Considering that they are…well, you know…Democrats, Vermont’s leading Democrats are acting awfully grown-up.

It isn’t just that they’re not being petulant, a surprise in itself, petulance being what the computer nerds would call a Democrat’s default position.

Instead all five candidates for governor have been exuding graciousness and good humor in this post-primary period, none of them more than Peter Shumlin,  the certified leader (by 197 votes) if not yet the final winner of the primary.

But he would be the final winner had runner-up Doug Racine not demanded a recount.  It would be no surprise, then, were Shumlin a might miffed at Racine.

If he is, he’s not showing it; to the contrary, he said the recount was the right thing to do. Meanwhile, Racine keeps acknowledging that Shumlin is likely to end up as the nominee after the recount, and the other three have joined the top two on the campaign trail.

Under the circumstances, this is just what the Democrats should do if Shumlin (or Racine) is to have a chance to beat Republican Brian Dubie. But Democrats do not always do what they should do.

Republicans usually do, and Dubie is. He’s being aggressive and energetic, yesterday announcing a 26.2-hour campaign marathon scheduled to start  early Tuesday and go nonstop into the following morn.

“Vermonters work hard for their money, and they deserve a Governor who will work hard for them,” said Dubie, firmly if not originally, in a campaign press release.

For two reasons, this is just what Dubie ought to be doing. First, he’s taking advantage of the Democrats delay. Second, he’s trying to do what Gov. Jim Douglas did in his last two elections – create the appearance of inevitability, make it the conventional wisdom that “Dubie can’t lose.”

Harder to do against either Shumlin or Racine than against Douglas opponents Gaye Symington and Scudder Parker, two of the more inept statewide candidates (and not just in this state) of recent years. But that doesn’t mean Dubie shouldn’t try. For him, the effort is like chicken soup; even if it doesn’t help, it couldn’t hurt.

Perhaps more amazing than Democrats acting like grown-ups, so are the Progressive Party leaders. Party Chair Martha Abbott abandoned her own candidacy for governor to support…well, to oppose Dubie, though she was apparently not quite grown up enough to endorse anyone, or even, in her statement on the party’s web site (and in the Burlington Free Press) to mention the word “Democrat.”

Still, it was a more politically productive maneuver than an actual Abbott campaign for governor would have been. Nor is Abbott the only Prog venturing into adulthood these days. Anthony Pollina, who ran for governor as a Progressive in 2000 and as a sort-of Progressive (technically an independent) two years ago, ran in the Democratic primary for a state senate seat in Washington County. He won.

Are these signs of a future rapprochement or even merger between the Dems and the Progs?

Not yet. It would be interesting to see, however, if a Governor Shumlin or Governor Racine would appoint Abbott or another Prog to a senior administration position. If that happens, rapprochement/merger discussions might follow.

And now for something that is not as completely different as it first seems. This little outdoor vignette will circle back onto policy and politics.

As has been noted before on this site, the News Guy likes to go fishing, and did so the other day on the Black River (the one in the Northeast Kingdom, not the one that runs through Springfield).

The Black is a beautiful River. There’s plenty of access. Most of it is easy to wade. It is, in short, almost the perfect river for state and local tourism officials to market to anglers in nearby states, and as far away as New York City and New Jersey. Come to the placid, pastoral, easy-going Northeast Kingdom, bring your money, and enjoy a great trout stream.

Just one little problem: the Black is not a great trout stream. Not any more. It was “once considered one of Vermont’s great brown trout streams,” according to Vermont Trout Streams, a guide edited by Lawton Weber and published by Northern Cartographic (2002). “Sadly,” the  guide continues,  “that can no longer be considered the case,” thanks largely to a ”combination of intensive logging and farming practices over the last 30 years.”

Another way to put it is that the fishery degraded because of not enough government regulation.

The Black, alas, is not alone. Most Vermont rivers contain fewer wild trout and other species than they did a few decades ago, and in most cases the main reason is that logging and farming polluted the water, silted over the spawning beds, or denuded the streambanks of the shade that kept rivers cool enough for trout.

There is an economic as well as an ecological price to be paid here. Mediocre trout streams draw far fewer visitors than good ones. That means fewer customers for hotels, restaurants, shops and gas stations. Some of those visitors might have decided to move into the state, bringing money with them, possibly hiring workers.

But in some cases, only if they could live near a great trout stream.

To be sure, maybe it was all worth it. Perhaps the lax regulation allowed farmers and loggers to produce more wealth than the state has given up by not being able to attract as many tourists toting rod and reel. That’s probably impossible to figure out. What is known is that logging and farming are an increasingly small percentage of the state’s economy while tourism and outdoor recreation are growing.

Either way, the point here is that regulation has its economic benefits as well as its costs, and de-regulating can entail an economic loss. For instance, if all those wind towers are erected near the Long Trail on Lowell Mountain, will some hikers from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut decide they’d rather backpack in Maine or the Adirondacks? Wherever they go, some of those folks spend lots of money.

