Bizarre Abortion Tale May Make It Easier For Dems To Hold Key House Seat
National Dems are breathing a sigh of relief today, because the results of a GOP primary in Oregon yesterday suggest that Dems are now more likely to hang on to a key seat in an open Dem-held swing district.
That's because in last night's voting in Oregon's Fifth district, a conservative businessman named Mike Erickson prevailed over his GOP challenger -- and Erickson is alleged to have a rather colorful past that, well, makes him a less than ideal GOP candidate.
Specifically, Erickson has been accused of impregnating a younger woman and paying for her abortion back in 2000.
What this means in practice is that the fallout from the accusations has the potential to seriously alienate Erickson from GOP base activists.
Making matters worse, Erickson is running against Democratic state Sen. Kurt Schrader, who easily won his primary and will benefit from having strong party organizations at both the state and national level, and he'll be running in a state where Barack Obama currently has a big lead over John McCain.
The abortion allegations have already cost Erickson the support of a key pro-life group, Oregon Right to Life, which means his candidacy in a general election will be an uphill struggle without activist support.
"We will not be supporting his candidacy," said Oregon Right to Life's political director, Lois Anderson, who said that she fully believes the allegations to be true.
Erickson has said he drove the woman to a doctor's office and gave her money, but didn't know it was for an abortion. But Anderson isn't buying it: "Quite frankly, it's difficult to believe that he could be that clueless."
Erickson campaign manager Jeff Harvey denied that the abortion tale would cost him key votes on the right. "When push comes to shove, a high percentage of pro-life voters in the Republican primary still voted for Mike," Harvey said. Speaking of Oregon Right To Life, he added: "With or without their endorsement, Mike will still win this election."
Still, Schrader is likely to enjoy a huge benefit from this, if even a significant minority of conservative voters believe the accusations. With the story hanging over his head, he could have a very hard time turning out religious-right voters, which he needs to offset a likely Democratic advantage in a district that voted just narrowly for President Bush in 2004, but is likely to go blue in a much more Dem-friendly cycle.
So national Dems are feeling good about this district.
I think they are underestimating the Republicans ability to forgive any sin, any sin at all, if it is commited by a fellow Republican.
For instance, Dubya knocked up his mothers made (a young hispanic) in his youth, drived across the border to Mexico, and got her an abortion.
Many, many Texans knew about it. But did anybody care? No.
And if that is not enough Dick Cheney shot somebody in the face. Did anyone care? No.
May 21, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
nisleib - the religious right is kind of an exception to that. Some of them are very disenchanted with Bush. And the other thing is: there is no forgiveness when it comes to abortion for some of these people.
They are totally irrational on that subject.
May 21, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the word of Mr. Cheney:
"So?"
:)
May 21, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This shows what corporate stooges these Republican phonies are and how they play wedge issues for chumps. Which is no different than many Corporate Dems, just change the wedge issues.
Funding for "Life" advocacy comes from a lot of corporate interests that don't give a damn about abortion issues or gay rights or family values or gun control or any of it.
They do like a good wedge and distraction.
The same national and transnational conglomerates who channel money to groups like the "Christian Coalition" and Libertarian think tanks also fund the left's wedge issues like gay marriage, gun control, etc.
Typically a national or transnational corporation will give to many foundations to essentially launder money into opposing groups. One foundation will help support gay marriage and abortion in coastal areas, another foundation will be anti-abortion and family values in the South and rural areas. They'll all be funded by the same conglomerates and their various subsidiaries.
