Mark Ritchie discussed on Pig’s Eye
December 3rd, 2007 – 12:11 PM by Dennis J. McGrathOn today’s Pig’s Eye Podcast, we talk about the puzzling case of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and his use of a government e-mail list for political purposes. You can listen to the podcast here.
First, a recap: At the outset, the DFLer said he didn’t know how his campaign got hold of his office e-mail list, which the campaign used to send out a newsletter that asked for political contributions. Subsequently, Ritchie said that he gave his campaign the office list. Because of these contradictory explanations, the state Legislative Auditor now wants to question Ritchie under oath.
Remember, Ritchie campaigned on a promise that he would remove politics from the secretary of state’s office, which administers elections among other duties. So he set a Ceasar’s wife standard.
You can debate how grievous his use of the e-mail list was to begin with, but he clearly has compounded the problem by giving conflicting answers about his own role in the matter.
Here are some of the stories Star Tribune reporter Mark Brunswick has written:
The first story, when the allegations initially surfaced.
The text of the e-mail that led to the complaints.
The article when Ritchie changes his story.
The story about a not-very-happy legislative auditor.
What do you think? How big a deal was it for Ritchie to use his office e-mail list to distribute his political newsletter? How serious is it that he gave conflicting explanations? Finally, what should be done about this, if anything?
23 Responses to "Mark Ritchie discussed on Pig’s Eye"
A good topic to discuss, Dennis.
Quite simply, he should be fired.
“How big a deal was it for Ritchie to use his office e-mail list to distribute his political newsletter? How serious is it that he gave conflicting explanations?”
To answer the first, it isn’t too big a deal; had he admitted an error immediately the whole thing would have blown over. By giving conflicting explanations, he’s created a problem for himself that may best be solved by removing him from office. Whether that is an appropriate step will be more clear after the auditor sorts though the political angling now being done by both sides.
bsimon,
Just out of curiosity, do you think your comments would be different had this situation involved a Republican?
“Just out of curiosity, do you think your comments would be different had this situation involved a Republican?”
Nope.
I agree. The act on it’s own was wrong, but not substantially. The conflicting statements afterwards made it worse, and his campaign stand to eliminate such activity makes it worse yet.
The auditor’s investigation can only hope to resolve the original act, not the following missteps nor preceding expectations. Ritchie set the bar high. By his own proclaimed standards, he should resign or be removed.
*Just out of curiosity, do you think your comments would be different had this situation involved a Republican?* — misterrobertgrant
Your provocation rendered any point to your question worthless.
Your provocation rendered any point to your question worthless.
Wish,
I enjoy reading your comments. It confirms the fact that you are spot on regarding your thinking, just like this fine “news” source. Where do you think you’ll share your vast knowledge once this forum is no more?
FYI,
you should research the word provocation. That way, you won’t sound so foolish.
.
merriam webster says provocation means:
1 : the act of provoking : incitement
2 : something that provokes, arouses, or stimulates
seems to me that wishlwuz2 used the word correctly, in his sentence “Your provocation rendered any point to your question worthless.”
Though perhaps that sentence was, itself, needlessly provocative.
Your provocation rendered any point to your question worthless.
And yet bsimon answered it. It’s the last two supporters of the Red Star.
AFSCME splits backing between Ciresi, Franken in Senate race.
Here you go guys, discuss this. Your backers can’t even come to terms.
Say, what is the percentage of union backed jobs in the U.S. currently?
“It’s the last two supporters of the Red Star.”
Given your regular participation on the blogs here I can’t help but include you in our exclusive club. Call us the last 3 supporters. Welcome!
My motives may be different.
I will enjoy the day the doors close. Especially the finger pointing and total denial of accountablity by management.
“I will enjoy the day the doors close. ”
Whatever floats your boat.
Good morning all.
The leader of the delegation, Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said he made a point of introducing Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat, as the first Muslim member of Congress, and that the Muslim hosts “smiled broadly” in response.
“I thought that it would be nice for them to see that we’re making progress, too, in terms of openness and inclusiveness,” he said
Dennis,
What do you think our esteemed representative Jim Moran means by his statements?
Is this a form of embracing diversity?
If so, is he implying that a Muslin in Congress is the most important factor in making progress?
What if our Muslin candidate was a complet failure?
Would we still be making progress?
This seems like a really good example of political correctness going way too far.
It’s like bringing a puppy or a pony around for show. Is this the best we can do?
fyi,
this font is difficult to read….
Robert Grant says:
November 27th, 2007 at 10:37 am
The appointment of Tim D. Wermager to a new First Judicial District trial court bench judgeship in Dakota County was announced today.
This is an outrage!!!
A white, successful, Republican attorney. Let the shelling begin.
Nick Coleman: Pawlenty’s legacy may be tipping state’s high court in so many ways
By Nick Coleman, Star Tribune
Last update: December 4, 2007 - 10:10 PM
There are 35,000 attorneys in Minnesota. Last week, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, looking for a new Supreme Court justice, plucked from that crowded field a personal friend and political consigliere named Christopher Dietzen.
If you think it was because Dietzen was No. 1 in Lawyer Land, you are sweet but naive.
Wow! What a shock. And from Nick Coleman…..who saw this coming.
And you continue to wonder why this paper is failing.
Dennis,
Next time you see Nick Coleman in the lunchroom eating his granola bar sipping his organic tea, ask him if he really expected an elected official to put someone with opposite beliefs into a position of power. Nick’s pretty sharp. We’ll miss Nick’s intelligence and wit. I’m sure he will be a huge success in the private sector.
Did that fix it?
“Did that fix it?”
It did. I tried to fix it by putting a period within italics tags yesterday (my 9:59AM post). did you put just a close tag in?
(Yup - fixed. Sorry folks. I left an open tag on 12/03, 11:11 pm)
*..is he implying that a Muslin in Congress is the most important factor in making progress?* - misterrobertgrant
“most important”-??? Gilligan, if you would just read the words, and not interject personal bias, you’d have the answer to your own questions.
It’s so nice to have your infinate wisdom to guide me.
I believe your thinking would be in the minority.
I think it’s extremely offensive. What say I bring my black pals to party, just to show everyone how open I am.
Come on men, Ellison is a man. Nothing more. What happened to seperation of church and state?
In her only full year on the job, U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose matched or exceeded the prosecution statistics of previous years, according to a review by the Star Tribune.
Paulose prosecuted 668 defendants in fiscal year 2007, which ended in September, a record number that came amid resignations of top managers, a drop in prosecutors and fewer referrals from the FBI.
As violent crime continues to rise, anyone who had anything to do with running Ms. Paulose out of town, be sure to congratulate yourselves.
Kind of a contradiction from this reliable news source. (The review part.)