Erickson explains Cuban trip was "one-third" humanitarian

Denied "smoking an ENTIRE cigar" -- that rocks.

Did he offer any further details on the clinic that was (I paraphrase) named something, located somewhere else, and to which he gave some stuff?

Liar liar won't be elected pants on fire.

Post a comment

I am a Republican, but I can honestly say that this guy is bad news and should never be put into office. This is just the latest "scandal-like" thing about this guy.

And of course he didn't smoke an entire cigar, but then again, who does? There is always left-over to the tune of about 1/3 or so. See how you can weasel out of a charge like that?

The one thing that hasn't come up is prostitution. Now I don't know much about this guy's personal life, but there are prostitutes everywhere in Cuba and very cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if this dude drank, smoked, and had sex all over Havana, not that there is anything wrong with that. What is wrong with it is how he pulled it off (we can't do it), and the fact he is trying to cover for it now with ridiculous lies. He gamed the system and he expects us to put him into office. No way. Dude's a turkey.

Post a comment

Dude cracks me up. Never ending supply of laughs. "Never smoked an entire cigar." The guy is 40 something, never married and loaded. He wants everyone to believe he's some type of saint? Embrace your party side! Liquor, cigars, fine food and mucho babes. Take the party to Washington, the party capital of the world. Can you imagine the great time he'll have in DC?

Keep the quotes coming!

Post a comment

That was Mark Cuban's plight that Erickson was feeling.

Post a comment

Firstly, considering the Hollywood lefties have for many years run to Cuba to hug Fidel Castro (and now Venezuela to mug with Hugo Chavez), hang around state-owned luxury resorts with beaches off limits to the locals, then come back telling everyone how great the place is including lies about their health care and education, I don't see why Erickson is getting such a ton of negativity except that he is a Republican and seems to be hiding part of the truth. It's not as if he posed by an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi!

Post a comment

You got to admit that dude sounds like he would be a lot more fun to party with than Mannix..

Post a comment

A Republican humanitarian. That should be headline news in itself.
A Republican pretending to be a humanitarian--so what, they do it all the time.
Remember Bushie, the "compassionate conservative? "
Erickson is just following the Republican play book. How can anyone blame him for not knowing the difference?

Post a comment

I wouldn't ever vote for this guy. There is something about him that I just don't trust.

Funk: LOL!

Post a comment

we have an embargo against Cuba for a reason and he undermined it for his own pleasure, and yet seems to think we should elect him to congress where he will be voting on national security issues???

there are plenty of 100% legit humanitarian projects in developing countries around the world. he could have gone to Ethiopia, El Salvador, etc etc etc. This whole 'one third humanitarian mission' is 100% crap.

Post a comment

where can I contribute money to this Zeke's campaign?
Oregon is already lost for McCain, but if Erickson continues to be the poster boy for Republicans in this state, the Toupeed PeaPacker could easily lose his Senate seat.
you go, Bozo!

Post a comment

I wonder if he is going to write this off on taxes as a charitable donation? If so I will be taking a humanitarian trip to Hawaii soon with a side trip to Switzerland to make sure those folks are ok. Tax deductable donations for this trip of mercy would be appreciated.

Post a comment

Erickson does not belong in any decision making position because he is no different than any other corrupt politician!

I just wish all you libs were as appalled and vocal when a Dem politician turns out to be corrupt. I guess that is what happens when your ideology and your agenda become more important than your integrity.

Laetitia wrote" "A Republican humanitarian. That should be headline news in itself. A Republican pretending to be a humanitarian--so what, they do it all the time."

Put the koolaid down and do some research there Laetitia. Charitable giving and volunteer work by conservatives far exceeds that of you libs. We do it because it is right, while most of you libs just give lip service to stroke your egos and "feel" good about yourselves.

Saying how much you care and how much Republicans don't simply doesn't cut it in the real world, Laetitia.

I donate a ton of money to humanitarian causes every year and volunteer on the weekends at the VA along with a dozen or so other people. Wanna a guess how many in that group are libs? (hint: It's the number just before one!) It's sort of shocking really since all we hear about is how much you libs care...

So, what have you done lately Laetitia, other than inflate your tires and hate Rebublicans because Nancy and the Messiah told you to.

