Doug Racine is making nice with the Progs.

The others are not, at least not yet.

Will they? Will Susan call Anthony? Will Deb break bread with David? Will Peter get involved?

Waitaminit! Is this politics or a soap opera?

Anthony Pollina

A little bit of both, now that you’ve asked. The above-named folks are politicians, leaders of the Democratic or Progressive Parties. Some of them are either running for governor, or are thinking about it. That’s the politics part.

The soap opera part is a little more complicated. Start with this premise, though both Democrats and Progressives will consider it  an insult: The two parties are divided less by policy than by petulance, the very pith of soap operas

In Dem v Prog disputes, what matters is less about where one stands on taxes, school spending, or wind power, than it is about who is (or, especially, is not) taking whom seriously, who insulted whom some time back, and which party is the real “spoiler,” a word some Democrats love to hurl at Progressives but all Progressives find offensive. Especially when it’s true, which is only sometimes.

That’s why the term “making nice” was used above to describe the overtures by Racine, a state senator from Richmond and one of three semi-official Democratic candidates for governor, to the  Progressive Party, and especially to Anthony Pollina, the Progressives real if unofficial leader .

It isn’t that Racine and Pollina didn’t talk about strategy and policy. No doubt they did, as did Racine when he spoke to a meeting of the Progressive State Committee last month, and when he shared a cup of coffee recently with Burlington Progressive Rep. David Zuckerman (the “David” in the example above). But considering the relationship between the two parties, the personal contact itself may have been more important than anything else. It sent the signal that Racine was taking the Progressives seriously. Not that being taken seriously is all that the Progs want. But it’s one of the things they want.

It’s also a bit of a risk for Racine. Some active Democrats don’t want to take the Progressives seriously. They want to grind them into the dirt. At a recent county Democratic meeting, some active Democrats wondered how the party could prevent Pollina from running as an independent or Progressive, as he has done three times in statewide races. They reportedly seemed incredulous when told that he had every right to run if he chose.

That could explain why the other Democratic contenders, Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz and Sen. Susan Bartlett of Hyde Park (the “Deb” and “Susan” above) have so far not reached out to the Progressives. It risks enraging some Democrats.

But then, ignoring the Progs enhances the likelihood that they will put up their own candidate for governor, splitting the left-of-center (or at least the left-of-right) vote, rendering it harder for anyone to beat Republican Gov. Jin Douglas. Indeed, it is a common catchphrase, almost a mantra, in both parties, that their major obstacle to success in beating Douglas has been their inability to unite behind one candidate.

Like so many mantras, this one is wrong, or at best minimally right. Just look at the history. In 2000, Pollina ran as a Progressive against Democratic incumbent Howard Dean and Republican Ruth Dwyer, splitting the liberal vote. Dean won anyway. In 2004 and 2006, the Democratic contenders were effectively fusion candidates who ran one-on-one against Douglas. They lost anyway. Last year, Pollina ran as an independent with Progressive backing, again splitting the liberal vote , this time with Democrat Gaye Symington. But it made no difference. Douglas got a majority.

Only in the 2002 contest for lieutenant governor, where Pollina siphoned enough votes from Peter Shumlin (the “Peter” above, who may yet get into this race) did the Progressive candidate “spoil” the race for the Democrats, as Republican Brian Dubie won a plurality victory.

One can go back and quibble with the political significance of some of those examples. Had Ruth Dwyer been a good candidate, for instance, Pollina might have cost Dean the governorship. Still, the basic message is clear. A really good Democratic candidate, who can get votes from the center of the ideological spectrum (even liberal Vermont has lots of middle-of-the-road voters) can get elected even if a Progressive runs. A bad candidate will get beat one-on-one.

Still, the Democratic candidate would clearly have a better chance if there were no Progressive contender in the race. Schmoozing with Progressives allows Racine to say to Democratic primary voters-‘pick me, because if I win there’s less likely to be a third candidate in the race.’

The down side is that it provides ammunition for a Republican attack on Racine as a captive of the left.

Not surprisingly, both Racine and Pollina use a more sober term than “making nice” to describe their conversations.

“I’m reaching out to the Progressives,” said Racine, who said Pollina is “engaged in conversations with me.,” and is “showing an interest” in Racine’s candidacy

“The conversation continues,” Racine said. “Where they go, I don’t know. I would appreciate his support. I think I’m someone who could heal that (Democratic-Progressive) division.”

