The NPR Politics Podcast - Interview: Tired Of Gridlock, GOP Sen. Rob Portman Won't Seek Reelection

Episode Date: January 28, 2021

Republican Rob Portman of Ohio talks with NPR's Susan Davis about his retirement from the Senate, the Republican party after Trump, as well as the former president's impeachment trial.Portman says he thought President Biden's inaugural address struck the right tone, but the president's legislative strategy on his COVID-19 relief proposal has burned some goodwill with Republicans.Connect:Subscribe to the NPR Politics Podcast here.Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Listen to our playlist The NPR Politics Daily Workout.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Find and support your local public radio station. This episode was produced by Barton Girdwood, Lexie Schapitl, and Chloee Weiner.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover the White House. And I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. And we have another interview today. Sue, you just sat down and talked to Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. He is a Republican and he's been in the news lately because he just announced he is not going to run for re-election. He did. And it was a bit of a surprise. You know, Portman is from Ohio. He was heavily favored to win reelection. He's relatively young in Senate ages. But he said in a statement that he basically had had kind of enough of the partisanship, that he was exhausted from the back and forth between Ohio and D.C., that it's getting harder and harder for lawmakers like him to get

things done. And he's ready to move on in his career. And, you know, Portman has been involved in politics, Republican politics for, you know, the better part of the past 30 years. He was a member of the House under the Bush administration. He served as both the U.S. trade rep and the head of the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget. And he served two terms in the Senate. He's a really well-known, really well-liked Republican lawmaker, but he's probably, I don't want to call him a backbencher, but he's not necessarily like a flamethrower. He's not somebody who's like out on the cables all the time saying and doing provocative stuff. He's more of a workhorse than a show horse. And he has a good reputation on the Hill.

And I guess that's one reason why his retirement announcement was surprising. He's the type of governing focus person who you would think would really want to kind of gain that seniority in the Senate over time to do more things. But also, we know that almost always the party that's out of power gains seats in a midterm. The Senate's tied 50-50 right now. That would give Republicans a decent shot of regaining the majority in two years. But he wants to leave at that point. He does. And that's kind of where I wanted to start off is to provoke him on this question of why do you want to get out of here now, especially if he's someone that was pretty favored to win in 2022? Boy, if we had a couple hours, we could really get into that. I don't know that I have a profound answer to it, but I do believe

that in my time, and as I said, when I announced on Monday, I've been doing this for 30 years off and on, and the commute is getting old. But in terms of the gridlock, look, I just think people are being pushed further and further to the right or to the left, and it's harder to find people willing to do the hard work to find that middle ground. I think it is not rewarded as much. And there was a political consultant who apparently made a comment yesterday that a reporter talked to me about saying, if you want to get on MSNBC or Fox and throw red meat, it's a great time to be in office. If you want to try to get things done, it's a hard time. He used more colorful language than that.

I think Corey Bliss you're talking about? I think it was, yeah. I saw that quote yeah i i think it's probably going to continue that way for a while because it's not it's not something that happened because of donald trump you know which is part of the maybe that was your next question um i mean he has exacerbated uh the problem in the sense that the you know the the tweets the incivility the coarseness of language and so on are part of it. But let's face it, it's been going on for a while. I remember when George W. Bush was considered the most divisive president in the history of the country,

and then it was Barack Obama was the most divisive president in the history of the country, and then it was Donald Trump. I mean, it's a deeper cultural issue. You know, people can find online affirmation of their opinions, even if they aren't accurate, on both sides. And that makes it harder. You are the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, and you're working with a group of senators on a bipartisan oversight investigation into the security failures around the January 6th attack. Do you anticipate that your work will include looking at any role the

president may have played or any members of Congress may have played in inciting the riot? I don't know. I would think it would. Our primary focus is, you know, what happened, why did it happen, and how to keep it from happening again. And the why, I think, probably should include that. And then we tried to keep it totally, you know, not just bipartisan, but nonpartisan. We actually tried to do it with the House. We weren't successful. So it's not bicameral, but it is totally bipartisan. You've said, I want to talk about the Senate impeachment trial a little bit. You've said that President Trump bears some responsibility for what happened. The Senate obviously is about to start a trial coming up in a few days here. How conflicted are you over how you're going to vote here? Are you really conflicted? Have you already made your mind up? Where's your head at right now when it comes to the question of acquitting or convicting the

