November 23-24, 2007
Nov 23 02:55 Melendez Spinning Ritchie Scandal Nov 23 10:39 Dems Play My Way Or Highway Song Again Nov 23 19:07 Ritchie's Lies Nov 24 01:52 Thank God For Fast Action Nov 24 02:53 This Doesn't Make Sense Nov 24 11:57 Ritchie's Broken Campaign Promises Nov 24 12:34 Brian Melendez Editorial Nov 24 23:33 The Future of the Democratic Party?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
Melendez Spinning Ritchie Scandal
DFL chairman Brian Melendez is attempting to spin the Ritchie scandal but he isn't doing a convincing job, at least not based on this quote in tonight's Strib article :
DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez defended Ritchie's integrity, saying Ritchie did nothing illegal or wrong and that Republicans are going after Ritchie because he was pursuing an agenda of more inclusiveness in voting.Melendez is intentionally mischaracterizing the differences between Mary Kiffmeyer and Mark Ritchie. Melendez knows that Mary Kiffmeyer's agenda wasn't "more about voter suppression" than "about letting people vote." That's one of the most disgusting mischaracterizations I've ever heard. I can't say that I'm surprised by Melendez's mischaracterization. In fact, it's what I expected considering the ethical dilemma Ritchie's in.
"We just had an election last November where we kicked out Mary Kiffmeyer because her agenda seemed to be more about voter suppression than about letting people vote," Melendez said. "That's what the Republicans really have a problem with and that's why they are hitting Mark Ritchie so hard."
One thing that Republicans need to learn when Brian Melendez says something outrageous is that there's a pattern to them. The most outrageous statements get made right after a Democrat's stepped in it. They don't care that they're getting laughed at. They'll take that hit to distract attention from the serious problem; in this instance, Melendez is attempting to change the subject to ABR- Anything But Ritchie.
The best way to deal with that is to (a) stay calm, cool & collected & (b) just repeat the facts. Here's why using that step-by-step plan is important:
Brian Melendez knows that Republicans aren't attacking Mark Ritchie because they have a problem with Mark Ritchie's public policies. Brian Melendez knows that we're simply exposing the unethical behavior of an unethical man who used information gathered at an official function to solicit political contributions.
His shooting his mouth off is his attempt to get people to attack him & forget about Mr. Ritchie's ethical dilemma. The way to deal with that is to point out his little game, then return to talking about Mark Ritchie's ethical dilemma.
One thing that Mr. Melendez can't get away with, though, is his mischaracterizing Mary Kiffmeyer's actions. The DFL, as evidenced by Keith Ellison's legislation banning the use of photo ID's, Mark Ritchie's testimony favoring Rep. Ellison's legislation, along with Mr. Melendez's statements, isn't interested in vigorously preventing voter fraud. I can't say that they want to commit voter fraud but I'll confidently stand by statement that they won't do everything possible to prevent it.
It's also important that we remind people what Mark Ritchie's fundraising letter said. Here's the key section:
Here are two upcoming events, I invite you to join me:It'd be wrong to forget Ritchie's answer to Rep. Brod & Rep. Emmer's questions :
On Oct. 25th I will be speaking at a remembrance service to mark the fifth anniversary of the deaths of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, Marcia Markuson Wellstone, Mary McEvoy, Tom Lapic and Will McLaughlin. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. and the service begins at 7:30 at the Coeur de St. Catherine Student Center, 2004 Randolph Ave. in St. Paul.
Also, please join me for a NOVEMBER 2 Anniversary Party and Fundraiser, featuring author and radio commentator Jim Hightower , Friday, November 2, 5-7 p.m. at the home of Jeff and Emily Blodgett, 1437 Chelmsford in St. Paul. Check here for more details. If you can't make it to this event but would like to help me cover my campaign related expenses for this year, you can donate online here . You can still qualify for the State of Minnesota refund of up to $100 per couple if you make your contribution in this year.
