Noticing a painfully short sidebar diary (barely a-twitter’s worth) that really pushes the definition of a “diary,” it has come to our attention that many weeks have passed since there has been any kind of appropriate venue to express those thoughts that may not reach the length considered a prerequisite to take up a full diary record in our archival database.

Ahem … In other words, rather than waste a whole diary page on a one sentence comment, let ’em rip below.

Open thread on life, the universe and everything below. Have at it!

On one end of the spectrum, you have the spectacle of Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) apologizing to BP CEO Tony Hayward in his appearence before Congress last week. Barton was only the latest and highest profile Republican who felt that the calls for accountability for the worst environmental disaster in history from the corporation that bears most of the responsibility was just un-American.

The response to Barton? Shock, condemnation, humiliation – resulting in a rapid retraction.

On the other end of the spectrum, Representative Welch was the first member of the House to call for a suspension of BP’s dividend payments, as well as for the creation of an escrow account to fund damages. And he went even went further in suggesting that CEO Hayward should resign for the responsibility he bears personally, as well as that which he bears simply as a function of his position.

The response to Welch? Opposite approaches to BP & Hayward would predictably merit an opposite response from the public and media, no?

As it turns out – no. The media only seems to care in the most perfunctory sense, and the only peeps from the Vermont blogosphere so far are suprisingly consistent, even given the ideological breadth of these particular commenters at Blurt:

“Hayward’s resignation won’t stop the leak.”

“Grandstanding members of Congress like Welch are now spewing meaningless hot air at a rate greater than the oil in the Gulf.”

“Only one thing worse than an oil executive not knowing what they are talking about, and that would be a group of congressman that know even less”

It’s easy to understand cynicism in this political era, where so much of the change we were promised has manifested as fairly tepid at best – but is this reaction so cynical as to add up to political paralysis? Are many of us – left, right, center, and wherever – becoming so jaded, that we are becoming incapable of recognizing positive contributions from any political officeholder with whom we’ve had any disagreement?

Pragmatically speaking, can we expect to make progress if we at the grassroots are all stick and no carrot? Assuming that a nominal degree of cynicism can fuel anger and action, at what point does cynicism work in the service of the very forces hurting society in the first place? Discuss…

The Progressive Party has announced a complete slate of statewide candidates for their party’s primary. While the goal seems partially to avoid “squatting” from non-Progressives looking for an easy major party ballot line, there still will likely (although not certainly) be a Progressive on most ballot lines, which will lead to more spoiler debates.

On the one hand, it’s probably the case that the only candidate of sufficient statewide prominence to impact the final vote totals is Party Chair and former Auditor candidate Martha Abbott for Governor. In fact, in a close race, Abbott could easily draw 5% or more, the lion’s share of which would likely otherwise go to a Democratic nominee and create the same troubling dynamic (that IRV, for example, would avoid); a left wing primary election co-existing on the same ballot as a broader statewide general election.

But on the other hand, it means that many Democrats who were losing hope that a credible candidate would emerge from their own party to challenge Auditor Tom Salmon can no longer look to Progressive Martha Abbott to fill that role. In this way, Abbott may be walking away from the Progs’ clearest path towards statewide victory and open acceptance from many liberal Dems.

Also, one is left to wonder at most of these names. Charlotte Dennett is a familiar one, but is clearly not competitive against Sorrell based on recent history. The others are unknown names and represent a continuation of the odd, counterintuitive paradigm among Progressive candidates; the sharp delineation between those who choose to run for statewide office, and those who run for local office. With few exceptions, the high profile Progressive electoral success stories are not the population from which their statewide candidates are drawn. The Zuckermans, Edwards, Pearsons, for example, may occasional flirt with statewide ambitions, but generally they are not the candidates.

So the question for debate is, is it a greater impact on the Progressives credibility to allow a few ballot lines to fall prey to squatters, or to present an official slate of statewide candidates that are virtually unrecognizable and will be unlikely to register much more than negligibly in final tallies?

Also, can we expect to see a stronger push from Progressives at the legislative level, given the badly damaged relationship between many among the liberal advocacy community and the Democratic legislators following a session characterized by many as a failure, or even an outright betrayal (based on the “Challenges for Change” fiasco)?

It’s been a while since the last GMD discussion/debate on the Progressive/Democratic electoral spectrum, so consider this a wide open thread on the whole, broad topic.

Vermont tea party frontman Paul Beaudry has indicated he will be leaving his far-right True North radio duties at WDEV to run as a Republican for the US House of Representatives against incumbent Democrat Peter Welch. He intends to make a formal announcement “on or before” April 26th. He will face a primary on the GOP ticket from Springfield businessman Keith Stern, who has run for office in the past as an independent and has indicated he may step aside if a stronger candidate emerges. Beaudry referred to Welch (and Stern) on the radio as “a fine gentleman.”

If you’ve heard any other names in circulation for any races of note, please share them in the comments below.

Former Chittenden State Senator Jim Condos will formally announce his candidacy for Secretary of State this Wednesday the 31st at 12:30 pm in the Cedar Creek Room of the Vermont Statehouse. He’ll join Charles Merriman of Middlesex who has been actively campaigning in Democratic Party circles in the primary.

