Politico advances GOP's communist smear against MN secretary of state
SUMMARY: The Politico falsely reported that "in a background document distributed by national Republicans," the National Republican Senatorial Committee "accuses" Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie "of having connections to ... the Communist Party of America." However, the NRSC "background document" to which the Politico presumably referred did not accuse Ritchie of "connections" to the Communist Party USA -- claiming only that "[t]he Communist Party USA wrote encouragingly of his candidacy" -- and insofar as the document's reference to the Communist Party USA suggested a link to Ritchie, it did not back up the suggestion with any evidence.
In a November 11 Politico article, correspondent Josh Kraushaar falsely reported that "in a background document distributed by national Republicans," the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) "accuses" Minnesota Secretary of State* Mark Ritchie "of having connections to the controversial voter registration group ACORN and the Communist Party of America." In fact, the NRSC "background document" to which Kraushaar presumably referred did not accuse Ritchie of "connections" to the Communist Party USA -- claiming only that "[t]he Communist Party USA wrote encouragingly of his candidacy" [emphasis added]. Insofar as the document's reference to the Communist Party USA suggested a link to Ritchie, the document provided no evidence to back up such a suggestion.
Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth posted the November 10 background document about Ritchie distributed by the NRSC. Under the subhead "Ritchie Has Exhibited His Liberal Partisanship As Secretary of State," the NRSC wrote that "Ritchie Is Aligned With Progressive Groups and 'The Communist Party USA Wrote Encouragingly Of his Candidacy.' " In the "background document," the NRSC cited as evidence a November 23, 2007, Minneapolis Star Tribune article reporting that the "Communist Party USA wrote encouragingly of his candidacy." Citing only the "background document," which itself cited only the Star Tribune article, Kraushaar reported -- and advanced the NRSC's baseless suggestion -- that Ritchie has been accused of having a "connection[]" to the Communist Party USA.
From the document:
Further, the Star Tribune article making the original claim that the "Communist Party USA wrote encouragingly of his candidacy" did not provide any evidence for this claim. According to a search of the Communist Party USA's website, in a June 24, 2006, report, CPUSA political action committee chair Joelle Fishman wrote: "In Minnesota the DFL [Democratic-Farmer-Labor, the state's version of the Democratic Party] candidate for Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, of the League of Rural Voters could play a valuable national role."
From Kraushaar's November 11 Politico article:
Republicans are also questioning the credibility of Minnesota's Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, the man tasked with overseeing the recount. A background document distributed by national Republicans portrays Ritchie as a far-left, Democratic version of Katherine Harris, the former Republican secretary of state whose actions helped decide the 2000 presidential election. The document accuses Ritchie, who was elected in 2006 with the assistance of a progressive-led group designed to elected Democratic election administrators, of having connections to the controversial voter registration group ACORN and the Communist Party of America.
The canvassing of all the counties is scheduled to end Monday evening. A Franken campaign spokesperson said they don't expect to overtake Coleman, but believe the margin may slightly decrease again when the canvassing in Minneapolis' Hennepin County is completed.
*CORRECTION: This item incorrectly identified Mark Ritchie as Minnesota's attorney general. He is Minnesota's secretary of state. Media Matters for America regrets the error.
Exhuming McCarthy.
I guess that an AG that follows the law is forbidden?
Well... I guess after 8 years of Ashcroft and Gonzales... oh... who are they trying to kid...
Politico... like Rush and BillO.... ARE IRRELEVENT!!!
Now, now, mon Capitan....the paranoid ridden Hannity the Sissie is complaining the people are referring to him as anti-American, treasonous, a traitor etc. for not following the messianic message. He demands freedom of speech....
What a difference an election makes. The Sissified One used those same terms to describe anyone who didn't goosestep to the Cheney led White House of Whores(sic). Oops, I meant horrors. Got to admit that this sissy knows how to keep his ratings high with his faithful..anyone notice how many Dixie type young girls call him? Just like Billo and the Rushin One..they do not realize that their hate towards Obama or anything/anyone liberal turned many voters to either vote for Obama or stay home. A special thanx to these grating Americans and keep up the good work...and Rush, you can take that little blue pill to help you.
You know that falsely being called a "communist" is one of the few automatic grounds for prevailing in a slander and defamation suit-- even for a bona-fide public figure.
It's time to start bringing back libel and slander suits. They are hard to win-- but not if you're recklessly called a communist.
Hey, why not, Mick?
They exhumed Hank Williams Jr. .. why not old Tailgunner Joe?
Jeez, of all the 50s relics that would make a comeback, I never thought the Red Scare would be trotted out.Especially by those directly connected to the Republican Party.
I don't need to think very hard to say which has the most negative recent history in this country between the Communist Party and the GOP.
