« WALZ BLASTED BY FELLOW DEMOCRAT OVER DM&E; CONGRESSWOMAN CALLS WALZ’S CRITCISM OF LOAN “ABSURD HYPERBOLE” | Home | AP: FORMER SEN. JOHN HOTTINGER FACES LOSS OF LAW LICENSE »
“NONPARTISAN” SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE DOES SOME PARTISAN REDECORATING
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 6, 2007
I’ve received a tip from someone who recently left the Secretary of State office after having worked under Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer and for a very short time for Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.
According to my source, one of the first things that Mark Ritchie did when he moved into the office was to remove the State Photograph, “Grace” from his own office (that’s the photo taken by Eric Enstrom of a guy praying over a loaf of bread and a Bible). Ritchie replaced it with a print that mimics an American flag, but the union of the flag, instead of blue with 50 stars, is a photo of former Senator Paul Wellstone, and the stripes are alternatively made of a Wellstone quotation on white stripes and dark stripes made of small black and white photos.
Another new feature in the Ritchie’s personal office is a photograph ripping on former President Ronald Reagan. This is the office where the Secretary of State meets with schoolkids and other public officials. Hanging a picture ripping on former President Reagan doesn’t seem like Ritchie is acting like a “nonpartisan” Secretary of State like he promised.
Finally, from the public area of the office, one of the first actions of Beth Fraser was to remove the State Photograph from the reception area. She put it back in its place only when another staffer pointed out that its display in the SOS office is required by law.
Topics: Uncategorized | 42 Comments »
February 6th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
If Keiffmeyer had concerns about the decorations in the office, she shouldn’t have lost.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
This guy is a statewide embarrassment. He’s probably just POed at Regan for being so tough on his communist supporters. Grace is probably stuck somewhere behind a file cabinet or propped up against the bottom of the wall. It signifies religion, you know. What would the communist supporters think of that?
February 6th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Partisan, unprofessional, incompetent. Your DFL.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
The fact that this guy worships Wellstone should be the major concern!!
There has never been a more out of touch with the state politician than Wellstone or a bigger hypocrite!! Whether it was his stands on pollution yet he drove around in the pollution spewing green bus killing how many of mother natures creatures?
His stand on term limits and how he was only going to run for the two terms. When he started it was all about how he was going to either get things done or get out. Turns out he got nothing done and when two terms were up realized how much he liked that big fat government check!
Wellstone lied about almost every issue he took a stand on and his mind numb followers never questioned him about any of his failings.
Since it is clear liberals in this state treat liberalism like it is a religion I believe all progressive and liberal candidates should be banned from politics as it is clear all they care about is pushing their religion into every ones lives.
Even Ellison does not turn my stomach like the thought of that loser Wellstone.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Is this how all republicans feel?
February 6th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Democrats can’t handle the truth. Wellstone was always on the wrong side of an issue. If it was a 99-1 vote, you could pretty damn well expect the lone vote was from Wellstoned.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Can you seriously look at the mess in Iraq and stand behind the idea the blind allegiance to conformity is a smart thing?
I respected the hell out of Paul Wellstone for his willingness to stand up for his beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may have seemed.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I think except for the few who drank the Wellstone kool-aid this is how most in MN feel about Mr. Wellstone!
The Wellstone followers are very quick to trample down any who would say less than positive things about the late hypocrite and even this blog has given into the heat the “religious” followers have given Michael. Fact is that is the only way they can keep the name alive in positive light as the man accomplishments are few and far between and even then all he ever did accomplish is serving the very same special interest groups he espoused to hate. I found every fiber of the man disgusting and it amazed me how easily he could lie and hold a straight face. He might have made almost as much money had he played professional poker.
Then again do any of you have any idea of how much that worthless piece of.. was paid?? Let’s put it this way, he was not out for any “little Fella’s” as he lined his pockets with tax payer funds to the tune of over a million dollars.
Gee Minnesota did you feel like you got a million dollars worth of representation with that squeaky little fella?
We ar all aware of how many of our liberal friends here have absolute hatred for President Bush, take that times 100 and you now know how I felt about that thief Wellstone and his cronies.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Fred you obvously drank the Wellstone Kool-aid as he did exactly what you say he did not!! He was all about liberalism and special interest!
Believe me you did not hear any liberals complaining about him. He did what was popular in his circles and could keep him elected. It was just a fact that his beliefs did not match most of the state which is why he was going to lose in 2002!
