questions, she’ll look like she’s ducking.  If she gives too nuanced a response, she’ll look like she’s lying. This is a problem that Republicans are sure to exploit, as well they should.  It was a dumb thing to say. She knew it too because she said so. “And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that.”

What’s troubling about that statement is that she’s smart enough to know better.  Does that go to judicial temperament?

Obama’s betting on her personal story, her educational and legal achievements, and her experience to get her confirmed. Those opposed to her nomination should nimbly zero in on her comments. Don’t touch her sex, her ethnicity, or her experience. Question her about her intemperate comments.

Another issue that has little to do with Sotomayor as a person or a jurist is her faith. She’s a Catholic.  If confirmed, that would make a sixth justice a Catholic.  Imagine that, six out of nine Supreme Court justices would be Catholic.  Forty-six years ago, the nation took issue with electing a Catholic president!  Where’s the diversity and “experience” in having six out of nine justices Catholic?

In the end, she’ll be confirmed. Not because she’s qualified or a woman. She’s Sonia from the block and the opposition can’t stop her.

By Ben Luongo
PoHo contributor
Ben Luongo is a USF political science graduate student. He will be graduating this spring.

I wanted to follow up on my last piece which was on the tea party protests, so I attended Tampa’s tea party at 5 p.m. on Wednesday. I previously wrote that the debate on Obama’s spending has suffered from the failure of both sides to provide reasons for their arguments. I therefore attended the event with the hopes of understanding some of the tea-partiers’ reasons for their concerns.

Here is what we talked about:

I talked with two campaigners with Campaign for Liberty, which was one of the organizations managing the event. “The infiltration of government money into the economy is not the answer,” said one of the campaigners. Their reason was that this type of spending leads to increased government and puts America on a path to socialism.

Socialism was a major theme at this event. There were several speakers, all of which shared their concerns about socialism. Organizations passed out pamphlets on securing America’s economic prosperity. Protesters carried signs that accused Obama of being a socialist, communist or collectivist.

There was a second theme in the event — the American Constitution. This, too, was a major point in speeches, pamphlets, and protestor signs, although it wasn’t clear to me as to how this event was relating these two themes. I spoke with George Schwappach, an organizer with the Tampa Tea Party Group. He gave an intelligent explanation that the Constitution was designed around the idea of federalism and limited government. He said that this type of spending is in conflict with the ideals of the constitution, and, according to how it is written, “Obama may not even be allowed to do this [stimulus plan].”

Relating the two ideas, there was a general overall concern that the move towards socialism didn’t only undermine America’s economic prosperity, but it also undermined the American Constitution, which by extension would be a threat to individualism. However, these arguments equating Obama’s spending to socialism and collectivism are baseless because they suffer from a misunderstanding of what socialism really is, as well as Obama’s intentions.

Increasing regulation or government spending does not move a democratic society closer to socialism. Democracy and socialism are two very different ideas and cannot conceptually merge closer to the other. Democratic societies place the individual at the center of society; the state allows free individuals to pursue his or her own interests, unleashing each person’s particular skills where everybody practices what they excel at and therefore benefits from what others excel at. Socialism, on the other hand, emphasizes the whole, where it regulates social activity to ensure the well-being of society.

So these are two very different ideas — democracy and the individual vs. socialism and society as a whole. Here is where the confusion comes in. People label Obama’s spending as a move towards socialism because they think it resembles the regulation of social activity that we find in socialism. However, democratic societies also need government intervention and regulation in order to safeguard and uphold the individual at the center of society. If a democratic society goes completely unregulated, then free social activity and economic prosperity might collapse into itself, which is what we saw with banks practicing absolute freedom to hand out irresponsible loans at the expense of the economy. Therefore, even free societies need to borrow the idea of regulation in order prevent breakdown. In other words, a democratic society may regulate social activity so that it can protect and maximize the individual’s capacity to act in that society, which is what Obama’s plan is geared towards doing.

I seriously doubt that President Obama has a socialist agenda in store for America, but I do think that he understands that protecting individualism sometimes calls for regulation and intervention. His spending, while you may disagree with how he’s spending, is designed to recover the American economy, not socialize it.

Check out the video from taxdayteaparty.com below:

However, the dumping of tea into rivers and lakes is not only a waste of tea, it’s a waste of an opportunity. I propose an alternative plan which will put that tea to good use:

Invite those who disagree with you over for a cup instead.

America just elected a president who ran on changing the way we talk about politics. It’s a shame we haven’t learned to do that yet. Conservatives have to learn that calling Obama a socialist is not productive in engaging the other side in real debate. At the same time, liberals need to productively engage conservatives as well, rather than ignore their protests, which are now nationwide.

Right now conservatives are happy conducting more rallies and protests, especially since they’re gaining momentum, and liberals are happy with mocking them. This is productive dialogue? In fact, it’s the absence of dialogue, and society can only implement just and practical plans insofar as they are a byproduct of civil dialogue. So how do we fix it? Both sides need to show respect for their opponents’ beliefs and start providing reasons for their own.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem likely with this issue. Both democrats and republicans aligned themselves with their respective parties, without feeling the need to validate their opinions. In other words, it seems as though this debate has suffered from ideological spin rather than evidence and reason, and the tea-parties demonstrate this. They bring out the base for conservatives, but they don’t speak to those who disagree or those who are unsure about the issue. It is for this reason that the other side finds no value in responding to the protests and that the “unsures” remain unsure. Generally, these protests are considered to be nothing more than an event for hard-right-wingers to meet up and cast personal attacks on Obama. What a waste of impressive organizing skills, and quite frankly, how disappointing.

The Tea Parties will go on as planned, and if they are the same as the previous ones, than they won’t be civil discussions between intellectual counterparts sharing tea. Liberals could expect more personal attacks and more empty arguments. However, conservatives could take advantage of this media event and share with America what they find so disagreeable about Obama’s stimulus plan, or just the idea of stimulus packages in general. America will be listening and they don’t want to hear angry and empty rhetoric, but they can get behind reasoned and legitimate concerns. The task then for conservatives is to appeal to our sense of reason … which may be hard to do when they’re trying to evoke an historical reference to revolution out of protesting a stimulus plan that most economists argue is necessary in our recession.

President Barack Obama announced on Friday his new Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy, which he says has a clear goal:

To disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is the cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same – we will defeat you.

Listen to his speech below:

To achieve this, Obama is sending an additional 4.000 U.S. troops to the 17,000 scheduled to be deployed to the region in the next couple of months. He is also sending a civilian “surge” which would include mostly diplomats and specialists.

Is this a good idea?

I wrote a piece last week concerning Obama expressing his interest to focus more of our efforts in Afghanistan. I was critical of pursuing Afghanistan because there was a lack of clarity as to what the plan would be. However on Friday, Obama narrowed the main objective to defeating terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which should have been the main objective all along. This is a smart goal because it doesn’t allow any room for democratization, nation building or any other careless crusade. Now that we have our goal, we can get in and get the hell out, right?

Not so fast. There still isn’t a defined exit strategy or exit date, which is the reason why so many are willing to call this strategy “Obama’s Vietnam.” Peace Action, which is an anti-war network, petitioned both democrat and republican members of congress to dissuade President Obama from sending more troops to the region. The executive director of Peace Action, Kevin Martin, invoked the analogy of Vietnam to describe the Obama’s Af/Pak strategy.

While President Obama has made some good statements on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the emphasis is clearly on military operations. John F. Kennedy was in a comparable situation when he was elected. He chose to escalate then as well. And the consequence of his decision left our country mired in an unwinnable war

While I am displeased with the idea that Obama does not have an exit plan as of yet, I don’t think that we can compare his Af/Pak strategy to Vietnam. First, there is a valid argument for an Af/Pak plan simply because these are the breeding grounds for the terrorists that attacked us and one could argue that it’s prudent to prevent another 9/11. Compare this to Vietnam, and let’s throw Iraq in there also, where there was less of a necessity to invade these countries.

Second, and probably more important, is that this plan carries a legitimacy that Vietnam and Iraq didn’t have. Obama called Afghan President Karzai and Pakistan President Zardari on Thursday which both of them expressed a willingness to work with the U.S. In fact President Zardari said that this plan would “further cement these ties.” Furthermore, only hours before Obama announced his strategy, Russia hosted a conference of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization where members agreed on playing a larger role in the stabilization of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran attended the meeting and its Deputy Foreign Minister Ahundzadeh urged for new ideas to help stabilize the region. He said “people are fed up – the killing of the innocents.”

There is an increasing sense of the legitimacy for intervention. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are allowing U.S. efforts, while others, such as Russia and Iran, are also suggesting playing a more active role in the stability of the region.