I don't know Colonel, I kinda miss the Cold War & saying stuff like pinko commie liberals.
But hey that's just me ;-)
This is the first step to a resurgent GOP...
They're going to root out communism and save our nation.
Go GOP!!!
Pay no attention to our friend from New England. I've got inside info that his recent absense was due to his being in a re-education camp.
It's no wonder he misses the commies.
Hey King, when all else fails you always bring back the commies.
And how did you know where I was...a little wiretapping maybe?
A little wiretapping? Heck, didn't you hear? Obama plans on turning this country into one giant police state, and manhattan will be our gulag! CSA! CSA!
Hey, Jeter, you seem to know a lot of the "lingo".... Comrade!
Take him away, Newt!
Colonel, I learned everything I know about pinko commie liberals at the feet of Archie Bunker. A great Con leader.
Hey, jeter2. Where have you been? Long time no see.
Well Carn I could tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya. Don't wanna do that!!
Seriously, I just got sick of politics, the election & this place. Needed a break. But thanks for asking :-)
"I never thought the Red Scare would be trotted out. Especially by those directly connected to the Republican Party."
Kinda makes you wonder what the occupation of Iraq and the continous scare tactics was/were/are all about then??
Exhuming McCarthy.
Nice accidental reply juxtaposition, Mick.I just hope nobody replies to cArn and wrecks it.
hehehe...sorry Colonel. Not really ;-)
But does he "pal around" with them?
If Franken wins, it will be because Ritchie "had Communist leanings and wanted to foster the encroaching socialism of BHO's presidency".
If Coleman wins - "We didn't say anything against Ritchie"
This whole Communist Party nonsense overlooks the broader point that Ritchie is in fact a partisan player.
This recount is going to be very ugly.
Now that's interesting. Why do you think his partisanship is a problem?
It has the potential to be a problem depending on how the recount goes. He is, in effect, the referee.
Yes, he is the ref...and your point is???? What, Ms. Harris wasn't fair? Is that what you are saying?
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought that you refused to believe in the "conspiracy" involving Katherine Harris in 2000. She was the "referee" there, and couldn't possibly be more partisan.
That's why I was a little taken aback at reading that.
My guess is that if there are similar problems in Minnesota, that the situation will be reversed as far as which party believes what.
It's certainly fair for the right to point out Ritchie's political ties, in my view. The communist thing was stupid and unnecessary. It just deflects from what could be a real issue.
However, that is our system.
If there are similar problems in Minnesota, I won't have any problem accepting the reality of the situation. I guess it depends who you are.
You do understand how it's a little hard to feel sympathetic after Republicans told us to "get over it", though. Harris actually worked for Bush's campaign, and that wasn't an issue, but Ritchie's general political views are fair game.
I certainly understand that the shoe is now on the other foot, which is why my first point above should be easily understood.
Partisanship doesn't mean a person can't be fair. It's just something to keep in mind when evaluating the process.
I agree with your second sentence.
I understand your point just fine. I just don't see how it's consistent with dismissing the demonstrated problem with Harris, or Jeb Bush's lack of objectivity for that matter.
I don't recall dismissing the problem. I did dismiss the "stolen election" cries since it was ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court.
By my recollection, Harris' actions were overturned by the Florida Supreme Court, which was overturned by the US Supreme Court.
So Harris's actions weren't fair, but since Scalia said that Bush's presidency would be hurt by a recount, then there was no stolen election. OK.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't the reason given by the US Supreme Court. Gore didn't fight it, I know that.
That is what Scalia said, and in a 5-4 decision it makes a difference. It's also hard to use a decision that specified it shouldn't be used as precedent for any future cases as some objective ruling.
Where would you expect Gore to go after the SCOTUS?
I know the Equal Protection part was decided 7-2, so that was not a partisan deal.
I understand the objections to the 5-4 decision.
According to this passage, Gore still had options after the 5-4 decision.
From Wik:
The per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore did not technically dismiss the case, and instead "remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Gore's attorneys therefore understood that they could fight on, and could petition the Florida Supreme Court to repudiate the notion that December 12 was final under Florida law.[31] Gore was not optimistic about how the Florida justices would react to further arguments, and in any event "the best Gore could hope for was a slate of disputed electors", as one of his advisers put it.[31] So, Gore dropped the case. On remand, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 22, 2000 that did not dispute whether December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law.[32]
Right, there's no realistic option for anything there. If Gore felt that he had more to lose by pursuing it than dropping it, then it doesn't suggest anything about the validity of the decision. It especially doesn't say anything about the actions of partisan officials during the course of the election.
That's an unavoidable consequence of having the SOS an elected office. So far Ritchie has been very fair in how the recount is being handled. The judges he has chosen have been very balanced and Ritchie himself will not be taking part in the recount details. I respect the level of care he has so far exercised in handling the recount.
