ConfirmThem

Here's an interesting blurb from Novak:

"March 29, 2008
Portman for VP
By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- While Sen. John McCain will not decide on a vice president for many months, Rob Portman gets the highest marks inside the Republican presidential candidate's organization.

Portman's background is legislative (House Republican leadership), executive (George W. Bush's Cabinet), diplomatic (U.S. trade representative) and economic (Office of Management and Budget director). He comes from a swing state (Ohio), is young enough (52) to contrast McCain and conservative enough (89 percent lifetime American Conservative Union rating).

A footnote: Key conservatives in his home state do not want Florida Gov. Charlie Crist on the ticket, but he is popular with voters in that crucial state. McCain likes Crist and owes him for his endorsement just before the Florida primary. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, a favorite for vice president among conservatives nationally, lost ground with McCain by not backing him in 2008 as he did in 2000."

I saw that article yesterday. I think most people would agree that Portman is more Bush than Reagan. He seems pretty solid, but I'm not sure more Bush Republicanism is the way to go. Quin says that some close advisors are pushing Chris Cox, who is more Reagan than Bush. Either guy would be good, but I hope McCain doesn't pick Portman because he thinks he would deliver Ohio.

I saw an article on freerepublic that said there was some sort of connection between mccain and Thune's father in the military, and that they were friends.

I'm pulling for Thune, i think he's the perfect man to groom for a future run for the White House.

If i find the article, i'll post the link.

Whacker77:

I have no idea what "more Bush than Reagan" means. Simply because Portman served in two Cabinet-level positions in Bush's administration doesn't make him "Bush." By all accounts (including his long congressional record), Portman was a solid and consistent conservative, far more so than President Bush has ever been. His appointments in the Bush administration reflect his competence and excellence, not his political loyalties. Accordingly, your comment makes no real sense to me.

That being said, Cox remains my favorite, with Portman second, Burr third, Thune fourth, and the others (Pawlenty, Sanford) comfortably acceptable thereafter.

Pawlenty's most likely, with my first pick being Romney.

More Bush than Reagan means that Rob Portman is probably closer to George W Bush's vision of compassionate conservatism. Compassionate conservatism, at least in my book, is synonomous with big government conservatism. I'm not accusing him of being a liberal and I believe he is more conservative than Bush, but he only has a 87% lifetime ACU rating. Cox has a 98% ACU rating. So in that sense, Cox is closer to Reagan and Portman is closer to Bush. JMO.

rate governors, or is that too hard to do?

How do people such as Barbour and Pawlenty rate on an objective conservative scale. I really don't think Sanford will be considered since he stayed neutral in 08.

Really? Closer to Reagan? What was Reagan's ACU rating?? Hmm - he didn't have one, so who the heck knows? It's preposterous.

Portman is a conservative - a strong conservative, with a lifetime ACU rating of 89% (not 87%) - damn conservative, as far as I'm concerned. To compare, Mr. Conservative Rick Santorum's lifetime ACU score was 88%. There's nothing to suggest that Portman is a compassionate conservative/big govt conservative. He's a conservative, with a sterling resume. Let's not attribute guilt by association. To do so would be to condemn EVERYONE who has served in the Bush Administration as faux conservatives. We know that is not the case.

I agree with the majority of what you have written and I don't want to appear as though I am hostile towards Rob Portman. In fact, I would be quite happy if he were nominated. I suppose it shows how detrimental George W Bush has been the Republican party and the conservative movement that a comparison to him can cause such consternation among those who would normally be inclined to offer full throated support.

Unfortunately, I am somewhat weary of those who have served closest to Bush. In a purely political sense, that association could harm McCain in the fall. I am readily willing to believe, based on votes, that Portman is more conservative than Bush, but many of those whom he has turned to with great frequency aren't exactly clear and consistent conservatives. Karen Hughes, Dan Bartlett, Al Gonzales, Andy Card, and Condi Rice, all of whom hold great sway with Bush, aren't great conservatives.

I actually got the phrase "more Bush than Reagan" from Quin and I thought it was a good way to describe where on the spectrum of conservatism these two men fall. I wasn't meant to be a knock on Portman.

I agree with you, and I apologize for being too punchy. Things are quiet right now for us conservatives so we have to derive some enjoyment from all this!

Here's something to discuss, I suppose: an article by Orrin Hatch discussing the Dems' failure to confirm nominees:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhhMTFmOGZjZGU1ZGQ5Mzc4ODhhZGVmZTE...