« COLEMAN PRESS EVENT ABOUT 32 ABSENTEE BALLOTS “FOUND” IN ELECTION OFFICIAL’S CAR | Home | COME MONDAY MORNING, WILL VOTES HAVE MYSTERIOUSLY SHIFTED AGAIN? OR, WILL MINNESOTANS BE ABLE TO EXPECT THAT THEIR VOTES COUNTED AND COLEMAN STILL WON THIS ELECTION? »
DAYS BEFORE THE START OF THE U.S. SENATE RECOUNT AND AFTER PROMISING TO BE “NON-PARTISAN”, RITCHIE ADMITS “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NON-PARTISAN ELECTED SECRETARY OF STATE…”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | November 8, 2008
At a press conference on Friday to discuss details of the U.S. Senate recount, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie thought this was good time to admit that “there is no such thing as a non-partisan elected secretary of state…”
When I hear Ritchie’s comments, I almost fell out of my chair. Since Ritchie has suddenly decided to admit his blatant partisanship, I thought I’d remind the readers of Minnesota Democrats Exposed that Ritchie repeatedly promised to be a “non-partisan†Secretary of State:
- “… the office of Secretary of State must operate in a non-partisan manner.†Source: Mark Ritchie press release, June 7, 2005
- “Imagine an Office of the Secretary of State where non-partisanship is the guiding principle…†Source: Mark Ritchie speech at DFL Convention, June 11, 2006.
- “I will protect your vote by restoring trust and nonpartisanship to the secretary of state’s office…†Source: Pioneer Press, November 1, 2006
The record is clear: Ritchie promised Minnesotans that he would be “non-partisan”. But days before the start of the U.S. Senate recount, Ritchie admits he can’t be “non-partisan”, because a “non-partisan” secretary of state doesn’t exist. I still stunned by Ritchie’s comments.
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for more information on this developing story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 21 Comments »
21 Responses to “DAYS BEFORE THE START OF THE U.S. SENATE RECOUNT AND AFTER PROMISING TO BE “NON-PARTISAN”, RITCHIE ADMITS “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NON-PARTISAN ELECTED SECRETARY OF STATE…””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Um, duh. What he said is a fact, and he operates in a non-partisan matter and non-partisanship is a guiding principle and he is protecting our votes by restoring trust and nonpartisanship to the office.
What you and your friends are doing is trying to discredit the state and its process. It is disgusting, Michael.
Why don’t you want every legal ballot counted like Mark Ritchie and the voters want?
November 8th, 2008 at 10:25 PM
First honest thing he’s said so far…
November 8th, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Hmmm, a DFL Secretary of State promises to handle the vote in a non-partisan way, and nothing yet suggests he has done otherwise.
If you deem it newsworthy that a DFL Secretary of State is a DFL Secretary of State, you probably should just pull the plug now…especially since your horse has been thoroughly embarrassed and EXPOSED by a comedian…good stuff.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:33 PM
He lied repeatedly during the campaign and lied his way into office. Remember, Secretary of State Ritchie was caught using his official office to fund his political campaign – and lied about it was asked by reporters and legislators.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:45 PM
“he operates in a non-partisan matter and non-partisanship is a guiding principle”
If there is no such thing as a non-partisan S.O.S., then what Aaron said is impossible.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:19 PM
I remember hearing Mary Kiffmeyer speak at an event I attended, and she seemed like the lady that would make sure the potluck went off without a hitch. Somehow the Democrats convinced enough Minnesotans that we needed a Demcrat to hold that office. Why did he even run with a party then?
November 9th, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Michael:
Your charges that DFLers are all liars is getting a bit old. Didn’t you get that out of your system with Ashwin Madia? How about Al Franken?
It must be so rewarding to be paid to call others liars.
Do you by chance think Sen. Michel or Ron Carey are liars too? Think before you answer.
I beg of you, please don’t reply by calling ME a liar.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Danbrome
You’re a liar. Madia is a liar. Franken is a liar. Ritchie is a liar.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:32 AM
He lied repeatedly during the campaign and lied his way into office.
