OR-5: Mannix Goes Nuclear on Erickson
The Republican primary race to replace US Representative Darlene Hooley got nasty today when Kevin Mannix's campaign "reluctantly" released rumors that rival candidate Mike Erickson had paid for an abortion for a young woman whom he had impregnated. Mannix's accusations also connect Erickson with cocaine use.
From PolitickerOR:
Rumors of drugs, sex and an abortion: the Republican primary in the 5th Congressional District got ugly eight days before the primary.Today Kevin Mannix went public with accusations that his opponent Mike Erickson impregnated a young woman and then paid for her abortion. The campaign based the accusations on an e-mail from a friend of the young woman in question that details a list of offenses by Erikson.
"I was surprised to see that the Mike Erickson, who in 2000 was having wild parties involving cocaine use on his house boat, was running for office," the e-mail states.
The author said she was driven to speak out by campaign literature that discussed Erickson's pro-life stance. According to the Mannix campaign, the woman wrote "where were these ideals in the year 2000 when he drove my friend (whom he impregnated) to an abortion clinic in NE Portland, handed her some cash, and left her at the door."
Mannix detailed the accusations in a letter to be sent to Republican voters in the district:
Mannix's campaign released a letter which the Republican candidate intends to send to voters discussing primary opponent Mike Erickson's credibility and pro-life credentials. Mannix's letter starts off stating that "recently, I have been presented with extremely disturbing information about...Erickson, and the disrespectful way he treated a young woman."Mannix noted that he was reluctant to release the information and the campaign did so only investigating the claim.
"The email is verified and sheds light on the character of Mike Erickson who claims he is pro-life yet he paid for an abortion and left the woman at a clinic," said Amy Langdon, Mannix's campaign manager. "It is critical to share this woman's story with the voters of CD 5 as they make the decision as to who will be the Republican nominee."
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
May 12, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 12, '08
Putting aside the prurient and lurid nature of this story, the interesting thing about this in a political sense is that the story may be too late for Mannix. Many people have already turned in their ballots, and can't pull them back now. That's a unique aspect of the Oregon mail-in ballot system - "last minute" hit pieces, to be maximally effective, need to be released at least three weeks before the election - and that makes them no longer "last minute" hit pieces.
3:32 p.m.
May 12, '08
Geez, that's a lot better dirt that I ever found digging around through PSU's archives!
[I found out he was a dick of a student body president, and had some kind of role in a racial incident regarding a school dance, but "paid for abortion" is much dirtier...]
So I guess Mannix wanted to have the baby? No wonder he and Mike don't get along!
May 12, '08
It also allows enough time for news outlets to fact-check, as well as to trace anonymous rumors to their sources. You'll note that Mannix had to be up-front that it is he who is portraying his opponent as a coke-snorting baby-killer, since it probably would have landed at his feet before the eight days were up anyway.
Also, this could serve as a reminder that the Democratic senate primary hasn't been as outrageous or nasty. A bit personal among bloggers, maybe, but the earth is not scorched.
3:36 p.m.
May 12, '08
yuk. Does anyone have any soap? I feel really dirty all of a sudden.
Bad timing, Kevin. Its one week too late.
May 12, '08
Actually, this should make Demos happy, because it means that if Erickson in fact wins the primary, whoever makes it out of the D primary will cruise to the Congress.
Erickson is a liar, plain and simple, and is the worst possible candidate the REpublicans could field in 2008.
Actually, only 7 percent of the people have turned in their ballots, so the timing on this is probably dead on.
May 12, '08
Over on the Democratic side of the ballot, this year it appears that we are seeing rebounds from negative ads where those putting out the negative ads are losing support. So, I wonder if the Republicans are still as gullible as ever.
In any case, Mannix has tainted himself and has created doubt about Erickson. The only people to benefit are the Democrats, all the people in the Congressional District, and the United States which will benefit by keeping that seat in the hands of a Democrat. Actually, I think we should thank Mannix for again being such a slime ball, and proving again why we need to elect Democrats.
3:49 p.m.
May 12, '08
they've updated the returns through yesterday (in a file amusingly called "cum.pdf") and they're up to 13%.
What I'm watching are Clackamas well behind 8%, Multnomah and Washington running about even with the statewide average. Usually Multno in particular lags behind the average, but all three tend to. I don't know WHAT is going on with Clackamas; that's interesting.
