Skip to comments.Has Romney Already Chosen Portman for VP?
Posted on 07/05/2012 9:33:47 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romneys search for a running mate is allegedly entering its final phase, and establishment Republican Ohio Senator Rob Portman is believed to be at the top of the list. Portman has campaigned repeatedly with Romney, and he is flying to New Hampshire this week where the Romney family is vacationing to appear at a Republican fund-raiser.
Portman continues to garner plaudits from the establishment media, but most importantly, he is the clear favorite of many establishment Republican insiders.
As The New York Times observed, he [Portman] is among a select breed of politicians who have a keen and deep understanding of the inner workings of government. And to the big government Republicans who were Portmans colleagues in the George W. Bush administration and the House under Speaker Dennis Hastert, this makes him not just a safe choice, but the best choice.
Portman, who was elected to the Senate in 2010 after representing the Cincinnati area in the House for 12 years, has been around Washington for some 30 years. He may be unknown to many Republicans across the country, but in Washington -- where he worked in both Bush administrations -- he is the ultimate insider. He's also the ultimate Bush Republican.
In addition to working in both Bush administrations, Portman campaigned hard for George W. Bush in 2000, dogging Senator John McCain across Ohio, crashing McCain campaign events and contributing mightily to Ws victory in Ohio.
As the Budget Director of the George W. Bush administration, Portman became an acknowledged expert on the federal budget. Indeed, as a newly elected senator, Portman pulled out his own charts and graphs on the Senate floor to analyze the nations rising deficits and its then-debt of $15 trillion.
But Portmans problem on spending is not his knowledge of the budget, it is his failure to actually do anything to end the deficits and debt that are destroying the American dream we just celebrated on the 4th of July.
Portman, like many establishment Republicans, comes across as a basically conservative Main Street Ohio politician -- but hes no Bob Taft.
If Republicans want to defeat President Obama, and in the process get America off the road to economic disaster, they must reject the big government Republicanism that led the Republican Party to its defeats in 2006 and 2010.
Mitt Romney claims that he is a Washington outsider who was not part of those Republican disasters. If thats true, he will certainly choose a conservative boat rocker like Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal or Jim DeMint, not the chief architect of George W. Bushs budget deficit disasters.
If it's Portman, all bets are off--one more inside-the-beltway, party boy, establishment, big government Republican.
The Stupid Party; giving a whole new meaning to a flat learning curve.
Is Portman pro-life?
I wish he would seriously consider David Petraeus.
Romney is light on foreign affairs, anti-terrorism and the military and Petraeus could provide balance.
Also, I would like to the this ticket adopt a new campaign theme:
Let’s see...a big-government Bush administration insider who has been around Washington for 30 years? What could possibly go wrong?
Choosing Portman would be all about winning Ohio. And finding someone who would not out-charisma Myth. For my money they’d be better off focusing on Florida, bringing on Rubio, and letting the charisma issue go.
So two tall skinny pale white guys........
Why would Romney pick someone different than him?
Paul Ryan. It’s the economy, jobs,and health care. No one comprehends the substance of the issues better than Ryan.
“Is Portman pro-life?”
“Lets see...a big-government Bush administration insider who has been around Washington for 30 years? What could possibly go wrong?”
It’s like we’re stuck in a time warp where a stupid decision is made, it plays out to its inevitable disaster, then loops to repeat itself endlessly.
“So two tall skinny pale white guys........”
Non-preferred gender persons of non-color.
Why does this send my Spidey senses tingling?
Didn’t Petraeus describe himself as a ‘Rockefeller Republican’ or something similar?
There’s nothing in a military man resume suggestive of small-government instincts.
I hope not. Voting for Romney is hard enough to swallow let alone having Portman on the ticket.
Who the heck is he anyway. He’s been there 30 years and I don’t recall any peep out of him. He certainly wasn’t getting TV time pushing back against Reid. Did he tote McConnell’s oxygen bottle? He’s a budget/finance guy?? Heck of a lot of good that is when the Senate hasn’t done a budget in 3 years.
This sucks. Get some gonads so-to-speak in the VP slot.
I favor Ryan at this point.
Condi Rice would fit that bill. Works for me.
I mean, I’m already holding my nose and voting AGAINST the Kenyan - not necessarily FOR the Republican contender.
How many times can the author use the word “establishment” in the article. Pretty much answers your question concerning the possible VP selection.
Must have been a bit nippy in that room.
Irrelevant, since Obama's likely to eliminate the military altogether.
I completely agree. But Wisconsin is not as critical as Florida or Ohio.