Pollina said he would continue to meet with Racine and would be willing to meet with the other Democrats, too. But he hasn’t ruled our running again himself.

“I’m still thinking about it. Definitely,” he said.

It isn’t that Pollina can be dissuaded from running just by taking him to lunch, or that the Progressives can be persuaded not to run their own candidate simply by paying attention to them. Both Pollina and his party are committed to a set of policy positions, and there are some policy differences between the parties. During the recent state budget battles, for instance, the Progressives favored fewer budget cuts and slightly higher taxes than the Democratic leadership ended up accepting.

In reality, though the Democratic leaders didn’t disagree with the Progressives as much as they had to give some ground to their own more moderate members. The Progressives have the luxury of having no moderate members. That’s why they formed their own party to begin with, so they wouldn’t have to compromise with moderates.

Even Pollina acknowledged, though, that there weren’t many differences among the Democratic contenders.

“There are a lot of similarities among the candidates,” he said. “We have a handful of what might be considered left-of-center Democrats. The question is, what level of commitment do they really have to issues? It’s easy to say ,’I support universal health care.’ What does that mean?  Who’s going to be willing to follow through, to build a coalition strong enough to do more than defeat Jim Douglas, but also stand up against the other special interests that permeate our politics?”

And the way to answer that question, Pollina said, “is not a precise science. Part of it does come down to a gut feeling.”

Gut feelings, of course, even when they are about politics, are personal. They make for great soap operas.

Deb Markowitz

Ok, the Legislative session is over so it’s time to talk a little politics.

The news, in case you missed it in the Burlington Free Press Monday, is that former Gov. Phil Hoff endorsed State Sen. Doug Racine of Richmond  for governor next year.

Generally, an endorsement guarantees a candidate the vote of the endorser and (maybe) that of his or her spouse. Considering that Hoff hasn’t run statewide for more than 30 years and that  perhaps as much as half the likely Democratic electorate in next year’s primary has only the foggiest notion of who he is, a first reaction would hold that this case fits the general pattern.

But maybe not. Hoff, who became the first Democratic governor in more than a century in 1962, remains a hero to Vermont Democrats who can remember the 1960s. If nothing else, his endorsement gives the Racine campaign an early shot of gravitas.

Furthermore, in his column, Hoff said he wasn’t just issuing a statement, but would be “campaigning hard.” He said he and his wife, Joan, ” will visit different counties, meet with old friends and new, and have good conversations about the importance of this election and the importance of electing Racine.”

Doug Racine

If Hoff, who is about to turn 85, is half the campaigner he was a few decades ago, he could help Racine.

Does this make Racine the early front-runner?

Not really

In the first place, it’s almost too early even to have an early front-runner. And then, getting a key endorsement or two is only one way for a candidate to be taken seriously. The other way is raise a lot of money, and here Secretary of State Deb Markowitz may be outstripping Racine.

“We have over 500 donors, some from every county in the state,” Markowitz said. “I’m expecting we’re going to have a (financial) report we’re really going to be proud of.”

Those campaign finance reports are due July 15, just about when the other semi-officially announced candidate, Sen. Susan Bartlett of Hyde Park, said she “will have a web site and all that stuff .” Bartlett, who only last week announced that she would run, said (on a voice mail message as she and the News Guy played telephone tag) she was still “talking with folks and getting the kitchen cabinet organized.”

Starting later is something of a disadvantage for Bartlett, especially because she’s the only candidate who hasn’t run statewide. Markowitz has held state office for almost 12 years, Racine ran for governor in 2002, and State Senate President Peter Shumlin, who has not ruled out running, lost to Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie that year.

But – again – there’s plenty of time, time enough for Bartlett, Shumlin, or even someone else to get into the race, get known, and get nominated.

One reason Markowitz is expected to raise a lot of money is that she has a long-term relationship with EMILY’s List, a Washington-based nationwide organization that raises money early in the campaign process (the name is an acronym for “Early Money is Like Yeast’” there is no Emily) for women candidates who are pro-choice on abortion.

As is Bartlett, but Markowitz noted that “EMILY’s list and I go way back ” and the organization is well-connected in Democratic fund-raising circles around the country.

