The curious VP pick of Tim Walz

The results of the Harris Veepstakes are in. The winner? Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

MN Governor Tim Walz--a good man,
a capable leader. and way left-of-center

So, um, huh?

It's possible Harris may have overplayed her hand by choosing a Progressive over a Moderate.

Don't get me wrong, there are some things for Democrats to like about Walz on the ticket: he brings executive experience as Governor, he's a National Guard veteran, and he's enacted all sorts of legislation in his state that polls show are important issues nationally (especially among Dems)--"red flag" gun laws, increasing funding for education and infrastructure, codifying abortion rights. And, I'm not exactly sure how, but he's also managed to cut taxes for most of his constituents.

So, why my confusion about Walz as Harris's running mate?

Well, for starters, Minnesota isn't a swing state (as are the homes of other Harris VP finalists, Arizona's Senator Mark Kelly, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro), so his selection doesn't bring any immediate electoral advantage, in that regard.

Secondly, the above-mentioned accomplishments of Walz's tenure--despite being popular in nationwide polling (and also gibing very well with Harris's beliefs)--are also pretty liberal ideas even for a ticket headed by the left of-center Harris,* one that is ostensibly trying to bring aboard Trump-averse right-of-center moderates (Note: most of Walz's passed legislation came with the help of a completely Democratic state assembly).

And some of Walz's other legislative wins can read as even more so (especially for many moderate voters): increasing payroll tax to fund paid childcare and medical leave, increasing state commitment to clean energy, granting voting rights to convicted felons, legalization of recreational marijuana, making Minnesota a haven for transgender rights and care.

As my wife asked me, "Exactly how does that appeal to moderates, how does that unite the country?"

That's a great question.

It doesn't. It essentially doubles down on a left-of-center agenda. And it doesn't exactly (in my opinion) expand the Harris tent (which would have easily invited in those fence-sitting, Trump-hating moderates with someone such as pro-gun, but anti-gun violence/from-a-border-state/former astronaut Mark Kelly).

Of course, pretty much all Democrats laud Walz's selection. Some, like hard-to-please WV Senator Joe Manchin praise his "normality." Others, like former President Obama cheer his character and his desire to "serve all of the people." Some claim Walz--who coined the GOP moniker "weird"--will serve wonderfully as Harris's "attack dog" on the Trump/Vance ticket.

But some, such as former Obama political strategist/CNN commentator David Axelrod (and, again, my wife) compare such a leftist choice to that of Trump's ultra-right wing pick of JD Vance (although Walz currently polls higher in favorability)--neither of which seems to attempt to appeal to moderates in that "big tent."

But it's the hand that Democrats now hold.

And Harris and the Dems (and democracy-loving citizens everywhere) have got to hope that the moderates they could have so much better courted find the Trump/Vance conservative ticket distasteful enough to cast their ballot for a pair of left-of-center liberals* 

*Signifies correction of mischaracterization of Harris as a Progressive in original post. Hat tip to capper.

Quick take: Trump wouldn't REALLY ditch Vance, would he?

Donald Trump wouldn't be thinking of replacing his VP pick JD Vance, would he?

Despite all the GOP lawmakers who privately say that Vance is a train wreck, Trump still backs him (well, other than publicly refusing to say if Vance would be ready to become President "on day one," and remarking that "the choice of Vice-President makes no difference").

Donald wouldn't throw JD
 under the bus, would he?

I mean, Trump wouldn't be the kind of man who would disregard his principles and his loyalties and his word to throw someone under the bus just because they make him look bad, would he?

And Trump really doesn't care that if he isn't elected, he will very likely still be facing a host of criminal indictments (which, if elected, he could order the DOJ to make them disappear), does he?

After all, JD Vance obviously checks all the boxes.

Alienating women and gays with offensive comments that the women running the country-- like (stepmother and Vice-President) Kamala Harris or even (gay dad) Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg--are "childless cat ladies."  

Check.

Alienate what polls show are a majority of women voters by saying there should be a "no-exceptions" abortion ban.

Check.

Emerge from the RNC convention with a virtually unheard of negative popularity rating for a VP candidate.

Check.

Write a forward for the ultra-conservative/radical Project 2025--which despite mentioning Trump or his administration a couple hundred times--is a plan supposedly disavowed by your boss.

Check.