To see who really runs America, and bought it with $2.8 Billion in lobbying in 2007 doubled from 1998, and untold billions in issue advocacy every years laundered through various foundations and fronts:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
1998-2008
US Chamber of Commerce $380,014,680
American Medical Assn $184,147,500
General Electric $167,230,000
American Hospital Assn $148,161,639
AARP $134,012,064
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $130,643,400
Edison Electric Institute $118,222,628
Northrop Grumman $109,875,253
Business Roundtable $109,070,000
National Assn of Realtors $104,190,380
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $94,846,172
Freddie Mac $92,624,048
Boeing Co $89,378,310
General Motors $89,170,483
Lockheed Martin $86,671,735
Exxon Mobil $85,086,942
Verizon Communications $84,145,610
Southern Co $83,480,694
SBC Communications $79,851,656
Fannie Mae $77,967,000
May 21, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
One may also notice that these are the exact industries which literally write their own legislation and get it fast tracked and passed in bipartisan haste, year after year, while people squabble about irreconcilable wedge issues that never get anywhere.
That's who owns our government.
For just one example, the Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, the trade group alone, not counting individual Pharma expenditures, spent $130,643,400 in reported lobbying since 1998. Which is less than pocket change for the Pharma industry.
The pharmaceutical industry takes in US $235.4 Billion in US domestic sales annually. That's $810 on average for every man, woman, and child in the USA. Or roughly 5% of the combined household income ($4.3 Trillion) of the entire USA.
Pharma now spends 13.4% ($30.5 Billion) of that on drug research, but spends 24.4% ($54.9 Billion) on marketing drugs. The rest ($149 Billion) goes largely going to overhead and manufacturing.
"The industry spent approximately US$61,000 in promotion per physician during 2004, according to Gagnon."
I recommend reading the entire, short and concise, article.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
May 21, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reread your comment - I agree with you about every damn thing the Bushes have been able to get away with (and that includes Cheney).
But I still have seen the religious right split over Bush - about half of them got really upset over environmental issues. The other half is still fuming because Bush didn't deliver - abortion is still legal.
So I don't know - I don't know if people in general are in the mood to be forgiving anymore. I honestly don't know.
May 21, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are not talking about people, we are talking about Republicans. Not all republicans, but the most brainwashed dittohead republicans.
Listen, Rush Limbaugh is still on the air. Even after getting caught out being a huge druggie. Even after getting caught coming back from the Domenican Republic (well known for its underage prostitutes) with a bottle of illegal viagra. Limbaugh proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was full of shit. Did his knucklehead audience care? No.
This isn't about who is actually guilty of a sin, it is about blaming other people for your own sins. That is what the GOP is all about; finger wagging and blame avoidance.
May 21, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that case, you're right. Cause those people are the drooling
35%.
I agree. ;)
May 21, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a good feeling that the Dems will win this seat. Erickson is not a 2008-stye Republican (whatever that is).
He's just an old school conservative that talks about cutting taxes and government.
The district he's running has the same economic, healthcare, and education concerns as everyone else, and the "government is just bad" line has lost its power this year.
May 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, I think Erickson is toast. He appears to be for nothing, and have nothing to propose. All he has is a bag full of the usual rote attacks against Republican bogeymen circa 1995. It's like turning on a wind-up doll someone found after it sat for years in a closet. Plus, what a creep; he campaigns as a right-to-lifer, but pays for his girlfriend's abortion? Even by Republican standards, that's bad. Isn't it?
May 21, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I alone in finding it troubling that this allegation is being trumpeted so gleefully? A
As for the Republican tendency to forgive their own: I suspect they would be a lot less forgiving if it were a female candidate who had (allegedly) had an abortion instead of a male who had (allegedly) helped procure one.
May 21, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya, pretty much. First, shaming the man is an improvement over shaming the slut, which is what pro-punishment groups are really all about. (I refuse to call them pro-life because their political activities bear no relationship to improving life. They want the government to punish women and their doctors while smugly and righteously declining to help anyone. They are pro-punishment.)
Second, it's impossible to change partisan activists' minds. The best possible outcome is for the other side to lose interest, stop banking phones and knocking doors, and put away the checkbook. For Republicans to do this to themselves is like an early Christmas present.
May 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oregon Right to Life told Erickson to drop out of the primary, so I don't think they will support him in the general. The director of ORL seemed pretty angry in the interview I read.
