What Do You Get When You Elect a Commie as MNSOS?
Posted by Andy on December 28th, 2006
Mark Ritchie promising to be a partisan Mark Ritchie, not Minnesota’s non-partisan Secretary of State.
But Ritchie and many of the Democrats newly elected to Congress also hold strong views on international trade, income disparities, job insecurity and related economic issues. Some of their ideas about how to blunt the hard edges of the global economy, particularly on trade, could collide with the free-trade, pro-globalization tilts at Minnesota’s large transnational corporations.
The new Democrats — including U.S. Sens.-elect Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Jim Webb (Virginia) and Jon Tester (Montana) and U.S. Rep.-elect Tim Walz, who will represent Minnesota’s 1st District — will be voting on many issues related to business and the economy. For the most part, Ritchie won’t, since his duties as secretary of state are mainly to supervise elections and manage business filings and other public records.
But given his experience and passion, Ritchie promises to be anything but a plain-vanilla secretary of state.
He is likely to bring a more activist bent to the Minnesota State Board of Investment, where he will become a director along with the governor, state attorney general and state auditor. The board manages more than $50 billion in public pension money.
In other words, he is not planning on being a Secretary of State, he is going to be an activist who will abuse his power in order to make his personal political beliefs a reality. Such irony. Too bad Republicans never bothered to muster anything against this guy. But then again, all they cared about was getting….
Mark Ritchie, your activist SOS Minnesotans. We now have 2 Democratic Constitutional Officers who are hell bent on legislating from their offices who have no business doing so. One can only hope that in 4 years, there will be a better level of Republican party support for people brave enough to risk it all for the good of the state. Lord knows that not very many people will be willing to risk a run for these offices given what happened in 2006 from the state party.
Which is a bloody damn shame because these Constitutional Offices are very very important, and one can only hope someone is willing to try make a run for it. “Support all endorsed candidates” not in Ron Carey’s MNGOP, and look what we get as a result, a Commie in a statewide office.
(for those of you offended by the Commie line, Mark Ritchie was supported by the Communist Party of America in his campaign to become MN SOS. )
Sphere: Related Content
December 28th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
“(for those of you offended by the Commie line, Mark Ritchie was supported by the Communist Party of America in his campaign to become MN SOS. ) ”
Actually, Andy, Ronald Reagan was officially endorsed by the Klu Klux Klan in his 1984 re-election bid. Therefore, by your own logic, Reagan was a member of the KKK.
December 28th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
You’re new here, so I will just say that I often use the Commie line to refer to fever swamp liberals who may have helped organize an anti-capitalism
riotprotest in Seattle and who are intent on bring socialism to our laws.Unlike Ritchie, Reagan never (that I know of) behaved like a member of the KKK.
Most rabid liberals like the term. It makes them feel closer to Stalin.
BTW: Have you ever heard of Sen. Robert Bird? What was he again? Oh yeah, Grand pooba or whatever of the KKK. But, of course you had to bring up Reagan.
Oh, let’s go for the gold, What former Vice President and Presidential candidate’s father filibustered the civil rights bill?
December 28th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Actually, in your post you went out of your way to explain your rationale for calling Ritchie a communist:
1. Mark Ritchie was endorsed by the Communist Party;
2. Therefore, Mark Ritchie is a member of the Communist Party.
If anyone endorsed by the communist party can be fairly described as a communist, then it follows that a anyone endorsed by the KKK can be fairly described as a member of the KKK.
That’s your logic, Andy, not mine.
December 28th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
You are full of shit.
I did say he was supported by, but never endorsed by, therefor you are wrong and your KKK attack is crap.
He’s a fringe left socialist who is anti-capitalist and was supported by the Communist party.
Excuse the heck out of me, but that’s pretty darn close to my definition of a commie. Like it or not, its my opinion. Let me guess, he doesn’t have to defend himself to me either?
December 28th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Tsk, tsk! Such language!
Here’s the definition of “endorse”, according to the American Heritage Dictionary:
“to give approval of or support to; to sanction”
December 28th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
But in political speak, it means different things.
By your take, Ellison was endorsed by CAIR and maybe even Hezbollah. Well, he was supported by a guy who has (maybe) sent money to Hezbollah.
Ellison is a terrorist then, if we use your way.
December 28th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
My way? Ha ha, no. It’s your way, sunshine. I’m just carrying your own arguments out to their logical conclusions. And believe me, it’s a very short trip.
It’s certainly a colorful world you live in. Mark Ritchie’s a communist! Keith Ellison’s a terrorist! They’re everywhere! Run for your lives!
And that reminds me of another definition from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Paranoia: n. A non-degenerative, limited, usually chronic psychosis characterized by delusions of persecution or of grandeur, strenuously defended by the afflicted with apparent logic and reason. [New Latin, from Greek, madness, from paranoos, demented]
December 28th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
No mpop - you are using your own twisted logic here. If you take Mark Ritchie’s ACTIONS (and/or votinng record where applicable) into account versus Ronald Reagan’s actions and/or voting record and your “logic” falls apart. Mark Ritchie has taken part in CPUSA endorsed and organized actions. Ronald Reagan NEVER took part in KKK endorsed or organized actions.
Nice try though.
LL
December 28th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Sorry, but you don’t get a pass on this. Andy clearly stated stated in his post:
“(for those of you offended by the Commie line, Mark Ritchie was supported by the Communist Party of America in his campaign to become MN SOS. )”
And I responded with a factual statement about Ronald Reagan being endorsed by the Klu Klux Klan in 1984.
