Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's VP

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17265
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's VP

Post by Scooter »

This was going to be far too hot a potato:
U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, once on the short-list to be Mitt Romney's 2012 running mate, has reversed his opposition to gay marriage, revealing that his own son is gay.

Portman Thursday told reporters from several Ohio newspapers that when his son, Will, 21, informed him that he was gay two years ago, "It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have, to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," according to an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

The newspaper also noted that Portman, who as a congressman backed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, thinks part of the law should be repealed. The Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the case later this month.

"I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married," he wrote in an op-ed that ran Friday in the Columbus Dispatch.

Sen. Portman, 57, reveals two other interesting points in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash: He told Mitt Romney "everything" during the vice presidential vetting process and he consulted with former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter, Mary, is gay.
Again, it comes back to the fact that the more people are personally connected to those who are lesbian/gay, the more supportive they are of equal rights.

So what's Michele Bachmann's excuse? :o
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Econoline »

People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Lord Jim »

Well, given the fact that this wasn't a dis-qualifier for Dick Cheney, I doubt that it was determinative in this case...

I don't think that Portman had a serious chance from the get go; from what I've read, Romney developed an affinity with Ryan from the first time they met, and also saw him as a way to solidify a relationship with the hardcore right wing in the party.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Gob »

Lord Jim wrote:I don't think that Portman had a serious chance from the get go; from what I've read, Romney developed an affinity with Ryan from the first time they met, and also saw him as a way to solidify a relationship with the hardcore lunatic wing in the party.
Fixed.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Lord Jim »

I didn't want to start a thread about the CPAC convention, (because I didn't want want to give rube the satisfaction)...

But aside from Jeb Bush, (who they didn't even bother to list on their straw poll ballot) and maybe Marco Rubio, they invited primarily the clown car wing of the GOP to speak....(Leaving out of course Chris Christie, a conservative who is pro-life, took on the public employee unions, and currently enjoys a 74% approval rating in a Blue State...they did him a favor by snubbing him for his reelection race for Governor...)

Sarah Palin....Allen West...Michelle Bachmann...Donald "show me the birth certificate" Trump...

I think James Carville said it best...(I don't write that sentence very often) when he said on the political discussion portion of Meet The Press last week:

"Any day the Republican Party is more about Sarah Palin, and less about Chris Christie, is a good day for James Carville..."

I don't often agree with Cueball Carville, but he nailed that one...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17265
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Scooter »

Could it be that those who are not members of the "clown car wing", as you so colourfully put it, have decided to start keeping their distance from the rest of the clowns? It would probably be a good thing if sane, moderate Republicans began to eschew these nutbar fests, and showed the crazies that they don't have the influence they believe.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Lord Jim »

Could it be that those who are not members of the "clown car wing", as you so colourfully put it, have decided to start keeping their distance from the rest of the clowns? It would probably be a good thing if sane, moderate Republicans began to eschew these nutbar fests, and showed the crazies that they don't have the influence they believe.
Here's the problem; as I see it....

On the GOP side you have a relatively small number of "Tea Party" Members.. (the radical Randian idiots living on cots in their offices, who believe they were sent to Washington to dismantle the whole concept central governance)

And a much larger group, who are not crazy, and don't want to repeal the Social Contract, but who are afraid that if they don't pay lip service to the clown car types, they will find themselves defeated by a clowncarite in a low turn out GOP primary....

And then on the other hand, we have The Democrats...

Who have a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth is created, and from whence it springs...(Not too mention a mushy headed view about National Defense...)

Folks who seem to believe that wealth comes from some big "money pie" that the government, in it's wise beneficence, must distribute justly...

What a lovely choice... :roll:

Excuse me while I go blow my brains out...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Lord Jim »

Call me unreasonable, or irrational, but I have got to believe that the nation that gave the world The Declaration Of Independence, and The US Constitution, and The Bill Of Rights, must be able to find a modus vivendi for getting out our current dilemma, and seemingly intractable predicament...