Thank you again for all your help and support. I hope to see you very soon. Mark
5. You have asked, "Who entered the information into the Mark Ritchie campaign database. The answer to this question is not known to the Office of the Secretary of State.According to Mark Brunswick's article , Ritchie offers a different answer:
The first-term Democrat admitted to the Star Tribune on Tuesday to turning over the list. His disclosure comes about a month after a pair of Republican operatives asked the state's Office of the Legislative Auditor to investigate whether Ritchie violated any rules. Ritchie had previously told the newspaper that the list was public information, but that he did not authorize his campaign to use it.In simplest terms, Ritchie lied. Ritchie lied on at least one question that Reps. Brod & Emmer submitted.
I don't know what Mr. Ritchie was thinking at the time. I just know that he lied when questioned. Isn't that all that matters?
UPDATE: Earlier, I didn't comment on whether Mark Ritchie had committed perjury by knowingly giving a false answer to Q5 of Reps. Emmer & Brod's answer because I didn't know if it met the legal definition for perjury. That's why I contacted Rep. Emmer. Here's what Rep. Emmer just told me:
Gary, by definition: "A person is guilty of perjury if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true." Black's Law Dictionary (Abridged 5th Ed.1983); citing, Model Penal Code, 241.1. See also 18 U.S.C.A. 1621.I won't state that Mr. Ritchie is guilty of perjury. That's something that a grand jury can decide. I'll simply repeat what I said earlier: "In simplest terms, Ritchie lied."
Let me make another observation. In this post , I made this statement, which is perfectly applicable to the Ritchie matter:
" Minnesota voters should run politicians out who aren't concerned with consistently doing the right thing for the right reasons ."I stand by that statement because it's the only way to diminish the cynicism directed at politicians.
Posted Friday, November 23, 2007 1:19 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Nov-07 09:27 AM
You also should notice the Clinton Spin going around, here. That is, when faced with the stark choice of admitting to incompetence or to criminality, they chose incompetence every time.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-07 10:40 AM
Good point.
Dems Play My Way Or Highway Song Again
Immediately following the I-35W Bridge collapse, Minnesota's congressional delegation said that they'd work together. They haven't done that. When President Bush announced that he'd veto the bill with the I-35W repair money in it because Congress had larded it up with too much pork, Michele Bachmann, Jim Ramstad & John Kline met with their colleagues to tell them that they'd be offering a clean I-35 bill. According to this Strib article , Democrats, especially Betty McCollum, balked:
Bachmann and two other Minnesota Republicans were about to launch a bill for $195 million to rebuild the I-35W bridge. Would the Democrats sign on?It's time that someone reminded Rep. McCollum that the only thing that's important is getting the money appropriated. Saying that "the money was already in a pending roads bill" doesn't mean anything if President Bush had already announced he'd veto the bill. That's why signing onto a clean I-35 bill wasn't just the best option; it was the only option.
Surprised, the Democrats balked. But not before a testy exchange between Bachmann and Rep. Betty McCollum, who noted that the money was already in a pending roads bill.
When Rep. McCollum refused to sign onto the Minnesota Republicans' bill, she essentially said that they'd do it their way, thank you. That's been the typical DFL response all winter, whether they were located in St. Paul or Washington, DC.
What good is putting the I-35W bridge appropriation into a doomed bill? Isn't the only important consideration whether you get the money appropriated?
Another question that needs to be asked is why McCollum got into a heated exchange with Rep. Bachmann. I think the answer is written between the lines in this pargraph of the Strib article:
Now, more than a month after the Oct. 17 encounter at the Capitol, Minnesota's congressional delegation again finds itself at odds, with bridge funding caught up in a congressional veto battle with the White House.Democrats don't want to sign onto any bill that Michele Bachmann is co-sponsoring because they're worried that she'll tout that accomplishment in her re-election campaign. That's what happens when people put a higher priority on playing PR politics than on doing right for the people.
