Didn't take long Part II: Portman to announce U.S. Senate campaign, $1.5 million cash on hand
Politico says the Republican frontrunner to replace Voinovich is former Bush U.S. Trade Representative/Director of OMB Rob Portman.
Portman would likely clear the Republican primary field, with other leading candidates unlikely to challenge him. A strong fundraiser from his days in the House, Portman is expected to have little trouble raising the millions necessary to mount a formidable statewide campaign. (He also has over $1.5 million remaining in his House campaign committee, which he can transfer over for a Senate race.)
In his announcement, Portman plans to highlight his 12-year career representing southwest Ohio in the House, and his record of working across the aisle with Democrats to help pass key legislation. A Portman aide said that he sponsored 12 bills that former President Clinton signed into law.
No word on when the official announcement will come, but "sooner rather than later" seem approp. The $1.5m in his House account is noteworthy because it was yet another reason why he was more likely than not run for the Senate and not the governorship. Under federal campaign finance laws, my understanding is that his House account money couldn't be rolled over into a campaign account for State office (at least, as easily) like he can for a Senate campaign committee.
$1.5 million is a nice little head start. I'd put it in incumbent-level numbers. I'm starting to smell a set-up. Has Portman being raising money all this time because he knew that Voinovich would like retire? BTW, anyone know what limitations Voinovich's campaign has in donating to Portman's? I know it's not the individual limit.
FYI- according to the most recently filed campaign finance report, Congressman Tim Ryan has less than $300k on hand.
And he's just been appointed to the House Appropriations Committee, a plum House committee slot. Here's his rather dismissive quote from his local paper, the Youngtown Vindicator:
“As a member of the House Appropriations Committee I am in a very good position to help create and expand important economic development in the state of Ohio,” said Ryan of Niles, D-17th. “That said, if I can have a greater impact by being in the Senate, I will certainly consider it.”
It's never good when your A-list candidate pool is talking about how excited they are about committee hearings that they may not be interested in running for the U.S. Senate.
I read Ryan's statement (and his FEC report vs. Portman's), and I see a flirt from across the room who has no intention on returning our calls. So, who then?
This isn't quite the way I called it ...
The one thing that blows my theory - Portman runs for Governor and Kasich runs for Senate, is that Portman has so much cash. Since Portman is not as well known as Kasich, I thought he might make the run for Governor to introduce himself statewide, get beat by Strickland (which is not a bad thing, people love Ted and rightfully, so) then run again when the office is open. I figured Kasich would be the one who would have an easier time raising Senate race-type money because his network is purportedly national because of his time at Fox and the reputation he built as a fiscal conservative.
My question is what about Mary Taylor?
Pelikan
www.clipsandcomment.com
Mary is the GOP seat on the apportionment board. They can't risk that seat while they're trying to pick up one of the others (SoS or Governor). Taylor is being told to stay put.
Portman cannot transfer that federal campaign money into his state campaign office. And I've said for awhile that he's heart has always, publicly, been more in running for the Senate. He specifically said he'd run, but only if Voinovich retired.
Portman has more of a national network. He's been a member of two Bush Administration and was in Congress longer and more recently than Kasich. Portman was on the short list for McCain's VP. Being beat out by Palin, though, says something.
Talk about patriarchal BS. You all talk about Mary Taylor like she's a dog who will do what she's told. I don't really care what she decides, but I do hope that this sit dog sit tone alone makes her riled enough to demand absolutely as much as she can get, if she does in fact stand down. What the heck that would be besides an "I told you so" when Portman or whomever runs for the senate from the GOP side loses, I have no idea.
But I agree with them. Of course Taylor is free to make up her own mind, but it would be crazy for the ORP to not cling to that apportionment board seat. For the same reason, I doubt you'll see anyone from our statewides run for the Senate.
Whoever controls that board controls the political future in this state for the next ten year. Being the only Republican on that board would hardly be a position without power.
For nothing.
And she's been involved in Ohio GOP politics to know when the machinery is getting behind something and the futility of going against it (heck, not even Blackwell was willing to take on the party machinery to prevent the anointment of Taft as our Governor). Portman, though, isn't just a machine politician. He's got grassroots strength in SWO, a core of the GOP primary voting block. And he's got $1.5 million.
And Taylor, just like every Republican is going to want to win, and not just one race. Taylor is smartly expressing public interest, but its kabuki theater. She has to get the only thing the GOP can give her: the promise to push aside the others when she decides to run for Governor or challenge Brown or whatever she decides.
That's how the GOP works. We push you aside today, but agree to push others aside for you tomorrow. It's the Bob Bennett 1990s playbook.