If Multno turns out like the rest of the state, that is good news for Obama and Novick, near as I can tell.
4:57 p.m.
May 12, '08
Nuclear, maybe. But fair?
Honestly, I thought the whole thing was horrible until I applied my standards to it:
1] Is it actually, fully, completely, true? 2] Does it summarize or mislead? 3] Is it in any way pertinent or is it a distraction? 4] Does it offer a positive alternative?
OK, for #1, I'll assume that yes, the attack is true. Given my personal experience with the behavior of many so called pro-life people when they get in trouble, I'd be astonished if it wasn't.
For #2, generally this test usually applies to malapropisms, phrases that just come out wrong so that, for example, someone says something that sounds racist when they're really not. But deeds speak louder than words, so I have to give Mannix this one too.
For #3 the acid test: pertinent or a distraction? This is too long for a paragraph, so let me list pros and cons:
Why Pertinent - Participating in an abortion, even 2 week old barely implanted ones, is to the GOP what being a former tobacco lobbyist is to the Democrats. - Hypocrisy is never pretty. - Makes Erickson as useless an advocate for restricting choice as Larry Craig is to the gay bashing movement. - Causes electability issues for the GOP.
Why a Distraction: - Nothing worse than what our coke-snorting President did when he was young. - If the GOP eliminated all the overwhelming hypocrites from their ranks, they'd immediately drop to being a minor party. - How do we know Erickson isn't "born again"? The "Christian" right lets you be as big of an a**hole as you want, commit crimes, etc, so long as you call it a "sin" if you get caught, and do a big tearful confession in a church to Supply-side Jesus.
It's close, but I'd say the edge goes to "Pertinent".
Finally, does Mannix offer a positive alternative? OK, this one is a flat out "no". This is purely negative, and Mannix has his own problems (as many GOP leaders do). He is no shining example.
So: Yes, Yes, Yes, No. My surprising conclusion: the "nuclear" attack is largely fair.
Much less slimy than the Macphearson attack on John Kroger.
May 12, '08
Ugly.....I wonder if it might backfire.
May 12, '08
Two quick thoughts:
May 12, '08
Darn, now I'm conflicted. I've been secretly hoping that Mannix would win this seat and be sent off to Washington and while away his time serving in the permanent minority in the House, where couldn't do any lasting damage to our nation like he's done to our state. Yet busy enough dealing with potential challengers so he wouldn't have time to come up with any more cockamamy initiatives. Now Mannix has sunk even lower than I could imagine.
TJ, how do you know Multnomah County is backing Novick?
May 12, '08
This is low, even for Kevin Mannix.
Can we just be done with the politics of personal destruction once and for all? Has any of this ever benefited anyone in any meaningful way? Does the public win out by having sort of behavior exhibited by people trying to represent them at the highest levels of government? When is enough finally enough?
May 12, '08
Damn if these Republicans aren't entertaining! I suppose the next thing coming down the pike is a GOP candidate with the fake Ph.D.
Oh -- never mind.
May 12, '08
Has any of this ever benefited anyone in any meaningful way?
Haha... The children! Won't somebody think of the children!
Seriously Scott, the answer to your question is "Yes." (If by "benefiting anyone" you mean "winning the election in question.") And why does it work? Because voters respond to it... in droves. Is that such a bad thing? I really don't think so.
See, as much as we like to feel good about disparaging negative campaigning, you have to admit that when you heard the story about Erickson, you must have had some kind of visceral "Eww, what a slimeball!" in the back of your mind. That impression stays longer than the more concious short-term impression of Mannix having the evil cojones to release such an attack.
And that's not a bad thing. We want to elect someone who's in tune with our politically-relevant values. Is it wrong that people will trend away from Erickson now that they've had this value-based repulsion? Is it wrong of them to assume from Erickson's life experience (assuming the story is true) that he might not be quite the right-to-life-crusader he makes himself out to be? And thusly, I don't think it's wrong for the Mannix campaign to make this an issue.
Of course, what is terrible on the part of the Mannix campaign is that the accusation is spurious at best and probably not very true... which of course is the political equivalent of suborning perjury and quite horrible to do. (But your opposition seemed to be to attacks in general, and not this case espacially.)
