Author John Lawrence makes the case: The two final contenders for the vice presidential nomination on the Democratic ticket appear, according to numerous reports (which may be completely erroneous, of course) to be Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Arizona’s U.S. Senator Mark Kelly. A few weeks ago , I made a case for selecting Kelly; he remains the right choice.
Kelly not only significantly increases the chances of winning Arizona’s 11 electoral votes but also, because of his singular appeal on issues that are particularly salient in this campaign, he stands to help Vice President Kamala Harris appeal to voters in a broader reach of states than other contenders, including Shapiro.
Four key issues distinguish Kelly favorably:
- Military experience. Democrats always have a problem convincing swing voters that they are prepared to support and, if necessary, use military power. You need to go back to FDR to find a successful Democratic ticket that did not have at least a nominal connection to military (and foreign policy) experience. Kelly learned about national security issues in a cockpit, not from staff briefings. He gave the briefings. As noted earlier, his resumé on military expertise dwarfs that of GOP VP nominee J.D. Vance whose much-touted Marine experience was as a reporter, not a combatant or strategist: nothing against reporters, but that’s a world of difference in terms of expertise. Kelly’s military career also provides him with a special connection to deceased and disabled veterans, whom Trump has disparaged as “losers” and “suckers.” In a campaign where foreign policy and military issues are bound to be prominent, given U.S. interests in the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine, having someone with military and combat background, who can engage with his foreign counterparts on an experiential level, is a significant advantage.
- Border expertise. Unquestionably, Harris will be on the defensive (justifiably or not) throughout the campaign for the large number of unauthorized border crossings during the Biden administration (although those numbers have been cut in half following Biden’s instituting tough amnesty standards that have upset some on the party’s left). As a senator from a border state that has been significantly impacted, Kelly has pushed the Biden administration hard on implementing tighter immigration policies that avoid the punitive and anti-child practices of the Trump administration. Kelly has supported some border fencing (as virtually all Democrats have in pre-Trump years) and his selection almost certainly would build on the support growing in the state for Harris. He also will be uniquely able to pin on Trump and Vance the well-justified responsibility for tanking the bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate.
- Bipartisanship. Not having had to battle his way through Democratic primaries to win public office, which generally forces candidates to the left, Kelly has embraced a less contentious approach in the Senate. He has collaborated with the likes of Ted Cruz on technology legislation and has generally won substantial support among Republican and independent voters, which has easily made him the most popular politician in his state. His natural inclination towards a less-ideological approach to solving public policy issues doubtless has been influenced by his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords who, like most successful Democrats in Arizona, similarly avoided the harsh partisan rhetoric embraced by Democrats who happen to represent safe blue constituencies. With Trump and Vance veering off into the ideologically extreme stratosphere on a daily basis, having Kelly on the ticket to serve as a voice of moderation and pragmatism would be invaluable not just in Arizona but in many swing states.
- Gun Policy. No one in national politics – and certainly not Trump – has endured the anguish of gun violence like Mark Kelly and Gabby Giffords. Instead of avoiding a contentious issue after the nearly fatal assassination attempt on Gabby in 2011, Kelly and his wife founded a non-profit promoting consensus gun ownership policies, positions rejected by the Republican ticket and the party’s majorities in Congress, but supported by over 90 percent of Americans, including 89 percent of Republicans and even 70 percent of members of the National Rifle Association. Their determination to push for tighter controls notwithstanding the well-documented political risks, even as Kelly undertook his campaign for the Senate, tells you all you need to know about his integrity and fearlessness. In a campaign where Trump will remind voters incessantly how he “took a bullet for democracy” – although he was mysteriously shot by a Republican who, to date, had expressed no hostility to democracy or even to Trump, for that matter – Kelly’s expertise and experience with gun policy will be invaluable.