Rep. McCollum's refusal to sign onto the GOP bill begs another question: Why does anyone from the Minnesota delegation who didn't sign onto the clean bill deserve winning their election next November? If they're opposed to doing the right thing for Minnesota because they're primarily worried about the next election, why shouldn't we support their opponents?
This election season, shouldn't the only question be: Did they do the right thing for the right reason? I'd submit that, if they don't consistently pass that test, then they shouldn't be re-elected. I'd further submit that, at that point, they aren't representing Minneaota anyway.
The tone of the encounter outside the Capitol on Oct. 17 was a far cry from the mood three days after the bridge fell, when Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar shepherded a $250 million aid package through Congress, declaring "we are all united as one ... ."That section of the Strib article deserves a little extra scrutiny. When Oberstar says that "we are all united as one ... .", what he meant was that 'we're all united as long as everyone signs onto my bill.'
Soon enough, they parted company as old agendas resurfaced, never more so than in recent weeks, as Democrats assailed Bachmann and fellow Republican John Kline for siding with the Bush administration in voting against the massive road spending bill that included the 35W bridge money.
"This goes beyond ridiculous," said Brian Melendez, Minnesota DFL chair. "It's callous."
Bachmann and Kline were equally emphatic that they do not oppose the 35W bridge money, but rather a massive spending bill filled with pork-barrel projects from the Los Angeles Fashion District to the Woodstock Museum.
Now, faced with a White House veto of the transportation bill, Bachmann charges that the Democrats "missed key opportunities" to fund a clean bridge bill, in particular the one she offered up during her Oct. 17 encounter with McCollum, Walz and Rep. Keith Ellison.
When Brian Melendez, the DFL Spinmeister-in-Chief , says that Bachmann's & Kline's vote against doomed legislation proves that they're callous, what he's saying is that he's upset that the GOP minority didn't follow the Democrats like little sheep.
When the Minnesota GOP delegation recognized reality & proposed a responsible alternative, Democrats howled. Reps. Bachmann, Kline & Ramstad ignored the howls & introduced their clean funding bill, essentially saying that getting things done while protecting taxpayers' wallets was their only concern.
When Reps. Ellison, McCollum & Walz refused to sign onto a solid bill that would've been signed by President Bush, they essentially said that they weren't interested in getting things done if things weren't done their way.
This is especially galling in Rep. Ellison's case because it's his constituents that are getting hurt by his obstinence.
Simply put, Minnesota voters should run politicians out who aren't concerned with consistently doing the right thing for the right reasons . That should be the sole benchmark for support.
Posted Friday, November 23, 2007 10:39 AM
No comments.
Ritchie's Lies
Earlier today, Michael Brodkorb compiled a list of 5 lies on his blog . I just discovered a sixth lie . Here's what Mr. Ritchie is quoted as saying in the Strib article:
Previously, Ritchie had denied knowing how the campaign got the list. He now insists that it solicited contributions only to pay for the newsletter itself.Here's the key portion of the e-letter:
Here are two upcoming events, I invite you to join me:NOVEMBER 2 is a voter registration organization that Mark Ritchie ran in 2004. Here are a few other organizations that NOVEMBER 2 worked with:
On Oct. 25th I will be speaking at a remembrance service to mark the fifth anniversary of the deaths of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, Marcia Markuson Wellstone, Mary McEvoy, Tom Lapic and Will McLaughlin. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. and the service begins at 7:30 at the Coeur de St. Catherine Student Center, 2004 Randolph Ave. in St. Paul.
Also, please join me for a NOVEMBER 2 Anniversary Party and Fundraiser, featuring author and radio commentator Jim Hightower, Friday, November 2, 5-7 p.m. at the home of Jeff and Emily Blodgett, 1437 Chelmsford in St. Paul. Check here for more details. If you can't make it to this event but would like to help me cover my campaign related expenses for this year, you can donate online here . You can still qualify for the State of Minnesota refund of up to $100 per couple if you make your contribution in this year.