Post a comment

Since when is it news that a Republican is telling lies to advance their cause? Worked for George W. and crew to start a war. A little fact checking never hurt anyone, as long as they don't think Rush and his kind present facts. When McSame lies at least we can understand "grandpa lost it"!

Post a comment

Hey Republicans, do you really wonder how come you guys have such a bad reputation these days, and why your credibility is continuously called into question? Let me tell you one of the reasons: It's because with people like Erikson representing you, you keep demonstrating for us just how low your standards are, and how your party has completely imploded by the weight of its own arrogance and ineptness.

Given Erikson's continuing problems with telling the truth, every Republican in the state should absolutely, categorically be communicating with the Erikson campaign and insisting that he drop out before he does further damage to the GOP brand. And yet, aside from the occasional gripe and pathetic attempts at equivocation, you "conservatives" just stand there with your collective thumbs up your rears, whining that the OTHER party might have some serious issues to deal with! I mean, as a political party, you guys are like Humpty Dumpty. You've fallen off the wall, and have not the slightest clue how to put yourselves back together again. Although truth be told, for many of you its even worse. Many of you are in complete denial that you've even fallen off the wall!

But back to Erikson...this clown doesn’t posses even the smallest sliver of decency or self-respect that it would take to just drop out. I might suggest the guy is simply immoral, but I think the problem is actually worse than that. I think in reality, this guy is amoral! His moral compass ain't broken, because he doesn't have a moral compass to begin with!

And in this regard, Erikson is just like Larry Craig. That is to say, for the Democrats, he’s the gift that just keeps on giving. With both Erikson and Craig, a reasonable person might think that both mens' campaigns are actually clever jokes meant to draw serious attention to the alarming decline of conservative politics. Except that in both cases, the real joke is that neither campaign is a joke! Which itself is pretty darn funny!

Just a few years ago, when Republicans were talking about the possibility of having a permanent majority in Congress, who would have thought that in 2008 the conversation about Republican "values" would have instead turned to talk about compulsive lying and sex in airport bathrooms?!?

But arrogance and incompetence have a funny way of coming back to haunt their purveyors. Isn't that right, my Republican friends?

Post a comment

Looks like firstthings and stevienw have been sipping the same koolaid that Laetitia and coaststeve have been drinking.

It's Funny, I don't recall any of you lamenting your disgust for John Edwards behavior on this site over the weekend.

And.. heres an inconvenient truth for you stevienw. The reason that the Republicans lost control of Congress was not because more people voted democrat. It was because conservatives stayed home and refused to vote for those who called themselves Republicans but did not act like it.

As for arrogance and incompetence. I remind you that it only took a year an a half for the Dem controlled Congress to drop to a single digit approval rating(the lowest in history). Be careful that you don't become the people you despise because your post seems quite arrogant and certainly incompetent because you clearly don't understand the meaning of the last election or the power of the silent majority.

Post a comment

Shame on anyone who is critical of our elected officials but didn't bother voting. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld "we need to make decisions based on the candidates we have, not the ones we wish we had."
And shame on John Edwards, but he's not running for public office. Mike Erickson is. If you consider his Cuban time and money expenditures to be humanitarian, then vote for him. I suspect that he is not one of the VA volunteers that another poster is proud of.
And shame on us all for allowing VA patient needs to go unfunded. The Republican party needs to acknowledge that Mike Erickson is a shallow, self-centered egomaniac and embrace an electable candidate before the election gets any closer. Erickson is an embarrassment.

Post a comment

It is unAmerican for the government to prohibit American Citizens from travelling anywhere, absent a Declaration of War against that country.

An American Citizen has, until recent times, been able to travel anywhere in the world without the Big Brother of Government acting as his baby sitter. In other words, the American Government recognized and protected his rights as a Citizen. As a conservative who believes in limited, Constitutional, government, I find the travel prohitition appalling, and as foolish as alcohol or drug prohibition.

I am no Erickson fan, but this is big flap over nothing.

Post a comment

libsrcorrupt,

What time is Rush on today? I want to know what time you get your marching orders.

You have no further to look than your corrupt president and a republican controlled congress for the failures we are in today. They held control of every level of national government for 6 years and things only got worse. Today, Democrats only hold slight advantages in the House and Senate, certainly not enough to pass any legislation. And if they got anything through it would most certainly be vetoed by the president. So you can have fun with your delusional comments regarding congress' ratings and who's to blame. They were elected to end the war and haven't been able to do so.

The only thing Republicans in the house seem to care about these days is off shore oil drilling....what a complete joke. They made a mockery of the House for weeks for something that doesn't do anything for anyone but the oil companies. Off shore oil drilling wouldn't do anything to gas prices for years if even then. There one dimensional thinking of the energy crisis is pathetic. "Lets drill our way out...Now" they say. At least Obama has said he would consider off shore oil drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan that included the development of other energy sources. It could be a piece of the pie...Republicans want it to be the whole pie. This is just one example of the continued failures that conservatives will lead us with.

Messiah?...did you see the Republican primary debates? Every other word was Reagan. I don't even think you Republicans know why you worship the guy. Taxes increased and the government inflated in size under his 8 years.

Post a comment

Libsrcorrupt, a few things for you:

1. First, and just as I said earlier, I see you wasted no time with “pathetic attempts at equivocation.” Except there’s just one itsy, bitsy difference sweetheart: John Edwards isn’t going to be on my ballot in November! Not to mention this thread isn’t about John Edwards. You know, in case you didn’t notice. (More on this in #4 below)

2. Second, the reason Republicans lost Congress last time around was the public’s weariness with regard to the war in Iraq. Exit polls clearly showed this, your revisionism notwithstanding. And this notion that Republicans just stayed home is also not validated by the fact that overall voter turnout was higher in the last election than in any election before. While Democratic registrations did increase, they did not do so fast enough to make-up for all these stay-at-home Republicans you’re imagining. Nah. I think the problem is that you just can’t bring yourself to admit that Republican ideology and policy was simply rejected during the last election cycle. Like it will be again in November.

3. Third, while you cite low Congressional approval ratings, you conveniently ignore the fact that most of those same Congressman are expected to be re-elected! But there’s a reason for this: Much like the Consumer Sentiment Index in economics is known to be a terrible predictor of what consumers actually do with their money, Congressional approval numbers are known to be almost completely irrelevant when it comes to predicting elections.

4. Fourth, let me remind you that this thread is actually about Mike Erikson! Certainly, I can understand why you’d want to change THAT subject! But please try to stay on topic. You might start by telling us what you – as a Republican – intend to do to clean your own house! To be sure, until you DO clean your own house, you talking about how dirty the OTHER guy’s house is, is nothing short of comical. (And this is part of the Republican credibility problem I keep mentioning.)

5. And finlly, given the topic of this thread (a corrupt Republican politician), has the irony in your handle completely escaped you???

Post a comment

jayjaydubu wrote: "At least Obama has said he would consider off shore oil drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan that included the development of other energy sources."

You forgot to mention that drilling was not in his original platform and he only included it after he realized that not drilling was a loser for the libs.

jayjaydubu wrote: Messiah?...did you see the Republican primary debates? Every other word was Reagan.

You mean the same Reagan that the messiah himself has invoked in various speeches?

Now would you please let me get back to Rush?

Post a comment

Yes, please get back to Rush. Your responses were a little off message.

Maybe it wasn't mentioned because it won't do much in the long or near term. But if it means moving our country forward towards a comprehensive plan that could lead to more renewable energy, then maybe it's worth a compromise. Is drilling the only solution that the Republicans keep acting like it is. No, but it sure doesn't prevent them from dragging us down an already failed path.

Yes the same Reagan...why do you Republicans worship him again? Sure, he wasn't the worst president but does he really deserve the worship status you guys give him?

Post a comment

Seems that I have upset the libs. That always seems to happen when interjecting the facts.

stevienw wrote: "Second, the reason Republicans lost Congress last time around was the public’s weariness with regard to the war in Iraq. Exit polls clearly showed this, your revisionism notwithstanding."

The exit polls is the 2004 election also showed Kerry winning in a landslide. How did that work out? The fact is exit polls are not accurate.

stevienw wrote: "I think the problem is that you just can’t bring yourself to admit that Republican ideology and policy was simply rejected during the last election cycle."

Your assumption that Rebublican Ideology was rejected in the election does not jive with historical data. The Historical data shows that the party in power (Dem or Repub) usually lose seats in a midterm election. Historically speaking, the dem seat grab in 2006 was quite mediocre compared to other midterms. I would provide you more historical data, but you libs have enough trouble grasping that the earth has actually warmed and cooled on its own prior to evil humans being here.

stevienw wrote: "Much like the Consumer Sentiment Index in economics is known to be a terrible predictor of what consumers actually do with their money, Congressional approval numbers are known to be almost completely irrelevant when it comes to predicting elections."