Again, Jill, I think a Taylor-Portman primary would be interesting. But I think that's why it won't happen. Horse trading is going on in Columbus right now. And Taylor has the prospect of putting an Apportionment Board that the GOP considered already in the bag and a bruising Senate primary that could leave the eventual nominee too wounded to win in November on the line if she isn't paid political tribute.
Taylor has a good hand, but only to make a bargain which keeps her in the Auditor's Office after 2010.
I understand everything you've written - I just happen to believe that Mary Taylor actually would have a better shot against Fisher - what do I know that you don't know? Nothing. You both definitely know more than I do on these scores. But I'm saying with my gut, for whatever it's been worth in a little under four years of this stuff, that Taylor could be stronger than Portman - I do not see him winning. But then people didn't see Brown winning, or Dann. Who knows.
I also have a hard time seeing her win governor - no matter who she runs against - what's the point in having them promise her a clear field - no Husted or Coughlin or whomever - when the reality is that she could be running as a sacrificial lamb after all these years?
She's in a relatively (RELATIVELY) non-partisan position right now. For gov, she has to declare positions all over the place - that's going to kill her statewide, as a gov. As a senator, she'd have a better chance of being diluted and instead being recognized as the first woman senator from Ohio and adding to the way few female senators in the Congress.
I see what you're saying - but I just don't think that's enough. I think that waiting for the deck to be cleared, in honor of her waiting, is a wasted promise.
I haven't been writing about who I thought had the best chance to win in some political fantasy league. Maybe Taylor would be better against Fisher than Portman. But I'm looking at the events of the day, and the past few months, and I say, "boy, Portman sure has cleared alot of brush to clear a path here."
It's interesting that you write Taylor off for Governor because of all the positions she'd have to declare when the same could more easily be said of a U.S. Senate race which is decidedly even more partisan than Governor.
I don't disagree that it could be a wasted promise. I think many in the GOP think that was Blackwell's downfall. By waiting until it was "his turn", Taft had so wrecked the State that Blackwell was a "sacrificial lamb." Perhaps it is. Maybe Taylor will go maverick and take on her party's coronating nominee. But I doubt it. And I seriously doubt it will be successful.
A Taylor-Portman primary could be interesting, but I think you underestimate the influence and excitement (for reasons that *I* don't understand) Republicans have for Portman.
Taylor's biggest asset is she can claim to be the only Republican who could win statewide even against the strongest of Democratic tides. But I think too much of the Republican organization has signed onto Portman for Taylor to make the move. As I said in my initial post, I'm simply unconvinced that anyone other Portman will be their nominee. Is it because I think he was their best candidate? Heck, no. But the GOP picks people because it's their turn. Was Bob Dole the best pick to run against Clinton in 1996? Nope. Same thing.
Your comment is full of code, Mod. Which is fine - just recognize it:
1. but I think you underestimate the influence and excitement (for reasons that *I* don't understand) Republicans have for Portman.
2. But I think too much of the Republican organization has signed onto Portman for Taylor to make the move
3. I'm simply unconvinced that anyone other Portman will be their nominee
4. But the GOP picks people because it's their turn.
Code in each line? Who is in charge.
Who IS in charge?
Men. The men of the GOP. If Taylor wants to make the mistakes that Palin made - which was to let 24-72 year old men tell her when to talk and when not to talk, fine. Her decision - again, I don't care. I'm just saying that everything you say here is predicated on a completely male majority running the Ohio GOP and as if they're the only ones who'll be voting. Maybe they are - maybe they aren't. I think things are changing and I think it's part of why Portman may be a problem.
Which brings me back to the Dems for a second- I understand just how strong the belief is and the support for Lee Fisher to run is.
HOWEVER - if you're talking about how deserves the chance? Why NOT Marcy Kaptur? I love her - a lot of people love her. There's a lot to like. Not the least of which is all her experience in Congress.
Now, she hasn't run statewide, but she got a lot of play for grilling the bank bailout ninnies.
Anyway - nothing changes if we keep saying nothing changes. But to ignore what is changing, whereever it's changing, is only going to get people in lose situations.
If that's what the GOP wants, far be it from me to change their collective male minds. I'm just saying, I think they're heading into it with a losing prospect if it's over and done for Portman.
Or - I could be buying you a drink when he wins. :)
Retirement rumors arose literally during the first second Voinovich became Senator. First, there was the indignity of losing seniority to his former Lt. Governor. Then was the realization that a Governor has more influence and visibility and control over their office than a Senator does. Then there was the partisanship of the Senate where moderates were pushed to the side.
Voinvoich to retire was a cry like the boy who cried wolf. Opportunistic politicos had become tone deaf for hearing it for the last ten years.