By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst potential demotion from the Pentagon, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly is considering a run for president in 2028, according to recent interviews. Kelly stated he feels an increased obligation to combat political turmoil, particularly after being censured. He is facing federal scrutiny for a video released with Democratic colleagues that urged military and intelligence community members to refuse “illegal orders,” prompting an investigation and accusations of misconduct. Kelly is currently suing the Secretary of War over efforts to demote him.
Read the original article here
Mark Kelly says he’s considering a presidential run in 2028 amid Pentagon probe, and it’s certainly sparking a lot of thought. The immediate reaction, and it’s a common thread, seems to be a general approval of Kelly as a potential candidate. People are drawn to his background – astronaut, military veteran – seeing it as a strength, a sign of competence and experience that contrasts sharply with the current political landscape. Many feel he has “no real baggage,” which makes him a strong contender.
The discussion quickly veers into comparing Kelly to other potential candidates, especially in the Democratic field. While some have reservations, the prevailing sentiment is that Kelly would be a better choice than some other frontrunners, particularly in contrast to figures like Newsom. This highlights a strategic perspective, acknowledging that while Kelly might not be everyone’s ideal, he could be a more electable choice, a “status quo” candidate who offers stability.
However, there are definite voices of dissent. Some people yearn for more radical change, for a candidate who will address critical issues like climate change, wealth redistribution, and the need to hold wrongdoers accountable. They feel that Kelly, as a moderate, might not be the right fit to bring about the necessary transformative changes the country needs. There’s a concern that he might not be progressive enough to garner full support from the Democratic base.
There’s also a recurring theme of pragmatic realism. Many contributors readily concede that they’d vote for Kelly because the alternative, specifically the prospect of another Republican in the White House, is far less appealing. This sentiment underscores the current political climate, where defeating the opposition often takes precedence over idealogical purity. The underlying feeling is that “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”
The idea of the Pentagon probe itself is, unsurprisingly, politicized, with some immediately framing it as “campaign interference.” Others seem more concerned about the fairness of any potential investigation, focusing on the timing and the potential for political motivations. This is a clear reflection of the polarized nature of modern politics.
The conversation consistently highlights a desire for accountability. People want a president who will ensure justice and pursue wrongdoers, especially those associated with the previous administration. This underscores a deep-seated frustration with the perceived lack of consequences and a longing for a return to what they see as a more principled political environment. There is a general feeling that Kelly, with his background, might be the right type of person to fulfill this desire.
The discussion also explores how Kelly could win. The belief is that he could attract votes from across the political spectrum, particularly by appealing to a sense of normalcy and competence. There’s also the suggestion of strategically choosing a running mate, such as a progressive VP, to unify the party.
There are concerns about the primary process. Some are eager for a strong primary race and for the party to field the best possible candidates. There’s no blind faith that Kelly would automatically receive support. It is a genuine hope that the best candidate wins regardless of who they are.
Beyond policy, there’s a strong desire for a return to dignity and decorum in the White House. The idea of a “boring” president, one who avoids chaos, is, for many, a welcome prospect. Kelly’s background is seen as inherently respectable and that he will be more composed.
In conclusion, the prospect of Mark Kelly running for president in 2028 generates a mix of reactions, ranging from enthusiastic support to cautious optimism. His background and perceived competence are seen as significant assets, especially against the backdrop of an often turbulent political scene. However, there are also reservations, particularly from those who believe in more progressive policies. Ultimately, the question is not just whether Kelly is qualified, but whether he is the right person to take on the pressing challenges facing the United States.