You're confusing "most progressive candidate" we've ever had with "democratic socialist".
Mark Kelly is a great politician but he would be starting from behind her on this. Newsome who was already prepping for a 2028 run would be the more logical choice if you want to replace Harris.
Harris is a lawyer turned politician. Kelly is a fighter pilot turned test pilot turned Navy Captain turned Astronaut turned Senator, with an identical twin brother with a nearly identical career, and a wife who survived an assassination attempt.
You can't swing a dead catTrump's toupee in DC without hitting a dozen lawyer-turned-politican Democrats.
Tell me you don't remember Swift Boating without telling me you don't remember it. The playbook on kneecapping anyone who leans on their service is already written. Mark Kelly was successful in Arizona because he kept his composure against Martha McSally and advocated common sense policies.
But he doesn't have the funding, donors, or national ground game he would need for a presidential campaign. That, along with her record, is why Harris is getting the nod.
John Kerry was a low-level officer in a race with another low level officer.
Kelly was a high-ranking officer, running against a malingering draft dodger.
Completely different circumstances
Mark Kelly's opponent was Martha McSally, 20+ year veteran of the Air Force and a fighter pilot.
John Kerry faced off against a delinquent national guard pilot while he was a decorated combat veteran. Unable to match Kerry's military record, Bush got navy veterans who were mad about Kerry's anti war activities to say mean shit about him and insinuated they served under him. His actual crew made the rounds for him but it was useless.
Just so we're clear, since you seem to have confused them.
Just so we're clear, since you seem to have confused them.
I didn't confuse them. I was talking about his future opponent, not the previous one.
Then you need to use the words, "will be" instead of "was".
You also neglected to tell us how you would avoid that swift boating.
I could have been a little bit clearer, but I used the same construction in both sentences, using "was" to refer to their previous status as officers, and describing the events of their presidential election process. The context of "malingering draft dodger" should have been enough of a clue that I was referring to someone other than Col. McSally.
I did not neglect how to avoid the swift boating. GW and Kerry were both low level military officers, each accusing each other of having had poor military records. Both of them had sufficient military experience to make their criticisms credible, but neither had enough time in for their service records to prove or disprove the other's claims.
Trump has no military service. He's already known as "Cadet Bone Spurs". JD Vance has 4 years of service... As an enlisted reporter. Any attack they might try is only going to remind the voting public of their terrible military credentials.
Swift Boating isn't about proof. It's literally about lying too fast for fact checkers to keep up. And being a higher rank means more disgruntled people served under you, and it's even harder to fact check that guy on the TV ad who says you laughed maniacally while ruining his life.
You're confusing "most progressive candidate" we've ever had with "democratic socialist".
Mark Kelly is a great politician but he would be starting from behind her on this. Newsome who was already prepping for a 2028 run would be the more logical choice if you want to replace Harris.
Harris is a lawyer turned politician. Kelly is a fighter pilot turned test pilot turned Navy Captain turned Astronaut turned Senator, with an identical twin brother with a nearly identical career, and a wife who survived an assassination attempt.
You can't swing
a dead catTrump's toupee in DC without hitting a dozen lawyer-turned-politican Democrats.Kelly might be starting from behind but he has every advantage here.
Tell me you don't remember Swift Boating without telling me you don't remember it. The playbook on kneecapping anyone who leans on their service is already written. Mark Kelly was successful in Arizona because he kept his composure against Martha McSally and advocated common sense policies.
But he doesn't have the funding, donors, or national ground game he would need for a presidential campaign. That, along with her record, is why Harris is getting the nod.
John Kerry was a low-level officer in a race with another low level officer.
Kelly was a high-ranking officer, running against a malingering draft dodger.
Completely different circumstances
Mark Kelly's opponent was Martha McSally, 20+ year veteran of the Air Force and a fighter pilot.
John Kerry faced off against a delinquent national guard pilot while he was a decorated combat veteran. Unable to match Kerry's military record, Bush got navy veterans who were mad about Kerry's anti war activities to say mean shit about him and insinuated they served under him. His actual crew made the rounds for him but it was useless.
Just so we're clear, since you seem to have confused them.
I didn't confuse them. I was talking about his future opponent, not the previous one.
Then you need to use the words, "will be" instead of "was".
You also neglected to tell us how you would avoid that swift boating.
I could have been a little bit clearer, but I used the same construction in both sentences, using "was" to refer to their previous status as officers, and describing the events of their presidential election process. The context of "malingering draft dodger" should have been enough of a clue that I was referring to someone other than Col. McSally.
I did not neglect how to avoid the swift boating. GW and Kerry were both low level military officers, each accusing each other of having had poor military records. Both of them had sufficient military experience to make their criticisms credible, but neither had enough time in for their service records to prove or disprove the other's claims.
Trump has no military service. He's already known as "Cadet Bone Spurs". JD Vance has 4 years of service... As an enlisted reporter. Any attack they might try is only going to remind the voting public of their terrible military credentials.
Swift Boating isn't about proof. It's literally about lying too fast for fact checkers to keep up. And being a higher rank means more disgruntled people served under you, and it's even harder to fact check that guy on the TV ad who says you laughed maniacally while ruining his life.