The most logical conclusion: this is ridiculous political gamesmanship and faux-outrage, the kind that has been on constant display from BOTH major campaigns throughout this race. Nothing more.
I don't think the "win at any price" comment was solely directed at the Coleman campaign (at least, that's not clear from the video -- Ritchie never actually says "Coleman" or "Franken" in his comments). I'm sure he (or any rational observer) would apply the same statement to the Franken campaign as well.
What the video doesn't show is that the question was in regards to Coleman's campaign questioning Ritchie's "nonpartisanship". That led to the answer in which he said that Coleman's campaign is trying to win at any cost. And that led to his lie, saying he never said what he said on national television. I think something's rotten with Minnesota Democrats.
I found a transcript online. It's fairly clear Ritchie isn't trying to call out the Coleman campaign specifically -- he begins his response by referencing "normal campaign [strategy]" and then uses the plural "they" or "their" without referencing any specific candidate or campaign. To use this as evidence or a symptom of some large scandal is ridiculous.
ANCHOR: For more now on the recount in Minnesota, lets talk to Mark Ritchie, whos the Minnesota Secretary of State. I know that there is some scrutiny by the Republicans over this recount, because in part Norm Coleman led by 735 votes the morning after election night. Now he just leads by 206. There were some corrections made by local election boards. Do you understand why the Coleman campaign is now questioning the integrity of the vote counting?
Nonsense. Let's argue he was talking about BOTH campaigns...he claimed he never said it about the Coleman campaign. If he said it about both, he clearly said it about the Coleman campaign (as there are only 2 campaigns here). He lied, let's not try to deny it.
RITCHIE: Oh, I think its normal campaign — uh, you know, their goal is to win at any price. Theyve invested millions and millions of dollars. So we consider this part of the normal political rhetoric.
Wait, I'm confused. You DON'T think it's meant toward the Coleman campaign, but you pasted the transcript where he specificaly answers in reply to "why the Coleman campaign is now questioning the vote counting?"
This isn't super-complicated. Yes, the "question" he was asked (which was pretty general and non-specific, as most TV interviews are) mentioned the Coleman campaign.
BUT Ritchie's response clearly begins with a general comment on "normal campaign [practices]", after which he never even refers to a singular candidate or campaign, instead using the pronouns "they" and "their." It's an awfully big stretch to say he was targeting a specific campaign.
Hence, his denial later that he was targeting the Coleman campaign (he wasn't saying anything about any specific campaign, just commenting on campaign practices in general).
I understand the need for any campaign to be vigilant during this process, but pouncing on stuff like this, as if it is evidence of anything, is absolutely ridiculous.
He never denied targeting the Coleman campaign, he said he never said they'd do anything to win. If he was talking about both campaigns (which stretches logic), he still said it. Me thinks you're being wilfully blind to this.
Using the plural "they" and "their" when referring to multiple things stretches logic?
Not only does he begin his response talking about political campaigns in general, immediately after saying "their goal is to win at any price" he says "they've invested millions and millions of dollars." Which is clearly NOT specific to the Coleman campaign -- both major campaigns spent a lot of money -- and moreover, indicates his comments do NOT refer to any sort of cheating.
What an embarrassment for the state of Minnesota.
AtlasObjectivist 3 years ago
My last post was meant to be sarcastic. Richie is a flaming liberal from Georgia who will not be honest as overseer of the recount.
charityGSHS 3 years ago
Georgia boy Richie is about as non-partisan as they come.
charityGSHS 3 years ago
Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them...
CaptainGhrei 3 years ago
The most logical conclusion: this is ridiculous political gamesmanship and faux-outrage, the kind that has been on constant display from BOTH major campaigns throughout this race. Nothing more.
spycake 3 years ago
I don't think the "win at any price" comment was solely directed at the Coleman campaign (at least, that's not clear from the video -- Ritchie never actually says "Coleman" or "Franken" in his comments). I'm sure he (or any rational observer) would apply the same statement to the Franken campaign as well.
Not sure what the fuss is about here.
spycake 3 years ago
What the video doesn't show is that the question was in regards to Coleman's campaign questioning Ritchie's "nonpartisanship". That led to the answer in which he said that Coleman's campaign is trying to win at any cost. And that led to his lie, saying he never said what he said on national television. I think something's rotten with Minnesota Democrats.
persinjm 3 years ago
I found a transcript online. It's fairly clear Ritchie isn't trying to call out the Coleman campaign specifically -- he begins his response by referencing "normal campaign [strategy]" and then uses the plural "they" or "their" without referencing any specific candidate or campaign. To use this as evidence or a symptom of some large scandal is ridiculous.
spycake 3 years ago
ANCHOR: For more now on the recount in Minnesota, lets talk to Mark Ritchie, whos the Minnesota Secretary of State. I know that there is some scrutiny by the Republicans over this recount, because in part Norm Coleman led by 735 votes the morning after election night. Now he just leads by 206. There were some corrections made by local election boards. Do you understand why the Coleman campaign is now questioning the integrity of the vote counting?
spycake 3 years ago
Nonsense. Let's argue he was talking about BOTH campaigns...he claimed he never said it about the Coleman campaign. If he said it about both, he clearly said it about the Coleman campaign (as there are only 2 campaigns here). He lied, let's not try to deny it.
jboze3131 3 years ago
RITCHIE: Oh, I think its normal campaign — uh, you know, their goal is to win at any price. Theyve invested millions and millions of dollars. So we consider this part of the normal political rhetoric.
spycake 3 years ago
Wait, I'm confused. You DON'T think it's meant toward the Coleman campaign, but you pasted the transcript where he specificaly answers in reply to "why the Coleman campaign is now questioning the vote counting?"
Maybe I'm missing something here. (??)
jboze3131 3 years ago
This isn't super-complicated. Yes, the "question" he was asked (which was pretty general and non-specific, as most TV interviews are) mentioned the Coleman campaign.
BUT Ritchie's response clearly begins with a general comment on "normal campaign [practices]", after which he never even refers to a singular candidate or campaign, instead using the pronouns "they" and "their." It's an awfully big stretch to say he was targeting a specific campaign.
spycake 3 years ago
Hence, his denial later that he was targeting the Coleman campaign (he wasn't saying anything about any specific campaign, just commenting on campaign practices in general).
I understand the need for any campaign to be vigilant during this process, but pouncing on stuff like this, as if it is evidence of anything, is absolutely ridiculous.
spycake 3 years ago
He never denied targeting the Coleman campaign, he said he never said they'd do anything to win. If he was talking about both campaigns (which stretches logic), he still said it. Me thinks you're being wilfully blind to this.
jboze3131 3 years ago
Using the plural "they" and "their" when referring to multiple things stretches logic?
Not only does he begin his response talking about political campaigns in general, immediately after saying "their goal is to win at any price" he says "they've invested millions and millions of dollars." Which is clearly NOT specific to the Coleman campaign -- both major campaigns spent a lot of money -- and moreover, indicates his comments do NOT refer to any sort of cheating.
spycake 3 years ago