Coleman, on the other hand, has been putting his slimy nature on full display throughout the process.
Bill, the recount hasn't even started yet.
Fasten your seatbelt, it's the law.
The actual recounting of the votes hasn't, but there has been a lot of work done already on the recount. That's what I think Ritchie has handled well. He will have little personal involvement in the actual vote recounting, as it should be.
Coleman has been doing everything in his power to spready suspicion where little is justified. If there are legal challenges to the process and/or the result, that's going to be the source.
So how do you see it shaking out? 206 votes is very precarious.
I wish the intent standard did not exist. It is too subjective in my view. Filling out a ballot correctly is not an unreasonable standard to meet to have your vote count. I guess that's why the lawyers are involved now.
I think simple demographics, the fact that high volume polling sites are those most likely to have ballots missed by the tabulators, means that the recount is going to rack up more votes for Franken than for Coleman. It doesn't matter how much that fact is common sense, the Republicans in the state will have a hard time accepting it. Whether there will be enough new votes discovered to make up the difference is the question. I think there will be and that Franken will win, but I don't think the Coleman camp will give up at that point. However, I think if Franken is still short at the end of the recount, even if it's just by a couple dozen votes, I kind of think he'll accept that result. I have little to base that on other than observation of the candidates.
The voter intent standard has been around throughout our country's history. It'll be much less controversial than it was in Florida with hanging and dimpled chads. There will be relatively few ballots where we won't be able to clearly tell who the voter's choice was. I don't foresee many questionable ballots and I think the recount will produce a pretty clear decision.
If Coleman wins by one vote, I'll take the credit (blame).
In my town you could hardly pass a stoplight without seeing a sign for a Democrat running for coroner. Coroner, for God's sake. What the hell does that job have to do with political views? Same for sheriff, and several other positions that had a "D" or "R" running for it. It seems bizarre to me.
I agree, it does seem strange. What's kind of funny is that the Republicans recently have been much more unlikely to put their party affiliation on their posters and lawn signs. In the mid-eighties it was the reverse for a while.
Wow. Are the Troglodytes really going down this road? I sort of understood when Simple Sarah and Joe the F***ing Plumber used this rhetoric, since they were staring electoral oblivion in the face.
Now that the election is over, it just comes across as small-minded pettiness. Maybe that's all that will remain of the Republican party once the Troglodytes chase off the few surviving moderates and intellectuals..... small-minded, petty, religious nutbags.
Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would be embarrassed.
Don't forget Greedy Elitists.
Nerzog, or should I say kettle?
You are at the top when it comes to name-calling and as you said, "small-minded pettiness".
Your lack of introspection is amazing.
No lack of introspection here.... I am snarky, petty, shallow.... and extremely small-minded when it comes to tolerating bigots and Evangelical Nutbags. I am a partisan Liberal, and I will miss no opportunity to impugn Conservatives, especially Religious Troglodytes.
However, I am not running for national office, nor do I have a national platform from which to broadcast my snarkiness. I am a threat to no one.
AND.... (this is important).... I have neither the power nor the inclination to pass regressive laws based on the superstitious delusions of Bronze Age Goatherds.
Other than that... what's your point?
Your lack of introspection is amazing.
You said that already.
I will now go to a quiet corner and contemplate my navel.
Is it an "innie" or an "outie"? Enquiring minds would like to know.
Your lack of introspection is amazing.
You're talking about introspection? You wouldn't know the meaning of the word if it hit you in the head with like a flourescent paintball grenade. Sheesh.
Thanks, JJ. I've been trying not to pick on Deputy Fife too much, but I was actually physically unable to respond to the absurdity of that comment of his.Sometimes I think he's putting on an act, pretending not to know what a troll he is. Other times , like this, I think he really takes himself seriously.
I find it quite amazing that they can make a huge stink about some small, unfounded connection when it concerns democrats but let a republikkkan run for office and they throw all their resources behind him to get him elected.
http://www.mediamouse.org/features/092608ku_kl.php
Aw my Gawd, are we as news consumers, allowing these traitors to return to the good old days where the cheney types love to be in and thrive ? Do they assume the patriot act actually renders the Constitution invalid ? Maybe we should take these morins behind the barn and beat the crap out of them returning tarred and feathered.
Now, now. No need to get you pants in bunch. It is simply poor writing. The article should have said something like, ".. of having connections to the controversial voter registration group ACORN and the support of the Communist Party of America."
Sorry. No McCarthy conspiracy, just poor reporting.
I wonder which candidate and party the KKK and John Birch society supported this time around.
Watch it, OYGB. I think your last post is what Barney calls "bigotry".