And then, there is the intangible quality: what distinguishes a candidate as a leader, as someone who can be trusted, whose judgment is sound, who makes decisions based on the facts as presented rather than on the emotions generated. Kelly’s life story – growing up in New Jersey, the twin son of two police officers (including one of the first women officers in Orange), 6,000 flight hours in over 50 different aircraft, 375 carrier landings, 39 combat missions, the Legion of Merit, two Defense Superior Service Medals, two Distinguished Flying Crosses and the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, Kelly, at 5’8”, is bigger than life. An astronaut since 1996, he rocketed into space four times on the Space Shuttle, visiting the International Space Station four times and spending more than 50 days in orbit around the Earth. To this day, he pilots his own plane regularly to visit the far flung areas of his state.
Not a word of what I have written is meant to suggest criticism of Josh Shapiro or any other contender; they have their strengths as well, and like Kelly, there is doubtless something in everyone’s record to which somebody in the quarrelsome Democratic coalition can object.
But Kelly is unique in background, experience and message to swing, undecided, less ideological voters. He presents a distinct contrast to the bloviating, felonious fakir atop the Republican ticket. Yes, Shapiro can help win Pennsylvania, a swing state. But he will work just as hard if he is not on the ticket to achieve that goal (which is in his longterm political interest), and he will have the assistance of three other prominent Pennsylvanians: Sen. John Fetterman, Sen. Bob Casey (who is on the ballot this year) and that son of Scranton, Joe Biden. There is slim evidence he, or one of the other governors being mentioned, has much benefit outside the borders of his (or her) home state.
Kelly alone is a national figure, one who speaks to voters’ desire for turning down the political temperature and trying to find our way back to something approaching the normalcy so desperately needed. He is the right choice for vice president.
EDITOR’s NOTE: John Lawrence is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s former chief of staff, and the author of the Arc of Power: Inside Nancy Pelosi’s Speakership 2005-2010. The following is Lawrence’s earlier endorsement of Kelly.
With the Democratic presidential nomination all but signed, sealed and delivered for Kamala Harris, political speculation has already turned to who would best complement her on the ticket as the vice presidential nominee. There are certainly a number of interesting possibilities but there is one who, like Harris herself, draws stark and strategic contrasts with the Trump-Vance ticket. That candidate is Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona.
Kelly not only brings considerable star quality to the ticket as a former astronaut who rode the Space Shuttle into orbit on four occasions, but as a Navy combat pilot he adds valuable military credentials to the ticket. Yeah, J.D. Vance was a Marine; he served as a correspondent while Kelly flew 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm for which he received the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and multiple Air Medals. Vance is the guy who shows up with a laptop after all the hazardous action is over to write a story about others’ combat careers.
Vance emphasizes his rise from an impoverished youth, which is admirable. Then he went off to Yale Law School, became a venture capitalist and wrote a book about his Appalachian roots; now he (like Donald Trump) pretends to empathize with the white working class while opposing unionization efforts and embracing tax policies that enrich his fellow venture capitalists and hedge fund managers, not to mention real estate moguls like Trump, at the expense of the working and middle class.
Kelly comes from a working class family; both parents were police officers in New Jersey (another selling point, in the opinion of this son of Paterson!), and went to the Merchant Marine Academy. While Vance was venturing capital, Kelly was risking his life over the skies of Iraq and in multiple shuttle launches. Kelly has written books, too: about the inspiring struggles of his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, to survive after a devastating assassination attempt, and about the need for responsible gun policies that are supported by well over 70% of American voters. Kelly’s leadership in gun reform, even before election to the Senate, is likely to generate broad enthusiasm, especially among younger voters.
Kelly is hugely popular in a key border state, largely because he has demonstrated a sincere desire to emulate his predecessor, John McCain, in working across the aisle. Kelly reveres McCain, as contrasted to Donald Trump who demeaned the 2008 GOP nominee for having been shot down over Vietnam, captured, imprisoned for five and a half years and choosing to undergo years of torture rather than leave his fellow POWs behind. “I prefer[s] the ones who don’t get captured,” Trump callously remarked.
As a veteran, Kelly also draws a sharp contrast to Trump, who has coldheartedly denigrated those who died in defense of the country. “Why should I go to that cemetery?” he said when refusing to visit the graves of U.S. casualties from World War I. “It’s filled with losers.”