We always have before, and we will again.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Gob »

Oh come on Jim, everyone knows that The Declaration Of Independence, and The US Constitution, and The Bill Of Rights were the work of Welshmen!
Perpetuating the Welsh heritage, and commemorating the vision and virtue of the following Welsh patriots in the founding of the City, Commonwealth, and Nation: William Penn, 1644-1718, proclaimed freedom of religion and planned New Wales later named Pennsylvania. Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826, third President of the United States, composed the Declaration of Independence. Robert Morris, 1734-1806, foremost financier of the American Revolution and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Governor Morris, 1752-1816, wrote the final draft of the Constitution of the United States. John Marshall, 1755-1835, Chief Justice of the United States and father of American constitutional law.

—Philadelphia City Hall
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Econoline »

So the solution then is for the congresscritturs to start speaking Welsh?

Well, I guess that would cut down on the Tea Party/Ayn Rand/clowncar rhetoric... :lol:






(And it would probably sound at least as comprehensible to us sane folks as the current state of what-passes-for-political-rhetoric.)
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Lord Jim »

Oh come on Jim, everyone knows that The Declaration Of Independence, and The US Constitution, and The Bill Of Rights were the work of Welshmen!
Well Strop, as we all know, Welshmen will not yield...

ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by rubato »

Newtie, an utter cynic with no morals at all, has already said that for reasons of pure self-interest the Republicans will have to abandon their tactic of kissing up to the homophobes as a way of garnering votes. He has seen the demographics of homosexual hatred and admitted that all of the younger cadres of voters has developed an immunity to it, overwhelming they have become liberals in accepting gay marriage and full civil rights for homosexuals. Now we have the first senator who has done so for reasons of principle. Or enlightened self-interest. True, it would be better if people could learn to stop abusing others even when their own family isn't effected but one has to accept that this is the mechanism by which ordinary people learn to see the world though the eyes of the oppressed; when the evil touches themselves or one of their own.

The question is how will they deal with history when the end has come? They dealt with the civil right movement by pretending they never promoted Jim Crow and they dealt with the modern women's movement by doing similar and then using Rush Limbaugh to distort the meanings of 'feminist' and 'feminism' to things they never were so they could pretend that they never did oppose equal rights for women.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Lord Jim »

They dealt with the civil right movement by pretending they never promoted Jim Crow
I wonder how man more times this imbecile plans to repeat this particular bit of ignorance? Maybe this is going to be one of those falsehoods (like the bit about gun ownership making you more likely to be the victim of a homicide) that no matter how many times you spray, he just keeps farting it out again, over and over...

Perhaps I should put this post with some others I've saved for reposting when he engages in shamelessly attempting to repeatedly spread the same disinformation, regardless of how thoroughly it has been previously discredited....
Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.

In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.

The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.

Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/un ... .04.x.html.]

The 1964 Civil Rights Act

When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.

Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.

Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.

Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Man From Illinois

In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.

He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.

Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act.
Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.

Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.

Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that "people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters" in protest.

Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: "When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end."

Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.

The Republican "swing" votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.

As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as "first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill."

In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a "clean bill" as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.

This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the "swing" Republicans.

On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.

In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.

On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:

"There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."

After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?

Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."


The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17265
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Scooter »

It is without question that the Republican Party played a key role in getting civil rights legislation passed in the postwar era. It is also without question that, subsequent to that effort, the Republican Party made (and continues to make) a concerted effort to appeal to white racists in order to break the hold that the Democratic Party had on the South, and in so doing, caused the overwhelming majority of those white racists to flock to its banner.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Lord Jim »

The Democratic Party made it easy for the GOP to make inroads with southern Whites by nominating people like George McGovern....

In any event I was responding to rube's assertion about Republicans supporting "Jim Crow" when the facts are exactly the opposite. The majority of Republicans supported the very legislation the specific intent of which was to end the Jim Crow laws, and without that support the legislation would not have been passed.
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by rubato »

W.F. Buckley on Jim Crow:
The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

Can't recall their own history?

Liars

yrs,
rubato

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by rubato »

Not likely they will ever admit their own past:


GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.
"It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized," said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
By Morry Gash, AP

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.

More recently, however, Republicans have been working aggressively to build the party's support among African-Americans, who have long voted overwhelmingly for Democrats. In 2000, President Bush got just 9% of the black vote. He improved slightly to 11% in 2004.

