Do you like him?

A hell of a lot better than that libtard Sharrod Brown!

Yep.

BUT I don't like his "evolution" on the homosexual issues; he campaigned on a "family friendly" platform, then "evolved."

that's my .02

I'm not thrilled about his donation to Thad Cochran's campaign.

He's fiscally conservative. Any better ideas?

I think he has evolved a lot more than this. He now has other issues of "left" leaning. I supported him in his last election and am deeply disappointed.
He reminds me of John McCain or Lindsy Grahamnesty.

Shit Tbird, that's pushing it a little, isn't it? Imho

I think of a moderate establishment Republican when I think of Portman. In other words, squishy.

Needs to be replace with a real conservative.

Yeah, pretty much.  His views seem to change with the wind.  I'd like to see someone replace him who respects liberty and the understands the proper role of government, but as previously mentioned he's a lot better than that waste of space Sherrod Brown.

As long as he votes pro-RKBA I'll support him, everything else is secondary.  Gay marriage doesn't bother me, I just don't want to see churches forced into performing marriages that are contrary to their beliefs.  I wrote to him about illegal immigration, below is his response, basically, we're screwed since the Democrats control the Senate.  He doesn't say anything about underage kids who somehow magically appear here.  They need to go back home too.  Now.

--

Dear ....

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on immigration reform in the 113th Congress. It is good to hear from you. Our current immigration system is broken and in need of reform. However, I share your concerns with the approach taken in the Senate and voted against S.744 because without adequate enforcement I did not believe the bill offered a long term solution to illegal immigration. In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the bill would only reduce the flow of people coming here illegally by 25%.

I believe that securing the border is an important part of immigration reform. This is why I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) that border security requirements be met before immigrants here illegally can achieve Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) status. Unfortunately, that amendment failed.

Another key component that I believe S.744 failed to address is the need for workplace enforcement. Without internal enforcement, S.744 will not deter those who wish to come or remain here illegally. Though S. 744 expands so called E-Verify to make the program mandatory for all employers over time, the bill fails to address the inadequacies of the E-Verify system itself, including the widespread use of false documents. A recent study found that an alarming 54 percent of those not here legally were able to pass the pilot E-Verify program and obtain work authorization. We must do better. Implementing a far more effective E-Verify system is of critical importance to stemming the tide of future illegal immigration and making immigration reform work. Unfortunately, my bipartisan amendment to do just that was blocked from a vote on the Senate floor.

I also offered amendments to ensure that dangerous criminals who prey on our most vulnerable would not reap benefits under this legislation.

My very simple crime amendments would ensure that individuals convicted of felony domestic violence, stalking, or crimes against children are not eligible for citizenship. These amendments were also blocked from receiving a vote.

Please know that I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to ensure that these important issues are addressed as the immigration reform debate continues.

Thank you again for taking the time to write. For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.


Sincerely,

Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

I also wrote to him about the IRS targeting conservative groups.  He wrote this:

Dear ....,

Knowing that you share my concerns with the revelations that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intentionally targeted dozens of nonprofit organizations, I wanted to make sure you were aware of some recent news on the issue.

Recently, the IRS decided to abandon a proposed regulation that would have stifled political speech. I am pleased that the IRS chose to scrap this terrible proposal from becoming a final regulation. This is a step in the right direction. The IRS should not pursue regulations that would stifle the constitutionally protected speech of citizens who support 501(c)(4) organizations—or any other organizations. I am pleased that the IRS heeded the calls from thousands of citizens across our country who demanded that this proposal be discarded.

This decision by the IRS comes in response to calls from me and my Republican colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee for IRS Commissioner Koskinen to put an end to the Obama Administration's proposed regulation to restrict those individuals who support some 501(c)(4) organizations, and may have sharply criticized the White House.

In a letter last month, we stated that Commissioner Koskinen has the authority to prevent the proposed regulation from becoming final and urged him to not sign the proposed rule should it reach his desk. A signed copy of that letter can be found here.

I will remain vigilant in my efforts to ensure that those who were involved in the targeting of conservative organizations are held accountable and that important information is shared transparently and judiciously.

For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.


Sincerely,

Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

And about presidential nomination of political hacks

Dear ....,

Given your support of the Second Amendment and your opposition to the Senate majority weakening the rules for filibusters on presidential nominations, I wanted to update you on my recent work in the United States Senate.

This week, I joined a bipartisan majority of Senators to reject the controversial nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. While I do not make it a practice of opposing the President's nominees, I believe Mr. Adegbile lacked the essential qualifications to fill this important post given his extreme views on the protections offered by the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution and his involvement with the controversial Mumia Abu-Jamal case.

Based on his experience and record, I am concerned that Mr. Adegbile would not have been able to successfully work with law enforcement to ensure that minority rights and personal liberties are respected and that civil rights abuses are punished.

I was also pleased to have the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police join me in opposition to this nominee.

