Rob Portman won’t run for president in 2016

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.

I googled and came up with stories from November 2013 saying that Portman had originally asked that his name be removed from consideration.

It looks like Portman changed his mind later and told Romney to put his name in for consideration anyway, but didn't get the nod.

Romney passed him over, and if Portman can be believed, lied to him and told him it wasn’t because of the gay thing.

As I understand it, Portman didn't actually say anybody lied to him. It was more that Portman's denial that his son was the reason for his not getting the nomination was so feeble that the reporter assumed that he must have been covering for Romney.

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.

Maybe it was more politeness all around. Nobody could pretend that Portman's son wouldn't have been an issue, but nobody wanted to come out and say that. I can't see tossing around blame when Portman could see himself beforehand how things were likely to play out.

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I fail to see how Senator Portman is doing his son any favors by abetting such a destructive lifestyle, but even if he believes that he should “support” his son’s lifestyle, that does not mean that he should speak out in favor of destroying the institution of marriage.

IIRC, Congressman Salmon (R-AZ) has a homosexual son, but he has not wavered in his support for traditional marriage.

The Scott Brown bit annoys me ... he was endorsed by Mass Right to Life & NRLC in ‘12 vs. Warren.

This year, no endorsement from NRLC. Apparently, he is genuinely a total goner on the life issue. He was NO on Kagan, so he serious about the Judicial stuff.

Yes, there has to be some minimal standard for GOP candidates on social issues ... depending on the opponent and overall situation and district and what office, etc. If they fall below minimum standards, they need to be rejected. Otherwise, there is no incentive for the GOP to stay with us on the issues if they “own” our votes and then expand their coalition to include other voters that are clearly against us on the social issues. It’s smart of them to do that if we never dump them.

The dreadful part is that many pro-lifers do not know how to judge what that minimum standard is. the best candidate in a decade comes along in some parts of New England and they are greeted with “RINO!” Pro=abort!

And then some real RINO pro-aborts get a pass ... even Senator Collins seems to get a pass now. Linda McMahon got the RINO treatment in CT, yet NARAL members Rob Simmons and Chris Shays got a pass ... it must be something psychological.

I think it could be the following, they think:
1. I would never vote for Chris Shays, regardless. So, I’m not offended when I hear of him.
2. But many suggest that I should support McMahon and that makes my blood boil because I see that it is a real option.

The REAL RINO doesn’t get them disturbed because he is what he appears to be. But the Linda McMahon are like the “false prince” ... we were expecting the real deal and we get this counterfeit fake candidate that I’m supposed to sign up for?! That, we will not abide!

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.