Ridenbaugh Press

Mike Erickson

Kevin Mannix

The hottest Oregon race at this moment is a U.S. House hot enough to break through to the national political dialogue, and hot enough that the Oregonian seems to suggest one of the two main contenders drop. Whichever is in the wrong, that is.

The 5th District Republican nomination race - contenders being businessman and 2006 nominee Mike Erickson and former legislator and state office candidate Kevin Mannix - has become nearly unpredictable. It could take another twist, of course, if one of the candidates turns out to have a teflon shield against the newly-dropped bomb. But . . .

The bomb was Mannix’ release of an e-mail, and followup statements (supported by the writer of the mail) saying that Erickson (who has run on a strong pro-life campaign) in 2000 impregnated a much younger woman and paid for her abortion; there are subsidiary charges (such as cocaine use) as well. Erickson has denied the substance, and argues Mannix is releasing the material because he is behind in the polls (which he seems to be); otherwise, he has maintained a low profile since the story broke. Mannix said he wanted to show what kind of person Erickson is. Mannix met with the Oregonian on Tuesday, and the paper said in an editorial today that “for the moment he appears to have the superior credibility.”

A few thoughts.

First, the substance of the accusations seems unlikely to be conclusively settled soon - that is, whether they’re true or not. Mannix obviously didn’t make this up; the e-mail has been around since the 2006 cycle, and the writer of it stands by it. There isn’t any reason to think Mannix doesn’t believe it true. But we haven’t seen much independent evidence, and Erickson’s dismissals aren’t conclusive either. (Of course, whatever he says in future could change that.) We may have, for some time, an accusation sitting out there in public which hasn’t been solidly confirmed or debunked.

The Oregonian notes that, if the charges are believed, they could b devastating to Erickson’s campaign. Indeed they may. But what snap judgment will Republican primary voters come to? There is, after all, this way of looking at it too: Mannix probably had this material for some time (it was a 2006 e-mail, remember, which had substantial circulation in the interim) and only chose to use it when polling indicated he might lose. That may not go over well, especially given the kind of headlines over campaign and political finance and other issues Mannix has racked up over the years. Erickson’s mass of TV spots have been carpet-bombing Mannix’ reputation already; will Mannix be able to make the sale under those conditions? Maybe, but that’s far from clear.

The point is that not only Erickson but Mannix as well has reaped some damage out of this. Highly negative campaigns tend to turn off voters; up to this point, Mannix could fairly argue that Erikson but not himself had gone sharply negative, but no longer - now both will considered participants in one of the more bitter Oregon primaries in recent years. The primary winner will emerge from this wounded - Erickson because of the negative story strung around his neck (plus the negative spots on Mannix prior to that), and Mannix for this new accusation. (Remember that Democratic incumbent Darlene Hooley had this same information in 2006, and although in that tough race she did go negative against Erickson and hasn’t been shy about throwing a punch, she never used this particular bomb. She may have had good strategic reasons for that.)

Regardless whether Mannix or Erickson emerges with the most votes next week, the nominee is going to have a lot of repair work to do.