Right now, at least until Bartlett really begins to raise money and campaign, the Democratic race is a one-on-one contest between Racine and Markowitz, with each trying to accentuate his or her strengths, while subtly (or perhaps not so subtly) pointing to the other one’s vulnerability.

The conventional wisdom is that Markowitz will “win” the first test, reporting more financial contributions than Racine on July 15. Getting and spending more money doesn’t necessarily win the race. But not raising enough usually means losing the race, and at any rate the political reporters will make much of the first financial reports because…well, because they are some indication of strength.

And they are numbers, meaning they are objective measurements.

But no one should be surprised if Racine ends up with enough money, even if not as much as Markowitz.

“I’m  focused on fundraising because I know that Deb has been working all winter on it,” Racine said. “It’s going well.”

Notice that neither candidate provided even a rough estimate of how much had been raised. Politics, as Jerry Bock and Sheldon Harnick once noted, is rather like poker, and the wise player does not reveal his or her hand.

(Who were those guys who once noted? A theatrical reference. A gold star for the first reader who sends a comment indentifying it correctly).

Needless to say, both candidates insist they are running less against each other than against Republican Gov. Jim Douglas.

“I believe Jim Douglas is politically weaker now than he was before (the Legislature overrode his budget veto),” said Racine. “Vermonters are looking at him differently, seeing someone who did not fulfill his responsibility, which is to find consensus.”

Markowitz agrees, saying that in her travels as Secretary of State, “what I hear is that more and more people are ready for a change. They want leadership in Montpelier.”

But what kind of leadership, what kind of consensus? Here the two candidates note the differences between them. Racine is painting himself as the strong, outspoken, Democrat whose views are well known.

Which, he not so subtly notes, can not be said of all the candidates.

“I know where I am and I know where Susan and Peter are, because we all have voting records. Deb has been in a position where she has not had to be involved in the policy issues the Legislature faces.”

Markowitz doesn’t really argue the point.

“I don’t have a voting record,” she said. “People don’t know where I stand. All they have to do is ask me.. They’ll find out.”

But she, too, gets in her digs, in her case without mentioning anyone by name.

“Vermonters …want the Governor and legislative leaders to have an honest dialogue and work out their differences,” she said in a recent campaign email.”The budget is not a political football to pass back and forth.”

A sideswipe at both Douglas and the Legislative Democrats, sending the message that those guys are all part of the system and implying that she, though a statewide official for more than a decade, is not. Markowitz is trying to paint herself as something of an outsider.

And while she doesn’t dwell on it, a younger outsider. Racine is 57, Markowitz ten years younger. Not that much younger, actually, but as it happens, exactly the age of another candidate who ran as something of an outsider (though he was a U.S. Senator), as well as the voice of a new generation. That candidate is now President of the United States, and not a bad example after which a Vermont contender could model herself.

One other difference has emerged between the two Democrats – their approach to that seemingly eternal (and some  would say infernal) conundrum facing Vermont Democrats – how to deal with the Progressive Party, and especially its leader ,Anthony Pollina, a once and perhaps future candidate for governor himself.

The differences are subtle, more nuance than polar opposition. But describing them will not only take a little time, but will also provide the opportunity to indulge in a short essay about the myths and realities of the Democratic-Progressive alliance/rivalry.

Tune in tomorrow.

Vermonters regularly cite comparative statistics — political, commercial, social, or educational – to prove their point. The state is at the bottom or top of this category or that. It ranks above the median here and below it there. It’s the best at this and the worst at that. In almost every case, the figures are used to prove someone’s point, or disprove someone else’s.

Here’s one area you don’t hear much about, perhaps because there seems to be no organized constituency that will benefit from the discussion:

Compared to other states, Vermonters drink and drive a lot.

So they get into alcohol-caused accidents more than the residents of most other states, and are more likely to be killed as a result.

In 2006, according to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice) , 17,961 people were arrested in Vermont. In 6,149 of them, or 34.2 percent, alcohol was involved, and most of those alcohol-related arrests, 4,148,  were for drunk driving.

In only four states -North and South Dakota, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire — was the percentage of alcohol-related arrests higher. Vermont and Wyoming were tied.