As for Kevin Mannix he continues his decade long losing streak. The only bad thing is now he'll have more time to campaign for his ballot measure (it provides harsh, set in stone sentences for property crimes and will cost an obscene amount of money if it passes.)
May 21, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kurt Schrader, the Democrat running against Erickson, is a conservative Democrat. He opposes minimum-wage for farmworkers and farmworker collective bargaining rights. A farmer himself, he is very sympathetic to agribusiness. Talking to him about prescription drug reform, he talked the neoliberal line and won't be a strong supporter of substantial health care reform.
However, Hooley was not a great liberal Democrat either. She was a proponent of eliminating the estate tax, for example. I doubt a progressive Democrat could win District 5, but a conservative Democrat should do fine.
May 21, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oregon is farm country and the pragmatic politician is obliged to do for his or her district, not for city folk. Hooley knew what she had to do to keep her seat. I suspect Schrader does, too.
On the useless trivia front. Hooley was my wife's gym teacher, before she became a representative.
May 21, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be frank, I find myself torn on this one. The quicker that Republicanism and the Republican Party can be reduced to a footnote on extict political parties in high school history books the better. On the other hand, abortions need to between a woman and her doctor.
May 21, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Richard Adlof above. However, I haven't seen the sourcing on this item, so is it possible that the woman, now regretting her abortion; has chosen to disclose it and Erikson's role?
Further; is it just me, or does it seem that a group who is driven by a religion based upon the premise of forgiveness and restraint from condemnation/judgement seem the least likely to forgive the 'sins' of the past.
Personnally I find abortion an abhorent but necessary thing in our world. So I extend my sympathies to both the unnamed woman and to Erikson for feeling compelled to make this very difficult and personal choice.
How much better it would be if we could all support Planned Parenthood's mission of education on reproductive issues and sex education (BTW, they have great materials for men on preventing unwanted pregancy). If we all educated ourselves, our children, and those who we meet about prevention of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease the need for abortion would be relegated to those that are medical necessary. I encourage you all to discuss this with your family, your friends, and in general. And donate at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppcw/donate.htm to help spread this mission of every child a wanted (and planned) child in Oregon. Or search for the Planned Parenthood affiliate in your area and donate time and/or money to this great cause for individual responsibility and liberty.
May 21, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see two issues here:
First, are the allegations true? While I think it is likely that they may be true, as far as I can tell it's really been a matter of one person's word against another's as to what really happened. I can certainly see a scenario where Erickson knew exactly what was going on but tried to maintain plausible deniability by saying something like "Don't tell me what you need this money for or why you're going here" - that sort of thing. Erickson denies that he knew; those who insist that he must have are not exactly disinterested parties and as far as I've heard haven't brought forth any compelling evidence to prove that he did.
Second, regardless of the truth of the matter, is this something we really want to normalize as a campaign issue? Just because it might help our side right now doesn't make it right. It's one thing if you are arguing that what he did was illegal or immoral (as per the Oregon Right to Life group) - but if we really believe that the decision to have an abortion is a private matter, it doesn't make sense for us to publicly gloat about this person's involvement in such a decision.
The one card that I think it is ok to play here is making the case that Erickson is a hypocrite and a liar. It's a weak case though, because there isn't hard evidence that he isn't telling the truth - indeed it's hard to make the case that he has any obligation to tell us anything about such a private matter. Any charge of hypocrisy is vulnerable to the "change of heart" defense - unless this happened last week, I think a lot of folks who would care about whether or not this happened would also be willing to believe that he wouldn't do today what he may have done in the past. Especially if the alternative is electing a Democrat. :-)
So, if this allegation has the effect of depressing the Republican turn out, fine. But I don't think it's right for Democrats to touch this allegation with a ten-foot pole, even to gloat.
May 22, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that we are even talking about this shows why we have lost the last two presidential elections. Play to win dammit.
May 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go Mike
July 7, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink