Mike Erickson: “Political Sociopath”
It is a weird, crazy day at Wacky House when Wacky Mommy finds herself in agreement with Kevin Mannix. (In today’s Oregonian, Mannix is quoted as calling Mike Erickson a “political sociopath.”)
And just to set everything straight — I’m pro-choice. Abortion needs to be safe, legal and removed of stigma and taboo.
However. (And this is a pretty big “however.”) I am against abortion when it involves your rich boyfriend driving you to the clinic, taking 300 bucks out of an ATM on the way, and dumping you at the clinic doors. (“That solves that problem.”) Then he takes you to Puerto Vallarta a month later, after you’re “good again,” so he can feel better and what? This is some sort of reward for “taking care of” the “problem”?
That I have a problem with. I mean, seriously. Fuck that. Fuck that about twelves ways to Monday. Because not only are you dealing with the post-partum that often follows abortion (and is something a lot of people refuse to discuss or deal with), you’re also dealing with Trauma of Asshole Boyfriend Who Treats You and Your Unborn Like Pieces of Dirt.
Something like that is going to take years of healing. Peace and healing to you, girl. You’re not alone. I hope you find some support and care and community.
wm
(Here is the text of the editorial that ran in the Oregonian this morning:)
The 5th District bombshell
Kevin Mannix circulates troubling charges against Mike Erickson in a fight so down and dirty that one of the two must go
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Ugly developments in Oregon’s 5th Congressional District race make it clear that one of the leading Republican contenders should drop out.
If reports about past conduct by Mike Erickson can be substantiated, he’s the one who should beat a hasty exit for the sake of his party. His opponent, Kevin Mannix, in an 11th-hour direct mail appeal to 60,000 GOP voters, raised allegations that Erickson got a woman pregnant eight years ago, gave her money to have an abortion and callously dropped her off at the door of a clinic where she had the procedure.
Erickson says the story isn’t true, but if it holds up, it could doom his candidacy in November should he become the Republican nominee. His party’s anti-abortion constituency would not be alone in seeing hypocrisy in his claim to be a “pro-life, pro-family” candidate.
However, if the story proves untrue, Mannix would become the poisoned candidate. He would be guilty of spreading a falsehood so reckless that it would leave him unfit for office.
So who are voters to believe? It’s troubling that mail ballots must be returned this week before the Mannix allegations can be fully investigated, but for the moment he appears to have the superior credibility.
As evidence, Mannix has a 2006 e-mail, purportedly written by a woman named Kristi Oetken, claiming to be a friend of a woman named “Tawnya” who had an abortion paid for by Erickson. Mannix says sources he trusts interviewed both women and found their story believable, and the Portland Tribune posted a detailed interview with the woman named Tawnya.
That’s not proof, but it’s powerful ammunition, so volatile that an innocent Erickson would want to go public immediately to offer a specific defense. Instead, he and his campaign hunkered down Tuesday, not returning phone calls but sending out an e-mail statement blasting Mannix’s “smear tactics” while offering no specific denial of his charges.
Mannix met with The Oregonian’s editorial board Tuesday to explain how he vetted the allegations and why he circulated them. He also made a strong case for why he considers Erickson to be a “political sociopath.” Erickson’s response to the allegations has gone through several iterations, including flat denial, and he did not respond Tuesday to repeated invitations to speak with the editorial board.
Indeed, Erickson has put out campaign materials that appear to have misrepresented his employment history and political endorsements. Oregon Right to Life, for example, has endorsed Mannix in this race, yet some of Erickson’s campaign literature makes it seem as though he is the group’s favored candidate.
Then there’s the cloud over Erickson’s political past. He was disqualified as Portland State University student body president during the 1987-88 school year when the student constitution committee found that he altered a letter written by then Gov. Neil Goldschmidt to make it appear as an endorsement. In a failed bid for the Oregon House in 1988, Erickson did a similar thing with a letter from then Sen. Mark Hatfield.
“Political sociopath” is an awfully harsh label, but it’s going to stick on Erickson unless he goes public, and soon, with a convincing case that the Mannix allegations are unfounded.
, 
.
His television commercials crack me up due to the irony that the audio is not in sync with the video. What is he really saying? He’s not a political sociopath; he’s just a plain old sociopath, period.
May 14th, 2008 | #
There isn’t a pig pen big enough for the two of them.
May 14th, 2008 | #
WM,
We thank you for the support!
May 15th, 2008 | #
I’m pro-choice when it comes to certain situations but there are times when I just want to smack some women that have it done. Some women abuse the situation and use it like a form of birth control. I know someone who has had 5 abortions. I don’t like to assosiate with her anymore. That’s just ridiculous. But I understand women who have it done (once) because it really was a mistake and they aren’t at a point in their life where they can care for a child. I would never have one, but that’s just me.
Lol, sorry to turn your comment section into my views on abortion!
May 15th, 2008 | #
No kidding! Some women do use abortion as birth control method. I cannot believe some women. What is worse is that the women lie about WHY they go pregnant in the first place. I am pro-choice and believe that men should take birth control pills that will soon be out on the market if FDA will appove them. If men took the pill and women used their own precautions we wouldn’t need abortion – right??? I feel that abortion is still a neccessary process especially in special cercumstances but, I do not feel that the government should tell us when that special circumstance exists.
Like what happens when the baby you have inside of you at 10 weeks has 14 arms and two heads? Are you really expected to raise a two-headed 14 armed baby?
May 16th, 2008 | #