Vermonter Steve Benen, he the one time Carpetbagger and current Political Animal, has been pegged by Wikio.com (and picked up and amplified by ABC's "The Note" blog) as having the tenth most influential political blog in the country – rated even higher than DailyKos and Firedoglake, and only one notch down from Talking Points Memo.

 High praise indeed. I've always wondered why Steve – who has such a high profile nationally (you can catch his mug from time to time on Rachel Maddow's show, for example) gets so little recognition locally. The Vermont media crowd acts as though they never heard of him (well… he is just a blogger).  

Of course, Megan McCain (blogging daughter of John McCain) is on the warpath against Steve of late, for his daring to suggest that she was not as influential a national figure as former Vice President Dick Cheney (hoooooo-wee, is a trip to the Total Perspective Vortex in order for somebody). Sadly, Ms. McCain also did not make the wikio top 100 list. Neither did Cheney, for that matter. So there.

UPDATE: Steve is having scary flashbacks seeing his teenage self plastered across the internet for all to see. I assure you all he's much more respectable now, and in the interest of fairness, I will once again humiliate myself thusly (once again, via Facebook):

Not only did the judge rule to block the state from making those layoffs, he ruled that there wasn’t even any standing to sue since the budget doesn’t go into effect until July 1st.

I’m not sure whether or not I agree with this.  When you include something in a budget bill scheduled to begin on July 1st, does that mean that any change law included in the budget bill is scheduled to begin on the 1st as well?  

Was the start date for this specified in the bill itself?  If not, it should have been.

I’m still opposed to these layoffs on so many levels, but I’m no longer convinced that they’re illegal, at least not this month (I remain open to the possibility, but I’m not convinced).

This is a fairly devastating blow.

Crossposted at Huffington Post.

As I surf the Internet and visit my favorite blogs, I read that many people are saying “why didn’t Barack Obama say this” or “why didn’t Obama say that?”  Many prominent Mideast experts and bloggers are expressing disappointment in Obama. They say his address to the Arab-Muslim world was “status quo patronizing,” “nothing but empty words,” “lip service,” and much more.  Jack Shaheen, one of the world’s foremost authority on media images of Arabs and Muslims, said he was duly impressed with Obama’s address to the Muslim world.    

Shaheen is the author of the groundbreaking work “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People.” His second book “Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs after 9/11,” was recently named the 2008 “Forward Magazine” social sciences book of the year.  Shaheen says Obama’s message set a positive tone for a sincere dialog about Muslims and Arabs myths and realities.  He believes Obama “brought these issues in a very candid and articulate manner to the forefront and he is committed from the get-go.”

I interviewed Shaheen shortly before the 2008 general election for Off the Bus and I checked back in to find out what he thought of Obama’s address to the Arab-Muslim world.    

So what are your initial impressions of Obama’s address to the Arab-Muslim world?

Jack Shaheen: The fact that an American president went to an Arab country and spoke not only young people throughout the Arab-Muslim world and Arab and Israeli leaders, but to world leaders and young people worldwide.  I say this primarily because it was a message of peace.  His words were designed to make people realize and understand that violence, the occupation of another people, and using religion as a weapon continue to go on.  But it needs to stop and we as human beings have a responsibility to shatter the myth and cease the hate rhetoric that we have.  

We need to begin a dialog to go forward.  We know that will not be an easy task, but [Obama] has set a tone.  I think it always begins at the top and hopefully other world leaders and young people will take to heart his message.  

We also need to understand that individuals must act on it.  We have to follow through as a country [to achieve peace].  We have to make certain that settlements no longer exist and that Israel brings down the wall.  Obama did not say that, but should have.  He could have compared that to the Berlin Wall.  But I think given the hate and the mistrust that exists in Israel – which is not being reported [in the U.S.], – I think he soft-pedaled that.  Which I can understand.  

I also believe that for more than a century, we have in one way or the other demonized Islam and Muslims. This has had a telling effect.  Many Arabs and Muslims are afraid to come to the U.S. because of harassment at airports, taken off a plane, or deported because you were Muslim or Arab.  Obama didn’t mention that.  But we knew instinctively that was what he was talking about.  Without saying it, Obama was telling the world ‘it’s OK to be a Muslim. The Muslims are like Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc.’

Now we know a lot of people are not going to shed their prejudices over time about Islam and Muslims.  But again, it’s coming from the top and that will filter down.  I think Obama is not going to let this go. He’s not going to stop with this kind of rhetoric.  He will continue to quote and cite the similarities between the Koran, the Bible, and the Torah.  Of course if I were writing the speech, I would’ve advised him that the Virgin Mary is mentioned more often in the Koran than she is in the Bible!  

Obama was trying to do several things [in his address].  He was trying to shatter crude stereotypes Americans have about Arabs and Muslims, help young Arabs and Muslims and Arab leaders shatter their misperceptions of Americans and Israelis, and help Israelis shatter the crude stereotypes they may have of Arabs and Muslims.  I think [Obama’s address] brought these issues to the forefront.  He’s not waiting until the last few months of his presidency to try and bring about peace.  Obama’s committed from the get-go.  This is the first.  

It reminded me – in some ways – when former president Richard Nixon speech when he went to China.  Americans had all these images of China as “dirty commies.”  Nixon goes to China and almost over night, our perceptions and policies began to change.  They’re not going to change that fast, but we’ve been here before.  We were able to turn this around with China.  I see no reason why we can’t do this.

My problem was that Obama spoke out against Palestinian violence, but not against Israeli violence. He said nothing about the Israeli aggression in Gaza from late December and early January.

I think he did all the things he could have done.  But look how many times Obama mentioned Palestine?  He also mentioned the occupation.  All of us have our particular biases.  We can always find things and say ‘why didn’t he say this or why didn’t he say that?’  But by and large, it was a speech to bring people together.  I think Obama treaded very carefully so much as to not to offend countries who will may step forward and negotiate with the U.S.  

First of all, we have to take into consideration that this is the key first step.  Obama set the correct tone for the beginning of the peace process.  No president before has ever done this.  Secondly, he did not speak to the Muslim world, he spoke to Muslims throughout the world.  This speech did not only take into consideration Arab Muslims – the ones who are most demonized – but other Muslims from all over the world.  No matter where they are, Muslims are persecuted and looked down upon because of their faith.  I think this president deserves a tremendous amount of credit for reaching out.  

It’s human nature to look at a speech like this and say ‘well, had I been delivering this speech, this is what I would’ve said.’  I’m sure Robert Fisk would’ve come down much harder on the Israelis and Tom Friedman would have come down much harder on the Arabs, etc., etc., etc.  From that particular point of view, I think there’s enough in it to say it was fair and balanced.  

I was particularly impressed by the reception [Obama received] at Cairo University.  I don’t think Obama would’ve gotten that kind of reception in Israel.  There weren’t cue cards saying “applaud here” or “cheer there.”  Those who attended were sincerely moved by Obama’s speech and his commitment. I think that’s a very strong indication of the seeds Obama has planted.  Those seeds will develop and grow as long as he does not waver from his commitment.  

In terms of your area of expertise (media criticism), what issues are not being covered about Obama’s address?

I think the mainstream media have basically said that the Israelis didn’t mind it that much.  I don’t think that’s true.  There’s been a lot of blogging on how Arabs have reacted, but not enough about how Israelis are reacting.  I think we need to know that.  

I also think what we haven’t followed up on crude stereotypes, how we perceive them, and how Arabs and Muslims perceive us.  

I also think commonalities have to be addressed.  If I were Larry King, I would have a rabbi, priest and an imam.  I don’t think we can move forward on this until you shed these misconceptions that we’ve held for so many years.  

I think we need to define what they are and how does Obama plan on changing the way Israelis look at Arabs, or the way we look at Arabs and Muslims and vice-versa.  I think that’s the key and the major element. We should start with that.  

How does Obama’s address reflect Americans’ perceptions and misperceptions of Arab politics and Arab-Muslim culture?

I think with Arab politics, Obama is talking about being more open and more responsive to citizens of different Arab countries.  He does that by saying that political leaders have to be accountable for your people.  He’s not calling for democracy.  But he is calling for accountability.  That’s extremely important.  

In terms of Arab-Muslim culture, we need to have a summit.  We need to have a dialog to shatter these myths and I think the dialog comes with media leaders and all the countries involved.  It’s Hollywood, it’s the press, and it’s about what can be done so these crude stereotypes are not taken to an extreme.  If we continue vilifying one another, peace will never happen.  

So where do we go from here after Obama’s address?

I think we’ve learned that we have a leader who cares passionately about the human race, curtailing terrorism worldwide, and putting an end to an illegal occupation.  He is a leader who has respect for all faiths; he has the vision to see the commonalities among the faiths; and he is a leader that respects their differences.  

I see him as a fearless man and a champion of human rights.  I see in Obama a young Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., only in many ways, he’s more universal.  There are elements of King and Mahatma Ghandi in Obama.  It’s all right there.  You can see and feel his passion and his commitment to each and every person.    

If you're a regular reader here you know Julie Waters' writing, and if you come around on Sundays you usually get to see some of her amazing photography, but you may not know about her music.

Now that Julie's just been featuerd in her local paper, we just had to share it with all of our readers. Start the story here, then follow the link for the rest of it.

Great going, Julie!

Guitar And Banjo Virtuoso Julie Waters

Robert F. Smith, Editor Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:43 AM

Julie Waters is one of those names that you hear frequently on the local music scene, and may occasionally have the chance to hear. She is an extraordinary guitar and banjo player, with a unique style that involves partial capo techniques and lots of string tapping on the fingerboard of the guitar. When she was asked if the late acoustic guitar genius Michael Hedges was an influence on her, she laughs.

Senator James Inhofe — the guy who calls global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” — reacting to Obama’s Cairo speech: (from the Daily Oklahoman)

Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was “un-American” because he referred to the war in Iraq as “a war of choice” and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.

Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.”

“I just don’t know whose side he’s on,” Inhofe said of the president.

Senator Inhofe: how dare you undercut our President in a time of war? How dare you publicly expose our political differences in a way sure to embolden our enemies?

Oh, wait, I forgot… you’re a Republican, and those arguments only hold when a Republican is President.  

( – promoted by odum)

Okay, so Eric Davis, everybody’s go-to guy for political analysis in Vermont, was on the Mark Johnson Show this morning. At one point, Eric and Mark rather casually asserted that, regarding the state budget, the Vermont electorate is significantly to the right of the Legislative majority.

I stewed over that for a while, and then called the show.  

First of all, I made a brief case that the Legislative leadership, in fact, pursued a moderate course on the budget rather than a liberal one. And then I asked about their unsubstantiated assertion: If the Legislature is significantly to the left of the voters, how exactly did that happen? And, if the Legislature is so badly out of touch, is there something fundamentally wrong with how we choose our lawmakers?

Eric had two answers: First, that the GOP took its eye off the ball regarding Legislative races a few years back, concentrating on re-electing Jim Douglas and getting Martha Rainville into Congress. (Oops.) The Republicans didn’t even contest a bunch of races, he said. Well, nonsense. If the GOP isn’t strong enough to walk and chew gum at the same time, they’re in trouble. They didn’t run candidates mainly in districts where they had no chance of winning. Also, how does that Republican distraction somehow produce a two-thirds majority if, in fact, the electorate isn’t fundamentally center-left?

Eric’s second point: Polls give the Legislature very low marks for job performance… but individual lawmakers are popular in their own districts. So they get re-elected whether or not their views fairly reflect those of the electorate. Thus, presumably, the Republicans continue to pay the price for their 2006 inattention. There’s certainly some truth in this; Vermonters are very slow to oust incumbents (and Jim Douglas thanks you from the bottom of his heart). But still, it seems a mighty thin basis for the assertion that Vermont is a center-right state that has somehow managed to elect a solidly left-wing Legislature.  

This disconnect between politics and pundits is also playing out on a national level. There’s a basic assumption that America is a centrist or center-right nation. But somehow the Americans managed to overwhelmingly elect a Democratic President, and sizeable Democratic majorities in Congress. I realize that “objective” pundits like Eric Davis try to play it down the middle, but there’s a much simpler explanation: Vermonters and Americans, by and large, want their government to do a lot of things. Regulate the excesses of the free market, furnish services that the market does not, redress social imbalances, maintain the infrastructure, and provide for a secure, orderly society. We may not be fond of paying for all that, but we do want our government to do it. On that score, it’s the Republicans, including Douglas, who are out of touch with the electorate.  

Here is a follow up of sorts to a recent diary and an interesting news item and on Liberty University’s decertifying the campus Democratic Club last month. Americans United for Separation of Church and State took notice and took action requesting that the IRS examine the University’s tax exempt status. Liberty Union has now done the same to Americans United claiming they are an “arm” of the Democratic Party.

Questioning Liberty University’s Tax-Exempt Status

…..Americans United  Spokesman Joe Conn explained that  a private university “can do almost anything it wants” in terms of favoring one viewpoint over another, “but it can’t be partisan” in the political sense of favoring one party or candidate over another. The group often sends similar letters to the IRS during presidential elections when churches take political stands or endorse candidates.

The university is firing back by questioning Americans United’s own tax status. “AU has essentially become an arm of the Democratic Party,”wrote Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of the university’s law school. Staver told the IRS that Americans United is itself partisan because it objects mainly when churches support Republican candidates.

Spokesman Joe Conn said his organization is “not quaking in our boots” about losing tax-exempt status. “We are very rigorously non-partisan,” he added, noting in that in recent months the organization has criticized the Obama Administration for its faith-based initiative.

Conn said Liberty University chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. is following in the footsteps of his father, the famed preacher Jerry Falwell. In 1993, the late Falwell paid fines to the IRS for partisan activity in his “Old Time Gospel Hour” program.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/…

…you were so very wrong:

Burlington Free Press Headline:

    State layoffs moving ahead: Union to seek court action.  

The Herald’s:

    State workers’ union to file restraining order to stop layoffs

The Administration just hired Michael Marks, an expensive PRIVATE attorney to defend them in superior court tomorrow. When the State has so many of their own attorneys, why are they wasting taxpayer money and hiring outside counsel?

Anyone able to verify this?  I figure if they hired this guy, he’ll be at the hearing this morning.

First from the Herald, as reported by Dan Barlow:

A provision in the 2010 budget that requires Douglas to seek approval from the Joint Fiscal Committee, an off-session legislative body that makes budget decisions, before making any further job cuts has set off a war or [sic] words between the executive and legislative branches.

…and…

The union representing thousands of state workers will file for a restraining order today to stop the state government from laying off about 120 state workers.

The Vermont State Employees Association officials said they will ask a Washington County Superior Court judge to issue an emergency order to stop Gov. James Douglas’ future layoff plans. Nearly 100 state employees are scheduled to work their last day Friday.

And from Hallenbeck, in the Free Press:

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, said administration officials told her Tuesday that Douglas would take the Legislature to court over the new wording.

Lunderville said Wednesday, “We’re not going to sue the Legislature,” but he didn’t dismiss the idea of ignoring the directive if the administration deems it unconstitutional.

There also seems to be some question about the number of layoffs.  The Free Press reports it as anywhere from 78-99, depending on whom you ask, and the Herald reports a range of 100-120.  You’d think that would be something that would be easy enough to figure out, but clearly not.

That said, there is probably a serious constitutional question here, but Lunderville’s solution (“he didn’t dismiss the idea of ignoring the directive if the administration deems it unconstitutional”) is a good lesson.  If you lose at the legislature, why risk a fair fight in the court system?  Best to just ignore the whole thing.

I also want to be up front about something here: this is personal for me.  I lost my own job a year or so ago because of budget cuts at the state level.  I was a contractor, and I think contractors should be cut before state employees so I had no real argument with that decision.  

But during the time I was working for the State of VT, I learned a lot about the inner workings of state government and I know other contractors who are still working with the state whom are an immense waste of money for us, but they’re going to cut state union workers instead of looking at contracted positions.  People I know are likely to lose their job over this bugetary shell game.

So yes, it’s personal.  That doesn’t make it less important and it doesn’t make it less disturbing.  

If the administration wants to cut these positions, the law now dictates that they have to seek approval to do so.  If they want to violate that law, they need to do it through the court system through appropriate venues, and not through the time-honored “lalalalalalalala I can’t HEAR you!” tradition.

I don’t have time to do much right now, but I just want to get it up here: NH passed same-sex marriage this afternoon.

Welcome to the club, but always remember that we did it first.

UPDATE: does this mean that the Free State Project has had its first success?

Our governor has suffered two veto over-rides in the last couple of months.  What does this bode for his political future?

Don’t count Jim out yet.  Smily-faced obstructionism is the new (old) GOP strategery for the 2012 presidential cycle. Pawlenty from MN and Douglas from VT are well positioned for the 2012 GOP nomination with their smarmy, school-marmish Church Lady personas.  

The GOP might try to rally ’round the rebel rag one more time and put the Wasillabilly forward, but the GOP is going to find, much like the Democrats did when for 48 years the only Dem presidents that could be elected were from Dixie, that the only pols with a ghost of a chance that their party can put forward will have to be from the Nawth.  And even if Sarah does get the nomination, the ticket will have to be “balanced” (I know, hard to “balance” a ticket when one of your candidates is imbalanced) with a bonafide Yankee.

Pawlenty is stepping down at the end of his term.  He is dragging his feet on seating Franken, knowing that the big GOP donors will pay him off for keeping the Dem Senate majority under 60.  

His slow-walking Franken is burning his bridges in MN, perhaps, but not nationally.   For one, he’s got the fact that he was elected in a fairly blue state on his side.  Unlike Romney, who also can make the same claim to fame, he’s not seen as particularly slick/slimy, even if he is.  

The same with our governor.  There’s nothing slick about Douglas (but what he lacks in slickness he makes up for in mendacity and unctuousness).  

This may not be a good year for Douglas in VT, but it could be a great year for him nationally.  The vetoes might not play so well for him here, but they’ll play better in Peoria, and great in the red states and red areas.  He’s now on the record strong for gay-bashing and gutting government services, bloody shirts for the increasingly Southron GOP base.

And, perversely, he has the Vermont brand working for him, too.  He can’t be all bad if those crazy folk in VT elected him 4 times.  He must be a nice guy. (Isn’t that special?)

The folks in the rest of the country aren’t going to understand the Dem/Prog circular firing squads that have kept the governor’s office GOP.   One of the unintended consequences of the progressive (note – small “p”) infighting and squabbling could be Douglas on the 2012 presidential or VP ballot.  (America says “gee, thanks”.)

Douglas has assembled a big PR team.  That team is way too big to keep just for VT.   I think a big incentive for him to run in 2010 is to keep the team on the public teat for a national run, and, if the Progs and Dems get the circular firing squad together again, it will make it a done deal.