Once have called your boss "an idiot," a "cynical a**hole," and compared him to Hitler.

Check.

So, will Trump replace Vance? As Melania famously said in announcing her increased campaign participation (um, which hasn't yet happened), "Stay tuned."

Read a pair of insightful, longer takes on the topic:

The Independent's Can Trump replace JD Vance as his running mate? (msn.com)

Polls Show Vance Is Deeply Unpopular — Could the RNC Remove Him From the Ticket? | Truthout

Harris's VP sweepstakes

So, who will be Harris's pick for VP? There's plenty of speculation, but one thing is certain: Harris's choice won't be anywhere as abysmal as Trump's JD Vance.

Arizona's US Senator Mark Kelly

Although some of the early favorites, such as Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and California's Gavin Newsom, have taken their names out of the running, there's still a surprisingly strong line-up from which Harris can choose.

The two that seem to be drawing the most attention are North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper--a close friend of Harris's who has won convincingly in what many consider a red state--and Arizona's US Senator Mark Kelly, a former astronaut who was only elected in 2020.

I think she'd do well to pick Kelly. 

First off, he's from a swing state. It's always nice for a campaign to have a "favorite son" in a swing state.  

And, as Arizona Senator, Kelly has worked on in-state border issues; he's even been critical of Biden's handling of immigration.  Kelly could give the Harris ticket a bit of instant credibility regarding Harris's perceived weakest issue.

His views on guns align with a tenet of the Harris campaign, which promotes "the freedom to be safe from gun violence." Kelly and his wife, former AZ Rep. Gabby Giffords--who was shot and disabled at a political event--formed their own political action committee to address gun violence. But Kelly still can additionally appeal to Second Amendment advocates: "Gabby and I are pro-gun ownership. We are anti-gun violence."

Hey! He's an astronaut!

Kelly's service as a US Navy Captain will likely bring automatic standing with US Vets, as well.

And, hey, he's an astronaut (which is undeniably cool, right?).

And he's WAY better than JD Vance.

Here's a USA Today article with pros and cons of Harris's potential VP picks

GOP demonizes Harris for being Black and a woman

As I posted yesterday, now that Biden's gone, the GOP would have to start demonizing the Democrats' new pick, Vice-President Kamala Harris.

It didn't take long.

Instead of attacking her competence and her record, however, they went right for the racist and sexist jugular. 

WI Rep. Glenn Grothman proudly
shares his racist attitudes

Despite Harris having won elections for San Francisco DA, California AG, US Senate, and as Biden's running mate, the "pride" of my home state, GOP Representative Glenn Grothman (a longtime espouser of misogynist views, btw), jumped into the racism with both feet, attributing her recent backing from Democrats to her "ethnic background."

Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett (um, also GOP), joined right in, calling Harris a DEI Vice-President (Note: "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" is designed to provide opportunity for qualified individuals from underserved populations, but has become a right-wing slur accusing people of getting handed a job solely because of their race or their gender), having only gotten the job because of her race. 

TN Rep. Tim Burchett:
"What about white females?"

Amazingly, Burchett dug his racist hole even deeper: "What about--what about white females?" he asked.

It also turns out that GOP VP nominee J.D. Vance has been on the misogyny train all along. In a 2021 video, Vance called Harris one of the "childless cat ladies, who are miserable at their own lives." (Note: Harris is not childless (with two stepchildren) and, anecdotally, does not seem the least bit miserable with her life).

Some GOP have said Harris (to use a longstanding slur against Black Americans) is not articulate or doesn't speak well (which they never said about their mumbling, bumbling Trump).

And the GOP's despicable flag-bearer Donald Trump, in a continuation of his misogynistic behavior he perfected during his 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton, posted that Harris was "dumb as a rock." Of course, he also purposely mispronounces her name to denigrate her.

And, right on cue, the birther lies and accusations--as is GOP standard procedure--have, once again, reared their ugly, racist heads (to devalue accomplishments of people of color). Supposedly, Harris is ineligible for President because her parents were born outside of the US--which is of no consequence where they were born (Trump even perpetuated this racist lie in 2019: "I heard today that she doesn't meet the requirements").

So, only a day or so in, and the GOP's racist/misogynist banner is fully hoisted and flying for all the world to see.

It's time to send Trump and his GOP packing.

Vote Harris.