You’re a liar. Madia is a liar. Franken is a liar. Ritchie is a liar.
It’s what liberals do. They lie.
They lie because they know if they told the truth, the real, unvarnished truth, about who they are, what they believe and what they’d do if they could tell the truth, no one would vote for them (save the nutjobs like Tommy Brown Shirt and Leroy).
Senator Angry Al is a coming reality and we need to get used to it. Richie’s working behind the scenes to steal this election, along with local nutjob True Believers who are stuffing ballots in their truck filled with Angry Al votes.
All the while they have press conferences claiming Norm’s trying to “suppress the vote”.
The level of dishonesty, the desperate CRIMINAL actions these people are willing to undertake, does not surprise me. Liberals have no conscience.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:48 AM
The issue isn’t the partisanship or lack thereof, of the secretary of state. The issue is who has the most votes. The right to vote, contains within it, the right to have votes counted. Those rights are independent of any issues relative to the officials counting them.
Any attempt by any politician to prevent the counting of validly cast votes is shameful, beyond shameful.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:54 AM
You are all buying into a false premise. It does not matter if Ritchie lies or not. The premise should be that if you cannot mark your ballot so that it can be scanned and counted then it should not count. It is patently absurd that humans will now try to opine as to what people meant to do when they voted but could not get it accomplished.
Do humans review SAT answer sheets to see if the testee screwed up? Forgot to erase? Put a circle around an answer? Did not sufficiently color in the oval? NO–Of Course Not. A minimum level of execution has to be presumed or the system fails.
The recount should be limited to obvious errors of reporting only and that will be finished this week. The whole process of trying to imput a vote where one does not legally exist is unconstitutional itself.
If it did not scan, it should not count, PERIOD.
The Coleman legal team should be fighting the process, not every unqualified ballot as the DFL and GOP recount teams try to make up votes.
November 9th, 2008 at 7:06 AM
Any attempt by any politician to prevent the counting of validly cast votes is shameful, beyond shameful.
And the SOS is a POLITICIAN – and a partisan one at that.
The issue isn’t the partisanship or lack thereof, of the secretary of state.
He who controls the decisions on rule interpretations can certainly control the outcome of the vote.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:12 AM
The rule is pretty simple. If the intention of the voter can be discerned from the ballot, it is counted accordingly. The job of vote counters is to find intent where it appear, not exclude votes because of technical issues that do not go to the issue of intent.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:12 AM
We can’t trust this guy. He needs to step aside.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Here’s the point:
He ran for the office claiming that he will be nonpartisan knowing that he was gong to be a partisan democrat.
since he engaged in unehtical conduct to get the office that proves that he isn’t qualfied to be secretary of state and should immediately resign.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
November 9th, 2008 at 1:57 PM
What a tempest in a teapot this post is. Ritchie is obviously correct–every elected secretary of state runs on a party ticket, so is a “partisan”.
Voting machines speed up the count, but they cannot always determine voter intent. Some voters make their intent clear even tho they have not marked the ballot the way the machine wants. Their votes usually don’t get counted, but in a recount they will get counted. Why do you fear that?
BTW, your state and mine have two of the best Secretaries of State in the US. Congratulations to us both.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I think Walter should sieze the moment and declare Ole Smokescreen the winner.
Forget democracy. Democrats should not be allowed to run anymore.
Did I get that right Walter?
Idiot.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Jerry… Walter does not understand common sense or reality. He is off in a dream world where calling names and babbling win the day. Please cut him some slack, as he probably has a bet on the winner that he doesn’t want to lose.
Did I get that right Walter?
November 9th, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Here’s the point:
Walter and Michael are competing for Town Stooge.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:52 PM
danbrome Says:
“He is off in a dream world where calling names and babbling win the day.”
“Walter and Michael are competing for Town Stooge.”
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Seems like all he’s saying is that an SOS is a member of a political party, not that it’s impossible for him to act honestly, in a non-partisan manner, in accordance with the law.
This is a pretty big reach to create controversy.