The November 2 Campaign, operating for the most part below the media radar, grew out of a decision by the NAACP National Voter Fund, the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, the People for the American Way Foundation, the USAction Education Fund, ACORN and 1,000 other nonpartisan groups to create a new kind of voter registration and mobilization effort. The point, explains Mark Ritchie, national coordinator for National Voice, the temporary coalition set up by the nonpartisan groups, is to reach people who aren't touched by traditional campaigns. "There's a huge group of Americans, many of them young people, women, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans and other communities of color, who have become disengaged from the voting process, some by choice, some by neglect and some by forces beyond their control," says Ritchie.Mr. Ritchie can't deny the fact that he lied again by saying that this solicitation was it soliciting "contributions only to pay for the newsletter itself." The other point that Ritchie can't defend is why it'd cost $100 per couple to defray the costs of an e-letter.
This begs another question: If Mark Ritchie can't tell the truth to any of these questions, why should we trust him to impartially monitor next November's elections? I'd submit that Mr. Ritchie has destroyed the last bit of credibility he had.
Posted Friday, November 23, 2007 7:08 PM
No comments.
Thank God For Fast Action
If this article by Tracie Mauriello and Dennis Roddy is verified, then Bonusgate just went from alarming to monstrous. Here's the first paragraph:
State investigators rushed to seize 20 boxes of records from House Democratic offices after a tip that they were about to be destroyed, and now the state attorney general is weighing possible obstruction-of-justice charges in an ongoing probe into the use of state employees for political work.That this was prevented likely means that (a) the AG's office was already investigating and (b) someone cooperating with the investigation tipped them off. That also likely means that they've got an eyewitness ready to testify and/or provide evidence of this potential crime.
The boxes, some of which contained political materials, including extensive opposition research into possible Republican opponents, were taken during a surgically executed raid on the Democratic Office of Legislative Research in August.These are the records I wrote about here :
Contents of the 20 boxes were " overwhelmingly and patently non-legislative in nature ," said Judge Barry Feudale, who allowed the documents to be considered in a grand jury investigation into whether taxpayer-funded resources were used to run elections. The grand jury also is looking into whether state employees received substantial state bonuses for work on political campaigns.Stop and think about this sentence:
It is illegal for campaign work to be done in state offices, on state equipment or by state employees on work time.
The boxes, taken by search warrant from the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research on Aug. 23, included files with labels such as "opposition research," "incumbent protection plan" and "memo on challenger in election."
Contents of the 20 boxes were " overwhelmingly and patently non-legislative in nature ," said Judge Barry Feudale.Twenty boxes of documents is a ton of documents. What's gotta be more troubling than the amount of documents is what's contained in that massive amount of documents. Though I can't verify this, it wouldn't surprise me if the files seized from the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research contained information on Bill DeWeese's and Mike Veon's opponents as well as other Republican opponents.
An affidavit attached to the search warrant request indicated that state investigators had been sent a picture of the boxes in the office, where they awaited shredding.We'll have to wait to see what prosecutors can determine about the role the House Democratic caucus played in this. It'll be interesting to see which office insider tipped investigators off that these documents' destruction was imminent.
Sources close to the investigation said the order to destroy the records came from inside the House Democratic caucus, and that agents believed the action was imminent when they arranged the early-morning conference with Judge Feudale, who was en route to a hearing in Wayne County when they obtained the expedited order.
One thing that's becoming increasingly apparent is the fact that Bonusgate is getting bigger and more interesting each week. It's looking like some important Democratic staffers and legislators will be indicted and probably convicted sometime soon.
Posted Saturday, November 24, 2007 1:52 AM
No comments.
This Doesn't Make Sense
According to this Pi-Press article , Mark Ritchie said that he gave a list from a civic engagement event held by the Secretary of State's office to his campaign so that people attending the event could "get a copy of his campaign's civic engagement newsletter."