Immigration is sure to be a topic hyped by Trump this fall, and Kelly brings personal experience to the issue, not only by representing Arizona, but by having been in the Senate when Trump torpedoed the bipartisan immigration reform championed by conservative Sen. Jim Lankford (R-OK). The failure of Republicans, including Vance, to ignore Trump’s partisan advice and pass the bipartisan bill, led President Biden to initiate tougher border controls by executive action, the impact of which has been a precipitous drop in cross-border movement. Meanwhile, we are still waiting for Mexico to “pay for” the incremental expansions of border security Trump had promised, and continues to advocate.
My support for Kelly is not meant to criticize other Democrats whose names are being floated for the vice presidential slot. Governors like Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer, Roy Cooper or Andy Beshear are all successful and likeable figures; each could help boost the ticket, mostly in their own state, which they are well-positioned to do even without being on the ticket. Kelly’s military background, his respected commitment to bipartisanship, his personal story as an astronaut and the husband of a gravely wounded congresswoman who found himself unexpectedly projected into politics, his electoral strength in a crucial swing state that could also help elect another Democratic senator: all these speak to his unique appeal among key constituencies needed for success in the fall. Vice President Harris should give Mark Kelly very strong consideration to fill the job she currently holds.
those who worked to pass these recovery measures.
The sluggish spend-out rates are reminiscent of the scenario facing House Democrats in 2010 when Democrats passed a sweeping stimulus law as well as the landmark Affordable Care Act. President Obama and congressional leaders predicted millions of “shovel ready jobs” and improved access to health care for tens of millions of Americans.
But the administration did a miserable job communicating the achievements to a recession-weary electorate. After a disappointing messaging campaign on the stimulus, House leaders implored Obama not to drop the ball again on selling the health reform law, only to be deeply dismayed yet again. The problem wasn’t just the messaging strategy but rather the inevitable gearing up needed to develop the programs, find eligible projects, review applications, design websites and the like – all requiring months of planning before the money could be spent and the benefits of the laws realized. In the case of the stimulus, the Democrats’ dilemma wasn’t helped by the realization that many of the “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs were some distance from being ready. And major portions of the ACA weren’t even scheduled to go into effect for three years after enactment.
As a result, Democrats in 2010 faced a dilemma, as did Democrats in 2022: on the one hand, messaging consults urged them to emphasize their commitment to rejuvenating the economy. “If you’re not talking jobs,” one consultant advised, “you’re losing.” But at the same time, consultants warned against claiming too much credit for a recovery millions of Americans had yet to experience.
“It isn’t enough to give our positive message,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her colleagues at a closed-door strategy session before the 2010 election. “We can’t claim success. People would think we were nuts” because the economic pain persisted. That November, Democrats lost 63 House seats and the majority because of this messaging conundrum; twelve years later, the party again lost the majority despite having passed a panoply of recovery measures that had not yet produced discernible benefits to voters.
The challenge is especially acute for House members because their two-year election cycle means they face anxious voters long before the benefits of the legislation they passed are manifest to the American people. This “Implementation Gap” is especially problematical for Democrats who relish creating sweeping and complex policies that raise immediate expectations of relief but invariably take time to put into place; by contrast, Republican focus mostly on tax cuts that are quickly implemented and which voters, therefore, feel tangibly in the wallets by the time of the off-year election.
Maddeningly, much of the largesse included in the Democratic legislative cornucopia of 2021-2022 still remains unspent at this late date. Yet even when improvement projects are underway, the Biden Administration is failing to take credit. Just outside Hampton, Connecticut, for example, a large green sign informs motorists that the state and federal Transportation Departments are responsible for the improvement of Utley Road under the aegis of the “bipartisan infrastructure law.” That politically anonymous notification is reminiscent of President Obama’s refusal to send a letter to recipients taking credit for a Democratic tax cut in 2009. (By contrast, President Trump had no hesitation about putting his superfluous autograph on the checks sent to taxpayers for the 2017 tax cut.)
