Did Rob Portman flip-flop on gay 'marriage' for campaign cash?
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 5, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Ohio Senator Rob Portman states that his flip-flop on gay “marriage” was inspired by his homosexual son – a stance that has won him few plaudits from the LGBT Lobby – but it is possible he had baser motives: he may have wanted to raise cold, hard cash.
In an article entitled "Republicans see cash opportunity in gay marriage shift," Politico notes:
Portman himself has taken heat from New York donors who believe the party’s emphasis on social issues is one of the major reasons for losses this fall. Their views were taken so seriously that Portman, vice chairman of finance for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, held a dozen meetings with big New York donors recently in an attempt to assuage their fears about the direction of the party. (Emphasis added.)
It is well known that the party's top donor in 2012, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, supports redefining marriage. So do Cliff Asness, Lew Eisenberg, and Dan Loeb, all three of whom signed the amicus brief opposing DOMA. Paul Singer gave the GOP $2.9 million in 2012, and New York City Mayor and Chief Nutrionist Michael Bloomberg has channeled his own vast fortunes to supporting members of either party who support marriage “equality.”
Is it any wonder the GOP is performing an “autopsy” demanding the Republican rank-and-file be more “inclusive” (read: shut their inbred, hillbilly traps) on homosexuality? What better way for Portman to “assuage” liberal donors' fears than personally reversing his stance?
True, Portman claimed he went through a two-year “evolution” on the issue after his son came out of the closet.
Would a politician ever exploit his own family for political gain? To ask the question is to answer it.
At the 1996 Democratic National Convention, then-Vice President Al Gore recalled how visiting the deathbed of his sister, Nancy Gore Hunger, inspired him to fight Big Tobacco.
''I knelt by her bed and held her hand,'' he said. ''And in a very short time her breathing became labored and then she breathed her last breath...And that is why until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking!''
Gore has two speech modes: melodrama and Vulcan. This address was delivered with equal measures of aching sincerity and snooty moralizing.
The only problem is that his sister died in 1984. While running for president in 1988, Gore bragged to an audience in North Carolina, ''Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn, and stripped it, and sold it.'' (Emphasis added.)
Then he went to Washington and took tobacco campaign funds, voted against cigarette taxes, and supported Big Tobacco's agenda until it no longer benefited him to do so.
Either his position was insincere in 1996 or it was insincere eight years earlier. The touching story of his sister's death doesn't seem to have entered into it.
Portman's contradictions are not as pronounced as Gore's, but his (d)evolution troubles those on both sides of the issue.
At best, Portman admits that he wants to change the law – and the definition of an ancient, pre-political social institution – to benefit his family.
Since much of the gay “marriage” debate actually revolves around receiving government entitlements and tax breaks, Portman said, in effect, that he changed his position, because he would like to enrich his family.
Is it not logical to ask if he might want to benefit himself and the NRSC, as well?
Cross-posted at TheRightsWriter.com.