I clicked on both your links. Neither the Star-Tribune ad nor the Growth & Justice website makes any particular claims to non- or bipartisanship. And they include names that even an angry New York clown can identify as prominent Minnesota Democrats. So where's the false claim you're debunking?

In fact, while the best you can do is say the group falsely claims to be composed of "fairly representative" Minnesotans, there's nothing in the links you've posted to support even that dishwatery claim. The group claims to be made up of "more than 200 Minnesotans." Wow. (Of course if you've found a stray North Dakotan in your reams of data, you guys will probably want to call a press conference.)

So I'm just wondering exactly what your sad little spreadsheets have debunked. You know, other than proving that a group calling publicly for higher taxes is made up predominantly of Democrats.

Very, very funny.

Wow! Breaking news! They're Democrats! How shocking! You're starting to sound as breathy as MDE. Anyone who has been involved in Minnesota politics for more than the blink of an eye could have identified party affiliation after a casual glance at the list. Yes, and where exactly did they claim to be a "representative" group of Minnesotans?

From signator John Hetterick's letter to the Strib:

"As one who signed the Growth & Justice ad calling for increased taxes to invest in our state's future, I just love the spin that has emerged.

Signers who are "doing well financially" are now Minnesota's most wealthy and, of course, we're all "limousine liberals." ... Ironically, Growth & Justice is a bipartisan organization, not a leftist cabal, though you would never know it from the reaction."

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.startribune.com/563/story/519378.html

Mike nailed it.

The group is downplaying its roots. Of all people, Clown, you should (in theory) know the uses of rhetoric, and how it's applied, both in the ad itself (which plays all sorts of little rhetorical tricks on the uninformed, like using the weasel-term "Progressive" in its marketing rather than political sense) and in the claims of the group's backers and apologists.

More on that later.

What I'm doing, purely and simply, is trashing any claim to balance, "bipartisanship" or anything other than blind, frothing nannystatism on the part of this group.

The WHOLE point of this (which is lost on bitterclown and Ron) is that the average Minnesotan has NO clue who most of those people are. Or...their political motivations. And the agenda of those public officials they support with over $5 million in campaign contributions.

The point here is to expose them to a bit more light...to show their politics...and allow the public a BIT more of a picture to these DFL fat-cat cash daddies.

Something...a good reporter would do if they weren't so busy covering lil Amy Klobuchar'd butt.

This whole blogswarm is just a waste of time. I mean, since no reports on the project included a "conservative" descriptor, you can simply assume they're pinkos. Or haven't you been paying attention, Mitch? That's J-School 101!

“This whole blogswarm is just a waste of time. I mean, since no reports on the project included a "conservative" descriptor, you can simply assume they're pinkos. Or haven't you been paying attention, Mitch? That's J-School 101!”

Three points:

1) It is one thing to TELL someone that a group holding itself out as “bipartisan” is actually about 95% DFL. It is another to actually SHOW them by presenting the hard data from their campaign contributions that this is the case. Usually showing is more persuasive than telling.

2) This is Minnesota. Our local MSM establishments (NPR, Strib, etc.) usually treat such groups with kid gloves whenever they purport to acting in the “public interest” as good “civic minded” Minnesotans. Unless and until someone proves differently, they’ll continue to spread this narrative as if it were fact.

3) It’s more than just showing that this is actually another DFL front-group. You may not have noticed that we’re looking into who these folks are and not just who they give their money to. The fact that so many of them appear to derive their livelihoods at taxpayer expense or have a vested financial interest in increased government spending (such as Pohlad’s Twin Stadium) suggests that calling for tax increases on people making $45,000 or more may not be as “altruistic” as we’re being lead to believe.

Since the MSM seems to be unwilling to ask the tough questions and do the actual research to find the answers, it falls on bloggers to fill in the gap.

Thorley ventured: "It’s more than just showing that this is actually another DFL front-group. You may not have noticed that we’re looking into who these folks are and not just who they give their money to. The fact that so many of them appear to derive their livelihoods at taxpayer expense or have a vested financial interest in increased government spending (such as Pohlad’s Twin Stadium) suggests that calling for tax increases on people making $45,000 or more may not be as “altruistic” as we’re being lead to believe."

Well we know that all, or practically all, of the people who signed the ad will pay more taxes under the plan. You offer nothing to support the proposition that employees of the "nanny state" - or whatever derisive term you far-right types prefer to use to refer to health programs, education, public safety and the like - will benefit financially from the public spending under the plan. I guess public employees in Minnesota get a cut of whatever they bring in?

You insinuate that some of these people will benefit financially - in other words that they'll somehow reap a financial reward after subtracting out the additional taxes. So show me where, in your 139-page spread sheet, you prove it.

The guy with the bankrupt, government-subsidized factory was a good get. He's hardly the one to tell Minnesotans how they should be spending public funds. And I'm pretty sure Minnesotans already have a good idea already who Pohlad is. Oh right, you informed people that a group advocating higher taxes and government spending skews left of center. Amazing.

Just saying that the blogswarm and all the spread sheets are a geeky, irrelevant, sad little waste of time.

"you informed people that a group advocating higher taxes and government spending skews left of center. Amazing."

Nope. We showed - empirically - how not-mainstream they are.

There's a difference.

"I guess public employees in Minnesota get a cut of whatever they bring in?"

They absolutely do, AC.

The whole point is, while people like Mitch and I have to WORK and PROVE to the people writing the paychecks that we deserve a paycheck in the first place, let alone a larger one. No one out there is FORCED to pay more to cover our increased compensation. The people who work in the public sector have salaries paid to them by revenues collected at gunpoint. I DON'T have a choice in the matter of whether I want to pay extra to increase public sector worker's salaries.

If I could find a conservative contribution...I would have been happy to report it. Sorry angryclod and the rest of the DFL koolaid drinkers...if you don't believe me...go check out the FEC reports and the State Campaign Finance websites yourself.

But you dolts know the answer....

"The WHOLE point of this (which is lost on bitterclown and Ron) is that the average Minnesotan has NO clue who most of those people are. Or...their political motivations."

So anybody who read the ad walked away from it with NO INKLING of the signators' political motivations? That's madness to suggest such a thing.

What's happened around here? This blog used to be the equivalent of a rough and tumble east-side bar; you know, where folks didn't make much sense but you could have a good time listening to all the slurred nonsense. Now it's something else entirely. You've spent the past few weeks, weeks that you'll never get back, documenting that the authors of a pro-tax hike advertisement were liberals with a tendency to give money to the DFL. I don't know what precipitated the notion that this would be a worthwhile effort. Perhaps you lost a toe, or suffered a head injury, or maybe it was Hugh Hewitt's failed fatwa against the NY Times that broke your brain. Please, for the sake of your families and loved ones, get a grip and realize that what you've done is the equivalent of submitting a paper to "Nature" in which you purport to set the scientific world on its' ear by proving that the sun sets in the west.

Once again -

"Growth & Justice is a bipartisan organization, not a leftist cabal, though you would never know it from the reaction." - John Hetterick

Hetterick debunks your assertion with his defense, Tim.