Rob Portman on Risk of War in Ukraine

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman joined The Dispatch Podcast to talk about the ongoing crisis in ...

By and
56

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman joined The Dispatch Podcast to talk about the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. What is Vladimir Putin doing? Why should Americans care? Plus, Steve and David ask Sen. Portman about efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.

Show Notes:

–Sen. Portman on Meet the Press

–French Press: “Stop Screwing Around and Reform the Electoral Count Act”

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By and
Comments (56)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    Are we in lock step with the Germans?
    Hahahahahahaha!!!!
    Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, Mr. French.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Good interview. Thanks.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Will Roberts

    I thought this was an okay interview. I wasn't aware that the first gulf war was as close of a vote as it was. I could see how George Bush senior as a World War II vet could see the United States role as the enforcer of the World Order. I also think the fact that Saddam tried to assassinate him might have had something to do with it. And the fact that Kuwait was rich in oil and allies like the Saudi's objected to it as well.

    I don't see what the difference between the Sheriff and his posse and being the World's police is? Beside the fact that American's like Westerns. I personally fall on the more interventionist side. But I admit it is hard to be consistent as to why to intervene in one conflict and not another. But just because we can't help everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't help someone.

    I was surprised that the Senator was saying in regards to the Senator saying Trump was right in regards to the ambiguity of the electoral count act suggesting that the Vice President might have the ability to overturn the election. He later clarified that he meant that Trump was right in regards that the statute was ambiguous and thus needed to be amended. I don't think that was Trump's argument or intent. I think Trump's intent was to say that the act wasn't ambiguous and clearly gave the Vice President power to disqualify the votes and thus people want to take that power away from the Vice President. The difference was in the motivation for amending the act. Trump says people want to amend it because it does give the Vice President the power and Mike Pence should have used it. Those who do want to amend it say that is absurd and they want to clarify the Vice President's roll. I think the Senator knew what Trump meant. He was just threading the needle by saying Trump is right but do we really want that because a democrat is President now. While that is a good practical argument that doesn't mean that Trump was right. Saying that he is right makes it less likely that the electoral count act will be amended no matter who is in charge. Saying to Republicans, "do you want Kamala Harris to throw out an election we win?" is a silly question. They would obviously say no but the problem is Democrats might say, "well if local officials try to rig the vote then hell yes I do. Even though we were mad when Mike Pence was pressured to do it this is a different situation." Perhaps that is why Democrats are screwing around and not reforming the electoral count act as David put it. Because they think Kamala would be justified in throwing out the election if the election was rigged on the local level. Even if local state officials are corrupted by Trumpest's this would still be a crazy way of handling it. But there might be some benefit to leaving the roll of the President ambiguous for both sides. It is the ultimate Trump card against Trump or it is the ultimate Trump card for Trump depending on who the Vice President is. Sure it might not be good for Republicans now that Kamala is Vice President. But it would be good if Trump or some other Republican politician got elected. This is why the Senator's Trump is right and wrong at the same time argument is bad and should have been challenged more by Steve or David. If your argument is the electoral count act might indeed allow the Vice President to throw out an election and that is exactly why we want to reform it because the Vice President is of the opposite party, Republicans might agree with you now but Democrats might want to keep that Trump Card. And if the Vice Presidency switches same thing. It is like strategic ambiguity with Taiwan. It is helpful for China not to know whether or not the US would intervene in Taiwan. It is helpful to both sides not to know whether the Vice President could throw out an election. So unless you are just going to stand on principle and say ambiguity does not mean permission and Trump is wrong you create a dangerous game of chicken that we will all eventually lose. But a Republican politician stays alive every time they say Trump is right but I am actually trying to help the President out by saying how him being right isn't in his best interests. It is a strange twisted logic. But politics can do that to the best of us.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      It passed the Senate by a 52-47 majority. The Democrats controlled the Senate and allowed it to be voted on and some Democrats co-sponsored it and voted for it. It wouldn’t have passed without them allowing it to come up for a vote or without their votes.

      The Democrats also controlled the House at the time. And the vote there wasn’t nearly as close though about two-thirds of the House Democrats didn’t vote to authorize.

      https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/19919

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-joint-resolution/2/actions?r=7

      I agree with Sen. Portman that President Bush would have probably acted anyway and it was good that he went to Congress.

      If I remember correctly the passage of the authorization wasn’t in doubt at the time. Some of the no votes were posturing votes when the outcome was known. Not to say that there weren’t some Democrats in Congress who were opposed to authorizing it, there were. But also politics.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    DCS_3

    Also, it’s time you all announce your break from the Repub party. It’s not a religion so it’s ok to leave. Remember it’s a party that wants to put an autocrat in power, is supportive of Gosar and Bobert and the rest of the lunatic fringe, and embraces a complete fabrication. Think of it this way: if you’re marching with crazies, your one of the crazies.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      The Stray Goose

      "I do. It’s changed in the last 20 years. And I understand what a condescending jerk is, too."
      What on earth are you talking about?