So you are saying that the President's approval rating that you libs have been relishing in has been meaningless this entire time?

stevienw wrote: "You might start by telling us what you – as a Republican – intend to do to clean your own house! To be sure, until you DO clean your own house,"

As I stated in my previous post, we started cleaning our house in the last election and we will continue to purge Republicans who act like democrats in this election. Question is, when will you?

Post a comment

jayjaydubu wrote: "Your responses were a little off message."

Just because I didn't give the answers you wanted to hear does not mean it was off message.

jayjaydubu wrote: "Is drilling the only solution that the Republicans keep acting like it is."

Please show me one Republican energy plan where drilling is the only solution. Your assumption is simply not true and is a typical liberal koolaid drinking response.

Post a comment

No, we just get upset when the lunatic right wing spew lie after lie while the country goes down the tube. I believe you were the one who started ranting about liberals once you saw that one of your own (Mr. Erickson) was lying again. We have just been responding to your statements.

"I would provide you more historical data, but you libs have enough trouble grasping that the earth has actually warmed and cooled on its own prior to evil humans being here."

Yes please do provide evidence or a reference. Not a reference to Rush, Hannity, or BillO. A legitimate source please. I hate to burst your bubble but the over whelming majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is a problem and humans have had an influence. The day you get a climatology degree will be the day I consider your opinion on global warming. The few political hacks the Republicans have come up with to attempt to discredit the overwhelming majority have been paid for by the oil companies, so I wouldn't take what they say to seriously.

Do you agree with President Bush, that scientists should have a decreased role in our policy decisions on environmental issues? Or that the administration should be able to edit scientific studies before congress sees them? Do you see a problem with that? In his first term, Bush used his own vaulted scientific knowledge to dismiss the findings of his own EPA scientists on global warming as “junk science.” Your president has been waging a war against scientists since the beginning of his administration. Something house and senate republicans seem very comfortable with.

Post a comment

libsrcorrupt,

If Republicans were interested in other solutions they would have been spending the last few weeks proposing legislation that moves us towards alternative energies. But at the top of the list is oil, oil, oil, it is all they know or care about. It's an election year tactic that divides the country but really has no impact either way on the lives of Americans. Typical Republican play book.

But it's hard to care about anything else but oil when you don't believe in science as you have previously alluded to. As far as the Republicans are concerned, there is no urgency to move forward on the issue when your campaigns are paid for by oil companies and you are friends and pals with oil lobbyists.

So as long as they call the shots our country will be lead down the same failed policies that have created the situation we are left with today.

Post a comment

Sorry for my delayed response jayjaydubu, I was writing down my marching orders from Rush!

jayjaydubu wrote: "I believe you were the one who started ranting about liberals once you saw that one of your own (Mr. Erickson) was lying again."

Here is my quote from post 12: "Erickson does not belong in any decision making position because he is no different than any other corrupt politician!"

I think that even you will agree that this is not an endorsement of "one of my own".

My "rant" was about liberal hypocrisy and not expressing the same disgust for one of your own, John Edwards. The responses I received to that post were "but he's not running for public office" and lets not forget the ever so eloquent stevienw: "Except there’s just one itsy, bitsy difference sweetheart: John Edwards isn’t going to be on my ballot in November!"

If I recall correctly, wasn't John Edwards engaging in this behavior while running as a Presidential Candidate and while being vetted for a VP slot a month ago? Didn't covering up his behaviour most likely cost Hillary the nomination and change the face of this Presidential Election? Finally, doesn't John Edwards frequently speak on behalf you libs? Minimizing his importance does not minimize your hypocrisy.

jayjaydubu wrote: "Yes please do provide evidence or a reference."

What is scary is that you actually want me to prove to you that the earth has warmed and cooled on its own prior to humans being here.

jayjaydubu wrote: "The day you get a climatology degree will be the day I consider your opinion on global warming."

Al Gore doesn't have one and you believe him without proof? Why not me?

I will respond to the rest of your liberal global warming talking points by stating 2 facts.

1: The earth has actually cooled by 2/10ths of 1 degree in that last 10 years.

2: Scienists are Jumping off the Al Gore global warming bandwagon like rats off a sinking ship.

