We had this conversation months ago…

…but it seems as though some of the politicians are catching up with us:

The Vermont Progressive Party has a wish list for the Democratic nominee for governor.

Members of the political party said Tuesday they would not field a candidate for governor next year if the Democratic nominee for that job agreed with them on three key health care, labor and energy issues.

These include supporting single-payer health care, closing the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in 2012, and opposing any further state job cuts or reductions in unemployment benefits to out-of-work Vermonters.

If we can (a) field a candidate that gets the support of both parties and (b) see to it that Pollina doesn’t run, we’ve got a serious shot at this.

23 thoughts on “We had this conversation months ago…

  1. A new way to assess our primary field: which one would be the best advocate for single-payer and closing Yankee? (I assume the last one would be a pretty easy Democratic position.)

    Because you know, if this came to pass, Douglas would go at the nominee tooth and nail on it.  So we’d need someone not only holding the positions, but who can stand their ground and convince the state they’re right, and he’s wrong.

    Of course, a far more likely scenario is that the Progs will have to decide at some point whether only some but not all of this is enough for them.  For instance, a Democrat is unlikely to say Yankee must be closed, saying that would be “pre-judging” things (though maybe that judgment will seem less premature a year from now) but instead call for high standard for re-licensing… so as to seem more reasonable on the matter when they eventually oppose it (or let the legislature do the dirty work).  

    Would that sort of complexity and nuance pass muster with the Progs?  Maybe, maybe not.  With Pollina, specifically?  Again maybe, but I’m sort of thinking not.

  2. “[Markowitz] said Tuesday that if she was invited to speak to a group of Progressives, she would take them up on the offer.”

    Did this statement raise anyone else’s eyebrows?

    The Prog Party didn’t invite Racine and Bartlett to speak to us, they asked to speak to us. That’s what candidates should do (Approach various groups of potential voters, not wait for potential voters to approach them!).

    It really concerns me if this is Markowitz’s campaigning style. If she wins the Primary, will she actively approach groups such as Chambers of Commerce, American Legions, etc? Whoever goes up against Douglas is going to need to get quite a few votes beyond the left base.

    I’m going to support the Dem nominee, and yeah those 3 issues are important, but I bet there will be fairly insignificant differences between the Dem candidates on them. What I really want is a candidate that can beat Douglas!

  3. If the Progressives were serious about reaching an agreement, rather than setting up a justification for running again (despite the fact that doing so will likely guarantee bad results for all three of their listed issues), they would have approached the candidates and party organizations BEFORE issuing a set of public demands.

    Discussions are usually much more productive than public demands.

    Very reminiscent of Pollina’s tactics in 2008.

  4. as very helpful. each position may be hard, but by no means impossible? and the game well worth the candle, no?

  5. The fight for governor, as long as Douglas is running, will be for the voters in the center.

    So either we wind up with a left D candidate to please the Ps and give up a chunk of the center to Douglas, and lose.  Or, we have a more centrist candidate and the Ps will run a candidate too, and the Ds and Ps lose again.

    PJ

  6. 1. Vermont could and at this point should try single payer.  Many of us want it and it would be a useful experiment for the rest of the country, at least small states will no urban centers, to observe.

    2. Pension funding should be non-negotiable.  As a more conservative than less democrat, I’d for sure clawback salaries for 20 years on any executive who underfunded pensions…and the state has to stop that game as well.  I’m not sure about unemployment payments; there is a moral hazard point somewhere, and I’m not going to get into an argument about whether that’s 3 months, 6 months or 2 years.  99% of voters know that endless payments, or payments that are too high, will act as a disincentive on some people.  Give the benefit of the doubt in a recession, but there’s got to be some end.

    3. If the PSB simply forces Entergy to pay for their externalities, Yankee will be shut down as sure as sunrise.  How?  Limit executive salaries until the decommissioning fund is fully funded (as agreed to by an independent auditing board), with a 15 year claw-back all the way up to the top of the company.  At that point, they give in and we’re more protected, or they close it down.  Ideologically perfect?  No.  Attract plenty of voters and not turn off centrists?  I think so.

Comments are closed.