Remembering the GOP demonization of Joe Biden

Now that Joe Biden's out of the Presidential race, the GOP will have to start its work on demonizing Harris.

But before we let Biden go, let's take a moment to review the disgusting lies told about him by Trump and his GOP.

The GOP certainly gives Pinocchio
a run for his money

Pre-MAGA GOP colleagues universally found Joe Biden to be a decent and honorable man. For decades. Decent and honorable.

That all changed when the GOP needed to create distractions in order to defend their indefensible President Trump who had had a dalliance with Russia, worked to overturn the election, hoarded and hid classified documents, did nothing for 187 minutes while the US Capitol was being overrun, was found to be a sexual abuser and a business fraud, and was convicted of 34 felonies.

Yikes! That’s a lot of distractions to create.

So, they did.

Biden rigged the election.

Biden accepted bribes.

Biden weaponized the Department of Justice.

And none of it was true.

Not one court found that the election had been rigged. Trump's administration (even his daughter, Ivanka) attested to its legitimacy. The right's baseless claims about Dominion vote-switching or Trump's felonious lies about Georgia's dead voters have all been debunked.

And the sheer scope of rigging an election would include law enforcement, poll workers, political individuals and organizations (both Democrats AND Republicans), and the judiciary. AND NO ONE EVER SPILLED THE TEA?!

And how about Joe's bribes (as part of a GOP impeachment fishing expedition)? Records showed that about $5000 pertained to his son's truck payments, and the $200,000 from his brother James was clearly shown as a loan repayment (by the way, head of the Biden impeachment committee James Comer also loaned his OWN brother about $200,000).

Well, still, Biden certainly weaponized the DOJ, right? Similar to the election-rigging lies, such an operation would have been massive. Joe would have not only had to strongarm the DOJ, but local District Attorneys and their staffs, FBI investigators, judges throughout the country, citizens on several Grand Juries, witnesses, the lawyers (including Trump's) who selected the jurors to hear and decide his case, as well as the jurors themselves.

For good measure (to evidently throw people off the scent of his insidious weaponization plot) Biden retained the Special Prosecutor investigating HIS OWN SON! And then he let the court proceedings run their course of convicting him. I'm curious, was Joe willing to also throw Jill under the bus, if it had come to that?

As Joe Biden would say, "C'mon, man!"

And now that Biden is gone, it's Harris's turn to take the slings and arrows launched by the lying, desperate, and morally-bereft GOP.

How long, for instance, before Trump amplifies another birther accusation against an opponent (especially one born of two immigrants)? Or creates dishonest narratives about her record? Or maybe the porn-star-hush-money-payer will salaciously question Harris's past? 

After the demonization of Joe Biden--a decent and honorable man--nothing is beneath Trump and the GOP.

Harris, I think, is more than ready to take them on.

 

Can Kamala Harris win?

Now that Democrats are coming to grips with Biden's much-needed departure from the presidential race, it's time to choose the successor.

Being this late in the game, the logical choice is Biden's VP Kamala Harris.

But can Harris win?

She has a lot of things going for her.

Harris can beat Trump in November

She's got the name recognition, her policies have been out there since her run for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she was elected Vice President in 2020 and is on the Biden/Harris ticket that resoundingly swept the primaries in 2024.

Harris is a known commodity that could hit the campaign trail running.

And, perhaps the biggest reason of all, because Harris and Biden share a campaign committee, all $91 million on hand of the campaign's war chest would come Harris's way (which wouldn't likewise transfer to any other Democrat).

Note: Although, amazingly, that massive amount still trails Trump's $116 million, it towers above the available funds any other potential Democratic hopefuls might have.

Harris's polling tends to run a bit better than Biden's in a match-up with Trump. Her numbers are generally better, as well, with two demographics that are well-positioned to make a difference in the upcoming election: Blacks and women.

She has also gained renown as a champion for abortion and women's reproductive rights, an issue that has mobilized voters even in red states to support laws protecting a woman's right to choose. Ostensibly, Harris would bring those voters out in November, as well.

There are the Biden/Harris administration successes she could point to--bipartisan bills regarding infrastructure and semi-conductor production, for example--and what, by then, should be a much more positive picture regarding issues such as inflation and the border (especially with Biden's recent executive action).