"It's clear the Republicans really are trying to make inroads with black voters," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta and co-author of The Rise of Southern Republicans.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush agreed with Mehlman, although the president did not express similar regrets in the speech Thursday to the Indiana Black Expo in Indianapolis.

"Ken (Mehlman) said it was wrong to try and benefit from racial polarization. We agree fully," McClellan said.

Mehlman said Democrats have been taking black votes for granted in recent years.

"It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized," he said. "Just as the Democrats came to this (black) community in 1964 with something real to offer, today we Republicans have something that should cause you to take another look at the party of Lincoln."

Republican efforts to make amends could pay political dividends, Black says. "White Republican support in the South is so strong that it won't lose whites, and it could gain some blacks," he says.

While Mehlman was speaking to the NAACP, Bush used his speech to an audience of 3,000 at the Indiana Black Expo to back up the GOP outreach. He said his education, housing and economic policies have been good for African-Americans.

He took credit for initiating education programs that are narrowing the gap in test scores between black and white elementary school students. And he noted that black ownership of businesses is at an all-time high and that home ownership among blacks is nearing 50%.

"I see an America where every person of every race has the opportunity to strive for a better future," Bush said.

Bush appeared in Indianapolis instead of attending the NAACP convention, underway at the same time in Milwaukee. It marked the fifth consecutive year he has turned down an NAACP invitation to speak, making him the first sitting president since Warren Harding to not address the group.

The White House said he couldn't attend because of a scheduling conflict. Bush and NAACP leaders have been on the outs since the 2000 presidential campaign. Bush, then governor of Texas, was angered by NAACP ads accusing him of being unsympathetic to the dragging death of a black Texan.
Bush was unsympathetic. Unless they were rich and white he didn't think they were human.

yrs,
rubato

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Bush was unsympathetic. Unless they were rich and white he didn't think they were human.
You can read his mind?
Or did you just deduce this?
They (whatever group you choose as I do not believe in groups) may not have been worth his bother to campaign too knowing that the rewards were not worth the expense.
But
Claiming that he thought that any race is not human is a pretty big leap.

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by dgs49 »

(1) A U.S. Senator's views on "gay marriage" are about as important as his views on real estate law. Interesting, perhaps, but utterly meaningless as pertains to his elective office.

(2) It is entirely appropriate for Republicans to do nothing to "court Blacks." Or to "court Hispanics" (whatever that means). Or "court women." Republicans - as contrasted with Democrats - are not the party of identity politics. Republicans court Americans who want limited government, low taxes, strong national defense, and maximum economic opportunities. Black people, other ethnic minorities, and women who seek the same do not have to be singled out or "courted"; they should know which side of the bread is buttered.

(3) Only a moron or someone totally disinterested in the truth would conclude that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is due to "hate" of gays. Which is why that view is so prevalent among gays who speak publicly on the subject.

(4) If our Democrat leaders believe that public opinion has changed since the passage of the DOMA (which most Democrats supported not so long ago) then the proper way to overturn that legislation is through repealing legislation, not through the courts. But of course, the last thing they want is to test their theory about the change in public opinion through legitimate means. God forbid Democrat legislators in swing districts should have to take a public stand.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17265
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Now we know why Rob Portman was passed over as Romney's

Post by Scooter »

In case you hadn't noticed, it is Republicans who are on the defensive these days about their views on same-sex marriage; the days when they could use it as a wedge issue are long past, because it would expose far greater divisions among themselves than among their opposition. And if the Republican leadership is so sure that they would be able to uphold DOMA in Congress, then they could allow it to come to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote, but they have refused, and that can only mean that they are afraid. So if it takes the courts to do the job for them, then so sorry if your deluded sense of what is constitutional is offended, that is going to be the way it has to be. And no rational judge is going to want to rule so radically divergent from public opinion that he/she is going to ignore these numbers, especially the part where two thirds believe this issue needs to be determined federally, constitutionally, once and for all.

You and the rest of the Neanderthals lost this one, sweetie. Suck it up.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

Post Reply