February 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“Another new feature in the Ritchie’s personal office is a photograph ripping on former President Ronald Reagan”
I have a huge problem with that. Shows what wackos the Democrats can be. Do you think Kiffemyer would have a photo attacking JFK or MLK.
The children are back in charge.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“I respected the hell out of Paul Wellstone for his willingness to stand up for his beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may have seemed. ”
Do you mean his belief that Senators should only serve 2 terms?
LL
February 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Fred just what the hell did you respect him for?? I mean what stand did he take that impressed you? I often hear platitudes about the man but never any hard evidence that he did a damn thing! I have had someone tell me how wonderful he was and how he stood for something even when it was not popular but for some reason could not tell me what it was he was standing for!! What a joke. Liberals did do a good job brainwashing so many in this state and indoctrinating our youth in our public schools to buy into the liberalism idea. Which is exactly why we should get into the school voucher program so those who are not brainwashed can get our kids a real education free of liberalism or “progressive” thinking as they try to disguise it now.
I do wish he was still alive so one we could have watched his followers along with him cry about losing in 2002 and then also so he could be around and come to understand what a worthless politician he really was. Then again ignorance is bliss so I am sure he would have gone on thinking he was doing great things. The man and his followers were more than pathetic.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I am glad to see that tolerance is alive and well in the ranks of the republican party. If one does not conform to party group think, then they deserve ridicule and shame.
I am assuming that since everyone is remaining quiet on this that all republicans share the beliefs of Big Kahuna.
Good to know.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
‘member back in the late 70’s when liberal Carlton College tried to fire Wellstone because he wasn’t teaching the courses he was hired for, but primarily engaging in leftist indoctrination?
I heard him speak to a friendly (DFL) crowd in Duluth once and he bragged about how he and his buddies closed down a bank branch once by jumping up on the counters. And this is a guy who never had a free market job or created anything in his life.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Big Kahuna, Do you mean voting in support of the Defense of Marriage Act made liberals happy? He pissed off a large portion of his base with that one, but it was how he felt. Please don’t say he bent to the will of his base in all circumstances.
Logic lady: Talk to Susan Collins R-Maine. She is doing the same thing in the upcoming 08 cycle, saying she didn’t understand seniority at the time she made the promises. It doesn’t not make it right to break a promises, but senators and house members do it all the time. Tim Walz predecessor Ole’ Gil broke the promises just the last cycle.
You guys don’t like Ritchie or Wellstone but were all about Mark Kennedy. Nuff said.
Also this post from Michael is based on hear say. Remember folks: blogs are not legitimate news. Sometime they are, sometimes they are not.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The only reason he won in 1990 was because of Rudy Boschwictz interfering in the governors race that year. If Rudy would have kept his nose out of the governors race and worked on campaigning in his own – Rudy would have won.
It was bad enough that Rudy was losing in the polls becasue of the gov race, then he adds insult over injury with the Jew letter.
If Rudy would have focused on what he needed to do, we wouldn’t have HAD a Wellstone alliance. Wellstone would have been squashed like a bug.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“It was bad enough that Rudy was losing in the polls becasue of the gov race, then he adds insult over injury with the Jew letter.”
The letter was stupid no matter which way you look at it, but when you hear the full story, it isn’t as bad as what was reported at the time:
Media said Rudy sent out a letter to Minnesota Jews saying don’t vote for Wellstone because he has a Christian wife.
Full story isn’t much better, but the full content was that Rudy was saying that if you are a traditional practitioner of the Jewish faith, don’t vote for Wellstone because of his Jewish background. He (Wellstone) is a secular Jew who has even married outside the faith.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Big Kahuna, Do you mean voting in support of the Defense of Marriage Act made liberals happy? He pissed off a large portion of his base with that one, but it was how he felt. Please don’t say he bent to the will of his base in all circumstances. – Demrock6
Oh yes he really stuck himself out on that one didn’t he?? Fact is most of the state approved of this and Wellstone knew it!! It was other DFL’rs who keep the thing from getting a vote! Wellstone played it safe as he knew he wanted another term.
Also Wellstone was in it for the money and power, not because he thought with sinority he would get more done. Hell most of what he wanted done no one would sign on with the hack!
It was a good effort to try and cover up the abismal failings of Paul Wellstone but you came up rather short.
To Fred: did you really think you could wish this all away by just begging one other post to chime in that they do not agree with me?
You silly fool while some try to be nice about it especially since the toad is dead, I think the man should be exposed for the total fraud he was even if he did die.