So Andy wants to paint Ritchie as a communist party member because that organization expressed support for him? Fine — but by the very same token it means that Reagan was a KKK member, because that organization expressed support for him.
Now, I personally don’t believe Reagan was a KKK member. But Andy clearly believes it — because that’s where his logic — not mine — takes him.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:47 am
The problem here mpopham, is that you got a couple of people that are uneducated trying to re-define a simple line of logic.
Like much of what he’s been writing about the Republican Party over the las six weeks, Andy doesn’t even understand what he wrote here, and Lady L is blindly supporting.
Don’t ever, ever expect the admission of a mistake.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:24 am
mpopham, glad to read some other more rational thoughts around here
Andy needs to be called on his BS from time to time
December 29th, 2006 at 11:26 am
and Andy, the thing is, you failed to mention the WTO protests (hardly a “radical” event in theory, the riots were bad, i will agree) in your last comment about Ritchie, yet you try and make it sound like you had in your defense of your comment, and that’s what mpopham was pointing out.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
mpop - by your logic I could say all day that I am all for recycling - that I support recycling and that everyone else should recycle and that I am endorsed by recyclers but if I don’t ACT on those beliefs well I am still a recycling supporter.
Your actions have to match your words in order for you to be whatever. FWIW, I recycle and I support recycling so…..Mark Ritchie was endorsed by the CPUSA and his actions in the WTO actions are consistent with Communist beliefs. Ronald Reagan may have been endorsed by the KKK but his actions were NOT consistent with KKK beliefs. Your logic is flawed.
DJZ - regarding us “uneducated” schlubs here…I’ll match you degree for degree bubba. It is the last comeback of one who has no factual basis to his argument to say that those who disagree with you are “ignorant” or “uneducated”.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
“and his actions in the WTO actions are consistent with Communist beliefs.”
do you have an exact transcript of his actions and words done in the WTO protests? or are you just assuming that anyone who participated in them has beliefs consistent with communism? if the latter, apparently i have tons of commie friends in Seattle (2 who are Republicans even)
December 29th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I’ll have to go back and look - it’s all at home and I am supposed to be working..
Although you can tell there is a holiday this weekend. I think I am the ONLY one at work today!
LL
December 29th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
LL,
If you have a basic four year college degree, somewhere along your basic courses yuo had to take Philosophy and/or Logic. It’s the class where you really do learn to form and defend an arguement without attacking the irrelevant which is called ad hominem. I see written on blogs a lot, its practiced with almost every single post Andy presents, which makes his blog fun to dissect.
I’ve got a bit of an education ending with a couple of MA’s. Big Deal. My most prized degree comes from Hard Knox U.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
DJZ - before you go off on ANYONE about attacking with irrelevant ad hominems you might want to clean out your own comments! You were the one to come out and call AAA and I uneducated. No facts, nothing added to the discussion, just a classic example of ad hominem attacks.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Hmmm, you may be right LL. At least halfway. I know Andy dropped out of college. You, I don’t know about it. I should have stated that you are failing to follow the basic lines of logic by defending Andy’s mpop’s assessment.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
DJ - don’t forget your most prized degree from Hard Knox U…….college degrees are only worth the paper they are printed on….
To be honest, there are logical leaps being made by all. However, some are less apt to admit it than others….
LL
December 30th, 2006 at 11:54 am
I forgot what this started on?
Oh yeah, the line of logic Andy put forward on Ritchie could be used to tie Reagan with the KKK. There’s no debate there if you understand logic.
Bringing more evidence in the picture of Ritchie being a commie is probable but, not applicable in this sense since Andy defined the boundaries. That’s all mpop was saying.
Hard Knox U is the famous School of Hard Knocks. In other words, unlike some people, I had to work and pay for every class and book. Dropping out wasn’t an option with all of the time and money sunk into my education. A state university but, when you pay for it, you get a different perspective and approach it like its Harvard.
December 31st, 2006 at 3:21 pm
No arguement there DJ - the Logical Husband appreciates his degree a lot more than I do because he paid for it himself (whereas my parents paid for mine). We met in college so…
However, I will still disagree with you and ML in that there is a world of difference between the CPUSA endorsement of Mark Ritchie and the KKK endoresment of RR. The bottom line is in the action of the two politicians. One acts in a manner that is consistent with the endorsing groups beliefs and the other did not.
It’s that simple.
LL
December 31st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
thanks LL,
One question about your last statement. How did the policies of Reagan affect blacks?
What do the stats tell us?
December 31st, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Mark Ritchie was published in the “Peoples Weekly World” a publication of the CPUSA
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/4216/1/142/
Name on KKK publication that RR contributed to…
December 31st, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Mark Ritchie is a supporter of the radical environmental group “Earth First” which has tenuous ties to the Communist Party (Earth First is apolitical, but their tactics and goals are definately “communistic”.
http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/pr/03/newsr_030912.html
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1wtiV_Eio8kJ:www.petitiononline.com/bfly2012/petition.html+%22mark+ritchie%22+earth+first&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=994
That should keep you busy.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
DJ - RR NEVER promoted any legislation that was favorable to the KKK, he NEVER supported their stated goals of segregation and he fought AGAINST their goals through out his elected career.
LL
January 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
oh come on Lady, do you honestly think that article was written FOR the PWW? do some research, it was just copy & pasted on that site (among many others (google is your friend):
here is the original article as it appeared:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0310fairtrade.html