This doesn't make sense from several perspectives. The first thing that doesn't add up is why he'd have his campaign send out civic engagement e-letters when the people attending the event signed up for the Secretary of State's e-letter on future civic engagement events.
Another thing that doesn't make sense is why Mark Giga and Jack Tomczak got invitations to Ritchie's NOVEMBER 2 fundraiser after signing up for the Secretary of State's civic engagement e-letter.
Let's give Mr. Ritchie the benefit of the doubt and accept that he gave his campaign staffers specific instructions that the people on the list signed up for civic engagement e-letters. The next question I'd have is why they didn't follow Mr. Ritchie's instructions.
I admit that it's a possibility that Mr. Ritchie didn't give these staffers clear instructions. If that's the case, I'd have two more questions. The first question would be: Why didn't Mr. Ritchie give them clear instructions? The second question would be: Why weren't the sheets clearly labeled?
Another question that's gnawing at me is more troubling. Why would Mr. Ritchie have his campaign office staffed? After all, it's still theoretically three years before his next campaign. If he has campaign staff, are they paid or volunteers?
Because there's so much information to sort out, I've sent an email to Secretary Ritchie's office asking him or his staff for an explanation. In that email, I promised Secretary Ritchie that I'd post his reply unedited on this blog. I don't have an interest in engaging in 'gotcha politics'. I simply want an explanation.
Posted Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:53 AM
No comments.
Ritchie's Broken Campaign Promises
A loyal reader to LFR just sent me Mark Ritchie's bio for the Strib's Election06 section. It provides some interesting reading. Here's what jumps out most at me:
Most important issue: I will protect your vote by restoring trust, nonpartisanship and integrity to the office of the secretary of state. I will do this by: (1) staffing the Elections Division with professional, nonpartisan public servants, not political appointees ; (2) building consensus using bipartisan advisory committees representing local, county and state-level stakeholders; (3) improving the availability, accuracy and timeliness of election information ; (4) ensuring that sensitive information on voters is protected against identity theft; (5) improving relationships with local officials to reduce mistrust, and (6) eliminatingWhen they held the elections for the schoolboard and school levies two+ weeks ago, Michael Brodkorb posted a screenshot of the Elections Page from the SecState's website that shows Secretary Ritchie's professional, nonpartisan public servants didn't deliver on the promise of improving the availability, accuracy and timeliness of election information .
barriers that make it hard to access business services provided by the office.
Posted Saturday, November 24, 2007 11:57 AM
No comments.
Brian Melendez Editorial
The St. Cloud Times is running a Your Turn editorial by State DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez. In his editorial, Mr. Melendez attempts to criticize Michele Bachmann's vote. In my opinion, he didn't do a good job because his first paragraph is so over the top:
By now, it's a story we're all too familiar with: U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann consistently stands by President Bush at the expense of her own constituents . We've come to expect this kind of bad judgment from Bachmann. But we deserve more from her than hypocrisy.As I pointed out here , Democrats Oberstar, Ellison, McCollum & Walz voted for the bill President Bush promised to veto, then refused to sign onto the clean I-35W appropriations bill that President Bush promises to sign.
Here's Melendez's next partisan shot:
On Nov. 14, Bachmann once again put Bush and the Republican Party first when she voted against a bill that included the $195 million for rebuilding the Interstate Highway 35W bridge that the federal government has promised to Minnesota.I'd love asking Mr. Melendez why he's upset with Rep. Bachmann for voting against a earmark-filled bill that's about to get vetoed but he's ok with his own party's representatives refusing to sign onto the clean bill that Jim Ramstad, John Kline & Michele Bachmann proposed that President Bush promises to sign.
The bill, H.R. 3074, was a compromise between the House and Senate for funding the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Minnesota taxpayers have been waiting for this money for months. But Bachmann voted no.