So, Condos or Merriman? Who’s your early favorite and why (or is it way too early to have a favorite)?

Perhaps you’ve caught GMD’s latest publicity stunt? It’s part of a series we’ve developed for a catchy, vaguely serialized promotion using a consistent character who will come to be associated with our brand in the public eye. In fact, it’s modeled after the highly successful Geico “caveman” ads.

The idea is we create a rabid right-winger – you know, sort of a stereotypical tea bagger sort – and have him rant against the site by shilling in free forums, raising our profile among like minded lefties to get a good chuckle. More than that, though, is – if we may be so humble – the real genius of the promotional campaign. Our rabid mascot doesn’t just inveigh against GMD’s embrace and promotion of a lefty perspective, he’s highlighting how seriously and widely GMD is read, and that serious Democratic candidates – including all five candidates for Governor – frequently post here to reach our readers.

In this way, our target demographic gets the message that we’re not only a no-nonsense progressive political site that drives the right crazy, we’re also more than just your typical blog, and what we do here is a real part of the political discussion.

Anyway, it’s going great. Each iteration of the promotion that’s run so far has increased GMD’s hit count. We’re all looking forward to taking the campaign as far as we can.

Here’s the most recent entry in today’s Free Press: http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

You can compare that with our initial launch of the campaign in the Times Argus (in which we also mentioned one of our reader awards): http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

What do you think, dear readers? With the success of this, our first foray into newspaper-based publicity, what should be our next promotional project?

Yes, Burton has moved most of its operation to Austria. The nearly unanimous media chorus has echoed the line from everyone in the Douglas administration near a microphone; Vermont is just not a friendly place to do business. Not as compared to Austria, apparently.

So what can be done about that? Here’s Margolis:

To become more like Austria, Vermont needs:

(1)  Higher taxes;

(2)  stronger labor unions, probably meaning higher wages;

(3)  Five weeks of paid vacation for almost everyone, said Renezeder, because “unions play a very important role in our economy and we do have very strong social rights;”

(4)   An energy system that gets almost two thirds of its electricity from hydropower, wind, solar, and biomass, and none at all from nuclear reactors, which are against the law for generating electricity.

Since they’d never just parrot administration rhetoric in the face of all reason, I have no doubt our crack legacy journalist corps has already pointed all this out in the coverage… hmm… must be in here somewhere…

So what do you think? How can we make Vermont as business friendly as Austria?

The Markowitz campaign sent out the musical playlist for the “official” campaign kickoff event earlier this week:

The “Deb for Vermont Official Announcement Play List”

Free and Easy (Down the Road I Go)

Dierks Bentley

Back On the Train

PHISH

Rock with You

The Jacksons

Blinded by the Light

Bruce Springsteen

The Best

Tina Turner

Shining Star

Earth, Wind and Fire

Sir Duke

Stevie Wonder

This is Our Moment

Kenny Chesney

Ain’t No Stopping Us Now

McFadden and Whitehead

Still the One

Orleans

Use Somebody

Kings of Leon

(UPDATE: IRV repealed in Burlington)

Let us know what’s happening in your town in the comments!

Have at it. Here’s a jump start from some clever voices across the internet:

Steve Benen:

Look, Martha Coakley was an awful candidate who ran an awful campaign. This, coupled with public frustration over the economy and the pace of change in Washington became a toxic combination.

But to hear Bayh tell it, the electorate will reward Democrats if the party gives up on the agenda that got them elected — and gave them the largest majorities in a generation — and simply becomes Republican-lite. That seems like very bad advice.

Jerome Armstrong:

I guess Democrats really didn’t realize that they would be held accountable if they got the reigns of complete power and were not transparent. Crap like buying off Ben Nelson’s vote by bribing him with our money is insulting. The internet is just a tool of transparency, and no one, least of all the online progressives, has been fooled by the last year. The Republicans have come into our hometown and kicked our butt tonight. The Democrats have less than 10 months to start governing as a people-powered party, or they will lose both the House and the Senate.

Peter Daou:

Progressive bloggers have been jumping up and down, yelling at their Democratic leaders that the path of compromise and pragmatism only goes so far. The limit is when you start compromising away your core values.

I sincerely hope that’s the lesson learned today.

Greenwald:

Last night, Evan Bayh blamed the Democrats’ problems on “the furthest left elements,” which he claims dominates the Democratic Party — seriously.  And in one of the dumbest and most dishonest Op-Eds ever written, Lanny Davis echoes that claim in The Wall St. Journal:  “Blame the Left for Massachusetts” (Davis attributes the unpopularity of health care reform to the “liberal” public option and mandate; he apparently doesn’t know that the health care bill has no public option [someone should tell him], that the public option was one of the most popular provisions in the various proposals, and the “mandate” is there to please the insurance industry, not “the Left,” which, in the absence of a public option, hates the mandate; Davis’ claim that “candidate Obama’s health-care proposal did not include a public option” is nothing short of an outright lie).

In what universe must someone be living to believe that the Democratic Party is controlled by “the Left,” let alone “the furthest left elements” of the Party?  As Ezra Klein says, the Left “ha[s] gotten exactly nothing they wanted in recent months.”