May 12, '08
Perhaps Erickson would like to retain Eliot Spitzer as legal counsel.
May 12, '08
Perhaps Erickson would like to retain Eliot Spitzer as legal counsel.
May 12, '08
Woman says Erickson paid for abortion
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121064920156470100
9:54 p.m.
May 12, '08
So I guess Mannix wanted to have the baby? No wonder he and Mike don't get along!
I realize this is sarcasm but still unneccessary.
May 12, '08
Since Mannix is sending this out to tens of thousands of voters and he has so little money, this is really the last big move of his campaign. Erickson will have the money to respond (to a degree) to this attack. Mannix though is in a situation where he probably wont be able to release more ad's or make any more big mailings. If this doesnt work for Mannix, it could be the one decision that kills his campaign. While I believe that knowing what a candidate has done that may reflect poorly on them as leaders, but I really have to question the manner in which Mannix did this. Maybe leaking the memo to the Oregonian?
May 13, '08
Concerned Elephant said: "Erickson is a liar, plain and simple, and is the worst possible candidate the REpublicans could field in 2008."
LOL! While Erickson may be a bad candidate, I really can't believe he's worse than Mannix. If the Dems don't retain the 5th CD, it'll be amazing.
12:36 a.m.
May 13, '08
"I realize this is sarcasm but still unneccessary."
I think it's more like Marxist (the good kind) absurdism. Or maybe a little more like Albee or Heller.
I really do hope no one thought I was serious about Erickson and Mannix having a child together. They really just couldn't be more different people. Can't see it, sorry.
May 13, '08
Woman says Erickson paid for abortion
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121064920156470100
Yeah, some guy in Chicago signed an affidavit alleging a gay affair and crack usage with Obama, too. If it's in print, it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!
8:34 a.m.
May 13, '08
"TJ, how do you know Multnomah County is backing Novick?"
I don't. I said as far as I can tell, based on a little data, a little ground observance, and a little bit of hunch.
10:44 a.m.
May 13, '08
Erickson is a liar, plain and simple, and is the worst possible candidate the REpublicans could field in 2008.
Well, I don't know about "worst possible," Concerned. I think Mannix is battling for that title. Mannix's financial dealings between his campaign orgs, his law firm, and national advocacy groups stink to high heaven, i.e. money laundering. Not to mention his bizarre Nevada connection. The man positively reeks of corruption. (Even David Reinhard has taken him to task for it in the past.)
This hit piece also shows what a poseur Mannix actually is when it comes to understanding the hearts of conservative Christian voters--who will not hold an 8-year-old "sin" against a repentant candidate.
And finally, this is such an obvious attempt to obscure any focus on issues that it's sure to backfire. As a loyal Democrat, I can't imagine a better person to win the Republican nomination than Kevin Mannix.
11:20 a.m.
May 13, '08
This one's gone national now. I saw it on Huffpost linked from TPM:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/oregon.php
Go Repubs. Kurt's smilin' in Canby.
12:11 p.m.
May 13, '08
Talking Points Memo has the text of the email from 2006 and it is addressed to Phil Stanford at the Tribune plus the Oregonian, etc. Hooley was also sent a copy. I am fascinated by the fact that the press did not pursue this in 2006. In other times in other cities the press would have been all over this, at least on the investigation side. If they did here, they didn't publish anything.
So my question is this: Did the press pursue and not find a credible story or did they just sit on it and give Ericson a pass? If the former, then Mannix may be in big trouble. If the latter, well we know how far the press has fallen.
In either case, kudos to Hooley for not getting covered with mud on this one. Kevin obviously doesn't share her ethical standards.
2:29 p.m.
May 13, '08
John Calhoun, the Tribune story previously linked, says that the woman decided against speaking to the press in 2006 because she feared being smeared, probably with good reason. So no sources.
It also appears from the story that the Tribune was talking to her friend who has put her name on the record, Kristi Oetken, last month (i.e. a couple of weeks ago) but the woman who had the abortion wouldn't talk to them until after Mannix put out his letter. His letter in turn says Mannix hoped someone else would bring out the story.
This may explain the timing of Mannix's letter, in part.
May 13, '08
This makes me pretty glad to not be voting in these (R) elections...