Has Romney Already Chosen Orange Juice for Breakfast?
I recently read the new biography of Eisenhower by Jean Edward Smith. I think the experience of being a general in the U.S. military lends itself well to the presidency. Especially in Petraeus' case, as like Eisenhower, he had to manage a coalition of allies during a period of war, not to mention all the internal politics of being that high up the command structure. Leadership, ability to delegate and to choose the right people that can get the job done are all abilities we desperately need in the White House right now.
Presidents and Vice Presidents do not spend the people’s money — Congress does. This is why I would prefer that Ryan stay in the House and eventually replace Boehner.
The world began to tip over when Pelosi and Reid assumed control of Congress and Bush failed to veto everything they did.
Before he started the "competence" crap, he was up by 17.
People want to be led, not managed. This is the reason Romney was such a poor choice.
It's also the reson he won't pick a leader as VP - might show him up.
If Romney wants to win in the next election, and he is not playing around. He will pick Allen West, it is time to get serious about getting this person out of office. Or we will pay for a life time. Along with our sons and daughters.
Or she has a thing for Hillary.
Well, there's one thing thing in his favor.
How about “Competent Leadership (for a change...)”
And, Dukakis could use any campaign theme in the world and people would still laugh at his “Tank Commander” photo op.
No Senators please, establishment, conservative, or otherwise.
To me the best choice is Jindal. Executive experience, worked on healthcare, young, ethnic, superb academic credentials, pro-life.
The modern president isn’t simply a manager. He’s a partisan who should be leading both popular opinion and Congress on policy. And if he (or she) doesn’t have a strong small-government orientation, the vested-interest establishment will steamroll right over him with ever greater federal government spending and centralization.
The idea that the VP candidate can help carry his/her home state is overrated. Hell, Romney won’t carry MA.
Jindal and Rubio are my first choices as well, however they are both too bright and energetic to hold the dismal job of VP. I think their talents would be wasted as VP.
Romney has said that what it takes to turn this economy around might mean he is a one term president which doesn’t make the VP spot all that inviting. I think Rubio in his many denials realizes this.
If Romney is destined to be a one term president then maybe he should pick a Portman or a Christie or a Pawlenty to go down with him.
I think Romney realizes if he is elected it will be due to a massive anyone but Ubama vote, and it probably won’t matter who he selects for VP.
And someone who absolutely shines as a leader during a crisis. He's not exactly firewall conservative on every single issue, but he's definitely sharp.
And re: Jindal... those who view him negatively based on that flop of a speech he gave after Obama's faux-SOTU in early '09... remember, damn near 75% of the country had gone all Chrissy Matthews for Obama by that point, and any frontal attack on him would've come off badly. Jindal did as well as could be expected with a difficult situation.
Presidents approve congressional spending, mightily influence congressional spending and have the biggest bully pulpit out there communicating with the electorate, who influence congressional spending.
Romney will have NONE of that! He spent years and millions attacking competence. And his governorship proved his contempt for American values. He's called Barry lite for a reason and not ONLY because mitt is the grandfather of obamacare - he nurses his own little socialistic Romneycare!
“Choosing Portman would be all about winning Ohio. And finding someone who would not out-charisma Myth. For my money theyd be better off focusing on Florida, bringing on Rubio, and letting the charisma issue go.”
Negatory on that.
Portman is the better choice because Ohio will be a “more difficult win” for Romney than Florida. Romney needs both states to win, but Florida can probably be coaxed to the Republican side without the benefit of a native son on the ticket. Ohio is more problematic, and without Ohio, Romney hasn’t a prayer to win.
Also, there is a VERY good reason why Portman is the better choice than Rubio. It’s a matter of hot contention, but Rubio’s Constitutional qualifications to be president are questionable and will be attacked by the ‘rats and by the media. And there are many conservatives who are of the opinion that, regardless of his smooth external appearance, Rubio isn’t really very “conservative” at all, and is an amnesty suppporter in his heart.
My opinion only, yours is different. But I sense that in the future, Rubio is going to be just one more disappointment to the conservative cause.
where is he on homosexual based marriage? if he support it then he is out.
Does he oppose the federal marriage amendment? if not then he is out.
This UN small arms anti-second amendment treaty?
Portman is not even on the f-list let alone the a-list.
he might win Ohio but at what price? it might be a pyric victory.
I can't imagine a single Ohioan who wouldn't have voted for Romney suddenly getting excited enough about Portman to pull the lever for the pair of them.
Yes, truly the Stupid Party, but Mitt could do worse. I shudder to think of the RINOs he might choose!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.