Doesn't Mr. Melendez think that it's more important to get the money to St. Paul so that the bridge can be rebuilt ASAP than to vote for a bill that's about to be vetoed?
In fact, isn't it Mr. Ellison's constituents who should be upset with him? After all, the bridge is in his district. Rep. Ellison refused to co-sponsor the legislation that would've accelerated the pace at which the I-35 Bridge would've been built.
I've nicknamed Mr. Melendez Minnesota's "Spinmeister-in-Chief" because that's essentially his job. In one way, I empathize with him. In the last year, he's had to deal with Matt Entenza's Snoopergate scandal that drove him from the race. He's had to deal with the Mike Hatch Bulllygate troubles in which he threatened a judge. Now he's dealing with the Mark Ritchie fiasco in which he's admitted that he transfered names gathered at an official Secretary of State civic engagement event to the Mark Ritchie re-election solicitation list.
I suspect Mr. Melendez wrote this editorial to discract attention from the Ritchie investigation. I suspect that Mr. Melendez knows that Mr. Ritchie dug himself a deep hole by lying on the questionnaire submitted directly to Mr. Ritchie by Reps. Brod and Emmer.
It's understandable why Mr. Melendez raised his profile. He thinks that that's what party bosses are supposed to do when their elected officials get in trouble with lawmakers.
Posted Saturday, November 24, 2007 12:34 PM
No comments.
The Future of the Democratic Party?
That's what they're calling Eliot Spitzer in this editorial . Suffice it to say that the editorialist refered to him that way with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Time magazine named him Crusader of the Year in 2002. Bill Richardson says he's the future of the Democratic Party. But Eliot Spitzer, rookie governor of the greatly overtaxed state of New York, keeps stumbling and bumbling.Rumor has it that the NY Times' editorial board is considering changing the spelling on Spitzer's name to O-O-P-S. On the other hand, I have it on good authority that Republican presidential candidates are calling him 'the gift that keeps on giving' due in large part for his assistance in helping Hillary have a bad couple weeks in which she exposed some major flaws that'll haunt her in the general election.
He disappointed New York Times editorial writers everywhere Wednesday last by deciding his plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens wasn't such a swell idea after all.
That same afternoon he decided it was dumb to institute a new tax policy, effective Dec. 7, requiring online retailers to charge state and local sales taxes on everything purchased from New York soil.
The short-lived tax proposal, which would have been emulated nationwide and clearly subject to legal challenges, would have nicked Internet retailers that are not physically situated in the state but use millions of affiliated New York-based Web sites to direct sales to them through click-throughs.Such cynicism. Of course this tax proposal is pure coincidence. It isn't like Democrats are genetically predisposed to increasing taxes :
Gov. Grinch's flacks and spinners swore that Spitzer was unaware of the tax chicanery; it was stealthily concocted and launched by bureaucrats in the Department of Taxation and Finance and would have forced some shoppers to pay as much as an 8.375 percent sales tax on Internet purchases.
The fact that Eliot Spitzer, the nation's Great Democrat Hope, is looking at a $4.3 billion deficit next year apparently was just a coincidence.
Hatch gave his task an initial shot in a rambling acceptance speech that punched some of the right buttons. He cast Pawlenty as too stingy with education, responsible for large class sizes and rising college tuition. He tagged him for an inadequate response to soaring health care costs and the emerging biosciences industry. He promised more state investment in those things. Significantly, he said, "we can do this without raising taxes."Oh wait...
Posted Saturday, November 24, 2007 11:33 PM
Comment 1 by Democrat grass roots at 25-Nov-07 12:46 AM
Spitzer has to choose good candidates to replace the weak Republican seats, like Maltese's. Then we Democrats will get the majority for our reform agenda. The frequently mentioned Councilman Joe Addabbo is a bad choice to put up against Maltese. The Reps will waste him:
http://joeaddabboagenda.blogspot.com
