Lots and lots and lots of people don’t know who their Senators are. I’m sure my wife doesn’t. I had to just think really hard to remember which old white man replaced the other old white man in 2010 here in MO (it was Roy Blunt replacing Kit Bond - gets confusing because we just got rid of Matt Blunt). Many Senators are imminently forgettable.
Of course I meant Senators. I in fact mentioned “Senators” earlier in the sentence and later only referred to them as “representatives.” I initially understood that this may cause confusion so I inserted “2” as a subtle hint.
Nitpick – if you use the generic term “representatives,” you have 3 representatives in Congress – one in the House and two in the Senate. That’s probably the source of the confusion.
You say he’s more personable than Pawlenty. Is there a consensus on this, or just personal opinion? I’m only asking because I don’t find him to be any more personable than Pawlenty.
I see two negatives for Portman as compared to Pawlenty, and both are pretty negligent: One is that Portman was a senator, which does not give him the same executive experience that Pawlenty has. Since Romney was a governor, I think a lot of people will overlook this, since a VP is typically thought of as someone to round out a ticket. I find this line of thinking kind of flawed, since the VP is not simply meant to be a right-hand man, but also the successor to the president, so you should want both candidates to be well-rounded. Anyways, the other negative for Portman is that Pawlenty has spent some time in the spotlight as a candidate already. As a result, any skeletons in Pawlenty’s closet would have likely come out by now, whereas with Portman there’s a little more risk that something could crop up.
I see more negatives when comparing Portman to Ryan. Perhaps I should say that the main negative I see is more significant. Ryan is popular with the tea party, popular enough to excite the base and maybe get more volunteers working on the campaign and more people out on voting day. In addition to already being popular, I personally find him much more interesting/exciting than Portman, and I think he’d have a greater capacity to draw people in. He’s also younger and prettier.
Negatives as compared to Mitch Daniels: none come to mind. The big thing that stands out in my mind about Mitch Daniels was his suggestion that we focus on the economy for this election, rather than arguing over social issues. Since the people who focus on social issues are the people Romney is struggling to reach, Daniels would not be a good asset to the Romney campaign.
It worked with Palin… er…
I tend to agree. Also, although Obama narrowly carried Daniels’s Indiana four years ago, he’s pretty unlikely to this time around, while Portman’s Ohio is considered more of a swing state.
Portman is the guy who’s not Sharrod Brown. Sharrod Brown has much higher visibility. Portman is routinely called a dufus on all of his Facebook posts. (he does have his “oh, thank your for sticking up for us” followers, but that is the exent of their postings. OTOH, the anti-teaparty followers are usually quick to discredit what ever Portman decides to post (which really isn’t much, he goes in spurts).
I don’t understand anti-Tea Party Republicans. Is their only bugbear market protectionism and appreciation of Wall Street intricacies?
Nitpick: It’s “Sherrod.”