Again, it’s hard to know. But maybe it should be thought about, especially as the candidates propose easing or at least streamlining the regulatory process. Dubie has taken the lead here, calling for less regulation. All three candidates say they’d like to speed up the permitting process for developers, and all say their proposed changes can be put into effect without hurting the environment.

Maybe they can, but it could well depend on just what they want to deregulate. And how they propose to deregulate it.

(Oh, like most Vermont rivers, the Black is not a terrible trout stream. The tally that day for four hours of fishing was one decent-sized rainbow, one smallish but feisty brookie, a few missed strikes. Fine when the river is a 20 minute drive from home, but not good enough to attract folks from away).

The News Guy will not take a Labor Day holiday, but will – appropriately — discuss some of the candidate tax claims and counter-claims, especially as they relate to who might get much and who might get little.

Since converting (as it were) to its current thrice-a-week new posts at the end of June, this web site has not offered one of its occasional self-correcting, self-reflective reports which are (or ought to be) required for any one-person operation, lest that one person get a swelled head.

A review of recent posts reveals only one out-and-out error, which a careful reader spotted and reported at the time, and which was therefore fixed by mid-morning.

Still, those of you who read the July 24 piece “Hang Up and Drive” before 10 o’clock or so, might still be wondering just what was meant by the term “anti-lock breaks.”

Not that the concept is a logical impossibility. Were an employer, for instance, to forbid workers from securing their desk drawers during their 15-minute recess periods for having a cup of coffee, the result might be considered an “anti-lock break.”

Or, stepping further into absurdity, we could consider the plural: suppose the boss were to forbid the consumption of smoked salmon during those same recesses: Presto! Anti-lox breaks.

Getting back to reality, what the News Guy meant to say was, of course, “anti-lock brakes.”

So much for sins of commission (unless any reader knows of another; if so, don’t hesitate to inform). But there may have been a sin of omission in last Friday’s report about the Progressive Party’s “ultimatum” to the Democratic candidates for governor.

Considering that the post asked whether the Progs were politically inept, perhaps it should have included Party Chair Martha Abbott’s politically sagacious observation that the Party “would rather not run a statewide campaign, and instead concentrate on increasing our strength in the state legislature.”

That post also might have noted that though the Progs threatened to run their own candidate if no Democrat agreed with them on three issues (scroll down to read Friday’s post; no need to repeat the details here), the Progressives don’t seem to have a candidate. Their most likely (and potentially most powerful) contender, is Anthony Pollina, who ran last year. But on Vermont Public Radio’s “Vermont Edition” Friday, Pollina didn’t sound like a guy who was keen on another statewide campaign. He didn’t rule it out, but he sure didn’t display any enthusiasm.

One commentator and a few e-mailers also suggested that in that post the News Guy was furthering the myth that it was the Progressives who cost the Democrats the last few gubernatorial elections.

Let’s erase any ambiguity here. They did not. Republican Gov. Jim Douglas got outright majorities in the last three elections. A divided opposition did not elect him.

But it could next year. Nobody expects that any Democrat could swamp the incumbent governor. The best the Democrats could hope for is winning by a few points, something like 51-to-49 percent. With a Progressive in the race taking a few points, almost all of it from the Democrats, that 49 percent probably re-elects Douglas.

While we’re dispensing with political myths, let’s get rid of the one that finds any significance in Pollina finishing a few votes ahead of Democrat Gaye Symington last year.

That election meant nothing. It never become a race. Politically involved folks tend to forget that the not-very-politically-involved folks (which is most folks) don’t take a campaign seriously unless they perceive it to be competitive. Last year’s campaign never crossed that threshold. From the outset, it was clear that Symington could not win.

Or Pollina, either. No Progressive has ever won a statewide race. Barring the most bizarre circumstance (both the Democratic and Republican candidate are discovered in flagrante delictu, preferably with one another, in mid-October), no Progressive ever will. It was not for nothing that Pollina switched from running as the Progressive candidate to running as an independent last year. The Progressive brand does not appeal to anything close to a majority of Vermonters.

Finally, a little in-house business: The News Guy is grateful to those who have added their names to the list of subscribers in the last few weeks, as well as for all those who have decided to make him a Facebook “friend” and to follow the web site on Twitter.

(Though this does not include the tweets from fetching young females [or tweeters who so describe themselves] suggesting all sorts of interesting if not entirely proper consequences. Really, ladies. If you knew the age of your target here you’d direct your energies elsewhere).

Alas, this evidence of enhanced interest in the site has not been accompanied by donations, and the News Guy has not yet attained the great break-even point. Those who find the site of some value to Vermont’s political/social/governmental/economic/educational/environmental discussion and who have not yet done so are urged to make a contribution (check under “pages” near the upper right hand corner for instructions; checks preferred).

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.