Things may be coming together for Obama’s strategy but the consent of America and of the rest of the world will dry up quickly if there is no end in sight, especially with America’s war-fatigue after seven years of Iraq. Obama has set benchmarks to guide the strategy and maintain forward momentum, which is a good start. However, if he wants to maintain support for his intervention then he is going to have to provide a date to withdraw. This is especially important if he is looking to get more support at the NATO summit next week.

Last Thursday marked the six-year anniversary of the war with Iraq. During this time, the U.S. has lost more than 4,000 troops and Iraq civilian losses are estimated around 90,000. According to the National Priorities Project the war has cost more than $650 billion so far, and much more will be spent. Also according to them, Tampa taxpayers have paid more than $600 million in federal taxes towards the total Iraq war spending approved to date.

All over the United States. were ceremonies that remembered and honored our fallen soldiers. Activists stood firm on their original positions against the war and held peace marches and protests. Here in Florida, at the Fort Myer’s Centennial Park, was an exhibit of 191 boots representing the number of soldiers that Florida has lost during the war.

Everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, affected by the war. It seems only fitting, now on the six year mark, to reflect on the situation of Iraq. Here are my thoughts:

First, Obama has said that he will withdraw troops from Iraq by 2010. What Obama has learned is that setting a date is the first step and best way to actually leave. It gives us a goal to work towards and organize around. Furthermore, Obama understands that if we stay in Iraq, then Bush’s mistake becomes his.

Second, Obama is willing to maintain 30,000 to 50,000 troops in the region to ensure stability. Despite the backlash he received from other Democrats in the Senate and the House, this was a smart decision. Keeping troops there allows access to the region if things fall apart. Its easier to stay and prevent a breakdown rather than inviting ourselves back in to fix one.

Third, Obama has been careful not to use the moral rhetoric that the Bush Administration used to justify its foreign policy. Obama has remained pragmatic about Iraq, which often times gets him into trouble when people want quick and straightforward answers. However, by shifting policy from moral objectives to focusing on pragmatic ones, the Obama Administration will find productive opportunities that the Bush Administration would have unfortunately rejected as naive and weak. The most obvious example is the issue of Afghanistan where Obama has said he is willing to talk to the Taliban, which could actually prove to be useful. Rather than label them as the enemy, it is advantageous to talk to moderates in the Taliban, which wouldn’t be any different than our collaborative efforts with Sunni militants in Iraq.

However, in regards to Afghanistan, while it would keep his campaign promise, Obama’s decision to refocus efforts there is not a clear display of the lessons learned from Iraq. It is still unclear as to what our mission in Afghanistan would be. Obama is sending an additional 17,000 troops there this spring and, according to an article in the Miami-Herald is also sending a different type of ’surge,’ which would be a blitz of diplomats and specialists into the region to deal with issues of government corruption, drug dealing, etc. Is the role of the military to police the cities or is it actually engaging in eradicating potential terrorist organizations? Is the role of this new ’surge’ of diplomats and specialists geared towards eliminating government corruption or completely building a democracy? Furthermore, when this is all said and done, what is the exit strategy and date?

Obama has said that our mission in Afghanistan will be clearly stated in his strategy that he will complete by the end of March. However, sending troops and specialty civilians is a means to an end and the end should be realized first. I am not even sure if focusing more of our efforts in Afghanistan should be an end of ours, at least not one that demands military means. Obama’s determination to focus on Afghanistan without a clear mission is risky because if mismanaged it could become as unsuccessful a legacy as Iraq was for Bush. Obama has obviously learned from Iraq, because he is engaging Afghanistan differently. However, different isn’t always better and sometimes breaking a campaign promise is best.

If Obama wants to prevent Afghanistan from turning into a breeding ground for terrorism, then we should truly learn from Iraq and include other nations.  His first move should not be to deploy military and civilian specialists, but to work closely with other countries in the region, especially Pakistan as well as Syria and Iran. A strategy that includes other players in the region becomes more effective and legitimate. He should also consider what NATO members would be willing to work cooperatively towards a counter-terrorism mission.

As both a Tampa taxpayer and a global citizen who grows tired of war after six years, I hope peace is around the corner.

Ben Luongo is a USF political science graduate student. He will be graduating this spring.

The New York Times on Tuesday reported on a letter President Barack Obama sent to Russian president Dmitri Medvedev supposedly offering to terminate the development of the missile defense system in Europe if Russia became a key player in halting Iran’s nuclear program. Later that day, Obama clarified the content of the letter saying that the NYT article didn’t “accurately characterize the letter.”