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      The Stray Goose

      Good. Now do the Democrats...

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      When have they ever claimed to be a part of the Republican Party? I’m pretty sure they’ve been clear for a long time about their break. Jonah and Steve and David haven’t voted for Republicans for president since Mitt Romney and possibly the same goes for lower offices.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DCS_3

        Isn’t their party affiliation why they consider themselves “The Remnant?” Or is that just Jonah? I assumed they are all registered Republicans based on their conservative positions on many topics. Are they Independent? I don’t think they are registered Dems.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          The Stray Goose

          You seem not to understand the difference between a conservative and a Republican. That's on you. We're not obligated to explain it to you.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          No it’s precisely not about party affiliation. The Remnant is a reference to Albert J Nock and the idea is a group of ideologically homeless conservatives out in the wilderness. I doubt anyone except Sarah is a registered Republican. Pretty sure Steve and Jonah and David gave up their registrations years ago.

          Jonah’s spent the entirety of his professional career arguing that their is a difference between the conservative movement and the Republican Party and at NR he tried to put space between NR and the R party.

          Did you read Jonah’s third party trial balloon stuff from a few months ago?

          David French literally was going to run as a third party candidate against Donald Trump in 2016 (and bowed out for the sake of his family).

          Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    DCS_3

    Can you clarify Portman’s comment about Trump arming the Ukrainians? Was that after or connected to his attempt to extort info about Hunter Biden in the perfect phone call? I may be confusing two separate events and that might explain why none of you followed up on Portmans brown nosing.

    Collapse
    1. DJ

      He did send weapons, but they came with a huge caveat that they had to be placed hundreds of miles away from the front.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Will Roberts

      I think the sending of lethal aid happened first then I think the extortion came second where the President might have tied all aid to helping him with his Hunter Biden scheme. But like a good mafia boss he never said explicitly that was the deal even though his administration was acting it out behind the scene. I could be wrong but that is what I remember. David would be good to answer that but he isn't good at responding to comments as Sarah as far as I have seen

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Timothy Perry

    Video versions of the podcasts would be an excellent feature for the site or any app you may be developing.

    Collapse
  7. Bruce Moyer

    So protect freedom, freedom, freedom/democracy, democracy, democracy abroad by any means necessary but rights of states of the United States to limit the ability to vote thus limiting freedom and democracy at home should be unabridged. Make it make sense.

    He is right on the Bengals though, and this coming from a Bills fan.

    Collapse
  8. Bruce Moyer

    So protect freedom, freedom, freedom/democracy, democracy, democracy abroad by any means necessary but rights of states of the United States to limit the ability to vote thus limiting freedom and democracy at home should be unabridged. Make it make sense.

    He is right on the Bengals though, and this coming from a Bills fan.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Linda Beggs

    So, Donald Trump may be accurate that Mike Pence had the power to overturn the election.

    Got it.

    Collapse
    1. GregS

      You know, in a response to a comment of mine last week, Sarah criticized Biden because, she said, he was questioning the legitimacy of the 2022 elections if Democrats lost.
      If Portman was a Democrat and not someone that TD felt was a good person (and fwiw, he does seem like a generally good person), what would their headline and commentary have been after he said, explicitly, that he thought Trump was correct to say that Pence could have overturned the election in 2020 under the ECA?

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      Pence disagrees with Sen. Portman and Trump. He said so again today.
      https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/politics/pence-january-6-trump/index.html

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Carson J.

      It was interesting to hear Portman trying to thread the needle of "hey, maybe the VP can unilaterally overturn an election. But do we want Kamala Harris to be able to do that?"

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    I am once again requesting that the hosts of the Dispatch podcast reach out to former Sec. of Defense Robert Gates to invite him on as a guest. He was recently giving interviews about his newest book, Exercise of Power, so he may still be available for an interview.

    I highly recommend his book to anyone interested in foreign policy.

    Collapse
    1. Phil P

      I'll second that. Interviewing former Secretary Gates is an excellent idea.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Narwhal

        I think his insights on Putin and the current situation in Ukraine, as well as US foreign policy more generally, would be beneficial to Dispatch subscribers, myself included. Gates is no fan of Putin and he knows more about Russia than I ever will from his decades of service at the CIA and elsewhere.

        Collapse
        1. Phil P

          I know you have been banging that drum for a while now. I believe his thoughts on both Putin and Biden would be beneficial. In addition to his experience in FoPo, CIA, and DoD, he was Sec Def to both Bush and Obama, which I find interesting.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Narwhal

            He started his career in public service when the Shah was still in power in Iran. And he is willing to frankly discuss things like our part in the coup that ousted the democratically elected PM at the time.

            I highly recommend reading his newest book Exercise of Power if you are interested in foreign policy.

            As for his view of Biden, I’m guessing I know the remarks he made in his book Duty that you are referring to. He has clarified those remarks since then and those clarifications may surprise you depending on your information intake.

            Collapse
Load More