Wellstone was a complete fool and an embarrasment to the state far more than the claims of the left about Bachman. At least Bachman actually stands for something and is not afraid to let her views be known. Wellstone was so far off the charts with his views he actually got some sheeple to believe he was for something no one else had seen before. A hunderd years ago we would have called him a snake oil salesman. My dream is for one day all to understand how awful Wellstone was along with many other lying Minnesotan democRats.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Can anyone provide more details about the Reagan picture? How exactly is the picture “ripping” on Reagan?
Also, could someone please tell me how Wellstone “lined his pockets with tax payer funds to the tune of over a million dollars?”
Thanks
February 6th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Paul Wellstone was a friend of mine. And for every one person you infect with your bitter hatred and misguided rage, I will tell a dozen about the Paul that I knew. The REAL Paul Wellstone was principled enough to stand against this war before it was cool to do so. Think about that. Six years ago, Paul Wellstone stood up and said just about the exact same thing that Norm Coleman is saying now.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
So, Raving Freddy Krueger, are you saying you will vote for Senator Norm Coleman in 2008?
February 6th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
need a tissue, Fred?
February 6th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Fred – The dems lost the seat when they tried to turn Wellstone’s funeral into a political event. Go home and have a cry. He is dead – get over it already.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I am glad to see that tolerance is alive and well in the ranks of the republican party. If one does not conform to party group think, then they deserve ridicule and shame.
-Fred
Kinda like Joe Liberman?
February 6th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
One of the things my wife said when we were dating — we’d never really discussed politics by this point — was this : We were walking to Sweeney’s to meet some friends. It was August of 2003… long after Coleman beat the ghost of DFL-past. We passed a house on an adjacent block with a huge Wellstone sign. She turns to me and says dryly: “Don’t these people know he’s dead?”
God I love this woman!
I never knew Wellstone. I hated his politics. I knew a number of folks that interned with him. Some said he was great. Others said he was insulting, hated the press, and was abrasive.
What I witnessed, was a man who loved causes. Not solutions. A liberal politician to the core. I saw a man who waved his arms like an epileptic chip, screaming about businesses. He hated business. He did all he could to undermine them and the wealth they created for their entrepreneurs. He was a clown. An embarrassment.
Someone perfect for the loony left in Minnesota to deify. And so they’ve done. Ick.
February 6th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Oh, a TIP! Stop the presses!!! Do you have, perhaps, any real evidence?
BK’s hatred for the late, great Paul Wellstone is well known, if not well founded.
I too was a bit upset by Wellstone’s reversal on term limits, until I looked at the reality in the Senate. 50-50 on the verge of Republican domination, Wellstone was critical to the balance. With his strong anti-war voice silenced, it was that much easier for Republicans to rush into war. His decision to run was right for the country, even taking his earlier promise into account.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Fred,
I knew Wellstone too. He said that if we went to war with Iraq in 1991 we would need 100,000 body bags for our troops. Fortunately he was wrong about that dire prediction. Wellstone was a committed anti-war leftist just like the rest of you guys that post here. He didn’t pass any bills to speak of, but he wasn’t a bad guy either. I just think he was misguided on national security issues like when he said Saddam was going to massacre all of our troops. Something else that bothered me was he never stood up to Clinton when Clinton invaded Bosnia and Haiti and bombed the hell out of Iraq for about 3 months in 1998-99 because of WMDs.
February 7th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Nice try Brian, Wellstoned was for the war. Well any war that Democrats create. It just shows what a hypocrite he was.
I friend was having problems with getting Social Security for a disability and called Wellstoned for help, all he got was a freakin form letter about Social Security retirement benifits and then when he called his offfice, he was blown off. So much for a “Man of the people”
Also http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/SFRC-Clinton%20letter-03-01-01.htm
Here is Wellsone claiming Iraq has WMD’s. Pretty funny to all of the brain dead “Bush Lied” Liberals
February 7th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Brian,
Most of your party voted to go to war in Iraq, so if anyone “rushed into war” it was Republicans and Democrats.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:29 am
“Wellstone was critical to the balance”
I never knew Wellstone, but he must have really been something. You have to be impressive when you can’t find ONE other person in a nation of 300 million to replace you in a job whose chief requirement is, well, talking.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:46 am
“I too was a bit upset by Wellstone’s reversal on term limits, until I looked at the reality in the Senate. 50-50 on the verge of Republican domination, Wellstone was critical to the balance. With his strong anti-war voice silenced, it was that much easier for Republicans to rush into war. His decision to run was right for the country, even taking his earlier promise into account”
What a bunch of self-serving bullshit. He put himself above his “cause” by annointing himself it’s only possible standard bearer. Wellstone was no more critical to the balance than any other senator up for reelection, and the Democrats still would have lost the majority had he held his seat.
