Washington Post associate editor Karen Tumulty last week submitted that Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) would be the "smartest selection" to be Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate, as he "would help inoculate her in areas where she is likely to be vulnerable" — such as immigration.
The New Republic's Timothy Noah, on the other hand, believes Harris would benefit from staying away from selecting the Arizona senator.
The New Republic staff writer wrote in a Tuesday, July 30 op-ed, "Kamala Harris should not choose Kelly to be her running mate," emphasizing, "Putting Kelly on the ticket might seem like an electorally smart strategy because he’s from Arizona. But Kelly brings with him so much baggage on important working-class issues that [GOP vice presidential nominee JD] Vance, by comparison, might start to look like the plausible tribune of the proletariat he tries so hard to be. It isn’t worth the risk."
Noah lays out three reasons why the Democratic leader could hurt Harris' chance of defeating Donald Trump in November.
He starts with the fact that although Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs "under Arizona law" would have "to replace Kelly with another Democrat" should Harris select him, "a special election would be held in 2026—three years before Kelly’s current Senate term is due to expire. And in a state like Arizona, a Democratic victory would be far from assured."
Read also: Kamala Harris V.P. contender starts taking shots at J.D. Vance
Secondly, Noah emphasizes:
The Democrats are projected to lose their Senate majority in November, and even if they confound expectations and keep it, that majority will be razor-thin, as it is today. No current senator should be under consideration for the Democratic vice presidential slot (and, for that matter, no current representative either, though the Great Mentioner tends to disdain the House of Representatives). The Republicans can perhaps spare a Senate seat if Senator J.D. Vance becomes vice president; the Democrats cannot.
The third reason Harris shouldn't choose Kelly, Noah writes, "is that the Arizona senator has a lousy record on labor."
The New Republic staff writer notes, "The Protecting the Right to Organize, or PRO, Act, which would eliminate various barriers to organizing in the workplace, is labor’s highest priority," but Kelly is the lone Democratic senator who originally failed to sponsor the legislation."
He told HuffPost’s Igor Bobick and Dave Jamieson three years ago that although he supported 'the overall goals' of the bill, he opposed a part of the bill that narrowed the definition of 'independent contractor,'" Noah writes, "thereby making it more difficult for employers to deny workers unemployment and other employee benefits and to dodge paying payroll taxes."
Noah adds, "Kelly’s resistance raised suspicions that he was caving to Arizona’s business community, which is fiercely anti-labor."
Last week, the Arizona leader "altered his position on the PRO Act, one day after it was reported that he was one of five potential candidates who’d furnished vetting materials to the Harris campaign," but Noah argues the senator's "endorsement, welcome though it is, does not wipe the slate clean."
Though some "might argue that a single blind spot should not disqualify Kelly," Noah emphasizes, "labor is not just some Democratic interest group. It’s the party’s heart and soul."
Noah's full article is available at this link.