Recently, I spoke on the Senate floor in opposition to Adegbile's nomination. Video can be found here.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write. I am honored to represent you and the great state of Ohio in the United States Senate. For more information, please visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov, where you may also sign up for my newsletter. Please keep in touch.

                                                                                         

Sincerely,

Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

And another about CCW

Dear ....

As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, I wanted to update you on the work I have been doing in the Senate.  Recently, I signed on as an original cosponsor of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014.  This legislation, introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), would allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that also has concealed carry laws.

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment and remain committed to protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.  This important legislation will allow the nearly 250,000 Ohioans with concealed carry privileges to exercise that privilege in other states that allow concealed carry.

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014 would treat state-issued concealed-carry permits like drivers' licenses, allowing law abiding citizens with concealed carry privileges to concealed-carry in any other states that also permit it by law.

For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov.  Please stay in touch.





Sincerely,

Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

And about the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty


Dear ....,



As a supporter of the Second Amendment, I wanted to update you on a recent development in the U.S. Senate. Recently, I joined with some of my Senate colleagues in sending an important letter to President Obama regarding the ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).



The letter expressed my strong disappointment that the Obama Administration has chosen to sign the U.N. Arms Treaty.  It makes the point that the treaty will weaken the United States' ability to conduct our own foreign policy while potentially violating the rights of law-abiding Americans.  The letter also says that all of us who signed it oppose the ratification of the treaty.



Most importantly, the letter was signed by not just me but by 49 other colleagues.  In other words, we now have 50 Senators on record opposing ratification.  As you know, under the Constitution, ratification of a treaty requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.



The letter appears below and can also be found here.



Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. For more information I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please stay in touch.







President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500



Dear President Obama:



We write to express our concern and regret at your decision to sign the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. For the following reasons, we cannot give our advice and consent to this treaty:



First, the treaty was adopted by a procedure which violates a red line laid down by your own administration. In October 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. supported the negotiation of the treaty only by "the rule of consensus decision-making." But in April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. We fear that this reversal has done grave damage to the diplomatic credibility of the United States.



Second, the treaty allows amendments by a three-quarters majority vote. As the treaty is amended, it will become a source of political and legal pressure on the U.S. to comply in practice with amendments it was unwilling to accept. This would circumvent the power and duty of the Senate to provide its advice and consent on treaty commitments before they are assumed by the United States.



Third, the treaty includes only a weak non-binding reference to the lawful ownership and use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights. It encourages governments to collect the identities of individual end users of imported firearms at the national level, which would constitute the core of a national gun registry, and it creates a national "responsibility" to "prevent . . . [the] diversion" of firearms, which could be used to justify the imposition of controls within the U.S. that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment and infringe on the rights protected therein.



Fourth, the State Department has acknowledged that the treaty is "ambiguous." By becoming party to the treaty, the U.S. would therefore be accepting commitments that are inherently unclear. The Senate cannot effectively provide advice on an ambiguous treaty, and it should never provide its consent to such a treaty.



Fifth, the criteria at the heart of the treaty are vague and easily politicized. They will restrict the ability of the U.S. to conduct our own foreign policy, and will steadily subject the U.S. to the influence of internationally-defined norms, a process that would impinge on our national sovereignty.  We believe that treaties which allow foreign sources of authority to impose judgment or control upon the US, as this one does, violate the right of the American people, under the Constitution, to freely govern themselves.



Sixth, the State Department has acknowledged that "specific . . .  country concerns, including Taiwan, China, and the Middle East, create challenges for establishing


We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations. As members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the U.S. as bound to uphold its object and purpose.



We appreciate your consideration on this issue and look forward to your response.



Sincerely,

Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

He's pretty damn good as far as I'm concerned.  No, he's not perfect, the only perfect Senator would be me.

He is fiscally conservative, pro gun, pro business etc.  

I support him.  

Until he changes his mind.  Again.? The "at least" mentality is the reason Ohio has so many RINOs.  Hold on tight because you are about to get what you deserve.

Who's your choice?

Ohio is a purple state.  Deal with it.

Any substance to the rumors he may throw his hat in for POTUS in 2016?

...he's been making appearances under the guise that it "could" be on the table for him...

portman isn't a "firebrand" like ted cruz, ...personally I like folks who aren't afraid to take it to the leftist disease, and call them out for what they are... but at least portman is 100x better than the biggest butthurt, partisan "hack" in the senate, Sherrod brown.. ...

"At least he is not" is a pretty sad game don't you think.   Especially when we are talking about the future of Ohio and the country? Where is Josh Mandel or the fella who ran against Larose?   Maybe they can stick to the values of Conservatives in Ohio.   Come on Patriots step up!   I make it a point to stop in on the Republicans and ask if they are going to replace him?  They say "Why"   It seems they are more interested in getting elected than standing for what is right.   Even if it means slowly becoming the other guys at least a little by little.

I wrote him a letter about the 7N6 ban and he wrote me back how the ATF was justified and basically sent back there exact letter.

That's disappointing.