« AP: STATE LEGISLATOR CONSIDERING 2008 U.S. SENATE RUN | Home | MDE IN THE NEWS: STAR TRIBUNE ARTICLE DETAILS CONFLICT BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND RITCHIE #2 »
MDE IN THE NEWS: STAR TRIBUNE ARTICLE DETAILS CONFLICT BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND RITCHIE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 25, 2007
“Colored by politics
There’s a political and historical background for the budding conflict between Ritchie and Republicans.
Republicans, led by conservative blogger Michael Brodkorb, are beginning to make the case that Ritchie, a lifelong activist for environmental and other liberal causes, is too partisan and too ideological to provide fair oversight of the state’s election process.
This line of attack echoes the barrage of criticism directed over the last eight years by DFLers at Kiffmeyer, who was accused of being too conservative and Republican to serve as the top election official.
Noting that Ritchie recently spoke at an event sponsored by People For the American Way, a liberal national interest group founded by Hollywood producer Norman Lear, Brodkorb said Ritchie ‘is really tied in to that network.’ Democrats would scream bloody murder if Kiffmeyer went to such rabidly partisan groups,’ Brodkorb said.
Ritchie said partisan activity is ‘a question I struggle with,’ but added that he speaks to any group that asks, including Rotary Clubs, businesses and military audiences. Ritchie said one of his top priorities is making it easier for service members and troops overseas to vote.
‘In every speech I give, I talk about healing the partisan divisions and bridging the gaps between us,’ Ritchie said. ‘I’m trying to make sure the system is working for everybody.’” Source: Star Tribune, February 25, 2007
Click here for complete story.
Topics: Uncategorized | 37 Comments »
37 Responses to “MDE IN THE NEWS: STAR TRIBUNE ARTICLE DETAILS CONFLICT BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND RITCHIE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Rotary Clubs and “military groups” aren’t working toward destroying American with socialist policies. If he truly “struggles” with this issue, maybe he should discontinue his over the top partisan behavior.
Oh, I forgot… he’s a Democrat. They don’t actually follow through with their commitments or act according to their conscience.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
You whine a lot about partisans politics considering you are a product of such politics. Partisans politics are natural, someone who runs on the DFL ticket is doing to have DFL values, grow up and quit bitching.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
People for the American Way is an anti-Christian hate group. Not quite the same as talking to the local Lions Club.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Republicans, Democrats, Independents etc. all agree that whoever is eligible to vote should be able to vote and that preventing eligible voters from voting is an anti-American disenfranchisement.
What I can’t understand is why only Democrats seem ok with allowing ineligible people to cast votes in our elections?
If one of Ritchie/ACORN’s ineligible voters casts and illegal vote for a candidate who I oppose, that disenfranchises me.
Why is it that Democrats are tolerant of certain disenfranchisement and outspoken against other forms of it, when Republicans find all forms of disenfranchisement odious and unacceptable?
My only conclusion is that perhaps they know who non-eligible voters ultimately voter for in overwhelming numbers.
February 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“‘In every speech I give, I talk about healing the partisan divisions and bridging the gaps between us,’ Ritchie said. ‘I’m trying to make sure the system is working for everybody.’”
That’s what Mary Kiffmeyer said too and the DFLers didn’t believe it. Why should Republicans believe it out of Ritchie???
LL
February 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
What’s Ritchie’s position on ?
February 25th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
From the Strib article… “Anyone eligible to vote who has a driver’s license or a state ID”
And most notably…”For example, he noted that because of changes pushed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, driver’s licenses already denote noncitizen status.”
Context, Mike-o, context. Your party’s governor made licenses show who was a citizen, who was eligible. But by some magic, if Pawlenty’s changes are used by a DFLer to register people to vote, they magically become non-citizens?
Now all you listen closely: Not everyone who has a driver’s license is interested in being a Republican. Some of them may not even have accepted Jesus as their savior. Some of them might not even have white skin!
But because of a little thing called the Constitution, they are allowed to vote if they are citizens, if they are Americans. YOUR party’s GOVERNOR made driver’s licenses show citizenship status. Now along with that, those CITIZENS, those AMERICAN CITIZENS, will be allowed to vote.