And her experience as a California prosecutor would eviscerate Trump's positions and record--the exact opposite of what Biden should have done (and was unable to do) in his catastrophic June debate.

Some down sides: She's connected to the perceived failures of the Biden administration, i.e., inflation and immigration (the latter of which she was tasked with improving, pretty much to no avail); her disapproval rating runs higher than her approval (although she still fares better than both Biden and Trump); she fostered some policy and performance criticism during her time as San Francisco DA and California Attorney General; and the above-mentioned Biden/Harris administration successes appear to have been pretty much all Joe, no Kamala.

But there are two ENORMOUSLY important points that would help Kamala Harris win in November:

1) She's not Biden

2) She's not Trump

So, Democrats, let's get on with it.

It's Harris's time.

Bring on November.

Here's a great take about why Harris may NOT win (from Politico)

What, me worry?

Sure, changes in my working conditions and pay as a public employee will be further determined by a State Supreme Court decision.  But, no problem, because the Court follows the state Constitution, right?

And it just so happens that it looks as though the candidate the Walker administration said would best further its agenda (1)  happened to spring ahead in the election after all the results had already been announced. 

And, just by coincidence, the clerk who found the votes in a pro-Walker county happened to work a few years back in a GOP caucus for Republican Assemblyman David Prosser just before the caucus was dissolved for illegal actions (a clerk, by the way, whose secretive and inaccurate vote-reporting methods have been criticized before). (2,3)

But I can rest easy regarding any improprieties because the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (who just happened to endorse David Prosser) has declared that the missing votes made sense. (4)

The Capital Times editorialized that if this had happened in Illinois, for example, and that the Dems there just happened to find 7500 more votes for their candidate (coincidentally, about the number needed to stop a recount), you bet people would scrutinize it. (5)

But, thank goodness, this is Wisconsin.

What, me worry?

Great link about civility in recall campaign: April 9 entry of Mark Peterson's Glenn Grothmann Watch
Thanks to The Political Environment for the Cap Times editorial tip.

(1) Walker agenda could be stopped, if Prosser is defeated, JS Online, 4/5/11, http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119285829.html
(2) Election officials scrutinize Waukesha County results, JS Online, 4/8/11, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119486574.html
(3) Waukesha County clerk has drawn criticisms in the past, WI State Journal, 4/9/11, http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_7e777016-62b2-11e0-9b74-001cc4c002e0.html
(4) The Waukesha Surprise..., JS Online, 4/8/11, http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119476004.html
(5) Scandal in Fitzwalkerstan...,Cap Times, 4/8/11, http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_be206ecd-4b8d-571a-9fa2-cb4e5bf8e668.html

So, it's not a referendum...?

As Scott Walker once more declares that the Wisconsin Supreme Court vote is not a referendum on his administration's policies (1) ,  his Republican colleague Jeff Stone is at home dumbfounded as to why he's not celebrating a victory in Walker's vacated Milwaukee County Executive postition.  Instead, Stone got absolutely trounced (61%-39%) by an inexperienced political unknown, Chris Abele.  And JoAnne Kloppenburg, a non-factor in the Supreme Court primary in February (25% of the vote, compared to Prosser's 55%), is the leader in the clubhouse for the justice post.

Not a referendum, huh?

When Walker won the gubernatorial election in 2010 by a not-landslide-like 52%-47% margin, he was all about how his subsequent policies were what the people of Wisconsin wanted.  He and his Republican colleagues in the Legislature certainly acted as though they felt that was a referendum on his policies (or, at times, perhaps a divine command?) (2)

Unlike that election, though, voters here knew the real costs.  They didn't have their candidates lie about collective bargaining, (3)  or consolidate political power to appease corporate investors (4) , or say things to purposely mislead the people of Wisconsin (see previous posts).

Kloppenburg's possible election may be nothing more than something akin to a mosquito bite on the neck of Walker's administration, but a slew of them may just have him and his friends running for cover.

On, Wisconsin.

(1) Supreme Court vote doesn't shake Walker's resolve, WI State Journal, http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_3e2fac38-60b6-11e0-ae09-001cc4c002e0.html
(2) Scott Walker Believes He's Follwoing Orders From the Lord, The Progressive, 3/7/11 http://www.progressive.org/wx030711.html
(3) Politifact, JS Online, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/
(4) Yes, a power grab, JS Online, 12/27/10, http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/112522499.html