That statistic suggests but does not prove that  Vermont has a high proportion of drunk driving and drunk driving fatalities. But the suggestion was enhanced by figures provided by the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s  National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), in turn an office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

According to those figures, said Janie Bryan Loveless, the  Communications Director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in Dallas, Vermont is “thirty-second in terms of fatalities,” meaning only 18 states have a greater proportion of drunk driving fatalities.

“You’re not doing real well,” she said.

As further evidence, she noted that according to FARS,  6,069 Vermont motorists “who have had three or more  (drunk driving convictions) are still driving, and  833 are driving even though they’ve had five convictions.”

That’s a lot in a small state. One likely reason for Vermont’s relatively poor drunk driving record is that it has relatively weak drunk driving laws. Frank Harris of MADD’s policy department said Vermont is “one of 3 states that has no ignition interlock law.” The other two are Alabama and South Dakota.

Those laws either require motorists convicted of drunk driving to install  an ignition interlock device in his or her vehicle, or empower a judge to order such installation. The driver blows into the device, which measures the driver’s blood alcohol content. If the driver has been drinking, the ignition interlock won’t let the vehicle start.

Harris acknowledged that ignition interlocks are not infallible. The driver can use another vehicle (though he said in some states judges are authorized to require them for all cars in the driver’s household), and some drivers have had friends blow into the device. The newer versions, he said, come equipped with cameras “to make sure you’re the one blowing into it.”

But he said MADD was convinced it was the single most effective method for reducing drunk driving and the injuries and deaths it causes. The first state to use the system, he said, was New Mexico, which used to have one of the worst drunk driving records in the country. Since the ignition interlock has been in use, he said, “DUI (Driving Under the Influence) recidivism has dropped, and drunk driving  deaths also.”

In the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice statistics, 20 percent of New Mexico’s arrests in 2006 involved alcohol.

This year, Sens. Vincent Illuzzi , a Republican from Newport and Richard Sears, a Democrat from North Bennington, introduced legislation establishing an ignition interlock procedure for Vermont. It went to the Senate Transportation Committee and died there.

Not that the Legislature did nothing to discourage drinking, and therefore drunk driving. It did one thing. In the budget it passed last week over Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto, the Legislature  raised the tax on alcoholic beverages. The goal here was to raise money, not to save lives, but it might do a bit of both.

Probably not much, though. According to several economic studies, raising the tax of alcohol cuts alcohol consumption. It would seem likely, then, to reduce drunk driving. The problem is that booze is cheap. Or, as a study more formally put it, “Alcoholic beverage prices have declined relative to the prices of other goods and services for the past 50 years.”

That’s because, said this study, taxes have been kept low by state and federal governments. That’s because (not according to the study, but it’s true anyway) the alcoholic beverage business is a powerful lobby in Congress and in every state government. The end result (back to the study) is that “this decline in real prices has kept alcohol consumption and many of the problems associated with alcohol use and abuse at levels higher than they would otherwise be.”

Besides, the drunk driver is more likely to be the problem, addicted, drinker, who will fork up the extra dough to pay for his or her booze even if the tax goes up.

Another, slightly whimsical but not entirely frivolous proposal comes from Nate Silver of the web site “538.” The problem, Silver said, is not that some people drink, but that a few drinkers engage in “particularly stupid sorts of behaviors while doing so.”

Some medical evidence indicates that “moderate alcohol consumption is in fact associated with improved health outcomes,”  he said, and  a “person who has a couple of drinks a couple of days a week, and who never drives or has the compulsion to engage in violence while doing so, imposes virtually no negative consequences either on himself or on society. Drinking doesn’t cause negative externalities in the same way that, say, driving (traffic congestion and pollution) or smoking (second-hand smoke) intrinsically do.”

So instead of raising the tax on alcohol, he said, how about raising the fines for drunk driving. Really raising them. To $8,000 per offense.

Whoa! That’s a lot of money. But Silver said he didn’t pick it out of the air. It is, he said, what a study co-authored by Steve Levitt, co- author of the best-selling, Freakonomics, determined would be the amount ” required to internalize the negative externalities associated with driving drunk.”

Silver proposed this as a possible federal law. It is no more likely to be seriously entertained by Congress than it is by the Vermont State Legislature, which means not likely at all.

Still, an interesting idea to ponder of a summer evening, perhaps to be discussed with interested and interesting friends while sharing an interesting libation.

Make sure there’s a designated driver.