This story has been updated.
Just a few days in advance of next Tuesday’s Vermont primary, U.S. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) saw one of his two Democratic challengers drop out of the race and endorse the other.
He literally saw it, because it happened during a live debate on Vermont Public Radio Thursday with all three candidates in the same studio.
Ben Mitchell, an educator from Westminster, took part in the debate and then, during his closing statement, announced he was withdrawing and endorsing Dan Freilich, a physician from Brownsville. Both candidates have made campaign finance a centerpiece of their efforts to defeat Welch, who routinely raises most of his money from corporations and political action committees. As of July 15, Welch’s campaign fund had a balance of nearly $2.1 million.
“Because, Peter, you have taken money from corporations … your decisions will be colored by that,” Mitchell said, addressing Welch directly. He then turned to Freilich and said, “We don’t agree on everything, but I think we need someone to represent Vermont who does not represent the corporations.”
Freilich replied that he was “humbled and honored” by Mitchell’s endorsement.
When reached by phone after the debate, Freilich acknowledged that he knew in advance what Mitchell intended to do. “We had a discussion a couple of days ago,” Freilich said. “He told me he was going to announce it [during the debate]. He asked me to keep it quiet.”
Freilich thanked Mitchell for “fighting the good fight,” and for realizing that “the best way to fight the good fight was to drop out and ask his supporters to vote for me.”
“Dan is a sincere individual who’s trying to do what’s right for Vermont,” Mitchell said in an interview late Thursday afternoon. “He’s worked hard, he’s raised more money than I have, and I think he has a better chance to win.”
Mitchell’s name will remain on the ballot, but his withdrawal essentially leaves Freilich as the sole option for Democratic primary voters concerned with Welch’s acceptance of corporate cash. But Freilich is still a long shot in Tuesday’s primary, since Welch is broadly popular with Democratic voters.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The so-called “withdrawal” of a candidate after ballots have been printed merely underscores the sophomoric, unprepared, lack-of-commitment candidacy of whomever is the dropout.
In this case as in all of these late-in-the-game quitters, the person dropping out of the competition days before the final lap partly highlights why the electoral process has become so cynical.
If the dropout were or ever had been serious about seeking a congressional seat, he would be working himself 24/7 to persuade taxpayers that he would serve their interests.
But the reality is, this kind of political stunt shows that the dropout considered his own candidacy a virtual joke – even while he was simultaneously trying to hoodwink us the voters that he was serious.
The state’s lone congressman, of course, is financially entrenched in, and connected to, the political power structure that we as constituents have allowed and created of our own deficiencies.
Neither of his alleged opponents would carry themselves any differently were they to be elected as his successor.
If you have any doubt about that, just look at their arguments for unseating the incumbent. They have pressed the time-honored, hackneyed argument about the congressman accepting “corporate money.”
Sad to say, but no one cares where he gets his money. As long as he does his job burning through trillions of dollars of tax revenue he gets from us to finance government “projects,” we’re happy.
More depressing than their making tired, old arguments about campaign financing, however, are the so-called challengers’ failures to show any passion for serving taxpayers – any good, solid reasons for why they are running, if that is what they are doing.
You dont even have a basic understanding of my positions, Ted Cohen. I am single parent and I work full time. Every year I make less money and my bills go up. I dont care who has power, we need someone to take stand for working people. Given the number of comments you make I suspect you are getting paid to spew your cynicism. Well I am a real person and I believe Dr. Dan will do more to stop the tide of greed. Still if you want to debate me, Ill do it anytime. But I suspect you are just a paid hack with no real values to defend.
Ted Cohen’s ad hominem, mind-reading attack on Ben Mitchell is as mindless as it is narrow and vituperative, none of which makes for a cogent argument.
Ted Cohen doesn’t demonstrate that he knows anything about the candidates. For examples:
Ted Cohen doesn’t seem to know that Ben Mitchell opposes basing the F-35 bomber in Burlington while Peter Welch has supported this multi-billion dollar military-industrial boondoggle since he took office.
Ted Cohen doesn’t seem to know that Ben Mitchell supports impeaching President Trump while Welch voted against impeach article last December, just as he opposed impeaching President Bush for lying us into war.
Ted Cohen doesn’t seem to know that Ben Mitchell supports a single payer health care program, while Welch has never shown any leadership on this issue, and actively obstructed it as a state senator.
Ted Cohen doesn’t seem to care about corporate money (and Welch’s protect-the-opioid makers bill) or dark money or the deep political corruption of the American election system (including Welch’s failure to push back against Citizens United).
Ted Cohen inveighs against a trailing third place candidate withdrawing late in the race to give the second place candidate a better chance, but he doesn’t make any of the reasoned arguments why this might not be good. He offers no better option. He implies that it would be better for the third place candidate to stay in the race, divide the vote, and make the incumbent’s re-election that much more certain. Really?