president? Yeah, I mean, I said in the last impeachment, as I say in this one, I've got a duty as a juror, and I think senators should listen to the arguments on both sides before they make their decision. That's what I intend to do. I've also said two other things. One is that I do have questions about the constitutionality of holding a Senate trial to remove someone from office who is now a private citizen. And I think that's a dangerous precedent. And then second is just, you know, what's the right answer here in terms of bringing the country together? Some of us said, well, you can't consider that because this is a legal proceeding. It's actually not. It's a political proceeding. And I think, you know, bringing the country together is important right now. We need to heal. And, you know, the question is, how do we do that best? And do we

further the divisions and the polarization and create even more problems by one approach or another? So that's part of what I'll be listening for. But isn't there also a danger and a precedent that says a president can act in the way that Trump did in that lame duck period, and if you take the argument that they cannot be convicted, he was impeached while still in office, that you do set up a precedent where there is essentially a lawlessness to what a president can do in that time period after he loses election. That seems equally as dangerous to me. Yeah, I think it's a good question. And I think, you know, right up to the end, of course, you know, a president needs to be accountable. By the way, I have said, as you note, that, you know,

he bears some responsibility for what happened on that day on January 6th. I've also said that it was inexcusable. But so here's, you know, here's the dilemma. As you say, yesterday, we had a constitutional scholar talk to us who believes that once someone is removed from office, you know, it's not constitutional. And he talked about the, you know, what the founders would have intended there. But he also said, of course, someone should be, you know, held accountable right to the end. So how do you do that? And that's, that's a challenge. So this raises the question, though, of what role Donald Trump is going to play in the party going forward. Lindsey Graham this week said he wants to see the party make a comeback and to grow. And in order to do that, quote, we're going

to need Trump and Trump needs us. Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, is down in Mar-a-Lago today meeting with the president. What role would you like to see Trump play in the Republican Party? And should the Republican Party be a welcome place for Donald Trump? Well, I'm not running again. Yeah, that's why I ask. No, look, I think our party is in much better shape in terms of policies and even ideals than it is in terms of the personality issues and the style, I'll say, that we referenced earlier. In other words, when you look at what happened in 2020, some pundits have said, gosh, the Republican Party is in big trouble. I mean, it's just the opposite. We actually picked up something like 14 seats in the House of Representatives. I think on the policy front, it was actually an affirmation

that at least most Americans think we're doing a pretty good job in terms of the economy, in terms of dealing with our military, you know, the tax reform and tax cuts, the regulatory relief, the energy independence, the ability to, you know, project strength and therefore peace around the world. There were some positive aspects there that we've got to be sure that we continue to emphasize going forward as a party. And that means, I think, that you try to keep everybody in the coalition, including a lot of folks who, blue collar workers and others who, you know, joined the party because they liked what Donald Trump was saying. Yeah. You know, about some of those issues. So I think there's a way to keep it together, but we'll see. I mean, obviously, if there was a new party founded, which some are talking about, that would definitely divide the party. Would you like to see Trump run in 2024?

Do you think the party could be better served by a different nominee? Well, I don't think he's going to run in 2024. I think, I mean, maybe that's an easy answer, but I think it's kind of an academic question. I just don't see it, but maybe I'm wrong. But my hope is that we'll see people step up who have the ability to bring this coalition together and to have a positive message that focuses on the policy and these ideals and does so in a respectful way. Sue, it sounds pretty clear that Senator Portman is not exactly signing up for the Trump 2024 campaign. But, you know, I did notice he was one of the majority of Senate Republicans who earlier this week voted to dismiss the impeachment charges as unconstitutional. So how does he square that with saying he still has an

open mind? He did. And there was a lot of interpretation of that vote that it meant that they were likely to be votes to then acquit the president. He was asked about that. You know, I didn't talk about that in the interview because he had been asked about it previously, in which he said that's not what his vote meant. He meant that vote more to say he thinks it's an open question as to whether the president can be convicted in trial after he's left office. And he seems, as you heard, to really be struggling with that question. And I think how the House impeachment managers and the president's defense make their cases

will ultimately have the swaying impact on that vote. Yeah. More of Sue's conversation with Ohio Senator Rob Portman after a quick break. We are still in the middle of this pandemic. And right now, having science news you can trust from variants to vaccines is essential. NPR Shortwave has your back. About 10 minutes every weekday. Listen and subscribe to Shortwave, the daily science podcast from NPR. And we are back. Sue, a lot of the early part of the conversation focused on Portman's surprise decision to retire, but he's got two years left in the Senate.

