Burlington, VT - Peter Welch picked up the endorsements of the Valley News and Bennington Banner today:

"Welch has consistently opposed the war and... he has a plausible plan for how to proceed now... Moreover, Welch has demonstrated in the state Senate an ability to work across party lines... [and] is well prepared to represent Vermont in the U.S. House with ability and integrity." - Valley News

"Peter Welch is the experienced political leader in this race and is more than ready to serve in the House of Representatives." - Bennington Banner

"Peter Welch For Congress" - Valley News - November 3, 2006

Vermonters are fortunate this fall to have a choice between two level-headed pragmatists in the race for the state's lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Either Democrat Peter Welch or Republican Martha Rainville would creditably represent the state in Congress, but Welch is clearly the better choice this year.

That's in part because after six years of arrogant and corrupt Republican misrule in Washington, voters can send an important message by turning over at least one chamber of Congress to the Democrats. At the very least, they might provide some semblance of oversight of the executive branch, something that the Republicans have refused, with grievous results, to do. Nor is Rainville's own apparent moderation a persuasive reason to choose her. The odds are heavy that a moderate freshman Republican from Vermont would be repeatedly steamrollered by a right-wing GOP leadership that is so little tolerant of dissent that it drove the respected Jim Jeffords from the party he ably represented for so long.

But there are other important reasons to prefer Welch, a lawyer and president pro tempore of the state Senate. Rainville makes the valid point that her service as adjutant general of the Vermont National Guard provides her with the military background that is sorely lacking among members of Congress nowadays. The only problem is that nothing in her analysis of the Iraq war, at least as it has been expressed so far, demonstrates any acute insight into the origins of that debacle or what to do about it now. She basically ducks the question of whether going to war was the correct policy to follow in the first place, and vaguely declares that the terms "victory" or "defeat" simply do not apply to the situation in Iraq. Either her mind is too subtle for us, or she simply doesn't have a good idea of how to liquidate this particular misadventure in nation-building.

On the other hand, Welch has consistently opposed the war and, although he doesn't minimize the difficulties of making the best of a bad situation, he has a plausible plan for how to proceed now. This amounts to redeploying American troops within the region, where they would be able to respond to crises, while at the same time seeking stability by working to transform the country into a federation of autonomous regions. It's not an original idea, but we haven't heard a better one.

Moreover, Welch has demonstrated in the state Senate an ability to work across party lines, most notably during the past session in reaching agreement with Republican Gov. Jim Douglas on the Catamount Health coverage plan. We also favor his incremental approach to issues such as health care over sweeping reform schemes that often are doomed to failure because their ambition outdistances the political consensus. Better to be a realist with a touch of idealism than an idealist who mistakes compromise for moral frailty.

This is not to imply that Welch is flexible on principles, as opposed to tactics. To hear him discuss how his law practice has reinforced his respect for the rule of law in America is to be confident that he has a sure grasp of the moral and legal dangers presented by the Bush administration's approach to detaining suspects in the war on terror. Rainville, in contrast, justifies the recently enacted military commissions bill on the practical -- but morally shaky -- grounds that the government needed to do something with the detainees after all this time.

Finally, Welch is better able to frame the issues and positions that matter to Vermont voters. Rainville's answers to questions often seem vague or evasive despite the fact that she is quite articulate. We can only conclude that Welch's clarity of expression results from a clarity of political thought that Rainville does not yet possess (or perhaps is unwilling to follow to its logical conclusion).

We suspect that Rainville will someday be called by voters to serve the state in an important political capacity. But this time around, we urge support for Peter Welch, who is well prepared to represent Vermont in the U.S. House with ability and integrity.

"This time, it's Welch's turn" - Bennington Banner - November 3, 2006

No one doubts that Martha Rainville is an attractive political candidate. A woman, a former adjutant general of the Vermont National Guard, and a calm, confident speaker and debater. It is too bad she didn't decide to run as an independent - certainly a well-traveled and respected path in this state.

However, by choosing to run as a Republican, Ms. Rainville has forced thousands of Vermonters to reluctantly reject her candidacy out of hand. So many in this state - and in other states - are fed up with the Bush administration's war in Iraq, its budgetary priorities favoring the wealthy and big business and its disregard for the fate of the environment, that there is no way they would consider sending another Republican to Congress.

Americans generally are almost oblivious to the role of political parties in Washington, especially in less divisive times, but they have gotten the message in 2006. The party that controls Congress - has the most members in one or both chambers - controls the national agenda. In recent years, that has meant the Republicans, and many believe the nation is far the worse for wear because of it.

Put another way, Congress can either help George W. Bush pursue his wars and his fiscal policies or it can block or help reverse those policies until he is out of office at the end of 2008. Even a partial control shift would force the president to compromise with the Democrats, and that seems to many voters well worth fighting for at this point.

Peter Welch, the Democrat in the contest to replace Rep. Bernie Sanders - a U.S. Senate candidate - was considered by some to be less charismatic and perhaps too familiar a Vermont pol to withstand a challenge from the former general. But that has not proved the case.

This race apparently has energized the state Senate president pro tempore - especially since he took a solid lead in the polls. Sen. Welch now seems close to holding an office he perhaps thought had long ago passed him by. In 1988, he narrowly lost in a bid for the Democratic nomination for the House seat, and then lost again in 1990 in a race against popular Republican Gov. Richard Snelling.

He subsequently took time off from the political wars before returning to the Senate in 2001.

Sen. Welch's exuberance over this probably unsuspected third chance shows in his relaxed, good-humored confidence, and voters have responded. He seems more fatalistic about the outcome of this race than in the past, and this may have helped him improve as a campaigner. That factor, along with the anti-Bush mood in much of Vermont, has given him an edge in the polls.

He also has properly stressed his record of working with politicians from both sides of the political aisle in the state Senate, which is what Congress needs at the moment in addition to his membership in the Democratic Party.

Peter Welch is the experienced political leader in this race and is more than ready to serve in the House of Representatives.