“What I said in the letter is what I have said publicly, which is that the missile defense that we have talked about deploying is directed toward, not Russia, but Iran, and what I said … was that, obviously, to the extent that we are lessening Iran’s commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for, or the need for a missile defense system.”

The NYT article may have mischaracterized the letter if it led readers to believe that the White House was using the missile defense system in Europe as a bargaining chip. I don’t believe that was the intention of the article nor do I think that Obama plans on using the system as a bargaining chip. There is another concern though – that the topic of the defense system even came up at all in the letter. Here’s why…

I always thought that the missile defense system in Europe was an awful idea for the reason that it would only increase antagonism between the U.S and Russia. Originally a strategy of the Bush Administration, the missile defense system in the former Soviet satellite states of Poland and the Czech Republic was a strategy to counter threats from Iran. Russia disapproved under the logic that the system was a game changer but we ignored their concerns and as a result Putin evoked Cold War-like rhetoric and launched test missiles in a contentious tit-for-tat. U.S.-Russian relations have not been the same since.

Bringing it up casually, not as a bargaining chip, but as an added bonus for aiding the U.S. in halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, can easily be misinterpreted by Medvedev as blackmail. Luckily it hasn’t, and Medvedev seems to welcome Obama’s overtures. However, the missile defense system and Iran’s nuclear ambitions must remain as two separate issues for another reason. If Russia pressures Iran with the expectation that the defense system would be terminated but fails to extinguish Iran’s nuclear ambitions, then U.S.-Russia relations may become plagued with the constant quarrel over whether the defense system stays or goes. In fact, Iran may decide to ignore Russian pressure for this reason if it sees this quarrelling as a likely outcome.

Former Defense Secretary, William Cohen, stated in an interview with CNN a similar point. He said that “Iran has been able to divide the UN Security Council” and as long as the UNSC remains divided “they [Iran] feel they can just continue to do what they are doing, keep testing, keep developing, and ultimately develop a nuclear weapon. Cohen also said concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions that “if there is going to be a diplomatic solution then Russia has to be involved in it”.

The White House foreign policy has to be very careful juggling all of these relations. It may seem increasingly urgent to mend U.S.-Russian relations to address Iran, especially after Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Mike Mullen, said that Iran now has the capability of making a nuclear bomb. However, U.S. foreign policy must remain, and I think it is, sober and level-headed. There is no evidence that suggests Iran’s nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful, and assuming too much about weapons has already bogged us down in one war. The first order of business should be, then, the White House opening up some form of discussion with Iran, but more importantly, gear that discussion towards realizing common moral backgrounds and reaching consensus.

As far as the missile defense system goes, the Obama administration is going to have to explore new and creative ideas of keeping the U.S.’s word to Poland and the Czech Republic, while at the same time minimizing Russian suspicions. Perhaps involving Russia in the designing of the system or even as a joint owner would solve this problem.

Ben Luongo is a USF political science graduate student. He will be graduating this spring.

Obama’s Congressional address was not the only speech the nation was eager to hear, but it was the only one that wasn’t a disaster. Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana delivered the response to Obama’s address Tuesday night and took on big government spending. Jindal said:

“In all these areas, Republicans want to work with President Obama. We appreciate his message of hope, but sometimes it seems we look for hope in different places. Democratic leaders in Washington — they place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people. In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the National Democratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and to create jobs.”

How did this go over?

The response is always bound to get criticism from the other side but Jindal’s speech received harsh criticism from both. One of the harshest was from David Brooks calling Jindal’s message “stale”. Brooks ultimately said that the Republican Party cannot rely on their age-old message that the federal government is not the solution in an economic crisis. Charles Krauthammer wasn’t any easier on Jindal. He said that Jindal “didn’t have a chance” because as far as speeches go Obama “is in a league of his own”. Probably the most embarrassing was when Ed Rollins said that “this was a good night for Sarah Palin”. These are just the conservative criticisms.

The Republican Party did learn an important message with Obama’s victory – that it needs to broaden its appeal and reach out to other demographics, race, age, gender, in America. It chose Michael Steele as the new chairman and Jindal as a promising up-and-comer. These are good choices but if the Republican Party wants to broaden their appeal, they are going to have to change substantively as well.

Jindal’s speech did not show that the Republican Party can change. All is showed is that Jindal cannot read from the teleprompter without sounding like he’s reading a bedtime story.