A lot's going to happen over those two years, including the next few months as Republicans decide how to engage with the new Biden administration. How is he viewing the first week of what Biden is trying to do? So Portman has a long reputation of being able to work with Democrats and being able to work with Democratic administrations. And, you know, the big question right now is this COVID relief package, this $1.9 trillion package that is a big priority for the new president. And, you know, the big question right now is this COVID relief package, this $1.9 trillion package, that is a big priority for the new president. And I was really surprised by it, because, you know, he probably brought the most fire in our conversation, in talking about how frustrated he is with how the Biden administration is going about this and how they're approaching Republicans. And he really said, you know, if Biden's not careful, if the administration does something like use budget reconciliation,

which is a special process you can use to make it a lot easier to get legislation through the Senate, that it could really damage relationships between the two parties. So we talked a lot about that. Well, I have strong views on this, as you know, because we talked about it briefly off the air. I was very encouraged by his inaugural address and the notion that we can figure out how to get back to a time when we're working together as Republicans and Democrats. And yet the actions have not been consistent. And specifically, the top issue that he has identified, which I agree with the president on this, which is dealing with COVID-19, you know, they sent us a $1.9 trillion bill on the heels of us just passing several weeks ago, a $900 billion passage of a bill that was the second biggest

appropriation in the history of the country. And we don't even have any idea how that's being spent and whether it's effective and what we need. And yet they're now insisting on a $1.9 trillion addition without really any Republican input. No one was consulted, not a single person. And now they want to use what's called reconciliation, which allows you to go around the 60-vote majority, supermajority in the Senate. It's just wrong. And I think it's bad for the administration. And I've made that point repeatedly to the White House in the last several days, including last night. We'll see what they do. But there are lots of issues where we agree. So my hope is that we won't go down this path of trying to circumvent, you know, the supermajority and just jam something through. I think that would set the tone for the administration that would be

really problematic for the country and frankly, bad for the Biden administration. That's what I was going to ask you. If they do opt for this budget path of reconciliation, where they won't need to deal with a filibuster, do you think that that is going to break any kind of notion that bipartisanship is possible going forward? Is it going to sort of leave a bad taste in the mouth of the people involved? I think it poisons the well, too, and makes it harder. I mean, I will continue to look for ways to coordinate with them, work with them. But I think you've got to be careful that you don't start off in a very highly partisan way, because between impeachment and a reconciliation bill, particularly one where you ignore the rules

of reconciliation, which people are talking about, I think you set a really bad tone, at least for months and maybe for the first term, the first two years at least. I think we should take a deep breath, reread the Biden inaugural address, and get to work. One of the promises Biden's made is 100 million vaccine doses in his first 100 days. Do you think that's achievable? And do you think Congress is going to have to pass legislation to make that possible? I think it is achievable with one caveat. I think we need to get more vaccines approved, particularly the Janssen J&J, which I'd hoped would be approved in the next couple of weeks. Now it's going to take a little longer, I'm told. That's the trial that you volunteered in, right? I'm in that trial. So I know a lot about that one. I've been very involved with it and been promoting, you know, getting that out because it's a single dose. But I think

the goal can be achieved. I think whatever Congress needs to do in terms of funding ought to be provided. I've done a lot of looking into this and it looks like about $3 billion has not been spent yet out of the $900 billion for this very purpose. So there actually is not a need for more money right now, but there will be soon, I think. So I think we ought to go ahead with that. We do not want to have us have more deaths, more illnesses that are unnecessary

for lack of Congress providing the resources. This, I think, ought to be the top issue. Ohio Senator Rob Portman, thanks so much for your time. Thanks for coming on the podcast today. Great to talk, take care. Sue, interesting to hear that interview end with Portman, who was skeptical of the $1.9 trillion stimulus, specifically talking about the need for more funding for a lot of the things in that plan.

I wonder if that's kind of the road forward here, if Biden does want to get some Republican votes. Yeah, I mean, this is going to be tough. And I do think he's right that how the next couple of weeks play out really could set the tone for how things are going to go for the Biden administration. And if the administration and Democrats do try to use sort of ways to get around Republicans, I think it's going to be a lot harder for Joe Biden to get Republicans like Rob Portman to join him in future endeavors. Well, that was a really interesting conversation. I'm glad we heard it today. That is a wrap for

today's podcast. We'll be back tomorrow with our weekly roundup. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover the White House. And I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. Thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.