I would recommend a special award for this pair of lines, though;
No need to get you pants in bunch. It is simply poor writing.
No need to get you pants in bunch. It is simply poor writing.
And poor memory. It's "panties in a twist". everybody knows that.
I think "your pants in a bunch" would have been acceptable, and not so unintentionally funny right before a criticism of somebody else's writing. Unless he was doing some sort of Charlie Chan bit.
I thought it was wiener wrapped around the axle
So, if in fact Ritchie were a member of the CPUSA as Republicans are insinuating, that would make him a disinterested third party would it not? Just the right kind of person that should be playing referee in a contest between Democrats and Republicans. Apparently, for Republicans, something like this can only be fair if it's being overseen by a partisan Republican. You didn't hear them complain about Ohio in 2004, did you?
That being said, I have a lot of Respect for the CPUSA, it's a pretty level headed and practicle group. You might not agree with their politics, but they are far more sensible and practicle about their agenda and how they practice third party politics. Much more so than Nader.
According to MMFA, the NRSC document did not accuse Ritchie of connections, so how can they so liberally use the word "smear"? Politico's recap may be a smear. Wait, "smear" is MMFA's word of choice, so that makes it ok.
This is just another extreme example of crybaby republicans who can't get over the fact that it was a landslide. This little gem came from one of the impeach obama sites (courtesy of huffpo):
"Damn dems stole the election like they always do. GOD wanted McCain and Palin in the White House. That's why it's called THE WHITE HOUSE."
They will obviously do everything in their power to steal power. Reichwing christianity at its finest.
Wonder how much stuff in the Politco's households say "Made in China" somewhere on them?
-- It is a struggle to strengthen the all peoples coalition and within that to strengthen the left and the Communist Party...we recognized the necessity to raise up the role, contributions and increase the size of the Communist Party and Young Communist League...a necessary and crucial step toward achieving a better life, bigger dreams and building the movement for socialism.-- CPUSA
-- In Minnesota the DFL candidate for Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, of the League of Rural Voters could play a valuable national role. -- CPUSA
It's walking and quacking like a duck....or maybe I've missed the part where Ritchie disavowed a connection to CPUSA.
Quick! Into the bunker, Wesley!
After "disavowing", would you prefer "denouncing", "condemning" or "rejecting"?
I'm skeered! My fallout shelter has big spiders in it.
When did McCain denounce his support from the KKK? I must have missed that part.
... maybe I've missed the part where Ritchie disavowed a connection to CPUSA. - wesley
More likely he's simply disregarded it as irrelevant. I doubt very much if there were even a couple of hundred Minnesotans who were even aware of anything CPUSA had to say about Ritchie. If Ritchie himself was even aware of it, why should he call any attention to it? It was of no significance before the recount and is still of no significance.
WOW, the paranoid antics of the Cons are just beginning. Can't wait until some R-house member asks for a Conference Room for a meeting and is dispatched to a closet in the basement.
Brucelace, who would you suggest to "ref" this count, Ms. Harris?
GET OVER IT...this is a new world you are entering. Give it until Jan.21..then start the whinning. Remember the Republicans still control the White House and President-almost-done-THANK GOD Bush is running the country.
WOW, the paranoid antics of the Cons are just beginning. Can't wait until some R-house member asks for a Conference Room for a meeting and is dispatched to a closet in the basement.
Ah yes, shades of John Conyers. We should never forget it. But I do hope the Ds will be classier than that.
That's my hope also. This shouldn't be a "winner-take-all" kind of thing. That nastiness creates further retaliations and retarded posturing, none of it creating good policies. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Hey Julia, good to see ya on here.
Hey Julia, good to see ya on here.
Thanks sis, you too. I wanted to stay on my Obama high for a while before I jumped back into the fray again.
And I do hope the Dems will both behave themselves and get the courage to make some needed changes. They've allowed themselves to be cowed for far too long.
I hope the same thing for Republicans also, but I won't hold my breathe. Maybe some of the more moderate ones can help get us going on the road to making some progerssive changes that are desperately needed.
Amen to that. The rightwing talkers are screeching as usual, but I think mostly people want to start making progress again.
Now, can we talk about Texas: when will it finally become a commie pinko state? ;-)
Now, can we talk about Texas: when will it finally become a commie pinko state? ;-)
I'm doing my part, girl. :-0).
The D's will be classier only because the #1 guy will demand it...but it would be nice to see the R's squirm a little. Besides, whenever the D's show class, the classless...Rush, Hannity etc., will convince their sheep that it is just a ploy. WOW, back to the paranoia..the talk guys may only have that to lean on. A line from a Crosby, Stills and Nash..song.."Paranoia has its doubts". I'd hate to have a Conservative brain in my head at this point. It must be menacing.