The situation is by no means hopeless for Biden and Democrats this fall. Obama won re-election in 2012 while the ACA remained largely unimplemented and billions of stimulus money remained unallocated. But the challenge to Democrats is to plug that Implementation Gap as fast as possible: get the appropriated funds out to millions of Americans and their communities so the benefits of having Democrats in charge is more than a promise largely left unfulfilled by Election Day. And don’t be so hesitant to let voters know whom to thank.
Donald Trump has several things in common with Richard Nixon: both were elected president; both were defeated for president. If things go as seems likely, Trump will join Nixon as one of the very few men ever nominated by their party three times for the presidency.
Trump is also following in Nixon’s footsteps in attempting to undermine national policy to enhance the chances for his election, notwithstanding the human misery he causes.
As bipartisan Senate negotiations on immigration policy seem poised to produce a breakthrough, Trump has urged Senate and House Republicans to abandon the discussion. Alternatively, if Sen. Jim Lankford (R-OK), among others, insist on doing their job and completing the compromise legislation, Trump advises (without having seen the compromise) his myrmidons to vote it down and let the crisis continue to worsen.
It wouldn’t be the first time that Trump’s legislative inaction exacerbated problems on the border. Trump and his Republican sycophants did next to nothing when they were in complete control of government except rebuild some pre-existing fencing along the border, a solution some have called a “6th century solution to a 21st century problem.” Trump and his acolytes have used their public megaphones to broadcast falsely that under President Biden, the U.S.-Mexico border is wide open. To hundreds of thousands of poor, abused and repressed people, that has sounded like an invitation to flock to the border, which is exactly what they have done.
If the Senate negotiations succeed, Speaker Mike Johnson and his band of zealots are warning the bill will be dead on arrival, as occurred when the Senate approved a bipartisan immigration package in 2013. House Republicans, every one of them up for re-election this year (unlike Lankford) in districts that are mostly slavishly devoted to Donald Trump, will likely heed the call of their party’s leaders and trash the deal.
The maneuver recalls Nixon’s well-documented secret maneuver on the eve of the nailbiter election of 1968. As Nixon biographer John Farrell, and Peter Baker of the New York Times, have both reported, Nixon was deeply worried that President Lyndon B. Johnson would secure a negotiated peace agreement just before the election, helping to pacify angry Democrats who would then reluctantly vote Johnson’s surrogate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Nixon was having none of that, as Baker reported. He ordered his top staff to throw a “monkey wrench” into the peace talks to prevent any agreement from being finalized before election day. Nixon instructed future chief of staff H.R. Haldeman to promise the teetering South Vietnamese government a better deal if and when Nixon became president.
“There’s really no doubt this was a step beyond the normal political jockeying … given the stakes with all the lives,” said John A. Farrell, who discovered the notes in the Nixon Library that the former president neglected to destroy. Nixon denied any personal involvement, but the papers Farrell uncovered dispositively prove he was in it up to his jowls. Nixon worked the deal through Anna Chennault, widow of a prominent World War II pilot and a major GOP fundraiser in her own right. Relaying a message to the Vietnamese from “her boss,” Baker reported, Chennault advised, “Hold on, we are gonna win.”
LBJ learned of the conspiracy through wiretaps and surveillance and was unamused. For good reason – the Logan Act bars private citizen interference in foreign relations for just such a reason – Johnson considered charging Nixon with treason but backed off such a volatile action on the eve on an election. The peace negotiations stalled, Nixon eked out a narrow victory, and the war and deaths on both sides dragged on through much of his first term in the White House.
“Nixon committed a crime to win the presidential election,” concluded Ken Hughes of the Miller Center of the University of Virginia. It proved to be a dry run for the felonies committed in 1972 to hang onto the office.
Trump’s current efforts to manipulate the Congress to torpedo an immigration deal – one that likely will cost Biden support on the Left – may not rise to the level of treason, but it matches Nixon in treachery. Sabotaging the incumbent president – not to mention your own party in Congress – so that you can run against that person’s failure is going low, by Michelle Obama’s 2016 standard. This time, Trump’s disloyalty, and that of his cultish devotees in Congress, needs to be exposed to voters ahead of the election.