His decision to put his own ego ahead of his “principles” cost seven other people their lives as well as his own.
February 7th, 2007 at 8:04 am
It is kinda sad to see new Wellstone! bumper stickers on cars. Seeing people living in the past can be rather pathetic; almost like Packers fans who long for the days of Max McGee and Fuzzy Thurston.
Anyone know where I can pick up a “William! Howard! Taft!” bumper sticker for my car?
February 7th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Brian… Wellstone cast that “no” vote. He wasn’t silenced. … and don’t forget about those 30 or so Democrats leading the rush to war…
Wellstone was no more important than any new voice. He had no reason to renig on his term-limits promise.
February 7th, 2007 at 9:41 am
GASP!! Brian did you just state “the late Great Wellstone”??
I am just curious as to what made him great?? It certainly was not his anti-war stand as the man was total anti-establishment as well as anti-business or anyone getting ahead on their own.
The man was a walking hypocrite on just about every issue you can think of. He should be viewed as the worst Minnesota has ever elected to an office. It just sickens me how many brain dead zombies are out there that actually believe the man accomplished something when in fact he was very likely the most incompetent senator in history.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Glad to see Wellstone is being realized as the waste of skin he was.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:48 am
What a bunch of self-serving bullshit. He put himself above his “cause” by annointing himself it’s only possible standard bearer. Wellstone was no more critical to the balance than any other senator up for reelection, and the Democrats still would have lost the majority had he held his seat.
Funny, Gil Gutknecht signed the Contract with America, which called for 12 years and out, and yet he crapped all over that promise. Luckilly Tim Walz helped enforce the promise by trouncing him.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Yes but Fred you tried to excuse your guy for doing this and that is what we want to point out to you. You are fine when you side does whatever but you sure like to call out quickly anything the other side does.
This sir makes you as much a hypocrite as Paul Wellstone was. (Well almost as bad as Wellstone was one of the worst ever!)
February 7th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
RamseyRep, your link is not to Wellstone claiming Iraq had WMDs. It is Wellstone and Feingold chastizing Clinton about humanitarian issues caused by the embargo against Iraq. That letter actually says:
// While the Iraqi government bears the lion’s share of responsibility for the unnecessary civilian suffering due to its refusal to comply with the UN weapons inspection program—a refusal underscored by recent widespread, though largely speculative, media reports about its possible efforts to rebuild certain of its WMD capacities—this does not excuse the international community from its own humanitarian obligations. //
I stand by my judgement that Wellstone was the best man for that election, and that despite his earlier promise, his decision to run was correct.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Who gives a flying fig what one’s office looks like? It’s about doing the job!! Here’s a Mark Ritchie proposal I read showing just that…………
“If you’re licensed to drive in Minnesota, you’d be automatically registered to vote, too.
That’s the thrust behind one of several voter law proposals announced Wednesday by new Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.
Ritchie said his proposal would save counties time and money, and cut out “the hassle for citizens who have to stand in more lines and fill out more paperwork.”
…
Under his plan, people could check a box on license applications if they don’t want automatic registration. Older methods of registering to vote would remain intact, including the Election Day option. [MPR]
Let’s keep this guy around.”
February 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Ritchie wants this so he can offer voting rights to illegal immigrants! Which would help his base as we know the DFL loves to offer minorities little presents of financial help in return for their vote to keep the DFL in power.
The DFL does not care how this effects the state or country as long as they get to stay in power.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Big Kahuna!!
Are the people at the Department of Public Safety office that stupid not to know if a Minnesota resident is a Legal resident or not? Steps have been implemented to detect Illegals applying for licenses for fear of gettinf found out and deported. Besides, only American born citizens can vote. Residents with Green Cards and Work Visas are inelligible.
What this proposal means is that those people who are eligible for Minnesota Driver’s Licenses and State IDs be able to be automatically registered to vote without having to get in lines to register. What is so bad about trying to speed up the process and save money?
November 13th, 2008 at 12:47 am
[...] here for my post exposing the partisan redecorating Ritchie did to the Secretary of State’s office [...]