These are easily verifiable facts, you just have to get off the daily kos and moveon.org websites for you info.

Oh look, Hannity is on, I've gotta go for now...

Post a comment

I am disgusted with Edwards and if this board were about him I'm sure their would have been plenty of others who would say the same. I was also disgusted with Bill Clinton(D), Eliot Spitzer(D) ,Larry Criag(R), David Vitter(R), Newt Gingrich(R), and John McCain(R) who have all been involved with extramarital affairs. But this board was about Erickson's lies.

Her point was that it is not as important as if he were still running. He has been ridiculed for it and I don't know anyone who has stood up for him saying this was OK. I don't think he speaks for democrats anymore like Vitter, Craig, Newt, and John McCain still speak for you. I doubt you will see him in politics anymore. And if he does I won't vote for him. It doesn't mean I don't still agree with him on the issues though.

No, Obama would, most likely, still have won if this came out anyway. Most of his supporters would have split for Obama.

Well Al Gore has the overwhelming majority of climate scientists on his side and has been a voice box for the many of us that are considered given the analysis of the science community.

Wow, that's it, two talking points to debunk climate scientists who have been studying this their whole life. Two talking points?

Good to see you Republicans politicizing science now, just like you have with the Justice Department, and religion. Gonzales and Monica Goodling should be in jail for what he did to the justice department. Truly sad, but I doubt your hypocrisy would lead you to the same conclusion.

Post a comment

jayjaydubu wrote: "I am disgusted with Edwards and if this board were about him I'm sure their would have been plenty of others who would say the same."

Man, it seems like I am having to repeat my posts. In my origianl post above, I asked why there was not an equal amount of disgust by liberals for Edwards when his article "was" on this site over the weekend.

jayjaydubu wrote: "Wow, that's it, two talking points to debunk climate scientists who have been studying this their whole life. Two talking points?"

When did facts about the global warming hoax become talking points and how many facts do you need before you are convinced?

And... since the phrase "Talking Points" is a political term, wouldn't it be you who is politicizing it?

Don't worry jayjaydubu, the first few sessions of your re-education process are the most painful. It will become easier as time goes by. I promise...

Post a comment

Man you are really grasping at straws now. I get your point "Where were all you libs when...." I get it. My point was, this board still wasn't about Edwards. Do you get it?

Your two points (I wouldn't call the second fact) were talking points just as much as mine were. Fact: over whelming majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is a problem and humans have had an influence. That was the only point I made about the reality of Global Warming. To call it a hoax is absurd. I guess the whole scientific community is in on the conspiracy. I expect a report on my desk by tomorrow.

You used the "talking points" term first. And your one fact doesn't disprove anything. I'll need alot more than your reassurance.

I like how you keep ignoring my larger points and go straight for the tit-for-tat. That's OK I need to eat and sleep now.

"the first few sessions of your re-education process are the most painful." :( scary

Post a comment

jayjaydubu wrote: "Fact: over whelming majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is a problem and humans have had an influence."

Heres a few for you to address you "larger points":

Gore told CBS’ Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" recently, "I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view." Sounds sort of like you jayjaydubu!

dailytech: "Even the UN IPCC has stated that world temperatures may continue to decline."

John Coleman(Weather Channel Founder) "global warming is the greatest scam in history."

sciencetech: "The pronouncements by NASA about global temperature averages going up have been corrected, and now we know the warmest U.S. decade was the 1930s not the ’90s."

Dr. Velasco Herrara, climatologist: "So that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years"

John Coleman(Weather Channel Founder): "There was no consensus of 2,500 scientists at the Bali meeting of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change... If you look at the history of the IPCC, its mission and existence was to prove that there is climate change."

John Coleman(Weather Channel Founder): "Gores hockey-stick chart, that ridiculous scientific fraud, got shot down."

science daily: "19,000 scientists signed a petition against the Kyoto Protocol. There is no consensus."

And to save the best for last!

Dr. Arthur Robinson Oregon Institute of Science: "An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact."

Now where is that overwhelming scientific consensus you were talking about jayjaydubu?

Post a comment

jayjaydubu,

When you start getting confused about what you are even saying, let alone what libsrcorrupt is saying, it may be time to step away from the keyboard.

Sad part is, you are so out of your league, you don't think you even realize how much you are getting owned by libsrcorrupt.

Post a comment