Posted on 12/02/2014 5:09:09 AM PST by GIdget2004
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a Mitt Romney ally in 2012 who was exploring his own bid for president in 2016, has opted against a White House bid and will instead seek another Senate term, sources confirmed to POLITICO.
Portman began calling allies Monday to let them know he didn’t plan to run nationally, sources familiar with the calls said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Wife still says “NO!”?
We wuz Robbed!
Is that a new cut of steak?
Only proves that he has better sense and judgment than Rick Santorum.
Usually a candidate announces an intent to run. Are all 300 million people in the U.S. now expected by the pimps of the election industry to hold a press conference and issue a press release that they will not seek election to the Presidency?
it was silly for him to even think of it - shows his lack of good sense.
I on the other hand am intending to run for President in 2016. I have not formed an exploratory committee yet, nor have I reached out to donors. However, my platform is the following:
God, Country, Family, the Law.
That’s about it.
I guess the log cabin crowd will have to find another candidate.
Maybe Jeb will come out for faggotry.
Rob Portman. I’m not convinced he’s straight.
He’s not gay but his son is. And having his son like him is more important to him than common decency or the law. That’s understandable, but that’s not the kind of man I want as a Senator, let alone President.
He would have been Romney’s VP pick, but he disclosed his son was queer and Romney said there was no way.
Unfortunately I’m not at all optimistic about a successful primary challenge.
Hmmm...
Yeah, he’s in the Senate for a while.
“He would have been Romney’s VP pick, but he disclosed his son was queer and Romney said there was no way.”
I was one of the many FReepers that thought that Portman made the most sense as Romney’s runningmate (Ohio, Protestant, experience in the House, Senate and Executive Branch, wonkish, etc.), but, of course, I had no idea about his son’s sexual preference, much less that Portman himself would endorse same-sex “marriage.” Absolute non-starter for the presidency or vice presidency. (If Ohio Republicans want to keep him in the Senate, though, I can live with that, just as I could live with NV Republicans sending the “pro-choice on abortion” Brian Sandoval to the Senate to replace Harry Reid, or how I could have lived with NH Republicans sending the socially liberal Scott Brown to Washington to replace Jeanne Shaheen. The way I see it, there are more important battles to be fought than to try to defeat a swing-state senator such as Portman who is conservative across the board but is an apostate on a particular issue, even as important an issue as marriage, particularly since he’s just one of 100 votes in the Senate and since he’ll be an AYE for the confirmation of any conservative judicial nominee.)
And to think that Portman would have been a less embarrassing candidate than my second choice for Romney’s runningmate (VA Gov. Bob McDonnell) ....
GOOD decision.
Like anyone cares...lol.
By most reputable and credible accounts, Portman removed his own name from consideration because he recognized the problems nomination would make for his family.
Portman himself says he told Romney, yes. He said he doesn’t think that’s the reason Romney didn’t pick him but I disagree. Aside from that horrible distraction I don’t see why going with Ryan instead made any sense.
” The way I see it, there are more important battles to be fought than to try to defeat a swing-state senator such as Portman who is conservative across the board but is an apostate on a particular issue,”
I agree. I would back a challenger that could win (the primary AND the general) but some random Milton Wolf type loser (which I think is likely the only type that will run) who will do nothing but weaken Portman for the general? Pass.
I agree with everything you wrote. Yes.
“By most reputable and credible accounts, Portman removed his own name from consideration because he recognized the problems nomination would make for his family.”
He didn’t.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gay-marriage/
Romney passed him over, and if Portman can be believed, lied to him and told him it wasn’t because of the gay thing.
Portman may have been trying to protect the party from attack by the gays by saying the gay son wasn’t the reason, but it seems unbelievable to me that it wasn’t.
Sometimes a public official’s official duties and family responsibilities are at odds with each other. Rob Portman is trying to be a good father, which is laudable, but this was the wrong way to do it. He can support his son personally without supporting a radical agenda and I’m sure his son wouldn’t mind much.
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.