Deal with it.
February 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“People for the American Way is an anti-Christian hate group.”
EY: Bull. One of their issues is separation of church and state. It is correct to state that they are a liberal group.
This is what is on their site about religion:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=111
There’s a provision in the constitution about “no religious test” for service in government. Article 6. Go read it. While you are at it, go read the first amendment to the constitution.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Oh, and one more thing, Mike-o. It detailed Ritchie’s plan. For there to be ‘Conflict between Brodkerb and Ritchie’, you’d have to equals.
You’re Carey’s pet poodle who peddles stories about people’s feces, he’s a constitutional officer whose proposals have majority support. Is a horse in conflict with the flea on its butt?
February 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Eva,
Where in the First Amendment of the Constitution is the phrase “separation of church and state” mentioned? Oh yeah, it’s not.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Eva,
What does the First Amendment to the Constitution say? I believe it says that (1) Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion and (2) shall not infringe on the free exercise of religion. Nowhere in the Constitution does it disqualify people of faith to be involved in government or politics.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Andrew,
Mark Ritchie campaigned on being a non partisan Secretary of State and it didn’t take five minutes for him to break that promise. MDE and Republicans aren’t complaining that Ritchie is a DFLer. We’re complaining that it took him so little time to become the partisan hack he accused Mary Kiffmeyer of being. It’s called hipocrisy and Ritchie stinks of it.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
It’s in the establishment clause of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists about the “wall of separation”:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature – as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion – only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”
***********
Text from letter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Chris:
What does the First Amendment to the Constitution say? I believe it says that (1) Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion and (2) shall not infringe on the free exercise of religion. Nowhere in the Constitution does it disqualify people of faith to be involved in government or politics.
EY: You are making a straw man argument here. I haven’t said I think that a person of faith shoudn’t serve in public office. The constitution clearly says (Article 6) that there should be “no religious test” for serving in office.
The issue is using the power of government to promote a particular religion. That is clearly unconstitutional – and should be.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Thank you Eva. Personally, I am a big fan of the idea that we should hold to the Constitution, and not the favored radicalism of the moment.
But the short version (because I believe I estimate the caliber of much of the readership correctly) is pretty simply this: Congress may not make an official religion, or favor one by du jure establishment of its holidays.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Ritchie has done nothing that is over the top partisan. He isnt shouting, let the gays marry, abortion is your own choice, the war in Iraq is wrong, he is talking to liberal groups that have invited him to come speak. How many groups out there are truly non-partisan first off. Slim to none so if he wants to speak to people who have invited him, of course they will be political partisan because every group is.
Furthermore, these liberal groups are groups who are inviting him to speak because they agree with liberal voting policies., not because he is a liberal DFL’er who thinks the war in Iraq is wrong. Calling him partisan is so ridiculous because the only thing I see him advocating in that article is to make it easier for people to vote, not any issues that are considered hyper-partisan.
When he comes out and starts talking about partisan issues, tear him to shreds because he’ll deserve it but until, then grow up and quit bitching. He’s speaking to a group of people about things that pertain to his job, nothing wrong with that.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Eva, the part of Article 6 you were referring to:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but obviously, Christian constituents have every right to be concerned about a Constitutional officer’s involvement in a group that favors aggressively removing religion from every facet of American life.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Eva,
You are the weakest blogger and political advocate.
Where in the constitution does it say: There should be a separation of church and state. It doesn’t. A letter from Jefferson is not the constitution. Again, go read the first amendment.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
‘Establishment of religion’ is how they phrased it back in dem dare olden days, as well as the section prohibiting test oaths. Learn history.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
John Boy,
I can’t believe you said that Congress can’t recognize a religion’s holidays. Christmas is a national holiday and has been since 1870.
In addition, many of our federal buildings display religious symbols. The U.S. Supreme Court contains depictions of both Moses and the Ten Commandments. Both the White House and the U.S. Capitol have annual Christmas tree lightings and celebrations. The White House also celebrates Hanukkah and even Ramadan.
The People for the American Way and the ACLU have both litigated against the public display of religion.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Andrew,
The problem with making it easier for people to vote is that it invites people who are ineligible to cast ballots and dilute the votes of elibible people. Let’s face it, Democrats have a checkered past when it comes to elections. Let us not forget the dead who were resurrected to vote in Chicago for John F. Kennedy.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Some concrete examples of any recent actual or attemted election fraud in Minnesota, please.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
And again – the Governor’s program marks people who are ineligible in the driver’s license database. I have yet to hear somebody detail the magic by which eligible citizens become ineligible because a DFL SoS wants to register them to vote.
And its a national day off – not a national, ‘we all most celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ’. This differentiates it from Memorial Day or the Fourth of July, when people are encouraged to take part in secular festivities. The Founders put in the Establishment clause for a reason, and your radicalism doesn’t change that.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Actually, Tim there have been real cases of voter fraud in Minnesota. In both Winona and St. Peter, students have been convicted of voter fraud. The case I’m the most familiar with happened at Gustavus, where a student was convicted of voting at their college precinct and at their permanent address.
I’m sure there are more cases of voter fraud as well. The answer isn’t to go on the honor student and let anyone vote. The answer is to make sure everyone who votes is (1) who they say they are and (2) an eligible voter. It should not be harder to write a check than it is to cast a ballot.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Lets go with the cold hard number. Eleven.
In 2004, Eleven votes were thrown out in Minnesota, out of nearly three million cast.
This should show just what a raging problem we have here – with the GOP trying suppress turn-out, not with illegal voting. Its a scare tactic, and let’s be honest: its mostly race-baiting with immigrants as the target.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
John Boy,
If you think the national holiday of Christmas is any different than any other national holiday, you’re nuts. It’s not a national day off, as you put it. It’s a national holiday. The Establishment Clause was put into the Constitution to prevent the U.S. from establishing a national religion, like the Church of England.
Also, the visa designation on drivers licenses applies to legal immigrants who have visas. The problem is that someone who is not a citizen can take a utility bill and a person to vouch for them at the polls and register to vote.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Good point Tim, yet another reason why Mary Kiffmeyer was an excellent Secretary of State. And we should cast suspicion on anything someone as partisan and unqualified as Mark Ritchie proposes.
February 25th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
And again Chris… Did the eleven who did this sway an election? y/n?
February 25th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
John Boy, Why do you think Ritchie is proposing the changes to make it easier to vote?
February 25th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Both posts supposedly by me on this thread were not.
I hope that regular readers of this site will be able to tell the difference between my actual posts, and the ones being fabricated by a person obviously too mentally feeble to debate honestly.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:43 am
John Boy, give us one example of anyone suppressing the vote. Just one.
The Democrats can lie all they want about black-helicopters keeping people from the poles. But the fact is, it never happened. Not in Minnesota. Not anywhere else.
Oh… speaking of voter suppression… how ’bout the Democrats convicted of slashing the tires of GOP GOTV vans in Wisconsin. How about the thousands of extra ballots cast in Milwaukee and St. Louis.
Liberals — liars and cowards.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Fred, I wouldn’t lecture anyone about debating honestly if I were you. Especially since it appears you are the same person who has posted as GOP Strategist and Roving Reporter.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Really? The three of us share an IP address? How would anyone but Michael know such things?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:01 am
John Boy,
“establishment of religion” is not the same as “seperation of church and state” Learn English Composition and study the dictionary.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Fred,
Y’all don’t have to be genuises to figure out you’re the same person to post as GOP Strategist and Roving Reporter. When you use the same colloquialisms under each nickname, it’s not hard to figure out who you are.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
There is one “Fred Garvin” that consistently posts on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. In the last 24 hours, I have noticed that another person has started posting under the name “Fred Garvin.â€
To prevent confusion, I would ask the person who started posting as “Fred Garvin†in last 24 hours to use a different name or different spelling. If you have any questions, or concerns, please let me know.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:10 am
[...] an article about the growing battles between Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and Republicans. Click here for my [...]